Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2020 May 19;97(1):212–224. doi: 10.1111/jfb.14352

Growth trajectories of prenatal embryos of the deep‐sea shark Chlamydoselachus anguineus (Chondrichthyes)

Faviel A López‐Romero 1,✉, Claudia Klimpfinger 1, Sho Tanaka 2, Jürgen Kriwet 1
PMCID: PMC7497067  PMID: 32307702

Abstract

Chlamydoselachus anguineus, Garman 1884, commonly called the frilled shark, is a deep‐sea shark species occurring up to depths of 1300 m. It is assumed to represent an ancient morphotype of sharks (e.g., terminal mouth opening, more than five gill slits) and thus is often considered to represent plesiomorphic traits for sharks. Therefore, its early ontogenetic developmental traits are important for understanding the evolution of its particular phenotype. Here, we established six stages for prenatal embryos and used linear measurements and geometric morphometrics to analyse changes in shape and size as well as their timing during different embryonic stages. Our results show a change in head shape and a relocation of the mouth opening at a late stage of development. We also detected a negative allometric growth of the head and especially the eye compared to the rest of the body and a sexual dimorphism in total body length, which differs from the known data for adults. A multivariate analysis of covariance shows a significant interaction of shape related to the logarithm of centroid size and developmental stage. Geometric morphometrics results indicate that the head shape changes as a covariate of body size while not accounting for differences between sexes. The growth pattern of stages 32 and 33 indicates a shift in head shape, thus highlighting the moment in development when the jaws start to elongate anteriorly to finally achieve the adult condition of terminal mouth opening rather than retaining the early embryonic subterminal position as is typical for sharks. Thus, the antero‐terminal mouth opening of the frilled shark has to be considered a derived feature.

Keywords: development, frilled shark, geometric morphometrics, jaw development, ontogeny

1. INTRODUCTION

Samuel W. Garman described in 1884 an extraordinary shark, which he named the frilled shark, Chlamydoselachus anguineus Garman, 1884. Subsequently, Gudger and Smith (1933) described its anatomy in detail based on four adult females. The first description of its embryonic development was presented some years later by Gudger (1940). The frilled shark is assigned to its own family, the Chlamydoselachidae (Figure 1), which is believed to be the oldest living family of elasmobranchs (Garman, 1884; Gudger & Smith, 1933; Goto & Hashimoto, 1976; Goto, 1991; Tanaka et al., 1990, 2013), although its affinities with Palaeozoic sharks was cautioned by Maisey and Wolfram (1984). The status of various morphological traits (plesiomorphic versus apomorphic) in this shark thus remains ambiguous. The embryonic development of elasmobranchs has become a major topic of focus for developmental biologists and also evolutionary palaeobiologists in recent years because it enables researchers to gain deeper insights into plesiomorphic and apomorphic morphologies and often mirrors the species' evolutionary path.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic position of C. anguineus, simplified after Amaral et al. (2017)

The habitat of the frilled shark is cold waters with a wide but discontinuous distribution where it occurs in water depths between 100 and 1300 m (Compagno, 1984; Shiobara et al., 1987). It is considered a benthopelagic shark feeding on cephalopods, bony fish and even smaller sharks (Kirali et al., 2000; Kubota et al., 1991). It has an elongated, eel‐like body and it grows up to an average total length (TL) of 150 cm with a maximum reported TL of 196 cm (Gudger & Smith, 1933). Maturity is reached at a TL of 100 cm in males and 140 cm in females. Ebert and Compagno (2009) identified the populations around South Africa as separate species, Chlamydoselachus africana, that differs from the frilled shark in a smaller number of vertebrae, spiral valve and pectoral fin radial counts.

A prominent characteristic of the frilled shark is its elongated eel‐like body, which is very distinctive from other elasmobranch species. The head is dorso‐ventrally flattened, and its mouth is the most terminal positioned one in all shark species, except the whale shark Rhincodon typus, which is a filter‐feeder (Compagno, 1984). The frilled shark bears six gill slits including the first left and right gill slits, which are ventrally connected and form the eponymous frill (Smith, 1937). The number of gill slits is assumed to be a secondary increase in number since in most other shark species only five gill‐slits are present, and in the frilled shark the additional arch might have evolved independently from other hexanchoid sharks (Shirai, 1992).

Frilled sharks are aplacental viviparous with a year‐round mating and breeding season. Usually there are two to 10 embryos in each litter. They hatch within the mother's uterus when they reach a TL of 5.5 cm and remain there, feeding on their yolk sack until they are born at a TL of 40–60 cm (Tanaka et al., 1990). The gestation period of C. anguineus is the longest period known for all vertebrates, lasting 3.5 years, and the growth rate of the embryos is around 10–17 mm per month (Tanaka et al., 1990), although the gestation period estimation can be as low as 1–2 years (Compagno, 1984; Gudger & Smith, 1933).

The apparent ancient habitus, development and morphology of its teeth were considered in previous studies to better understand early evolutionary patterns in gnathostomes (Goto & Hashimoto, 1976; Goto, 1987; Smith et al., 2018). However, developmental aspects of the external morphology that might provide information on character evolution in this and probably related taxa have not been considered up to now. The relationships between growth and changes in shape are relevant because they have an impact on the phenotypic diversity within species. Identifying the developmental moment when morphological change occurs is of utmost importance to comprehend how specific traits are established and how they vary among individuals. Studies of the ontogeny of morphology illustrate that developmental processes can help to identify constraints in morphological diversities as well as give examples for broader possible morphologies (Bolzan et al., 2015; Cardini & Polly, 2013; Cheverud, 1982; Loy et al., 1998; Openshaw & Keogh, 2014; Zelditch et al., 2000). Despite these effects being more noticeable by comparing different but related species, there are other effects within the same species that could show how a defined shape is acquired. Some of the underlying processes in ontogenetic shape shift involve a decoupling caused by changes throughout the life cycle (Cvijanović et al., 2014; Loy et al., 1998; McGowan, 1988; Rose et al., 2015; Strauss & Fuiman, 1985) or adaptations to particular feeding mechanisms or behaviours, both of which can influence the morphology of the individual (Bergmann & Motta, 2005; Bolzan et al., 2015; Frédérich et al., 2008; Genbrugge et al., 2011; Meyer, 1990; Russo et al., 2007). Particularly in elasmobranchs these patterns have been unambiguously observed and they contribute to the exploitation of possible resources throughout their life history (Dean et al., 2007; Wilga et al., 2016).

Earlier studies on the development of elasmobranchs have mainly focused on general descriptions of particular body parts and their anatomy (Balfour, 1881; El‐Toubi, 1952; Harrison, 1931; Holmgren, 1940; Jollie, 1971). However, only a few have attempted to present a staging system, which is useful for comparisons with other species (Ballard et al., 1993; Castro & Wourms, 1993; Didier et al., 1998; Rodda & Seymour, 2007; Maxwell et al., 2008; Onimaru et al., 2018). Most recently, studies have focused on post‐embryonic developmental traits (Fu et al., 2016; Litherland et al., 2009; Tomita et al., 2018) and underlying developmental mechanisms (Adachi & Kuratani, 2012; Barry & Crow, 2017; Compagnucci et al., 2013; Cooper et al., 2017; Debiais‐Thibaud et al., 2011; Eames et al., 2007; Freitas et al., 2007; Gillis et al., 2012; O'Shaughnessy et al., 2015). Because of their long generation time and reproduction mode, developmental studies of elasmobranchs are often difficult (Coolen et al., 2008), and the diversity of descriptions on embryonic development consists of sporadic bycatches (Francis & Duffy, 2005; Gilmore et al., 1983; Joung & Hsu, 2005; Tanaka et al., 1990). Staging the development into sequences is fundamental to understand possible mechanisms operating at defined stages, which may have an impact on the phenotypic result. The goal of this study is to present new insights into the developmental changes of several morphological traits, especially the development of the anterior mouth opening in the frilled shark, which differs from the subterminal condition in most other sharks, to better understand the origins of its peculiar appearance.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Ethical statement

The embryos used for the study were obtained from a survey conducted from 1981 to 1988 in the Suruga Bay, Japan, the samples from which are stored in the University of Shimizu, as described in Tanaka et al. (1990). Only individuals preserved in 70% ethanol were used for the analysis, and no tissue sampling or killing was involved in the present study.

2.2. Staging

Since there is no existing staging scheme for embryos of the frilled shark, we used different published information (see below) for comparison and to establish a staging sequence for the embryos. We also assumed that the embryos with the smallest body length are those from early developmental stages whereas the largest individuals are from later developmental stages.

We used 51 embryos (32 females, 19 males) from Suruga Bay, Japan. Forty‐three embryos were photographed using a Sony DSC‐H9 (Sony Corp., Tokyo, Japan) with a macro lens, whereas the remaining nine individuals were photographed using an Olympus E‐3 (Olympus Corp., Tokyo, Japan) camera with a 14–54 mm lens. All the photographs contain a scale next to the objects. Staging of the embryos was conducted by comparison of our individuals with descriptions and drawings from E.W. Gudger (1940) as well as the staging protocol of the lesser spotted dogfish Scyliorhinus canicula by Ballard et al. (1993) and the staging protocol of the brown‐banded bamboo shark Chiloscyllium punctatum by Onimaru et al. (2018). The lesser spotted dogfish is a galeomorph shark and spends parts of its lifetime in deeper waters too, which is why we chose it, and there is complete staging of the brown‐banded bamboo shark, which made it a useful comparison. The description of the staging of the chimaeroid fish Callorhinchus milii by Didier et al. (1998) was used for a comparison of the embryonic development of elasmobranchs with their sister group, the Holocephali, providing possibly another ancient morphotype. Accordingly, we identified categories from stage 31 up to stage 36. For each stage the following number of individuals was used: stage 31 (n = 1; female), stage 32 (n = 3; 2 females, 1 male), stage 33 (n = 8; 5 females, 3 males), stage 34 (n = 10; 9 females, 1 male), stage 35 (n = 14; 9 females, 5 males), stage 36 (n = 15; 6 females, 9 males).

2.3. Measurements

Linear measurements were defined by 11 landmarks set on each individual giving eight measuring distances (Figure 2a). The landmarks were chosen to be characteristic points, which can be identified easily in every picture. For the statistics and growth comparisons the TL was used as independent variable and values for body length (BL), head length (HL), caudal fin length (CF), upper jaw (UJ), lower jaw (LJ), and the diameter of the eye in vertical (EV) and horizontal (EH) plane were plotted and regressed to the predicted value using the package basicTrendline (Mei et al., 2018) for R Cran 3.6.1 (2019).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Position of the landmarks defined to estimate the variation in linear measurements and shape in C. anguineus. (a) Linear measurements landmarks (green dots): 1–2, upper jaw length; 1–3, lower jaw length; 4–9, head length; 5–7, eye diameter horizontal; 6–8, eye diameter vertical; 9–10, body length; 10–11, caudal fin length; 4–11, total length. (b) Body landmarks (red dots = landmarks; blue dots = semilandmarks): 1, labial cartilage articulation; 2, rostral edge of lower jaw; 3, rostrum; 4, eye center; 5, lateral line‐frill origin conjunction; 6, anterior insertion of dorsal fin; 7, posterior insertion of dorsal fin; 8, anterior insertion of caudal fin; 9, caudal fin posterior end; 10, anterior‐ventral insertion of caudal fin; 11, posterior insertion of anal fin; 12, anterior insertion of anal fin; 13, anterior insertion of pelvic fin; 14, anterior insertion of pectoral fin; 15, ventral origin of frill; 16–23, eye perimeter; 24–46, dorsal profile. (c) Head of C. anguineus embryo at stage 36 of development. The eight landmarks (red dots) and 15 semilandmarks (blue dots) are indicated in the corresponding anatomical positions: 1, rostrum; 2, posterior dorsal edge of head; 3, posterior dorsal side of frill; 4, posterior ventral side of frill; 5, labial cartilage articulation; 6, rostral edge of lower jaw; 7, rostral edge of upper jaw; 8, nostril; 9–16, dorsal craniofacial profile; 17–23, eye circumference

2.4. Geometric morphometric analyses

A subset of 22 embryos out of the original sample of 51 specimens was chosen for subsequent analysis of shape with geometric morphometrics, since this subset presented no bending deformation that could lead to biased results in the shape. The number of individuals of each stage for this analysis were: stage 32 (n = 2), stage 33 (n = 4), stage 34 (n = 3), stage 35 (n = 4), stage 36 (n = 9). The shapes were defined according to two‐dimensional landmarks and semi‐landmarks, and the landmark coordinates were digitized using tpsDIG2 v.2.18 (Rohlf, 2002) (Figure 2b,c). The landmark coordinates were digitized twice on each individual and subject to a principal component analysis (PCA) to assess the accuracy of landmark capture.

Each subset of landmark coordinates was aligned by a generalized Procrustes superimposition as implemented in geomorph (v. 3.0.5) R package (Adams & Otarola‐Castillo, 2013). This method eliminates differences in size, position and orientation, and leaves only shape variation remaining for the analysis (Rohlf & Slice, 1990). Because each subset of landmark coordinates contains several semi‐landmarks the variation regarding its position along the curve was assessed considering the minimum bending energy between the target shape and the mean shape (Gunz and Mitteroecker, 2013). After superimposition, the Procrustes coordinates were used for a PCA to visualize the sources of variation in the specimens. Thin‐plate spline deformation grids were included to assist in illustrating the changes in shape from the mean along each PC axis as well as the minimum and maximum along those axes. The variation of head and body shape related to the size of the embryo was estimated by a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) using the information of size as the logarithm of the centroid size (the square root of the sum of the squared distances of all the landmark coordinates), developmental stages, sex and the interactions between these variables. For statistical significance Goodall's F‐ratio and randomized residual permutation procedure (10,000 iterations) were used (Collyer et al., 2015). Significance in the interaction terms with (Shape ~ log(Csize)*Stage) and (Shape ~ log(Csize)*Sex) were interpreted as a difference in allometric trajectories between the stages or sexes of the individuals. A pairwise test for slope homogeneity was conducted with the advanced.procD.lm function in geomorph when the interactions were significant to assess the slope changes between developmental stages. Statistical significance rejecting the null hypothesis for a common slope was assessed by permutation using 10,000 iterations. The pairwise comparison of stage angle slopes was estimated in degrees. The shape change associated with the developmental stage was observed as a function of the regression of shape on the log‐transformed centroid size. The slopes of each developmental stage were plotted as the predicted shape scored against the log‐transformed centroid size.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Stages

3.1.1. Stage 31

The LJ barely reaches the posterior end of the eye while the UJ extends to about the middle of the eye. The head shape is rounded, and pigmentation starts to surround the eye. The pectoral and pelvic fins are formed, with the pelvic fins being broader than the pectoral fins. No trace of the median fin fold is found in between the unpaired fins (Figure 3a). Embryos described by Gudger (1940) do not correspond to this size in morphology since the mouth of the described embryos are still in the diamond shape stage. The closer ones resembling the indicated stage are 32–34 mm

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Fixed embryos of C. anguineus representing the developmental stages: (a) stage 31, (b) stage 32, (c) stage 33, (d) stage 34, (e) stage 35, and (f) stage 36. Scale bars: 20 mm

3.1.2. Stage 32

The LJ starts protruding and the rostrum starts to change its position from its former ventral position to a more dorsal, anterior‐pointing position. Eye pigmentation becomes darker and surrounds the lens completely; still there is no pigmentation on the body. The pectoral and pelvic fins are longer than in the previous stage and the dorsal and anal fins are already well developed and separated from the caudal fin. All the unpaired fins start to show slight pigmentation along the margins. Small gill filaments are visible and there is a slight frilling on gills two to six (Figure 3b). Approximately corresponding to Gudger (1940) these embryos have a TL of 54–55 mm.

3.1.3. Stage 33

The jaws are recognizably longer compared to the previous stage. The LJ extends anteriorly to the margin of the eye. The head is smaller and more compact, and the snout depicts a slightly pointed shape in a lateral view with the rostrum pointing anteriorly. The eyes are completely pigmented now, and the unpaired fins show an incipient dark pigmentation. Both paired fins (pectoral and pelvic) become longer and take in adult shapes, including an upcoming dark pigmentation on the margins. The caudal fin appears to turn upwards. There are no external gill filaments recognizable anymore. The lateral line starts to appear (Figure 3c). The embryos depicted by Gudger (1940) are heavily deformed; the closest one described appears to correspond to the 66 mm embryo.

3.1.4. Stage 34

Both jaws are extending forward, surpassing eye level, and meanwhile have nearly the same length. The snout is now blunter and points straight forward. The body becomes pigmented with a brownish shade. Pectoral and pelvic fins elongate and become broader, the lower caudal lobe already shows the adult form. The body, between pectoral and pelvic fins, becomes more elongated (Figure 3d). The embryo described by Gudger (1940) at 103 mm could correspond in morphology to this stage.

3.1.5. Stage 35

The LJ almost reaches its terminal position. The snout is pointed in lateral view and the nasal capsules are in their final positions. The bases of the paired fins are well developed and the dorsal and anal fins are already similar to the ones seen in adults. The lateral line system is more defined than in the stages before but not completely developed yet. Frills are occurring on the first gill (Figure 3e). The embryo at 124 mm by Gudger (1940) is the most similar.

3.1.6. Stage 36

The mouth opening now reaches its final terminal position. The head is slightly dorso‐ventrally compressed and the snout is more prominent. The body pigmentation is now complete and more intense than before with the fins (both paired and unpaired) being darker than the body. Paired fins now also reach their adult shape and the unpaired fins have grown a little broader to reach final shape, including the appearance of the terminal notch in the caudal fin. Frills are well visible and detected on all gills and the lateral line is clearly defined (Figure 3f). The embryos from 185 to 240 mm described by Gudger (1940) correspond to this stage.

3.2. Analysis of linear measurements

The 51 measured embryos generally show an allometric growth pattern in most of the measured distances. Starting with the means of the TL we have to acknowledge that there are more females than males in this sample with the smallest and the biggest individual both being females. Still, males are significantly bigger than the females (t‐test, P = 0.03) (Figure 4a). The same applies to many measured distances, which undergo an elongation during development (e.g., BL and CF) (Figure 4a). Analysing the distribution of lengths between head (defined by LM 4 and 9), body (defined by LM 9 and 10) and tail (defined by LM 10 and 11) it is noticeable that the head is the shortest body part, which also elongates the least.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Linear measurement analysis of the embryos of C. anguineus. (a) Averages with standard error bars for each of the linear measurements from the landmarks described in Figure 2a Sex (Inline graphic) Female, (Inline graphic) Male. (b) Relation of the BL, CF and HL as a variable of the total length. (Inline graphic) BL, (Inline graphic) CF, (Inline graphic) HL. (c) Eye length in both horizontal and vertical diameter. (Inline graphic) EH, (Inline graphic) EV. (d) Proportion changes of the eye diameter and head length through development. (Inline graphic) EH‐%HL, (Inline graphic) HL‐%TL. (e) Length growth of the head, and upper and lower jaw. (Inline graphic) HL, (Inline graphic) UJ, (Inline graphic) LJ. (f) Growth of the upper and lower jaw as percentage of the head length. (Inline graphic) UJ‐%HL, (Inline graphic) LJ‐%HL. BL, body length; CF, caudal fin length; HL, head length; EH, eye diameter horizontal; EV, eye diameter vertical; EH‐%HL, eye diameter horizontal percentage of head length; HL‐%TL, head length percentage of total length; UJ, upper jaw length; LJ, lower jaw length; UJ‐%HL, upper jaw percentage of head length; LJ‐%HL, lower jaw percentage of head length

The body, understood as everything between head and tail, is the longest part with the highest tendency to further growth (Figure 4b), and grows proportionally at the same rate as the CF, while the HL also keeps growing but at a lower rate compared to the BL and CF. Comparing the EV to the EH, a slight elliptical shape on the horizontal axis can be noticed, which might increase in postnatal development (Figure 4c). When considering the EH as a percentage of HL, it is noticeable that the eye in relation to the head decreases in size while the head continues to grow in relation to the TL (Figure 4d).

Analysing the growth rate of the mouth opening in connection with the growth of the head it seems that the jaws grow at a relatively slower rate compared to the head. There is a visible difference between the UJ and the LJ at all times, with the UJ being always longer than the LJ, resulting in a constant gap. These differences, however, are not noticeable in the proportion of the UJ and LJ to the HL as a function of the TL (Figure 4e). On average the UJ is 0.1 cm longer than the LJ, but this is not significant (P > 0.5). Both jaws appear to grow little through the measured developmental stages. Furthermore, a convergence of the jaw as a percentage of the head is discernible in both parts of the jaw (Figure 4f). This would lead, according to the linear trend, to closure of the gap between UJ and LJs, with both of them reaching the same length.

3.3. Shape variation of body and head

Estimating the ratio of the mean squares of the individuals and replicates from a nested ANOVA showed a repeatability of 0.97. A discriminant function analysis on the replicate measurements after a PCA revealed that each capture session could not be assigned as different groups (P = 0.5) (Supporting Information Figure S1). The PCA shows that for both the body and the head configuration the PC1 and PC2 account for over 81.9% and 62.7%, respectively, of the total variation (Figure 5). For the body shape, the PC1 is related to the dorsal curvature and the upwards position of the caudal fin tip. However, this shape change might be related to the bending effect of preservation. Nevertheless, the positive values of PC1 shows that the later stages (34, 35 and 36) are grouped in this area, while the earliest stages share the negative side of PC1 (Figure 5a). The Unbend function in tpsUtil was tried in an attempt to eliminate the deformation effect, but without success. PC2 also describes shape changes similar as in PC1. In this case the deformation effects also seem to be part of the preservation bending, with some differences between developmental stages. Earlier stages seem to have a more straightened dorsal side of the body, which might tend to curve as development proceeds. Since these effects could not be removed from the analysis, we focused mainly on the head shape configuration for further analysis.

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

PCA of the body and head shape variation in C. anguineus. (a) Body shape variation due to deformation effects by the preservation of the individuals. (b) Head shape variation among frilled shark embryos through development. Colours indicate the developmental stage: (Inline graphic) stage 32; (Inline graphic) stage 33; (Inline graphic) stage 34; (Inline graphic) stage 35; (Inline graphic) stage 36

The head shape along PC1 describes a more rounded craniofacial profile on the negative values (Figure 5b), a longer distance from the origin of the maxilla to the preorbital region, and the postorbital region of the head appears to be elongated as development progresses. The UJ and LJ also elongate. In the earlier stages, the anterior tips are positioned slightly at the middle of the eye, and as development continues the tips extend anteriorly to surpass the anterior margin of the orbit. The shift in the elongation of the jaws is first recognizable with the UJ. At earlier stages, the UJ starts to protrude along with the rostrum while the LJ only reaches the terminal position at around stages 34 and 35. Both jaw tips are at the same terminal position at stage 36.

The orbit also appears to be larger in earlier developmental stages in relation to the BL, but appears to slow its growth in the later stages. Later shape changes during development become more apparent in a more straightened frontonasal profile with the tip of the rostrum turning upwards and also a longer postorbital region. PC2 describes the position of the eye from the middle to a more dorsal location and a more flattened head shape, although this is not reflected as a shape change related to a particular developmental stage. The head shape was not sufficient to determine sexual dimorphism among the individuals analysed (Supporting Information Figure S2). However, since the sampling size for each stage does not include both sexes for all the developmental stages, the morphospace might not be accurate. Perhaps the inclusion of more male specimens for the earlier stages might provide a better picture to investigate possible sexual dimorphism patterns in the future.

3.4. Head allometry variation

Since there were differences in the head shape related to developmental stage, a MANCOVA was performed to examine interactions between shape, size, stage and sex (Table 1). The head shape differences are mainly explained by size (r 2 = 0.397) and developmental stage (r 2 = 0.162). The significant interactions of size and developmental stage in both configurations suggest that allometric slopes might differ between developmental stages. When we compared this covariation of head shape assuming the sex as an important factor and its interaction to the centroid size, we observed that the interaction is slightly significant (Table 1). The allometric slope plots show that some developmental stages differ in the intercept and that the intercept of later stages takes place in the upward y axis (Figure 6). After the confirmation of significant interactions between size and developmental stages and also sex (Table 1), a pairwise slope test was conducted to reveal divergence points during the development of the head shape or if there was an effect of sexual dimorphism related to size and shape. The results suggest that the earliest stages are the ones where the shape starts to shift (stages 32 and 33), and we noticed changes in most traits of the head, like the upward shift of the rostrum and the onset of jaw protrusion. However, there were no differences between the sexes and probably other characters could be more useful in the compared stages (Table 2). Taking the Procrustes distances from the mean configuration of the individuals plotted against the PC1 scores revealed that the earlier stages are the ones with the highest variation in shape, and as development progresses the later stages tend to converge towards the mean shape and their variation is reduced overall (Figure 7).

TABLE 1.

Covariance of shape and size related to ontogenetic changes (stages) and sex of the individuals

Head shape Df SS MS R 2 F P
log (Csize) 1 0.20022 0.200216 0.39715 17.2306 0.0001
Stage 4 0.08204 0.020511 0.16274 1.7651 0.0002
log (Csize):Stage 4 0.08244 0.020611 0.16353 1.7737 0.0001
Residuals 12 0.13944 0.011620
Total 21 0.50414
log (Csize) 1 0.12443 0.124434 0.31974 9.7884 0.0001
Sex 1 0.01469 0.014686 0.03774 1.1553 0.1165
log(Csize):Sex 1 0.02123 0.021229 0.05455 1.6699 0.0201
Residuals 18 0.22882 0.012712
Total 21 0.38917
Open in a new tab

Note. Df, degrees of freedom; SS, sum of squares; MS, mean squares; R 2, coefficient of determination; F, F ratio; P, P value. Bold indicates significant P values.

FIGURE 6.

FIGURE 6

Open in a new tab

Allometric slopes and shape variation of the head of C. anguineus as a function of logarithm of centroid size. Both developmental stages and sex are compared. (Inline graphic) stage 32; (Inline graphic) stage 33; (Inline graphic) stage 34; (Inline graphic) stage 35; (Inline graphic) stage 36; (Inline graphic) female; (Inline graphic) male

TABLE 2.

Pair‐wise post hoc test of allometric slope angles between stages and sexes of the individuals

Stage 32 Stage 33 Stage 34 Stage 35 Stage 36
Stage 32 – 0.0138 0.6098 0.3613 0.0082
Stage 33 79.75450 – 0.1869 0.2159 0.9095
Stage 34 130.76903 101.16381 – 0.3618 0.1973
Stage 35 81.77449 108.39498 108.2021 – 0.1835
Stage 36 62.84690 83.97788 114.0396 81.93991 –
Open in a new tab

Note. Upper half (cut diagonally) indicates P values and lower half indicates angles. Significant P values reported in bold.

FIGURE 7.

FIGURE 7

Open in a new tab

Shape divergence of the head of C. anguineus as a function of Procrustes distance from mean to the logarithm of centroid size (solid line; grey shading = 95% confidence interval) of the head shape through the development. (Inline graphic) stage 32; (Inline graphic) stage 33; (Inline graphic) stage 34; (Inline graphic) stage 35; (Inline graphic) stage 36

4. DISCUSSION

The characters selected for the definition of the developmental stages follow the definitions of morphological‐based landmarks rather than a time‐ or length‐based system. This is due to the variable gestation periods between several elasmobranch species (Ballard et al., 1993; Didier et al., 1998; Maxwell et al., 2008; Rodda & Seymour, 2007), with the frilled shark having probably the longest gestation period of up to 3.5 years (Tanaka et al., 1990). Overall the stages were well defined and subsequent analyses reflected the grouping of the individuals belonging to their respective stage. Since it is assumed that the frilled sharks represent a basal elasmobranch group, the introduction of a staging scheme and the subsequent description of the development of specific traits is of particular interest to understand the origin of its peculiar morphology. Some of the most noticeable changes are related to the development of the jaws and the rostrum. While almost all other elasmobranch species display a ventrally, subterminally located mouth opening, which reaches its final position at a quite early stage [around stage 28 in catsharks and bamboo sharks (Ballard et al., 1993; Onimaru et al., 2018)], the rather terminal positioned mouth opening in the frilled shark starts to move to its future position at stages 31–32 and reaches the final position near the end of the embryonic development. In the winter skate Leucoraja ocellata, Maxwell et al. (2008) point out that the change in the position of the jaws starts at an even earlier stage (stage 27) and that this shift in timing can be related to the specialized dorso‐ventrally flattened body shape.

Other characters such as the paired and unpaired fins seem to be more variable throughout development. We were not able to detect a median fin fold from which the unpaired fins develop (Mabee et al., 2002). However, it is expected that by the time of the formation of the pectoral and pelvic fins this structure might already be absent (Witten & Huysseune, 2007). Several studies point at specific events during ontogeny where certain shape changes occur and are central for particular adaptations (Genbrugge et al., 2011; McGowan, 1988; Meyer, 1990; Rose, 2009; Russo et al., 2007). We observed in our sample a larger shape variation in the early stages and we were able to estimate the moment of morphologic convergence to one defined specific morphology. Finally, the staging of the frilled shark embryos will allow further comparisons with other elasmobranch species at similar stages to improve the understanding of character evolution.

Sexually related dimorphism in body size is known in several groups of vertebrates (Adkins‐Regan & Reeve, 2014; Arak, 1988; da Silva et al., 2017; Francis & Duffy, 2005; Malmgren and Thollesson, 1999; Monnet & Cherry, 2002; Rogers et al., 2017; Woolbright, 1983). Elasmobranchs tend to display sexual dimorphism in size (Francis & Duffy, 2005; Rogers et al., 2017; Rolim et al., 2015; Semba et al., 2011) and even in specific characters like the mouth shape of the small‐spotted catshark, which is, for example, longer and narrower in males than females (Ellis and Shackley, 1995). In some species, like the Caribbean sharpnose shark Rhizoprionodon porosus or the smalltail shark Carcharhinus porosus, several measurements of head, body and fins indicate that males are generally larger than females (Barbosa Martins et al., 2015). In the case of the frilled shark linear measurements of adults (adulthood being defined by sexual maturity) indicate that females, conversely, are generally larger than the males without this difference in size being particularly noticeable at birth (Tanaka et al., 1990). Both sexes still experience the same shape changes during development, which is displayed by the nonsignificant difference between their allometric slopes.

The linear measurements in our sample show that the males are significantly larger than the females even though there was a larger number of females in the sample, including the largest and smallest individuals. This discrepancy in total BL between the embryonic or newly born female and the sexually mature one leads us to the suggestion that females either grow faster or that they grow over a longer period of time before reaching sexual maturity. As a trend, deep‐sea elasmobranch species have lower growth rates, greater longevity and late age at maturity (Rigby & Simpfendorfer, 2013). In a paper by Girard and Du Buit (1999) a comparison of the growth rate differences between sexes of two viviparous deep sea shark species – the Portuguese dogfish Centroscymnus coelolepis and the leafscale gulper shark Centrophorus squamosus – was drawn and showed that the females were larger in TL in both embryonic stages and as adults. From our samples we cannot observe this difference clearly since at later stages the sample size is not large enough to display such trends.

The eye diameter was measured vertically and horizontally and showed only a very small amount of growth in both distances from the smallest to the largest embryo, reaching a plateau, which might continue its growth at a slower pace throughout the life of the individuals. Litherland et al. (2009) showed that eye growth differs significantly between the sandbar shark Carcharhinus plumbeus, which inhabits coastal waters, and the shortspine spurdog Squalus mitsukurii, which inhabits deeper waters of the continental shelf. In their paper Litherland et al. (2009) suggest that the growth through lifetime takes place due to constant adaptations to the current surrounding of the individual. Perhaps the eyes of the frilled shark present this pattern since there is only little light in the water depths at which they live. The eye size of the frilled shark, in percentage of the head of recently hatched individuals of different size, could provide more support on its possible adaptations.

The jaws elongate quite constantly with the growth of the head, as shown by their length measurements. The constant difference of UJ and LJ (the LJ being the shorter one) leads to an observable gap, which can be detected in every stage and is also known from adult individuals (Smith, 1967). From our results, the loss of the gap can neither be observed in late embryonic stages nor in adults and is probably a deviation due to skewed effect. Nonetheless a shrinking of the size of the gap between the two jaws is detectable during development, displayed in lateral view.

The craniofacial traits are of particular interest because many species have an observable trend that helps to explain the developmental basis of particular adaptations according to the development of the craniofacial traits (Ahi, 2016; Eames & Schneider, 2008; Hall et al., 2014). Morphological changes within the same elasmobranch species previously were detected by functional analysis of the feeding apparatus. The displayed shifts in individuals were related to a change of diet during ontogeny, which also involved a change in size and bite performance of the feeding apparatus (Fahle and Thomason, 2008; Fu et al., 2016; Huber et al., 2008; Lowry & Motta, 2008; Wilga et al., 2016). In some cases, similar morphologies of different species seemingly evolved multiple times independently (Dean et al., 2007). However, most of these changes occur during postnatal development and reflect trends the juveniles experience while growing up. While analysing the jaw growth of the frilled shark we noticed that the shape changes and elongation of the jaws occur later in embryonic development, compared with other elasmobranch species, and continue up to the latest stage we analysed. Although the frilled shark has been positioned as a primitive form of elasmobranch (Goto & Hashimoto, 1976), several studies suggest that some of its characters (especially the jaw suspension and number of gill slits) could be derived (Amaral et al., 2017; Bustamante et al., 2016; Soares and de Carvalho, 2013; Tanaka et al., 2013). The developmental sequence of jaws in other species could shed light on the changes we observed, since – as pointed out by Maxwell et al. (2008) in Leucoraja ocellata – some of these derived features can occur at earlier stages, as in the case of the jaws. It is noteworthy, however, that the jaws start to develop in a subterminal position as is typical for most sharks, but reach a terminal position late in development through anterior elongation of the jaws.

The caudal fin is another interesting structure as it appears not to change its shape at all throughout the stages we analysed. It has been reported that the caudal fin shape changes in other species like the tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier, the great white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, and the spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias (Fu et al., 2016; Reiss & Bonnan, 2010; Tomita et al., 2018), which might reflect a shift in function towards their apex predator niche or possibly a biomechanical response to swimming mode. We found that in the frilled shark the caudal fin seems to experience only very little change in shape. However, since our sample comprises prenatal individuals only, it is possible that the caudal fin experiences shape changes after birth. Therefore, we cannot assess if certain prenatal shape constraints are related to deep‐sea adaptations for sure or if there are changes in postnatal development to give the frilled shark its specialized phenotype.

5. CONCLUSIONS

We present for the first time a comparison of the embryos of the aplacental viviparous deep‐sea frilled shark through several stages, which serves as a reference point for further studies among other elasmobranch species. The characters we analysed highlight the changes that the frilled shark experience in prenatal ontogeny. Although the changes appear to be remarkable, it should be kept in mind that the gestation period in this species is one of the longest known. Nevertheless, by using the size as a proxy of developmental time, we can estimate that overall some traits change relatively fast while others change at a slower pace. The highly variable shape in earlier stages and the subsequent convergence towards the mean shape is prominent and suggests a tendency to reduce its variability when the organism approaches a terminal stage in development. Regarding the sexual dimorphism, a difference in the mean TL was detected that differs from the size dimorphism in mature individuals. This character might display growth variation within postnatal individuals and might continue throughout the lifespan of this shark. Finally, a set of traits that could be useful to determine a general adaptation to deep‐sea environments is difficult to assess, but further studies on eye development might provide new insights. Furthermore, we provide additional evidence that suggests that the terminal position of the jaws in elasmobranchs could be a derived trait rather than a plesiomorphic condition as is generally assumed.

AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS

F.A.L.‐R., C.K. and J.K. conceived/designed the study. C.K. and F.A.L.‐R. collected the raw data and performed the analyses. F.A.L.‐R., C.K., J.K. and S.T. wrote the manuscript. All authors gave final approval for publication.

Supporting information

SUPPORTING INFORMATION FIGURE S1 AF1_Supp_Replication.pdf Morphospace of the landmarks replicates to test the repeatability of the coordinates capture

Click here for additional data file. (13.8MB, eps)

SUPPORTING INFORMATION FIGURE S2 AF2_Supp_Morphospace_sex.pdf Morphospace of the shape variation between sexes (female = red; male = black). (a) Body shape and (b) head shape

Click here for additional data file. (4.7MB, eps)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Dr Brian Metscher at the Theoretical Biology Department in the Universität Wien for additional material for earlier stages of the frilled shark. We also thank two anonymous reviewers whose comments helped to improve the manuscript.

López‐Romero FA, Klimpfinger C, Tanaka S, Kriwet J. Growth trajectories of prenatal embryos of the deep‐sea shark Chlamydoselachus anguineus (Chondrichthyes). J Fish Biol. 2020;97:212–224. 10.1111/jfb.14352

Funding information Universität Wien

REFERENCES

  1. Adachi, N. , & Kuratani, S. (2012). Development of head and trunk mesoderm in the dogfish, Scyliorhinus torazame: I. Embryology and morphology of the head cavities and related structures. Evolution and Development, 14, 234–256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams, D. C. , & Otarola‐Castillo, E. (2013). Geomorph: An R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 393–399. [Google Scholar]
  3. Adkins‐Regan, E. , & Reeve, H. K. (2014). Sexual dimorphism in body size and the origin of sex determination systems. American Naturalist, 183, 519–536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ahi, E. P. (2016). Signalling pathways in trophic skeletal development and morphogenesis: Insights from studies on teleost fish. Developmental Biology, 420(1), 11–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Amaral, C. R. L. , Pereira, F. , Silva, D. A. , Amorim, A. , & de Carvalho, E. F. (2017). The mitogenomic phylogeny of the Elasmobranchii (Chondrichthyes). Mitochondrial DNA Part A, 20, 1–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Arak, A. (1988). Sexual dimorphism in body size: A model and a test. Evolution, 42, 820–825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Balfour, F. (1881). On the development of the skeleton of the paired fins of Elasmobranchii, considered in relation to its bearing on the nature of the limbs of the vertebrata. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1881, 662–671. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ballard, W. W. , Mellinger, J. , & Lechenault, H. (1993). A series of normal stages for development of Scyliorhinus canicula, lesser spotted dogfish (Chondrichthyes: Scyliorhinidae). Journal of Experimental Zoology, 267, 318–336. [Google Scholar]
  9. Barbosa Martins, A. P. , da Silva Filho, E. , Manir Feitosa, L. , Nunes e Silva, L. P. , da Silva de Almeida, Z. , & Silva Nunes, J. L. (2015). Sexual dimorphism of sharks from the Amazonian equatorial coast. Universitas Scientiarum, 20(3), 297–304. [Google Scholar]
  10. Barry, S. N. , & Crow, K. D. (2017). The role of HoxA11 and HoxA13 in the evolution of novel fin morphologies in a representative batoid (Leucoraja erinacea). EvoDevo, 8, 24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergmann, G. T. , & Motta, P. J. (2005). Diet and morphology through ontogeny of the nonindigenous Mayan cichlid ‘Cichlasoma (Nandopsis)’ urophtalmus (Günther 1862) in southern Florida. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 72, 205–211. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolzan, D. P. , Pessôa, L. M. , Peracchi, A. L. , & Strauss, R. E. (2015). Allometric patterns and evolution in Neotropical nectar‐feeding bats (Chiroptera, Phyllostomidae). Acta Chiropterologica, 17, 59–73. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bustamante, C. , Bennett, M. B. , & Ovenden, J. R. (2016). Genotype and phylogenomic position of the frilled shark Chlamydoselachus anguineus inferred from the mitochondrial genome. Mitochondrial DNA Part B, 1(1), 18–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cardini, A. , & Polly, P. D. (2013). Larger mammals have longer faces because of size‐related constraints on skull form. Nature Communications, 4, 2458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Castro, J. I. , & Wourms, J. P. (1993). Reproduction, placentation, and embryonic development of the Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae . Journal of Morphology, 218, 257–280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cheverud, J. M. (1982). Relationships among ontogenetic, static, and evolutionary allometry. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 59, 139–149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Collyer, M. L. , Sekora, D. J. , & Adams, D. C. (2015). A method for analysis of phenotypic change for phenotypes described by high‐dimensional data. Heredity, 115, 357–365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Compagno, L. J. V. (1984). Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date (Vol. 4). Rome: FAO of the United Nations. [Google Scholar]
  19. Compagnucci, C. , Debiais‐Thibaud, M. , Coolen, M. , Fish, J. , Griffin, J. N. , Bertocchini, F. , … Depew, M. J. (2013). Pattern and polarity in the development and evolution of the gnathostome jaw: both conservation and heterotopy in the branchial arches of the shark, Scyliorhinus canicula . Developmental Biology, 377, 428–448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Coolen, M. , Menuet, A. , Chassoux, D. , Compagnucci, C. , Henry, S. , Lévèque, L. , Da Silva, C. , Gavory, F. , Samain, S. , Wincker, P. , Thermes, C. , D'Aubenton‐Carafa, Y. , Rodriguez‐Moldes, I. , Naylor, G. , Depew, M. , Sourdaine, P. , & Mazan, S. (2008). The dogfish Scyliorhinus canicula: A reference in jawed vertebrates. CSH Protocols, pdb.emo111, 431–446. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Cooper, R. L. , Martin, K. J. , Rasch, L. J. , & Fraser, G. J. (2017). Developing an ancient epithelial appendage: FGF signaling regulates early tail denticle formation in sharks. EvoDevo, 8, 8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cvijanović, M. , Ivanović, A. , Kalezić, M. L. , & Zelditch, M. L. (2014). The ontogenetic origins of skull shape disparity in the Triturus cristatus group. Evolution and Development, 16, 306–317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. da Silva, F. A. M. , Silva de Oliveira, L. , Souza Nascimento, L. R. , Andrade Machado, F. , & Costa Prudente, A. L. (2017). Sexual dimorphism and ontogenetic changes of Amazonian pit vipers (Bothrops atrox). Zoologischer Anzeiger, 271, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  24. 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. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Debiais‐Thibaud, M. , Oulion, S. , Bourrat, F. , Laurenti, P. , Casane, D. , & Borday‐Birraux, V. (2011). The homology of odontodes in gnathostomes: insights from Dlx gene expression in the dogfish, Scyliorhinus canicula . BMC Evolutionary Biology, 11, 307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Didier, A. D. , Leclair, E. E. , & Vanbuskirk, D. R. (1998). Embryonic staging an external features of development of the Chimaeroid Fish, Callorhinchus milii (Holocephali, Callorhinchidae). Journal of Morphology, 236, 25–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Eames, B. F. , Allen, N. , Young, J. , Kaplan, A. , Helms, J. A. , & Schneider, R. A. (2007). Skeletogenesis in the swell shark Cephaloscyllium ventriosum . Journal of Anatomy, 210, 542–554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Eames, B. F. , & Schneider, R. A. (2008). The genesis of cartilage size and shape during development and evolution. Development, 135, 3947–3958. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ebert, D. A. , & Compagno, L. J. V. (2009). Chlamydoselachus africana, a new species of frilled shark from southern Africa (Chondrichthyes, Hexanchiformes, Chlamydoselachidae). Zootaxa, 2173, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ellis, J. R. , & Shackley, S. E. (1995). Ontogenic changes and sexual dimorphism in the head, mouth and teeth of the lesser spotted dogfish. Journal of Fish Biology, 47, 155–164. [Google Scholar]
  31. El‐Toubi, M. R. (1952). The development of the chondrocranium of the spiny dogfish, Acanthias vulgaris (Squalus acanthias). Part I. Neurocranium, mandibular and hyoid arches. Journal of Morphology, 84, 227–279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Fahle, S. R. , & Thomason, J. C. (2008). Measurement of jaw viscoelasticity in newborn and adult lesser spotted dogfish Scyliorhinus canicula (L., 1758). Journal of Fish Biology, 72, 1553–1557. [Google Scholar]
