The ampullae of Lorenzini are the electroreceptors of elasmobranchs. Ampullary pores located in the elasmobranch skin are each connected to a gel-filled canal that ends in an ampullary bulb, in which the sensory epithelium is located. Each ampulla functions as an independent receptor that measures the potential difference between the ampullary pore opening and the body interior. In the elasmobranch head, the ampullary bulbs of different ampullae are aggregated in 3–6 bilaterally symmetric clusters, which can be surrounded by a connective tissue capsule. Each cluster is innervated by one branch of the anterior lateral line nerve (ALLN). Only the dorsal root of the ALLN carries electrosensory fibers, which terminate in the dorsal octavo-lateral nucleus (DON) of the medulla. Each ampullary cluster projects into a distinctive area in the central zone of the DON, where projection areas are somatotopically arranged. Sharks and rays can possess thousands of ampullae. Amongst other functions, the use of electroreception during prey localization is well documented. The distribution of ampullary pores in the skin of elasmobranchs is influenced by both the phylogeny and ecology of a species. Pores are grouped in distinct pore fields, which remain recognizable amongst related taxa. However, the density of pores within a pore field, which determines the electroreceptive resolution, is influenced by the ecology of a species. Here, I compare the pore counts per pore field between rhinobatids (shovelnose rays) and pristids (sawfish). In both groups, the number of ampullary pores on the ventral side of the rostrum is similar, even though the pristid rostrum can comprise about 20% of the total length. Ampullary pore numbers in pristids are increased on the upper side of the rostrum, which can be related to a feeding strategy that targets free-swimming prey in the water column. Shovelnose rays pin their prey onto the substrate with their disk, while repositioning their mouth for ingestion and thus possess large numbers of pores ventrally around the mouth and in the area between the gills.

1.
Aadland CR (1992): Anatomical observation and description of the ampullae of Lorenzini in the shortfin mako shark Isurus oxyrhinchus; MSc thesis, Bucknell University, 51 pp.
2.
Andres KH, von Düring M (1988): Comparative anatomy of vertebrate electroreceptors. Prog Brain Res 74:113–131.
3.
Aschliman NC, Nishida M, Miya M, Inoue JG, Rosana KM, Naylor GJ (2012): Body plan convergence in the evolution of skates and rays (Chondrichthyes: Batoidea). Mol Phylogenet Evol 63:28–42.
4.
Bell C (2000): Evolution of cerebellum-like structures. Brain Behav Evol 59:312–326.
5.
Bennett MVL, Clusin WT (1978): Physiology of the ampullae of Lorenzini, the electroreceptor of elasmobranchs; in Hodgson ES, Mathewson RF (eds): Sensory Biology of Sharks, Skates and Rays. Arlington, Department of the Navy, Office of Naval Research, pp 483–506.
6.
Bennett MVL, Obara S (1986): Ionic mechanisms and pharmacology of electroreceptors; in Bullock TH, Heiligenberg W (eds): Electroreception. New York, Wiley-Interscience, pp 157–182.
7.
Bodznick DA (1989): Comparison between electrosensory and mechanosensory lateral line systems; in Coombs S, Görner P, Münz H (eds): The Mechanosensory Lateral Line: Neurobiology and Evolution. New York, Springer, pp 655–680.
8.
Bodznick DA, Boord RL (1986): Electroreception in Chondrichthyes: central anatomy and physiology; in Bullock TH, Heiligenberg W (eds): Electroreception. New York, John Wiley and Sons Interscience Publications, pp 225–257.
9.
Bodznick DA, Montgomery JC (2005): The physiology of low-frequency electrosensory systems; in Bullock TH, Hopkins C, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds): Electroreception. New York, Springer, pp 132–153.
10.
Bodznick DA, Montgomery JC, Bradley DJ (1992): Suppression of common mode signals within the electrosensory system of the little skate Raja erinacea. J Exp Biol 171:107–125.
11.
Bodznick DA, Montgomery JC, Tricas TC (2003): Electroreception: Extracting behaviorally important signals from noise; in Collin SP, Marshall NJ (eds): Sensory Processing in Aquatic Environments. New York, Springer, pp 389–403.
12.
Boord RL, Campbell CBG (1977): Structural and functional organization of the lateral line system of sharks. Am Zool 17:431–441.
13.
Brown BR, Hutchinson JC, Hughes ME, Kellogg DR, Murray RW (2002): Electrical characterization of gel collected from shark electrosensors. Phys Rev E 65:061903.
14.
