SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • cranial joint;
  • kinesis;
  • osteology;
  • histology;
  • Gekkota;
  • Lacertidae

ABSTRACT

  1. Top of page
  2. ABSTRACT
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
  7. LITERATURE CITED

Lepidosaurs are frequently described as having highly kinetic skulls, and different forms of cranial kinesis have been described as being characteristic of their radiation. The model of amphikinesis proposed by Frazzetta, J Morphol 1962; 111:287–319, which was long considered a synapomorphy of the large suborder Sauria, is now much debated given its uncertain distribution among the various lizard taxa and the lack of data about its morphological correlates. In this article, we analyze the anatomical correlates of different forms of cranial kinesis, with particular regard to the putative saurian amphikinesis, describing the possible diverse skull movements of several species of European gekkotans (Hemidactylus turcicus, Mediodactylus kotschyi, and Tarentola mauritanica) and lacertids (Lacerta agilis, L. bilineata, Podarcis muralis, P. siculus, and Teira dugesii). Using serial and whole-mount histology, we found clear differences between gekkotans and lacertids in the structure of several cranial joints underlining the existence of two degrees of intracranial mobility. The lacertid species possess the anatomical features for streptostyly (quadrate joints) and metakinesis (parietal-supraoccipital and parabasisphenoid-pterygoid joints) and lack the anatomical correlates for mesokinesis (mobility of frontal-parietal and palatine-pterygoid joints) and amphikinesis (coupled mesokinesis, metakinesis, and streptostyly). In contrast, geckos present all the anatomical correlates for amphikinesis as described by the traditional quadratic crank model. Finally, we present a comprehensive summary of the different forms of squamate cranial kinesis, advancing two alternative hypotheses about the evolutionary origin of amphikinesis. Anat Rec, 297:463–472, 2014. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Cranial kinesis can be generally defined as the relative movements between particular skull bones, excluding movements of or within the mandible (Arnold, 1998; Metzger, 2002). It has been described in numerous taxa of extant vertebrates, including ray-finned fishes (Westneat, 2004), squamates (Frazzetta, 1962; Metzger, 2002), and birds (Zusi, 1984). Among the derived diapsid reptiles, cranial kinesis is generally considered a plesiomorphic state since skull mobility is ubiquitous in archosaurs and lepidosaurs (Holliday and Witmer, 2008), but particular forms of cranial kinesis are thought to be synapomorphies of recent phylogenetic radiations, particularly in lizards and snakes (Kardong et al., 1997; Evans, 2003, 2008).

The origin, morpho-functional aspects, and evolutionary significance of cranial kinesis within Lepidosauria have been widely discussed for more than a century. In particular, various forms of cranial kinesis were initially defined on the basis of the localization of the relative joints (Versluys, 1910, 1912, 1936; Hofer, 1949). Subsequently, the model of the quadratic crank proposed by Frazzetta (1962) represented for many decades a new starting point in understanding the mechanisms involved in the skull mobility of Lepidosauria and their evolution. This model has long been considered a shared characteristic of the large suborder Sauria, with the highly kinetic snake skull viewed as progressive evolution (see Simonetta, 1963; Iordansky, 1989; Kardong, 1994; Frazzetta, 1999; Lee et al., 1999; Cundall and Greene, 2000).

According to the modern definitions of the various saurian kinetic forms given by Metzger (2002) and Evans (2003, 2008) herein adopted, mesokinesis is the dorsoventral flexion and extension of the skull around an axis that runs transversely through the frontal-parietal joint; hypokinesis is the flexion around an axis running transversely to the palatal zone of maximum flexibility, usually corresponding to the palatine-pterygoid articulation; metakinesis is the relative movement between the dermal skull roof and the braincase by means of a sliding between the parietal and the supraoccipital bones; streptostyly is the movement of the quadrate in relation to the dermatocranium, usually in the form of an anteroposterior rotation at its dorsal end. Frazzetta (1962) used the term amphikinesis to describe the lizard's distinctive cranial kinesis, which amounts to simultaneous metakinesis and mesokinesis coupled with functional streptostyly.

The mechanism proposed by Frazzetta is simple: anterodorsal rotation of the quadrate elevates the muzzle unit through dorsoventral flexion at the mesokinetic joint and, coupled with a metakinetic rotation, results in a depression of the parietal unit (Frazzetta, 1962; Metzger, 2002). It is worth noting that to have a functional mesokinesis (and amphikinesis) a permissive hypokinetic joint must be present ventrally in the palate (usually through the contact between the palatine and the pterygoid or alternatively between the vomer and the palatine bone) and laterally (between the palatine, pterygoid and ectopterygoid) (Metzger, 2002). However, the applicability of Frazzetta's amphikinesis described by the quadratic crank model has been found only in a limited number of species (see Metzger, 2002; Evans, 2003, 2008 for details). In particular, a fully functional amphikinesis appears to be restricted to varanids and gekkotans (Rieppel, 1979; Patchell and Shine, 1986; Condon, 1987; Herrel et al., 1999, 2000; Metzger 2002; Evans, 2003, 2008). However, various studies on the genus Varanus have reported diverse patterns of cranial mobility (Rieppel, 1979; Smith, 1982; Smith and Hylander, 1985; Condon, 1987-1989).