  33. Francis, M. P. , & Duffy, C. (2005). Length at maturity in three pelagic sharks (Lamna nasus, Isurus oxyrinchus, and Prionace glauca) from New Zealand. Fishery Bulletin, 103(3), 489–500. [Google Scholar]
  34. Frédérich, B. , Adriaens, D. , & Vandewalle, P. (2008). Ontogenetic shape changes in Pomacentridae (Teleostei, Perciformes) and their relationships with feeding strategies: a geometric morphometric approach. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 95, 92–105. [Google Scholar]
  35. Freitas, R. , Zhang, G. , & Cohn, M. J. (2007). Biphasic Hoxd gene expression in shark paired fins reveals an ancient origin of the distal limb domain. PLoS One, 2, e754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Fu, A. L. , Hammerschlag, N. , Lauder, G. V. , Wilga, C. D. , Kuo, C. Y. , & Irschick, D. J. (2016). Ontogeny of head and caudal fin shape of an apex marine predator: the tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier). Journal of Morphology, 277, 556–564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Garman, S. (1884). An extraordinary shark. Bulletin of the Essex Institute., 16, 47–55. [Google Scholar]
  38. Genbrugge, A. , Heyde, A. , Adriaens, D. , Boone, M. , Van Hoorebeke, L. , Dirckx, J. , … Herrel, A. (2011). Ontogeny of the cranial skeleton in a Darwin's finch (Geospiza fortis). Journal of Anatomy, 219, 115–131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Gillis, J. A. , Modrell, M. S. , & Baker, C. V. (2012). A timeline of pharyngeal endoskeletal condensation and differentiation in the shark, Scyliorhinus canicula, and the paddlefish, Polyodon spathula . Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 28, 341–345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Gilmore, R. G. , Dodrill, J. W. , & Linley, P. A. (1983). Reproduction and embryonic development of the sand tiger shark, Odontaspis taurus (Rafinesque). Fishery Bulletin, 81, 201–225. [Google Scholar]
  41. Girard, M. , & Du Buit, M. H. (1999). Reproductive biology of two deep‐water sharks from the British Isles, Centroscymnus coelolepis and Centrophorus squamosus (Chondrichthyes: Squalidae). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 79, 923–931. [Google Scholar]
  42. Goto, M. (1987). Chlamydoselachus anguineus—A living cladodont shark. Report of Japanese Society for Elasmobranch Studies, 23, 11–13. [Google Scholar]
  43. Goto, M. (1991). Evolutionary trends of the tooth structure in Chondrichthyes In Suga S. & Nakahara H. (Eds.), Mechanisms and phylogeny of mineralization in biological systems (pp. 447–451). Tokyo: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  44. Goto, M. , & Hashimoto, I. (1976). Studies on the teeth of Chlamydoselachus anguineus, a living archaic fish. I. On the morphology, structure and composition of the teeth. Japanese Journal of Oral Biology., 18(3), 362–377. [Google Scholar]
  45. Gudger, E. W. (1940). The breeding habits, reproductive organs, and external embryonic development of Chlamydoselachus based on notes and drawings left by Bashford Dean In Gudger E. W. (Ed.), The Bashford Dean memorial volume: Archaic fishes (pp. 525–633). New York, NY: American Museum of Natural History. [Google Scholar]
  46. Gudger, E. W. , & Smith, B. G. (1933). The natural history of the frilled shark, Chlamydoselachus anguineus In Gudger E. W. (Ed.), The Bashford Dean memorial volume: Archaic fishes (pp. 243–330). New York, NY: American Museum of Natural History. [Google Scholar]
  47. Gunz, P. , & Mitteroecker, P. (2013). Semilandmarks: a method for quantifying curves and surfaces. Hystrix, 24, 103–109. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hall, J. , Jheon, A. H. , Ealba, E. L. , Eames, B. F. , Butcher, K. D. , Mak, S. S. , … Schneider, R. A. (2014). Evolution of a developmental mechanism: species‐specific regulation of the cell cycle and the timing of events during craniofacial osteogenesis. Developmental Biology, 385, 380–395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Harrison, B. M. (1931). Developmental stages of the chondrocranium in some selachians. Journal of Morphology, 52, 565–592. [Google Scholar]
  50. Holmgren, N. (1940). Embryological, morphological, and phylogenetical researches. Acta Zoologica, 21, 51–266. [Google Scholar]
  51. Huber, D. R. , Claes, J. M. , Mallefet, J. , & Herrel, A. (2008). Is extreme bite performance associated with extreme morphologies in sharks? Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 82, 20–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Jollie, M. (1971). Some developmental aspects of the head skeleton of the 35–37 mm Squalus acanthias foetus. Journal of Morphology, 133, 17–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Joung, S. J. , & Hsu, H. H. (2005). Reproduction and embryonic development of the shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus Rafinesque, 1810, in the northwestern Pacific. Zoological Studies, 44, 487–496. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kirali, S. J. , Moore, J. A. , & Jasinski, P. H. (2000). Deepwater and other sharks of the U.S. Atlantic Ocean exclusive economic zone. Marine Fisheries Review, 65(4), 1–63. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kubota, T. , Shiobara, Y. , & Kubodera, T. (1991). Food habits of the frilled shark Chlamydoselachus anguineus collected from Suruga Bay, central Japan. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi, 57, 15–20. [Google Scholar]
  56. Litherland, L. , Collin, S. P. , & Fritsches, K. A. (2009). Visual optics and ecomorphology of the growing shark eye: a comparison between deep and shallow water species. Journal of Experimental Biology, 212, 3583–3594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Lowry, D. , & Motta, P. J. (2008). Relative importance of growth and behaviour to elasmobranch suction‐feeding performance over early ontogeny. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 5, 641–652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Loy, A. , Mariani, L. , Bertelletti, M. , & Tunesi, L. (1998). Visualizing allometry: geometric morphometrics in the study of shape changes in the early stages of the two‐banded sea bream, Diplodus vulgaris (Perciformes, Sparidae). Journal of Morphology, 237, 137–146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Mabee, P. M. , Crotwell, P. L. , Bird, N. C. , & Burke, A. C. (2002). Evolution of median fin modules in the axial skeleton of fishes. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 294, 77–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Maisey, J. G. , & Wolfram, K. (1984). Notidanus In Eldredge N. & Stanley S. M. (Eds.), Living Fossils (pp. 170–180). New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  61. Malmgren, J. C. , & Thollesson, M. (1999). Sexual size and shape dimorphism in two species of newts, Triturus cristatus and T. vulgaris (Caudata: Salamandridae). Journal of Zoology, 249, 127–136. [Google Scholar]
  62. Maxwell, E. E. , Fröbisch, N. B. , & Heppleston, A. C. (2008). Variability and conservation in late chondrichthyan development: ontogeny of the winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata). The Anatomical Record, 291, 1079–1087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. McGowan, C. (1988). Differential development of the rostrum and mandible of the swordfish (Xiphias gladius) during ontogeny and its possible functional significance. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 66, 496–503. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mei, W. , Yu, G. , Lai, J. , Rao, Q. , & Umezawa, Y. , (2018). basicTrendline: Add Trendline and Confidence Interval of Basic Regression Models to Plot. R package version 2.0.3.
