DOCSLIB.ORG

Wild Card Macros

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2/6/e1600154/DC1 Supplementary Materials for A Devonian predatory fish provides insights into the early evolution of modern sarcopterygians Jing Lu, Min Zhu, Per Erik Ahlberg, Tuo Qiao, You’an Zhu, Wenjin Zhao, Liantao Jia Published 3 June 2016, Sci. Adv. 2, e1600154 (2016) DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1600154 The PDF file includes: Supplementary Materials and Methods fig. S1. The anterior cranial portion of Qingmenodus (IVPP V16003.5). fig. S2. Rendered anterior cranial portion of Qingmenodus (IVPP V16003.5). fig. S3. The posterior cranial portions of Qingmenodus. fig. S4. Rendered posterior cranial portion of Qingmenodus (holotype, IVPP V16003.1) showing the position of the hyomandibula. fig. S5. Tentative restoration of the cranium of Qingmenodus in right lateral view. fig. S6. Rendered brain cavity with the transparent braincase of Qingmenodus in left lateral view. fig. S7. Comparative brain cavity morphology of selected Palaeozoic osteichthyans. fig. S8. Digital restorations of the anterior cranial portion of Qingmenodus. fig. S9. Comparison of the tubule system in selected sarcopterygians. fig. S10. Previously sarcopterygian phylogenic hypotheses showing the different positions of onychodonts. fig. S11. Strict consensus of 845 most parsimonious trees resulting from a modified data set. fig. S12. Phylogenetic placement of Qingmenodus shown in a 50% majority consensus tree of the 845 most parsimonious trees. fig. S13. One selected most parsimonious tree. Supplementary Material and Methods Specimen collection During 2009-2012 field trips, we collected some new sarcopterygain cranial materials from the type site of Qingmenodus yui (7), including a completely ossified anterior cranial portion (IVPP V16003.5), and a posterior cranial portion (IVPP V16003.6). These two specimens are assigned to Qingmenodus yui based on the shared ornamentation and comparable size with the holotype (IVPP V16003.1). Phylogenetic Analyses a. Character list This dataset is adopted from (2, 3, 5, 7, 19, 44, 45). Characters 65, 66, 232-242 are newly added characters. Dermal bones of skull roof 1 Postrostral: 0. absent (0) 1. postrostral mosaic of small variable bones 2. large median postrostral, with or without accessory bones 3. paried E bones 2 Mesial margin of nasal: 0. not notched 1. notched 3 Number of nasals: 0. many 1. one or two 4 Processus dermintermedius: 0. absent 1. present 5 Position of posterior nostril: 0. external, far from jaw margin 1. external, close to jaw margin 2. palatal 6 Posterior nostril: 0. associated with orbit 1. not associated with orbit 7 Posterior nostril enclosed posteriorly by preorbital or preorbital process of premaxilla: 0. absent 1. present 8 Supraorbital (sensu Cloutier & Ahlberg 1996, including posterior tectal of Jarvik): 0. absent 1. present 9 Number of supraorbitals: 0. one 1. two 2. more than two 10 Supraorbital, preorbital and nasal: 0. unfused 1. fused 11 Contact between parietal and supraorbital: 0. present 1. absent 12 Posterior or posteriormost supraorbital (postfrontal) extends anterior of orbit: 0. yes 1. no 13 Relative size of anterior (or anteriormost) supraorbital (prefrontal, posterior tectal of Jarvik) and posterior (or posteriormost) supraorbital (postfrontal): 0. similar 1. prefrontal much bigger 14 T-shaped dermosphenotic: 0. absent 1. present 15 Intertemporal: 0. present 1. absent 16 Tectal (sensu Cloutier & Ahlberg 1996, not counting the ‘posterior tectal’ of Jarvik): 0. absent 1. present 17 Postspiracular: 0. absent 1. present 18 Anterior margin of parietal: 0. between or in front of orbits 1. slightly posterior to orbits 2. much posterior to orbits 19 Pineal foramen: 0. present 1. absent 20 Pineal eminence (in those taxa with no pineal foramen): 0. absent 1. present 21 Location of pineal foramen/eminence: 0. level with posterior margin of orbits 1. well posterior of orbits 2. level with midway of orbits 22 Parietals surround pineal foramen/eminence: 0. yes 1. no 23 Dermal intracranial joint: 0. absent 1. present 24 Margins of postparietals and parietals participating in dermal intracranial joint: 0. smooth 1. jagged 25 Length of parietal versus postparietal: 0. equal or postparietal longer than Parietal 1. Parietal up to 2 times Postparietal 26 Parietal portion (shield) of skull roof relative to postparietal portion (shield) in length: 0. parietal portion roughly as long as postparietal portion 1. parietal portion much longer than postparietal portion 2. parietal portion much shorter than postparietal portion 27 Postparietal narrowing posteriorly: 0. absent 1. present 28 Length/width index of the postparietal: 0. ≤150 1. 