DOCSLIB.ORG

Is There Any Phylogenetic Relationship Between Teleosts and the Elasmobranchs?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Is There Any Phylogenetic Relationship Between Teleosts and the Elasmobranchs? African Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 5 (4), pp. 318-320, 16 January 2006 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB ISSN 1684–5315 © 2006 Academic Journals Review Is there any phylogenetic relationship between teleosts and the elasmobranchs? MNE Dosay-Akbulut Afyon Kocatepe Üniversity, Veterinary Faculty, Medical Biology and Genetics Department, AFYON/TURKEY. Phone: 00902722281311/148. E-Mail: [email protected]. Accepted 3 January, 2006 There is still disagreement with regard to identifying the sister group of the tetrapods? Different hypotheses were suggested for this relationship. The aim of this article was to present and summarize some of these studies, which were based on the possible phylogenetic relationship between Chondrichtyes and land vertebrates (tetrapods). Key words: Phylogenetic, relationship, Chondrichthyes and tetrapods. INTRODUCTION For many years, numerous investigators have been trying Chondrichthyes. It is commonly known that cartilaginous to better understand the evolution of the vertebrates, fishes, Chondrichthyes, have a place among the especially the phylogeny of the tetrapods or land Gnathostomata, and their relation could be viewed as the vertebrates. Most of the information comes from sister group of all other gnathostomes (i.e., paleontological or anatomic work. Nucleic acid and osteichthyans) (Miller and Loates, 1997; Rasmussen and protein sequence analyses are very recent techniques Arnason, 1999a; Rasmussen et al., 1998). and are providing new information on the subject As mentioned above currrent phylogenetic theory (Bernardi et al., 1992). The relationship of the divide recent gnathostomes into two major groups, the Chondrichthyes to other groups of fishes has been a Chondrichthyes and the Osteichthyes (bony fishes). This topic of discussion for more than a century. For example, separation based on the absence of typical bony fish Schaeffer and Williams (1977) suggest that the characteristics in the Chondrichthyes such as a Elasmobranchii and the Holocephalii are sister groups, swimbladder and bony skeleton, teeth/tooth plates not and that the Chondrichthyes are more closely related to fused to the jaw and separate gill openings. Osteichthyes the Teleostomi than the Placodermi based on certain split further into Actinopterygii (ray-finned fish) and characteristics of the skull, skeleton, fin supports and fins. Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish). Actinopterygii divide into the Cladistia (bichirs) and all other actinopterygians (teleostii), while on the other hand Sarcopterygians THE SYSTEMATIC POSITIONS OF THE include the coelacanth (only one living species, Latimeria CHONDRICHTHYES AND TELEOSTS chalumnae), lungfish (dipnoans) and tetrapods. Sarcopterygians (lobe-finned fishes) have bony fins and The vertebrates are divided into two main groups, some of them have lungs for respiration; therefore it is Agnathans (jawless vertebrates, including hagfishes and commonly accepted that sarcopterygians are closely lampreys) and gnathostomata (jawed vertebrates). The related to the ancestral tetrapods (Rasmussen and current phylogenetic theory divides the recent Arnason, 1999a; Cao et al., 1998). gnathostomes (jawed fishes) into two groups which are the cartilaginous fishes and bony fishes (osteichthyes). Cartilaginous fishes include sharks, skates, rays and SUMMARY OF SOME PREVIOUS RESEARCH chimeras, which have a soft, firm tissue in the endoskeleton. They have a prismatic calcified cartilage Recently, nucleic acid and protein sequences have instead of bone and together form a group in the class provided new information about where the cartilaginous Dosay-Akbulut 319 fishes are placed within the tree of bony fishes. For were split about 420 MYBP. The divergence of the example, Rasmussen and Arnason (1999a) sequenced coelacanth and the teleost/chondrichthyan branch 12 mitochondrial protein-coding genes from the following occurred ~ 310 MYBP, and of the cladistian (bichir) and fishes: sea lamprey, lungfish, bichir, coelacanth coelacanth/teleost/chondrichthyans ~ 380 MYBP. These (Latimeria chalumnae), cod, loach, rainbow trout and a results offer different explanations for the relationship Chondrichthyes, represented by the spiny dogfish between