Jump to content

Holocephali

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Euchondrocephali)

Holocephalans
Temporal range: Middle Devonian-Holocene 387.7–0 Ma Molecular data my suggest first appearance during the Late Silurian or Early Devonian
Belantsea montana
(a petalodont)
Orodus greggi
(an orodont)
Debeerius ellefseni
(a debeeriiform)
Deltoptychius armigerus
(a menaspiform)
Echinochimaera meltoni
(an early chimaera)
Chimaera opalescens
(a modern chimaera)
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Infraphylum: Gnathostomata
Clade: Eugnathostomata
Class: Chondrichthyes
Subclass: Holocephali
Bonaparte, 1832
Included taxa

See text

Holocephali (Sometimes spelled Holocephala; Greek for "complete head" in reference to the fusion of upper jaw with the rest of the skull) is a subclass of mostly extinct cartilaginous fish. While Holocephali is today represented by three families and a single order which together are commonly known as chimaeras, the group was far more diverse throughout the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. The earliest known fossils of holocephalans date to the Middle Devonian period, and the group likely reached its peak diversity during the following Carboniferous period. Molecular clock studies suggest that the subclass diverged from its closest relatives, elasmobranchs such as sharks and rays, during the Early Devonian or Silurian period.

Extinct holocephalans are typically divided into a number of orders, although the interrelationships of these groups are poorly understood. Several different definitions of Holocephali exist, with the group sometimes considered a less inclusive clade within the larger subclasses Euchondrocephali or Subterbranchialia, and in some works having many of its members are arranged in the now obsolete groups Paraselachimorpha and Bradyodonti. Some recent research has suggested that the orders Cladoselachiformes and Symmoriiformes, historically considered relatives or ancestors of sharks, should also be included in Holocephali. Information on the evolution and relationships of extinct holocephalans is limited, however, because most are known only from isolated teeth or dorsal fin spines, which form much of the basis of their classificaion.

Many early holocephalans had skulls and bodies which were unlike modern chimaeras, with upper jaws that were not fused to the rest of the skull and separate, shark-like teeth. The bodies of most holocephalans were covered in tooth-like scales termed dermal denticles, which in many Paleozoic and Mesozoic members were sometimes fused into armor plates. Holocephalans are sexually dimorphic, with males possessing both claspers on the pelvic fins and additional specialized clasping organs on the head and before the pelvic fins. The teeth of most holocephalans consist of slow-growing plates which suggest a durophagous lifestyle, and in some groups these plates were specialized into fused structures termed "tooth whorls" or arranged into crushing surfaces termed "tooth pavements". Fossils of holocephalans are most abundant in shallow marine deposits, although certain extinct species are known from freshwater environments as well.

Chimaeras, the only surviving holocephalans, include mostly deep-sea species which are found worldwide. They all possess broad, wing-like pectoral fins, opercular covers over the gills, fused skulls and upper jaws, and six plate-like crushing teeth. Like their extinct relatives they are sexually dimorphic, and males possess both two sets of paired sex organs around the pelvic fins and an unpaired clasper on the head. Females reproduce by laying large, leathery egg cases. Unlike their extinct relatives, the skin of living chimaeras lacks scales or armor plates, with the exception of scales on the sensory and sex organs, and the tooth-plates contain organs called tritors which are made of the mineral whitlockite. Fossils similar to living chimaeras are known as far back as the Early Carbonifeorus period.

Research history and classification

[edit]

Early research

[edit]
French naturalist Charles Lucien Bonaparte, who erected the order Holocephali to encompass living chimaeras

Holocephali was first proposed as "Holocephala" by Johannes Müller, and was formally described by naturalist Charles Lucien Bonaparte.[1][2][3] The name of the group comes from the Greek roots hólos meaning "whole" or "complete" and kephalos meaning head, and is in reference to the complete fusion of the braincase and the palatoquadrates (upper jaw) seen in chimaeras.[4][5][6] As defined by Müller and Bonaparte, Holocephala encompassed the living genera Chimaera and Callorhinchus.[2][3][7]: 43  Fossil taxa, consisting primarily of tooth-plates and fin spines from the Mesozoic, were assigned to Holocephali throughout the 1830s and 1840s.[8][9][10] Many additional taxa were described and illustrated by the naturalist Louis Agassiz between 1833 and 1843 in Researches sur Les Poissons Fossiles, including a number of Paleozoic-age tooth and spine genera now considered to belong to Holocephali.[3][10][11] Both Agassiz and other influential researchers such as Richard Owen allied many Paleozoic representatives of the group with living Heterodontus (or Cestracion) sharks,[3][10] rather than with chimaeras.[7]: 43 [8][11] During the late 1800s, researchers such as Fredrick McCoy and James William Davis questioned the association between Paleozoic taxa and Heterodontus.[7]: 43 [10]

British paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward, who was the first to ally plate-like Paleozoic fish teeth with chimaeras and who erected the order Bradyodonti[10][12]

During the late 19th and early 20th century, British paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward recognized many fragmentary fossil fishes as Paleozoic holocephalans, and in 1921 united them under the newly coined order Bradyodonti.[3][10][12] This order, sometimes considered a class or subclass by later publications,[5][13] linked the living chimaeras with Paleozoic taxa known from teeth.[10][12][14]: 152  Later work by the paleontologists Egil Nielsen and James Alan Moy-Thomas expanded the Bradyodonti to include the Eugeneodontiformes and Orodontiformes (then the families Edestidae and Orodontidae)[14]: 152 [15] as well as the Chimaeriformes, despite these taxa's differences from the group as defined by Woodward.[3][10][13] The broadest usage of Bradyodonti encompassed an assemblage of fishes roughly equivalent to total-group Holocephali,[7]: 41–43 [13][16] and its composition remains similar to Holocephali as used by modern authors.[10]

While treated as a subclass of the class Chondrichthyes by modern authors (e.g. Joseph Nelson),[17]: 40–48  Holocephali has alternatively been ranked as an order,[2][18] a superorder,[5][16][19]: 46  or a class.[4][5][13] When Charles Lucien Bonaparte first coined Holocephala, he considered it to be an order within the larger subclass Elasmobranchii (different from modern usage; also contained the then-order selachii).[2][3][18] Several authors during the 20th century regarded the Holocephali as its own class within the (now obsolete) superclass Elasmobranchiomorphi, which also included the classes Selachii (or Elasmobranchii), Arthrodira (or Placodermi), and under some definitions the Acanthodii.[3][7]: 43 [13] Holocephali is still sometimes considered a lower taxonomic unit within a larger subclass by some contemporary authors, specifically due to the name being a misnomer if taxa with unfused crania and upper jaws are included.[3][17]: 48–49 

Recent classifications

[edit]

The interrelationships of extinct holocephalan orders have been characterized as difficult to define and subject to change, due in part to limited data.[3][7]: 43 [17]: 49  The orders Orodontiformes, Petalodontiformes, Iniopterygiformes, Debeeriiformes, Helodontiformes and Eugeneodontiformes were formerly united under the superorder Paraselachimorpha by researcher Richard Lund.[5][20] The paraselachimorphs were defined as a sister group to either the superorder Holocephalimorpha (chimaeras and their closest relatives) or, in earlier works, the similarly defined Bradyodonti. However, Paraselachimorpha is now regarded as either paraphyletic or a non-diagnostic wastebasket taxon, including by Lund himself, and the taxa which formerly made up Paraselachimorpha are now considered an evolutionary grade of early-diverging holocephalans.[21][17]: 48–49  Likewise, the historically significant order Bradyodonti, consisting variously of taxa now placed in Petalodontiformes, Orodontiformes, Eugeneodontiformes, Helodontiformes, Menaspiformes, Cochliodontiformes, Copodontiformes, Psammodontiformes, Chondrenchelyformes, and Chimaeriformes,[5][10][13] has also been abandoned by recent authors and is considered a paraphyletic grade.[7]: 41–45 [10][22]

Multiple classifications of Holocephali have been proposed by contemporary authors, which differ greatly from one another.[17]: 49–50 [23] In a 1997 paper, researchers Richard Lund and Eileen Grogan coined the subclass Euchondrocephali to refer to the total group of holocephalans (fish more closely related to living chimaeras than to living elasmobranchs).[3] Under this classification scheme, Holocephali has a much more restricted definition and excludes the orodonts, eugeneodonts, and petalodonts, which are considered more basal euchondrocephalans or paraselachians.[3][24][25] Other authors have used Holocephali to include all fishes more closely related to living chimaeras than to elasmobranchs, a definition equivalent to Lund and Grogan's Euchondrocephali.[18][20][17]: 48–49  Joseph S. Nelson, in his reference text Fishes of the World, opted to use the name Holocephali for a clade identical in composition to Euchondrocephali, due to the redundancy of the latter. Below is the taxonomy of total-group Holocephali as defined in the Fifth Edition of Fishes of the World (2016), which differs from earlier editions by disbanding Paraselachimorpha.[17]: 48–51 [26]

Taxonomy according to the Fifth Edition of Fishes of the World (2016)[17]: 48–51  based on the work of Lund & Grogan (1997; 2004; 2012)[3][20]
Subclass Holocephali sensu lato (equiv. to Euchondrocephali)

† Extinct

An alternative classification was proposed by paleontologist Rainer Zangerl in 1979, who considered Holocephali to be a superorder within the newly-erected subclass Subterbranchialia (named in reference to the position of the gills relative to the skull).[3][16][17]: 48–49  This group united the chimaera-like taxa, which were distinguished by their holostylic jaw suspension, with the entirely extinct iniopterygians and the Polysentoridae which possessed at least in some cases an unfused upper jaw.[16]: 23–45 [31]: 146  This classification scheme was followed in both Volume 3A of the Handbook of Paleoichthyology, authored by Zangerl, and Volume 4, authored by Barbara J. Stahl. Both of these authors considered the traditionally "bradyodont" orodonts, petalodonts, eugeneodonts and desmiodontiforms to be elasmobranchs, rather than holocephalan as generally assumed before.[7][19][24]: 25, 109  Later works have regarded Subterbranchialia as a potentially paraphyletic wastebasket taxon of chondrichthyans with poorly defined relationships,[19]: 41–42 [22] and others have re-included the orodonts, eugeneodonts and petalodonts within Holocephali.[17]: 48–49 [24]: 25–26  Zangerl's proposed classification is provided below, with differences between it and the classification used by Stahl (1999) noted.[7][16]

Taxonomy proposed by Zangerl (1979)[16]: 458–459  and Zangerl (1981).[19]: 49–50  Utilized by Stahl (1999)[7]: 44–45 [17]: 48–49 
Subclass Subterbranchialia

Taxa classified within subclass Elasmobranchii sensu Zangerl (1981)[19]: 49–50 [24]: 109 

† Extinct

While often considered either to be relatives of elasmobranchs or to be stem-group chondrichthyans,[17]: 45–46 [32][33] some studies have found the shark-like symmoriiformes to be early diverging members of the Holocephali.[32][34][35] Alternatively, Symmoriiformes are sometimes regarded as the sister-group to Holocephali, but are not considered members of the subclass themselves due to differing morphology.[31]: 136–141  The traditionally-recognized order Cladoselachiformes, which is sometimes included within Symmoriiformes, may also be considered holocephalan under this classification scheme.[32] While the anatomy of the jaws and teeth differs dramatically between Symmoriiformes and typical holocephalans, these show similarities in the internal anatomy of their crania and both possess rings along their lateral lines, which may suggest close relation.[24]: 25 [34][31] Paleontologist Philippe Janvier first suggested a connection between the Holocephali and the Symmoriiformes (then Symmoriida) in his 1996 textbook Early Vertebrates,[24]: 25 [31]: 138–141  and the subsequent descriptions of the cladoselachian and Symmoriida taxa Maghriboselache and Ferromirum, as well as the redescription of the symmoriiform Dwykaselachus have continued to find support for the hypothesis.[36][32][34] The taxonomy presented in Early Vertebrates is provided below, which considered several taxa otherwise considered holocephalan to form a polytomy with Holocephali and Elasmobranchii (iniopterygians), or sit outside of crown-group Chondrichthyes.[31]: 147–149 

Taxonomy proposed by Janvier (1996)[31]: 148–149 
Unranked clade within crown-group Chondrichthyes

Taxa classified as incertae sedis within crown-group Chondrichthyes, or alternatively forming a clade with Holocephali

Taxa classified as stem-group Chondrichthyes

Taxa considered too poorly known to place within Chondrichthyes[31]: 147–148 

  • †Order Orodontida (Orodontiformes)
  • †Genus Polysentor (Polysentoridae)
  • †Genus Zamponipteron (considered tentatively holocephalan and potentially associated with Pucapampella by Janvier)
  • †Genus Pucapampella (considered tentatively holocephalan and potentially associated with Zamponipteron by Janvier)
  • †Order Stensioellida (considered tentatively holocephalan by Janvier; alternatively considered a placoderm)
  • †Order Pseudopetalichthyida (considered tentatively holocephalan by Janvier; alternatively considered a placoderm)

† Extinct

Anatomy

[edit]
Main article: Fish anatomy
A generalized male Chimaera (fig. 1), displaying the dorsal fin spine (fig. 2-5), the cephalic clasper (fig. 6-7), pelvic claspers (fig. 9), prepelvic tenacula (fig. 10) and tooth-plates (fig. 11-12)
The cartilaginous skeleton of a female Chimaera, with key anatomical details labeled

Internal skeleton

[edit]
Fossilized cartilages of Cladoselache (A–C), Sibyrhynchus (D), Edaphodon (E–F), and Helodus (G), displaying mineralized tessellations[38]

All holocephalans possess an internal skeleton made up of cartilage, which in some regions of the body is ossified to provide additional strength. The mineralized tissues may form either as a network of hexagonal tessellations coating the outer surface of the underlying flexible cartilage, or in certain regions (e.g. the reproductive organs, lower jaw and vertebrae) dense, reinforced fibers interwoven with the cartilage termed fibrocartilage.[7]: 26 [39][38] In modern chimaeras the mineralized tessellations are irregularly shaped, smaller and less defined than in other cartilaginous fish, which has historically resulted in confusion as to whether these structures were present. In many extinct holocephalans the tessellations are large and hexagonal, and they appear morphologically more like those of sharks and rays than those of modern chimaeras.[38][39][40] The spinal cord of holocephalans is supported by a flexible nerve cord called a notochord, and in many taxa close to and within Chimaeriformes this notochord is itself covered by a vertebral column of ossified, disc-shaped cartilaginous rings (sometimes termed "pseudocentra" or "chordacentra";[3][41][42] different from vertebral centra in sharks and rays).[43][38] The vertebral rings directly behind to the skull (cervical vertebrae) may be fused into a single unit termed a synarcual in some groups.[7]: 31–32 [38][44] In many Paleozoic holocephalans, however, the vertebral rings were unmineralized or absent and the notochord was not ossified. Dorsal (upper) and ventral (lower) processes are present along the vertebral column of holocephalans, which were typically ossified even in early taxa without preserved vertebral rings. Like other cartilaginous fish, holocephalans lack ribs.[3][7]: 31–32 [38]

Skull, jaw and gills

[edit]
Main articles: Fish jaw and Fish gill
Reconstructed skull, gill and pectoral musculature of the extinct iniopterygian Iniopera (A–C, E, G, I) compared with that of the living Callorhinchus (D, F, H, J). Both genera have holostylic jaws[45]

The jaw suspension of modern chimaeras and many of their extinct relatives is holostylic (sometimes termed autostylic)[43][46]: 60 [47], meaning that the upper jaws (palatoquadrates) are entirely fused to the skull (neurocranium or chondrocranium) and only the lower jaws (Meckel's cartilages) are able to articulate.[7]: 26 [17]: 41, 48 [46]: 60  Holostyly has been proposed to have evolved independently in several extinct holocephalan groups due to a similar lifestyle.[7]: 26 [41][45] The ancestral mode of jaw suspension among holocephalans has been termed autodiastyly (alternatively termed unfused holostyly),[3][41][17]: 41  meaning that the upper jaws are not fully fused to the cranium and instead articulate at two points, rendering them inflexible but still separated from the cranium. A number of early holocephalan groups exhibit autodiastyly,[3][41][48] and embryonic chimaeras show the condition at early stages of development.[48][49] Other forms of jaw suspension, termed hyostyly and amphistyly, are present in modern elasmobranchs and in some potential holocephalan groups.[46]: 60 [48][31]: 140–144  In hyostilic and amphistylic jaw suspension, the upper jaws are disconnected from the cranium. Hyostylic and amphistylic jaws are supported by soft tissue, as well as by a modified pharyngeal arch termed the hyoid arch or hyomandibula.[3][48][17]: 41 

Diagram of autodiastylic jaw suspension, applied to a hypothetical early holocephalan

In holostylic and autodiastylic holocephalans, the hyoid arch is retained but is not utilized in jaw suspension. Instead, the arch is positioned behind the skull and supports a soft, fleshy gill cover (operculum) which is reinforced by cartilaginous rays.[50][48][17]: 41, 48  This soft operculum is considered a characteristic feature of the Holocephali,[17]: 48 [43][50] although it is debated whether it was present in some early members of the subclass (e.g. Eugeneodontiformes) or if they had separate gill slits like elasmobranchs.[50][51]: 143–144, [167]  Holocephalans typically possess five gill arches,[43][50][17]: 48  although eugeneodonts may have had a small, vestigial sixth gill arch.[52] The gill arches of iniopterygians, petalodonts and holocephalimorphs are tightly packed and positioned beneath the skull.[16][43][53] Living chimaeras and the extinct Helodus possess two otoliths (inner ear elements).[54]

Fins

[edit]
Main article: Fish fin

The fins of holocephalans may include paired pectoral and pelvic fins, either one or two dorsal fins, a caudal (tail) fin, and in certain members a small anal fin. The fins are skeletally supported by cartilaginous blocks and rods called basal and radial pterygiophores, and by thin rays called ceratotrichia. The caudal fin of many holocephalans is heterocercal with a long upper lobe, although in some groups it is leptocercal (also called diphycercal) meaning it is symmetrical and elongated, and in modern chimaeras may also end in a long, whip-like filament. In chimaeras the first dorsal fin is retractable, and is additionally supported by a large fin spine and the synarcuum (cervical vertebrae). The paired fins are supported by the pectoral girdles (scapulocoracoids) and pelvic girdles, respectively. The pectoral girdles are fused along their ventral (lower) point of contact in modern chimaeras but unfused in earlier holocephalans.[3][7]: 32–38 [43] Some fins may be reduced or absent in specific holocephalan groups, or extremely large and specialized in others. Groups such as the iniopterygians, petalodonts and chimaeras have small, underdeveloped caudal fins and very large, wing-like pectoral fins.[55][43][28] In the Chondrenchelyiformes and some orodonts all fins were very small and the body shape was eel-like (termed anguilliform).[55][23][19] Members of the Eugeneodontiformes lacked second dorsal fins and anal fins, as well as potentially pelvic fins, and had fusiform, streamlined bodies.[19]: 79 [52][56]

Teeth

[edit]
The jaws and tooth-whorls of Edestus, a member of Eugeneodontiformes
A comb-like tooth from Polyrhizodus, a member of Petalodontiformes
The lower tooth-plates and mandible of Poecilodus, a member of Cochliodontiformes
The upper and lower tooth-plates of Edaphodon, a member of Chimaeriformes

