On the phylogenetic position ofGogonasus andrewsae Long 1985, within the Tetrapodomorpha

The Evolution of the Spiracular Region From Jawless Fishes to Tetrapods

The spiracular region, comprising the hyomandibular pouch together with the mandibular and hyoid arches, has a complex evolutionary history. In living vertebrates, the embryonic hyomandibular pouch may disappear in the adult, develop into a small opening between the palatoquadrate and hyomandibula containing a single gill-like pseudobranch, or create a middle ear cavity, but it never develops into a fully formed gill with two hemibranchs. The belief that a complete spiracular gill must be the ancestral condition led some 20th century researchers to search for such a gill between the mandibular and hyoid arches in early jawed vertebrates. This hypothesized ancestral state was named the aphetohyoidean condition, but so far it has not been verified in any fossil; supposed examples, such as in the acanthodian Acanthodes and symmoriid chondrichthyans, have been reinterpreted and discounted. Here we present the first confirmed example of a complete spiracular gill in any vertebrate, in the galeaspid (jawless stem gnathostome) Shuyu. Comparisons with two other groups of jawless stem gnathostomes, osteostracans and heterostracans, indicate that they also probably possessed full-sized spiracular gills and that this condition may thus be primitive for the gnathostome stem group. This contrasts with the living jawless cyclostomes, in which the mandibular and hyoid arches are strongly modified and the hyomandibular pouch is lost in the adult. While no truly aphetohyoidean spiracular gill has been found in any jawed vertebrate, the recently reported presence in acanthodians of two pseudobranchs suggests a two-step evolutionary process whereby initial miniaturization of the spiracular gill was followed, independently in chondrichthyans and osteichthyans, by the loss of the anterior pseudobranch. On the basis of these findings we present an overview of spiracular evolution among vertebrates.

Fin ray patterns at the fin-to-limb transition

The fin-to-limb transition was marked by the origin of digits and the loss of dermal fin rays. Paleontological research into this transformation has focused on the evolution of the endoskeleton, with little attention paid to fin ray structure and function. To address this knowledge gap, we study the dermal rays of the pectoral fins of 3 key tetrapodomorph taxa-Sauripterus taylori (Rhizodontida), Eusthenopteron foordi (Tristichopteridae), and Tiktaalik roseae (Elpistostegalia)-using computed tomography. These data show several trends in the lineage leading to digited forms, including the consolidation of fin rays (e.g., reduced segmentation and branching), reduction of the fin web, and unexpectedly, the evolution of asymmetry between dorsal and ventral hemitrichia. In Eusthenopteron, dorsal rays cover the preaxial endoskeleton slightly more than ventral rays. In Tiktaalik, dorsal rays fully cover the third and fourth mesomeres, while ventral rays are restricted distal to these elements, suggesting the presence of ventralized musculature at the fin tip analogous to a fleshy "palm." Asymmetry is also observed in cross-sectional areas of dorsal and ventral rays. Eusthenopteron dorsal rays are slightly larger than ventral rays; by contrast, Tiktaalik dorsal rays can be several times larger than ventral rays, and degree of asymmetry appears to be greater at larger sizes. Analysis of extant osteichthyans suggests that cross-sectional asymmetry in the dermal rays of paired fins is plesiomorphic to crown group osteichthyans. The evolution of dermal rays in crownward stem tetrapods reflects adaptation for a fin-supported elevated posture and resistance to substrate-based loading prior to the origin of digits.

Fin modules: an evolutionary perspective on appendage disparity in basal vertebrates

BACKGROUND

Fishes are extremely speciose and also highly disparate in their fin configurations, more specifically in the number of fins present as well as their structure, shape, and size. How they achieved this remarkable disparity is difficult to explain in the absence of any comprehensive overview of the evolutionary history of fish appendages. Fin modularity could provide an explanation for both the observed disparity in fin configurations and the sequential appearance of new fins. Modularity is considered as an important prerequisite for the evolvability of living systems, enabling individual modules to be optimized without interfering with others. Similarities in developmental patterns between some of the fins already suggest that they form developmental modules during ontogeny. At a macroevolutionary scale, these developmental modules could act as evolutionary units of change and contribute to the disparity in fin configurations. This study addresses fin disparity in a phylogenetic perspective, while focusing on the presence/absence and number of each of the median and paired fins.

RESULTS

Patterns of fin morphological disparity were assessed by mapping fin characters on a new phylogenetic supertree of fish orders. Among agnathans, disparity in fin configurations results from the sequential appearance of novel fins forming various combinations. Both median and paired fins would have appeared first as elongated ribbon-like structures, which were the precursors for more constricted appendages. Among chondrichthyans, disparity in fin configurations relates mostly to median fin losses. Among actinopterygians, fin disparity involves fin losses, the addition of novel fins (e.g., the adipose fin), and coordinated duplications of the dorsal and anal fins. Furthermore, some pairs of fins, notably the dorsal/anal and pectoral/pelvic fins, show non-independence in their character distribution, supporting expectations based on developmental and morphological evidence that these fin pairs form evolutionary modules.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the pectoral/pelvic fins and the dorsal/anal fins form two distinct evolutionary modules, and that the latter is nested within a more inclusive median fins module. Because the modularity hypotheses that we are testing are also supported by developmental and variational data, this constitutes a striking example linking developmental, variational, and evolutionary modules.

Sampling diverse characters improves phylogenies: Craniodental and postcranial characters of vertebrates often imply different trees

Morphological cladograms of vertebrates are often inferred from greater numbers of characters describing the skull and teeth than from postcranial characters. This is either because the skull is believed to yield characters with a stronger phylogenetic signal (i.e., contain less homoplasy), because morphological variation therein is more readily atomized, or because craniodental material is more widely available (particularly in the palaeontological case). An analysis of 85 vertebrate datasets published between 2000 and 2013 confirms that craniodental characters are significantly more numerous than postcranial characters, but finds no evidence that levels of homoplasy differ in the two partitions. However, a new partition test, based on tree-to-tree distances (as measured by the Robinson Foulds metric) rather than tree length, reveals that relationships inferred from the partitions are significantly different about one time in three, much more often than expected. Such differences may reflect divergent selective pressures in different body regions, resulting in different localized patterns of homoplasy. Most systematists attempt to sample characters broadly across body regions, but this is not always possible. We conclude that trees inferred largely from either craniodental or postcranial characters in isolation may differ significantly from those that would result from a more holistic approach. We urge the latter.