QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online November 4, 2005
Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 4255-4261 (2005)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2005
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01898

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JEB Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sepulveda, C. A. Articles by Graham, J. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sepulveda, C. A. Articles by Graham, J. B. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The red muscle morphology of the thresher sharks (family Alopiidae)

C. A. Sepulveda^1,2,*, N. C. Wegner¹, D. Bernal³ and J. B. Graham¹

¹ Center for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine and Marine Biology Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0204, USA
² Pfleger Institute of Environmental Research, Oceanside, CA 92054, USA
³ Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA 02747, USA

^* Author for correspondence (e-mail: chugey{at}pier.org)

Accepted 24 September 2005

A more medial and anterior position of the red aerobic myotomal muscle (RM) and the presence of a vascular counter-current heat exchange system provide the functional elements that facilitate regional RM endothermy in tunas, lamnid sharks and the common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus). The convergent RM morphology among all species capable of RM endothermy suggests that RM position is a strong predictor of fish endothermic capacity. The present study investigated the comparative RM morphology of the other two thresher shark species (bigeye thresher, Alopias superciliosus, and the pelagic thresher, Alopias pelagicus), for which there is no information regarding their capacity for RM endothermy, and compared these data with published works on A. vulpinus. The digitization of transverse sections along the body of A. superciliosus and A. pelagicus enabled quantification of the relative amount of RM and the position and placement of the RM along the body. The RM in both A. superciliosus and A. pelagicus is positioned subcutaneously, along the lateral edges of the myotomes, and is distributed relatively evenly over the trunk of the body. The position of maximum RM area is at 50% fork length (FL) for A. superciliosus and at 75% FL for A. pelagicus. The amount of RM (mean ± S.E.M.) is 2.31±0.11% and 3.01±0.10% in A. superciliosus and A. pelagicus, respectively. When compared with A. vulpinus, all three alopiid sharks have a similar amount of RM. However, A. superciliosus and A. pelagicus differ from A. vulpinus in that they do not possess the medial and anterior RM arrangement that would likely facilitate metabolic heat conservation (RM endothermy).

Key words: Alopias, endothermy, red muscle, aerobic, temperature, retia, lamnid

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

Related articles in JEB:

NOT ALL THRESHER SHARKS KEEP WARM

Yfke van Bergen
JEB 2005 208: i. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Y. van Bergen NOT ALL THRESHER SHARKS KEEP WARM J. Exp. Biol., November 15, 2005; 208(22): i - i. [Full Text] [PDF]