DOCSLIB.ORG

Microct Survey of Larval Skeletal Mineralization in the Cuban Gar Atractosteus Tristoechus (Actinopterygii; Lepisosteiformes)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Microct Survey of Larval Skeletal Mineralization in the Cuban Gar Atractosteus Tristoechus (Actinopterygii; Lepisosteiformes) MicroCT survey of larval skeletal mineralization in the Cuban gar Atractosteus tristoechus (Actinopterygii; Lepisosteiformes) Raphaël Scherrer, Andrés Hurtado, Erik Garcia Machado, Mélanie Debiais-Thibaud To cite this version: Raphaël Scherrer, Andrés Hurtado, Erik Garcia Machado, Mélanie Debiais-Thibaud. MicroCT sur- vey of larval skeletal mineralization in the Cuban gar Atractosteus tristoechus (Actinopterygii; Lep- isosteiformes). MorphoMuseum, Association Palæovertebrata, 2017, 3 (3), 10.18563/m3.3.3.e3. hal- 01624528 HAL Id: hal-01624528 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01624528 Submitted on 26 Oct 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Anatomy atlas MicroCT survey of larval skeletal mineralization in the Cuban gar Atractosteus tristoechus (Actinopterygii; Lepisosteiformes) Scherrer Raphael¨ 1, Hurtado Andres´ 2, Garcia Machado Erik3, Debiais-Thibaud Melanie´ 1* 1Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution de Montpellier, UMR5554, Universite´ Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, EPHE, c.c.064, place Eugene` Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 05, France 2Centro Hidrobiologico,´ Parque Nacional Cienaga´ de Zapata, Matanzas, Cuba 3Centro de Investigaciones Marinas, Universidad de La Habana, Calle 16, No. 114 entre la 1ra y 3ra, Miramar, Playa, La Habana 11300, Cuba *Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract Using X-ray microtomography, we describe the ossification events during the larval development of a non-teleost actinopterygian species: the Cuban gar Atractosteus tristoechus from the order Lepisosteiformes. We provide a detailed developmental series for each anatomical structure, covering a large sequence of mineralization events going from an early stage (13 days post-hatching, 21mm total length) to an almost fully ossified larval stage (118dph or 87mm in standard length). With this work, we expect to bring new developmental data to be used in further comparative studies with other lineages of bony vertebrates. We also hope that the online publication of these twelve successive 3D reconstructions, fully flagged, will be an educational tool for all students in comparative anatomy. Keywords: Actinopterygii, development, Lepisosteiformes, mineralization, skeleton Submitted:2016-04-04, published online:2017-05-17. https://doi.org/10.18563/m3.3.3.e3 INTRODUCTION 2013; Broughton et al., 2013; Friedman, 2015). Near et al. (2012) estimated the separation between gars and teleosts be- Gars are non-teleost ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) be- tween 330 and 390 million years ago (Mya), somewhere from longing to the order Lepisosteiformes, whose only extant Late Devonian to Early Carboniferous. According to the same family is Lepisosteidae. The seven extant species of gars studies, Holostei and Teleostei make up the clade Neopterygii, have been categorized in the genera Lepisosteus (4 species) sister group to Acipenseriformes with which they make up and Atractosteus (3 species). They are large (less than 1 me- the clade Actinopteri. Finally, Polypteriformes diverged from ter to more than 2 meters long) ambush predators inhabiting Actinopteri at the crown age of extant Actinopterygii, which freshwaters of North and Central America, up to Cuba (Wiley, was estimated at 380-430 Mya (Near et al., 2012), roughly 1976; Nelson et al., 2016). Lepisosteiformes belong to Ging- between the Late Silurian and the Early Devonian. lymodi, a group of actinopterygians that had its maximum Because of their phylogenetic position, gars have been a key diversity during the Late Cretaceous (Wiley, 1976; Grande, taxon to many morphological studies. Ancient literature is 2010) and included one other extinct order, †Semionotiformes, available on comparative anatomy of actinopterygians includ- according to the most recent evidence by Lopez-Arbarello´ ing gars: Gegenbauer (1887) and Sewertzoff (1895) described (2012) who placed the earliest re-assigned fossil of Lepiso- the occipital region of fishes and its development, Schreiner steiformes