The Teleost Fuse

A while back, I discussed the group of fish known as the Holostei, the gars and bowfin. The Holostei constitute one branch of the clade Neopterygii which includes the majority of living ray-finned fishes. However, their success in the modern environment pales in comparison to that of their sister group, the Teleostei.

Siemensichthys macrocephalus, an early teleost of uncertain affinities, copyright Ghedoghedo.

Teleosts are such a major component of ray-finned fishes that it is simpler to list those members of the modern fauna that do not belong to this clade: the aforementioned gars and bowfin, sturgeons and paddlefish, and the bichirs of Africa. Everything else belongs to the great teleost radiation, representing about 96% of all modern fishes. The earliest fishes generally recognised as teleosts come from marine deposits of the Late Triassic in the form of the Pholidophoridae of Europe. The earliest known members of the crown group are from the Late Jurassic (Nelson et al. 2016). Teleosts have been recognised as an apomorphy-defined clade; the crown clade has been dubbed the Teleocephala. Among the features that have been used to define the Teleostei are the presence of a mobile premaxilla. In my previous post, I explained how the mobile maxilla of neopterygians including bowfins improved feeding by creating suction when the mouth was opened. Having both the maxilla and premaxilla mobile enhances this process further. In some of the most advanced teleosts, such as dories and ponyfish, the connection between the jaws and the cranium is entirely comprised of soft, flexible tissue, allowing the jaw apparatus as a whole to be catapulted towards unwary prey. Other features that have been highlighted include a strongly ossified caudal skeleton with long uroneural spines derived from the neural arches of the vertebrae, and the lower lobe of the caudal fin supported by two plate-like hypural bones articulating with a single vertebral centrum (Bond 1996).

Leptolepis coryphaenoides, one of the earliest teleosts with cycloid scales, copyright Daderot.

Of course, not all these features necessarily appeared in lock with each other. A phylogenetic analysis of basal teleosts by Arratia (2013) identified the aforementioned features of the caudal skeleton as absent in some of the basalmost teleosts. The condition of the premaxilla is ambiguous in Prohalecites, the earliest stem-group teleost from the Middle-Late Triassic boundary. It appears to be absent in the Aspidorhynchiformes and Pachycormiformes, Mesozoic orders that are currently regarded as on the teleost stem but not part of the Teleostei. However, as was found with the mobile maxilla in gars, one can't help wondering whether this character has been affected by the uniquely derived upper jaw morphologies in these orders. Other features identified by Arratia (2013) as supporting the Teleostei clade include the presence of two supramaxillary bones, a suborbital bone between the posterior margin of the posterodorsal infraorbitals and the anterior margin of the opercular apparatus (subsequently lost in the teleost crown group), and accessory suborbital bones ventrolateral to the postorbital region of the skull roof.

The earliest teleosts in the Pholidophoridae and other basal lineages retained the heavy ganoid scales of thick bone that may still be seen in modern Teleostei. Lighter, thinner cycloid scales first appear with the Early Jurassic Leptolepis coryphaenoides (Arratia 2013) and are the basal scale type for the teleost crown group (in some derived subgroups, the scales would become further modified or even lost). The greater mobility permitted by these lighter scales may have been another significant factor in the teleost explosion. By the Cretaceous period, stem-teleosts had radiated into a variety of specialised forms such as the gigantic predatory Ichthyodectiformes (of which Xiphactinus grew up to four metres in length) and the deep-finned Araripichthys. The three major subgroups of the crown Teleostei—the Elopomorpha, Osteoglossomorpha and Clupeocephala—had diverged from each other by the end of the Jurassic. The stem-teleosts would disappear with the end of the Mesozoic; the crown teleosts would dominates the world's waters from that time on.

REFERENCES

Arratia, G. 2013. Morphology, taxonomy, and phylogeny of Triassic pholidophorid fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 33 (6 Suppl.): 1–138.

Nelson, J. S., T. C. Grande & M. V. H. Wilson. 2016. Fishes of the World 5^th ed. Wiley.

Shadow of the Palaeoniscoids

Palaeoniscum freieslebeni, copyright James St. John.

Depending how you cut it, the ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) are arguably the most diverse group of vertebrates in the modern fauna. They are the dominant vertebrates in all aquatic environments, they encompass an enormous array of species, and they have evolved a bewildering assemblage of morphologies. But despite their current pre-eminence, the early evolution of actinopterygians remains rather understudied. The earliest actinopterygians appear in the fossil record in the Late Silurian/Early Devonian but, until fairly recently, the majority of Palaeozoic ray-finned fishes have often been lumped into a catch-all holding tank, the 'Palaeonisciformes'. This was a vague assemblage of fishes united by plesiomorphic features such as ganoid scales (heavy, bony scales with an outer layer of enamel, also found in modern gars and sturgeons), a single dorsal fin and a heterocercal tail (with the upper arm of the tail fin longer than the lower). The key genus of the group, the Permian Palaeoniscum, had a fusiform (or torpedo-shaped) body; at first glance, it would not have looked dissimilar to a modern herring. However, it lacked the mobile jaw structure of modern teleost fishes, with the maxilla and preopercular bones being fixed together. As such, it would have lacked the modern fish's capacity for suction feeding (Lauder 1980). Prey capture by Palaeoniscum would have been a simple smash-and-grab affair. Palaeoniscoid fishes remained a component of both marine and freshwater faunas until the end of the Cretaceous before being entirely supplanted by modern teleost radiations such as the ostariophysans and percomorphs.

Reconstruction of Acrolepis gigas, copyright DiBgd.

The core concept of 'Palaeonisciformes' has united fishes with a fusiform body shape like Palaeoniscum; depending on the author, more divergent contemporary fishes such as the deep-body platysomoids might be combined in the same order or treated separately. By modern standards, former 'Palaeonisciformes' probably combine stem-actinopterygians, stem-chondrosteans, stem-holosteans and possibly even stem-teleosts. As such, the term Palaeonisciformes has tended to fall out of favour, though the less formal 'palaeoniscoid' remains a useful descriptor. Nevertheless, the exact phylogenetic position of many palaeoniscoid taxa remains unestablished. Part of this is due to a lack of observable detail: though those heavy ganoid scales preserve well, they effectively cover up internal skeletal features. Many palaeoniscoids are preserved as compression fossils, effectively not much more than intriguing silhouettes. However, part of the problem is simple neglect. Palaeoniscoids are not rare fossils; in some formations, they may be the dominant part of the fauna by a large margin. They certainly deserve a closer look.

REFERENCE

Lauder, G. V., Jr. 1980. Evolution of the feeding mechanism in primitive actinopterygian fishes: a functional anatomical analysis of Polypterus, Lepisosteus, and Amia. Journal of Morphology 163: 283–317.

To Drop Jaw or Not?

The vast majority of living ray-finned fishes (that is, all of them except for bichirs, sturgeons and paddlefishes) fall under the auspices of the clade Neopterygii. I have commented on this clade in earlier posts and in those posts I have noted that modern neopterygians can theselves be divided between three basal lineages. By far the largest of these is the teleosts with only a handful of species representing the other two: the seven or so species of gar in the Lepisosteidae, and the phylogenetically isolated bowfin Amia calva. However, the exact relationships between these three lineages have been the subject of debate.

Close-up on bowfin Amia calva head, from Big Fishes of the World. Note the membranous attachment of the back of the upper jaw.

