Analogy & Homology Blog Post Assignment
For
your homologus traits provide the following information (25 pts):
- Describe (not just identify) the two
different species that possess the homologous trait. The point is to
provide your reader (and grader) some background on the species in
question so we can understand the selection pressures that produced these
traits. Don’t short-change this. This should be a paragraph of
information, not just a few words and it will be graded as such. (5
pts) The American lobster and blue crab are both Decapoda, Crustacea invertebrates. Both share the
same class but live entirely different lives based on their habitat.
Lobsters inhabit deeper ocean bottoms and seawater and rocky or
muddy ocean bottoms where they excavate burrows, scavenge,
and forage using large claws and powerful tails. Long,
tube-like bodies have evolved for quick backward
movement. Blue crabs live in shallower coastal systems such as estuaries
and tidal flats. Blue crabs are broad and rounded, with a sideways moving
adaptation. Their environments are competitive and speed-, agility-, and
coordination-dependent with other crabs through visual cues.
These habits and environments have led the traits that
they inherited from the common ancestor to develop differently.
- Describe the homologus trait of each
species, focusing on the differences in structure and
function of the trait. Why do these homologus traits exhibit differences
between the two species? Connect the differences in structure to
differences in function to show how they are related. Make
sure your explanation is clear and complete. (10 pts) Both crabs and lobsters possess
chelae or claws, which are homologous structures. The claws
are modified versions of their front pair of legs and are made up of corresponding jointed components with exoskeleton coverings. The
structure and function of the claws in both species are
different due to divergent evolution. Lobsters have one massive
crusher claw to crush the prey shells and
a more slender cutter claw, which is used in cutting or clamping. They are powerful and specially adapted for such feeding
on diverse prey and protection. Crabs have two more general and about
the same-sized claws. They use them for digging sand,
scavenging, defense of territory, and even for signaling other
crabs. These are indicative of the manner in
which pressures from the environment have influenced their
anatomy: lobsters, which live in dark, isolated environments, are equipped with powerful,
specialized claws, while crabs, which live in crowded coastlines,
need versatile devices for survival and
communication. Although the roles are unique,
the inner structure and origin of the claws are clearly the
same, making them homologous.
- Who
was (generally, not specifically) the common ancestor of these two species
and how do you know that ancestor possessed this homologous trait? How
does this support your claim of homology? (5 pts) From what I could find, the crab and the lobster had
a shared ancestor, a primitive decapod
crustacean from the Mesozoic Era more than 200 million years
ago. The ancestor would have had a hard exoskeleton, jointed legs, and
clawed appendages close to the head. We can be confident that this ancient
animal had claws since almost all extant
decapods, ranging from shrimp to crayfish to crabs and
lobsters, possess claws, and the fossil record shows ancient decapods
already had clawed limbs. That contemporary claws have the
same internal anatomy and are derived from the same body
segment gives evidence that the character was due to common
ancestry and not parallelism. Because both
the lobsters and the crabs developed their claws
from a common ancestor and because the claws
developed by way of the same genetic mechanisms, we
can be sure that the claws are homologous structures, although now differentiated in
shape and function.
- Provide an image of each species in this comparison.
(5 pts)
The American eel is a limbless, long, thin
freshwater ray-finned fish of the North American Atlantic coastline which lives in freshwater estuaries and rivers.
It uses an undulating motion to push itself forward.
American eels are famous for the unbelievable migrations they
make between freshwater habitats within and the Sargasso
Sea of the Atlantic Ocean, where they lay eggs. Their elongated body structure allows
them to slide into rocks, sediment, and dense aquatic
vegetation. The eastern rat snake, on the other hand, is a
non-venomous reptile found in forests, grasslands, and farms in
the eastern United States. Like all snakes, it lacks limbs, is cold-blooded,
and moves by slithering in an S-pattern. Rat snakes are excellent climbers and
use their body shape to move in narrow passages, under logs, and
even trees. One is a fish, while the other is a
reptile, but both are convergent in the sense that
they have adapted to similar streamlined body shapes, which allow
them to move in complex environments where flexibility and
stealth are common.
