Squamation and scale morphology at the root of jawed vertebrates

  1. Yajing Wang
  2. Min Zhu  Is a corresponding author
  1. School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Nanjing University, China
  2. Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
  3. CAS Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, China

Abstract

Placoderms, as the earliest branching jawed vertebrates, are crucial to understanding how the characters of crown gnathostomes comprising Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes evolved from their stem relatives. Despite the growing knowledge of the anatomy and diversity of placoderms over the past decade, the dermal scales of placoderms are predominantly known from isolated material, either morphologically or histologically, resulting in their squamation being poorly understood. Here we provide a comprehensive description of the squamation and scale morphology of a primitive taxon of Antiarcha (a clade at the root of jawed vertebrates), Parayunnanolepis xitunensis, based on the virtual restoration of an articulated specimen by using X-ray computed tomography. Thirteen morphotypes of scales are classified to exhibit how the morphology changes with their position on the body in primitive antiarchs, based on which nine areas of the post-thoracic body are distinguished to show their scale variations in the dorsal, flank, ventral, and caudal lobe regions. In this study, the histological structure of yunnanolepidoid scales is described for the first time based on disarticulated scales from the type locality and horizon of P. xitunensis. The results demonstrate that yunnanolepidoid scales are remarkably different from their dermal plates as well as euantiarch scales in lack of a well-developed middle layer. Together, our study reveals that the high regionalization of squamation and the bipartite histological structure of scales might be plesiomorphic for antiarchs, and jawed vertebrates in general.

Editor's evaluation

This manuscript will be of strong interest to scientists studying the development of early jawed vertebrates, in particular the extent and structure of their dermal skeleton, but it will also interest a broader audience given how it connects modern-day morphological techniques to paleobiology. The authors provide the most complete account to date of the body scales of an antiarch stem-group gnathostome; this is the first work to model in 3-D the entire scale cover of such a fossil fish. The authors show that the body scales are varied in form, regionalized and that they comprise two main tissue layers. Based on this they argue that these conditions are plesiomorphic for antiarchs and the gnathostome crown group.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76661.sa0

eLife digest

Many vertebrates have an outer skeleton covering their body. Some, like crocodiles, have large bony plates of armor, while others, like fish, have small slippery scales. The type, shape, and arrangement of these structures can tell scientists a lot about how different species evolved.

Most modern fish are completely covered in scales, but this has not always been the case. Over 400 millions of years ago in the Earth’s oceans lived a major group of armored fish called antiarch placoderms which had a combination of bony plates, scales and naked skin. These ancient fish are particularly interesting to scientists because they were one of the first jawed vertebrates to evolve. However, much of what is known about this group has come from isolated materials, which has made it difficult to study the organization and shape of their scales.

To overcome this, Wang and Zhu used a specialized x-ray imaging procedure to create a three-dimensional model of one of the best-preserved antiarch placoderm species, Parayunnanolepis xitunensis. The model showed that the fish had thirteen types of scales, found in nine distinct regions on its body.

To better understand the structure of these scales, Wang and Zhu looked at the fossils of other extinct jawed fish which where were found in the region where P. xitunensis once lived. The scales of these ancient fish were very different from their bony plates, and from the scales of modern fish.

Understanding the skin armor of ancient fish could help to explain how the scales of modern vertebrates evolved. The next step is to look in more detail at the scales of other placoderms to see how they changed over time.

Introduction

Jawed vertebrates possess a fully mineralized dermal skeleton that falls into two categories: macromery (large bony plates) and micromery (small scales), with the latter differentiating as a squamation across the animal (Janvier, 1996; Jerve et al., 2017). The squamation is a highly complex integument that varies both interspecifically and intraspecifically (Reif, 1985), and may correspond with ecology or lifestyle as well as the body plan (Ferrón and Botella, 2017). It also contributes to morphological data that have been used to resolve the interrelationships of early jawed vertebrates (Choo et al., 2017; Qiao et al., 2016).

Placoderms constitute the crownward part of the stem gnathostomes (Dupret et al., 2014; Qiao et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2009). They primitively bear extensive dermoskeleton (Giles et al., 2013), but appear to have recurrently reduced or lost the dermal scales in later species including many advanced arthrodires, euantiarchs, and ptyctodonts (Denison, 1978; Janvier, 1996). Since the squamation in placoderms has only been preserved in situ in a few examples (Goujet, 1973; Gross, 1963; Hemmings, 1978; Ivanov et al., 1996; Long and Werdelin, 1986; Lyarskaya, 1977; Stensiö, 1969; Upeniece and Upenieks, 1992), the large number of isolated placoderm scales are of uncertain affinity, and little is known about the complexity of the placoderm squamation.

Concerning the histology in placoderms, gnathal plates and different categories of the dermoskeleton including scales, dermal bony plates, and fin spines have been extensively studied (Burrow and Turner, 1999; Downs and Donoghue, 2009; Giles et al., 2013; Jerve et al., 2017; Rücklin and Donoghue, 2015; Young, 2003). However, the histology of yunnanolepidoids, the most primitive group of antiarchs at the root of jawed vertebrates (Brazeau et al., 2020; Cui et al., 2019; Long et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2013), is poorly known, especially for the scales.

Parayunnanolepis xitunensis from the Lower Devonian of South China, is known for the most complete preserved yunnanolepidoid fossil (Figure 1A–C). As such, it was regularly incorporated in the phylogenetic analyses of early jawed vertebrates as a representative of primitive antiarchs (Brazeau et al., 2020; Chevrinais et al., 2017; Dearden et al., 2019; Giles et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2021). The scale morphology of P. xitunensis was briefly described (Zhang et al., 2001; Zhu et al., 2012). Nevertheless, the morphological disparity of scales, which would enhance our understanding of the ancestral conditions of jawed vertebrates, was almost unremarked. In the present study, we classify and describe the scales of P. xitunensis and establish a squamation model for primitive antiarchs. The histology of yunnanolepidoid scales is investigated to show its deviations from that of yunnanolepidoid dermal bony plates as well as from that of euantiarch scales.

Photograph of Parayunnanolepis xitunensis, holotype IVPP V11679.1.

(A) Dorsal view. (B) Right lateral view. (C) Left lateral view. (D–I) Magnified images of rectangles in (A–C). (D) Dorsal fin in left lateral view. (E) Predorsal scales in dorsal view. (F–H) Flank scales (fs) in lateral view. (I) Postdorsal scales in dorsal view. The black arrow indicates the anterior direction. PL, posterior lateral plate; PVL, posterior ventrolateral plate; other abbreviations see text. A–C share a scale bar of 5 mm, D–I of 1 mm.

Results

Scale morphology

The post-thoracic body (Figure 2) is completely covered by scales with substantial variability in shape (oval, or rhombic, or polygonal), size (length 0.3–2.6 mm in length, width 0.2–2.3 mm in width, 0.1–0.4 mm in height), overlap relationship (largely overlapping or no overlap), crown/base proportion, and base morphology (bulging, or flat, or concave). Most of the scales are rhombic in shape with their base concave and larger than the crown. Discrete tubercles (tub) ornament the scale crown, and the tubercle size changes with the different scale varieties (Figure 1D–I, tub). Basal pores are less developed. Scales are relatively flat, and barely bear the neck structure. The available scales were provisionally assigned to the thirteen morphotypes listed here.

Life reconstruction of Parayunnanolepis xitunensis, drawn by Dinghua Yang.

Morphotype 1— anterior dorsal scale (ads; Figure 3D; Figure 3—figure supplement 1A–E). The scale is distinguishable by a thickened crown, rounded anterior margin, and broad outline (width/length, abbreviated as w/l, ranging 1.3–1.6). The depressed field (df; Figure 3I, J), that is the area underlying neighboring scales (Chen et al., 2012), occupies 28–43% of the scale length. The base is concave under the crown, but convex under the df. The left scale overlaps the right and the back ones. The shape changes from roughly pentagonal at the first row to triangular at the second row, along with the size in length and width getting larger. Following the functional summary for various scale types by Reif, 1985, the thickened crown might protect the ads from abrasion in contact with the posterior median dorsal plate (PMD, Figure 3A) of the trunk shield.

Figure 3 with 2 supplements see all
Reconstructed squamation of P.xitunensis based on CT scanning, IVPP V11679.1.

(A–D) Squamation in (A) right lateral, (B) left lateral, (C) anterior, and (D) dorsal views. (E) Posterodorsal fulcral scales in ventral side. (F) Interpretative diagram of the dorsal fin scales, showing their contact relationships. (G) Dorsal fin scales in left lateral view. (H) Dorsal scales in right lateral view. (I–J) Anterior dorsal scales in (I) dorsal and (J) left lateral views. (K) Morphotype 6–7 scales on the right side in CT reconstruction (K1) and cross-section diagram (K2), showing the trajectory and profile of the lateral line groove. (L) Morphotype 6 scales on the left side. The black and red arrows indicate the anterior and dorsal directions, respectively. Dotted lines indicate the levels of vertical sections shown in (K2). PDL, posterior dorsolateral plate; other abbreviations see text and Figure 1. Scale bars equal to 2 mm.

Morphotype 2—dorsal ridge scale (drs1-3; Figure 3D; Figure 3—figure supplement 1F, H, I). Also termed the ‘dorsal scute’ or ‘median dorsal scale’ (Zhang, 1978; Zhu et al., 2012), it is represented by three large, symmetric, polygonal scales (w/l of about 0.8) behind the ads. Each scale bears a conspicuous bump. The width of the scale decreases backward, with the bump sitting more posteriorly relative to the center of the scale from the first to the third one. The first dorsal ridge scale is featured by a roughly quadrangular outline and a vaulted base. The second one has waved lateral margins and a nearly flat base. The third one, narrow heptagonal in shape, bears developed anterior and lateral corners, and a slender longitudinally directed ridge (dr; Figure 3—figure supplement 1I). The base of the third scale is deeply concave beneath the ridge.