during the Early Jurassic (around 190-200 million (1902) compared more specifically Lepisosteiformes and Amia, years ago (Mya)). Luther (1913) described cranial musculature and nerves with Lepisosteiformes make up one of the few lineages of ray- comparison with lungfishes, and Schmalhausen (1913), Kry- finned fishes that are not teleosts, referred to by many as zanovsky (1927) and Jessen (1972) documented fins and their ’basal’, ’lower’ or ’primitive’ actinopterygians (e.g. Lauder, development. Lauder (1980) studied the biomechanics of 1980; Gardiner and Schaeffer, 1989; Gardiner et al., 1996, feeding in Polypterus, Lepisosteus oculatus and Amia. Ar- 2005). The other extant lineages of non-teleost actinoptery- ratia and Schultze (1991) published an extensive study of gians are Amiiformes (or Halecomorphi; one species, Amia the morphology and development of the palatoquadrate (the calva), Acipenseriformes (or Chondrostei; sturgeons and pad- structure in the skull responsible for articulating the lower dlefishes) and Polypteriformes (or Cladistia; bichirs). The jaw to the cranium, and that can be a significant component monophyly of Holostei (sistergroup to Teleostei) made up by of the upper jaw in non-teleost lineages) in actinopterygians Lepisosteiformes and Amiiformes, is supported by most of and some sarcopterygians. More recently, Britz and Johnson the recent molecular and anatomical/paleontological datasets (2010) documented the patterns of fusion of vertebrae to the (Normark et al., 1991; Lecointre et al., 1994; Hurley et al., occiput in actinopterygians, showing that gars have a specific 2007; Grande, 2010; Near et al., 2012; Betancur-R et al., pattern, where the two first vertebrae are fused to the occiput. Skeletal ossification during the Cuban gar larval development — 2/15 Comparative studies involving gars have also helped to doc- Inventory number Characteristics ument evolutionary convergences, such as the independent At1 13 dph larva, 21 mm TL acquisition of an elongated body shape in distantly related At2 16 dph larva, 26mm SL ambush predators such as pikes (Esox), needlefishes (Belone) At3 19 dph larva, 27mm SL and gars (Maxwell and Wilson, 2013). Another example is the At4 22 dph larva, 30mm SL ability to breathe atmospheric oxygen with their swimblad- At5 26 dph larva, 32mm SL der, analogous to the air-breathing swimbladder of Amia and At6 31 dph larva, 39mm SL some basal Teleostei as well as the lungs of Polypteriformes, At7 37 dph larva, 43mm SL lungfishes and tetrapods (Perry et al., 2001). Gars are also a At8 52 dph larva, 46mm SL key taxon to understand the evolution of scales in vertebrates. At9 74 dph larva, 61mm SL They have a peculiar type of scales, the ganoid scales, that At10 89 dph larva, 63mm SL are a synapomorphy of actinopterygians but remain only in At11 104 dph larva, 70mm SL Polypteriformes and gars (Helfman et al., 2009). Comparative At12 118 dph larva, 87mm SL studies aimed at uncovering homology relationships between Table 1. Inventory number, age and length characteristics for each ganoid scales, placoid scales of sharks, elasmoid scales of specimen. TL: total length. SL: Serial length teleosts and tooth-like structures in general (Sire et al., 1987, 2009, Sire, 1989, 1990; Huysseune and Sire, 1998; Vickary- (Slater et al., 2009), mice (Shen et al., 2013; Ho et al., 2015), ous and Sire, 2009). crocodilians (Dufeau and Witmer, 2015), turtles (Rice et al., Skeletal anatomy and development of gars have been doc- 2016) and catsharks (Enault et al., 2016). To the best of our umented by a great number of previous studies. Veit (1907) knowledge, however, a description of the development of the described the development of the skull in L. osseus. Mayhew whole skeleton in gars with precise timings of ossification is (1924) and Hammarberg (1937) described in details the skull still lacking, and 3D surfaces of the whole ossified skeleton at of L. platostomus and its development. Jollie (1984) described different stages are not available although it would be a valu- the development of the skull and the pectoral fins in L. osseus, able source of additional characters in comparative studies but L. platostomus and A. spatula, and also the patterning of the also in educational contexts. lateral line sensory system in the head of L. osseus. Long and With this aim in mind, we hereby provide a µCT develop- Ballard (2001) described