Larouche Olivier, Zelditch Miriam L, Cloutier Richard
Laboratoire de Paléontologie et de Biologie évolutive, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, Québec, G5L 3A1, Canada.
Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
BMC Biol. 2017 Apr 27;15(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s12915-017-0370-x.
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.
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.
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.
鱼类种类极其丰富,其鳍的形态结构也高度多样,具体体现在鳍的数量以及鳍的结构、形状和大小等方面。在缺乏对鱼类附肢进化历史全面概述的情况下,很难解释它们是如何实现这种显著差异的。鳍的模块化可以为观察到的鳍形态差异以及新鳍的相继出现提供一种解释。模块化被认为是生命系统可进化性的重要前提,它使各个模块能够在不干扰其他模块的情况下得到优化。一些鳍在发育模式上的相似性已经表明,它们在个体发育过程中形成了发育模块。在宏观进化尺度上,这些发育模块可以作为进化变化的单位,并导致鳍形态的差异。本研究从系统发育的角度探讨鳍的差异,同时关注正中鳍和成对鳍各自的有无及数量。
通过将鳍的特征映射到一个新的鱼类目系统发育超级树上,评估了鳍形态差异的模式。在无颌类中,鳍形态的差异源于新鳍相继出现并形成各种组合。正中鳍和成对鳍最初都表现为细长的带状结构,这是更收缩的附肢的前身。在软骨鱼类中,鳍形态的差异主要与正中鳍的缺失有关。在硬骨鱼类中,鳍的差异涉及鳍的缺失、新鳍(如脂鳍)的增加以及背鳍和臀鳍的协同重复。此外,一些鳍对,特别是背鳍/臀鳍和胸鳍/腹鳍,在其特征分布上表现出非独立性,这支持了基于发育和形态学证据的预期,即这些鳍对形成进化模块。
我们的结果表明,胸鳍/腹鳍和背鳍/臀鳍形成了两个不同的进化模块,并且后者嵌套在一个更具包容性的正中鳍模块中。由于我们所检验的模块化假设也得到了发育和变异数据的支持,这构成了一个将发育、变异和进化模块联系起来的显著例子。