DOCSLIB.ORG

Lesson 4 Lesson Outline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lesson 4 Lesson Outline Lesson 4 ◊ Lesson Outline: ♦ Parade of the Craniates in Time and Taxa o Vertebrate Classification ♦ Vertebrate Phylogeny o Evolution of the Craniates o Evolution of the Vertebrates o Evolution of the Gnathostomes o Evolution of the Chondrichthyes o Evolution of the Osteichthyes ◊ Objectives: At the end of this lesson you should be able to: ♦ Describe the major groups of non-Tetrapod Vertebrates. ♦ Describe the major steps in the evolution of each group. ◊ References: ♦ Chapter 4: 45-57 ◊ Reading for Next Lesson: ♦ Chapter 4: 57-85 Vertebrate Phylogenetic Relationships Who's Who Amongst the Vertebrates? Vertebrate Classification: There are several ways of classifying vertebrates. Traditional taxonomy divides vertebrates into: Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species From the last lecture, we have a good idea of the relationship of the protochordates: Phylum Echinodermata Phylum Hemichordata Phylum Chordata Subphylum Urochordata Subphylum Cephalochordata Subphylum Craniata (Vertebrata) Our focus will be on the Vertebrata. (Note: Vertebrates are a Subphylum and vertebrates ≠ craniates) The vertebrates can also be grouped by shared distinctive features. These include: Agnathans versus Gnathostomes: Agnathans lack jaws while all other vertebrates possess jaws Fishes versus Tetrapods versus Quadrapeds: Amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are collectively referred to as tetrapods (four footed). This group includes derived forms that no longer possess four feet such as the legless amphibians and reptiles, the birds and flippered mammals as well as the quadrapeds. Anamniotes versus Amniotes: Reptiles birds and mammals produce a thin sac around the embryo called an amnion which encases the embryo in a protective water compartment. Fish and amphibians do not. Vertebrata Craniata Chordata Agnatha Gnathostomes Uro Cephalo Myxinoidea Petromyzontidae chordata chordata (hagfish) (lampreys) With the evolution of improved sensory organs and an anterior end, came the first innovation : the evolution of a cranium (1). With this comes the evolution of eyes, ears, nose and other sensory organs and an enlarged neural tube associated with the sense organs that forms the brain. The cranium is a composite structure of bone or cartilage that supports the sensory organs and protects the brain. At this early stage, the evolution of the cranium is associated with the evolution of cartilage. The next major step in vertebrate evolution was the appearance of a muscular pharyngeal pump for feeding – a muscular pump to produce a food-bearing water current (2). Super Class Agnatha This group includes the hagfish (Myxinoidea) and the lampreys (Petromyzontida). Together they are known as the cyclostomes (round mouth). All living agnathans lack bone. The two groups are extremely different morphologically and physiologically. They are often considered as the most primitive vertebrates but really they are highly evolved and modified – adapted to very specialized lifestyles – and not at all similar in many ways to the general ancestral state. Hagfish possess a single nostril and a vestibular apparatus (balancing organ) with a single semicircular canal. Their body fluid is isosmotic with sea water which is similar to marine invertebrates and distinct from all vertebrates. They are bottom feeding scavengers found only in sea water. Their eyes are vestigial and they feed mainly on invertebrates and dead or weakened fish. While it is believed that the suction pump was initially used for suspension feeding and deposit feeding by sucking, the lamprey, although jawless, have diversified to exploit the expanded pharyngeal pump with a rasp like muscular tongue for attacking vertebrate prey. They too have a single nostril but it does not connect to the pharyngeal cavity. They breathe in and out through the pharyngeal slits leaving the mouth free to form a negative pressure and suck onto their prey. They reproduce in fresh water and migrate to sea as juveniles. They possess two semicircular canals. They are hyposmotic to sea water. Craniates versus Vertebrates The next major step was the evolution of – the vertebral column (vertebrates) (3) – a series of separate bones or cartilage blocks that are firmly joined as a backbone defining the body axis. The hagfish lack vertebrae but do have a cranium. Thus, in most modern systems of classification, all chordates from the Agnathans on are considered as craniates while only those from the Petromyzontida on are considered vertebrates. This is a relatively new and fine distinction. Teleostomi Agnatha Gnathostomata Chondrichthyes Osteichthyes Tetrapods Elasmo Holo Actinop Sarcop branchii cephali terygii terygii Super Class Gnathostomata The distinguishing feature of all Gnathostomes is the presence of jaws (4) - biting devices derived from the pharyngeal arches that evolved to support the gill slits. With this there is the simultaneous appearance of paired pectoral and pelvic fins along with supportive bony or cartilagenous girdles and specialized musculature. This gave these animals stability and control for maneuverability while swimming With this, fish were released from filter