Furthermore, although the presence of skull kinesis in lizards has been successfully demonstrated (e.g., Smith, 1980; Condon, 1987; Herrel et al., 1999, 2000), little is known about the morphological features correlated to these movements (see Meztger, 2002) with few exceptions (e.g. Iordansky, 1966 [see also translation by Kelso, 1968], 2011; Condon, 1988, 1998; Arnold, 1998; Schwenk, 2000; Payne et al., 2011). In particular, while some skull articulations were extensively investigated, such as the various quadrate joints, there are almost no data on the morphological and histological features of the hypokinetic and the metakinetic joints, which are indeed essential for mesokinesis and amphikinesis (see Metzger, 2002; Evans, 2008).

We focused our study in representative members of European lacertids and gekkotans. Members of these different evolutionary lineages demonstrate structurally distinct skull morphologies (e.g., the postorbital bar is complete in lacertids and incomplete in gekkonids) and possibly different degrees of intracranial mobility (Frazzetta, 1962; Herrel et al., 1999; Metzger, 2002; Evans, 2008). Using serial and whole-mount histology, we compared the joint morphology and connective tissue structure of many of the articulations reportedly involved in cranial kinesis. Finally, adding our data to published ones we presented a comprehensive summary of the presence of the different forms of cranial kinesis in the Squamata, advancing two alternative hypotheses on the evolutionary origin of amphikinesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. ABSTRACT
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
  7. LITERATURE CITED

Taxon Sampling

We examined the skull of ethanol-stored adult specimens of the following species: Hemidactylus turcicus (Linnaeus, 1758), Mediodactylus kotschyi (Steindachner, 1870), Tarentola mauritanica (Linnaeus, 1758) (Gekkota), Lacerta agilis Linnaeus, 1758, L. bilineata Daudin, 1802, Podarcis muralis (Laurenti, 1768), P. siculus (Rafinesque, 1810), and Teira dugesii (Milne-Edwards, 1829) (Lacertidae). The specimens studied belong to the Dipartimento di Biologia at the Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II and were preserved for previous scientific purpose according to approved protocols for animal care. Consequently, no further sampling was required for this study.

Osteological and Histological Analysis

For each species, one skull was processed for osteological analysis and two skulls for histology. Osteological analysis was performed on double-stained skulls with alcian blue/alizarin red S according to the Taylor and Van Dyke (1985) protocol with some modifications. After removal of skin and eyes, the skull was fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin for 24–48 hr, washed in tap water for 24–48 hr, and stained with alcian blue 8GX for cartilage and osteoid (24–36 hr). Then, after neutralization, bleaching and clearing steps were performed according to Taylor and Van Dyke (1985), the skull was stained with alizarin red S for bone (24–48 hr) dehydrated by means of ethanol, cleaned, and stored in a solution of benzyl alcohol–benzyl benzoate 1:2.

Histological analysis was performed using the paraffin-embedding standard protocol, after decalcification of the head with 0.5 M ethylenediaminetetracetic acid for 2–3 weeks depending on the size of the sample. For each specimen, one skull was sectioned sagittally, another coronally (frontally), by means of Reichert-Jung rotary microtome. Serial sections, 7 µm thick, were stained with hemalum (hematoxylin)-eosin or Azan-Mallory trichrome (Bonucci, 1991). Two dry skulls were also prepared, one from a specimen of Tarentola mauritanica and the other from a Podarcis siculus specimen.

Double-stained and dry skulls were examined using a Leica EZ4 stereo microscope (Leica Microsystems GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany), both incident and transmitted, and digital camera. Histological sections were observed using a Motic BA340 light microscope equipped with a Nikon COOLPIX 5000 digital camera (©2013 Nikon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Skulls and cranial joints examined in all the species are shown in Figure 1.

image

Figure 1. Dry skull of Tarentola mauritanica. ar, articular; bs, basisphenoid; ep, epipterygoid; f, frontal; ot, otoccipital; p, parietal; pl, palatine; pof, postorbitofrontal; pt, pterygoid; q, quadrate; sq, squamosal. Scale bar = 6 mm.

Download figure to PowerPoint

RESULTS

  1. Top of page
  2. ABSTRACT
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
  7. LITERATURE CITED

A summary of cranial joints structure in the two groups of lizards here examined is given in Table 1.

Table 1. Histological and morphological features of the cranial joints in the two groups of lizards examined in this work
 Gekkota (Hemydactylus turcicus, Mediodactylus kotschyi, and Tarentola mauritanica)Lacertidae (Lacerta agilis, L. bilineata, Podarcis muralis, P. siculus, and Teira dugesii)
Cranial jointHistologyJoint shapeHistologyJoint shape
  1. Definition of bone margin shape is given according to Barnett (1961) and Jones et al (2011).

