Hubbry Logo
StethacanthusStethacanthusMain
Open search
Stethacanthus
Community hub
Stethacanthus
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Stethacanthus
Stethacanthus
Stethacanthus
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Stethacanthus
Temporal range: 382.7–298.9 Ma Late Devonian to Late Carboniferous
Fossil spine of S. altonensis
Restoration of S. altonensis and S. productus
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Chondrichthyes
Order: †Symmoriiformes
Family: †Stethacanthidae
Genus: †Stethacanthus
Newberry, 1889
Type species
Stethacanthus altonensis
St. John and Worthen, 1875[5]
Other species
  • S. concavus Ginter, 2018[1]
  • S. gansuensis Wang et al., 2004[2]
  • S. neilsoni
  • S. praecursor Hussakof & Bryant, 1918[3]
  • S. resistens
  • S. thomasi
  • S. productus Newberry, 1897[4]
Synonyms

Stethacanthus is an extinct genus of shark-like cartilaginous fish which lived from the Late Devonian to Late Carboniferous epoch, dying out around 298.9 million years ago. Fossils have been found in Australia, Asia, Europe and North America.

Etymology

[edit]

Stethacanthus comes from the Greek στῆθος (stēthos), meaning "chest", and ἄκανθος (akanthos), meaning "spine" or "thorn". The name refers to the distinctive anvil-shaped first dorsal fin and spine displayed by mature males of the genus.[6]

Description

[edit]

Stethacanthus had different sizes depending on species, S. altonensis had length about 1.5 metres (4.9 ft), while S. productus reached 3 metres (9.8 ft).[7] In many respects, it had a shark-like appearance. However, it is best known for its unusually shaped dorsal fin, which resembled an anvil or ironing board. Small spikes (enlarged versions of the dermal denticles that commonly cover sharks' skin) covered this crest, and the shark's head as well.[8] The crest may have played a role in mating rituals, aided in clamping to the belly of larger marine animals, or been used to frighten potential predators.[9]

Like other members of Stethacanthidae, Stethacanthus had unique pelvic girdles, single-crowned and non-growing scales, a pectoral fin composed of metapterygium with an accompanying ‘whip’ attached and a distinctive first dorsal fin and spine, termed the spine-brush complex. The neurocranium had a narrow suborbital shelf, a broad supraorbital shelf, a short otico-occipital division, large orbits,[10] and cladodontic teeth that aligned precisely. In addition to these features, Stethacanthus also had male pelvic claspers with non-prismatic calcified cartilage at the distal ends.[11]

Spine-brush complex

[edit]
Restoration of a S. altonensis pair

The spine-brush complex occupies the same site as the first dorsal fin on other ratfish and contains a basal plate extending inside a usually posterior-pointing dorsal spine composed of trabecular dentine. The spines resemble those of modern sharks and rays but curiously lack any enamel-like surface tissue.[12] The trabecular dentine contains patches of fibers suggesting attachments to the epaxial musculature. The way these muscles would have been positioned implies that the spine could have been moved in anterio-posterior direction. The so-called "brush" is not fibrous as was originally believed, but consists of a number of parallel, membranous tubules[6] made of globular calcified cartilage.[13] The brush base and basal plate are covered in a thin, acellular bone layer.[12][13] Zangerl asserts that these tubules are similar to erectile tissues in humans, and thus the complex may have been inflatable.[6] The complex itself is covered in up to nine rows of large denticles pointing anteriorly. The dorsal side of the head has its own collection of denticles [13] which point posteriorly.[6] The presence of these large denticles has led to theories that the spine-brush complex in combination with the denticles on the head was used to scare away predators by simulating the mouth of a larger fish.[6] The complex has been affirmed only in males, and only in those males that have reached sexual maturity.[14] Whether the complex was present in females of the species is still unknown.[13] Another theory for the spine-brush complex is that it was involved either in attracting a mate[14] or in the mating process itself.[15]

Pectoral fin whip

[edit]

The pectoral fins of Stethacanthus were composed of the triangular-shaped metapterygium observed in modern-day sharks, but had an additional long, metapterygial structure called a fin whip. These fin whips contain at least 22 axial cartilages and extended past the pelvic fins. The three most anterior axials are shorter than the more posterior axials.[11] The purpose of the fin whips is unknown but it has been suggested that they were used during mating.[15]

Teeth and denticles

[edit]

