New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Sharklike Fossil Fills In the Jaws Family Tree

A new analysis of an ancient specimen helps to flesh out the marine predators’ evolution 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Science knows very little about shark evolution. This is partly because “cartilage is a funny tissue,” says John Maisey, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Shark bodies are largely made of this firm, white connective substance—which does not fossilize well. For hundreds of years scientists have only been able to guess that sharks probably had some bony fish ancestors. But now, using a CT scanner to evaluate the only known fossil of an ancient fish called Doliodus problematicus, Maisey and his colleagues may have found a crucial missing piece in the shark origin puzzle.

“Shark skeletons are among the rarest [finds],” Maisey explains. The 400-million-year-old Doliodus skeleton was discovered in the mid-1990s in the Canadian province of New Brunswick. Yet it was not until 2014 that advanced CT technology allowed Maisey to see that the specimen had sharklike jaws and tooth arrangements. Earlier this year he and his colleagues reported in American Museum Novitates that it also had a row of spines along its back and pelvic fins that match a much older and well-studied class of extinct bony fishes called acanthodians. In other words, Doliodus bears features of both the older bony fishes and modern sharks.

“This is a significant discovery,” says Michael Coates, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, who was not involved in the study. The findings support the idea that acanthodians “represent a missing chunk of early shark evolution.” Thanks to Maisey's find, researchers will now have to go back and study acanthodians in a whole new light.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe