Ossification patterns in the tetrapod limb – conservation and divergence from morphogenetic events

Two different patterns of the condensation and chondrification of the limbs of tetrapods are known from extensive studies on their early skeletal development. These are on the one hand postaxial dominance in the sequential formation of skeletal elements in amniotes and anurans, and on the other, preaxial dominance in urodeles. The present study investigates the relative sequence of ossification in the fore‐ and hindlimbs of selected tetrapod taxa based on a literature survey in comparison to the patterns of early skeletal development, i.e. mesenchymal condensation and chondrification, representing essential steps in the late stages of tetrapod limb development. This reveals the degree of conservation and divergence of the ossification sequence from early morphogenetic events in the tetrapod limb skeleton. A step‐by‐step recapitulation of condensation and chondrification during the ossification of limbs can clearly be refuted. However, some of the deeper aspects of early skeletal patterning in the limbs, i.e. the general direction of development and sequence of digit formation are conserved, particularly in anamniotes. Amniotes show a weaker coupling of the ossification sequence in the limb skeleton with earlier condensation and chondrification events. The stronger correlation between the sequence of condensation/chondrification and ossification in the limbs of anamniotes may represent a plesiomorphic trait of tetrapods. The pattern of limb ossification across tetrapods also shows that some trends in the sequence of ossification of their limb skeleton are shared by major clades possibly representing phylogenetic signals. This review furthermore concerns the ossification sequence of the limbs of the Palaeozoic temnospondyl amphibian Apateon sp. For the first time this is described in detail and its patterns are compared with those observed in extant taxa. Apateon sp. shares preaxial dominance in limb development with extant salamanders and the specific order of ossification events in the fore‐ and hindlimb of this fossil dissorophoid is almost identical to that of some modern urodeles.     

Reconstructing pectoral appendicular muscle anatomy in fossil fish and tetrapods over the fins‐to‐limbs transition

The question of how tetrapod limbs evolved from fins is one of the great puzzles of evolutionary biology. While palaeontologists, developmental biologists, and geneticists have made great strides in explaining the origin and early evolution of limb skeletal structures, that of the muscles remains largely unknown. The main reason is the lack of consensus about appendicular muscle homology between the closest living relatives of early tetrapods: lobe‐finned fish and crown tetrapods. In the light of a recent study of these homologies, we re‐examined osteological correlates of muscle attachment in the pectoral girdle, humerus, radius, and ulna of early tetrapods and their close relatives. Twenty‐nine extinct and six extant sarcopterygians were included in a meta‐analysis using information from the literature and from original specimens, when possible. We analysed these osteological correlates using parsimony‐based character optimization in order to reconstruct muscle anatomy in ancestral lobe‐finned fish, tetrapodomorph fish, stem tetrapods, and crown tetrapods. Our synthesis revealed that many tetrapod shoulder muscles probably were already present in tetrapodomorph fish, while most of the more‐distal appendicular muscles either arose later from largely undifferentiated dorsal and ventral muscle masses or did not leave clear correlates of attachment in these taxa. Based on this review and meta‐analysis, we postulate a stepwise sequence of specific appendicular muscle acquisitions, splits, and fusions that led from the ancestral sarcopterygian pectoral fin to the ancestral tetrapod forelimb. This sequence largely agrees with previous hypotheses based on palaeontological and comparative work, but it is much more comprehensive in terms of both muscles and taxa. Combined with existing information about the skeletal system, our new synthesis helps to illuminate the genetic, developmental, morphological, functional, and ecological changes that were key components of the fins‐to‐limbs transition.     

Morphogenetic approach to the formation of paired limbs in the course of tetrapodization

Transition from sarcopterygians to tetrapods is analyzed based on new paleontological, ontogenetic, and molecular data. It is shown that transformation of skeletal fin elements into the tetrapod limb followed the patterns of divergent, parallel, and mosaic development. Morphogenetic plasticity and autonomy of these processes as well as the same developmental bauplan for the limbs of Urodela and Anura are proposed. Variations observed in these processes are regarded as a result of larval adaptations and heterochronies. The latter excludes recapitulation of successive archetypical states (transformation-development of the fish fin into tetrapod limb). The idea that the digits are a novelty relative to the distal radials of the fin is supported.     

