Analogous Traits
Analogous structures in Biology are structures that share a similar
form and function but have different origins. Analogous structures developed
separately from similar selection pressures as opposed to being from common
descent. An example of an analogous
structure is the patagium [P], or membrane that allows certain gliding species
to glide. The Sugar glider of Australia
and Flying Squirrel of North America both possess this gliding structure.
Flying Squirrel |
The North American flying squirrel is a small, arboreal
rodent found throughout northern United States and Canada. It is nocturnal and omnivorous. Their known
predators list includes hawks, owls, snakes, martens, weasels, coyotes and even
domestic cats. Their survival strategies include their alertness, being active
at night, and their agility in the trees.
This agility includes flight, or gliding to be more accurate.
Sugar Glider |
Australia began to separate from Godwanda at the beginning of the age of mammals some 55 Mya. Long before this special adaptation could have been shared.
The Sugar Glider is not even a squirrel at all. It’s actually a type of possum, a marsupial or monotreme. They raise their young in pouches like kangaroos and have a mildly prehensile tail like other possums. The Flying Squirrel is a rodent and a placental mammal.
The geographical separation dictates that their most common ancestor must have been prior to this continental shift. This assertion is supported by their genetic differences and other physical traits. The common ancestor of the Sugar Glider and Flying Squirrel did not possess a Patagium but this trait was such an advantage that it developed separately at least twice. Their striking similarity is a testament to the universal exploitation of a pragmatic solution. Which is just to say, this “flying tree-rat” thing has really taken off.
Homologous Traits
Homologous structures are structures that share similarities
because the species in question share a common ancestor. While the challenge in
analogy is to find a conspicuous similarity and demonstrate separate origin,
the challenge in homology is the inverse. So I ask you what similarity could
there be between and man and a bullfrog? Incredibly enough as different as
these two species are, they share a striking number of homologous features.
Bilateral symmetry, skeletal morphology, and tetrapody to name just a few. Their
anatomical similarities are so great that basic courses in biology often use
the dissection of these amphibians to teach basic internal anatomy. However
some of their most surprising homologies are not in their anatomy but in their
physiology.
The Bullfrog is an aquatic amphibian that lives over most of
North America. They nocturnal predators that ambush their prey. They will eat
just about anything they can get in their mouth including insects, mice, fish,
snakes and smaller frogs. Males are highly territorial and will aggressively
guard their area. Females are slightly larger than males.
Typical adult male Human with juveniles. |
This is again identical to humans but for the minor difference that a frog’s red blood cell are nucleated and humans are not. This is likely because we are endotherms and our oxygen demand is much greater than that of frogs and other ectotherms. The de-nucleated allows for greater oxygen carrying capacity. This appears to be an adaptation of our inherited system.
Nucleated Frog Red Blood cells |
Human Red Blood cells |
Following circulation through the lungs the oxygenated blood is sent back to the hearts left atrium and pumped into the ventricle. From here the blood is pumped systemically through an aorta, arteries, arterioles and then to capillaries. The blood oxygenates the tissues and makes its way back via venous return. All of this is the same as human anatomy and physiology.
Actual Frog EKG |
Because both the bullfrog and human share this cardio-pulmonary circulation it is obviously a very ancient oxygenation strategy. A common ancestor for such an ancient system is hard to know but it was likely an early type of dipnoi or lung fish. The fishes have similar blood circulation minus the pulmonary component. Lungfish are adapted to survive in pools that dried up occasionally. They have a modified swim bladder that can absorb oxygen. This is believed to be the precursor of a pulmonary system.
While lungfish are quite rare today there
are seven families of fossil lungfish known. Only two survived into the
Triassic (and still exist
today). Though Neoceratodus is found only in Australia,
fossils of that genus and the related Ceratodus have been found almost
worldwide in Mesozoic strata. This indicates that they once had a much wider distribution.
These lungfish were the harbingers of the tetrapods and quite likely the early
pioneers in this whole pulmonary circulation strategy. This pulmonary
circulation may have begun as an adaptation that allowed some fish to survive
dry periods, but this variation ultimately allowed for animals through adaptive
radiation to conquer a huge untapped terrestrial realm.
While every living thing can ultimately be traced back to a
common ancestor, not every anatomical
structure is a direct homology.
Pragmatism appear to rule the day in the natural realm. When a system works and performs its function
it gives that organism an interim survival advantage. The organism doesn’t have
the option to scrap a system and engineer a redesign. Incremental improvement
on existing structures is the only option. Despite this restriction structures
that are useful in one ecological niche are likely useful in a similar niche
elsewhere. A “really good solution” to a problem is just that, a “really good
solution.” That means it conveys a survival advantage. We probably shouldn’t be surprised that
similar really good solutions (i.e. analogous structures) recur when separated
geographically or temporally, given sufficient the time for selection pressure
to act. If necessity is the mother of
invention, there is no greater necessity than survival.
Really informative post. You did a really thorough job describing the animals you chose and the reasons for their evolutionary changes. For instance, the information you provided about geographical changes resulting in the differences between flying squirrels and sugar gliders was both interesting and educational. The style in which you chose to lay out your information made it really easy to read and understand. Great work!
ReplyDeleteUh... wow. :-) Very well done. Thorough, clear, well-written, all points addressed (and then some) and interesting to read.
ReplyDeleteYour opening explanations for homologous and analogous traits made it very clear that you understand the differences between these two types of traits.
One of my favorite sections: "The organism doesn’t have the option to scrap a system and engineer a redesign. Incremental improvement on existing structures is the only option. "
Precisely correct. Natural selection is a tinkerer. It must work with what it has. It can't create and re-create from scratch.
Well done.
Ummm WOW came to my mind as well. Part of what made this very interesting for me was not only how well you wrote it but how you brought more into it than what was asked. If you had not posted pictures I would still have had a clear idea in my head of what these species looked like. Also to know that a human and the bullfrog share what is primarily the same EKG struck me as odd @ 1st until I remembered back to biology in high school and dissecting the frog. Another great aspect of your blog was how you were able to find the "Commonality" with the lungfish as your example. Again amazing way from presenting in my opinion!
ReplyDeleteI noticed everyone has said wow by just looking at your examples. You did an excellent job. I guess everyone used excellent pictures to help describe their traits. You made me feel as if this was a project. Don't get me wrong, i think yours was perfect! Keep up the excellent work.
ReplyDelete