Early evolution of the lungfish pectoral-fin endoskeleton: evidence from the Middle Devonian (Givetian) Pentlandia macroptera
Open accessAbstract
As the closest living relatives of tetrapods, lungfishes are frequently used as extant models for exploring the fin-to-limb transition. These studies have generally given little consideration to fossil taxa. This is because although lungfish fins are relatively common in the fossil record, the internal structure of these fins is virtually unknown. Information on pectoral-fin endoskeletons in fossil representatives of Dipnomorpha (the lungfish total group) is limited to poorly preserved remains in the lungfish Dipterus and Conchopoma and more complete material in the porolepiform Glyptolepis. Here we describe a well-preserved pectoral-fin endoskeleton in the Middle Devonian (Givetian) lungfish Pentlandia macroptera from the John O’Groats fish bed, Caithness, northeastern Scotland. The skeleton is in association with a cleithrum and clavicle, and consists of a series of at least eight mesomeres. Extensive series of preaxial and postaxial radials are present. Some of the radials are jointed, but none branch. No mesomere articulates with multiple radials on either its pre- or post-axial face. The first two mesomeres, corresponding to the humerus and ulna, bear well-developed axial processes. Uniquely among dipnomorphs, a distinct ossification centre corresponding to the radius is present in Pentlandia. A review of anatomy and development of the pectoral-fin endoskeleton in the living Neoceratodus is presented based on cleared and stained material representing different size stages. These developmental data, in conjunction with new details of primitive lungfish conditions based on Pentlandia, highlight many of the derived features of the pectoral-fin skeleton of Neoceratodus, and clarify patterns of appendage evolution within the dipnomorphs more generally.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The pattern of preaxial rays being more proximal is likely plesiomorphic to sarcopterygians.
“The pattern of preaxial rays being more proximal is likely plesiomorphic to sarcopterygians (45, 46)”
From Fin ray patterns at the fin-to-limb transition (2020) · cites this paper as [45]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fin ray patterns at the fin-to-limb transition
Stewart, T. A., Lemberg, J. B., Taft, N. K., Yoo, I., Daeschler, E. B., & Shubin, N. H. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1915983117 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“The pattern of preaxial rays being more proximal is likely plesiomorphic to sarcopterygians (45, 46), although it can vary [e.”
- Authors
- Jude, E., Johanson, Z., Kearsley, A., & Friedman, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Natural History Museum (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Johanson, Zerina
- Venue
- Frontiers in Earth Science
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2014-08-12
- Volume
- 2
- ISSN
- 2296-6463 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2097565363
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 0.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Frontiers in Earth Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Macquarie University
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Fish Biology and Ecology Studies
- Keywords
- lungfish, fin-to-limb transition, Middle Devonian, Givetian, Neoceratodus, cleithrum, clavicle, radials, appendage evolution, tetrapod origin
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review