DOCSLIB.ORG

Ancient Nursery Area for the Extinct Giant Shark Megalodon from the Miocene of Panama

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ancient Nursery Area for the Extinct Giant Shark Megalodon from the Miocene of Panama Ancient Nursery Area for the Extinct Giant Shark Megalodon from the Miocene of Panama Catalina Pimiento1,2,3*, Dana J. Ehret2,4, Bruce J. MacFadden2,5, Gordon Hubbell6 1 Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America, 2 Division of Vertebrate Paleontology, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America, 3 Center of Paleoecology and Archaeology, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama, Republic of Panama, 4 School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America, 5 Division of Research on Learning (DRL), Education and Human Resources (EHR), National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, United States of America, 6 Jaws International, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America Abstract Background: As we know from modern species, nursery areas are essential shark habitats for vulnerable young. Nurseries are typically highly productive, shallow-water habitats that are characterized by the presence of juveniles and neonates. It has been suggested that in these areas, sharks can find ample food resources and protection from predators. Based on the fossil record, we know that the extinct Carcharocles megalodon was the biggest shark that ever lived. Previous proposed paleo-nursery areas for this species were based on the anecdotal presence of juvenile fossil teeth accompanied by fossil marine mammals. We now present the first definitive evidence of ancient nurseries for C. megalodon from the late Miocene of Panama, about 10 million years ago. Methodology/Principal Findings: We collected and measured fossil shark teeth of C. megalodon, within the highly productive, shallow marine Gatun Formation from the Miocene of Panama. Surprisingly, and in contrast to other fossil accumulations, the majority of the teeth from Gatun are very small. Here we compare the tooth sizes from the Gatun with specimens from different, but analogous localities. In addition we calculate the total length of the individuals found in Gatun. These comparisons and estimates suggest that the small size of Gatun’s C. megalodon is neither related to a small population of this species nor the tooth position within the jaw. Thus, the individuals from Gatun were mostly juveniles and neonates, with estimated body lengths between 2 and 10.5 meters. Conclusions/Significance: We propose that the Miocene Gatun Formation represents the first documented paleo-nursery area for C. megalodon from the Neotropics, and one of the few recorded in the fossil record for an extinct selachian. We therefore show that sharks have used nursery areas at least for 10 millions of years as an adaptive strategy during their life histories. Citation: Pimiento C, Ehret DJ, MacFadden BJ, Hubbell G (2010) Ancient Nursery Area for the Extinct Giant Shark Megalodon from the Miocene of Panama. PLoS ONE 5(5): e10552. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010552 Editor: Anna Stepanova, Paleontological Institute, Russian Federation Received February 24, 2010; Accepted April 18, 2010; Published May 10, 2010 Copyright: ß 2010 Pimiento et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding: This project was funded by NSF EAR 0418042 (http://www.nsf.gov/funding), Sigma Xi G2009100426 (http://www.sigmaxi.org/programs/giar/index. shtml), The Florida Museum of Natural History (www.flmnh.ufl.edu), The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (www.stri.org), The Mitchell Hope Scholarship (http://www.southwestfloridafossilclub.com/) and the Ken Ericson Scholarship (http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/vertpaleo/kenericsonscholarship.htm). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. * E-mail: [email protected] Introduction The Gatun is a highly fossiliferous Neogene formation located in the Isthmus of Panama (Figure 1) with a diverse fauna of sharks Sharks, especially large species, are highly mobile organisms [5–7]. It was located within a marine strait that connected the with a complex life history and wide distribution. During their Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea during the late Miocene lifetime they generally utilize three types of areas: adult feeding, (,10 Ma) [8]. Studies of different taxa, including the exceedingly reproduction and nurseries [1]. In modern species, nursery areas diverse molluscan fauna, indicate that it was a shallow-water are historically defined by the presence of gravid females and free- ecosystem (,25 m depth) with higher salinity, mean annual swimming neonates. It is also an area that can be shared by several temperature variations, seasonality and productivity relative to shark species, where young sharks spend their first weeks, months modern systems in this region [7,9–13]. Over the past 20 years, the or years [2]. More recent studies have defined nursery areas as Gatun Formation localities have been extensively used to extract geographically discrete essential zones for shark survival [3] that sediment for construction. During the more recent years, these provides them with two types of benefits: protection from extraction activities have increased substantially. Based on our predation (mainly larger sharks [2]) and