Historically, the bowfin and the gars were recognised as a group Holostei in apposition to the Teleostei. When first established, this division was motivated primarily by the nature of their scales: the heavy, solid scales of the holosteans contrasted with the thinner, lighter scales of the teleosts. Hence the name 'Holostei' meaning 'entirely bone': the holosteans have both a completely bony skeleton on the inside (as opposed to the partially cartilaginous skeletons of more basal fishes) and a complete covering of bony scales on the outside. However, the heavy scales of the Holostei are a primitive feature, indicating that the two lineages diverged before the evolution of the lighter teleost scales but not indicating a direct relationship with each other.

With the increasing emphasis on evolutionary relationships as the primary informer of classifications, a different system was proposed. This saw the gars as the most divergent lineage of the Neopterygii with the bowfin being united with the teleosts as a clade Halecostomi. This time, the primary evidence for this division was in how their jaws worked. The ancestral condition for vertebrate jaws has them working much as our own still do. The upper jaw, the maxilla, is largely fixed in place against the base of the neurocranium (the brain-holding bit) while the movement of opening and closing the mouth is achieved by the lower jaw, the mandible, pivoting around its hinge towards the back of the skull. In the bowfin and teleosts, however, the maxilla is hinged with the skull at its anterior end and with the mandible at the back. When the mouth opens, the maxila pivots downwards from this anterior hinge, dropping the mandible as a whole downwards. The bowfin and teleosts also possess a bone in the cheek, the interopercular bone, that is not found in other fishes; a muscle attached to this bone rotates the gill operculum as the mouth opens (Lauder 1980). Functionally, the expansion of the mouth cavity in this manner of opening the jaws creates a suction that pulls prey or other food into the fish's mouth.

Though it was by no means universally accepted, it is probably fair to say that the halecostomes vs gars picture of neopterygian evolution became the majority view. But then came the advent of molecular phylogenetic analysis, all ready and willing to cast the proverbial spanner. Rather than confirming halecostome monophyly, molecular analyses pointed the other way, back towards a clade of the bowfin and gars. Following this, a detailed study of gar systematics published by Grande (2010) also supported a gar plus bowfin monophylum on morphological grounds and resurrected the concept of Holostei (albeit redefined on phylogenetic grounds).

Skull of a longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus, from Grande (2010). In the lower diagram, the maxilla is labelled 'mx' and the lacrimomaxillaries are labelled 'lmx'.

Gar jaws, it should be noted at this point, are a bit weird. Rather than being primarily composed of a single maxilla on each side, the upper jaws are made up of a series of tooth-bearing bones, each bone carrying just a few teeth, that have been dubbed the lacrimomaxillaries. When the jaws open, as well as the lower jaw opening in the standard manner, the flexible upper jaw also bends upwards. Rather than using suction to draw in their food like other neopterygians, gars capture prey by sneaking up to it then using a quick sideways jerk of the head to bring the open jaws around the prey (Lauder 1980). Gars were excluded from the Halecostomi on the basis of their lack of a long, mobile maxilla but, as explained by Grande (2010), a mobile maxilla is indeed present in gars but reduced to a remnant splint at the back of the jaw (in mature alligator gars Atractosteus spatula, the maxilla does not ossify). In very young juvenile gars, the mobile maxilla remains a significant part of the upper jaw with the lacrimomaxillaries being added in front of it as the jaw lengthens. As for the interopercular, this is genuinely absent in modern gars but it is present in close fossil relatives of gars such as semionotids. Rather than retaining a primitive jaw structure that was superseded in the bowfin and teleosts, it appears that gars evolved their own derived jaw structure from 'halecostome' ancestors.

Given that suction-assisted feeding is generally regarded as a major advance in fish evolution, how did gars end up abandoning it? That I can only speculate about. Is it related to the evolution of their elongate rostra? Long beaks are certainly a thing for a number of teleosts, but I don't know if any have a beak as long and robust as a gar's. Could it be that the greater precision of gars' snapping mode of feeding is an advantage in the low-oxygen, muck-filled waters in which gars thrive? Or could it be a side effect somehow of gars' more heavily armoured condition than other early-diverging neopterygians?

It's only fair to note that monophyly of Holostei is still not universally accepted; there are sill researchers who are inclined to think the bowfin closer to teleosts. But even if the 'Halecostomi' hypothesis was to rise once more to the surface, it would not be for the same reasons it did before.

REFERENCES

Grande, L. 2010. An empirical synthetic pattern study of gars (Lepisosteiformes) and closely related species, based mostly on skeletal anatomy. The resurrection of Holostei. Copeia 2010 (2A): iii–x, 1–871.

Lauder, G. V., Jr. 1980. Evolution of the feeding mechanism in primitive actinopterygian fishes: a functional anatomical analysis of Polypterus, Lepisosteus, and Amia. Journal of Morphology 163: 283–317.

Gar!

Apart from the mostly terrestrial radiation of the tetrapods, the vast majority of today's bony-skeletoned fishes belong to the clade of the teleosts. Way back in the Triassic, the ancestors of this clade went through a process of modification of the jaw skeleton to make it more mobile and adroit in catching small prey, and this together with a tendency towards the lightening of the skeleton and the body's covering of bony scales marked the beginnings of what is now well over 25,000 species. But while they may pale in comparison to this phylogenetic behemoth, there are still non-teleost (and non-tetrapod) bony fishes out there if you look in the right places.

Alligator gar Atractosteus spatula, copyright Stan Shebs.

Most studies on fish phylogeny in the last decade or so have agreed that the living sister group of the teleosts is the Holostei, a clade including only eight living species. One of these is the bowfin Amia calva, an elongate, cylindrical-bodied fish with a long dorsal fin running most of the length of its back. The other seven sepecies belong to the gar genera Lepisosteus and Atractosteus, forming the family Lepisosteidae*. Gars are also elongate like the bowfin, albeit without the long dorsal fin, and have elongate, flattened jaws (tending to be narrower in Lepisosteus than Atractosteus). The tail fin in both bowfins and gars is rounded, not forked. Living holosteans are restricted to North America (including Central America and the Caribbean)** but fossils show them to have been more widespread in the past. They are mostly found in fresh water; some species may tolerate brackish or even salt water but they do not stay there permanently. Bowfins and gars are able to breathe air directly as well as through their gills (indeed, gars are reported to drown if prevented from coming to the surface for several hours) and can therefore survive in more stagnant waters than many other fish. The bowfin averages about half a metre in length; the smaller gar species are also in this range. The largest species, the alligator gar Atractosteus spatula, reaches at least close to three metres. Larger sizes (up to six metres or more!) have been reported for this species but appear likely to be errors or exaggerations; as noted by one authority, "All fishes shrink under the tape measure" (Grande 2010).

*The incorrect alternative spellings Lepidosteus and Lepidosteidae (as well as Lepidosteiformes) have often appeared in the past.

**References to a supposed Chinese gar have long persisted in the literature, based on a description of a "Lepidosteus sinensis" from 1873. This description was based on a drawing rather than an actual specimen, and it is now thought that the fish depicted was probably a belonid (an unrelated long-jawed teleost) rather than a gar.

Bowfin Amia calva sharing a tank with largemouth basses, copyright Bemep.

Modern holosteans are ambush predators, feeding on other fish or aquatic invertebrates. In general, larger species tend to prefer a diet of fish whereas smaller species focus on invertebrates, but all appear to be happy to take whatever they may, whether alive or dead. The alligator gar has been claimed to attack humans but no such attacks seem to have been authenticated; Grande (2010) stated that "swimmers probably have very little to fear from them". As well as their sheer size, this accusation may have been fueled by the alligator gar's apparent tendency in some areas to hang around wharves scavenging garbage. Neither bowfins nor gars are of high importance as food fish for humans though their size and strength gain them some attraction as sport fish*. An industry for the production and marketing of bowfin roe has arisen in recent years following the decline in availability of caviar from Russian sturgeon species; no such market exists for gar eggs, which are toxic to humans. Historically, the thick armour of scales covering the skin of gars was used by Caribbean Indians for making breastplates while individual scales could be used for arrowheads.