  2. a

    Indicates the presence of a wide gap between the two bones, filled by fibrous connective tissue.

Frontal-parietalSyndesmosisLinearSyndesmosisInterdigitated (type C)
Palatine-pterygoidSyndesmosisStepped/linearaSyndesmosisInterdigitated (type C)
Parabasisphenoid-pterygoidSynovialHingeSynovialHinge
Parietal-supraoccipitalSyndesmosisLineara (subhorizontal)SyndesmosisLineara (subvertical)
Epipterygoid-pterygoidSynovialCondyloidSynovialCondyloid
Quadrate-articularSynovialCondyloidSynovialCondyloid
Quadrate-pterygoidSyndesmosisLinearSyndesmosisLinear
Quadrate-otooccipitalSyndesmosisLinearSyndesmosisLinear

Frontal-Parietal Joint

The morphology of the frontal-parietal articulation, where the mesokinetic joint lies, and of the adjacent bones varies between gekkotans and lacertids. In gekkotans, the frontal-parietal suture is linear or only slightly arched (Fig. 2A), while in all the lacertid species examined it exhibits interdigitations comparable to type C (sensu Jones et al., 2011; Fig. 2B,C). The postfrontal of the gekkonid species is reduced, V-shaped, and clasps the mesokinetic hinge. In contrast, the lacertid postfrontal is well developed and runs over the postorbital absent in the geckos for most of the parietal length. However, in all the species studied, the frontal-parietal joint is a typical syndesmosis (Fig. 2D).

image

Figure 2. Representative images of the osteology and histology of cranial joints in the species studied here. Skulls of Hemidactylus turcicus (A), Podarcis siculus (B), and Lacerta bilineata (C), in dorsal view and stained with alcian blue and alizarin red; the arrow shows the frontal-parietal joint. Sagittal histological section of the skull of Tarentola mauritanica (D), stained with hemalum-eosin; the arrow shows the presence of fibrous connective tissue in the frontal-parietal joint. f, frontal; p, parietal. Scale bar: A = 2.1 mm; B = 1.8 mm; C = 820 µm; D = 120 µm.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Palatine-Pterygoid Joint

The palatine-pterygoid articulation can be correlated to hypokinesis. In gekkotans, these bones are wide, flattened, and separated by a wide opening (a medial extension of the suborbital fenestra), for most of their distal surface (Fig. 3A), which is filled by fibrous connective tissue; medially palatines and pterygoids appear to overlap. A large cavity also separates the paired palatine bones from each other. Palatines and pterygoids are only loosely linked to the adjacent bones by means of syndesmosis. The palatines have weak contact with the ectopterygoid (medially) and with the vomer (anteriorly). The ectopterygoid is reduced in the three gekkonids and is linked with the pterygoid and the maxilla. The jugal is much reduced, resulting in complete loss of the lower postorbital bar.

image

Figure 3. Representative images of the osteology and histology of cranial joints in the species studied here. Skulls of Hemidactylus turcicus (A), and Podarcis siculus (B), in ventral view and stained with alcian blue and alizarin red. The arrow shows the pterygoid-palatine joint. Paramedian sagittal histological section of the skull of Podarcis muralis (C) stained with Azan-Mallory trichrome. In (D) high magnification of the boxed area of figure (C) showing the presence of dense connective tissue between pterygoid and palatine. pl, palatine; pt, pterygoid. Scale bar: A= 600 µm; B= 1 mm; C = 1.5 mm; D = 150 µm.

Download figure to PowerPoint

In the four lacertid species, vomer, palatine, and pterygoid constitute a continuous palatal surface. The palatines and the pterygoids are slender dermal bones, developing an interdigitated joint of Type C (sensu Jones et al., 2011) at their contact point and firmly bound together by fibrous connective tissue (Fig. 3B–D). The ectopterygoid is a robust bone, connecting the pterygoid with the jugal and the maxilla. The jugal is well developed and forms the posterior margin of the orbit linking the maxilla with the postorbital.

Pterygoid-Basisphenoid and Parietal-Supraoccipital Joints

At least two mobile joints are developed in metakinetic skull, isolating the braincase from both the skull dermal roof and the palate, and permitting a relative sliding/rotation between these elements (Metzger, 2002; Evans, 2008; Jones et al., 2011). A ventral metakinetic articulation is represented both in geckos and in lacertids by the synovial joint connecting the pterygoid and the basipterygoid processes of the parabasisphenoid allowing a certain degree of movement between the braincase and the palate (Fig. 4A–D). A dorsal metakinetic joint lies between the parietal and the supraoccipital, the two bones being linked by fibrous connective tissues. The structure of the metakinetic joint is similar in all the studied species (Fig. 5), but the morphology of this articulation differs because the contact between parietal and the braincase is almost vertical in lacertids while it assumes a more oblique orientation in geckos. The epipterygoid is a slender, columnar-shaped dermal bone stabilizing metakinetic and mesokinetic movements and constitutes a linkage between the palate and he braincase (Fig. 6A,B). Ventrally, it forms a typical synovial joint with the fossa columellae of the pterygoid, and a dorsal syndesmosis with the superior anterior process of the sphenoid both in geckos and in lacertids.

image

Figure 4. Representative images of the osteology and histology of cranial joints in the species in question. Skulls of Hemidactylus turcicus (A), and Podarcis siculus (B) in ventral view and stained with alcian blue and alizarin red. The arrow shows the basisphenoid-pterygoid joint. Coronal histological section of the skull of Podarcis siculus (C) stained with hemalum-eosin and showing basisphenoid-pterygoid joint. bs, basisphenoid; pt, pterygoid. Scale bar: A= 1.7 mm; B= 530 µm; C = 60 µm.

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 5. Representative images of the histology of cranial joints in the species studied here. Sagittal histological sections of the skull of Tarentola mauritanica (A), stained with hemalum-eosin and of Podarcis muralis (B) stained with Azan-Mallory trichrome. In (C) and (D), a high magnification of the boxed area in figures (A) and (B), respectively. Note the presence of fibrous connective tissue in the parietal-supraoccipital joint. cb, cerebellum; p, parietal; so, supraoccipital; t, mesencephalic tectum. Scale bar: A, B = 800 µm; C = 75 µm; D = 70 µm.

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 6. Representative images of the osteology and histology of cranial joints in the species in question. Skull of Tarentola mauritanica (A), and Podarcis siculus (B), in lateral view and stained with alcian blue and alizarin red; the arrow shows the pterygoid-epipterygoid joint. Coronal histological section of the skull of Tarentola mauritanica (C) stained with Azan-Mallory trichrome. In (D) high magnification of the boxed area of figure (C) showing that pterygoid-epipterygoid is a synovial joint. ep, epipterygoid; pt, pterygoid. Scale bar: A= 1 mm, B = 1.1 mm, C = 540 µm; D = 140 µm.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Quadrate Joints

The quadrate is an elongated but variably shaped membrane bone, which links the braincase and the mandible and acts as the skull insertion for the m. adductor mandibulae posterior (Haas, 1973; Daza et al., 2008; Payne et al., 2011). In all the species studied, the quadrate is roughly shell-shaped, with the concavity caudally projected, but in lacertid species the tympanic crest is wider than in geckos. As a rule, the quadrate performs four separate movable articulations.

The posterodorsal articular surface of the quadrate, covered by a hyaline cartilage which grades into fibrocartilage, articulates with the oto-occipital (fused opisthotic and exooccipital) through dense connective tissue (Fig. 7A–C,F). Indirect contact between the quadrate and the squamosal may be present, through ligaments and a portion of the m. adductor mandibulae externus (see also Rieppel, 1984; Payne et al., 2011). Gekkotan squamosal is a slender bone, as observed in a previous study (Daza and Bauer, 2012), whereas it is of typical hockey-stick shape in lacertids (Robinson, 1967). However, in all the species studied, the squamosal seems to play no part in the quadrate suspension which is achieved by a syndesmosis with the otooccipital. In lacertids, between the quadrate and otooccipital there is also the supratemporal, a slender, slightly curved bone, which is absent in all the gecko species studied. Ventrally, the quadrate forms a synovial joint with the articular bone or the articular portion of the compound bone (Fig. 7A–C). The typical synovial joint structure, formed by an articular cartilage, a synovial capsule surrounded by fibrous connective tissue and a synovial cavity (sensu Barnett, 1961), is clearly visible using histological staining (Fig. 7B,D). Ventromedially, the quadrate surface articulates with the quadrate ramus of the pterygoid, from which it is separated by a small gap filled with fibrous connective tissue.

image

Figure 7. Representative images of the osteology and histology of cranial joints in the species studied. Skull of Hemidactylus turcicus (A), Podarcis siculus (C), and Lacerta bilineata (E), in lateral view, stained with alcian blue and alizarin red, and showing the quadrate joints. Sagittal histological sections of the skull Tarentola mauritanica (B), stained with hemalum-eosin, and showing the quadrate-articular synovial joint. Coronal histological sections of the skull of Podarcis siculus (D), stained with Azan-Mallory trichrome and showing the quadrate-articular synovial joint; vessels can be seen in the superficial zone of articular cartilage. Coronal histological sections of the skull of Teira dugesii (F), stained with Azan-Mallory trichrome and showing the presence of fibrous connective tissue between the otoccipital and quadrate, consistent with a syndesmosis. ar, articular; os, osteodermal; ot, otooccipital; q, quadrate; sq, squamosal. Scale bar: A, C = 0.9 mm; B = 240 µm; D = 80 µm; E = 1 mm; F = 150 µm.

