Wright State University CORE Scholar
Browse all Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations
2016
Convergent Evolution in Tooth Morphology of Filter Feeding Lamniform Sharks
Michaela Grace Mitchell Wright State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all
Part of the Earth Sciences Commons, and the Environmental Sciences Commons
Repository Citation Mitchell, Michaela Grace, "Convergent Evolution in Tooth Morphology of Filter Feeding Lamniform Sharks" (2016). Browse all Theses and Dissertations. 1652. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all/1652
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Browse all Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected].
CONVERGENT EVOLUTION IN TOOTH MORPHOLOGY OF FILTER FEEDING LAMNIFORM SHARKS
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science
By
MICHAELA GRACE MITCHELL B.S., Northern Kentucky University, 2014
2016 Wright State University
WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
November 4, 2016
I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Michaela Grace Mitchell ENTITLED Convergent Evolution in Tooth Morphology of Filter Feeding Lamniform Sharks BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Science.
Charles N. Ciampaglio, Ph.D. Thesis Director
David F. Dominic, Ph.D. Chair, Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences Committee on Final Examination
Charles N. Ciampaglio, Ph.D.
Stephen J. Jacquemin, Ph.D.
Stacey A. Hundley, Ph.D.
David A. Schmidt, Ph.D.
Robert E. W. Fyffe, Ph.D. Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School
ABSTRACT
Mitchell, Michaela Grace. M.S. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wright State University, 2016. Convergent Evolution in Tooth Morphology of Filter Feeding Lamniform Sharks.
The basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and megamouth shark (Megachasma pelagios) are two species of filter feeding sharks, both belonging to the order
Lamniformes. There are two conflicting hypotheses regarding the origins of filter feeding in lamniform sharks; that there is a single origin of filter feeding within Lamniformes, or conversely, the filter feeding adaptations have been developed independently due to different ancestral conditions. Evidence obtained from several studies strongly supports the latter hypothesis. Because evidence suggests that C. maximus and M. pelagios have developed their filter feeding adaptations independently, we expect to see convergent evolution taking place within these two lineages. Geometric morphometric analyses were performed on fossil and Recent teeth of megamouth and basking sharks to determine if there is commonality among tooth shape. The results of the analyses support independently derived filter feeding morphologies and convergent evolution within these two lineages.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………1
Environmental Factors…………………………………………………………….4
Objectives…………………………………………………………………………4
Rationale……………………………………………………………………….…5
II. BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………… 7
Conflicting Hypotheses…………………………………………………………..7
Phenetic and Cladistic Studies……………………………………………..…….8
Molecular Studies………………………………………………………………13
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS…………………………………………………….15
Description of Specimens……………………………………………………...15
Analysis………………………………………………………………………..16
IV. RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………19
Fossil and Recent Megachasma Analysis…………………………...... 19
Fossil and Recent Cetorhinus Analysis...... 20
Combined Cetorhinus and Megachasma Analysis……………………………21
V. DISCUSSION...... 25
VI. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………...29
Study Concerns……………………………………………………………….31
APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………………………...65
APPENDIX B…………………………………………………………………………...70
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………..73
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………..75
v
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Diagram of elasmobranch phylogeny………………………………………………...32
2. Alternative phylogenetic hypotheses for the relationships among species in Lamniformes……...…33
3. Cladogram of Maisey’s phylogenetic hypothesis that Megachasma and Cetorhinus are a monophyletic group within Cetorhinidae………….....34
4. Megamouth and basking sharks……………………………………………………....35
5. Chondrocrania of megamouth and basking sharks…………………………………...36
6. Teeth of megamouth and basking sharks………...…………………………………...37
7. Gill rakers of megamouth and basking sharks………………………………………..38
8. Consensus tree showing phylogenetic relationships of lamniform species based on 42 morphological characters…..39
9. Minimum length tree showing phylogenetic relationships of lamniform species based on cytochrome b gene sequences…..40
10. New hypothesis for phylogenetic relationships among lamniform sharks based on cytochrome b gene and NADH-2 gene sequences………....41
11. Eleven landmark points used in morphometric analysis…………………………....42
12. Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Megachasma teeth along RWA1 and RWA2…...... 43
13. Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Megachasma teeth along RWA1 and RWA3…...... 44
14. Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Megachasma teeth along RWA1 and RWA4…...... 45
15. Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Cetorhinus teeth along RWA1 and RWA2………..46
vi
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure Page 16. Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Cetorhinus teeth along RWA1 and RWA3..………..47
17. Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Cetorhinus teeth along RWA1 and RWA4..………..48
18. Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Cetorhinus and Megachasma teeth along RWA1 and RWA2..………..49
19. Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Cetorhinus and Megachasma teeth along RWA1 and RWA3..………..50
20. Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Cetorhinus and Megachasma teeth along RWA1 and RWA4..………..51
21. Mean tooth shapes from one-way ANOVAs on individual relative warp axes………52
vii
LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. List of species, DNA identification number, collection locality, and collector's name for all samples for which cytochrome b gene sequences were determined………………………………………………………54
2. List of species, specimen IDs, collection localities, ages, and sources of fossil teeth used in morphometric analyses……....56
3. List of specimens, collection localities, jaw positions, tooth positions, sexes, and sources for Recent Megachasma teeth used in morphometric analyses………...58
4. List of specimens, collection localities, jaw positions, tooth positions, sexes, and sources for Recent Cetorhinus teeth used in morphometric analyses………...60
5. MANOVA results for megamouth shark………………………………………………62
6. MANOVA results for basking shark………………………………………………...... 63
7. ANOVA results for individual relative warp axes……………………………………..64
viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Wright State University for the departmental funding they have provided, without which this thesis would not have been possible. I am very grateful to my adviser, Dr. Charles Ciampaglio, and committee members, Dr. Stephen Jacquemin,
Dr. Stacey Hundley, and Dr. David Schmidt, for their guidance and moral support throughout this project. I would also like to thank Dr. Gordon Hubbell for personally taking photographs from his own collection that were crucial to this thesis. I thank the late Ed Ramirez, who was my best friend, for his constant support of all my endeavors, without which I would not be where I am today. Lastly, I thank my family and friends who have supported me throughout my academic career.
ix
I. INTRODUCTION
Elasmobranchii is a subclass of cartilaginous fish within the class
Chondrichthyes. Elasmobranchii consists of sharks, rays, and skates (Figure 1). Of approximately 1,100 species of extant elasmobranchs, only 13 (1.2%) are filter feeders.
These filter feeders include the basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), the megamouth shark (Megachasma pelagios), the whale shark (Rhincodon typus), the manta ray (genus
Manta), and nine species of devil ray (genus Mobula). This thesis will focus on the megamouth shark and the basking shark, both belonging to the order Lamniformes.
Fossil evidence suggests that elasmobranchs have been primarily predatory from the Devonian Period of the Middle Paleozoic (about 425 million years ago) to the present
(Brett & Walker, 2002). The published fossil record suggests that most extant genera of lamniform sharks have late Middle to Late Cretaceous origins (Cappetta, 1987; Ward &
Wiest, 1990; Kemp, 1991; Siverson, 1992, 1995; Purdy, 1993; Case, 1994; Martin &
Naylor, 1997). The first records of undisputed basking sharks come from the Middle
Eocene of Antarctica (Cione & Reguero, 1998; Welton, 2013), and the Eocene of Oregon
(Welton 2013). While the earliest substantiated megachasmid record (Megachasma sp.) is from the Early Miocene-Early Pliocene deposits of North Carolina (Purdy et al., 2001;
Shimada, 2007), the earliest megachasmid fossils were considered to most likely be from the Middle Eocene (Naylor et al., 1997; Shimada, 2007). However, the megachasmid lineage can now be traced back to the Middle Cenomanian: Late Cretaceous based on material collected from the basal Greenhorn Formation in southeastern Colorado
1
(Shimada, 2007). The discovery of this megachasmid (Megachasma comanchensis) marks not only the geologically oldest megachasmid; it also marks the oldest putative filter feeding elasmobranch in the fossil record (Shimada, 2007). Because the oldest megachasmid and cetorhinid fossils are from Middle Eocene deposits, the discovery of a megachasmid in the Middle Cenomanian: Late Cretaceous (ca. 95 ma) extends the fossil record of Megachasmidae (Early Miocene = ca. 20 ma) by 75 million years and that of
Cetorhinidae (Middle Eocene = ca. 60 ma) by 35 million years (Shimada, 2007), indicating that, like most extant genera of lamniform sharks, both lineages likely have
Late Cretaceous origins and have possibly been living among their predatory counterparts for 95 million years.
It is possible these two elasmobranch lineages needed the least morphological modification to make the shift from predation to filter feeding. Lamniform sharks such as the megamouth and basking sharks are characterized by short snouts, long gill slits, and large size (Compagno, 1990). It is possible that these characteristics were an important factor in the dietary shift within these two lineages.
Filter feeding adaptations have several drawbacks. Prevailing currents and turbulence are key factors in the distribution of planktonic organisms, making food supply thinly distributed, so significant swimming efficiency is required to find adequate food supply (Tweddle et al., 2005). However, plankton can be moved by advection from upstream and by diffusion from the euphotic zone to where they are available at the benthos (Tweddle et al., 2005). This transport is crucial to supplying the benthos with
2
food, so it is possible that competition for planktonic prey at the benthos played a role in the shift from predation to filter feeding (Wolff et al., 1975; Fréchette & Bourget, 1985;
Fréchette et al., 1989; Ackerman, 1999; Tweddle et al., 2005).
There are also many benefits to filter feeding adaptations. Specialization reduces feeding competition (Martin, 2007). Large size allows increased swimming efficiency, retention of metabolic body heat, which allows for function in cold water, increased energy storage capacity, and increased foraging range (Goldspink, 1977; Kozlowsky,
2000; Martin, 2007) allowing for long distance travel between food patches of worthwhile richness (Martin, 2007).
Elasmobranchs commonly change their diet with size because of changes in cranial morphology throughout ontogeny (Dean et al., 2007; Lowry et al., 2007; Espinoza et al., 2015) or for changes in metabolic requirements (Lowe et al., 1996; Kim et al.,
2012; Espinoza et al., 2015). Elasmobranchs also segregate spatially by sex, size, and depth during different times of the year, which can lead to seasonal dietary changes
(Springer, 1967; Mollet & Cailliet, 2002; Clarke et al., 2014; Espinoza et al., 2015).
Physiological and behavioral compensations for changes in the food environment are important factors for a full understanding of filter feeding (Bayne, 1993), so it is possible that seasonal dietary changes played a role in the shift from predation to filter feeding, and that these filter feeding adaptations became fixed within these two lineages under reduced competition.