gnathostome and cartilaginous fishes with (Squalus acanthias). They used as an outgroup the regard to the same main morphological characteristics, echinoderms, represented by one starfish and two sea lung/swimbladder, bone/cartilage, and the exoskeleton, urchins and sea lamprey . In the same research, they rather than the commonly accepted gnathostome also did analyses with the addition of four amniotes. relationship based on the same characters (Rasmussen These authors sought phylogenetic relationships among and Arnason, 1999b). gnathostomes using the sea lamprey, which is the closest Bernardi et al. (1992) sequenced 18S rRNA from two relative of the gnathostomes, as an outgroup. These teleostean fish species, Fundulus heteroclitus and analyses included the following fishes: lungfish, bichir, Sebastolobus and two sharks, Squalus acanthias and coelacanth, cod, rainbow trout and spiny dogfish and four Echinorhinus cookei. After that, the sequences were amniotes: chicken, ostrich, wallaroo and cow compared with 18S rRNA sequences of the coelacanth (Rasmussen and Arnason, 1999a). Latimeria chalumnae, the frog Xenopus laevis, and Both phylogenetic analyses placed the spiny dogfish humans for phylogenetic conclusion. Maximum representing the chondrichtyes, among the bony fishes. parsimony analyses consistently grouped the two teleosts Both the amino acid and nucleotide data sets support this and two sharks together (Bernardi, et al.,1992). position. The lungfish was in the most basal position Mallatt and Sullivan (1998) also tried to establish the among all gnathostome fishes, while the bichir in the relationship between the lamprey and hagfish, and they second most basal position. The wanted to test the classical hypothesis of monophyly of coelacanth/shark/teleostean clade was high and the cyclostomes (lampreys plus hagfishes), which is very phylogenetic analysis values ranged from 84 to 99% in similar to the Stock and Whitt study, to provide more different studies. The spiny dogfish was placed as the results. For this work, 92-97% complete 28S and partial sister group of the teleosts within the same clade (without 5.8S rDNA sequences were obtained from five chordate amniotes) (Rasmussen and Arnason, 1999a). species, the lancelet Branchiostoma floridae, the hagfish In the same year in a different study, the same authors Eptatretus stouti, the lamprey Petromyzon marinus and concluded that cartilaginous fishes have a terminal the cartilaginous fishes Hydrolagus colliei (the position in the piscine tree. To better understand chimaeroid) and dogfish shark Squalus acanthias which vertebrate evolution and clarify the gnathostome were then analysed with previously reported 28S and relationship, Rasmussen and Arnason (1999b) 18S rDNA sequences from other chordates from sequenced complete mtDNA from starry skate (Raja Genbank. Additionally, one trout Oncorhynchus mykiss radiata) with 3 squalomorph chondrichthyans, the was used to provide a small segment of the 28S gene. common dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula), the spiny However, in this research, the interrelationship of the dogfish (Squalus acanthias) and star spotted dogfish major groups of jawed bony fishes and tetrapod (Mustelus manazo) with several bony fishes and vertebrates (Osteichthyes) was not found as expected. amniotes. In this study, the most closely related For example, the frog never grouped with the coelacanth. nongnathostome species, sea lamprey was used as an Maybe because of region, they choose to work. On the outgroup (Rasmussen and Arnason, 1999b). other hand, in all trees, where both cartilaginous fishes In unrooted ML analysis, the teleosts and the (shark and chimaera) grouped together and were placed chondrichthyans form sister groups, and the NJ analysis with the bony fishes (Stock and Witt, 1992; Mallat and places the chondrichthyans in a terminal position in the Sullivan, 1998). piscine tree with support values for the sister group In another study, Delarbre et al. (1998) worked with relationship between chondrichthyans and teleosts are another dogfish species and sequenced the complete 78% (ML), 79% (NJ), and 70% (MP). These results genome of the mitochondrial DNA of the dogfish suggest that the origin of the amniote lineage is older Scyliorhinus canicula. In addition, they compared it with than oldest extant bony fishes (the lungfishes). The the mtDNA genomic map of carp (Cyprinus carpio), oldest lungfish fossils go back 400 million years, and by chicken (Gallus