Developmental pathways,homology and homonomy in metameric animals

Following Wagner's (1989) distinction between historical and biological concepts of homology, we analyze homology problems of metameric animals in the light of a biological concept. In identifying homology, we refer to the common informational background which two structures share. Therefore, homology relationships are matters of degree; they are ‘perfect’ only when there is full identity of informational background between the structures under comparison. Homonomy (serial homology) is not fundamentally different from other kinds of homology. We regard the differences between epimorphically and anamorphically developed segments as minor; therefore, the two kinds of segments are largely homologous. The morphogenetic processes giving rise to segmental structures are regarded as not necessarily hierarchical. We contrast the phylogenetic pattern of hierarchically nested homologies with a largely non-hierarchical pattern of homologous structures within the individual organism. This topological difference adds to heterochrony in generating the widespread mismatch of ontogeny and phylogeny.     

First discovery of a primitive coelacanth fin fills a major gap in the evolution of lobed fins and limbs

The fossil record provides unique clues about the primitive pattern of lobed fins, the precursors of digit-bearing limbs. Such information is vital for understanding the evolutionary transition from fish fins to tetrapod limbs, and it guides the choice of model systems for investigating the developmental changes underpinning this event. However, the evolutionary preconditions for tetrapod limbs remain unclear. This uncertainty arises from an outstanding gap in our knowledge of early lobed fins: there are no fossil data that record primitive pectoral fin conditions in coelacanths, one of the three major groups of sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fishes. A new fossil from the Middle-Late Devonian of Wyoming preserves the first and only example of a primitive coelacanth pectoral fin endoskeleton. The strongly asymmetrical skeleton of this fin corroborates the hypothesis that this is the primitive sarcopterygian pattern, and that this pattern persisted in the closest fish-like relatives of land vertebrates. The new material reveals the specializations of paired fins in the modern coelacanth, as well as in living lungfishes. Consequently, the context in which these might be used to investigate evolutionary and developmental relationships between vertebrate fins and limbs is changed. Our data suggest that primitive actinopterygians, rather than living sarcopterygian fishes and their derived appendages, are the most informative comparators for developmental studies seeking to understand the origin of tetrapod limbs.     

Consideration of the neural crest and its skeletal derivatives in the context of novelty/innovation

I examine the neural crest and skeletal tissues derived from neural crest cells in the context of novelty/innovation by asking whether the neural crest is a novel tissue and whether the evolutionary origin of the neural crest required innovative developmental processes. As a vertebrate autapomorphy, the neural crest is a novel structure. I equate novelty with innovation and take a hierarchical approach. Some other workers separate the two, using novelty for new structures not found in an ancestor and not homologous with a feature in an ancestor, and innovation for the new processes required to generate the novel structure. While development clearly evolves, I do not separate those processes that result in the production of novel features from those that lead to change in existing structures, whether that change is a transition or transformation from one homologous feature to another (fins-->tetrapod limbs or locomotory appendages-->crustacean maxilliped feeding appendages). The existence of novelties causes us to consider the concept of latent homology. Neural crest cells form cartilage, dentine and bone. Cartilage is found in invertebrates and so is not a vertebrate innovation. No invertebrate cartilage mineralizes in vivo, although some can be induced to mineralize in vitro. Mineralization of cartilage in vivo is a vertebrate innovation. Dentine is a novel tissue that only forms from neural crest cells. Bone is a vertebrate innovation but not one exclusive to the neural crest. The developmental processes responsible for the neural crest and for these skeletal tissues did not arise de novo with the vertebrates. Novelty/innovation results from tinkering with existing processes, from the flexibility that arises from modifications of existing gene networks, and from the selective advantage provided by gene duplications or modifications.     

Reconstructing serial homology with a special emphasis on the nature of limbs in vertebrates and with references to Cruveilhier,Wyman, Belogolowy,and Balinsky

