Holocephali

Holocephalans Temporal range: Ma PreꞒ Ꞓ O S D C P T J K Pg N Molecular data may suggest first appearance during the Late Silurian or Early Devonian
Chimaera opalescens (a modern chimaera)
Scientific classification
Domain:	Eukaryota
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Infraphylum:	Gnathostomata
Clade:	Eugnathostomata
Class:	Chondrichthyes
Subclass:	Holocephali Bonaparte, 1832
Included taxa
See text

Holocephali (Sometimes spelled Holocephala;

Extinct holocephalans are typically divided into a number of orders, although the interrelationships of these groups are poorly understood. Several different definitions of Holocephali exist, with the group sometimes considered a less inclusive clade within the larger subclasses Euchondrocephali or Subterbranchialia, and in some works having many of its members are arranged in the now obsolete groups Paraselachimorpha and Bradyodonti. Some recent research has suggested that the orders Cladoselachiformes and Symmoriiformes, historically considered relatives or ancestors of sharks, should also be included in Holocephali. Information on the evolution and relationships of extinct holocephalans is limited, however, because most are known only from isolated teeth or dorsal fin spines, which form much of the basis of their classificaion.

Many early holocephalans had skulls and bodies which were unlike modern chimaeras, with upper jaws that were not fused to the rest of the skull and separate, shark-like teeth. The bodies of most holocephalans were covered in tooth-like scales termed

Holocephali was first proposed as "Holocephala" by Johannes Müller, and was formally described by naturalist Charles Lucien Bonaparte.^[1][2][3] The name of the group comes from the Greek roots hólos meaning "whole" or "complete" and kephalos meaning head, and is in reference to the complete fusion of the braincase and the palatoquadrates (upper jaw) seen in chimaeras.^[4][5][6] As defined by Müller and Bonaparte, Holocephala encompassed the living genera Chimaera and Callorhinchus.^{[2][3][7]: 43} Fossil taxa, consisting primarily of tooth-plates and fin spines from the Mesozoic, were assigned to Holocephali throughout the 1830s and 1840s.^[8][9][10] Many additional taxa were described and illustrated by the naturalist Louis Agassiz between 1833 and 1843 in Researches sur Les Poissons Fossiles, including a number of Paleozoic-age tooth and spine genera now considered to belong to Holocephali.^[3][10][11] Both Agassiz and other influential researchers such as Richard Owen allied many Paleozoic representatives of the group with living Heterodontus (or Cestracion) sharks,^[3][10] rather than with chimaeras.^{[7]: 43 [8][11]} During the late 1800s, researchers such as Fredrick McCoy and James William Davis questioned the association between Paleozoic taxa and Heterodontus.^{[7]: 43 [10]}

During the late 19th and early 20th century, British paleontologist

While treated as a subclass of the class Chondrichthyes by modern authors (e.g. Joseph Nelson),^{[17]: 40–48} Holocephali has alternatively been ranked as an order,^[2][18] a superorder,^{[5][16][19]: 46} or a class.^[4][5][13] When Charles Lucien Bonaparte first coined Holocephala, he considered it to be an order within the larger subclass Elasmobranchii (different from modern usage; also contained the then-order selachii).^[2][3][18] Several authors during the 20th century regarded the Holocephali as its own class within the (now obsolete) superclass Elasmobranchiomorphi, which also included the classes Selachii (or Elasmobranchii), Arthrodira (or Placodermi), and under some definitions the Acanthodii.^{[3][7]: 43 [13]} Holocephali is still sometimes considered a lower taxonomic unit within a larger subclass by some contemporary authors, specifically due to the name being a misnomer if taxa with unfused crania and upper jaws are included.^{[3][17]: 48–49}

The interrelationships of extinct holocephalan orders have been characterized as difficult to define and subject to change, due in part to limited data.

