QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
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 Summary 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 Mehta, R. S. Articles by Wainwright, P. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mehta, R. S. 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

View larger version (35K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Lateral and ventral illustrations of the skull for Muraena retifera (A,B), Echidna nebulosa (C,D) and Anguilla rostrata (E,F). Note the well-developed hyoid bar in Anguilla, as compared to the thin hyoid in Muraena and Echidna. Abbreviations of skeletal elements follow Gregory (Gregory, 1933). Lateral view (A,C,E): D, dentary; F, frontal; HM, hyomandibular; Mx, maxilla; OP, opercle; Par, parietal; PMx-Etv, premaxillo-ethmovomerine complex; PSph, parasphenoid; Q, quadrate. Ventral view (B,D,F): BBr, basibranchial; BH, basihyal; CH, ceratohyal; D, dentary; U, urohyal.

View larger version (127K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Kinematic examples of a prey capture event for (A) Echidna nebulosa, (B) Muraena retifera and (C) Anguilla rostrata. Note the differences in time to peak gape (center panels) and prey capture time (right panels) between the three eel species. Also note the lack of hyoid depression in the two morays.

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Kinematic profiles representative of the cichlid Amphilophus citrinellus, the anguillid Anguilla rostrata and the two moray eels, Muraena retifera and Echidna nebulosa. Dash-dot lines represent hyoid movement. Bold-face dash-dot lines indicate the lack of hyoid movement during prey capture for morays. Solid black lines represent lower jaw depression. Broken lines and dotted lines represent cranial elevation. Data are smoothed using the running average.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Kinematic events during prey capture for Muraena retifera and Echidna nebulosa. Note the high frequencies of reversals in rotation of the jaw and head rotation in the time between onset of the strike and peak mouth opening. In the M. retifera plot, the arrow indicates a cranial reversal event and in the E. nebulosa plot, the arrow indicates a jaw reversal event.

View larger version (7K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Axes of kinematic variation in prey capture as revealed by PCA. Each point represents a feeding sequence on the respective axes for the species examined. Note the separation of morays from A. rostrata on PC1. Magnitude of angular excursions and all timing variables load positively on PC1 for morays and negatively for Anguilla rostrata. Head loaded strongly and negatively on PC2. Moray eels, Muraena retifera and Echidna nebulosa, exhibited more variable kinematics than the suction-feeding Anguilla rostrata.