This analysis was inspired by the recent paper by Siomava et al. (2020) who attempted to deconstruct the serial homology concept, but retain the special homology. The criticism against this attempt is presented based on reconsideration of the original Owen's trinitarian concept of the general, serial, and special homology, and on a number of evidence on the vertebrate limbs serial homologies and on the vertebrate occiput special homologies which are currently missed by the morphologist community. The research of Belogolowy (1911) proved that the concept of special homology can be deconstructed with the same reasoning as suggested by Siomava et al. (2020) against the serial homology concept. It is argued that the deconstruction attempts come from wrong expectations in respect of homology. It is argued, that, due to developmental singularities, such as the zygote, or spore, or bud (in vegetative reproduction), the true homogeny is possible for genes only. The organs do not arise from organs, and therefore their genetic basis, and hence homology, can be changed in the developmental singularities. Thus, the morphological homology is not static. It can be acquired and it can evolve. Genetically, the evolution of morphological homologies can be thought of as a succession of co-options. The evidence for a succession of serial homologies in vertebrate limbs is suggested. It is argued that homology and analogy have a sense only in relation to each other. When two correspondences between two organs exist simultaneously, the older (deeper in time) is homology, and the newer (more superficial) is analogy. In this conceptual framework of evolvable homology, neither of the three Owen's types of homology can be abandoned. Three respective types of analogy should be added—the general analogy, the serial analogy, and the special analogy.     

Origin of evolutionary novelty: examples from limbs

Classic hypotheses of vertebrate morphology are being informed by new data and new methods. Long nascent issues, such as the origin of tetrapod limbs, are being explored by paleontologists, molecular biologists, and functional anatomists. Progress in this arena will ultimately come down to knowing how macroevolutionary differences between taxa emerge from the genetic and phenotypic variation that arises within populations. The assembly of limbs over developmental and evolutionary time offers examples of the major processes at work in the origin of novelties. Recent comparative developmental analyses demonstrate that many of the mechanisms used to pattern limbs are ancient. One of the major consequences of this phenomenon is parallelism in the evolution of anatomical structures. Studies of both the fossil record and intrapopulational variation of extant populations reveal regularities in the origin of variation. These examples reveal processes acting at the level of populations that directly affect the patterns of diversity observed at higher taxonomic levels.     

Cloning and embryonic expression of six wnt genes in the medaka (Oryzias latipes) with special reference to expression of wnt5a in the pectoral fin buds

WNTs are secreted signaling molecules which control cell differentiation and proliferation. They are known to play essential roles in various developmental processes. Wnt genes have been identified in a variety of animals, and it has been shown that their amino acid sequences are highly conserved throughout evolution. To investigate the role of wnt genes during fish development from the evolutionary viewpoint, six medaka wnt genes (wnt4, wnt5a, wnt6, wnt7b, wnt8b and wnt8-like) were isolated and their embryonic expression was examined. These wnt genes were expressed in various tissues during embryonic development, and most of their expression patterns were conserved or comparable to those of other vertebrates. Thus, these wnt genes may be useful as molecular markers to investigate development and organogenesis using the medaka. Focus was on wnt5a, which was expressed in the pectoral fin buds, because its expression pattern was particularly comparable to that in tetrapod limbs. Its detailed expression pattern was further examined during pectoral fin bud development. The conservation and diversification of Wnt5a expression through the evolutionary transition from fish fins to tetrapod limbs is discussed.     

Homology,limbs, and genitalia

SUMMARY Similarities in genetic control between the main body axis and its appendages have been generally explained in terms of genetic co-option. In particular, arthropod and vertebrate appendages have been explained to invoke a common ancestor already provided with patterned body outgrowths or independent recruitment in limb patterning of genes or genetic cassettes originally used for purposes other than axis patterning. An alternative explanation is that body appendages, including genitalia, are evolutionarily divergent duplicates (paramorphs) of the main body axis. However, are all metazoan limbs and genitalia homologous? The concept of body appendages as paramorphs of the main body axis eliminates the requirement for the last common ancestor of limb-bearing animals to have been provided with limbs. Moreover, the possibility for an animal to express complex organs ectopically demonstrates that positional and special homology may be ontogenetically and evolutionarily uncoupled. To assess the homology of animal genitalia, we need to take into account three different sets of mechanisms, all contributing to their positional and/or special homology and respectively involved (1) in the patterning of the main body axis, (2) in axis duplication, followed by limb patterning mechanisms diverging away from those still patterning the main body axis (axis paramorphism), and (3) in controlling the specification of sexual/genital features, which often, but not necessarily, come into play by modifying already developed and patterned body appendages. This analysis demonstrates that a combinatorial approach to homology helps disentangling phylogenetic and ontogenetic layers of homology.     