While often considered either to be relatives of elasmobranchs or to be stem-group chondrichthyans,[17]^{: 45–46 [32][33]} some studies have found the shark-like symmoriiformes to be early diverging members of the Holocephali.^[32][34][35] Alternatively, Symmoriiformes are sometimes regarded as the sister-group to Holocephali, but are not considered members of the subclass themselves due to differing morphology.^{[31]: 136–141} The traditionally-recognized order Cladoselachiformes, which is sometimes included within Symmoriiformes, may also be considered holocephalan under this classification scheme.^[32] While the anatomy of the jaws and teeth differs dramatically between Symmoriiformes and typical holocephalans, these show similarities in the internal anatomy of their crania and both possess rings along their lateral lines, which may suggest close relation.^{[24]: 25 [34][31]} Paleontologist Philippe Janvier first suggested a connection between the Holocephali and the Symmoriiformes (then Symmoriida) in his 1996 textbook Early Vertebrates,^{[24]: 25 [31]: 138–141} and the subsequent descriptions of the cladoselachian and Symmoriida taxa Maghriboselache and Ferromirum, as well as the redescription of the symmoriiform Dwykaselachus have continued to find support for the hypothesis.^[36][32][34] The taxonomy presented in Early Vertebrates is provided below, which considered several taxa otherwise considered holocephalan to form a polytomy with Holocephali and Elasmobranchii (iniopterygians), or sit outside of crown-group Chondrichthyes.^{[31]: 147–149}

All holocephalans possess an internal skeleton made up of

The

In holostylic and autodiastylic holocephalans, the hyoid arch is retained but is not utilized in jaw suspension. Instead, the arch is positioned behind the skull and supports a soft, fleshy gill cover (operculum) which is reinforced by cartilaginous rays.^{[50][48][17]: 41, 48} This soft operculum is considered a characteristic feature of the Holocephali,^{[17]: 48 [43][50]} although it is debated whether it was present in some early members of the subclass (e.g. Eugeneodontiformes) or if they had separate gill slits like elasmobranchs.^{[50][51]: 143–144, [167]} Holocephalans typically possess five gill arches,^{[43][50][17]: 48} although eugeneodonts may have had a small, vestigial sixth gill arch.^[52] The gill arches of iniopterygians, petalodonts and holocephalimorphs are tightly packed and positioned beneath the skull.^[16][43][53] Living chimaeras and the extinct Helodus possess two otoliths (inner ear elements).^[54]

The fins of holocephalans may include paired pectoral and pelvic fins, either one or two

Eugeneodonts and orodonts both possessed a symphyseal tooth row along the midline of the lower jaw and rows of pavement teeth lining the lateral regions of the mouth,^[10][61][68] and some eugeneodonts also had an additional row of symphyseal teeth on the upper jaw.^[15][62][69] The eugeneodonts are known primarily from their tooth-whorls, which in some species were extremely large, had fused tooth roots that prevented teeth from shedding, and formed logarithmic spirals.^{[24]: 117 [62][70]} Orodont teeth were less specialized, and the pavement teeth were morphologically very similar to those of eugeneodonts, the teeth of early elasmobranchs such as hybodonts, and the tooth-plates of cochliodonts and helodonts. Orodontiformes is sometimes considered an artificial (unnatural) grouping of early holocephalans with similar tooth morphology, rather than a true clade.^{[19]: 91–94 [24]: 110}

The tooth structure of the petalodonts was extremely diverse, but few members are known from more than isolated teeth and the classification of many taxa is uncertain.^{[21][24]: 133–134 [53]} In those with complete dentitions known, most are heterodont (tooth shape varies) while others are homodont (teeth are essentially identical). Petalodont teeth are generally thought to fall into four morphologies: Petalodus-type (incisor-like), Ctenoptychius-type (multi-cusped), Fissodus-type (bifurcated) and Janassa-type (molar-like), multiple of which may have been present in the mouth of a single species.^[53][71][72] In the homodont taxon Janassa bituminosa there were many rows of teeth in the mouth which were retained throughout the animal's life and formed a "platform" for new teeth to grow onto.^{[24]: 134–135 [53]} The teeth of Debeeriiformes (and the dubious Desmiodontiformes) were similar in morphology to Petalodontiformes and also displayed heterodonty, although they differed in histology and arrangement.^{[24]: 151–152 [41]}

The Holocephalimorpha is a clade which unites the holostylic holocephalans and many taxa with similar tooth plates. Many Holocephalimorphs, such as the Cochliodontiformes, Psammodontiformes and Copodontiformes are known primarily or exclusively from their flattened tooth plates,^[13][20][73] which in cochliodonts such as Cochliodus grew in a distinctive spiral pattern.^[10][54] Better known holocephalimorphs such as Chondrenchelys had a set of large, crushing, flattened tooth-plates attached to the jaws, as well as a set of extra-oral (separate from the jaw) petalodont-like tooth plates in the anterior region of the mouth which may have been attached to the labial (lip) cartilage.^[23][74] The teeth of the genus Helodus, the sole member of the order Helodontiformes, are sometimes considered transitional between those of orodont-like (particularly eugeneodont) fishes and the holocephalimorphs, and consist of both rows of separate pavement teeth and teeth fused into fused tooth-whorls. Historically the whorls of Helodus were given the genus name Pleuroplax, but they are now known in articulated specimens alongside the separate teeth. In isolation, the pavement-teeth of Helodus are similar to those seen in other groups of holocephalan, and this genus has historically been used as a wastebasket taxon for bead-like holocephalan teeth.^[54][59][74]

Modern chimaeras and their closest fossil relatives have only three pairs of highly specialized tooth-plates, which are derived from fused tooth families and consist of two pairs in the upper jaw and a single pair in the lower.^[43][58] The teeth of chimaeras have specialized whitlockin-composed structures called tritors, which variously take the shape of tubules and rounded structures (called ovids) within the matrix of the tooth, and pads on the surface of the tooth.^[43][57][60] The arrangement of the tritors is a distinguishing characteristic of different chimaera species.^[64][75] The upper frontmost tooth-plates are incisor-like and protrude from the mouth, giving the mouth a beak-like or rodent-like appearance.^{[43][60][76]: 142} In recent works, the frontmost upper teeth are referred to as vomerine plates, the rear upper crushing plates as palatine (or palatal)^[77] plates, and the single pair of lower teeth are referred to as the mandibular plates.^[43][60][63]

The tooth morphology of the iniopterygians differs wildly from that of any other proposed holocephalans, and more closely resembled the dentition of elasmobranchs in histology.^{[17]: 49 [24][59]} Iniopterygian teeth consisted of multiple fused tooth-whorls with sharp cusps, arranged symphyseally or parasymphyseally, which were movable and articulated. Some also possessed flattened plates within the mouth, termed buccal plates, which were distinct from the tooth-plates of other holocephalans.^[27][78] The jaws of iniopterygians were also lined with small, sharp denticles.^[27] The teeth of the possibly holocephalan Symmoriiformes (and the sometimes included Cladoselachiformes) were cladodont (three-cusped), and grew and were replaced in a manner similar to those of sharks.^[32][54][59] However, the rate of replacement was significantly slower than in sharks.^[56]

In adult modern chimaeras, scales are present along the lateral line and, in males, on the reproductive organs, while most of the body is covered in smooth, scaleless skin.^{[17]: 48 [43]} Embryonic and juvenile chimaeras do possess additional scales along their backs, which only last into adulthood in Callorhinchus.^{[3][7]: 8 [43]} Conversely, Paleozoic and Mesozoic chimaeriforms such as Squaloraja and Echinochimaera, as well as members of other extinct orders exhibit scales covering the entire body throughout life. The scales of holocephalans are placoid (also termed dermal denticles), meaning they contain a pulp cavity, are made up primarily of orthodentin and are coated in an outer layer of hard enameloid.^{[3][7]: 8–12 [17]: 48} In extinct holocephalans the scales may be either single-cusped (termed lepidomoria) or multi-cusped (termed polyodontode scales), the latter meaning the scales have multiple crowns growing from a single base.^{[3][7]: 8–9 [14]: 399–412} Some holocephalans had armor plates made up of dentin and spines which protruded from the top of the head, the lower jaw, or the first dorsal fin.^{[3][7]: 8–12 [13]} Armor plating gradually reduced during the evolution of the Chimaeriformes,^[13] and modern chimaeras lack any armor and retain only a dorsal fin spine, which in at least some species is venomous and extremely painful.^[22][43]