150-300 2. ＞300 29 Complete enclosure of spiracle by bones bearing otic and infraorbital canals: 0. absent 1. present 30 Posterior margin of skull roof: 0. embayed 1. straight or convex 31 Number of marginal bones alongside postparietal: 0. single 1. two or more 32 Extratemporal: 0. absent 1. present 33 Number of extrascapulars: 0. uneven 1. paired 34 Position of orbits: lateral and widely separated (0); dorsal and close together (1). 35 Proportion of skull roof lying anterior to middle of orbits: 0. <50% 1. ≥50% 36 Position of anterior nostril: 0. facial 1. edge of mouth (or marginal) 2. palatal 37 Palatal opening surrounded by premaxilla, maxilla, dermopalatine, and vomer (“choana” sensu stricto): 0. absent 1. present 38 Palatal opening medially enclosed by dermopalatine and vomer (“choana” sensu lato): 0. absent 1. present 39 Number of (anterior) tectals: 0. one 1. two or more 40 B-bone: 0. absent 1. present 41 Paired bones anterior to parietals: 0. absent (0) 1. present (1) 42 Width of ethmoid relative to length from snout tip to posterior margin of parietals: 0. more than 80% 1. 70 - 80% (1) 2. 50 - 70% (2) 3. less than 40% 43 Spiracle: 0. absent-small hole 1. narrow groove 2. wide notch 44 Contact between extratemporal and supratemporal: 0. absent 1. present 45 Posterior margin of tabulars: 0. anterior to posterior margin of postparietals 1. level with posterior margin of postparietals 46 Extrascapular bones: 0. present 1. absent 47 Median extrascapular overlap: 0. median extrascapular overlapped by lateral extrascapulars 1. median extrascapular overlapping lateral extrascapulars 2. median extrascapular abutting lateral extrascapulars Neurocranium 48 Interorbital space (spectum): 0. broad 1. narrow 49 Internasal pits: 0. undifferentiated or anterior palatal fossa 1. shallow paired pits with strong midline ridge 2. deep pear-shaped pits 3. absent 50 Fenestra ventralis: 0. absent 1. present 2. common ventral fenestra for anterior and posterior nostrils 51 Postorbital process on braincase: 0. present 1. absent 52 Tectum orbitale: 0. narrow 1. extensive 53 Large median opening and several small dorsolateral openings in postnasal wall: 0. absent 1. present 54 Ethmoid articulation for palatoquadrate: 0. placed on postnasal wall 1. majority of facet located anterior to postnasal wall 2. extends posteriorly to the level of N.II 55 Autopalatine fossa bearing unfinished articular surfaces: 0. absent 1. present 56 Eye stalk or unfinished area for similar structure: 0. present 1. absent 57 Postorbital pillar: 0. absent 1. present 58 Basipterygoid process: 0. small knob-like process 1. developed as a broad platform 59 Position of exit of pituitary vein: 0. in front of basipterygoid process 1. dorsal to vertical portion of basipterygoid process 2. posterior to basipterygoid process 60 Unconstricted cranial notochord: 0. absent 1. present 61 Descending process of sphenoid (with its posterior extremity lacking periostegeal lining): 0. absent 1. present 62 Endoskeletal intracranial joint: 0. absent 1. present 63 Orientation of intracranial joint: 0. anteroventrally slanting (posteriorly reclined) 1. vertical or posteroventrally slanting (anterior reclined) 64 Position of intracranial joint or fissure relative to cranial nerves: 0. joint through profundus foramen 1. joint through or behind trigeminal foramen 65 Processus connectens: [New] 0. absent 1. present 66 Processus connectens: [New] 0. knob-like, not well-develped 1. long, well-developed 67 Proportion of neurocranium: 0. ethmosphenoid shorter than or equal in length to otoccipital 1. ethmosphenoid much longer than otoccipital 68 Articulation facet with hyomandibular: 0. single-headed 1. double-headed 69 Position of the lateral commissure: 0. overlying root of N.V 1. posterior to root of N.V 70 Vestibular fontanelles: 0. absent 1. present 71 Accessory fenestration in otic capsule: 0. absent 1. present 72 Attachment for basicranial muscle: 0. anterior to or level with the lateral commissure 1. posterior to the lateral commissure 73 Basioccipital: 0. separated from the otic capsule by cartilage or a persistent fissure 1. sutured or co-mineralised with the otic capsule 74 Enclosed canal for dorsal aorta within basioccipital region: 0. absent 1. present 75 Otoccipital fissure: 0. absent 1. present 76 Basicranial fenestra: 0. absent 1. present 77 Posttemporal fossae: 0. absent 1. present 78 Extent of crista parotica: 0. does not reach posterior margin of tabular 1. reaches posterior margin of tabular 79 Otical process (an outgrowth from the lateral wall of the braincase penetrated by the branches of the r. oticus lateralis): 0. absent 1. present 80 Supraotic cavity proper: 0. absent 1. present 81 Lateral cranial canal: 0. absent 1. present Cheek region 82 Foramina (similar to infradentary foramina) on cheek bones: 0. absent 1. present. 83 Number of sclerotic plates: 0. four or
Recommended publications
  • JVP 26(3) September 2006—ABSTRACTS

