Pathologic tooth deformities in fossil and modern sharks related to jaw injuries

Balbino, Ausenda Cáceres; Antunes, Miguel Telles

doi:10.1016/j.crpv.2006.12.004

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More recently, Cretaceous amniote faunas of Angola were reviewed by Mateus et al (2012). Sharks were reviewed by Antunes and Cappetta (2002;Balbino and Antunes, 2007). Since 2005 Projecto PaleoAngola has discovered new sites and visited most of the sites discussed by Antunes (1964) that are still accessible, although some have been lost to growth or the ravages of former prolonged conflict.…”

Section: The Fossil Record Of Amniotes In Angolamentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-Gondwana Africa and the vertebrate history of the Angolan Atlantic Coast

Jacobs¹,

Polcyn²,

Mateus³

et al. 2016

MMV

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Fossil Record Of Amniotes In Angolamentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-Gondwana Africa and the vertebrate history of the Angolan Atlantic Coast

Jacobs¹,

Polcyn²,

Mateus³

et al. 2016

MMV

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, basally conjoined teeth of the Lower Devonian early-diverging chondrichthyan Leonodus carlsi ( Botella, 2006 ; Botella, Valenzuela-Ríos & Martínez-Pérez, 2009 ) are proposed to represent an example of fusion. Whereas, “bicuspid” and/or “coalescent” teeth and/or indeterminate double tooth abnormalities are identified in the Carcharhiniform Galeocerdo cuvier ( Gudger, 1937 , the author; however, uses the junior synonym Galeocerdo tigrinus named by Müller & Henle, 1837), the Lamniform Squalicorax pristodontus ( Balbino & Antunes, 2007 ), Rajiformes ( Delpiani, Figueroa & Mabragaña, 2012 ), and many other species within Carcharhiniformes and Lamniformes ( Agassiz, 1843 ; Balbino & Antunes, 2007 ; Becker, Chamberlain & Stoffer, 2000 ; Boessenecker, 2016 ; Cappetta & Case, 1975 ; Davis, 1890 ; Gudger, 1937 ; Hubbell, 1996 ; Itano, 2013 ; Roemer, 1849 ; Shimada, 1997 ; Vuuren et al, 2015 ). Various pathologies have been reported in O .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First is the absence of shared terminology reflective of shared etiology. Whereas double tooth pathologies in sharks are often referred to as “bicuspid” or “coalescent” ( e.g ., Balbino & Antunes, 2007 ; Botella, 2006 ; Botella, Valenzuela-Ríos & Martínez-Pérez, 2009 ; Delpiani, Figueroa & Mabragaña, 2012 ; Gudger, 1937 ), the terms “fusion,” “concrescence,” “gemination,” and/or “twinning” are common in mammalian studies. The latter terms are associated with developmental processes allowing direct etiological comparisons, whereas the former are generally ambiguous (undefined developmentally) with respect to splitting or fusion of the tooth bud during morphogenesis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given that the majority of pathological fossil shark teeth are recovered as isolated elements ( Martínez-Pérez et al, 2018 ; Becker, Chamberlain & Stoffer, 2000 ) and that the morphology of the dentition of sharks and mammals differ, refined diagnoses of double tooth pathologies in shark teeth based on developmental history are lacking. Double tooth pathologies including those simply described as bicuspid and/or coalescent teeth have been reported in chondrichthyans ( Leonodus carlsi ( Botella, 2006 ; Botella, Valenzuela-Ríos & Martínez-Pérez, 2009 ), Batoidea ( Becker, Chamberlain & Stoffer, 2000 ; Delpiani, Figueroa & Mabragaña, 2012 ; Romer, 1942 ), Chlamydoselachidae ( Gudger, 1937 ), Heterodontidae ( Gudger, 1937 ), Carcharhiniformes ( Balbino & Antunes, 2007 ; Becker, Chamberlain & Stoffer, 2000 ; Gudger, 1937 ), and Lamniformes ( Agassiz, 1843 ; Balbino & Antunes, 2007 ; Becker, Chamberlain & Stoffer, 2000 ; Boessenecker, 2016 ; Cappetta & Case, 1975 ; Davis, 1890 ; Hubbell, 1996 ; Itano, 2013 ; Roemer, 1849 ; Shimada, 1997 ; Vuuren et al, 2015 )). In the absence of a developmental diagnosis, questions remain about the commonality, homology, and phylogenetic distribution of the various types of tooth doubling in the fossil record, as well as the equivalence of these pathologies between mammals and chondrichthyans.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dental pathologies in lamniform and carcharhiniform sharks with comments on the classification and homology of double tooth pathologies in vertebrates

Miller

Avrahami

Zanno

2022

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Double tooth pathologies are important indicators of trauma, disease, diet, and feeding biomechanics, and are widely documented in mammals. However, diagnosis of double tooth pathologies in extinct non-mammalian vertebrates is complicated by several compounding factors including: a lack of shared terminology reflecting shared etiology, inconsistencies in definitions and key features within and outside of mammals (e.g., gemination, fusion, twinning, concrescence); differences in tooth morphology, heterodonty, regeneration, and implantation between mammals and non-mammalian vertebrates; and the unmet need for diagnostic criteria that can be applied to isolated teeth, which are common in the fossil record. Here we report on double tooth pathologies in the lamniform and carcharhiniform Cenozoic sharks Otodus megalodon (NCSM 33639) and Carcharhinus leucas (NCSM 33640, 33641). All three teeth bear a singular bifid crown with mirrored halves and abnormal internal microstructure—a single, bifurcating pulp cavity in C. leucas and a more than tripling of vessels in O. megalodon (from two to seven main ascending canals). We identify these abnormalities as likely examples of gemination due to their symmetry, which rules out fusion of tooth buds in one tooth file in different developmental stages in polyphyodont taxa; however, we note that incomplete forms of mesiodistal tooth fusion can be morphologically indistinguishable from gemination, and thus fusion cannot be rejected. We further compile and recategorize, when possible, the diversity of tooth pathologies in sharks. The identification of double tooth pathologies in O. megalodon and C. leucas has paleobiological implications. Such pathologies in sharks are largely hypothesized to stem from trauma to developing tooth buds. Carcharhinus leucas is known to feed on prey documented to cause feeding-related oral traumas (e.g., rays, sawfish, spiny fish, and sea urchins). However, O. megalodon, is considered to have largely fed on marine mammals, and perhaps turtles and/or fish, raising the possibility that the dietary diversity of this species is, as of yet, underappreciated. The genetic underpinnings of tooth morphogenesis and regeneration is highly conserved throughout vertebrate evolution, suggesting a homologous framework can be established. However, more research is needed to link developmental, paleobiological, and/or paleoenvironmental factors to gemination/fusion in polyphyodont taxa. We argue that the definitions and diagnostic criteria for dental pathologies in vertebrates require standardization in order to advance macroevolutionary studies of feeding trauma in deep time.

show abstract

“…Two sharks possessed unusual teeth with torsions, but pathologic teeth are expected to exist in at least 1% of Carcharhiniformes (Becker et al, 2000). Pathologic teeth are most likely a consequence of oral trauma, for example, from oral manipulation of spined or barbed prey and subsequent puncturing of tooth forming tissues causing irregularities in tooth development (Balbino and Antunes, 2007;Becker et al, 2000). Pathologic teeth were only observed in two adult C. leucas (5.9% of sharks), and it is unlikely that juveniles would target prey that could inflict enough damage to result in severe oral trauma.…”

Section: Bilateral Symmetrymentioning

confidence: 99%