4.1 Article

Morphology of the anterior vertebral region in elasmobranchs: special focus, Squatiniformes

期刊

FOSSIL RECORD
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 129-140

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.1002/mmng.201100003

关键词

computed tomography; extinct; functional morphology; Hypnosqualea; ontogeny; phylogeny

资金

  1. DeepFin Student Research Exchange
  2. Banks Fellowship for Paleontology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The morphology of extant and extinct Squatiniformes is well conserved within this lineage, but differences are of consequence to character interpretations for phylogenetic analyses. Investigation of the extinct taxon dagger Pseudorhina alifera (Munster, 1842) from the Late Jurassic of Solnhofen with extant species of Squatina provide new evidence that members of Squatiniformes possess a basioccipital fovea. Presence of a basioccipital fovea is the ancestral condition in Neoselachians and hypothesized to be lost in members of Hypnosqualea. In addition, species of Squatina all posses a reduced occipital hemicentrum while the occipital hemicentrum in dagger Pseudorhina is unreduced, indicating the condition in Squatina is an example of postdisplacement heterochrony. Pristiophoriformes and Batoidea also are characterized by a lack of a basioccipital fovea and hemicentrum. However, extinct members of Batoidea, such as dagger Spathobatis, and modern taxa do possess a distinct notch in the posterior basicranium ventral to the foramen magnum. Except for the lack of an associated occipital hemicentrum, this notch is similar to the basioccipital fovea, but its homology is not yet addressed. Furthermore, within all species of Squatiniformes and Pristiophoriformes, as well as some members of Orectolobiformes and Carcharhiniformes, basiventral cartilages are laterally expanded, contributing to a broad articulation with the occipital condyle. The disparate taxa with modifications to the basiventral cartilages suggest a significant functional, rather than phylogenetic, signal for this feature.

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