gallus), coelacanth (Latimeria using this as a calibration point, the squalomorphs and chalumnae), lancelet (Branchistoma lanceolatum), loach batomorphs were separated about 190 million years (Crossostoma lacustre), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus before the present (MYBP). This dating was also mykiss) and sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus). The supported by the first appearance of batomorph (skates phylogenetic analyses using the NJ method with Kimura’s and rays) fossils in paleontological records. In these two parameter distance from Phylip shows that the records, the origin of the Chondrichthyes goes back ~290 Chondrichthyes are the sister group of the Osteichthyes MYBP. The gnathostome fishes and the amniote lineage and the dogfish placed with a gnathostome monophyly, 320 Afr. J. Biotechnol. while with a significantly
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Updated Checklist of Marine Fishes (Chordata: Craniata) from Portugal and the Proposed Extension of the Portuguese Continental Shelf
    European Journal of Taxonomy 73: 1-73 ISSN 2118-9773 http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2014.73 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2014 · Carneiro M. et al. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Monograph urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9A5F217D-8E7B-448A-9CAB-2CCC9CC6F857 Updated checklist of marine fishes (Chordata: Craniata) from Portugal and the proposed extension of the Portuguese continental shelf Miguel CARNEIRO1,5, Rogélia MARTINS2,6, Monica LANDI*,3,7 & Filipe O. COSTA4,8 1,2 DIV-RP (Modelling and Management Fishery Resources Division), Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera, Av. Brasilia 1449-006 Lisboa, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 3,4 CBMA (Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology), Department of Biology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] * corresponding author: [email protected] 5 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:90A98A50-327E-4648-9DCE-75709C7A2472 6 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:1EB6DE00-9E91-407C-B7C4-34F31F29FD88 7 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:6D3AC760-77F2-4CFA-B5C7-665CB07F4CEB 8 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:48E53CF3-71C8-403C-BECD-10B20B3C15B4 Abstract. The study of the Portuguese marine ichthyofauna has a long historical tradition, rooted back in the 18th Century. Here we present an annotated checklist of the marine fishes from Portuguese waters, including the area encompassed by the proposed extension of the Portuguese continental shelf and the Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ). The list is based on historical literature records and taxon occurrence data obtained from natural history collections, together with new revisions and occurrences.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes Scales & Tails Scale Types 1
    Phylum Chordata SUBPHYLUM VERTEBRATA Metameric chordates Linear series of cartilaginous or boney support (vertebrae) surrounding or replacing the notochord Expanded anterior portion of nervous system THE FISHES SCALES & TAILS SCALE TYPES 1. COSMOID (most primitive) First found on ostracaderm agnathans, thick & boney - composed of: Ganoine (enamel outer layer) Cosmine (thick under layer) Spongy bone Lamellar bone Perhaps selected for protection against eurypterids, but decreased flexibility 2. GANOID (primitive, still found on some living fish like gar) 3. PLACOID (old scale type found on the chondrichthyes) Dentine, tooth-like 4. CYCLOID (more recent scale type, found in modern osteichthyes) 5. CTENOID (most modern scale type, found in modern osteichthyes) TAILS HETEROCERCAL (primitive, still found on chondrichthyes) ABBREVIATED HETEROCERCAL (found on some primitive living fish like gar) DIPHYCERCAL (primitive, found on sarcopterygii) HOMOCERCAL (most modern, found on most modern osteichthyes) Agnatha (class) [connect the taxa] Cyclostomata (order) Placodermi Acanthodii (class) (class) Chondrichthyes (class) Osteichthyes (class) Actinopterygii (subclass) Sarcopterygii (subclass) Dipnoi (order) Crossopterygii (order) Ripidistia (suborder) Coelacanthiformes (suborder) Chondrostei (infra class) Holostei (infra class) Teleostei (infra class) CLASS AGNATHA ("without jaws") Most primitive - first fossils in Ordovician Bottom feeders, dorsal/ventral flattened Cosmoid scales (Ostracoderms) Pair of eyes + pineal eye - present in a few living fish and reptiles - regulates circadian rhythms Nine - seven gill pouches No paired appendages, medial nosril ORDER CYCLOSTOMATA (60 spp) Last living representatives - lampreys & hagfish Notochord not replaced by vertebrae Cartilaginous cranium, scaleless body Sea lamprey predaceous - horny teeth in buccal cavity & on tongue - secretes anti-coaggulant Lateral Line System No stomach or spleen 5 - 7 year life span - adults move into freshwater streams, spawn, & die.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of Basal Tetrapoda