Bullock TH, Bodznick DA, Northcutt RG (1983): The phylogenetic distribution of electroreception: evidence for convergent evolution of a primitive vertebrate sense modality. Brain Res Rev 6:25–46.
15.
Bullock TH, Northcutt RG, Bodznick DA (1982): Evolution of electroreception. TINS 1982:50–53.
16.
Bullock TH, Szabo T (1986): Introduction; in Bullock TH, Heiligenberg W (eds): Electroreception. New York, John Wiley and Sons Interscience Publications, pp 1–12.
17.
Camperi M, Tricas TC, Brown BR (2007): From morphology to neural information: The electric sense of the skate. PLoS Comp Biol 3:1083–1096.
18.
Cappetta H (1974): Sclerorhynchidae nov. fam., pristidae et pristiophoridae: un exemple de parallelisme chez les selachiens. C R Acad Sci Paris D 278:225–228.
19.
Chu YT, Wen MC (1979): A study of the lateral-line canal system and that of the Lorenzini ampullae and tubules of elasmobranchiate fishes of China. Monogr Fishes China 132.
20.
Clusin WT, Bennett MVL (1979a): The ionic basis of oscillatory responses of skate electroreceptors. J Gen Physiol 73:703–723.
21.
Clusin WT, Bennett MVL (1979b): The oscillatory responses of skate electroreceptors to small voltage stimuli. J Gen Physiol 73:685.
22.
Collin SP, Whitehead DL (2004): The functional roles of passive electroreception in non-electric fishes. Anim Biol 54:1–25.
23.
Coombs S, Montgomery JC (2005): Comparing octavolateralis sensory systems: what can we learn?; in Bullock TH, Hopkins C, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds): Electroreception. New York, Springer, pp 318–359.
24.
Dijkgraaf S, Kalmijn AJ (1963): Untersuchungen über die Funktion der Lorenzinischen Ampullen an Haifischen. Z Vergl Physiol 47:438–456.
25.
Ewart JC, Mitchell JC (1891): On the lateral sense organs of elasmobranchs. II. The sensory canals of the common skate (Raia batis). Trans Roy Soc Edin 37:87–105.
26.
Fjällbrant TT, Manger PR, Pettigrew JD (1998): Some related aspects of platypus electroreception: temporal integration behaviour, electroreceptive thresholds and directionality of the bill acting as an antenna. Philos Trans R Soc 353:1211–1219.
27.
Gill AB, Kimber JA (2005): The potential for cooperative management of elasmobranchs and offshore renewable energy development in UK waters. J Mar Biol Ass UK 85:1075–1081.
28.
Gill AB, Taylor H (2001): The potential effects of electromagnetic fields generated by cabling between offshore wind turbines upon elasmobranch fishes. University of Liverpool CCW Science Report No. 448, 68 pp.
29.
Gribble NA, Broom DM (1996): Time series analysis and model of heart-beat rate, oxygen consumption, and locomotor activity from the sand-crab Portunus pelagicus (Linnaeus). Biol Rhythm Res 27:113–129.
30.
Haine OS, Ridd PV, Rowe RJ (2001): Range of electrosensory detection of prey by Carcharhinus melanopterus and Himantura granulata. Mar Freshw Res 52:291–296.
31.
Hensel H (1955): Quantitative Beziehungen zwischen Temperaturreiz und Aktionspotentialen der lorenzinischen Ampullen. J Comp Physiol A Sens 37:509–526.
32.
Johnson CS, Scronce BL, McManus MW (1984): Detection of DC electric dipoles in background fields by the nurse shark. J Comp Physiol A Sens 155:681–687.
33.
Jørgensen JM (2005): Morphology of electroreceptive sensory organs; in Bullock TH, Hopkins C, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds): Electroreception. New York, Springer, pp 47–67.
34.
Kajiura SM (2000): Head morphology and electrosensory pore distribution of carcharhinid and sphyrnid sharks. Environ Biol Fish 61:125–133.
35.
Kajiura SM (2003): Electroreception in neonatal bonnethead sharks, Sphyrna tiburo. Mar Biol 143:603–611.
36.
Kajiura SM, Cornett AD Yopak KE (2010): Sensory adaptations to the environment: electroreceptors as a case study; in Carrier JC, Musick JA, Heithaus MR (eds): Sharks and Their Relatives. II. Biodiversity, Adaptive Physiology and Conservation. Boca Raton, CRC Press, pp 393–434.
37.
Kajiura SM, Holland KN (2002): Electroreception in juvenile scalloped hammerhead and sandbar sharks. J Exp Biol 205:3609–3621.