Morphotype 3—anterior dorsolateral scale (adls; Figure 3H; Figure 3—figure supplement 1G). Lying between the first and second dorsal ridge scales, the scale has a quadrilateral outline (w/l of 1.17) with a protruding lateral corner (lc; Figure 3—figure supplement 1G). A thickening at the turn of the dorsal and ventrolateral laminae (dl, vl; Figure 3—figure supplement 1G) strengthens the scale. A df, which is covered by anterior flank scales (afs), occupies almost a half-length of the scale.

Morphotype 4—dorsal fin scale (dfs; Figure 3H; Figure 3—figure supplement 2). The scales are probably arranged into at least three horizontal files on either side of the dorsal fin, with up to four scales on each file (Figures 1D and 3G). They decrease progressively in size towards both the dorsal and trailing edges of the fin. In the basal horizontal file, the back scale overlaps the front one, while in the second file, the front scale overlaps the back one (Figure 3F), revealing the variability of scale overlap relationships. The first scale in the basal file is oval-shaped, with a cashew-like crown and a strongly concave base; the second and third scales share a round shape and a concave base; the fourth one has a flat base, and is overlapped posteriorly by the morphotype 5 scale. The second file scales can be distinguished by their quadrangular shape, which contrasts with the triangular shape of the first scale in the top file.

Morphotype 5—posterodorsal fulcral scale (fuls; Figure 3D; Figure 3—figure supplement 1Q–T). The scale is rostrocaudally elongated, about 1.2–1.8 times longer than wide, and sub-rectangular in shape. The scales in two files are arranged in a staggered manner (Figure 1I), with the left underlying the right. Remarkably, the base of the scale in the left file is concave, while that in the right is convex (Figure 3E).

Morphotype 6—anterodorsal lateral line scale (ls.ad; Figure 3H; Figure 3—figure supplement 1J–N). The scales are arranged in an arcuate file around the base of the dorsal fin. They vary in morphology along the body: the first three scales are characterized by a high crown, while the last two by a relatively flat crown; their shape changes from oval to rhombic (w/l of 0.7–1.0). The lateral line canal passes around the crown periphery of the first two scales, but through the crown surface of the following three ones as an open groove (lg; Figure 3K, L).

Morphotype 7—posterodorsal lateral line scale (ls.ps; Figure 3H; Figure 3—figure supplement 1O, P). The scale is rhombic in shape with a size intermediate between adjacent flank and fulcral scales. The base is concave and shows a thickening centrally. The scales also carry a lateral line groove that extends from the Morphotype 6 scales and parallels to the longitudinal axis of the body.

Morphotype 8—afs (Figure 4A; Figure 4—figure supplement 1A–E, G, I–M). The scales are oval to sub-rhomboid in shape and form the first 15 (on the right side) or 18 (on the left side) rows (Figure 4A, B) on the post-thoracic body. The crown, which is narrower than the base, slightly leans back, and usually beyond the base. The first three rows consist of closely packed scales, while the following rows consist of loosely packed scales. There is a trend of scale size reduction in the top-down direction. A shallow groove on the crowns of three adjacent flank scales in rows 7–9 of the left side represents the anterior elongation of the lateral line on the Morphotype 6 scales (Figure 4—figure supplement 1B, C).

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all
Reconstructed flank squamation of Parayunnanolepis xitunensis based on CT scanning, holotype IVPP V11679.1.

(A) Left flank scales in lateral view. (B) Right flank scales in lateral view. (C) Left flank scales in ventral view. (D–E) A series of flank scales in (D) ventral and (E) anterior views, showing the anterior–posterior gradation of scales. The boundaries between the anterior and posterior flank areas are indicated by a solid line, which represents the extend line of the posterior edge of the dorsal fin. The red scales shown in (A) are interspersed scales (is). The red arrow indicates the dorsal direction. Scale bars equal to 1 mm.

Morphotype 9—posterior flank scale (pfs; Figure 4B; Figure 4—figure supplement 1F, H). They are represented by the flank scales lying in rows 1622 (on the left side) or 1822 (on the right side), posterior to the trailing edge of the dorsal fin (Figure 4A, B). The scales are rectangular (w/l of 0.83) in shape. The flat crown almost covers the base, rarely leaving a df.

Morphotype 10—anterior ventral scute (avs; Figure 5A; Figure 5—figure supplement 1A, G). The ventral scutes in the first to third rows are asymmetric in shape with a straight mesial margin. The crown of the first scute is separated from the base posteriorly by a constricted groove (gr; Figure 5E–G). The scute consists of the lateral and ventral laminae (ll.vs, vl.vs; Figure 5C). The right scute overlaps the left one in the first two rows, but the left one in the third row overlaps the right one (Figure 5D, H, I).

Figure 5 with 1 supplement see all
Reconstructed ventral squamation of Parayunnanolepis xitunensis based on CT scanning, holotype IVPP V11679.1.

(A) Ventral scales in ventral view. (B) Virtual axial section of the ventral scutes at the level indicated by the white dotted line in (A). (C) Ventral scutes in anterior view. (D) Ventral scales in dorsal view. (E) A series of ventral scutes in posterior view. (F) The first right ventral scute in posterior view. (G) Virtual axial section of the scale in (F). (H–I) Anterior ventral scutes in (H) first and (I) second rows in ventral views. (J–K) Reconstruction and interpretative reconstructions of the posterior ventral scutes in the fourth and fifth rows in ventral view, respectively. (L) Virtual sagittal section of the additional scale and its surrounding scales. (M) Schematic diagram of the articulated way between ventral scutes in the front and back rows. (N) Ventrolateral scale and its surrounding flank scales. The black and red arrows indicate the anterior and dorsal directions, respectively. Scale bar equal to 2 mm.

Morphotype 11— posterior ventral scute (pvs; Figure 5D; Figure 5—figure supplement 1J–N). The ventral scutes behind the third row share a staggered arrangement (Figure 5J, K). Each scute overlaps the two back ones. The scute is nearly symmetric, with a roughly rhombic shape in most cases. The base is thickened and concave centrally. The upturned posterior margin of the front scute closely articulate with the downturned anterior margin of the back one (Figure 5B, M). Compared with Morphotype 10, the lateral lamina in the Morphotype 11 scale is much less developed (Figure 5C, E).

Morphotype 12—ventrolateral scale (vls; Figure 5A; Figure 5—figure supplement 1H, I). The scale is intermediate in size and morphology between the flank scales and ventral scutes. It is characterized by a rhombic shape (w/l of 0.9–1.1), with the mesial corner always at a level in front of the lateral corner. A narrow overlapping occurs between the Morphotype 12 scale and its adjacent ones (Figure 5D, N).

Morphotype 13—caudal lobe scale (cls; Figure 3A). The scales with a small rectangular or square shape cover the hypochordal lobe. They align into four parallel rows in a longitudinal direction.

Squamation

The post-thoracic body of P. xitunensis (Figure 6) is about 3.8 mm in width, 6.7 mm in height, and 35.6 mm in length, and occupies approximately 58% of the length overall as noted before (Zhu et al., 2012). It is roughly triangular-shaped in the transverse section, and broadest at the level just posterior to the ventral wall of the trunk shield (Figure 3C, D). The dorsal fin is positioned at about the first third of the post-thoracic body length (Figures 1B, 3A, B), and its preserved part is about 3.0 mm in length, 1.0 mm in width, and 1.6 mm in height.

Figure 6 with 1 supplement see all
Reconstruction of Parayunnanolepis xitunensis in lateral view.

(A) Squamation model showing division of areas. (B) 3D model by Dinghua Yang, showing distribution of scale morphotypes. Small letters in (A) represent the (a) predorsal, (b) dorsal fin, (c) posterodorsal, (d) dorsolateral, (e) anterior flank, (f) posterior flank, (g) ventral, (h) ventrolateral and (i) caudal lobe areas. Scales from CT reconstruction in (B) share the same scale bar and are aligned towards the anterior direction, as indicated by the black arrow. Each morphotype is represented by a typical scale or scales with the most disparity within the morphotype. Deep and light red lines represent the exact and inferred trajectory of the lateral line, respectively. ADL, anterior dorsolateral plate; AMD, anterior median dorsal plate; AVL,anterior ventrolateral plate; other abbreviations see text and Figures 1 and 3. Scale bars equal to 2 mm.

The scales are packed into oblique dorsoventral rows (flank scales), longitudinal files (dorsal and ventral scales), and curved linear rows (caudal lobe scales) (Figure 6—figure supplement 1). According to the scale morphotypes and arrangements, the squamation can be divided into four large regions (dorsal, ventral, flank, and caudal lobe regions), which can be further divided into nine areas (Figure 6A).

The dorsal region comprises the predorsal, dorsal fin, posterodorsal, and dorsolateral areas. The squamation in the predorsal area shows the largest disparity of scales (Morphotypes 1–3), which are more heavily imbricated with each other (Figure 1E) than the scales in the other areas. Three specialized dorsal ridge scales (Morphotype 2) lie in sequence just behind the ads (Morphotype 1) but in front of the dorsal fin. The first two dorsal ridge scales are separated by a pair of adls (Morphotype 3). The dorsal fin area is completely covered by numerous imbricating scales (Morphotype 4) (Figure 3G, H), a feature also known in other placoderms with heavy scale cover. In the posterodorsal area, two files of flat fulcral scales (Morphotype 5) are positioned just behind the dorsal fin. The main lateral line is discernible as an open groove running around or through the crowns of the Morphotype 6–7 scales in the dorsolateral area.