The holocephalan fossil record consists almost entirely of isolated tooth-plates, and these form the basis of study for extinct members.[5][14][43] The teeth of holocephalans are made up of a crown and a base (sometimes called a root), the anatomies of which vary greatly depending on the specific order.[7]: 16–19 [24]: 109  The subclass is often characterized by teeth which grow slowly and are either shed infrequently or are retained throughout life and are never shed (sometimes termed statodonty),[57][58][59] although this may not apply to all included members.[3][10] In many holocephalans the teeth are strongly heterodont, meaning that their morphology varies in different regions of the mouth and different groups of teeth (termed tooth families) are specialized for different purposes. In most members of the subclass tooth families are arranged into those at the anterior (front), middle and posterior (rear) of the jaws.[3][7]: 16–17  [60] When applicable the teeth may be further classified as paired, lateral teeth along the margins of the jaws, unpaired symphyseal teeth along the midline,[15][61][62] and in some cases paired, parasymphyseal teeth near the midline axis of the jaw.[27][54] In some groups the bases of some teeth are fused into connected structures called tooth whorls. The dentition may also consists of flat, unfused, plate-like teeth in tight-fitting rows, a configuration termed a "tooth pavement" with specific elements termed "pavement teeth". Some derived members possessed only a tooth pavement made up of a few large, specialized plates,[3][24]: 109 [59] while others had pavements in the rear of the mouth and syphyseal tooth whorls at the front.[61][62][54]

Cross-section of a fossilized Helodus tooth-plate, which had tubular or tubate dentin[13][59]
Longitudinal section of a Chimaera phantasma tooth-plate, showing trabecular dentin (or osteodontin; OD) and whitlockite-based whitlockin (or tubular dentin, pleromin; VP, CP)[57]

Holocephalan teeth are made up of the hard tissue dentin,[63][64][65] which in holocephalans is divided into three main forms.[57][66] The anatomical terminology used to describe histology and arrangement of holocephalan dentin is inconsistent,[7]: 18–19  and the same forms have been given different names by different authors.[57][63][59] Most of the tooth consists of softer, vascularized trabecular dentin (in a form referred to by some authors as osteodentin due to its resemblance to bone),[59][63][60]: 480–481  with a thin outer layer of stronger enameloid (also called vitrodentin or pallial dentin)[7]: 19  that is typically missing due to wear or abrasion.[57][60][63] An organization of dentin called tubular dentin (alternatively tubate dentin) is present in the dentitions of most holocephalans, which is a form arranged in vertical tubules and reinforced by additional minerals. In chimaeras these tubules are made up of the unique, hypermineralized tissue whitlockin (also called kosmin, cosmine, or pleromin) which is composed of the mineral whitlockite rather than apatite which makes up the rest of the tooth-plate (and the entirety of the teeth in other vertebrates). This is the only known example of whitlockite being naturally used in animal teeth instead of apatite, and it gives these regions of the tooth-plates extreme strength.[57][60] Earlier holocephalan teeth lack whitlockin, and their tubules instead consist of an enameloid-like tissue sometimes termed orthotrabeculine. The roots or bases of holocephalan teeth contain lamellar tissues, and are vascularized and contain blood vessels.[7]: 18–19 [24]: 15 [67]

Eugeneodonts, orodonts and petalodonts

[edit]
Main articles: Eugeneodontiformes, Orodontiformes, and Petalodontiformes
The reconstructed jaws and teeth of an unnamed eugeneodont (formerly Campodus or Agassizodus), with a symphyseal tooth whorl in the anterior region of the jaw and a lateral tooth-pavement in the posterior region[61]

Eugeneodonts and orodonts both possessed a symphyseal tooth row along the midline of the lower jaw and rows of pavement teeth lining the lateral regions of the mouth,[10][61][68] and some eugeneodonts also had an additional row of symphyseal teeth on the upper jaw.[15][62][69] The eugeneodonts are known primarily from their tooth-whorls, which in some species were extremely large, had fused tooth roots that prevented teeth from shedding, and formed logarithmic spirals.[24]: 117 [62][70] Orodont teeth were less specialized, and the pavement teeth were morphologically very similar to those of eugeneodonts, the teeth of early elasmobranchs such as hybodonts, and the tooth-plates of cochliodonts and helodonts. Orodontiformes is sometimes considered an artificial (unnatural) grouping of early holocephalans with similar tooth morphology, rather than a true clade.[19]: 91–94 [24]: 110 

The tooth structure of the petalodonts was extremely diverse, but few members are known from more than isolated teeth and the classification of many taxa is uncertain.[21][24]: 133–134 [53] In those with complete dentitions known, most are heterodont (tooth shape varies) while others are homodont (teeth are essentially identical). Petalodont teeth are generally thought to fall into four morphologies: Petalodus-type (incisor-like), Ctenoptychius-type (multi-cusped), Fissodus-type (bifurcated) and Janassa-type (molar-like), multiple of which may have been present in the mouth of a single species.[53][71][72] In the homodont taxon Janassa bituminosa there were many rows of teeth in the mouth which were retained throughout the animal's life and formed a "platform" for new teeth to grow onto.[24]: 134–135 [53] The teeth of Debeeriiformes (and the dubious Desmiodontiformes) were similar in morphology to Petalodontiformes and also displayed heterodonty, although they differed in histology and arrangement.[24]: 151–152 [41]

Holocephalimorphs and Helodus

[edit]
Main articles: Cochliodontiformes, Chondrenchelyiformes, and Helodus

The Holocephalimorpha is a clade which unites the holostylic holocephalans and many taxa with similar tooth plates. Many Holocephalimorphs, such as the Cochliodontiformes, Psammodontiformes and Copodontiformes are known primarily or exclusively from their flattened tooth plates,[13][20][73] which in cochliodonts such as Cochliodus grew in a distinctive spiral pattern.[10][54] Better known holocephalimorphs such as Chondrenchelys had a set of large, crushing, flattened tooth-plates attached to the jaws, as well as a set of extra-oral (separate from the jaw) petalodont-like tooth plates in the anterior region of the mouth which may have been attached to the labial (lip) cartilage.[23][74] The teeth of the genus Helodus, the sole member of the order Helodontiformes, are sometimes considered transitional between those of orodont-like (particularly eugeneodont) fishes and the holocephalimorphs, and consist of both rows of separate pavement teeth and teeth fused into fused tooth-whorls. Historically the whorls of Helodus were given the genus name Pleuroplax, but they are now known in articulated specimens alongside the separate teeth. In isolation, the pavement-teeth of Helodus are similar to those seen in other groups of holocephalan, and this genus has historically been used as a wastebasket taxon for bead-like holocephalan teeth.[54][59][74]

Chimaeras

[edit]
Main article: Chimaera
Tooth-plates of a selection of modern chimaeras[75]

Modern chimaeras and their closest fossil relatives have only three pairs of highly specialized tooth-plates, which are derived from fused tooth families and consist of two pairs in the upper jaw and a single pair in the lower.[43][58] The teeth of chimaeras have specialized whitlockin-composed structures called tritors, which variously take the shape of tubules and rounded structures (called ovids) within the matrix of the tooth, and pads on the surface of the tooth.[43][57][60] The arrangement of the tritors is a distinguishing characteristic of different chimaera species.[64][75] The upper frontmost tooth-plates are incisor-like and protrude from the mouth, giving the mouth a beak-like or rodent-like appearance.[43][60][76]: 142  In recent works, the frontmost upper teeth are referred to as vomerine plates, the rear upper crushing plates as palatine (or palatal)[77] plates, and the single pair of lower teeth are referred to as the mandibular plates.[43][60][63]

Iniopterygians and Symmoriiformes

[edit]
Main articles: Iniopterygiformes and Symmoriiformes

The tooth morphology of the iniopterygians differs wildly from that of any other proposed holocephalans, and more closely resembled the dentition of elasmobranchs in histology.[17]: 49 [24][59] Iniopterygian teeth consisted of multiple fused tooth-whorls with sharp cusps, arranged symphyseally or parasymphyseally, which were movable and articulated. Some also possessed flattened plates within the mouth, termed buccal plates, which were distinct from the tooth-plates of other holocephalans.[27][78] The jaws of iniopterygians were also lined with small, sharp denticles.[27] The teeth of the possibly holocephalan Symmoriiformes (and the sometimes included Cladoselachiformes) were cladodont (three-cusped), and grew and were replaced in a manner similar to those of sharks.[32][54][59] However, the rate of replacement was significantly slower than in sharks.[56]

Skin and external skeleton

[edit]
Main article: Fish scale

In adult modern chimaeras, scales are present along the lateral line and, in males, on the reproductive organs, while most of the body is covered in smooth, scaleless skin.[17]: 48 [43] Embryonic and juvenile chimaeras do possess additional scales along their backs, which only last into adulthood in Callorhinchus.[3][7]: 8 [43] Conversely, Paleozoic and Mesozoic chimaeriforms such as Squaloraja and Echinochimaera, as well as members of other extinct orders exhibit scales covering the entire body throughout life. The scales of holocephalans are placoid (also termed dermal denticles), meaning they contain a pulp cavity, are made up primarily of orthodentin and are coated in an outer layer of hard enameloid.[3][7]: 8–12 [17]: 48  In extinct holocephalans the scales may be either single-cusped (termed lepidomoria) or multi-cusped (termed polyodontode scales), the latter meaning the scales have multiple crowns growing from a single base.[3][7]: 8–9 [14]: 399–412  Some holocephalans had armor plates made up of dentin and spines which protruded from the top of the head, the lower jaw, or the first dorsal fin.[3][7]: 8–12 [13] Armor plating gradually reduced during the evolution of the Chimaeriformes,[13] and modern chimaeras lack any armor and retain only a dorsal fin spine, which in at least some species is venomous and extremely painful.[22][43]

Sensory organs

[edit]

Both modern and fossil holocephalans possess sensory canals on their heads and down the length of the body. The precise arrangement of these canals in extinct members of the group is difficult to determine, although they are well-documented in taxa such as Menaspis, Deltoptychius, Harpagofututor, and a number of extinct chimaeriforms. Some holocephalans display a distinctive arrangement of ring-shaped scales enclosing the lateral line, which is considered a unique feature of the group.[13][43][79]

Reproduction

[edit]
Main article: Clasper
Males of the chondrenchelyiform Harpagofututor (below) possessed both paired pelvic claspers and paired, antler-like cephalic claspers, both of which are absent in females (above)

