Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Molecular tools in palaeobiology: divergence and mechanisms
- PART I Divergence
- 2 Genomics and the lost world: palaeontological insights into genome evolution
- 3 Rocking clocks and clocking rocks: a critical look at divergence time estimation in mammals
- 4 Morphological largess: can morphology offer more and be modelled as a stochastic evolutionary process?
- 5 Species selection in the molecular age
- PART II Mechanisms
- 6 Reconstructing the molecular underpinnings of morphological diversification: a case study of the Triassic fish Saurichthys
- 7 A molecular guide to regulation of morphological pattern in the vertebrate dentition and the evolution of dental development
- 8 Molecular biology of the mammalian dentary: insights into how complex skeletal elements can be shaped during development and evolution
- 9 Flexibility and constraint: patterning the axial skeleton in mammals
- 10 Molecular determinants of marsupial limb integration and constraint
- 11 A developmental basis for innovative evolution of the turtle shell
- 12 A molecular–morphological study of a peculiar limb morphology: the development and evolution of the mole's ‘thumb’
- 13 Manus horribilis: the chicken wing skeleton
- Index
- Plate-section
- References
11 - A developmental basis for innovative evolution of the turtle shell
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Molecular tools in palaeobiology: divergence and mechanisms
- PART I Divergence
- 2 Genomics and the lost world: palaeontological insights into genome evolution
- 3 Rocking clocks and clocking rocks: a critical look at divergence time estimation in mammals
- 4 Morphological largess: can morphology offer more and be modelled as a stochastic evolutionary process?
- 5 Species selection in the molecular age
- PART II Mechanisms
- 6 Reconstructing the molecular underpinnings of morphological diversification: a case study of the Triassic fish Saurichthys
- 7 A molecular guide to regulation of morphological pattern in the vertebrate dentition and the evolution of dental development
- 8 Molecular biology of the mammalian dentary: insights into how complex skeletal elements can be shaped during development and evolution
- 9 Flexibility and constraint: patterning the axial skeleton in mammals
- 10 Molecular determinants of marsupial limb integration and constraint
- 11 A developmental basis for innovative evolution of the turtle shell
- 12 A molecular–morphological study of a peculiar limb morphology: the development and evolution of the mole's ‘thumb’
- 13 Manus horribilis: the chicken wing skeleton
- Index
- Plate-section
- References
Summary
Introduction
Turtles are characterized by the possession of shells. For acquisition of this structure, this animal group appears to have undergone various types of anatomical changes in their body plan, not only in their skeletal system, but also in the muscular, nervous and respiratory systems (Bojanus 1819; Thomson 1932). These features often lead to confusion in determining homology, especially of amniote ribs, as well as in establishing the phylogenetic position of this animal group (Goodrich 1930; Remane 1936). To understand the origins of the morphology of turtles, a number of embryologists and morphologists have studied their embryonic developmental patterns (e.g. Rathke 1848; Agassiz 1857; Mitsukuri and Ishikawa 1887; Mitsukuri 1894, 1896; Ogushi 1911, 1913; Ruckes 1929; Walker 1947; Burke 1989, 1991; Gilbert et al. 2001, 2008; Nagashima et al. 2005, 2007; 2009; Sánchez-Villagra et al. 2009; Werneburg et al. 2009; reviewed by Gilbert et al. 2008; Kuratani et al. 2011).
The phylogenetic position of turtles remains controversial, but considerable progress has been made. Although recent molecular phylogenetics and genomic analyses have placed this taxon close to or even within the archosaurians, including birds and crocodiles (Caspers et al. 1996; Zardoya and Meyer 1998, 2001; Hedges and Poling 1999; Kumazawa and Nishida 1999; Mannen and Li 1999; Mindell et al. 1999; Cao et al. 2000; Iwabe et al. 2005; Matsuda et al. 2005; Kuraku et al. 2006; Hugall et al. 2007; Chapus and Edwards 2009), morphological analyses do not always agree with this conclusion (reviewed by Kuratani et al. 2011). However, some early embryologists supported an affinity to archosaurians (Haeckel 1891; de Beer 1937; see also Figure 1.1 in Asher and Müller, this volume).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- From Clone to BoneThe Synergy of Morphological and Molecular Tools in Palaeobiology, pp. 279 - 300Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2012
References
- 4
- Cited by