Heterochronic Variation in the Developmental Timing of Cranial Ossifications in Poeciliid Fishes (Cyprinodontiformes)

Strauss, Richard E.

doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1990.tb03846.x

Cited by 36 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, although there was some overlap, different regions of the skull appeared sequentially, and this sequence of appearance is similar among temperatures and species (Table 3). These patterns of concordance and correlation among species' ossification sequences (Table 2) are similar to those found by Strauss (1990Strauss ( , 1992 among closely related poeciliid fishes. Poecillids that were more closely related had higher levels of correlation, which is indicative of a historical/genetic component to ossification sequence.…”

Section: Although Variation Exists the General Sequence Is Conservedsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…To what degree do evolutionary differences in skull morphology among taxa result from changes in developmental sequence? At the intraspecific level, it is not clear that changes in relative sequence do result in different adult morphologies, although adult bone size may be related to timing of ossification (Strauss 1992). Although the order in which bones ossified differed among individuals of Danio and Betta, a ''normal'' skull in both species was apparently the result.…”

Section: Heterochronymentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Conserved ossification sequences are expected on functional grounds, with mechanical stress on the early-functioning parts of the skeleton the proximate cause of skeletal ossification (Weisel 1967;Verraes 1975;Mook 1977;Morris and Gaudin 1982;Strauss 1992;Vandewalle et al 1992). The hypothesis that the sequence of ossification is constrained due to functional considerations, however, has not been quantitatively tested.…”

Section: Function and Ossificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given that differences in developmental timing (i.e., heterochrony) are readily and commonly observed among species, one might expect many studies on intraspecific variation in developmental timing. Few studies, however, have focused on intraspecific variation in development, although investigating how intraspecific variation at the level of developmental processes translates into morphological variation among taxa is considered to be an important future challenge that is likely to be productive in understanding the evolution of the vertebrate skull (Strauss 1992;Hanken and Hall 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An Experimental Study of Intraspecific Variation, Developmental Timing, and Heterochrony in Fishes

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Heterochrony is widely regarded as an important evolutionary mechanism, one that may underlie most, if not all, morphological evolution, yet relatively few studies have examined variation in the sequence of development. Even fewer studies have been designed so that intraspecific variation in the relative sequence of developmental events can be assessed, although this variation must be the basis for evolutionary change. Intraspecific variation in developmental ossification sequences was documented from the zebrafish (Danio rerio) by Cubbage and Mabee (1996) and from the Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens) by Mabee and Trendler (1996), but a quantitative analysis of the patterns within this variation was not made. Here, we quantify the effect of rearing temperature on the sequence of ossification and characterize the levels and patterns of intraspecific variation in these fishes. For Danio, there were no temperature effects on the sequence of bone development across the cranium, cranial region development, cartilage versus dermal bones, or lateral line bone versus nonassociated bones. Likewise the level of variation in relative sequence (position) of ossification was low, about two ranks, across temperatures. At higher temperatures, we found higher levels of variation in iterated cranial bones and less in bones forming early in the sequence. No temperature effects on variation were found among regions, between lateral line-associated bones and nonassociated bones, between median and paired bones, or across the entire sequence, indicating concordant variability among the three temperatures. Individual bones with the highest levels of variability were not consistent among temperatures.Baseline patterns of intraspecific variation in Danio were compared to those of Betta. For both species, the level of intraspecific variation in sequence position was low and the variability of cranial bones was concordant. Individual bones with the highest levels of variability were not consistent between species. In both species, variation was widespread (distributed evenly across the sequence). We used comparisons (among regions, between dermal and cartilage bones, between lateral line-associated and other bones, between median and paired bones, between iterated and noniterated bones, between feeding-associated bones and others) to see which subsets were most variable and thus potentially useful in predicting high levels of evolutionary change. The only subset of bones that was significantly more variable than others was cartilage bones. If interspecific patterns are parallel to these intraspecific differences, cartilage bones would be expected to show higher levels of heterochrony. Although concordance across the cranial ossification sequence and among regions in Danio, Betta, and two other teleosts, Oryzias and Barbus, suggests an evolutionarily conserved pattern of ossification, identity in sequence position across taxa was not observed for any bone. Thus, variation existed in sequence position across temperatures a...

show abstract

Section: Although Variation Exists the General Sequence Is Conservedsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Heterochronymentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Function and Ossificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An Experimental Study of Intraspecific Variation, Developmental Timing, and Heterochrony in Fishes

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several authors have emphasized the role of heterochrony in morphological evolution (e.g. Gould 1977;Alberch et al 1979;Alberch 1980;Hall 1984;Strauss 1990). Heterochrony has already been suggested to explain morphological variation in the oral jaw apparatus of the New World cichlid, Cichlasoma managuense (Meyer 1987).…”

Section: Development Of the Pharyngeal Jawsmentioning

confidence: 99%