MICROSAURS AND THE ORIGIN OF CAPTORHINOMORPH REPTILES

Microsaurs are Paleozoic lepospondylous Amphibia with slenderbodies and weak limbs. Their solidly roofed skulls lack oticnotches, have large supratemporals widely separating the squamosalfrom parietal, and double occipital condyles. The stapes consistsof a large footplate and extremely short columella. Vertebraelack intercentra. Originally based on a reptile, Hylonomus lyelli,by Dawson in 1863, the Order Microsauria has long been restrictedto these small amphibians (Romer, 1950). Repeated confusionbetween primitive captorhinomorph reptiles and microsaurs steinsfrom superficial similarities between both skulls and vertebrae.This confusion and occasional microsaur-like vertebrae in earlyCarboniferous deposits have led to suggestions that microsaursare reptilian ancestors (cf. Vaughn, 1962). Captorhinomorphs differ from microsaurs in their small supratemporalbone, single occipital condyle, stapes with long columella reachinga pit in the quadrate and bearing a dorsal process, and dorsalintercentra. Captorhinomorph ancestors were probably not labyrinthodonts,as Vaughn (1960) has pointed out, but they could not have hadthe characteristic specializations of microsaurs. Their sourcemust be sought in forms much closer to crossopterygian fish. Microsaurs resemble both urodeles and gymnophionans in theirdouble occipital joint and otic region. They differ from Lissamphibiain the absence of a non-calcified zone in the teeth. At present,no criteria indicate decisively which structures developed convergently.Microsaurs are possibly but not demonstrably related to theancestry of modern salamanders and caecilians.     

Microsaurs as possible apodan ancestors

The specific ancestry and nature of the relationships of modern amphibians have not yet been established. Detailed comparisons of the anatomy of the skull roof, palate and braincase of living apodans and the Paleozoic microsaur Goniorhynchus demonstrate greater similarities than between apodans and any other group of amphibians, fossil or recent. Unlike any other amphibians, extensive pleurosphenoid ossifications are developed in the area of the Vth nerve, uniting the otic capsule with the sphenethmoid. Other important features that they share (although not uniquely) include the presence of all the primitive dermal elements of the palate, a solidly roofed temporal region, a row of palatal teeth parallel to the marginal dentition and a row of teeth on the medial surface of the lower jaw. The stapes has a similar configuration and position, totally different from that of frogs and salamanders. Such similarities do not necessarily prove close relationship, but indicate the necessity for considering that apodans may have an ancestry distinct from that of frogs and salamanders.     

Ontogenetic evidence for the Paleozoic ancestry of salamanders

The phylogenetic positions of frogs, salamanders, and caecilians have been difficult to establish. Data matrices based primarily on Paleozoic taxa support a monophyletic origin of all Lissamphibia but have resulted in widely divergent hypotheses of the nature of their common ancestor. Analysis that concentrates on the character states of the stem taxa of the extant orders, in contrast, suggests a polyphyletic origin from divergent Paleozoic clades. Comparison of patterns of larval development in Paleozoic and modern amphibians provides a means to test previous phylogenies based primarily on adult characteristics. This proves to be highly informative in the case of the origin of salamanders. Putative ancestors of salamanders are recognized from the Permo-Carboniferous boundary of Germany on the basis of ontogenetic changes observed in fossil remains of larval growth series. The entire developmental sequence from hatching to metamorphosis is revealed in an assemblage of over 600 specimens from a single locality, all belonging to the genus Apateon. Apateon forms the most speciose genus of the neotenic temnospondyl family Branchiosauridae. The sequence of ossification of individual bones and the changing configuration of the skull closely parallel those observed in the development of primitive living salamanders. These fossils provide a model of how derived features of the salamander skull may have evolved in the context of feeding specializations that appeared in early larval stages of members of the Branchiosauridae. Larvae of Apateon share many unique derived characters with salamanders of the families Hynobiidae, Salamandridae, and Ambystomatidae, which have not been recognized in any other group of Paleozoic amphibians.     

