spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online January 17, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 495-504 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02663
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JEB
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mehta, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Wainwright, P. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mehta, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Wainwright, P. C.

Biting releases constraints on moray eel feeding kinematics

Rita S. Mehta* and Peter C. Wainwright

Section of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA

* Author for correspondence (e-mail: rsmehta{at}ucdavis.edu)

Accepted 22 November 2006

We present an analysis of prey capture functional morphology in eels by comparing two species of moray eels, Muraena retifera and Echidna nebulosa (Family Muraenidae), to the American eel Anguilla rostrata (Family Anguillidae). The skulls of both moray species exhibited extreme reductions of several prominent components of the suction-feeding mechanism, including the hyoid bar, the sternohyoideus muscle and the pectoral girdle. Associated with these anatomical modifications, morays showed no evidence of using suction during prey capture. From 59 video sequences of morays feeding on pieces of cut squid we saw no hyoid depression and no movement of prey toward the mouth aperture during the strike, a widely used indicator of suction-induced water flow. This was in contrast to A. rostrata, which exhibited a robust hyoid, sternohyoideus muscle and pectoral girdle, and used suction to draw prey into its mouth. Average prey capture time in morays, about 500 ms, was roughly 10 times longer than in A. rostrata, and morays frequently reversed the direction of jaw and head rotation in the midst of the strike. We tested whether the absence of suction feeding reduces temporal constraints on feeding kinematics, permitting greater variance in traits that characterize timing and the extent of motion in the neurocranium, by comparing moray eel species with A. rostrata, two Centrarchids and a cichlid. Kinematic variance was roughly 5 times higher in morays than the suction-feeding species. Prey capture by suction demands a rapid, highly coordinated series of cranial movements and the loss of this mechanism appears to have permitted slower, more variable prey capture kinematics in morays. The alternative prey capture strategy in morays, biting, may be tied to their success as predators in the confined spaces of reef crevices where they hunt for cephalopods, crustaceans and fish.

Key words: moray eel, feeding, anatomical reduction, kinematic integration, Muraena retifera, Echidna nebulosa, Amphilophus citrinellus, Lepomis macrochirus, Micropterus salmoides


Related articles in JEB:

MORAYS DON'T SUCK, THEY BITE!
Laura Blackburn
JEB 2007 210: i. [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Exp. Biol.Home page
L. Blackburn
MORAYS DON'T SUCK, THEY BITE!
J. Exp. Biol., February 1, 2007; 210(3): i - i.
[Full Text] [PDF]


© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2007