Ontogeny of the jaw and maxillary barbel musculature in the armoured catfish families Loricariidae and Callichthyidae (Loricarioidea,Siluriformes), with a discussion on muscle homologies

The neotropical loricarioid catfishes include six families, the most species‐rich of which are the Callichthyidae and the Loricariidae. Loricariidae (suckermouth armoured catfishes) have a highly specialized head morphology, including an exceptionally large number of muscles derived from the adductor mandibulae complex and the adductor arcus palatini. Terminology of these muscles varies among the literature, and no data exist on their ontogenetic origin. A detailed examination of the ontogeny of both a callichthyid and a loricariid representative now reveals the identity of the jaw and maxillary barbel musculature, and supports new hypotheses concerning homologies. The adductor mandibulae muscle itself is homologous to the A1‐OST and A3′ of basal catfishes, and the A3′ has given rise to the newly evolved loricariid retractor veli as well. The A2 and A3″ have resulted in the retractor tentaculi of Callichthyidae and the retractor premaxillae of Loricariidae. Thus, these two muscles are shown to be homologous. In Loricariidae, the extensor tentaculi consists of two separate muscles inserting on the autopalatine, and evidence is given on the evolutionary origin of the loricariid levator tentaculi (previously and erroneously known as retractor tentaculi) from the extensor tentaculi, and not the adductor mandibulae complex. © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 155 , 76–96.     

Two patterns of differentiation in the jaw musculature of teleostean fishes

In its most generalized configuration among modern teleosts the M. adductor mandibulae comprises a single, almost continuous mass of musculature extending from the cheek to the inner surface of the mandible. In more advanced teleosts this muscle is usually divided into sections. Two basically different pathways of differentiation in the cheek part of the adductor mandibulae are dealt with here. One is that in the ostariophysine fishes. The other is represented in at least the great majority of acanthopterygians. Only certain of the differentiated sections are homologous in these two large groups of fishes.     

Comments on the evolution of the jaw adductor musculature of snakes

The aim of this study is to provide a general view of the adductor musculature of the alethinophidian snakes. The aponeurotic system present in anilioid snakes is here described as being also present in colubroid and booid snakes. Although modified in various groups, this aponeurotic system retains the same topographical pattern in the anilioids, booids and colubroids, and is thus hypothesized to be homologous. An analysis of the aponeurotic system and related muscular bundles within the alethinophidian snakes is given. A new terminology is proposed for the jaw adductor muscles where the muscles levator anguli oris and adductor mandibulae externus superficialis (proper) of snakes (sensu Lakjer, 1926; Haas, 1962) retain these names even if this fails to reflect the presumed homologies with the bundles of the same name in lizards (see Rieppel, 1988b); the fibres originating from the temporal tendon in the Anilioidea, and presumed to form a bundle of composite nature (Rieppel, 1980b), are named the M. adductor mandibulae externus temporalis (lost by the Macrostomata); the M. adductor mandibulae externus medialis is a composite muscle in the Anilioidea (Rieppel, 1980b) which give rise to two different muscles in the ‘booids’, the M. adductor mandibulae externus medialis, pars anterior and the M. adductor mandibulae externus profundus, the former being secondarily lost by the Caenophidia which retains only fibres homologues of the 3b and 3c heads of the profundus layer of lizards; the so-called M. adductor mandibular externus profundus of snakes (sensu Lackjer, 1926; Haas, 1962) is also a composite muscle in the Anilioidea (Rieppel, 1980b), in the alethinophidians it is essentially made of fibres homologous with the posterior pinnate part of the medialis layer of lizards, and is here named the M. adductor mandibulae externus medialis, pars posterior. As a result from this analysis it follows that: (1) the Macrostomata are characterized by the downward extension of the fibres forming the M. adductor mandibulae externus medialis, pars anterior and the loss of the M. adductor mandibulae externus temporalis: (2) the Xenopeltidae are set apart from the remaining macrostomatan snakes by the retention of the M. levator anguli oris and of a well developed lateral sheet of the quadrate aponeurosis; (3) the ‘booids’ form a monophyletic group comprising only the Boidae and Bolyeriidae (with the exclusion of the Xenopeltidae and Tropidophiidae) which is characterized by a differentiated M. adductor mandibulae externus medialis, pars anterior inserting on the lateral surface of the compound bone via its own aponeurosis; (4) the Tropidophiidae are set apart from all other snakes by the peculiar course of their lateral head vein; however, they belong to the Caenophidia as they show a facial carotid artery which passes dorsally to the mandibular and maxillary branches of the trigeminus; (5) a possible additional character in favour of an Acrochordoidea + Colubroidea monophyletic unit may be given by the pattern of innervation of the jaw adductor muscles in these two taxa; (6) a new interpretation of the compressor glandulae muscular complex of Atractaspis resulted in a morphologically similar pattern to that of the viperids; the phylogenetic implications of such similarity are discussed in detail.     

