Hubbry Logo
Fish finFish finMain
Open search
Fish fin
Community hub
Fish fin
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Fish fin
Fish fin
from Wikipedia

Ray fins on a teleost fish, Hector's lanternfish
(1) pectoral fins (paired), (2) pelvic fins (paired), (3) dorsal fin,
(4) adipose fin, (5) anal fin, (6) caudal (tail) fin

Fins are moving appendages protruding from the body of fish that interact with water to generate thrust and lift, which help the fish swim. Apart from the tail or caudal fin, fish fins have no direct articulations with the axial skeleton and are attached to the core only via muscles and ligaments.

Fish fins are distinctive anatomical features with varying internal structures among different clades: in ray-finned fish (Actinopterygii), fins are mainly composed of spreading bony spines or "rays" covered by a thin stretch of scaleless skin, resembling a folding fan; in lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygii) such as coelacanths and lungfish, fins are short rays based around a muscular central bud internally supported by a jointed appendicular skeleton; in cartilaginous fish (Chondrichthyes) and jawless fish (Agnatha), fins are fleshy "flippers" supported by a cartilaginous skeleton. The limbs of tetrapods, a mostly terrestrial clade evolved from freshwater lobe-finned fish, are homologous to the pectoral and pelvic fins of all jawed fish.

Fins at different locations of the fish body serve different functions, and are divided into two groups: the midsagittal unpaired fins and the more laterally located paired fins. Unpaired fins are predominantly associated with generating linear acceleration via oscillating propulsion, as well as providing directional stability; while paired fins are used for generating paddling acceleration, deceleration, and differential thrust or lift for turning, surfacing or diving and rolling. Fins can also be used for other locomotions other than swimming, for example, flying fish use pectoral fins for gliding flight above water surface, and frogfish and many amphibious fishes (e.g. mudskippers) use pectoral and/or pelvic fins for crawling. Fins can also be used for other purposes: remoras and gobies have evolved sucker-like dorsal and pelvic fins for attaching to surfaces and "hitchhiking"; male sharks and mosquitofish use modified pelvic fins known as claspers to deliver semen during mating; thresher sharks use their caudal fin to whip and stun prey; reef stonefish have spines in their dorsal fins that inject venom as an anti-predator defense; anglerfish use the first spine of their dorsal fin like a fishing rod to lure prey; and triggerfish avoid predators by squeezing into coral crevices and using spines in their fins to anchor themselves in place.

Types of fins

[edit]

Fins can either be paired or unpaired. The pectoral and pelvic fins are paired, whereas the dorsal, anal and caudal fins are unpaired and situated along the midline of the body. For every type of fin, there are a number of fish species in which this particular fin has been lost during evolution (e.g. pelvic fins in Bobasatrania, caudal fin in ocean sunfish). In some clades, additional unpaired fins were acquired during evolution (e.g. additional dorsal fins, adipose fin). In some Acanthodii ("spiny sharks"), one or more pairs of "intermediate" or "prepelvic" spines are present between the pectoral and pelvic fins, but these are not associated with fins.

Pectoral fins
(Arm fins)
The paired pectoral fins are located on each side, usually kept folded just behind the operculum, and are homologous to the forelimbs of quadrupedal tetrapods or the upper limbs of bipedal tetrapods.
  • A peculiar function of pectoral fins, highly developed in some fish, is the creation of the dynamic lifting force that assists some fish, such as sharks, in maintaining depth and also enables the "flight" for flying fish
  • In many fish, the pectoral fins aid in walking, especially in the lobe-like fins of some anglerfish and in the mudskipper (see also walking fish)
  • Certain rays of the pectoral fins may be adapted into finger-like projections, such as in sea robins and flying gurnards
  • In skates and rays, the pectoral fins are used for propulsion (rajiform propulsion)
    • The "horns" of manta rays and their relatives are called cephalic fins; this is actually a modification of the anterior portion of the pectoral fin
Pelvic / Ventral fins
(Belly fins)
The paired pelvic or ventral fins are the belly fins (from Latin venter 'belly') are typically located ventrally below and behind the pectoral fins, although in many fish families they may be positioned in front of the pectoral fins (e.g. cods). They are homologous to the hindlimbs of quadrupedal tetrapods or the lower limbs of bipedal tetrapods.

The pelvic fin assists the fish in going up or down through the water, turning sharply, and stopping quickly.

  • In gobies, the pelvic fins are often fused into a single sucker disk. This can be used to attach to objects[1]
  • Pelvic fins can take many positions along the ventral surface of the fish. The ancestral abdominal position is seen in (for example) the minnows; the thoracic position in sunfish; and the jugular position, when the pelvics are anterior to the pectoral fins, as seen in the burbot[2]
Dorsal fin
(Spinal fins)
Dorsal fin of a shark
Dorsal fin of a chub (Squalius cephalus)

The dorsal fins are located on the back. A fish can have up to three dorsal fins. The dorsal fins serve to protect the fish against rolling, and assist it in sudden turns and stops.

  • In anglerfish, the anterior of the dorsal fin is modified into an illicium and esca, a biological equivalent to a fishing rod and lure
  • The bones that support the dorsal fin are called pterygiophores. There are two to three of them: "proximal" (axonosts), "middle" (baseosts), and "distal". In rock-hard, spinous fins the distal pterygiophores are often fused to the middle ones, or not present at all
  • Gymnarchus uses only its dorsal fin for propulsion
  • Boxfish, pufferfish and ocean sunfish use their dorsal fin in combination with their anal fin for propulsion (tetraodontiform propulsion)
Anal/cloacal fin The anal/cloacal fin is located on the ventral surface behind the anus/cloaca.
  • The bones that support the anal fin are called pterygiophores. There are up to two series, a proximal series (axonosts) and a distal series (baseosts)
  • Most fish use their anal fin to stabilize while swimming
  • Knifefish use their anal fins for thrust (gymnotiform propulsion)
  • Boxfish, pufferfish and ocean sunfish use their anal fin in combination with their dorsal fin for propulsion (tetraodontiform propulsion)
Adipose fin
Adipose fin of a trout
The adipose fin is a soft, fleshy fin found on the back behind the dorsal fin and just forward of the caudal fin. It is absent in many fish families, but found in nine of the 31 euteleostean orders (Percopsiformes, Myctophiformes, Aulopiformes, Stomiiformes, Salmoniformes, Osmeriformes, Characiformes, Siluriformes and Argentiniformes).[3] Famous representatives of these orders are salmon, characids and catfish.

The function of the adipose fin is something of a mystery. It is frequently clipped off to mark hatchery-raised fish, though data from 2005 showed that trout with their adipose fin removed have an 8% higher tailbeat frequency.[4][5] Additional information released in 2011 has suggested that the fin may be vital for the detection of, and response to, stimuli such as touch, sound and changes in pressure. Canadian researchers identified a neural network in the fin, indicating that it likely has a sensory function, but are still not sure exactly what the consequences of removing it are.[6][7]

A comparative study in 2013 indicates the adipose fin can develop in two different ways. One is the salmoniform-type way, where the adipose fin develops from the larval-fin fold at the same time and in the same direct manner as the other median fins. The other is the characiform-type way, where the adipose fin develops late after the larval-fin fold has diminished and the other median fins have developed. They claim the existence of the characiform-type of development suggests the adipose fin is not "just a larval fin fold remainder" and is inconsistent with the view that the adipose fin lacks function.[3]

Research published in 2014 indicates that the adipose fin has evolved repeatedly in separate lineages.[8]

Caudal fin
(Tail fin)


Heterocercal caudal fin (A)


Homocercal caudal fin (C)
The caudal fin is the tail fin (from the Latin cauda meaning tail), located at the end of the caudal peduncle. It is used for propulsion in most taxa (see also body-caudal fin locomotion). The tail fin is supported by the vertebrae of the axial skeleton and pterygiophores (radials). Depending on the relationship with the axial skeleton, four types of caudal fins (A-D) are distinguished:

(A) - Heterocercal means the vertebrae extend into the upper lobe of the tail, often making it longer than the lower lobe (as in sharks, Placodermi, most stem Actinopterygii, and sturgeons and paddlefish). However, the external shape of heterocercal tail fins can also appear symmetric (e.g. Birgeria, Bobasatrania). Heterocercal is the opposite of hypocercal

  • Hypocercal, also known as reversed heterocercal, means that the vertebrae extend into the lower lobe of the tail, making it longer than the upper lobe (as in the Anaspida). It is the opposite of heterocercal.[9]
  • Hemiheterocercal refers to a condition that is intermediate between heterocercal and homocercal (see below), where the vertebrae do not extend to the tip the upper lobe (e.g. in stem Neopterygii)[10]

(B) - Protocercal means the vertebrae extend to the tip of the tail and the tail is symmetrical but not expanded (as in the first fishes and the cyclostomes, and a more primitive precursor in lancelets)

(C) - Homocercal where the fin usually appears superficially symmetric but in fact the vertebrae extend for a very short distance into the upper lobe of the fin. Homocercal caudal fins can, however, also appear asymmetric (e.g. blue flying fish). Most modern fishes (teleosts) have a homocercal tail. These come in a variety of shapes, and can appear:

  • rounded or pointed (e.g. round goby)
  • truncated, ending in a more-or-less vertical edge (e.g. trout)
  • emarginate, ending with a slight inward curve (e.g. Eurasian carp)
  • forked, ending in two prongs (e.g. catla)
  • lunate or shaped like a crescent moon (e.g. swordfish)

(D) - Diphycercal means the vertebrae extend to the tip of the tail and the tail is symmetrical and expanded (as in the bichir, lungfish, lamprey, coelacanths and Tarrasiiformes). Most Palaeozoic fishes had a diphycercal heterocercal tail.[11]

Caudal keel


Finlets
Some types of fast-swimming fish have a horizontal caudal keel just forward of the tail fin. Much like the keel of a ship, this is a lateral ridge on the caudal peduncle, usually composed of scutes (see below), that provides stability and support to the caudal fin. There may be a single paired keel, one on each side, or two pairs above and below.

