
There are various hypotheses as to the function of the cephalofoil. One popular hypothesis is that the wing-shaped head provides lift and greater maneuverability in the water. Sharks are also known for their electroreception abilities, and it is speculated that the lateral head extensions enhance this capacity, making prey detection and capture more efficient.

Why the evolution of small body sizes? One reason may be in their development, specifically progenesis or neoteny (adults retaining juvenile characteristics). A smaller body size means that the cephalofoils may not provide as much lift in the water, but, that's ok if you develop gain other functions such as enhanced binocular vision, prey capture, and/or maneuverability. Also, all small-bodied sharks are restricted to continental shelf habitats while large-bodied sharks tend to be pelagic and circum-globally distributed. This could reflect their evolutionary origins, as increased size allows for trans-oceanic movement and colonization - either as small sharks evolving big, moving, then evolving some lineages small again or a large widely distributed shark evolved into smaller species.
So what does all this boil down to?
"The new phylogenetic hypothesis does not challenge the existing classification and taxonomy of the family Sphyrnidae. Nonetheless, we note that proposed subgenera remain paraphyletic. Continued recognition of two distinct genera (Eusphyra and Sphyrna) makes sense given the monophyly of the genus Sphyrna and the degree of divergence between Eusphyra and Sphyrna. If there is a need for subgeneric taxonomic categorization, we advocate using the inferred phylogeny as a guide for defining monophyletic subgenera."
That's just how I would have said it :o)
Here's the paper:
Kim, Douglas D., Philip Motta, Kyle Mara, Andrew P. Martin. (2010) Phylogeny of hammerhead sharks (Family Sphyrnidae) inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution: 55(2), 572, (DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2010.01.037)
Here's a write up (but reading the above paper is actually easier and more informative):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100518113132.htm
(images from livescience.com and arkive.com via seapics.com respecitvely)
No comments:
Post a Comment