the early external development of L. mental series of the mineralized skeleton in the Cuban gar, osseus from the zygote until the yolk disappearance. In 2006, Atractosteus tristoechus, a species for which development has Kammerer et al. studied the development and kinetics of the never been investigated (see Table1). Our high resolution jaws related to feeding behavior in L. osseus and A. spatula, of larval stages allows us to give details on the ossification also looking at adults of other extant and extinct species of times of most of the structures present in an adult skeleton. gars. In a recent work, Hilton et al. (2014) described the devel- Also, our hope is that our
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fish Inventory at Stones River National Battlefield
    Fish Inventory at Stones River National Battlefield Submitted to: Department of the Interior National Park Service Cumberland Piedmont Network By Dennis Mullen Professor of Biology Department of Biology Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN 37132 September 2006 Striped Shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus) – nuptial male From Lytle Creek at Fortress Rosecrans Photograph by D. Mullen Table of Contents List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….iii List of Figures………………………………………………………………………iv List of Appendices…………………………………………………………………..v Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………...……..2 Methods……………………………………………………………………………...3 Results……………………………………………………………………………….7 Discussion………………………………………………………………………….10 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………...14 Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………….15 ii List of Tables Table1: Location and physical characteristics (during September 2006, and only for the riverine sites) of sample sites for the STRI fish inventory………………………………17 Table 2: Biotic Integrity classes used in assessing fish communities along with general descriptions of their attributes (Karr et al. 1986) ………………………………………18 Table 3: List of fishes potentially occurring in aquatic habitats in and around Stones River National Battlefield………………………………………………………………..19 Table 4: Fish species list (by site) of aquatic habitats at STRI (October 2004 – August 2006). MF = McFadden’s Ford, KP = King Pond, RB = Redoubt Brannan, UP = Unnamed Pond at Redoubt Brannan, LC = Lytle Creek at Fortress Rosecrans……...….22 Table 5: Fish Species Richness estimates for the 3 riverine reaches of STRI and a composite estimate for STRI as a whole…………………………………………………24 Table 6: Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores for three stream reaches at Stones River National Battlefield during August 2005………………………………………………...25 Table 7: Temperature and water chemistry of four of the STRI sample sites for each sampling date…………………………………………………………………………….26 Table 8 : Total length estimates of specific habitat types at each riverine sample site.
    [Show full text]
  • Vertebrate Proteins Predicted from Genomic Sequences
    Vertebrate proteins predicted from genomic sequences VWD C8 TIL PTS Mucin2_WxxW F5_F8_type_C FCGBP_N VWC Lethenteron_camtschaticum Cyclostomata; Hyperoartia; Petromyzontiformes; Petromyzontidae; Lethenteron Lethenteron_camtschaticum.0.pep1 Petromyzon_marinus Cyclostomata; Hyperoartia; Petromyzontiformes; Petromyzontidae; Petromyzon Petromyzon_marinus.0.pep1 Callorhinchus_milii Gnathostomata; Chondrichthyes; Holocephali; Chimaeriformes; Callorhinchidae; Callorhinchus Callorhinchus_milii.0.pep1 Callorhinchus_milii Gnathostomata; Chondrichthyes; Holocephali; Chimaeriformes; Callorhinchidae; Callorhinchus Callorhinchus_milii.0.pep2 Callorhinchus_milii Gnathostomata; Chondrichthyes; Holocephali; Chimaeriformes; Callorhinchidae; Callorhinchus Callorhinchus_milii.0.pep3 Lepisosteus_oculatus Gnathostomata; Teleostomi; Euteleostomi; Actinopterygii; Actinopteri; Neopterygii; Holostei; Semionotiformes; Lepisosteus_oculatus.0.pep1 Lepisosteus_oculatus Gnathostomata; Teleostomi; Euteleostomi; Actinopterygii; Actinopteri; Neopterygii; Holostei; Semionotiformes; Lepisosteus_oculatus.0.pep2 Lepisosteus_oculatus Gnathostomata; Teleostomi; Euteleostomi; Actinopterygii; Actinopteri; Neopterygii; Holostei; Semionotiformes; Lepisosteus_oculatus.0.pep3 Lepisosteus_oculatus Gnathostomata; Teleostomi; Euteleostomi; Actinopterygii; Actinopteri; Neopterygii; Holostei; Semionotiformes; Lepisosteus_oculatus.1.pep1 TILa Cynoglossus_semilaevis Gnathostomata; Teleostomi; Euteleostomi; Actinopterygii; Actinopteri; Neopterygii; Teleostei; Cynoglossus_semilaevis.1.pep1