Vertebral development and amphibian evolution

Amphibians provide an unparalleled opportunity to integrate studies of development and evolution through the investigation of the fossil record of larval stages. The pattern of vertebral development in modern frogs strongly resembles that of Paleozoic labyrinthodonts in the great delay in the ossification of the vertebrae, with the centra forming much later than the neural arches. Slow ossification of the trunk vertebrae in frogs and the absence of ossification in the tail facilitate the rapid loss of the tail during metamorphosis, and may reflect retention of the pattern in their specific Paleozoic ancestors. Salamanders and caecilians ossify their centra at a much earlier stage than frogs, which resembles the condition in Paleozoic lepospondyls. The clearly distinct patterns and rates of vertebral development may indicate phylogenetic separation between the ultimate ancestors of frogs and those of salamanders and caecilians within the early radiation of ancestral tetrapods. This divergence may date from the Lower Carboniferous. Comparison with the molecular regulation of vertebral development described in modern mammals and birds suggests that the rapid chondrification of the centra in salamanders relative to that of frogs may result from the earlier migration of sclerotomal cells expressing Pax1 to the area surrounding the notochord.     

Evolution of the tetrapod ear: an analysis and reinterpretation

The dominant view of tetrapod otic evolution–the “standard view”–holds that the tympanum developed very early in tetrapod history and is homologous in all tetrapods and that the opercular process of the rhipidistian hyomandibula is homologous to the tympanic process of the stapes in lower tetrapods. Under that view, the labyrinthodont amphibians of the Paleozoic are usually considered ancestral to reptiles, and thus the “otic notch” of labyrinthodonts and the tympanum it presumably contained form the starting-point for middle ear evolution in reptiles. Four problems have classically been identified with the standard view: the differing relationships of the internal mandibular branch of N. VII (chorda tympani) to the processes of the stapes in amniotes and anurans; the differing orientations of the stapes in key fossil and living groups; the location of the tympanum in early fossil reptiles; and the transferral of the tympanum, during the origin of mammals, from the stapes to the articular bone of the lower jaw. An examination of these problems and of the solutions proposed under the standard view reveals the ad hoc, and therefore unsatisfactory, nature of the proposed solutions. To organize and review alternative hypotheses of otic evolution an analytical table is constructed, using three characters (tympanic process, Nerve VII, tympanum), each with two possible states. A total of eight hypotheses about middle ear evolution are possible under this system, one of which is the standard view. The seven “non-standard” hypotheses, only five of which have been argued in the literature, are briefly examined. Six of the “non-standard” hypotheses appear unattractive for various reasons, including reliance on ad hoc arguments. The seventh was first proposed by Gaupp in 1898. It is today almost universally ignored but apparently largely for historical rather than scientific reasons. This hypothesis, her called the “alternative view”, appears to rest on assumptions equally as plausible as those of the standard view. Moreover, it offers a solution of the problems associated with the standard view without, apparently, raising any similarly serious problems. This paper compares the standard and alternative views of middle ear evolution in detail. Comparison proceeds on two levels. On one level, they are compared in terms of the hypotheses of phyletic tetrapod relationships each promotes and how strongly each supports its hypothesis. Both views promote the same hypothesis of tetrapod relationships. The alternative view is the more parsimonious, but the difference is not considered sufficient to provide a choice. On another level, the two views are compared in terms of their implications for: (1) the evolution of relative and absolute auditory perceptive ability; (2) the origin of reptiles; (3) the evolution of the suspensorium and cranial kinesis; and (4) the origin and evolution of recent amphibians. The nature of the data required for a test of the implications of the two views is specified in each case. Where data are available. the alternative view is consistent and the standard view is inconsistent with these data. We conclude that the alternative view is the preferable hypothesis of middle-ear evolution. This conclusion implies the following: the tympanic membranes and the tympanic processes of the stapes in recent mammals, reptiles + birds. and frogs. are not homologous; the evolution of “special periotic systems” in the ancestors of amphibians and amniotes were independent events and preceded the evolution of tympanic membranes; the amphibian tympanic membrane. probably including that of labyrinthodonts. is not ancestral to that of amniotes. and that labyiinthodonts with an otic notch are not suitable as amniote ancestors; the stapes of early reptiles functioned primarily as part of the jaw suspension rather than in hearing; the mechanisms and abilities of sound perception in recent tetrapods are likely to be diverse rather than forming parts of a cline; and the lack of a tympanum in Gymnophiona and Caudata may be a retention of a primitive condition.     

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.     

The hyal and ventral branchial muscles in caecilian and salamander larvae: Homologies and evolution

Amphibians (Lissamphibia) are characterized by a bi‐phasic life‐cycle that comprises an aquatic larval stage and metamorphosis to the adult. The ancestral aquatic feeding behavior of amphibian larvae is suction feeding. The negative pressure that is needed for ingestion of prey is created by depression of the hyobranchial apparatus as a result of hyobranchial muscle action. Understanding the homologies of hyobranchial muscles in amphibian larvae is a crucial step in understanding the evolution of this important character complex. However, the literature mostly focuses on the adult musculature and terms used for hyal and ventral branchial muscles in different amphibians often do not reflect homologies across lissamphibian orders. Here we describe the hyal and ventral branchial musculature in larvae of caecilians (Gymnophiona) and salamanders (Caudata), including juveniles of two permanently aquatic salamander species. Based on previous alternative terminology schemes, we propose a terminology for the hyal and ventral branchial muscles that reflects the homologies of muscles and that is suited for studies on hyobranchial muscle evolution in amphibians. We present a discussion of the hyal and ventral branchial muscles in larvae of the most recent common ancestor of amphibians (i.e. the ground plan of Lissamphibia). Based on our terminology, the hyal and ventral branchial musculature of caecilians and salamanders comprises the following muscles: m. depressor mandibulae, m. depressor mandibulae posterior, m. hyomandibularis, m. branchiohyoideus externus, m. interhyoideus, m. interhyoideus posterior, m. subarcualis rectus I, m. subarcualis obliquus II, m. subarcualis obliquus III, m. subarcualis rectus II‐IV, and m. transversus ventralis IV. Except for the m. branchiohyoideus externus, all muscles considered herein can be assigned to the ground plan of the Lissamphibia with certainty. The m. branchiohyoideus externus is either apomorphic for the Batrachia (frogs + salamanders) or salamander larvae depending on whether or not a homologous muscle is present in frog tadpoles. J. Morphol., 2011. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

The trigeminal jaw adductors of primitive snakes and their homologies with the lacertilian jaw adductors

The trigeminal jaw adductor musculature of anilioid snakes is analysed. The group is characterised by primitive characters, viz. the presence of an extensive bodenaponeurosis and of a quadrate aponeurosis. A temporal tendon gives rise to superficial (lb) fibres which are not observed in other snakes: this may be a primitive or a derived feature.
Jaw adductor muscles in snakes are usually subdivided following their relative position in an antero–posterior direction. Lacertilian jaw adductors are subdivided in a transverse plane. A detailed comparison of the anilioid and primitive lacertilian jaw adductors establishes correspondences (homologies) of parts in the transverse plane in both groups. These homologies are corroborated by innervational patterns.
Platynotan lizards are widely accepted as potential snake ancestors. A comparison of homologue jaw adductors shows different evolutionary trends to characterise platynotan lizards and snakes. Theoretically, these findings do not rule out primitive platynotan lizards as snake ancestors. On the basis of the structure of jaw adductors, snakes are to be derived from a primitive lacertilian pattern, be it platynotan or not.     

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.     

Fetal adaptations for viviparity in amphibians

Live‐bearing has evolved in all three orders of amphibians—frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. Developing young may be either yolk dependent, or maternal nutrients may be supplied after yolk is resorbed, depending on the species. Among frogs, embryos in two distantly related lineages develop in the skin of the maternal parents' backs; they are born either as advanced larvae or fully metamorphosed froglets, depending on the species. In other frogs, and in salamanders and caecilians, viviparity is intraoviductal; one lineage of salamanders includes species that are yolk dependent and born either as larvae or metamorphs, or that practice cannibalism and are born as metamorphs. Live‐bearing caecilians all, so far as is known, exhaust yolk before hatching and mothers provide nutrients during the rest of the relatively long gestation period. The developing young that have maternal nutrition have a number of heterochronic changes, such as precocious development of the feeding apparatus and the gut. Furthermore, several of the fetal adaptations, such as a specialized dentition and a prolonged metamorphosis, are homoplasious and present in members of two or all three of the amphibian orders. At the same time, we know little about the developmental and functional bases for fetal adaptations, and less about the factors that drive their evolution and facilitate their maintenance. J. Morphol. 276:941–960, 2015. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Functional morphology of the feeding mechanism in aquatic ambystomatid salamanders