3
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
During the Middle and Late Cretaceous, India and Africa rifted away from
Gondwanaland, while South America, Antarctica, and Australia remained connected
(McLoughlin, 2001). The Pacific Ocean diminished while the Atlantic and Southern
Indian Oceans widened (McLoughlin, 2001). The change in size of older seas and the creation of new seas led to a drastic reorganization of deep ocean circulation that accompanied the Late Cretaceous mass extinction event (MacLeod & Huber, 1996).
Stable-isotope records indicate that bottom waters in Late Cretaceous oceans in the
Southern Hemisphere became cooler and less saline at the same time as wide biotic changes (MacLeod & Huber, 1996). The Cretaceous Extinction caused a 70% to 80% decrease in marine biodiversity at the species level and a 50% decrease at the genus level
(Jablonski & Raup, 1995). Benthic foraminifera and radiolaria survived the Cretaceous
Extinction with only minor taxonomic changes and 50-90% of planktonic diatoms also survived (MacLeod et al., 1997). Ten species of calcareous nanoplankton survived the
Cretaceous Extinction and 30 new species appeared in the Early Tertiary (MacLeod et al.,
1997). It is possible that the survival and success of benthic and planktonic organisms played an important role in sustaining the dietary shift from predatory to filter feeding.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this thesis are two-fold. The first is to gain further insight into whether the megamouth and basking sharks evolved their filter feeding adaptations from a single origin or independently from separate origins. Evidence from several
4
morphological and molecular studies supports the hypothesis that the megamouth and basking sharks developed their filter feeding adaptations due to different ancestral conditions. We intend to use geometric morphometric analyses of the teeth of each species in conjunction with information from these previous studies to gain further insight into the origins of filter feeding in lamniform sharks.
The second objective of this thesis is to determine if there is a common tooth shape to which the megamouth and basking sharks are converging due to their similar filter feeding adaptations. Because evidence supports the hypothesis that the megamouth and basking sharks developed their filter feeding adaptations independently, we hypothesize that convergent evolution is taking place within these two species of lamniform sharks. Geometric morphometric analyses of megamouth and basking shark teeth will also be used to answer this question.
RATIONALE
The basking and megamouth sharks are very rare, so information regarding their evolutionary trajectories is limited. The origins or their filter feeding adaptations have been the subject of debate for almost 30 years. While there are several morphological and molecular studies that provide insight into the phylogenetic history and origins of filter feeding in lamniform sharks, geometric morphometric techniques have not yet been employed to further answer questions regarding how they developed their filter feeding adaptations, nor has the question of whether the species are converging to a similar tooth shape due to their filter feeding adaptations been addressed. Geometric morphometric
5
analyses allow us to analyze the teeth of the megamouth and basking sharks in multiple dimensions and possibly provide more insight into the major similarities and differences between the teeth. This will provide more information about how filter feeding adaptations were developed within the order Lamniformes and whether convergent evolution is taking place within these two species. This new information will be very useful for gaining insight into how these two species have been evolutionarily modified for a filter feeding way of life.
6
II. BACKGROUND
CONFLICTING HYPOTHESES
The basking shark is the only member of the family Cetorhinidae. A formal description naming the genus and species (Cetorhinus maximus) was proposed by
Gunnerus (1765). The megamouth shark was discovered in 1976 off the coast of Oahu,
Hawaii and is the most recently discovered species of filter feeding elasmobranch. A formal description naming the genus and species (Megachasma pelagios) was proposed by Taylor et al. (1983). Megachasma was included within Lamniformes in its own family, Megachasmidae, based on several observable morphological differences from all other lamniforms (Maisey, 1985).
Until the discovery of the megamouth shark, the basking shark was the only filter feeding shark in the order Lamniformes. The discovery of the megamouth shark has led to two conflicting hypotheses regarding the origins of filter feeding in lamniform sharks.
Initially, lamniform sharks were grouped together based on phenetics and cladistics
(similarities in morphological and other observable traits). Maisey (1985) hypothesized that the megamouth and basking sharks are sister taxa and are both members of the family Cetorhinidae (Figure 2B). If this hypothesis is true, this implies that there is a single origin of filter feeding within Lamniformes (Martin & Naylor, 1997). Conversely,
Compagno (1990) hypothesized that the filter feeding adaptations have been developed independently within the two lineages due to different ancestral conditions (Figure 2A).
In addition to phenetic and cladistic studies, DNA sequencing studies have been
7
performed on lamniform sharks to determine if any genetic evidence supports or refutes either of these hypotheses. The results of these studies provide more evidence that the basking and megamouth sharks developed their filter feeding adaptations independently.
PHENETIC AND CLADISTIC STUDIES
It has been speculated that Megachasma is the primitive sister group of all other lamniform sharks based on two possibly primitive characteristics: the absence of morphologically differentiated anterior, lateral, and posterior teeth characteristic of all other lamniforms, and the presence of a low, rounded articular process (an “orbital” process) on the dorsal component of the mandibular arch (Maisey, 1985). Maisey refuted the idea that the teeth and dental morphology of Megachasma are primitive for lamniforms by stating that such a hypothesis is refuted by outgroup comparison with other living shark species (Maisey, 1985). He also argued that “orbital” processes are too abundant within the fossil record to be considered a primitive arrangement. Maisey suggested that there is a comparable morphological pattern in the dentition of
Megachasma and two other filter feeding taxa: Cetorhinus (basking shark) and
Rhincodon (whale shark). More specifically, he noted the mandibular suspension and dental array of Cetorhinus very closely resembles that of Megachasma. The similarities in their jaw suspensions and dental arrays were the basis for his hypothesis that
Cetorhinus and Megachasma form a monophyletic group of filter feeding elasmobranchs; one in which the two genera may be placed within the family Cetorhinidae (Figure 3).
8
In refutation of Maisey’s hypothesis, Compagno (1990) stated that phenetic and cladisitic analyses reject the hypothesis that Megachasma and Cetorhinus are sister taxa.
He also stated that Megachasma is not the primitive sister group of all lamniforms
(Compagno, 1990). Compagno stated that even if Maisey was correct in assuming
Megachasma and Cetorhinus are sister groups, their morphological differences disqualify them from being members of the same family. He noted specific differences in the trunk
(Figure 4), lateral trunk denticles, head, jaws, nasal capsules, fins, muscles, skin, intestinal valves, and chondrocranial shape (Figure 5) to support his argument that the two species are morphologically too dissimilar to belong to the same family. The trunk of
Megachasma is cylindrical but not highly fusiform (Figure 4A) while the trunk of
Cetorhinus is cylindrical and fusiform (Compagno, 1990) (Figure 4B). The lateral trunk denticles of Megachasma are small and flat with smooth skin texture, and there are wavy grooves of skin on its fin webs, whereas the lateral trunk denticles of Cetorhinus are large with rough skin texture (Compagno, 1990). There are no wavy grooves of skin on its fin webs, but there are longitudinal grooves of skin on its body (Compagno, 1990).
Megachasma has a large, broad, blunt, and long head; the length of the head is greater than the abdomen between the pectoral and pelvic bases (Compagno, 1990). Conversely,
Cetorhinus has a narrow, conical, pointed, and relatively short head with a length shorter than the abdomen between the pectoral and pelvic bases (Compagno, 1990). The jaws of
Megachasma are long, thick, and stout and are about 1.8 times the length of the cranium while the jaws of Cetorhinus are slender and thin and slightly less than the length of the
9
cranium (Compagno, 1990). The nasal capsules of Megachasma are wedge-shaped and situated mostly lateral to suborbital shelves while the nasal capsules of Cetorhinus are subspherical and situated anterior to suborbital shelves (Compagno, 1990). Megachasma has soft skin, flexible and soft fins, and flabby muscles; Cetorhinus has firm skin, stiff fins, and powerful muscles (Compano, 1990). Megachasma has a ring intestinal valve with 24 turns and Cetorhinus has a ring intestinal valve of 47-50 turns (Compagno,
1990). The chondrocranium of Megachasma is very low and flat (Figure 5A-C) while the chondrocranium of Cetorhinus is high and arched (Compagno, 1990) (Figure 5D-F).
Compagno also emphasized that detailed analysis of tooth morphology shows important differences. Megachasma has teeth with large functional crowns and sharp cusps (Figure 6A-C) similar to the teeth of primitive, non-filter feeding lamniforms, whereas the crowns of Cetorhinus teeth are reduced, wedge-shaped, and blunt-tipped
(Compagno, 1990) (Figure 6M-O). He also emphasized distinct differences in their filter feeding mechanisms. The gill rakers of Megachasma are slender and papillose (finger- like) with dermal denticles and a spongy cartilaginous core (Figure 7A) and are arranged irregularly in tight clusters along its gill openings, whereas the gill rakers of Cetorhinus are hair-like (Figure 7B-C) and arranged evenly along its gill openings (Compagno,
1990). Additionally, Megachasma almost certainly never sheds its gill rakers, unlike
Cetorhinus, who periodically sheds its gill rakers (Compagno, 1990). Compagno stated that it is unlikely that the two different filtration setups could be derived from each other or from a common ancestor, but could be derived from two different types of non-
10
filtering ancestors. He maintained that this is sufficient evidence to also reject the hypothesis that Megachasma and Cetorhinus are sister groups, as well as the idea that there is a single origin of filter feeding within Lamniformes (Compagno, 1990).
Shimada (2005) conducted a phylogenetic analysis of 15 extant lamniform species using the genus Scyliorhinus (Carcharhiniformes: Scyliorhinidae) as an outgroup for comparison. Mostly skeletonized jaws from the specimens were used, and the study was based on 42 morphological characters; 37 binary and 5 multistate (Shimada, 2005)
(Appendix A). The polarity of character states was determined by outgroup comparison and all character states were recorded as unordered (Shimada, 2005). Recent studies have suggested that Carcharhiniformes is a sister group to Lamniformes, and Scyliorhinidae is one of the closest relatives to the lamniforms, which is why Scyliorhinus was selected as the outgroup for comparison for this study (Shimada, 2005). Parsimony analysis with a heuristic search was undertaken using the computer program Hennig86 (version 1.5, J.S.
Farris, Port Jefferson Station, New York, 1988, unpublished) (Shimada, 2005). A strict consensus tree was constructed for the phylogeny of Lamniformes using the computer program CLADOS (version 1.1, K.C. Nixon, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,
1992, unpublished) (Shimada, 2005) (Figure 8). According to this analysis, Cetorhinus is sister to the lamnid species, which supports Compagno’s (1990) hypothesis that
Cetorhinus and Megachasma are not sister taxa and that filter feeding adaptations were acquired independently in both species. Relationships among other members of the taxa
11
remained unclear, so the sister taxa of Megachasma could not be confirmed (Shimada,
2005).
While cladisitic and phenetic studies can be useful in determining phylogenetic relationships among elasmobranchs, there are many drawbacks to this approach.
