DOCSLIB.ORG

THE ORDERS of TELEOSTOMOUS FISHES. by WILLIAM K. GREGORY. in the Course of Their Teaching Work at Columbia Professors Osborn

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE ORDERS of TELEOSTOMOUS FISHES. by WILLIAM K. GREGORY. in the Course of Their Teaching Work at Columbia Professors Osborn THE ORDERS OF TELEOSTOMOUS FISHES. A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE BROADER FEATURES OF THEIR EVOLUTION AND TAXONOMY. BY WILLIAM K. GREGORY. In the course of their teaching work at Columbia Professors Osborn and Dean have realized the need of students for a brief general review of the evolution of the Vertebrata, in so far as this may be inferred from the hard parts of existing and fossil forms. The preparation of such a work was undertaken in 1902 by Pro- fessor Osborn with the assistance of Dr. J. H. McGregor, and in 1904the present writer was commissioned to work up the material for the section on the Ganoids and Bony Fishes. The following preliminary review of these forms is published with the hope of eliciting the suggestions and criticisms of ichthyologists. It is largely based upon the well-known writings of Smith Woodward, Boulenger, Gill, Jordan and Evermann, and Jordan, to whom most of the statements of fact should be credited, and it is dso intended in the main to reflect the views of those authorities. But many other sources are drawn upon; the method of present- ation is not the conventional one, and the classification adopted (after considerable reflection) is believed to reconcile the marked differences in method in the American and English systems. The writer is under obligations to Dr. 0. P. Hay for certain valuable suggestions and criticisms and to Professors Henry Fairfield Osborn and Bashford Dean, his esteemed preceptors, for the general methods of analysis. The student seeking a general knowledge of the teeming hosts and almost endless structural modifications of the teleostomous fishes is at present confronted by two very distinct ,systems of classification: the American system, as exemplified in the latest classification adopted by President Jordan,' and the new IAGiridc to thStiidy 0) Fishes, 2 vols., 4t0, New York 1905. 437 438 WILLIAM K. GREGORY English method of Dr. G. A. Boulenger.’ The discovery of the reasons for this divergence in method, of the common grounds upon which both systems rest, and of a means of harmonizing these differences in a new or compromise classification, may be facilitated by a glance at the recent history of the taxonomy of fishes, and by a brief reference to some of the principal functions of “natural ” classifications in general. First, as to the history of systematic ichthyology. In England Gunther’s classification was long held as orthodox. It represented more especially the combined labors of Cuvier, J. Miiller, Agassiz, and Gunther himself, and was essentially pre- evolutionary in method. The larger groupings were fairly natural, but many of the smaller ones were really heterogeneous, and held together by homoplastic characters. The chief criteria of classification were external characters. In America Cope and Gill approached the subject from the standpoint of evolution. Cope3 in 1871 sketched out the broad lines of a new classification based on a careful study of a large osteological collection. This classification was founded to a large extent upon internal, skeletal characters. AS compared with previous systems it was also founded on a larger number and range of characters and was thus less subject to thedeceptive effects of characters resulting from convergent or parallel evolution. Gill4 had already recognized the naturalness of the assem- blages called by him Nematognathi, Eventognathi. In 1872 Gill published his “ Arrangement of the Families of Fishes” which was revised and extended in his memoir6 of 1893. 1 Tcleostei (Systematic Part), The Cambridge Natiwal History, vol. “Fishes, Ascidians,” etc., 1904, pp. 539-127. 2 An Iqiirodztctioiz to the Study of Fishes, avo, Edinburgh. 1880, pp. xii-xvi. 3 I’ Observations on the Systematic Relations of the Fishes, ” Proc. Anrer. Assoc. Adv. ‘Sci., 20th meeting, IndianapoBs, 1871, pp. 317-343. 4 “Catalogue of the Fishes of the Eastern Coast of North America,’! Proc. Acad. Nut. Sci., Phila., 186;, pp. 1-63. 5 “ Arrangement of the Families of Fishes, or Classes Pisces. Marsip- braiicliai, and Lepiocardii,” Swtithsonian 1Wisc. Coll., NO 247, 1872, pp. i-xlvi, 1-49. 