This study addresses four questions in vertebrate functional morphology through a study of aquatic prey capture in ambystomatid salamanders: (1) How does the feeding mechanism of aquatic salamanders function as a biomechanical system? (2) How similar are the biomechanics of suction feeding in aquatic salamanders and ray-finned fishes? (3) What quantitative relationship does information extracted from electromyograms of striated muscles bear to kinematic patterns and animal performance? and (4) What are the major structural and functional patterns in the evolution of the lower vertebrate skull? During prey capture, larval ambystomatid salamanders display a kinematic pattern similar to that of other lower vertebrates, with peak gape occurring prior to both peak hyoid depression and peak cranial elevation. The depressor mandibulae, rectus cervicis, epaxialis, hypaxialis, and branchiohyoideus muscles are all active for 40–60 msec during the strike and overlap considerably in activity. The two divisions of the adductor mandibulae are active in a continuous burst for 110–130 msec, and the intermandibularis posterior and coracomandibularis are active in a double burst pattern. The antagonistic depressor mandibulae and adductor mandibulae internus become active within 0.2 msec of each other, but the two muscles show very different spike and amplitude patterns during their respective activity periods. Coefficients of variation for kinematic and most electromyographic recordings reach a minimum within a 10 msec time period, just after the mouth starts to open. Pressure within the buccal cavity during the strike reaches a minimum of ?25 mmHg, and minimum pressure occurs synchronously with maximum gill bar adduction. The gill bars (bearing gill rakers that interlock with rakers of adjacent arches) clearly function as a resistance within the oral cavity and restrict posterior water influx during mouth opening, creating a unidirectional flow during feeding. Durations of electromyographic activity alone are poor predictors of kinematic patterns. Analyses of spike amplitude explain an additional fraction of the variance in jaw kinematics, whereas the product of spike number and amplitude is the best statistical predictor of kinematic response variables. Larval ambystomatid salamanders retain the two primitive biomechanical systems for opening and closing the mouth present in nontetrapod vertebrates: elevation of the head by the epaxialis and depression of the mandible by the hyoid apparatus.     

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.     

Comparison of Two Techniques for Surveying Headwater Stream Amphibians

Abstract: We compared rubble-rousing versus light-touch stream amphibian survey techniques in multiple 1-m plots across 10 streams in southwest Washington, USA. Specifically, we wanted to determine if light-touch surveys provide unbiased estimates of abundance (i.e., provide counts correlated with rubble-rousing counts) and which method would provide more cost-effective presence or absence information. Rubble-rousing, a common technique for surveying stream-associated amphibians in the Pacific Northwest, took 12 times as long as light-touch to apply. Abundance estimates and standard errors for rubble-rousing were consistently higher than those for light-touch for all life stages for the coastal tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) and Columbia torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton kezeri). Except for eggs, light-touch detected all life stages found during rubble-rousing. For frogs, only some rubble-rousing abundance estimates, mostly involving second-year larvae, were highly correlated with their light-touch counterparts, whereas for salamanders, similar comparisons generated high correlations across most life stages. Correlations between methods were consistently greater for salamanders than for frogs. However the smaller tailed frog sample sizes and the cryptozoic nature of some life stages may have contributed to this pattern. Depending on the degree to which researchers can tolerate false-negative error rates, light-touch may prove less costly than rubble-rousing for detecting species presence. For the cost of obtaining one rubble-rousing sample, many light-touch samples can be used across a range of habitats for detecting species patchily distributed.     