abundant food resources. observations made during the two past years of fieldwork, we predict Productive, shallow-water ecosystems thus provide sharks signif- that these outcrops will soon likely be excavated completely. icant protection from larger predators and/or abundant food Therefore it is timely and urgent to study the fossils occurring in resources, both of which are essential to survival [4]. these outcrops before they are no longer available to science. PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 May 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 5 | e10552 Megalodon Nursery Area Figure 1. Study area. A. Location of Panama and the Gatun Formation. The shaded box represents the general study area in northern Panama. B. Expanded geological map (from ‘‘See Below’’ shaded box in Fig. A). This map shows the exposures of the Gatun Formation and surrounding rock units (modified from Coates et al., 1992). The two fossil localities collected from the Gatun Formation during this study include: (1) Las Lomas and (2) Isla Payardi. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010552.g001 Fossil sharks were first reported from Panama in 1862 [5]. In paleoecology of the Gatun Formation as shallow-water habitat in a 1984, the first description of the elasmobranchs from the Gatun productive environment [7]. Formation was published [6]. More recently, in 2010 the Although it is not very common, the extinct Carcharocles biodiversity of the fossil sharks from the Gatun has been megalodon (Agassiz 1843) is one of the species that occurs in the documented from large new collections, and comprise 16 Gatun Formation. The taxonomic assignment of this species has recognizable taxa. This work also included paleoecological and been debated for nearly a century, and there are three possible paleodepth analyses that supported the interpretation of the interpretations: (1) Some authors place C. megalodon and other PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 May 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 5 | e10552 Megalodon Nursery Area megatoothed sharks with the extant white shark (Carcharodon In this study C. megalodon teeth were collected and measured carcharias) in the same genus (Carcharodon) and therefore the same from two localities within the Gatun Formation of Panama family (Lamnidae) [14–16]. (2) Other authors place C. megalodon (Figure 1). Surprisingly, large teeth are uncommon with specimens and megatoothed sharks in a different genus (Carcharocles) and recovered having CH ranging between 16 to 72 mm (Figure 2). family (Otodontidae) [17–23]. Although a minority point of The objective of this work is to determine if the late Miocene view, some workers recognize (3) megatoothed sharks as a series Gatun Formation was used as a nursery area by young C. of chronospecies of the genus Otodus, and place all megatoothed megalodon. Accordingly, we compared the tooth sizes from the sharks except C. megalodon in this genus. Furthermore, C. Gatun Formation with those found in older and younger megalodon is assigned to the genus Megaselachus, based on the formations to determine if the smaller size distribution observed loss of lateral cusplets [24]. We follow the second hypothesis; is unique to the species during the late Miocene. In addition, we that Carcharocles megalodon and Carcharodon carcharias belong to compared these sizes with tooth sets from individuals of different separate genera in different families. However, both species life stages to determine if the small size observed is related to age, belong to the order Lamniformes, and in the absence of living or position within the jaw. Finally, we calculated the TL of all C. members of the Otodontidae, C. carcharias should be regarded as megalodon individuals from the Gatun Formation to estimate their ecologically analogous species to C. megalodon.Webasethis life stage. The results obtained in this study from tooth analogy on the fact that both species share similar ecological measurement comparisons and individual total length estimates niches with presumed similarities in body shape, feeding habits, allowed us to determine the age
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Great White Shark Quick Questions
    The Great White Shark Quick Questions 11 Great white sharks are the top of the ocean’s food chain. 1. Why do you think that the great white shark is at 22 They are the biggest fish on our planet which eat other the top of the ocean’s food chain? 32 fish and animals. They are known to live between thirty 45 and one hundred years old and can be found in all of the 55 world’s oceans, but they are mostly found in cool water 59 close to the coast. 2. Where are most great white sharks found? 69 Even though they are mostly grey, they get their name 78 from their white underbelly. The great white shark has 89 been known to grow up to six metres long and have 99 up to three hundred sharp teeth, in seven rows. Their 3. Find and copy the adjective that the author uses 109 amazing sense of smell allows them to hunt for prey, to describe the shark’s sense of smell. 119 such as seals, rays and small whales from miles away. 4. Number these facts from 1 to 3 to show the order they appear in the text. They live between thirty and one hundred years. They can grow up to six metres long. They have up to three hundred teeth. The Great White Shark Answers 11 Great white sharks are the top of the ocean’s food chain. 1. Why do you think that the great white shark is at 22 They are the biggest fish on our planet which eat other the top of the ocean’s food chain? 32 fish and animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Great White Shark) on Appendix I of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
    Prop. 11.48 Proposal to include Carcharodon carcharias (Great White Shark) on Appendix I of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) A. PROPOSAL ..............................................................................................3 B. PROPONENT............................................................................................3 C. SUPPORTING STATEMENT....................................................................3 1. Taxonomy.........................................................................................................................3 1.1 Class.................................................................................................................................... 1.2 Order................................................................................................................................... 1.3 Family ................................................................................................................................. 1.4 Species ................................................................................................................................ 1.5 Scientific Synonyms............................................................................................................. 1.6 Common Names .................................................................................................................. 2. Biological Parameters......................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Tulane Studies Tn Geology and Paleontology Pliocene
    TULANE STUDIES TN GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY Volu me 22, Number 2 Sepl<'mber 20. l!J8~) PLIOCENE THREE-TOED HORSES FROM LOUISIANA. WITH COMMENTS ON THE CITRONELLE FORMATION EAHL M. MANNING MUSP.UM OF'GEOSCIF:NCE. LOUISJJ\NA STATE UNIVF:RSlTY. JJATO.\I ROI.JG/<. LOL'/S//\;\':1 and llRUCE J. MACFADDlrn DEJ>ARTM/<:NTOF NATUH/\LSCIENCES. F'LORJD/\ MUSf:UM Of<'NJ\TUIV\/, lllSTOUY UNIVERSITY OF FLOH!IJJ\. GJ\/NESVlU.E. Fl.OH/DA CONTENTS Page T. ABSTRACT 3.5 II INTRODUCTION :l5 Ill. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS :rn TV . ABBREVIATIONS :l7 V. SYSTEMATIC PALEONTOLOGY ;37 VI. AGE OF THE TUNICA HILLS HIPPARIONINES 38 VIL STRATIGRAPHIC PROVENIENCE 38 Vlll. PLIOCENE TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES OF THE GULF AND ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN .JO IX. COMMENTS ON THE CITRONELLE FORMATION .JI X. AGE OF THE CITRONELLE 42 XL TH E CITRONELLE FORMATION IN nm TUNICA HILLS .t:1 XII. LITERATURE CITED l.J January of 1985, the senior author was L ABSTRACT shown a large collection of late Pleistocene Teeth and metacarpals of early Pliocene (Rancholabrean land-mammal agel ver­ (latest Hemphillian land-mammal age) tebrate fossils from the Tunica Hills of three-toed (hipparionine) horses are de­ Louisiana (Fig. I) by Dr. A. Bradley scribed from the Tunica Hills of West McPherson of Centenary College, Feliciana Parish in east-central Louisiana. Shreveport. McPherson and Mr. Bill Lee An upper molar perta ins to Nannippus of Balon Rouge had collected fossils from minor, known from the Hcmphillian of that area since about 1981. Among the Central and North America, and two teeth standard assemblage of Rancholabrean and two distal metacarpals pertain to a re­ taxa (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • 8Th MEETING of the SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE New Zealand, 3 to 8 October 2020
    th 8 MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE New Zealand, 3 to 8 October 2020 SC8-DW14 Interactions with marine mammals, seabirds, reptiles, other species of concern New Zealand PO Box 3797, Wellington 6140, New Zealand P: +64 4 499 9889 – F: +64 4 473 9579 – E: [email protected] www.sprfmo.int SC8-DW14 South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation 8th Meeting of the Scientific Committee Online meeting hosted by New Zealand, 3–8 October 2020 Interactions with marine mammals, seabirds, reptiles (turtles), and other species of concern in bottom fisheries to 2019 Martin Cryer1, Igor Debski2, Shane W. Geange2, Tiffany D. Bock3, Marco Milardi3 3 September 2020 1. Fisheries New Zealand, Ministry for Primary Industries, Nelson, New Zealand 2. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand 3. Fisheries New Zealand, Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand 1 SC8-DW14 Contents 1. Purpose of paper ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Requirements of CMM-03-2020 and CMM-02-2020 ....................................................... 3 3. Reported interactions ..................................................................................................... 3 4. Discussion of seabird interactions ................................................................................... 5 5. Processes for verifying records and updating databases ................................................. 6 6. Acknowledgments ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • How Solitary Are White Sharks: Social Interactions Or Just Spatial Proximity?
