Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:20:06.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Formation of dermal skeletal and dental tissues in fish: a comparative and evolutionary approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2003

JEAN-YVES SIRE
Affiliation:
UMR 8570, Université Paris 7, Case 7077, F-75251 Paris Cedex, France (e-mail: [email protected])
ANN HUYSSEUNE
Affiliation:
Biology Department, Ghent University, Ledeganckstraat 35, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access

Abstract

Osteichthyan and chondrichthyan fish present an astonishing diversity of skeletal and dental tissues that are often difficult to classify into the standard textbook categories of bone, cartilage, dentine and enamel. To address the question of how the tissues of the dermal skeleton evolved from the ancestral situation and gave rise to the diversity actually encountered, we review previous data on the development of a number of dermal skeletal elements (odontodes, teeth and dermal denticles, cranial dermal bones, postcranial dermal plates and scutes, elasmoid and ganoid scales, and fin rays). A comparison of developmental stages at the tissue level usually allows us to identify skeletogenic cell populations as either odontogenic or osteogenic on the basis of the place of formation of their dermal papillae and of the way of deposition of their tissues. Our studies support the evolutionary affinities (1) between odontodes, teeth and denticles, (2) between the ganoid scales of polypterids and the elasmoid scales of teleosts, and (3) to a lesser degree between the different bony elements. There is now ample evidence to ascertain that the tissues of the elasmoid scale are derived from dental and not from bony tissues. This review demonstrates the advantage that can be taken from developmental studies, at the tissue level, to infer evolutionary relationships within the dermal skeleton in chondrichthyans and osteichthyans.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Cambridge Philosophical Society 2003

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.)