Analogous Organ:

1. Organs similar in shape and function but their origin, basic plan and development are dissimilar.
Example. Wings of butterfly bird and bat.
2. Such similarities are because of convergent evolution for adaptation to a common condition.
Example: Flying
Homologous Organ:
1. Organs dissimilar in shape, size and function but their origin, basic plan and development are
similar. Example: Fore limbs of frog, reptile, birds and mammals.
2. Such differences are due to divergent evolution or adaptation for varied conditions.
Example: Leaping in frog, crawling in reptiles, flying in birds, running and grasping in mammals.


-Organs having similar structure and origin but function are called Homolomous organ.
Eg-fore limbs of human ,fore limbs of bats , fore limbs of reptile,fore limbs of bird,fore limbs of horse.
ANALOGOUS ORGANS -Organs having different structure and origin but are similar in function is called
Analogous Organ.
Eg- wings of bird,wings of insect.
If u hv NCERT book then the pictures r in page no.-152 and 153 fig.9.8 and 9.9
Posted by priyanka...(student), on 16/12/11

homologous organs have similar structure but different functions . It is called divergent evolution.
example: forelimbs of human,bird,bats,reptile
analogous organs have different structure and similar function. it is called convergent evolution. eg:
wings of a bird and butterfly. the function of their wings is the same but the structure is different . BUt
they at converge at a point that is flight(same function)
Posted by nimishaprajith07(student), on 17/12/11

Hi!
Those organs which are similar in origin but different in function are known as homologous organs
while those organs which are different in origin but similar in function are known as analogous organs.
Thorns of Bougainvillea and tendrils of cucurbita are homologous organs.

Homologous structures in animals

Analogous structure in plants

Analogous structure in animals


Posted by Kunal Sharma(MeritNation Expert), on 21/12/11


71 Homologous organs

Menu | back

Similarly-constructed body parts of many living creatures are called homologies. Some examples include
the pectoral fins of fish, the front extremities of tetrapod vertebrates as well as the wings of birds and
bats. Moreover, all living creatures known to us today are constructed with the same basic building blocks
or proteins. The information carrier DNA is also the same for all living creatures. These similarities could
indicate a common origin as well as a common creator.


Every creative intelligence has its own specific handwriting. For example, if we consider the pictures and sculptures of
Pablo Picasso, we note similarities and a development. However, no one would even think of saying his works have a
common descent. Similarities are no proof of common descent. They simply show that the same basic principle was
used for different living creatures.

The same applies for DNA strings. The blueprints for similar living creatures are written manifest with the same
genetic code, because this code is optimally for all forms of life.


Problems in interpreting similarities:

The interpretation of homologies as an indicator for common descent is concluded only by analogy; however, this is
not inevitable. Many similarities can be explained by the function so that a reference to evolution does not provide
additional clarification, but rather represents a circular argument (1).

Similarities as indicators for a common descent can be determined clearly only based on empirical data. As a rule,
they are recognized as such only under presupposition of evolutionary hypothesis using the principle of economy.
Evolution cannot be proven by similarities.


Contradictory genealogies:

Many homologous organs occur in living creatures that can only be very remotely related with one another according
to their alleged lineage. For this reason, the majority of coincidental characteristics must be classified as parallel
developments in evolutionary theory, which poses significant problems for clarification. There is no generally objective
possibility for differentiating between similarity and parallel development. Frequently, characteristics appear to be
distributed in the form of building blocks among different species and higher groups (taxa).

Mature organs, organ systems, individual development paths from the egg cell to sexually mature state and genes
frequently support contradictory similarity conclusions. This has led to a crisis in the similarity concept because more
and more has become unclear, which could serve to support similarities as an indicator for phylogenetic relationships
(2).


This is an organ that served a purpose in the distant ancestor of an organism, but is not longer pertinent
in the presently existing, recently evolved, organisms.
An example would be the muscles we have that can move our ears a bit. Since human ears cannot be
reorientated like some animals can (and presumably our long gone ancestors from million of years ago)
then those muscle do not serve much purpose (except for mild entertainment).
Another example would be our tail bone.
For an organ to be vestigial, it has to be of reduced function compared to the homologous organ in
related species. Note that a vestigial organ does not have to be entirely useless to qualify.



The appendix is the most famous, of course. We aren't entirely sure what it once did, but it still seems to
have a very small role in the immune system and in maintaining the bacteria in the GI tract. Not big
enough that all those people without one are suffering, though.

If you want something else, humans still have muscles which control their ears, even though most people
can't use them.

And that red bit in the corner of your eye? That's what would have been the inner eyelid in your reptilian
relatives.

Goosebumps are also vestigial, though they are not organs. Our ancestors were a lot hairier, and they
would raise their hairs to keep warm. The hair is gone now, but the muscles and the reflex remains.

n Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) and in his later works, he referred to several "vestiges" in human
anatomy that were left over from the course of evolution. These vestigial organs, Darwin argued, are evidence of
evolution and represent a function that was once necessary for survival, but over time that function became either
diminished or nonexistent.
The presence of an organ in one organism that resembles one found in another has led biologists to conclude that
these two might have shared a common ancestor. Vestigial organs have demonstrated remarkably how species are
related to one another, and has given solid ground for the idea of common descent to stand on. From common
descent, it is predicted that organisms should retain these vestigial organs as structural remnants of lost functions. It
is only because of macro-evolutionary theory, or evolution that takes place over very long periods of time, that these
vestiges appear.
The term ?vestigial organ? is often poorly defined, most commonly because someone has chosen a poor source to
define the term. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines vestigial organs as organs or structures remaining or
surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form. This is the accepted biological definition used in
the theory of evolution.
In the never-ending search for scientific truth, hypotheses are proposed, evidence is found, and theories are
formulated to describe and explain what is being observed in the world around us. The following are ten observations
of vestigial organs whose presence have helped to flesh out the structure of the family tree that includes every living
creature on our planet.