    Stuart S. Sumida Biology 342 Phylogeny of Basal Tetrapoda The group of bony fishes that gave rise to land-dwelling vertebrates and their descendants (Tetrapoda, or colloquially, “tetrapods”) was the lobe-finned fishes, or Sarcopterygii. Sarcoptrygii includes coelacanths (which retain one living form, Latimeria), lungfish, and crossopterygians. The transition from sarcopterygian fishes to stem tetrapods proceeded through a series of groups – not all of which are included here. There was no sharp and distinct transition, rather it was a continuum from very tetrapod-like fishes to very fish-like tetrapods. SARCOPTERYGII – THE LOBE-FINNED FISHES Includes •Actinista (including Coelacanths) •Dipnoi (lungfishes) •Crossopterygii Crossopterygians include “tetrapods” – 4- legged land-dwelling vertebrates. The Actinista date back to the Devonian. They have very well developed lobed-fins. There remains one livnig representative of the group, the coelacanth, Latimeria chalumnae. A lungfish The Crossopterygii include numerous representatives, the best known of which include Eusthenopteron (pictured here) and Panderichthyes. Panderichthyids were the most tetrapod-like of the sarcopterygian fishes. Panderichthyes – note the lack of dorsal fine, but retention of tail fin. Coelacanths Lungfish Rhizodontids Eusthenopteron Panderichthyes Tiktaalik Ventastega Acanthostega Ichthyostega Tulerpeton Whatcheeria Pederpes More advanced amphibians Tiktaalik roseae – a lobe-finned fish intermediate between typical sarcopterygians and basal tetrapods. Mid to Late Devonian; 375 million years old. The back end of Tiktaalik’s skull is intermediate between fishes and tetrapods. Tiktaalik is a fish with wrist bones, yet still retaining fin rays. The posture of Tiktaalik’s fin/limb is intermediate between that of fishes an tetrapods. Coelacanths Lungfish Rhizodontids Eusthenopteron Panderichthyes Tiktaalik Ventastega Acanthostega Ichthyostega Tulerpeton Whatcheeria Pederpes More advanced amphibians Reconstructions of the basal tetrapod Ventastega.
    [Show full text]
  • Class Wars: Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes Dominance in Chesapeake Bay, 2002-2012
    Class Wars: Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes dominance in Chesapeake Bay, 2002-2012. 01 July 2013 Introduction The objective of this analysis was to demonstrate a possible changing relationship between two Classes of fishes, Osteichthyes (the bony fishes) and Chondrichthyes (the cartilaginous fishes) in Chesapeake Bay based on 11 years of monitoring. If any changes between the two Classes appeared to be significant, either statistically or anecdotally, the data were explored further in an attempt to explain the variation. The Class Osteichthyes is characterized by having a skeleton made of bone and is comprised of the majority of fish species worldwide, while the Chondrichthyes skeleton is made of cartilage and is represented by the sharks, skates, and rays (the elasmobranch fishes) and chimaeras1. Many shark species are generally categorized as apex predators, while skates and rays and some smaller sharks can be placed into the mesopredator functional group (Myers et al., 2007). By definition, mesopredators prey upon a significant array of lower trophic groups, but also serve as the prey base for apex predators. Global demand for shark and consequential shark fishing mortality, estimated at 97 million sharks in 2010 (Worm et al., 2013), is hypothesized to have contributed to the decline of these apex predators in recent years (Baum et al., 2003 and Fowler et al., 2005), which in turn is suggested to have had a cascading effect on lower trophic levels—an increase in mesopredators and subsequent decrease in the prey base (Myers et al., 2007). According to 10 years of trawl survey monitoring of Chesapeake Bay, fish species composition of catches has shown a marked change over the years (Buchheister et al., 2013).
    [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]
  • The Absence of Sharks from Abyssal Regions of the World's Oceans
    Proc. R. Soc. B (2006) 273, 1435–1441 doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3461 Published online 21 February 2006 The absence of sharks from abyssal regions of the world’s oceans Imants G. Priede1,*, Rainer Froese2, David M. Bailey3, Odd Aksel Bergstad4, Martin A. Collins5, Jan Erik Dyb6, Camila Henriques1, Emma G. Jones7 and Nicola King1 1University of Aberdeen, Oceanlab, Newburgh, Aberdeen AB41 6AA, UK 2Leibniz-Institut fu¨r Meereswissenschaften, IfM-GEOMAR, Du¨sternbrooker Weg 20, 24105 Kiel, Germany 3Marine Biology Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0202, USA 4Institute of Marine Research, Flødevigen Marine Research Station, 4817 His, Norway 5British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK 6Møre Research, Section of Fisheries, PO Box 5075, 6021 Aalesund, Norway 7FRS Marine Laboratory, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen AB11 9DB, UK The oceanic abyss (depths greater than 3000 m), one of the largest environments on the planet, is characterized by absence of solar light, high pressures and remoteness from surface food supply necessitating special molecular, physiological, behavioural and ecological adaptations of organisms that live there. Sampling by trawl, baited hooks and cameras we show that the Chondrichthyes (sharks, rays and chimaeras) are absent from, or very rare in this region. Analysis of a global data set shows a trend of rapid disappearance of chondrichthyan species with depth when compared with bony fishes. Sharks, apparently well adapted to life at high pressures are conspicuous on slopes down to 2000 m including scavenging at food falls such as dead whales.
    [Show full text]
  • Great White Shark Carcharodon Carcharias
    Great White Shark Carcharodon carcharias Great White Sharks (Great Whites) are large predators at the top of the marine food chain. They are in the same class as all sharks and rays (Chondrichthyes) – this group is different from other fish as their skeleton is made from cartilage instead of bone. They have an average length of four to five metres, but can grow up to seven metres. Using their powerful tails to propel them, these sharks can move Bioregion resources through the water at up to 24 km per hour. Their mouths are lined with up to 300 serrated triangular teeth arranged in several rows. Diet Great Whites are able to use electroreception (the ability to detect weak electrical currents) to find and attack prey without seeing it. This can be useful in murky water or when their prey is hidden under sediment. This gives them the ability to navigate by sensing the Earth’s magnetic field. They have a strong sense of smell which is also useful in detecting prey. Contrary to some people’s beliefs, they often only attack humans to ‘sample bite’ and do not usually choose to eat human flesh, preferring marine mammals such as seals and sea lions. They are also known to feed on dolphins, octopus, squid, other sharks, rays and lobster, fish, crabs and seabirds. Breeding Great Whites have a low reproduction rate that makes it difficult for species numbers to recover. Males mature at eight to ten years and females mature at 12-18 years. Females give birth to two to ten pups once every two to three years.
    [Show full text]
  • Axial Endoskeleton of a Bony Fish
    Fish Form & Funcon Heyer Axial endoskeleton of a bony fish Fish Axial skeleton: Cranium & vertebral column • Fishes — aquatic vertebrates; axial skeleton only – Closed, single-circuit circulatory system • Class- Aganatha — jawless fishes • Class- Chondrichthyes — cartilaginous fishes Vertebra • Class- Osteichthyes — bony fishes Figure 3.02 Locomoon with an axial skeleton Fishes Class- Aganatha — jawless fishes • ~120 extant species (lampreys; hagfish) • Inner layer of mesoderm bloc becomes skeletal • Cartilaginous skeleton vertebrae • Jawless, suctorial mouth with many teeth • Outer layer becomes & protrusible toothed tongue myomere (muscle band) • Medial fin fold; No lateral (paired) fins • Proximal edge of myomere aaches to vertebrae • Distal edge of myomere projects posterio-laterally to insert into connecve ssue of skin • ... Contracon of muscle → lateral flexing body Fishes Fishes Class- Chondrichthyes — cartilaginous fishes Class- Chondrichthyes — cartilaginous fishes • Cartilaginous skeleton, but unique bone tissue present • Cartilaginous skeleton, but unique bone tissue present • Semi-rigid paired lateral fins connected across ventral body wall Subclass- Holocephali — ~ 40 spp. (chimeras) Subclass- Elasmobranchii — ~1,000 spp. (sharks; rays) • 5–7 gill slits [elasmo-branch: “strap gills”] • Protrusible upper jaw not fused to skull • Thick skin with dermal denticles Fins supprted by cartilagenous rods 1 Fish Form & Funcon Heyer Fishes Fishes Class- Chondrichthyes — cartilaginous fishes Class- Chondrichthyes — cartilaginous fishes • Cartilaginous skeleton, but unique bone tissue present Subclass- Elasmobranchii — ~1,000 spp. (sharks; rays) • Semi-rigid paired lateral fins connected across ventral body wall • Protrusible upper jaw not fused to skull CAT scan of a great white shark Lateral fins 1. Jaw opens (pectorals & pelvics) 2. Hyoid arch located ventrally springs jaw forward 3. Jaw protrudes Pelvic fins located near vent & closes 4.
    [Show full text]
  • I Ecomorphological Change in Lobe-Finned Fishes (Sarcopterygii
    Ecomorphological change in lobe-finned fishes (Sarcopterygii): disparity and rates by Bryan H. Juarez A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Ecology and Evolutionary Biology) in the University of Michigan 2015 Master’s Thesis Committee: Assistant Professor Lauren C. Sallan, University of Pennsylvania, Co-Chair Assistant Professor Daniel L. Rabosky, Co-Chair Associate Research Scientist Miriam L. Zelditch i © Bryan H. Juarez 2015 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the Rabosky Lab, David W. Bapst, Graeme T. Lloyd and Zerina Johanson for helpful discussions on methodology, Lauren C. Sallan, Miriam L. Zelditch and Daniel L. Rabosky for their dedicated guidance on this study and the London Natural History Museum for courteously providing me with access to specimens. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF APPENDICES v ABSTRACT vi SECTION I. Introduction 1 II. Methods 4 III. Results 9 IV. Discussion 16 V. Conclusion 20 VI. Future Directions 21 APPENDICES 23 REFERENCES 62 iv LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE/FIGURE II. Cranial PC-reduced data 6 II. Post-cranial PC-reduced data 6 III. PC1 and PC2 Cranial and Post-cranial Morphospaces 11-12 III. Cranial Disparity Through Time 13 III. Post-cranial Disparity Through Time 14 III. Cranial/Post-cranial Disparity Through Time 15 v LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Lobe-fins 24 B. Species Used In Analysis 34 C. Cranial and Post-Cranial Landmarks 37 D. PC3 and PC4 Cranial and Post-cranial Morphospaces 38 E. PC1 PC2 Cranial Morphospaces 39 1-2.