The flank region comprises the anterior and posterior flank areas, which are covered by anterodorsally inclined (c.40–50°) rows of scales (Morphotypes 8–9), with a different row number on either side of the body (Figure 4A, B). The disparity of row number might belong to abnormal arrangement of scales caused by suffering trauma (Gunter, 1948). The main lateral line in the dorsolateral area extends anteriorly onto the Morphotype 8 scales of the anterior flank area. A small pore opens onto the crown surface in some flank scales (Figure 4—figure supplement 1G, L). Remarkably, the squamation in the flank region exhibits a backward gradation of scales in shape (from oval, to rhombic or rectangular), thickness (from high to low crown), and size (from small to large in overall) (Figure 4C–E). The size increase from anterior to posterior, might indicate the pfs developed earlier than more anterior ones. However, this size gradation is contrary to that in many other early vertebrates, such as Tremataspis (Märss et al., 2015), Guiyu (Cui et al., 2019), Mimipiscis (Choo, 2012), and Gogosardina (Choo et al., 2009).

The ventral region comprises the ventral and ventrolateral areas. The scales in the ventral region are flatter than those in other areas. A file of ventral scutes (Morphotype 10–11) covering the ventral area, is flanked by a file of ventrolateral scales (Morphotype 12) in the ventrolateral area. The squamation in the ventral region also exhibits a backward gradation of scales in shape (from pentagonal to rhombic), size (from large to small), the development of lateral lamina (from well to weakly developed) and overlapping degree (from heavily to slightly overlapped) (Figure 5A, D). A few additional scales are interspersed between the regularly arranged ventral scutes and flank scales (Figure 5D, L, is), and resembling the surrounding scales in morphotypes. The same condition was also found in the squamation of Asterolepis (Ivanov et al., 1996).

The caudal lobe region, or the ventral lobe of the caudal peduncle, is covered by tiny scales (Morphotype 13). Being the smallest amongst the squamation (Figure 6B), these scales are arranged in linear rows as the tail scales of other antiarchs, such as Pterichthyodes (Hemmings, 1978).

Histology of yunnanolepidoid scales

Despite yunnanolepidoid antiarchs displaying abundant fossil records in the Early Devonian sediments of South China (Burrow et al., 2000; Zhao and Zhu, 2010; Zhu, 1996; Zhu et al., 2000), the identification of isolated scales has proven difficult as the scale sculpture, mainly composed of round tubercles, is less diagnostic. As such, yunnanolepidoid scales have never been investigated histologically. For the histological research, we selected dozens of isolated placoderm scales from the type locality and horizon of P. xitunensis, where yunnanolepidoid antiarchs are the most common placoderm fossils. These isolated scales (Figure 7—figure supplement 1) are difficult to be referred to as any definite species, however, they can be assigned to yunnanolepidoids with a reference to the articulated specimen of P. xitunensis described here in detail. Displaying various shapes, these scales should come from different species and/or different areas of the post-thoracic body: V28643, V28645, and V28646 can be assigned to Morphotype 8; V28644 and V28647, probably from the posterior flank area, can be referred to Morphotype 9; V28642 can be referred to Morphotype 11. The thin sections through different morphotypes of yunnanolepidoid scales show that the scale uniformly comprises two main divisions: a compact superficial layer, and a thick, lamellar basal layer (sup, bas; Figure 7). Thus, the histology of yunnanolepidoid scales is remarkably different from that of their dermal bony plates, which exhibits a three-layered structure including a thick cancellous spongiosa in the middle as in Yunnanolepis and Chuchinolepis (Giles et al., 2013). Significantly, the dermal skeletal differentiation across the dermal shield and scales with respect to the middle layer, is also the case for heterostracans and osteostracans (Denison, 1947; O’Shea et al., 2019).

Figure 7 with 1 supplement see all
Thin sections through yunnanolepidoid scales.

(A) IVPP V28642. (B) IVPP V28643. (C) IVPP V28644. (D) IVPP V28645. (E) IVPP V28646. (F) IVPP V29647. Scale bar equal to 100 μm.

The superficial layer of the yunnanolepidoid scale is confined to the tubercular ornament. No apparent dentine tubules could be identified due to recrystallization (rt; Figure 7E) of mineralized tissues. However, the dentine tissue was reported in yunnanolepidoid dermal plates (Giles et al., 2013; Young, 2008), suggesting another potential differentiation across the scale and the dermal plate. The odontodes in the superficial layer display signs of superpositional stacking of at least three generations (go1–3; Figure 7A), and the number of superimposed layers of odontodes decreases from the center of the scale to the edge. The younger odontodes cover the older generations of odontodes either completely or incompletely, suggesting a combined areo-superpositional growth (Ørvig, 1968) or a compound growth (Cui et al., 2021). Polyodontode and the compound growth pattern have been considered to be plesiomorphic in jawed vertebrates (Cui et al., 2021; Qu et al., 2013). The conditions in yunnanolepidoid scales offer support for these hypotheses. Most of the lacunae are star-shaped with rounded or more elongated cell bodies (lac; Figure 7A), and have ramifying canaliculi in all directions. The vasculature might be supplied by occasional ascending canals (vc; Figure 7A) from the basal layer, which opened to the surface but was buried later by younger odontodes. In this case, the middle/spongiosa layer may be poorly developed or absent in certain morphotypes. The basal layer is permeated by vertical Sharpey’s fibers (sf; Figure 7A). These fibers converge towards the center of the scale, at right angles to the lines of the laminae. The scale base shows a series of growth lines (gl; Figure 7A).

Discussion

Squamation of antiarchs

As described above, P. xitunensis exhibits remarkable morphological variability in the scales of nine body areas. Also present in Romundina and Radotina (Ørvig, 1975), another two primitive members of placoderms (Li et al., 2021; Vaškaninová et al., 2020), the high regionalization of squamation probably represents a primitive character for jawed vertebrates.

In comparison, the squamation regionalization in the ventral and dorsal regions of the body is reduced in euantiarchs (Figure 8). Most bothriolepidoids have almost naked bodies, such as Bothriolepis canadensis, in which only a small patch of square scales occurs along the lower margin of the tail (Stensiö, 1948). The exceptions are B. gippslandiensis and B. cullodenensis (Long, 1983; Long and Werdelin, 1986), which have a complete squamation with three regional divisions: the ventrolateral, dorsal fin, and flank areas. Pterichthyodes milleri appears to have the highest regional differentiation amongst asterolepidoids, with about six body areas, that is predorsal, dorsal fin, posterodorsal, flank, ventral, and caudal lobe areas (Hemmings, 1978). The squamation of Asterolepis can be divided into three areas: dorsal fin, dorsal, and flank areas, based on its scale morphotypes (Ivanov et al., 1995; Ivanov et al., 1996). The squamation of Remigolepis can also be divided into three areas: predorsal, posterodorsal, and flank areas (Johanson, 1997), or even fewer areas in the species from northern China (Pan et al., 1987).

Evolution of squamation patterns of the post-thoracic region in antiarchs.

Redrawn from the source illustrations of Long and Werdelin, 1986 for Bothriolepis gippslandiensis, Hemmings, 1978 for Pterichthyodes milleri, Ivanov et al., 1996 for Asterolepis ornata, and Johanson, 1997 for Remigolepis walkeri.

It seems that the squamation is simplified in the aspect of regionalization or disparity in euantiarchs, and further simplified in the clade comprising Asterolepis and Remigolepis, as their ventral scales are not differentiated from the flank scales (Figure 8). The simplification of squamation has also occurred in crown sarcopterygians and actinopterygians (Cui et al., 2019; Friedman and Blom, 2006; Mondéjar-Fernández and Clément, 2012), and possibly in crown chondrichthyans (Ferrón et al., 2018), suggesting substantial parallelism of squamation in early jawed vertebrates.

Phylogenetic signals in scale microstructure

The dermal skeleton of heterostracans, osteostracans, placoderms, and early osteichthyans usually consists of three principal layers: a superficial layer composed of dentine and enameloid/enamel; a trabecular/cancellous layer composed of vascular bone; and a compact basal layer composed of lamellar/pseudolamellar bone (Burrow and Turner, 1999; Donoghue and Sansom, 2002; Giles et al., 2013; Qu et al., 2015b). This tripartite structure was considered to be plesiomorphic for early jawed vertebrates (Qu et al., 2015b; O’Shea et al., 2019). However, different dermal units evolve as independent modules (Qu et al., 2015b), and vary in histological structure as suggested by the conditions in yunnanolepidoids. In this section, we compare scales of early jawed vertebrates to assess how the variation of diagnostic scale traits including histology and sculpture is correlated with the phylogenetic relationships (Figure 9; Zhu et al., 2016).

Sculpture pattern and histology of scales among gnathostomes.

The phylogenetic hypothesis is after Zhu et al., 2016 as it accords with most of the recent hypotheses about the interrelationships of early jawed vertebrates. Taxon drawings are redrawn from source illustrations of Märss et al., 2015 and Qu et al., 2015a for Tremataspis, Burrow and Turner, 1999 and Ivanov et al., 1996 for Asterolepis, Burrow and Turner, 1998 and Young, 1990 for Wurungulepis, Giles et al., 2013 and Rücklin and Donoghue, 2015 for Romundina, Burrow and Turner, 1999 for Ohioaspis, Burrow and Turner, 1999 for Lunaspis, Burrow and Turner, 1998 for Brindabellaspis, Burrow et al., 2000 for Petalichthyida gen. et sp. indet., Trinajstic, 1999 for Holonema, Jerve et al., 2016 and Gross, 1969 for Lophosteus,Qu et al., 2017 for Psarolepis, Gross, 1971 for Gomphonchus, and Gross, 1973 for Ohiolepis. Terminology of scale sculpture follows Märss et al., 2015. The first column shows scales in dorsal view; the second column shows scales in vertical ground section.