feeding, gain increased mobility, and a variety of potential life styles opened up. There is a transition from animals with gills for feeding and skin for respiration to fish with jaws for feeding and gills for respiration. Early Gnathostomes are believed to have fed on larger food items with a muscularized mouth that rapidly snatched prey from the water. Active predation becomes a common lifestyle in subsequent vertebrate radiation. The Gnathostomes give rise to two major lines: the Chondrichthyes (cartilagenous fish) and the Teleostomi (Osteichthyes (bony fish) and Tetrapods) The Chondrichthyes (cartilagenous fish) consist of two groups. All are cartilagenous which is not an ancestral trait but represents a secondary loss (i.e. bone evolved before the Chondrichthyes) (5). Thus, they have a vertebral column composed mostly of cartilage that largely replaces the notocord as the functional support for the body. Class Chondrichthyes Subclass Elasmobranchii Subclass Holocephali The elasmobranchs include the sharks and the rays while the holocephali includes the chimaeras or rat fish. Class Osteichthyes: These fishes have bony skeletons. Also, whereas cartilagenous fishes address problems of buoyancy with oily livers and hydrofoil fins, most bony fish possess an adjustable gas- filled swimbladder that provides neutral buoyancy and moveable fins. Subclass Actinopterygii Ray-Finned Fishes These fish have distinctive fins supported internally with slender endoskeletal rays with muscles to control fin movement located within the body wall Palaeonisciformes Acipenseriformes paddlefish, sturgeon Polypteriformes birchirs Neopterygii Lepisosteiformes gar Amiiformes bowfin Teleostei modern fishes [The true fishes represent perhaps the most successful of all vertebrate lines giving rise to a tremendous diversity of species that have existed in large numbers for a long time. The teleostei encompass close to 20,000 living species spread from pole to pole and ranging from alpine lakes to deep ocean trenches. They outnumber all other vertebrates combined!] The Teleostomi include the bony fishes (Osteichthyes) and all of the tetrapods. It seems probable that bone first appeared as dermal armour for protection. It was laid down in membrane fashion in plates within the skin. Thus, the earliest vertebrates were without well-developed vertebrae and relied upon a strengthened notochord to meet the mechanical demands of body support and locomotion. When vertebrae first appeared in latter fishes, the vertebral elements initially rode upon or surrounded a notochord that continued to serve as the major structural component of the animal’s body. In latter fishes and terrestrial vertebrates the role of the vertebral column grows while that of the notochord declines. In adults of most derived vertebrates, the embryonic notochord disappears and is replaced by the vertebral column. Subclass Sarcopterygii Lobe-Finned Fish These fish have fleshy fins (6) that rest at the ends of short projecting appendages with internal bony elements powered by muscles located outside the body wall along the projecting fin The tetrapod limb evolved from the sarcopterygian fin. It is believed that these fins initially evolved for pivoting or maneuvering in shallow water - or for working bottom habitats in deeper waters. Crossopeterygii coelocanth (deep living with a swim bladder that is filled with fat and used for buoyancy and not respiration) Dipnoi lung fish (Have paired lungs and breathe air when water becomes hypoxic or when burrowing during periods of seasonal drought.) .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Classes of Fish #1 Agnatha : Jawless Fish 1) Oldest of All Fish  500 Mya 2) No Jaw 3) Eel-Like Body 4) Light Skeleton Made out of Cartilage
    Classes of Fish #1 Agnatha : Jawless Fish 1) Oldest of all fish 500 mya 2) No Jaw 3) Eel-like Body 4) Light skeleton made out of cartilage. 5) Gill slits on the side of the body. 6) Unpaired fins 7) Examples: Lamprey and Hagfish Objectives: 1. List the three classes of fish. Draw a simple picture for each class and provide a one sentence description. 2. Describe the purposes associated with the lateral line http://www.flickr.com/photos/boarderjon/294353224/ system and the swim bladder. #2 Chondrichthyes : Cartilagenous fish 1) Stream-lined Body 2) Jaws Formed from a bony gill arch 3) Skeleton made of cartilage strengthened be calcium carbonate. A thin layer of bone covers the cartilage. 4)Teeth: modified scales 5) Some possess a lateral line system 6) Examples: Sharks, Rays, and Skates 1 #3 Osteichthyes : Bony Fish 1) Skeleton made of bone . 2) Lateral Line System : Specialized sensory system that runs along the length of the fish. It accurately indicates the position and rate of movement of the 2 Groups of Bony Fish fish. In addition, it can also detect motion of other 1) Ray-finned fish : Fins supported by living things in the water. It is similar in function to bony rays. hearing. Example: Perch 3) Gill Cover : A hard plate called an operculum covers 2) Lobe-finned fish : Fin is a fleshy lobe and protects the gills. Muscles attached to the supported by bone. operculum allow it to move in order to push water Example: Lungfish through the gills. Fish that do not have operculum must swim in order to breath.