Both modern and fossil holocephalans possess sensory canals on their heads and down the length of the body. The precise arrangement of these canals in extinct members of the group is difficult to determine, although they are well-documented in taxa such as Menaspis, Deltoptychius, Harpagofututor, and a number of extinct chimaeriforms. Some holocephalans display a distinctive arrangement of ring-shaped scales enclosing the lateral line, which is considered a unique feature of the group.^[13][43][79]

Holocephalans are typically sexually dimorphic. Males may possess up to three sets of external reproductive organs: paired pelvic claspers like those of other cartilaginous fish, paired prepelvic tenaculae, and paired or unpaired frontal or cephalic claspers.^{[7][17]: 48 [43]} In certain Paleozoic species, additional paired spines are sometimes present on the heads of males, and while some authors in the past have considered these structures homologous to cephalic claspers,^[13] they are now considered distinct due to their differing histology.^[7][14][42] Unlike other cartilaginous fish, chimaeras lack a cloaca and instead possess separate anal and urogenital openings.^{[17]: 48 [43]}

In modern chimaeras, the cephalic clasper is a toothed, unpaired organ on the top of the head that is used by males to grab females.^{[43][73][76]: 142} Extinct holocephalans such as the myriacanthoids, Psammodus and Traquairius nudus possessed extremely long, unpaired cephalic claspers, which in some taxa are as long as the skull and rostrum.^[7][42][73] Similar paired structures are present in Harpagofututor and Harpacanthus, which likely served a similar grabbing purpose. The presence or absence of these structures varies, even among closely related taxa, and it is thought that cephalic claspers have appeared separately in multiple holocephalan groups.^[42][80]

Prepelvic tenaculae are paired, skeletally supported, retractable structures that protrude in front of the pelvic fins of certain holocephalan groups. In chimaeras these are covered in tooth-like denticles.^[3][20][43] Similar, hook-like organs (termed tenacular hooks) are known in some iniopterygian males, but these are convergently evolved and not homologous to those in chimaeras.^[27][78]

All living chimaeras reproduce by egg-laying (oviparity). The egg cases of both living chimaeras and their close fossil relatives are proportionally large and composed of collagen, and in living chimaeras are laid two at a time.^[22][81][82] Chimaera egg cases are characterized by an elongated, fusiform shape and a membranous, striated flap (termed a flange or collarette) protruding from their outer rim.^{[7]: 38–39 [82][83]} The egg anatomy is unique in each family of chimaeras, allowing for isolated fossilized eggs to be identified to the family level.^[43][82][84] Egg cases similar to those of chimaeras, assigned to the oogenera Crookallia and Vetacapsula, are known from the Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) and may have been laid by helodonts.^[82][84] Because of the rarity of egg capsules and presence of isolated fossilized fetuses from the Early Carboniferous (Mississippian) Bear Gulch Limestone fossil site, it is possible that many early holocephalan groups may have been live-bearing (viviparous or ovoviviparous), although it is also that possible that egg cases from many species simply happen to not have been preserved.^[55][81][85]

Young juvenile holocephalans have very weakly calcified skeletons and are poorly represented in the fossil record. Fossils of fetal or newborn Mississippian