An electromyographic analysis of the biting mechanism of the lemon shark,Negaprion Brevirostris: Functional and evolutionary implications

The kinetics of the head and function of select jaw muscles were studied during biting behavior in the lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris. High speed cinematography and electromyography of seven cranial muscles were recorded during bites elicited by a probe to the oral cavity. In weak bites mandible depression was followed by mandible elevation and jaw closure without cranial elevation. In strong bites cranial elevation always preceded lower jaw depression, lower jaw elevation, and cranial depression. The average duration of the strong bites was rapid (176 msec), considering the size of the animal relative to other fishes. Different electromyographic patterns distinguished the two forms of bite, primarily in activity of the epaxial muscles, which effect cranial elevation. A composite reconstruction of the activity of seven cranial muscles during biting revealed that epaxial muscle activity and consequently cranial elevation preceded all other muscle activity. Mandible depression was primarily effected by contraction of the common coracoarcual and coracomandibularis, with assistance by the coracohyoideus. Simultaneous activity of the levator hyomandibulae is believed to increase the width of the orobranchial chamber. The adductor mandibulae dorsal was the primary jaw adductor assisted by the adductor mandibulae ventral. This biomechanically conservative mechanism for jaw opening in aquatic vertebrates is conserved, with the exception of the coracomandibularis, which is homologous to prehyoid muscles of salamanders.     

Cranial muscles of the anurans leiopelma hochstetteri and ascaphus truei and the homologies of the mandibular adductors in lissamphibia and other gnathostomes

The frogs Ascaphus truei and Leiopelma hochstetteri are members of the most basal lineages of extant anurans. Their cranial muscles have not been previously described in full and are investigated here by dissection. Comparison of these taxa is used to review a controversy regarding the homologies of the jaw adductor muscles in Lissamphibia, to place these homologies in a wider gnathostome context, and to define features that may be useful for cladistic analysis of Anura. A new muscle is defined in Ascaphus and is designated m. levator anguli oris. The differences noted between Ascaphus and Leiopelma are in the penetration of the jaw adductor muscles by the mandibular nerve (V³). In the traditional view of this anatomy, the paths of the trigeminal nerve branches define homologous muscles. This scheme results in major differences among frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. The alternative view is that the topology of origins, insertions, and fiber directions are defining features, and the nerves penetrate the muscle mass in a variable way. The results given here support the latter view. A new model is proposed for Lissamphibia, whereby the adductor posterior (levator articularis) is a separate entity, and the rest of the adductor mass is configured around it as a folded sheet. This hypothesis is examined in other gnathostomes, including coelacanth and lungfish, and a possible sequence for the evolution of the jaw muscles is demonstrated. In this system, the main jaw adductor in teleost fish is not considered homologous with that of tetrapods. This hypothesis is consistent with available data on the domain of expression of the homeobox gene engrailed 2, which has previously not been considered indicative of homology. Terminology is discussed, and “adductor mandibulae” is preferred to “levator mandibulae” to align with usage in other gnathostomes. J. Morphol., 2011. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparative anatomy of the cheek muscles within the Centromochlinae subfamily (Ostariophysi, Siluriformes, Auchenipteridae)