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Fish Species
    The Angler’s Guide To TennesseeIncluding Aquatic Nuisance SpeciesFish Published by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Cover photograph Paul Shaw Graphics Designer Raleigh Holtam Thanks to the TWRA Fisheries Staff for their review and contributions to this publication. Special thanks to those that provided pictures for use in this publication. Partial funding of this publication was provided by a grant from the United States Fish & Wildlife Service through the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Authorization No. 328898, 58,500 copies, January, 2012. This public document was promulgated at a cost of $.42 per copy. Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency is available to all persons without regard to their race, color, national origin, sex, age, dis- ability, or military service. TWRA is also an equal opportunity/equal access employer. Questions should be directed to TWRA, Human Resources Office, P.O. Box 40747, Nashville, TN 37204, (615) 781-6594 (TDD 781-6691), or to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office for Human Resources, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203. Contents Introduction ...............................................................................1 About Fish ..................................................................................2 Black Bass ...................................................................................3 Crappie ........................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Constraints on the Timescale of Animal Evolutionary History
    Palaeontologia Electronica palaeo-electronica.org Constraints on the timescale of animal evolutionary history Michael J. Benton, Philip C.J. Donoghue, Robert J. Asher, Matt Friedman, Thomas J. Near, and Jakob Vinther ABSTRACT Dating the tree of life is a core endeavor in evolutionary biology. Rates of evolution are fundamental to nearly every evolutionary model and process. Rates need dates. There is much debate on the most appropriate and reasonable ways in which to date the tree of life, and recent work has highlighted some confusions and complexities that can be avoided. Whether phylogenetic trees are dated after they have been estab- lished, or as part of the process of tree finding, practitioners need to know which cali- brations to use. We emphasize the importance of identifying crown (not stem) fossils, levels of confidence in their attribution to the crown, current chronostratigraphic preci- sion, the primacy of the host geological formation and asymmetric confidence intervals. Here we present calibrations for 88 key nodes across the phylogeny of animals, rang- ing from the root of Metazoa to the last common ancestor of Homo sapiens. Close attention to detail is constantly required: for example, the classic bird-mammal date (base of crown Amniota) has often been given as 310-315 Ma; the 2014 international time scale indicates a minimum age of 318 Ma. Michael J. Benton. School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1RJ, U.K. [email protected] Philip C.J. Donoghue. School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1RJ, U.K. [email protected] Robert J.
    [Show full text]
  • A Middle Triassic Kyphosichthyiform from Yunnan, China, and Phylogenetic Reassessment of Early Ginglymodians
    SUPPLEMENTARY DATA A Middle Triassic kyphosichthyiform from Yunnan, China, and phylogenetic reassessment of early ginglymodians XU Guang-Hui1,2 MA Xin-Ying1,2,3 WU Fei-Xiang1,2 REN Yi1,2,3 (1 Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100044 [email protected]) (2 CAS Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment Beijing 100044) (3 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100049) Part A Material examined and references Amia calva and Solnhofenamia elongata (Grande and Bemis, 1998); Araripelepidotes temnurus (Maisey, 1991; Thies, 1996); Asialepidotus shingyiensis (Xu and Ma, 2018); Atractosteus spatula, Cuneatus wileyi, Dentilepisosteus laevis, Lepisosteus osseus, Masillosteus janeae, and Obaichthys decoratus (Grande, 2010); Caturus furcatus (Patterson, 1975; Lambers, 1992; Grande and Bemis, 1998; FMNH UC2057); Dorsetichthys (‘Pholidophorus’) bechei (Patterson, 1975; Grande and Bemis, 1998; Arratia, 2013); Elops hawaiensis (Forey, 1973); Fuyuanichthys wangi (Xu et al., 2018); Ichthyokentema purbeckensis (Griffith and Patterson, 1963); Ionoscopus cyprinoides (Grande and Bemis, 1998; Maisey, 1999; FMNH P15472); Isanichthys palustris (Cavin and Suteethorn, 2006); Kyphosichthys grandei (Xu and Wu, 2012; Sun and Ni, 2018); Lashanichthys (‘Sangiorgioichthys’) sui (López-Arbarello et al., 2011); Lashanichthys (‘Sangiorgioichthys’) yangjuanensis (Chen et al, 2014); Lepidotes gigas (Thies,
    [Show full text]
  • Gar (Lepisosteidae)
    Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Animal Information Series Gar (Lepisosteidae) Gar species found in Indiana waters: -Longnose Gar (Lepisosteus osseus) -Shortnose Gar (Lepisosteus platostomus) -Spotted Gar (Lepisosteus oculatus) -Alligator Gar* (Atractosteus spatula) *Alligator Gar (Atractosteus spatula) Alligator gar were extirpated in many states due to habitat destruction, but now they have been reintroduced to their old native habitat in the states of Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, and Kentucky. Because they have been stocked into the Ohio River, there is a possibility that alligator gar are either already in Indiana or will be found here in the future. Alligator gar are one of the largest freshwater fishes of North America and can reach up to 10 feet long and weigh 300 pounds. Alligator gar are passive, solitary fishes that live in large rivers, swamps, bayous, and lakes. They have a short, wide snout and a double row of teeth on the upper jaw. They are ambush predators that eat mainly fish but have also been seen to eat waterfowl. They are not, however, harmful to humans, as they will only attack an animal that they can swallow whole. Photo Credit: Duane Raver, USFWS Other Names -garpike, billy gar -Shortnose gar: shortbill gar, stubnose gar -Longnose gar: needlenose gar, billfish Why are they called gar? The Anglo-Saxon word gar means spear, which describes the fishes’ long spear-like appearance. The genus name Lepisosteus contains the Greek words lepis which means “scale” and osteon which means “bone.” What do they look like? Gar are slender, cylindrical fishes with hard, diamond-shaped and non-overlapping scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of the Alligator Gar, Atractosteusspatula, in the Vicente G1;Jerreroreservoir, Tamaulipas, Mexico
    THE SOUTHWESTERNNATURALIST 46(2):151-157 JUNE 2001 ECOLOGY OF THE ALLIGATOR GAR, ATRACTOSTEUSSPATULA, IN THE VICENTE G1;JERRERORESERVOIR, TAMAULIPAS, MEXICO .-., FRANCISCO J. GARCiA DE LEON, LEONARDO GoNzALEZ-GARCiA, JOSE M. HERRERA-CAsTILLO, KIRK O. WINEMILLER,* AND ALFONSO BANDA-VALDES Laboratorio de Biologia lntegrativa, lnstituto Tecnol6gicode Ciudad Victoria, Boulevard Emilio Fortes Gil1301, Ciudad Victoria, CP 87010, Tamaulipas, Mexico (F]GL, LGG,]MHC) Department of Wildlife and FisheriesSciences, Texas A&M University, CollegeStation, TX 77843-2258 (KO~ Direcci6n Generalde Pescadel Gobiernodel Estado de Tamaulipas, Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico (ABV) * Correspondent:[email protected] ABsTRACf-We provide the first ecological account of the alligator gar, Atractosteusspatula, in the Vicente Guerrero Reservoir, Tamaulipas, Mexico. During March to September, 1998, the local fishery cooperative captured more than 23,000 kg of alligator gar from the reservoir. A random sample of their catch was dominated by males, which were significantly smaller than females. Males and females had similar weight-length relationships. Relative testicular weight varied little season- ally, but relative ovarian weight showed a strong seasonal pattern that indicated peak spawning activity during July and August. Body condition of both sexes also varied in a pattern consistent with late summer spawning. Fishing for alligator gar virtually ceased from October to February, when nonreproductive individuals were presumed to move offshore to deeper water. Alligator gar fed primarily on largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides,and less frequently on other fishes. The gillnet fishery for alligator gar in the reservoir appears to be based primarily on individuals that move into shallow, shoreline areas to spawn. Males probably remain in these habitats longer than females.
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Triassic; Meride, Canton Ticino, Switzerland)
    Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana, 51 (3), 2012, 203-212. Modena, 30 dicembre 2012 A new species of Sangiorgioichthys (Actinopterygii, Semionotiformes) from the Kalkschieferzone of Monte San Giorgio (Middle Triassic; Meride, Canton Ticino, Switzerland) Cristina LOMBARDO, Andrea TINTORI & Daniele TONA C. Lombardo, Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra “Ardito Desio”, Via Mangiagalli 34, I-20133 Milano, Italy; [email protected] A. Tintori, Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra “Ardito Desio”, Via Mangiagalli 34, I-20133 Milano, Italy; [email protected] D. Tona, Corso Rigola 64, I-13100 Vercelli, Italy; [email protected] KEY WORDS - Actinopterygii, Early Semionotidae, new taxon, Ladinian, Monte San Giorgio. ABSTRACT - The genus Sangiorgioichthys is one of the few Semionotidae known from the Middle Triassic. The type species S. aldae Tintori & Lombardo, 2007 has been found in Late Ladinian marine deposits of both the Italian and Swiss sides of Monte San Giorgio. A second species, S. sui López-Arbarello et al., 2011 described from the Pelsonian (Middle Anisian) of Luoping (Yunnan, South China) has extended the range of the genus both in time and space. A further species of Sangiorgioichthys, Sangiorgioichthys valmarensis n. sp., is described herein from the Late Ladinian Kalkschieferzone (Meride Limestone) of the Monte San Giorgio area, the same unit yielding the type species. Sangiorgioichthys valmarensis n. sp. differs from the already known species in number and arrangement of suborbitals, shape of the teeth and in shape and row number of the scales. The new species of Sangiorgioichthys increases the diversity of Semionotidae already in the Middle Triassic, indicating that the explosive radiation of Semionotidae during the Norian was preceded by a first phase of diversification during the Middle Triassic.
    [Show full text]
  • Ambush Predator’ Guild – Are There Developmental Rules Underlying Body Shape Evolution in Ray-Finned Fishes? Erin E Maxwell1* and Laura AB Wilson2
    Maxwell and Wilson BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:265 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/13/265 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Regionalization of the axial skeleton in the ‘ambush predator’ guild – are there developmental rules underlying body shape evolution in ray-finned fishes? Erin E Maxwell1* and Laura AB Wilson2 Abstract Background: A long, slender body plan characterized by an elongate antorbital region and posterior displacement of the unpaired fins has evolved multiple times within ray-finned fishes, and is associated with ambush predation. The axial skeleton of ray-finned fishes is divided into abdominal and caudal regions, considered to be evolutionary modules. In this study, we test whether the convergent evolution of the ambush predator body plan is associated with predictable, regional changes in the axial skeleton, specifically whether the abdominal region is preferentially lengthened relative to the caudal region through the addition of vertebrae. We test this hypothesis in seven clades showing convergent evolution of this body plan, examining abdominal and caudal vertebral counts in over 300 living and fossil species. In four of these clades, we also examined the relationship between the fineness ratio and vertebral regionalization using phylogenetic independent contrasts. Results: We report that in five of the clades surveyed, Lepisosteidae, Esocidae, Belonidae, Sphyraenidae and Fistulariidae, vertebrae are added preferentially to the abdominal region. In Lepisosteidae, Esocidae, and Belonidae, increasing abdominal vertebral count was also significantly related to increasing fineness ratio, a measure of elongation. Two clades did not preferentially add abdominal vertebrae: Saurichthyidae and Aulostomidae. Both of these groups show the development of a novel caudal region anterior to the insertion of the anal fin, morphologically differentiated from more posterior caudal vertebrae.