Evolution

Main article: Evolution of fish

While the holocephalan fossil record is extensive, most of these fossils consist only of teeth or isolated fin spines, and the few complete specimens that are known are often poorly preserved and difficult to interpret.^[43][22][86] The enigmatic, heavily squamated fishes Stensioella, Pseudopetalichthys and Paraplesiobatis, all known from poorly-preserved body fossils from the Early Devonian of Germany, have been proposed by researcher Phillippe Janvier to be the earliest holocephalans,^{[31]: 147, 171 [76]: 76 [87]: 61–64} although they have alternatively been considered unrelated placoderms.^{[17]: 37 [30]: 58 [88]} Taxa that are conventionally assumed to be stem-group chondrichthyans such as Pucapampella and Gladbachus from the Early-Middle Devonian have also occasionally been suggested to be the first holocephalans.^{[7]: 154 [23][31]: 148} Tooth fossils that are confidently considered to belong to the group first appear during the Middle Devonian (Givetian stage),^[32][82][89] although molecular clock and tip dating does suggest an earlier origin. Based on this data, it is proposed that the total-group Holocephali split from the Elasmobranchii between the Silurian and the Early Devonian, with estimates ranging from 421–401 million years ago depending on the methods employed.^[35][90][91] By the Famennian stage of the Late Devonian early members of nearly all holocephalan orders had appeared,^[32][92] although no skeletons or body fossils are known until the following Carboniferous.^[32] The Chimaeriformes may have evolved during the Mississippian subperiod of the Carboniferous,^[20][29][77] although other estimates suggest a much later Triassic or Jurassic origin of this group.^{[20][35][76]: 77}

Several groups have been proposed as sister clades or ancestors of the Chimaeriformes. Some authors have favored a close relationship between the Chondrenchelyiformes and the chimaeras, as despite their wildly different postcranial structure they have similar tooth and skull anatomy.^[23][58] The Chimaeriformes may have alternatively evolved from other fishes within the larger clade Cochliodontimorpha, as while the tooth plates of adult cochliodonts and chimaeriforms differ in their morphology, the tooth-plates of juvenile cochliodonts and modern chimaeras are very similar.^{[3][7]: 41 [22]} Below is a cladogram proposed by Grogan and Lund (2004) for one possible phylogeny of Holocephali (considered by them Euchondrocephali), which nests Chimaeriformes within a poorly-resolved clade also containing the cochliodonts.^[42] A modified version of this cladogram was also utilized by Grogan, Lund & Greenfest-Allen (2012) which excludes the Iniopterygiformes from Holocephali (here Euchondrocephali).^[20]

Euchondrocephali (=Holocephali sensu lato)

†Gregoriidae †Orodontiformes †Helodontiformes †Chom2 †Petalodontiformes †ElWeir (="El Weirdo") †Debeeriiformes †Iniopterygia (=Iniopterygiformes) †L2SP † Eugeneodontida (=Eugeneodontiformes) Holocephalimorpha †Harpacanthus Holocephali sensu stricto †Harpagofututor (Chondrenchelyiformes) † Squalorajiformes ?) Chimaeriformes †Acanthorhina (Myriacanthiformes?) †cf. Physonemus †Cochlliodont 1 (="Coch1") †Echinochimaera †Menaspiformes

Ancestry

Historically, debate arose as to whether placoderms such as Ctenurella (above) or shark-like chondrichthyans such as Cladoselache (below) were the ancestors of Holocephali

While it is now accepted that Holocephali is the sister group to Elasmobranchii based on both morphology and genetics,^{[17]: 40–41 [20][91]} this was historically a matter of debate. Two competing hypotheses were proposed for the evolution of the holocephalans: either they were descended from a shark-like ancestor, making the class Chondrichthyes a true, monophyletic (natural) group, or they were descended from some unrelated lineage of placoderms, making Chondrichthyes a polyphyletic (unnatural) grouping.^[3][13][22] A particular group of placoderms called the Ptyctodontiformes (or Ptyctodontida) were suggested by researchers Tor Ørvig and Erik Stensiö to be the direct ancestors of Holocephali due to their chimaera-like anatomy.^{[22][87]: 113 [93]} Under this scheme, chimaeras are considered unrelated to any Paleozoic cartilaginous fish, and potentially the Mesozoic Squaloraja and myriacanthids.^[14][58] While the ptyctodonts do share many holocephalan-like features, such as a synarcual formed from the frontmost vertebrae, a fin spine, an operculum, and specialized pelvic and prepelvic claspers, these are now believed to result from convergent evolution.^{[13][17]: 37 [22]} An alternative hypothesis, advocated for by researcher Colin Patterson, was that the holocephalans were neither descended from the elasmobranchs nor the ptyctodonts, and instead shared a distant common ancestor with both groups within the larger clade Elasmobranchiomorpha.^{[7]: 41 [13][22]} In light of the description of holocephalan transitional fossils during the 1970s and 1980s an independent origin of Chondrichthyes has been widely discarded,^{[5][20][87]: 113} and Elasmobranchii and Holocephali are united by the shared anatomy of their pelvic claspers and the tesserae that reinforce their cartilage skeletons.^{[17]: 40–43 [20][94]: 197–200}