6 “Families and Subfamilies of Fishes,’’ MWZ.Nut. Acad. Sci., Vol. VI, pp. 125-1.38. THE ORDERS OF TELEOSTOMOUS FISHES- 439 In this classification which has been the basis of all subsequent work of the American school, precision, classicism, and a strict adherence to the canons of nbmenclature reinforced a keen analysis and a judicious weighing of taxonomic values. The attempt was made to readjust these values so that they might express more nearly the various degrees of affinity, and to intro- duce more uniformity in the value assigned to the same taxo- nomic grade in different groups of vertebrates. Many currently recognized families were variously divided, the component parts being’ elevated to the rank of separate families, while many groups were labeled ‘‘of uncertain position.” The dictum that “ analysis must precede synthesis ” was consistently followed, and a great increase in the number of ordinal, subordinal, and family divisions was deemed preferable to the premature group- ings of the traditional classification. Attention was in this way directed to the very numerous families and groups which were really of uncertain affinities, but which had always been thrown in with other divisions by the conservatism which resents the introduction of new groups and new names. An important synthetic step was the frequent use of the superfamily. In England and on the Continent the Guntherian system was gradually found inadequate, and the importance of the skeleton in classification became recognized as ichthyology and especially palzichthyology developed. Dr. A. S. Woodward adopted the broad features of Cope’s classification, which he improved in many respects, but the older system still remained in general use. The new and very notable classification of Dr. Boulenger, re- ferred to above, is the first since that of Gunther to gain general acceptance in England. Dr. Boulenger refers 1 to the classifica- tion of Gunther as being to a “great extent based on physiological principles, ” whereas his new classification “aims at being phylogenetic.” It is based upon his studies of the rapidly grow- ing collection of fish skeletons in the British Museum; it reflects also the labors of Cope, Gill, Sagemehl, A. S. Woodward, of Jordan and his co-workers, and thus represents the most com- prehensive analysis of osteological characters which has yet appeared. I op. Cit., p. 542. 440 WILLIAM K. GREGORY Boulenger’s classification is true to British tradition in the fewness of its larger divisions; and many families, suborders, and orders of the American system are not recognized as distinct divisions. Thus the differences between the English and Ameri- can systems are very salient. By the American method as exemplified in Dr. Jordan’s latest work, 18 orders, about 33 sub- orders, and considerably more than 200 families of true Teleosts are recognized; by the English method all are swept into the single “order” Teleostei which is coordinate in value with the orders Crossopterygii, Chondrostei, Holostei, and which is sub- divided into thirteen suborders which for the most part have the value of the orders of the American system. Boulenger’s treatment of the “suborder” Ostariophysi may serve as an in- stance of this extensive synthesizing. Since this assemblage is regarded as a natural one the divisions Heterognathi, Eventog- nathi, Nematognathi are not used, and the Characins, Carps, and Catfishes are all united as families in the suborder Ostario- physi. In Boulenger’s definitions of these families the trench- ant structural differences between them are revealed, but so far as the classification itself indicates they might be no more separated than, say the Tarpons (Elopidae) from the Lady-fishes (Albu- lids), or the Herrings (Clupeidz) from the Salmons (Salmonidae). These differences in method seem to arise from the dual nature and function of a natural classification in the modern sense. A natural classification must necessarily express, first, degrees of homological resemblances and differences and, second, degrees of genetic relationship; but it cannot at the same time express bath with equal accuracy, and its primary purpose is to express degrees of homological resemblances and differences. In comparing the end forms of diverging lines of descent we find that between any two forms degrees of geiietu relationship are solely a function of time and of the rate of reproduction, while degrees of homologous structural relationships are a function of varying rates of evolution. To borrow an illustration from mammalogy, we may suppose that a certain group of pre-Tertiary mammals has given rise to the modern Insecti- vores on the one hand and to the Bats on the other. Between this ancestral group and each of the two modern groups a number THE ORDERS OF TELEOSTOMOUS FISHES 441 of generations has elapsed which we may assume to be roughly equal along both lines of descent. Therefore, in degree of blood kinship to this ancestral group both Bats and Insectivores are about equally far removed. But in homological structural re- semblances the modern Insectivores are much nearer to this group than are the Bats, and hence so far as ciassification is concerned, the ancestral, group and the Insectivores would probably be placed in a single order, while the Bats are set off