Hubbry Logo
search
logo
Angelshark avatar
Angelshark
Angelshark
current hub
2193951

Angelshark

logo
Community Hub0 Subscribers
Read side by side
Angelshark
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Angel shark
Temporal range: Aptian–Recent
Australian angelshark (Squatina australis)
Sand devil (Squatina dumeril)
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Chondrichthyes
Subclass: Elasmobranchii
Division: Selachii
Superorder: Squalomorphi
Series: Squatinida
Order: Squatiniformes
Family: Squatinidae
Genus: Squatina
A. M. C. Duméril, 1806
Type species
Squalus squatina
Synonyms
  • Squalraia De la Pylaie, 1835
Angelsharks, off the coast of Fuerteventura

Angel sharks are sharks belonging to the genus Squatina. They are the only living members of the family Squatinidae and order Squatiniformes. They commonly inhabit sandy seabeds close to 150 m (490 ft) in depth.

Squatina and other Squatiniformes differ from other sharks in having flattened bodies and broad pectoral fins that give them a strong resemblance to rays. They occur worldwide in temperate and tropical seas. Most species inhabit shallow temperate or tropical seas, but a few species inhabit deeper water, down to 1,300 m (4,300 ft).[1] Angel sharks are sometimes called monkfish, although this name is also applied to members of the genus Lophius.

While some species occur over a wide geographic range, the majority are restricted to a smaller area. Restriction in geographic range might be as a result of the behaviour of Squatina species, which are ambush predators with a corresponding stationary bottom-dwelling habit. Thus, trans-ocean migration is extremely unlikely, even though large-scale coastal migratory patterns have been reported in species such as Squatina squatina.[2]

Many species are now classified as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Once common over large areas of the Northeast Atlantic from Norway, Sweden, Morocco and the Canary Islands, to the Mediterranean and Black Seas, fishing pressure has resulted in significant population decline.

Appearance and biology

[edit]

The angel shark has unique features that differentiates them from other sharks. They are considered as smaller sized sharks because they grow up to only 7 feet (2.1 m) and can weigh around 77 pounds (35 kg), as opposed to the whale shark that can measure up to 32 feet (9.8 m) and weigh 20,000 pounds (9,100 kg).

While the anterior part of the angel shark's body is broad and flattened, the posterior part retains a muscular appearance more typical of other sharks. The eyes and spiracles are dorsal and the five gill slits are on its back. Both the pectoral and pelvic fins are large and held horizontally. There are two dorsal fins, no anal fin and unusually for sharks, the lower lobe of the caudal fin is longer than the upper lobe. Most types grow to a length of 1.5 m (5 ft), with the Japanese angel shark, known to reach 2 m.[3] Some angel sharks have deformities that have been described in elasmobranchs. These can include skeletal deformities, as lateral spinal curvature (scoliosis), humpback curvature (khyphosis), axial spinal curvature (lordosis), missing fins, additional fins, deformed snout, and more. These abnormalities have only been found in a few sharks, but the causes of these deformities have been found to be from dietary nutritional imbalance, genetic factors, parasites, traumatic injuries, or stress in the specimen. In 2015, two sharks were captured and examined, and both showed a lateral spinal curvature (scoliosis) and also a humpback curvature. Both the animals had the curvature in the middle of their pectoral fins, but the deformity did not affect their swimming capacity.

Spinal scoliosis has been reported to be diverse in sharks, but mostly in pelagic sharks that depend on their swimming abilities to catch their prey. For the angel shark, specifically S. squatina, these curvatures do not seem to significantly affect its hunting capacity, which involves burying itself to ambush their prey. Right now, research is assuming most physical injuries are caused by human interactions because of the constant interference in coastal areas, where most of the sharks reside. There have been few attacks reported, and what few have occurred were due to accidental stepping on of buried newborn sharks.[4] Landings of Pacific angel shark increased through the mid-1980s and reached over 1,125 tonnes in 1986, becoming the shark species with the highest total reported landings off the US West coast that year.[5]

Angel sharks possess extensible jaws that can rapidly snap upwards to capture prey and have long, needle-like teeth. They bury themselves in loose sediment lying in wait for prey, which includes fish, crustaceans and various types of mollusks.[1] They are ovoviviparous, producing litters of up to 13 pups. Pacific angel shark pups are born from March to June in deep water; generally 180 to 300 feet (55 and 90 metres); possibly to protect the pups from predators.[6]

Angel sharks usually reside in depths of 1–200 metres (3.3–656.2 ft) and can be seen on muddy or soft benthic substrata where they can easily blend in as they lie in wait. Members of the family Squatinidae have a unique camouflage method, which relates to how they obtain their food, involving lying still on the sea floor, making rapid lunges at passing prey, and using negative pressure to capture prey by sucking it into their mouths.[7]

Species analysis

[edit]

Morphological identification in the field can be difficult due to discontinuity and similarity of species. In this specific circumstance, the sharks' place within the genus Squatina comprises three species in the southern part of the western Atlantic. The three species observed were Squatina guggenheim, S. occulta and the Brazilian guitarfish Pseudobatos horkelii. These three species are listed in the IUCN Red List as threatened, and they are now protected under Brazilian law, which makes angling and exchange illegal. To prevent landing and trade of these endangered species along the São Paulo, DNA barcoding was used. DNA barcoding revealed fishing and trafficking of these protected species.[8]

Habitat

[edit]

Angel sharks inhabit temperate and tropical marine environments. They are generally found in shallow waters at depths from 3–100 metres (9.8–328.1 ft) off coasts. They are known to bury themselves in sandy or muddy environments during the day, where they remain camouflaged for weeks until a desirable prey crosses paths with them. At night, they take a more active approach and cruise on the bottom of the floor. Squatina preys on fish, crustaceans, and cephalopods.

Behaviour

[edit]

Although this shark is a bottom-dweller and appears harmless, it can inflict painful lacerations if provoked, due to its powerful jaws and sharp teeth. It may bite if a diver approaches the head or grabs the tail.[9]

Angelsharks have a unique way of breathing compared to most other benthic fish. They do not pump out water from the oropharyngeal cavity like other fish. Instead they use gill flaps located under their body to pump out water during respiration. Doing so also allows them to be more discreet and prevent detection.[10]

Commercial value

[edit]

Prior to the late 1980s, the Pacific angel shark was considered a "munk fish".[11] It was a byproduct of commercial gillnetting, with no commercial appeal and was used only for crab bait. In 1977, Michael Wagner, a fish processor in Santa Barbara, California, US, in cooperation with local commercial fishermen, developed the market for angel sharks.[11] The annual take of angel shark in 1977 was an estimated 147 kg.[11] By 1985, the annual take of angel shark on the central California coast had increased to more than 454 tonnes or an estimated 90,000 sharks.[11] The population declined dramatically and is now regulated. Angel sharks live very close to shore, resulting in high bycatch rates. In 1991, the use of gillnets in nearshore state waters of California was forbidden, and fishing was restricted in a larger portion of the Pacific angel shark's range.[12]

In April 2008, the UK government afforded the angel shark full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Conservation

[edit]

Once considered abundant in the Atlantic Ocean, the angel shark (Squatina squatina) was classified as "Critically Endangered" in 2010, and recent studies from the IUCN in 2019 reaffirm their CR status.[13][14] Angel sharks are highly sensitive to bottom trawling and are often caught in gillnets, due to their shallow habitat range.

Angel sharks found in the Mediterranean Sea, S. aculeata, S. oculata, and S. squatina, are at a high risk of extinction, with geographic studies projecting severe population declines for the three species.[15] The Angel Shark Conservation Network, a network established by the IUCN and Shark Trust, is working with authorities from Greece and Turkey to establish conservation strategies to protect angel shark populations in the region.[16]

Evolution

[edit]

The earliest members of the Squatiniformes are known from the Late Jurassic (from around 160 million years ago) of Europe, assigned to the genus Pseudorhina. Preserved full body specimens of Pseudorhina are very similar to those of living Squatina species.[17][18] The earliest records that can be assigned with confidence to the modern genus are known from the Early Cretaceous (Aptian) of England.[19]

Species

[edit]

Extant species

[edit]

Currently, the 26 recognized species in this genus are:

[25][2]

Extinct species

[edit]

The following fossil species are known:[26]

The majority of these are known only from isolated teeth, but S. cranei and S. baumbergensis are known from well-preserved body fossils.[27]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Angelshark

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Angelsharks are sharks belonging to the family Squatinidae and order Squatiniformes, encompassing around 24 species within the genus Squatina.[1] These bottom-dwelling elasmobranchs feature a highly flattened body with pectoral fins enlarged and fused to the sides of the head, forming a disc-shaped outline reminiscent of rays, though they retain the typical shark traits of a terminal mouth, five gill slits, and no anal fin.[2] [3] Primarily inhabiting sandy or muddy seabeds in temperate and tropical coastal waters worldwide at depths from shallow inshore areas to over 500 meters, angelsharks employ a sit-and-wait ambush strategy, burying themselves in sediment and emerging to capture prey including bony fishes, crustaceans, mollusks, and cephalopods using rapid jaw protrusion.[4] [3] They exhibit ovoviviparity, with females giving live birth to litters of 7 to 25 pups after gestations varying from 8 to 12 months, though their slow maturation—often reaching sexual maturity at 10-15 years—and low fecundity render populations vulnerable to exploitation.[5] [3] The family ranks as one of the most imperiled among elasmobranchs, with 56.5% of assessed species classified as threatened on the IUCN Red List, driven chiefly by incidental capture in trawl and set-net fisheries that have decimated historical abundances, particularly in regions like the Mediterranean and North Atlantic where some populations have declined by over 90%.[1] [6] Conservation efforts include fishery restrictions and protected areas in select locales, underscoring the need for targeted management to avert further extinctions in this ancient lineage tracing back over 150 million years.[7][1]

Taxonomy and Phylogeny

Classification and Etymology

The angelsharks comprise the monotypic extant genus Squatina within the family Squatinidae and order Squatiniformes, both of which contain no other living members.[4][8] This classification reflects their distinct evolutionary lineage among elasmobranchs, characterized by a combination of shark-like and ray-like traits that historically complicated their taxonomic placement.[9] The genus name Squatina, established by Duméril in 1805, originates from the Latin squatina or squatum, an ancient term used by Pliny the Elder for angelsharks or similar flat-bodied elasmobranchs, synonymous with the Greek rhinus denoting sharks or rays.[10] This nomenclature underscores their dorsoventrally flattened form, which superficially resembles skates. The common English name "angelshark" derives from the expansive, wing-like pectoral fins that extend forward and outward, evoking the silhouette of an angel when the animal lies ambush-prone on the seafloor.[8] Historically, the type species Squatina squatina was initially classified by Carl Linnaeus in 1758 under the genus Squalus (dogfish sharks) due to limited understanding of their affinities, with early naturalists often conflating them with rays owing to their benthic, flattened morphology.[8] By the 19th century, detailed anatomical examinations—particularly of jaw structure, fin supports, and skeletal features—reaffirmed their status as true sharks (Selachimorpha) rather than batoids, leading to the establishment of Squatiniformes as a separate order in modern chondrichthyan taxonomy.[11] Fossil evidence indicates that squatiniform-like forms appeared in the Early Cretaceous, supporting their ancient, conservative body plan with minimal diversification among extant taxa.[12]

Evolutionary Relationships

Molecular phylogenetic studies place the order Squatiniformes within the superorder Squalomorphii, occupying a basal position among neoselachian sharks and diverging early from other elasmobranch lineages, with Hexanchiformes often resolved as the sister group or more basal.[13] This positioning is supported by analyses of mitochondrial genomes and multi-locus datasets, which recover Squatiniformes as monophyletic and typically sister to Pristiophoriformes or integrated into broader squalomorph clades excluding batoids.[14] Morphological cladistics further corroborates this through shared primitive traits, such as a shark-like tail and pectoral girdle structure distinct from the expanded radials of rays.[12] The family Squatinidae, encompassing the genus Squatina, exhibits strong monophyly across molecular markers including cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) and 16S ribosomal RNA, with divergence times estimated from fossil-calibrated phylogenies indicating an origin in the Late Jurassic around 156–182 million years ago.[15] Recent phylogenomic efforts post-2020, incorporating expanded genomic sampling, affirm this monophyly and highlight low genetic divergence among species, reflecting an ancient, conservative lineage with persistence through major extinction events.[16] Node age constraints derive from stratigraphic data of early squatinid fossils, providing a hard minimum of 156.2 Ma.[11] Despite their dorsoventrally flattened bodies and benthic habits resembling those of batoids (rays and skates in Rajiformes), these features in angelsharks result from convergent evolution rather than shared ancestry, as phylogenetic reconstructions consistently exclude Squatiniformes from Batoidea.[17] Specific convergences include craniovertebral articulations and pectoral fin expansions adapted for ambush predation on the seafloor, independent of batoid innovations like expanded pectoral radials fusing to the head.[16] This distinction underscores Squatiniformes as a relictual shark order, not transitional to ray-like forms.[12]

