Advertisement

Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 38, Issue 1–3, pp 269–294 | Cite as

Maximization of evolutionary trends for placental viviparity in the spadenose shark,Scoliodon taticaudus

  • John P. Wourms
Article

Synopsis

Placental viviparity has evolved inScoliodon taticaudus to a degree that rivals some eutherian mammals. Its eggs are the smallest known of any shark. They have a diameter of 1 mm, a dry weight of 0.0654 ± 0.0100 mg and are nearly yolk-free. Implantation takes place at an early (3 mm) stage of development, and gestation is short (5–6 months). Comparison of the dry weight of the egg (0.065 mg) with the estimated dry weights of a mid-late term 90 mm embryo (910 mg) and a 152 mm neonate (3815.4 mg) reveals weight changes of 14219 × and 58338 ×, respectively. Its normalized brood weight, a measure of maternal nutrient investment, is 49.5 g · kg−1 female body weight for a six-month gestation. Comparisons with other species of placental and nonplacental sharks show thatS. laticaudus has a highly advanced form of matrotrophy. Maternal nutrients appear to be acquired by placental transport and by imbibition of uterine fluid. Hemotrophic placental nutrient transfer occurs across a unique uterine implantation site, termed the trophonematous cup, in which maternal blood appears to bathe the outer epithelium of the embryonic yolksac placenta. The latter is solid and filled with a three-dimensional network of capillaries and many free interstitial cells. The umbilical stalk contains the vitelline vessels but lacks a yolk duct. Its surface is amplified by many long, villous appendiculae, which consist of a vascular core that ramifies into a massive surface capillary network invested by a simple squamous epithelium. The appendiculae ofS. laticaudus most likely are sites of gas exchange and possibly the uptake of small molecules. They are unlike the appendiculae described in any other placental shark and exhibit design principles similar to those of the uterine trophonemata of matrotrophic rays.

