Advertisement

Evolutionary Biology

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 209–219 | Cite as

Structural Constraints in the Evolution of the Tetrapod Skull Complexity: Williston’s Law Revisited Using Network Models

  • Borja Esteve-Altava
  • Jesús Marugán-Lobón
  • Héctor Botella
  • Diego Rasskin-Gutman
Research Article

Abstract

Ever since the appearance of the first land vertebrates, the skull has undergone a simplification by loss and fusion of bones in all major groups. This well-documented evolutionary trend is known as “Williston’s Law”. Both loss and fusion of bones are developmental events that generate, at large evolutionary scales, a net reduction in the number of skull bones. We reassess this evolutionary trend by analyzing the patterns of skull organization captured in network models in which nodes represent bones and links represent suture joints. We also evaluate the compensatory process of anisomerism (bone specialization) suggested to occur as a result of this reduction by quantifying the heterogeneity and the ratio of unpaired bones in real skulls. Finally, we perform simulations to test the differential effect of bone losses in skull evolution. We show that the reduction in bone number during evolution is accompanied by a trend toward a more complex organization, rather than toward simplification. Our results indicate that the processes by which bones are lost or fused during development are central to explain the evolution of the morphology of the skull. Our simulations suggest that the evolutionary trend of increasing morphological complexity can be caused as a result of a structural constraint, the systematic loss of less connected bones during development.

Keywords

Morphological complexity Constraints Network theory Tetrapod skull 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Angela D. Buscalioni for constructive comments. We thank Michel Laurin for suggestions about the phylogenetic analysis and comments in a previous version of this manuscript. We thank the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research were the final manuscript was completed. This research project was supported by grant (BFU2008-00643) from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación.

Supplementary material

11692_2012_9200_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (905 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 905 kb)

References

  1. Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabási, A.-L. (2000). Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature, 406, 378–381.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldridge, K., Marsh, J. L., Govier, D., & Richtsmeier, J. T. (2002). Central nervous system phenotypes in craniosynostosis. Journal of Anatomy, 201, 31–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benton, M. J. (1990). Reptiles. In K. J. MacNamara (Ed.), Evolutionary trends (pp. 279–300). Tucson: Arizona University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bonner, J. T. (1988). The evolution of complexity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boonstra, L. D. (1936). The cranial morpholgy of some titanosuchid deinocephalians. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 72, 99–116.Google Scholar
  6. Cannatella, D. (2008). Living amphibians. Frogs and toads, salamanders and newts, and caecilians. Resource document. http://tolweb.org/Living_Amphibians/14997/2008.11.28. Accessed 23 May 2012.
  7. Carroll, R. L. (1988). Vertebrate paleontology and evolution. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  8. Carroll, R. L., & Lindsay, W. (1985). Cranial anatomy of the primitive reptile Procolophon. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 22, 1571–1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Case, E. C. (1904). The osteology of the skull of the pelycosaurian genus, Dimetrodon. Journal of Geology, 12, 304–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chernoff, B., & Magwene, P. M. (1999). Afterword. In E. C. Olson & P. L. Miller (Eds.), Morphological integration (pp. 319–353). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Depew, M. J., Compagnucci, C., & Griffin, J. (2008). Suture neontology and paleontology: The bases for where, when, and how boundaries between bones have been established and have evolved. In D. P. Rice (Ed.), Craniofacial sutures. Development, disease, and treatment (pp. 57–78). Basel: Karger.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorogovtsev, S. N., & Mendes, J. F. F. (2003). Evolution of networks: From biological networks to the Internet and WWW. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., & Martínez, N. D. (2008a). Food-web structure and network theory: The role of connectance and size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 12917–12922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., Martínez, N. D., Wood, R. A., & Erwin, D. H. (2008b). Compilation and network analyses of Cambrian food webs. PLoS Biology, 6, e102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erdos, P., & Renyi, A. (1959). On random graphs. Publicationes mathematicae Debrecen, 6, 290–297.Google Scholar
  16. Estes, R. (1961). Cranial anatomy of the cynodont reptile Thrinaxodon liorhinus. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 125, 165–180.Google Scholar
  17. Estes, R., Queiroz, K., & Gauthier, J. (1988). Phylogenetic relationships within Squamata. In R. Estes & G. Pregill (Eds.), Phylogenetic relationships of the lizard families: Essays commemorating Charles L. Camp (pp. 119–281). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Esteve-Altava, B., Marugán-Lobón, J., Botella, H., & Rasskin-Gutman, D. (2011). Network models in anatomical systems. Journal of Anathropological Sciences, 89, 1–10.Google Scholar
  19. Felsenstein, J. (1985). Phylogenies and the comparative method. The American Naturalist, 125, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gabriel, K. R., & Sokal, R. R. (1969). A new statistical approach to geographic variation analysis. Systematic Zoology, 18, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaffney, E. S. (1979). Comparative cranial morphology of recent and fossil turtles. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 164, 65–375.Google Scholar
  22. Gaffney, E. S. (1990). The comparative osteology of the triassic turtle Proganochelys. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 194, 2–263.Google Scholar
  23. Gardner, N. M., Holliday, C. M., & O’Keefe, F. R. (2010). The Braincase of Youngina capensis (Reptilia, Diapsida): New insights from high-resolution CT scanning of the Holotype. Palaeontologia Electronica, 13, 19A.Google Scholar
  24. Giannini, N. P., Wible, J. R., & Simmons, N. B. (2006). On the cranial osteology of Chiroptera. 1, Pteropus (Megachiroptera, Pteropodidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 295, 1–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gibbard, L. P., Head, M. J., & Walker, M. J. C. (2010). Formal ratification of the Quaternary System/Period and the Pleistocene Series/Epoch with a base at 2.58 Ma. Journal of Quaternary Science, 25, 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilmore, C. W. (1914). Osteology of the armored Dinosauria in the United States National Museum, with special reference to the genus Stegosaurus. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 89, 2–159.Google Scholar
  27. Girgis, F. G., & Pritchard, J. J. (1958). Effects of skull damage on the development of sutural patterns in the rat. Journal of Anatomy, 92, 39–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Goodrich, E. S. (1958). Studies on the structure and development of vertebrates. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Gradstein, F. M., Agterberg, F. P., Ogg, J. G., Hardenbol, J., Van Veen, P., Thierry, J., et al. (1995). A Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous time scale. SEPM Special: Publication. 54.Google Scholar
  30. Gray, H. (1918). Anatomy of the human body. Philadelphia: Lea, & Febiger.Google Scholar
  31. Gregory, W. K. (1934). Polysomerism and anisomerism in cranial and dental evolution among vertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 20, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gregory, W. K., Roigneau, M., Burr, E. R., Evans, G., Hellman, E., Jackson, F. A., et al. (1935). Williston’s law relating to the evolution of skull bones in the vertebrates. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 20, 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hall, B. K. (2005). Bones and cartilage. Developmental and evolutionary skeletal biology. San Diego: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  34. Hildebrand, M. (1988). Analysis of vertebrate structure (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Horvath, S., & Dong, J. (2008). Geometric interpretation of gene coexpression network analysis. PLoS Computational Biology, 4, e1000117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hugall, A. F., Foster, R., & Lee, M. S. (2007). Calibration choice, rate smoothing, and the pattern of tetrapod diversification according to the long nuclear gene RAG-1. Systematic Biology, 56, 543–563.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Josse, S., Moreau, T., & Laurin, M. (2006). Stratigraphic tools for mesquite. Available at http://mesquiteproject.org/packages/stratigraphicTools/.
  38. Kardong, K. V. (2005). Vertebrates. Comparative anatomy, function, evolution. New York: Mcgraw Hill.Google Scholar
  39. Knight, C. G., & Pinney, J. W. (2009). Making the right connections: Biological networks in the light of evolution. BioEssays, 31, 1080–1090.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koyabu, D., Maier, W., & Sánchez-Villagra, M. R. (2012). Paleontological and developmental evidence resolve the homology and dual embryonic origin of a mammalian skull bone, the interparietal. Proceedings of the Natinal Academy of Science USA,. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1208693109.Google Scholar
  41. Laurin, M. (1996). A redescription of the cranial anatomy of Seymouria baylorensis, the best known Seymouriamorph (Veretebrata: Seymouriamorpha). PaleoBios, 17, 1–16.Google Scholar
  42. Laurin, M. (2004). The evolution of body size, Cope’s rule and the origin of amniotes. Systematic Biology, 53, 594–622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laurin, M. (2010). Assessment of the relative merits of a few methods to detect evolutionary trends. Systematic Biology, 59, 689–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Laurin, M. (2011). Terrestrial vertebrates. Stegocephalians: Tetrapods and other digit-bearing vertebrates. Resource document. http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952/2011.04.21. Accessed 23 May 2012.
  45. Laurin, M., & Gauthier, J. A. (2011). Diapsida. Lizards, Sphenodon, crocodylians, birds, and their extinct relatives. Resource document. http://tolweb.org/Diapsida/14866/2011.04.20. Accessed 23 May 2012.
  46. Laurin, M., & Gauthier, J. A. (2012). Amniota. Mammals, reptiles (turtles, lizards, Sphenodon, crocodiles, birds) and their extinct relatives. Resource document. http://tolweb.org/Amniota/14990/2012.01.30. Accessed 23 May 2012.
  47. Laurin, M., & Reisz, R. R. (2011). Synapsida. Mammals and their extinct relatives. Resource document. http://tolweb.org/Synapsida/14845/2011.08.14. Accessed 23 May 2012.
  48. Le Guyader, H. (2004). Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire: A visionary naturalist. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Louys, J., Aplin, K., Beck, R. M. D., & Archer, M. (2009). Cranial anatomy of Oligo-Miocene koalas (Diprotodontia: Phascolarctidae): Stages in the evolution of an extreme leaf-eating specialization. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 29, 981–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mabbutt, L. W., & Kokich, V. G. (1979). Calvarial and sutural re-development following craniectomy in the neonatal rabbit. Journal of Anatomy, 129, 413–422.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Maddin, H. C., Sidor, C. A., & Reisz, R. R. (2008). Cranial anatomy of Ennatosaurus tecton (Synapsida: Caseidae) from the Middle Permian of Russia and the evolutionary relationships of Caseidae. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 28, 160–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Maddison, D. R., & Schulz, K. S. (2007) The tree of life web project. Internet address: http://tolweb.org.
  53. Maddison, W. P., & Maddison, D. R. (2011). Mesquite: A modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.75. Available at http://mesquiteproject.org.
  54. Magwene, P. M. (2008). Using correlation proximity graphs to study phenotypic integration. Evolutionary Biology, 35, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Maisano, J. A., Kearney, M., & Rowe, T. (2006). Cranial anatomy of the spade-headed amphisbaenian Diplometopon zarudnyi (Squamata: Amphisbaenia) based on high-resolution X-ray computed tomography. Journal of Morphology, 267, 70–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mason, O., & Verwoerd, M. (2007). Graph theory and networks in biology. IET Systems Biology, 1, 89–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. MATLAB version 7.10. (2010). The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  58. McShea, D. W. (1991). Complexity and evolution: What everybody knows. Biology and Philosophy, 6, 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McShea, D. W. (1996). Metazoan complexity and evolution: Is there a trend? Evolution, 50, 477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McShea, D. W. (1998). Possible largest-scale trends in organismal evolution: Eight “live hypotheses”. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 29, 293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mead, J. G., & Fordyce, R. E. (2009). The therian skull: A lexicon with emphasis on the odontocetes. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 627, 1–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Meylan, P. A. (2001). Testudines. Turtles, tortoises and terrapins. Resource document. http://tolweb.org/Testudines/14861/2001.05.31. Accessed 23 May 2012.
  63. Midford, P., Garland, T. J., & Maddison, W. P. (2008). PDAP Package for Mesquite. http://mesquiteproject.org/pdap_mesquite/index.html.
  64. Moazen, M., Curtis, N., O’Higgins, P., Jones, M. E. H., Evans, S. E., & Fagan, M. J. (2009). Assessment of the role of sutures in a lizard skull: A computer modelling study. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 39–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Reviews, 45, 167–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Newman, M. E. J., Barabási, A.-L., & Watts, D. J. (2006). The structure and dynamics of networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Newman, S. A., & Forgacs, G. (2005). Complexity and self-organization in biological development and evolution. In D. Bonchev & D. H. Rouvray (Eds.), Complexity in chemistry, biology, and ecology (pp. 49–190). New York: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nussbaum, R. A. (1977). Rhinatrematidae: A new family of caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona). Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology of the University of Michigan, 682, 1–30.Google Scholar
  69. Okajima, Y., & Kumazawa, Y. (2010). Mitochondrial genomes of acrodont lizards: Timing of gene rearrangements and phylogenetic and biogeographic implications. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 10, 141e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Olson, E. C., & Miller, R. L. (1958). Morphological Integration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  71. Ostrom, J. H. (1961). Cranial morphology of the hadrosaurian dinosaurs of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 122, 33–195.Google Scholar
  72. Pace, J. K., Gilbert, C., Clark, M. S., & Feschotte, C. (2008). Repeated horizontal transfer of a DNA transposon in mammals and other tetrapods. Proceedings of the Natinal Academy of Science USA, 105, 17023–17028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Padian, K. (1984). Pterosaur remains from the Kayenta Formation (? Early Jurassic) of Arizona. Paleobiology, 27, 407–413.Google Scholar
  74. Payne, S. L., Holliday, C. M., & Vickaryous, M. K. (2011). An osteological and histological investigation of cranial joints in Geckos. Anatomical Records, 294, 399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Phillips, M. J., Bennett, T., & Lee, M. S. Y. (2009). Molecules and morphology suggest a recent, amphibious ancestry for echidnas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 106, 17089–17094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Proulx, S. R., Promislow, D. E., & Phillips, P. C. (2005). Network thinking in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rasskin-Gutman, D. (2003). Boundary constraints for the emergence of form. In G. Müller & S. Newman (Eds.), Origination of organismal form (pp. 305–322). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  78. Reisz, R. (1981). A diapsid reptile from the Pennsylvanian of Kansas. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Special Publications, 7, 1–74.Google Scholar
  79. Rice, D. P. (2008). Developmental anatomy of craniofacial sutures. In D. P. Rice (Ed.), Craniofacial sutures. Development, disease, and treatment (pp. 1–21). Basel: Karger.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Richtsmeier, J. T., Aldridge, K., DeLeon, V. B., Panchal, J., Kane, A. A., Marsh, J. L., et al. (2006). Phenotypic integration of neurocranium and brain. Journal of Experimental Zoology B, 306, 360–378.Google Scholar
  81. Riedl, R. (1978). Order in living organisms: A systems analysis of evolution. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  82. Rieppel, O. (1993). Patterns of diversity in the reptilian skull. In J. Hanken & B. K. Hall (Eds.), The Skull (Vol. 2, pp. 344–390). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Roscher, M., & Schneider, J. W. (2006). Permo-Carboniferous climate: Early Pennsylvanian to Late Permian climate development of central Europe in a regional and global context. In G. Lucas, G. Cassinis, & J. W. Schneider (Eds.), Non-Marine Permian biostratigraphy and biochronology (pp. 95–136). London: Geological Society Special Publications.Google Scholar
  84. Schoch, R. R. (2010). Riedl’s burden and the body plan: Selection, constraint, and deep time. Journal of Experimental Zoology B, 314, 1–10.Google Scholar
  85. Sereno, P. C. (1997). The origin and evolution of dinosaurs. Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 25, 435–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sidor, C. A. (2001). Simplification as a trend in synapsid cranial evolution. Evolution, 55, 1419–1442.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Sporns, O. (2002). Network analysis, complexity, and brain function. Complexity, 8, 56–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Springer, M. S., Murphy, W. J., Eizirik, E., & O’Brien, J. (2003). Placental mammal diversification and the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 100, 1056–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sterli, J., & Joyce, W. G. (2007). The cranial anatomy of the Early Jurassic turtle Kayentachelys aprix. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 52, 675–694.Google Scholar
  90. Torres-Carvajal, O. (2003). Cranial osteology of the andean lizard Stenocercus guentheri (Squamata: Tropiduridae) and its postembryonic development. Journal of Morphology, 255, 94–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Trueb, L. (1993). Patterns of cranial diversity among the Lissamphibia. In J. Hanken & B. K. Hall (Eds.), The skull (Vol. 2, pp. 255–343). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Valentine, J. W., Collins, A. G., & Meyer, C. P. (1994). Morphological complexity increase in metazoans. Paleobiology, 20, 131–142.Google Scholar
  93. Weishampel, D. B., Dodson, P., & Osmólska, H. (1993). The Dinosauria. Los Angeles: California University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Williston, S. W. (1914). Water reptiles of the past and present. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Xu, K., Bezakova, I., Bunimovich, L., & Yi, S. V. (2011). Path lengths in protein–protein interaction networks and biological complexity. Proteomics, 11, 1857–1867.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Borja Esteve-Altava
    • 1
  • Jesús Marugán-Lobón
    • 2
  • Héctor Botella
    • 3
  • Diego Rasskin-Gutman
    • 1
  1. 1.Theoretical Biology Research Group, Institute Cavanilles for Biodiversity and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Unidad de Paleontología, Dpto. BiologíaUniversidad Autónoma de MadridCantoblancoSpain
  3. 3.Area de Paleontología, Dpto. GeologíaUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations