New Insights on the Osteology and Taxonomy of the Osteoglossid Fishes Phareodus, Brychaetus and Musperia (Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BULLETIN DE L'INSTITUT ROYAL DES SCIENCES NATURELLES DE BELGIQUE SCIENCES DE LA TERRE. 79: 175-190. 2009 BULLETIN VAN HET KONINKLIJK BELGISCH INSTITUUT VOOR NATUURWETENSCHAPPEN AARDWETENSCHAPPEN. 79: 175-190. 2009 New insights on the osteology and taxonomy of the osteoglossid fishes Phareodus, Brychaetus and Musperia (Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha) by Louis TAVERNE T averne, L., 2009 - New insights on the osteology and taxonomy muelleri offre une morphologie évoluée du museau. Les deux of tile osteoglossid fishes Phareodus, Brychaetus and Musperia nasaux, articulés avec les frontaux, sont jointifs sur presque (Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha). Bulletin de l ’Institut royal des toute leur longueur, sauf à leur extrémité antérieure où un petit Sciences naturelles de Belgique, Sciences de la Tetre, 79: 175-190, demiethmoïde, largement séparé des frontaux, s’intercale entre eux, 13 figs, Brussels, October 31, 2009 - ISSN 0374-6291. comme chez Osteoglossum et Scleropages. Brychaetus est donc un genre valide et non pas un synonyme de Phareodus. L’auteur montre aussi que l’ostéoglossidé Musperia radiata, de l’Eocène d’Indonésie, présente la même morphologie évoluée du museau Abstract que Brychaetus et les Osteoglossidae récents. Le squelette caudal de Musperia est décrit pour la première fois. Les vertèbres préurale The author describes the snout osteology of the fossil Osteoglossidae 1 et urale 1 portent des neurépines complètes. Les cinq hypuraux Phareodus and Brychaetus. He shows that tile two genera sont autogènes. Il y a une paire d’uroneuraux et pas d’épural. considerably differ in their naso-ethmoid region. Indeed, Phareodus encaustus and P. queenslandicus possess a large demiethmoid Mots-clefs: Teleostei, Osteoglossidae, Phareodus, Brychaetus, contacting the frontals and separating the two nasals from each Musperia, ostéologie. other, which is the primitive condition within teleosts. P. testis is a little more specialized. Its demiethmoid still separates partially tile two nasals but it begins to lose its contact with the frontals. On the contrary, Brychaetus muelleri exhibits a specialized snout Introduction pattem. The two nasals, articulated with the frontals, are joined together on almost their entire length, except at their anterior edge Osteoglossomorpha are a super-order of primitive where a small demiethmoid, largely separated from the frontals, is teleosts existing since the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary inserted between them, as inOsteoglossum and Scleropages. Thus, (CHANG & Miao, 2004: 547). Brychaetus is a valid genus and not a synonym of Phareodus. The They comprise three author also shows that the osteoglossid Musperia radiata, from the orders: the Hiodontiformes, the Osteoglossiformes Eocene of Indonesia, displays the same advanced snout pattern as and the Mormyriformes (= Notopteriformes). Some Brychaetus and tile two Recent Osteoglossidae. The caudal skeleton authors bring down the last two orders to a subordinal of Musperia is described for the first time. The first preural and the rank, the Osteoglossoidei and the Mormyroidei, and first ural centra bear complete neural spines. The five hypurals are autogenous. There is a pair of uroneurals and no epural. gather them in a larger order of Osteoglossiformes sensu lato. Others separate the Lycopteridae from the Keywords: Teleostei, fossil Osteoglossidae, Phareodus, Hiodontiformes and erect for them a peculiar order: Brychaetus, Musperia, osteology. the Lycopteriformes. Some osteoglossomorph fossil genera and families are leftincertae ordinis. The recent Résumé Osteoglossomorpha inhabit fresh-water environments but the fossil species comprise both marine and fresh L’auteur décrit l’ostéologie du museau des Osteoglossidae fossiles water members. Phareodus et Brychaetus. Il montre que les deux genres diffèrent Osteoglossiformes or bonytongues are still considérablement au niveau de la région naso-etlmioïdiemie. En represented today by five tropical genera: Osteoglossum effet, Phareodus encaustus et P. queenslandicus possèdent un grand demiethmoïde en contact avec les frontaux et qui sépare les CUVIER, 1829 and Arapaima MÜLLER, 1843, both from deux nasaux Tun de l’autre, ce qui est la situation primitive chez les South America, Heterotis C u v ie r & VALENCIENNES, téléostéens. P. testis est un peu plus spécialisé. Son demiethmoïde 1846 andPantodon PEETERS, 1876, both from Africa, continue à séparer partiellement les deux nasaux mais il commence and Scleropages GUNTHER, 1864 from northern à perdre son contact avec les frontaux. A l’inverse, Brychaetus 176 Louis TAVERNE Australia and south-eastern Asia. These five Recent more recently, Phareodus songziensis ZHANG, 2003 genera are included in three families, the Osteoglossidae from the Eocene of the Hubei Province, China (Cope, for Osteoglossum and Scleropages, the Arapaimidae 1873: 638, 1878: 77;HILLS, 1934: 160;THORPE, 1938: (= Heterotidae) for Arapaima and Heterotis, and the 289; ZHANG, 2003: 328). Pantodontidae for Pantodon (TAVERNE, 