Download figure to PowerPoint

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. ABSTRACT
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
  7. LITERATURE CITED

We found clear differences between the studied gekkotans and lacertids in some cranial joints (frontal-parietal and pterygoid-palatine), that are in line with two different degrees of intracranial mobility. These differences are highly conserved in all the gekkotans and lacertids analyzed, which share a uniform, lineage-specific organization of the cranial kinetic joints. From comparison of the same cranial joints, we found that there is a different morphology but not a different histology, which allows or constrains certain kinetic skull movements. In fact, although the joint structure does not prove the joint function, it may suggest the potential and/or the exclusion of different forms of kinesis (Metzger, 2002). In addition, the anatomical correlates of the different forms of cranial kinesis found in the studied species can be compared to the same structures found in species in which the kinetic movements were described experimentally, thus allowing a plausible correlation between joint structures and associated movements. For example, the gekkotans here studied share the same general skull joints structures of Gekko gecko and Phelsuma madagascariensis, in which amphikinesis was measured by cineradiography (Herrel et al., 1999, 2000).

In spite of this clear distinctness, a certain number of anatomical similarities are shared by the two different lineages, probably as features of the whole squamate radiation. In general, the skull of the lacertid species examined here is deep, robust, and lacking some of the anatomical correlates of amphikinesis described by Frazzetta's quadratic crank model. However, all the species studied exhibited the potential for a certain degree of streptostylic and metakinetic movements. Their quadrate joints show the main anatomical correlates of streptostyly reported for various different squamate taxa (see Throckmorton, 1976; Rieppel, 1978; Metzger, 2002).

To date, little attention has been given to the histological and morphological features of the metakinetic joints of squamate reptiles, and as a result metakinesis has been considered the most enigmatic form of squamate cranial kinesis (see Metzger, 2002; Evans, 2008). Indeed, our results suggest at least some degree of metakinetic movement can be present in the Lacertidae, in relation to the potential sliding at the syndesmosis between the parietal and the supraoccipital and at the synovial joint between the pterygoid and the basipterygoid. In addition, the epipterygoid joints, which are thought to be important in stabilizing metakinetic movements, show the mobile primitive configuration of the Squamata (see Evans, 2008).

In contrast, both functional mesokinesis and hypokinesis are probably absent in all the lacertid species studied. Indeed, both the frontal-parietal and the palatine-pterygoid joint of the lacertid species are highly interdigitated, probably preventing any flexion or extension movements of a certain magnitude. However, computational model studies (see Moazen et al., 2013) are expected to better elucidate the stiffness degree of various interdigitated sutures. Interestingly, a similar interdigitation at the frontal-parietal joint was found also in Cryptolacerta hassiaca, a lacertid-like lizard fossil from Germany which provided a first morphological evidence for lacertid-amphisbaenians monophyly on the basis of a shared reinforced and akinetic skull (Müller et al., 2011). In addition, in Lacerta bilineata and L. agilis, but not in Podarcis muralis, P. siculus or Teira dugesii, the presence of temporal osteoderms, covering much of the lateral and upper surfaces of the head, further limits skull kineticism.

In general, the gekkotan skull is lightly built, dorsoventrally depressed, and highly kinetic, presenting all the anatomic correlates of quadratic crank model for functional amphikinesis (Frazzetta, 1962; Metzger, 2002; Evans, 2008). The dorsal quadrate articulation and a permissive quadrate-pterygoid syndesmosis allow the anteroposterior rotation of the quadrate bone, similarly to what was observed in lacertids.

The histological structure of the metakinetic joints of the gecko species is similar to those found in all the lacertids studied, both allowing a relative sliding movement between the parietal and the supraoccipital. However, even if the histological structure is conserved between the two families the different osteological relation between the dermatocranium and the braincase suggests a greater possibility of metakinetic movements in geckos.

Unlike lacertids, in the gekkotans the osteological and histological structure of the frontal-parietal joint is consistent with a high degree of mesokinetic movements. In addition, the most notable difference found between the two families lies in the structure of the hypokinetic joint. The contact between the palatine and the pterygoid found in gekkotans involves a small area of juxtaposition and a large gap, mainly filled with fibrous connective tissue. The particular morphology of this joint guarantees the high degree of palatal mobility required by the quadratic crank model (see Frazzetta, 1962; Metzger, 2002). In addition, the movements at the mesokinetic and hypokinetic articulations are facilitated by the reduction of lateral elements to the skull roof and the palate, with particular regard, respectively, to the postfrontal and the ectopterygoid.

Our results are congruent with observations in other gekkotans (Patchell and Shine, 1986; Herrel et al., 1999; 2000; Payne et al., 2011). Our findings highlight the presence of all the anatomical correlates for functional amphikinesis in T. mauritanica, H. turcicus, and in M. kotschyi. In contrast, in the lacertid species examined the osteological and histological features suggest the absence of functional amphikinesis and mesokinesis but not the potential for unlinked streptostyly and metakinesis. A functional metakinesis may be associated with amphikinesis and the quadratic crank model (see Frazzetta 1962; Metzger, 2002; Evans, 2003, 2008), but a form of passive metakinesis can also be related to shock absorption and to the protection of the brain against feeding strains (Rieppel, 1978; De Vree and Gans, 1987, 1989; Moazen et al., 2009).