The tooth files are whorl-shaped and the palatoquadrate is scalloped with 6-7 recesses to allow for the tooth families. The individual teeth are widely separated from each other in the tooth whorls.[16] The teeth themselves are of the cladodont variety; the bases of the teeth are broadest on the lingual side, and each support a single large cusp and two pairs of smaller accessory cusps for a total of five cusps.[16] The medial and most lateral cusps are the most fluted. The teeth appear to be mostly orthodentine, but when viewed in cross-section, change abruptly to osteodentine. The enameloid is single-layered, overlaying the thick mantle of orthodentine.[14] In addition to the dentition teeth, there are also a number of buccopharyngeal denticles lining the oropharynx.[11][14] The denticles lining the top of the head and the top of the spine-brush complex are larger than the dentition teeth, and they appear as elongate monocuspid denticles.[13]

Pelvic girdles and claspers

[edit]

In Stethacanthus, the pelvic girdles consist of sheets of prismatic cartilage, each in the shape of a subtriangular, rounded plate. The anterior edge of each girdle is slightly concave while the posterior is convex. There appears to be no union of the two plates.[11] There are two types of pelvic girdles found in stethacanthids: The primitive condition and the derived condition. In the primitive condition, the pelvic girdles have a metapterygial element supporting only one or two radials and most of the fin radials are attached directly to the pelvic plate. The derived condition differs in that there is a much higher number of radials supported by the pelvic plate. This feature, accompanied with a broadening of the pelvic girdle in order to accommodate the increased number of radials is a characteristic of Stethacanthus and other symmorriids.[14] The males had claspers that were club-shaped at the distal ends and composed of non-prismatic globular calcified cartilage.[12][14]

Caudal fin

[edit]

There was some caudal fin variety among Stethacanthus species; while some had low angle heterocercal tails, some had tails approaching homocercal.[14] The broad hypochordal lobe was supported by long, splayed fin radials.[11]

Paleobiology

[edit]
Restoration of S. productus with prey

It is certain that Stethacanthus was a carnivore, and considering its small size probably fed on small fish, brachiopods, and crinoid ossicles like other sharks of its time.[17] Additionally, as the spine-brush complex is rather a large structure, it seems likely that, in combination with the forward-facing denticles on the structure, it would have produced a drag force during fast locomotion. Therefore, Stethacanthus was probably a slow-moving shark. The fins of Stethacanthus were also smaller than in other sharks of the same size, and their teeth were also on the small side relative to other small Paleozoic sharks, suggesting that Stethacanthus may have been a bottom-dweller.[14] Considering that most of the Stethacanthus specimens were recovered in the Bear Gulch Limestone in Montana, it is possible that this area was not only a breeding ground for other sharks but also for Stethacanthus, suggesting that they were migratory.[18]

History

[edit]

The several species of Stethacanthus discovered in the late 1800s were established based solely upon isolated spines, which initially confused paleontologist John Strong Newberry into thinking the spines constituted a new kind of fin. He originally believed that the spines were part of the pectoral fins and that they were not bilaterally symmetrical.[6] Meanwhile, the first associated skeletal remains found in the Mississippian of Montana and the Devonian and Mississippian of Ohio remained undescribed for nearly a century.[11] Since complete skeletons were extremely rare, Stethacanthus classification was vague and based on few characteristics. It was not until 1974 that the family Stethacanthidae was defined by Richard Lund because Stethacanthus differed so greatly from other elasmobranchs of the time.[11] Relative classifications of symmoriids compared to stethacanthids are still debated. More Stethacanthus specimens have been discovered, expanding their range from the Midwestern United States to the Lower Carboniferous of Bearsden, Scotland[11] and the Lower Tournaisian of the Tula Region of Central Russia[19] and China.[20] Stethacanthus teeth have been recovered from the Frasnian-Famennian Napier Formation and the Tournaisian Laurel Formation and Moogooree Limestone in Western Australia.[21] A partial palate and jawbone referred to a Stethacanthus sp. has also been recovered from the Bonaparte Basin, Western Australia.[22]

Classification

[edit]
Restoration of the possible synonym Symmorium reniforme

The presence of globular calcified cartilage in both the spine-brush complex base plate and brush and in the claspers is interesting because it is the first record of such a large mass of globular calcified cartilage in chondrichthyan. The high presence of globular calcified cartilage raises several questions about the evolution of sharks. It is possible that prismatic cartilage, a defining feature of chondrichthyans, is an evolutionary derivative of globular calcified cartilage. If this were the case, primitive chondrichthyans would have appeared with shark-like scales based instead on globular calcified cartilage. Another feature of note is the thin, acellular bone layer coating the brush and baseplate of the spine-brush complex. It is possible that the coating on the spine-brush complex is the first record of endoskeletal bone in primitive chondrichthyans, and that these endoskeletal features were lost in extant chondrichthyans. It is also possible that the fin spine could be a unique distribution of dermal skeleton and thus derived from neural crest. Following this assumption, the brush would be a fin-baseplate extension. The endoskeletal location and absence of fin radials supports the latter hypothesis.[12][13]

Taxonomic relationships are hard to define for Stethacanthus as there is much variability in the characteristics of the discovered specimens.[14] Chondrichthyes is a monophyletic group characterized by the development of endoskeletal tesserae (mineralized blocks of cartilage) and internal fertilization.[23] Chondrichthyes is further divided into two subclasses: Elasmobranchii and Holocephali. Stethacanthids have been classified as a member of the group Paleoselachii, which is a subdivision of Elasmobranchii. Stethacanthus has been further classified as part of the order Symmoriida, a classification that has sparked a controversy. There are two main hypotheses regarding this classification. One hypothesis states that the order Symmoriida consists of the families Symmoriidae, Stethacanthidae and Falcatidae and thus are a monophyletic group. Another is that symmoriids are actually the females of stethacanthids[10][13] or are derived from stethacanthids.[10] This hypothesis is due to the fact that stethacanthids and symmoriids are poorly defined; symmoriids are thought to lack a spine-brush complex but are otherwise identical to Stethacanthidae. Stethacanthids are identified by the presence of a spine-brush complex, which is in some cases non-existent (e.g. juvenile males), making the certain classification of stethacanthids and symmoriids difficult.[10]

More recently, Symmoriiformes as a whole has been reclassified as part of Holocephali, meaning that Stethacanthus may have been more closely related to modern chimaeras than to sharks.[24]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Stethacanthus

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Stethacanthus is an extinct of symmoriiform belonging to the family Stethacanthidae, characterized by its small size and distinctive anatomical features, particularly the anvil-shaped spine-brush complex formed by the first and spine in adult males. This structure, consisting of a robust spine supporting a flat, brush-like covered in enlarged denticles, is absent in females and juveniles, suggesting a role in sexual display or mating. Ranging from approximately 60 cm to 1 meter in body length, Stethacanthus was a cartilaginous adapted to shallow marine environments, preying on small and with its cladodont teeth. The genus existed from the Late Devonian (Famennian stage) through the (Mississippian and Pennsylvanian substages) and into the Permian, spanning about 372 to ~272 million years ago. Fossils, including teeth, spines, and partial skeletons, have been discovered across and , with notable occurrences in (e.g., Montana's Bear Gulch Limestone and Nebraska's Indian Cave Sandstone), (e.g., ), and Asia (e.g., and ). Several species are recognized, such as the S. altonensis from the Mississippian of and S. erectus from , though taxonomic revisions continue based on dental and skeletal evidence. As part of the diverse chondrichthyan radiation, Stethacanthus provides insights into the early evolution of shark-like fishes, highlighting innovations in fin morphology and body plan that preceded modern elasmobranchs.

Discovery and Nomenclature

Etymology

The genus name Stethacanthus derives from the words stēthos (σ τῆθος), meaning "chest" or "breast," and akanthos (ἄκανθος), meaning "spine" or "thorn," directly referencing the prominent anvil-shaped dorsal spine situated over the pectoral in mature males. This unique anatomical feature, part of the spine-brush complex, inspired the nomenclature to highlight its position relative to the "chest" area. John Strong Newberry first established the genus Stethacanthus in 1889 within his monograph on fishes, designating S. altonensis (originally described by St. John and Worthen) as the based on specimens from strata. He simultaneously named S. productus from fossil remains recovered from the coal measures of , emphasizing the diagnostic spinal structures in these early descriptions.

Fossil Record

The genus Stethacanthus was initially described by John Strong Newberry in 1889, based on isolated spines from deposits in (Pennsylvanian) and (Mississippian), USA, which he interpreted as belonging to pectoral and pelvic fins but are now recognized as part of the dorsal spine-brush complex. Fossils attributed to Stethacanthus span the Late Devonian (Famennian stage) to the Permian, with the youngest records from the Middle Permian. Major occurrences are in , including the (e.g., Bear Gulch Limestone in , Mazon Creek Formation in ) and ; (e.g., Bearsden Shale in , Holy Cross Mountains in ); (e.g., Muhua section in southern ); and (e.g., Utting in ). Preservation of Stethacanthus specimens is typically limited to disarticulated elements, including dorsal and pectoral spines, teeth, and denticles, owing to the animal's largely cartilaginous that rarely fossilized intact. However, exceptional lagerstätten have yielded partially articulated individuals, such as those from the Mississippian Bear Gulch Limestone in , where soft tissues and skeletal associations are occasionally preserved in siderite concretions. Key milestones in the study of Stethacanthus include the establishment of the family Stethacanthidae by Richard Lund in 1974 to encompass symmoriiform sharks with characteristic spine-brush complexes. More recently, the S. concavus was described in from isolated in Pennsylvanian deposits of , , highlighting ongoing discoveries of dental diversity within the genus. In 2023, a attributed to Stethacanthus sp. was described from the Lavender Member of the Fort Payne Formation in northwestern Georgia, , extending the known distribution in the .

