Deep-time dinosaur phyloepigenetics

West-Eberhardt repeatedly mentions in her book the case of the two-legged goat, born with no forelimbs, that learned to walk bipedally, and developed several hip traits, bipedal "adaptations". Certainly, to understand the development of these hip adaptations, we would be ill-advised to concentrate on the molecular mechanisms underlying cell-death in the embryonic forelimb, who have only indirect "causation", far removed from the actual mechanisms involved in the largely non-genetic influence on this trait. Comprehension can only come from observing the higher-level interactions and the direct developmental effects of emerging epigenetic interactions. It is interesting to think just how many aspects of our phenotype are, like this, only very indirectly related to the genotype (from a systems view, a mutation can be nothing but a "trigger").

I still remember when it dawned upon me in 2001; ALL vertebrate limbs, universally, grow longer with mechanical stimulation and use. I thought about early theropod dinosaur's reduced forelimbs. Even if bipedality were the result of some mutation enlarging legs or shortening arms (by the way: probably not, but behavioral), the arms would receive less mechanical stimulation when relieved from locomotion, whereas the legs now bear the entire body's weight. There is no way this is not going to decrease growth in the arm , increase it in the leg, and enhance forelimb-hindlimb size differences. Enter here the field of phyloepigenetics, which we previously named on this blog; the recopilation of cases of epigenetic explanation of evolutionary differences. This time I present a case of a deep-time epigenetic apomorphy: The fibular crest of the tibia of Theropod dinosaurs and their living representatives, the birds. Here are some photographs of this rectangular crest, that extends from the large tibia onto the thinner fibula (both elements of the "shank" or zeugopod). Since this is a trait of all theropods, the fibular crest must be at least 230 million years old. Two different birds species illustrating the fibular crest of the tibia, upwards, rectangle-shaped (from Müller and Streicher 1989)

The fibular crest is an apomorphy of theropod dinosaurs. On the left, a theropod; right, a non-theropod dinosaur (Müller and Streicher 1989)

It turns out that this crest is a sesamoid bone, that is, a bone that develops within connective tissue as a result of mechanical stimulation; first cartilage is formed in the stimulated region; this cartilage may thereafter ossify originating the sesamoid bone (The chicken patella and human knee-caps are sesamoid bones that develop from within tendons). We can say that the sesamoid bones are to connective tissue what callosities are to epidermis. All of this with plenty of experimental confirmation, such as mechanical forces in abnormal places, etc.
The fibular crest of the chicken develops as a cartilage in the narrow space between the tibia and the fibula. In theropod evolution the fibula became thinner; this may be the reason why muscles that in other reptiles pull the leg backwards and project exclusively onto the fibula, in the chicken embryo also hit the connective tissue between the fibula and the tibia, provoking the development of a new sesamoid cartilage. This cartilage therafter ossifies into the crest, tightly connecting the tibia and the fibula in the adult. This crest in birds is certainly "adaptive" since it is fundamental to have a functional leg (because the fibula in birds no longer connects distally to the foot!) Yet against the adaptationist intuitions of old-style lamarckism, or of reformed "epigenetic darwinists", nothing in all those millions of years has produced a mechanism for developing this bone without movement. It still relies on the same "good old" mechanical stimulation. If the embryo is paralized , for instance, with a postsynaptic blocker, the cartilage of the fibular crest is no longer formed. The unavoidable effects of higher-level interactions have remained the basic mechanism by which this trait is developed .

From Müller 2003

The authors of the study share some wisdom with us:

"The de novo formation of skeletal elements addresses an important but largely neglected issue in evolutionary theory: the origination of morphological novelty. This generative problem of organismal evolution is sidestepped in traditional accounts that focus on the gradual variation and adaptation of characters and calculate their population genetic underpinnings. The studied characters are usually taken as given, and their origination is tacitly assumed to be based on the same mechanisms as their variation and adaptation. There is growing awareness that this does not need to be the case and that innovation should be treated as a distinct problem of
evolution"

Müller GB and Streicher J. 1989. Ontogeny of the syndesmosis tibiofibularis and the evolution of the bird hindlimb: a caenogenetic feature triggers phenotypic novelty. Anat Embryol. 179: 327-339

Müller GB. 2003. Embryonic motility: environmental influences and
evolutionary innovation. Evol & Dev 5:1, 56–60