Many questions about the origin and evolutionary significance of different forms of cranial kinesis in lepidosaurs are still largely unsolved. Adding our results to the data from literature, and mapping the different forms of kinesis into two largely accepted phylogenies of squamates (Conrad, 2008; Pyron et al., 2013), we here present a summary about cranial kinesis, with a particular regard to amphikinesis and its evolutionary framework (Fig. 8). Traditionally, the morphological classifications of squamate reptiles have proposed a phylogenetic tree with the Iguania as the sister group of a large clade, the Scleroglossa, including Gekkota, Scincomorpha and Anguimorpha (see Estes et al., 1988; Lee, 1998; Evans, 2003, 2008; Conrad, 2008). Recently, Pyron et al. (2013) have revised the evolutionary relationships of Squamata using molecular markers. These authors have proposed a phylogenetic tree with the Dibamidae as the sister taxon of a monophyletic group composed of two main evolutionary lineages: Gekkota and a larger clade including two main groups, Scincomorpha and Episquamata: the latter in turn includes Lacertoidea, Anguimorpha, Iguania and Serpentes.

image

Figure 8. Type of cranial kinesis and phylogenetic relationships of squamates. (A) Cladogram based on morphological characters, modified from Conrad (2008). (B) Cladogram based on molecular analysis, modified from Pyron et al (2013). Figure symbols: □, akinesis; ▪, streptostyly; ○, mesokinesis; •, metakinesis; Δ, amphikinesis; NC, not considered in this study. The question mark indicates lack of information. Asterisk indicates uncertain information. Numbers indicate the two alternative hypotheses about origin of amphikinesis: (1) single origin; (2) multiple origin.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Total akinesis characterizes the skull of Sphenodon (Gorniak et al., 1982; Jones et al., 2011) and various Iguanidae, Agamidae, Scincidae, and Helodermatidae, but the majority of the squamate taxa possess at least some form of cranial kinesis (Metzger, 2002; Evans, 2003, 2008). In particular, streptostyly, found in many different evolutionary lineages, seems to be the more widespread form of cranial kinesis in squamates, and relatively few taxa are known to be mesokinetic or metakinetic. In addition, to date, among the whole squamate radiation, the potential for a functional amphikinesis is known only in Gekkota and Varanidae (Rieppel, 1979; Condon, 1987; Herrel et al., 1999, 2000; Metzger, 2002; Evans, 2003, 2008; this work), which represent two phylogenetically distinct lineages according to both the morphological and the molecular phylogenies (see Conrad, 2008; Pyron et al., 2013). Thus, in the light of available data on the squamate evolutionary history and cranial kinesis, the following alternative hypothesis about the evolution of amphikinesis can be advanced (Fig. 8): (1) amphikinesis evolved only once, in the most recent common ancestor of Gekkota and Varanidae; (2) amphikinesis evolved at least twice independently, in Gekkota and Varanidae.

To date, neither hypothesis can be excluded, but a single evolutionary origin of amphikinesis seems less supported by parsimony as it requires a number of independent events of secondary loss in many squamate lineages. On the other hand, data on cranial kinesis are lacking for many squamate lineages and further studies, particularly on Carphodactylidae, Shinisauridae, and Lanthanotidae are needed to allaying the doubts about the origin of amphikinesis.

A comprehensive and detailed discussion about the functions of the different forms of squamate kinesis is beyond the aim of this study. However, the two different configurations of cranial joints found among lacertids and gekkotans and the relative kinetic implications are expected to be correlated to different functional and structural responses of the skull, with particular regard to feeding performance (Schwenk, 2000, 2001; Wagner and Schwenk, 2000; Evans, 2003). For example, it has been noted that in geckos a highly kinetic skull may result in bite force reduction and in decreased feeding efficiency due to the longer intra-oral transport cycles. However, at the same time there occurs an increase in the velocity of jaw opening and closing, facilitating the capture of elusive prey (Herrel et al., 2007).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  1. Top of page
  2. ABSTRACT
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
  7. LITERATURE CITED

The authors thank Federica Passero, Daniela Intartaglia, and Federica Titta for their help in performing osteological and histological preparations. They are very indebted to Juan D. Daza for his continuous and expert assistance that improved the first version of the manuscript. They also thank an anonymous reviewer for his valuable comments. Many thanks to Mark Walters for linguistic revision of the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