Anatomy and Morphology

General Body Plan

Stethacanthus exhibited an elongated, shark-like body form characteristic of early chondrichthyans, supported by a cartilaginous skeleton with rudimentary mineralization in the axial elements. The overall body was streamlined, with small paired fins and a heterocercal caudal fin featuring a sharply upturned vertebral axis and broad hypochordal lobe. This genus is known from the Late Devonian (Famennian stage) through the Carboniferous (Mississippian and Pennsylvanian substages) and possibly into the early Permian, spanning about 372 to 299 million years ago, and displays holocephalian affinities alongside cladodont dentition typical of primitive shark-like fishes. Most species of Stethacanthus reached estimated lengths of 0.5 to 1 meter. General features included large eyes suited for low-light environments, a short snout, and a body covered in dermal denticles that provided protection against predators and abrasion. These denticles varied in form, from minute button-shaped scales on the flanks to larger, crowned types in certain regions. Sexual dimorphism was prominent in dorsal structures, with males typically larger and possessing specialized spines associated with the spine-brush complex, likely serving reproductive or display functions. This dimorphism underscores the genus's position among early chondrichthyans with evolving reproductive strategies.

Spine-Brush Complex

The spine-brush complex represents a diagnostic morphological feature of the Stethacanthus, prominently developed in mature males and positioned anterior to the pectoral fins as part of the apparatus. This structure exhibits an anvil- or ironing board-like form, comprising a broad, flat, paddle-shaped calcified plate integrated with a posteriorly directed spine and an underlying array of densely packed denticles forming the "." The plate arises from fused, enlarged radials that provide structural support, while the spine itself is formed of trabecular dentine enveloped in . The consists of parallel, tubular elements of non-prismatic globular calcified , exhibiting concentric growth lines indicative of incremental deposition, and covered externally by forward-pointing dermal denticles of varying sizes. Sexual dimorphism is evident in the complex's development, with it being fully formed and robust in adult males but absent or markedly reduced in females and juveniles, suggesting a specialized role tied to maturity. The composition of the base plate and brush shares histological similarities with the distal calcified cartilage in male pelvic claspers, including the use of globular calcified cartilage, though direct homology remains debated. Interspecific variation occurs within the , with the complex most pronounced in S. altonensis, where the plate and brush exhibit greater proportional size and denticle density relative to body length compared to species like S. erectus. Preservation in exceptional lagerstätten, particularly the concretions of the Mazon Creek locality (Francis Creek Shale, ), allows detailed visualization of the brush's microstructure, including the internal cavity system formed by the tubular elements and the arrangement of denticles, which likely contributed to sensory capabilities through mechanoreception.

Pectoral and Pelvic Structures

The pectoral fins of Stethacanthus were broad and triangular, supported by a series of radials articulating directly with the pectoral girdle, reflecting a primitive chondrichthyan condition. In S. altonensis from the Bear Gulch Limestone of , the pectoral fin skeleton includes three anterior unjointed radials and seven single-jointed radials, plus a metapterygial plate that supports eight radials overall, enabling effective propulsion and stability. Closely related stethacanthids, such as Akmonistion zangerli from the Bearsden Lagerstätte in , exhibit similar pectoral morphology with 8–9 short proximal radials, more than 15 unbranched distal radials, and an elongated whip-like trailing extension formed by approximately 22 axial radials; this structure may have facilitated precise maneuvering in the low-oxygen, stratified waters preserved at these sites. The pectoral radials also integrate structurally with the dorsal spine-brush complex, where the relatively small size of the paired fins contrasts sharply with the massive, keel-like dorsal apparatus, suggesting specialized locomotor adaptations. The pelvic girdles of Stethacanthus were robust and calcified, composed of sheets of prismatic forming subtriangular, rounded plates without symphysial union, each featuring multiple diazonal foramina for vascular and neural support. In males, the pelvic fins displayed pronounced , modified into enlarged claspers for ; these structures included 11–12 proximal radials and distal elements of non-prismatic calcified , terminating in ovoid cartilages with longitudinal grooves, and the myxopterygium extended nearly as long as the combined fin and axial components. Claspers could reach up to 10 cm in length in mature individuals, representing a significant proportion of the animal's total body length of around 70 cm. Fossil evidence for articulated pelvic structures in Stethacanthus is rare due to the delicate calcification and depositional environments, but exceptional preservation occurs in the (Serpukhovian, Lower ), where specimens reveal holocephalian-like pelvic fin configurations with the radials nearly entirely borne on the girdle in a primitive arrangement. These features, seen in male specimens like UCMZ GN1047, highlight dimorphic adaptations in the pelvic region while underscoring the group's basal position among chondrichthyans with advanced reproductive traits.

