Homology and a generative theory of biological form

Homology continues to be a concept of central importance in the study of phylogenetic relations, but its relation to ontogenetic processes remains problematical. A definition of homology in terms of equivalent morphogenetic processes is defined and applied to the comparative study of tetrapod limbs. This allows for a consistent treatment of relations of similarity and difference of appendage structure in vertebrates, and the distinction between fishes fins and tetrapod limbs in terms of the concept of equivalence is described. The role of genes can also be clarified in this context, in particular the influence of the Hox 4 complex in determining digit character and the homeotic transformations that arise from changes in their expression patterns. It is argued that these observations are not compatible with the notion of homology between individual digits (I, II, III, etc.) across the tetrapods, and that homology cannot be consistently identified with gene action. The relations between homology and the properties of the morphogenetic limb field are discussed.     

Skeletal heterochrony is associated with the anatomical specializations of snakes among squamate reptiles

Snakes possess a derived anatomy, characterized by limb reduction and reorganization of the skull and internal organs. To understand the origin of snakes from an ontogenetic point of view, we conducted comprehensive investigations on the timing of skeletal elements, based on published and new data, and reconstructed the evolution of the ossification sequence among squamates. We included for the first time Varanus, a critical taxon in phylogenetic context. There is comprehensive delay in the onset of ossification of most skeletal elements in snakes when compared to reference developmental events through evolution. We hypothesize that progressing deceleration accompanied limb reduction and reorganization of the snake skull. Molecular and morphological studies have suggested close relationship of snakes to either amphisbaenians, scincids, geckos, iguanids, or varanids. Likewise, alternative hypotheses on habitat for stem snakes have been postulated. Our comprehensive heterochrony analyses detected developmental shifts in ossification for each hypothesis of snake origin. Moreover, we show that reconstruction of ancestral developmental sequences is a valuable tool to understand ontogenetic mechanisms associated with major evolutionary changes and test homology hypotheses. The “supratemporal” of snakes could be homolog to squamosal of other squamates, which starts ossification early to become relatively large in snakes.     

Evolutionary development of the neurocranium in Dissorophoidea (Tetrapoda: Temnospondyli), an integrative approach

SUMMARY Ontogenetic data can play a prominent role in addressing questions in tetrapod evolution, but such evidence from the fossil record is often incompletely considered because it is limited to initiation of ossification, or allometric changes with increasing size. In the present study, specimens of a new species of an archaic amphibian (280 Myr old), Acheloma n. sp., a member of the temnospondyl superfamily Dissorophoidea and the sister group to Amphibamidae, which is thought to include at least two of our modern amphibian clades, anurans and caudatans (Batrachia), provides us with new developmental data. We identify five ontogenetic events, enabling us to construct a partial ontogenetic trajectory (integration of developmental and transformation sequence data) related to the relative timing of completion of neurocranial structures. Comparison of the adult amphibamid morphology with this partial ontogeny identifies a heterochronic event that occurred within the neurocranium at some point in time between the two taxa, which is consistent with the predictions of miniaturization in amphibamids, providing the first insights into the influence of miniaturization on the neurocranium in a fossil tetrapod group. This study refines hypotheses of large‐scale evolutionary trends within Dissorophoidea that may have facilitated the radiation of amphibamids and, projected forward, the origin of the generalized batrachian skull. Most importantly, this study highlights the importance of integrating developmental and transformation sequence data, instead of onset of ossification alone, into investigations of major events in tetrapod evolution using evidence provided by the fossil record, and highlights the value of even highly incomplete growth series comprised of relatively late‐stage individuals.     

Of chicken wings and frog legs: a smorgasbord of evolutionary variation in mechanisms of tetrapod limb development

The tetrapod limb, which has served as a paradigm for the study of development and morphological evolution, is becoming a paradigm for developmental evolution as well. In its origin and diversification, the tetrapod limb has undergone a great deal of remodeling. These morphological changes and other evolutionary phenomena have produced variation in mechanisms of tetrapod limb development. Here, we review that variation in the four major clades of limbed tetrapods. Comparisons in a phylogenetic context reveal details of development and evolution that otherwise may have been unclear. Such details include apparent differences in the mechanisms of dorsal-ventral patterning and limb identity specification between mouse and chick and mechanistic novelties in amniotes, anurans, and urodeles. As we gain a better understanding of the details of limb development, further differences among taxa will be revealed. The use of appropriate comparative techniques in a phylogenetic context thus sheds light on evolutionary transitions in limb morphology and the generality of developmental models across species and is therefore important to both evolutionary and developmental biologists.     