  1. Top of page
  2. ABSTRACT
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
  7. LITERATURE CITED
  • Arnold E. 1998. Cranial kinesis in lizards: variations, uses, and origins. In: Hecht M, Macintyre R, Clegg M, editors. Evolutionary biology. Vol. 30. New York: Plenum Press. p 323357.
  • Barnett CH. 1961. Synovial Joints. London: William Clowes and Sons.
  • Bonucci E. 1991. Manuale di istochimica. Roma: Edi-Lombardo.
  • Condon K. 1987. A kinematic analysis of mesokinesis in the Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus). Exp Biol 47:7387.
  • Condon K. 1988. The anatomical basis of cranial kinesis in the Nile monitor. Am Zool 28:173A.
  • Condon K. 1989. Cranial kinesis in the Nile monitor. In: Splechtna H, Hilgers H, editors. Trends in vertebrate morphology. Fortschritte der Zoologie. Vol. 35. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer. p 435437.
  • Condon K. 1998. Morphological basis for cranial kinesis in the Nile monitor. Am Zool 38:201A.
  • Conrad JL. 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 310:1182.
  • Cundall D, Greene H. 2000. Feeding in Snakes. In: Schwenk K, editor. Feeding: form, function and evolution in tetrapod vertebrates. San Diego: Academic Press. p 293333.
  • Daza JD, Abdala V, Thomas R, Bauer AM. 2008. Skull anatomy of the miniaturized gecko Sphaerodactylus roosevelti (Squamata: Gekkota). J Morphol 239:13401364.
  • Daza JD, Bauer AM. 2012. Temporal bones of the Gekkota support molecular relationships within the Pygopodoidea. J Herpetol 46:381386.
  • De Vree F, Gans C. 1987. Kinetic movements in the skull of adult Trachydosaurus rugosus. Anat Histol Embryol 16:206209.
  • De Vree F, Gans C. 1989. Functional morphology of the feeding mechanisms in lower tetrapods. In: Splechtna H, Hilgers H, editors. Trends in vertebrate morphology. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer. p 115127.
  • Estes R, de Queiroz K, Gauthier J. 1988. Phylogenetic relationships within Squamata. In: Estes R, Pregill G, editors. Phylogenetic relationships of the lizard families. Essays commemorating Charles L. Camp. Stanford: Stanford University Press. p 119281.
  • Evans SE. 2003. At the feet of the dinosaurs: the origin, evolution and early diversification of squamate reptiles (Lepidosauria: Diapsida). Biol Rev 78:513555.
  • Evans SE. 2008. The skull of lizards and tuatara. In: Gans C, Gaunt AS, Adler K, editors. Biology of the reptilia. Vol. 20. Morphology H. Ithaca: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. p 1347.
  • Frazzetta TH. 1962. A functional consideration of cranial kinesis in lizards. J Morphol 111:287319.
  • Frazzetta TH. 1999. Adaptations and significance of the cranial feeding apparatus of the sunbeam snake (Xenopeltis unicolor): Part I. Anatomy of the skull. J Morphol 239:2743.
  • Gorniak G, Rosenberg H, Gans C. (1982). Mastication in the tuatara, Sphenodon punctatus (Reptilia: Rhynchocephalia): structure and activity of the motor system. J Morphol 171: 321353.
  • Haas G. 1973. Muscles of the jaws and associated structures in the Rhynchocephalia and Squamata. In: Gans C, Parsons T, editors. Biology of the reptilia. Vol. 4. Morphology D. London: Academic Press. p 285490.
  • Herrel A, De Vree F, Delheusy V, Gans C. 1999. Cranial kinesis in gekkonid lizards. J Exp Biol 202:36873698.
  • Herrel A, Aerts P, De Vree F. 2000. Cranial kinesis in geckoes: functional implications. J Exp Biol 203:14151423.
  • Herrel A, Schaerlaeken V Meyers JJ, Metzger KA, Ross CF. 2007. The evolution of cranial design and performance in squamates: consequences of skull-bone reduction on feeding behavior. Integr Comp Biol 47:107117.
  • Holliday CM, Witmer LM. 2008. Cranial kinesis in dinosaurs; intercranial joints, protractor muscles, and their significance for cranial evolution and function in diapsids. J Vert Paleontol 28:10731088.
  • Hofer H. 1949. Die Gaumenlücken der Vögel. Acta Zool 30:209248.
  • Iordansky N. 1966. [Cranial kinesis in lizards: contribution to the problem of the adaptive significance of skull kinesis]. Zool Zh 45:13981410 [In Russian].
  • Iordansky N. 1989. Evolution of cranial kinesis in lower tetrapods. Neth J Zool 40:3254.
  • Iordansky N. 2011. Cranial kinesis in lizards (Lacertilia): origin, biomechanics and evolution. Biol Bull 38:868877.
  • Jones MEH, Curtis NL, Fagan MJ, O'Higgins P, Evans SE. 2011. Hard tissue anatomy of the cranial joints in Sphenodon (Rhynchocephalia): sutures, kinesis, and skull mechanics. Palaeontol Electron 14:192.
  • Kardong KV. 1994. Kinesis of the jaw apparatus during the strike in the cottonmouth snake, Agkistrodon piscivorus. Forma Functio 7:327354.
