Evolution of novel sensory organs in fish with legs
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (Arcadia Science)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
-
We hypothesize that sea robins initially developed fin ray-like legs for locomotion. Ancestral organs then evolved limited sensory capability to facilitate manipulation of the visible substrate in search of food. Finally, evolution of sensory papillae further specialized legs to localize and uncover buried prey.
How much history/ecological data are there available for these species? It could be interesting to pair the phylogenetic patterns with other trait data to explicitly test different evolutionary hypotheses. e.g. is there a relationship with prey type? substrate? depth? biotic diversity?
-
To test this ability, we developed a simple behavioral assay in which sea robins (Prionotus carolinus) were housed in a controlled tank with either mussels or capsules containing crude or filtered mussel extract buried in sand without visual cues (Fig. 1a, b, Supplementary movie 1). Sea robins alternated between short bouts of swimming and walking (Fig. 1b) and appeared to “scratch” at the sand surface with their legs while walking, which we hypothesized represented sensory behavior.
Do these behaviors vary at all as a function of what prey are used? I'm guessing you tested squid and crabs with P. carolinus as you did with P. evolans?
Presumably motile (squid/crabs) prey would give off a different set of cues that less/non-motile prey (mussels)? Specifically, I wonder if there is a tradeoff between chemo- and mechanosensation that is …
To test this ability, we developed a simple behavioral assay in which sea robins (Prionotus carolinus) were housed in a controlled tank with either mussels or capsules containing crude or filtered mussel extract buried in sand without visual cues (Fig. 1a, b, Supplementary movie 1). Sea robins alternated between short bouts of swimming and walking (Fig. 1b) and appeared to “scratch” at the sand surface with their legs while walking, which we hypothesized represented sensory behavior.
Do these behaviors vary at all as a function of what prey are used? I'm guessing you tested squid and crabs with P. carolinus as you did with P. evolans?
Presumably motile (squid/crabs) prey would give off a different set of cues that less/non-motile prey (mussels)? Specifically, I wonder if there is a tradeoff between chemo- and mechanosensation that is dependent on the amount of movement? Examining this relationship could be a potential route into the neural computations underlying digging behavior...
-