38.
Kalmijn AJ (1966): Electro-perception in sharks and rays. Nature 218:1232–1233.
39.
Kalmijn AJ (1971): The electric sense of sharks and rays. J Exp Biol 55:371–383.
40.
Kalmijn AJ (1972): Bioelectric fields in seawater and the function of the ampullae of Lorenzini in elasmobranch fishes. Scripps Inst Oceanogr Ref Ser 72–83:1–21.
41.
Kalmijn AJ (1974): The detection of electric fields from inanimate and animate sources other than electric organs; in Fessard A (ed): Electroreceptors and Other Specialized Receptors in Lower Vertebrates. Berlin/Heidelberg, Springer, pp 147–200.
42.
Kalmijn AJ (1978): Electric and magnetic sensory world of sharks, skates and rays; in Hodgson ES, Mathewson RF (eds): Sensory Biology of Sharks, Skates and Rays. Arlington, Department of the Navy, Office of Naval Research, pp 507–528.
43.
Kalmijn AJ (1982): Electric and magnetic field detection in elasmobranch fishes. Science 218:916–918.
44.
Kalmijn AJ (1997): Electric and near-field acoustic detection, a comparative study. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl 161:638:25–38.
45.
Kalmijn AJ, Gonzalez IF, McClune MC (2002): The physical nature of life. J Physiol Paris 96:355–362.
46.
Kempster RM, McCarthy ID, Collin SP (2012): Phylogenetic and ecological factors influencing the number and distribution of electroreceptors in elasmobranchs. J Fish Biol 80:2055–2088.
47.
Kimber JA, Sims DW, Bellamy PH, Gill AB (2011): The ability of a benthic elasmobranch to discriminate between biological and artificial electric fields. Mar Biol 158:1–8.
48.
Marzullo T, Wueringer BE, Squire LJr, Collin SP (2011): Description of the mechanoreceptive lateral line and the electroreceptive ampullary systems in the freshwater whipray, Himantura dalyensis. Mar Fresh Res 62:771–779.
49.
McComb DM, Tricas TC, Kajiura SM (2009): Enhanced visual fields in hammerhead sharks. J Exp Biol 212:4010–4018.
50.
McGowan DW, Kajiura SM (2009): Electroreception in the euryhaline stingray, Dasyatis sabina. J Exp Biol 212:1544–1552.
51.
Montgomery JC, Bodznick DA, Yopak KE (2012): The cerebellum and cerebellum-like structures of cartilaginous fishes. Brain Behav Evol 80:152–165.
52.
Montgomery JC, Bodznick DA (1999): Signals and noise in the elasmobranch electrosensory system. J Exp Biol 202:1349–1355.
53.
Murray RW (1960): The response of the ampullae of Lorenzini of elasmobranchs to mechanical stimulation. J Exp Biol 37:417–424.
54.
Murray RW (1962): The response of the ampullae of Lorenzini of elasmobranchs to electrical stimulation. J Exp Biol 39:119–128.
55.
Murray RW (1974): The ampullae of Lorenzini; in Fessard A (ed): Electroreceptors and Other Specialized Receptors in Lower Vertebrates. Berlin, Springer, pp 125–146.
56.
Norris HW (1929): The distribution and innvervation of the ampullae of Lorenzini of the dogfish, Squalus acanthias. Some comparisons with conditions in other plagiostomes and corrections of prevalent errors. J Comp Neurol 47:449–465.
57.
Paulin MG (1995): Electroreception and the compass sense of sharks. J Theor Biol 174:325–339.
58.
Peters RC, Eeuwes LB, Bretschneider F (2007): On the electrodetection threshold of aquatic vertebrates with ampullary or mucous gland electroreceptor organs. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 82:361–373.
59.
Raschi WG (1978): Notes on the gross functional morphology of the ampullary system in two similar species of skates, Raja erinacea and R. ocellata. Copeia 1:48–53.
60.
Raschi WG (1984): Anatomical observations on the ampullae of Lorenzini from selected skates and galeoid sharks of the western north Atlantic; PhD thesis, College of William and Mary, Virginia, 78 pp.
61.
Raschi WG (1986): A morphological analysis of the ampullae of Lorenzini in selected skates (Pisces, Rajoidei). J Morphol 189:225–247.
62.
Raschi WG, Aadland CR, Keithar ED (2001): A morphological and functional analysis of ampullae of Lorenzini in selected galeoid sharks; in Kapoor BG, Hara TJ (eds): Sensory Biology of Jawed Fishes: New Insights. Enfield, Science Publishers, pp 297–316.