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in Conservation and Management of the Alligator Gar: a Synthesis of Current Knowledge and Introduction to a Special Section
    North American Journal of Fisheries Management © 2019 American Fisheries Society ISSN: 0275-5947 print / 1548-8675 online DOI: 10.1002/nafm.10369 SPECIAL SECTION: ALLIGATOR GAR Advances in Conservation and Management of the Alligator Gar: a Synthesis of Current Knowledge and Introduction to a Special Section N. G. Smith* and D. J. Daugherty Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division, Heart of the Hills Fisheries Science Center, 5103 Junction Highway, Mountain Home, Texas 78058, USA E. L. Brinkman Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, District 7, 7004 Highway 67 East, Hope, Arkansas 71801, USA M. G. Wegener Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 8384 Fish Hatchery Road, Holt, Florida 32564, USA B. R. Kreiser School of Biological, Environmental, and Earth Sciences, University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Drive, Number 5018, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406, USA A. M. Ferrara Department of Biological Sciences, Nicholls State University, Post Office Box 2021, Thibodaux, Louisiana 70310, USA K. D. Kimmel U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Baton Rouge Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, 235 Parker Coliseum, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA S. R. David Department of Biological Sciences, Nicholls State University, Post Office Box 2021, Thibodaux, Louisiana 70310, USA Abstract Growing appreciation of biodiversity and the role of apex predators, along with the increasing popularity of multi- species and trophy-oriented angling, has elevated the status of gars—in particular, the Alligator Gar Atractosteus spatula—among anglers and biologists alike. As a result, considerable effort has been spent in recent years to gain a working knowledge of the biology and ecology of the species in order to advance science-based management.
    [Show full text]
  • Systematic Morphology of Fishes in the Early 21St Century
    Copeia 103, No. 4, 2015, 858–873 When Tradition Meets Technology: Systematic Morphology of Fishes in the Early 21st Century Eric J. Hilton1, Nalani K. Schnell2, and Peter Konstantinidis1 Many of the primary groups of fishes currently recognized have been established through an iterative process of anatomical study and comparison of fishes that has spanned a time period approaching 500 years. In this paper we give a brief history of the systematic morphology of fishes, focusing on some of the individuals and their works from which we derive our own inspiration. We further discuss what is possible at this point in history in the anatomical study of fishes and speculate on the future of morphology used in the systematics of fishes. Beyond the collection of facts about the anatomy of fishes, morphology remains extremely relevant in the age of molecular data for at least three broad reasons: 1) new techniques for the preparation of specimens allow new data sources to be broadly compared; 2) past morphological analyses, as well as new ideas about interrelationships of fishes (based on both morphological and molecular data) provide rich sources of hypotheses to test with new morphological investigations; and 3) the use of morphological data is not limited to understanding phylogeny and evolution of fishes, but rather is of broad utility to understanding the general biology (including phenotypic adaptation, evolution, ecology, and conservation biology) of fishes. Although in some ways morphology struggles to compete with the lure of molecular data for systematic research, we see the anatomical study of fishes entering into a new and exciting phase of its history because of recent technological and methodological innovations.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Fishes - Structural Patterns and Trends in Diversification
    History of fishes - Structural Patterns and Trends in Diversification AGNATHANS = Jawless • Class – Pteraspidomorphi • Class – Myxini?? (living) • Class – Cephalaspidomorphi – Osteostraci – Anaspidiformes – Petromyzontiformes (living) Major Groups of Agnathans • 1. Osteostracida 2. Anaspida 3. Pteraspidomorphida • Hagfish and Lamprey = traditionally together in cyclostomata Jaws = GNATHOSTOMES • Gnathostomes: the jawed fishes -good evidence for gnathostome monophyly. • 4 major groups of jawed vertebrates: Extinct Acanthodii and Placodermi (know) Living Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes • Living Chondrichthyans - usually divided into Selachii or Elasmobranchi (sharks and rays) and Holocephali (chimeroids). • • Living Osteichthyans commonly regarded as forming two major groups ‑ – Actinopterygii – Ray finned fish – Sarcopterygii (coelacanths, lungfish, Tetrapods). • SARCOPTERYGII = Coelacanths + (Dipnoi = Lung-fish) + Rhipidistian (Osteolepimorphi) = Tetrapod Ancestors (Eusthenopteron) Close to tetrapods Lungfish - Dipnoi • Three genera, Africa+Australian+South American ACTINOPTERYGII Bichirs – Cladistia = POLYPTERIFORMES Notable exception = Cladistia – Polypterus (bichirs) - Represented by 10 FW species - tropical Africa and one species - Erpetoichthys calabaricus – reedfish. Highly aberrant Cladistia - numerous uniquely derived features – long, independent evolution: – Strange dorsal finlets, Series spiracular ossicles, Peculiar urohyal bone and parasphenoid • But retain # primitive Actinopterygian features = heavy ganoid scales (external
    [Show full text]