The dermal skeleton of the jawless vertebrate Tremataspis mammilata (Osteostraci, stem-Gnathostomata)

Osteostracans are the closest jawless relatives of jawed vertebrates, informing the gradual assembly of the vertebrate mineralised skeleton. Conflicting interpretations of their dermal skeletal histology arise from failure to account for topological variation, obscuring their significance in elucidating vertebrate skeletal evolution. To resolve this, we characterize the cranial and trunk dermal skeleton of a single individual of Tremataspis mammilata (Osteostraci, Thyestiida) at submicron resolution using synchrotron tomography. Our results show that the architecture of the Tremataspis dermal skeleton is, for the most part, conserved over the skeleton and is broadly consistent with previous histological hypotheses based on 2-dimensional thin section study. We resolve debate over the homology of the basal layer, identifying it as osteogenic acellular isopedin rather than odontogenic elasmodine or metaplastic ossification of the stratum compactum of the dermis. We find topological variation between all dermal skeletal elements studied, and particularly between the cranial and postcranial dermal skeleton. This variation can be largely explained by reduction in differentiation due to geometric constraints imposed within smaller skeletal elements, such as scales. Our description of the dermal skeleton of Tremataspis mammilata provides a foundation for interpreting data from cursory topological samples of dermal skeletal diversity obtained in other osteostracans. This reveals general aspects of histological structure that must be primitive for osteostracans and, likely, ancestral jawed vertebrates. Finally, we draw the distinction between hypotheses and descriptions in palaeohistology

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