*Grande (2010) quotes Eberle (1990) to the effect that gars have "a poor reputation among anglers, who believe [they] would have been better suited as land dwellers had they been able to stand their own reflections in the water".

Shortnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus, copyright Rufus46.

Reproductive habits are best known in the bowfin and the longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus. Male bowfins construct a nest in mats of fibrous vegetation, into which they attempt to induce passing females to spawn. Guarding of the eggs after spawning is the duty of the male alone; the female moves on, perhaps to spawn in another male's nest (the male himself may also court more females). The eggs are adhesive and take about a week and a half to hatch. Following hatching, the fry attach themselves to nearby vegetation by an adhesive organ at the end of their snout and spend some time being nourished by the remains of their yolk sac beofre beginning to forage. The male will continue to guard his fry until they reach about a month of age. Reproduction in longnose gars is similar in the production of adhesive eggs and the early sessile, snout-attached period of the life cycle, but differs in that there is no nest construction or parental care. There is a record of gar eggs being deposited in the nest of a smallmouth bass and the fry being subsequently raised cuckoo-wise by the nest's owner, but it is unclear whether this reflects any deliberate action by the parental gars or simply a fortuitous accident. Gars take up to six years to reach maturity, with males maturing a couple of years earlier than females.

Semionotus bergeri, copyright Ghedoghedo.

The fossil record of holosteans extends back to their divergence from the teleosts in the early to mid-Triassic, with the bowfin and gar lineages apparently diverging from each other not long afterwards. As noted above, both lineages include a diversity of extinct members that somewhat belies their current paucity, such as Macrosemiidae and Semionotidae in the gar lineage, and Ophiopsidae, Ionoscopidae, Caturidae and Sinamiidae in the bowfin lineage. The greatest diversity in both lineages was during the Jurassic and Cretaceous (Brito & Alvarado-Ortega 2013; Cavin 2010) and the two modern gar genera appear to have been separate lineages at least since the late Cretaceous (Grande 2010). Holosteans were also more ecologically diverse in the past. Masillosteus, a gar genus from the Eocene of Europe and North America, had a shorter jaw and flatter teeth than modern jaws, and probably fed on harder-shelled animals such as molluscs and/or crustaceans. The Mesozoic 'Semionotidae', suggested by Cavin (2010) to be paraphyletic to the gars, were even more diverse, including marine as well as freshwater forms, and forms that may have plant feeders or detritivores. In the early Jurassic of eastern North America, one group of semionotids underwent a lake-based radiation that has been compared to the modern cichlids of African rift lakes. Adequately covering the diversity of fossil holosteans would make this post considerably longer than it already is; perhaps one day, I'll get to it.

REFERENCES

Brito, P. M. & J. Alvarado-Ortega. 2013. Cipatlichthys scutatus, gen. nov., sp. nov. a new halecomorph (Neopterygii, Holostei) from the Lower Cretaceous Tlayua Formation of Mexico. PLoS One 8 (9): e73551.

Cavin, L. 2010. Diversity of Mesozoic semionotiform fishes and the origin of gars (Lepisosteidae). Naturwissenschaften 97: 1035–1040.

Grande, L. 2010. An empirical synthetic pattern study of gars (Lepisosteiformes) and closely related species, based mostly on skeletal anatomy. The resurrection of Holostei. Copeia 2010 (2A): iii–x, 1–871.

Hydromantes: Salamanders in Different Places

There are times when biogeography is able to throw us some real puzzlers: organisms whose distribution seems to defy expectations. Among these mysteries, special mention must be made of the salamanders of the genus Hydromantes.

Gene's cave salamanders Hydromantes genei courting, copyright Salvatore Spano.

Hydromantes is a genus containing a dozen species from among the lungless salamanders of the family Plethodontidae. Plethodontids are the most diverse of the generally recognised families of salamanders, with over 450 known species found mostly in Central and South America. Hydromantes, however, is a geographically isolated genus in this family with its species found in two widely separated regions: California in western North America, and mainland Italy and Sardinia in Europe. Though some authors have advocated treating the species found on each continent as separate genera, both morphological and molecular studies have left little doubt that the group represents a discrete clade.

Distinctive features of Hydromantes compared to other plethodontids include feet with five, partially webbed toes and a weakly ossified, flattened skull (Wake 2013). Members of this genus capture prey with a projectile tongue which is the most extensive of any amphibian, extending up to 80% of the animal's total body length (Deban & Dicke 2004). There are some differences between North American and European species notable enough for the recognition of separate subgenera (there is something of a gigantic clusterfuck surrounding the names of said subgenera but the details are far too tedious to relate here). The three North American species of the subgenus Hydromantes have bluntly tipped tails that they use as a 'fifth leg' when navigating smooth and/or slippery surfaces, whereas the European species have unremarkable pointed tails. Historically, the North American Hydromantes species have been poorly known, being isolated to restricted ranges. Hydromantes shastae is found in limestone around Lake Shasta whereas H. brunus is found in a small area of mossy talus habitat along the Merced River in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada (Rovito 2010). The third species, H. platycephalus, is found at higher altitudes in the Sierra Nevada, well over 1000 m above sea level. Individuals found living on steep slopes are known to escape predators by tightly coiling their bodies and simply rolling down the slope (García-París & Deban 1995). A molecular analysis of H. platycephalus and H. brunus by Rovito (2010) identified the former species as derived from within the latter, and Rovito suggested that H. brunus may have originated in a remnant population from when H. platycephalus moved into lower altitudes during the Ice Age.

Mt Lyell salamander Hydromantes platycephalus, copyright Gary Nafis.

The seven or eight European species are mostly placed in the subgenus Speleomantes; a single species, Hydromantes genei, is divergent enough to be placed in its own subgenus Atylodes (though most recent studies have indicated that the European Hydromantes overall form a discrete clade). Hydromantes genei and three species of Speleomantes are found in caves on the island of Sardinia; the remaining Speleomantes species on mountains of mainland Italy. Molecular analysis suggests that H. genei became isolated on Sardinia about nine million years ago, with the ancestors of the Sardinian Speleomantes arriving later about 5.6 million years ago when the Mediterranean dried out during what is known as the Messinian Salinity Crisis (Carranza et al. 2008). The absence of any Hydromantes on neighbouring Corsica is something of a mystery, and it has been suggested that they may have been present there in the past before going extinct.

Extinction also seems the most likely explanation for Hydromantes' unusual distribution. The fossil record for the genus is minimal, and provides little information not already available from living species, but molecular dating attempts agree that the division between European and North American Hydromantes happened too recently to be related to the tectonic separation of the two continents. Such a scenario would also leave open the Hydromantes' absence in eastern North America. The description in 2005 of the Korean lungless salamander Karsenia koreana demonstrated the presence of plethodontids in eastern as well as far western Eurasia, and it seems possible that Hydromantes dispersed into Eurasia via the Bering Strait landbridge, becoming widespread across the continent before extinction reduced it to the isolated relicts it is today.

REFERENCES

Carranza, S., A. Romano, E. N. Arnold & G. Sotgiu. 2008. Biogeography and evolution of European cave salamanders, Hydromantes (Urodela: Plethodontidae), inferred from mtDNA sequences. Journal of Biogeography 35: 724–738.

Deban, S. M., & U. Dicke. 2004. Activation patterns of the tongue-projector muscle during feeding in the imperial cave salamander Hydromantes imperialis. Journal of Experimental Biology 207: 2071–2081.

