Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T01:20:35.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The distribution and significance of enamel and enameloid in the dermal skeleton of osteolepiform rhipidistian fishes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Deborah K. Meinke  and
Keith Stewart Thomson
Deborah K. Meinke
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078
Keith Stewart Thomson
Affiliation:
Department of Biology and Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Teeth and other dermal skeletal elements from three osteolepid and two eusthenopterid rhipidistians were examined with the scanning electron microscope to establish whether the hypermineralized outer layer was enameloid or enamel. Using Smith's (1978) morphological criteria to infer the developmental history of enamel and enameloid, enamel was found in the teeth and dermal bones of the osteolepids, whereas enameloid was identified in scales. Hyneria and Eusthenopteron teeth also had enamel. As enamel has also been found in teeth of living lungfishes and extant Latimeria, the presence of enamel in tetrapod teeth represents a primitive character retained from a lobe-finned ancestor and is not useful for phylogenetic studies within the lobe-finned/tetrapod group. Shellis and Miles' (1974) hypothesis that the transition from enameloid to enamel occurred via a fairly simple regulatory change is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Spring 1983 , pp. 138 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Alberch, P. 1980. Ontogenesis and morphological diversification. Amer. Zool. 20:652–667.Google Scholar
Alberch, P. 1982. Developmental constraints in evolutionary processes. Pp. 313–332. In: Bonner, J. T., ed. Evolution and Development. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Alberch, P. and Alberch, J. 1981. Heterochrony mechanisms of morphological diversification and evolutionary change in the Neotropical salamander, Bolitoglossa occidentalis (Amphibia: Plethodontidae). J. Morphol. 167:249–264.Google Scholar
Boyde, A. 1965. The development of enamel structure in mammals. Proc. Eur. Symp. Calc. Tissue 3:276–280.Google Scholar
Everett, M. M. and Miller, W. A. 1981. Histochemistry of lower vertebrate calcified structures. I. Enamel of the dogfish Squalus acanthias compared with mammalian enamel and homologous dentine. J. Morphol. 170:95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fink, W. 1982. The conceptual relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 8:254–264.Google Scholar
Goodrich, E. S. 1907. On the scales of fish living and extinct, and their importance in classification. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1907:751–775.Google Scholar
Graham-Smith, W. 1978a. On some variations in the laterosensory lines of the placoderm fish Bothriolepis. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 282B:1–39.Google Scholar
Graham-Smith, W. 1978b. On the lateral lines and dermal bones in the parietal region of some crossopterygian and dipnoan fishes. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London 252B:41–105.Google Scholar
Herold, R., Graver, H., and Christner, P. 1980. Immunohistochemical localization of amelogenins in enameloid of lower vertebrate teeth. Science 207:1357–1358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemp, A. 1979. The histology of tooth formation in the Australian lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri Krefft. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 66:255–267.Google Scholar
Kerr, T. 1960. Development and structure of some actinopterygian and urodele teeth. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 133:401–422.Google Scholar
Kollar, E. and Lumsden, A. 1978. Tooth morphogenesis: the role of the innervation during induction and pattern formation. J. Biol. Bucc. 7:49–60.Google Scholar
Kvam, T. 1946. Comparative study of the ontogenetic and phylogenetic development of dental enamel. Norske Tandlaegefor. Tid. Suppl. 56:1–198.Google Scholar
Lauder, G. V. 1981. Form and function: structural analysis in evolutionary morphology. Paleobiology 7:430–442.Google Scholar
Meinke, D. K. 1982a. A histological and histochemical study of developing teeth in Polypterus (Pisces, Actinopterygii). Arch. Oral Biol. 27:197–206.Google Scholar
