4.7 Article

Early Mesozoic burst of morphological disparity in the slow-evolving coelacanth fish lineage

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-37849-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since the split of the coelacanth lineage from other osteichthyans 420 million years ago, the morphological disparity of this clade has remained remarkably stable. Only few outliers with peculiar body shape stood out over the evolutionary history, but they were phylogenetically and stratigraphically independent of each other. Here, we report the discovery of a new clade of ancient latimeriid coelacanths representing a small flock of species present in the Western Tethys between 242 and 241 million years ago.
Since the split of the coelacanth lineage from other osteichthyans 420 million years ago, the morphological disparity of this clade has remained remarkably stable. Only few outliers with peculiar body shape stood out over the evolutionary history, but they were phylogenetically and stratigraphically independent of each other. Here, we report the discovery of a new clade of ancient latimeriid coelacanths representing a small flock of species present in the Western Tethys between 242 and 241 million years ago. Among the four species, two show highly derived anatomy. A new genus shows reversal to plesiomorphic conditions in its skull and caudal fin organisation. The new genus and its sister Foreyia have anatomical modules that moved from the general coelacanth Bauplau either in the same direction or in opposite direction that affect proportions of the body, opercle and fins. Comparisons with extant genetic models shows that changes of the regulatory network of the Hedgehog signal gene family may account for most of the altered anatomy. This unexpected, short and confined new clade represents the only known example of a burst of morphological disparity over the long history of coelacanths at a recovery period after the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据