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

A central question in evolutionary developmental biology is how highly conserved developmental systems can generate the remarkable phenotypic diversity observed among distantly related species. In part, this paradox reflects our limited knowledge about the potential for species to both respond to selection and generate novel variation. Consequently, the developmental links between small-scale microevolutionary variations within populations to larger macroevolutionary patterns among species remains unbridged. Domesticated species such as the pigeon are unique resources for addressing this question because a history of strong artificial selection has significantly increased morphological diversity, offering a direct comparison of the developmental potential of a single species to broader evolutionary patterns. Here we demonstrate that patterns of variation and covariation within and between the face and braincase in domesticated breeds of the pigeon are predictive of avian cranial evolution. These results indicate that selection on variation generated by a conserved developmental system is sufficient to explain the evolution of crania as different in shape as the albatross or eagle, parakeet or hummingbird. These “rules” of craniofacial variation are a common pattern in the evolution of a broad diversity of vertebrate species, and may ultimately reflect structural limitations of a shared embryonic bauplan on functional variation.

Harvesting wild animals may exert size-independent selection pressures on a range of morphological, life history, and behavioral traits. Most work so far has focused on selection pressures on life history traits and body size as morphological trait. We studied here how recreational fishing selects for morphological traits related to body shape, which may correlate with underlying swimming behavior. Using landmark-based geometric morphometrics, we found consistent recreational fishing-induced selection pressures on body shape in two recreationally exploited marine fish species. We show that individuals with larger-sized mouths and more streamlined and elongated bodies were more vulnerable to passively operated hook-and-line fishing independent of the individual's body size or condition. While the greater vulnerability of individuals with larger mouth gapes can be explained by the direct physical interaction with hooks, selection against streamlined and elongated individuals could either involve a specific foraging mode or relate to underlying elevated swimming behavior. Harvesting using passive gear is common around the globe, and thus, size-independent selection on body shape is expected to be widespread potentially leaving behind individuals with smaller oral gapes and more compact bodies. This might have repercussions for food webs by altering foraging and predation.

No abstract

The notion of scala naturae dates back to thinkers such as Aristotle, who placed plants below animals and ranked the latter along a graded scale of complexity from 'lower' to 'higher' animals, such as humans. In the last decades, evolutionary biologists have tended to move from one extreme (i.e. the idea of scala naturae or the existence of a general evolutionary trend in complexity from 'lower' to "higher" taxa, with Homo sapiens as the end stage) to the other, opposite, extreme (i.e. to avoid using terms such as 'phylogenetically basal' and 'anatomically plesiomorphic' taxa, which are seen as the undesired vestige of old teleological theories). The latter view tries to avoid any possible connotations with the original anthropocentric idea of a scala naturae crowned by man and, in that sense, it can be regarded as a more politically correct view. In the past years and months there has been renewed interest in these topics, which have been discussed in various papers and monographs that tend to subscribe, in general, to the points defended in the more politically correct view. Importantly, most evolutionary and phylogenetic studies of tetrapods and other vertebrates, and therefore most discussions on the scala naturae and related issues have been based on hard tissue and, more recently, on molecular data. Here we provide the first discussion of these topics based on a comparative myological study of all the major vertebrate clades and of myological cladistic and Bayesian phylogenetic analyses of bony fish and tetrapods, including Primates. We specifically (i) contradict the notions of a scala naturae or evolutionary progressive trends leading to more complexity in 'higher' animals and culminating in Homo sapiens, and (ii) stress that the refutation of these old notions does not necessarily mean that one should not keep using the terms 'phylogenetically basal' and particularly 'anatomically plesiomorphic' to refer to groups such as the urodeles within the Tetrapoda, or the strepsirrhines and lemurs within the Primates, for instance. This review will contribute to improving our understanding of these broad evolutionary issues and of the evolution of the vertebrate Bauplans, and hopefully will stimulate future phylogenetic, evolutionary and developmental studies of these clades.

No abstract

Morphological variation is unevenly distributed within the mammalian skull; some of its parts have diversified more than others. It is commonly thought that this pattern of variation is mainly the result of the structural organization of the skull, as defined by the pattern and magnitude of trait covariation. Patterns of trait covariation can facilitate morphological diversification if they are aligned in the direction of selection, or these patterns can constrain diversification if oriented in a different direction. Within this theoretical framework, it is thought that more variable parts possess patterns of trait covariation that made them more capable of evolutionary change, that is, are more labile. However, differences in the degree of morphological variation among skull traits could arise despite variation in trait lability if, for example, some traits have evolved at a different rate and/or undergone stabilizing selection. Here, we test these hypotheses in the mammalian skull using 2D geometric morphometrics to quantify skull shape and estimating constraint, rates of evolution, and lability. Contrary to the expectations, more variable parts of the skull across mammalian species are less capable of evolutionary change than are less variable skull parts. Our results suggest that patterns of morphological variation in the skull could result from differences in rate of evolution and stabilizing selection.

Recent comparative studies have indicated the existence of a common cranial evolutionary allometric (CREA) pattern in mammals and birds, in which smaller species have relatively smaller faces and bigger braincases than larger species. In these studies, cranial allometry was tested using a multivariate regression between shape (described using landmarks coordinates) and size (i.e. centroid size), after accounting for phylogenetic relatedness. Alternatively, cranial allometry can be determined by comparing the sizes of two anatomical parts using a bivariate regression analysis. In this analysis, a slope higher or lower than 1 indicates the existence of positive or negative allometry, respectively. Thus, in those species that support the CREA ‘rule’, positive allometry is expected for the association between face size and braincase size, which would indicate that larger species have disproportionally larger faces. In the present study, I applied these two approaches to explore cranial allometry in 83 Galliformes (Aves, Galloanserae), ranging in body weight from 30 g to 2.5 kg. The multivariate regression between shape and centroid size revealed the existence of a significant allometric pattern resembling CREA, whereas the second analysis revealed a negative allometry for beak size and braincase size (i.e. contrary to the CREA ‘rule’, larger galliform species have disproportionally shorter beaks than smaller galliform species). This study suggests that the presence of CREA may be overestimated when using cranium size as the standard measurement.