Within Chondrichthyes, three contemporary hypotheses are proposed for the evolutionary relationship between the two main divisions.^[24]: 25 Richard Lund and Eileen Grogan have suggested a deep split between the elasmobranchs and the holocephalans, with the Holocephali descending from a distant chondrichthyan ancestor with an autodiastylic jaw.^{[18][20][24]: 25} Following Philippe Janvier's suggestion of close relation, some researchers have instead proposed that ancestral holocephalans were similar in anatomy to cladodonts like the Symmoriiformes and Cladoselache and that those groups may be reflective of the ancestral holocephalan state.^{[24]: 25 [32]} Researcher Michal Ginter and coauthors have alternatively suggested that the holocephalans are descended from an Orodus-like animal, and are close relatives of hybodonts, protacrodonts and crown-group elasmobranchs. Ginter's proposal is based on the similar tooth morphology between these four groups, particularly the anatomy of the tooth base or root. This analysis restricts the definition of crown-group Chondrichthyes and regards the iniopterygians, Symmoriiformes, and cladoselachians as stem-group Chondrichthyes.^{[20][24]: 25 [92]}

Ecology

Bear Gulch Limestone

Main article: Bear Gulch Limestone

The Bear Gulch Limestone, a unit of the

Konservat-Lagerstätte by paleontologists, and forms much of the basis for our modern understanding of early holocephalan evolution and ecology.^{[3][20][87]: 113} Additional sites, such as the Glencartholm and Manse Burn shales of Scotland have also yielded detailed holocephalan fossils from the early Carbonifeorus.^[10][20][46]

^: 174

Habitats

Both living and fossil holocephalans have a

waters shallower than 200 meters.^[43][91][97] While some authors such as Grogan and Lund have suggest holocephalans inhabited deep-water environments since the Paleozoic,^{[20][76]: 77} ancestral chimaeras were likely shallow-water fishes, and the radiation of the group into deepwater niches occurred during the early Cenozoic era.^[35]

Diet

Adaptations for a duropagous diet such as flattened tooth plates and a fused, immobile skull are prevalent among holocephalans,^[7] but feeding styles are greatly variable. Modern chimaeras are generalist, opportunist feeders that regularly eat both soft-bodied and shelled prey.^[43][60] The genus Callorhinchus is known to eat worms, crustaceans and hard-shelled mollusks, and other chimaeras are also known to prey on small fish. Smaller prey items are often eaten whole via suction feeding rather than being crushed or bitten, which is likely achieved using the muscles of the throat and flexible, cartilaginous lips. The bite forces of chimaeras are weaker than those of dulophagous sharks, and chimaeras may rely on their vomerine tooth-plates to split and crack shells rather than solely crushing them.^[60]

During the late Paleozoic, many holocephalan lineages became specialized for feeding styles besides durophagy. The edestoids, a lineage of Eugeneodontiformes, were pelagic macropredators which fed on fish and cephalopods.^[68][70] The genus Edestus has been proposed to have fed by processing prey between its paired tooth-whorls,^[98] while the related Helicoprion may have been a specialist hunter of belemnoids and ammonoids.^[70] The poorly-known petalodont Megactenopetalus may have also been a macropredator based on its large, interlocking blade-like tooth plates.^[99] The sibyrhinchid iniopterygian Iniopera was a suction feeder that fed in a similar manner to some living bony fish and aquatic salamanders.^[45] Other iniopterygians have been considered specialists that shredded soft-bodied prey with their mobile tooth-whorls.^[27][78]

Parasites

digestive tract of chimaeras^[100]

Modern holocephalans are vulnerable to a range of parasitic infections. Among these are tapeworms of the order Gyrocotylidea, which are found only in chimaeras and are thought to be a primitive, relict group.^[100][101] Fossilized tapeworms are also known in the symmoriiform Cobelodus, which represent the earliest evidence of parasitism in the group if symmoriiformes are considered members of Holocephali.^[102][103]