Levels of biological organization and the origin of novelty

The concept of novelty in evolutionary biology pertains to multiple tiers of biological organization from behavioral and morphological changes to changes at the molecular level. Identifying novel features requires assessments of similarity (homology and homoplasy) of relationships (phylogenetic history) and of shared developmental and genetic pathways or networks. After a brief discussion of how novelty is used in recent literature, we discuss whether the evolutionary approach to homology and homoplasy initially formulated by Lankester in the 19th century informs our understanding of novelty today. We then discuss six examples of morphological features described in the recent literature as novelties, and assess the basis upon which they are regarded as novel. The six are: origin of the turtle shell, transition from fish fins to tetrapod limbs, origination of the neural crest and neural crest cells, cement glands in frogs and casquettes in fish, whale bone-eating tubeworms, and the digestion of plant proteins by nematodes. The article concludes with a discussion of means of acquiring novel genetic information that can account for novelty recognized at higher levels. These are co-options of existing genetic circuitry, gene duplication followed by neofunctionalization, gene rearrangements through mobile genetic elements, and lateral gene transfer. We conclude that on the molecular level only the latter category provides novel genetic information, in that there is no homologous precursor. However, novel phenotypes can be generated through both neofunctionalization and gene rearrangements. Therefore, assigning phenotypic or genotypic "novelty" is contingent on the level of biological organization addressed.     

Ancestors and homology

Current issues concerning the nature of ancestry and homology are discussed with reference to the evolutionary origin of the tetrapod limb. Homologies are argued to be complex conjectural inferences dependant upon a pre-existing phylogenetic analysisand a theoretical model of the evolutionary development of ontogenetic information. Ancestral conditions are inferred primarily from character (synapomorphy/homology) distributions within phylogeny, because of the deficiencies of palaeontological data. Recent analyses of tetrapod limb ontogeny, and the diverse, earliest morphologies known from the fossil record, are inconsistent with typological concepts such as fixed ancestral patterns or bauplans, emphasising the incompatibility of these with evolutionary continuity. The evolutionary origin of the tetrapod limb is also examined in the light of its recent discussion in developmental genetics. While this field promises to reveal more of the fundamental ontogenetic content of homology (identity), at present it is concerned mostly with the abstraction of a new set of types, rather than investigating diversity and change.     

Contemporary concepts of homology in biology (a theoretical review)

A brief review of the contemporary theoretical concepts of homology being developed basically in systematics and phylogenetics as well as in developmental biology is presented. Ontologically, both homology and analogy represent a kind of correspondence considered from the standpoint of nominalism, realism, and conceptualism. According to their nominalistic treatment, both are described by a set-theory approximation which makes them classes (in the logical sense). The realistic treatment provides their holistic view according to which a homologue is an anatomical or evolutionary singular while analogue remains a class. The conceptualistic treatment means that there are real (objective) correspondences existing among real (objective) entities while fixation of any of them is based on certain theoretical presumptions adopted by a researcher; homology as a natural kind (including homeostatic property cluster) seems to be most consistent with such a treatment. Realistic view of homology makes it "absolute", while two others make discrimination of homology and analogy strictly relative. Two basic general homology concepts have been developed in recent literature--taxic and transformational ones; the first considers respective correspondences as structure relations, the second as process relations. The taxic homology is nearly the same as classical typological one (Owen), while transformational homology unites all its phylogenetic, ontogenetic (developmental) and transformation-typological definitions. Process-structuralistic approach seems to unite both taxic and transformational ones. The latter makes it possible to apply general homology concept not only to structures but to processes as well. It is stressed that homology is not identical to the similarity, the latter being just the means for revealing the former. Some closer consideration is given to phylogenetic, ontogenetic and genetic treatments of homology; significant uncertainty is shown to exist between them which causes the "homology problem". Epistemologically, any homology statement has a status of hypothesis which makes such a statement theory-dependent according to the hypothetic-deductive argumentation scheme. This dependence allows to stress once more the relative nature of homology and analogy correspondences. Some questions concerning operational concepts and criteria of homology are considered. A hierarchical concept of homology seems to be the most promising prospect of future development of the "homology problem".     

