The development of the caudal endoskeleton of the turbot (Scophthalmus maximus L.) is described and compared to the setting-up of the caudal endoskeleton in other flatfishes. In the turbot, caudal bony elements develop very early, before the eye migration. The same pattern occurs in the flatfishes of the bothoid group, while in the Soleidae the supporting caudal fin elements develop once the eye has migrated. This discrepancy is discussed; it points out that more work on the ontogeny of flatfishes is needed

Chanet, B.

Wagemans, F.

Open Marine Archive

Corresponding author: B. Chanet, e-mail : bruno.chanet@wanadoo.fr
Belg. J. Zool., 131 (1) : 63-67 January 2001
INTRODUCTION
Several authors have shown the importance of studying
the caudal endoskeleton in order to define major events in
the phylogeny of the pleuronectiform fishes (HENSLEY &
AHLSTROM, 1984 ; CHAPLEAU, 1993 ; COOPER &
CHAPLEAU, 1998). In this supporting caudal fin structure,
different features can be identified as unique, or apomor-
phic, for several flatfish groups. However, the sister group
of the Pleuronectiformes within the Percomorpha being
still uncertain (JOHNSON, 1993; CHAPLEAU, 1993), it is not
always easy to decide the character states through out-
group comparison and some problems of homology
remain. Thus, HENSLEY (1997) insisted that phylogenetic
works associated with the study of the ontogeny were
very badly needed. In that perspective, we present here
data concerning the development of the caudal endoskele-
Study of the development of the caudal endoskeleton
of the turbot Scophthalmus maximus L., 1758
(Pleuronectiformes: Scophthalmidae).
Bruno Chanet1 and France Wagemans2
1Institut Universitaire Européen de la Mer, pl. Nicolas Copernic,
Technopôle, Brest-Iroise, F-29280 Plouzané, France
2Laboratoire de Morphologie fonctionnelle et évolutive, Université de Liège,
Institut de Chimie (B6), Sart-Tilman, B-4000 Liège (Belgium)
ABSTRACT. The development of the caudal endoskeleton of the turbot (Scophthalmus maximus L.) is
described and compared to the setting-up of the caudal endoskeleton in other flatfishes. In the turbot, caudal
bony elements develop very early, before the eye migration. The same pattern occurs in the flatfishes of the
bothoid group, while in the Soleidae the supporting caudal fin elements develop once the eye has migrated.
This discrepancy is discussed; it points out that more work on the ontogeny of flatfishes is needed.
KEY WORDS: Pleuronectiformes, turbot, caudal endoskeleton, development.
Fig. 1. – Tree of relationships between the major groups of flatfishes (CHANET,
1999). The inverted commas (“) indicate that the group is paraphyletic whereas the
dotted line shows a clade that is not well corroborated by synapomorphies. This
tree is reconstructed from the data of COOPER & CHAPLEAU (1998) and HOSHINO &
AMAOKA (1998). Because Pleuronectiformes relationships have not yet been
analysed with both the Paralichthodidae and Tephrinectidae included, their rela-
tionships with other taxa are indicated by a polytomy.
ton in the turbot. The turbot (Scophthalmus maximus L.
1758) is a well-known flatfish species belonging to the
family Scophthalmidae, within the bothoid group in the
pleuronectiform order (Fig. 1). We have already noted
anomalies in the development of the caudal endoskeleton
of the turbot and proposed a mechanism to explain it
(CHANET & WAGEMANS, 1997), but here we intend to:
i) present the ontogenetic data, ii) compare our observa-
tions to previous descriptions of the development of the
caudal endoskeleton in other flatfish species.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Scophthalmus maximus fry were raised in the aquacul-
ture-station of France Turbot-NATA (Noirmoutiers,
France) at 15 °C. Samples of 30 fry were sampled on days
0 to 61 post-hatching. The fry were fixed in a CaCO3
buffered 10% formalin solution and were cleared with
trypsin. Some of them were stained with alcian blue to