Holocephalans are typically sexually dimorphic. Males may possess up to three sets of external reproductive organs: paired pelvic claspers like those of other cartilaginous fish, paired prepelvic tenaculae, and paired or unpaired frontal or cephalic claspers.[7][17]: 48 [43] In certain Paleozoic species, additional paired spines are sometimes present on the heads of males, and while some authors in the past have considered these structures homologous to cephalic claspers,[13] they are now considered distinct due to their differing histology.[7][14][42] Unlike other cartilaginous fish, chimaeras lack a cloaca and instead possess separate anal and urogenital openings.[17]: 48 [43]

Cephalic claspers

[edit]

In modern chimaeras, the cephalic clasper is a toothed, unpaired organ on the top of the head that is used by males to grab females.[43][73][76]: 142  Extinct holocephalans such as the myriacanthoids, Psammodus and Traquairius nudus possessed extremely long, unpaired cephalic claspers, which in some taxa are as long as the skull and rostrum.[7][42][73] Similar paired structures are present in Harpagofututor and Harpacanthus, which likely served a similar grabbing purpose. The presence or absence of these structures varies, even among closely related taxa, and it is thought that cephalic claspers have appeared separately in multiple holocephalan groups.[42][80]

Prepelvic tenacula

[edit]

Prepelvic tenaculae are paired, skeletally supported, retractable structures that protrude in front of the pelvic fins of certain holocephalan groups. In chimaeras these are covered in tooth-like denticles.[3][20][43] Similar, hook-like organs (termed tenacular hooks) are known in some iniopterygian males, but these are convergently evolved and not homologous to those in chimaeras.[27][78]

Eggs and development

[edit]
Egg case of the extant Cape elephantfish (Callorhinchus capensis)
Life reconstruction of newborn Delphyodontos dacriformes, which may have been a live-bearing holocephalan

All living chimaeras reproduce by egg-laying (oviparity). The egg cases of both living chimaeras and their close fossil relatives are proportionally large and composed of collagen, and in living chimaeras are laid two at a time.[22][81][82] Chimaera egg cases are characterized by an elongated, fusiform shape and a membranous, striated flap (termed a flange or collarette) protruding from their outer rim.[7]: 38–39 [82][83] The egg anatomy is unique in each family of chimaeras, allowing for isolated fossilized eggs to be identified to the family level.[43][82][84] Egg cases similar to those of chimaeras, assigned to the oogenera Crookallia and Vetacapsula, are known from the Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) and may have been laid by helodonts.[82][84] Because of the rarity of egg capsules and presence of isolated fossilized fetuses from the Early Carboniferous (Mississippian) Bear Gulch Limestone fossil site, it is possible that many early holocephalan groups may have been live-bearing (viviparous or ovoviviparous), although it is also that possible that egg cases from many species simply happen to not have been preserved.[55][81][85]

Young juvenile holocephalans have very weakly calcified skeletons and are poorly represented in the fossil record. Fossils of fetal or newborn Mississippian Delphyodontos, which may have been an early holocephalan, are an exception, as these have uniquely calcified skulls and sharp, hook-like teeth. Based on its anatomy and coprolites (fossilized feces), Delphyodontos may have engaged in intrauterine cannibalism and was live-born (viviparous).[7]: 38–39 [81][82] The chondrenchelyiform Harpagofututor gave birth to extremely large young, which besides their uncalcified skeletons were well-developed and likely matured quickly. Female Harpagofututor are known to have contained up to five fetuses from multiple litters, and unlike Delphyodontos it is considered unlikely the fetuses engaged in cannibalism. Instead, it is probable fetal Harpagofututor were fed either by unfertilized eggs (oophagy) or mucus within the uterus (histophagy).[85]

Evolution

[edit]
Main article: Evolution of fish
Stensioella hertzi has sometimes been considered the earliest-known holocephalan.[76]: 76  It is alternatively believed to be an early placoderm of indeterminate placement[17]: 37 [30]: 58 [23]

While the holocephalan fossil record is extensive, most of these fossils consist only of teeth or isolated fin spines, and the few complete specimens that are known are often poorly preserved and difficult to interpret.[43][22][86] The enigmatic, heavily squamated fishes Stensioella, Pseudopetalichthys and Paraplesiobatis, all known from poorly-preserved body fossils from the Early Devonian of Germany, have been proposed by researcher Phillippe Janvier to be the earliest holocephalans,[31]: 147, 171 [76]: 76 [87]: 61–64  although they have alternatively been considered unrelated placoderms.[17]: 37 [30]: 58 [88] Taxa that are conventionally assumed to be stem-group chondrichthyans such as Pucapampella and Gladbachus from the Early-Middle Devonian have also occasionally been suggested to be the first holocephalans.[7]: 154 [23][31]: 148  Tooth fossils that are confidently considered to belong to the group first appear during the Middle Devonian (Givetian stage),[32][82][89] although molecular clock and tip dating does suggest an earlier origin. Based on this data, it is proposed that the total-group Holocephali split from the Elasmobranchii between the Silurian and the Early Devonian, with estimates ranging from 421–401 million years ago depending on the methods employed.[35][90][91] By the Famennian stage of the Late Devonian early members of nearly all holocephalan orders had appeared,[32][92] although no skeletons or body fossils are known until the following Carboniferous.[32] The Chimaeriformes may have evolved during the Mississippian subperiod of the Carboniferous,[20][29][77] although other estimates suggest a much later Triassic or Jurassic origin of this group.[20][35][76]: 77 

Several groups have been proposed as sister clades or ancestors of the Chimaeriformes. Some authors have favored a close relationship between the Chondrenchelyiformes and the chimaeras, as despite their wildly different postcranial structure they have similar tooth and skull anatomy.[23][58] The Chimaeriformes may have alternatively evolved from other fishes within the larger clade Cochliodontimorpha, as while the tooth plates of adult cochliodonts and chimaeriforms differ in their morphology, the tooth-plates of juvenile cochliodonts and modern chimaeras are very similar.[3][7]: 41 [22] Below is a cladogram proposed by Grogan and Lund (2004) for one possible phylogeny of Holocephali (considered by them Euchondrocephali), which nests Chimaeriformes within a poorly-resolved clade also containing the cochliodonts.[42] A modified version of this cladogram was also utilized by Grogan, Lund & Greenfest-Allen (2012) which excludes the Iniopterygiformes from Holocephali (here Euchondrocephali).[20]

Euchondrocephali (=Holocephali sensu lato)

†ElWeir (="El Weirdo")

†Debeeriiformes

†Iniopterygia (=Iniopterygiformes)

†L2SP

†Eugeneodontida (=Eugeneodontiformes)

Holocephalimorpha

†Harpacanthus

Holocephali sensu stricto

Ancestry

[edit]
Historically, debate arose as to whether placoderms such as Ctenurella (above) or shark-like chondrichthyans such as Cladoselache (below) were the ancestors of Holocephali

While it is now accepted that Holocephali is the sister group to Elasmobranchii based on both morphology and genetics,[17]: 40–41 [20][91] this was historically a matter of debate. Two competing hypotheses were proposed for the evolution of the holocephalans: either they were descended from a shark-like ancestor, making the class Chondrichthyes a true, monophyletic (natural) group, or they were descended from some unrelated lineage of placoderms, making Chondrichthyes a polyphyletic (unnatural) grouping.[3][13][22] A particular group of placoderms called the Ptyctodontiformes (or Ptyctodontida) were suggested by researchers Tor Ørvig and Erik Stensiö to be the direct ancestors of Holocephali due to their chimaera-like anatomy.[22][87]: 113 [93] Under this scheme, chimaeras are considered unrelated to any Paleozoic cartilaginous fish, and potentially the Mesozoic Squaloraja and myriacanthids.[14][58] While the ptyctodonts do share many holocephalan-like features, such as a synarcual formed from the frontmost vertebrae, a fin spine, an operculum, and specialized pelvic and prepelvic claspers, these are now believed to result from convergent evolution.[13][17]: 37 [22] An alternative hypothesis, advocated for by researcher Colin Patterson, was that the holocephalans were neither descended from the elasmobranchs nor the ptyctodonts, and instead shared a distant common ancestor with both groups within the larger clade Elasmobranchiomorpha.[7]: 41 [13][22] In light of the description of holocephalan transitional fossils during the 1970s and 1980s an independent origin of Chondrichthyes has been widely discarded,[5][20][87]: 113  and Elasmobranchii and Holocephali are united by the shared anatomy of their pelvic claspers and the tesserae that reinforce their cartilage skeletons.[17]: 40–43 [20][94]: 197–200 

Within Chondrichthyes, three contemporary hypotheses are proposed for the evolutionary relationship between the two main divisions.[24]: 25  Richard Lund and Eileen Grogan have suggested a deep split between the elasmobranchs and the holocephalans, with the Holocephali descending from a distant chondrichthyan ancestor with an autodiastylic jaw.[18][20][24]: 25  Following Philippe Janvier's suggestion of close relation, some researchers have instead proposed that ancestral holocephalans were similar in anatomy to cladodonts like the Symmoriiformes and Cladoselache and that those groups may be reflective of the ancestral holocephalan state.[24]: 25 [32] Researcher Michal Ginter and coauthors have alternatively suggested that the holocephalans are descended from an Orodus-like animal, and are close relatives of hybodonts, protacrodonts and crown-group elasmobranchs. Ginter's proposal is based on the similar tooth morphology between these four groups, particularly the anatomy of the tooth base or root. This analysis restricts the definition of crown-group Chondrichthyes and regards the iniopterygians, Symmoriiformes, and cladoselachians as stem-group Chondrichthyes.[20][24]: 25 [92]

Ecology

[edit]

Bear Gulch Limestone

[edit]
Main article: Bear Gulch Limestone

The Bear Gulch Limestone, a unit of the Health Formation located in the state of Montana, has been recognized for preserving complete body fossils of fishes dating to the Mississippian subperiod of the Carboniferous.[3][5][95] The majority of fish species known from the site are chondrichthyans, of which more than 40 are early holocephalans.[20][55][87]: 113  Many of the holocephalans known from Bear Gulch belong to lineages that are otherwise known only from teeth or are entirely unrecognized.[5][42][95] These fossils also preserve gut contents,[20][41] color patterns,[41][96] complete life histories,[85] and internal organs,[20][96] allowing for a detailed understanding of the animal's ecology and behavior. The site preserves an exceptional diversity of species, and is considered the best studied and most completely preserved Paleozoic fish fauna known.[20][41][55] The environmental conditions and faunal composition of Bear Gulch are believed to be representative of other, less well-known Mississippian marine fossil formations elsewhere in the world.[20][55] The Bear Gulch limestone is designated as a Konservat-Lagerstätte by paleontologists, and forms much of the basis for our modern understanding of early holocephalan evolution and ecology.[3][20][87]: 113  Additional sites, such as the Glencartholm and Manse Burn shales of Scotland have also yielded detailed holocephalan fossils from the early Carbonifeorus.[10][20][46]: 174 

Habitats

[edit]

Both living and fossil holocephalans have a worldwide distribution.[7]: 147–151 [76]: 142  All chimaeras and nearly all extinct holocephalans are known from marine environments, although the helodont Helodus simplex is uniquely known from a freshwater deposit.[7]: 40 [30]: 78–83  Living chimaeras are specialized for deep-sea habitats,[76]: 71, 142  with only Hydrolagus colliei and the three species of Callorhinchus being regularly found in waters shallower than 200 meters.[43][91][97] While some authors such as Grogan and Lund have suggest holocephalans inhabited deep-water environments since the Paleozoic,[20][76]: 77  ancestral chimaeras were likely shallow-water fishes, and the radiation of the group into deepwater niches occurred during the early Cenozoic era.[35]

Diet

[edit]

Adaptations for a duropagous diet such as flattened tooth plates and a fused, immobile skull are prevalent among holocephalans,[7] but feeding styles are greatly variable. Modern chimaeras are generalist, opportunist feeders that regularly eat both soft-bodied and shelled prey.[43][60] The genus Callorhinchus is known to eat worms, crustaceans and hard-shelled mollusks, and other chimaeras are also known to prey on small fish. Smaller prey items are often eaten whole via suction feeding rather than being crushed or bitten, which is likely achieved using the muscles of the throat and flexible, cartilaginous lips. The bite forces of chimaeras are weaker than those of dulophagous sharks, and chimaeras may rely on their vomerine tooth-plates to split and crack shells rather than solely crushing them.[60]

During the late Paleozoic, many holocephalan lineages became specialized for feeding styles besides durophagy. The edestoids, a lineage of Eugeneodontiformes, were pelagic macropredators which fed on fish and cephalopods.[68][70] The genus Edestus has been proposed to have fed by processing prey between its paired tooth-whorls,[98] while the related Helicoprion may have been a specialist hunter of belemnoids and ammonoids.[70] The poorly-known petalodont Megactenopetalus may have also been a macropredator based on its large, interlocking blade-like tooth plates.[99] The sibyrhinchid iniopterygian Iniopera was a suction feeder that fed in a similar manner to some living bony fish and aquatic salamanders.[45] Other iniopterygians have been considered specialists that shredded soft-bodied prey with their mobile tooth-whorls.[27][78]

Parasites

[edit]
Gyrocotyle, a primitive tapeworm which is found only in the digestive tract of chimaeras[100]

Modern holocephalans are vulnerable to a range of parasitic infections. Among these are tapeworms of the order Gyrocotylidea, which are found only in chimaeras and are thought to be a primitive, relict group.[100][101] Fossilized tapeworms are also known in the symmoriiform Cobelodus, which represent the earliest evidence of parasitism in the group if symmoriiformes are considered members of Holocephali.[102][103]

Decline

[edit]