Lamniform sharks are commonly represented in the fossil record, but their cartilaginous skeletons mineralize poorly and they are generally only represented by isolated teeth. The poor preservation of skeletal material and lack of fossil evidence is an even more serious setback when focusing on species such as the megamouth and basking sharks, which tend to be very rare in the fossil record. Also, there is much room for interpretation when determining what morphological features to compare when trying to determine phylogenetic relationships, which is seen in Maisey’s (1985) and Compagno’s (1990) studies, where each author utilized a different set of morphological criteria on which to base their studies. In his study, Maisey (1985) noted that the definition of an “orbital” protrusion may be loosely interpreted to describe features found in many extant elasmobranch species.
It is very difficult to propose a standard for morphological comparison, especially when fossil evidence is rare. As more fossil evidence becomes available it becomes easier to compare morphological features between species, but even then there are conflicting opinions on the morphological criteria for establishing phylogenetic relationships. Lack of fossil evidence and conflicting opinions of phylogenetic criteria are why phenetic and cladisitic studies often lead to conflicting hypotheses and inconclusive results.
12
MOLECULAR STUDIES
Martin and Naylor (1997) conducted a phylogenetic analysis of lamniform sharks by analyzing cytochrome b gene sequences for representatives of all genera of lamniform sharks, including Megachasma and Cetorhinus. Cytochrome b was chosen because its sequence variability makes it most useful for comparing species within the same genus or family (Martin & Naylor, 1997). DNA was extracted from unspecified preserved tissue of
25 individuals, representing all but two of 16 species of lamniform sharks (Carcharias noronhai and Odontaspis tricuspidatus were not included), and three outgroup species
(Galeocerdo cuvier, Heterodontus franscii, and Urolophus concentricus) (Martin &
Naylor, 1997) (Table 1). For each of the 25 individuals, complete (or nearly complete) sequences of the cytochrome b gene were sequenced (Martin & Naylor, 1997). An alignment of phylogenetically informative sites for the lamniform species surveyed is provided in Appendix B. Based on the generated sequences, a minimum length phylogenetic tree for Lamniformes was produced (Figure 9). The results supported the hypothesis that Megachasma and Cetorhinus are not sister taxa and do not belong to the same family, which in turn supported the hypothesis that filter feeding developed independently for the megamouth and basking sharks (Martin & Naylor, 1997).
In a similar study, Naylor et al. (1997) repeated the cytochrome b gene sequencing experiment, using unspecified tissue samples from the same 14 lamniform species used in the previous study (Table 1). However, in addition to using the cytochrome b gene, they also used the dihydronicotinamide adenine dinucleotide
13
(NADH-2) gene for each specimen. The NADH-2 gene was chosen because its sequencing variability is similar to that of the cytochrome b gene, so the NADH-2 sequence serves as a good basis for comparison with the cytochrome b sequence (Naylor et al., 1997). Additionally, the NADH-2 gene reflects a diminished level of constraint relative to the cytochrome b gene because NADH-2 registers more changes in the sequence than cytochrome b (Naylor et al., 1997). Sequences for both genes were constructed. Using the additional molecular data, a new phylogenetic tree was developed
(Figure 10). Although this tree presented a new hypothesis about the overall phylogenetic relationship of lamniform species, it confirmed the hypothesis that Megachasma and
Cetorhinus are not sister taxa and are not part of the same family, indicating independent origins of filter feeding for the two species (Naylor et al., 1997).
There are many advantages to using DNA sequence data for phylogenetic analyses; specifically, a large amount of discrete and potentially informative characters can be obtained, which helps when there is a lack of morphological features available for comparison. However, it is difficult to extract hierarchal information from molecular data, which makes developing a phylogenetic analysis rather difficult. Site saturation is also a problem, which is when DNA character states become reversed due to multiple substitutions at a site, making it difficult to extract phylogenetic information from patterns in the molecular data, which can lead to inconclusive results (Martin & Naylor,
1997). Additionally, molecular data must be obtainable and is usually not possible to extract from fossil remains.
14
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIMENS
Seventy-three Cetorhinus teeth (24 fossil and 49 Recent) and 72 Megachasma teeth (49 fossil and 23 Recent) photographed in labial view were collected from several publications and private collections (Tables 2, 3, and 4). Twelve Recent Megachasma teeth were from an adult female specimen, eight teeth from an adult male specimen, and three teeth from an immature male specimen. Twenty-six Recent Cetorhinus teeth were from an adult male specimen and 23 teeth from an immature female specimen.
Late Miocene through Pleistocene basking sharks from Europe and California are typically referred to the Recent species, C. maximus, or just identified as Cetorhinus sp.
(Welton, 2013). Therefore, the fossil specimens used in the analyses are referred to as C. maximus (Table 2). Due to the rarity of megamouth specimens, teeth described as
Megachasma sp. but not specifically described as M. pelagios were used in the analyses.
These are the specimens from the Kattendijk Formation of Belgium, the Temblor
Formation of California, the Yorktown and Pungo River Formations of North Carolina, the Bahía Inglesa Formation of Chile, and Copiapó, Chile (Table 2). The Belgian specimens fit well between the Early Miocene specimens from the Temblor Formation of
California and those of the extant M. pelagios (De Schutter, 2009). Specimens collected from Belgium are morphologically very similar to teeth of M. pelagios figured in Herman et al. (1993) and Yabumoto et al. (1997) (De Schutter, 2009), making them appropriate for these analyses. However, specimens identified as M. pelagios have been collected
15
from the Yorktown and Bahía Inglesa Formations (De Schutter, 2009), so the specimens described as Megachasma sp. collected from these formations are likely to be M. pelagios as well. The Bahía Inglesa Formation is located in the Caldera Basin of Chile, which stretches along the coastal plain of Caldera to the mouth of the Copiapó River (Le
Roux et al., 2016), so the Megachasma specimens collected near Copiapó are also likely to be M. pelagios. The Megachasma specimen collected from the Pungo River Formation is strikingly similar to the specimens collected from the Yorktown Formation, except that it is much smaller. However, size was not a factor in these analyses, so the specimen from the Pungo River Formation was appropriate for these analyses due to its morphological similarity to the probable M. pelagios specimens of the Yorktown
Formation.
ANALYSIS
Geometric morphometrics is a quantitative analysis of morphological shape that uses landmarks instead of measurements, which allows individual specimens to be compared to a common shape configuration in multiple dimensions. Geometric morphometric techniques were used to digitize individual complete Megachasma and
Cetorhinus teeth and roots from the left jaw position using a series of 11 fixed and repeatable landmarks (Figure 11) along with a determined scale for each photograph, independent of size (Procrustes analysis), in the software tpsDig (Rohlf 2016, life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/). Procrustes analysis is used to analyze shape and reduces the effects of scaling, rotation, and translation, which do not alter shape (Kendall, 1977).
16
Non-shape information is removed from the coordinates through translation of the shapes to the same position, scaling the shapes to unit baseline length, and rotating the shapes to the same orientation (Bookstein, 1991). Relative warp analysis (RWA) was used to ordinate tooth shapes of all individuals in the software tpsRelw (Rohlf 2016, life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/) and to compare overall tooth shape between the two species.
Relative warp analysis is used to analyze shape variation among individuals by comparing the relative position of corresponding landmarks in a sample in reference to the Procrustes shape configuration (Zelditch et al., 2004). Three separate geometric morphometric analyses were performed: a comparison of fossil and Recent Megachasma teeth, a comparison of fossil and Recent Cetorhinus teeth, and an overall comparison of fossil and Recent teeth for both species combined. Resulting multivariate axes were interpreted using percent variation explained and compared by species. Axes that accounted for 5% or more of the morphological variation were considered significant.
For the first two analyses, a series of multivariate analyses of variance
(MANOVA) with a Wilks statistic were used to test the first four RWA axes for monognathic heterodonty using tooth position as an independent variable, diagnathic heterodonty using jaw position (upper or lower) as an independent variable, gynandric heterodonty using sex as an independent variable, and morphological differences between fossil and Recent teeth using age (fossil or Recent) as an independent variable. Each
RWA axis was treated as a dependent variable. Each independent variable had to be tested separately due to incomplete data. A series of two-sample t-tests analyzed the
17
significant variables on each RWA axis. For the third analysis, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) and corresponding Tukey tests (95% CI) were used on each RWA axis to test for morphological differences in fossil and Recent teeth of both species.
18
IV. RESULTS
FOSSIL AND RECENT MEGACHASMA ANALYSIS
Relative warp analysis produced four significant axes that explained 85% of the morphological variation in fossil and Recent Megachasma teeth (Figures 12, 13, and 14).
Tooth spline deformation grids show morphological shapes of the teeth on each axis extreme (Figures 12, 13, and 14). The negative extreme of RWA1 shows a wide root that is proportionate to a wide crown with pronounced curvature, whereas the positive extreme shows a wide root with a slender crown with less pronounced curvature (Figure
12). The positive extreme of RWA1 shows the most slender crown in the analysis (Figure
12). The negative extreme of RWA2 shows both the smallest root and crown in the analysis, with the crown showing almost no curvature, and the positive extreme shows the most robust root in the analysis as well as a wide crown with very pronounced curvature (Figure 12). The negative extreme of RWA3 shows a wide root with a more slender crown that shows slight curvature, whereas the positive extreme shows a wide root and a robust crown with pronounced curvature (Figure 13). The negative extreme of
RWA4 shows a wide root that is proportional to a wide crown that shows the most curvature in the analysis, while the positive extreme shows a wide root that is proportional to a crown that shows almost no curvature (Figure 14).
The MANOVAs showed significant differences in the morphologies of fossil and
Recent teeth and also tested significant for monognathic and gynandric heterdonty (Table
5). A Pearson correlation test showed significant directionality for monognathic
19
heterodonty on RWA2 (p = 0.016); posterior teeth had more positive values (Figure 12).
Two-sample t-tests showed significant differences between RWA1, RWA2, RWA3, and
RWA4 and tooth position [t(11) = -4.29, p = 0.001]. There were also significant differences between fossil and Recent teeth and RWA1 [t(87) = -22.53, p < 0.001],
RWA2 [t(78) = -23.28, p < 0.001], RWA3 [t(73) = -23.62, p < 0.001], and RWA4 [t(72)
= -23.69, p < 0.001]. Two different series of two-sample t-tests were performed on each
RWA axis for sex. The first series included the three immature male teeth. The two- sample t-tests showed significant differences in sex and RWA1 [t(23) = -14.06, p <
0.001], RWA2 [t(22) = -14.19, p < 0.001], RWA3 [t(22) = -14.25, p < 0.001], and RWA4
[t(22) = -14.26, p < 0.001]. The second series of two-sample t-tests did not include the three immature male teeth. There were significant differences in sex and RWA1 [t(20) =
-14.03, p < 0.001], RWA2 [t(19) = -14.15, p < 0.001], RWA3 [t(19) = -14.20, p < 0.001], and RWA4 [t(19) = -14.21, p < 0.001].