  • Kardong KV, Kiene TL, Bels VL. 1997. Evolution of trophic systems in squamates. Neth J Zool 47:411427.
  • Kelso L. 1968. English translation of “Cranial kinesis in lizards; contribution to the problem of the adaptive significance of skull kinesis, by Iordansky (1966)”. In: Gans C, editor. Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service No. 14. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. p 17, 1 table.
  • Lee MS, 1998. Convergent evolution and character correlation in burrowing reptiles: toward a resolution of squamate phylogeny. Biol J Linn Soc 65:369453.
  • Lee MS, Bell G, Jr., Caldwell W. 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400:655659.
  • MacLean W. 1974. Feeding and locomotor mechanisms of teiid lizards: functional morphology and evolution. Pap Avulsos Zool (São Paulo) 27:179213.
  • Metzger K. 2002. Cranial kinesis in lepidosaurs: skulls in motion. In: Aerts P, D'Août K, Herrel A, Van Damme R, editors. Topics in functional and ecological vertebrate morphology. Maastricht: Shaker Publishing. p 1546.
  • Moazen M, Costantini D, Bruner E. 2013. A sensitivity analysis to the role of the fronto-parietal suture in Lacerta bilineata: a preliminary finite element study. Anat Rec 296:198209.
  • Moazen M, Curtis N, O'Higgins P, Jones MEH, Evans SE, Fagan MJ. 2009. Assessment of the role of sutures in a lizard skull: a computer modelling study. Proc R Soc B 276:3946.
  • Müller J, Hipsley CA, Head JJ, Kardjilov N, Hilger A, Wuttke M, Reisz RR. 2011. Eocene lizard from Germany reveals amphisbaenian origins. Nature 473:364367.
  • Patchell FC, Shine R, 1986. Feeding mechanism in pygopodid lizards: how can Lialis swallow such large prey? J Herpetol 20: 5964.
  • Payne SL, Holliday CM, Vickaryous MK. 2011. An osteological and histological investigation of cranial joints in geckos. Anat Rec 294:399405.
  • Pyron RA, Burbrink FT, Wiens JJ. 2013. A phylogeny and revised classification of Squamata, including 4161 species of lizards and snakes. BMC Evol Biol 13:93.
  • Rieppel O. 1978. Streptostyly and muscle function in lizards. Experientia 34:776777.
  • Rieppel O. 1979. A functional interpretation of the varanid dentition (Reptilia, Lacertilia, Varanidae). Gegenbaurs Morphol Jahrb 125:797817.
  • Rieppel O. 1984. The structure of the skull and jaw adductor musculature of the Gekkota, with comments on the phylogenetic relationships of the Xantusiidae (Reptilia: Lacertilia). Zool J Linn Soc 82:291318.
  • Robinson PL 1967. The evolution of the Lacertilia. Colloq Int Cent Natl Rech Sci 163:395407.
  • Schwenk K. 2000. Feeding in lepidosaurs. In: Schwenk K, editor. Feeding: form, function and evolution in tetrapod vertebrates. San Diego: Academic Press. p 175291.
  • Schwenk K. 2001. Functional units and their evolution. In: Wagner GP, editor. The character concept in evolutionary biology. London: Academic Press. p 165198.
  • Simonetta AM. 1963. Cranial kinesis and the morphology of the middle ear: to possibly related features. Evolution 17: 580587.
  • Smith K. 1980. Mechanical significance of streptostyly in lizards. Nature 283:778779.
  • Smith K. 1982. An electromyographic study of the function of the jaw adducting muscles in Varanus exanthematicus (Varanidae). J Morphol 173:137158.
  • Smith K, Hylander W. 1985. Strain gauge measurement of mesokinetic movement in the lizard Varanus exanthematicus. J Exp Biol 114:5370.
  • Taylor WR, Van Dyke GC. 1985. Revised procedures for staining and clearing small fishes and other vertebrates for bone and cartilage study. Cybium 9:107119.
  • Throckmorton G. 1976. Oral food processing in two herbivorous lizards, Iguana iguana (Iguanidae) and Uromastix aegypticus (Agamidae). J Morphol 148:363390.
  • Versluys J. 1910. Streptostylie bei Dinosauriern, nebst Bemerkungen über die Verwandtschaft der Vögel und Dinosaurier. Zool Jahrb Abt Anat Ont Tiere 30:175260.
  • Versluys J. 1912. Das Streptostylie-Problem und die Bewegung im Schädel bei Sauropsida. Zool Jahrb Abt Anat Ont Tiere 2 (suppl 15):545716.
  • Versluys J. 1936. Kranium und Visceralskelett der Sauropsiden. 1. Reptilien. In: Bolk L, Göppert E, Kallius E, Lubosch W, editors. Handbuch der vergleichenden Anatomie der Wirbeltiere. Vol. 4. Berlin: Urban and Schwarzenberg. p 699808.
  • Wagner G, Schwenk K. 2000. Evolutionarily stable configurations: functional integration and the evolution of phenotypic stability. Evol Biol 31:155217.
  • Westneat MW. 2004. Evolution of levers and linkages in the feeding mechanisms of fishes. Integr Comp Biol 44:378389.
  • Zusi RL. 1984. A functional and evolutionary analysis of Rhynchokinesis in birds. Smithsonian contributions to zoology; 395. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.