    JVP 26(3) September 2006—ABSTRACTS

    Neoceti Symposium, Saturday 8:45 acid-prepared osteolepiforms Medoevia and Gogonasus has offered strong support for BODY SIZE AND CRYPTIC TROPHIC SEPARATION OF GENERALIZED Jarvik’s interpretation, but Eusthenopteron itself has not been reexamined in detail. PIERCE-FEEDING CETACEANS: THE ROLE OF FEEDING DIVERSITY DUR- Uncertainty has persisted about the relationship between the large endoskeletal “fenestra ING THE RISE OF THE NEOCETI endochoanalis” and the apparently much smaller choana, and about the occlusion of upper ADAM, Peter, Univ. of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; JETT, Kristin, Univ. of and lower jaw fangs relative to the choana. California, Davis, Davis, CA; OLSON, Joshua, Univ. of California, Los Angeles, Los A CT scan investigation of a large skull of Eusthenopteron, carried out in collaboration Angeles, CA with University of Texas and Parc de Miguasha, offers an opportunity to image and digital- Marine mammals with homodont dentition and relatively little specialization of the feeding ly “dissect” a complete three-dimensional snout region. We find that a choana is indeed apparatus are often categorized as generalist eaters of squid and fish. However, analyses of present, somewhat narrower but otherwise similar to that described by Jarvik. It does not many modern ecosystems reveal the importance of body size in determining trophic parti- receive the anterior coronoid fang, which bites mesial to the edge of the dermopalatine and tioning and diversity among predators. We established relationships between body sizes of is received by a pit in that bone. The fenestra endochoanalis is partly floored by the vomer extant cetaceans and their prey in order to infer prey size and potential trophic separation of and the dermopalatine, restricting the choana to the lateral part of the fenestra.
  • Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-17944-8 — Evolution And