Decline

Total-group Holocephali has seen a significant decline in diversity since the Paleozoic, and only a single, morphologically-conserved order survives today.^{[17]: 48–49 [20][35]} The holocephalans peaked in diversity during the Mississippian subperiod of the Carboniferous and make up the majority of known chondrichthyan taxa from the time.^{[20][25][104]} Diversity remained relatively high throughout the later Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian subperiod), but the group saw a significant decline in diversity at the Carboniferous-Permian boundary which continued through the rest of the Permian period.^[25] By the end of the Permian, most holocephalan groups had become extinct,^{[17]: 48–49 [20][91]} although the Eugeneodontiformes remained widespread and diverse for a brief period during the Early Triassic.^{[24][52][105]} The order Chimaeriformes also continued throughout the Mesozoic, but the suborders Myriacanthoidei and the sometimes included Squalorajoidei became extinct during the Jurassic period,^[106][107] leaving only three families in the suborder Chimaeroidea persisting through the Cenozoic and into the present.^{[17]: 51–53 [76]: 76–77 [94]: 200} Today, chimaeras make up as little as 4% of named cartilaginous fish,^{[108]: 1–4} and consist of 56 known species.^[4]

See also

• Evolution of fish
• List of chimaeras
• List of prehistoric cartilaginous fish

References

1. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.141932
   .
2. ^
   doi:10.5962/bhl.title.70395
   .
3. ^
   S2CID 40689320
   .
4. ^ ^{a b c} "Order Summary for Chimaeriformes". fishbase.org. Retrieved 2025-02-01.
5. ^
   doi:10.5962/bhl.title.5311
   .
6. ISBN 978-0-226-72488-1
   .
7. ^
   ISBN 978-3-931516-63-5
   .
8. ^
   doi:10.5962/bhl.title.13917
   .
9. doi:10.1144/GSL.JGS.1847.003.01-02.40
   .
10. ^
    ISSN 0305-8719
    .
11. ^
    doi:10.5962/bhl.title.4275
    .
12. ^ ^{a b c} Woodward, Arthur S. (1921). "Observations on some extinct elasmobranch fishes". Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. 133: 29–39 – via Biodiversity Heritage Library.
13. ^
    doi:10.1098/rstb.1965.0010
    .
14. ^
    ISBN 978-0-471-65713-2
    .
15. ^ ^{a b c} Nielsen, Egil (1952). "On new or little known Edestidae from the Permian and Triassic of East Greenland". Meddelelser om Grønland. 144: 5–55.
16. ^
    ISBN 978-0-12-519650-5
    , retrieved 2025-02-02
17. ^
    ISBN 978-1-118-34233-6
    .
18. ^
    PMID 22497368
    .
19. ^
    ISBN 978-3899370454
    .
20. ^
    ISBN 978-1-4398-3924-9
    , retrieved 2025-02-25
21. ^
    ISSN 0031-0301
    – via ResearchGate.
22. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i j} Didier, Dominique A.; Didier, Dominique A. (1995). Phylogenetic systematics of extant chimaeroid fishes (Holocephali, Chimaeroidei). New York, N.Y: American Museum of Natural History.
23. ^
    ISSN 1755-6910
    .
24. ^
    ISBN 978-3-89937-116-1
    .
25. ^
    ISSN 0094-8373
    – via ResearchGate.
26. ISBN 978-0-471-54713-6
    .
27. ^
    ISSN 0001-7272
    .
28. ^
    ISSN 0272-4634
    .
29. ^
    ISSN 2660-9568
    .
30. ^
    ISBN 978-0-7167-1822-2
    .
31. ^
    ISBN 978-0-19-854047-2
    .
32. ^
    PMID 37009301
    .