García-París, M., & S. M. Deban. 1995. A novel antipredator mechanism in salamanders: rolling escape in Hydromantes platycephalus. Journal of Herpetology 29 (1): 149–151.

Rovito, S. M. 2010. Lineage divergence and speciation in the web-toed salamanders (Plethodontidae: Hydromantes) of the Sierra Nevada, California. Molecular Ecology 19: 4554–4571.

Wake, D. B. 2013. The enigmatic history of the European, Asian and American plethodontid salamanders. Amphibia-Reptilia 34: 323–336.

Riding a Frog's Pouch

Most people are familiar with the concept of marsupials, the group of mammals whose young spend the earliest part of their life nurtured within a pouchon their mother's underside. Kangaroos, koalas, wombats—all have their established place in popular culture (even if a person can't really ride inside a kangaroo's pounch, and anyone trying to is likely to find themselves picking their intestines off the floor). But perhaps less people are aware that a nurturing pouch is not unique to marsupial mammals: among others, there are some frogs that do it too.

Horned marsupial frog Gastrotheca cornuta female carrying eggs, copyright Danté B. Fenolio.

The marsupial frogs are found over a great part of South America, being particularly diverse in upland regions. Many (particularly members of the genus Hemiphractus) are somewhat gargoyle-ish beasts with flattened heads and/or prominent 'horns' above the eyes. Until recently, marsupial frogs were usually classified as a subfamily of the treefrog family Hylidae but more recent phylogenetic studies have agreed on the polyphyly of the latter family in its broad sense. As a result, the marsupial frogs are now placed in their own distinct family, the Hemiphractidae, as part of a broader association of a number of South American frog families. The influential phylogenetic study of amphibians by Frost et al. (2006) suggested that the marsupial frogs themselves were polyphyletic and divided them between no less than three families (Hemiphractidae, Cryptobatrachidae and Amphignathodontidae) but more recent studies have agreed on their monophyly. Frost et al.'s results are generally thought to have resulted from their poor coverage of members of this clade.

So what makes them marsupials? In all hemiphractids, the female carries her eggs after fertilisation until they hatch. In three of the five recognised genera (Hemiphractus, Cryptobatrachus and Stefania), the eggs are carried exposed on the surface and the young hatch directly as fully-formed froglets without a free-living tadpole stage. In the other two genera, Flectonotus and Gastrotheca (the latter genus being the most diverse in the family), the eggs are contained in a pair of pouches on the female's back. In some Gastrotheca species the eggs hatch into froglets as in the other genera, but in other Gastrotheca and in Flectonotus they hatch into tadpoles that the female then releases into a suitable pool of water.

Female Spix's horned treefrog Hemiphractus scutatus carrying a load of young froglets, copyright Santiago Ron.

Considering that a tadpole stage in development is evidently the original condition for frogs as a whole, it might be assumed the tadpole-bearing hemiphractids represent the basal taxa in the group with loss of the tadpole being derived. But intriguingly, recent phylogenetic analyses have indicated that the tadpole-bearing Gastrotheca occupy quite deeply nested positions in the hemiphractid family tree (Wiens et al. 2007; Flectonotus is placed as the sister taxon of all other hemiphractids, more as one might expect). This has led to the suggestion that the presence of tadpoles in Gastrotheca may represent a reversal to the original condition from direct-developing forebears. Now, I'm going to admit up front that I tend to be skeptical about claims for the reappearance of complex characters (and only partially because such studies never fail to cite that "stick insects re-evolved wings" thing of which I've already said I'm not a fan). In their analysis of breeding trajectories in hemiphractids, Wiens et al. (2007) found that, if one assumed that loss of the tadpole stage was equally likely to its gain, then the hemiphractid phylogeny supported a re-gain of tadpoles. However, if one presumed that loss was more likely than gain, then their analysis supported multiple losses with the tadpole-bearing Gastrotheca retaining the ancestral state. Nevertheless, they argued that a re-gain was more likely. Tadpole-bearing hemiphractids are all inhabitants of high altitudes where their young are often the only tadpoles about, suggesting that competition with other frogs excludes them from lower altitudes. Assuming multiple origins of direct development would require that the low-altitude hemiphractids evolved from low-altitude tadpole-bearers of which there is no current sign. But could it be that more recent changes in the South American environment changed the competitive regime for hemiphractids? Have the frog lineages that supposedly exclude them for lower altitudes been in the area for as long as the hemiphractids have? On the other hand, hemiphractids are unusual among direct-developing frog in that their embryos still develop some tadpole-like features (such as an incipient beak) only to lose them before emerging from the egg. Could this retention of ancestral features in an incipient form made it easier for them to re-establish at a later date?

The only living frog with mandibular teeth, Gastrotheca guentheri, copyright Biodiversity Institute, University of Kansas.

There is an evolutionary reversal among hemiphractids that seems more unequivocal, however: one species, Gastrotheca guentheri, is the only known frog in the modern fauna to have teeth in the lower jaw (Wiens 2011). There are a number of other frogs (including some other hemiphractids) in which the lower jaw has tooth-like serrations but G. guentheri is the only species with honest-to-goodness teeth. There seems little doubt that this is a true reversal; for G. guentheri to be the only living frog species to retain the ancestral state would require close to two dozen independent losses with no sign of the feature's retention elsewhere. In this case, while other frogs do not have teeth in the lower jaw, many of them do have teeth in the upper jaw (in some, such as Hemiphractus species, these upper teeth may be modified into prominent fangs for prey capture). So the genes for tooth development are still in place; presumably, G. guentheri has been able to re-develop its lower teeth through the genes for upper teeth being effectively re-deployed to take action elsewhere.

REFERENCES

Frost, D. R., T. Grant. J. N. Faivovich, R. H. Bain, A. Haas, C. F. B. Haddad, R. O. de Sá, A. Channing, M. Wilkinson, S. C. Donnellan, C. J. Raxworthy, J. A. Campbell, B. L. Blott., P. Moler, R. C. Drewes, R. A. Nussbaum, J. D. Lynch, D. M. Green & W. C. Wheeler. 2005. The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1–370.

Wiens, J. J. 2011. Re-evolution of lost mandibular teeth in frogs after more than 200 million yeatrs, and re-evaluating Dollo's Law. Evolution 65 (5): 1283–1296.

Wiens, J. J., C. A. Kuczynski, W. E. Duellman & T. W. Reeder. 2007. Loss and re-evolution of complex life cycles in marsupial frogs: does ancestral trait reconstruction mislead? Evolution 61 (8): 1886–1899.

East Asian Forest Frogs

Black-striped frog Sylvirana nigrovittata, from here.

One group of animals that has somewhtat flown (or at least hopped) under the radar here at Catalogue of Organisms is the frogs. Frogs are perhaps one of the most instantly recognisable of all terrestrial animal groups, with a combination of features that is truly unique (see this post at an older iteration of Tetrapod Zoology for a list of some of their eccentricities—I mean, the things don't have a rib-cage. Maybe fish can get away with those sorts of shenannigans, but I expect any vertebrate crawling around on land to be fully skeletoned up, thank you.) Frogs come in a wide range of shapes and sizes, but perhaps the group most often thought of as the classic 'frogs' are the members of the family Ranidae. A large proportion of these mostly smooth-skinned, long-legged frogs were classified until recently in a single genus Rana. This was always seen as something of a generalised group, characterised as much by the absence of the derived features of other ranid genera such as the torrent-dwelling Amolops as by anything else. As such, it was long expected that more detailed studies of ranid relationships would lead to the Rana monolith being broken down somehow. In 1992, Alain Dubois presented a classification of the Ranidae in which he divided Rana between a number of subgenera, some of which were further divided into sections and species groups. This classification was presented by Dubois as explicitly provisional: the arrangement of taxa was based on overall similarities rather than any explicit analysis, and was largely intended to provide some sort of starting point for future analyses.

