NOTE Mollet et al : Re-identification of a lamnid shark embryo 



869 



Figure 1 



(A) Sanzo ( 1912) lamnid embryo (TOT 36.0 cm. MZUF 591 1). Smallest scale intervals = 1/32". 



( B) Uchida ( 1989) shortfin mako embryo ( TOT 35.8 cm, SAM 35742 1. Smallest scale interval = 

 1 mm. (C) Sanzo embryo ventral view of mouth focusing on upper right teeth in first row. 

 Smallest scale intervals = 1 mm. (D) Sanzo embryo functional 5th upper left tooth (enameloid 

 height E2 -2 mm). (E) Sanzo embryo replacement 5th upper left tooth (E2 -2.3 mm. 

 total vertical height H -2.9 mm). Thin layer of tissue is covering apex. 



to slightly-behind the pectoral fin free rear tip (Fig. 2D, 

 PDl-PRT). The eyes of the Sanzo embryo were unexpect- 

 edly small (EYL=1.4% and 1.8%, Sanzo's (1912) and our 

 measurement, respectively) compared with those reported 

 for nearterm shortfin mako embryos and neonates (e.g. 

 EYL=2. 7-2.9% TL; Stevens, 1983). On the other hand, 

 they were similar in size to those of the Uchida embryo 

 (1.7% ) and the Putz and Gilmore litter (1.4-1.8%; Fig. 2E). 



Small shortfin mako embryos have small eyes; but rela- 

 tive eye length increases rapidly and reaches a maximum 

 of about 3% in near-term embryos of 60-64 cm TL, before 

 declining in postnatal fish. 



No secondary caudal keel was observed in the Sanzo 

 embryo by Sanzo (1912) or by us. Nevertheless, this does 

 not allow the elimination of the porbeagle; secondary keels 

 may be difficult to detect in preserved porbeagle embryos 