Finlets are small fins, generally behind the dorsal and anal fins (in bichirs, there are only finlets on the dorsal surface and no dorsal fin). In some fish such as tuna or sauries, they are rayless, non-retractable, and found between the last dorsal and/or anal fin and the caudal fin.

Bony fishes

[edit]
Skeleton of a lingcod, a ray-finned fish

Bony fishes (Actinopterygii and Sarcopterygii) form a taxonomic group called Osteichthyes (or Euteleostomi, which includes also land vertebrates); they have skeletons made of bone mostly, and can be contrasted with cartilaginous fishes (see below), which have skeletons made mainly of cartilage (except for their teeth, fin spines, and denticles).

Bony fishes are divided into ray-finned and lobe-finned fish. Most living fish are ray-finned, an extremely diverse and abundant group consisting of over 30,000 species. It is the largest class of vertebrates in existence today, making up more than 50% of species.[13] In the distant past, lobe-finned fish were abundant; however, there are currently only eight species.

Bony fish have fin spines called lepidotrichia or "rays" (due to how the spines spread open). They typically have swim bladders, which allow the fish to alter the relative density of its body and thus the buoyancy, so it can sink or float without having to use the fins to swim up and down.[14] However, swim bladders are absent in many fish, most notably in lungfishes, who have evolved their swim bladders into primitive lungs,[15] which may have a shared evolutionary origin with those of their terrestrial relatives, the tetrapods.[16] Bony fishes also have a pair of opercula that function to draw water across the gills, which help them breathe without needing to swim forward to force the water into the mouth across the gills.[14]

Lobe-fins

[edit]
Lobe-finned fishes, like this coelacanth, have fins that are borne on a fleshy, lobe-like, scaly stalk extending from the body. Due to the high number of fins it possesses, the coelacanth has high manoeuvrability and can orient its body in almost any direction in the water.
Pectoral fin with fleshy lobe of Latimeria chalumnae (Citron / CC-BY-SA-3.0)
Skeleton of the pectoral girdle and fin of the extant coelacanth Latimeria chalumnae (Citron / CC-BY-SA-3.0)

Lobe-finned fishes form a class of bony fishes called Sarcopterygii. They have fleshy, lobed, paired fins, which are joined to the body by a series of bones.[17] The fins of lobe-finned fish differ from those of all other fish in that each is borne on a fleshy, lobe-like, scaly stalk extending from the body. Pectoral and pelvic fins have articulations resembling those of tetrapod limbs. These fins evolved into legs of the first tetrapod land vertebrates (amphibians) in the Devonian Period. Sarcopterygians also possess two dorsal fins with separate bases, as opposed to the single dorsal fin of most ray-finned fish (except some teleosts). The caudal fin is either heterocercal (only fossil taxa) or diphycercal.

The coelacanth is one type of living lobe-finned fish. Both extant members of this group, the West Indian Ocean coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) and the Indonesian coelacanth (Latimeria menadoensis), are found in the genus Latimeria. Coelacanths are thought to have evolved roughly into their current form about 408 million years ago, during the early Devonian.[18]

Locomotion of the coelacanths is unique to their kind. To move around, coelacanths most commonly take advantage of up or downwellings of the current and drift. They use their paired fins to stabilise their movement through the water. While on the ocean floor their paired fins are not used for any kind of movement. Coelacanths can create thrust for quick starts by using their caudal fins. Due to the high number of fins they possess, coelacanths have high manoeuvrability and can orient their bodies in almost any direction in the water. They have been seen doing headstands and swimming belly up. It is thought that their rostral organ helps give the coelacanth electroperception, which aids in their movement around obstacles.[19]

Lungfish are also living lobe-finned fish. They occur in Africa (Protopterus), Australia (Neoceratodus), and South America (Lepidosiren). Lungfish evolved during the Devonian Period. Genetic studies and palaeontological data confirm that lungfish are the closest living relatives of land vertebrates.[20]

Fin arrangement and body shape is relatively conservative in lobe-finned fishes. However, there are a few examples from the fossil record that show aberrant morphologies, such as Allenypterus, Rebellatrix, Foreyia or the tetrapodomorphs.

Diversity of fins in lobe-finned fishes

[edit]

Ray-fins

[edit]
The haddock, a type of cod, is ray-finned. It has three dorsal and two anal fins

Ray-finned fishes form a class of bony fishes called Actinopterygii. Their fins contain spines or rays. A fin may contain only spiny rays, only soft rays, or a combination of both.[a] If both are present, the spiny rays are always anterior. Spines are generally stiff and sharp. Rays are generally soft, flexible, segmented, and may be branched. This segmentation of rays is the main difference that separates them from spines; spines may be flexible in certain species,[22]: 3  but they will never be segmented.[23][24]: 62–63 

Spines have a variety of uses. In catfish, they are used as a form of defense; many catfish have the ability to lock their spines outwards. Triggerfish also use spines to lock themselves in crevices to prevent them being pulled out.

Lepidotrichia are usually composed of bone, but those of early osteichthyans - such as Cheirolepis - also had dentine and enamel.[25] They are segmented and appear as a series of disks stacked one on top of another. They may have been derived from dermal scales.[25] The genetic basis for the formation of the fin rays is thought to be genes coded for the production of certain proteins. It has been suggested that the evolution of the tetrapod limb from lobe-finned fishes is related to the loss of these proteins.[26]

Diversity of fins in ray-finned fishes

[edit]

Cartilaginous fishes

[edit]
Cartilaginous fishes, like this shark, have fins that are elongated and supported with soft and unsegmented rays named ceratotrichia, filaments of elastic protein resembling the horny keratin in hair and feathers.
Caudal fin of a grey reef shark

Cartilaginous fishes form a class of fishes called Chondrichthyes. They have skeletons made of cartilage rather than bone. The class includes sharks, rays and chimaeras.

Shark fin skeletons are elongated and supported with soft and unsegmented rays named ceratotrichia, filaments of elastic protein resembling the horny keratin in hair and feathers.[27] Originally the pectoral and pelvic girdles, which do not contain any dermal elements, did not connect. In later forms, each pair of fins became ventrally connected in the middle when scapulocoracoid and puboischiadic bars evolved. In rays, the pectoral fins have connected to the head and are very flexible. One of the primary characteristics present in most sharks is the heterocercal tail, which aids in locomotion.[28] Most sharks have eight fins. Sharks can only drift away from objects directly in front of them because their fins do not allow them to move in the tail-first direction.[29]

Unlike modern cartilaginous fish, members of stem chondrichthyan lineages (e.g. the climatiids and the diplacanthids)[30] possessed pectoral dermal plates as well as dermal spines associated with the paired fins. The oldest species demonstrating these features is the acanthodian Fanjingshania renovata[31] from the lower Silurian (Aeronian) of China. Fanjingshania possess compound pectoral plates composed of dermal scales fused to a bony plate and fin spines formed entirely of bone. Fin spines associated with the dorsal fins are rare among extant cartilaginous fishes, but are present, for instance, in Heterodontus or Squalus. Dorsal fin spines are typically developed in many fossil groups, such as in Hybodontiformes, Ctenacanthiformes or Xenacanthida. In Stethacanthus, the first dorsal fin spine was modified, forming a spine-brush complex.

As with most fish, the tails of sharks provide thrust, making speed and acceleration dependent on tail shape. Caudal fin shapes vary considerably between shark species, due to their evolution in separate environments. Sharks possess a heterocercal caudal fin in which the dorsal portion is usually noticeably larger than the ventral portion. This is because the shark's vertebral column extends into that dorsal portion, providing a greater surface area for muscle attachment. This allows more efficient locomotion among these negatively buoyant cartilaginous fish. By contrast, most bony fish possess a homocercal caudal fin.[32]

Tiger sharks have a large upper lobe, which allows for slow cruising and sudden bursts of speed. The tiger shark must be able to twist and turn in the water easily when hunting to support its varied diet, whereas the porbeagle shark, which hunts schooling fish such as mackerel and herring, has a large lower lobe to help it keep pace with its fast-swimming prey.[13] Other tail adaptations help sharks catch prey more directly, such as the thresher shark's usage of its powerful, elongated upper lobe to stun fish and squid.

On the other hand, rays rely on their enlarged pectoral fins for propulsion. Similarly enlarged pectoral fins can be found in the extinct Petalodontiformes (e.g. Belantsea, Janassa, Menaspis), which belong to Holocephali (ratfish and their fossil relatives), or in Aquilolamna (Selachimorpha) and Squatinactis (Squatinactiformes). Some cartilaginous fishes have an eel-like locomotion (e.g. Chlamydoselachus, Thrinacoselache,[33] Phoebodus[34])

Diversity of fins in cartilaginous fishes

[edit]

Shark finning

[edit]
Shark fin

According to the Humane Society International, approximately 100 million sharks are killed each year for their fins, in an act known as shark finning.[35] After the fins are cut off, the mutilated sharks are thrown back in the water and left to die.

In some countries of Asia, shark fins are a culinary delicacy, such as shark fin soup.[36] Currently, international concerns over the sustainability and welfare of sharks have impacted consumption and availability of shark fin soup worldwide.[37] Shark finning is prohibited in many countries.

Fin functions

[edit]

Generating thrust

[edit]

Foil shaped fins generate thrust when moved, the lift of the fin sets water or air in motion and pushes the fin in the opposite direction. Aquatic animals get significant thrust by moving fins back and forth in water. Often the tail fin is used, but some aquatic animals generate thrust from pectoral fins.[38]

Moving fins can provide thrust
Fish get thrust moving vertical tail fins from side to side.
Stingrays get thrust from large pectoral fins.
Drawing by Dr Tony Ayling
Finlets may influence the way a vortex develops around the tail fin.

Cavitation occurs when negative pressure causes bubbles (cavities) to form in a liquid, which then promptly and violently collapse. It can cause significant damage and wear.[39] Cavitation damage can occur to the tail fins of powerful swimming marine animals, such as dolphins and tuna. Cavitation is more likely to occur near the surface of the ocean, where the ambient water pressure is relatively low. Even if they have the power to swim faster, dolphins may have to restrict their speed because collapsing cavitation bubbles on their tail are too painful.[40] Cavitation also slows tuna, but for a different reason. Unlike dolphins, these fish do not feel the bubbles, because they have bony fins without nerve endings. Nevertheless, they cannot swim faster because the cavitation bubbles create a vapor film around their fins that limits their speed. Lesions have been found on tuna that are consistent with cavitation damage.[40]

Scombrid fishes (tuna, mackerel and bonito) are particularly high-performance swimmers. Along the margin at the rear of their bodies is a line of small rayless, non-retractable fins, known as finlets. There has been much speculation about the function of these finlets. Research done in 2000 and 2001 by Nauen and Lauder indicated that "the finlets have a hydrodynamic effect on local flow during steady swimming" and that "the most posterior finlet is oriented to redirect flow into the developing tail vortex, which may increase thrust produced by the tail of swimming mackerel".[41][42][43]

Fish use multiple fins, so it is possible that a given fin can have a hydrodynamic interaction with another fin. In particular, the fins immediately upstream of the caudal (tail) fin may be proximate fins that can directly affect the flow dynamics at the caudal fin. In 2011, researchers using volumetric imaging techniques were able to generate "the first instantaneous three-dimensional views of wake structures as they are produced by freely swimming fishes". They found that "continuous tail beats resulted in the formation of a linked chain of vortex rings" and that "the dorsal and anal fin wakes are rapidly entrained by the caudal fin wake, approximately within the timeframe of a subsequent tail beat".[44]

Controlling motion

[edit]

Once motion has been established, the motion itself can be controlled with the use of other fins.[38][45]

Specialised fins are used to control motion
Like boats and airplanes, fish need some control over six degrees of freedom, three translational (heaving, swaying and surging) and three rotational (pitching, yawing and rolling).[46][47][48]
Many reef fish have pectoral and pelvic fins optimised for flattened bodies.[49]
The dorsal fin of a white shark contain dermal fibers that work "like riggings that stabilize a ship's mast", and stiffen dynamically as the shark swims faster to control roll and yaw.[50]

The bodies of reef fishes are often shaped differently from open water fishes. Open water fishes are usually built for speed, streamlined like torpedoes to minimise friction as they move through the water. Reef fish operate in the relatively confined spaces and complex underwater landscapes of coral reefs. For this manoeuvrability is more important than straight line speed, so coral reef fish have developed bodies which optimise their ability to dart and change direction. They outwit predators by dodging into fissures in the reef or playing hide and seek around coral heads.[49] The pectoral and pelvic fins of many reef fish, such as butterflyfish, damselfish and angelfish, have evolved so they can act as brakes and allow complex manoeuvres.[51] Many reef fish, such as butterflyfish, damselfish and angelfish, have evolved bodies which are deep and laterally compressed like a pancake, and will fit into fissures in rocks. Their pelvic and pectoral fins have evolved differently, so they act together with the flattened body to optimise manoeuvrability.[49] Some fishes, such as puffer fish, filefish and trunkfish, rely on pectoral fins for swimming and hardly use tail fins at all.[51]

Reproduction

[edit]
This male mosquitofish has a gonopodium, an anal fin which functions as an intromittent organ.[52][53]
This young male spinner shark has claspers, a modification to the pelvic fins which also function as intromittent organs.

Male cartilaginous fishes (sharks and rays), as well as the males of some live-bearing ray finned fishes, have fins that have been modified to function as intromittent organs, reproductive appendages which allow internal fertilization. In ray finned fish, they are called gonopodia or andropodia, and in cartilaginous fish, they are called claspers.

Gonopodia are found on the males of some species in the Anablepidae and Poeciliidae families. They are anal fins that have been modified to function as movable intromittent organs and are used to impregnate females with milt during mating. The third, fourth and fifth rays of the male's anal fin are formed into a tube-like structure in which the sperm of the fish is ejected.[54] When ready for mating, the gonopodium becomes erect and points forward towards the female. The male shortly inserts the organ into the sex opening of the female, with hook-like adaptations that allow the fish to grip onto the female to ensure impregnation. If a female remains stationary and her partner contacts her vent with his gonopodium, she is fertilised. The sperm is preserved in the female's oviduct. This allows females to fertilise themselves at any time without further assistance from males. In some species, the gonopodium may be half the total body length. Occasionally, the fin is too long to be used, as in the "lyretail" breeds of Xiphophorus helleri. Hormone treated females may develop gonopodia. These are useless for breeding.

Similar organs with similar characteristics are found in other fishes, for example the andropodium in the Hemirhamphodon or in the Goodeidae[55] or the gonopodium in the Middle Triassic Saurichthys, the oldest known example of viviparity in a ray-finned fish.[56]

Claspers are found on the males of cartilaginous fishes. They are the posterior part of the pelvic fins that have also been modified to function as intromittent organs, and are used to channel semen into the female's cloaca during copulation. The act of mating in sharks usually includes raising one of the claspers to allow water into a siphon through a specific orifice. The clasper is then inserted into the cloaca, where it opens like an umbrella to anchor its position. The siphon then begins to contract expelling water and sperm.[57][58]

Other functions

[edit]

Other uses of fins include walking and perching on the sea floor, gliding over water, cooling of body temperature, stunning of prey, display (scaring of predators, courtship), defence (venomous fin spines, locking between corals), luring of prey, and attachment structures.

The Indo-Pacific sailfish has a prominent dorsal fin. Like scombroids and other billfish, they streamline themselves by retracting their dorsal fins into a groove in their body when they swim.[59] The huge dorsal fin, or sail, of the sailfish is kept retracted most of the time. Sailfish raise them if they want to herd a school of small fish, and also after periods of high activity, presumably to cool down.[59][60]

Other uses of fins
Frogfish use their pectoral and pelvic fins to walk along the ocean bottom.[61]
Flying fish achieve sufficient lift to glide above the surface of the water thanks to their enlarged pectoral fins.
Large retractable dorsal fin of the Indo-Pacific sailfish, possibly used for cooling (thermoregulation).
The thresher shark uses its very elongated caudal fin to stun prey.
Species of tripod fish Bathypterois have elongated pectoral and pelvic fins, and an elongated caudal fin, which allow them to move and perch on the ocean floor.

The oriental flying gurnard has large pectoral fins which it normally holds against its body, and expands when threatened to scare predators. Despite its name, it is a demersal fish, not a flying fish, and uses its pelvic fins to walk along the bottom of the ocean.[62][63]

Fins can have an adaptive significance as sexual ornaments. During courtship, the female cichlid, Pelvicachromis taeniatus, displays a large and visually arresting purple pelvic fin. "The researchers found that males clearly preferred females with a larger pelvic fin and that pelvic fins grew in a more disproportionate way than other fins on female fish."[64][65]

Other uses of fins
The Oriental flying gurnard has large pectoral fins with eye spots which it displays to scare predators.
During courtship, the female cichlid, Pelvicachromis taeniatus, displays her visually arresting purple pelvic fin.
Triggerfish squeeze into coral crevices to avoid predators, and lock themselves in place with the first spine of their dorsal fin.[66]
The first spine of the dorsal fin of the anglerfish is modified so it functions like a fishing rod with a lure to attract prey.
Remoras have modified first dorsal fins, which take the form of an oval, sucker-like organ with which they attach themselves to other marine organisms.
Lionfish have venomous spines (fin rays) on their dorsal, pelvic and anal fins, which they use for defense.

Evolution

[edit]

Evolution of paired fins

[edit]

There are two prevailing hypotheses that have been historically debated as models for the evolution of paired fins in fish: the gill arch theory and the lateral fin-fold theory. The former, commonly referred to as the "Gegenbaur hypothesis," was posited in 1870 and proposes that the "paired fins are derived from gill structures".[67] This fell out of popularity in favour of the lateral fin-fold theory, first suggested in 1877, which proposes that paired fins budded from longitudinal, lateral folds along the epidermis just behind the gills.[68] There is weak support for both hypotheses in the fossil record and in embryology.[69] However, recent insights from developmental patterning have prompted reconsideration of both theories in order to better elucidate the origins of paired fins.

Classical theories

[edit]

Carl Gegenbaur's concept of the "Archipterygium" was introduced in 1876.[70] It was described as a gill ray, or "joined cartilaginous stem," that extended from the gill arch. Additional rays arose from along the arch and from the central gill ray. Gegenbaur suggested a model of transformative homology – that all vertebrate paired fins and limbs were transformations of the archipterygium. Based on this theory, paired appendages such as pectoral and pelvic fins would have differentiated from the branchial arches and migrated posteriorly. However, there has been limited support for this hypothesis in the fossil record both morphologically and phylogenically.[69] In addition, there was little to no evidence of an anterior-posterior migration of pelvic fins.[71] Such shortcomings of the gill-arch theory led to its early demise in favour of the lateral fin-fold theory proposed by St. George Jackson Mivart, Francis Balfour, and James Kingsley Thacher.

