ABSTRACT
In this chapter, we briefl y compare the muscles of living lampreys, living hagfi shes, living elasmobranchs, living holocephalans, and basal living osteichthyans and discuss which muscles were probably present in the last common ancestor of the extant vertebrates, in the last common ancestor of the extant gnathostomes, and in the last common ancestor of the extant osteichthyans (Fig. 3.1). This will pave the way for the discussions provided in Chapters 4-10, which are mainly concerned with the muscles of actinopterygian and sarcopterygian osteichthyans. As explained in Chapters 1 and 2, as a base for the data presented in this book, we have literally dissected thousands of specimens of vertebrate taxa as diverse as dipnoans, anurans, caecilians, ‘lizards’, turtles, birds, monotremes, rodents, tree shrews, fl ying lemurs, primates, polypteriforms, chondrosteans, lepisosteiforms, amiiforms, and teleosts, but we did not dissect chondrichthyans (including holocephalans and elasmobranchs) nor cyclostomes (including hagfi sh and lampreys). Therefore, unlike in the remaining chapters, the comparisons and discussions provided in Chapter 3 are essentially based on a review of the data available in the literature. However, as in all chapters, we made an effort to take into account as much information as possible, from classic anatomical descriptions such as those provided by Bischoff (e.g., 1840), Owen (e.g. 1841), Gegenbaur (e.g., 1872), Huxley (e.g., 1876), Cole (e.g., 1896), Allis (e.g., 1897, 1917, 1919, 1922, 1923, 1931), Alcock (e.g., 1898), Edgeworth (e.g., 1902, 1911, 1923, 1926abc, 1928, 1935) and Luther (e.g., 1913, 1914, 1938) to more recent reviews by authors Miyake et al. (1992), Mallat (1996, 1997) Anderson (2008), and others, including, importantly, the developmental and molecular data obtained in evo-devo studies undertaken in the past few decades (e.g., Holland et al. 1993; Kuratani et al. 2002, 2004; Graham 2003; Manzanares and Nieto 2003; Santagati and
Rijli 2003; Trainor et al. 2003; Cerny et al. 2004; Kuratani 2004, 2005ab, 2008; Takio et al. 2004; Helms et al. 2005; Kusakabe and Kuratani 2005; Northcutt 2005; Olsson et al. 2005; Shigetani et al. 2005; Kuratani and Ota 2008; Kuratani and Schilling 2008; Holland et al. 2008). However, because we did not dissect chondrichthyan and cyclostome specimens, because osteichthyans, cyclostomes and chondrichthyans have being evolving separately for various hundreds of millions of years (see Fig. 3.1) and also because each of these three lineages has given rise to remarkably peculiar and unique phenotypes, the hypotheses of homology proposed in Chapter 3 are clearly not as solid as those proposed in Chapters 4-10.