in another order. Here plainly, degrees of blood relatwnslaip do mt exactly correspoizd 20 degrees of Itontological structural reseinblaiices aizd dio-ererzces, nor to the divisions of classification. In order to make classification correspond even roughly to degrees of blood relationship, i.e. to phylogeny, we must assign varying systematic values to different characters in proportion to their inferred relative phylogenetic age. For example, the notochord and other chordate characters which appear in certain larval Ascidians are regarded as of far greater phylogenetic age than the typical characters of adult Ascidians, and hence these transient characters are given a very high systematic value, so that through them the group is placed within the phylum Chordata.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ambush Predator’ Guild – Are There Developmental Rules Underlying Body Shape Evolution in Ray-Finned Fishes? Erin E Maxwell1* and Laura AB Wilson2
    Maxwell and Wilson BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:265 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/13/265 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Regionalization of the axial skeleton in the ‘ambush predator’ guild – are there developmental rules underlying body shape evolution in ray-finned fishes? Erin E Maxwell1* and Laura AB Wilson2 Abstract Background: A long, slender body plan characterized by an elongate antorbital region and posterior displacement of the unpaired fins has evolved multiple times within ray-finned fishes, and is associated with ambush predation. The axial skeleton of ray-finned fishes is divided into abdominal and caudal regions, considered to be evolutionary modules. In this study, we test whether the convergent evolution of the ambush predator body plan is associated with predictable, regional changes in the axial skeleton, specifically whether the abdominal region is preferentially lengthened relative to the caudal region through the addition of vertebrae. We test this hypothesis in seven clades showing convergent evolution of this body plan, examining abdominal and caudal vertebral counts in over 300 living and fossil species. In four of these clades, we also examined the relationship between the fineness ratio and vertebral regionalization using phylogenetic independent contrasts. Results: We report that in five of the clades surveyed, Lepisosteidae, Esocidae, Belonidae, Sphyraenidae and Fistulariidae, vertebrae are added preferentially to the abdominal region. In Lepisosteidae, Esocidae, and Belonidae, increasing abdominal vertebral count was also significantly related to increasing fineness ratio, a measure of elongation. Two clades did not preferentially add abdominal vertebrae: Saurichthyidae and Aulostomidae. Both of these groups show the development of a novel caudal region anterior to the insertion of the anal fin, morphologically differentiated from more posterior caudal vertebrae.
    [Show full text]
  • Exceptional Vertebrate Biotas from the Triassic of China, and the Expansion of Marine Ecosystems After the Permo-Triassic Mass Extinction
    Earth-Science Reviews 125 (2013) 199–243 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Earth-Science Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/earscirev Exceptional vertebrate biotas from the Triassic of China, and the expansion of marine ecosystems after the Permo-Triassic mass extinction Michael J. Benton a,⁎, Qiyue Zhang b, Shixue Hu b, Zhong-Qiang Chen c, Wen Wen b, Jun Liu b, Jinyuan Huang b, Changyong Zhou b, Tao Xie b, Jinnan Tong c, Brian Choo d a School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK b Chengdu Center of China Geological Survey, Chengdu 610081, China c State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan 430074, China d Key Laboratory of Evolutionary Systematics of Vertebrates, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China article info abstract Article history: The Triassic was a time of turmoil, as life recovered from the most devastating of all mass extinctions, the Received 11 February 2013 Permo-Triassic event 252 million years ago. The Triassic marine rock succession of southwest China provides Accepted 31 May 2013 unique documentation of the recovery of marine life through a series of well dated, exceptionally preserved Available online 20 June 2013 fossil assemblages in the Daye, Guanling, Zhuganpo, and Xiaowa formations. New work shows the richness of the faunas of fishes and reptiles, and that recovery of vertebrate faunas was delayed by harsh environmental Keywords: conditions and then occurred rapidly in the Anisian. The key faunas of fishes and reptiles come from a limited Triassic Recovery area in eastern Yunnan and western Guizhou provinces, and these may be dated relative to shared strati- Reptile graphic units, and their palaeoenvironments reconstructed.
