4.1 Review

Microstructural morphology in early dermal denticles of hammerhead sharks (Elasmobranchii: Sphyrnidae) and related taxa

期刊

ACTA ZOOLOGICA
卷 94, 期 2, 页码 147-153

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-6395.2011.00547.x

关键词

Sphyrnidae; morphology; dermal denticles; microstructure; Elasmobranchii

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mello, W.C., de Carvalho, J.J., Brito, P.M.M. 2011. Microstructural morphology in early dermal denticles of hammerhead sharks (Elasmobranchii: Sphyrnidae) and related taxa. Acta Zoologica (Stockholm) 00: 17. This study uses scanning electron microscopies to investigate and describe the microstructural diversity of dermal denticles in the family Sphyrnidae, which comprises all living hammerhead shark species, comparing them to other related taxa (i.e. Carcharhinus dussumieri, Carcharhinus plumbeus, Carcharhinus acronotus, Rhizoprionodon acutus, Negaprion brevirostris and Hemigaleus microstoma). The results reveal that sphyrnids present noticeable microstructures in the dermal denticles, distinguishing them from the other related species investigated. Additionally, scale patterns are the same in three distinct body regions (i.e. cephalic, branchial and dorsal fin). Species of Sphyrnidae that reach bigger total lengths and that are widely distributed (i.e. Sphyrna lewini and Sphyrna mokarran) presented more, smaller and nearly hexagonal microstructures that do not cover the entire scale surface, unlike species reaching smaller sizes and restricted to coastal habits (i.e. Sphyrna tiburo, Sphyrna tudes, Sphyrna media and Eusphyra blochii). The sphyrnid scales are similar to R.acutus and C.dussumieri rather than to the other species, but it is not possible to identify the sphyrnid species only by scale features. It is clear that a similar morphology of scales is not necessarily related to similar life habits, and that they are candidates to provide new characters in phylogenetical studies among sphyrnids.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据