Morphology and Physiology

Body Structure and Adaptations

Angelsharks possess a distinctive dorsoventrally flattened body morphology, with enlarged pectoral and pelvic fins fused to the head and trunk, forming a broad disc-like structure that superficially resembles skates and rays.[12][18] This body plan, conserved since the Late Jurassic approximately 160 million years ago, supports a benthic lifestyle through enhanced contact with the substrate.[12] The overall length varies by species, with Squatina squatina reaching maximum total lengths of 244 cm in females and 183 cm in males.[19] The dorsal and ventral surfaces are covered in small, pointed dermal denticles, which provide a textured integument; in various species, enlarged thorn-like denticles occur along the midline of the snout, back, and tail, as well as on fin margins, enhancing structural protection.[20] The cloaca is positioned ventrally toward the posterior of the disc, aligning with the flattened form.[21] Internally, the jaws bear sharp, cuspidate teeth arranged in multiple rows, adapted for gripping, while the caudal fin remains relatively small with a longer lower lobe than upper, contributing to the posterior streamlining of the body.[5][22]

Sensory and Locomotor Features

Angelsharks exhibit sensory adaptations suited to benthic ambush predation, including a dense array of ampullae of Lorenzini concentrated on the ventral head and snout, which detect weak electric fields from prey bioelectricity at distances up to several body lengths, even through sediment occlusion.[23] These gel-filled electroreceptors, numbering in the thousands per individual, respond to fields as low as 5 nanovolts per centimeter, providing precise localization in turbid or buried conditions.[23] [24] Dorsal eyes, often with a high density of rod photoreceptors for low-light vision, protrude above the substrate during burial, enabling overhead prey surveillance; eye diameter varies interspecifically, with Squatina albipunctata possessing proportionally larger eyes (up to 2% of body length) adapted for dimmer, deeper-water detection compared to shallow-water congeners.[25] Nasal barbels, typically simple and conical in species like Squatina squatina or fringed in others such as Squatina aculeata, extend from the nostrils to tactilely probe sediments for buried prey, augmenting chemosensory input from adjacent olfactory rosettes.[4] [24] A lateral line system along the body detects hydrodynamic disturbances and vibrations from approaching organisms.[24] Prominent spiracles posterior to the eyes facilitate passive respiration via muscular pumping of water over gills, allowing sustained burial without surfacing or locomotion, thus minimizing detection risk.[5] Locomotion emphasizes energy-efficient burial over sustained swimming; pectoral fins, expanded into ray-like discs, enable rapid substrate shoveling for concealment, while relocation involves slow, undulating glides propelled by pectoral oscillations and caudal beats, attaining speeds rarely exceeding 1 body length per second.[3] This sedentary strategy, with individuals remaining embedded for days, contrasts with active pursuit in pelagic sharks, prioritizing camouflage in soft sediments.[3]

Distribution and Habitat

Global Range

Angelsharks of the genus Squatina inhabit temperate and subtropical continental shelf waters across the Eastern Atlantic, Indo-Pacific, and Eastern Pacific oceans, with approximately 22 extant species exhibiting patchy distributions and regional endemism.[15] These species are absent from polar regions, the open deep ocean, and the Western Atlantic beyond localized occurrences.[26] In the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, Squatina squatina historically ranged from southern Scandinavia and the North Sea southward to northwestern Africa, including the Canary Islands, though it has been extirpated from the North Sea by the mid-20th century.[27] Other Eastern Atlantic species include Squatina oculata and Squatina aculeata, concentrated in Mediterranean hotspots.[28] The Indo-Pacific hosts diverse Squatina species with biogeographic clustering, such as Squatina japonica in the Northwest Pacific and endemic forms like Squatina australis and Squatina albipunctata restricted to southern and eastern Australia, respectively.[29] [30] Additional Indo-Pacific endemics occur in the eastern Indian Ocean and southwestern Pacific margins.[31] In the Eastern Pacific, Squatina californica extends from the Gulf of California northward to Alaska along the continental shelf, while southeastern Pacific congeners like the Chilean angelshark show localized endemism.[32] Southwestern Atlantic extensions include Squatina argentina and Squatina varii off eastern Brazil.[1]

Environmental Preferences and Microhabitats

Angelsharks inhabit benthic environments characterized by soft substrates such as sand, mud, or muddy sand, which facilitate burrowing into loose sediments for concealment and stability.[33][34] These microhabitats are typically found on continental shelves and inshore coastal zones, where fine-grained particles predominate over rocky or gravelly bottoms.[33] Species like Squatina squatina show a marked preference for such unconsolidated sediments, with 67% of records associated with sandy substrates.[33] Preferred depths generally span shallow coastal waters from 5 to 50 meters, though tolerances extend to 150 meters for S. squatina and up to 500 meters for others like S. oculata, with optimal zones often between 50 and 100 meters on upper slopes.[34][33] They favor low-energy settings with minimal currents, including sheltered estuaries and lagoons, where salinity hovers around 34 ppt, enabling adaptation to brackish influences without strong hydrodynamic disruption.[33] Temperature optima align with temperate to subtropical regimes, typically 10–25°C across the genus, though regional variations occur; for instance, S. guggenheim prefers 7–18.5°C, while S. squatina records span 14–22°C.[35][33] A 2025 study on S. squatina identified a female-specific upper thermal threshold near 22.5°C, above which habitat suitability declines precipitously, with peak presence at approximately 19.6°C.[36] These abiotic tolerances underpin sedentary occupancy of stable microhabitats, prioritizing sediment burrowability and thermal consistency over dynamic flows.[33]

Ecology and Behavior

Feeding Strategies

Angelsharks (Squatina spp.) are ambush predators that employ a lie-and-wait strategy, typically burying themselves in soft sediments on the seafloor with only their eyes and spiracles exposed to detect passing prey.[3][37] This tactic allows them to remain motionless for extended periods, conserving energy in their low-activity benthic lifestyle.[38] Upon prey detection, angelsharks execute a rapid strike involving pronounced jaw protrusion and buccal suction, forming a tubular mouth that generates forceful intake to engulf benthic fishes, crustaceans, and cephalopods within milliseconds.[39] Prey capture relies on this mechanism rather than active pursuit, with upper jaw extension and hyoid depression creating negative pressure to draw victims into the oral cavity, complemented by grasping teeth adapted for holding soft-bodied or demersal items.[39][38] Their diet is opportunistic and benthic-oriented, comprising primarily teleosts (e.g., flatfishes and gobies), decapod crustaceans, cephalopods, and occasionally elasmobranchs or mollusks, with composition varying by species, region, and shark size.[40][4] Juveniles preferentially consume smaller invertebrates such as mysids and decapods, reflecting ontogenetic shifts toward larger teleost prey in adults, which dominate the diet in larger individuals across populations.[41][42] This size-based prey selection aligns with gape limitations and habitat overlap, enabling efficient foraging without high energetic costs.[41]

Reproductive Biology

Angelsharks (Squatina spp.) reproduce via internal fertilization, in which males use claspers to transfer sperm to the female's reproductive tract, followed by aplacental viviparity where embryos develop within thin-walled eggs in the uterus and derive nutrition solely from yolk sacs (lecithotrophy).[43][3] Unlike placental viviparity in some sharks, no maternal nutrient transfer occurs beyond the initial yolk provision, and females typically possess a single functional left ovary.[44] Gestation periods range from 8 to 12 months across species, with embryo growth progressing gradually inside the mother until live birth of fully formed pups.[4][45] Litter sizes vary from 7 to 25 pups, positively correlated with maternal body size and condition, reflecting relatively low fecundity compared to many other elasmobranchs.[3][46] Reproductive cycles are often biennial, involving a prolonged oocyte maturation phase alternating with pregnancy, though annual cycles occur in some populations such as the Pacific angelshark (S. californica).[44][5] Sexual maturity is attained at total lengths of 80-120 cm, varying by species and sex; for example, in the Atlantic angelshark (S. dumeril), females reach 50% maturity at approximately 86 cm and males at 81 cm.[47][38] Breeding exhibits seasonal patterns, with mating often peaking in warmer months and parturition timed to favorable conditions, such as spring (February-June) in temperate Atlantic populations or March-June in eastern Pacific waters.[45][48] Pups are born at lengths of 22-27 cm, independently capable of ambush predation shortly after release.[49]

Social and Movement Patterns

Angelsharks of the genus Squatina are predominantly solitary, with adults rarely observed in groups outside of brief encounters. Juveniles, however, exhibit aggregation tendencies in seasonal nursery areas, particularly in shallow coastal sands and seagrasses where pregnant females give birth; such sites have been documented in regions like the Canary Islands, with one confirmed nursery and multiple potential areas identified through surveys combining citizen science, satellite imagery, and direct observations.[50][51] These aggregations are temporary and density-dependent, serving habitat partitioning rather than sustained social interactions. Movement patterns reflect their benthic ambush lifestyle, characterized by limited mobility and high site fidelity. Tagging data from over 1,000 individuals of S. squatina recaptured between 1970 and 2006 indicate short-distance displacements, typically under 10 km, with no evidence of long-range migrations.[52] Acoustic telemetry and recent satellite tagging efforts, such as those in Irish waters in 2024, further confirm residency to specific bays or reefs, with individuals showing repeated detections over months.[53] Diurnal rhythms are marked by inactivity during daylight hours, when angelsharks bury themselves in substrate, emerging primarily at night for activity; spatiotemporal studies of S. squatina reveal significant differences in space use between day and night, influenced by sex and season.[54] Environmental cues, including tidal cycles, modulate these patterns, with some species like the Pacific angelshark (S. californica) displaying heightened sluggishness or burial during low-activity periods tied to tidal flows, though responses vary by habitat turbidity and prey availability.[55][56]

Species Diversity

Extant Species

The genus Squatina includes 23 recognized extant species of angelsharks, primarily distinguished by variations in dermal denticle patterns, such as the presence, number, and arrangement of midline thorns or spines, as well as differences in barbel shape, pectoral fin margins, dentition, and coloration.[20] These benthic sharks inhabit continental shelves and upper slopes in temperate to tropical waters globally, with species ranges often allopatric and limited to specific ocean basins.[15] Recent taxonomic revisions, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, have involved splits based on integrated morphological and molecular data, including new descriptions like S. leae from the western Indian Ocean in 2023 and S. mapama from the western Atlantic in 2021.[20][57] As of December 2023, the IUCN Red List assesses 13 of these 23 species as threatened (Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable).[1] In the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, Squatina squatina (angelshark) is the dominant species, identifiable by its large size (up to 2.4 m total length), conical barbels, and largely thornless dorsal surface in adults; it formerly ranged from Scandinavia to northwest Africa but is now critically depleted outside isolated pockets.[19] Associated species include S. aculeata (sawback angelshark), noted for prominent midline thorns, and S. oculata (smoothback angelshark), with smoother dorsal denticles, both historically present in the Mediterranean.[4] The eastern Pacific hosts S. californica (Pacific angelshark), distinguished by its broad pectoral fins and reaching 1.5 m, endemic from Baja California to Alaska, and S. armata (Chilean angelshark) from Peru to Chile, featuring robust thorns along the midline.[5] Western Atlantic species encompass S. dumeril (Atlantic angelshark, often synonymous with regional forms), S. sagittina (sand devil), and recently described S. mapama, differentiated by unique vertebral meristics and genetic markers.[57] Indo-Pacific diversity is higher, with species such as S. japonica (Japanese angelshark) in the northwest Pacific, characterized by spotted dorsal coloration, and S. australis (Australian angelshark) off southern Australia, lacking prominent spines; recent additions include S. formosa, S. tergocellata, and three Indo-Australian endemics described in 2019, split via fin ray counts and molecular phylogenetics.[58] Southwestern Atlantic forms like S. argentina, S. guggenheim (angular angelshark), and S. occulta (hidden angelshark) exhibit regional endemism, with distinctions in snout shape and denticle distribution following 2013 revisions.[59] African and Indian Ocean representatives, including S. africana and the newly erected S. leae, feature bright beige dorsal hues and specific spine configurations.[20]