reveal the cartilage and others with alizarine, to stain the
calcified bones, according to TAYLOR & VAN DYKE’s
method (1985). It was possible to stain the oldest stages
simultaneously with alizarine and alcian blue. Finally, the
fry were stored in glycerin. A 6 month-old specimen was
cleared with trypsin, stained with alizarine and stored in
glycerin according to TAYLOR and VAN DYKE’s method.
The specimens -270 larval and juvenile turbots- have been
studied with a binocular Wild M10 Leica dissecting
microscope at 8x magnification, and a drawing tube. The
length from the tip of the snout to the posterior margin of
hypural elements (standard length - SL) was measured for
each specimen.
RESULTS
The first discernible caudal fin elements appear at day
13: the notochord is already slightly flexed and its ventral
edge shows a slender cartilaginous ribbon with a ventrally
protrusive expansion (Fig. 2A). At day 14, this ventral rib-
bon is dissociated into three ventral elements (Fig. 2B). The
anterior-most one – the future parhypural – is never in con-
tact with the notochord, the following one – the future
hypural 1 and 2 plate – is a broad plate, the posterior one –
the future hypural 3 and 4 plate – is smaller and has an
irregular dorsal edge. These latter two elements are in con-
tact dorsally with the notochord and ventrally support the
first caudal fin rays. Anteriorly, the vertebral cartilaginous
structures develop with neural spines dorsally and haemal
spines ventrally. At day 22 (Fig. 3A), the notochord is
strongly curved with an almost vertically directed distal
part. Ventrally, the parhypural and the two hypural plates
are larger and their median parts begin to ossify, while their
proximal and distal parts remain cartilaginous. A little
hypural 5 is visible, two cartilaginous epurals are present
dorsally. At day 26 (Fig. 3B), as the hypural elements are
well developed, the notochord regresses, hypural 5 is close
to its distal tip. The posterior-most epural is smaller and
Bruno Chanet and France Wagemans64
more ventrally placed than its serial homologue. The
haemal and neural spines are more ossified. At day 29 (Fig.
4A), the vertebral centra are fully ossified and fused with
their haemal and neural spines. In some specimens (55%),
the second preural centrum (PU2) shows two neural and
haemal spines (Fig. 4A-B). We showed (CHANET &
WAGEMANS, 1997) that this anomaly was the result of a
Fig. 2. – A. Caudal endoskeleton of a young turbot at day 13
(LS= 5 mm). B. Caudal endoskeleton of a young turbot at day
14 (LS= 6.5 mm). The stippled areas are cartilaginous regions.
f.r : fin ray, HA: haemapophyis, hyp: hypural, NA: neurapoph-
ysis, NT notochord, Ph: parhypural.
Development of the caudal endoskeleton of the turbot 65
Fig. 3. – A. Caudal endoskeleton of a young turbot at day 22
(LS= 9 mm). B. Caudal endoskeleton of a young turbot at day
26 (LS= 15 mm). The stippled areas are cartilaginous regions.
ep: epural.
Fig. 4. – A. Caudal endoskeleton of a young turbot at day 29
(LS= 16 mm). B. Caudal endoskeleton of a young turbot at day
61 (LS= 28 mm). PU; preural centrum.
fusion between the third preural centrum and the second
preural centrum. At this stage, the hypural plates are large
and in contact with the ventral edge of the first preural cen-
trum (PU1), the latter being dorsally curved. At this stage,
the posterior epural is still independent, slender and in con-
tact with a large anterior epural. However, at day 61
(Fig. 4B), the posterior epural is fused with the hypural 5 it
(CHANET & WAGEMANS, 1997). No uroneural is discernible.
DISCUSSION
Different information can be deduced from this
description: first, on the development of the endoskeleton
among the flatfishes, second, on the setting up of this
structure compared to the metamorphosis.
One of the first points to note is that the set-up of the
different elements of the caudal skeleton in the turbot is
not different to what has been described in three other
bothoid species: one pleuronectid, Pleuronectes platessa
L., 1758 (BARRINGTON, 1937; COLE & JOHNSTONE, 1902),
and two bothids: Trichopsetta ventralis (Goode & Bean,
1885) (FUTCH, 1977) and Engyophrys senta Ginsburg,
1933 (HENSLEY, 1977). The same bony elements develop
in the same pattern and in the same order. Thus, it corrob-
orates previous observations. Moreover, the works of sev-
eral authors (HENSLEY & AHLSTROM, 1984; CHAPLEAU,
1993; COOPER & CHAPLEAU, 1998) showed that the type
of caudal endoskeleton present in the turbot (with hypu-
rals 3 and 4 fused together and to PU1 centrum and hypu-
rals 1 and 2 fused in a plate possessing a ball and socket
articulation with the ventral edge of PU1 centrum) is
unique among the percomorphs and is characteristic of the
flatfishes belonging to the Scophthalmidae, Bothidae,
Paralichthyidae, Pleuronectidae and Brachypleura
novaezeelandiae Günther, 1862 previously referred to
“Citharidae” a family recognised now as paraphyletic
(CHAPLEAU, 1993). On the basis of this peculiar caudal
A A
B B
endoskeleton, these flatfishes were regrouped in a bothoid
group (Fig.1) (HENSLEY & AHLSTROM, 1984; COOPER &
CHAPLEAU, 1998). The present description provides data
that corroborate the homologies between the different
caudal structures, and thus provides elements to confirm
the monophyly of the bothoid group.
In the turbot, the eye migration – one the main fea-
tures of flatfish metamorphosis – occurs between the
23rd and the 60th day of development (WAGEMANS et
al., 1998). Then, the caudal endoskeleton is fully
developed before the metamorphosis in this species. If
we compare this result to what has been described in
other bothoids, we can notice that, in each case, the
caudal endoskeleton is formed before the eye begins to
migrate. FUTCH (1977) noted that, in Trichopsetta ven-
tralis (Bothidae), the hypurals were fused when the
larva measured 6 mm (SL), whereas the ocular migra-
tion occurred when the larva was 28.5-35.7 mm long
(SL). In Engyophrys senta (Bothidae), the migration
begins on 18.9 mm long (SL) larvae and the hypurals
are already fused at 4.6 mm (SL) (HENSLEY, 1977). In
Pleuronectes platessa (Pleuronectidae), the hypurals
are already well fused on 15-17 mm long (TL : Total
Length ) larvae, while the beginning of the migration
occurs when the larva is 15 mm long (TL) (COLE &
JOHNSTONE, 1902). SCHNAKENBECK (1928) described
the morphology of some bothoid larvae, but his data
are hardly useful. Nevertheless, in Glyptocephalus
cynoglossus L. 1758 (Pleuronectidae) caudal elements
seem to take place when the larva is 10 mm long and
the metamorphosis occurs at 20-26 mm length
(SCHNAKENBECK, 1928). In the scophthalmid
Phrynorhombus norvegicus (GÜNTHER) 1862, the cau-
dal endoskeleton is already well developed when the
larva is 7.5 mm long whereas the eye migration takes
place between 6 and 10 mm in total length
(SCHNAKENBECK, 1928). On the other hand, in
Soleidae, the hypurals fuse with the PU1 centrum after
metamorphosis. In the sole (Solea solea L., 1758), the
fusion occurring between hypurals and PU1 appears
when the larva is between 18 and 470 mm long (TL)
(HENSLEY & AHLSTROM, 1984), while the metamor-
phosis occurs on 8 mm long (TL) larvae – 18 days
after hatching- (WAGEMANS & VANDEWALLE, 1999). In
Dicologlossa cuneata (Moreau, 1881), the caudal
complex develops at 11-22 mm on larvae that have
already the two eyes on the right side (LAGARDÈRE &
ABOUSSOUAN, 1981).
Pending new evidence, we can only say that the caudal
endoskeleton of Pleuronectiformes develops before or after
eye migration according to species. Is the relative shift in
developmental timing a synapomorphy of the bothoids?
Does it mean that heterochronic events occur during the
development of some flatfishes? Such hypotheses are yet
premature and must be confirmed through the study of many
flatfish species -bothoids and non-bothoids. More work on
other flatfish species is needed to confirm these ideas.
Bruno Chanet and France Wagemans66
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank here: Dr D. Leclercq (France Turbot,
Noirmoutiers, France), Dr E. Lebègue (NATA, Noirmoutiers,
France) for the rearing and selecting the studied specimens. We
are indebted to Dr P. Janvier (CNRS, URA 12, Paris, France) and
Dr. G. Nelson (University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia)
for their advice and acute review of a first version of this article.
Dr. F.W is a scientific collaborator researcher at the Fonds pour
la Recherche dans l’Industrie et l’Agriculture (FNRS).
REFERENCES
BARRINGTON, E.J.W. (1937). The structure and development of
the tail in the plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) and the cod
(Gadus morrhua). Quart. J. Microsc. Sci., 79: 447-469.
CHANET, B. (1999). Supposed and true flatfishes [Teleostei :
Pleuronectiformes] from the Eocene of Monte Bolca, Italy.
In: TYLER (ed.), Studi e Ricerche sui Giacimenti Terziari di
Bolca, 8 : 220-243.
CHANET, B. & F. WAGEMANS (1997). Presence of double spines
on the second preural centrum of the turbot (Scophthalmus
maximus L., Pleuronectiformes: Scophthalmidae). Belg. J.
Zool., 127(2): 115-122.
CHAPLEAU, F. (1993). Pleuronectiform relationships: a cladistic
reassessment. Bull. Mar. Sci., 52(1) : 516-540.
COLE, F. J. &. J. JOHNSTONE (1902). Pleuronectes : the Plaice.
Trans. Liverpool Mar. Biol. Soc., 8 : 145-396.
COOPER, J.A. & F. CHAPLEAU (1998). Phylogenetic status of
Paralichthodes algoensis (Pleuronectiformes: Paralichtho-
didae). Copeia, 2: 477-481.
FUTCH, C. R. (1977). Larvae of Trichopsetta ventralis (Pisces:
Bothidae), with comments on intergeneric relationships
within the Bothidae. Bull. Mar. Sci., 27(4) : 740-757.
HENSLEY, D.A. (1977). Larval development of Engyophrys
senta (Bothidae), with comments on intermuscular bones in
flatfishes. Bull. Mar. Sci., 27: 681-703.
HENSLEY, D.A. (1997). An overview of the systematics and bio-
geography of the flatfishes. J. Sea Res., 37(3-4) : 187-194.
HENSLEY, D.A. & E.H. AHLSTROM (1984). Pleuronectiforms:
Relationships. In : MOSER, RICHARDS, KENDALL, FAHAY,
RICHARDSON & COHEN (eds.), Ontogeny and Systematics of
Fishes. Special Publication of the American Society of
Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, 1 : 670-687.
HOSHINO, K. & K. AMAOKA (1998). Osteology of the flounder,
Tephrinectes sinensis (Lacépède) (Teleostei : Pleuro-
nectiformes), with comments on its relationships. Ichthyol.
Res, 45(1): 69-77.
JOHNSON, G.D. (1993). Percomorph Phylogeny: progress and
problems. Bull. Mar. Sci., 52(1): 3-28.
LAGARDÈRE, F. & A. ABOUSSOUAN (1981). Dévelopment du
céteau, Dicologlossa cuneata (Moreau, 1881) (Pisces,
Pleuronectiformes, Soleidae) : II – Description des larves.
Cybium, 5(2): 53-72.
SCHNAKENBECK, W. (1928). Beitrag zur Kenntnis des Entwicklung
einiger Meeresfische I. Ber. dt. wiss. Komm Meeresforsch.,
M.S. 4(4): 199-297.
TAYLOR, W.R. & G.C. VAN DYKE (1985). Revised procedures for
staining and clearing small fishes and other vertebrates for
bone and cartilage study. Cybium, 9 : 107-121.
WAGEMANS, F., B. FOCANT & P. VANDEWALLE (1998). Early
development of the cephalic skeleton in the turbot. J. Fish
Biol., 52: 166-204.
Development of the caudal endoskeleton of the turbot 67
WAGEMANS, F. & P. VANDEWALLE (1999). Development of the
cartilaginous skull in Solea solea : trends in Pleuro-
nectiforms. Ann. Sci. natur., 1: 39-52.
Received: August 4, 2000
Accepted: October 25, 2000


Study of the development of the caudal endoskeleton of the turbot <i>Scophthalmus maximus</i> L., 1758 (Pleuronectiformes: Scopthalmidae)

http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/115085.pdf

Study of the development of the caudal endoskeleton of the turbot <i>Scophthalmus maximus</i> L., 1758 (Pleuronectiformes: Scopthalmidae)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Open Marine Archive