FOSSIL AND RECENT CETORHINUS ANALYSIS
Relative warp analysis produced four significant axes that explained 80% of the morphological variation in fossil and Recent Cetorhinus teeth (Figures 15, 16, and 17).
The negative extreme of RWA1 shows the most slender root in the analysis with a proportionally slender crown that shows no curvature and the positive extreme shows the most robust root in the analysis with a wide crown that shows the most pronounced curvature in the analysis (Figure 15). The negative extreme of RWA2 shows a slender root and a proportionately slender crown with pronounced curvature while the positive
20
extreme shows a robust root with the widest crown in the analysis showing no curvature
(Figure 15). The negative extreme of RWA3 shows a slender root with a proportionately slender crown that shows little curvature and the positive extreme shows a wide root and a wide crown that shows little curvature (Figure 16). The negative extreme of RWA4 shows a moderately wide root and a wide crown that shows little curvature, whereas the positive extreme shows a moderately wide root and a moderately wide crown that shows almost no curvature (Figure 17).
The MANOVAs showed significant differences in the morphologies of fossil and
Recent teeth and also tested significant for gynandric heterodonty (Table 6). However, gynandric heterodonty cannot be accounted for because we are comparing adult male and immature female basking sharks, so ontogenetic heterodonty may be the reason for the morphological differences. A series of two-sample t-tests showed significant differences between fossil and Recent teeth and RWA1 [t(83) = -29.00, p < 0.001], RWA2 [t(75) =
-29.86, p < 0.001], RWA3 [t(74) = -29.91, p < 0.001], and RWA4 [t(73) = -23.00, p <
0.001].
COMBINED CETORHINUS AND MEGACHASMA ANALYSIS
In this analysis, fossil and Recent Megachasma teeth were combined with fossil and Recent Cetorhinus teeth for a total of 145 specimens. Relative warp analysis produced four significant axes that explained 82% of the morphological variation in fossil and Recent Megachasma and Cetorhinus teeth (Figures 18, 19, and 20). The negative extreme of RWA1 shows a Megachasma tooth shape that has the most robust root and
21
the most slender crown in the analysis (Figure 18). The crown shows little curvature
(Figure 18). The positive extreme of RWA1 shows a Cetorhinus tooth shape with a moderately slender root and a wide crown that shows very little curvature (Figure 18).
The negative extreme of RWA2 shows a Megachasma tooth shape with a wide root and a wide crown that shows pronounced curvature and the positive extreme shows a
Cetorhinus tooth shape with a slender root and a very slender crown that shows no curvature (Figure 18). The negative extreme of RWA3 shows a Cetorhinus tooth shape with a wide root and a moderately wide crown that shows pronounced curvature while the positive extreme shows a Megachasma tooth shape with a wide root and a wide crown that shows no curvature (Figure 19). The negative extreme of RWA4 shows a
Cetorhinus tooth shape with a wide root and robust crown that shows pronounced curvature while the positive extreme shows a Megachasma tooth shape with a moderately wide root and a moderately slender crown that shows almost no curvature (Figure 20).
The one-way ANOVAs and Tukey tests showed significant morphological differences between categories (Cetorhinus fossil, Cetorhinus Recent, Megachasma fossil, and Megachasma Recent) on all four RWA axes (Figure 21, Table 7). On RWA1, all four categories were significantly different (Figure 21, Table 7). Cetorhinus Recent had the highest mean (M = 0.14537, SD = 0.04937), followed by Cetorhinus fossil (M =
0.07093, SD = 0.05033), Megachasma fossil (M = -0.09511, SD = 0.11382), and
Megachasma Recent, which had the most negative mean (M = -0.18111, SD = 0.13255).
Mean tooth shapes on RWA1 showed a widening of the root and a diminishing of the
22
crown for both megamouth and basking shark as mean values went from positive to negative, with all mean tooth shapes showing slight curvature (Figure 21).
On RWA2, Megachasma Recent had the most positive mean (M = 0.08368, SD =
0.14277) followed by Cetorhinus Recent (M = 0.07854, SD = 0.06971), Megachasma fossil (M = -0.05465, SD = 0.10144), and Cetorhinus fossil, which had the most negative mean (M = -0.12897, SD = 0.08824). There was no significant difference between mean
Megachasma Recent and mean Cetorhinus Recent tooth shapes (Figure 21, Table 7).
There was a significant difference between mean Cetorhinus fossil and mean
Megachasma fossil tooth shapes, and mean fossil tooth shapes of both species were significantly different from the mean Recent tooth shapes of each species (Figure 21,
Table 7). The mean tooth shape of Megachasma Recent and Cetorhinus Recent show a slender root and crown with little curvature (Figure 21). As mean values on RWA2 become more negative, the mean tooth shapes of Megachasma fossil and Cetorhinus fossil show an increasing widening of both roots and crowns, with crowns showing more pronounced curvature (Figure 21).
On RWA3, Megachasma fossil had most positive mean, (M = 0.03613, SD =
0.07166), followed by Megachasma Recent (M = 0.02358, SD = 0.05428), Cetorhinus
Recent (M = -0.00656, SD = 0.05970), and Cetorhinus fossil, which had the most negative mean (M = -0.08297, SD = 0.08599). There was no significant difference between mean Megachasma fossil and mean Megachasma Recent tooth shapes and there was also no significant difference between mean Megachasma Recent and mean
23
Cetorhinus Recent tooth shapes (Figure 21, Table 7). There were significant differences between mean Megachasma fossil, mean Cetorhinus Recent, and mean Cetorhinus fossil tooth shapes (Figure 21, Table 7). The mean tooth shape of Megachasma fossil shows a moderately wide root and a wide crown that shows little curvature (Figure 21). As mean values on RWA3 become more negative, the mean Cetorhinus Recent and Cetorhinus fossil tooth shapes show little change in root width with a slight diminishing and more pronounced curvature of the crown (Figure 21).
On RWA4, Megachasma fossil had the most positive mean (M = 0.02381, SD =
0.05335), followed by Cetorhinus Recent (M = -0.00382, SD = 0.05164), Cetorhinus fossil (M = -0.00995, SD = 0.04773), and Megachasma Recent, which had the most negative mean (M = -0.03219, SD = 0.05779). There was no significant difference in mean Megachasma fossil, Cetorhinus fossil, and Cetorhinus Recent tooth shapes (Figure
21, Table 7). There was also no significant difference in mean Cetorhinus fossil,
Cetorhinus Recent, and Megachasma Recent tooth shapes (Figure 21, Table 7). There was a significant difference between mean Megachasma fossil and Megachasma Recent tooth shapes (Figure 21, Table 7). The mean Megachasma fossil tooth shape shows a moderately robust root with a moderately wide crown that shows slight curvature (Figure
21). As mean values on RWA4 become more negative the mean Megachasma Recent tooth shape shows a slightly more robust root and wider crown with slight curvature
(Figure 21).
24
V. DISCUSSION
The variation in tooth shape shown in these analyses provides more evidence that filter feeding adaptations evolved independently in the basking and megamouth sharks.
Overall, Megachasma showed wider root widths than Cetorhinus. In the fossil and
Recent Megachasma analysis, there was more variation in the Recent teeth than in the fossil teeth. The male Recent teeth overlapped with the fossil teeth and both generally showed moderately robust to robust roots with proportionally wide crowns. The exception was the negative extreme of RWA2, which showed a slender root and crown.
The Recent female teeth showed wide roots and slender crowns on all significant RWA axes.
There was much less variation in the fossil and Recent Cetorhinus analysis. On all significant RWA axes, the fossil teeth had noticeably more robust roots and crowns while the Recent teeth had much more slender roots and crowns, and there was very little overlap between fossil and Recent teeth. While both analyses showed a significant difference between the mean shapes of fossil and Recent teeth, the variation and overlap of the fossil and Recent Megachasma teeth suggests that the general tooth shape has not changed as significantly over time as the Cetorhinus teeth. This could mean that there is less selective pressure on Cetorhinus for the use of its teeth than for Megachasma, which may indicate that Cetorhinus is the more primitive of the two species and acquired its filter feeding adaptations before Megachasma. Also, the megamouth shark tested significant for monognathic heterodonty, while the basking shark did not. While this
25
study could not verify gynandric heterodonty in the basking shark, Welton (2013) states that the basking shark shows no gynandric heterodonty. The megamouth shark does show gynandric heterodonty, which is possibly a result of food partitioning to reduce competition for food sources – a behavior that has been observed in other elasmobranch species (Sommerville et al., 2011). The lack of heterodonty in the basking shark versus the present heterodonty in the megamouth shark also suggests that the basking shark is the more primitive of the two species and that they acquired their filter feeding adaptations from separate origins. Although both the megamouth and basking sharks have strictly planktonic diets, the basking shark inhabits the pelagic zone where plankton flourishes, while the megamouth shark inhabits the mesopelagic zone where plankton is more scarce. Thus, it is possible that the megamouth shark relies on its teeth to secure food to a greater degree than the basking shark.
The combined Cetorhinus and Megachasma analysis shows evidence for both convergent and divergent evolution. Relative warp analysis is a multi-dimensional analysis of tooth shape, so it is possible to see both convergence and divergence on different axes. On RWA1, there was a significant difference between all four categories.
Recent Megachasma had the most negative mean and Recent Cetorhinus had the most positive mean. This suggests divergent evolution between the two species. The mean tooth shapes on RWA1 show that over time, the basking shark’s root has become smaller while the crown remained similar in size to that of the fossil basking shark teeth, and the megamouth shark’s root has become wider and the crown has become more slender.
26
On RWA2, there was a significant difference between the mean Megachasma fossil and Cetorhinus fossil tooth shapes, but there was no significant difference in the mean Recent Megachasma and Recent Cetorhinus tooth shapes, which suggests convergent evolution between the two species. The mean tooth shapes on RWA1 show that both fossil megamouth and basking shark teeth had wide roots and crowns and have converged to a tooth shape that shows the development of a much smaller root and a more slender crown over time.
On RWA3, there were no significant differences between the mean fossil tooth shape for the megamouth shark and the mean Recent tooth shapes for the megamouth and basking sharks, which suggests convergent evolution between the two species. There were significant differences between the mean fossil tooth shapes for the megamouth and basking shark and the mean Recent tooth shape for the basking shark. The mean tooth shapes on RWA3 show that over time, the mean fossil tooth shape for the megamouth shark has not changed, with both fossil and Recent tooth shapes showing nearly identical shaped roots and crowns. However, over time, the mean fossil basking shark tooth shape has changed with the crown becoming wider and the root remaining nearly the same shape as the Recent basking shark, Recent megamouth shark, and fossil megamouth teeth.
On RWA4, there was no significant difference between the fossil and Recent
Cetorhinus mean tooth shape, which shows the mean shape of the basking shark teeth did not change. There was only a significant difference between the mean fossil and Recent
27
tooth shapes for the megamouth shark. Over time, the root of the megamouth shark teeth has stayed about the same size, but the size of the crown has increased. Despite the change in the mean tooth shape of the megamouth shark, neither its mean fossil nor its mean Recent tooth shape was significantly different from the mean fossil or Recent tooth shape of the basking shark, which suggests convergent evolution between the two species.
28
VI. CONCLUSION
The origins of filter feeding in lamniform sharks have been the subject of debate since the discovery of the megamouth shark in 1976. Maisey (1985) hypothesized that there is a single origin of filter feeding within Lamniformes. Conversely, Compagno
(1990) hypothesized that the filter feeding adaptations have been developed independently within the two lineages due to different ancestral conditions.
Morphological phylogenetics were the basis of both studies. Shimada’s (2005) morphological study supported Compagno’s hypothesis. In addition to morphological studies, DNA sequencing studies of the cytochrome b gene (Martin and Naylor, 1997) and the NADH-2 gene (Naylor et al., 1997) have been performed on lamniform sharks and the results of these studies also supported Compagno’s hypothesis that filter feeding adaptations developed independently within the megamouth and basking sharks.
Because evidence shows that the megamouth and basking sharks acquired their filter feeding adaptations independently from separate origins, we hypothesized that convergent evolution is taking place within these two species. To test this hypothesis, geometric morphometric Procrustes analyses of fossil and Recent megamouth and basking shark teeth were used to determine if there is a similar tooth shape shared by the two species.
The results of the first two analyses support the hypothesis that the megamouth and basking sharks acquired their filter feeding adaptations independently. The shape of the megamouth shark teeth show wider roots and crowns in both fossil and Recent teeth,
29
whereas the Recent teeth of the basking shark have become much smaller in both the root and crown compared to the fossil teeth. The megamouth shark shows monognathic and gynandric heterodonty, whereas the basking shark does not. Both the drastic reduction of the root and crown and the lack of heterodonty in the basking shark teeth could mean that there is less selective pressure for the use of its teeth than for the megamouth shark, possibly making it the more primitive of the two species, which, if true, would make it likely that the basking shark acquired its filter feeding adaptations before the megamouth shark.
The results of the combined analysis support the hypothesis that convergent evolution is taking place within the two species. Although RWA1 shows evidence of divergence, RWA2, RWA3, and RWA4 show evidence of convergent evolution. The most pronounced evidence of convergent evolution is on RWA2, showing that over time both the crowns and roots of the megamouth and basking sharks have become much smaller. Procrustes relative warp analysis is a multi-dimensional assessment of shape, so it is possible to see both convergence and divergence on different parts of the teeth.
It is possible that exaptation played a role in the development of filter feeding adaptations within the megamouth and basking sharks. Lamniform sharks are large with short snouts and long gill slits and it is likely that these sharks needed little modification to transition from predation to filter feeding. It is also likely that the Post-Cretaceous explosion of diversity that resulted in the radiation of planktonic prey and the creation of new habitats and feeding niches played an important role in the transition from a
30
predatory to a filter feeding lifestyle within these two species of lamniform sharks. For these two filter feeding species to persist alongside their predatory counterparts for the past 95 million years shows the benefits of filter feeding clearly outweigh the drawbacks.
STUDY CONCERNS
Due to the rarity of these species and the subsequent lack of specimens, specific data regarding tooth and jaw position was not complete, especially for the megamouth shark. Because of missing data, each independent variable had to be tested separately and we were unable to test for interactions in the MANOVAs. Small sample sizes are also a concern. Due to the need for the teeth to be photographed in the same view and position
(labial view, left jaw position allowed for the most specimens) we were only able to obtain 24 fossil teeth for C. maximus and 23 Recent teeth for M. pelagios. However, with the data available, the results of this study, while preliminary, further support
Compagno’s hypothesis that filter feeding adaptations in the megamouth and basking sharks were acquired independently from separate origins, as well as the hypothesis that convergent evolution is taking place within these two species of lamniform sharks.
31
Figure 1: Diagram of elasmobranch phylogeny. Filter feeding taxa are highlighted in bold and the lamniform sharks are highlighted in red. Adapted from Douady et al. (2003).
32
Figure 2: Alternative phylogenetic hypotheses for the relationships among species in
Lamniformes. A, Compagno’s hypothesis is illustrated; B, Maisey’s hypothesis is illustrated. Open rectangles represent origination of filter feeding. Adapted from Martin
& Naylor (1997).
33
Figure 3: Cladogram of Maisey’s phylogenetic hypothesis that Megachasma and
Cetorhinus are a monophyletic group within Cetorhinidae. Characters defining nodes as follows: A, lamniform characters given by Compagno (1973, 1977); B, plesodic pectoral radials; C, median rostral cartilage in part dorsal to lateral rostral bars; simplified tooth cusp and root morphology, loss of dental differentiation, increase in number of tooth rows; enlarged gill rakers extending to margins of gill openings, covered by modified oropharyngeal scales; D, plesodic dorsal radials. Adapted from Maisey (1985).
34
Figure 4: Megamouth and basking sharks. A, megamouth shark, Megachasma pelagios
(adult male); B, basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus (adult male). Adapted from
Compagno (1990).
35
Figure 5: Chondrocrania of megamouth and basking sharks. A-C, Megachasma pelagios
(adult male); D-F, Cetorhinus maximus (adult male); in dorsal (A, D), ventral (B, E), and lateral (C, F) views. Adapted from Compagno (1990).
36
Figure 6: Teeth of megamouth and basking sharks. A-D, Megachasma pelagios, tooth in
A, labial; B, lingual; C, lateral; and D, basal views; M-O, Cetorhinus maximus, tooth in
M, labial; N, basal; and O, lateral views. Adapted from Compagno (1990).
37
A B
C
Figure 7: Gill rakers of megamouth and basking sharks. A, Megachasma pelagios gill
raker completely covered by overlapping denticles. The raker core is hyaline cartilage.
Adapted from Paig-Tran & Summers (2014). B, Cetorhinus maximus gill rakers; C,
Cetorhinus maximus gill raker in lateral view. Gill rakers are long and keratinous with no
cartilaginous core (Paig-Tran & Summers, 2014). Adapted from Cappetta (2012).
38
Figure 8: Consensus tree showing phylogenetic relationships of lamniform species based on 42 morphological characters. M. pelagios and C. maximus are highlighted in red.
Adapted from Shimada (2005).
39
Figure 9: Minimum length tree showing phylogenetic relationships of lamniform species based on cytochrome b gene sequences. Megachasma and Cetorhinus are highlighted in red. Adapted from Martin & Naylor (1997).
40
Figure 10: New hypothesis for phylogenetic relationships among lamniform sharks based on cytochrome b gene and NADH-2 gene sequences. M. pelagios and C. maximus are highlighted in red. Adapted from Naylor et al. (1997).
41
Figure 11: Eleven landmark points used in morphometric analyses. 1, tip of mesial lobe;
2, outer mesial edge; 3, mesial junction point of crown and root; 4, half the distance between points 3 and 5 on mesial edge; 5, tip of the crown; 6, half the distance between points 5 and 7 on distal edge; 7, distal junction point of crown and root; 8, outer distal edge; 9, tip of distal lobe; 10, center of the outer edge of the root; 11, center of the inner edge of the root. Photograph of tooth from Cappetta (2012).
42
Figure 12: Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Megachasma teeth along RWA1 and RWA2. Percent variation for each axis is explained in parentheses. Polygons show overlap between fossil and Recent teeth. Green squares represent Recent male teeth and yellow squares represent Recent female teeth.
Monognathic heterodonty is represented on RWA2 with an arrow, showing that posterior teeth have more positive values. Thin spline deformation grids represent tooth shapes on negative and positive extremes for each axis.
43
Figure 13: Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Megachasma teeth along RWA1 and RWA3. Percent variation for each axis is explained in parentheses. Polygons show overlap between fossil and Recent teeth. Green squares represent Recent male teeth and yellow squares represent Recent female teeth. Thin spline deformation grids represent tooth shapes on negative and positive extremes for each axis.
44
0.15
0.10 Fossil
Recent 0.05
0.00
-0.05 RWA4 (5%) RWA4
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 RWA1 (51%)
Figure 14: Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Megachasma teeth along RWA1 and RWA4. Percent variation for each axis is explained in parentheses. Polygons show overlap between fossil and Recent teeth. Green squares represent Recent male teeth and yellow squares represent Recent female teeth. Thin spline deformation grids represent tooth shapes on negative and positive extremes for each axis.
45
Figure 15: Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Cetorhinus teeth along RWA1 and RWA2. Percent variation for each axis is explained in parentheses. Polygons show overlap between fossil and Recent teeth. Thin spline deformation grids represent tooth shapes on negative and positive extremes for each axis.
46
Figure 16: Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Cetorhinus teeth along RWA1 and RWA3. Percent variation for each axis is explained in parentheses. Polygons are used to show overlap between fossil and Recent teeth. Thin spline deformation grids represent tooth shapes on negative and positive extremes for each axis.
47
Figure 17: Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Cetorhinus teeth along RWA1 and RWA4. Percent variation for each axis is explained in parentheses. Polygons are used to show overlap between fossil and Recent teeth. Thin spline deformation grids represent tooth shapes on negative and positive extremes for each axis.
48
Figure 18: Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Cetorhinus and
Megachasma teeth along RWA1 and RWA2. Percent variation for each axis is explained in parentheses. Polygons are used to show overlap between species and fossil and Recent teeth. Thin spline deformation grids represent tooth shapes on negative and positive extremes for each axis.
49
Figure 19: Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Cetorhinus and
Megachasma teeth along RWA1 and RWA3. Percent variation for each axis is explained in parentheses. Polygons are used to show overlap between species and fossil and Recent teeth. Thin spline deformation grids represent tooth shapes on negative and positive extremes for each axis.
50
Figure 20: Scatterplot of individual tooth placement for fossil and Recent Cetorhinus and
Megachasma teeth along RWA1 and RWA4. Percent variation for each axis is explained in parentheses. Polygons are used to show overlap between species and fossil and Recent teeth. Thin spline deformation grids represent tooth shapes on negative and positive extremes for each axis.
51
CR(A) CF(B) MF(C) MR(D) ))
RWA1
MR(A), CR(A) MF(B) CF(C)
RWA2
MF(A) MR(AB) CR(B) CF(C)
RWA3
Figure 21: Mean tooth shapes from one-way ANOVAs on individual relative warp axes.
Categories are: Megachasma fossil (MF), Megachasma Recent (MR), Cetorhinus fossil
(CF), and Cetorhinus Recent (CR). Mean tooth shapes are shown from most positive to most negative means. Categories that do not share a letter are significantly different.
52
MF(A) CR(AB), CF(AB) MR(B)
RWA4
Figure 21 (Continued): Mean tooth shapes from one-way ANOVAs on individual relative warp axes. Categories are: Megachasma fossil (MF), Megachasma Recent (MR),
Cetorhinus fossil (CF), and Cetorhinus Recent (CR). Mean tooth shapes are shown from most positive to most negative means. Categories that do not share a letter are significantly different.