Anaspid, thelodont and galeaspid scales lack an extensive osteonal middly layer (Burrow et al., 2013; Keating and Donoghue, 2016; Wang et al., 2005). Heterostracans have body scales with poorly developed or no middle layer (Keating et al., 2015; Soehn and Wilson, 1990). In osteostracans or the immediate outgroup of jawed vertebrates, the middle layer with varied development conditions has been reported in tremataspid scales (O’Shea et al., 2019; Qu et al., 2015a). Ornament on the external surface of the osteostracan scales changes from smooth with pores, to variable shaped tubercles in combination with nodules, ridges, ribs, and inter-ridge grooves (Märss et al., 2015).

Yunnanolepidoid scales bear the round tubercle sculpture on the surface and lack the well-developed middle layer, in contrast with that of euantiarchs. The middle partition of scales assigned to Asterolepis ornata (Lyarskaya, 1977) and Wurungulepis denisoni (Burrow and Turner, 1998) coincides with the features of the middle layer, such as the ‘vascular canals surrounded by osteons’. The Remigolepis scale also develops a thick middle layer bearing the upper part of the canal system (Lukševičs, 1991). Considering ornamentation, the asterolepidoid scale is much more variable than that of yunnanolepidoid antiarchs; its sculpture changes with the body areas longitudinally from a smooth surface to a combination of nodules, longitudinal crests/ridges, grooves, irregular tubercles, and indistinct pits (Hemmings, 1978; Ivanov et al., 1996; Young, 1990).

In rhenanids, only the histology of Ohioaspis scales was investigated (Burrow and Turner, 1999). The middle layer is not developed as the main body of vascular canals is buried within the older generations of tubercles (Gross, 1973) and thus belongs to the superficial layer. The scales of Ohioaspis have stellate tubercles with a multitude of ridgelets around them (Burrow and Turner, 1999; Gross, 1973), whiles the scales of Gemuendina and Jagorina are simply ornamented with round tubercles (Denison, 1978).

The absence of the spongiosa in the scale was ever perceived as a feature for acanthothoracids (Burrow, 1996; Denison, 1978). The middle layer is very weakly developed in scales of Jerulalepis and radotinids (Burrow, 1996; Stensiö, 1969). However, different conditions occur in the scales referred to Murrindalaspis, Connemarraspis, and Romundina, which bear a well-developed middle layer in addition to the complex ornamentation composed of stellate, ridged or polygonal tubercles as in the stem osteichthyan Lophosteus (Burrow, 2006; Burrow and Turner, 1998; Gross, 1969; Long and Young, 1988). Noteworthy is that the middle layer in the scales of Romundina exhibits two different conditions: poorly developed in some thin sections (Giles et al., 2013; Rücklin and Donoghue, 2015; Smith et al., 2017), and well-developed in other sections (Giles et al., 2013). This histological difference in the Romundina scales probably results from individual disparity, as suggested by Tremataspis mammillata with reduction of the middle layer posteriorly across the squamation (O’Shea et al., 2019).

In brindabellaspids, the middle layer in the Brindabellaspis scale is developed (Burrow and Turner, 1999), and the ornamentation of the Brindabellaspis scale is distinct in consisting of arrowhead-shaped tubercles (Burrow and Turner, 1998).

Petalichthyids and arthrodires constitute the successive sister groups of jawed crown gnathostomes, and their scales generally bear a well-developed middle layer (Burrow et al., 2000; Trinajstic, 1999), with a few exceptions of buchanosteid scales (Burrow and Turner, 1998). Concerning the ornamentation, the petalichthyid scales usually bear a diagonal ridge, surrounded by rounded or stellate tubercles (Burrow et al., 2000; Denison, 1978). The arthrodire scales are largely covered by rounded tubercles, or stellate tubercles that are either surrounded centrally by larger tubercles or combined with longitudinal ridges (Burrow and Turner, 1999; Mark-Kurik and Young, 2003).

In crown gnathostomes, the middle layer occurs extensively in early osteichthyans, such as Lophosteus (Jerve et al., 2016) and Psarolepis (Qu et al., 2013; Schultze, 2016), but is widely absent in the chondrichthyan lineage including acanthodians (Andreev et al., 2016a; Andreev et al., 2016b; Andreev et al., 2020; Burrow et al., 2020; Burrow et al., 2016; Burrow et al., 2013; Chevrinais et al., 2017; Hanke and Wilson, 2010). The ornamentation on dermal scales seems slightly more variable and complex in osteichthyans than that of placoderms, as exampled by the Andreolepis and Lophosteus scales. Andreolepis usually carries parallel or united ridges along with grooves and pores (Chen et al., 2012), and Lophosteus carries serrated ridges (Jerve et al., 2016). The scale surface in the chondrichthyan lineage is often marked by pectinate ornamentation, consisting of raised ridges, grooves, ribs, oriented tubercles or denticulate ornament, occasionally accompanied by foramina.

The osteonal middle layer was hypothesized evolved in a clade consisting of osteostracans plus jawed vertebrates (Keating and Donoghue, 2016). Then the middle layer of scales is reduced or absent in the jawed vertebrate node, since the bipartite scale (a thick basal layer +a superficial layer) is more likely to be a common feature for primitive placoderms (Burrow, 1996; Denison, 1978) with new evidence from yunnanolepidoid scales. The middle layer subsequently independently evolved several times in scales of euantiarchs, brindabellaspids, and a clade comprising more crownward placoderms including petalichthyids and arthrodires, plus crown gnathostomes, but lost again in the chondrichthyan total group (Figure 9). Alternatively, under the recent phylogenetic hypothesis by Zhu et al., 2021, the most parsimonious solution is that the well-developed middle layer independently evolved four times in petalichthyids + arthrodires, brindabellaspids, euantiarchs and osteichthyans.

Conclusions

A comprehensive study on the squamation of P. xitunensis using X-ray computed tomography and the histology of disarticulated scales provides the following new features in yunnanolepidoid antiarchs: (1) scales are generally rhombic, thick and show a concave base, but still vary in shape, size, ornamentation, concavity of the base, and overlap relationships in one individual, based on which we classified them into at least thirteen morphotypes for P. xitunensis; (2) nine areas of the post-thoracic body are distinguished to show the scale variations in the dorsal, flank, ventral, and caudal lobe regions, revealing the high regionalization of squamation at the root of jawed vertebrates; (3) yunnanolepidoid scales are histologically bipartite, composed of a thin upper superficial layer with multiple generations of tubercles and a thick basal layer.

Thin sections for yunnanolepidoid scales, together with evidence from other gnathostomes suggest that the well-developed middle cancellous layer of scales is primitively reduced or absent in jawed vertebrates, and independently evolved in euantiarchs, brindabellaspids, and a clade uniting petalichthyids, arthrodires, and crown gnathostomes.

Materials and methods

This study involves the holotype of P. xitunensis IVPP V11679.1 and six disarticulated scales IVPP V28642–V28647 (Figure 7—figure supplement 1) from Xitun village, Cuifengshan in Qujing city (Yunnan Province). They were collected from the middle part of the Xitun Formation (late Lochkovian) and housed in the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology.

V11679.1 was scanned using the Nano-CT system (Phoenix x-ray, GE Measurement & Control) at a pixel resolution of 5.99 μm in the Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academic of Science, Beijing. It was scanned at 90 kV, 100 μA, 1 s exposure time, with a 9 μm focal spot size. V28642–V28647 were processed with the diluted acetic acid and then scanned using the Nano-CT at 80 kV and100 μA, with a 1.85 μm voxel size. Raw data were pre-processed in VG Studio Max 3.3, and reconstructions were performed using Mimics 19.0.

Data availability

CT scan data (exported as .mcs files), reconstructions (exported as .stl files), and measurement data generated during this study will be available at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.fttdz08vb upon acceptance of the manuscript.

The following data sets were generated
    1. Zhu M
    (2022) Dryad Digital Repository
    Squamation and scale morphology at the root of jawed vertebrates.
    https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.fttdz08vb

References

    1. Burrow CJ
    (1996)
    Placoderm scales from the Lower Devonian of New South Wales, Australia
    Modern Geology 20:351–369.
    1. Burrow CJ
    2. Turner S
    3. Wang ST
    (2000)
    Devonian microvertebrates from Longmenshan
    Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 223:391–451.
  1. Book
    1. Denison R
    (1978)
    Placodermi
    Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
    1. Goujet DF
    (1973)
    Sigaspis, un nouvel arthrodire du Dévonien inférieur du Spitsberg
    Palaeontographica Abteilung A 143:73–88.
    1. Gross W
    (1963)
    Gemuendina stuertzi Traquair. Neuuntersuchung
    Notizblatt Des Hessisches Landesanstalt Für Bodenforschung 91:36–73.
    1. Gross W
    (1971)
    Downtonische und dittonische Acanthodier-Reste des Ostseegebietes (Downtonian and Dittonian acanthodian remains from the Baltic Sea area
    Palaeontographica Abteilung. A 136:1–82.
    1. Gross W
    (1973)
    Kleinschuppen, Flossenstacheln und Zähne von Fischen aus europäischen und nordamerikanischen Bonebeds des Devons
    Palaeontographica Abteilung A 142:51–155.
  2. Book
    1. Hanke GF
    2. Wilson MVH
    (2010)
    The putative stem-group chondrichthyans Kathemacanthus and Seretolepis from the Lower Devonian MOTH locality, Mackenzie Mountains, Canada
    In: Elliott DK, Maisey JG, Yu XB, Miao DS, editors. Morphology, Phylogeny and Paleobiogeography of Fossil Fishes. München: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil. pp. 159–182.
    1. Hemmings SK
    (1978)
    The Old Red Sandstone antiarchs of Scotland: Pterichthyodes and Microbrachius
    Monographs of the Palaeontographical Society 131:1–64.
    1. Ivanov A
    2. Lukševics E
    3. Upeniece I
    (1996)
    The squamous part of an asterolepid body
    Modern Geology 20:399–410.
  3. Book
    1. Janvier P
    (1996)
    Early Vertebrates
    Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    1. Long JA
    (1983)
    New bothriolepid fish from the Late Devonian of Victoria, Australia
    Palaeontology 26:295–320.
    1. Long JA
    2. Young GC
    (1988)
    Acanthothoracid remains from the Early Devonian of New South Wales, including a complete sclerotic capsule and pelvic girdle
    Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists 7:65–80.
    1. Lukševičs E
    (1991)
    New Remigolepis (Pisces, Antiarchi) from the Famennian deposits of the Central Devonian Field (Russia, Tula region
    Daba Un Muzejs 3:51–56.
  4. Book
    1. Lyarskaya L
    (1977)
    Noviye danniye o Asterolepis ornata Eichwald iz rannefranskih otlozheniy Pribaltiki
    In: Menner VV, editors. Notes on Phylogeny and Systematic of Fossil Fish and Agnathans. Nauka publ. pp. 36–44.
    1. Märss T
    2. Afanassieva O
    3. Blom H
    (2015) Biodiversity of the Silurian osteostracans of the East Baltic
    Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 105:73–148.
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755691014000218
  5. Book
    1. Ørvig T
    (1968)
    The dermal skeleton, general considerations
    In: Ørvig T, editors. Current Problems of Lower Vertebrate Phylogeney. Nobel Symposium 4. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. pp. 373–398.
  6. Book
    1. Ørvig T
    (1975)
    Description, with special reference to the dermal skeleton, of a new radotinid arthrodire from the Gedinnian of Arctic Canada
    In: Lehman JP, editors. Problèmes Actuels de Paléontologie-Evolution Des Vertébrés. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. pp. 41–71.
  7. Book
    1. Pan J
    2. Huo FC
    3. Cao JX
    4. Gu QC
    5. Liu SY
    6. Wang JQ
    7. Gao LD
    8. Liu C
    (1987)
    Continental Devonian System of Ningxia and Its Biotas
    Beijing: Geological Publishing House.
    1. Reif WE
    (1985)
    Squamation and ecology of sharks
    Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 78:1–255.
    1. Stensiö EA
    (1948)
    On the Placodermi of the Upper Devonian of East Greenland: II Antiarchi: subfamily Bothriolepinae, With an attempt at a revision of the previously described species of that family
    Meddelelser Om Grønland 139:1–622.
    1. Stensiö EA
    (1969)
    Elasmobranchiomorphi Placodermata Arthrodires
    Traité de Paléontologie 4:71–692.
    1. Trinajstic K
    (1999)
    New anatomical information on Holonema (Placodermi) based on material from the Frasnian Gogo Formation and the Givetian-Frasnian Gneudna Formation, Western Australia
    Geodiversitas 21:69–84.
  8. Book
    1. Upeniece I
    2. Upenieks J
    (1992)
    Young Upper Devonian antiarch (Asterolepis) individuals from the Lode quarry, Latvia
    In: Mark-Kurik E, editors. Fossil Fishes as Living Animals. Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of Estonia. pp. 167–176.
    1. Young GC
    (1990)
    New antiarchs (Devonian placoderm fishes) from Queensland, with comments on placoderm phylogeny and biogeography
    Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 28:35–50.
    1. Young GC
    (2003) Did placoderm fish have teeth?
    Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23:987–990.
    https://doi.org/10.1671/31
    1. Zhang GR
    (1978)
    The antiarchs from the Early Devonian of Yunnan
    Vertebrata PalAsiatica 16:147–186.
    1. Zhang GR
    2. Wang JQ
    3. Wang NZ
    (2001)
    The structure of pectoral fin and tail of Yunnanolepidoidei, with a discussion of the pectoral fin of chuchinolepids
    Vertebrata PalAsiatica 39:1–13.
    1. Zhu M
    (1996)
    The phylogeny of the Antiarcha (Placodermi, Pisces), with the description of Early Devonian antiarchs from Qujing, Yunnan, China
    Bulletin Du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle 18:233–347.
    1. Zhu M
    2. Wang NZ
    3. Wang JQ
    (2000)
    Devonian macro- and microvetebrate assemblages of China
    Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 223:361–372.

Decision letter

  1. George H Perry
    Senior and Reviewing Editor; Pennsylvania State University, United States
  2. Carole J Burrow
    Reviewer; Queensland Museum, Australia
  3. Richard Dearden
    Reviewer; University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

Our editorial process produces two outputs: i) public reviews designed to be posted alongside the preprint for the benefit of readers; ii) feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions, shown below. We also include an acceptance summary that explains what the editors found interesting or important about the work.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Squamation and scale morphology at the root of jawed vertebrates" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Reviewing Editor and George Perry as the Senior Editor. The following individuals involved in the review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Carole J. Burrow (Reviewer #1); Richard Dearden (Reviewer #3).

The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission.

Essential revisions:

The reviewers were positive overall, but they also passed along some clear and reasonable requests for revision, provided below. These include revising the discussion to be more open to alternative phylogenetic schemes and to compare the data a bit more broadly with jawless gnathostomes. Doing so might make the story a bit less clear but it would help make the manuscript more informative and resistant to future changes in our understanding of phylogenetic topology and so on. You are also asked to consider the size and maturity of the specimen and to ensure that you are providing all data that were used in the paper. We also had some discussion concerning Figure 6a; please consider the difference between a spongiose middle layer and a network of canals in the base of the ornament layer in your interpretation/discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

In general, the article is well-written and provides clear and concise descriptions of the various morphotypes and squamation of the individual specimen; however, there are many sections where there are some grammatical or editorial mistakes. These include:

Lines 32-34: How does this study demonstrate that yunnanolepidoid scales are different from the dermal plates of antiarchs, but also include yunnanolepidoids? The end of this sentence is a bit confusing.

Line 45: I don't think the word "perfectly" should be used here as Reif, 1985 is just suggesting that different dermal denticles in sharks might correspond with different functions due to ecology or lifestyle. There hasn't been any explicit research showing evidence of this.

Lines 59-60: This sentence is confusing. The gnathal plates on placoderms can be extensively studied, not the other way around.

Lines 68-69: The way the sentence is written currently suggests that P. xitunensis is known for preserving squamation. I think here you mean the "fossil" or "preserved specimen".

Lines 81-83: This sentence doesn't make sense.

Line 103: What do you mean by "the size getting larger"? Increase in length, width?

Line 128: What changes the outline?

Line 430: How big was this specimen? There is some evidence that dermal scales in sharks change throughout ontogeny so knowing the size of this specimen may help elucidate squamation growth if future individuals are recovered or examined.

There are also a few other formatting or content errors I would like to point out:

Line 43: Jerve et al., 2017 isn't the actual article that differentiates the dermal skeleton into two different categories. I think this should be "Janvier P. Early Vertebrates. 1996".

Lines 54-56: Why are the citations here italicized?

Line 273: Do you mean "never" not ever? This is also done in Lines 318 and 393.

Line 308: Could you give some examples of crown sarcopterygians and actinopterygians that you are referencing here?

Line 321: Should be "In this section" not "In this part".

Line 442: All of these abbreviations should be used in the text when the figure is referred to.

There were also some inconsistencies and issues with the figures. In general, there were some parts of the figures that weren't mentioned at all in the text. Make sure to go back through the manuscript and correct these. Additionally, you should also include the small-lettered abbreviations within the text in the parentheses with the Figure numbers (as was done in Line 144). These abbreviations are not included in the figure captions and I think it would lend to a more easily read manuscript if they were included within the text. There are some other things corresponding to the reference of figures within the text that I would like to point out:

Line 87: Is the post-thoracic body indicated by the white region in Figure 1J? If so, this should be referenced here.

Line 93: Tubercles should be labeled in Figure 1.

Line 179: The lateral lamina is referenced with Figure 4C, E, but there is no lateral lamina in this figure.

Line 199: I think you mean supplemental figure 6, not 5.

Line 326: The manuscript says that in tremataspid scales, the middle layer is well described; however, this is not depicted in Figure 8.

Lines 353-354: Again, the text says that Romundina bear a well-developed middle layer; however, this is not shown in Figure 8.

Line 401: Ornamentation is mentioned here but is not shown or labeled in Figure 8.

Line 426: This should actually be supplemental figure 5, not 6.

Generally, the figures are really great and have a lot of information and detail that add to the manuscript; however, I think the authors should take some time to make sure the images can stand alone without needing the manuscript text for explanation. Additionally, there are some things specifically about the Figures themselves that I think could be changed to increase the readability of the manuscript:

Line 713: Should read "(D-I) magnified images of rectangles in (A-C)".

Figure 3 A and B: The lines that are separating the posterior flank area from the anterior flank area should be better described or labeled on the image. Also, the authors should point out here in the caption what the orange scales are.

Figure 7: The title should be "Evolution of squamation patterns of the caudal region in antiarchs".

Figure 8: You should include what the view or plane is of the scales (or the two columns) we are looking at. Is the first column dorsal or lateral? Additionally, why is there a "?" in front of the M in the first row? It might be better if you change the colors of the presence and absence of the middle layer because currently, the color of the Middle layer bracket in column 2 is the same color as the bar representing a lack of a middle layer in the phylogeny. It should be consistent.

Figure supplement 2: Line 802, should the Dorsal view letters be subscript "2" and not "1"?