    Behav Ecol Sociobiol DOI 10.1007/s00265-016-2179-y ORIGINAL ARTICLE How solitary are white sharks: social interactions or just spatial proximity? R. Findlay1 & E. Gennari2,3 & M. Cantor1 & D. P. Tittensor 1,4 Received: 23 October 2015 /Revised: 24 June 2016 /Accepted: 28 June 2016 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016 Abstract the evidence that large pelagic shark species are generally White sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) are circumglobally solitary and display limited social behaviour. distributed large apex predators. While ecologically impor- tant, there is very limited study of their social behaviour. Significance statement Although evident in other large, apex marine predators (e.g. Large pelagic shark species are important top predators, but toothed whales) and smaller elasmobranchs (e.g. blacktip reef we know little about their social behaviour. We tested the sharks), the ability of any large pelagic elasmobranch to dem- ability of white sharks (C. carcharias) to form groups and onstrate social preferences, tolerance or grouping behaviour is display social preferences for other individuals when they largely unknown. Here, we test whether white sharks in a congregate at scavenging events in a coastal environment, near-coastal environment form non-random associations with where social interactions may be more likely. We found that other conspecifics or simply share the same space at the same white sharks co-occur at random, displaying no preferred or time. We photo-identified 323 individuals—74 % juvenile avoided associations for other individuals. Nevertheless, there females (175–300 cm)—during chumming events at six dif- was a minor influence of biological traits, with individuals ferent sites in Mossel Bay, South Africa, over a 6-year period aggregating according to gender and, possibly, body size.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Machairodont from the Palmetto Fauna (Early Pliocene) of Florida, with Comments on the Origin of the Smilodontini (Mammalia, Carnivora, Felidae)
    A New Machairodont from the Palmetto Fauna (Early Pliocene) of Florida, with Comments on the Origin of the Smilodontini (Mammalia, Carnivora, Felidae) Steven C. Wallace1*, Richard C. Hulbert Jr.2 1 Department of Geosciences, Don Sundquist Center of Excellence in Paleontology, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, United States of America, 2 Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America Abstract South-central Florida’s latest Hemphillian Palmetto Fauna includes two machairodontine felids, the lion-sized Machairodus coloradensis and a smaller, jaguar-sized species, initially referred to Megantereon hesperus based on a single, relatively incomplete mandible. This made the latter the oldest record of Megantereon, suggesting a New World origin of the genus. Subsequent workers variously accepted or rejected this identification and biogeographic scenario. Fortunately, new material, which preserves previously unknown characters, is now known for the smaller taxon. The most parsimonious results of a phylogenetic analysis using 37 cranio-mandibular characters from 13 taxa place it in the Smilodontini, like the original study; however, as the sister-taxon to Megantereon and Smilodon. Accordingly, we formally describe Rhizosmilodon fiteae gen. et sp. nov. Rhizosmilodon, Megantereon, and Smilodon ( = Smilodontini) share synapomorphies relative to their sister-taxon Machairodontini: serrations smaller and restricted to canines; offset of P3 with P4 and p4 with m1; complete verticalization of mandibular symphysis; m1 shortened and robust with widest point anterior to notch; and extreme posterior ‘‘lean’’ to p3/p4. Rhizosmilodon has small anterior and posterior accessory cusps on p4, a relatively large lower canine, and small, non-procumbent lower incisors; all more primitive states than in Megantereon and Smilodon.