Homology, Hox Genes, and Developmental Integration

The establishment and inheritance of individualized structuralunits is a key feature of morphological evolution, embodiedin the concept of homology. In current debates, homology isoften equated with identical genetic encoding. The empiricalevidence for this assumption is ambiguous. Genetic identitycan indicate morphological identity in some cases, but severalexamples show that gene expression patterns and regulatory systemsof development may be highly conserved while morphological charactersundergo dramatic evolutionary innovation. This indicates someindependence of structural homology from its genetic and developmentalmakeup. It is proposed that phenotypic evolution depends stronglyon the epigenetic context in which genetic redundancy becomesavailable for the control of new developmental interactions.The integrated character of developmental systems may representan important factor in the origin and identity of morphologicalcharacters and can stabilize incipient structures before theirfull genetic integration. The origin of the autopod sectionof the tetrapod limb is an example which suggests that novelhomologues can arise in evolution as a consequence of changingthe epigenetic context of conserved gene function.     

New,puzzling insights from comparative myological studies on the old and unsolved forelimb/hindlimb enigma

Most textbooks and research reports state that the structures of the tetrapod forelimbs and hindlimbs are serial homologues. From this view, the main challenge of evolutionary biologists is not to explain the similarity between tetrapod limbs, but instead to explain why and how they have diverged. However, these statements seem to be related to a confusion between the serial homology of the vertebrate pelvic and pectoral appendages as a whole, and the serial homology of the specific soft‐ and hard‐tissue structures of the tetrapod forelimbs and hindlimbs, leading to an even more crucial and puzzling question being overlooked: why are the skeletal and particularly the muscle structures of the forelimb and hindlimb actually so strikingly similar to each other? Herein we provide an updated discussion of these questions and test two main hypotheses: (i) that the similarity of the limb muscles is due to serial homology; and (ii) that tetrapods that use hindlimbs for a largely exclusive function (e.g. bipedalism in humans) exhibit fewer cases of similarity between forelimbs and hindlimbs than do quadrupedal species. Our review shows that of the 23 arm, forearm and hand muscles/muscle groups of salamanders, 18 (78%) have clear ‘topological equivalents' in the hindlimb; in lizards, 14/24 (58%); in rats, 14/35 (40%); and in modern humans, 19/37 (51%). These numbers seem to support the idea that there is a plesiomorphic similarity and subsequent evolutionary divergence, but this tendency actually only applies to the three former quadrupedal taxa. Moreover, if one takes into account the total number of ‘correspondences’, one comes to a surprising and puzzling conclusion: in modern humans the number of forelimb muscles/muscle groups with clear ‘equivalents’ in the hindlimb (19) is substantially higher than in quadrupedal mammals such as rats (14), lizards (14) and even salamanders (18). These data contradict the hypothesis that divergent functions lead to divergent morphological structures. Furthermore, as we show that at least five of the 19 modern human adult forelimb elements that have a clear hindlimb ‘equivalent’ derive from embryonic anlages that are very different from the ones giving rise to their adult hindlimb ‘equivalents’, they also contradict the hypothesis that the similarity in muscle structures between the forelimb and hindlimb of tetrapods such as modern humans are due to their origin as serial homologues. This similarity is instead the result of phylogenetically independent evolutionary changes leading to a parallelism/convergence due to: (i) developmental constraints, i.e. similar molecular mechanisms are involved (particularly in the formation of the neomorphic hand), but this does not necessarily mean that similar anlages are used to form the similar adult structures; (ii) functional constraints, related to similar adaptations; (iii) topological constraints, i.e. limited physical possibilities; and even (iv) phylogenetic constraints, which tend to prevent/decrease the occurrence of new homoplasic similarities, but also help to keep older, ancestral homoplasic resemblances.     

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.     

A quantitative method for inferring locomotory shifts in amniotes during ontogeny,its application to dinosaurs and its bearing on the evolution of posture

Evolutionary transitions between quadrupedal and bipedal postures are pivotal to the diversification of amniotes on land, including in our own lineage (Hominini). Heterochrony is suggested as a macroevolutionary mechanism for postural transitions but understanding postural evolution in deep time is hindered by a lack of methods for inferring posture in extinct species. Dinosaurs are an excellent natural laboratory for understanding postural transitions because they demonstrate at least four instances of quadrupedality evolving from bipedality, and heterochronic processes have been put forward as an explanatory model for these transitions. We extend a quantitative method for reliably inferring posture in tetrapods to the study of ontogenetic postural transitions using measurements of proportional limb robusticity. We apply this to ontogenetic series of living and extinct amniotes, focusing on dinosaurs. Our method correctly predicts the general pattern of ontogenetic conservation of quadrupedal and bipedal postures in many living amniote species and infers the same pattern in some dinosaurs. Furthermore, it correctly predicts the ontogenetic postural shift from quadrupedal crawling to bipedal walking in humans. We also infer a transition from early ontogenetic quadrupedality to late-ontogenetic bipedality in the transitional sauropodomorph dinosaur Mussaurus patagonicus and possibly in the early branching ceratopsian Psittacosaurus lujiatunensis but not in the sauropodomorph Massospondylus carinatus. The phylogenetic positions of these ontogenetic shifts suggest that heterochrony may play a role in the macroevolution of posture, at least in dinosaurs. Our method has substantial potential for testing evolutionary transitions between locomotor modes, especially in elucidating the role of evolutionary mechanisms like heterochrony.     