53
Table 1: List of species, DNA identification number, collection locality, and collector's name for all samples for which cytochrome b gene sequences were determined. Adapted from (Martin & Naylor, 1997).
Species ID Locality Collector
Alopius pelagicus AlsuBJ133 Baja California, Mexico J. Caira A. pelagicus AlpeTai81 Taiwan Chen A. vulpinus Alvu429 Long Island, NY, USA G. Naylor A. vulpinus AlvuMM13 Japan M. Miya A. superciliosus Alsu622 Florida, USA G. Naylor A. superciliosus AlsuTai Taiwan Chen Carcharodon carcharias CacaNA East Coast, USA G. Naylor C. carcharias CacaCA1 Farallon Is., CA, USA K. Goldman Cetorhinus maximus 1058 Plymouth, UK D. Sims C. maximus CemaJS1 Tasmania, Australia J. Stevens Carcharias taurus 627 Georgia, USA G. Naylor C. taurus CataSA1 South Africa G. Cliff Isurus oxyrinchus 412 G. Naylor I. paucus 614 Florida Keyes, USA D. de Maria Lamna ditropis LadiMM12 Japan M. Miya L. nasus 633 Gulf of Maine G. Naylor Mitsukurina owstoni 1057 Australia G. Naylor M. owstoni MiowMM1 Japan M. Miya Megachasma pelagios Mepe1 Japan K. Yano/M. Miya Odontaspis ferox Odfe J. Castro Pseudocarcharias kamoharai Pska Taiwan S. Young
54
Table 1 (Continued): List of species, DNA identification number, collection locality, and collector's name for all samples for which cytochrome b gene sequences were determined. Adapted from (Martin & Naylor, 1997).
Species ID Locality Collector
Outgroups Galeocerdo cuvier Gacu553 Hawaii, USA G. Naylor Heterodontus franscii Hefr California, USA A. Martin Urolophus concentricus Urco Baja California, Mexico A. Martin
55
Table 2: List of species, specimen IDs, collection localities, ages, and sources of fossil teeth used in morphometric analyses.
Species Specimen Locality Age Source Megachasma sp. Plate 2B Kattendijk Fm. Early Pliocene De Schutter (2009) Megachasma sp. Plate 3B Kattendijk Fm. Early Pliocene De Schutter (2009) Megachasma sp. Plate 4B Kattendijk Fm. Early Pliocene De Schutter (2009) Megachasma sp. Plate 5B Kattendijk Fm. Early Pliocene De Schutter (2009) Megachasma sp. Plate 6B Kattendijk Fm. Early Pliocene De Schutter (2009) Megachasma sp. Plate 7B Kattendijk Fm. Early Pliocene De Schutter (2009) Megachasma sp. Plate 8B Temblor Fm. Early Miocene De Schutter (2009) Megachasma sp. Plate 8H Temblor Fm. Early Miocene De Schutter (2009) Megachasma sp. Plate 9B Temblor Fm. Early Miocene De Schutter (2009) Megachasma sp. Plate 9H Temblor Fm. Early Miocene De Schutter (2009) M. pelagios Plate 10B Bahía Inglesa Fm. Mid-Late Miocoene De Schutter (2009) M. pelagios Plate 10H Bahía Inglesa Fm. Mid-Late Miocoene De Schutter (2009) M. pelagios Plate 10N Yorktown Fm. Early Pliocene De Schutter (2009) M. pelagios Plate 10R Yorktown Fm. Early Pliocene De Schutter (2009) Megachasma sp. USNM 459822 Pungo River Fm. Pliocene Ray & Bohaska (2001) Megachasma sp. USNM 475475 ?Yorktown Fm. Pliocene Ray & Bohaska (2001)
56
Table 2 (Continued): List of species, specimen IDs, collection localities, ages, and sources of fossil teeth used in morphometric analyses.
Species Specimen Locality Age Source Megachasma sp. UM CDR 1 Bahía Inglesa Fm. Late Miocene Cappetta (2012) Megachasma sp. UM CDR 2 Bahía Inglesa Fm. Late Miocene Cappetta (2012) Megachasma sp.* Copiapó, Chile Miocene Gordon Hubbell C. maximus UM REC 15 Kallo, Belgium Early Pliocene Cappetta (2012) C. maximus* Sharktooth Hill Bone Bed Miocene Gordon Hubbell C. maximus** Sharktooth Hill Bone Bed Miocene Marco Gulotta C. maximus*** Sharktooth Hill Bone Bed Miocene Black River Fossils *Gordon Hubbell provided 31 Megachasma sp. teeth and 19 C. maximus teeth from his own collection. **Three C. maximus were provided by Marco Gulotta from his own collection. ***Two C. maximus teeth were provided by Black River Fossils (www.blackriverfossils.org).
57
Table 3: List of specimens, collection localities, jaw positions, tooth positions, sexes, and sources for Recent megamouth teeth used in morphometric analyses.
Specimen Locality Jaw Position Tooth Position Sex Source Fig. 3A Hakata Bay, JP Upper 1 Adult Female Yabumoto et al. (1997) Fig. 3B Hakata Bay, JP Upper 5 Adult Female Yabumoto et al. (1997) Fig. 3C Hakata Bay, JP Upper 10 Adult Female Yabumoto et al. (1997) Fig. 3D Hakata Bay, JP Upper 15 Adult Female Yabumoto et al. (1997) Fig. 3E Hakata Bay, JP Upper 21 Adult Female Yabumoto et al. (1997) Fig. 3F Hakata Bay, JP Upper 35 Adult Female Yabumoto et al. (1997) Fig. 5A Hakata Bay, JP Lower 1 Adult Female Yabumoto et al. (1997) Fig. 5B Hakata Bay, JP Lower 5 Adult Female Yabumoto et al. (1997) Fig. 5C Hakata Bay, JP Lower 10 Adult Female Yabumoto et al. (1997) Fig. 5D Hakata Bay, JP Lower 15 Adult Female Yabumoto et al. (1997) Fig. 5E Hakata Bay, JP Lower 21 Adult Female Yabumoto et al. (1997) Fig. 5F Hakata Bay, JP Lower 35 Adult Female Yabumoto et al. (1997) Plate 45a Santa Catalina Island, MX Lower Adult Male Herman et al. (1993) Plate 45a Santa Catalina Island, MX Upper Adult Male Herman et al. (1993) Plate 45l Santa Catalina Island, MX Lower Adult Male Herman et al. (1993)
58
Table 3 (Continued): List of specimens, collection localities, jaw positions, tooth positions, sexes, and sources for Recent megamouth teeth used in morphometric analyses.
Specimen Locality Jaw Position Tooth Position Sex Source Plate 45l Santa Catalina Island, MX Upper Adult Male Herman et al. (1993) Plate 45p Santa Catalina Island, MX Upper Adult Male Herman et al. (1993) Plate 47p Santa Catalina Island, MX Lower Adult Male Herman et al. (1993) Fig. 2A Oahu, HI Lower Adult Male Compagno (1990) Plate 11B Pulau Weh, Indonesia Immature Male De Schutter (2009) Plate 11F Pulau Weh, Indonesia Immature Male De Schutter (2009) Plate 11J Pulau Weh, Indonesia Immature Male De Schutter (2009) Plate 11N California, USA Adult Male De Schutter (2009)
59
Table 4: List of specimens, jaw positions, and tooth positions for Recent Cetorhinus teeth used in morphometric analyses. All
LACM 35876-1 specimens are from an adult male collected off Morro Bay, CA. All LACM 44280-1 specimens are from an immature female collected off Oceano Beach, CA. Welton (2013) is the source of all specimens selected from tooth rows (R).
Row 1 is closest to the jaw symphysis and the highest row number is closest to the distal end of the jaw (Welton, 2013).
Specimen Jaw Position Tooth Position Specimen Jaw Position Tooth Position
LACM 35876-1 Upper R1 LACM 44280-1 Upper R6 LACM 35876-1 Upper R7 LACM 44280-1 Upper R12 LACM 35876-1 Upper R17 LACM 44280-1 Upper R30 LACM 35876-1 Upper R27 LACM 44280-1 Upper R47 LACM 35876-1 Upper R34 LACM 44280-1 Upper R61 LACM 35876-1 Upper R49 LACM 44280-1 Upper R84 LACM 35876-1 Upper R57 LACM 44280-1 Upper R101 LACM 35876-1 Upper R67 LACM 44280-1 Upper R110 LACM 35876-1 Upper R77 LACM 44280-1 Upper R130 LACM 35876-1 Upper R87 LACM 44280-1 Upper R140 LACM 35876-1 Upper R97 LACM 44280-1 Upper R153 LACM 35876-1 Upper R107 LACM 44280-1 Lower R1
60
Table 4 (Continued): List of specimens, jaw positions, and tooth positions for Recent Cetorhinus teeth used in morphometric analyses. All LACM 35876-1 specimens are from an adult male collected off Morro Bay, CA. All LACM 44280-1 specimens are from an immature female collected off Oceano Beach, CA. Welton (2013) is the source of all specimens selected from tooth rows (R). Row 1 is closest to the jaw symphysis and the highest row number is closest to the distal end of the jaw
(Welton, 2013).
Specimen Jaw Position Tooth Position Specimen Jaw Position Tooth Position
LACM 35876-1 Upper R118 LACM 44280-1 Lower R4 LACM 35876-1 Lower R1 LACM 44280-1 Lower R11 LACM 35876-1 Lower R14 LACM 44280-1 Lower R30
61
Table 5: MANOVA results for megamouth shark.
Effect Wilks λ F d.f. P Tooth position 0.00066 4.417 20, 10 0.010 Jaw (upper, lower) 0.61991 1.148 8, 34 0.358 Sex 0.20821 5.660 8, 38 <0.001 Sex* 0.21076 4.713 8, 32 0.001 Age 0.46235 19.478 4, 67 <0.001 *Test did not include the three immature male teeth.
62
Table 6: MANOVA results for basking shark.
Effect Wilks λ F d.f. P Tooth position 0.00016 0.492 172, 10 0.967 Jaw (upper, lower) 0.94700 0.616 4, 44 0.654 Sex* 0.28034 28.239 4, 44 <0.001 Age 0.32965 34.570 4, 68 <0.001 * Gynandric heterodonty cannot be verified because we are comparing adult male and immature female basking sharks.
63
Table 7: ANOVA results for individual relative warp axes with “category” consisting of
Cetorhinus fossil (CF), Cetorhinus recent (CR), Megachasma fossil (MF), and
Megachasma recent (MR). Categories that do not share a letter in the Tukey intervals are significantly different.
Source SS d.f. MS F P Tukey
RWA1 CR(A), CF(B), MF(C), MR(D) Category 2.3539 3 0.7846 93.47 <0.001 Error 1.1836 141 0.0084 Total 3.5375 144 RWA2 MR(A), CR(A), MF(B), CF(C) Category 1.0089 3 0.3363 35.00 <0.001 Error 1.3547 141 0.0096 Total 2.3636 144 RWA3 MF(A), MR(AB), CR(B), CF(C) Category 0.2441 3 0.0813 17.58 <0.001 Error 0.6525 141 0.0046 Total 2.3636 144 RWA4 MF(A), CR(AB), CF(B), MR(B) Category 0.0547 3 0.0812 6.58 <0.001 Error 0.3905 141 0.0023 Total 0.4452 144
64
APPENDIX A
CHARACTERS USED IN SHIMADA’S (2005) CLADISTICS ANALYSIS
Characters used in the cladistic analysis. Literature sources for extant forms: Characters 5–
24, 26–27, and 34, based on data or illustrations in Compagno (1988, 1990); Characters 8,
11, 14, and 15, inferred for Odontaspis noronhai from (Sadowsky et al., 1984, figure 3).
Characters 36–41, based on illustrations in Compagno (1984); additional information and sources are noted with each character description (Shimada, 2005).
1. Dental bullae: [0] absent, [1] present (Shimada, 2002a).
2. ‘‘Orbital process’’ (Compagno, 1990) of palatoquadrate: [0] present, [1] absent (the orbital process is assumed to be fused with the upper dental bulla in Pseudocarcharias kamoharai (Compagno, 1990).
3. Mesial process of palatoquadrate: [0] absent, [1] present (character for Clade 11b of
Compagno, 1990).
4. Notch on dorsal side of palatoquadrate immediately lateral to upper dental bulla: [0] absent or shallow, [1] deep.
5. Rostral node of cranium: [0] absent, [1] present without vertical fenestra, [2] present with vertical fenestra.
6. Rostral appendices of cranium: [0] absent, [1] present.
7. Medial rostral cartilage of cranium: [0] narrow, [1] broad.
65
8. Rostral length anterior to nasal capsule compared to total cranial length: [0] short
(proportion < 0.20), [1] long (proportion ≥ 0.20).
9. Separation between base of lateral rostral cartilages and nasal capsules: [0] absent, [1] present (character for Clade 12b of Compagno, 1990).
10. Lateral rostral cartilages form part of anterior fontanelle of cranium: [0] no, [1] yes.
11. Length of nasal capsules compared to cranial length behind rostrum: [0] long
(proportion ≥ 0.30), [1] short (proportion < 0.30).
12. Ventral level of nasal capsules: [0] elevated above, or approximately equal to, level of basal plate, [1] depressed below level of basal plate.
13. Interruption of subethmoid fossa between right and left nasal capsules: [0] absent, [1] present.
14. Cranial width at pre-orbital processes compared to that at nasal capsules: [0] equal or narrower, [1] much wider.
15. Cranial width at postorbital processes compared to that at pre-orbital processes: [0] approximately equal or narrower, [1] much wider.
16. Orbital diameter compared to cranial length behind nasal capsules: [0] large
(proportion ≥ 0.55), [1] small (proportion < 0.55).
17. Dorsal extent of cranial roof: [0] approximately equal level to dorsal edge of orbit [1] arched far above dorsal edge of orbit (inferred for Odontaspis noronhai from Humphreys et al., 1989, figure 1).
66
18. Cranial height (excluding rostral cartilages and nasal capsules) compared to cranial length behind nasal capsules: [0] low (proportion < 0.60) [1] moderate (proportion 0.60–
0.70), [2] high (proportion > 0.70).
19. Cranial width at pre-orbital processes compared to cranial length behind level of pre- orbital processes: [0] approximately equal or greater (‘‘short cranial roof’’), [1] much lesser (‘‘long cranial roof’’).
20. Overall outline of posterior edge of cranium when viewed dorsoventrally: [0] convex,
[1] straight.
21. Prominent lateral wing (including ‘‘ectethmoid processes’’ of Compagno, 1990) of suborbital shelf of cranium: [0] absent, [1] present (modified from Character 12 of Shirai,
1996).
22. Stapedial foramina of cranium: [0] small, [1] medium, [2] large.
23. Secondary calcification of vertebrae with endochordal radii radiating from notochordal sheath: [0] absent, [1] present (modified from Character 76 of Shirai, 1996).
24. Total vertebral count: [0] ≤ 200, [1] > 200 (additional data from Springer and Garrick,
1964; Compagno, 1988, 1990; Last and Stevens, 1994).
25. Nictitating lower eyelid (modified from Character 43 of Shirai, 1996): [0] present, [1] absent (additional data from Humphreys et al., 1989).
26. Labial furrows: [0] present, [1] absent (additional data from Maul, 1955; Last and
Stevens, 1994).
67
27. Intestinal valve type: [0] spiral, [1] ring (see Compagno, 1988, 1990; Carvalho, 1996;
Shirai, 1996).
28. Number of turns of valvular intestine: [0] ≤ 32, [1] > 32 (modified from character for
Clade 7b of Compagno, 1990).
29. ‘‘Nuchal groove’’ on each side of head above gills: [0] absent, [1] present (character for Clade 9b of Compagno, 1990).
30. Pre-caudal pit at origin of upper caudal lobe: [0] absent, [1] present (character for
Clade 2b of Compagno, 1990; see also Character 103 of Shirai, 1996).
31. Pre-caudal keel: [0] absent, [1] present (modified from Character 104 of Shirai, 1996; additional data from Compagno, 1990).
32. Secondary caudal keel: [0] absent, [1] present (character for Clade 12b of Compagno,
1990).
33. Pectoral fin origin: [0] under, or anterior to, fourth gill opening, [1] behind fourth gill opening (data based on Compagno, 1984, 1990).
34. Pectoral fin radials: [0] aplesodic, [1] plesodic (Character 66 of Shirai, 1996).
35. First dorsal fin radials: [0] aplesodic, [1] semiplesodic (modified from Character 83 of Shirai, 1996; see also character for Clade 7b of Compagno, 1990).
36. Position of first dorsal fin: [0] directly above or posterior to level of pelvic fins, [1] anterior to level of pelvic fins.
37. Height of second dorsal fin compared to first dorsal fin: [0] approximately equal, [1] approximately 1/2, [2] very low.
68
38. Size of pelvic fins compared to that of first dorsal fin: [0] approximately equal or larger, [1] much smaller.
39. Height of anal fin compared to that of first dorsal fin: [0] approximately equal or larger, [1] approximately 1/2, [2] much smaller.
40. Length of upper caudal fin lobe compared to pre-caudal body length: [0] much shorter, [1] approximately equal.
41. Length of lower caudal fin lobe compared to that of upper caudal fin lobe: [0] much shorter, [1] approximately equal.
42. Total number of tooth rows on each jaw: [0] ≤ 40, [1] > 40 (additional data from
Compagno, 1988).
69
APPENDIX B
MOLECULAR DATA FROM MARTIN AND NAYLOR’S (1997) STUDY
Alignment of phylogenetically informative sites in the cytochrome b gene for single representatives of each species of lamniform sharks surveyed. Isox = Isurus oxyrinchus;
Ispa = I. paucus; Caca = Carcharodon; Lana = Lamna nasus; Ladi = L. ditropis; Cerna =
Cetorhinus; Mepe = Megachasma; Alpe = Alopias pelagicus; Alvu = A. vulpinus; Alsu =
A. superciliosus; Miow = Mitsukurina; Odfe = Odontaspis; Pska = Pseudocarcharias;
Cata = Carcharias (Martin & Naylor, 1997).
70
71
72
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carvalho, M.R. 1996. Higher-level elasmobranch phylogeny, basal squaleans, and paraphyly. In: Stiassny, M.L.J., L.R. Parenti & G.D. Johnson. Eds. Interrelationships of Fishes. – San Diego, Academic Press: 35–62.
Compagno, L.J.V. 1973. Interrelationships of living elasmobranchs. In: Greenwood, P.H., R.S. Miles & C. Patterson. Eds. Interrelationships of Fishes. – New York, Academic Press: 15–61.
Compagno, L.J.V. 1977. Phyletic relationships of living sharks and rays. – American Zoology 17: 303–322.
Compagno, L.J.V. 1984. FAO species catalogue. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. – FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125 4(2): 1–655.
Compagno, L.J.V. 1988. Sharks of the Order Carcharhiniformes. – New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
Humphreys, R.L., Jr., Moffitt, R.B. & Seki, M.P. 1989. First record of the bigeye sand tiger shark Odontaspis noronhai from the Pacific Ocean. – Japanese Journal of Ichthyology 36: 357–362.
Last, P.R. & J.D. Stevens. 1994. Sharks and Rays of Australia. – Australia, CSIRO Publishing.
Maul, G.E. 1955. Five species of rare sharks new for Madeira including two new to science. – Notulae Naturae of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 279: 1–13.
Sadowski, V., Amorim, A.F. de & Arfelli, C.A. 1984. Second occurrence of Odontaspis noronhai (Maul, 1955). – Boletim do Instituto de Pesca, Sao Paulo 11: 69–79.
Shimada, K. 2002. Dental homologies in lamniform sharks (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii). – Journal of Morphology 251: 38–72.
Shirai, S. 1996. Phylogenetic interrelationships of neoselachians (Chondrichthyes: Euselachii). In: Stiassny, M.L.J., L.R. Parenti & G.D. Johnson. Eds. Interrelationships of Fishes. – San Diego, Academic Press: 9–34.
73
BIBLOGRAPHY (Continued)
Springer, V.G. & Garrick, J.A.F. 1964. A survey of vertebral numbers in sharks. – Proceedings of the United States National Museum 116: 73–96.
74
REFERENCES
Ackerman, J.D. 1999. Effect of velocity on the filter feeding of dreissenid mussels (Dreissena polymorpha and Dreissena bugensis): implications for trophic dynamics. – Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 1551–1561.
Bayne, B.L. 1993. Feeding physiology of bivalves: time-dependence and compensation for changes in food availability. – Nato ASI Series 33: 1–24.
Bookstein, F.L. 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. – Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Brett, C.E. & Walker, S.E. 2002. Predators and predation in Paleozoic marine environments. – Paleontological Society Papers 8: 93–118.
Cappetta, H. 1987. Chondrichthyes II: Mesozoic and Cenozoic Elasmobranchii. Handbook of Paleoichthyology; v. 3B. – München, Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.
Cappetta, H. 2012. Chondrichthyes: Mesozoic and Cenozoic Elasmobranchii: Teeth. Handbook of Paleoichthyology; v. 3E. – München, Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.
Case G.R. 1994. Fossil fish remains from the late Paleocene Tuscahoma and early Eocene Bashi Formations of Meridian, Lauderdale County, Mississippi. – Paleontographica A 230: 97–138.
Cione, A.L. & Reguero, M.A. 1998. A middle Eocene basking shark (Lamniformnes, Cetorhinidae) from Antarctica. – Antarctic Science 10: 83–88.