Glanidium melanopterum Miranda Ribeiro, a typical representative of the subfamily Centromochlinae (Siluriformes: Auchenipteridae), is herein described myologically and compared to other representative species within the group, Glanidium ribeiroi, G. leopardum, Tatia neivai, T. intermedia, T. creutzbergi, Centromochlus heckelii, and C. existimatus. The structure of seven pairs of striated cephalic muscles was compared anatomically: adductor mandibulae, levator arcus palatini, dilatator operculi, adductor arcus palatini, extensor tentaculi, retractor tentaculi, and levator operculi. We observed broad adductor mandibulae muscles in both Glanidium and Tatia, catfishes with depressed heads and smaller eyes. Similarities between muscles were observed: the presence of a large aponeurotic insertion for the levator arcus palatini muscle; an adductor arcus palatini muscle whose origin spread over the orbitosphenoid, pterosphenoid, and parasphenoid; and the extensor tentaculi muscle broadly attached to the autopalatine. There is no retractor tentaculi muscle in either the Glanidium or Tatia species. On the other hand, in Centromochlus, with forms having large eyes and the tallest head, the adductor mandibulae muscles are slim; there is a thin aponeurotic or muscular insertion for the levator arcus palatini muscle; the adductor arcus palatini muscle originates from a single osseous process, forming a keel on the parasphenoid; the extensor tentaculi muscle is loosely attached to the autopalatine, permitting exclusive rotating and sliding movements between this bone and the maxillary. The retractor tentaculi muscle is connected to the maxilla through a single tendon, so that both extensor and retractor tentaculi muscles contribute to a wide array of movements of the maxillary barbels. A discussion on the differences in autopalatine-maxillary movements among the analyzed groups is given.     

Same but different: ontogeny and evolution of the Musculus adductor mandibulae in the Tetraodontiformes

The morphological diversity of fishes provides a rich source to address questions regarding the evolution of complex and novel forms. The Tetraodontiformes represent an order of highly derived teleosts including fishes, such as the pelagic ocean sunfishes, triggerfishes, and pufferfishes. This makes the order attractive for comparative analyses to understand the role of development in generating new forms during evolution. The adductor mandibulae complex, the main muscle associated with jaw closure, represents an ideal model system within the Tetraodontiformes. The adductor mandibulae differs in terms of partitions and their attachment sites between members of the different tetraodontiform families. In order to understand the evolution of the jaws among the Tetraodontiformes, we investigate the development of the adductor mandibulae in pufferfishes and triggerfishes as representatives of two different suborders (Balistoidei and Tetraodontoidei) that follows two different adaptations to a durophagous feeding mode. We show that the varied patterns of the adductor mandibulae derive from similar developmental sequence of subdivision of the partitions. We propose a conserved developmental program for partitioning of the adductor mandibulae as a foundation for the evolution of different patterns of subdivisions in Tetraodontiformes. Furthermore, we argue that derived conditions in the higher taxa are realized by supplementary subdivisions and altered attachment sites. These findings support a reinterpretation of homology of different muscle partitions among the Tetraodontiformes, as muscle partitions previously thought to be disparate, are now clearly related.     

Jaw movement kinematics and jaw muscle (EMG) activity during drinking in the pigeon (Columba livia)

Summary Movements of the maxilla and mandible were recorded during drinking in the head-fixed pigeon and correlated with electromyographic activity in representative jaw muscle groups. During drinking, each jaw exhibits opening and closing movements along both the dorso-ventral and rostro-caudal axes which may be linked with or independent of each other. All subjects showed small but systematic increases in cycle duration over the course of individual drinking bouts. Cyclic jaw movements during drinking were correlated with nearly synchronous activity in the protractor (levator) of the upper jaw and in several jaw closer muscles, as well as with alternating activity in tongue protractor and retractor muscles. No EMG activity was ever recorded in the lower jaw opener muscle, suggesting that lower jaw opening in this preparation is produced, indirectly, by the contraction of other muscles. The results clarify the contribution of the individual jaws to the generation of gape variations during drinking in this species.Abbreviations AMEM adductor mandibulae externus muscle - DM depressor mandibulae muscle - EMG electromyographic - GENIO geniohyoideus muscle - LB lower beak - LED light-emitting diode - PQP protractor quadrati et pterygoidei muscle - PVL pterygoideus ventralis muscle, pars lateralis - SeH/StH serpihyoideus or stylohyoideus muscle - UB upper beak     