  65. Meyer, A. (1990). Morphometrics and allometry in the trophically polymorphic cichlid fish, Cichlasoma citrinellum: Alternative adaptations and ontogenetic changes in shape. Journal of Zoology, 221, 237–260. [Google Scholar]
  66. Monnet, J. M. , & Cherry, M. I. (2002). Sexual size dimorphism in anurans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B) Biological Sciences, 269, 2301–2307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Onimaru, K. , Motone, F. , Kiyatake, I. , Nishida, K. , & Kuraku, S. (2018). A staging table for the embryonic development of the brownbanded bamboo shark (Chiloscyllium punctatum). Developmental Dynamics, 247, 712–723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Openshaw, G. H. , & Keogh, J. S. (2014). Head shape evolution in monitor lizards (Varanus): interactions between extreme size disparity, phylogeny and ecology. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 27, 363–373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. O'Shaughnessy, K. L. , Dahn, R. D. , & Cohn, M. J. (2015). Molecular development of chondrichthyan claspers and the evolution of copulatory organs. Nature Communications, 6, 6698. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Google Scholar]
  71. Reiss, K. L. , & Bonnan, M. F. (2010). Ontogenetic scaling of caudal fin shape in Squalus acanthias (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii): A geometric morphometric analysis with implications for caudal fin functional morphology. The Anatomical Record, 293, 1184–1191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Rigby, C. , & Simpfendorfer, C. A. (2013). Patterns in life history traits of deep‐water chondrichthyans. Deep‐Sea Research II, 115, 30–40. [Google Scholar]
  73. Rodda, K. , & Seymour, R. (2007). Functional morphology of embryonic development in the Port Jackson shark Heterodontus portusjacksoni (Meyer). Journal of Fish Biology, 72, 961–984. [Google Scholar]
  74. Rogers, T. D. , Cambiè, G. , & Kaiser, M. J. (2017). Determination of size, sex and maturity stage of free swimming catsharks using laser photogrammetry. Marine Biology, 164, 213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Rohlf, F. J. (2002). tpsDig, digitize landmarks and outlines, version 1.37. Stony Brook, NY: Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York. [Google Scholar]
  76. Rohlf, F. J. , & Slice, D. (1990). Extensions of the procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Biology, 39(1), 40–59. [Google Scholar]
  77. Rolim, F. A. , Caltabellotta, F. P. , Rotundo, M. M. , & Vaske‐Júnior, T. (2015). Sexual dimorphism based on body proportions and ontogenetic changes in the Brazilian electric ray Narcine brasiliensis (von Olfers, 1831) (Chondrichthyes: Narcinidae). African Journal of Marine Sciences, 37(2), 167–176. [Google Scholar]
  78. Rose, C. (2009). Generating, growing and transforming skeletal shape: insights from amphibian pharyngeal arch cartilages. BioEssays, 31, 287–299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Rose, C. S. , Murawinski, D. , & Horne, V. (2015). Deconstructing cartilage shape and size into contributions from embryogenesis, metamorphosis, and tadpole and frog growth. Journal of Anatomy, 226, 575–595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Russo, T. , Costa, C. , & Cataudella, S. (2007). Correspondence between shape and feeding habit changes throughout ontogeny of gilthead sea bream Sparus aurata L., 1758. Journal of Fish Biology, 71, 629–656. [Google Scholar]
  81. Semba, Y. , Aoki, I. , & Yokawa, K. (2011). Size at maturity and reproductive traits of shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus, in the western and central North Pacific. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62, 20–29. [Google Scholar]
  82. Shiobara, Y. , Abe, H. , & Hioki, K. (1987). Some biological information on the frill shark in Suruga Bay. Report of the Japan Group for Elasmobranch Studies, 23, 7–10. [Google Scholar]
  83. Shirai, S. (1992). Identity of extra branchial arches in Hexanchiformes (Pisces, Elasmobranchii). Bulletin of the Faculty of Fisheries Hokkaido University, 43, 24–32. [Google Scholar]
  84. Smith, B. G. (1937). The anatomy of the frilled shark Chlamydoselachus anguineus Garman In Gudger E. W. (Ed.), The Bashford Dean memorial volume: Archaic fishes (pp. 331–520). New York, NY: American Museum of Natural History. [Google Scholar]
  85. Smith, J. L. B. (1967). The Lizard shark, Chlamydoselachus anguineus Garman, in South Africa. Occasional Papers of the Department of Ichthyology, Rhodes University, South Africa, 10, 105–115. [Google Scholar]
  86. Smith, M. M. , Underwood, C. , Clark, B. , Kriwet, J. , & Johanson, Z. (2018). Development and evolution of tooth renewal in neoselachian sharks as a model for transformation in chondrichthyan dentitions. Journal of Anatomy, 232, 891–907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Soares, M. C. , & de Carvalho, M. R. (2013). Comparative myology of the mandibular and hyoid arches of sharks of the order hexanchiformes and their bearing on its monophyly and phylogenetic relationships (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii). Journal of Morphology, 274(2), 203–214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Strauss, R. E. , & Fuiman, L. A. (1985). Quantitative comparisons of body form and allometry in larval and adult Pacific sculpins (Teleostei: Cottidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 63(7), 1582–1589. [Google Scholar]
  89. Tanaka, K. , Shiina, T. , Tomita, T. , Suzuki, S. , Hosomichi, K. , Sano, K. , et al. (2013). Evolutionary relations of Hexanchiformes deep‐sea sharks elucidated by whole mitochondrial genome sequences. BioMed Research International, 2013, 11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Tanaka, S. , Shiobara, Y. , Syozo, H. , Abe, H. , Nishi, G. , Yano, K. , & Suzuki, K. (1990). The reproductive biology of the frilled shark, Chlamydoselachus anguineus, from Suruga Bay, Japan. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 37, 273–291. [Google Scholar]
  91. Tomita, T. , Toda, M. , Miyamoto, K. , Oka, S. , Ueda, K. , & Sato, K. (2018). Development of the lunate‐shaped caudal fin in white shark embryos. The Anatomical Record, 301, 1068–1073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Wilga, C. A. , Diniz, S. E. , Steele, P. R. , Sudario‐Cook, J. , Dumont, E. R. , & Ferry, L. A. (2016). Ontogeny of feeding mechanics in smoothhound sharks: morphology and cartilage stiffness. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 56, 442–448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Witten, P. E. , & Huysseune, A. (2007). Mechanisms of chondrogenesis and osteogenesis in fins In Hall B. K. (Ed.), Fins into limbs: Development, evolution and transformation (pp. 79–92). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. [Google Scholar]
  94. Woolbright, L. L. (1983). Sexual selection and size dimorphism in anuran amphibia. American Naturalist, 121, 110–119. [Google Scholar]
  95. Zelditch, M. L. , Sheets, H. D. , & Fink, W. L. (2000). Spatiotemporal reorganization of growth rates in the evolution of ontogeny. Evolution, 54, 1363–1371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

SUPPORTING INFORMATION FIGURE S1 AF1_Supp_Replication.pdf Morphospace of the landmarks replicates to test the repeatability of the coordinates capture

Click here for additional data file. (13.8MB, eps)

SUPPORTING INFORMATION FIGURE S2 AF2_Supp_Morphospace_sex.pdf Morphospace of the shape variation between sexes (female = red; male = black). (a) Body shape and (b) head shape

Click here for additional data file. (4.7MB, eps)

Articles from Journal of Fish Biology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES