The Origin and Evolutionary Consequences of Skeletal Traits Shaped by Embryonic Muscular Activity, from Basal Theropods to Modern Birds.

Embryonic muscular activity (EMA) is involved in the development of several distinctive traits of birds. Modern avian diversity and the fossil record of the dinosaur-bird transition allow special insight into their evolution. Traits shaped by EMA result from mechanical forces acting at post-morphogenetic stages, such that genes often play a very indirect role. Their origin seldom suggests direct selection for the trait, but a side-effect of other changes such as musculo-skeletal rearrangements, heterochrony in skeletal maturation, or increased incubation temperature (which increases EMA). EMA-shaped traits like sesamoids may be inconstant, highly conserved, or even disappear and then reappear in evolution. Some sesamoids may become increasingly influenced in evolution by genetic-molecular mechanisms (genetic assimilation). There is also ample evidence of evolutionary transitions from sesamoids to bony eminences at tendon insertion sites, and vice-versa. This can be explained by newfound similarities in the earliest development of both kinds of structures, which suggest these transitions are likely triggered by EMA. Other traits that require EMA for their formation will not necessarily undergo genetic assimilation, but still be conserved over tens and hundreds of millions of years, allowing evolutionary reduction and loss of other skeletal elements. Upon their origin, EMA-shaped traits may not be directly genetic, nor immediately adaptive. Nevertheless, EMA can play a key role in evolutionary innovation, and have consequences for the subsequent direction of evolutionary change. Its role may be more important and ubiquitous than currently suspected.

New developmental evidence clarifies the evolution of wrist bones in the dinosaur-bird transition.

From early dinosaurs with as many as nine wrist bones, modern birds evolved to develop only four ossifications. Their identity is uncertain, with different labels used in palaeontology and developmental biology. We examined embryos of several species and studied chicken embryos in detail through a new technique allowing whole-mount immunofluorescence of the embryonic cartilaginous skeleton. Beyond previous controversy, we establish that the proximal-anterior ossification develops from a composite radiale+intermedium cartilage, consistent with fusion of radiale and intermedium observed in some theropod dinosaurs. Despite previous claims that the development of the distal-anterior ossification does not support the dinosaur-bird link, we found its embryonic precursor shows two distinct regions of both collagen type II and collagen type IX expression, resembling the composite semilunate bone of bird-like dinosaurs (distal carpal 1+distal carpal 2). The distal-posterior ossification develops from a cartilage referred to as "element x," but its position corresponds to distal carpal 3. The proximal-posterior ossification is perhaps most controversial: It is labelled as the ulnare in palaeontology, but we confirm the embryonic ulnare is lost during development. Re-examination of the fossil evidence reveals the ulnare was actually absent in bird-like dinosaurs. We confirm the proximal-posterior bone is a pisiform in terms of embryonic position and its development as a sesamoid associated to a tendon. However, the pisiform is absent in bird-like dinosaurs, which are known from several articulated specimens. The combined data provide compelling evidence of a remarkable evolutionary reversal: A large, ossified pisiform re-evolved in the lineage leading to birds, after a period in which it was either absent, nonossified, or very small, consistently escaping fossil preservation. The bird wrist provides a modern example of how developmental and paleontological data illuminate each other. Based on all available data, we introduce a new nomenclature for bird wrist ossifications.

New developmental evidence supports a homeotic frameshift of digit identity in the evolution of the bird wing.

BACKGROUND: The homology of the digits in the bird wing is a high-profile controversy in developmental and evolutionary biology. The embryonic position of the digits cartilages with respect to the primary axis (ulnare and ulna) corresponds to 2, 3, 4, but comparative-evolutionary morphology supports 1, 2, 3. A homeotic frameshift of digit identity in evolution could explain how cells in embryonic positions 2, 3, 4 began developing morphologies 1, 2, 3. Another alternative is that no re-patterning of cell fates occurred, and the primary axis shifted its position by some other mechanism. In the wing, only the anterior digit lacks expression of HoxD10 and HoxD12, resembling digit 1 of other limbs, as predicted by 1, 2, 3. However, upon loss of digit 1 in evolution, the most anterior digit 2 could have lost their expression, deceitfully resembling a digit 1. To test this notion, we observed HoxD10 and HoxD12 in a limb where digit 2 is the most anterior digit: The rabbit foot. We also explored whether early inhibition of Shh signalling in the embryonic wing bud induces an experimental homeotic frameshift, or an experimental axis shift. We tested these hypotheses using DiI injections to study the fate of cells in these experimental wings. RESULTS: We found strong transcription of HoxD10 and HoxD12 was present in the most anterior digit 2 of the rabbit foot. Thus, we found no evidence to question the use of HoxD expression as support for 1, 2, 3. When Shh signalling in early wing buds is inhibited, our fate maps demonstrate that an experimental homeotic frameshift is induced. CONCLUSION: Along with comparative morphology, HoxD expression provides strong support for 1, 2, 3 identity of wing digits. As an explanation for the offset 2, 3, 4 embryological position, the homeotic frameshift hypothesis is consistent with known mechanisms of limb development, and further proven to be experimentally possible. In contrast, the underlying mechanisms and experimental plausibility of an axis shift remain unclear.