Development of bony skeleton in the ontogeny of lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus (Cyclopteridae, Scorpaeniformes)

Воскобойникова, О. С.; Kudryavtseva, O. Yu.

doi:10.1134/s0032945214030163

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mabee, Crotwell, Bird, and Burke (2002) Lauder & Liem, 1983;Pietsch, 1984;Pietsch & Orr, 2007) or into a suctorial apparatus in remoras (Echeneidae, Perciformes; Britz & Johnson, 2012;Friedman, Johanson, Harrington, Near, & Graham, 2013;Fulcher & Motta, 2006;O'Toole, 2002;Storms, 1888), or the co-option of the pelvic fins into a suctorial disk in lumpsuckers and snailfishes (Cyclopteridae and Liparidae respectively, both belonging to the Scorpaeniformes; Budney & Hall, 2010;Gill, 1890;Voskoboinikova & Kudryavtseva, 2014). Mabee, Crotwell, Bird, and Burke (2002) Lauder & Liem, 1983;Pietsch, 1984;Pietsch & Orr, 2007) or into a suctorial apparatus in remoras (Echeneidae, Perciformes; Britz & Johnson, 2012;Friedman, Johanson, Harrington, Near, & Graham, 2013;Fulcher & Motta, 2006;O'Toole, 2002;Storms, 1888), or the co-option of the pelvic fins into a suctorial disk in lumpsuckers and snailfishes (Cyclopteridae and Liparidae respectively, both belonging to the Scorpaeniformes; Budney & Hall, 2010;Gill, 1890;Voskoboinikova & Kudryavtseva, 2014).…”

Section: Euteleostei (Argentiniformes Salmoniformes and Osmeriformes)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…there are frequently two separate dorsal or anal fins, and even occasionally a third dorsal fin, for instance in some Gadiformes (cods and their allies). Mabee, Crotwell, Bird, and Burke (2002) Lauder & Liem, 1983;Pietsch, 1984;Pietsch & Orr, 2007) or into a suctorial apparatus in remoras (Echeneidae, Perciformes; Britz & Johnson, 2012;Friedman, Johanson, Harrington, Near, & Graham, 2013;Fulcher & Motta, 2006;O'Toole, 2002;Storms, 1888), or the co-option of the pelvic fins into a suctorial disk in lumpsuckers and snailfishes (Cyclopteridae and Liparidae respectively, both belonging to the Scorpaeniformes; Budney & Hall, 2010;Gill, 1890;Voskoboinikova & Kudryavtseva, 2014).…”

Section: Actinopterygiimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A critical appraisal of appendage disparity and homology in fishes

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fishes are both extremely diverse and morphologically disparate. Part of this disparity can be observed in the numerous possible fin configurations that may differ in terms of the number of fins as well as fin shapes, sizes and relative positions on the body. Here, we thoroughly review the major patterns of disparity in fin configurations for each major group of fishes and discuss how median and paired fin homologies have been interpreted over time. When taking into account the entire span of fish diversity, including both extant and fossil taxa, the disparity in fin morphologies greatly complicates inferring homologies for individual fins. Given the phylogenetic scope of this review, structural and topological criteria appear to be the most useful indicators of fin identity. We further suggest that it may be advantageous to consider some of these fin homologies as nested within the larger framework of homologous fin‐forming morphogenetic fields. We also discuss scenarios of appendage evolution and suggest that modularity may have played a key role in appendage disparification. Fin modules re‐expressed within the boundaries of fin‐forming fields could explain how some fins may have evolved numerous times independently in separate lineages (e.g., adipose fin), or how new fins may have evolved over time (e.g., anterior and posterior dorsal fins, pectoral and pelvic fins). We favour an evolutionary scenario whereby median appendages appeared from a unique field of competence first positioned throughout the dorsal and ventral midlines, which was then redeployed laterally leading to paired appendages.

show abstract

Section: Euteleostei (Argentiniformes Salmoniformes and Osmeriformes)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Actinopterygiimentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical appraisal of appendage disparity and homology in fishes

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All «cryonotothenioid» larvae are pelagic (Loeb et al, 1993;Andrew et al, 1995;Rodrigues et al, 2013) [113][114][115], and the influence and significance of pedomorphy are now recognized at levels ranging from the macroevolutionary (Balushkin, 1984, pp. 127-128) [89], to the relative proportions of skeletal tissues, especially the persistence of cartilage in lieu of bone (Voskoboinikova, 2001(Voskoboinikova, , 2007(Voskoboinikova, , 2010Voskoboinikova et al, 2017) [116][117][118][119] and finally to the expression of bone and cartilage collagen genes (Albertson et al, 2010;Postlethwait et al, 2016) [120,121]. Colors are standardized across panels and serve as proxies for the amounts of compact bone (red), cancellous bone (green), and cartilage (blue).…”

Section: Morphologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Neotenic retention of cartilage reduces bone mass in the adult skeleton. The delay in bone development and persistence of cartilage in the adult skeleton is a pedomorphic aspect of skeletal development (Voskoboinikova, 2001(Voskoboinikova, , 2010 [116,118] that reduces overall skeletal mass. This is characteristic of the neurocranium, branchial skeleton, and pectoral and pelvic girdles in many «cryonotothenioids».…”

Section: Morphologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Channichthyids have widened and elongated heads and correspondingly larger jaws and oral gapes than bathydraconids. The jaw bones are reduced in mass and gracile, the limbs of the dentary are short, especially the ventral limb, and the ascending and articular processes of the premaxilla are reduced to small knobs (Figure 19b,c), with the loss of premaxillary protrusion in most species (Iwami, 1985;Voskoboinikova, 1993) [179,188]. Pseudochaenichthys georgianus has a rudimentary ascending process (Figure 19b) but it has been lost in Chaenocephalus aceratus (Figure 19c).…”

Section: Morphology Stage-axis 6: Trophic Morphology Specifically Ora...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Axes of Divergence for the Evolutionary Radiation of Notothenioid Fishes in Antarctica

Eastman

2024

Diversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Notothenioid fishes, a perciform group, radiated in the cold shelf waters around the Antarctic continent and the 110 species dominate fish diversity, abundance, and biomass at levels of ≈77%, 92%, and 91%, respectively. This occurred in a locality with frequent glaciomarine cycles that fragmented and obliterated habitats, disrupted ecosystems, and made parts of the high latitude shelves periodically uninhabitable. The notothenioid radiation encompasses three stages and 10 axes: for the habitat stage, divergence in (1) depth and (2) biotope, meaning subdivisions within the pelagic and benthic realms; for the morphology stage, divergence in (3) body size, (4) body density based on proportions of skeletal and adipose tissues, (5) body shape, (6) trophic morphology, specifically head morphology related to feeding (jaws, teeth, head size, and pharyngeal gape), and (7) neuromorphology (brain and sensory systems); and for the communication stage, divergence in (8) fecundity and egg size, (9) sexual dichromatism and dimorphism in body and fins, and (10) parental care behavior associated with nesting. There was an antecedent Eocene fossil fauna that did not include notothenioids and that has minimal taxonomic representation in the modern fauna. Liparids (snailfishes) and zoarcids (eelpouts) also diversified in Antarctic waters but with minimal divergence. Hypotheses are offered as to why these radiations played out the way they did and why notothenioids are dominant.

show abstract