Total-group Holocephali has seen a significant decline in diversity since the Paleozoic, and only a single, morphologically-conserved order survives today.[17]: 48–49 [20][35] The holocephalans peaked in diversity during the Mississippian subperiod of the Carboniferous and make up the majority of known chondrichthyan taxa from the time.[20][25][104] Diversity remained relatively high throughout the later Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian subperiod), but the group saw a significant decline in diversity at the Carboniferous-Permian boundary which continued through the rest of the Permian period.[25] By the end of the Permian, most holocephalan groups had become extinct,[17]: 48–49 [20][91] although the Eugeneodontiformes remained widespread and diverse for a brief period during the Early Triassic.[24][52][105] The order Chimaeriformes also continued throughout the Mesozoic, but the suborders Myriacanthoidei and the sometimes included Squalorajoidei became extinct during the Jurassic period,[106][107] leaving only three families in the suborder Chimaeroidea persisting through the Cenozoic and into the present.[17]: 51–53 [76]: 76–77 [94]: 200  Today, chimaeras make up as little as 4% of named cartilaginous fish,[108]: 1–4  and consist of 56 known species.[4]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Müller, Johannes; Müller, Johannes; Berlin, Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu (1834). Vergleichende Anatomie der Myxinoiden. [Berlin]: [K. Akad. der Wissenschaften]. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.141932.
  2. ^ a b c d Bonaparte, Charles-Lucien (1832). Iconografia della fauna italica : per le quattro classi degli animali vertebrati (in Italian). Roma: Tip. Salviucci. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.70395.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag Lund, Richard; Grogan, Eileen D. (1997-03-01). "Relationships of the Chimaeriformes and the basal radiation of the Chondrichthyes". Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 7 (1): 65–123. Bibcode:1997RFBF....7...65L. doi:10.1023/A:1018471324332. ISSN 1573-5184. S2CID 40689320.
  4. ^ a b c "Order Summary for Chimaeriformes". fishbase.org. Retrieved 2025-02-01.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Lund, Richard; Lund, Richard (1977). New information on the evolution of the Bradyodont Chondrichthyes. Vol. 33. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History. pp. 522–537. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.5311.
  6. ^ Romer, Alfred Sherwood (1966). Vertebrate paleontology. Chicago, Ill.: Univ. of Chicago Press. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-226-72488-1.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am Stahl, Barbara J. (1999). Handbook of Paleoichthyology: Chondrichthyes III, Holocephali. Vol. 4. München: Pfeil. ISBN 978-3-931516-63-5.
  8. ^ a b Owen, Richard; Owen, Richard (1860). Palaeontology, or, A systematic summary of extinct animals and their geological relations. Edinburgh: A. and C. Black. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.13917.
  9. ^ Egerton, Philip Grey (1847). "On the Nomenclature of the Fossil Chimæroid Fishes". Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 3 (1–2): 350–353. Bibcode:1847QJGS....3..350E. doi:10.1144/GSL.JGS.1847.003.01-02.40.
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Duffin, Christopher J. (2016). "Cochliodonts and chimaeroids: Arthur Smith Woodward and the holocephalians". Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 430 (1): 137–154. Bibcode:2016GSLSP.430..137D. doi:10.1144/SP430.9. ISSN 0305-8719.
  11. ^ a b Agassiz, Louis; Agassiz, Louis (1833). Recherches sur les poissons fossiles ... Neuchatel: Petitpierre. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.4275.
  12. ^ a b c Woodward, Arthur S. (1921). "Observations on some extinct elasmobranch fishes". Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. 133: 29–39 – via Biodiversity Heritage Library.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Patterson, Colin (10 June 1965). "The phylogeny of the chimaeroids". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 249 (757): 101–219. Bibcode:1965RSPTB.249..101P. doi:10.1098/rstb.1965.0010.
  14. ^ a b c d e f Bendix-Almgreen, Svend Erik; Patterson, Collin (1968). Ørvig, Tor; Nobel Symposium (eds.). Current problems of lower vertebrote phylogeny: proceedings of the 4. Nobel Symposium held in June 1967 at the Swedish Museum of Natural History (Naturhistoriska riksmuseet) in Stockholm. New York: Interscience Publ. [u.a.] ISBN 978-0-471-65713-2.
  15. ^ a b c Nielsen, Egil (1952). "On new or little known Edestidae from the Permian and Triassic of East Greenland". Meddelelser om Grønland. 144: 5–55.
  16. ^ a b c d e f g Zangerl, Rainer (1979-01-01), Nitecki, Matthew H. (ed.), "New Chondrichthyes from the Mazon Creek Fauna (Pennsylvanian) of Illinois", Mazon Creek Fossils, Academic Press, pp. 449–500, doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-519650-5.50023-0, ISBN 978-0-12-519650-5, retrieved 2025-02-02
  17. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag Nelson, Joseph S.; Grande, Terry C.; Wilson, Mark V. H. (2016). Fishes of the World (5th ed.). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119174844. ISBN 978-1-118-34233-6.
  18. ^ a b c d Maisey, J. G. (2012). "What is an 'elasmobranch'? The impact of palaeontology in understanding elasmobranch phylogeny and evolution". Journal of Fish Biology. 80 (5): 918–951. Bibcode:2012JFBio..80..918M. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03245.x. ISSN 1095-8649. PMID 22497368.
  19. ^ a b c d e f g h i Zangerl, Rainer (1981). Chondrichthyes 1: Paleozoic Elasmobranchii (Handbook of Paleoichthyology). Friedrich Pfell. ISBN 978-3899370454.
  20. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z Grogan, Eileen; Lund, Richard; Greenfest-Allen, Emily (2012-04-09), Carrier, Jeffrey; Musick, John; Heithaus, Michael (eds.), "The Origin and Relationships of Early Chondrichthyans", Biology of Sharks and Their Relatives, Second Edition, vol. 20123460, CRC Press, pp. 3–29, doi:10.1201/b11867-3, ISBN 978-1-4398-3924-9, retrieved 2025-02-25
  21. ^ a b Lund, R.; Grogan, E. D.; Fath, M. (2014). "On the relationships of the Petalodontiformes (Chondrichthyes)". Paleontological Journal. 48 (9): 1015–1029. Bibcode:2014PalJ...48.1015L. doi:10.1134/S0031030114090081. ISSN 0031-0301 – via ResearchGate.
  22. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Didier, Dominique A.; Didier, Dominique A. (1995). Phylogenetic systematics of extant chimaeroid fishes (Holocephali, Chimaeroidei). New York, N.Y: American Museum of Natural History.
  23. ^ a b c d e f Finarelli, John A.; Coates, Michael I. (2014). "Chondrenchelys problematica (Traquair, 1888) redescribed: a Lower Carboniferous, eel-like holocephalan from Scotland". Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 105 (1): 35–59. Bibcode:2014EESTR.105...35F. doi:10.1017/S1755691014000139. ISSN 1755-6910.
  24. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Ginter, Michał; Hampe, Oliver; Duffin, Christopher J. (2010). Paleozoic Elasmobranchii: teeth. Handbook of paleoichthyology. München: F. Pfeil. ISBN 978-3-89937-116-1.
  25. ^ a b c d Schnetz, Lisa; Dunne, Emma M.; Feichtinger, Iris; Butler, Richard J.; Coates, Michael I.; Sansom, Ivan J. (2024). "Rise and diversification of chondrichthyans in the Paleozoic". Paleobiology. 50 (2): 271–284. Bibcode:2024Pbio...50..271S. doi:10.1017/pab.2024.1. ISSN 0094-8373 – via ResearchGate.
  26. ^ Nelson, Joseph S. (1994). Fishes of the world (3rd ed.). New York Chichester: Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-54713-6.
  27. ^ a b c d e f Grogan, Eileen D.; Lund, Richard (2009). "Two new iniopterygians (Chondrichthyes) from the Mississippian (Serpukhovian) Bear Gulch Limestone of Montana with evidence of a new form of chondrichthyan neurocranium". Acta Zoologica. 90 (s1): 134–151. doi:10.1111/j.1463-6395.2008.00371.x. ISSN 0001-7272.
  28. ^ a b Lund, Richard (1989-09-28). "New petalodonts (Chondrichthyes) from the Upper Mississippian Bear Gulch Limestone (Namurian E 2 b) of Montana". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 9 (3): 350–368. Bibcode:1989JVPal...9..350L. doi:10.1080/02724634.1989.10011767. ISSN 0272-4634.
  29. ^ a b Itano, Wayne M.; Duffin, Christopher J. (2023-06-20). "An enigmatic chondrichthyan spine from the Visean of Indiana, USA that resembles a median rostral cartilage of Squaloraja (Holocephali, Chimaeriformes)". Spanish Journal of Palaeontology. 38 (1): 57–68. doi:10.7203/sjp.26305. ISSN 2660-9568.
  30. ^ a b c d Carroll, Robert Lynn (1988). Vertebrate paleontology and evolution. New York: Freeman. ISBN 978-0-7167-1822-2.
  31. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Janvier, Philippe (1996). Early vertebrates. Oxford monographs on geology and geophysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-854047-2.
  32. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Klug, Christian; Coates, Michael; Frey, Linda; Greif, Merle; Jobbins, Melina; Pohle, Alexander; Lagnaoui, Abdelouahed; Haouz, Wahiba Bel; Ginter, Michal (December 2023). "Broad snouted cladoselachian with sensory specialization at the base of modern chondrichthyans". Swiss Journal of Palaeontology. 142 (1): 2. Bibcode:2023SwJP..142....2K. doi:10.1186/s13358-023-00266-6. ISSN 1664-2376. PMC 10050047. PMID 37009301.
  33. ^ Hodnett, J-.P. M; Grogan, E. D.; Lund, R.; Lucas, S. G.; Suazo, T.; Elliott, D. K.; Pruitt, J. (2021). "Ctenacanthiform sharks from the late Pennsylvanian (Missourian) Tinajas Member of the Atrasado Formation, Central New Mexico". New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 84: 391–424.
  34. ^ a b c Coates, Michael I.; Gess, Robert W.; Finarelli, John A.; Criswell, Katharine E.; Tietjen, Kristen (2017). "A symmoriiform chondrichthyan braincase and the origin of chimaeroid fishes". Nature. 541 (7636): 208–211. Bibcode:2017Natur.541..208C. doi:10.1038/nature20806. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 28052054.
  35. ^ a b c d e f Brownstein, Chase D.; Near, Thomas J.; Dearden, Richard P. (2024-08-05), The Paleozoic assembly of the holocephalian body plan far preceded post-Cretaceous radiations into the ocean depths, doi:10.1101/2024.08.01.606185, retrieved 2025-02-01
  36. ^ Frey, Linda; Coates, Michael I.; Tietjen, Kristen; Rücklin, Martin; Klug, Christian (2020-11-17). "A symmoriiform from the Late Devonian of Morocco demonstrates a derived jaw function in ancient chondrichthyans". Communications Biology. 3 (1): 681. doi:10.1038/s42003-020-01394-2. ISSN 2399-3642. PMC 7672094. PMID 33203942.
  37. ^ Frey, Linda; Coates, Michael; Ginter, Michał; Hairapetian, Vachik; Rücklin, Martin; Jerjen, Iwan; Klug, Christian (2019-10-02). "The early elasmobranch Phoebodus: phylogenetic relationships, ecomorphology and a new time-scale for shark evolution". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 286 (1912): 20191336. doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.1336. PMC 6790773. PMID 31575362.
  38. ^ a b c d e f Pears, Jacob B.; Johanson, Zerina; Trinajstic, Kate; Dean, Mason N.; Boisvert, Catherine A. (2020-11-26). "Mineralization of the Callorhinchus Vertebral Column (Holocephali; Chondrichthyes)". Frontiers in Genetics. 11. doi:10.3389/fgene.2020.571694. ISSN 1664-8021. PMC 7732695. PMID 33329708.
  39. ^ a b Seidel, Ronald; Blumer, Michael; Chaumel, Júlia; Amini, Shahrouz; Dean, Mason N. (2020-10-14). "Endoskeletal mineralization in chimaera and a comparative guide to tessellated cartilage in chondrichthyan fishes (sharks, rays and chimaera)". Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 17 (171): 20200474. doi:10.1098/rsif.2020.0474. PMC 7653374. PMID 33050779.
  40. ^ Maisey, John G.; Denton, John S. S.; Burrow, Carole; Pradel, Alan (2021). "Architectural and ultrastructural features of tessellated calcified cartilage in modern and extinct chondrichthyan fishes". Journal of Fish Biology. 98 (4): 919–941. Bibcode:2021JFBio..98..919M. doi:10.1111/jfb.14376. ISSN 0022-1112. PMID 32388865.
  41. ^ a b c d e f g h Grogan, Eileen D.; Lund, Richard (2000). "Debeerius ellefseni (Fam. Nov., Gen. Nov., Spec. Nov.), an autodiastylic chondrichthyan from the Mississippian Bear Gulch Limestone of Montana (USA), the relationships of the chondrichthyes, and comments on gnathostome evolution". Journal of Morphology. 243 (3): 219–245. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4687(200003)243:3<219::AID-JMOR1>3.0.CO;2-1. ISSN 0362-2525. PMID 10681469.
  42. ^ a b c d e f Lund, Richard; Grogan, Eileen (2004). "Two tenaculum-bearing Holocephalimorpha (Chondrichthyes) from the Bear Gulch Limestone (Chesterian, Serpukhovian) of Montana, USA". Recent Advances in the Origin and Early Radiation of Vertebrates: 171–187. ISBN 3-89937-052-X. S2CID 129866356.
  43. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Didier, Dominique; Kemper, Jenny; Ebert, David (2012-04-09), Carrier, Jeffrey; Musick, John; Heithaus, Michael (eds.), "Phylogeny, Biology and Classification of Extant Holocephalans", Biology of Sharks and Their Relatives, Second Edition, vol. 20123460, CRC Press, pp. 97–122, doi:10.1201/b11867-6 (inactive 15 May 2025), ISBN 978-1-4398-3924-9, retrieved 2025-02-25{{citation}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of May 2025 (link)
  44. ^ Johanson, Zerina; Boisvert, Catherine; Maksimenko, Anton; Currie, Peter; Trinajstic, Kate (2015-09-04). Serra, Rosa (ed.). "Development of the Synarcual in the Elephant Sharks (Holocephali; Chondrichthyes): Implications for Vertebral Formation and Fusion". PLOS ONE. 10 (9): e0135138. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1035138J. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135138. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 4560447. PMID 26339918.
  45. ^ a b c Dearden, Richard P.; Herrel, Anthony; Pradel, Alan (2023-01-24). "Evidence for high-performance suction feeding in the Pennsylvanian stem-group holocephalan Iniopera". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 120 (4): e2207854119. Bibcode:2023PNAS..12007854D. doi:10.1073/pnas.2207854119. PMC 9942859. PMID 36649436.
  46. ^ a b c d Benton, Michael J. (2015). Vertebrate Palaeontology (4th ed.). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-118-40684-7.
  47. ^ Grogan, Eileen D.; Lund, Richard (2009). "Two new iniopterygians (Chondrichthyes) from the Mississippian (Serpukhovian) Bear Gulch Limestone of Montana with evidence of a new form of chondrichthyan neurocranium". Acta Zoologica. 90 (s1): 134–151. doi:10.1111/j.1463-6395.2008.00371.x. ISSN 0001-7272.
  48. ^ a b c d e Grogan, Eileen D.; Lund, Richard; Didier, Dominique (1999). "Description of the chimaerid jaw and its phylogenetic origins". Journal of Morphology. 239 (1): 45–59. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4687(199901)239:1<45::AID-JMOR3>3.0.CO;2-S. ISSN 0362-2525. PMID 29847876.
  49. ^ Tapanila, Leif; Pruitt, Jesse; Wilga, Cheryl D.; Pradel, Alan (2020). "Saws, Scissors, and Sharks: Late Paleozoic Experimentation with Symphyseal Dentition". The Anatomical Record. 303 (2): 363–376. doi:10.1002/ar.24046. ISSN 1932-8494. PMID 30536888.
  50. ^ a b c d Gillis, J. Andrew; Rawlinson, Kate A.; Bell, Justin; Lyon, Warrick S.; Baker, Clare V. H.; Shubin, Neil H. (2011-01-25). "Holocephalan embryos provide evidence for gill arch appendage reduction and opercular evolution in cartilaginous fishes". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (4): 1507–1512. Bibcode:2011PNAS..108.1507G. doi:10.1073/pnas.1012968108. PMC 3029744. PMID 21220324.
  51. ^ Ewing, Susan (2017). Resurrecting the shark: a scientific obsession and the mavericks who solved the mystery of a 270-million-year-old fossil (Ebook ed.). New York: Pegasus Books. ISBN 978-1-68177-343-8. OCLC 951925606.
  52. ^ a b c Mutter, Raoul J.; Neuman, Andrew G. (2008). "New eugeneodontid sharks from the Lower Triassic Sulphur Mountain Formation of Western Canada". Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 295 (1): 9–41. Bibcode:2008GSLSP.295....9M. doi:10.1144/SP295.3. ISSN 0305-8719.
  53. ^ a b c d Grogan, E. D.; Lund, R.; Fath, M. (2014). "A new petalodont chondrichthyan from the bear gulch limestone of montana, USA, with reassessment of Netsepoye hawesi and comments on the morphology of holomorphic petalodonts". Paleontological Journal. 48 (9): 1003–1014. Bibcode:2014PalJ...48.1003G. doi:10.1134/S0031030114090044. ISSN 0031-0301.
  54. ^ a b c d e f Pradel, Alan; Denton, John S. S.; Janvier, Philippe; Maisey, John G., eds. (2021). Ancient fishes and their living relatives: a tribute to John G. Maisey. München: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil. pp. 193–214. ISBN 978-3-89937-269-4.
  55. ^ a b c d e f Lund, Richard (1990-01-01). "Chondrichthyan life history styles as revealed by the 320 million years old Mississippian of Montana". Environmental Biology of Fishes. 27 (1): 1–19. Bibcode:1990EnvBF..27....1L. doi:10.1007/BF00004900. ISSN 1573-5133.
  56. ^ a b Maisey, John G. (1986). "Heads and Tails: A Chordate Phylogeny". Cladistics. 2 (4): 201–256. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1986.tb00462.x. ISSN 1096-0031. PMID 34949070.
  57. ^ a b c d e f g Iijima, Mayumi; Ishiyama, Mikio (2020-10-29). "A unique mineralization mode of hypermineralized pleromin in the tooth plate of Chimaera phantasma contributes to its microhardness". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 18591. Bibcode:2020NatSR..1018591I. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-75545-0. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 7596707. PMID 33122684.
  58. ^ a b c d Patterson, Collin (1992-09-01). "Interpretation of the toothplates of chimaeroid fishes". Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 106 (1): 33–61. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1992.tb01239.x. ISSN 0024-4082.
  59. ^ a b c d e f g h Johanson, Zerina; Manzanares, Esther; Underwood, Charlie; Clark, Brett; Fernandez, Vincent; Smith, Moya (2020-09-01). "Evolution of the Dentition in Holocephalans (Chondrichthyes) Through Tissue Disparity". Integrative and Comparative Biology. 60 (3): 630–643. doi:10.1093/icb/icaa093. ISSN 1540-7063. PMID 32617556.
  60. ^ a b c d e f g h i Berkovitz, Barry; Shellis, Peter (2023). The Teeth of Non-Mammalian Vertebrates (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Academic Press. pp. 76–81. doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-91789-6.00001-7. ISBN 978-0-323-91789-6.
  61. ^ a b c d Ginter, Michał (2018). "The dentition of a eugeneodontiform shark from the Lower Pennsylvanian of Derbyshire, UK". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 63. doi:10.4202/app.00533.2018.
  62. ^ a b c d Lebedev, Oleg A.; Itano, Wayne M.; Johansen, Zerina; Alekseev, Alexander S.; Smith, Moya M.; Ivanov, Aleksey V.; Novikov, Igor V. (2022). "Tooth whorl structure, growth and function in a helicoprionid chondrichthyan Karpinskiprion (nom. nov.) (Eugeneodontiformes) with a revision of the family composition". Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 113 (4): 337–360. Bibcode:2022EESTR.113..337L. doi:10.1017/s1755691022000251. ISSN 1755-6910.
  63. ^ a b c d e Cerda, Ignacio; Cavalli, Soledad Gouiric; Reguero, Marcelo A. (2025-04-19). "Dental plate histology of † Ischyodus dolloi (Chondrichthyes, Holocephali), from Antarctica". Journal of Anatomy. doi:10.1111/joa.14257. ISSN 0021-8782. PMID 40251991.
  64. ^ a b Johanson, Zerina; Manzanares, Esther; Underwood, Charlie; Clark, Brett; Fernandez, Vincent; Smith, Moya (2021). "Ontogenetic development of the holocephalan dentition: Morphological transitions of dentine in the absence of teeth". Journal of Anatomy. 239 (3): 704–719. doi:10.1111/joa.13445. ISSN 0021-8782. PMC 8349418. PMID 33895988.
  65. ^ Meredith Smith, Moya; Underwood, Charlie; Goral, Tomasz; Healy, Christopher; Johanson, Zerina (2019). "Growth and mineralogy in dental plates of the holocephalan Harriotta raleighana (Chondrichthyes): novel dentine and conserved patterning combine to create a unique chondrichthyan dentition". Zoological Letters. 5 (1): 11. doi:10.1186/s40851-019-0125-3. ISSN 2056-306X. PMC 6419362. PMID 30923631.
  66. ^ Iijima, Mayumi; Okumura, Taiga; Kogure, Toshihiro; Suzuki, Michio (2021). "Microstructure and mineral components of the outer dentin of tooth plates". The Anatomical Record. 304 (12): 2865–2878. doi:10.1002/ar.24606. ISSN 1932-8494. PMID 33620142.
  67. ^ Zangerl, Rainer; Hansen, Michael C.; Winter, H. Frank (1993). Comparative microscopic dental anatomy in the Petalodontida (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii). [Chicago, Ill.]: Field Museum of Natural History. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.3151.
  68. ^ a b Lebedev, O. A. (2009). "A new specimen of Helicoprion Karpinsky, 1899 from Kazakhstanian Cisurals and a new reconstruction of its tooth whorl position and function". Acta Zoologica. 90 (s1): 171–182. doi:10.1111/j.1463-6395.2008.00353.x. ISSN 0001-7272.
  69. ^ Colorado~wayne.itano@aya.yale.edu, Wayne M. Itano~University of (2019-06-30). "riented microwear on a tooth of Edestus minor (Chondrichthyes, Eugeneodontiformes): Implications for dental function". Palaeontologia Electronica. 22 (2): 831. Bibcode:2019PalEl..22..831I. doi:10.26879/831. Retrieved 2025-04-29.
  70. ^ a b c Ramsay, Jason B.; Wilga, Cheryl D.; Tapanila, Leif; Pruitt, Jesse; Pradel, Alan; Schlader, Robert; Didier, Dominique A. (2015). "Eating with a saw for a jaw: Functional morphology of the jaws and tooth-whorl in Helicoprion davisii". Journal of Morphology. 276 (1): 47–64. doi:10.1002/jmor.20319. ISSN 1097-4687. PMID 25181366.
  71. ^ Egli, H. Chase; Hodnett, John-Paul M.; Hodge, Cody M.; Ward, Gabriel V. (2024-10-14). "Obruchevodid petalodonts (Chondrichthyes, Holocephali) from the Upper Mississippian (Serpukhovian) Bangor Limestone of northern Alabama, U.S.A." Historical Biology: 1–10. doi:10.1080/08912963.2024.2412139. ISSN 0891-2963.
  72. ^ Hodnett, John-Paul M.; Egli, H. Chase; Toomey, Rickard; Olson, Rickard; Tolleson, Kelli; Boldon, Richard; Tweet, Justin S.; Santucci, Vincent L. (2025-01-24). "Obruchevodid petalodonts (Chondrichthyes, Petalodontiformes, Obruchevodidae) from the Middle Mississippian (Viséan) Joppa Member of the Ste. Genevieve Formation at Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky U.S.A." Journal of Paleontology: 1–11. doi:10.1017/jpa.2024.40. ISSN 0022-3360.
  73. ^ a b c Ahlberg, Per Erik; Coates, Michael I. (1997). "There's a ratfish in our cellar!". Geology Today. 13 (1): 20–23. Bibcode:1997GeolT..13...20A. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2451.1997.00013.x. ISSN 1365-2451.
  74. ^ a b Finarelli, John A.; Coates, Michael I. (2012-02-22). "First tooth-set outside the jaws in a vertebrate". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 279 (1729): 775–779. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1107. ISSN 0962-8452. PMC 3248723. PMID 21775333.
  75. ^ a b Dean, Bashford; Dean, Bashford (1906). Chimæeroid fishes and their development. Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.29471.
  76. ^ a b c d e f g h i Priede, Imants G. (2017-08-10). Deep-Sea Fishes: Biology, Diversity, Ecology and Fisheries (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316018330. ISBN 978-1-316-01833-0.
  77. ^ a b Lebedev, Oleg A.; Popov, Evgeny V.; Bagirov, Sergey V.; Bolshiyanov, Igor P.; Kadyrov, Rail I.; Statsenko, Evgeny O. (2021-06-18). "The earliest chimaeriform fish from the Carboniferous of Central Russia". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 19 (12): 821–846. Bibcode:2021JSPal..19..821L. doi:10.1080/14772019.2021.1977732. ISSN 1477-2019.
  78. ^ a b c Zangerl, Rainer; Case, Gerard R. (1973). Iniopterygia : a new order of Chondrichthyan fishes from the Pennsylvanian of North America. Fieldiana. Vol. 6. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.5158.
  79. ^ Ørvig, Tor (1972). "The Latero-sensory Component of the Dermal Skeleton in Lower Vertebrates and Its Phyletic Significance". Zoologica Scripta. 1 (3): 139–155. doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.1972.tb00672.x. ISSN 1463-6409.
  80. ^ Lund, Richard (1982). "Harpagofututor volsellorhinus New Genus and Species (Chondrichthyes, Chondrenchelyiformes) from the Namurian Bear Gulch Limestone, Chondrenchelys problematica Traquair (Visean), and Their Sexual Dimorphism". Journal of Paleontology. 56 (4): 938–958. ISSN 0022-3360. JSTOR 1304712.
  81. ^ a b c Lund, Richard (1980-08-08). "Viviparity and Intrauterine Feeding in a New Holocephalan Fish from the Lower Carboniferous of Montana". Science. 209 (4457): 697–699. Bibcode:1980Sci...209..697L. doi:10.1126/science.209.4457.697. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 17821193.
  82. ^ a b c d e f Fischer, Jan; Licht, Martin; Kriwet, Jürgen; Schneider, Jörg W.; Buchwitz, Michael; Bartsch, Peter (2014-04-03). "Egg capsule morphology provides new information about the interrelationships of chondrichthyan fishes". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 12 (3): 389–399. Bibcode:2014JSPal..12..389F. doi:10.1080/14772019.2012.762061. ISSN 1477-2019.
  83. ^ Dean, Bashford; Dean, Bashford (1906). Chimæeroid fishes and their development. Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.29471.
  84. ^ a b Zhao, Yang; Bestwick, Jordan; Fischer, Jan; Bastiaans, Dylan; Greif, Merle; Klug, Christian (2025-02-16). "The first record of a shortnose chimaera-like egg capsule from the Mesozoic (Late Jurassic, Switzerland)". Swiss Journal of Palaeontology. 144 (1): 8. doi:10.1186/s13358-025-00352-x. ISSN 1664-2384. PMC 11830639. PMID 39967761.
  85. ^ a b c Grogan, Eileen D.; Lund, Richard (2011-03-01). "Superfoetative viviparity in a Carboniferous chondrichthyan and reproduction in early gnathostomes". Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 161 (3): 587–594. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2010.00653.x. ISSN 0024-4082.
  86. ^ Schnetz, Lisa; Butler, Richard J.; Coates, Michael I.; Sansom, Ivan J. (2024). "The skeletal completeness of the Palaeozoic chondrichthyan fossil record". Royal Society Open Science. 11 (1): 231451. doi:10.1098/rsos.231451. PMC 10827434. PMID 38298400.
  87. ^ a b c d e Long, John A. (2011). The rise of fishes: 500 million years of evolution (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-9695-8.
  88. ^ Pradel, Alan; Maisey, John G.; Tafforeau, P.; Janvier, Philippe (2009). "An enigmatic gnathostome vertebrate skull from the Middle Devonian of Bolivia". Acta Zoologica. 90 (s1): 123–133. doi:10.1111/j.1463-6395.2008.00350.x. ISSN 0001-7272.
  89. ^ Darras, Laurent; Derycke, Claire; Blieck, Alain; Vachard, Daniel (2008). "The oldest holocephalan (Chondrichthyes) from the Middle Devonian of the Boulonnais (Pas-de-Calais, France)". Comptes Rendus Palevol. 7 (5): 297–304. Bibcode:2008CRPal...7..297D. doi:10.1016/j.crpv.2008.04.002.
  90. ^ Renz, AJ; Meyer, A; Kuraku, S (2013). "Revealing less derived nature of cartilaginous fish genomes with their evolutionary time scale inferred with nuclear genes". PLOS ONE. 8 (6): e66400. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...866400R. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066400. PMC 3692497. PMID 23825540.
  91. ^ a b c d Inoue, J. G.; Miya, M.; Lam, K.; Tay, B.-H.; Danks, J. A.; Bell, J.; Walker, T. I.; Venkatesh, B. (2010-11-01). "Evolutionary Origin and Phylogeny of the Modern Holocephalans (Chondrichthyes: Chimaeriformes): A Mitogenomic Perspective". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 27 (11): 2576–2586. doi:10.1093/molbev/msq147. ISSN 0737-4038. PMID 20551041.
  92. ^ a b Ginter, Michal; Agnieszka, Agnieszka (2004). "The first Devonian holocephalian tooth from Poland". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 49 (3): 409–415.
  93. ^ Licht, Martin; Schmuecker, Katharina; Huelsken, Thomas; Hanel, Reinhold; Bartsch, Peter; Paeckert, Martin (2012). "Contribution to the molecular phylogenetic analysis of extant holocephalan fishes (Holocephali, Chimaeriformes)". Organisms Diversity & Evolution. 12 (4): 421–432. Bibcode:2012ODivE..12..421L. doi:10.1007/s13127-011-0071-1. ISSN 1439-6092.
  94. ^ a b Helfman, Gene S.; Collette, Bruce B.; Facey, Douglas E.; Bowen, Brian W. (2009). The Diversity of Fishes: Biology, Evolution, and Ecology (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-2494-2.
  95. ^ a b Lund, Richard; Poplin, Cécile (1999-01-01). "Fish diversity of the Bear Gulch Limestone, Namurian, Lower Carboniferous of Montana, USA". Geobios. 32 (2): 285–295. Bibcode:1999Geobi..32..285L. doi:10.1016/S0016-6995(99)80042-4. ISSN 0016-6995.
  96. ^ a b Lund, Richard; Poplin, Cécile (1999-01-01). "Fish diversity of the Bear Gulch Limestone, Namurian, Lower Carboniferous of Montana, USA". Geobios. 32 (2): 285–295. Bibcode:1999Geobi..32..285L. doi:10.1016/S0016-6995(99)80042-4. ISSN 0016-6995.
  97. ^ Berio, Fidji; Charron, Raphaël; Dagouret, Jean-Marie; De Gasperis, Florent; Éon, Aurore; Meunier, Emmanuel; Simonet, Morrigane; Verschraegen, Nathalie; Hirel, Nicolas (2023). "Husbandry conditions of spotted ratfish (Hydrolagus colliei, Chimaeriformes) in aquaria for successful embryonic development and long-term survival of juveniles". Zoo Biology. 43 (2): 188–198. doi:10.1002/zoo.21813. ISSN 0733-3188. PMID 38152990.
  98. ^ Tapanila, Leif; Pruitt, Jesse; Wilga, Cheryl D.; Pradel, Alan (2020). "Saws, Scissors, and Sharks: Late Paleozoic Experimentation with Symphyseal Dentition". The Anatomical Record. 303 (2): 363–376. doi:10.1002/ar.24046. ISSN 1932-8494. PMID 30536888.
  99. ^ Hansen, Michael C. (1978). "A Presumed Lower Dentition and a Spine of a Permian Petalodontiform Chondrichthyan, Megactenopetalus kaibabanus". Journal of Paleontology. 52 (1): 55–60. ISSN 0022-3360. JSTOR 1303788.
  100. ^ a b Barčák, Daniel; Fan, Chia-Kwung; Sonko, Pasaikou; Kuchta, Roman; Scholz, Tomáš; Orosová, Martina; Chen, Hsuan-Wien; Oros, Mikuláš (2021). "Hidden diversity of the most basal tapeworms (Cestoda, Gyrocotylidea), the enigmatic parasites of holocephalans (Chimaeriformes)". Scientific Reports. 11 (1): 5492. Bibcode:2021NatSR..11.5492B. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-84613-y. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 7970904. PMID 33750808.
  101. ^ Gardner, Scott L.; Gardner, Sue Ann, eds. (2024). "Concepts in Animal Parasitology". Concepts in Animal Parasitology: 354–359. doi:10.32873/unl.dc.ciap070.
  102. ^ Leung, Tommy L. F. (2017). "Fossils of parasites: what can the fossil record tell us about the evolution of parasitism?". Biological Reviews. 92 (1): 410–430. doi:10.1111/brv.12238. ISSN 1469-185X. PMID 26538112.
  103. ^ Zangerl, Rainer (November 1976). "Cobelodus aculeatus (Cope), an anacanthous shark from Pennsylvanian black shales of North America". Palaeontographica: Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte der Vorzeit. 154: 107–157. Retrieved 28 December 2021.
  104. ^ Richards, Kelly R.; Sherwin, Janet E.; Smithson, Timothy R.; Bennion, Rebecca F.; Davies, Sarah J.; Marshall, John E. A.; Clack, Jennifer A. (2017). "Diverse and durophagous: Early Carboniferous chondrichthyans from the Scottish Borders". Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 108 (1): 67–87. Bibcode:2017EESTR.108...67R. doi:10.1017/S1755691018000166. ISSN 1755-6910.
  105. ^ Scheyer, Torsten M.; Romano, Carlo; Jenks, Jim; Bucher, Hugo (2014-03-19). "Early Triassic Marine Biotic Recovery: The Predators' Perspective". PLOS ONE. 9 (3): e88987. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...988987S. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088987. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 3960099. PMID 24647136.
  106. ^ Itano, Wayne M.; Duffin, Christopher J. (2023-06-20). "An enigmatic chondrichthyan spine from the Visean of Indiana, USA that resembles a median rostral cartilage of Squaloraja (Holocephali, Chimaeriformes)". Spanish Journal of Palaeontology. 38 (1): 57–68. doi:10.7203/sjp.26305. ISSN 2660-9568.
  107. ^ Duffin, Christopher J.; Lauer, Bruce; Lauer, René (2025-02-16). "Chimaeropsis paradoxa Zittel, 1887 (Myriacanthoidei, Holocephali) from the Late Jurassic of Solnhofen". Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie – Abhandlungen. 313 (3): 245–272. Bibcode:2025NJGPA.313..245D. doi:10.1127/njgpa/2025/1233. ISSN 0077-7749.
  108. ^ Schwartz, Frank Joseph (2003). Sharks, skates, and rays of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-5466-2.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocephali&oldid=1291384728"