Morphogenesis of parrot jaw muscles: understanding the development of an evolutionary novelty

Parrots have developed novel head structures in their evolutionary history. The appearance of two new muscles for strong jaw adduction is especially fascinating in developmental and evolutionary contexts. However, jaw muscle development of parrots has not been described, despite its uniqueness. This report first presents the normal developmental stages of the cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus), comparable to that of the chick. Next, the peculiar skeletal myogenesis in the first visceral arch of parrots is described, mainly focusing on the development of two new jaw muscles. One of the parrot-specific muscles, M. ethmomandibularis, was initially detected at Nymphicus Stage 28 (N28) as the rostral budding of M. pterygoideus. After N32, the muscle significantly elongates rostrodorsally toward the interorbital septum, following a course lateral to the palatine bone. Another parrot-specific muscle, M. pseudomasseter, was first recognized at N36. The muscle branches off from the posteromedial M. adductor mandibulae externus and grows in a dorsolateral direction, almost covering the lateral surface of the jugal bar. The upper tip of the muscle is accompanied by condensed mesenchyme, which seems to be derived from cephalic neural crest cells.     

Functional morphology of the jaw muscles of two species of imperial pigeons, Ducula aenea nicobarica and Ducula badia insignis

1. The functional morphological study of the jaw muscles of 2 species of Imperial Pigeons, Ducula aenea nicobarica and Ducula badia insignis has revealed that the structural variations of the bill, osteological and connective tissue elements, and muscles of the jaw apparatus may be correlated to functional diversity in the fruit-eating adaptation of these birds. 2. Both the species of Ducula possess moderately long, thick and stout bill with flexion zones inside, elongated orbital process of the quadrate, stout pterygoid, broad palatine and wide mandibular ramus on either side with increased retroarticular space. Such skeletal modifications together with increased orbital space indicate wide attachment-sites for the muscles, aponeuroses, tendons, and ligaments. 3. The morphology of the quadrato-mandibular joints suggests possible 'coupled kinesis' of the upper jaw, along with depression of the lower jaw. However, in a rhynchokinetic upper jaw as possessed by these birds, the kinesis is just moderate. Hence the gape of the mouth is mainly effected by the depression of the lower jaw, rather less so by the protraction of the upper jaw. 4. Among the functional groups of muscles, M. depressor mandibulae, M. adductor mandibulae externus, M. pseudotemporalis profundus, and M. pterygoideus are especially well developed. The various components of these muscles are provided with stiff as well as wide aponeuroses and tendons (much stronger than those observed in Columba), indicating forceful opening and closure of the beaks for plucking off the fruit, grasping it hard and manipulating it with the help of the beaks before swallowing. 5. The fleshy insertion of the outer slip of M. pseudotemporalis profundus extends ventrally over the dorsolateral surface of the mandible much more than it does in Columba. Further, 2 short and stiff aponeuroses at the rostral insertion of the inner slip of the muscle increase the force of adduction on the mandible. 6. M. adductor mandibulae posterior has not only wider origin and insertion, but also greater mass of fibres than that observed in Columba. 7. M. adductor mandibulae externus and M. pterygoideus form muscle-complexes with the predominance of bipinnate and multipinnate arrangements of fibres and with occasional joining fibres between their components. Such arrangements of fibres indicate sustained force-production, rather than faster movements of the jaw apparatus. 8. M. pterygoideus ventralis lateralis has a well developed 'venter externus' slip which has its thick and fleshy insertion on the outer lateral angular and articular mandible.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Form and function of the feeding apparatus of Alligator mississippiensis