    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-17944-8 — Evolution And

    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-17944-8 — Evolution and Development of Fishes Edited by Zerina Johanson , Charlie Underwood , Martha Richter Index More Information Index abaxial muscle,33 Alizarin red, 110 arandaspids, 5, 61–62 abdominal muscles, 212 Alizarin red S whole mount staining, 127 Arandaspis, 5, 61, 69, 147 ability to repair fractures, 129 Allenypterus, 253 arcocentra, 192 Acanthodes, 14, 79, 83, 89–90, 104, 105–107, allometric growth, 129 Arctic char, 130 123, 152, 152, 156, 213, 221, 226 alveolar bone, 134 arcualia, 4, 49, 115, 146, 191, 206 Acanthodians, 3, 7, 13–15, 18, 23, 29, 63–65, Alx, 36, 47 areolar calcification, 114 68–69, 75, 79, 82, 84, 87–89, 91, 99, 102, Amdeh Formation, 61 areolar cartilage, 192 104–106, 114, 123, 148–149, 152–153, ameloblasts, 134 areolar mineralisation, 113 156, 160, 189, 192, 195, 198–199, 207, Amia, 154, 185, 190, 193, 258 Areyongalepis,7,64–65 213, 217–218, 220 ammocoete, 30, 40, 51, 56–57, 176, 206, 208, Argentina, 60–61, 67 Acanthodiformes, 14, 68 218 armoured agnathans, 150 Acanthodii, 152 amphiaspids, 5, 27 Arthrodira, 12, 24, 26, 28, 74, 82–84, 86, 194, Acanthomorpha, 20 amphibians, 1, 20, 150, 172, 180–182, 245, 248, 209, 222 Acanthostega, 22, 155–156, 255–258, 260 255–256 arthrodires, 7, 11–13, 22, 28, 71–72, 74–75, Acanthothoraci, 24, 74, 83 amphioxus, 49, 54–55, 124, 145, 155, 157, 159, 80–84, 152, 192, 207, 209, 212–213, 215, Acanthothoracida, 11 206, 224, 243–244, 249–250 219–220 acanthothoracids, 7, 12, 74, 81–82, 211, 215, Amphioxus, 120 Ascl,36 219 Amphystylic, 148 Asiaceratodus,21
  • A New Osteolepidid Fish From

    A New Osteolepidid Fish From

    Rea. West. Aust. MU8. 1985, 12(3): 361-377 ANew Osteolepidid Fish from the Upper Devonian Gogo Formation, Western Australia J.A. Long* Abstract A new osteolepidid crossopterygian, Gogonasus andrewsi gen. et sp. nov., is des­ cribed from a single fronto-ethmoidal shield and associated ethmosphenoid, from the Late Devonian (Frasnian) Gogo Formation, Western Australia. Gogonasus is is distinguished from other osteolepids by the shape and proportions of the fronto­ ethmoidal shield, absence of palatal fenestrae, well developed basipterygoid pro­ cesses and moderately broad parasphenoid. The family Osteolepididae is found to be paraphyletic, with Gogonasus being regarded as a plesiomorphic osteolepidid at a similar level of organisation to Thursius. Introduction Much has been published on the well-preserved Late Devonian fish fauna from the Gogo Formation, Western Australia, although to date all the papers describing fish have been on placoderms (Miles 1971; Miles and Dennis 1979; Dennis and Miles 1979-1983; Young 1984), palaeoniscoids (Gardiner 1973, 1984; Gardiner and Bartram 1977) or dipnoans (Miles 1977; Campbell and Barwick 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1984a). This paper describes the only osteolepiform from the fauna (Gardiner and Miles 1975), a small snout with associated braincase, ANU 21885, housed in the Geology Department, Australian National University. The specimen, collected by the Australian National University on the 1967 Gogo Expedition, was prepared by Dr S.M. Andrews (Royal Scottish Museum) and later returned to the ANU. Onychodus is the only other crossopterygian in the fauna. In its proportions and palatal structure the new specimen provides some additional new points of the anatomy of osteolepiforms. Few Devonian crossopte­ rygians are known from Australia, and so the specimen is significant in having resemblances to typical Northern Hemisphere species.
  • Constraints on the Timescale of Animal Evolutionary History

