Age‐related ultrastructural characterizations of the teeth of the white grouper (Epinephelus aeneus) in the different three age‐stages

Abstract

This study represents the first attempt to describe ultrastructural features of teeth in different three ages of white grouper (Epinephelus aeneus) grossly and by the aid of the electron microscope. The current study depends on 18 oropharyngeal cavity of E. aeneus from each age-stages. There are common and special characterization between each age. Five teeth bands in the roof (incisive, canine, upper molar, palatine, and vomer), while two bands in the floor (incisive, molar). The apical teeth part resembles the arrowhead that bordered by groove distally. In 5 cm age, small upper incisive teeth had two appearance (straight and curved), and vomer teeth arranged in triangular in only one row (while, in 12 cm fish arranged in two rows and in 15 cm fish arranged in more than two rows), the palatine teeth began rostrally as one row then two rows and terminated by one row, while in other two ages began by two, then three and ended by two rows. There is no canine teeth in lower jaw in all age. In 12 cm fish, the rostral row of lower incisive teeth usually contain small straight teeth,

An ultrastructural focus on the buccal cavity of the grey gurnard Eutrigla gurnardus (Linnaeus, 1758): Adaptative dietary implications

“…The buccal cavity of fish plays an important role in prey capture and food transportation and help in the fish adaptation to the surrounding environmental conditions (Alexander, 1967; Alsafy et al, 2021; Cataldi et al, 1987; El‐Gendy, Alsafy, & Tanekhy, 2016; Elshoud‐Oldenhave & Osse, 1976). Previously, the oropharyngeal cavity was described by the SEM investigations in the different feeding habits fish‐species; carnivorous species (Alsafy et al, 2021; Bishop & Odense, 1966; Cataldi et al, 1987); plankton feeder species, (Chakrabarti & Sinha, 1987; Nandi & Saikia, 2021; Sinha & Chakrabarti, 1985), herbivorous species (Atkinson & Collin, 2012; El Bakary, 2011; El Bakary, 2012; Yashpal et al, 2009).…”

“…The current work observed that the buccal cavity of the grey gurnard was symmetrical, wide. There are some minor morphological variations in the opening of the buccal cavity between the different fish‐species of the different feeding habits; the carnivorous fish had a wide semilunar opening of the buccal cavity such as white grouper Epinephelus aeneus , gilthead seabream Sparus aurata , and Bagrus Bayad (Alsafy et al, 2021; Alsafy, Bassuoni, & Hanafy, 2018; El Bakary, 2012; El‐Gendy et al, 2016), and in omnivorous fish as in Clarias gariepinus (Gamal, Elsheikh, & Nasr, 2012). While, the wide topsy‐turvy with anteriorly protrusible sub‐terminal mouth observed in the flatfish common solea, but the flat oral cavity observed in elasmobranch A. rostrata (Atkinson & Collin, 2012).…”

“…The buccal cavity of fishes was carefully washed in physiological saline solution (Alsafy et al, 2021; Breipohl, Bijvank, & Und zippel, 1973) to remove any mucus covering the surface of the buccal cavity, then fixed in formalin 10%. After fixation, the head was opened by dividing the head into an upper and a lower half by cutting horizontally through the mouth to the esophagus.…”

“…The morphological adaptations of the different parts of the different fish‐species had the high interest to many researchers (Abumandour & El‐Bakary, 2018; Alsafy et al, 2021; Yashpal, Kumari, Mittal, & Kumar Mittal, 2006). The buccal cavity is the gait for the entrance of all nutrients into the fish body and it is therefore important to understand the functions and limitations in processing capacity during early life stages.…”

“…The description of the taste buds and their distribution on the oral cavity of different feeding style fishes was studied by (Alsafy et al, 2021; Ezeasor, 1982; Meyer‐Rochow, 1981). The taste buds in the oral cavity were described in several fish‐species using SEM (Ezeasor, 1982; Fishelson et al, 2004; Fishelson & Delarea, 2004; Hansen, Reutter, & Zeiske, 2002; Meyer‐Rochow, 1981).…”