One of the new taxa recognised by Dubois (1992) was Sylvirana, which he erected as a new subgenus of Rana containing an assortment of species found in southern and eastern Asia. Members of this group had a foot with an external metatarsal tubercle, suction pads on digit III of the fore foot and digit IV of the hind foot but often not on fore digit I, and males with a humeral gland and internal or external subgular vocal sacs. Their tadpoles had long papillae along the edge of the lower lip, and often had dermal glands. As indicated by the name, species of Sylvirana were mostly found in forests.

Günther's frog Sylvirana guentheri, copyright Thomas Brown.

When the broad genus Rana was later carved up by Frost et al. (2006), they recognised Sylvirana as a separate genus (albeit without quite the same composition as Dubois' version). Since then, the status of Sylvirana has shifted around a bit; some authors have sunk it into a broader Old World tropical genus Hylarana on the grounds of non-monophyly. Oliver et al. (2015) conducted a molecular phylogenetic analysis of the Hylarana group that lead them to propose Sylvirana as the name for a clade of southeast Asian frogs that they recovered. A number of Indian species previously assigned to Sylvirana formed a separate clade that they recognised as a distinct genus Indosylvirana. Morphological differences between Sylvirana and Indosylvirana are slight, but males of the former have a larger humeral gland: three-quarters the length of the humerus vs two-thirds the length in Sylvirana. It's worth noting that, although Dubois (1992) recognised a number of ranid taxa as lacking a humeral gland, most if not all of them do indeed possess this gland, just not raised and readily visible externally as in Sylvirana.

The species of Sylvirana sensu Oliver et al. (2015) are generally medium-sized, robust frogs with a shagreenate back and smooth or slightly warty sides. They generally have a dark stripe along the side of the body, becoming broken into dark spots lower down. Widespread species include Sylvirana nigrovittata, commonly known as the black-striped frog (a completely non-distinct name, I have to say, considering that it could apply to any one of dozens of ranid species; Wikipedia calls it the sapgreen stream frog, which on the one hand is a much more distinctive name, but on the other hand suffers from the point that all the individuals I've seen photographed of this species look more brown than green). This species is found over pretty much the entire continental range of the genus, from eastern India and Nepal to Vietnam and Malaysia. Also widespread is Günther's frog S. guentheri, which is found in southern China, Taiwan and Indochina. This species is also found in Guam where it was first recorded in 2001 and has since become well-established (Christy et al. 2007). It is believed to have made its way there as a stowaway in shipments of aquaculture stock though, as it is itself captured for food in its native range, it is not impossible that it may have been introduced deliberately.

REFERENCES

Christy, M. T., J. A. Savidge & G. H. Rodda. 2007. Multiple pathways for invasion of anurans on a Pacific island. Diversity and Distributions 13: 598–607.

Dubois, A. 1992 Notes sur la classification des Ranidae (Amphibiens Anoures). Bulletin Mensuel de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon 61 (10): 305–352.

Frost, D. R., T. Grant, J. Faivovich, R. H. Bain, A. Haas, C. F. B. Haddad, R. O. de Sá, A. Channing, M. Wilkinson, S. C. Donnellan, C. J. Raxworthy, J. A. Campbell, B. L. Blotto, P. Moler, R. C. Drewes, R. A. Nussbaum, J. D. Lynch, D. M. Green & W. C. Wheeler. 2006. The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1–370.

Oliver, L. A., E. Prendini, F. Kraus & C. J. Raxworthy. 2015. Systematics and biogeography of the Hylarana frog (Anura: Ranidae) radiation across tropical Australasia, Southeast Asia, and Africa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 90: 176–192.

Dream-fish, Coelacanths and Super-Predators: The Sarcopterygians

For the subject of today's post, I drew the Sarcopterygii, the 'lobe-finned fishes'. Though something of a poor relation to their considerably more diverse sister-group, the ray-finned fishes of the Actinopterygii, this is a group most of my readers will have probably encountered in some capacity. As their names both formal and vernacular indicate, the Sarcopterygii were originally characterised by the development of the fins as fleshy lobes, with at least some fins possessing an internal skeleton of serial bones. Living sarcopterygians belong to three major groups, the coelacanths, lungfishes and tetrapods (in which, of course, the ancestral fins have been modified into walking limbs). The majority of recent studies have placed the coelacanths as the most divergent of these groups, with lungfishes and tetrapods as sister taxa. As the tetrapods are a particularly tedious group of organisms, with little to interest the casual observer, I'll put them aside for this post (you can go to Tetrapod Zoology if you must). The lungfishes, too, warrant a more detailed look at another time.

The oldest known sarcopterygian (and, indeed, the oldest known crown-group bony fish) is the Guiyu oneiros (shown above in a reconstruction by Brian Choo for Zhu et al. 2009), whose species name suggests the vernacular name of 'dream fish'. The dream-fish is known from the late Silurian of China, with a number of other stem-sarcopterygians such as Psarolepis and Meemannia known from the early Devonian of the same region. These taxa retained a number of ancestral features such as heavy ganoid scales (a type of scale also found in basal actinopterygians), and strong spines in front of the fins. However, crown-group sarcopterygians had also evolved and diverged by the early Devonian, as shown by the presence of the stem-lungfish Youngolepis.

Congregation of West Indian Ocean coelacanths Latimeria chalumnae, photographed by Hans Fricke.

The coelacanths are, of course, best known to most people for the discovery of the living Latimeria chalumnae in 1938 in South Africa, after the lineage had been thought to have become extinct in the Cretaceous. The subsequent media frenzy must have been interesting to fishermen in the area who had long known the coelacanth primarily as an infernal nuisance. Though only captured occasionally as bycatch, a landed coelacanth represents two metres or more of snap-jawed bad temper, while the oily flesh is inedible. More recently, a second species of living coelacanth, Latimeria menadoensis has been described from near Sulawesi in Indonesia.

Because of the circumstances of its discovery, Latimeria became a textbook example of a 'living fossil'. However, all fossil coelacanths were not mere duplicates of Latimeria. To begin with, Latimeria is quite a bit larger than the majority of its fossil relatives (Casane & Laurenti 2013). These included such distinctive forms as the fork-tailed speedster Rebellatrix and the eel-like Holopterygius. And then there was Allenypterus montanus, a Carboniferous taxon that... well, just look at the thing (photo from here):

Though Latimeria may lord it over its immediate relatives, it is far from the largest sarcopterygian (even excluding the tetrapods). The tetrapod stem-group also included a number of large predators, including the famous Eusthenopteron (how many other fossil fish have been referred to by name in an episode of Doraemon?). Particularly dramatic were the Rhizodontida, freshwater ambush predators of the Devonian and Carboniferous. Though probably very low on the tetrapod stem (and hence not directly related to limbed tetrapods), rhizodontids developed enlarged pectoral fins that articulated with the body in a not dissimilar manner to tetrapod forelegs. Like tetrapods, rhizodontids probably used their pectoral fins to push against the substrate and provide explosive propulsion (Davis et al. 2004). The jaw of rhizodontids contained enlarged tusks interspersed among smaller teeth that would have hooked into struggling prey. The largest rhizodontids have been estimated to be about seven metres in length, and were the sort of predator that the term 'apex' was invented for.

Reconstruction of Rhizodus by Mike Coates.

REFERENCES

Casane, D., & P. Laurenti. 2013. Why coelacanths are not 'living fossils'. BioEssays 35: 332-338.

Davis, M. C., N. Shubin & E. B. Daeschler. 2004. A new specimen of Sauripterus taylori (Sarcopterygii, Osteichthyes) from the Famennian Catskill Formation of North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 24 (1): 26-40.

Zhu, M., W. Zhao, L. Jia, J. Lu, T. Qiao & Q. Qu. 2009. The oldest articulated osteichthyan reveals mosaic gnathostome characters. Nature 458: 469-474.

A Bizarre New Shark

Live goblin shark Mitsukurina owstoni, from here.

It's a bit unusual for me to be posting anything on a Sunday, but I've just received notice of something so incredibly cool that I couldn't wait to tell you all about it. A new paper has just come out describing a truly remarkable new species of shark:

Takahashi, N., & N. Yuasa. 2012. First recorded use of weaponised light by an elasmobranch. National Daiei Journal 7: 17-87.

The new species, Neomitsukurina nodai, is most closely related to the unusual goblin shark Mitsukurina owstoni, and the resemblance between the two is clearly visible in the head region:

Photo of the new shark species from Takahashi & Yuasa.

Nevertheless, it possesses several remarkable differences. First there is the distinctive fin array, somewhat more extensive than that found in most shark species. The denticles in the skin are much reduced, giving the body an almost rubbery appearance. Furthermore, in a remarkable case of life imitating art, Neomitsukurina differs in its jaw morphology. The vast majority of depictions of goblin sharks show it with protruding jaws but, as can be seen in the photo at the top of the post, this is not the usual appearance of this species: the jaws are generally only protruded when the shark is picking up food. In Neomitsukurina, however, the jaws are seemingly permanently protruded, and the upper jaw has been modified into a sharpened beak. The most interesting distinction of all, however, is the presence of a massively enlarged photophore on the underside of the rostrum, above the jaws:

Close-up of the head of Neomitsukurina nodai, from Takahashi & Yuasa.

The photophore contains a unique lens structure that focuses the light it produces. So strongly focused is the light, in fact, that it can be used in prey capture by the shark. Through a mechanism not yet fully understood, but possibly a shock reaction to its brightness, the light causes potential prey animals to become stunned, after which they can be easily picked off. Preliminary observations of Neomitsukurina suggest that it may be willing to take on quite large prey: even turtles have not proven immune to stunning, though the shark did not always immediately ingest stunned prey animals. Neomitsukurina has also been observed gliding above the surface of the water through the use of its enlarged pectoral fins.

It might be wondered how such a distinctive and mobile predator eluded discovery until the present, but Neomitsukurina's strict nocturnality might have something to do with it. It is also worth noting that sightings of what may, in hindsight, have been Neomitsukurina have been described in the past (a particularly famous sighting occurred in 1971, near the island of Niemonjima), but attempts to follow up such records have so far only collected other animals such as sea bass.

Just When You Thought It Was Safe

Smalltooth cookiecutter shark Isistius brasiliensis, photographed by Joshua Lambus.

Sometimes, you can get pretty much everything you need to know from the title of an article alone. To whit:

First documented attack on a live human by a cookiecutter shark (Squaliformes, Dalatiidae: Isistius sp.)

The article itself is in a journal I don't have access to, but I can read the abstract: the person attacked was a long-distance swimmer in Hawaii and was bitten twice. The bite was treated with skin grafts, but still took nine months to finish healing.

Cookiecutter sharks are one of the more fascinatingly evil fish out there. They are small, as sharks go (up to about 50 cm, tops) but have proportionately oversized teeth that are arranged in a tight, single-row array that can be protruded outwards to take a neat plug out of the flesh of a larger animal: hence the name of 'cookiecutter'. The effectiveness of the cutting tooth row is maintained by being replaced all at once, rather than individual teeth being replaced piecemeal as in other sharks. Cookiecutters are rarely encountered by humans as they are generally deep sea fish, living below the light zone, but like many mesopelagic animals they appear to migrate closer to the surface at night (Papastamatiou et al. 2010). Bioluminescent photophores behind the head have been suggested to function as a lure, drawing larger fish, dolphins, etc. into range of an ambush. Cookiecutters have very catholic tastes, and evidence of bites has been recorded from just about any decent-sized pelagic animal. They will even bite the external insulation on submarines.

Fish with cookiecutter bites, from Rick Macpherson (who, it turns out, covered this event when it was first happened).

Given their lack of pickiness, it is hardly surprising that a cookiecutter would take a bite out of a human. Of course, humans very rarely venture into the pelagic environment in which cookiecutters can be found. The very fact that the Hawaii indicent is the first confirmed attack indicates how extremely rare this would be expected to be. The Wikipedia page on cookiecutters refers to possible attacks on shipwreck survivors (though the source page linked to does not provide citations for such reports), and the body of a drowned fisherman was recovered in Hawaii with cookiecutter bites. But unless you happen to be swimming in the open ocean at night, your chances of being bitten by a cookiecutter are low.

REFERENCE

Papastamatiou, Y. P., B. M. Wetherbee, J. O’Sullivan, G. D. Goodmanlowe & C. G. Lowe. 2010. Foraging ecology of cookiecutter sharks (Isistius brasiliensis) on pelagic fishes in Hawaii, inferred from prey bite wounds. Environmental Biology of Fishes 88 (4): 361-368.

Who Left All this Fish Lying Around (Taxon of the Week: Neopterygii)

Two species of the swordfish-like Cretaceous pachycormid Protosphyraena. This genus was not even closely related to the modern swordfish (contra Wikipedia), and represents a case of convergence. Reconstruction by Dmitry Bogdanov.

The Neopterygii, or "new fins" (not, as it is often translated, "new wings") are one of the most successful clades of fishes today. One particular subgroup of the Neopterygii, the teleosts, includes almost all the living ray-finned fishes. However, just to be difficult, I decided that the most appropriate tack for a post on Neopterygii was to leave the teleosts in all their diversity for another time, and focus on the non-teleost neopterygians. This, as it turns out, was a mistake. The non-teleost neopterygians seem, to a fish, to be almost universally ignored, and most of what there is out there was covered by Toby White almost seven years ago. Nevertheless, I'll see what I can do.

The origins of the Neopterygii date back to sometime in the Permian (Hurley et al., 2007). Compared to earlier actinopterygians, the ancestors of Neopterygii lost their clavicle, beginning a trend of lightening and strengthening their skeletons, while at the same time reducing the weight of their scales. Early fish had been heavily armoured arrangements, but like the origins of the modern military, neopterygians were to trade in their clunky plate armour for something a bit more like a bullet-proof jacket*.

*Something that has almost nothing to do with the main post, but which struck me when I was thinking about it yesterday evening: When one looks at the living vertebrates only, it is easy to imagine that there was a progressive development of the bony skeleton - at the base of the tree, we have the living cartilaginous fishes and jawless fishes with little or no ossification, followed by the bony fishes and the tetrapods mostly with full skeletons. The fossil record, however, indicates that things were a little more complicated - early fishes such as placoderms had extensive skeletons, and the modern unossified fishes are actually the descendants of vertebrates that lost most of their skeletons. However, the original vertebrate bony skeleton did differ from the modern bony skeleton in one major regard - it was on the outside. Early fish had great coverings of bony armour, but little ossified interior skeleton. So over the course of evolution, vertebrates have gone from having their skeletons on the outside and meaty parts in the middle, to have the meaty parts on the outside and the skeletons in the middle. In other words, vertebrates have effectively been turned inside out.


Longnose gar, Lepisosteus osseus, one of the few living non-teleost neopterygians. Photo from here.

