>>14355887>Why are you quoting from the introduction and ignoring the results of the paper, which shows exactly why only males undergo this modification?Why did you not quote any part of the paper that explains the evolution?... Because it explains it nowhere. That is the discussion itt, not development. Posting that paper in the first place was a starwman so I gave it very little attention after correctly identifying it gives no explanation for the alleged evolution of claspers.
>which shows exactly why only males undergo this modification? I really shouldnt' have quoted this part, you seem to be hung up on it. The reason only males develop dicks is obviously irrelevant, my bad. This was the important part:
>Little is known about the mechanisms of clasper evolutionevolution "380 million years ago" =! embryo development in extant fish. It's laughable to assume there would be any relationship.
M. Dicki's claspers were different from the pelvic fin (they were solid immobile bone attached to a dermal plate, look at the 1st 2 pictures itt and read the paper I gave above that verbally states this) and thus not a "fin modification" anyway so your paper is even more fundamentally irrelevant when you look at the details because there is obviously no homologous relationship whatsoever. The claspers in your paper are cartilaginous and anchor to the pelvic fin girdle, the ones in MD are bone and anchor to something almost analogous to a crab like shell and have nothing to do with the pelvis.
I personally think it's sloppy to even call them claspers in MD since there are enormous fundamental differences but it's what the literature does.
>>14355903>Even the bones evolved to be similarThey have bones with similar design, yes.
