Compare isolated teeth, a disarticulated dermoskeleton, one armoured articulated body and a later compressed skeleton while keeping stem placement separate from crown sharks and global FAD claims.
Each step names its evidence claims, with references below. Interactive Explorer states are available in the full application; the narrative remains an editorial synthesis.
Twenty-three Qianodus tooth whorls at roughly 439 Ma provide direct evidence of jawed-vertebrate dentition. No articulated jaw or body is known, and nearby scales and spines cannot be assigned by proximity alone.
Earliest direct dental evidence in the study is narrower than the origin of jaws or crown Chondrichthyes.
claim:event:early-silurian-qianodus-tooth-whorlsFanjingshania dermal elements from the same approximate age show a spine–plate complex that grew through multiple centres and cyclical tissue resorption. Disarticulation prevents a complete-body or associated-tooth claim.
Co-occurrence of Qianodus and Fanjingshania is not evidence that they are the same animal.
claim:event:rongxi-fanjingshania-dermoskeletonShenacanthus combines minute scales and a chondrichthyan-like posterior branchial region with large thoracic armour at roughly 436 Ma. A single toothless holotype and method-sensitive placement block a crown-shark reading.
A chondrichthyan total-group placement is not a diagnosis of the living shark crown.
claim:event:chongqing-shenacanthus-body-planAt roughly 385 Ma, UMZC 2000.32 preserves jaws, gill arches, cartilage, scales and teeth in a surprising character mosaic. Compression, a missing tail and inferred feeding ecology remain visible limitations.
The stable shark-like morphotype was assembled through a more disparate stem history than one specimen can summarize.
claim:event:givetian-gladbachus-mosaic-anatomy