The architecture of the jaw muscles and their tendons of Alligator mississippiensis is described and their function examined by electromyography. Alligator grabs its prey with forward lunges or rapid lateral movements of the head. It does not engage in regular masticatory cycles. Prey is manipulated by inertial movements and the tongue does not appear to play any role in transport. The Mm. adductor mandibulae externus, adductor mandibulae posterior, and pterygoideus activate bilaterally and simultaneously during rapid closing or crushing. The M. pterygoideus does not act during prey holding whereas the Mm. adductor mandibulae externus, adductor mandibulae posterior continue to be active. The Mm. depressor mandibulae and intramandibularis are variably active during both jaw opening and closing.     

Ontogeny of cranial musculature in Clarias gariepinus (Siluroidei: Clariidae): The adductor mandibulae complex

The adductor mandibulae complex has been a subject of discussion and uncertainties due to a wide range of differentiations that have occurred in teleosts during evolution. In Siluroidei a specific modification of a part of the muscle complex has resulted in the formation of a retractor muscle of the maxillary barbel. The main part of the muscle complex, responsible for the closure of the mouth, has undergone some changes as well, which are at the base of the homology problems encountered by different authors. In this paper the muscles have been studied in three ontogenetic stages of the siluroid Clarias gariepinus (Clariidae); two of them have been described. Based on the ontogenetic evidence and the literature, the following muscles are recognized: 1) the very weakly differentiated adductor mandibulae A₂A'₃, where only little distinction can be made between the A₂ and the A'₃ muscle parts, and 2) the adductor mandibulae A“₃. Caudally, both muscles are separated from each other by the levator arcus palatini, but are fused together anteriorly, inserting onto the lower jaw. In juvenile C. gariepinus, a differentiation has occurred in the A”₃ muscle, thereby forming a distinct pars superficialis and a pars profunda. No A₁ nor an A_ω muscle is present. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Anatomy of the feeding apparatus of the lemon shark,Negaprion brevirostris

The anatomy of the feeding apparatus of the lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris, is investigated by gross dissection, computer axial tomography, and histological staining. The muscles and ligaments of the head associated with feeding are described. The upper and lower jaws are suspended by the hyoid arch, which in turn is braced against the chondrocranium by a complex series of ligaments. In addition, various muscles and the integument contribute to the suspension and stability of the jaws. The dual jaw joint is comprised of lateral and medial quadratomandibular joints that resist lateral movement of the upper and lower jaws on one another. This is important during feeding involving vigorous head shaking. An elastic ethmoplatine ligament that unites the anterior portion of the upper jaw to the neurocranium is involved with upper jaw retraction. The quadratomandibularis muscle is divided into four divisions with a bipinnate fiber arrangement of the two large superficial divisions. This arrangement would permit a relatively greater force per unit volume and reduce muscle bulging of the jaw adductor muscle in the spatially confined cheek region. Regions of relatively diffuse integumental ligaments overlying the adductor mandibulae complex and the levator palatoquadrati muscle, interspersed with localized regions of longer tendonlike attachments between the skin and the underlying muscle, permit greater musculoskeletal movement relative to the skin. The nomenclature of the hypobranchial muscles is discussed. In this shark they are comprised of the unsegmented coracomandibularis and coracohyoideus, and the segmented coracoarcualis. © 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Morphological analysis of tendinous structure in the American alligator jaw muscles

In the American alligator, the jaw muscles show seven bundles of tendinous structure: cranial adductor tendon, mandibular adductor tendon, lamina anterior inferior, trap-shaped lamina lateralis, lamina intramandibularis, lamina posterior, and depressor mandibular tendon (originating from the musculus depressor mandibulae, m. pseudotemporalis, m. adductor mandibulae posterior, m. adductor mandibulae externus, m. intramandibularis, m. pterygoideus anterior, and m. pterygoideus posterior). These tendinous structures are composed of many collagen fibrils and elastic fibers; however, the distributions and sizes of the fibers in these tendinous components differ in comparison with those of other masticatory muscles. The differences of these properties reflect the kinetic forces or the stretch applied to each tendon by the muscle during jaw movements in spite of the simple tendon-muscle junctions. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Comparative myology of the mandibular and hyoid arches of sharks of the order hexanchiformes and their bearing on its monophyly and phylogenetic relationships (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii)

The order Hexanchiformes currently comprises two families, Chlamydoselachidae (frilled sharks) and Hexanchidae (six‐ and seven‐gill sharks), but its monophyly and relationships with other elasmobranchs are still discussed. Previous studies of hexanchiforms addressing these issues were based mainly on external morphology, teeth, skeletal features, and molecular data, whereas the employment of characters derived from variations in muscles has not been significantly explored. Dissections of four species of Hexanchiformes (including Chlamydoselachus anguineus) are reported here describing the mandibular (musculus adductor mandibulae dorsalis, m. adductor mandibulae ventralis, m. levator labii superioris, m. intermandibularis, and m. constrictor dorsalis) and hyoidean (m. constrictor hyoideus dorsalis and ventralis) arch muscles. Our results provide new data concerning the relationships of hexanchiforms to other elasmobranchs. The m. adductor mandibulae superficialis is described and illustrated in C. anguineus, contradicting previous accounts in which is was considered absent. The anteroposterior orientation of the m. adductor mandibulae superficialis in Chlamydoselachus is similar to the pattern found in hexanchids, squaloids, and hypnosqualeans (including batoids), suggesting it was secondarily lost in Echinorhinus. This muscle therefore provides further support for the inclusion of the Chlamydoselachidae and Hexanchidae in the Squalomorphi, and not basal to all other elasmobranchs or nested within an all‐shark collective, as has been previously proposed. However, the m. adductor mandibulae superficialis originating at the jaw joint and with an aponeurotic insertion in hexanchids, squaliforms, and hypnosqualeans, may be a separate derived feature uniting these taxa. The insertion of the m. constrictor dorsalis is restricted to the postorbital articulation in hexanchids, whereas it extends farther anteriorly in C. anguineus. The insertion of the m. constrictor hyoideus dorsalis solely on the palatoquadrate is found exclusively in the Hexanchidae. We conclude that no specific pattern of mandibular or hyoid arch muscles support the monophyly of hexanchiforms (i.e., including Chlamydoselachus). J. Morphol., 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Phylogenetic relationships of the tilefish family Branchiostegidae (Pereiformes) based on comparative myology

The adductor mandibulae complex of the tilefish family Branchiostegidae contains five major subdivisions (A1α, A1β, A2, A3α and A3β). No other group of fishes among those examined exhibited the degree of complexity found among the branchiostegids. The closely related sand tilefishes (Malacanthidae) have a less complex adductor mandibulae musculature, lacking an A3β muscle. The proposed phylogeny of the branchiostegids is based upon: (1) the A3β', A3β" and A1β subdivisions, (2) overall degree of development of the adductor mandibulae (distinctness, origins, insertions, and degree of aponeurotic development). The phylogenetic implications of the adductor mandibulae complex are discussed.     

Do constructional constraints influence cyprinid (Cyprinidae: Leuciscinae) craniofacial coevolution?

Constraints on form may determine how organisms diversify. As a result of competition for the limited space within the body, investment in adjacent structures could represent an evolutionary compromise. For example, evolutionary trade‐offs resulting from limited space in the head could have influenced how the sizes of the jaw muscle, as well as the eyes, evolved in North American cyprinid fishes. To test the evolutionary independence of the size of these structures, we measured the mass of the three major adductor mandibulae muscles and determined the eye volume in 36 cyprinid species. Using a novel phylogeny, we tested the hypotheses that the sizes of these four structures were negatively correlated with each other during cyprinid evolution. We found that evolutionary change in the adductor mandibulae muscles was generally positively and/or not correlated, suggesting that competition for space among cyprinid jaw muscles has not influenced their evolution. However, there was a negative relationship between mass of adductor mandibulae 1 and eye volume, indicating that change in these physically adjacent structures is consistent with an evolutionary constructional constraint. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 103 , 136–146.