The tetrapod limb: a hypothesis on its origin

A wrist joint and structures typical of the hand, such as digits, however, are absent in [Eustenopteron] (Andrews and Westoll, '68, p 240). Great changes must have been undergone during evolution of the ankle joint; the small number of large bones in the fin must somehow have developed into a large number of small bones, and it is very difficult to draw homologies in this region, or even be certain of what is being compared (Andrews and Westoll, '68, p 268). The tetrapod limb is one of the major morphological adaptations that facilitated the transition from an aquatic to a terrestrial lifestyle in vertebrate evolution. We review the paleontological evidence for the fin-limb transition and conclude that the innovation associated with evolution of the tetrapod limb is the zeugopodial-mesopodial transition, i.e., the evolution of the developmental mechanism that differentiates the distal parts of the limb (the autopodium, i.e., hand or foot) from the proximal parts. Based on a review of tetrapod limb and fish fin development, we propose a genetic hypothesis for the origin of the autopodium. In tetrapods the genes Hoxa-11 and Hoxa-13 have locally exclusive expression domains along the proximal-distal axis of the limb bud. The junction between the distal limit of Hoxa-11 expression and of the proximal limit of Hoxa-13 expression is involved in establishing the border between the zeugopodial and autopodial anlagen. In zebrafish, the expression domains of these genes are overlapping and there is no evidence for an autopodial equivalent in the fin skeleton. We propose that the evolution of the derived expression patterns of Hoxa-11 and Hoxa-13 may be causally involved in the origin of the tetrapod limb.     

The autopod: Its formation during limb development

The autopod, including the mesopodium and the acropodium, is the most distal part of the tetrapod limb, and developmental mechanisms of autopod formation serve as a model system of pattern formation during development. Cartilage rudiments of the autopod develop after proximal elements have differentiated. The autopod region is marked by a change in the expression of two homeobox genes: future autopod cells are first Hoxa11/Hoxa13 -double-positive and then Hoxa13 -single-positive. The change in expression of these Hox genes is controlled by upstream mechanisms, including the retinoic acid pathway, and the expression of Hoxa13 is connected to downstream mechanisms, including the autopod-specific cell surface property mediated by molecules, including cadherins and ephrins/Ephs, for cell-to-cell communication and recognition. Comparative analyses of the expression of Hox genes in fish fins and tetrapod limb buds support the notion on the origin of the autopod in vertebrates. This review will focus on the cellular and molecular regulation of the formation of the autopod during development and evolutionary developmental aspects of the origin of the autopod.     

Phylogenetic interpretation of ontogenetic change: sorting out the actual and artefactual in an empirical case study of centrarchid fishes

Hypothesized relationships between ontogenetic and phylogenetic change in morphological characters were empirically tested in centrarchid fishes by comparing observed patterns of character development with patterns of character evolution as inferred from a representative phylogenetic hypothesis. This phylogeny was based on 56–61 morphological characters that were polarized by outgroup comparison. Through these comparisons, evolutionary changes in character ontogeny were categorized in one of eight classes (terminal addition, terminal deletion, terminal substitution, non-terminal addition, non-terminal deletion, non-terminal substitution, ontogenetic reversal and substitution). The relative frequencies of each of these classes provided an empirical basis from which assumptions underlying hypothesized relationships between ontogeny and phylogeny were tested. In order to test hypothesized relationships between ontogeny and phylogeny that involve assumptions about the relative frequencies of terminal change (e.g. the use of ontogeny as a homology criterion), two additional phylogenies were generated in which terminal addition and terminal deletion were maximized and minimized for all characters. Character state change interpreted from these phylogenies thus represents the maxima and minima of the frequency range of terminal addition and terminal deletion for the 8.7 × 10³⁶ trees possible for centrarchids. It was found for these data that terminal change accounts for c. 75% of the character state change. This suggests either that early ontogeny is conserved in evolution or that interpretation and classification of evolutionary changes in ontogeny is biased in part by the way that characters are recognized, delimited and coded. It was found that ontogenetic interpretation is influenced by two levels of homology decision: an initial decision involving delimitation of the character (the ontogenetic sequence), and the subsequent recognition of homologous components of developmental sequences. Recognition of phylogenetic homology among individual components of developmental sequences is necessary for interpretation of evolutionary changes in ontogeny as either terminal or non-terminal. If development is the primary criterion applied in recognizing individual homologies among parts of ontogenetic sequences, the only possible interpretation of phylogenetic differences is that of terminal change. If homologies of the components cannot be ascertained, recognition of the homology of the developmental sequence as a whole will result in the interpretation of evolutionary differences as substitutions. Particularly when the objective of a study is to discover how ontogeny has evolved, criteria in addition to ontogeny must be used to recognize homology. Interpretation is also dependent upon delimitation within an ontogenetic sequence. This is in part a function of the way that an investigator ‘sees’ and codes characters. Binary and multistate characters influence interpretation differently and predictably. The use of ontogeny for determining phylogenetic polarity as previously proposed rests on the assumptions that ancestral ontogenies are conserved and that character evolution occurs predominantly through terminal addition. It was found for these data that terminal addition may comprise a maximum of 51.9% of the total character state change. It is concluded that the ontogenetic criterion is not a reliable indicator of phylogenetic polarity. Process and pattern data are collected simultaneously by those engaged in comparative morphological studies of development. The set of alternative explanatory processes is limited in the process of observing development. These form necessary starting points for the research of developmental biologists. Separating ‘empirical’ results from interpretational influences requires awareness of potential biases in the course of character selection, coding and interpretation. Consideration of the interpretational problems involved in identifying and classifying phylogenetic changes in ontogeny leads to a re-evaluation of the purpose, usefulness and information conveyed by the current classification system. It is recommended that alternative classification schemes be pursued.     

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.     

THE ORIGIN OF MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERS AND THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF HOMOLOGY

A homolog is a part of the phenotype that is homologous to equivalent parts in other species. A biological homology concept is expected to explain three properties of homologs: 1) the conservation of those features that are used to define a homolog, 2) the individualization of the homolog with regard to the rest of the body, and 3) the uniqueness of homologs, i.e., their specificity for monophyletic groups. The main obstacle to describing a mechanistic basis for homology is the variability of the developmental pathways of undoubtedly homologous characters. However, not all aspects of the developmental pathway are of equal importance. The only organizational features of the developmental system that matter are those that have been historically acquired and cause developmental constraints on the further evolutionary modification of the characters. Two main factors contribute to historically acquired developmental constraints: generative rules of pattern formation and ontogenetic networks. In particular, hierarchical and cyclical inductive networks have the required properties to explain homology. How common such networks are is an open empirical question. The development and variation of pectoral fin hooks in blenniid fishes is presented as a model for the study of a simple ontogenetic network.     

Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints

Devonian tetrapod tracks and trackways can be recognized by three criteria: morphology of the manus and pes impressions that matches known Devonian tetrapod skeletal morphology, manus smaller than pes, and the alternating trackway pattern that results from lateral sequence walking in quadrupedal tetrapod locomotion. The first reported Devonian tetrapod track, named Thinopus antiquus, from Pennsylvania, is not a tetrapod track and is likely an impression of a fish coprolite(s). A critical review of the published Devonian track record indicates only three can be verified as produced by a tetrapod trackmaker—Genoa River, Australia; Easter Ross, Scotland; and Valentia Island, Ireland. The supposed tetrapod tracks from the Middle Devonian of the Zache?mie quarry, Poland, fail the criteria for identification as Devonian tetrapod tracks. Indeed, no convincing case has been made that the Zache?mie structures are tetrapod tracks. Instead, they are reinterpreted as fish nests/feeding traces (ichnogenus Piscichnus). The oldest Devonian tetrapod trackway is Givetian and this is the oldest record of a tetrapod, but the sparse record of Devonian tetrapod tracks is of no other biostratigraphic and little paleobiogeographic significance. Bona fide Devonian tetrapod tracks are from nonmarine facies, so they do not support a marginal marine origin of tetrapods. They indicate lateral sequence walking and pelvic-limb-propelled, fully terrestrial (subaerial) locomotion in freshwater environments by at least some Devonian tetrapods.     

Patterns of carpal development among anuran amphibians

The unity and diversity of developmental processes in the vertebrate limb have singular importance in the interpretation of evolutionary hypotheses of tetrapod diversification. In anurans, the intraordinal diversity of forelimbs seems to be related to the fusion of distal carpals, whereas proximal carpals are invariable. However, there are different ontogenetic pathways involved in the differentiation of proximal carpals. This study presents a comparative analysis of early developmental features in one archeobatrachian and 23 neobatrachian species representing five families and explores the variability in the differentiation of carpal cartilages. We found new evidence supporting the presence of an embryonic intermedium that incorporates with the ulnare. Difference between the pipid Xenopus and the neobatrachians is interpreted as a change in the rate of differentiation of Distal Carpal 5 that does not affect the developmental pattern of digits. The developmental variability exhibited by the intermedium, radiale, and Element Y is combined in patterns that converge on the same adult carpal morphology among neobatrachians; these patterns appear to contain potentially useful phylogenetic information.