The Evolution of the Motor Control of Feeding in Amphibians

Based on studies of a few model taxa, amphibians have been consideredstereotyped in their feeding movements relative to other vertebrates.However, recent studies on a wide variety of amphibian specieshave revealed great diversity in feeding mechanics and kinematics,and illustrate that stereotypy is the exception rather thanthe rule in amphibian feeding. Apparent stereotypy in some taxamay be an artifact of unnatural laboratory conditions. The commonancestor of lissamphibians was probably capable of some modulationof feeding movements, and descendants have evolved along twotrajectories with regard to motor control: (1) an increase inmodulation via feedback or feed-forward mechanisms, as exemplifiedby ballistic-tongued plethodontid salamanders and hydrostatic-tonguedfrogs, and (2) a decrease in variation dictated by biomechanicsthat require tight coordination between different body parts,such as the tongue and jaws in toads and other frogs with ballistictongue projection. Multi-joint coordination of rapid movementsmay hamper accurate tongue placement in ballistic-tongued frogsas compared to both short-tongued frogs and ballistic tongued-salamandersthat face simpler motor control tasks. Decoupling of tongueand jaw movements is associated with increased accuracy in bothhydrostatic-tongued frogs and ballistic-tongued salamanders.     

Global patterns of diversification and species richness in amphibians

Geographic patterns of species richness ultimately arise through the processes of speciation, extinction, and dispersal, but relatively few studies consider evolutionary and biogeographic processes in explaining these diversity patterns. One explanation for high tropical species richness is that many species-rich clades originated in tropical regions and spread to temperate regions infrequently and more recently, leaving little time for species richness to accumulate there (assuming similar rates of diversification in temperate and tropical regions). However, the major clades of anurans (frogs) and salamanders may offer a compelling counterexample. Most salamander families are predominately temperate in distribution, but the one primarily tropical clade (Bolitoglossinae) contains nearly half of all salamander species. Similarly, most basal clades of anurans are predominately temperate, but one largely tropical clade (Neobatrachia) contains approximately 96% of anurans. In this article, I examine patterns of diversification in frogs and salamanders and their relationship to large-scale patterns of species richness in amphibians. I find that diversification rates in both frogs and salamanders increase significantly with decreasing latitude. These results may shed light on both the evolutionary causes of the latitudinal diversity gradient and the dramatic but poorly explained disparities in the diversity of living amphibian clades.     

A Comparative Perspective on Brain Regeneration in Amphibians and Teleost Fish

Regeneration of lost cells in the central nervous system, especially the brain, is present to varying degrees in different species. In mammals, neuronal cell death often leads to glial cell hypertrophy, restricted proliferation, and formation of a gliotic scar, which prevents neuronal regeneration. Conversely, amphibians such as frogs and salamanders and teleost fish possess the astonishing capacity to regenerate lost cells in several regions of their brains. While frogs lose their regenerative abilities after metamorphosis, teleost fish and salamanders are known to possess regenerative competence even throughout adulthood. In the last decades, substantial progress has been made in our understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanisms of brain regeneration in amphibians and fish. But how similar are the means of brain regeneration in these different species? In this review, we provide an overview of common and distinct aspects of brain regeneration in frog, salamander, and teleost fish species: from the origin of regenerated cells to the functional recovery of behaviors.     

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.     

Homologies among different adductor mandibulae sections of teleostean fishes, with special regard to catfishes (Teleostei: siluriformes)

The adductor mandibulae complex has been a subject of discussion and uncertainties due to a wide range of differentiations and fusions that have occurred during teleost evolution. The adductor mandibulae of numerous catfishes was studied in detail and compared with that of several other teleosts described in the literature. Our observations and comparisons demonstrate that: 1) the adductors mandibulae Aomega, A2, and A3 of acanthopterygians correspond, respectively, to the Aomega, A2, and A3 of ostariophysines; 2) the antero-dorso-lateral (A1) and the antero-ventro-lateral (A1-OST) sections of the adductor mandibulae present, respectively, in acanthopterygians and in basal ostariophysines are the result of two different patterns of differentiation of this muscle; 3) some derived ostariophysines present a lateral section of the adductor mandibulae attached to the upper jaw (A0) that is not homologous with any other section of this muscle present in any other ostariophysine or acanthopterygian fish; 4) the configuration of the adductor mandibulae present in Diplomystes seems to be the plesiomorphic condition for catfishes; and 5) the muscle retractor tentaculi, present in a large number of catfishes, is derived from the inner section of the adductor mandibulae (A3) and, thus, is not homologous with the lateral bundle of this muscle (A0) that inserts on the upper jaw in some derived ostariophysine fishes.