A critical appraisal of appendage disparity and homology in fishes

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.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151971/1/faf12402_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151971/2/faf12402.pd

Deconstructing the long‐standing a priori assumption that serial homology generally involves ancestral similarity followed by anatomical divergence

It has long been assumed that serial homologues are ancestrally similar—polysomerism resulting from a “duplication” or “repetition” of forms—and then often diverge—anisomerism, for example, as they become adapted to perform different tasks as is the case with the forelimb and hind limbs of humans. However, such an assumption, with crucial implications for comparative, evolutionary, and developmental biology, and for evolutionary developmental biology, has in general not really been tested by a broad analysis of the available empirical data. Perhaps not surprisingly, more recent anatomical comparisons, as well as molecular knowledge of how, for example, serial appendicular structures are patterned along with different anteroposterior regions of the body axis of bilateral animals, and how “homologous” patterning domains do not necessarily mark “homologous” morphological domains, are putting in question this paradigm. In fact, apart from showing that many so-called “serial homologues” might not be similar at all, recent works have shown that in at least some cases some “serial” structures are indeed more similar to each other in derived taxa than in phylogenetically more ancestral ones, as pointed out by authors such as Owen. In this article, we are taking a step back to question whether such assumptions are actually correct at all, in the first place. In particular, we review other cases of so-called “serial homologues” such as insect wings, arthropod walking appendages, Dipteran thoracic bristles, and the vertebrae, ribs, teeth, myomeres, feathers, and hairs of chordate animals. We show that: (a) there are almost never cases of true ancestral similarity; (b) in evolution, such structures—for example, vertebra—and/or their subparts—for example, “transverse processes”—many times display trends toward less similarity while in many others display trends toward more similarity, that is, one cannot say that there is a clear, overall trend to anisomerism