... Tooth shape frequently reflects trophic niches that are being explored (Fitzgerald, Winemiller, Sabaj Pérez, & Sousa, 2017;Streelman, Webb, Albertson, & Kocher, 2003). As tooth shape becomes quickly adapted to the different habitats these fishes occupy (Raia, Carotenuto, Meloro, Piras, & Pushkina, 2010), it frequently reflects the type of food a species has become adapted to consume (Davit-Béal, Tucker, & Sire, 2009;Evans, 2013;Huysseune & Sire, 1998;Pasco-Viel et al., 2010;Streelman et al., 2003;Takahashi, Watanabe, Nishida, & Hori, 2007), even within a single generation (Calandra, Labonne, Schulz-Kornas, Kaiser, & Montuire, 2016;French et al., 2017). Several other phenotypic traits have shown functional divergence under ecological disparity, such as the pharyngeal jaw (Magalhaes, Ornelas-Garcıa, Leal-Cardin, Ramírez, & Barluenga, 2015), the gill rakers (Schluter & McPhail, 1992), body shape (Barluenga, Stölting, Salzburger, Muschick, & Meyer, 2006), gut length (Wagner, McIntyre, Buels, Gilbert, & Michel, 2009), mouth position (Burress, Holcomb, & Armbruster, 2016), snout length (Bonato, Burress, & Fialho, 2017), fin length, and body size (Farré, Tuset, Maynou, Recasens, & Lombarte, 2013), in the same line like as tooth size and shape. ...