The lateral fin-fold theory hypothesised that paired fins developed from lateral folds along the body wall of the fish.[68] Just as segmentation and budding of the median fin fold gave rise to the median fins, a similar mechanism of fin bud segmentation and elongation from a lateral fin fold was proposed to have given rise to the paired pectoral and pelvic fins. However, there was little evidence of a lateral fold-to-fin transition in the fossil record.[72] In addition, it was later demonstrated phylogenically that pectoral and pelvic fins arise from distinct evolutionary and mechanistic origins.[69]

Evolutionary developmental biology

[edit]

Recent studies in the ontogeny and evolution of paired appendages have compared finless vertebrates – such as lampreys – with Chondrichthyes, the most basal living vertebrate with paired fins.[73] In 2006, researchers found that the same genetic programming involved in the segmentation and development of median fins was found in the development of paired appendages in catsharks.[74] Although these findings do not directly support the lateral fin-fold hypothesis, the original concept of a shared median-paired fin evolutionary developmental mechanism remains relevant.

A similar renovation of an old theory may be found in the developmental programming of chondricthyan gill arches and paired appendages. In 2009, researchers at the University of Chicago demonstrated that there are shared molecular patterning mechanisms in the early development of the chondricthyan gill arch and paired fins.[75] Findings such as these have prompted reconsideration of the once-debunked gill-arch theory.[72]

From fins to limbs

[edit]

Fish are the ancestors of all mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians.[76] In particular, terrestrial tetrapods (four-legged animals) evolved from fish and made their first forays onto land about 390 million years ago.[77] They used paired pectoral and pelvic fins for locomotion. The pectoral fins developed into forelegs (arms in the case of humans) and the pelvic fins developed into hind legs.[78] Much of the genetic machinery that builds a walking limb in a tetrapod is already present in the swimming fin of a fish.[79][80]

Aristotle recognised the distinction between analogous and homologous structures, and made the following prophetic comparison: "Birds in a way resemble fishes. For birds have their wings in the upper part of their bodies and fishes have two fins in the front part of their bodies. Birds have feet on their underpart and most fishes have a second pair of fins in their under-part and near their front fins."

Comparison between A) the swimming fin of a lobe-finned fish and B) the walking leg of a tetrapod. Bones considered to correspond with each other have the same color.
In a parallel but independent evolution, the ancient reptile Ichthyosaurus communis developed fins (or flippers) very similar to fish (or dolphins).

In 2011, researchers at Monash University in Australia used primitive but still living lungfish "to trace the evolution of pelvic fin muscles to find out how the load-bearing hind limbs of the tetrapods evolved."[82][83] Further research at the University of Chicago found bottom-walking lungfishes had already evolved characteristics of the walking gaits of terrestrial tetrapods.[84][85]

In a classic example of convergent evolution, the pectoral limbs of pterosaurs, birds and bats further evolved along independent paths into flying wings. Even with flying wings, there are many similarities with walking legs, and core aspects of the genetic blueprint of the pectoral fin have been retained.[86][87]

The first mammals appeared during the Triassic period (between 251.9 and 201.4 million years ago). Several groups of these mammals started returning to the sea, including the cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises). Recent DNA analysis suggests that cetaceans evolved from within the even-toed ungulates, and that they share a common ancestor with the hippopotamus.[88][89] About 23 million years ago, another group of bearlike land mammals started returning to the sea. These were the seals.[90] What had become walking limbs in cetaceans and seals evolved independently into new forms of swimming fins. The forelimbs became flippers, while the hindlimbs were either lost (cetaceans) or also modified into flipper (pinnipeds). In cetaceans, the tail gained two fins at the end, called a fluke.[91] Fish tails are usually vertical and move from side to side. Cetacean flukes are horizontal and move up and down, because cetacean spines bend the same way as in other mammals.[92][93]

Similar adaptations for fully aquatic lifestyle are found both in dolphins and ichthyosaurs.

Ichthyosaurs are ancient reptiles that resembled dolphins. They first appeared about 245 million years ago and disappeared about 90 million years ago.

"This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail fin for improved aquatic locomotion. These structures are all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothing — the ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to serve as a precursor."[94]

The biologist Stephen Jay Gould said the ichthyosaur was his favorite example of convergent evolution.[95]

Fins or flippers of varying forms and at varying locations (limbs, body, tail) have also evolved in a number of other tetrapod groups, including diving birds such as penguins (modified from wings), sea turtles (forelimbs modified into flippers), mosasaurs (limbs modified into flippers), and sea snakes (vertically expanded, flattened tail fin).

Robotic fins

[edit]
In the 1990s, the CIA built a robotic catfish called Charlie, designed to collect underwater intelligence undetected.[96]
External videos
video icon AquaPenguin - Festo, YouTube
video icon AquaRay - Festo, YouTube
video icon AquaJelly - Festo, YouTube
video icon AiraCuda - Festo, YouTube

The use of fins for the propulsion of aquatic animals can be remarkably effective. It has been calculated that some fish can achieve a propulsive efficiency greater than 90%.[38] Fish can accelerate and manoeuvre much more effectively than boats or submarine, and produce less water disturbance and noise. This has led to biomimetic studies of underwater robots which attempt to emulate the locomotion of aquatic animals.[97] An example is the Robot Tuna built by the Institute of Field Robotics, to analyze and mathematically model thunniform motion.[98] In 2005, the Sea Life London Aquarium displayed three robotic fish created by the computer science department at the University of Essex. The fish were designed to be autonomous, swimming around and avoiding obstacles like real fish. Their creator claimed that he was trying to combine "the speed of tuna, acceleration of a pike, and the navigating skills of an eel."[99][100][101]

The AquaPenguin, developed by Festo of Germany, copies the streamlined shape and propulsion by front flippers of penguins.[102][103] Festo also developed AquaRay,[104] AquaJelly[105] and AiraCuda,[106] respectively emulating the locomotion of manta rays, jellyfish and barracuda.

In 2004, Hugh Herr at MIT prototyped a biomechatronic robotic fish with a living actuator by surgically transplanting muscles from frog legs to the robot and then making the robot swim by pulsing the muscle fibers with electricity.[107][108]

Robotic fish offer some research advantages, such as the ability to examine an individual part of a fish design in isolation from the rest of the fish. However, this risks oversimplifying the biology so key aspects of the animal design are overlooked. Robotic fish also allow researchers to vary a single parameter, such as flexibility or a specific motion control. Researchers can directly measure forces, which is not easy to do in live fish. "Robotic devices also facilitate three-dimensional kinematic studies and correlated hydrodynamic analyses, as the location of the locomotor surface can be known accurately. And, individual components of a natural motion (such as outstroke vs. instroke of a flapping appendage) can be programmed separately, which is certainly difficult to achieve when working with a live animal."[109]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
A fish fin is a thin, flexible protruding from the body of aquatic vertebrates, primarily composed of a web of stretched over a framework of bony rays (lepidotrichia) or cartilaginous spines, enabling , balance, and maneuvering through water. Fins are categorized into unpaired median fins—dorsal (on the back), caudal (), and anal (ventral)—and paired pectoral and pelvic fins homologous to the fore- and hindlimbs of tetrapods. Certain taxa, such as salmonids and catfishes, possess an additional adipose fin, a soft, rayless of uncertain primary function but potentially aiding in stability or sensory roles. The structural diversity of fish fins directly influences locomotor efficiency, with ray-finned actinopterygians exhibiting segmented, branched lepidotrichia that allow precise control via intrinsic musculature at the fin base. Caudal fins generate thrust through oscillatory or undulatory motions, while pectoral and pelvic fins facilitate braking, turning, and hovering, particularly in demersal or reef-associated species. Evolutionarily, fins represent key innovations in locomotion, with paired fins emerging in early jawed fishes around 420 million years ago as precursors to limb development, evidenced by transitional fossils like Eusthenopteron and Tiktaalik. This permits adaptive radiations, as seen in the varied aspect ratios and asymmetries optimizing performance across habitats from open oceans to coral reefs.

Structure and Classification

Types of Fish Fins

Fish fins are broadly classified into unpaired (median) and paired types according to their anatomical position relative to the body's longitudinal axis. Unpaired fins, situated along the dorsal-ventral midline, include the (one or more structures on the back), the anal fin (on the ventral surface anterior to the tail), the caudal fin (at the posterior end), and the adipose fin (a fleshy dorsal structure lacking rays, present in certain groups like salmonids and catfishes). Paired fins comprise the pectoral fins (positioned laterally behind the covers) and pelvic fins (ventral, varying between abdominal and thoracic positions). This reflects standard ichthyological conventions for describing fin morphology across species. Structurally, fin support elements differ between major fish clades. In bony fishes (), particularly ray-finned species, fins are reinforced by lepidotrichia—segmented, often branched dermal rays originating from scale-like precursors that articulate with internal radials. Cartilaginous fishes (), however, feature ceratotrichia, which are unsegmented, horny fibers composed of that extend from cartilaginous radials without dermal . These ray types provide flexibility and strength tailored to swimming dynamics, with lepidotrichia enabling finer control in osteichthyans. Embryologically, all fins derive from transient epithelial folds during larval development. Median unpaired fins form through partitioning and differentiation of a continuous larval fin fold along the trunk and , while paired fins emerge from discrete lateral buds or folds that thicken into fin supported by endoskeletal elements. This fold-based origin underscores the conserved developmental module across jawed vertebrates, predating clade-specific elaborations.