Fossil and Extinct Taxa

The fossil record of Squatiniformes, the order encompassing angelsharks, dates to the Late Jurassic, with a hard minimum age of 156.2 million years ago based on calibrated phylogenies incorporating skeletal and dental remains.[11] Earliest known taxa include members of the extinct genus Pseudorhina, assigned to the new family †Pseudorhinidae, which exhibit primitive squatiniform features such as thorn-like dermal denticles and distinct tooth morphologies differing from later Squatina species.[11] These Jurassic forms suggest an ancient origin for the flattened body plan and ambush predation strategy observed in modern angelsharks, though gaps in the record may reflect taphonomic biases or underdeveloped diagnostic traits in early teeth.[11] Extinct species within Squatinidae, the family of extant angelsharks, appear from the Early Cretaceous onward, indicating diversification post-Jurassic. Notable taxa include †Squatina cranei from the Cenomanian stage (~93.59 Ma) of southern England and northern France, redescribed from isolated teeth and skeletal elements showing affinities to modern forms but with regional endemism.[16][11] A distinct Late Cretaceous genus, †Cretasquatina americana, known from three-dimensional endoskeletal fossils (including palatoquadrates and vertebrae) at the Harrell Station site in Alabama, USA, occupies a stem position closer to Squatina than to Pseudorhina, highlighting North American paleodiversity during the Campanian-Maastrichtian.[16] Other fossil Squatina records, such as †S. baumbergensis from the Upper Campanian (~76 Ma), evidence broader historical distributions across Laurasian continents compared to the more temperate, shelf-restricted ranges of living species.[11] No evidence links prehistoric extinctions in Squatiniformes to the anthropogenic pressures driving contemporary declines; instead, fossil patterns reflect episodic local disappearances tied to sea-level fluctuations and habitat shifts, with the lineage persisting without mass die-offs into the Paleogene.[11] Quaternary records remain sparse, primarily isolated teeth from biodetrital deposits, underscoring a conservative morphology that bridges Mesozoic origins to modern faunas.[11]
Extinct TaxonGeological AgeKey LocationsNotes
†Pseudorhina acanthodermaLate Kimmeridgian (152.2–150.8 Ma)EuropePrimitive squatiniform; thorn-like denticles.[11]
†Pseudorhina aliferaEarly Tithonian (~150.8 Ma)EuropeAssigned to †Pseudorhinidae.[11]
†Squatina craneiCenomanian (~93.59 Ma)England, FranceRedescribed teeth; Squatinidae affinities.[16][11]
†Cretasquatina americanaLate Cretaceous (Campanian-Maastrichtian)Alabama, USANew genus; stem squatinid endoskeleton.[16]
†Squatina baumbergensisUpper Campanian (~76 Ma)EuropeIndicates Laurasian distribution.[11]

Human Interactions and Exploitation

Commercial Fisheries and Economic Value

Angelsharks (genus Squatina) have historically been targeted in commercial fisheries across the Mediterranean Sea and parts of the Indo-Pacific for their meat, which is valued for human consumption, and to a lesser extent for fins and other products like liver oil.[1] In the Mediterranean, species such as Squatina squatina supported dedicated fishing efforts, including large fleets in the Adriatic region, where landings were recorded at local markets like Venice until recent declines.[60] Turkish fisheries reported a peak of 51 tonnes of angelshark landings in 2006, primarily from trawl and gillnet operations, before sharp reductions.[61] In the eastern Pacific, the Pacific angelshark (S. californica) experienced a targeted gillnet fishery off California starting in 1976, with annual landings exceeding 450 metric tonnes (over 1 million pounds) in 1985 and 1986, driven by demand for fillets that briefly surpassed thresher shark catches in value for the U.S. market.[62] These yields contributed to local economies through processing into high-value products, though the fishery collapsed by the mid-1990s due to overexploitation. In Asian waters, species like S. japonica have been incidentally harvested but with limited documented targeted commercial yields, often integrated into broader elasmobranch fisheries for meat export.[63] Contemporary commercial exploitation is minimal and heavily restricted; for instance, S. squatina is prohibited from targeted fishing, retention, or landing in European Union waters, including the Canary Islands, shifting any residual economic activity toward non-consumptive uses like historical artisanal sales rather than large-scale harvests.[64] Angelshark meat has been noted for its economic desirability in export markets, with historical trade emphasizing its quality for fillets, though specific per-kilogram values remain undocumented relative to dominant shark products like fins.[65] Overall, past fisheries provided nutritional protein sources rich in omega-3 fatty acids to coastal communities, but current regulations have curtailed direct economic benefits from harvesting.[1]

Bycatch and Incidental Impacts

Angelsharks exhibit high vulnerability to incidental capture in demersal fisheries employing bottom trawls, gillnets, and trammel nets, owing to their sedentary, benthic ambush predation behavior that affords limited evasion capabilities from such gear.[66][52] This susceptibility extends across life stages, with juveniles particularly prone to retention in nets due to their smaller size and habitat overlap with fishing grounds.[67] In the Mediterranean Sea, intensified bottom trawling since the mid-20th century has driven severe population declines in species like Squatina squatina, with bycatch contributing substantially to range contractions and abundance reductions exceeding 80% in some subregions over the past five decades.[4][68] For instance, records from Tunisian and Maltese waters document sporadic incidental captures in trawl operations, underscoring ongoing pressure despite regulatory bans on targeted fishing.[69] Even discarded individuals face elevated post-release mortality from capture-induced stress, barotrauma, and handling injuries, though species-specific rates remain underquantified; general data for demersal elasmobranchs indicate at-vessel mortality can exceed 20-40% depending on gear soak time and condition upon release.[67][70] Recreational angling incidentally hooks angelsharks in coastal areas, particularly where bait targets bottom-dwelling prey, leading to discards that may incur additional mortality if not handled promptly to minimize air exposure and injury.[52][66] In regions like the eastern Atlantic, such interactions compound commercial bycatch effects, though quantitative impacts are limited by underreporting in angler logs.[71] Efforts to mitigate include fisher education on live release techniques, yet persistent incidental mortality hinders population recovery.[72]