There are few living groups of non-teleost neopterygians - in fact, there's only two, both restricted to fresh waters of North America. One group, the Halecostomi, is represented in the modern fauna by only a single species, the bowfin, Amia calva. As Toby has noted before me, perhaps the single most remarkable feature of the bowfin is that it has absolutely nothing remarkable about it whatsoever. Amiid fishes go all the way back to the Jurassic, and don't look too much different from each other in all that time. The other living group, the American gars of the family Lepisosteidae, are entirely a different matter - gigantic carnivorous fish, with long beaks and sharp teeth. The largest gars can be over two metres long, and according to this site Rafinesque referred to gars up to twelve feet long. They also lay eggs that are toxic to humans. Unfortunately, it looks like American gars don't have green bones, despite common rumour - the green-boned "garfish" is a quite different, marine fish (Belone) nestled well within the teleosts.


Bowfin, Amia calva, the other survivor. Photo from here.

Relationships between the neopterygian clades are almost completely obscure - while features of the jaw musculature support a relationship between Amia and teleosts to the exclusion of gars, other authors have supported an Amia-Lepisosteidae clade that excludes teleosts. Hurley et al. (2007) found the latter result in a morphological analysis, but the former in a molecular analysis. While a number of fossil groups of non-teleost neopterygians are known, few authors seem to have plugged them into a phylogenetic analysis except for Hurley et al. (2007) and Arratia (2001) (the latter of which I don't have access to). A number of authors have supported a relationship between the gars and the extinct Semionotiformes (Olsen & McCune, 1991), while the Pachycormiformes and Aspidorhynchiformes seem likely to be stem-teleosts. Finally, the Dapediidae and Pycnodontiformes were found by Hurley et al. (2007) to form a third clade in a polytomy with the Amia-Lepisosteidae clade and the teleosts.


The pycnodontiform Coelodus costai. Photo by Giovanni Dall'Orto.

Some of these were decidedly odd fishes. The Pycnodontiformes were deep-bodied fish, about as tall as they were long. They had strong teeth, and would have fed on shellfish. The Pachycormiformes, mostly pelagic hunters, are best known through the monster Leedsichthys, a gigantic filter feeder growing to lengths over ten metres, which is probably the largest known ray-finned fish.


Figure from McCune (2004), showing a reconstruction of Semionotus, and variation in dorsal spine row morphology and overall body shape in Newark Semionotus.

Perhaps the coolest of all, though, were the Semionotidae. Semionotus wasn't anything much to look at - not spectacularly large (probably about half a foot) and pretty generalised morphologically. During the Mesozoic it was found in freshwater deposits pretty much around the world, so it would have been dirt common. Where things get interesting is when you get to the Late Triassic and Early Jurassic Newark Supergroup of eastern North America. The Newark Supergroup comprises a series of lake deposits, formed by a process of rifting similar to the modern Great Lakes of Africa. And Semionotus was the Newark deposits' cichlid. Within a single lake deposit, a whole series of Semionotus species can be found, varying from long and narrow to deep-bodied and humpbacked (McCune, 2004). And that is very cool - that the incredible African cichlid radiation is not so incredible after all, but represents patterns and processes that were just as active 100 million years ago.

REFERENCES

Arratia, G. 2001. The sister group of Teleostei: consensus and disagreements. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21 (4): 767-773.

Hurley, I. A., R. Lockridge Mueller, K. A. Dunn, E. J. Schmidt, M. Friedman, R. K. Ho, V. E. Prince, Z. Yang, M. G. Thomas & M. I. Coates. 2007. A new time-scale for ray-finned fish evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 274: 489-498.

McCune, A. R. 2004. Diversity and speciation of semionotid fishes in Mesozoic rift lakes. In Adaptive Speciation (U. Dieckmann, M. Doebeli, J. A. J. Metz & D. Tautz, eds) pp. 362–379. Cambridge University Press.

Olsen, P. E., & A. R. McCune. 1991. Morphology of the Semionotus elegans species group from the Early Jurassic part of the Newark Supergroup of eastern North America with comments on the family Semionotidae (Neopterygii). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 11 (3): 269-292.

Some History of the History of Tetrapods

Titanophoneus potens, a Permian synapsid (image from Kheper).

Benton, M. J. (ed.) 1988. The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods. The Systematics Association Special Volume 35A & 35B. Clarendon Press: Oxford.

One interesting thing about comparing different fields of research is the different time-scales we work in when it comes to what constitutes a "recent" publication. As an invertebrate taxonomist, I think nothing of delving into stuff that was written in the 1950s or even earlier. A developmental geneticist is likely to regard anything more than a few years old as ancient history. Vertebrate palaeontology lies between these two extremes, but certainly 1988 was a long time ago for the tetrapods.

As a result, I suspect that Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods can't really tell us much about the current state of tetrapod classification. What does make it interesting, though, is what it says about the state of vertebrate palaeontology at the time. The late 1980s were certainly interesting times, not just in vertebrate palaeontology but in systematics in general. The cladistic revolution was gathering speed. Molecular phylogeny was making its first faltering steps, and challenging a few orthodoxies.

The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods was published in two volumes, and even that says something about changes in focus since. The second volume was devoted entirely to the mammals (about 5,400 living species). Everything else - amphibians, reptiles, birds, about 24,000 living species - took up only the first volume. Birds in particular warrant a single chapter, as do living amphibians (that latter point possibly hasn't changed much). Dinosaurs (the non-birdy type, that is) barely rate a mention. The dinosaur renaissance was in its early stages at the time - for comparison, Bakker's The Dinosaur Heresies, a book I personally don't think much of but which became something of a focal point for changing views on the big lizards, was first published in 1986. (It was also in 1988 that Gregory S. Paul's Predatory Dinosaurs of the World first hit the shelves, in which Paul copped a certain degree of ridicule for his decidedly heterodox reconstructions of dinosaurs covered in feathers - Paul has since, of course, been able to carry around a big bag of harsh words and force his critics on this point to eat them.) Of course, it should be noted that despite its palaeontological bent, ultimately the main focus of Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods is on the relationships between living tetrapods.

Despite all that has changed since then, some parts of Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods seem somewhat prescient. Not so much the molecular chapters - that on molecular phylogenetics of tetrapods as a whole has the grim figure of the Haematothermia clade (birds and mammals to the exclusion of reptiles) rear its ugly head, though the authors at least had the sense to recognise this as probably convergence rather than the actual state of affairs. But the mammalian molecular phylogeny chapter gives us some of the early glimmerings of the Afrotheria hypothesis, though that clade was not to be formally recognised until some years later, while the Novacek et al. chapter on the morphological phylogeny of modern mammalian orders is noteworthy for not finding any support for Ungulata.

The prize for best statement in the book, however, has to go to Gaffney & Meylan's chapter on turtles, where, after a description of the apomorphies connecting turtles to their supposed nearest relatives (the captorhinids, in this case), the authors note "And so we reach God's noblest creature - the turtle".

Scleritome Week: Not just an invert thing

Unfortunately, I can't touch the chancelloriids until tomorrow, but they will be here, I promise.

So far, all the animals I've shown you in relation to Scleritome Week (see here, here and here) have all been definitely in the class of organisms dismissed by the sadly vertebrate-centric as "creepy-crawlies". Nevertheless, the disarticulated scleritome issue is not unique to invertebrates.

The figure at the top of the post (from Valiukevičius & Burrow, 2005) shows scales of Silurian fish of the family Tchunacanthidae. This family was originally described by Karatajute-Talimaa & Smith (2003) as a new order, distinct from all others previously described (while Valiukevičius & Burrow seem a little sceptical of such a high ranking, they do still maintain the family's distinctiveness). The interesting thing for this post is that, so far, tchunacanthids are known only from scales.



Tchunacanthidae are member of the Acanthodii, an extinct class of vertebrates found from the Silurian to the Permian (a couple of examples are shown above in an illustration from here). Acanthodians are sometimes referred as "spiny sharks", a name that probably survives more because it sounds neat than because of its appropriateness for the actual animals. While generally regarded as more closely related to modern bony fishes and tetrapods than actual sharks, acanthodians resembled sharks in having a cartilaginous rather than a bony skeleton. As a result, acanthodian skeletons were rarely fossilised, and usually only the hard mineralised parts survived - teeth, scales and spines. Without the soft tissue holding them together, however, the fossils became disarticulated, just like the sclerites of a scleritome animal. Tchunacanthids are far from being the only family of non-bony fish known only from scattered pieces of armation - articulated specimens (except in those taxa that developed large bony plates) are the exception rather than the rule. Beyond the general features shared by all acanthodians, we are doomed to ignorance about what a living tchunacanthid looked like unless some day we are lucky enough to find one of those rare articulated fossils.

REFERENCES

Karatajute-Talimaa, V., & M. M. Smith. 2003. Early acanthodians from the Lower Silurian of Asia. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences 93: 277-299.

Valiukevičius, J., & J. C. Burrow. 2005. Diversity of tissues in acanthodians with Nostolepis−type histological structure. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 50 (3): 635-649.

Relict Frog Sex

At least one piece of genetics that almost everyone is familiar with is how our sex is determined - that women possess two X chromosomes while men produce an X and a Y chromosome. What may not be so familiar to most people is that this system is far from universal. Different animals exhibit a wide range of methods of sex determination, both genetic (like our own system) and environmental (such as temperature in crocodiles). In Hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps) unfertilised eggs produce haploid males, while fertilised eggs produce diploid females. In birds, it is the females that possess two different forms of sex chromosomes (referred to as W and Z), while the male possesses two Z chromosomes. But perhaps the oddest little tale of sex determination (and one I only discovered recently) involves the strange relictual frog genus Leiopelma (the species Leiopelma archeyi is shown in a photo from the page of Dr. Bruce Waldman).

Leiopelma is a small genus of four living species of frog restricted to New Zealand (a further three species are known from sub-fossil remains - Bell et al., 1998). They represent a basal grade of frogs of which the only other member is the "tailed frog" Ascaphus truei from western North America (different studies disagree as to whether Leiopelma and Ascaphus form the sister clade to or are paraphyletic to all other living frogs - Green & Cannatella, 1993; Hay et al., 1995). Leiopelma and Ascaphus retain a number of primitive features that have been lost in other frogs, such nine vertebrae in front of the sacrum and tail-wagging muscles (though the 'tail' of male Ascaphus is actually the copulatory organ). Leiopelma also lack a tadpole stage in their life-cycle, hatching straight out into froglets.

The really remarkable thing about Leiopelma, though, is that of the four species living today, at least three have different methods of sex determination from each other. And within two of those species, there are even different populations that differ in their mode of sex determination!

The most primitive state is perhaps that shown by Leiopelma archeyi, in which most populations don't have distinguishable sex chromosomes. This is the condition in most amphibians, though it has been shown that even in taxa that don't have heteromorphic chromosomes, sex is still determined genetically (Hayes, 1998). However, a heteromorphic W sex chromosome has been recorded in one population of L. archeyi from Whareorino in the King Country (Green, 2002). In other features (including genetic features) the Whareorino L. archeyi are almost indistinguishable from Coromandel populations that lack the W chromosome.

The Whareorino Leiopelma archeyi are therefore more like L. pakeka in sex differentiation. Leiopelma pakeka also has a female-ZW/male-ZZ set-up (Green, 1988)*. There is only a single population of L. pakeka, restricted to Maud Island, which diesn't give much scope for variation.

*The species Leiopelma pakeka was recognised only recently (Bell et al., 1998). Previously it had been regarded as a population of the genetically distinct but morphologically almost identical L. hamiltoni, and its genetic structure was described under the latter name. Leiopelma hamiltoni proper is uber-rare, with a population of less than 300 individuals restricted to less than one hectare of habitat on Stephens Island, and does not seem to have yet been investigated for sex chromosomes.

The ultimate wierdness, however, comes when we look at Leiopelma hochstetteri. Most populations of L. hochstetteri have a single sex chromosome in females, while males lack a sex chromosome. This female-0W/male-00 system is unique - no other animal has it. Not one. In fact, it's so bizarre that not even all L. hochstetteri have it - females of the population on Great Barrier Island lack the lonely W chromosome, and like Coromandel L. archeyi this population does not have morphologically distinct sex chromosomes (Green, 1994). The Great Barrier population also lacks the non-sex-related supernumerary chromosomes (or "B" chromosomes) found in other populations (Green et al., 1993). B chromosomes are small, seemingly dispensable chromosomes that are found in a broad scattering of taxa. In species where they are found, numbers of B chromosomes can vary significantly within and between populations, probably because their lack of significant function means a lack of selective control on their propagation. This variation is also seen in L. hochstetteri, where up to 15 B chromosomes were found in individuals of five different populations. The variation in chromosomes between populations is shown below in a figure from Green (1994).



So how did all this come about? I am not aware of any other group of closely-related organisms showing this much variation in so few species. However, it is possible to imagine ZW chromosomes evolving through differentiation of morphologically indistinct sex-determining chromosomes, and this is what appears to have occurred in Leiopelma pakeka and Whareorino L. archeyi. Leiopelma hamiltoni appears to be more closely related to L. archeyi than L. pakeka (Bell et al., 1998), so it would be very interesting to know whether or not it has distinct sex chromosomes.

As for Leiopelma hochstetteri, the sister taxon to all other Leiopelma, phylogenetic analysis of chromosome characters shows that the Great Barrier population, without the extra W chromosome, is probably sister to all other populations. Green et al. (1993) suggest that the 0W/00 system could evolved from a ZW/ZZ system. Either the Z chromosome may have been lost, or (as the authors of the latter study think more likely) it could have been duplicated, giving a ZZW/ZZ pattern that would be karyotypically indistinguishable from 0W/00.

REFERENCES

Bell, B. D., C. H. Daugherty & J. M. Hay. 1998. Leiopelma pakeka, n. sp. (Anura: Leiopelmatidae), a cryptic species of frog from Maud Island, New Zealand, and a reassessment of the conservation status of L. hamiltoni from Stephens Island. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 28 (1): 39-54.

Green, D. M. 1988. Heteromorphic sex chromosomes in the rare and primitive frog Leiopelma hamiltoni from New Zealand. Journal of Heredity 79 (3): 165-169.

Green, D. M. 1994. Genetic and cytogenetic diversity in Hochstetter's frog, Leiopelma hochstetteri, and its importance for conservation management. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 21: 417-424.

Green, D. M. 2002. Chromosome polymorphism in Archey's frog (Leiopelma archeyi) from New Zealand. Copeia 2002 (1): 204-207.

Green, D. M., & D. C. Cannatella. 1993. Phylogenetic significance of the amphicoelous frogs, Ascaphidae and Leiopelmatidae. Ecol. Ethol. Evol. 5: 233-245.

Green, D. M., C. W. Zeyl & T. F. Sharbel. 1993. The evolution of hypervariable sex and supernumerary (B) chromosomes in the relict New Zealand frog, Leiopelma hochstetteri. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 6 (3): 417-441.

Hay, J. M., I. Ruvinsky, S. B. Hedges & L. R. Maxson. 1995. Phylogenetic relationships of amphibian families inferred from DNA sequences of mitochondrial 12S and 16S ribosomal RNA genes. Molecular Biology and Evolution 12 (5): 928-937.

Hayes, T. B. 1998. Sex determination and primary sex differentiation in amphibians: Genetic and developmental mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Zoology 281 (5): 373-399.