    [Show full text]
  • Earliest Known Lepisosteoid Extends the Range of Anatomically Modern Gars to the Late Jurassic Received: 25 September 2017 Paulo M
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Earliest known lepisosteoid extends the range of anatomically modern gars to the Late Jurassic Received: 25 September 2017 Paulo M. Brito1, Jésus Alvarado-Ortega2 & François J. Meunier3 Accepted: 2 December 2017 Lepisosteoids are known for their evolutionary conservatism, and their body plan can be traced at Published: xx xx xxxx least as far back as the Early Cretaceous, by which point two families had diverged: Lepisosteidae, known since the Late Cretaceous and including all living species and various fossils from all continents, except Antarctica and Australia, and Obaichthyidae, restricted to the Cretaceous of northeastern Brazil and Morocco. Until now, the oldest known lepisosteoids were the obaichthyids, which show general neopterygian features lost or transformed in lepisosteids. Here we describe the earliest known lepisosteoid (Nhanulepisosteus mexicanus gen. and sp. nov.) from the Upper Jurassic (Kimmeridgian – about 157 Myr), of the Tlaxiaco Basin, Mexico. The new taxon is based on disarticulated cranial pieces, preserved three-dimensionally, as well as on scales. Nhanulepisosteus is recovered as the sister taxon of the rest of the Lepisosteidae. This extends the chronological range of lepisosteoids by about 46 Myr and of the lepisosteids by about 57 Myr, and flls a major morphological gap in current understanding the early diversifcation of this group. Actinopterygians, or ray-finned fishes, are the largest group among extant gnathostoms vertebrates. Today actinopterygians are represented by three major clades: Cladistia (bichirs and rope fsh), with at least 16 species, Chondrostei (sturgeons and paddle fshes), with about 30 species, and Neopterygii, formed by the Teleostei, with about 30,000 species and the Holostei with eight species: one halecomorph (bowfn) and 7 ginglymodians (gars)1.
    [Show full text]
  • Body-Shape Diversity in Triassic–Early Cretaceous Neopterygian fishes: Sustained Holostean Disparity and Predominantly Gradual Increases in Teleost Phenotypic Variety
    Body-shape diversity in Triassic–Early Cretaceous neopterygian fishes: sustained holostean disparity and predominantly gradual increases in teleost phenotypic variety John T. Clarke and Matt Friedman Comprising Holostei and Teleostei, the ~32,000 species of neopterygian fishes are anatomically disparate and represent the dominant group of aquatic vertebrates today. However, the pattern by which teleosts rose to represent almost all of this diversity, while their holostean sister-group dwindled to eight extant species and two broad morphologies, is poorly constrained. A geometric morphometric approach was taken to generate a morphospace from more than 400 fossil taxa, representing almost all articulated neopterygian taxa known from the first 150 million years— roughly 60%—of their history (Triassic‒Early Cretaceous). Patterns of morphospace occupancy and disparity are examined to: (1) assess evidence for a phenotypically “dominant” holostean phase; (2) evaluate whether expansions in teleost phenotypic variety are predominantly abrupt or gradual, including assessment of whether early apomorphy-defined teleosts are as morphologically conservative as typically assumed; and (3) compare diversification in crown and stem teleosts. The systematic affinities of dapediiforms and pycnodontiforms, two extinct neopterygian clades of uncertain phylogenetic placement, significantly impact patterns of morphological diversification. For instance, alternative placements dictate whether or not holosteans possessed statistically higher disparity than teleosts in the Late Triassic and Jurassic. Despite this ambiguity, all scenarios agree that holosteans do not exhibit a decline in disparity during the Early Triassic‒Early Cretaceous interval, but instead maintain their Toarcian‒Callovian variety until the end of the Early Cretaceous without substantial further expansions. After a conservative Induan‒Carnian phase, teleosts colonize (and persistently occupy) novel regions of morphospace in a predominantly gradual manner until the Hauterivian, after which expansions are rare.