Meinke, D. K. 1982b. A light and scanning electron microscope study on the dermal skeleton of Spermatodus pustulosus (Pisces: Coelacanthini) and the evolution of the dermal skeleton in coelacanths. J. Paleontol. 56:620–630.Google Scholar
Meinke, D. K. 1982c. A light and scanning electron microscope study of microstructure, growth, and development of the dermal skeleton of Polypterus (Pisces, Actinopterygii). J. Zool. (London) 197:355–382.Google Scholar
Meinke, D. K.in press. A review of cosmine: its structure, development, and relationship to other forms of the dermal skeleton in osteichthyans.Google Scholar
Ørvig, T. 1978a. Microstructure and growth of the dermal skeleton in fossil actinopterygian fishes: Birgeria and Scanilepis. Zool. Scr. 7:33–56.Google Scholar
Ørvig, T. 1978b. Microstructure and growth of the dermal skeleton in fossil actinopterygian fishes: Nephrotus and Colobodus, with remarks on the dentition in other forms. Zool. Scr. 7:297–326.Google Scholar
Oster, G. and Alberch, P. 1982. Evolution and bifurcation of developmental programs. Evolution 36:444–459.Google Scholar
Peignoux-Deville, J., Lallier, F., and Vidal, B. 1982. Evidence for the presence of osseous tissue in dogfish vertebrae. Cell Tiss. Res. 222:695–714.Google Scholar
Peyer, B. 1968. Comparative Odontology. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Poole, D. F. G. 1971. An introduction to the phylogeny of calcified tissues. In: Dahlberg, A. A., ed. Dental Morphology and Evolution. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, B. 1977. The dermal skeleton in fishes. Pp. 25–52. In: Andrews, S. M., Miles, R. S., and Walker, A. D., eds. Problems in Vertebrate Evolution. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Schmidt, W. J. and Keil, A. 1971. Polarizing Microscopy of Normal and Diseased Dental Tissues in Man and Other Vertebrates. Pergamon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Schultze, H.-P. 1977. Ausgangsform und Entwicklung der rhombischen Schuppen der Osteichthyes (Pisces). Paläontol. Z. 51:152–168.Google Scholar
Shellis, R. P. 1975. A histological and histochemical study of the matrices of enameloid and dentine in teleost fishes. Arch. Oral Biol. 20:183–187.Google Scholar
Shellis, R. P. and Miles, A. E. W. 1974. Autoradiographic study of the formation of enameloid and dentine matrices in teleost fishes using tritiated amino acids. Proc. Roy. Soc. London 185B:51–72.Google Scholar
Shellis, R. P. and Miles, A. E. W. 1976. Observations with the electron microscope on enameloid formation in the common eel (Anguilla anguilla: Teleostei). Proc. Roy. Soc. London 194B:253–269.Google Scholar
Shellis, R. P. and Poole, D. F. G. 1978. The structure of the dental hard tissues of the coelacanthid fish Latimeria chalumnae Smith. Arch. Oral Biol. 23:1105–1113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, M. M. 1977. The microstructure of the dentition and dermal ornament of three dipnoans from the Devonian of Western Australia: a contribution towards dipnoan interrelations, and morphogenesis, growth, and adaptation of the skeletal tissues. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London 281B:29–72.Google Scholar
Smith, M. M. 1978. Enamel in the oral teeth of Latimeria chalumnae (Pisces: Actinistia): a scanning electron microscope study. J. Zool. (London) 185:355–369.Google Scholar
Smith, M. M. 1979a. SEM of the enamel layer in oral teeth of fossil and extant crossopterygian and dipnoan fishes. Pp. 483–489. In: Scanning Electron Microscopy II. AMF O'Hare, Illinois.Google Scholar
Smith, M. M. 1979b. Structure and histogenesis of tooth plates in Sagenodus inaequalis Owen considered in relation to the phylogeny of post-Devonian dipnoans. Proc. Roy. Soc. London 204B:15–39.Google Scholar
Smith, M. M. and Miles, A. E. W. 1971. The ultrastructure of odontogenesis in larval and adult urodeles: differentiation of the dental epithelial cells. Z. Zellforsch. 121:470–498.Google Scholar
Smith, M. M., Hobdell, M. H., and Miller, M. A. 1972. The structure of the scales of Latimeria chalumnae. J. Zool. (London) 167:501–509.Google Scholar
Thomson, K. S. 1975. On the biology of cosmine. Bull. Peabody Mus. Nat. Hist. 40:1–59.Google Scholar