The caudal skeleton of basal teleosts, its conventions, and some of its major evolutionary novelties in a temporal dimension

The present study represents an evaluation of the current knowledge of the caudal endoskeleton of basal fossil and extant teleosts and gives new information on the origin, development and homology of the elements of the caudal skeleton. One of the major problems is the lack of metamerization in the posterior region of the body that makes identification of elements and homology statements difficult. The definitions of preural region, ural region, and preural centrum 1 are analyzed. Other landmarks that facilitate the identification and homologization of certain caudal elements are also reviewed. New studies on the early development of the caudal skeleton of basal extant teleosts demonstrate that the ural region develops from an early polyural skeleton into a diural skeleton or into a compound terminal centrum in different ways in different teleosts. The two ural centra present in adult teleosts develop ontogenetically and phylogenetically from a polyural stage independently in different teleostean lineages origin. Thus, the two ural centra of the diural skeleton are not homologous across teleosts. Consequently, we propose to study the origin and composition of the ural region of different teleosts using the polyural terminology. This assumes a one-to-one relationship between ural centra and their respective hypaxial (e. g., ural 1/hypural 1; ural 2/hypural 2; ural 3/hypural 3) and epaxial elements. Polyural terminology facilitates interpretation of the composition of the two ural centra and their relationships to epaxial and hypaxial elements of the caudal fin. The compound terminal centrum (synonym: urostyle) present in most ostarioclupeomorphs (or otocephalans) and many euteleosts is currently assumed to be the result of a fusion involving preural centrum 1 and the first ural centrum. According to our studies based on day-to-day ontogenetic series, the compound terminal centrum is the result of an early fusion of preural centrum 1 with different ural centra in different teleosts. From the highest number of 13 hypurals found in the Early Jurassic †Pholidophorus bechei, a decreased number of 8 or 7 hypurals is observed in Late Jurassic elopiforms and 6 or fewer hypurals in extant teleosts. In most cases the reduction in number of hypurals has been interpreted as a fusion of elements, but this has not been shown ontogenetically. A complete series of true uroneurals occurs first in “true” teleosts (†Leptolepis coryphaenoides plus more advanced teleosts) at the base of the teleostean radiation. The homology of uroneurals is still not understood for most fossil and extant teleosts, with a reduction in number ranging from 7 to 3 to none in different extant teleostean lineages. In fossil basal “true” teleosts, the anterior-most uroneural seems to be a modification of ural neural arch 2 or 3, whereas the anterior-most uroneural is a modification of ural neural arch 4 in elopiforms, some osteoglossomorphs and salmonids. The origin and development of the pleurostyle (currently interpreted as a modified uroneural) in ostarioclupeomorphs remain unclear. The pleurostyle differs between groups, being chondral in some, but a membrane bone in others. “Uroneurals of a peculiar sort” develop as modified epaxial elements of preural as opposed to ural centra in fossil †pachycormiforms, some †aspidorhynchiforms and †’pholidophoriforms’. The homology of epurals is not fully understood for most basal teleosts. Epurals of basal teleosts are neural spines separated from neural arches. Basal teleosteomorphs and a few basal teleosts (and salmonids) possess simultaneously epurals derived from neural spines of both preural and ural centra. However, aspidorhynchiforms lack epurals. In †Leptolepis coryphaenoides plus more advanced teleosts the anterior-most epural corresponds to the neural spine of ural centrum 1, the second epural to ural centrum 2, and so on. In fossil and extant elopiforms, the three epurals correspond to ural centra 1-3 (polyural terminology), whereas in basal osteoglossomorphs the only epural present seems to belong to ural centrum 2 (polyural terminology). According to the present evidence, the origin of the one or two epurals present in ostarioclupeomorphs, as well as their homology, remains unknown.

[1]  M. Wilson Outstanding features of a new Late Jurassic pachycormiform fi sh from the Kimmeridgian of Brunn, Germany and comments on current understanding of pachycormiforms , 2020 .

[2]  W. Calvin,et al.  Limits and relationships of Paracanthopterygii: A molecular framework for evaluating past morphological hypotheses , 2020 .

[3]  M. Wilson,et al.  Ultraviolet light as a tool for investigating Mesozoic fi shes, with a focus on the ichthyofauna of the Solnhofen archipelago , 2020 .

[4]  Fromthe Lebanon TWO UPPER CRETACEOUS SALMONIFORM FISHES FROM THE LEBANON , 2016 .

[5]  R. Britz,et al.  The caudal skeleton of a 20 mm Triodon and homology of its components , 2012 .

[6]  P. Konstantinidis,et al.  A comparative ontogenetic study of the tetraodontiform caudal complex , 2012 .

[7]  M. Cancela,et al.  Vestiges, rudiments and fusion events: the zebrafish caudal fin endoskeleton in an evo‐devo perspective , 2012, Evolution & development.

[8]  E. Wiley,et al.  Phylogenetics : the theory of phylogenetic systematics , 2011 .

[9]  G. Arratia The Clupeocephala re-visited: Analysis of characters and homologies , 2010 .

[10]  D. Hikuroa,et al.  Jurassic Fishes from the Latady Group, Antarctic Peninsula, and the Oldest Teleosts from Antarctica , 2010 .

[11]  G. Arratia,et al.  The first record of Late Jurassic crossognathiform fishes from Europe and their phylogenetic importance for teleostean phylogeny , 2010 .

[12]  E. Hilton,et al.  Osteology and Systematics of Parastromateus niger (Perciformes: Carangidae), with Comments on the Carangid Dorsal Gill-Arch Skeleton , 2010, Copeia.

[13]  M. Friedman,et al.  100-Million-Year Dynasty of Giant Planktivorous Bony Fishes in the Mesozoic Seas , 2010, Science.

[14]  R. Cloutier,et al.  Ontogeny, variation, and homology in Salvelinus alpinus caudal skeleton (Teleostei: Salmonidae) , 2009, Journal of morphology.

[15]  A. Burdi Morphological Development of the Axial Skeletons of Esox Lucius and Esox Masquinongy (Euteleostei: Esociforms), with Comparisons in Developmental and Mineralization Rates. , 2010 .

[16]  Terry. Grande,et al.  Morphological Analysis of the Gonorynchiform Postcranial Skeleton , 2010 .

[17]  L. Grande,et al.  AN EMPIRICAL SYNTHETIC PATTERN STUDY OF GARS (LEPISOSTEIFORMES) AND CLOSELY RELATED SPECIES, BASED MOSTLY ON SKELETAL ANATOMY. THE RESURRECTION OF HOLOSTEI , 2010 .

[18]  Ralf Britz,et al.  Osteology of Paedocypris, a miniature and highly developmentally truncated fish (Teleostei: Ostariophysi: Cyprinidae) , 2009, Journal of morphology.

[19]  Maria Eduarda de Castro Leal,et al.  Intraspecific variation of the caudal fin skeleton in Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier 1829 (Teleostei: Osteoglossomorpha: Osteoglossidae) , 2007 .

[20]  G. Johnson,et al.  When two equals three: developmental osteology and homology of the caudal skeleton in carangid fishes (Perciformes: Carangidae) , 2007, Evolution & development.

[21]  G. Arratia,et al.  Eurycormus - - Eurypoma, two Jurassic actinopterygian genera with mixed identity , 2007 .

[22]  Mark G Thomas,et al.  A new time-scale for ray-finned fish evolution , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[23]  Derek L. Stemple,et al.  Structure and function of the notochord: an essential organ for chordate development , 2005, Development.

[24]  Paula M. Mabee,et al.  Developmental morphology of the axial skeleton of the zebrafish, Danio rerio (Ostariophysi: Cyprinidae) , 2003, Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists.

[25]  E. Hilton Osteology of the extant North American fishes of the genus Hiodon Lesueur, 1818 (Teleostei: Osteoglossomorpha: Hiodontiformes) / Eric J. Hilton. , 2002 .

[26]  G. Arratia,et al.  Vertebral column and associated elements in dipnoans and comparison with other fishes: Development and homology , 2001, Journal of morphology.

[27]  G. Arratia Remarkable teleostean fishes from the Late Jurassic of southern Germany and their phylogenetic relationships , 2000 .