    [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]
  • Miocene Paleontology and Stratigraphy of the Suwannee River Basin of North Florida and South Georgia
    MIOCENE PALEONTOLOGY AND STRATIGRAPHY OF THE SUWANNEE RIVER BASIN OF NORTH FLORIDA AND SOUTH GEORGIA SOUTHEASTERN GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Guidebook Number 30 October 7, 1989 MIOCENE PALEONTOLOGY AND STRATIGRAPHY OF THE SUWANNEE RIVER BASIN OF NORTH FLORIDA AND SOUTH GEORGIA Compiled and edit e d by GARY S . MORGAN GUIDEBOOK NUMBER 30 A Guidebook for the Annual Field Trip of the Southeastern Geological Society October 7, 1989 Published by the Southeastern Geological Society P. 0 . Box 1634 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 TABLE OF CONTENTS Map of field trip area ...... ... ................................... 1 Road log . ....................................... ..... ..... ... .... 2 Preface . .................. ....................................... 4 The lithostratigraphy of the sediments exposed along the Suwannee River in the vicinity of White Springs by Thomas M. scott ........................................... 6 Fossil invertebrates from the banks of the Suwannee River at White Springs, Florida by Roger W. Portell ...... ......................... ......... 14 Miocene vertebrate faunas from the Suwannee River Basin of North Florida and South Georgia by Gary s. Morgan .................................. ........ 2 6 Fossil sirenians from the Suwannee River, Florida and Georgia by Daryl P. Damning . .................................... .... 54 1 HAMIL TON CO. MAP OF FIELD TRIP AREA 2 ROAD LOG Total Mileage from Reference Points Mileage Last Point 0.0 0.0 Begin at Holiday Inn, Lake City, intersection of I-75 and US 90. 7.3 7.3 Pass under I-10. 12 . 6 5.3 Turn right (east) on SR 136. 15.8 3 . 2 SR 136 Bridge over Suwannee River. 16.0 0.2 Turn left (west) on us 41. 19 . 5 3 . 5 Turn right (northeast) on CR 137. 23.1 3.6 On right-main office of Occidental Chemical Corporation.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Fossil Sea Turtles (Testudines: Cheloniidae)
    The first fossil sea turtles (Testudines: Cheloniidae) from the Cenozoic of Australia ERICH M. G. FITZGERALD and LESLEY KOOL FITZGERALD, E.M.G. & KOOL, L., XX.XX.2015. The first fossil sea turtles (Testudines: Cheloniidae) from the Cenozoic of Australia. Alcheringa 39, xxx–xxx. ISSN 0311-5518 An isolated dentary and costal identified as cf. Pacifichelys and Cheloniidae indet., respectively, are described from the upper Miocene–lower Plio- cene Black Rock Sandstone of Beaumaris, Victoria, Australia. These remains represent the first fossil evidence of sea turtles from the Cenozoic of Australia. Neither of the fossils can be referred to living genera, indicating that extinct cheloniids occurred in southeast Australian coastal waters for at least part of the late Neogene. Thus, the taxonomic composition of the current sea turtle fauna of Australia was apparently established within the last five to six million years. Erich M. G. Fitzgerald [efi[email protected]] and Lesley Kool [[email protected]], Geosciences, Museum Victoria, GPO Box 666, Melbourne, Victoria, 3001, Australia. Received 26.6.2014; revised 9.8.2014; accepted 14.8.2014. Key words: Pacifichelys, Neogene, Miocene, Pliocene, Victoria, marine, vertebrate. AUSTRALIAN seas are inhabited by six of the seven liv- 2012), sirenians (Fitzgerald et al. 2013), phocid seals ing sea turtle species of the families Cheloniidae and (Fordyce & Flannery 1983), baleen whales (Fitzgerald Dermochelyidae, including one endemic species 2004, 2012), odontocetes (Chapman 1912, 1917) and (Márquez 1990). Cretaceous marine basins of northern rare remains of terrestrial dromornithid birds (Park & Australia have additionally produced an abundance of sea Fitzgerald 2012b) and marsupials (Piper et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks Great White Shark Fact Sheet
    CMS/MOS3/Inf.15b Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks Great White Shark Fact Sheet Class: Chondrichthyes Great White shark Grand requin blanc Order: Lamniformes Jaquetón blanco Family: Lamnidae Species: Carcharodon carcharias Illustration: © Marc Dando 1. BIOLOGY Carcharodon carcharias (Great white shark) inhabit coastal waters of subtropical and temperate seas. Female age at maturity is uncertain ranging between 9 and 17 years (Smith et al. 1998, Mollet and Cailliet (2002). Reported litter size ranges between 2- 17 pups per female (Bruce, 2008). Von Bertalanffy growth estimates of white shark range from a k value=0.159 y−1 for female sharks from Japan whereas Cailliet et al. (1985) and Wintner and Cliff (1999) reported k values of 0.058 y−1 and 0.065 y−1 (sexes combined) for individuals collected in California and South Africa, respectively. Based on bomb radio-carbon signatures, the maximum age of white sharks is up to 73 years (Hamady et al., 2014). 