Centrophoridae, Bleeker, 1859

Elasmobranch, Its Implications For Global, Parasitology, Diversity And, Naylor, G. J. P., Sc, Caira, J. N., Ct, Jensen, K., Ks, Rosana, K. A. M., Fl, White, W. T., Csiro, Tas, Last, P. R., Csiro & Tas, 2012, A Dna Sequence-Based Approach To The Identification Of Shark And Ray Species And Its Implications For Global Elasmobranch Diversity And Parasitology, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2012 (367), pp. 1-262 : 59-61

Centrophoridae (gulper sharks)

Centrophorus squamosus (leafscale gulper shark)

( fig. 43)

The analysis included 50 specimens of Centrophorus squamosus . These came from several localities in the North Atlantic including the mid-Atlantic ridge, the Azores, Madeira, and Scotland, as well as New Zealand, Australia, and the southwest Indian Ocean, and thus represent much of the global distribution of this species. Only two of these samples come from museum specimens (GN4926 5 ANFC H 5343-06 and GN6614 5 MMF 36123). The range in pairwise differences among these 50 specimens was 0–9, with an average of 1.3. It is interesting to note that 28 of the specimens were identical in sequence and these came from the Azores, Scotland, the mid-Atlantic ridge, Australia, New Zealand, and the southwest Indian Ocean.

Centrophorus granulosus (gulper shark) ( fig. 43)

In combination, the 13 specimens of this species included in the analysis were collected from the western North Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, Madeira, the coast of mainland Portugal, and New South Wales, Australia. The overall distribution of this species is uncertain pending a taxonomic revision of this group. The two samples from Australia came from specimens deposited in the Australian National Fish Collection (GN4924 5 ANFC H 5343-06 and GN4925 5 ANFC H 5343-07); the two samples from mainland Portugal came from specimens in the museum in Funchal (GN6613 5 MMF 36122 and GN6615 5 MMF 36124). The range in pairwise differences seen among these 13 specimens was 0–2, with an average of 0.6. The mean of the pairwise differences between specimens of C. granulosus and those of C. squamosus was 37.8. A similar lack of divergence between these two species was reported by Moura et al. (2008).

Centrophorus cf. lusitanicus ( fig. 43)

Four specimens taken from the Mozambique Channel off Madagascar were included in the analysis. The images for these specimens most closely resemble the illustration of C. lusitanicus from southern Africa in Bass et al. (1986). However, since no specimens from near the type locality for this species are included (i.e., Portugal) this species is referred to as C. cf. lusitanicus . The range in pairwise differences among these specimens was 1–5, with an average of pairwise differences of 3.2. Taxonomic revision of this complex is being undertaken by W.W. and Dave Ebert.

Centrophorus sp. 1 ( fig. 43)

Two specimens collected from Jamaica by John Morrissey were included in the analysis and were identical in sequence. They clustered most closely with, but independently from, the four specimens of Centrophorus cf. lusitanicus collected from Madagascar. The average of the pairwise differences between these specimens and those of C. cf. lusitanicus was 8.8. Unfortunately, images are not available for these specimens. We have referred to them as Centrophorus sp. 1 until their identity can be examined in more detail. It is possible these specimens represent an undescribed species.

Centrophorus harrissoni (longnose gulper shark)

( fig. 43)

Three specimens of this Australian / New Zealand endemic were included in the analysis. The range in pairwise differences among these three specimens was 1–5 ; the mean was 3.3. All three came from specimens collected from Tasmania (see White et al., 2008) and deposited in the Australian National Fish Collection (GN4941 5 ANFC H 6307-07 , GN4942 5 ANFC H 6309-05 , and GN4943 5 ANFC H 6500-01 ) .

Centrophorus isodon (blackfin gulper shark) ( fig. 43)

Two specimens identified as C. isodon were included in the analysis. Both specimens (GN4338 5 JPAG 227 and GN4392 5 JPAG 225) were collected from the Philippines and were treated by Compagno et al. (2005b) as new records of this species from this region. These specimens differed in sequence by only one base. The average of the pairwise differences between these specimens and those of C. harrissoni , with which they were closely clustered, was 11.5.

Centrophorus sp. 2 ( fig. 43)

The analysis included three specimens, all from Taiwan, two of which came from vouchers (GN973 5 UMMZ 231976 and GN974 5 UMMZ 231959). This species belongs to the C. lusitanicus complex but likely represents an undescribed species. The range in pairwise differences among these specimens was 0–3, with an average of 2. Taxonomic revision of this complex is being undertaken by W.W. and Dave Ebert.

Centrophorus sp. 3 ( fig. 43)

A single specimen collected from the Philippines that resembles C. lusitanicus was includ- ed in the analysis. This specimen (GN4348 5 JPAG 226) was considered by Compagno et al. (2005b) to represent a new record of C. lusitanicus for the Philippines. The average of the pairwise differences between this specimen and the three specimens of Centrophorus sp. 2 from Taiwan was 13.7. This species is possibly conspecific with specimens off Indonesia that were tentatively referred to as C. cf. lusitanicus by White et al. (2006). However, this species likely represents an undescribed species. Taxonomic revision of this complex is being undertaken by W.W. and Dave Ebert.

Centrophorus zeehaani (southern dogfish) complex

( fig. 43)

The analysis yielded a single cluster, consisting of a total of five specimens, three of which were paratypes of the newly described species C. zeehaani deposited in the Australian National Fish Collection (GN4932 5 ANFC H 6628-01 , GN4933 5 ANFC H 6628-03 , and GN4934 5 ANFC H 6628-07 ) (see White et al., 2008). The remaining two specimens were collected from Angola and Madeira. The range in pairwise differences among all five specimens was 0–1. As C. zeehaani is currently considered an endemic of southern Australia, we have used the provisional designation C. cf. zeehaani for the specimens from Madeira and Angola until this unusual finding can be explored further. We note that photographs of the specimen from Madeira are available in the database ; it is superficially similar morphologically to the Australian specimens.

Centrophorus moluccensis (smallfin gulper shark)

( fig. 43)

Ten specimens, which were morphologically consistent with C. moluccensis , were included in the analysis: one specimen came from the southwestern Indian Ocean , one from Malaysian Borneo, six specimens were deposited in the Australian National Fish Collection (GN4921 5 ANFC H 3599-04 , GN4922 5 ANFC H 6410-01 , GN4923 5 ANFC H 6410-02 , GN4927 5 ANFC H 5343-07 , GN4928 5 ANFC H 4873-03 , and GN4929 5 ANFC H 2575-26 ), five of these were collected from Australian and one from New Zealand localities, while three samples came from the Philippines. These specimens thus represent a large portion of the Indo- West Pacific distribution of this species. Two of the three specimens from the Philippines (GN4329 5 JPAG 257 and GN4351 5 JPAG 258) were among those treated by Compagno et al. (2005b) as Centrophorus cf. moluccensis . The analysis yielded a cluster consisting of two potential subclusters. The range in pairwise differences among all 10 specimens was 0–14, with an average of 6.4. One of the subclusters consisted of the specimens collected from Borneo and Australia ; the other consisted of the three specimens from the Philippines. The range in pairwise distances among specimens in the former subcluster was 0–8 and among specimens in the latter subcluster was 5–11. The average of the pairwise distances among specimens in the two subclusters was 9.9 .

Deania calcea (birdbeak dogfish) ( fig. 44)

A total of 26 specimens of this species were included in the analysis. These came from the mid-Atlantic ridge, Ireland, Scotland, southern Africa, New Zealand, Tasman Sea, and southwest Indian Ocean, and thus represent much of the distribution of this species. Three of these specimens were from the Australian National Fish Collection (GN4945 5 ANFC H 4873-02, GN4946 5 ANFC H 5343-08, and GN4947 5 ANFC H 5365-01). The analysis yielded essentially a single cluster. The range of pairwise differences among specimens in the cluster was 0–11, with an average of 3.3.

Deania cf. profundorum ( fig. 44)

The analysis included five specimens preliminarily identified as D. cf. profundorum , all taken from the coast of mainland Portugal and the Azores, but the identities of which remain to be confirmed. The range in pairwise differences among specimens in this cluster was 0–10, with an average of 5.4. Images are available only for the specimen from the Azores and they suggest that at least this specimen is not fully consistent with existing descriptions of Deania profundorum (e.g., Compagno, 1984b). For example, this specimen has a second dorsal fin that differs substantially in shape from that of the true D. profundorum . Further taxonomic work, including specimens definitively identified as D. profundorum , and preferably taken from throughout the extensive distribution of that species is required.

Deania quadrispinosa (longsnout dogfish) complex

( fig. 44)

Three specimens identified as D. quadrispinosa were included in the analysis. These were all collected from New South Wales, Australia, and represent only the eastern portion of the distribution of this species, which extends from east of New Zealand to the west coast of South Africa. However, while two of these specimens exhibited sequences that differed from one another by only a single base, the average of the pairwise differences between these two specimens and the third specimen was 22.5, suggesting that they may represent more than a single species. We have given these specimens separate designations (i.e., D. quadrispinosum 1 and D. quadrispinosum 2) in order to call attention to this interesting result.