Dentition and Denticles

Stethacanthus possessed cladodont dentition typical of many Paleozoic chondrichthyans, featuring teeth with tricuspid to pentacuspid crowns. The crowns exhibit a prominent, elongate medial cusp with a basal width approximately one-third of its mesio-distal length, flanked by two small, rounded lateral cusps diverging at about 45 degrees; larger teeth may include an additional intermediate cusplet. The cusps are generally smooth, occasionally bearing faint vertical ridges, while the bases are rectangular to ovoid in outline, extending lingually and featuring an ovoid button near the lingual margin with a large central canal. Tooth sizes typically range from 1 to 5 mm in height, reflecting adaptation in early shark-like fishes for efficient oral function. The teeth are arranged in whorl-like files, with up to seven teeth per whorl showing ontogenetic size increase from smaller peripheral to larger central elements, indicative of continuous replacement mechanisms observed in whorls. The structure includes a short, robust cranium supporting a hybodont-style palatoquadrate that is scalloped along its margins, accommodating 6–7 tooth families per ramus through distinct recesses; this configuration allows for precise crown-to-crown opposition during occlusion without interdigitation. Such mechanics, preserved in articulated specimens, highlight the evolutionary refinement of mandibular suspension in stethacanthids during the . Dermal denticles in Stethacanthus consist of placoid scales covering the body and fins, representing an early appearance of this trait in chondrichthyan evolution and serving hydrodynamic and protective roles through their dentine-based composition. These scales feature generalized squamation across the body, with notable enlargements on the cranium forming robust cranial denticles shared among species like S. altonensis. In species variation, S. productus exhibits more robust teeth compared to other congeners, often preserved as isolated elements in marine sedimentary deposits such as the Bear Gulch Limestone, underscoring the prevalence of dental fossils in reconstructing stethacanthid anatomy.

Caudal Fin

The caudal fin of Stethacanthus exhibits a heterocercal configuration, characterized by a longer upper (epichordal) lobe extending from an upturned vertebral axis, paired with a shorter but broad lower (hypochordal) lobe. This structure is supported by lepidotrichia, or rays, anchored to underlying cartilaginous radials that branch and splay distally to expand the surface area of the hypochordal lobe. The radials in the upper lobe number around 23 supraneurals, while the hypochordal region features approximately 12 leading-edge and 8 trailing-edge radials, facilitating a lunate profile with a steep upturn in the caudal axis. Variations in caudal fin morphology occur across Stethacanthus species and related stethacanthids, with forms displaying a more pronounced heterocercal asymmetry, while representatives show a transition toward lower-angle heterocercal or near-diphycercal tails. For instance, S. altonensis from the Mississippian Bear Gulch Limestone possesses a low-angle heterocercal tail, reflecting evolutionary refinement in tail shape within the genus. These differences are evident in the degree of vertebral upturn and radial segmentation, with some taxa exhibiting unsegmented or proximally segmented hypochordal radials. Fossil evidence for the caudal fin derives primarily from exceptionally preserved specimens in siderite concretions of the Bear Gulch Limestone (Mississippian, ), where complete tails reveal fine details of radial arrangement and lepidotrichial webbing. Similar preservation in the (Lower , ) documents the heterocercal tail in stethacanthids closely allied to Stethacanthus, including calcified elements in some larger individuals that enhanced structural stability. These concretions often capture the tail in articulation with the , transitioning at around the 91st vertebral centrum. This tail design likely supported slow, undulating propulsion suited to benthic or near-bottom habitats, emphasizing maneuverability over speed in lagoonal or shallow marine settings. The expanded hypochordal lobe and splayed radials would have aided in steady, low-energy cruising, consistent with the opportunistic lifestyle inferred for Stethacanthus.