Clarke, T.M., Espinoza, M. & Wehrtmann, I.S. 2014. Reproductive ecology of demersal elasmobranchs from a data-deficient fishery, Pacific of Costa Rica, Central America. – Fisheries Research 157: 96–105.
Compagno, L.J.V. 1990. Relationships of the megamouth shark, Megachasma pelagios (Lamniformes: Megachasmidae), with comments on its feeding habits. In: Pratt, H.L., Jr., S.H. Gruber & T. Taniuchi. Eds. Elasmobranchs as living resources: advances in the biology, ecology, systematics, and the status of the fisheries. – NOAA Technical Report NMFS 90: 357–379.
De Schutter, P. 2009. The presence of Megachasma (Chondrichthyes: Lamniformes) in the Neogene of Belgium, first occurrence in Europe. – Geologica Belgica 12(3–4): 179–203.
75
REFERENCES (Continued)
Dean, M.N., Bizzarro, J.J. & Summers, A.P. 2007. The evolution of cranial design, diet, and feeding mechanisms in batoid fishes. – Integrative and Comparative Biology 47: 70–81.
Douady, C.J., Dosay, M., Shivji, M.S. & Stanhope, M. J. 2003. Molecular phylogenetic evidence refuting the hypothesis of Batoidea (rays and skates) as derived sharks. – Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution 26: 215–221.
Espinoza, M., Munroe, S.E.M., Clarke, T.M., Fisk, A.T. & Wehrtmann, I.S. 2015. Feeding ecology of common demersal elasmobranch species in the Pacific coast of Costa Rica inferred from stable isotope and stomach content analyses. – Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 470: 12–25.
Fréchette, M. & Bourget, E. 1985. Energy flow between the pelagic and benthic zones: factors controlling particulate organic matter available to an intertidal mussel bed. – Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:1158–1165.
Fréchette, M., Butman, C.A. & Geyer, W.R. 1989. The importance of boundary-layer flows in supplying phytoplankton to the benthic suspension feeder, Mytilus edulis L. – Limnology and Oceanography 34:19–36.
Gunnerus, J.E. 1765. Brugden (Squalus maximus), Beskrvenen ved J. E. Gunnerus. Det Trondhiemske Selskabs Skrifter 3: 33–49.
Herman, J., Hovestadt-Euler, M. & Hovestadt, D.C. 1993. Contributions to the study of the comparative morphology of teeth and other relevant ichthyodorulites in living supraspecific taxa of Chondrichthyan fishes. In: Stehmann, M. Ed. Part A: Selachii, No. 1b: Order: Hexanchiformes – Family: Chlamydoselachidae; No.5: Order: Heterodontiformes – Family: Heterodontidae; No.6: Order: Lamniformes – Families: Cetorhinidae, Megachasmidae; Addendum 1 to No.3: Order Squaliformes; Addendum 1 to No.4: Order: Orectolobiformes. – Bulletin van het Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen, Biologie, 63: 185–256.
Jablonski, D. & Raup, D.M. 1995. Selectivity of end-Cretaceous marine bivalve extinctions. – Science 268: 389–391.
Kemp, N.R. 1991. Chondrichthyans in the Cretaceous and Tertiary of Australia. In: Vickers-Rich, P., M. Monaghan, R.F. Baird & T.H. Rich. Eds. Vertebrate Paleontology of Australasia. – Melbourne, Pioneer Design Studio: 497–568.
76
REFERENCES (Continued)
Kendall, D.G. 1977. The diffusion of shape. – Advances in Applied Probability 9(3): 428–430.
Kim, S.L., Tinker, M.T., Estes, J.A., & Koch, P.L. 2012. Ontogenetic and among- individual variation in foraging strategies of northeast Pacific white sharks based on stable isotope analysis. – PLoS One 7: e45068.
Le Roux, J.P., Achurra, L., Henríquez, Á., Carreño, C., Rivera, H., Suárez, M.E., Ishman, S.E., Pyenson, N.D. & Gutstein, C.S. 2016. Oroclinal bending of the Juan Fernández Ridge suggested by geohistory of the Bahía Inglesa Formation, north-central Chile. – Sedimentary Geology 333: 32–49.
Lowe, C.G., Wetherbee, B.M., Crow, G.L. & Tester, A.L. 1996. Ontogenetic dietary shifts and feeding behavior of the tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier, in Hawaiian waters. – Environmental Biology of Fishes 47: 203–211.
Lowry, D., Motta, P.J. & Hueter, R.E. 2007. The ontogeny of feeding behavior and cranial morphology in the leopard shark Triakis semifasciata (Girard 1854): a longitudinal perspective. – Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 341:153–167.
MacLeod, K.G. & Huber B.T. 1996. Reorganization of deep ocean circulation accompanying a Late Cretaceous extinction event. – Nature 380: 422–425.
MacLeod, N., Rawson, P.F., Forey, P.L., Banner, F.T., Boudagher-Fadel, M.K., Bown, P.R., Burnett, J.A., Chambers, P., Culver, S., Evans, S.E., Jeffery, C., Kaminski, M.A., Lord, A.R., Milner, A.C., Milner, A.R., Morris, N., Owen, E., Rosen, B.R., Smith, A.B., Taylor, P.D., Urquhart, E. & Young, J.R. 1997. The Cretaceous-Tertiary biotic transition. – Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 265–292.
Maisey, J.G. 1985. Relationships of the megamouth shark, Megachasma. – Copiea 1: 228–231.
Martin, A.P. & Naylor, G.J.P. 1997. Independent origins of filter-feeding in megamouth and basking sharks (Order Lamniformes) inferred from phylogenetic analysis of cytochrome b gene sequences. In: Yano, K., J.F. Morrissey, Y.M. Yabumoto & K. Nakaya. Eds. Biology of the Megamouth Shark. – Tokyo, Tokai University Press: 39–50.
77
REFERENCES (Continued)
Martin, A.R. 2007. A review of behavioural ecology of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus). – Fisheries Research 84: 10–16.
McLoughlin, S. 2001. The breakup history of Gondwana and its impact on pre-Cenozoic floristic provincialism. – Australian Journal of Botany 49: 271–300.
Misty Paig-Tran, E.W. & Summers, A.P. 2014. Comparison of the structure and composition of the branchial filters in suspension feeding elasmobranchs. – The Anatomical Record 297: 701–715.
Mollet, H.F. & Cailliet, G.M. 2002.Comparative population demography of elasmobranchs using life history tables, Leslie matrices and stage-based matrix models. – Marine and Freshwater Research 53: 503–516.
Naylor, G.J.P., Martin, A.P., Mattison, E.G. & Brown, W.M. 1997. Interrelationships of lamniform sharks: testing phylogenetic hypothesis with sequence data. In: Kosher, T.D. & C. Stepien. Eds. Molecular Systematics of Fishes. – New York, Academic Press: 199–218.
Purdy, R.W. 1993. Paleoecology of fossil great white sharks. In: Klimley, A.P. & D.G. Ainley. Eds. Great White Sharks: The Biology of Carcharodon carcharias. – San Diego, Academic Press: 67–78.
Purdy, R.W., Schneider, V.P., Applegate, S.P., McLellan, J.H., Meyer, R.L. & Slaughter, B.H. 2001. The Neogene sharks, rays, and bony fishes from Lee Creek Mine, Aurora, North Carolina. – Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 90: 71–202.
Ray, C.E. & Bohaska. D.J. 2001. Geology and Paleontology of the Lee Creek Mine, North Carolina, III. – Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 90: 1–365.
Rohlf, F.J. 2016. tpsRelw version 1.63. State University of New York, Stony Brook.
Rohlf, F.J. 2016. tpsDig version 2.26. State University of New York, Stony Brook.
Shimada, K. 2005. Phylogeny of lamniform sharks (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii) and the contribution of dental characters to lamniform systematics. – Paleontological Research 9: 55–72.
78
REFERENCES (Continued)
Shimada, K. 2007. Mesozoic origin for megamouth shark (Lamnifomes: Megachasmidae). – Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27(2): 512–516.
Siverson, M. 1992. Biology, dental morphology, and taxonomy of lamniform sharks from the Campanian of the Kristianstad Basin, Sweden. – Paleontology 35: 519–554.
Siverson, M. 1995. Revision of the Danian cow sharks, sand tiger sharks, and goblin sharks (Hexanchidae, Odontaspidae, and Mitsukurinidae) from Southern Sweden. – Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15: 1–12.
Sommerville, E., Platell, M.E., White, W.T., Jones, A.A. & Potter, I.C. 2011. Partitioning of food resources by four abundant, co-occurring elasmobranch species: relationships between diet and both body size and season. – Marine and Freshwater Research 62(1): 54–65.
Springer, S. 1967. Social organization of shark populations. In: Gilbert, P., R. Mathewson & D. Rall. Eds. Sharks, Skates, and Rays. – Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press: 149–174.
Taylor, L.R., Compagno, L.J.V. & Struhsaker, P.J. 1983. Megamouth – a new species, genus, and family of lamnoid shark (Megachasma pelagios, Family Megachasmidae) from the Hawaiian Islands. – California Academy of Sciences Proceedings 43: 87– 110.
Tweddle, J.F., Simpson, J.H. & Janzen, C.D. 2005. Physical controls of food supply to benthic filter feeders in the Menai Strait, UK. – Marine Ecology Progress Series 289: 79–88.
Ward, D.J. & Wiest, R.L., Jr. 1990. A checklist of Paleocene and Eocene sharks and rays (Chondrichthyes) from the Pamunkey Group, Maryland and Virginia, USA. – Tertiary Research 12(2): 81–88.
Welton, B.J. 2013. A new archaic basking shark (Lamniformes: Cetorhinidae) from the late Eocene of western Oregon, U.S.A., and description of the dentition, gill rakers, and vertebrae of the Recent basking shark Cetorhinus maximus (Gunnerus). – New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Bulletin 58: 1–48.
79
REFERENCES (Continued)
Wolff, W.J., Vegter, F., Mulder, H.G. & Meijs T. 1975. The production of benthic animals in relation to the phytoplankton production. Observations in the saline Lake Grevelingen, The Netherlands. In: Persoone, G. & E. Jaspers. Eds. Proceedings of the 10th European Symposium on Marine Biology; v. 2. – Wetteren, Universa Press: 653–67.
Yabumoto, Y.M., Goto. M, Yano, K. & Uyeno, T. 1997. Dentition of a female megamouth, Megachasma pelagios, collected from Hakata Bay, Japan. In: Yano, K., J.F. Morrissey, Y.M. Yabumoto & K. Nakaya. Eds. Biology of the Megamouth Shark. – Tokyo, Tokai University Press: 63–75.
Zelditch, M.L., D.L. Swiderski, H.D. Sheets, & W.L. Fink. 2004. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. – London, Elsevier Academic Press.
80