    [Show full text]
  • A Hiatus Obscures the Early Evolution of Modern Lineages of Bony Fishes
    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2021 A Hiatus Obscures the Early Evolution of Modern Lineages of Bony Fishes Romano, Carlo Abstract: About half of all vertebrate species today are ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii), and nearly all of them belong to the Neopterygii (modern ray-fins). The oldest unequivocal neopterygian fossils are known from the Early Triassic. They appear during a time when global fish faunas consisted of mostly cosmopolitan taxa, and contemporary bony fishes belonged mainly to non-neopterygian (“pale- opterygian”) lineages. In the Middle Triassic (Pelsonian substage and later), less than 10 myrs (million years) after the Permian-Triassic boundary mass extinction event (PTBME), neopterygians were already species-rich and trophically diverse, and bony fish faunas were more regionally differentiated compared to the Early Triassic. Still little is known about the early evolution of neopterygians leading up to this first diversity peak. A major factor limiting our understanding of this “Triassic revolution” isaninter- val marked by a very poor fossil record, overlapping with the Spathian (late Olenekian, Early Triassic), Aegean (Early Anisian, Middle Triassic), and Bithynian (early Middle Anisian) substages. Here, I review the fossil record of Early and Middle Triassic marine bony fishes (Actinistia and Actinopterygii) at the substage-level in order to evaluate the impact of this hiatus–named herein the Spathian–Bithynian gap (SBG)–on our understanding of their diversification after the largest mass extinction event of the past. I propose three hypotheses: 1) the SSBE hypothesis, suggesting that most of the Middle Triassic diver- sity appeared in the aftermath of the Smithian-Spathian boundary extinction (SSBE; ฀2 myrs after the PTBME), 2) the Pelsonian explosion hypothesis, which states that most of the Middle Triassic ichthyo- diversity is the result of a radiation event in the Pelsonian, and 3) the gradual replacement hypothesis, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Arrangement of the Families of Fishes, Or Classes
    SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS. •247 A RRANGEMENT OF THE FAMILIES OF FISHES, OR CLASSES PISCES, MARSIPOBRANCHII, ANT) LEPTOCAEDII. PREPARED FOR THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION BT THEODORE GILL, M.D., Ph.D. WASHINGTON: PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. NOVEMBER, 1872. SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS. 247 ARRANGEMENT OF THE FAMILIES OF FISHES, OR CLASSES PISCES, MARSIPOBRANCHII, AND LEPTOCARDII. ' .‘h.i tterf PREPARED FOR THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION "v THEODORE GILL, M.D., Ph.D. WASHINGTON: PUBLISHED BY TIIE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. NOVEMBER, 1872,. ADVERTISEMENT. Ttte following list of families of Fishes has been prepared by Hr. Theodore Gill, at the request of the Smithsonian Institution, to serve as a basis for the arrangement of the eollection of Fishes of the National Museum ; and, as frequent applieations for such a list have been received by the Institution, it has been thought advisable to publish it for more extended use. In provisionally adopting this system for the purpose men- tioned, the Institution is not to be considered as committed to it, nor as accountable for any of the hypothetical views upon which it may be based. JOSEPH HENRY, Secretary, S. I. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, October, 1872. III CONTENTS. PAOB I. Introduction vii Objects vii Status of Ichthyology viii Classification • viii Classes (Pisces, Marsipobranchii, Leptocardii) .....viii Sub-Classes of Pisces ..........ix Orders of Pisces ........... xi Characteristics and sequences of Primary Groups xix Leptocardians ............xix Marsipobranchiates........... xix Pisces .............xx Elasmobranchiates ...........xx . Gauoidei . , . xxii Teleost series ............xxxvi Genetic relations and Sequences ........xiii Excursus on the Shoulder Girdle of Fishes ......xiii Excursus on the Pectoral Limb .........xxviii On the terms “ High” and “ Low” xxxiii Families .............xliv Acknowledgments xlv II.
    [Show full text]
  • Order Lepisostei
    Order Lepisostei ROYAL D. SUTTKUS Tulane University Acknowledgments. My thanks are due the following persons for the loan of specimens or for help in making specimens available for study: Leonard P. Schultz, Ernest A. Lachner, William Ralph Taylor, Robert Kanazawa, and James Tyler of the United States National Museum; James E. &hike of the Academy of Natural Sciences at Philadelphia; Henry B. Bigelow and Mrs. Myvanwy Dick of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University ; Reeve M. Bailey, Robert R. Miller, and Carter Gilbert of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan; Clark Hubbs of the University of Texas; Charles M. Breder and Vladimir Walters of the American Museum of Natural History ; Luis Rivas of the University of Miami; William M. Clay and Louis A. Krumholz of the University of Louisville; Loren P. Woods, Robert F. Inger, and Pearl Sonoda of the Chicago Natural History Museum, and Shelby D. Gerking of the University of Indiana. Thanks are also due Edward C. Raney and Henry B. Bigelow for reading the manuscript and for making helpful suggestions for improvement; to Bill Komodore for delineation of Figs. 11,14,15, i6; to Rudolph J. Miller for Figs. 12, 13, i8; and to Miss Patricia Hale for Fig. 17. Preparation of the illustrations and examination of many specimens at various museums and institutions were made possible by financial aid from the Sears Founda- tion through a grant-in-aid from the National Science Foundation (N. S. F. No. G 7123), and from a National Science Foundation grant to the author (N. S. F.