63.
Raschi WG, Keithran ED, Rhee WC (1997): Anatomy of the ampullary electroreceptor in the freshwater stingray, Himantura signifer. Copeia 1997:101–107.
64.
Sand A (1938): The function of the ampullae of Lorenzini, with some observations on the effect of temperature on sensory rhythms. Proc Roy Soc London B 125:524–553.
65.
Schaeffer B (1963): Cretaceaous fishes from Bolivia, with comments on pristid evolution. Am Mus Novit 2159:1–20.
66.
Sisneros JA, Tricas TC, Luer CA (1998): Response properties and biological function of the skate electrosensory system during ontogeny. J Comp Physiol A 183:87–99.
67.
Szabo T (1974): Anatomy of the specialized lateral line organs of electroreception; in Fessard A (ed): Electroreceptors and Other Specialized Receptors in Lower Vertebrates. Berlin, Springer, pp 13–58.
68.
Szamier RB, Bennett MVL (1980): Ampullary electroreceptors in the freshwater ray, Potamotrygon. J Comp Physiol 138:225–230.
69.
Taniuchi T, Shimizu M, Sano M, Baba O (1991): Descriptions of freshwater elasmobranchs collected from three rivers in Northern Australia; in Shimizu M, Taniuchi T (eds): Studies on Elasmobranchs Collected from Seven River Systems in Northern Australia and Papua New Guinea. Tokyo, Univ Mus Univ Tokyo, Nature and Culture, No 3, pp 11–26.
70.
Thorson TB (1982): Life history implications of a tagging study of the largetooth sawfish, Pristis perotteti, in the Lake Nicaragua-Rio San Juan system. Environ Biol Fish 7:207–228.
71.
Tricas TC (1982): Bioelectric-mediated predation by swell sharks, Cephaloscyllium ventriosum. Copeia 1982:948–952.
72.
Tricas TC (2001): The neuroecology of the elasmobranch sensory world: Why peripheral morphology shapes behaviour. Environ Biol Fish 60:77–92.
73.
Tricas TC, Michael SW, Sisneros JA (1995): Electrosensory optimization to conspecific phasing signals for mating. Neurosci Lett 202:129–132.
74.
Waltman B (1966): Electrical ties and fine structure of the ampullary canals of Lorenzini. Acta Physiol Scand 66(suppl 264):1–60.
75.
Whitehead DL (2002): Ampullary organs and electroreception in freshwater C. leucas. J Physiol Paris 96:391–395.
76.
Whitty JM, Morgan DL, Peverell SC, Thorburn DC (2009): Ontogenetic depth partitioning by juvenile freshwater sawfish (Pristis microdon: Pristidae) in a riverine environment. Mar Freshw Res 60:306–316.
77.
Wilga CAD Motta PJ (1998): Feeding mechanism of the atlantic guitarfish Rhinobatos lengtinosus: modulation of kinematic and motor activity. J Exp Biol 210:3167–3184.
78.
Wilkens LA, Hoffmann MH (2005): Behavior of animals with passive, low-frequency electrosensory systems; in Bullock TH, Hopkins C, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds): Electroreception. New York, Springer, pp 229–263.
79.
Wueringer BE, Peverell SC, Seymour JE, Squire L Jr, Kajiura SM, Collin SP (2011): Sensory systems in sawfishes. 1. The Ampullae of Lorenzini. Brain Behav Evol 78:139–149.
80.
Wueringer BE, Squire L Jr, Collin SP (2009): The biology of extinct and extant sawfish (Batoidea: Sclerorhynchidae and Pristidae). Rev Fish Biol Fish 19:445–464.
81.
Wueringer BE, Squire LJ, Kajiura SM, Hart NS, Collin SP (2012): The function of the sawfish’s saw. Curr Biol 22:R150–R151.
82.
Wueringer BE, Tibbetts IR (2008): Comparison of the lateral line and ampullary system of two species of shovelnose ray. Rev Fish Biol Fish 18:47–64.
83.
Wueringer BE, Tibbetts IR, Whitehead DL (2009): Ultrastructure of the ampullae of Lorenzini of Aptychotrema rostrata (Rhinobatidae). Zoomorphol (Berlin) 128:45–52.
84.
Zakon HH (1986): The electroreceptive periphery; in Bullock TH, Heiligenberg W (eds): Electroreception. New York, John Wiley and Sons Interscience Publications, pp 287–317.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.