- Describe the analogous trait of
each species, focusing on the similarities in structure
and function of the trait. Clearly explain why these analogous traits
exhibit similarities between the two species, tying in environmental
similarities that drove the process of convergent evolution. (10
pts) Both eels and snakes have evolved long, limbless, flexible
bodies, the major analogous structure in these two
animals. Both creatures use this ability to effectively navigate through tight, narrow spaces.
In eels, this body plan helps them to swim easily in water
using side-to-side undulations that can be used to escape predators
and seize prey within tight underwater spaces such as
between rocks or inside aquatic vegetation. For snakes,
the elongated limbless body offers slithering along the
ground, burrowing into soil, and climbing. This is achieved by powerful muscles
and scales griping the surfaces. While their environments
are diverse—one is aquatic, while the other
is terrestrial—both provide the same obstacle: having to
move silently and flexibly through obstacles or sites of
camouflage. These similar environmental pressures were the cause
of the evolution of similarly shaped bodies and modes of
locomotion, even though the two animals are not closely related. This
is the textbook definition of convergent evolution,
where natural selection creates analogous solutions
to analogous environmental problems in unrelated groups.
- All pairs of organisms share some common ancestor if
you go back far enough in time. Could the common ancestor of these two
species have possessed this analogous trait? How do we know these
traits are analogous and not genetically related from common
descent? Use your knowledge of this ancestry and the evolutionary
process to provide evidence that these traits do not share a genetic
lineage and are therefore analogous. (5 pts) Both eels and snakes
are vertebrates but share a distant common ancestor who existed many hundreds
of millions of years ago and likely was an early
four-limbed fish-like vertebrate. The original creature
would have had fins or limbs, not the fully limbless elongate body.
Because the modern snake and eel each evolved
their limbless, elongated body shape independently of
each other after they diverged from this common ancestor, their similarity in the body does not result from
a common ancestor. Instead, they evolved separately as an adaptation
to the same set of functional requirements—stealth and agility in confined spaces.
In addition, the covering of the body, muscular, and bone anatomy
of these two organisms is quite dissimilar, and they use different
systems in order to power their devices of
locomotion (fins and eel tails as opposed to belly scales
and snake muscles). All these variations establish that the
comparable shape is the result of convergent evolution and
not gene similarity and hence the character is
analogous.
- Provide an image of each species in this comparison.
(5 pts)
Homology:
ReplyDelete1. (5/5) - Great opening description.
2. (5/5) - So this is a really interesting comparison but I had to dig a little deeper to be sure it was actually homologous, and the answer to that question depends upon whether you consider the *limb* or the *claw* as the structure in question.
You do a great job of describing the structure of the trait and the differences in structure and function. Well done. We'll explore the ancestral issue a bit more in the next section.
3. (5/5) - Lobsters and crabs are clearly closely related from a phylogenetic perspective, but it's the issue of the claw that is causing problems for me. If you just compare the *limb* then the common ancestor clearly possessed that limb, which evolved and changed in these two species. But if you compare the *claw*, the question arises as to whether the *common ancestor* also possessed a claw. Did they? If they did, then the trait of the *claw* is homologous. If not, they are uniquely derived analogous traits. Does that make sense? No deductions here because you explored this well. I just want you to understand how specific this actually needs to be in two relatively closely related species.
4. (5/5) - Good images.
Analogy:
1. (5/5) - Great description.
2. (5/5) - Good. Well described and explained.
3. (5/5) - Great job on the tracing of ancestry. Well done.
4. (5/5) - Good images.
Your comparison of blue crabs to American lobsters is really in depth and also clearly shows how they share a common ancestor with that homologous trait. I also enjoyed how you showed the differences between the two because of divergent evolution and their specific needs as a species. When describing your analogous trait, I enjoyed how you were able to clearly show that the eel and snake shared a common ancestor that had four limbs. This clearly showcases how the two species must have evolved to have no limbs independently, thus showcasing an analogous trait. Overall a really good response!
ReplyDelete