    [Show full text]
  • New Holostean Fishes (Actinopterygii: Neopterygii) from the Middle Triassic of the Monte San Giorgio (Canton Ticino, Switzerland)
    New holostean fishes (Actinopterygii: Neopterygii) from the Middle Triassic of the Monte San Giorgio (Canton Ticino, Switzerland) Adriana López-Arbarello1, Toni Bürgin2, Heinz Furrer3 and Rudolf Stockar4 1 SNSB—Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und Geologie and GeoBio-Center, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany 2 Naturmuseum, St. Gallen, Switzerland 3 Paläontologisches Institut und Museum, Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland 4 Museo Cantonale di Storia Naturale, Lugano, Switzerland ABSTRACT The new neopterygian genus Ticinolepis, including two new species T. longaeva and T. crassidens is described from Middle Triassic carbonate platform deposits of the Monte San Giorgio. The anatomy of this fish shows a mosaic of halecomorph and ginglymodian characters and, thus, the new taxon probably represents a basal holostean. During the latest Anisian to earliest Ladinian the two new species coexisted in the intraplatform basin represented by the uppermost Besano Formation, but only T. longaeva sp. nov. inhabited the more restricted basin represented by the Ladinian Meride Limestone (except for the Kalkschieferzone). The more widely distributed type species shows interesting patterns of intraspecific variation including ontogenetic changes and morphological variation over time. The second species presents anatomical features that strongly indicate a strictly durophagous diet. The different distribution of the species is interpreted as a result of habitat partitioning and different adaptability to palaeoenvironmental changes.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepisosteiform Fish (Holostei) Ganoid Scales from the Middle Jurassic Deposits of Ukraine
    Zoodiversity, 54(1):35–42, 2020 DOI 10.15407/zoo2020.01.035 UDC 567.41:551.762.23(477.46) LEPISOSTEIFORM FISH (HOLOSTEI) GANOID SCALES FROM THE MIDDLE JURASSIC DEPOSITS OF UKRAINE О. М. Kovalchuk1, G.V. Anfi mova2 National Museum of Natural History NAS of Ukraine, B. Khmelnytsky st., 15, Kyiv, 01030 Ukraine E-mail: [email protected], 2anfi [email protected] Lepisosteiform Fish (Holostei) Ganoid Scales from the Middle Jurassic Deposits of Ukraine. Kovalchuk, О. М., Anfi mova, G. V. — Gars (Lepisosteiformes) fl ourished in epicontinental seas throughout the world during the second half of Mesozoic and early Cenozoic. Cretaceous and Paleogene remains of these fi shes are common in Europe while their Jurassic fossils are still relatively scarce. Here we re-describe in detail a series of ganoid scales from the latest Middle Jurassic (Callovian) deposits of Pekari (Cherkasy Region, Ukraine). Th ese fossils were identifi ed by Professor O. S. Rogovich in 1861 as those that belong to Lepidotus mantellii and L. fi ttoni. Th e referral of these scales to a certain species should be considered with caution because the described material lacks characters suffi cient for identifi cation it even to the genus or family. We consider to identify these fossils as Lepisosteiformes gen. et sp. indet. An overview of currently known Jurassic occurrences of lepisosteiform fi shes is also presented in the paper. Key words: Lepisosteiformes, museum collection, morphology, Callovian, Europe. Introduction Order Lepisosteiformes is a small group of primitive neopterygian fi shes comprising two families — Lepi- sosteidae with seven genera (only two of which — Atractosteus and Lepisosteus — remain extant), and †Obaich- thyidae including two genera (Grande, 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Insights Into the Evolution of Lungs and Swim Bladders Author(S): Christopher B