2. DISTRIBUTION The white shark is distributed throughout all oceans, with concentrations in temperate coastal areas (Compagno 2001), including inter alia California, USA to Baja California, Mexico (Ainley et al. 1985, Klimley 1985, Domeier and Nasby-Lucas 2007, Lowe et al. 2012, Onate-Gonzalez et al. 2017), North West Atlantic (Casey and Pratt 1985, Curtis et al. 2014), Australia (Bruce 1992, Bruce and Bradford 2012, McAuley et al. 2017), and South Africa (Ferreira & Ferreira 1996, Dudley 2012). The Mediterranean Sea is thought to host a fairly isolated population with little or no contemporary immigration from the Atlantic (Gubili et al.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF) S3 Table
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Tooth mineralization and histology patterns in extinct and extant snaggletooth sharks, Hemipristis (Carcharhiniformes, Hemigaleidae)ÐEvolutionary significance or ecological adaptation? Patrick L. Jambura1*, Cathrin Pfaff1, Charlie J. Underwood2, David J. Ward3, JuÈrgen Kriwet1 a1111111111 1 Department of Palaeontology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, 2 Department of Earth and Planetary a1111111111 Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, London, United Kingdom, 3 Department of Earth Sciences, Natural a1111111111 History Museum, London, United Kingdom a1111111111 a1111111111 * [email protected] Abstract OPEN ACCESS Shark jaws exhibit teeth that are arranged into distinct series and files and display great Citation: Jambura PL, Pfaff C, Underwood CJ, diversities in shapes and structures, which not only is related to their function (grasping, cut- Ward DJ, Kriwet J (2018) Tooth mineralization ting, crushing) during feeding, but also bear a strong phylogenetic signal. So far, most and histology patterns in extinct and extant research on the relationship between shark teeth and feeding ecology and systematics snaggletooth sharks, Hemipristis (Carcharhiniformes, Hemigaleidae)Ð focused on the external tooth morphology only. Although the tooth histology of sharks has th Evolutionary significance or ecological been examined since the early 19 century, its functional and systematic implications are adaptation? PLoS ONE 13(8): e0200951. https:// still ambiguous. Shark teeth normally consist of either a porous, cellular dentine, osteoden- doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200951 tine (in lamniform sharks and some batoids) or a dense layer of orthodentine (known from Editor: Alistair Robert Evans, Monash University, different sharks). Sharks of the order Carcharhiniformes, comprising ca. 60% of all extant AUSTRALIA shark species, are known to have orthodont teeth, with a single exceptionÐthe snaggle- Received: January 30, 2018 tooth shark, Hemipristis elongata.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Sharks and Rays
    NSW DPI Identifying sharks and rays A guide for NSW commercial fishers Important If a shark or ray cannot be confidently identified using this guide, it is recommended that either digital images are obtained or the specimen is preserved. Please contact NSW DPI research staff for assistance: phone 1300 550 474 or email [email protected] Contents Introduction 4 How to use this guide 5 Glossary 6-7 Key 1 Whaler sharks and other sharks of similar appearance 8-9 to whalers – upper precaudal pit present Key 2 Sharks of similar appearance to whaler sharks – no 10 precaudal pit Key 3 Mackerel (great white and mako), hammerhead and 11 thresher sharks Key 4 Wobbegongs and some other patterned 12 bottom-dwelling sharks Key 5 Sawsharks and other long-snouted sharks and rays 13 2 Sandbar shark 14 Great white shark 42 Bignose shark 15 Porbeagle 43 Dusky whaler 16 Shortfin mako 44 Silky shark 17 Longfin mako 45 Oceanic whitetip shark 18 Thresher shark 46 Tiger shark 19 Pelagic thresher 47 Common blacktip shark 20 Bigeye thresher 48 Spinner shark 21 Great hammerhead 49 Blue shark 22 Scalloped hammerhead 50 Sliteye shark 23 Smooth hammerhead 51 Bull shark 24 Eastern angelshark 52 Bronze whaler 25 Australian angelshark 53 Weasel shark 26 Banded wobbegong 54 Lemon shark 27 Ornate wobbegong 55 Grey nurse shark 28 Spotted wobbegong 56 Sandtiger (Herbst’s nurse) shark 29 Draughtboard shark 57 Bluntnose sixgill shark 30 Saddled swellshark 58 Bigeye sixgill shark 31 Whitefin swellshark 59 Broadnose shark 32 Port Jackson shark 60 Sharpnose sevengill
    [Show full text]