Conservation Status

Threat Assessments and Population Trends

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies more than half of angelshark species as threatened with extinction, with 8 species listed as Critically Endangered, 4 as Endangered, and 1 as Vulnerable based on assessments reflecting global population declines.[71] These evaluations draw from empirical data including catch records and survey abundances, indicating severe reductions across the family's range.[1] For the common angelshark (Squatina squatina), listed as Critically Endangered by the IUCN, population declines exceed 80% in the Mediterranean Sea and approach 97% in the Celtic Sea since the 1970s, as evidenced by standardized survey indices and historical landing data adjusted for effort.[73] In the southern North Sea, the species has nearly disappeared over the past half-century, with fishery-independent trawl surveys recording no captures since the early 2000s despite increased sampling effort.[27] Angling records further document a marked reduction in captures, supporting estimates of over 90% decline in targeted hotspots.[74] Regionally, S. squatina has been extirpated from much of the Irish Sea and central hotspots in Irish waters, where angling data from 1812 to 2020 show a collapse in sightings, with only sporadic individuals reported after the 1990s.[74] In the northeastern Atlantic, range contraction by approximately 58% over the last century has left remnant populations confined to isolated areas like the Canary Islands.[33] The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries' 2024 five-year review affirmed the endangered status of S. squatina under the Endangered Species Act, citing ongoing low abundances and lack of recovery signals from available data.[75] Population trends for angelsharks are primarily tracked via fisheries-independent methods, such as demersal trawl surveys, which yield rare encounters indicative of depleted stocks, supplemented by local fisher knowledge spanning decades to reconstruct historical baselines.[67][76]

Primary Causal Factors

Overexploitation through demersal fishing gear, particularly bottom trawling and gillnets, represents the dominant causal factor in angelshark declines across multiple species in the genus Squatina. These methods directly target or incidentally capture the sedentary, bottom-dwelling habits of angelsharks, leading to high mortality rates uncorrelated with natural population dynamics but strongly linked to historical increases in fishing effort. Stock assessments and regional reviews, such as those for S. squatina in the North Atlantic, document over 80% depletions tied to intensified trawling since the mid-20th century, with causal evidence from fishery landings data showing parallel rises in effort and species removals. Empirical correlations in Mediterranean and European waters further substantiate this, as angelsharks' ambush predation strategy renders them vulnerable to gear that disrupts benthic habitats, absent comparable impacts from non-human predation which remains negligible due to their size and defensive morphology.[67][68][1] Habitat degradation from anthropogenic activities, including dredging for coastal infrastructure and bottom-tending fisheries, contributes secondarily by altering preferred soft-sediment substrates like sand and mud flats essential for burial and foraging. Dredging resuspends sediments and reduces prey availability, with documented impacts in coastal zones overlapping angelshark ranges, such as the Canary Islands and Mediterranean shelves, where such disturbances have fragmented remnant populations without evidence of recovery in affected areas. These effects compound fishing pressures but are subordinate, as pre-decline distributions persisted despite natural sediment shifts, indicating human-scale alterations as the proximate driver.[77][78][1] Emerging climate-driven factors, including ocean warming, are beginning to influence distribution and behavior, particularly for S. squatina, as evidenced by 2025 studies showing female individuals shifting away from traditional mating grounds in response to temperature thresholds exceeding physiological tolerances. These shifts, observed via habitat modeling in warming hotspots like the eastern Atlantic, predict range contractions but lack the direct, quantifiable biomass removals of fishing, positioning them as exacerbating rather than primary causes based on current temporal scales of impact. Natural variability in predation or disease, conversely, shows no causal linkage to observed declines in peer-reviewed analyses.[36][79][80]

Management Interventions and Outcomes

The European Union implemented a prohibition on the retention, transshipment, and landing of Squatina squatina in Union waters under Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009, effective from 2009, with subsequent extensions to recreational fisheries via Regulation (EU) 2019/1241.[81] This measure aimed to halt targeted exploitation and reduce mortality from commercial fisheries across the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean.[71] In the Canary Islands, a key remaining stronghold for S. squatina, the Angelshark Action Plan launched in 2016 proposed integrating critical habitats into Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Natura 2000 sites, alongside legislative protections such as inclusion in Spain's national endangered species list in 2019, which bans killing, capture, or disturbance.[78][82] Identification of nursery areas, such as Las Teresitas in Tenerife, has informed targeted monitoring, but full MPA implementation remains pending, with emphasis on habitat-specific protections to minimize incidental impacts.[82] The Angel Shark Conservation Network (ASCN), established around 2016, coordinates multi-stakeholder initiatives including citizen science sightings maps, fisher education on handling practices, and subregional action plans to enhance reporting and reduce bycatch since 2019.[83][84] Post-implementation data indicate mixed results, with minimal reported landings of prohibited species since 2010 but persistent bycatch in demersal fisheries, contributing to ongoing population declines and range contractions estimated at up to 58% in some assessments.[85][67] Juvenile sightings in areas like the Canary Islands suggest localized breeding persistence, yet no broad-scale recovery has been documented, with OSPAR assessments rating status as "poor" and devoid of improvement signals as of recent evaluations.[86][82] Enforcement challenges, particularly in recreational sectors and regions with limited monitoring capacity, undermine efficacy, as incidental captures continue despite prohibitions, exacerbated by data gaps in non-commercial fisheries.[78][68] ASCN efforts have improved awareness and reporting, but quantifiable population rebounds remain elusive, highlighting the need for stricter bycatch mitigation and habitat safeguards.[83]

Debates on Decline Estimates

A 2025 study utilizing half a century of local fisher knowledge in Wales concluded that prior estimates of a 70% decline in angelshark (Squatina squatina) abundance between 1970 and 2016 likely overstated the true population reduction, attributing much of the apparent drop to shifts in fishing practices, gear types, and socioeconomic factors that reduced encounter and reporting rates rather than absolute biomass loss.[76] These methodological artifacts, including decreased use of traditional bottom-set nets and altered spatial effort in coastal fisheries, confounded survey data without accounting for behavioral changes among fishers, leading the authors to advocate for integrating qualitative fisher insights with quantitative metrics to refine decline trajectories.[87] Debates persist over the inconsistent application of IUCN Red List criteria across angelshark assessments, where reliance on historical landing records and anecdotal sightings often yields variable decline inferences without standardized baselines for detection probability or habitat-specific abundance.[68] Critics argue that such criteria undervalue cryptic behaviors like burial in sediments, potentially inflating perceived depletions, and propose genetics-based metrics—such as effective population size (N_e) estimates from genomic sequencing—to provide more robust indicators of demographic viability independent of fishing-dependent data.[88] For instance, recent genomic analyses in Mediterranean refugia revealed low but structured genetic diversity, suggesting fragmented subpopulations that could sustain localized persistence despite broader trends.[89] Indicators of resilience include sporadic verified sightings of angelsharks in actively fished areas of Wales and the Canary Islands, where individuals persist amid ongoing demersal trawling, hinting at adaptive evasion strategies or under-sampled refugia that challenge uniform extinction risk models.[90] These observations, corroborated by eDNA detections in Cardigan Bay, imply that decline estimates may overlook density-dependent recovery potential in low-density regimes, though proponents of conservative IUCN listings counter that such events do not negate cumulative historical pressures.[91]

Evolutionary History

Paleontological Record

The fossil record of Squatinidae, the family encompassing the genus Squatina, documents a lineage originating in the Late Jurassic, approximately 150–160 million years ago, with the earliest known specimens consisting of complete skeletons preserved in the Solnhofen limestone deposits of southern Germany.[92][12] These articulated fossils reveal a body plan already resembling modern angelsharks, characterized by dorsoventral flattening and benthic adaptations, indicating early specialization for ambush predation on seafloors.[12] Isolated teeth assignable to Squatina sp. extend the record sporadically through the Cretaceous, including a partial skeleton from the Aptian stage (Early Cretaceous) that supports crown-group recognition, though skeletal preservation remains rare due to the cartilaginous nature of shark endoskeletons.[11] A Late Cretaceous genus, Cretasquatina americana, further attests to diversification in North American marine settings during this period.[16] Post-Cretaceous evidence shows abundance in Eocene deposits associated with the Tethys Sea, such as the Ypresian (early Eocene) Konservat-Lagerstätte at Bolca, Italy, where Squatina teeth and rare skeletal elements occur amid diverse elasmobranch assemblages, reflecting warm, shallow neritic environments conducive to benthic preservation.[93][94] Taphonomic biases favor tooth recovery over skeletons in these anoxic, fine-grained sediments, which selectively preserve hard dental structures from bottom-dwelling taxa like angelsharks while underrepresenting pelagic forms.[93] Miocene records, including Squatina sp. teeth from European sites like the Upper Marine Molasse in southern Germany and deep-water assemblages in Slovakia, indicate persistence in temperate to subtropical seas, with continued reliance on coastal and shelf habitats.[11][95] The genus demonstrates remarkable continuity across the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) boundary extinction event, with post-event Eocene fossils mirroring pre-event morphologies and no evident hiatus in the dental record, underscoring Squatinidae's resilience as a low-metabolic, habitat-specialized group less vulnerable to surface-ocean perturbations.[92][12] Overall, the paleontological distribution highlights a stable, conservative evolutionary trajectory from Jurassic origins through Cenozoic diversification, primarily evidenced by microremains in marginal marine and paralic facies rather than open-ocean pelagic settings.[11]

Adaptive Radiation and Persistence

The family Squatinidae, comprising angelsharks of the genus Squatina, exhibits a fossil record extending to the Late Jurassic, approximately 160 million years ago, with dorsoventrally flattened bodies adapted for benthic ambush predation that have remained morphologically conserved across deep time.[12] This ancient lineage, part of the basal squalomorph sharks (Neoselachii: Squalomorphii), predates many modern shark radiations yet shows limited post-Mesozoic diversification, retaining a single genus with around 23-24 extant species despite the proliferation of more derived shark clades in the Cenozoic.[96][97] Persistence of Squatinidae amid competitive shark expansions appears linked to niche conservatism rather than adaptive innovation, as evidenced by the stable neurocranium shape and overall body plan inferred from fossil and extant comparisons, which minimized overlap with actively swimming, pelagic predators that dominated post-Cretaceous assemblages.[12] By specializing in marginal, soft-bottom habitats for lie-in-wait foraging, early Squatiniformes likely evaded direct competition, a strategy reinforced by inferred low intrinsic growth rates (K-selected traits) that favor endurance in stable environments over rapid exploitation of transient opportunities.[96] Fossil distributions suggest episodic bottlenecks, such as during the end-Cretaceous extinction, pruned lineages without prompting broad radiations, contrasting with the trait-driven diversification seen in groups like carcharhiniforms.[96] This conservatism underscores a causal mechanism of survival through ecological avoidance rather than superiority, as Squatinidae neither underwent sequential trait shifts for new niches nor exhibited the disparification patterns driving higher shark turnover rates; instead, their endurance reflects fidelity to a low-competition benthic domain amid broader elasmobranch dynamism.[12][98] Paleontological evidence from Jurassic to Eocene deposits indicates no major clade expansions post-Mesozoic, implying that genetic and morphological stasis buffered against selective pressures favoring mobility and dietary breadth in co-occurring sharks.[96]