    Constraints on the Timescale of Animal Evolutionary History

    Palaeontologia Electronica palaeo-electronica.org Constraints on the timescale of animal evolutionary history Michael J. Benton, Philip C.J. Donoghue, Robert J. Asher, Matt Friedman, Thomas J. Near, and Jakob Vinther ABSTRACT Dating the tree of life is a core endeavor in evolutionary biology. Rates of evolution are fundamental to nearly every evolutionary model and process. Rates need dates. There is much debate on the most appropriate and reasonable ways in which to date the tree of life, and recent work has highlighted some confusions and complexities that can be avoided. Whether phylogenetic trees are dated after they have been estab- lished, or as part of the process of tree finding, practitioners need to know which cali- brations to use. We emphasize the importance of identifying crown (not stem) fossils, levels of confidence in their attribution to the crown, current chronostratigraphic preci- sion, the primacy of the host geological formation and asymmetric confidence intervals. Here we present calibrations for 88 key nodes across the phylogeny of animals, rang- ing from the root of Metazoa to the last common ancestor of Homo sapiens. Close attention to detail is constantly required: for example, the classic bird-mammal date (base of crown Amniota) has often been given as 310-315 Ma; the 2014 international time scale indicates a minimum age of 318 Ma. Michael J. Benton. School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1RJ, U.K. [email protected] Philip C.J. Donoghue. School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1RJ, U.K. [email protected] Robert J.
  • I Ecomorphological Change in Lobe-Finned Fishes (Sarcopterygii

    I Ecomorphological Change in Lobe-Finned Fishes (Sarcopterygii

    Ecomorphological change in lobe-finned fishes (Sarcopterygii): disparity and rates by Bryan H. Juarez A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Ecology and Evolutionary Biology) in the University of Michigan 2015 Master’s Thesis Committee: Assistant Professor Lauren C. Sallan, University of Pennsylvania, Co-Chair Assistant Professor Daniel L. Rabosky, Co-Chair Associate Research Scientist Miriam L. Zelditch i © Bryan H. Juarez 2015 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the Rabosky Lab, David W. Bapst, Graeme T. Lloyd and Zerina Johanson for helpful discussions on methodology, Lauren C. Sallan, Miriam L. Zelditch and Daniel L. Rabosky for their dedicated guidance on this study and the London Natural History Museum for courteously providing me with access to specimens. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF APPENDICES v ABSTRACT vi SECTION I. Introduction 1 II. Methods 4 III. Results 9 IV. Discussion 16 V. Conclusion 20 VI. Future Directions 21 APPENDICES 23 REFERENCES 62 iv LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE/FIGURE II. Cranial PC-reduced data 6 II. Post-cranial PC-reduced data 6 III. PC1 and PC2 Cranial and Post-cranial Morphospaces 11-12 III. Cranial Disparity Through Time 13 III. Post-cranial Disparity Through Time 14 III. Cranial/Post-cranial Disparity Through Time 15 v LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Lobe-fins 24 B. Species Used In Analysis 34 C. Cranial and Post-Cranial Landmarks 37 D. PC3 and PC4 Cranial and Post-cranial Morphospaces 38 E. PC1 PC2 Cranial Morphospaces 39 1-2.
  • Universidade Do Estado Do Rio De Janeiro Centro Biomédico Instituto De Biologia Roberto Alcântara Gomes

    Universidade Do Estado Do Rio De Janeiro Centro Biomédico Instituto De Biologia Roberto Alcântara Gomes

    Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Centro Biomédico Instituto de Biologia Roberto Alcântara Gomes Raphael Miguel da Silva Biogeografia Histórica de Celacantos (Sarcopterygii: Actinistia) Rio de Janeiro 2016 Raphael Miguel da Silva Biogeografia Histórica de Celacantos (Sarcopterygii: Actinistia) Tese apresentada, como requisito parcial para obtenção do título de Doutor, ao Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Evolução, da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Orientadora: Prof.a Dra. Valéria Gallo da Silva Rio de Janeiro 2016 CATALOGAÇÃO NA FONTE UERJ / REDE SIRIUS / BIBLIOTECA CTC-A SS586XXX Silva, Raphael Miguel da. Biogeografia histórica de Celacantos (Sarcopterygii: Actinistia) / Raphael Miguel da Silva. - 2016. 271 f. : il. Orientador: Valéria Gallo da Silva. Tese (Doutorado em Ecologia e Evolução) - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Biologia Roberto Alcântara Gomes. 1. Biologia marinha - Teses. 2. Peixe – Teses. I. Silva, Valéria Gallo. II. Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Instituto de Biologia Roberto Alcântara Gomes. III. Título. CDU 504.4 Autorizo para fins acadêmicos e científicos, a reprodução total ou parcial desta tese, desde que citada a fonte. ___________________________ ________________________ Assinatura Data Raphael Miguel da Silva Biogeografia Histórica de Celacantos (Sarcopterygii: Actinistia) Tese apresentada, como requisito parcial para obtenção do título de Doutor, ao Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Evolução, da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Aprovada em 15 de fevereiro de 2016. Orientadora: Prof.a Dra. Valéria Gallo da Silva Instituto de Biologia Roberto Alcantara Gomes - UERJ Banca Examinadora: ____________________________________________ Prof. Dr. Paulo Marques Machado Brito Instituto de Biologia Roberto Alcantara Gomes - UERJ ____________________________________________ Prof.ª Dra.
  • Fotw Classification Detailed Version

    Fotw Classification Detailed Version

    1 Classification of fishes from Fishes of the World 5th Edition. Nelson, JS, Grande, TC, and Wilson, MVH. 2016. This is a more detailed version of the listing in the book’s Table of Contents. Order and Family numbers are in parentheses; the page number follows a comma; † indicates extinct taxon. If you spot errors, please let us know at [email protected]. Latest update January 11, 2018. PHYLUM CHORDATA, 13 SUBPHYLUM UROCHORDATA—tunicates, 15 Class ASCIDIACEA—ascidians, 15 Class THALIACEA—salps, 15 Order PYROSOMIDA, 15 Order DOLIOLIDA, 15 Order SALPIDA, 15 Class APPENDICULARIA, 15 SUBPHYLUM CEPHALOCHORDATA, 16 Order AMPHIOXIFORMES—lancelets, 16 Family BRANCHIOSTOMATIDAE, 16 Family EPIGONICHTHYIDAE, 16 †SUBPHYLUM CONODONTOPHORIDA—conodonts, 17 †Class CONODONTA, 17 SUBPHYLUM CRANIATA, 18 INFRAPHYLUM MYXINOMORPHI, 19 Class MYXINI, 20 Order MYXINIFORMES (1)—hagfishes, 20 Family MYXINIDAE (1)—hagfishes, 20 Subfamily Rubicundinae, 21 Subfamily Eptatretinae, 21 Subfamily Myxininae, 21 INFRAPHYLUM VERTEBRATA—vertebrates, 22 †Anatolepis, 22 Superclass PETROMYZONTOMORPHI, 23 Class PETROMYZONTIDA, 23 Order PETROMYZONTIFORMES (2)—lampreys, 23 †Family MAYOMYZONTIDAE, 24 Family PETROMYZONTIDAE (2)—northern lampreys, 24 Subfamily Petromyzontinae, 24 Subfamily Lampetrinae, 25 Family GEOTRIIDAE (3)—southern lampreys, 25 Family MORDACIIDAE (4)—southern topeyed lampreys, 26 †Superclass PTERASPIDOMORPHI, 26 †Class PTERASPIDOMORPHA, 26 Subclass ASTRASPIDA, 27 †Order ASTRASPIDIFORMES, 27 Subclass ARANDASPIDA, 27 †Order ARANDASPIDIFORMES,
  • The Salmon, the Lungfish (Or the Coelacanth) and the Cow: a Revival?

    The Salmon, the Lungfish (Or the Coelacanth) and the Cow: a Revival?