    [Show full text]
  • Updated Checklist of Marine Fishes (Chordata: Craniata) from Portugal and the Proposed Extension of the Portuguese Continental Shelf
    European Journal of Taxonomy 73: 1-73 ISSN 2118-9773 http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2014.73 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2014 · Carneiro M. et al. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Monograph urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9A5F217D-8E7B-448A-9CAB-2CCC9CC6F857 Updated checklist of marine fishes (Chordata: Craniata) from Portugal and the proposed extension of the Portuguese continental shelf Miguel CARNEIRO1,5, Rogélia MARTINS2,6, Monica LANDI*,3,7 & Filipe O. COSTA4,8 1,2 DIV-RP (Modelling and Management Fishery Resources Division), Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera, Av. Brasilia 1449-006 Lisboa, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 3,4 CBMA (Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology), Department of Biology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] * corresponding author: [email protected] 5 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:90A98A50-327E-4648-9DCE-75709C7A2472 6 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:1EB6DE00-9E91-407C-B7C4-34F31F29FD88 7 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:6D3AC760-77F2-4CFA-B5C7-665CB07F4CEB 8 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:48E53CF3-71C8-403C-BECD-10B20B3C15B4 Abstract. The study of the Portuguese marine ichthyofauna has a long historical tradition, rooted back in the 18th Century. Here we present an annotated checklist of the marine fishes from Portuguese waters, including the area encompassed by the proposed extension of the Portuguese continental shelf and the Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ). The list is based on historical literature records and taxon occurrence data obtained from natural history collections, together with new revisions and occurrences.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CLASSIFICATION and EVOLUTION of the HETEROSTRACI Since 1858, When Huxley Demonstrated That in the Histological Struc
    ACTA PALAEONT OLOGICA POLONICA Vol. VII 1 9 6 2 N os. 1-2 L. BEVERLY TARLO THE CLASSIFICATION AND EVOLUTION OF THE HETEROSTRACI Abstract. - An outline classification is given of the Hetero straci, with diagnoses . of th e following orders and suborders: Astraspidiformes, Eriptychiiformes, Cya­ thaspidiformes (Cyathaspidida, Poraspidida, Ctenaspidida), Psammosteiformes (Tes­ seraspidida, Psarnmosteida) , Traquairaspidiformes, Pteraspidiformes (Pte ras pidida, Doryaspidida), Cardipeltiformes and Amphiaspidiformes (Amphiaspidida, Hiber­ naspidida, Eglonaspidida). It is show n that the various orders fall into four m ain evolutionary lineages ~ cyathaspid, psammosteid, pteraspid and amphiaspid, and these are traced from primitive te ssellated forms. A tentative phylogeny is pro­ posed and alternatives are discussed. INTRODUCTION Since 1858, when Huxley demonstrated that in the histological struc­ ture of their dermal bone Cephalaspis and Pteraspis were quite different from one another, it has been recognized that there were two distinct groups of ostracoderms for which Lankester (1868-70) proposed the names Osteostraci and Heterostraci respectively. Although these groups are generally considered to be related to on e another, Lankester belie­ ved that "the Heterostraci are at present associated with the Osteostraci because they are found in the same beds, because they have, like Cepha­ laspis, a large head shield, and because there is nothing else with which to associate them". In 1889, Cop e united these two groups in the Ostracodermi which, together with the modern cyclostomes, he placed in the Class Agnatha, and although this proposal was at first opposed by Traquair (1899) and Woodward (1891b), subsequent work has shown that it was correct as both the Osteostraci and the Heterostraci were agnathous.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes Scales & Tails Scale Types 1
