Speckled wood

Speckled wood

Sunday, 30 June 2013

On the Origin of Orifices: Mouths

Animals tend to have holes in them. Fact.

But… why do some animals have more holes in them than others? Where did they come from in the first place, and how have they changed since then? Well, here’s the plan: I’ll tell you over a series of posts, focussing on a different orifice each time.

“How rude!” I hear you say. You can thank your mouth for that ability. Human mouths are pretty specialised: as well as the usual functions of channelling nutrients and air, they have a whole array of sophistications that allow us to mess about with that air to make a catalogue of weird sounds that we call “talking”. When considering where a feature came from, however, we often have to look past its present functions and think about what the basic prototype of that feature could have done for its owner. Mouths most certainly did not evolve for speech, or the world would be a noisy place!

Perhaps the best way to consider why most animals need mouths is to consider why some organisms DON’T. If you look at the very tiniest organisms (with a good microscope, of course), there is no sign of a mouth. That’s because the organism is so small that its nutritional needs can be met simply by absorbing nutrients through its body wall, or engulfing smaller bodies into the cytoplasm. But as the organism gets bigger, the laws of physics dictate that its body’s volume increases much faster than its surface area, and things get more complicated. It’s like a school cafeteria tripling the number of kids it has to serve, but only opening one extra serving hatch- there’s just too much demand from the body’s cells beyond a certain size. That’s when animals came up with an extra, specialised surface to absorb food: the gut. And of course, the gut can’t function without a mouth. We can get an idea about how the gut and both its ends first came about by watching it form in developing embryos: a process I’ll come back to in a later orifice post.

That’s not where the story ends, though. While many animals have kept to the basic plan, with little more than a small hole present, the mouth has shown itself to be very flexible to adaptation, allowing it to be suited to almost any diet an animal could hope to live on. All sorts of accessories have been attached to it over the years, like a bizarre set of Lego expansion packs: from spikes to suckers to sensory equipment. There’s one innovation in particular, though, that has allowed the mouth to take on even more specialised roles in a familiar group: the vertebrates and their jaws.

Ancient vertebrates got by for quite a while without jaws, and two groups still manage it today: the friendly-looking creatures known as hagfish and lampreys.

Hagfish

A lamprey. It likes you.











Hagfishes love rotting flesh, and get around their lack of jaws by taking advantage of their lack of a skeleton: they literally tie their bodies in knots to build up the force to tear off tasty morsels of rancid whale. Lampreys prefer their flesh fresh, with many species making a living by clamping onto fishes with a ring of mouth hooks and drinking their host’s fluids. Ancient jawless vertebrates managed to be pretty horrible to each other, too, even without the ability to bite. Conodonts were a group of jawless fishes that vanished at the end of the Triassic period. Fossils are patchy: most of the remains we have to go on are teeth. Really, really nasty teeth. The points were much sharper than of any organism we see today: twenty times thinner than a human hair, and conodonts had plenty of these hooked horrors in their mouths. Although they could only generate small forces upon their prey without jaws, by concentrating these upon the narrow tooth tips, they were able to produce some formidable piercing pressure- though with such fragile weapons, it seems likely that these animals would have to regularly regrow their tooth tips. Take me swimming with piranhas any day.

The bones that make up the vertebrate jaw did not arise out of nowhere: as with so many other structures we see today, they used to have an entirely different function. Fishes respire by moving water through their gills, which reside in gill chambers. A chamber is no good if it collapses in on itself, and so the gills are supported by gill arches. But something odd started happening to the arch closest to the head in some vertebrates - it started to become bigger and thicker and elongated, spreading forward into the region of the mouth. Here is a terrible diagram drawn with Microsoft Paint and a mouse (the digital equivalent of drawing with a slightly chewed wax crayon).


























As muscles in the area also grew stronger, these lucky fishes were able to have more control over the movement of their mouths, allowing them to be opened and closed (they still haven’t quite got over the novelty of it- just look at any goldfish!). Still, being able to flap your mouth around a bit isn’t the world’s greatest revolution in feeding. Instead, it’s thought that mouth movements first caught on because they could flush water into the gills. Using gills for respiration rather than filter feeding was probably quite a new development in the vertebrates, helping them to keep up with oxygen demand from more active lifestyles, and before jaws, fish had to pump their entire bodies to provide ventilation. Energy is money for organisms, and the great saving that primitive jawed vertebrates made by pumping with their mouths instead would have made them a runaway success. Once the suction from mouth ventilation started bringing in the odd bit of food by chance… well, the advantages became even greater, with animals sporting more sophisticated jaws that increased food capture enjoying the largest rewards, thus gradually shaping jaws to suit their dual functions. From there, jawed mouths were free to develop into whatever suited their owners best: whether that’s mutilating other animals, swallowing plankton or chewing on gobstoppers. Thanks, evolution!

But the other gill bars haven’t let bar number one have all the fun since then: much later, the second arch also changed, providing a support for the jaw and a link to the rest of the skull called the hyomandibula. Some fishes have even gone a bit over the top when it comes to jaws, and developed a second set from other gill bars that lurks deep in their throats. Some of these resemble something from a horror movie, but that’s a subject for another post- don’t ruin my fun by Googling it til then, ok?