[28]  Zhang Jiang-yong Morphology and phylogenetic relationships of †Kuntulunia (Teleostei: Osteoglossomorpha) , 1998 .

[29]  L. Grande,et al.  A comprehensive phylogenetic study of amiid fishes (Amiidae) based on comparative skeletal anatomy : an empirical search for interconnected patterns of natural history , 1998 .

[30]  Olivier Rieppel,et al.  2 – HOMOLOGY, TOPOLOGY, AND TYPOLOGY: THE HISTORY OF MODERN DEBATES , 1994 .

[31]  R. Beland Author’s Addresses , 1993, Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique.

[32]  F. Chapleau Pleuronectiform relationships : a cladistic reassessment , 1993 .

[33]  David M. Johnson,et al.  Percomorph phylogeny: a survey of acanthomorphs and a new proposal , 1993 .

[34]  G. Arratia,et al.  Reevaluation of the caudal skeleton of certain actinopterygian fishes: III. Salmonidae. Homologization of caudal skeletal structures , 1992, Journal of morphology.

[35]  D. McAllister,et al.  The Caudal Skeleton of Teleostean Fishes , 1991 .

[36]  G. Arratia,et al.  The composition of the caudal skeleton of teleosts (Actinopterygil: Osteichthyes) , 1989 .

[37]  G. Arratia,et al.  Reevaluation of the caudal skeleton of some actinopterygian fishes: II. Hiodon, Elops, and Albula , 1988, Journal of morphology.

[38]  Peter Ax,et al.  The phylogenetic system : the systematization of organisms on the basis of their phylogenesis , 1987 .

[39]  G. Arratia,et al.  Reevaluation of the caudal skeleton of actinopterygian fishes: I. Lepisosteus and Amia , 1986, Journal of morphology.

[40]  M. Katsuragawa,et al.  Osteological Development of Fins and Their Supports of Larval Grey Triggerfish, Balistes capriscus , 1985 .

[41]  P. Castle Notacanthiformes and Anguilliformes: Development. , 1984 .

[42]  G. Arratia The caudal skeleton of ostariophysan fishes (Teleostei): Intraspecific variation in trichomycteridae (Siluriformes) , 1983, Journal of morphology.

[43]  O. Nybelin The Polyural Skeleton of Lepisosteus and Certain Other Actinopterygians , 1978 .

[44]  D. Rosen,et al.  Review of ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes, and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bulletin of the AMNH ; v. 158, article 2 , 1977 .

[45]  C. Patterson The Contribution of Paleontology to Teleostean Phylogeny , 1977 .

[46]  L. Taverne,et al.  Ostéologie, phylogenèse et systématique des téléostéens fossiles et actuels du super-ordre des ostéoglossomorphes , 1975 .

[47]  P. Forey A revision of the elopiform fishes, fossil and recent , 1973 .

[48]  C. Patterson The caudal skeleton in Mesozoic Acanthopterygian fishes , 1968 .

[49]  C. Patterson The caudal skeleton in Lower Liassic pholidophorid fishes , 1968 .

[50]  R. Lund An analysis of the propulsive mechanisms of fishes with reference to some fossil actinopterygians , 1967, Annales of the Carnegi Museum.

[51]  S. Weitzman The Origin of the Stomiatoid Fishes with Comments on the Classification of Salmoniform Fishes , 1967 .

[52]  W. A. Gosline Some osteological features of modern lower teleostean fishes , 1961 .

[53]  H. A. Toombs,et al.  The Use of Acids in the Preparation of Vertebrate Fossils , 1959 .

[54]  Robert R. Miller,et al.  Fishes of the Great Lakes Region , 1948 .

[55]  G. Hollister Caudal skeleton of bermuda shallow water fishes. I. Order Isospondyli: Elopidae, Megalopidae, Albulidae, Clupeidae, Dussumieriidae, Engraulidae , 1936 .

[56]  G. ELLIOT SMITH,et al.  Studies on the Structure and Development of Vertebrates , 1930, Nature.

[57]  H. Gadow,et al.  On the Evolution of the Vertebral Column of Fishes , 1894 .

[58]  J. Lundberg The Caudal Skeleton of the Catfishes , Order Siluriformes BY , 2022 .