Figure supplement 3: How can the E scales be both anterior and posterior flank scales? Also, the label "H" is confusing. What does that point to?

Figure supplement 5: Which morphotype are these scales? Are they all the same? Also, which plane are the rows showing?

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

I enjoyed reading this article, it's great to see people working on the posterior half of placoderms as opposed to their more popular business ends. I think that the articulated squamations of these things have untapped potential as a source of characters and information on vertebrate evolution which work like that presented here is necessary to access. Moreover, this data is linked to an animal commonly used in phylogenetic matrices targeting early vertebrates and I'm sure will be incorporated into future such work.

The introduction outlines necessary background information clearly and succinctly. In terms of the analysis, CT scanning and thin sections are both very appropriate methods for investigating this thing's squamation, and the interpretation of this and the morphotypes proposed by the authors seem sensible. I think the discussion could range a little more broadly in terms of comparing the scales to those of other early vertebrates: more details are given below.

My only issue with the interpretation of the data is in Figure 6A, where it seems to be there are some canals passing through the section. Why do the authors not consider this to be a middle layer? Even if they are confident it is not, this is worth discussing in the text. It seems to me that it's not impossible that the presence/absence of a middle layer can vary in a single taxon, depending on the size or the ornamentation of scales in different places. Dearden et al. 2021 (p22) suggest that "putative cancellous layer in placoderm scales could be an overinterpretation of the canals above the base in crown tubercles of placoderm scales (which also occur in stem-group chondrichthyan scales), rather than corresponding to the spongiosa or trabecular layer in placoderm dermal bone." which could be the case here?

Given the tendency toward turmoil in stem-gnathostome relationships, I also think that it would benefit from considering alternative phylogenetic hypotheses for the phylogenetic position of antiarchs in the gnathostome stem group. While it's true that usually they are recovered in a fairly early-branching position in the gnathostome stem group, a recent analysis by Zhu et al. recovered them in quite a crownwards position. This is worth considering as an alternative when hypothesising about the evolution of vertebrate squamations. Or, if the authors do not agree with the phylogenetic proposition of that study, they should state why.

Also, as noted in the figures section, the scheme of gain/absence in figure 8 is equally parsimonious to one where the middle layer is lost 4 times. What is the basis for this character optimisation?

Another general point is that the authors repeatedly refer to mandibulate gnathostomes (i.e. gnathostomes with jaws) as "gnathostomes", for example when describing osteostracans as the outgroup to jawed vertebrates. Given that a total-group framework, which leads to numerous jawless vertebrates including osteostracans in the gnathostome stem group, has been widely adopted in early vertebrate palaeontology this can read a bit confusingly. I recommend that throughout, the authors are more terminologically precise: the use of e.g. "mandibulate stem-gnathostomes" etc might help.

This dataset provides a good opportunity to compare the squamation of Parayunnanolepis more broadly than the authors do at present. If antiarchs are indeed the earliest branching mandibulate jawed vertebrates then it is worth comparing their squamation beyond the immediate outgroup (osteostracans) to articulated squamations in heterostracans, theodonts, anaspids, galeaspids (if any exist?).

My line by line comments follow:

Abstract

Line 16: "the most basal jawed vertebrates". Potentially misleading as the word basal is ill-defined. Moreover, even if it is taken to mean the earliest branching jawed vertebrates, "ostracoderms" are the most "basal" jawed vertebrates. Recommend rewriting using terminology like "earliest branching mandibulate jawed vertebrates".

Line 42: "as a homogenous squamation across the animal". This isn't strictly speaking true: many acanthodians have surprisingly heterogenous squamations with (e.g. Ptomacanthus Brazeau 2012, Vernicomacanthus Dearden et al. 2021), as do living chondrichthyans (e.g. Naylor et al. 2021) All would be considered micromeric.

Line 45 Does anything in nature correspond "perfectly"?

Line 49 Like basal, "upper" is terminologically unclear. Using more precise terminology like "more crownwards grade" or "a grade with a closer relationship to the crown group" would be clearer.

Line 64 "at the root of jawed vertebrates" See comments on line 16. Also, see the general comment above on alternative hypotheses of relationships.

Line 86 I find the authors' scale morphotypes convincing, but the paper would benefit from an additional figure showing all 13 morphotypes side by side. This will help readers get a quick overview and sense of the variation and morphology of the morphotypes.

Line 90. I think in the summary descriptions it is also worth stating what characters that readers might expect in early vertebrate scales are absent. For example, are there any basal pores or neck canals? I understand that there are not, but it is worth stating their absence as they are potentially important characters of early vertebrate body scales.

Line 125 Morphotype 4 could do with a more detailed description of the morphology to bring it in line with the other morphotype descriptions.

Line 204. “…predorsal area shows the large disparity…” Should read “largest”?

Line 214. It would be useful to figure a cross-section through one of the lateral line scales to show how deep the groove is.

Line 236. “A few additional scales are interspersed…” What morphotype do these scales belong to?

Line 254. Parayunnanolepis is now by far the best-described placoderm body squamation. How do the authors rule out the attribution of these scales to other taxa?

Line 263. For clarity’s sake may be worth specifying that the sections made by Giels et al. were of is Yunnanolepis.

Line 272. In figure 6A it looks like there are several relatively large vascular openings in the scale e.g. left of "go1" without line, directly below go1 with line. Although these don't seem likely to be a thick middle layer like in the head armour they are worth commenting on. Is it a coincidence that they are in the largest scale?

Line 278. It should be stated what morphotypes the sectioned scales belong to.

Line 308. Also, in chondrichthyans? Living chondrichthyans' monodontode scales are arguably simpler than those of stem-group members such as acanthodians (e.g. Vernicomacanthus3).

Line 325. This again requires some phylogenetic clarity: using total-group descriptors osteostracans are jawed vertebrates. They are however the immediate outgroup to mandibulate jawed vertebrates.

Line 326. This is notably missing a reference to O'Shea et al. 2019, who conducted a detailed review of tremataspid scales over the whole body.

Line 326. This would be improved by at least mentioning other jawless stem-group jawed vertebrates for a complete discussion. There exist sections of body scales from heterostracans (Keating et al.), anaspids (Keating and Donoghue) and numerous thelodonts (e.g. Märss et al.)

Line 370. See comments above about alternative phylogenetic hypotheses.

Line 383. The references cited do not give a complete overview of stem-chondrichthyan scale morphologies. They include "classic" onion skin acanthodian scales (in Cheiracanthus, Trizeugacanthus, diplacanthids) and mongolepids etc, but omit the quite different areally growing scales of for example Parexus, ctenacanth-like scales like in Vernicomacanthus3 and monodontode scales in e.g. Lupopsyrus. These or equivalent examples should be added.

Line 391. This is true of the classic acanthodian scale morphology, but quite different ornaments are found on diverse stem-chondrichthyan scale forms (see above).

Line 396. See comments above about alternative phylogenetic hypotheses.

Line 401. I see where the authors are coming from but is this necessarily true? Palaeozoic chondrichthyans scales and head tesserae can have quite complex surface ornament but also lack a middle layer.

Line 402. Given that this is probably the most detailed-yet description of in situ stem-gnathostome squamation I think the discussion would benefit from even a brief comparison of the gross anatomy of squamations in early vertebrates. How do other articulated stem-gnathostome and early crown-group gnathostome squamations compare to Parayunnanolepis? Are they similarly heterosquamous? Do they have similar e.g. enlarged dorsal scales?

Line 421. Worth specifying here that the authors are talking about body scales (as opposed to the head skeleton).

Comments on figures

Figures are generally great and show everything described in lavish detail. I've made some suggestions for additions in the line-by-line comments above. Otherwise, some comments on the figures are below.

Figure 1. Figure 6E is a bit confusing as it's been flipped to make it anterior to the right. But (if I'm interpreting it correctly) this makes dorsal ventral and ventral dorsal. I think it would be clearer to rotate the panel 180 degrees so anterior is to the left, dorsal is up, and ventral is down.

Figure 1. The scale bars are a bit confusing. Does the scale on 1E apply to all panels 1D-I?

Figure 8. It would be easier to compare the scales if they had a consistent anterior direction, which I don't think they do.

Figure 8. As outlined above (line 326) I think the paper would benefit from more general comparisons to jawless gnathostomes. If so, they could be added to this figure.

Figure 8. I think "lose" and "gain" middle layer would be clearer than "presence" and "absence", which are really the states at the tips of the tree.

Figure 8. How did the authors arrive at the distribution of gained/lost characters? It strikes me that it would be just as parsimonious for a middle layer to be plesiomorphic for gnathostomes, and then to be lost four times in yunnanolepids, rhenanids, acanthothoracids, and chondrichthyans.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76661.sa1

Author response

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

In general, the article is well-written and provides clear and concise descriptions of the various morphotypes and squamation of the individual specimen; however, there are many sections where there are some grammatical or editorial mistakes. These include:

Lines 32-34: How does this study demonstrate that yunnanolepidoid scales are different from the dermal plates of antiarchs, but also include yunnanolepidoids? The end of this sentence is a bit confusing.

Rephrased.

Line 45: I don't think the word "perfectly" should be used here as Reif, 1985 is just suggesting that different dermal denticles in sharks might correspond with different functions due to ecology or lifestyle. There hasn't been any explicit research showing evidence of this.

We deleted ‘perfectly’.

Lines 59-60: This sentence is confusing. The gnathal plates on placoderms can be extensively studied, not the other way around.

Rephrased.

Lines 68-69: The way the sentence is written currently suggests that P. xitunensis is known for preserving squamation. I think here you mean the "fossil" or "preserved specimen".

Rephrased.

Lines 81-83: This sentence doesn't make sense.

Deleted.

Line 103: What do you mean by "the size getting larger"? Increase in length, width?

Yes, the length and the width increase towards the posterior direction. We add “in length and width”.

Line 128: What changes the outline?

We deleted “changes the outline”.

Line 430: How big was this specimen? There is some evidence that dermal scales in sharks change throughout ontogeny so knowing the size of this specimen may help elucidate squamation growth if future individuals are recovered or examined.

We added “The post-thoracic body of P. xitunensis is about 3.8 mm in width, 6.7 mm in height, and 35.6 mm in length, and occupies approximately 58% of the length overall”.

Line 43: Jerve et al., 2017 isn't the actual article that differentiates the dermal skeleton into two different categories. I think this should be "Janvier P. Early Vertebrates. 1996".

Adopted.

Lines 54-56: Why are the citations here italicized?

We revised it.

Line 273: Do you mean "never" not ever? This is also done in Lines 318 and 393.

We deleted “ever” in all these three sentences.

Line 308: Could you give some examples of crown sarcopterygians and actinopterygians that you are referencing here?

We added the references.

Line 321: Should be "In this section" not "In this part".

Adopted.

Line 442: All of these abbreviations should be used in the text when the figure is referred to.

Adopted.

Line 87: Is the post-thoracic body indicated by the white region in Figure 1J? If so, this should be referenced here.

Yes, the white region represents the post-thoracic body. We regrouped the panels and quoted another figure here.

Line 93: Tubercles should be labeled in Figure 1.

Adopted.

Line 179: The lateral lamina is referenced with Figure 4C, E, but there is no lateral lamina in this figure.

Adopted. We added the label ‘ll.vs’ for the lateral lamina of the ventral scutes in the new Figure 5C, E.

Line 199: I think you mean supplemental figure 6, not 5.

Revised.

Line 326: The manuscript says that in tremataspid scales, the middle layer is well described; however, this is not depicted in Figure 8.

We modified the text and added another section image of a tremataspid scale in new Figure 9 (original Figure 8).

Lines 353-354: Again, the text says that Romundina bear a well-developed middle layer; however, this is not shown in Figure 8.

We explained it in the text as follows: “This histological difference in the Romundina scales probably results from individual disparity, as suggested by Tremataspis mammillata with reduction of the middle layer posteriorly across the squamation (O”Shea et al., 2019)”.

Line 401: Ornamentation is mentioned here but is not shown or labeled in Figure 8.

We added labels in the new Figure 9 (original Figure 8).

Line 426: This should actually be supplemental figure 5, not 6.

Revised.

Generally, the figures are really great and have a lot of information and detail that add to the manuscript; however, I think the authors should take some time to make sure the images can stand alone without needing the manuscript text for explanation. Additionally, there are some things specifically about the Figures themselves that I think could be changed to increase the readability of the manuscript:

Line 713: Should read "(D-I) magnified images of rectangles in (A-C)".

Revised.

Figure 3 A and B: The lines that are separating the posterior flank area from the anterior flank area should be better described or labeled on the image. Also, the authors should point out here in the caption what the orange scales are.

Adopted.

Figure 7: The title should be "Evolution of squamation patterns of the caudal region in antiarchs".

The title now reads: "Evolution of squamation patterns of the post-thoracic region in antiarchs".

Figure 8: You should include what the view or plane is of the scales (or the two columns) we are looking at. Is the first column dorsal or lateral? Additionally, why is there a "?" in front of the M in the first row? It might be better if you change the colors of the presence and absence of the middle layer because currently, the color of the Middle layer bracket in column 2 is the same color as the bar representing a lack of a middle layer in the phylogeny. It should be consistent.

We added the explanation about the first columns, deleted ‘a’ in front of the M, and changed the colors.

Figure supplement 2: Line 802, should the Dorsal view letters be subscript "2" and not "1"?

Revised.

Figure supplement 3: How can the E scales be both anterior and posterior flank scales? Also, the label "H" is confusing. What does that point to?

We revised the figure caption and deleted “H”.

Figure supplement 5: Which morphotype are these scales? Are they all the same? Also, which plane are the rows showing?

Following suggestions, we added “V28643, V28645 and V28646 can be assigned to Morphotype 8; V28644 and V28647, probably from the posterior flank area, can be referred to Morphotype 9; V28642 can be referred to Morphotype 11”. We also added the explanation about the plane.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

I enjoyed reading this article, it's great to see people working on the posterior half of placoderms as opposed to their more popular business ends. I think that the articulated squamations of these things have untapped potential as a source of characters and information on vertebrate evolution which work like that presented here is necessary to access. Moreover, this data is linked to an animal commonly used in phylogenetic matrices targeting early vertebrates and I'm sure will be incorporated into future such work.

The introduction outlines necessary background information clearly and succinctly. In terms of the analysis, CT scanning and thin sections are both very appropriate methods for investigating this thing's squamation, and the interpretation of this and the morphotypes proposed by the authors seem sensible. I think the discussion could range a little more broadly in terms of comparing the scales to those of other early vertebrates: more details are given below.

My only issue with the interpretation of the data is in Figure 6A, where it seems to be there are some canals passing through the section. Why do the authors not consider this to be a middle layer? Even if they are confident it is not, this is worth discussing in the text. It seems to me that it's not impossible that the presence/absence of a middle layer can vary in a single taxon, depending on the size or the ornamentation of scales in different places. Dearden et al. 2021 (p22) suggest that "putative cancellous layer in placoderm scales could be an overinterpretation of the canals above the base in crown tubercles of placoderm scales (which also occur in stem-group chondrichthyan scales), rather than corresponding to the spongiosa or trabecular layer in placoderm dermal bone." which could be the case here?

Given the tendency toward turmoil in stem-gnathostome relationships, I also think that it would benefit from considering alternative phylogenetic hypotheses for the phylogenetic position of antiarchs in the gnathostome stem group. While it's true that usually they are recovered in a fairly early-branching position in the gnathostome stem group, a recent analysis by Zhu et al. recovered them in quite a crownwards position. This is worth considering as an alternative when hypothesising about the evolution of vertebrate squamations. Or, if the authors do not agree with the phylogenetic proposition of that study, they should state why.

Also, as noted in the figures section, the scheme of gain/absence in figure 8 is equally parsimonious to one where the middle layer is lost 4 times. What is the basis for this character optimisation?

Another general point is that the authors repeatedly refer to mandibulate gnathostomes (i.e. gnathostomes with jaws) as "gnathostomes", for example when describing osteostracans as the outgroup to jawed vertebrates. Given that a total-group framework, which leads to numerous jawless vertebrates including osteostracans in the gnathostome stem group, has been widely adopted in early vertebrate palaeontology this can read a bit confusingly. I recommend that throughout, the authors are more terminologically precise: the use of e.g. "mandibulate stem-gnathostomes" etc might help.

This dataset provides a good opportunity to compare the squamation of Parayunnanolepis more broadly than the authors do at present. If antiarchs are indeed the earliest branching mandibulate jawed vertebrates then it is worth comparing their squamation beyond the immediate outgroup (osteostracans) to articulated squamations in heterostracans, theodonts, anaspids, galeaspids (if any exist?).

My line by line comments follow:

Abstract

Line 16: "the most basal jawed vertebrates". Potentially misleading as the word basal is ill-defined. Moreover, even if it is taken to mean the earliest branching jawed vertebrates, "ostracoderms" are the most "basal" jawed vertebrates. Recommend rewriting using terminology like "earliest branching mandibulate jawed vertebrates".

We changed it into "earliest branching jawed vertebrates", following the reviewer’s suggestion. “mandibulate” is redundant with “jawed”. “Ostracoderms”, as jawless fishes, are the most basal stem-gnathostomes or the most basal gnathostomes (in sense of ‘total group gnathostomes’), rather than the most basal jawed vertebrates. ‘Jawed vertebrates’ are the vertebrates with jaws. As such, they are same as the mandibulate vertebrates in sense of the reviewer.

Line 42: "as a homogenous squamation across the animal". This isn't strictly speaking true: many acanthodians have surprisingly heterogenous squamations with (e.g. Ptomacanthus Brazeau 2012, Vernicomacanthus Dearden et al. 2021), as do living chondrichthyans (e.g. Naylor et al. 2021) All would be considered micromeric.

We deleted “homogenous”.

Line 45 Does anything in nature correspond "perfectly"?

We deleted “perfectly”.

Line 49 Like basal, "upper" is terminologically unclear. Using more precise terminology like "more crownwards grade" or "a grade with a closer relationship to the crown group" would be clearer.

We changed “upper” to “crownward”.

Line 64 "at the root of jawed vertebrates" See comments on line 16. Also, see the general comment above on alternative hypotheses of relationships.

See our response above on the definition of ‘jawed vertebrates’.

Line 86 I find the authors' scale morphotypes convincing, but the paper would benefit from an additional figure showing all 13 morphotypes side by side. This will help readers get a quick overview and sense of the variation and morphology of the morphotypes.

Adopted.

Line 90. I think in the summary descriptions it is also worth stating what characters that readers might expect in early vertebrate scales are absent. For example, are there any basal pores or neck canals? I understand that there are not, but it is worth stating their absence as they are potentially important characters of early vertebrate body scales.

We added “Basal pores are less developed. Scales are relatively flat, and barely bear the neck structure” in the text.

Line 125 Morphotype 4 could do with a more detailed description of the morphology to bring it in line with the other morphotype descriptions.

Adopted.

Line 204. "…predorsal area shows the large disparity…" Should read "largest"?

We changed “large” to “largest”.

Line 214. It would be useful to figure a cross-section through one of the lateral line scales to show how deep the groove is.

Adopted.