But the gills didn't just change on the inside... odd things began to happen to the first gill opening, too...


To be continued!

Image credits:
Lamprey: http://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwspacific/7129322663/
Hagfish: http://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/2388168549/
Diagram: original drawings by Mallatt (1996) used as reference

Saturday, 22 June 2013

The black swift of the family

It's that time of year in the UK.

Several months have passed since the swifts, swallows and martins returned to our shores from Africa, and for many of us, it's hard to remember a time when they weren't here. Because of their reliance on man-made structures for nesting, these birds are a familiar sight to most people- it's no wonder that we notice their absence in autumn when the screaming of the swifts and the dolphin-like chatter of the house martins fall silent. In areas where all three species can be found, it can often be difficult to tell them apart: they are so closely linked in lifestyle and appearance, and in our minds, too. Shouldn't it be safe to assume that they are also linked in a family tree?

Swift
House martins

birds 2
Swallows
Well, not quite...

There's an odd one out here. House martins and swallows are very close relatives: so close, in fact, that they can sometimes produce chicks together. Personally, I've never seen a half-martin half-swallow perched mournfully on a wire puzzling out its existence, but compared to most naturally-occurring hybridisations between species, experts consider this one to be quite common. Both species fall into a massive great grouping of birds called the Passerines, or the perching birds. Think of any bird that visits your garden regularly, and it'll probably be a Passerine- unless you keep chickens or have a feral emu in your neighbourhood.

Swifts, on the other hand, are something else all together. Aside from other swift species, which are found all over the world, their closest relatives are... hummingbirds?!

Yes, hummingbirds. Those shiny, colourful little birds that get away with living on a diet of sugar and seem unable to accept that they weren't born as butterflies. Aside from their impressive flying abilities, you wouldn't think they had anything to do with the dull-coloured jet planes that whizz around our cities in summer. But they do!

Scientists get thrown off by similarities and differences too. When building family trees of species, or phylogenies, we use similarities between organisms to see how likely they are to be related. But sometimes, distant relatives- like the swifts and the swallows- end up looking similar due to a process called convergent evolution. Animals respond to the challenges of their environments by evolving solutions- in this case, the similar challenges faced by swifts and swallows has led to the evolution of similar solutions. Both groups have to fly long distances twice a year, and catch insects on the wing- hence both have become streamlined and sleek, with long wings and short, sharp beaks. Hummingbirds have very different challenges in their environment, so it's no wonder that they have ended up looking very different. Long, sickle shaped wings are great for gliding hundreds of miles across continents, but they're no good for hovering in front of a flower.

 To get round the problem of distantly-related animals that look the same by chance, scientists look at LOTS of different features when building a phylogeny: the more that two species share, the more likely they are to be related. As it turns out, hummingbirds and swifts do share a great deal of features, but they're much more subtle. A big clue is in the collective name for hummingbirds and swifts: the Apodiformes, meaning "no feet" in Greek. While that's a bit of exaggeration, both hummingbirds and swifts have the silliest little legs imaginable- they allow them to have a rest in between flights, but not much else. Swifts are such great fliers that taking a rest doesn't really bother them: it's thought that after leaving the nest, a young swift may remain in the sky for several years before making contact with a solid structure again. You'd think that the sudden inertia after all that time would make them feel dizzy. If it weren't for the very serious business of breeding, swifts wouldn't really need to land at all: they do everything in mid-air, from mating to sleeping. Until they achieve the evolution of flying eggs, however, it seems that they're destined to come down to earth for a few short weeks each year.

As walking makes up such a tiny part of a swift's life, it's not really surprising that they're a bit rubbish at it. Oddly, while Apodiformes don't lack feet, they DO lack a scaly covering on them- further testament to how little they are used for anything more strenuous than supporting the bird's weight.

Take a look at this video, and how awkward these swifts look when they're grounded in the nest:



 Harder-to-spot similarities between hummingbirds and swifts include features in the skull, and an unusually short, broad humerus (the bone that forms the upper arm in humans). This latter feature is perfect for creating a strong wingstroke in hummingbirds, allowing them to hover while they feed. By considering all these features together, biologists have known about the relationship between hummingbirds and swifts for quite some time now.

Building phylogenies is still a tricky business, and of course, there are plenty of differing opinions on how many parts of the tree of life should look. Things have become better in recent years now that we can look into the similarities in DNA sequence between species: DNA tends to tell fewer fibs and be less subjective than morphology, as long as the data is handled correctly! Still, the false family of swifts, swallows and martins is an important lesson in looking beyond what our eyes first tell us, and avoiding the traps that convergent evolution throws up throughout the animal kingdom.

Related or not, though: they're all pretty damn cool.

Photo credits:
Swift: http://www.flickr.com/photos/billyboysfotocolection/4754795436
House martins: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonymorris/6016706663/
Swallows: http://www.sxc.hu/profile/krzysiuc