Habitat and Distribution

Stethacanthus primarily inhabited shallow marine environments, including continental shelves, lagoons, and nearshore settings, during the Late Devonian through the Permian periods. These paleoenvironments were often characterized by low-oxygen conditions, with fossils frequently preserved in black shales associated with anoxic events, such as the Famennian Cleveland Member of the Ohio Shale in northeastern Ohio, USA, where the formation accumulated under anaerobic bottom waters in a deep basinal setting. Similarly, in the Mississippian Bear Gulch Limestone of central Montana, Stethacanthus occurred in a shallow (≤30 m deep), low-energy marine bay with stratified waters featuring oxygenated surface layers and anoxic bottoms, promoting exceptional preservation of articulated specimens through rapid burial and oxygen depletion. The genus exhibited a broad global distribution across the paleocontinent of Euramerica, including sites in (e.g., , , ) and (e.g., Scotland's locality), as well as eastern in and in regions like the South Urals of . In , Stethacanthus fossils appear in the Laurel Formation of the Canning Basin, deposited in shallow marine platform carbonates. This widespread occurrence reflects its adaptability to tropical to subtropical marine settings during a time of fluctuating sea levels and tectonic activity. Stratigraphically, Stethacanthus is most abundant in Famennian (Late ) black shales and reaches peak diversity in Mississippian (Early ) limestones and shales, with records extending into Pennsylvanian coal measures. For instance, in the Late Mississippian Surprise Canyon Formation of northern Arizona's , teeth indicate presence in shallow marine to estuarine environments during a . Evidence of tolerance for brackish conditions comes from deltaic and nearshore delta fossils in Pennsylvanian sequences, such as those in Nebraska's assemblages associated with coal-bearing strata. Overall, its stratigraphic range spans approximately 382 to 272 million years ago.

Diet and Ecology

Stethacanthus was a carnivorous chondrichthyan whose diet consisted primarily of small and , including arthropods and shelled forms such as brachiopods and . This feeding habit is inferred from the sharp, three-cusped cladodont adapted for grasping and piercing small prey. The genus exhibited a demersal as a slow-swimming bottom-dweller in shallow marine settings, with its relatively small body fins and streamlined form suggesting limited capability for sustained open-water pursuit and adaptation for maneuvering near the seafloor. As a maneuvering feeder, it likely employed opportunistic or tactics to capture prey in upper habitats. Ecologically, Stethacanthus served as a mid-level to within marine communities, filling predatory niches in reef-associated environments and shallow seas following the decline of placoderms. It coexisted and potentially competed with other early chondrichthyans, such as the faster-swimming , for similar prey resources in shared habitats. Gut contents are rare in the fossil record, limiting direct insights, but isotopic analyses of associated chondrichthyans from similar deposits support a demersal feeding strategy.

Reproduction and Behavior

Stethacanthus exhibited pronounced , with mature males possessing a distinctive spine-brush complex on the first , characterized by a robust spine supporting a flat plate covered in enlarged, backward-facing denticles, while females and juveniles lacked this structure entirely. This dimorphism is evident in fossils from the same depositional sites, such as the Bear Gulch Limestone of , where male and female specimens co-occur, indicating secondary sexual traits rather than ontogenetic variation. The spine-brush complex in males is inferred to have functioned in displays or agonistic behaviors, such as male-male pushing contests to establish dominance during , potentially serving as a signal of similar to ornaments in modern fishes. Male specimens also bore well-developed pelvic claspers covered in denticles, structures used for , a reproductive common among chondrichthyans that facilitates transfer and protects gametes in aquatic environments. Reproductive mode in Stethacanthus is inferred to have been oviparous based on evidence from the Bear Gulch , where the absence of embryonic remains or yolk-sac structures in related chondrichthyan assemblages points to egg-laying rather than live birth. Comparisons with symmoriiform relatives, such as those in the Bear Gulch , suggest that s were likely deposited in shallow, protected coastal habitats, potentially with some degree of site fidelity for breeding. Behavioral patterns are largely inferred from and taphonomic associations, with evidence pointing to possible migratory habits involving movement between deeper foraging areas and shallow breeding grounds to facilitate mating and deposition. The robust cranial denticles in males, oriented posteriorly and mirroring the spine-brush, may have aided in clasping or stabilizing during copulation, enhancing reproductive success in this ancient chondrichthyan.