    Zootaxa 3750 (3): 265–276 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Editorial ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2013 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3750.3.6 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0B8E53D4-9832-4672-9180-CE979AEBDA76 The salmon, the lungfish (or the coelacanth) and the cow: a revival? FLÁVIO A. BOCKMANN1,3, MARCELO R. DE CARVALHO2 & MURILO DE CARVALHO2 1Dept. Biologia, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo. Av. dos Bandeirantes 3900, 14040-901 Ribeirão Preto, SP. Brazil. E-mail: [email protected] 2Dept. Zoologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo. R. Matão 14, Travessa 14, no. 101, 05508-900 São Paulo, SP. Brazil. E-mails: [email protected] (MRC); [email protected] (MC) 3Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Comparada, FFCLRP, Universidade de São Paul. Av. dos Bandeirantes 3900, 14040-901 Ribeirão Preto, SP. Brazil. In the late 1970s, intense and sometimes acrimonious discussions between the recently established phylogeneticists/cladists and the proponents of the long-standing ‘gradistic’ school of systematics transcended specialized periodicals to reach a significantly wider audience through the journal Nature (Halstead, 1978, 1981; Gardiner et al., 1979; Halstead et al., 1979). As is well known, cladistis ‘won’ the debate by showing convincingly that mere similarity or ‘adaptive levels’ were not decisive measures to establish kinship. The essay ‘The salmon, the lungfish and the cow: a reply’ by Gardiner et al. (1979) epitomized that debate, deliberating to a wider audience the foundations of the cladistic paradigm, advocating that shared derived characters (homologies) support a sister- group relationship between the lungfish and cow exclusive of the salmon (see also Rosen et al., 1981; Forey et al., 1991).
  • Family-Group Names of Fossil Fishes

    Family-Group Names of Fossil Fishes

    European Journal of Taxonomy 466: 1–167 ISSN 2118-9773 https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2018.466 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2018 · Van der Laan R. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Monograph urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:1F74D019-D13C-426F-835A-24A9A1126C55 Family-group names of fossil fishes Richard VAN DER LAAN Grasmeent 80, 1357JJ Almere, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected] urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:55EA63EE-63FD-49E6-A216-A6D2BEB91B82 Abstract. The family-group names of animals (superfamily, family, subfamily, supertribe, tribe and subtribe) are regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Particularly, the family names are very important, because they are among the most widely used of all technical animal names. A uniform name and spelling are essential for the location of information. To facilitate this, a list of family- group names for fossil fishes has been compiled. I use the concept ‘Fishes’ in the usual sense, i.e., starting with the Agnatha up to the †Osteolepidiformes. All the family-group names proposed for fossil fishes found to date are listed, together with their author(s) and year of publication. The main goal of the list is to contribute to the usage of the correct family-group names for fossil fishes with a uniform spelling and to list the author(s) and date of those names. No valid family-group name description could be located for the following family-group names currently in usage: †Brindabellaspidae, †Diabolepididae, †Dorsetichthyidae, †Erichalcidae, †Holodipteridae, †Kentuckiidae, †Lepidaspididae, †Loganelliidae and †Pituriaspididae. Keywords. Nomenclature, ICZN, Vertebrata, Agnatha, Gnathostomata.
  • SCIENCE CHINA Cranial Morphology of the Silurian Sarcopterygian Guiyu Oneiros (Gnathostomata: Osteichthyes)

    SCIENCE CHINA Cranial Morphology of the Silurian Sarcopterygian Guiyu Oneiros (Gnathostomata: Osteichthyes)

    SCIENCE CHINA Earth Sciences • RESEARCH PAPER • December 2010 Vol.53 No.12: 1836–1848 doi: 10.1007/s11430-010-4089-6 Cranial morphology of the Silurian sarcopterygian Guiyu oneiros (Gnathostomata: Osteichthyes) QIAO Tuo1,2 & ZHU Min1* 1 Key Laboratory of Evolutionary Systematics of Vertebrates, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China; 2 Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China Received April 6, 2010; accepted July 13, 2010 Cranial morphological features of the stem-group sarcopterygian Guiyu oneiros Zhu et al., 2009 provided here include the dermal bone pattern and anatomical details of the ethmosphenoid. Based on those features, we restored, for the first time, the skull roof bone pattern in the Guiyu clade that comprises Psarolepis and Achoania. Comparisons with Onychodus, Achoania, coelacanths, and actinopterygians show that the posterior nostril enclosed by the preorbital or the preorbital process is shared by actinopterygians and sarcopterygians, and the lachrymals in sarcopterygians and actinopterygians are not homologous. The endocranium closely resembles that of Psarolepis, Achoania and Onychodus; however, the attachment area of the vomer pos- sesses irregular ridges and grooves as in Youngolepis and Diabolepis. The orbito-nasal canal is positioned mesial to the nasal capsule as in Youngolepis and porolepiforms. The position of the hypophysial canal at the same level or slightly anterior to the ethmoid articulation represents a synapmorphy of the Guiyu clade. The large attachment area of the basicranial muscle indi- cates the presence of a well-developed intracranial joint in Guiyu. Sarcopterygii, Osteichthyes, Cranial morphology, homology, Silurian, China Citation: Qiao T, Zhu M.
  • Sarcopterygii, Tetrapodomorpha)

    Sarcopterygii, Tetrapodomorpha)

    Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 421 Morphology, Taxonomy and Interrelationships of Tristichopterid Fishes (Sarcopterygii, Tetrapodomorpha) DANIEL SNITTING ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS ISSN 1651-6214 UPPSALA ISBN 978-91-554-7153-8 2008 urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-8625 ! " ! #$ #%% &'$ ( ( ( ) * + , * - * #%% * . + / ( + " 0- + 1* ! * 2#* $2 * * /-3 45 646$$265$&6 * + 0- + 1 ( ( (* + ( ( , ( , , ( ( * 7 , ( ( 8 , ( ( (( 9* + ( , 9 , (, :( ( * / ( ( ( * + ( , , , * ; ( , ( ( + * + ( * ! ( , + ( , * + ( , 6, ( ( , ( < , , : * + , , < , , ( * ! ( * - + + + ! " # $ %& ' !()*+,- = - #%% /-- 8$68#2 /-3 45 646$$265$&6 ' ''' 6 8#$ 0 '>> **> ? @ ' ''' 6 8#$1 Et ignotas animum dimittit in artes. -Ovid, Metamorphoses VIII, 118 Trust your mechanic. -Dead Kennedys List of papers This thesis is based on the following papers, which will be referred to in the text by their Roman numerals: I Snitting, D. A redescription of the anatomy of Spodichthys buetleri Jarvik, 1985 (Sarcopterygii, Tetrapodomorpha) from
  • Neurocranial Development of the Coelacanth and the Evolution of the Sarcopterygian Head Hugo Dutel1,2*, Manon Galland3, Paul Tafforeau4, John A

    Neurocranial Development of the Coelacanth and the Evolution of the Sarcopterygian Head Hugo Dutel1,2*, Manon Galland3, Paul Tafforeau4, John A

    LETTER https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1117-3 Neurocranial development of the coelacanth and the evolution of the sarcopterygian head Hugo Dutel1,2*, Manon Galland3, Paul Tafforeau4, John A. Long5, Michael J. Fagan1, Philippe Janvier6, Anthony Herrel7, Mathieu D. Santin8, Gaël Clément6 & Marc Herbin7 The neurocranium of sarcopterygian fishes was originally divided lengthens during prenatal development (Figs. 2, 3, Extended Data into an anterior (ethmosphenoid) and posterior (otoccipital) Fig. 1). The trabeculae extend anteroventrally to the notochord, and portion by an intracranial joint, and underwent major changes in delimit the open hypophyseal fossa. They fuse anteriorly as a narrow its overall geometry before fusing into a single unit in lungfishes trabeculae communis (Fig. 2, Extended Data Figs. 1, 2). Posteriorly, and early tetrapods1. Although the pattern of these changes is the ethmosphenoid portion develops around the anterior notochordal well-documented, the developmental mechanisms that underpin tip in the fetus; in later stages, it lies entirely anterior to the notochord. variation in the form of the neurocranium and its associated soft The notochord penetrates the ethmosphenoid portion at a position tissues during the evolution of sarcopterygian fishes remain poorly posterodorsal to the trabeculae, and terminates posterior to the hypo- understood. The coelacanth Latimeria is the only known living physis, the foramina for the internal carotids, the pituitary vein and the vertebrate that retains an intracranial joint2,3. Despite its importance oculomotor nerve (Fig. 2, Extended Data Figs. 1–3). At this level, the for understanding neurocranial evolution, the development of the neurocranium shows a marked curvature under the cephalic flexure.