    [Show full text]
  • Class SARCOPTERYGII Order COELACANTHIFORMES
    click for previous page Coelacanthiformes: Latimeriidae 3969 Class SARCOPTERYGII Order COELACANTHIFORMES LATIMERIIDAE (= Coelacanthidae) Coelacanths by S.L. Jewett A single species occurring in the area. Latimeria menadoensis Pouyaud, Wirjoatmodjo, Rachmatika, Tjakrawidjaja, Hadiaty, and Hadie, 1999 Frequent synonyms / misidentifications: None / Nearly identical in appearance to Latimeria chalumnae Smith, 1939 from the western Indian Ocean. FAO names: En - Sulawesi coelacanth. Diagnostic characters: A large robust fish. Caudal-peduncle depth nearly equal to body depth. Head robust, with large eye, terminal mouth, and large soft gill flap extending posteriorly from opercular bone. Dorsal surface of snout with pits and reticulations comprising part of sensory system. Three large, widely spaced pores on each side of snout, 1 near tip of snout and 2 just anterior to eye, connecting internally to rostral organ. Anterior nostrils form small papillae located at dorsolateral margin of mouth, at anterior end of pseudomaxillary fold (thick, muscularized skin which replaces the maxilla in coelacanths). Ventral side of head with prominent paired gular plates, longitudinally oriented along midline; skull dorsally with pronounced paired bony plates, just above and behind eyes, the posterior margins of which mark exterior manifestation of intracranial joint (or hinge) that divides braincase into anterior and posterior portions (found only in coelacanths). First dorsal fin typical, with 8 stout bony rays. Second dorsal (28 rays), anal (30), paired pectoral (each 30 to 33), and paired pelvic (each 33) fins lobed, i.e. each with a fleshy base, internally supported by an endoskeleton with which terminal fin rays articulate. Caudal fin atypical, consisting of 3 parts: upper and lower portions with numerous rays more or less symmetrically arranged along dorsal and ventral midlines, and a separate smaller terminal portion (sometimes called epicaudal fin) with symmetrically arranged rays.
    [Show full text]
  • A Check-List of the Fishes of the Great Lakes and Tributary Waters, with Nomenclatorial Notes and Analytical Keys
    UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY Miscellaneous Publications No. 15 A Check-List of the Fishes of the Great Lakes and Tributary Waters, with Nomenclatorial Notes and Analytical Keys BY CARL L. HUBBS ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN ,PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY July 7, 1926 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY Miscellaneous Publications No. 15 A Check-List of the Fishes of the Great Lakes and Tributary Waters, with Nomenclatorial Notes and Analytical Keys BY CARL 1,. HUBBS ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN PUBLISI-IED BY TI-IE UNIVERSITY July 7, 1926 The publications of the RXuseuin of Zoology, University of INichigan, consist of two serics-the Occasional Papers and the Miscellaneous Publi- cations. Both series were founded by Dr. Bryant JTTall~e~,Mr. Bradshaw I-I. Swalcs and Dr. W. W. Newcomb. The Occasional Papers, publication of which was begun in 1913, scrve as a medium for the publicatioil of brief original papers based principally upon the collrctions i11 the Museum. The papers arc issued separately to libraries and specialists, and when a sufficient number of pages have been printed to malie a volume, a titlc page, index, and table of contcnts arc sup- plied to libraries and individuals on the mailing list lor the entire scries. The Aliscellaneous Publications include papers on ficld and museum technique, monographic studies and other papers not within the scope of the Occasional Papers. The papers arc published separately, and, as it is not intended that they shall be grouped into volumes, each nuillher has a title page and, when izccessary, a table of contents. ALEXANDERG. RUTHVEN, Director of the Museum of Zoology, TJniversity of Michigan.
    [Show full text]
  • Sarcopterygii, Tetrapodomorpha
    Tristichopterids (Sarcopterygii, Tetrapodomorpha) from the Upper Devonian tetrapod-bearing locality of Strud (Belgium, upper Famennian), with phylogenetic and paleobiogeographic considerations Sébastien Olive, Yann Leroy, Edward Daeschler, Jason Downs, S. Ladevèze, Gaël Clément To cite this version: Sébastien Olive, Yann Leroy, Edward Daeschler, Jason Downs, S. Ladevèze, et al.. Tristi- chopterids (Sarcopterygii, Tetrapodomorpha) from the Upper Devonian tetrapod-bearing locality of Strud (Belgium, upper Famennian), with phylogenetic and paleobiogeographic considerations. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2020, 40 (1), pp.e1768105. 10.1080/02724634.2020.1768105. hal-03099746 HAL Id: hal-03099746 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03099746 Submitted on 6 Jan 2021 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. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology: For Review Only Tristichopterids (Sarcopterygii, Tetrapodomorpha) from the Late Devonian tetrapod-bearing locality of Strud (Belgium, late Famennian), with phylogenetic
    [Show full text]