Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 98, Issue 6, pp 545–549 | Cite as

Direct evidence of hybodont shark predation on Late Jurassic ammonites

Short Communication

Abstract

Sharks are known to have been ammonoid predators, as indicated by analysis of bite marks or coprolite contents. However, body fossil associations attesting to this predator–prey relationship have never been described so far. Here, I report a unique finding from the Late Jurassic of western France: a complete specimen of the Kimmeridgian ammonite Orthaspidoceras bearing one tooth of the hybodont shark Planohybodus. Some possible tooth puncture marks are also observed. This is the first direct evidence of such a trophic link between these two major Mesozoic groups, allowing an accurate identification of both organisms. Although Planohybodus displays a tearing-type dentition generally assumed to have been especially adapted for large unshelled prey, our discovery clearly shows that this shark was also able to attack robust ammonites such as aspidoceratids. The direct evidence presented here provides new insights into the Mesozoic marine ecosystem food webs.

Keywords

Ammonites Hybodont sharks Predation Jurassic France 

References

  1. Checa A, Martin-Ramos D (1989) Growth and function of spines in the Jurassic ammonite Aspidoceras. Palaeontology 32:645–655Google Scholar
  2. Duffin CJ (1997) The dentition of Hybodus hauffianus Fraas, 1895 (Toarcian, Early Jurassic). Stuttgarter Beitr Naturk B 256:1–20Google Scholar
  3. Fürsich FT, Oschmann W (1986) Storm shell beds of Nanogyra virgula in the Upper Jurassic of France. N Jb Geol Paläont Abh 172:141–161Google Scholar
  4. Ginter M, Ivanov A, Lebedev O (2005) The revision of “Cladodusoccidentalis, a late Palaeozoic ctenacanthiform shark. Acta Palaeontol Pol 50:623–631Google Scholar
  5. Hansen MC, Mapes RH (1990) A predator-prey relationship between sharks and cephalopods in the Late Paleozoic. In: Boucot AJ (ed) Evolutionary paleobiology of behavior and coevolution. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 189–192Google Scholar
  6. Hantzpergue P (1989) Les ammonites kimméridgiennes du haut-fond d'Europe occidentale. Biochronologie, Systématique, Evolution, Paléobiogéographie. Cahiers de Paléontologie CNRS:1–428Google Scholar
  7. Hantzpergue P (1995) Faunal trends and sea level changes: biogeographic patterns of Kimmeridgian ammonites of the Western European Shelf. Geol Rundsch 84:245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hewitt RA, Westermann GEG (1990) Mosasaur tooth marks on the ammonite Placenticeras from the Upper Cretaceous of Alberta, Canada. Can J Earth Sci 27:469–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kauffman EG (1972) Ptychodus predation upon a Cretaceous Inoceramus. Palaeontology 15:439–444Google Scholar
  10. Kauffman EG (1990) Mosasaur predation on ammonites during the Cretaceous—an evolutionary history. In: Boucot AJ (ed) Evolutionary paleobiology of behavior and coevolution. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 184–189Google Scholar
  11. Kauffman EG (2004) Mosasaur predation on Upper Cretaceous nautiloids and ammonites from the United States Pacific coast. Palaios 19:96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kauffman EG, Kesling RV (1960) An Upper Cretaceous ammonite bitten by a mosasaur. Contr Mus Paleontol Univ Mich 15:193–248Google Scholar
  13. Kear BP (2006) First gut contents in a Cretaceous sea turtle. Biol Lett 2:113–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kriwet J, Witzmann F, Klug S, Heidtke UHJ (2008) First direct evidence of a vertebrate three-level trophic chain in the fossil record. Proc R Soc B 275:181–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kröger B (2002) Antipredatory traits of the ammonoid shell—indications from Jurassic ammonoids with sublethal injuries. Paläontol Z 76:223–234Google Scholar
  16. Levy Z (2009) The possible trophic control on the construction and function of the aulacocerid and belemnoid guard and phragmocone. Rev Paléobiol 28:131–137Google Scholar
  17. Maisey JG, Carvalho MR (1997) A new look at old sharks. Nature 385:779–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mapes RH, Chaffin DT (2003) Predation on cephalopods: a general overview with a case study from the Upper Carboniferous of Texas. In: Kelley PH, Kowalewski M, Hansen TA (eds) Predator–prey interactions in the fossil record. Topics in geobiology 20. Kluwer/Plenum, New York, pp 177–213Google Scholar
  19. Mapes RH, Hansen MC (1984) Pennsylvanian shark–cephalopod predation: a case study. Lethaia 17:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mapes RH, Sims MS, Boardman DR II (1995) Predation on the Pennsylvanian ammonoid Gonioloboceras and its implications for allochthonous vs. autochthonous accumulations of goniatites and other ammonoids. J Paleontol 69:441–446Google Scholar
  21. Martill DM (1990) Predation on Kosmoceras by semionotid fish in the Middle Jurassic Lower Oxford Clay of England. Palaeontology 33:739–742Google Scholar
  22. Martire L, Torta S (2000) Pseudoborings in ammonite molds: the combined result of predation and taphonomic-reworking (Bajocian, Normandy, N. France). Palaios 15:356–362Google Scholar
  23. Rees J, Underwood CJ (2008) Hybodont sharks of the English Bathonian and Callovian (Middle Jurassic). Palaeontology 51:117–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Underwood CJ (2002) Sharks, rays and a chimaeroid from the Kimmeridgian (Late Jurassic) of Ringstead, southern England. Palaeontology 45:297–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vullo R, Néraudeau D (2008) When the “primitive” shark Tribodus (Hybodontiformes) meets the “modern” ray Pseudohypolophus (Rajiformes): the unique co-occurrence of these two durophageous Cretaceous selachians in Charentes (SW France). Acta Geol Pol 58:249–255Google Scholar
  26. Walker SE, Brett CE (2002) Post-Paleozoic patterns in marine predation: was there a Mesozoic and Cenozoic marine predatory revolution? In: Kowalewski M, Kelley PH (eds) The fossil record of predation. The paleontological society papers 8. Paleontological Society, Pittsburgh, pp 119–193Google Scholar
  27. Ward P (1981) Shell sculpture as a defensive adaptation in ammonoids. Paleobiology 7:96–100Google Scholar
  28. Whitenack LB, Motta PJ (2010) Performance of shark teeth during puncture and draw: implications for the mechanics of cutting. Biol J Linn Soc 100:271–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Rennes 1UMR CNRS 6118RennesFrance

Personalised recommendations