Anatomical Composition

Fish fins consist of a flexible integumentary supported by an internal framework of skeletal elements, including fin rays and basal supports, with associated musculature enabling movement. The fin rays, often termed lepidotrichia in bony fishes, are dermal ossifications that form segmented, bilaminar structures branching from the fin base and interconnected by thin interray membranes of . These rays provide while allowing flexibility through hemisegments that overlap and articulate. Basal skeletal elements, such as radials or pterygia, anchor the fin rays to the internal girdle or vertebral column via in bony fishes, where models are replaced by . In cartilaginous fishes, fin supports rely on calcified prisms that mineralize without full , maintaining a lighter, more flexible . Musculature for fin actuation includes extrinsic muscles originating from the body wall and intrinsic muscles within the fin base, facilitating controlled bending and extension through attachment to these skeletal components. Sensory integration occurs via neuromasts embedded in the fin's epidermal layer, part of the system, which detect water flow and vibrations through hair cell mechanoreception. These elements enhance and environmental sensing during fin motion.

Diversity in Major Fish Groups

Bony Fishes ()

Bony fishes () encompass the most diverse vertebrate group, with fins adapted for propulsion, stability, and sensory functions across freshwater, marine, and brackish habitats. These fins typically feature bony skeletal supports, contrasting with the cartilaginous radials of chondrichthyans, and include paired pectoral and pelvic fins, unpaired dorsal, anal, and caudal fins, with some taxa possessing additional structures like the adipose fin. Representing over 96% of extant fish species, fins evolved from ancestors, enabling innovations in maneuverability and efficiency. Fin diversity in arises primarily from the divergence between its two subclasses: (ray-finned fishes) and (lobe-finned fishes). Ray-finned fishes, comprising more than 30,000 species, have fins formed by a web of over numerous lepidotrichia—bony, segmented, dermal rays that bifurcate distally and flex via hemisegments, facilitating undulatory waves for and . These lepidotrichia, a defining trait, connect to proximal radials and incorporate sensory nerves and erector muscles for dynamic control. Lobe-finned fishes, limited to eight living species (six lungfishes and two coelacanths), exhibit paired fins with fleshy, muscular lobes supported internally by endochondral bones, including a single basal element articulating with the girdle, followed by radials homologous to tetrapod limb elements. This structure supports weight-bearing and slow locomotion over substrates, differing from the lightweight, ray-supported fins of actinopterygians. Certain ray-finned lineages, such as salmonids and catfishes, additionally possess an adipose fin—a rayless, fleshy dorsal appendage between the dorsal and caudal fins, occurring in over 6,000 species and potentially functioning to dampen tail vortices or detect flow disturbances for enhanced caudal efficiency.

Lobe-finned Fishes ()

Lobe-finned fishes, comprising the , feature paired fins with fleshy, muscular lobes supported internally by a series of endochondral bones that articulate proximally via a single stout bone to the pectoral or pelvic girdle. This contrasts with the dermal ray-supported fins of actinopterygians, providing sarcopterygians with greater propulsive power and stability for substrate interaction. The unpaired fins in sarcopterygians, including dorsal, anal, and caudal varieties, generally resemble those of other bony fishes but often integrate with the lobed paired fins to enhance overall maneuverability. Originating in the around 419 million years ago, these fin structures enabled early sarcopterygians to navigate shallow, vegetated waters and mud substrates, adaptations evident in fossils like foordi from approximately 385 million years ago. Extant sarcopterygians consist of two coelacanth species ( chalumnae and L. menadoensis) and six lungfish species across four genera: one Australian (Neoceratodus forsteri), one South American (Lepidosiren paradoxa), and four African ( spp.). In coelacanths, the lobed pectoral fins extend anteriorly like limbs, supported by a basipterygium and incorporating some fin rays distally for flexibility in deep-water hovering. Lungfishes possess robust, digit-like paired fins suited for "walking" along riverbeds and supporting terrestrial excursions during droughts. These fin morphologies underscore sarcopterygian contributions to , with the internal skeletal elements prefiguring the autopodial structures of limbs, as seen in transitional forms like Tiktaalik roseae from 375 million years ago.
Diversity and Adaptations
Lobe-finned fishes () display fin diversity primarily between coelacanths and lungfishes, with paired fins featuring fleshy lobes supported by an internal bony endoskeleton rather than external rays. This structure enables greater muscular control and weight-bearing capacity compared to ray-finned fishes. In coelacanths (genus , two extant species), pectoral and pelvic fins are robust, limb-like appendages with segmented elements including mesomeres, pre-axial radials, and post-axial accessories, developing early in embryogenesis with radial outward growth and reorientation of the girdle. Coelacanth fins adapt for slow, precise locomotion in deep-sea environments around 200 meters, where paired fins execute alternating downstrokes synchronized with unpaired lobed fins (second dorsal and anal) at 90–100° phase deviation to maintain stability and prevent during hovering and maneuvering. These fins do not support bottom-walking but facilitate "coelacanthiform" swimming via pectoral propulsion, reflecting specialization for nocturnal drift-hunting in cave habitats. In lungfishes (Dipnoi, six extant species across three genera), paired fins show greater morphological variation tied to freshwater habitats prone to drying. The Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri) retains broader, fin-like paired appendages for swimming stability, while African (Protopterus spp.) and South American (Lepidosiren paradoxa) species have elongated, filamentous fins functioning as propulsive limbs for benthic crawling, body elevation off substrates, and limited terrestrial movement during aestivation in mud cocoons. These adaptations enhance survival in hypoxic or desiccated conditions by enabling fin-mediated propulsion against solid surfaces, contrasting coelacanth open-water specialization. Overall, sarcopterygian fin diversity underscores habitat-driven adaptations: coelacanths prioritize hydrodynamic control for pelagic hovering, while lungfishes emphasize substrate interaction for navigating variable aquatic-terrestrial interfaces, preserving ancestral lobe morphologies that prefigure tetrapod limb .

Ray-finned Fishes ()

Ray-finned fishes, comprising the class , feature fins supported by lepidotrichia, which are segmented, dermal fin rays that articulate with proximal radials, enabling flexible and precise movements controlled by proximal muscles without intrinsic fin musculature. This ray-supported design contrasts with the fleshy lobed fins of sarcopterygians and facilitates enhanced hydrodynamic efficiency and maneuverability in diverse aquatic environments. includes over 33,000 species across more than 60 orders, accounting for approximately 96% of all living fish species and half of vertebrate diversity. The standard fin array in actinopterygians consists of paired pectoral and pelvic fins for steering and lift, unpaired dorsal and anal fins for stability and , and a homocercal caudal fin for . Many taxa possess an adipose fin, a small, soft-rayed or rayless structure posterior to the , observed in over 6,000 including characins and siluriforms, which contributes to drag reduction and yaw stability during locomotion. Adaptations include ray elongation and stiffening in pelagic like tunas for sustained high-speed , where pectoral fins function as hydroplanes, and fin ray bifurcation allowing undulatory motions for braking and turning. In benthic forms, fins may reduce in size or transform into spines for defense, as in scorpaeniforms. This versatility in fin morphology underpins the ecological success of ray-finned fishes across freshwater, marine, and brackish habitats.
Diversity and Adaptations
Lobe-finned fishes () display fin diversity primarily between coelacanths and lungfishes, with paired fins featuring fleshy lobes supported by an internal bony rather than external rays. This structure enables greater muscular control and weight-bearing capacity compared to ray-finned fishes. In coelacanths (genus , two extant species), pectoral and pelvic fins are robust, limb-like appendages with segmented elements including mesomeres, pre-axial radials, and post-axial accessories, developing early in embryogenesis with radial outward growth and reorientation of the girdle. Coelacanth fins adapt for slow, precise locomotion in deep-sea environments around 200 meters, where paired fins execute alternating downstrokes synchronized with unpaired lobed fins (second dorsal and anal) at 90–100° phase deviation to maintain stability and prevent during hovering and maneuvering. These fins do not support bottom-walking but facilitate "coelacanthiform" swimming via pectoral propulsion, reflecting specialization for nocturnal drift-hunting in cave habitats. In lungfishes (Dipnoi, six extant species across three genera), paired fins show greater morphological variation tied to freshwater habitats prone to drying. The Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri) retains broader, fin-like paired appendages for swimming stability, while African (Protopterus spp.) and South American (Lepidosiren paradoxa) species have elongated, filamentous fins functioning as propulsive limbs for benthic crawling, body elevation off substrates, and limited terrestrial movement during aestivation in mud cocoons. These adaptations enhance survival in hypoxic or desiccated conditions by enabling fin-mediated propulsion against solid surfaces, contrasting coelacanth open-water specialization. Overall, sarcopterygian fin diversity underscores habitat-driven adaptations: coelacanths prioritize hydrodynamic control for pelagic hovering, while es emphasize substrate interaction for navigating variable aquatic-terrestrial interfaces, preserving ancestral lobe morphologies that prefigure limb .

Cartilaginous Fishes (Chondrichthyes)

Cartilaginous fishes () exhibit composed of a cartilaginous with radial elements, lacking the dermal rays characteristic of bony fishes. These radials articulate with basal cartilages and are often reinforced by ceratotrichia, fine collagenous filaments that provide flexibility and strength. Paired include pectoral and pelvic structures connected to cartilaginous girdles, while unpaired consist of one or two dorsals, a caudal, and sometimes an anal . In (Selachimorpha), pectoral fins are typically large and triangular, functioning as hydrofoils to generate lift and facilitate maneuvers such as turning and pitch control during steady . Dorsal and anal fins contribute to stability by counteracting rolling torques, with many featuring detachable spines anterior to the dorsals for defense against predators. The caudal fin is generally heterocercal, with an upper lobe larger than the lower, enabling powerful via lateral oscillations powered by axial musculature. Batoids (rays and skates, Batoidea) display extreme pectoral fin enlargement, where these fins fuse anteriorly to the head, forming wing-like structures used for undulatory or oscillatory propulsion, particularly in benthic habitats. Pelvic fins in many batoids are divided into anterior and posterior lobes, aiding in substrate interaction and precise maneuvering over the seafloor. Unpaired fins are reduced, with dorsals often small or absent, and the caudal fin modified for steering in some species. Holocephalans (chimaeras) possess a single preceded by a prominent venomous spine, filamentous pectoral fins for sensory , and a long, whip-like caudal fin adapted for deep-sea environments. Pelvic fins are smaller and positioned posteriorly. Across , fin diversity reflects ecological specializations: pelagic sharks emphasize speed and agility via rigid, high-aspect-ratio fins, while demersal forms prioritize flexibility for bottom-dwelling. These adaptations enhance locomotor efficiency without swim bladders, relying on dynamic lift and control.

Diversity and Adaptations

Fin morphology in varies phylogenetically and ecologically, with over 1,200 species exhibiting adaptations for predation, evasion, and habitat exploitation. Pectoral fin radials in number in the dozens, mineralized for rigidity, whereas batoid pectorals feature hundreds of segmented radials enabling expansive flapping motions that generate thrust comparable to tail propulsion in . Evolutionary pressures have driven pectoral fin expansion in batoids, linked to genetic repurposing of limb-patterning genes, allowing transition from axial to appendicular propulsion. In contrast, shark pelvic fins support claspers in males for internal fertilization, a derived trait absent in basal forms. Caudal fin asymmetry in sharks optimizes forward thrust, with epicaudal lobe extensions reducing drag during bursts exceeding 10 m/s in species like the shortfin mako. Defensive spines, present in about 70% of species and all holocephalans, detach upon contact, deterring attacks while regenerating over months. Pelagic adaptations include elongated, sickle-shaped pectorals in oceanic whitetip for sustained gliding, contrasting the rounded, flexible forms in reef-dwelling nurse for hovering. Such variations underscore fins' role in niche partitioning, with biomechanical models confirming reduced energy costs in specialized forms.

Diversity and Adaptations

Lobe-finned fishes display fin diversity characterized by fleshy, muscular lobes supported by endoskeletal elements homologous to tetrapod limb bones, enabling adaptations for precise maneuvering, benthic propulsion, and proto-locomotor behaviors distinct from the lepidotrichia-dominated fins of ray-finned fishes. In extant coelacanths (Latimeria spp.), paired pectoral and pelvic fins feature a robust internal skeleton including humerus- and femur-like bones articulating with the girdle, overlaid by thin scaley skin and terminating in flexible ray-like structures for fine control; these facilitate slow, hovering locomotion and diagonal synchronous movements akin to quadrupedal gait, suited to deep-water habitats where burst swimming is minimal. Additional unpaired fins, including three dorsal and an anal fin, contribute to stability during low-speed cruising above the seabed. Lungfishes (Dipnoi), comprising six extant across four genera, exhibit reduced paired fins with basal lobed endoskeletons but more elongated, filamentous distal portions lacking extensive rays in some lineages, reflecting adaptations to freshwater environments with seasonal . The Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri) retains relatively larger, paddle-like paired fins with fin rays, aiding in sustained swimming in permanent rivers, while African (Protopterus spp.) and South American (Lepidosiren paradoxa) have slender, whip-like fins enabling crawling over mudflats and burrowing during estivation, with pelvic fins supporting body elevation and forward propulsion in semi-terrestrial excursions. These fins maintain proximal-distal segmentation mirroring early limbs, facilitating weight-bearing and oscillatory movements for navigating shallow, oxygen-poor waters. Extinct sarcopterygians, dominant from the to Permian, showed broader fin diversity, with forms like eusthenopterids featuring stout, cosmine-covered lobed adapted for powerful thrusts in shallow, vegetated lagoons, prefiguring tetrapodomorph capabilities for substrate contact and limb-like support. Early stem sarcopterygians often possessed polybasal fin articulations, allowing versatile basal for enhanced maneuverability, which later simplified in derived lineages toward monobasal conditions favoring axial . Overall, lobe-fin adaptations prioritized endoskeletal strength for muscle attachment and load distribution over hydrodynamic efficiency, correlating with exploitation of structurally complex, low-flow niches and the eventual fin-to-limb transition in ancestors.

Physiological Functions

Locomotion and Maneuverability

Fish fins generate hydrodynamic forces essential for propulsion, stability, and turning through interactions with surrounding water, governed by principles of fluid dynamics such as vortex formation and pressure differences. The caudal fin primarily produces thrust by oscillating or undulating, creating leading-edge vortices that enhance forward momentum via the inverse Kármán vortex street mechanism, where periodic shedding of vortices from the fin contributes to net thrust during the power stroke. In fast-swimming species like tunas, the rigid, lunate-shaped caudal fin operates in an oscillatory mode, generating lift-based thrust with high efficiency at speeds exceeding 10 body lengths per second, as empirical measurements from hydrodynamic models confirm peak thrust coefficients approaching 0.5 at optimal Strouhal numbers around 0.3. Pectoral fins facilitate braking and yaw maneuvers by adjusting their angle and camber to produce drag and lateral forces, enabling rapid deceleration and directional changes critical for predator avoidance or prey capture. During yaw turns, three-dimensional pectoral fin movements generate asymmetric hydrodynamic forces, with empirical data from bluegill sunfish showing fin abduction and feathering that produce yaw s up to 0.2 N·m/kg while minimizing sideslip. Braking involves protracting both pectorals to increase drag coefficients by factors of 2-3, stabilizing the body against yaw oscillations as observed in centrarchid fishes during feeding strikes. Median fins, including dorsal and anal, contribute to roll stability and yaw control by countering from caudal beats, with coordinated undulation yielding thrust recoveries of up to 15% through vortex recapture. Undulatory swimming, prevalent in anguilliform species like eels, propagates a body wave to the caudal fin for distributed , achieving high maneuverability but lower maximum speeds compared to oscillatory modes in thunniform swimmers. Empirical coefficients in undulatory modes rise nonlinearly with , reaching maxima around 0.4 for elongated bodies, whereas oscillatory caudal fins in ray-finned fishes like mackerels yield higher speeds via concentrated power at the tail. Trade-offs arise from design: rigid lunate tails prioritize sustained high-speed cruising with minimal loss to induced drag, while flexible, elongated dorsal and anal fins in eels enhance turning radii below 0.5 body lengths. In ray-finned fishes, which dominate modern diversity, empirical data indicate oscillatory pectoral propulsion at low speeds transitions to caudal-dominated modes for , contrasting lobe-finned designs where fleshy bases support slower, more axial rotations for fine control.

Sensory and Stabilizing Roles

Fish fins contribute to by generating lift and drag forces that counteract body rotations during . Unpaired median fins, such as the dorsal and anal fins, primarily dampen yaw (lateral ) and roll (tilting about the longitudinal axis), while paired pectoral and pelvic fins modulate pitch (nose-up or nose-down orientation) to maintain equilibrium in steady-state locomotion. These stabilizing effects arise from the fins' surface area and orientation, which interact with ambient flow to produce corrective torques, as quantified in biomechanical models where fin leads to increased oscillatory amplitudes in affected axes. Beyond pure stabilization, fins integrate with the mechanosensory system to enable flow-mediated and environmental monitoring. Neuromasts embedded in fin rays and membranes detect self-generated and external gradients, providing real-time feedback on fin position relative to the body and surroundings. This sensory input supports fine-scale adjustments for balance, as evidenced in experiments where ablation impairs steady swimming and obstacle avoidance, with pectoral fin undulations amplifying detectable flow signatures for enhanced spatial awareness. Neuromast distribution on fins correlates empirically with habitat hydrodynamics; species in high-turbulence environments, such as lotic streams, exhibit canalized neuromasts with reduced superficial to filter noise while preserving sensitivity to coherent flows, whereas lentic species favor exposed superficial arrays for finer detection. This adaptation ensures reliable sensory data for stabilizing maneuvers amid variable currents, with gradients up to 10-fold differences observed across taxa like salmonids versus cyprinids. In regionally endothermic billfishes (Istiophoriformes), dense capillary networks akin to rete mirabile within pectoral and caudal fin musculature retain metabolic heat from contractile activity, elevating local temperatures by 10–20°C above ambient water to optimize neuromuscular performance for sustained sensory acuity and stability during prolonged migrations. This vascular countercurrent exchange minimizes convective heat loss, directly supporting fin-mediated functions in cold oceanic layers where ectothermic competitors falter.

Reproduction and Display

In many fishes, particularly within the family, male fins exhibit through elongation and ornamentation, serving as visual signals in courtship displays that influence female . Empirical studies on guppies (Poecilia reticulata) demonstrate that females preferentially select males with longer dorsal fins, which impose hydrodynamic costs during swimming, thereby functioning as honest indicators of genetic quality and overall condition under the . These elongated structures are erected and oscillated during sigmoid courtship displays, enhancing visibility and signaling vigor to potential mates. Specialized fin modifications facilitate in live-bearing species. In poeciliid males, the anal fin undergoes developmental transformation into a gonopodium, an that delivers spermatophores directly into the female's genital opening, bypassing external dispersal and increasing fertilization success in competitive environments. This adaptation arises from hormonal influences during , linking fin plasticity to reproductive strategy. In cartilaginous fishes (), pelvic fins are modified into paired in males, which are elongated appendages with internal grooves for sperm conduction, enabling essential for protecting embryos in ovoviviparous or viviparous . During , a single clasper is inserted into the female's , with muscular rhabdomes ensuring sperm transfer, a process observed across and ray species. Caudal fins contribute to dynamic displays across taxa, where rapid flaring or tail-wagging generates visual and vibrational cues that deter rivals or attract conspecifics. In species exhibiting alternative reproductive tactics, such as certain poeciliids, males combine coercive gonopodial thrusts with fin flares to modulate female receptivity, with empirical observations linking display intensity to mating outcomes. These behaviors underscore fins' role in , where morphological traits evolve under pressures of mate attraction and rather than solely locomotor .

Evolutionary History

Origins and Early Fins

The earliest evidence of fins in vertebrates appears in jawless fishes (agnathans), which emerged during the period around 485 million years ago, with some precursor forms traceable to the Late approximately 500 million years ago. These primitive structures were unpaired median fins, including dorsal and caudal varieties, manifesting as continuous or segmented fleshy folds along the body axis rather than discrete appendages. Such fins likely arose from expansions of the body wall , providing initial hydrodynamic advantages in shallow marine and freshwater environments where passive drifting prevailed among early chordates. Fossil records from ostracoderms, a diverse paraphyletic group of armored agnathans spanning the to (approximately 485–360 million years ago), these proto-fins as simple, rayless extensions lacking the dermal lepidotrichia characteristic of later gnathostomes. Specimens such as those from pteraspidomorphs exhibit median fins supported by internal radials or fin , without the segmented rays that enable finer control in advanced fishes. This configuration reflects a basal state, where fins served primarily to enhance stability by counteracting yaw and pitch during low-speed undulatory swimming, as inferred from biomechanical analyses of morphology. Causally, these early fins marked a departure from purely inertial locomotion, permitting jawless vertebrates—often bottom-dwelling —to maintain orientation and achieve modest directed movement against currents, thereby expanding ecological niches beyond sessile suspension feeding. Empirical comparisons with extant cyclostomes like lampreys, which retain median fin folds, corroborate this role, as experimental perturbations demonstrate s' necessity for equilibrium in neutrally buoyant swimming. However, the absence of robust predatory adaptations in these forms underscores fins' initial limitation to stabilization rather than thrust generation.

Evolution of Paired Fins

Paired fins, consisting of pectoral and pelvic appendages, represent a key innovation in gnathostome evolution, emerging after the divergence from jawless s and providing enhanced maneuverability and stability in aquatic environments. Phylogenetic analyses indicate that unpaired median fins preceded paired fins by approximately 50 million years, with median structures appearing in early vertebrate ancestors around 500 million years ago, while paired fins are first evidenced in stem gnathostomes during the period, roughly 450-436 million years ago. This temporal gap underscores a stepwise diversification, where unpaired fins initially supported and dorsal-ventral stabilization before lateral appendages enabled finer control over yaw and pitch. Classical theories, such as Gegenbaur's archipterygium hypothesis refined by Gregory, posit paired fins as derivatives of a primitive, biserial archipterygium—a single proximal axis with pre- and post-axial radials, akin to pectoral fins—emphasizing transformational homology from a shared ancestral appendage rather than serial origins. This view contrasts with the fin-fold hypothesis, which suggests paired fins arose from a continuous lateral fin fold along the body trunk, segmenting into discrete pectoral and pelvic units, supported by embryological observations of transient folds in fish larvae. Recent fossil evidence from the galeaspid Tujiaaspis vividus (dated to ~436 million years ago) revives the fin-fold model, revealing continuous pectoral fin folds in a jawless that functioned as passive hydrofoils, implying such structures predated the gnathostome split and later separated into distinct paired fins. Modern evolutionary developmental (evo-devo) perspectives shift focus to fin bud initiation from (LPM), independent of median fin precursors, with signaling pathways like FGF and Wnt establishing discrete pectoral and pelvic primordia. clusters, particularly HoxA and HoxD, govern anterior-posterior patterning within these buds, exhibiting phased expression that mirrors tetrapod limb development and supports modular diversification of fin rays and supports. A 2023 study proposes an alternative wherein paired fins derive from a paired median fin system originating in LPM, challenging strict lateral fold models by integrating embryological data from teleosts showing LPM contributions to both median and paired structures. These evo-devo insights, grounded in genetic knockouts and comparative expression profiles, highlight co-option of ancient regulatory networks for appendage novelty, though debates persist on whether LPM derivation precludes fin-fold intermediates or represents convergent stabilization of fold-derived morphologies.

Fin-to-Limb Transition

The fin-to-limb transition represents a pivotal evolutionary shift in sarcopterygian fishes during the Late Devonian epoch, around 375 million years ago, marked by anatomical modifications that enhanced fin robustness and flexibility while retaining aquatic adaptations. Fossils such as , discovered in 2004 from deposits dated to approximately 375 million years old, display pectoral fins with a , , , and a functional composed of radiale and ulnare elements, allowing for greater and load-bearing capacity than in earlier lobe-finned fishes like . These structures facilitated substrate contact and push-off motions in shallow-water environments, yet the presence of persistent lepidotrichia (fin rays) underscores continued reliance on fin webbing for swimming propulsion and stability. Anatomically, the transition involved progressive endochondral segmentation, from the single basal elements and radials of sarcopterygian fins to the multi-ossified zeugopodium and autopod precursors in transitional forms, coupled with enlarged muscle attachment sites for enhanced force generation. In , the pectoral fin's endoskeleton supported forelimb-like , enabling the animal to elevate its body and perform anchoring behaviors against riverbed substrates, as inferred from biomechanical reconstructions. Pelvic fins and girdles, however, remained more primitive, with limited weight-bearing potential, suggesting asynchronous evolution where forefins preceded hind structures in functional specialization. Selective pressures driving these changes likely stemmed from shallow, vegetated freshwater habitats with low oxygen levels and complex substrates, where stronger fins aided navigation through weeds, predator evasion via quick bursts, and intermittent body support to access air-breathing opportunities via spiracles or lungs. Empirical evidence and phylogenetic bracketing indicate these adaptations optimized aquatic locomotion and stability over terrestrial ambulation, with fin enhancements providing selective advantages for "push-up" maneuvers in shallows rather than sustained walking. While some analyses hypothesize proto-walking capabilities, the retention of fin rays and absence of digit-like segmentation in argue against overinterpreting it as a direct terrestrial precursor, emphasizing instead multifunctional improvements in watery niches before full limb emancipation.

Genetic and Fossil Insights

Recent genetic studies have elucidated the role of hox13 genes in specifying caudal fin identity and promoting homocercal tail development in fishes. In (Danio rerio), hox13 paralogs regulate posterior axial identity and regional patterning within the caudal fin, with loss-of-function mutations resulting in truncated or malformed fins lacking proper hypural elements. These findings, derived from /Cas9 editing and comparative expression analyses, indicate that hox13 clusters coordinate mesodermal differentiation essential for fin ray formation and overall caudal morphology. The Gli3 contributes to in distal progenitors, a mechanism conserved across gnathostome lineages and shared with tetrapod limb development. Experiments in catsharks (Scyliorhinus canicula) and demonstrate that Gli3, acting downstream of Sonic hedgehog signaling, controls proliferative expansion in paired and unpaired s, independent of anterior-posterior patterning. This genetic continuity underscores deep homology between fin and limb distal elements but reflects adaptations optimized for aquatic propulsion rather than a teleological shift to . Paleontological analyses of fossil osteichthyans reveal low evolutionary integration among fin modules, enabling rapid morphological diversification in response to hydrodynamic demands. In ray-finned fishes, weak covariation between lepidotrichia and radials facilitated independent evolution of fin shape and position, as evidenced by geometric morphometric comparisons of dorsal, anal, and caudal structures across taxa. Such , quantified through integration indices in specimens like , allowed for innovations in stability and thrust generation suited to diverse aquatic niches, without the constraints of strong whole-fin correlations seen in more integrated appendages. Poeciliid fishes (), including guppies and swordtails, serve as comparative models for tracing the genetic evolution of fin regeneration, with varying regenerative capacities linked to caudal fin architecture. Phylogenetic reconstructions within the family show that partial regeneration of fin rays and swords evolved through modifications in formation genes, providing empirical data on how regenerative traits diversify under selection for display and locomotion. These insights, from cross-species assays, highlight poeciliids' utility in dissecting allele-specific contributions to fin evolvability in live-bearing teleosts.

Regeneration and Development

Mechanisms of Fin Regeneration

Fin regeneration in teleost fish, such as (Danio rerio), proceeds via epimorphic regeneration, characterized by the formation of a —a mass of undifferentiated, proliferative progenitor cells that reconstitute the lost structure. Following , the initial phase involves rapid epithelial migration to form a thickened wound epidermis within 12 hours post- (hpa), which seals the wound and provides signaling cues for underlying mesenchymal reorganization. By 24–48 hpa, a emerges at the amputation site through the and proliferation of mature differentiated cells, including osteoblasts from the fin rays (lepidotrichia), which lose their differentiated markers, migrate distally, and re-enter the to generate new osteogenic precursors. This is lineage-restricted, with osteoblasts primarily contributing to replacement rather than transdifferentiating into other cell types. Epidermal signaling plays a in orchestrating formation and outgrowth, with the wound epidermis secreting factors that induce mesenchymal and proliferation. Key molecular pathways include Wnt/β-catenin and (FGF) signaling, which interact to promote and patterning; Wnt signaling acts upstream to initiate and maintain FGF expression, essential for regenerative outgrowth, while disruptions in either pathway impair regeneration. Regeneration progresses through distinct phases: formation (days 1–3), outgrowth with proximal-distal patterning (days 3–7), and differentiation into segmented fin rays by day 10 onward, achieving full functional restoration of the caudal fin in approximately 3 weeks under standard laboratory conditions. This contrasts with the limited regenerative capacity in limbs, where scar formation often predominates without full -mediated reconstruction. Recent studies highlight the potential of fin-derived cells for applications, leveraging their innate regenerative properties. Fin fibroblasts and primary cell cultures from species like exhibit robust proliferation and multilineage potential, serving as seed cells for tissue repair or cultivated fish products to address fin damage from handling or in farming. Protocols for establishing fin primary cell lines across ray-finned fishes emphasize serum-free media and growth factors to mimic blastemal conditions, enabling scalable regeneration studies and reducing reliance on whole-animal models. These advances underscore the translational value of fin regeneration mechanisms for enhancing fish health in intensive systems.

Developmental Genetics

The developmental patterning of fish fins relies on conserved gene regulatory networks that establish anterior-posterior (A-P), dorsal-ventral (D-V), and proximo-distal (P-D) axes, with key roles played by signaling molecules such as Sonic hedgehog (Shh) and (RA). Shh, expressed in the apical ectodermal ridge-like structures and mesenchymal zones of developing fin buds, promotes branching and segmentation of lepidotrichia (fin rays) in species like , where its signaling partitions pre-ray pools to ensure precise ray bifurcation. In unpaired median fins, Shh signaling from midline drives initial outgrowth and skeletal precursor specification, independent of paired fin mechanisms. Retinoic acid gradients, generated by localized synthesis and degradation enzymes like Cyp26, establish P-D polarity in fin mesenchyme, with high distal RA levels inhibiting proximal differentiation to allow sequential ray elongation from base to tip. This patterning is evident in zebrafish pectoral and caudal fins, where RA perturbations disrupt ray proximality without altering overall bud initiation. Hox gene clusters provide positional identity along the A-P axis, with paralogous groups (e.g., ) collinearly expressed in to specify ray number and morphology, mirroring limb domains but adapted via teleost-specific whole-genome duplication (TGD) that yielded redundant clusters (up to seven Hox sets). This duplication, occurring ~350 million years ago post-teleost divergence, facilitated sub- and neo-functionalization, enhancing fin ray diversity across species without compromising core patterning fidelity. Comparative analyses confirm deep homology with limb Hox deployment, yet fish-specific paralogs enable finer evolutionary modulation of complexity. In caudal fins, Hox13 paralogs (e.g., hoxc13a/b13a) dictate homocercal lobe symmetry and uroneural expansion, as demonstrated in 2024 mutants lacking these genes, which exhibit truncated ventral lobes and reduced skeletal elements, underscoring their role in posterior identity and rapid of tail shapes in teleosts. These findings highlight how TGD-amplified Hox redundancy permits subtle tweaks in architecture, distinct from the singular Hox13 sets in non-teleost fishes.

Human Exploitation and Controversies

Shark Finning Practices

Shark finning involves capturing , typically via longline or gillnet fisheries, slicing off their fins at sea, and discarding the mutilated carcasses back , often while the sharks are still alive. This practice maximizes cargo space and profit by focusing on high-value fins used primarily in , with the low-value body discarded to avoid regulatory weight limits on fin-to-body ratios in some jurisdictions. The scale of is substantial, with estimates indicating that 73 to 100 million sharks are killed annually for their fins, derived from trade volume analyses and fishery data. These figures, while debated due to underreporting and illegal trade, reflect global fin market demands centered in , with recent assessments confirming rising fishing mortality from 76 million in 2012 to 80 million in 2019. Primarily large pelagic species such as silky sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis), oceanic whitetip sharks (Carcharhinus longimanus), blue sharks (Prionace glauca), shortfin makos (Isurus oxyrinchus), and thresher sharks are targeted due to their large, valuable fins and occurrence in open-ocean fisheries. Regional hotspots include the , where supply chains trace fins from these species to major markets like and . Direct impacts on individual sharks include severe mutilation leading to impaired locomotion; finless sharks, unable to swim effectively, cannot maintain ram ventilation—pumping water over their gills—and thus suffocate slowly over hours or days, as observed in onboard fishery inspections and video documentation. This method results in high mortality rates from blood loss, predation, or drowning, with carcasses often exhibiting signs of prolonged distress upon recovery.

Economic, Cultural, and Ecological Debates

The global shark fin trade sustains significant economic activity, particularly in , with annual values estimated between $400 million and $550 million USD, primarily driven by demand in and [Hong Kong](/page/Hong Kong). This commerce supports fishing industries and related processing sectors in countries like , , and [Sri Lanka](/page/Sri Lanka), where shark catches contribute to local livelihoods amid broader export economies. Proponents argue that regulated fin harvesting can align with sustainable , as evidenced by data-limited assessments showing potential for controlled yields without population collapse in certain species. Culturally, shark fins hold historical prestige in Chinese cuisine, originating as a delicacy for emperors during the Ming Dynasty around 1400 CE, symbolizing wealth and hospitality due to their rarity and perceived medicinal properties in traditional recipes. The dish, often featured in banquets and weddings, embodies status and culinary tradition, with consumption rooted in beliefs about vitality rather than necessity, persisting despite modern alternatives. Critics of outright bans contend that such cultural practices warrant economic incentives for traceability over prohibitions, preserving heritage while addressing supply chains. Ecologically, debates center on finning's role relative to broader threats, with oceanic shark abundances declining 71% since 1970 due to intensified pressure, including targeted harvests and in non-shark fisheries. While demand contributes to mortality in some , analyses critique media portrayals for overstating finning's dominance, noting that whole-body and incidental capture in longlines pose comparably or greater risks, often unaddressed by conservation campaigns. David Shiffman has highlighted how biased reporting fosters public misunderstanding, emphasizing that sustainable fin quotas could mitigate declines more effectively than vilifying a fraction of the trade, given sharks' varied life histories and roles. Regulatory efforts, such as Canada's 2019 ban on shark fin imports and exports—the first by a —and U.S. prohibitions in Atlantic waters, aim to curb trade but show limited global efficacy, with finning mortality rising 4% in coastal areas post-implementation. Trade data indicate persistence via black markets and rerouting, as U.S. seizures reveal ongoing domestic flows despite state-level sales bans since the . Advocates for alternatives propose market-based tools like quotas and certification over blanket bans, arguing they better incentivize compliance in high-volume Asian fisheries without displacing sustainable practices.

Biomimetic and Technological Applications

Principles of Fin Biomimicry

Fish fin biomimicry in engineering emphasizes undulatory propulsion, where oscillatory fin motions generate thrust via periodic deformation that sheds coherent vortices, forming structures like reverse von Kármán streets for momentum transfer. This contrasts with propeller-based systems, which produce rotational wakes prone to inefficiency from tip vortices and cavitation in unsteady or low-speed conditions; fin undulation exploits added mass effects and vortex dynamics to achieve propulsive efficiencies of 55-90% in modeled optimal regimes, particularly at Strouhal numbers of 0.2-0.4 where wake coherence maximizes thrust-to-power ratios. Fluid dynamic analyses confirm that such motions enable superior performance in transitional flows, as rigid blades falter without adaptive camber changes. Structurally, biomimetic designs replicate the fin ray system—bifurcated lepidotrichia enabling segmented flexibility—which distributes actuation across multiple elements, allowing passive flow-responsive twisting and bending to maintain attached flow and reduce form drag. This principle derives from empirical observations of ray oscillations creating traveling waves that optimize local lift distribution, outperforming monolithic foils by feathering during non-thrust phases and enhancing overall hydrodynamic loading uniformity. In low-speed applications, this yields lower induced drag than propellers, as distributed spanwise loading minimizes root and tip inefficiencies inherent to rotating blades. From first-principles , fin undulation's efficacy stems from causal linkages in unsteady : oscillatory induce leading-edge vortices that delay , converting into directed more adaptively than steady-state lift, though limited to regimes below propeller-optimal cruise speeds where thresholds are not breached. Empirical benchmarks, including on fin analogs, validate reduced energy dissipation via vortex linkage, supporting biomimetic prioritization of compliance over rigidity for maneuver-intensive tasks.

Recent Advances in Robotics

In 2022, researchers developed a deformable caudal fin platform for biomimetic , demonstrating thrust improvements of up to 20% compared to rigid fins through controlled deformation that mimics tail flexibility, enabling higher propulsion efficiency in unsteady flows. Building on this, a 2025 study introduced wire-driven using a double-sine mechanism for high-frequency tail , achieving speeds exceeding 1 body length per second while reducing energy consumption by optimizing wire tension for realistic undulation patterns. Pectoral fin integration has advanced braking and turning capabilities; a 2025 biomimetic approach in the SpineWave robotic fish employed a single-degree-of-freedom pectoral mechanism, yielding a 35% reduction in stopping distance and agile pivots via synchronized fin deployment against forward , as measured in hydrodynamic tests. Similarly, coordinated dual-fin actuation in ocean sunfish-inspired robots allowed fin amplitude control to achieve turning radii as low as 0.5 body lengths, enhancing maneuverability for precise navigation in confined underwater spaces. These fin-inspired designs support applications in , such as ocean mapping, where agile turning reduces collision risks in cluttered environments; however, scalability remains limited by material in soft actuators and power constraints for untethered operations beyond short durations. A 2024 continuum-body robotic fish, leveraging fin-like undulation, attained pivot turns at 1450° per second, underscoring potential for rapid surveying but highlighting challenges in maintaining structural integrity at scale.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.