Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T14:18:38.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - A developmental basis for innovative evolution of the turtle shell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2012

Robert J. Asher
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Johannes Müller
Affiliation:
Museum für Naturkunde; Humboldt Universität zu Berlin
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Turtles are characterized by the possession of shells. For acquisition of this structure, this animal group appears to have undergone various types of anatomical changes in their body plan, not only in their skeletal system, but also in the muscular, nervous and respiratory systems (Bojanus 1819; Thomson 1932). These features often lead to confusion in determining homology, especially of amniote ribs, as well as in establishing the phylogenetic position of this animal group (Goodrich 1930; Remane 1936). To understand the origins of the morphology of turtles, a number of embryologists and morphologists have studied their embryonic developmental patterns (e.g. Rathke 1848; Agassiz 1857; Mitsukuri and Ishikawa 1887; Mitsukuri 1894, 1896; Ogushi 1911, 1913; Ruckes 1929; Walker 1947; Burke 1989, 1991; Gilbert et al. 2001, 2008; Nagashima et al. 2005, 2007; 2009; Sánchez-Villagra et al. 2009; Werneburg et al. 2009; reviewed by Gilbert et al. 2008; Kuratani et al. 2011).

The phylogenetic position of turtles remains controversial, but considerable progress has been made. Although recent molecular phylogenetics and genomic analyses have placed this taxon close to or even within the archosaurians, including birds and crocodiles (Caspers et al. 1996; Zardoya and Meyer 1998, 2001; Hedges and Poling 1999; Kumazawa and Nishida 1999; Mannen and Li 1999; Mindell et al. 1999; Cao et al. 2000; Iwabe et al. 2005; Matsuda et al. 2005; Kuraku et al. 2006; Hugall et al. 2007; Chapus and Edwards 2009), morphological analyses do not always agree with this conclusion (reviewed by Kuratani et al. 2011). However, some early embryologists supported an affinity to archosaurians (Haeckel 1891; de Beer 1937; see also Figure 1.1 in Asher and Müller, this volume).

Information

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×