Field homology: a meaningful definition

Field homology refers to populations of cells that derive from evolutionarily conserved regions of embryos but are distributed across sets of adult morphological structures that cannot be placed in one-to-one correspondance. The concept of field homology has proven especially attractive to comparative neurologists because it allows them to deal with the fact that sets of nuclei or nuclear subdivisions often cannot be compared on a one-to-one basis across phyletic groups. However, the concept of field homology has recently come under criticism. It has been argued that field homology is theoretically impossible because it requires sequences of developmental stages to be both evolutionarily conserved and evolutionarily modified. It has also been argued that field homology allows overly vague comparisons of adult morphological structures, fails to account for homologous structures that derive from non-homologous embryonic sources, and establishes overly rigid links between embryonic and adult morphology. All of these criticisms may be adequately addressed by explaining field homology in terms of differentiation. The present paper explains field homology in terms of differentiation using the amniote dorsal thalamus to illustrate major points. It is concluded that field homology is a meaningful concept when defined in terms of differentiation, applied to appropriate cases, and properly limited in its comparisons of adult structures.     

Developmental morphology of limb reduction in Hemiergis (Squamata: Scincidae): chondrogenesis,osteogenesis, and heterochrony

Digit loss is a common theme in tetrapod evolution that may involve changes in several developmental processes. The skink genus Hemiergis provides an ideal model to study these processes in closely related taxa: within three Western Australian Hemiergis species, digit quantity ranges between two and five. For three consecutive reproductive seasons, gravid females of Hemiergis were collected in the field and their embryos prepared for histological analysis of limb skeletal development (chondrogenesis and osteogenesis). Comparative studies of skeletal developmental morphology demonstrate that limbs with fewer than five digits do not result from a simple truncation of a putative ancestral (five-digit) developmental program. The developmental and adult morphologies in two-, three-, and four-digit Hemiergis are neither predicted nor explained by a simple model of heterochrony involving either chondrogenesis or osteogenesis. In postnatal Hemiergis, digit number and relative limb length do not correlate in a simple linear fashion. Instead, limb size and digit reduction may correlate with substrate conditions and burrowing behavior.     

Fins to limbs: what the fossils say

A broad phylogenetic review of fins, limbs, and girdles throughout the stem and base of the crown group is needed to get a comprehensive idea of transformations unique to the assembly of the tetrapod limb ground plan. In the lower part of the tetrapod stem, character state changes at the pectoral level dominate; comparable pelvic level data are limited. In more crownward taxa, pelvic level changes dominate and repeatedly precede similar changes at pectoral level. Concerted change at both levels appears to be the exception rather than the rule. These patterns of change are explored by using afternative treatments of data in phylogenetic analyses. Results highlight a large data gap in the stem group preceding the first appearance of limbs with digits. It is also noted that the record of morphological diversity among stem tetrapods is somewhat worse than that of basal crown group tetrapods. The pre-limbed evolution of stem tetrapod paired fins is marked by a gradual reduction in axial segment numbers (mesomeres); pectoral fins of the sister group to limbed tetrapods include only three. This reduction in segment number is accompanied by increased regional specialization, and these changes are discussed with reference to the phylogenetic distribution of characteristics of the stylopod, zeugopod, and autopod.     

Craniofacial development and the evolution of the vertebrates: the old problems on a new background

Based on recent advances in experimental embryology and molecular genetics, the morphogenetic program for the vertebrate cranium is summarized and several unanswered classical problems are reviewed. In particular, the presence of mesodermal segmentation in the head, the homology of the trabecular cartilage, and the origin of the dermal skull roof are discussed. The discovery of the neural-crest-derived ectomesenchyme and the roles of the homeobox genes have allowed the classical concept of head segmentation unchanged since Goethe to be re-interpreted in terms of developmental mechanisms at the molecular and cellular levels. In the context of evolutionary developmental biology, the importance of generative constraints is stressed as the developmental factor that generates the homologous morphological patterns apparent in various groups of vertebrates. Furthermore, a modern version of the germ-layer theory is defined in terms of the conserved differentiation of cell lineages, which is again questioned from the vantage of evolutionary developmental biology.     

The operational approach to the problem of tetrapodization

The problem of tetrapodization is considered as a part of the general problem of the formation of large higher taxa on the basis of morphophysiological and morphogenetic organization of ancestors. It is shown that the formation of tetrapod-like characters in Paleozoic crossopterygians followed the patterns of preadaptation, parallel and mosaic development. The main task of the operational approach to the problem is the reconstruction of the sequence and rates of the formation of tetrapod-like characters in crossopterygians, the loss of fish characters at the tetrapod level, and the mechanisms of these processes.