    Division of Comparative Physiology and Biochemistry, Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology The Origin and Evolution of the Surfactant System in Fish: Insights into the Evolution of Lungs and Swim Bladders Author(s): Christopher B. Daniels, Sandra Orgeig, Lucy C. Sullivan, Nicholas Ling, Michael B. Bennett, Samuel Schürch, Adalberto Luis Val, and Colin J. Brauner Source: Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, Vol. 77, No. 5 (September/October 2004), pp. 732-749 Published by: The University of Chicago Press. Sponsored by the Division of Comparative Physiology and Biochemistry, Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/422058 . Accessed: 08/11/2015 22:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press and Division of Comparative Physiology and Biochemistry, Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Physiological and Biochemical Zoology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Sun, 8 Nov 2015 22:31:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 732 The Origin and Evolution of the Surfactant System in Fish: Insights into the Evolution of Lungs and Swim Bladders* Christopher B.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Synapomorphies Resolve Evolutionary Relationships of Extant Jawed Vertebrates
    Molecular synapomorphies resolve evolutionary relationships of extant jawed vertebrates Byrappa Venkatesh*†, Mark V. Erdmann‡, and Sydney Brenner* *Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, 30 Medical Drive, Singapore 117609; and ‡Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 Contributed by Sydney Brenner, August 7, 2001 The evolutionary relationships of gnathostomes (jawed verte- brates), which comprise chondrichthyans (cartilaginous fishes), lobe-finned fishes (coelacanths and lungfishes), tetrapods, and actinopterygians (ray-finned fishes), have been debated for almost a century. Phylogenetic analyses based on fossils, morphology, and molecular sequences have generated different models of relation- ships that remain unresolved. We identified 13 derived shared molecular markers (synapomorphies) that define clades in the vertebrate lineage and used them to resolve the phylogenetic relationships of extant jawed vertebrates. Our markers include the presence or absence of insertions and deletions in coding se- quences, nuclear introns, and alternatively spliced transcripts. The synapomorphies identified by us are congruent with each other and give rise to a single phylogenetic tree. This tree confirms that chondrichthyans are basal to all living gnathostomes, that lung- fishes (Dipnoi) are the closest living relatives of tetrapods, and that bichirs (Cladistia) are the living members of the most ancient family of ray-finned fishes. Our study also provides molecular evidence to support the monophyly of living tetrapods and teleosts. Fig. 1. Alternative models of evolutionary relationships of gnathostomes he jawed vertebrates (gnathostomes) fall into two major taxa, proposed by earlier studies (4–5). Model a proposes a lungfish ϩ tetrapod Tthe Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes) and Osteichthyes clade, whereas model b supports a lungfish ϩ coelacanth clade (4).
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding Kinematics and Morphology of the Alligator Gar
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/561993; this version posted February 27, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Lemberg 1 1 FEEDING KINEMATICS AND MORPHOLOGY OF THE ALLIGATOR GAR 2 (ATRACTOSTEUS SPATULA, LACÉPÈDE, 1803) 3 4 FEEDING MECHANICS OF ATRACTOSTEUS SPATULA 5 6 LEMBERG, JUSTIN B.1*, NEIL H. SHUBIN1, MARK W. WESTNEAT1 7 1The University of Chicago, Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy 8 1027 E. 57th St, Chicago, IL 60637 9 10 *To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected] 11 12 ABSTRACT 13 Modern (lepisosteid) gars are a small clade of seven species and two genera that occupy an 14 important position on the actinopterygian phylogenetic tree as members of the Holostei 15 (Amia + gars), sister-group of the teleost radiation. Often referred to as “living fossils,” 16 these taxa preserve many plesiomorphic characteristics used to interpret and reconstruct 17 early osteichthyan feeding conditions. Less attention, however, has been paid to the 18 functional implications of gar-specific morphology, thought to be related to an exclusively 19 ram-based, lateral-snapping mode of prey capture. Previous studies of feeding kinematics 20 in gars have focused solely on members of the narrow-snouted Lepisosteus genus, and here 21 we expand that dataset to include a member of the broad-snouted sister-genus and largest 22 species of gar, the alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula, Lacépède, 1803). High-speed bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/561993; this version posted February 27, 2019.
    [Show full text]