Taxonomy and Phylogeny

Taxonomic History

The Stethacanthus was established by J. S. Newberry in 1889 based on distinctive, large, thin-walled spines with cores from Mississippian deposits in the North American midcontinent, initially interpreted as part of a group of primitive elasmobranchs akin to hybodont sharks. Early taxonomic assignments placed Stethacanthus within the Hybodontidae due to similarities in spine ornamentation and overall morphology with hybodontiform chondrichthyans. In 1974, R. Lund described S. altonensis from the Bear Gulch Limestone of and erected the family Stethacanthidae to accommodate the genus, distinguishing it from other based on the unique "spine-brush" complex associated with the . This classification emphasized the family's placement among cladodont elasmobranchs, separate from hybodonts. Subsequent work in the reassigned Stethacanthidae to the newly defined order Symmoriida (later emended to ), recognizing shared cladodont dentition and fin spine features with other symmoriiform taxa. Rainer Zangerl's 1981 monograph formalized this placement, highlighting the microscopic anatomy of the spine-brush complex as a diagnostic symmoriiform trait. Synonymy issues arose from overlaps with the Cladodus, under which many Stethacanthus-like spines and teeth were originally described in the ; studies resolved these through detailed comparisons of spine morphology, such as tubercle patterns and vascularization, reassigning several to Stethacanthus while restricting Cladodus to more generalized forms. For instance, O. A. Lebedev in 1996 synonymized certain Cladodus species with S. obtusus based on dental resemblances, though later revisions refined these distinctions. Key revisions in the early 2000s included the reclassification of material (previously assigned to Stethacanthus or Cladodus) as the new Akmonistion zangerli by M. I. Coates and S. E. K. Sequeira in 2001, based on exceptional preservation revealing differences in the spine-brush structure and overall within Stethacanthidae. Recent cladistic analyses, such as those in the 2010s, have questioned the of Stethacanthidae by highlighting paraphyletic arrangements among symmoriiforms, with Stethacanthus forming a alongside genera like Cobelodus in preliminary phylogenies.

Species List

The genus Stethacanthus comprises approximately 5 to 7 valid based on current taxonomic assessments, with fossils primarily from the period and limited records extending into the Late Devonian. These species are distinguished by variations in dorsal spine morphology, tooth dimensions, and fin proportions, often preserved as isolated elements from marine deposits. Key valid species include S. altonensis St. John and Worthen, 1875, from the Mississippian (early , ~359–323 Ma) of (type locality: , ), notable for its prominent anvil-shaped dorsal spine integrated with the brush complex. S. productus Newberry, 1897, occurs in the Pennsylvanian (late , ~323–299 Ma) of the central (e.g., and ), representing the largest known species with elongated fin proportions and robust morphology adapted for predation. S. brevis is reported from Late deposits (~383–359 Ma) in , characterized by a smaller overall body form and compact spine structure. S. concavus Ginter, 2018, from the Pennsylvanian (~315 Ma) of (Nebraska, ), features a distinctive concave dorsal plate and reduced denticle coverage. Among reassigned or invalid taxa, S. gracilis has been synonymized with S. productus due to overlapping diagnostic traits in spine and dental features from shared stratigraphic units. Additionally, previously placed under Stethacanthus, such as those now in the Akmonistion (e.g., A. zangerli Coates and Sequeira, 2001, from the early of ), were reclassified based on differences in the spine-brush complex and jaw architecture. This results in a refined inventory emphasizing North American and European localities for the .

Phylogenetic Position

Stethacanthus is classified within the family Stethacanthidae, part of the extinct order , a group of early chondrichthyans often described as exhibiting a mix of "ray-finned" and shark-like features. Cladistic analyses position Stethacanthidae in close phylogenetic relation to other symmoriiforms, such as symmoriids, within the basal radiation of the chondrichthyan . Key synapomorphies defining Stethacanthidae include the distinctive anvil-shaped dorsal spine, which supports a brush-like array of enlarged denticles unique to the family, and cladodont teeth characterized by a prominent central cusp flanked by smaller lateral cusps, linking the group to basal neoselachian chondrichthyans. Studies from the early , incorporating cranial and postcranial morphology, suggest Stethacanthidae may occupy a plesion series on the stem lineage leading to , the encompassing modern chimaeras. Phylogenetic trees derived from parsimony analyses consistently recover Symmoriiformes, including Stethacanthus, as basal to crown-group holocephalans, with Stethacanthidae branching near the between elasmobranchs and chimaeroids. In 2020s cladistic studies utilizing advanced cranial data from synchrotron , such as those examining neurocrania and jaw mechanics in symmoriiform taxa, Stethacanthidae is supported as stem holocephalans, though debates persist regarding their exact position relative to cladoselachians and other primitive forms. These analyses highlight shared traits like a compact otico-occipital region and large orbits with symmoriids and holocephalans, reinforcing a stem position. The evolutionary placement of Stethacanthus underscores its role as a morphological bridge between elasmobranchs ( and rays) and holocephalans (chimaeras), with features such as non-prismatic calcified in claspers and specialized denticle distributions aligning more closely with holocephalan conditions than those of basal neoselachians. This intermediate status illuminates early divergences within during the Devonian-Carboniferous transition.

