Fingers zipped up or baby mittens? Two main tetrapod strategies to return to the sea

Fernández, Marta; Vlachos, Evangelos; Buono, Mónica Romina; Alzugaray, Lucía; Campos, Lisandro; Sterli, Juliana; Herrera, Yanina; Paolucci, Florencia

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2020.0281

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Future studies should address whether other lineages with relatively big brains, such as dolphins within cetaceans (Marino, 2009) or corvids within birds (Uomini et al, 2020), convergently evolved a similar relationship between cranial anatomy and brain size. On a more general note, the results presented here add up to a growing body of research that seeks to better understand morphological evolution, development, and function by using methods that allow us to studying the body's anatomy as a complex biological system (Esteve-Altava et al, 2013, 2019Saucède et al, 2015;Dos Santos et al, 2017;Kerkman et al, 2018;Murphy et al, 2018;Werneburg et al, 2019;Fernández et al, 2020;Plateau & Foth, 2020;Sookias et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Cranial Anatomical Integration and Disparity Among Bones Discriminate Between Primates and Non-primate Mammals

Esteve‐Altava

2021

Evol Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primate skull hosts a unique combination of anatomical features among mammals, such as a short face, wide orbits, and big braincase. Together with a trend to fuse bones in late development, these features define the anatomical organization of the skull of primates—which bones articulate to each other and the pattern this creates. Here, I quantified the anatomical organization of the skull of 17 primates and 15 non-primate mammals using anatomical network analysis to assess how the skulls of primates have diverged from those of other mammals, and whether their anatomical differences coevolved with brain size. Results show that primates have a greater anatomical integration of their skulls and a greater disparity among bones than other non-primate mammals. Brain size seems to contribute in part to this difference, but its true effect could not be conclusively proven. This supports the hypothesis that primates have a distinct anatomical organization of the skull, but whether this is related to their larger brains remains an open question.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Cranial Anatomical Integration and Disparity Among Bones Discriminate Between Primates and Non-primate Mammals

Esteve‐Altava

2021

Evol Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following Esteve‐Altava et al (2019) and Fernández et al (2020), different parameters from each network were obtained using the R package Igraph (Csardi & Nepusz, 2006): (1) number of nodes ( N ); (2) number of links ( L ); (3) density ( D ), which is a measure of how close is the network to be a complete graph, and is obtained by dividing the number of links by the number of maximum possible links in the network; (4) average cluster coefficient (ACC), which is the average of the local cluster coefficient, a measure of each node related to the connectivity of the adjacent nodes; (5) average shortest path length (APL), which is the average length of all shortest or geodesic paths (i.e., the minimal number of links connecting every two nodes) in a network; (6) heterogeneity ( H ), which is a measure of how even are the nodes according to their number of connections; (7) average degree (AD), which is the average number of links of each node; (8) network diameter (ND), which is the length of the longest geodesic path; and (9) modularity ( Q ). Modularity was calculated by dividing all the networks in different communities using the algorithm clustering walktrap, which detects communities by short random walks, as random walks in a graph tend to be trapped into densely connected subgraphs (Pons & Latapy, 2005); then the resulting membership structure was used to calculate Q (Newman & Girvan, 2004).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Following Esteve-Altava et al ( 2019) and Fernández et al (2020), different parameters from each network were obtained using the R package Igraph (Csardi & Nepusz, 2006): (1) number of nodes (N);…”

Section: Network Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Redefining the simplicity of the craniomandibular complex of nightjars: The case of Systellura longirostris (Aves: Caprimulgidae) by means of anatomical network analysis

Mendoza

Carril

Degrange

et al. 2022

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To study morphological evolution, it is necessary to combine information from multiple intersecting research fields. Here, we report on the structure of the bony and muscular elements of the craniomandibular complex of birds, highlighting its morphological architecture and complexity (or simplification) in the context of anatomical networks of the Band‐winged Nightjar Systellura longirostris (Caprimulgiformes, Caprimulgidae). This species has skull osteology and jaw myology that departs from the general structural plan of the craniomandibular complex of Neornithes and is considered morphologically simple. Our goal is to test if its simplification is also reflected in its anatomical network, particularly in those parameters that measure complexity and to explore if the distribution of the networks in a phylomorphospace is conditioned by their evolutionary history or by convergence. Our results show that S. longirostris clusters with other Strisores and momotids and is segregated from the other bird species analyzed when plotted in the phylomorphospace, as a consequence of convergence in the network parameters. Systellura has a craniomandibular complex consisting of fewer muscles connecting more bones than the model species (e.g., the rock pigeon or the guira cuckoo). In this sense, Systellura is actually more complex regarding the number of integrative bony parts, while its craniomandibular complex is simpler. According to its anatomical network, Systellura also can be interpreted as less complex, particularly compared with other Strisores and taxa that reflect the general structure of the craniomandibular complex in Neornithes.

show abstract

“…(2018) , Esteve-Altava et al. (2019) , and Esteve-Altava & Rasskin-Gutman (2014) ; Parcellation was calculated as in Fernández et al (2020) . Our data are summarized in Table 1 ; see supplemental information as well.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The solid theoretical foundations of the AnNA ( Esteve-Altava, 2013 ; Rasskin-Gutman & Esteve-Altava, 2014 ) has allowed its successful application in various anatomical structures, like the mammalian skeleton ( Powell et al, 2018 ), tetrapod skull ( e.g. , Esteve-Altava et al, 2013a ; Esteve-Altava et al., 2013b ; Esteve-Altava & Rasskin-Gutman, 2014 ; Lee, Esteve-Altava & Abzhanov, 2020 ) and tetrapod limbs ( Molnar et al, 2017 ; Esteve-Altava et al, 2018 ; Esteve-Altava et al, 2019 ; Fernández et al, 2020 ), among many other studies. In particular, a recent AnNA analysis of 44 tetrapod skulls by Esteve-Altava et al (2013a) revealed that the reduction in the number of skull bones during tetrapod evolution increased the complexity of the connectivity pattern under a regime of important structural constraints.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breaking the mold: telescoping drives the evolution of more integrated and heterogeneous skulls in cetaceans

Buono

Vlachos

2022

PeerJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Along with the transition to the aquatic environment, cetaceans experienced profound changes in their skeletal anatomy, especially in the skull, including the posterodorsal migration of the external bony nares, the reorganization of skull bones (= telescoping) and the development of an extreme cranial asymmetry (in odontocetes). Telescoping represents an important anatomical shift in the topological organization of cranial bones and their sutural contacts; however, the impact of these changes in the connectivity pattern and integration of the skull has never been addressed. Methods Here, we apply the novel framework provided by the Anatomical Network Analysis to quantify the organization and integration of cetacean skulls, and the impact of the telescoping process in the connectivity pattern of the skull. We built anatomical networks for 21 cetacean skulls (three stem cetaceans, three extinct and 10 extant mysticetes, and three extinct and two extant odontocetes) and estimated network parameters related to their anatomical integration, complexity, heterogeneity, and modularity. This dataset was analyzed in the context of a broader tetrapod skull sample as well (43 species of 13 taxonomic groups). Results The skulls of crown cetaceans (Neoceti) occupy a new tetrapod skull morphospace, with better integrated, more heterogeneous and simpler skulls in comparison to other tetrapods. Telescoping adds connections and improves the integration of those bones involved in the telescoping process (e.g., maxilla, supraoccipital) as well as other ones (e.g., vomer) not directly affected by telescoping. Other underlying evolutionary processes (such as basicranial specializations linked with hearing/breathing adaptations) could also be responsible for the changes in the connectivity and integration of palatal bones. We also find prograde telescoped skulls of mysticetes distinct from odontocetes by an increased heterogeneity and modularity, whereas retrograde telescoped skulls of odontocetes are characterized by higher complexity. In mysticetes, as expected, the supraoccipital gains importance and centrality in comparison to odontocetes, increasing the heterogeneity of the skull network. In odontocetes, an increase in the number of connections and complexity is probably linked with the dominant movement of paired bones, such as the maxilla, in retrograde telescoping. Crown mysticetes (Eubalaena, Caperea, Piscobalaena, and Balaenoptera)are distinguished by having more integrated skulls in comparison to stem mysticetes (Aetiocetus and Yamatocetus), whereas crown odontocetes (Waipatia, Notocetus, Physeter, and Tursiops) have more complex skulls than stem forms (Albertocetus). Telescoping along with feeding, hearing and echolocation specializations could have driven the evolution of the different connectivity patterns of living lineages.

show abstract

Fingers zipped up or baby mittens? Two main tetrapod strategies to return to the sea

Cited by 19 publications

References 16 publications

Cranial Anatomical Integration and Disparity Among Bones Discriminate Between Primates and Non-primate Mammals

Cranial Anatomical Integration and Disparity Among Bones Discriminate Between Primates and Non-primate Mammals

Redefining the simplicity of the craniomandibular complex of nightjars: The case of Systellura longirostris (Aves: Caprimulgidae) by means of anatomical network analysis

Breaking the mold: telescoping drives the evolution of more integrated and heterogeneous skulls in cetaceans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About