1979, 1998). HILLS (1934: 160-164), working only onP. Some authors recognize only a subfamilial rank to queenslandicus, was the first to give useful osteological these families, the Osteoglossinae, the Arapaiminae (= information on Phareodus. Eater, ROELLIG (1967: 19- Heterotinae) and the Pantodontinae, and group all three 49), in his unpublished Ph. D. thesis, TAVERNE (1978: in a family Osteoglossidae sensu lato (see for instance 7-32), Lí (1994) and LI et al. (1997) have studied Nelson, 2006: 104-106). thoroughly the osteology of the two North-American The purpose ofthis paper concerns three fossil genera and of the Australian species of Phareodus. of Osteoglossidae. I wish to discuss some problems W o o d w a rd (1901: 74) was apparently the first to regarding Phctreodns LEIDY, 1873 (= Dapedoglossus put Dapedoglossus and Phareodus into synonymy, COPE, 1877)and Brychaetus WOODWARD, 1901, on giving the priority to the former because LEIDY the one hand, and to complete the study of the genus (1873) had left Phareodus undefined. THORPE (1938: Musperia SANDERS, 1934, on the other hand. 289) agreed with this synonymy but, in opposition to WOODWARD (1901), invalidated Dapedoglossus because of the priority of Phareodus. This use of Material and methods Phareodus instead of Dapedoglossus is now currently accepted by all the specialists working on fossil and The specimens used for the present study are listed Recent Osteoglossomorpha. in appendix 1. The material was observed with a In his study of the ichthyofauna of the Green River stereomicroscope WILD M5 and the drawings made by the Formation, G ra n d e (1984: 70) stated that there were author with a camera lucida. only two valid species of Phareodus in those North- American strata: P. encaustus (= P. acutus, P. sericeus, The problem of the snout regionPhareodus of (Figs P. aequipinnis and P. brevicaudatus [pro parte]), the 1- 8) type-species, and P. testis (= P. brevicaudatus [pro parte]). That was already the opinion expressed by The first fossil Osteoglossidae ever discovered in T a v e rn e (1978: 7). This view was followed by later North America was collected from the fresh-water authors (Lí, 1994; Lí & WILSON, 1996; Líetal., 1997; Eocene Green River Formation of Wyoming. It Z h an g , 2006; W ilso n & M u rra y , 2008; among many consisted only of a body fragment with some big others). reticulated scales (Cope, 1884: pi. 6, fig. 1) and was Phareodus is a rather big, fusiform and deep-bodied named Osteoglossum enccnistum by COPE (1871: teleost (Figs 1-2). Some large specimens exceed 50 cm 430). A little later, Letdy (1873: 99) described from of total length. As in some other fossil Osteoglossidae, the same deposits five mandibular fragments. He the frontal is wide, with a lateral margin presenting a recognized them as different from Osteoglossum and marked expansion above the orbit, and the jaws bear thus erected a new genus and a new species: Phareodus strong, long and acuminate teeth.Phareodus certainly acutus LEIDY, 1873. Four years later, COPE (1877: 807) was a fast-swimming fish and one of the principal described some new osteoglossid specimens from the predators present in its lacustrine environment. When Green River Formation and created also a new genus seen in side view, P. encaustus can be distinguished and a new species: Dapedoglossus testis COPE, 1877, easily from P. testis. Both fishes possess large posterior which he figured later on (COPE, 1884: pi. 7, fig. 1). infraorbitals, as all Osteoglossidae, but the former He included his former O. enccnistum in the same offers the third infraorbital longer than deep and the new genus as Dapedoglossus encaustus (COPE, 1877: fourth one as deep as long (R o e llig , 1967: fig. 6; 808). Other species were described during the same T av e rn e, 1978: fig. 8;G ra n d e , 1984: fig. II.33a; period and also during the following years: Phareodon Lí, 1994: figs 5B, 8, Líet al., 1997: fig. 3), while the [a misspelling for Phareodus] sericeus COPE, 1873, latter exhibits the third and fourth infraorbitals deeper Dapedoglossus aequipinnis COPE, 1878and Phareodus than long (ROELLIG, 1967: fig. 8;TAVERNE, 1978: fig. brevicaudatus THORPE, 1938, all three from the Green 2; G ra n d e , 1984: fig. II.33b; Lí, 1994: fig. 5C; Lí et River Formation, Phareodus queenslandicus HILLS, ed., 1997: fig. 8). There are other minor differences 1934 from the Eocene of Queensland, Australia, and, between the two North-American species (R o ellig , Osteologie and taxonomic review of Phareodus, Brychaetus and Musperia 177 Fig. 1 - Phareodus encaustus (C o p e , 1871). Specimen USNM 11.724, (above) complete body and (below) head region. 178 Louis TAVERNE Fig. 2 - Phareodus testis (C o p e , 1877). Holotype USNM 4014, (above) complete body and (below) head region. Osteologie and taxonomic review of Phareodus, Brychaetus and Musperia 179 1967;T av ern e, 1978;G ra n d e , 1984; Líetal., 1997). DETH P. queenslandicus shares a few osteological characters with P. encaustus, particularly the shape of the two posterior infraorbitals, and is thus closer to this species than to P. testis (Lí, 1994: 297-298).P. songziensis differs from the other species by its very short dorsal fin and its caudal skeleton (Z hang, 2003).