Line 236. "A few additional scales are interspersed…" What morphotype do these scales belong to?

We added “A few additional scales….. resembling the surrounding scales in morphotypes”.

Line 254. Parayunnanolepis is now by far the best-described placoderm body squamation. How do the authors rule out the attribution of these scales to other taxa?

We added more explanation here. In fact, we just assigned them as “yunnanolepidoid scales” instead of “Parayunnanolepis scale”.

Line 263. For clarity's sake may be worth specifying that the sections made by Giels et al. were of is Yunnanolepis

Adopted. The text now reads: “Thus, the histology of yunnanolepidoid scales is remarkably different from that of their dermal bony plates, which exhibits a three-layered structure including a thick cancellous spongiosa in the middle as in Yunnanolepis and Chuchinolepis (Giles et al., 2013). Significantly, the dermal skeletal differentiation across the dermal shield and scales with respect to the middle layer, is also the case for heterostracans and osteostracans (Denison, 1947; O'Shea et al., 2019).”

Line 272. In figure 6A it looks like there are several relatively large vascular openings in the scale e.g. left of "go1" without line, directly below go1 with line. Although these don't seem likely to be a thick middle layer like in the head armour they are worth commenting on. Is it a coincidence that they are in the largest scale?

We added “The vasculature might be supplied by occasional ascending canals (Figure 7A, vc) from the basal layer, which opened to the surface but was buried later by younger odontodes. In this case, the middle/spongiosa layer may be poorly developed or absent in certain morphotypes” in the text, and labelled “vc” (vascular canal) in the figure. We will investigate the development of the middle layer in an individual in the follow-up works.

Line 278. It should be stated what morphotypes the sectioned scales belong to.

See our response above for “Figure supplement 5”.

Line 308. Also, in chondrichthyans? Living chondrichthyans' monodontode scales are arguably simpler than those of stem-group members such as acanthodians (e.g. Vernicomacanthus3).

See our response above for “Figure supplement 5”.

Line 325. This again requires some phylogenetic clarity: using total-group descriptors osteostracans are jawed vertebrates. They are however the immediate outgroup to mandibulate jawed vertebrates.

See our response above on the definition of ‘jawed vertebrates’. Osteostracans are gnathostomes or stem gnathostomes using the total group concept, rather than jawed vertebrates or mandibulate vertebrates.

Line 326. This is notably missing a reference to O'Shea et al. 2019, who conducted a detailed review of tremataspid scales over the whole body.

We added this reference here.

Line 326. This would be improved by at least mentioning other jawless stem-group jawed vertebrates for a complete discussion. There exist sections of body scales from heterostracans (Keating et al.), anaspids (Keating and Donoghue) and numerous thelodonts (e.g. Märss et al.).

Adopted.

Line 370. See comments above about alternative phylogenetic hypotheses.

We added “Alternatively, under the recent phylogenetic hypothesis by Zhu et al. (2021), the most parsimonious solution is that the well-developed middle layer independently evolved four times in petalichthyids + arthrodires, brindabellaspids, euantiarchs and osteichthyans”.

Line 383. The references cited do not give a complete overview of stem-chondrichthyan scale morphologies. They include "classic" onion skin acanthodian scales (in Cheiracanthus, Trizeugacanthus, diplacanthids) and mongolepids etc, but omit the quite different areally growing scales of for example Parexus, ctenacanth-like scales like in Vernicomacanthus3 and monodontode scales in e.g. Lupopsyrus. These or equivalent examples should be added.

We added more references concerning other types of acanthodian scales.

Line 391. This is true of the classic acanthodian scale morphology, but quite different ornaments are found on diverse stem-chondrichthyan scale forms (see above).

We provided more details here.

Line 396. See comments above about alternative phylogenetic hypotheses.

See our response above for “Line 370”.

Line 401. I see where the authors are coming from but is this necessarily true? Palaeozoic chondrichthyans scales and head tesserae can have quite complex surface ornament but also lack a middle layer.

We deleted the sentence.

Line 402. Given that this is probably the most detailed-yet description of in situ stem-gnathostome squamation I think the discussion would benefit from even a brief comparison of the gross anatomy of squamations in early vertebrates. How do other articulated stem-gnathostome and early crown-group gnathostome squamations compare to Parayunnanolepis? Are they similarly heterosquamous? Do they have similar e.g. enlarged dorsal scales?

We thank the reviewer’s suggestions and consider adopting it in the follow-up studies.

Line 421. Worth specifying here that the authors are talking about body scales (as opposed to the head skeleton).

We deleted the sentence.

Comments on figures

Figures are generally great and show everything described in lavish detail. I've made some suggestions for additions in the line-by-line comments above. Otherwise, some comments on the figures are below.

Figure 1. Figure 6E is a bit confusing as it's been flipped to make it anterior to the right. But (if I'm interpreting it correctly) this makes dorsal ventral and ventral dorsal. I think it would be clearer to rotate the panel 180 degrees so anterior is to the left, dorsal is up, and ventral is down.

Figure 1. The scale bars are a bit confusing. Does the scale on 1E apply to all panels 1D-I?

Yes, the scale on 1E apply to all panels 1D-I. We added explanations about the figure panels 1D–I and the scale bar.

Figure 8. It would be easier to compare the scales if they had a consistent anterior direction, which I don't think they do.

Adopted.

Figure 8. As outlined above (line 326) I think the paper would benefit from more general comparisons to jawless gnathostomes. If so, they could be added to this figure.

Thanks for the suggestions and we consider making broad comparisons in the follow-up studies.

Figure 8. I think "lose" and "gain" middle layer would be clearer than "presence" and "absence", which are really the states at the tips of the tree.

We thought “presence/absence” is consistent with the whole text.

Figure 8. How did the authors arrive at the distribution of gained/lost characters? It strikes me that it would be just as parsimonious for a middle layer to be plesiomorphic for gnathostomes, and then to be lost four times in yunnanolepids, rhenanids, acanthothoracids, and chondrichthyans.

We have discussed in the text that the bipartite scale in yunnanolepidoids, rhenanids, and acanthothoracids is more likely to represent the plesiomorphic condition for jawed vertebrates.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76661.sa2

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Yajing Wang

    School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Nanjing University, Najing, China
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2230-3526
  2. Min Zhu

    1. School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Nanjing University, Najing, China
    2. Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
    3. CAS Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Beijing, China
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing
    For correspondence
    zhumin@ivpp.ac.cn
    Competing interests
    Reviewing editor, eLife
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4786-0898

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (42130209)

  • Min Zhu

Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDA19050102)

  • Min Zhu

Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academic of Sciences (XDB26000000)

  • Min Zhu

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Acknowledgements

We thank H X Lin (IVPP), Y M Hou (IVPP), and P F Yin (IVPP) for their assistance with CT scanning, and to L T Jia (IVPP) for his assistance with photographs. We also thank L J Peng (Qujing Normal University) for his help in making thin sections and Q M Qu (Xiamen University) for his constructive suggestions. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42130209), and the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDA19050102 and XDB26000000).

Senior and Reviewing Editor

  1. George H Perry, Pennsylvania State University, United States

Reviewers

  1. Carole J Burrow, Queensland Museum, Australia
  2. Richard Dearden, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

Publication history

  1. Received: December 24, 2021
  2. Preprint posted: February 19, 2022 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: May 11, 2022
  4. Version of Record published: June 8, 2022 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2022, Wang and Zhu

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 786
    Page views
  • 275
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Yajing Wang
  2. Min Zhu
(2022)
Squamation and scale morphology at the root of jawed vertebrates
eLife 11:e76661.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76661
  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Guillem Santamaria, Chen Liao ... Joao B Xavier
    Research Article Updated

    Microbes have disproportionate impacts on the macroscopic world. This is in part due to their ability to grow to large populations that collectively secrete massive amounts of secondary metabolites and alter their environment. Yet, the conditions favoring secondary metabolism despite the potential costs for primary metabolism remain unclear. Here we investigated the biosurfactants that the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa makes and secretes to decrease the surface tension of surrounding liquid. Using a combination of genomics, metabolomics, transcriptomics, and mathematical modeling we show that the ability to make surfactants from glycerol varies inconsistently across the phylogenetic tree; instead, lineages that lost this ability are also worse at reducing the oxidative stress of primary metabolism on glycerol. Experiments with different carbon sources support a link with oxidative stress that explains the inconsistent distribution across the P. aeruginosa phylogeny and suggests a general principle: P. aeruginosa lineages produce surfactants if they can reduce the oxidative stress produced by primary metabolism and have excess resources, beyond their primary needs, to afford secondary metabolism. These results add a new layer to the regulation of a secondary metabolite unessential for primary metabolism but important to change physical properties of the environments surrounding bacterial populations.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Antoine Beauchamp, Yohan Yee ... Jason P Lerch
    Research Advance Updated

    The ever-increasing use of mouse models in preclinical neuroscience research calls for an improvement in the methods used to translate findings between mouse and human brains. Previously, we showed that the brains of primates can be compared in a direct quantitative manner using a common reference space built from white matter tractography data (Mars et al., 2018b). Here, we extend the common space approach to evaluate the similarity of mouse and human brain regions using openly accessible brain-wide transcriptomic data sets. We show that mouse-human homologous genes capture broad patterns of neuroanatomical organization, but the resolution of cross-species correspondences can be improved using a novel supervised machine learning approach. Using this method, we demonstrate that sensorimotor subdivisions of the neocortex exhibit greater similarity between species, compared with supramodal subdivisions, and mouse isocortical regions separate into sensorimotor and supramodal clusters based on their similarity to human cortical regions. We also find that mouse and human striatal regions are strongly conserved, with the mouse caudoputamen exhibiting an equal degree of similarity to both the human caudate and putamen.