References

  1. http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/evolution/golden_age.htm
  2. https://doi.org/10.1515/agp-2018-0009
  3. https://shark-references.com/species/view/Stethacanthus-sp.
  4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-6995(84)80095-9
  5. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/The_Paleozoic_fishes_of_North_America_%28IA_paleozoicfisheso00newb%29.pdf
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362623922_Stethacanthus_altonensis_Elasmobranchii_from_the_Bear_Gulch_Limestone_of_Montana
  7. https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app52/app52-705.pdf
  8. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/238300
  9. https://journals.pan.pl/Content/108910?format_id=1
  10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374350544_EARLY-MIDDLE_MISSISSIPPIAN_STETHACANTHUS_CHONDRICHTHYES_SYMMORIIFORMES_FROM_THE_LAVENDER_SHALE_MEMBER_OF_THE_FORT_PAYNE_FORMATION_NORTHWESTERN_GEORGIA
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232690715_A_new_stethacanthid_chondrichthyan_from_the_Lower_Carboniferous_of_Bearsden_Scotland
  12. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4522998
  13. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/earth-and-environmental-science-transactions-of-royal-society-of-edinburgh/article/braincase-of-a-primitive-shark/E11D5DAAAFE25E9196D17BC1C4CCBD9C
  14. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.1984.10012016
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313748659_Stethacanthid_elasmobranch_remains_from_the_Bear_Gulch_Limestone_Namurian_E2b_of_Montana
  16. https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2016/1365-d-c-boundary-sharks
  17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240449979_On_the_spines_of_the_Stethacanthidae_Chondrichthyes_with_a_description_of_a_new_genus_from_the_Mississippian_Bear_Gulch_Limestone
  18. https://www.academia.edu/48299587/On_the_spines_of_the_Stethacanthidae_Chondrichthyes_with_a_description_of_a_new_genus_from_the_Mississippian_Bear_Gulch_limestone
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290860984_The_vertebrate_fauna_of_the_Cleveland_Member_Famennian_of_the_Ohio_Shale_Guide_to_the_Geology_and_Palaeontology_of_the_Cleveland_Member_of_the_Ohio_Shale
  20. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12891&context=etd
  21. https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/pdfs/583.pdf
  22. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/6756DFC72DBDDA2ACB99D00D3D072DF6/S0022336018000720a.pdf/carboniferous-chondrichthyan-assemblages-from-the-surprise-canyon-and-watahomigi-formations-latest-mississippian-early-pennsylvanian-of-the-western-grand-canyon-northern-arizona.pdf
  23. https://npshistory.com/publications/grca/jp-92-77-2018.pdf
  24. https://www.sbpbrasil.org/revista/edicoes/8_2/8%282%29ivanov.pdf
  25. https://www.bbc.co.uk/science/seamonsters/factfiles/stethacanthus.shtml
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248616554_Fish_diversity_of_the_Bear_Gulch_Limestone_Namurian_Lower_Carboniferous_of_Montana_USA
  27. https://www.academia.edu/103992370/Stethacanthus_altonensis_Elasmobranchii_from_the_Bear_Gulch_Limestone_of_Montana
  28. http://ogs.ou.edu/docs/geologynotes/GN-V36N5.pdf
  29. https://bioone.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-american-museum-of-natural-history/volume-2007/issue-307/0003-0090_2007_307_1_TBIPSA_2.0.CO_2/THE-BRAINCASE-IN-PALEOZOIC-SYMMORIIFORM-AND-CLADOSELACHIAN-SHARKS/10.1206/0003-0090%282007%29307%5B1:TBIPSA%5D2.0.CO%3B2.full
  30. https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/20599.pdf
  31. https://shark-references.com/literature/500
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374331759_EARLY-MIDDLE_MISSISSIPPIAN_STETHACANTHUS_CHONDRICHTHYES_SYMMORIIFORMES_FROM_THE_LAVENDER_SHALE_MEMBER_OF_THE_FORT_PAYNE_FORMATION_NORTHWESTERN_GEORGIA
  33. https://paleobiodb.org/classic/checkTaxonInfo?taxon_no=34442
  34. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/pab.2024.1
  35. https://shark-references.com/species/view/Stethacanthus-altonensis
  36. https://digitallibrary.amnh.org/bitstream/handle/2246/3554//v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/nov/N2828.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  37. https://shark-references.com/species/view/Stethacanthus-productus
  38. https://www.archive.org/download/transactionsofne169697newy/transactionsofne169697newy.pdf
  39. https://shark-references.com/species/view/Stethacanthus-concavus
  40. https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/agp-2018-0009
  41. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01394-2
  42. https://sjpp.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13358-023-00266-6
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.