Key words

Embryo Fetal nutrition Placenta Matrotrophy Uterus Development Appendiculae Trophonemata Implantation Yolksac Elasmobranch 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Alcock, A. 1890. Observations on the gestation of some sharks and rays. J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 59: 51–56.Google Scholar
  2. Amoroso, E.C. 1981. Viviparity. pp. 3–25. In: S.R. Glasser & D.W. Bullock.Google Scholar
  3. Baranes, A. & J. Wendling. 1981. The early stages of development in Carcharhinus plumbeus. J. Fish Biol. 18: 159–175.Google Scholar
  4. Baughman, J.L. & S. Springer. 1950. Biological and economic notes on the sharks of the Gulf of Mexico, with special reference to those of Texas, and with a key for their identification. Amer. Mid. Natur. 44: 96–152.Google Scholar
  5. Budker, P. 1953. Sur le cordon ombilical des squales vivipares. Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. (2) 25: 541–545.Google Scholar
  6. Callard, I.P., L.L. Klosterman & G.V. Callard. 1988. Reproductive physiology. pp. 277–317. In: T. Shuttleworth (ed.) Physiology of Elasmobranchs, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  7. Callard, I.P., L.L. Klosterman, L.A. Sorbera, L.A. Fileti & J.C. Reese. 1989. Endocrine regulation of reproduction in elasmobranchs: archetype for terrestrial vertebrates. J. Exp. Zool. Suppl. 2: 12–22.Google Scholar
  8. Calzoni, M. 1936. Ricerche sulla placenta del Carcharias glaucus. Publ. Staz. Zool. Napoli 15: 169–174.Google Scholar
  9. Castro, J.I. & J.P. Wourms. 1993. Reproduction and development of the Atlantic sharpnose shark,Rhizoprionodon terraenovae. J. Morph. (in press).Google Scholar
  10. Choodamani, N.V. 1942. On the smallest (?) elasmobranch egg. Proc. 28th Indian. Sci. Congress, Benares Part 3: 3–179 (abstract).Google Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock, T.H. 1991. The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 352 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Compagno, L.J.V. 1988. Sharks of the order Carcharhiniformes. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 445 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Compagno, L.J.V. 1990. Alternative life-history styles of cartilaginous fishes in time and space. Env. Biol. Fish. 28: 33–75.Google Scholar
  14. Devados, P. 1979. Observations on the maturity, breeding, and development of Scoliodon laticaudus Muller and Henle off Calicut coast. J. mar. biol. Assoc. India 21: 103–110.Google Scholar
  15. Elinson, R.P. 1989. Egg evolution. pp. 251–262. In: D.B. Wake & G. Roth (ed.) Complex Organismal Functions: Integration and Evolution in Vertebreates, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  16. Gilmore, R., J. Dodrill & P. Linley. 1983. Reproduction and embryonic development of the sand tiger shark, Carcharias taurus (Rafinesque). U.S. Fish Bull. 82: 201–225.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, B.K. 1992. Evolutionary developmental biology. Chapman & Hall, London. 275 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Hamlett, W.C. 1989. Evolution and morphogenesis of the placenta. J. Exp. Zool. Suppl. 2: 35–52.Google Scholar
  19. Hamlett, W.C. 1993. Ontogeny of the umbilical cord and placenta in the Atlantic sharpnose shark,Rhizoprionodon terraenovae. Env. Biol. Fish. 38: 253–267 (this volume).Google Scholar
  20. Hamlett, W.C., J.P. Wourms & J.S. Hudson. 1985a. Ultrastructure of the full-term shark yolk sac placenta. III. The maternal attachment site J. Ultrastruct. Res. 91: 221–231.Google Scholar
  21. Hamlett, W.C., J.P. Wourms & J.W. Smith. 1985b. Sting-ray placental analogue: structure of the trophonemata in Rhinoptera bonasus. J. Submicrosc. Cytol. 17: 31–40.Google Scholar
  22. Hoar, W.S. 1969. Reproduction. pp. 1–72. In: W.S. Hoar & D.J. Randall (ed.) Fish Physiology, Volume 3, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Kessel, R.G. & R.H. Kardon. 1979. Tissues and organs. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco. 317 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Knight, F.M., J. Lombardi, J.P. Wourms & J.R. Burns. 1985. Follicular placenta and embryonic growth of the viviparous four-eyed fish (Anableps). J. Morph. 185: 131–142.Google Scholar
  25. Long, W.L. & J.P. Wourms. 1991. Gastrulation in the gar,Lepisosteus osspus. Amer. Zool. 31: 81A (abstract).Google Scholar
  26. Lombardi, J. & J.P. Wourms. 1988. Embryonic growth and trophotaenial development in goodeid fishes. J. Morph. 197: 193–208.Google Scholar
  27. Mahadevan, G. 1940. Preliminary observations on the structure of the uterus and the placenta of a few Indian elasmobranchs. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. B 11: 1–44.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, P.J. 1979. Adaptiveness and implications of small size in teleosts. Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. 44: 263–306.Google Scholar
  29. Mossman, H.W. 1937. Comparative morphogenesis of the fetal membranes and accessory uterine structures. Contrib. Embryol. Carnegie Inst. 26: 129–246.Google Scholar
  30. Mossman, H.W. 1987. Vertebrate fetal membranes. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick. 383 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Nair, K.P. 1976. Age and growth of the yellow dog shark,Scoliodon laticaudus Muller & Henle from Bombay waters. J. mar. biol. Assoc. India 18: 531–539.Google Scholar
  32. Needham, J. 1942. Biochemistry and morphogenesis. Cambridge University Press, London. 785 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Parsons, G.R. 1983. The reproductive biology of the Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae (Richardson). U.S. Fish. Bull. 81: 61–73.Google Scholar
  34. Ranzi, S. 1932. Le basi fisio-morfologische dello sviluppo embrionale dei selaci. Parti I. Publ. Staz. Zool. Napoli 13: 209–290.Google Scholar
  35. Ranzi, S. 1934. Le basi fisio-morfologische dello sviluppo embrionale dei selaci. Parti II, III. Publ. Staz. Zool. Napoli 13: 331–437.Google Scholar
  36. Reznick, D.N. & D.B. Miles. 1989. Review of life history patterns in poeciliid fishes. pp. 125–148. In: G.K. Meffe & F.F. Snelson (ed.) Ecology and Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  37. Schlernitzauer, D.A. & P.W. Gilbert. 1966. Placentation and associated aspects of gestation in the bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo. J. Morphol. 120: 219–232.Google Scholar
  38. Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1984. Scaling: why is animal size important? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 241 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Setna, S.B. & P.N. Sarangdhar. 1948. Descriptions, bionomics and development of Scoliodon sorrakowah (Cuvier). Rec. Indian Mus. 46: 25–53.Google Scholar
  40. Springer, V.G. 1964. A revision of the carcharhinid genera Scoliodon, Loxodon, and Rhizoprionodon. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 115 (3493): 559–632.Google Scholar
  41. Teshima, K., M. Amad & K. Mizue. 1978. Studies on sharks — XIV Reproduction in the Telok Anson shark collected from Perak River, Malaysia. Jap. J. Ichthyol. 25: 181–189.Google Scholar
  42. Thibault, R.E. & R.J. Schultz. 1978. Reproductive adaptations among viviparous fishes (Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciliidae). Evolution 32: 320–333.Google Scholar
  43. Thillayampalam, E.M. 1928. Scoliodon. The Indian Zoological Memoirs, II. Methodist Publishing House, Lucknow. 116 pp.Google Scholar
  44. Trinkaus, J.P. 1984. Cells into organs. The forces that shape the embryo. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 543 pp.Google Scholar
  45. Vogel, S. 1988. Life"s devices. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 367 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Vogel, S. 1992. Vital circuits. Oxford University Press, New York 315 pp.Google Scholar
  47. Weibel, E.R. 1984. The pathway for oxygen. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 425 pp.Google Scholar
  48. Wourms, J.P. 1977. Reproduction and development of chondrichthyan fishes. Amer. Zool. 17: 379–410.Google Scholar
  49. Wourms, J.P. 1981 Viviparity: the maternal-fetal relationship in fishes. Amer. Zool. 21: 473–515.Google Scholar
  50. Wourms, J.P. & A.B. Bodine. 1984. Structure and function of trophonemata, a placental analogue, during early gestation of the butterfly ray. p. 407. In: S. Seno & Y. Orada (ed.) International Cell Biology 1984, Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
  51. Wourms, J.P. & J. Lombardi. 1992. Reflections on the evolution of vertebrate viviparity. Amer. Zool. 32: 276–293.Google Scholar
  52. Wourms, J.P., J.W. Atz & M.D. Stribling. 1991. Viviparity and the maternal-embryonic relationship in the coelacanth, Latimeria. Env. Biol. Fish. 32: 225–248.Google Scholar
  53. Wourms, J.P. & D.M. Cohen. 1975. Trophotaeniae, embryonic adaptations in the viviparous ophidioid fish, Oligopus longhursti: a study of museum specimens. J. Morph. 147: 385–401.Google Scholar
  54. Wourms, J.P., B.D. Grove & J. Lombardi. 1988. The maternal-embryonic relationship in viviparous fishes. pp. 1–134. In: W.S. Hoar & D.J. Randall (ed.) Fish Physiology, Volume IIB, Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • John P. Wourms
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesClemson UniversityClemsonU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations