Evolutionary Biology

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 52–61 | Cite as

Random Loss and Selective Fusion of Bones Originate Morphological Complexity Trends in Tetrapod Skull Networks

  • Borja Esteve-Altava
  • Jesús Marugán-Lobón
  • Héctor Botella
  • Diego Rasskin-Gutman
Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The tetrapod skull has undergone a reduction in number of bones in all major lineages since the origin of vertebrates, an evolutionary trend known as Williston’s Law. Using connectivity relations between bones as a proxy for morphological complexity we showed that this reduction in number of bones generated an evolutionary trend toward more complex skulls. This would imply that connectivity patterns among bones impose structural constraints on bone loss and fusion that increase bone burden due to the formation of new functional and developmental dependencies; thus, the higher the number of connections, the higher the burden. Here, we test this hypothesis by exploring plausible evolutionary scenarios based on selective versus random processes of bone loss and fusion. To do this, we have built a computational model that reduces iteratively the number of bones by loss and fusion, starting from hypothetical ancestral skulls represented as Gabriel networks in which bones are nodes and suture connections are links. Simulation results indicate that losses and fusions of bones affect skull structure differently whether they target bones at random or selectively depending on the number of bone connections. Our findings support a mixed scenario for Williston’s Law: the random loss of poorly connected bones and the selective fusion of the most connected ones. This evolutionary scenario offers a new explanation for the increase of morphological complexity in the tetrapod skull by reduction of bones during development.

Keywords

Morphological complexity Network theory Tetrapod skull Evolution Development 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research project was supported by grant (BFU2008-00643) from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. We thank Michel Laurin and Dan McShea for their valuable suggestions and comments in their thorough reviews of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MPG 4850 kb)

References

  1. Appel, T. A. (1987). The Cuvier-Geoffroy debate. French biology in the decades before Darwin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Benton, M. J. (1990). Reptiles. In K. J. MacNamara (Ed.), Evolutionary trends (pp. 279–300). Tucson: Arizona University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Benton, M. J. (2005). Vertebrate paleontology (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Bhullar, B.-A. S., Marugán-Lobón, J., Racimo, F., Bever, G. S., Rowe, T. B., Norell, M. A., et al. (2012). Birds have paedomorphic dinosaur skulls. Nature, 487, 223–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Claeson, K. M., Bemis, W., & Hagadorn, J. W. (2007). New interpretations of the skull of a primitive bony fish Erpetoichthys calabaricus (Actinopterygii: Cladistia). Journal of Morphology, 268, 1021–1039.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Esteve-Altava, B., Marugán-Lobón, J., Botella, H., & Rasskin-Gutman, D. (2011). Network models in anatomical systems. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 89, 175–184.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Esteve-Altava, B., Marugán-Lobón, J., Botella, H., & Rasskin-Gutman, D. (2013a). Structural constraints in the evolution of the tetrapod skull complexity: Williston’s law revisited using network models. Evolutionary Biology, 40, 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Esteve-Altava, B., Marugán-Lobón, J., Botella, H., & Rasskin-Gutman, D. (2013b). Grist for Riedl’s Mill: A network model perspective on the integration and modularity of the human skull. Journal of Experimental Biology, Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution (accepted).Google Scholar
  9. Gabriel, K. R., & Sokal, R. R. (1969). A new statistical approach to geographic variation analysis. Systematic Zoology, 18, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Galatius, A., Berta, A., Frandsen, M. S., & Goodall, R. N. P. (2011). Interspecific variation of ontogeny and skull shape among porpoises (Phocoenidae). Journal of Morphology, 272, 136–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gregory, W. K. (1935). Williston’s law relating to the evolution of skull bones in the vertebrates. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 20, 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hildebrand, M. (1988). Analysis of vertebrate structure (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley, & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Jaslow, C. R. (1990). Mechanical properties of cranial sutures. Journal of Biomechanics, 23, 313–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kardong, K. V. (2005). Vertebrates. Comparative anatomy, function, evolution (4th ed.). New York: Mcgraw Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Laurin, M. (1996). A redescription of the cranial anatomy of Seymouria baylorensis, the best known Seymouriamorph (Veretebrata: Seymouriamorpha). PaleoBios, 17, 1–16.Google Scholar
  17. Laurin, M. (2004). The evolution of body size, Cope’s rule and the origin of amniotes. Systematic Biology, 53, 594–622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Le Guyader, H. (2003). Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire: A visionary naturalist. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lieberman, D. E. (1998). Sphenoid shortening and the evolution of modern human cranial shape. Nature, 393, 158–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marugán-Lobón, J., & Buscalioni, Á. D. (2003). Disparity and geometry of the skull in Archosauria (Reptilia: Diapsida). Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 80, 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matula, D. W., & Sokal, R. R. (1980). Properties of Gabriel graphs relevant to geographic variation research and the clustering of points in the plane. Geographical Analysis, 13, 205–222.Google Scholar
  22. McShea, D. W. (1996). Metazoan complexity and evolution: is there a trend? Evolution, 50, 477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McShea, D. W., & Hordijk, W. (2013). Complexity by subtraction. Evolutionary Biology. doi: 10.1007/s11692-013-9227-6.Google Scholar
  24. Nuño de la Rosa, L. (2012). El concepto de forma en la biología contemporanea. Examen Filosófico. Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbone, Madrid and Paris. Ph.D. Thesis.Google Scholar
  25. Ochoa, C., & Barahona, A. (2009). El debate entre Cuvier y Geoffroy, y el origen de la homología y la analogía. Ludus Vitalis, 17, 37–54.Google Scholar
  26. Rafferty, K. L., Herring, S. W., & Marshall, C. D. (2003). Biomechanics of the rostrum and the facial sutures. Journal of Morphology, 257, 33–44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rashevsky, N. (1954). Topology and life. The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 16, 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rashevsky, N. (1960). Contributions to relational biology. The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 22, 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Rasskin-Gutman, D., & Buscalioni, Á. D. (2001). Theoretical morphology of the archosaur (reptilia: Diapsida) pelvic girdle. Paleobiology, 27, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Riedl, R. (1978). Order in living organisms: A systems analysis of evolution. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Rieppel, O. (1984). Miniaturization of the lizard skull: Its functional and evolutionary implications. In M. W. J. Ferguson (Ed.), The structure, development, and evolution of reptiles (pp. 503–520). London: London Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Saint-Hilaire, E. G. (1818). Philosphie anatomique. Paris: J. B. Bailliére.Google Scholar
  35. Schoch, R. R. (2010). Riedl’s burden and the body plan: selection, constraint, and deep time. Journal of Experimental Biology part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 314, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sidor, C. A. (2001). Simplification as a trend in synapsid cranial evolution. Evolution, 55, 1419–1442.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Trueb, L., & Alberch, P. (1985). Miniaturization in the anuran skull: A case study of heterochrony. In H. R. Duncker & G. Fleischer (Eds.), Vertebrate morphology (pp. 113–121). Stuttgart: Gustav Fisher Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Williston, S. W. (1914). Water reptiles of the past and present. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Wimsatt, W. C. (1986). Developmental constraints, generative entrenchment, and the innate–acquired distinction. In W. Bechtel (Ed.), Integrating scientific disciplines (pp. 185–208). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Woodger, J. H. (1945). On biological transformations. In W. E. L. Gross & P. B. Medawar (Eds.), Essays on growth and form presented to D’A. W Thompson (pp. 95–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

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, Departamento de BiologíaUniversidad Autónoma de MadridCantoblancoSpain
  3. 3.Area de Paleontología, Departamento de GeologíaUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations