Sharks not 'living fossils,' non-living fossil reveals

A 325-million-year-old shark fossil indicates that sharks have evolved quite a bit from their bony ancestors, challenging the perception that sharks are primitive creatures. 

AMNH/F. Ippolito
The exceptionally well-preserved fossil of Ozarcus mapesae from two different lateral views. The scale bar is 10 millimeters.

Sharks are usually thought of as primitive creatures, sometimes called "living fossils." But a new study of a 325-million-year-old shark fossil — the most complete of its kind — suggests modern sharks have evolved significantly from their bony ancestors.

The ancient fossil has characteristics of both bony fishes and modern sharks. But its gill structures more closely resemble those of bony fishes, challenging the notion that modern sharks have remained unchanged over evolutionary time.

"Standard anatomical textbooks say that the shark is a model of a primitive jawed vertebrate, [but] that’s all wrong," said John Maisey, curator of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and a co-author of the study detailed today (April 16) in the journal Nature. [8 Weird Facts About Sharks]

Until now, paleontologists studying the evolution of early jawed vertebrates, or gnathostomes, have focused on either cartilaginous fishes (modern sharks and rays) or bony fishes. Modern sharks were thought to have changed very little over evolutionary time.

But comparing a modern shark with a primitive one would be like comparing a modern automobile with a Ford Model T — they share some similarities, but under the hood they're completely different, Maisey told Live Science.

A bony shark

The shark fossil in the study, Ozarcus mapesae, was found in Arkansas by husband and wife Royal and Jean Mapes (for whom the species is named), who donated it to the museum. The shark was about 3 feet (90 centimeters) long with very large eyes, and appears to have lived in a shallow, murky inland sea that was also home to giant squidlike creatures, Maisey said.

The researchers X-rayed the fossil, first using a CT machine and later using a synchrotron, which relies on ultra-high-energy X-rays and has become an important tool for paleontology because it doesn't destroy the fossils and provides a level of detail not possible with traditional fossil preparation. Maisey called it "the Hubble Space Telescope of paleontology."

The X-ray scans revealed the fossil had complete gill arches, the support structures for the gills that fish use to breathe. These gill arches were arranged in a serial way, more like those of bony fish than modern sharks.

The fossil's jaws were also more like those of bony fish. Most modern sharks have jaws that are attached to their skulls by flexible ligaments, whereas bony fish have jaws that are rigidly fused to their craniums.

It's not the oldest shark fossil found, but it is one of the most complete. It provides a new model for interpreting other fossils, allowing scientists to make comparisons between early jawed vertebrates and sharks, Maisey said.

Follow Tanya Lewis on Twitter and Google+. Follow us @livescienceFacebook & Google+. Original article on Live Science.

Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.