    Phylum Chordata SUBPHYLUM VERTEBRATA Metameric chordates Linear series of cartilaginous or boney support (vertebrae) surrounding or replacing the notochord Expanded anterior portion of nervous system THE FISHES SCALES & TAILS SCALE TYPES 1. COSMOID (most primitive) First found on ostracaderm agnathans, thick & boney - composed of: Ganoine (enamel outer layer) Cosmine (thick under layer) Spongy bone Lamellar bone Perhaps selected for protection against eurypterids, but decreased flexibility 2. GANOID (primitive, still found on some living fish like gar) 3. PLACOID (old scale type found on the chondrichthyes) Dentine, tooth-like 4. CYCLOID (more recent scale type, found in modern osteichthyes) 5. CTENOID (most modern scale type, found in modern osteichthyes) TAILS HETEROCERCAL (primitive, still found on chondrichthyes) ABBREVIATED HETEROCERCAL (found on some primitive living fish like gar) DIPHYCERCAL (primitive, found on sarcopterygii) HOMOCERCAL (most modern, found on most modern osteichthyes) Agnatha (class) [connect the taxa] Cyclostomata (order) Placodermi Acanthodii (class) (class) Chondrichthyes (class) Osteichthyes (class) Actinopterygii (subclass) Sarcopterygii (subclass) Dipnoi (order) Crossopterygii (order) Ripidistia (suborder) Coelacanthiformes (suborder) Chondrostei (infra class) Holostei (infra class) Teleostei (infra class) CLASS AGNATHA ("without jaws") Most primitive - first fossils in Ordovician Bottom feeders, dorsal/ventral flattened Cosmoid scales (Ostracoderms) Pair of eyes + pineal eye - present in a few living fish and reptiles - regulates circadian rhythms Nine - seven gill pouches No paired appendages, medial nosril ORDER CYCLOSTOMATA (60 spp) Last living representatives - lampreys & hagfish Notochord not replaced by vertebrae Cartilaginous cranium, scaleless body Sea lamprey predaceous - horny teeth in buccal cavity & on tongue - secretes anti-coaggulant Lateral Line System No stomach or spleen 5 - 7 year life span - adults move into freshwater streams, spawn, & die.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of Basal Tetrapoda
    Stuart S. Sumida Biology 342 Phylogeny of Basal Tetrapoda The group of bony fishes that gave rise to land-dwelling vertebrates and their descendants (Tetrapoda, or colloquially, “tetrapods”) was the lobe-finned fishes, or Sarcopterygii. Sarcoptrygii includes coelacanths (which retain one living form, Latimeria), lungfish, and crossopterygians. The transition from sarcopterygian fishes to stem tetrapods proceeded through a series of groups – not all of which are included here. There was no sharp and distinct transition, rather it was a continuum from very tetrapod-like fishes to very fish-like tetrapods. SARCOPTERYGII – THE LOBE-FINNED FISHES Includes •Actinista (including Coelacanths) •Dipnoi (lungfishes) •Crossopterygii Crossopterygians include “tetrapods” – 4- legged land-dwelling vertebrates. The Actinista date back to the Devonian. They have very well developed lobed-fins. There remains one livnig representative of the group, the coelacanth, Latimeria chalumnae. A lungfish The Crossopterygii include numerous representatives, the best known of which include Eusthenopteron (pictured here) and Panderichthyes. Panderichthyids were the most tetrapod-like of the sarcopterygian fishes. Panderichthyes – note the lack of dorsal fine, but retention of tail fin. Coelacanths Lungfish Rhizodontids Eusthenopteron Panderichthyes Tiktaalik Ventastega Acanthostega Ichthyostega Tulerpeton Whatcheeria Pederpes More advanced amphibians Tiktaalik roseae – a lobe-finned fish intermediate between typical sarcopterygians and basal tetrapods. Mid to Late Devonian; 375 million years old. The back end of Tiktaalik’s skull is intermediate between fishes and tetrapods. Tiktaalik is a fish with wrist bones, yet still retaining fin rays. The posture of Tiktaalik’s fin/limb is intermediate between that of fishes an tetrapods. Coelacanths Lungfish Rhizodontids Eusthenopteron Panderichthyes Tiktaalik Ventastega Acanthostega Ichthyostega Tulerpeton Whatcheeria Pederpes More advanced amphibians Reconstructions of the basal tetrapod Ventastega.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish and Amphibians
    Fish and Amphibians Geology 331 Paleontology Phylum Chordata: Subphyla Urochordata, Cephalochordata, and: Subphylum Vertebrata Class Agnatha: jawless fish, includes the hagfish, conodonts, lampreys, and ostracoderms (armored jawless fish) Gnathostomates: jawed fish Class Chondrichthyes: cartilaginous fish Class Placoderms: armored fish Class Osteichthyes: bony fish Subclass Actinopterygians: ray-finned fish Subclass Sarcopterygians: lobe-finned fish Order Dipnoans: lung fish Order Crossopterygians: coelocanths and rhipidistians Class Amphibia Urochordates: Sea Squirts. Adults have a pharynx with gill slits. Larval forms are free-swimming and have a notochord. Chordates are thought to have evolved from the larval form by precocious sexual maturation. Chordate evolution Cephalochordate: Branchiostoma, the lancelet Pikaia, a cephalochordate from the Burgess Shale Yunnanozoon, a cephalochordate from the Lower Cambrian of China Haikouichthys, agnathan, Lower Cambrian of China - Chengjiang fauna, scale is 5 mm A living jawless fish, the lamprey, Class Agnatha Jawless fish do have teeth! A fossil jawless fish, Class Agnatha, Ostracoderm, Hemicyclaspis, Silurian Agnathan, Ostracoderm, Athenaegis, Silurian of Canada Agnathan, Ostracoderm, Pteraspis, Devonian of the U.K. Agnathan, Ostracoderm, Liliaspis, Devonian of Russia Jaws evolved by modification of the gill arch bones. The placoderms were the armored fish of the Paleozoic Placoderm, Dunkleosteus, Devonian of Ohio Asterolepis, Placoderms, Devonian of Latvia Placoderm, Devonian of Australia Chondrichthyes: A freshwater shark of the Carboniferous Fossil tooth of a Great White shark Chondrichthyes, Great White Shark Chondrichthyes, Carcharhinus Sphyrna - hammerhead shark Himantura - a ray Manta Ray Fish Anatomy: Ray-finned fish Osteichthyes: ray-finned fish: clownfish Osteichthyes: ray-finned fish, deep water species Lophius, an Eocene fish showing the ray fins. This is an anglerfish.
    [Show full text]
  • Class Wars: Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes Dominance in Chesapeake Bay, 2002-2012
    Class Wars: Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes dominance in Chesapeake Bay, 2002-2012. 01 July 2013 Introduction The objective of this analysis was to demonstrate a possible changing relationship between two Classes of fishes, Osteichthyes (the bony fishes) and Chondrichthyes (the cartilaginous fishes) in Chesapeake Bay based on 11 years of monitoring. If any changes between the two Classes appeared to be significant, either statistically or anecdotally, the data were explored further in an attempt to explain the variation. The Class Osteichthyes is characterized by having a skeleton made of bone and is comprised of the majority of fish species worldwide, while the Chondrichthyes skeleton is made of cartilage and is represented by the sharks, skates, and rays (the elasmobranch fishes) and chimaeras1. Many shark species are generally categorized as apex predators, while skates and rays and some smaller sharks can be placed into the mesopredator functional group (Myers et al., 2007). By definition, mesopredators prey upon a significant array of lower trophic groups, but also serve as the prey base for apex predators. Global demand for shark and consequential shark fishing mortality, estimated at 97 million sharks in 2010 (Worm et al., 2013), is hypothesized to have contributed to the decline of these apex predators in recent years (Baum et al., 2003 and Fowler et al., 2005), which in turn is suggested to have had a cascading effect on lower trophic levels—an increase in mesopredators and subsequent decrease in the prey base (Myers et al., 2007). According to 10 years of trawl survey monitoring of Chesapeake Bay, fish species composition of catches has shown a marked change over the years (Buchheister et al., 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Systematic Morphology of Fishes in the Early 21St Century
    Copeia 103, No. 4, 2015, 858–873 When Tradition Meets Technology: Systematic Morphology of Fishes in the Early 21st Century Eric J. Hilton1, Nalani K. Schnell2, and Peter Konstantinidis1 Many of the primary groups of fishes currently recognized have been established through an iterative process of anatomical study and comparison of fishes that has spanned a time period approaching 500 years. In this paper we give a brief history of the systematic morphology of fishes, focusing on some of the individuals and their works from which we derive our own inspiration. We further discuss what is possible at this point in history in the anatomical study of fishes and speculate on the future of morphology used in the systematics of fishes. Beyond the collection of facts about the anatomy of fishes, morphology remains extremely relevant in the age of molecular data for at least three broad reasons: 1) new techniques for the preparation of specimens allow new data sources to be broadly compared; 2) past morphological analyses, as well as new ideas about interrelationships of fishes (based on both morphological and molecular data) provide rich sources of hypotheses to test with new morphological investigations; and 3) the use of morphological data is not limited to understanding phylogeny and evolution of fishes, but rather is of broad utility to understanding the general biology (including phenotypic adaptation, evolution, ecology, and conservation biology) of fishes. Although in some ways morphology struggles to compete with the lure of molecular data for systematic research, we see the anatomical study of fishes entering into a new and exciting phase of its history because of recent technological and methodological innovations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Absence of Sharks from Abyssal Regions of the World's Oceans
    Proc. R. Soc. B (2006) 273, 1435–1441 doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3461 Published online 21 February 2006 The absence of sharks from abyssal regions of the world’s oceans Imants G. Priede1,*, Rainer Froese2, David M. Bailey3, Odd Aksel Bergstad4, Martin A. Collins5, Jan Erik Dyb6, Camila Henriques1, Emma G. Jones7 and Nicola King1 1University of Aberdeen, Oceanlab, Newburgh, Aberdeen AB41 6AA, UK 2Leibniz-Institut fu¨r Meereswissenschaften, IfM-GEOMAR, Du¨sternbrooker Weg 20, 24105 Kiel, Germany 3Marine Biology Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0202, USA 4Institute of Marine Research, Flødevigen Marine Research Station, 4817 His, Norway 5British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK 6Møre Research, Section of Fisheries, PO Box 5075, 6021 Aalesund, Norway 7FRS Marine Laboratory, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen AB11 9DB, UK The oceanic abyss (depths greater than 3000 m), one of the largest environments on the planet, is characterized by absence of solar light, high pressures and remoteness from surface food supply necessitating special molecular, physiological, behavioural and ecological adaptations of organisms that live there. Sampling by trawl, baited hooks and cameras we show that the Chondrichthyes (sharks, rays and chimaeras) are absent from, or very rare in this region. Analysis of a global data set shows a trend of rapid disappearance of chondrichthyan species with depth when compared with bony fishes. Sharks, apparently well adapted to life at high pressures are conspicuous on slopes down to 2000 m including scavenging at food falls such as dead whales.
    [Show full text]
  • Great White Shark Carcharodon Carcharias
    Great White Shark Carcharodon carcharias Great White Sharks (Great Whites) are large predators at the top of the marine food chain. They are in the same class as all sharks and rays (Chondrichthyes) – this group is different from other fish as their skeleton is made from cartilage instead of bone. They have an average length of four to five metres, but can grow up to seven metres. Using their powerful tails to propel them, these sharks can move Bioregion resources through the water at up to 24 km per hour. Their mouths are lined with up to 300 serrated triangular teeth arranged in several rows. Diet Great Whites are able to use electroreception (the ability to detect weak electrical currents) to find and attack prey without seeing it. This can be useful in murky water or when their prey is hidden under sediment. This gives them the ability to navigate by sensing the Earth’s magnetic field. They have a strong sense of smell which is also useful in detecting prey. Contrary to some people’s beliefs, they often only attack humans to ‘sample bite’ and do not usually choose to eat human flesh, preferring marine mammals such as seals and sea lions. They are also known to feed on dolphins, octopus, squid, other sharks, rays and lobster, fish, crabs and seabirds. Breeding Great Whites have a low reproduction rate that makes it difficult for species numbers to recover. Males mature at eight to ten years and females mature at 12-18 years. Females give birth to two to ten pups once every two to three years.
    [Show full text]
  • I Ecomorphological Change in Lobe-Finned Fishes (Sarcopterygii
    Ecomorphological change in lobe-finned fishes (Sarcopterygii): disparity and rates by Bryan H. Juarez A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Ecology and Evolutionary Biology) in the University of Michigan 2015 Master’s Thesis Committee: Assistant Professor Lauren C. Sallan, University of Pennsylvania, Co-Chair Assistant Professor Daniel L. Rabosky, Co-Chair Associate Research Scientist Miriam L. Zelditch i © Bryan H. Juarez 2015 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the Rabosky Lab, David W. Bapst, Graeme T. Lloyd and Zerina Johanson for helpful discussions on methodology, Lauren C. Sallan, Miriam L. Zelditch and Daniel L. Rabosky for their dedicated guidance on this study and the London Natural History Museum for courteously providing me with access to specimens. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF APPENDICES v ABSTRACT vi SECTION I. Introduction 1 II. Methods 4 III. Results 9 IV. Discussion 16 V. Conclusion 20 VI. Future Directions 21 APPENDICES 23 REFERENCES 62 iv LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE/FIGURE II. Cranial PC-reduced data 6 II. Post-cranial PC-reduced data 6 III. PC1 and PC2 Cranial and Post-cranial Morphospaces 11-12 III. Cranial Disparity Through Time 13 III. Post-cranial Disparity Through Time 14 III. Cranial/Post-cranial Disparity Through Time 15 v LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Lobe-fins 24 B. Species Used In Analysis 34 C. Cranial and Post-Cranial Landmarks 37 D. PC3 and PC4 Cranial and Post-cranial Morphospaces 38 E. PC1 PC2 Cranial Morphospaces 39 1-2.
    [Show full text]
  • Class SARCOPTERYGII Order COELACANTHIFORMES
    click for previous page Coelacanthiformes: Latimeriidae 3969 Class SARCOPTERYGII Order COELACANTHIFORMES LATIMERIIDAE (= Coelacanthidae) Coelacanths by S.L. Jewett A single species occurring in the area. Latimeria menadoensis Pouyaud, Wirjoatmodjo, Rachmatika, Tjakrawidjaja, Hadiaty, and Hadie, 1999 Frequent synonyms / misidentifications: None / Nearly identical in appearance to Latimeria chalumnae Smith, 1939 from the western Indian Ocean. FAO names: En - Sulawesi coelacanth. Diagnostic characters: A large robust fish. Caudal-peduncle depth nearly equal to body depth. Head robust, with large eye, terminal mouth, and large soft gill flap extending posteriorly from opercular bone. Dorsal surface of snout with pits and reticulations comprising part of sensory system. Three large, widely spaced pores on each side of snout, 1 near tip of snout and 2 just anterior to eye, connecting internally to rostral organ. Anterior nostrils form small papillae located at dorsolateral margin of mouth, at anterior end of pseudomaxillary fold (thick, muscularized skin which replaces the maxilla in coelacanths). Ventral side of head with prominent paired gular plates, longitudinally oriented along midline; skull dorsally with pronounced paired bony plates, just above and behind eyes, the posterior margins of which mark exterior manifestation of intracranial joint (or hinge) that divides braincase into anterior and posterior portions (found only in coelacanths). First dorsal fin typical, with 8 stout bony rays. Second dorsal (28 rays), anal (30), paired pectoral (each 30 to 33), and paired pelvic (each 33) fins lobed, i.e. each with a fleshy base, internally supported by an endoskeleton with which terminal fin rays articulate. Caudal fin atypical, consisting of 3 parts: upper and lower portions with numerous rays more or less symmetrically arranged along dorsal and ventral midlines, and a separate smaller terminal portion (sometimes called epicaudal fin) with symmetrically arranged rays.
    [Show full text]