References

  1. [PDF] ANGEL SHARKS - IUCN Portal
  2. Atlantic Angelshark – Discover Fishes
  3. Angel Sharks ~ MarineBio Conservation Society
  4. Common Angelshark | NOAA Fisheries
  5. Squatina californica (Angel shark) - Animal Diversity Web
  6. Angel Shark - Save Our Seas Foundation
  7. Angel Shark Conservation - ZSL
  8. Shark Taxonomy - The Shark Trust
  9. Squatiniformes - Explore the Taxonomic Tree | FWS.gov
  10. Family SQUATINIDAE Blainville 1816 (Angel Sharks)
  11. Node age estimations and the origin of angel sharks, Squatiniformes ...
  12. Evolutionary trends of the conserved neurocranium shape in angel ...
  13. Complete mitochondrial genome and the phylogenetic position of ...
  14. Systematics and Phylogenetic Interrelationships of the Enigmatic ...
  15. Molecular systematics and global phylogeography of angel sharks ...
  16. A New Genus of Late Cretaceous Angel Shark (Elasmobranchii
  17. Between shark and ray: The evolutionary advantage of the sea angels
  18. https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Squatina-squatina.html
  19. Squatina squatina | Shark-References
  20. Revision of the Western Indian Ocean Angel Sharks, Genus ...
  21. (PDF) Revision of the Western Indian Ocean Angel Sharks, Genus ...
  22. Angel Shark - Cretaceous - Squatina hassei - NJfossils.com
  23. Morphological observations of ampullae of lorenzini in Squatina ...
  24. Squatina aculeata (Sawback angel shark) - Animal Diversity Web
  25. [PDF] Threatened Species Nomination 2020 Squatina albipunctata
  26. Angel shark | Habitat, Diet, & Size - Britannica
  27. (PDF) The historical ecology and demise of the iconic Angelshark ...
  28. [PDF] Population structure, distribution and habitat use of the Critically ...
  29. Australian Angelshark, Squatina australis Regan 1906
  30. [PDF] Eastern Angelshark, Squatina albipunctata
  31. Species in Squatina - Fish Identification
  32. Species Delimitation of Southeast Pacific Angel Sharks (Squatina ...
  33. The distribution, ecology and predicted habitat use of the Critically ...
  34. [PDF] Mediterranean Angel Sharks:
  35. Influence of environmental variables on the distribution of Squatina ...
  36. Rapid Ocean Warming Drives Sexually Divergent Habitat Use in a ...
  37. [PDF] Pacific Angel Shark Scientific Name: Squatina californica Range
  38. Angel Shark - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
  39. Prey Capture by the Pacific Angel Shark, Squatina californica - jstor
  40. (PDF) Prey Selection by the Atlantic Angel Shark Squatina Dumeril ...
  41. (PDF) Food habits of the Pacific angel shark Squatina californica in ...
  42. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/17706/noaa_17706_DS1.pdf
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229785714_Reproduction_and_development_of_two_angel_sharks_Squatina_squatina_and_S_oculata_Pisces_Squatinidae_off_Tunisian_coasts_semi-delayed_vitellogenesis_lack_of_egg_capsules_and_lecithotrophy
  44. [PDF] Reproductive aspects of the Atlantic angel shark Squatina dumeril
  45. Reproductive aspects of the Atlantic angel shark Squatina dumeril
  46. Reproductive aspects of the Atlantic angel shark Squatina dumeril
  47. Reproductive aspects of the Atlantic angel shark Squatina dumeril in ...
  48. Pacific Angel Shark Enhanced Status Report - Marine Species Portal
  49. Reproductive biology of the smoothback angel shark, Squatina ...
  50. [PDF] New study on Angelshark (Squatina squatina) nursery areas in the ...
  51. Investigation of juvenile Angelshark (Squatina squatina) habitat in ...
  52. [PDF] Biodiversity Series Background Document for Angel shark Squatina ...
  53. Two Critically Endangered Angel Shark Successfully Tagged and ...
  54. Spatiotemporal distribution and sexual segregation in the Critically ...
  55. Pacific Angelsharks - MarineBio Conservation Society
  56. Tidal Influence on Spatial Dynamics of Leopard Sharks, Triakis ...
  57. [PDF] Squatina mapama n. sp., a new cryptic species of angel shark ...
  58. Three new angel sharks (Chondrichthyes: Squatinidae) from the ...
  59. Morphological and taxonomic revision of species of Squatina from ...
  60. Official commercial landings for Squatina squatina at the Venice fish...
  61. [PDF] Status Review Report of 3 Species of Angelsharks: Squatina ...
  62. [PDF] Pacific Angel Shark
  63. [PDF] Elasmobranchs of the mediterranean and black sea: status, ecology ...
  64. [PDF] Angelsharks and Recreational Fisheries: Best Practice Guide for the ...
  65. [PDF] Identifying critical habitat with archives: 275-year-old naturalist's notes
  66. [PDF] Angelshark (Squatina squatina)
  67. [PDF] 5-YEAR REVIEW of common angelshark - NOAA Fisheries
  68. Extinction risk and conservation of critically endangered angel ...
  69. Records of the critically endangered Squatina aculeata and ...
  70. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70100
  71. Angel Sharks | The Shark Trust
  72. Angel shark - OSPAR - Assessments
  73. [PDF] Near disappearance of the Angelshark Squatina squatina over half ...
  74. Angling records track the near extirpation of angel shark Squatina ...
  75. 5-Year Review for Common Angelshark - NOAA Fisheries
  76. Using half a century of local fisher knowledge to identify socio ...
  77. [PDF] Mediterranean Angel Sharks: SubRegional Action Plan (SubRAP)
  78. [PDF] Angelshark Action Plan for the Canary Islands
  79. Rising temperatures a turn-off for Critically Endangered sharks - ZSL
  80. Warming oceans a turn-off for female Critically Endangered sharks
  81. [PDF] Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Angel Shark Conservation ...
  82. Canary Islands - Angel Shark Conservation Network
  83. Angel Shark Conservation Network: Home
  84. [PDF] Mediterranean Angel Sharks: SubRegional Action Plan (SubRAP)
  85. [PDF] Angel shark (Squatina squatina) in subareas 1–10, 12, and 14 (the ...
  86. Angel shark - OSPAR - Assessments
  87. Sign of hope for Wales' Critically Endangered shark - ZSL
  88. A Fragile Stronghold: Genomics Reveal Angelshark Population ...
  89. Distinct management units for the Critically Endangered angelshark ...
  90. Endangered angelshark decline may be overestimated, study shows
  91. DNA suggests shark "unlike any other" more common in Wales than ...
  92. ELASMO.COM Fossil Genera: Squatina - Angel Shark
  93. A synoptic review of the Eocene (Ypresian) cartilaginous fishes ...
  94. Eocene squalomorph sharks (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii) from ...
  95. Deepwater Sharks from the Early Miocene of Slovakia.
  96. (PDF) Node age estimations and the origin of angel sharks ...
  97. A Synoptic Review of the Cartilaginous Fishes (Chondrichthyes ...
  98. Sequential trait evolution did not drive deep-time diversification in ...
User Avatar
No comments yet.