33. ^ Hodnett, J-.P. M; Grogan, E. D.; Lund, R.; Lucas, S. G.; Suazo, T.; Elliott, D. K.; Pruitt, J. (2021). "Ctenacanthiform sharks from the late Pennsylvanian (Missourian) Tinajas Member of the Atrasado Formation, Central New Mexico". New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 84: 391–424.
34. ^
    PMID 28052054
    .
35. ^
    doi:10.1101/2024.08.01.606185
    , retrieved 2025-02-01
36. PMID 33203942
    .
37. PMID 31575362
    .
38. ^
    PMID 33329708
    .
39. ^
    PMID 33050779
    .
40. PMID 32388865
    .
41. ^
    PMID 10681469
    .
42. ^
    S2CID 129866356
    .
43. ^
    ISBN 978-1-4398-3924-9, retrieved 2025-02-25{{citation}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of May 2025 (link
    )
44. PMID 26339918
    .
45. ^
    PMID 36649436
    .
46. ^
    ISBN 978-1-118-40684-7
    .
47. ISSN 0001-7272
    .
48. ^
    PMID 29847876
    .
49. PMID 30536888
    .
50. ^
    PMID 21220324
    .
51. OCLC 951925606
    .
52. ^
    ISSN 0305-8719
    .
53. ^
    ISSN 0031-0301
    .
54. ^
    ISBN 978-3-89937-269-4
    .
55. ^
    ISSN 1573-5133
    .
56. ^
    PMID 34949070
    .
57. ^
    PMID 33122684
    .
58. ^
    ISSN 0024-4082
    .
59. ^
    PMID 32617556
    .
60. ^
    ISBN 978-0-323-91789-6
    .
61. ^
    doi:10.4202/app.00533.2018
    .
62. ^
    ISSN 1755-6910
    .
63. ^
    PMID 40251991
    .
64. ^
    PMID 33895988
    .
65. PMID 30923631
    .
66. PMID 33620142
    .
67. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.3151
    .
68. ^
    ISSN 0001-7272
    .
69. doi:10.26879/831
    . Retrieved 2025-04-29.
70. ^
    PMID 25181366
    .
71. ISSN 0891-2963
    .
72. ISSN 0022-3360
    .
73. ^
    ISSN 1365-2451
    .
74. ^
    PMID 21775333
    .
75. ^
    doi:10.5962/bhl.title.29471
    .
76. ^
    ISBN 978-1-316-01833-0
    .
77. ^
    ISSN 1477-2019
    .
78. ^
    doi:10.5962/bhl.title.5158
    .
79. ISSN 1463-6409
    .
80. JSTOR 1304712
    .
81. ^
    PMID 17821193
    .
82. ^
    ISSN 1477-2019
    .
83. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.29471
    .
84. ^
    PMID 39967761
    .
85. ^
    ISSN 0024-4082
    .
86. PMID 38298400
    .
87. ^
    ISBN 978-0-8018-9695-8
    .
88. ISSN 0001-7272
    .
89. doi:10.1016/j.crpv.2008.04.002
    .
90. PMID 23825540
    .
91. ^
    PMID 20551041
    .
92. ^ ^{a b} Ginter, Michal; Agnieszka, Agnieszka (2004). "The first Devonian holocephalian tooth from Poland". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 49 (3): 409–415.
93. ISSN 1439-6092
    .
94. ^
    ISBN 978-1-4051-2494-2
    .
95. ^
    ISSN 0016-6995
    .
96. ^
    ISSN 0016-6995
    .
97. PMID 38152990
    .
98. PMID 30536888
    .
99. JSTOR 1303788
    .
100. ^
     PMID 33750808
     .
101. doi:10.32873/unl.dc.ciap070
     .
102. PMID 26538112
     .
103. ^ Zangerl, Rainer (November 1976). "Cobelodus aculeatus (Cope), an anacanthous shark from Pennsylvanian black shales of North America". Palaeontographica: Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte der Vorzeit. 154: 107–157. Retrieved 28 December 2021.
104. ISSN 1755-6910
     .
105. PMID 24647136
     .
106. ISSN 2660-9568
     .
107. ISSN 0077-7749
     .
108. ISBN 978-0-8078-5466-2
     .

External links

• Chimaera at Encyclopedia Britannica
• Bear Gulch – Fish Primer at sju.edu. Archived 10 June 2011 via Wayback Machine