Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 25, 2021 Peter L. Forey BRIAN GARDINER1 & ALISON LONGBOTTOM2 1Ringlee, Lindon Gardens, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 7HB, UK 2Department of Palaeontology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK (e-mail: [email protected]) This book began with the desire by the editors to These publications are still the standard works on create a publication to honour Dr Peter Forey fossil elopomorph comparative anatomy. (Fig. 1) in recognition of his great contribution to In 1972, sometime after graduation (during fish systematics and palaeobiogeography. This which period he had several jobs, including preface gives a brief review of some of his accom- working for a security firm) he applied for, and plishments and a list of his publications to date. secured, the position of Assistant professor in Peter Forey started his palaeontological career as a Zoology at the University of Alberta. He remained research student of Brian Gardiner at Queen Elizabeth in this post until 1975 when he joined the fossil fish College, University of London from 1968–1971. section in the Department of Palaeontology at the His thesis on elopiform fishes was published in Natural History Museum, London. Here, working 1973 in the Bulletin of the British Museum with Colin Patterson, he became one of the prime (Natural History) (Geology supplement 10). That movers in getting phylogenetic systematics (or same year he produced what turned out to be a cladistics as it became called) accepted by the signal paper entitled ‘Relationships of elopo- palaeontology community. morphs’, which was published in ‘Interrelationships This new method for analysing phylogenies was of Fishes’ (Greenwood, Miles & Patterson 1973). being developed in the 1970s following the publi- This was subsequently updated in 1996 by the cation of a paper on phylogenetic systematics in paper Forey, Littlewood, Ritchie & Meyer, ‘Inter- English (Hennig 1966). The fossil fish section and relationships of elopomorph fishes’, published in a other researchers from the Natural History new edition of ‘Interrelationships of Fishes’. Museum (including Peter, Colin, Chris Humphries (Botanist), Dick Vane-Wright (Entomologist) and, on occasion, Brian Gardiner and Gareth Nelson) had many fruitful discussions in a public house local to the museum, which became known as ‘the Cladists Arms’. The cladistic methodology was viewed antagonistically by many palaeontologists at the time and finally a special session was set aside at the ‘26th Symposium of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Comparative Anatomy’ held in 1978 at Reading University, England, to discuss the issue. The promotion of cladistics by the Natural History Museum speakers at this sym- posium led to some sharp exchanges in the pages of Nature journal (Halstead 1978; Halstead & White 1978; Gardiner et al. 1979). These discus- sions and disputes eventually led to the 1981 publi- cation by Rosen, Forey, Patterson & Gardiner entitled ‘Lungfishes, tetrapods, palaeontology and plesiomorphy’. On the face of it, this was a publi- cation describing the anatomical details of the snouts of tetrapods, lobe-finned fishes and lung- fishes, and their conclusion was that tetrapods were more closely related to the lungfish rather than other lobe-finned fishes (in particular the osteo- lepiforms), which was the accepted idea at that Fig. 1. Peter Forey. time. This caused quite a stir but mainly because From:CAVIN, L., LONGBOTTOM,A.&RICHTER, M. (eds) Fishes and the Break-up of Pangaea. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 295, 1–6. DOI: 10.1144/SP295.1 0305-8719/08/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2008. Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 25, 2021 2 B. GARDINER & A. LONGBOTTOM Rosen et al. criticised the traditional methods of working out ancestor-descendant relationships, where it was deemed important that fossils played a large part. They again argued in strong terms for cladistic methodology where relationships should be inferred from extant forms alone without refer- ence to fossils. Their apparent dismissal of fossils and contradiction of the accepted origins of tetra- pods led to some very vitriolic reviews of their paper (especially Jarvik 1981) and they became known as ‘the gang of four’. The first use of this term in print has not been traced but it culminated with Henry Gee (1999) using it as a chapter heading in a book where he describes the history of the Rosen et al. 1981 paper and the reaction of the palaeontology commu- nity to it. Now that cladistic methodology is Fig. 2. At the Alabama Deep Sea Fishing Rodeo accepted it is difficult to understand the heated argu- (Dauphin Island, Alabama, USA), July 2002. From left ments and discussions that went on in the literature to right: William E. Bemis, Peter Forey, and Lance of the 1970s and 1980s, and Peter Forey’s papers Grande, with a Warsaw Grouper (Epinephelus nigritus, reflect this time of change. 2030 mm TL) that was landed during the fishing Peter continued to champion cladistics and tournament. Photo: courtesy of L. Grande. educate a new generation. Starting in 1983 with ‘An Introduction to Cladistics’, Peter has published many papers and books on cladistics and his most Fishing Rodeo and to select specimens for up-to-date contributions are a series of articles ‘Cla- museum collections (Fig. 2). He has also made con- distics for Palaeontologists’ in the Palaeontology tributions to the study of more primitive fishes Newsletter (2005–2006) of the Palaeontological including on the origin of agnathans (Forey 1984c, Association (UK). His background in lecturing 1995a, Forey & Janvier 1993, 1994, 1995b) and also proved important for the development of cla- distics at the Natural History Museum when in 1990 Peter, together with Chris Humphries, David Williams, Darrell Siebert and Ian Kitching, set up a course on cladistics for museum staff and MSc students and was one of the lead lecturers. Undoubtedly Peter’s other outstanding contri- butions have been on coelacanths (see Forey 1980, 1984a, 1988, 1989, 1990b, 1991a, 1991c) culminating in his book ‘History of Coelacanth Fishes’ (1998c). He is without doubt the world authority on coelacanths. Peter has also published extensively on lung- fishes, (e.g. Forey 1986), and their relationship to tetrapods (Forey et al. 1991). Peter’s other contributions to taxonomy concern the controversial PhyloCode, about which he published a description and commentary (see Forey 2001c, 2002c). Peter has made valuable contributions to many other fields including palaeobiogeography (Forey 1981a, 1985a; Hilton & Forey 2005b). He has estab- lished himself as an outstanding teleost taxonomist with numerous publications throughout his career from the 1970s (Forey 1970, 1973a, 1973b–c, 1975, 1977) up to more recently (Forey & Patterson Fig. 3. Peter Forey taking a short break from fossil 2006). His extensive knowledge of fishes has been collecting to make a study for a watercolour. At the put to good use as he has, for many years, helped Green River Formation, west of Kemmerer, Wyoming to identify the catches at the Alabama Deep Sea (USA), July 2003. Photo: E. J. Hilton. Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 25, 2021 PETER L. FOREY 3 on placoderms (Forey & Gardiner 1986). All of this 1997 (Teleostei: Osteoglossomorpha). Zoological is borne out by the fact that he has published over Journal of the Linnean Society of London, 133, 25–52. 114 peer-reviewed papers, 24 other articles and CAVIN,L.&FOREY, P. L. 2004. New Mawsoniid coela- book reviews and written or contributed to 21 canth (Sarcopterygii: Actinistia) remains from the books and is still actively researching and writing. Cretaceous of the Kem Kem Beds, Southern Morocco. In:ARRATIA,G.&TINTORI, A. (eds) These are a lasting testimony to Peter Mesozoic fishes 3–Systematics, palaeoenvironments Forey’s accomplishments. and biodiversity. Dr F. Pfeil, Munich, 493–506. Throughout his career Peter’s other major talent CAVIN,L.&FOREY, P. L. 2007. Using ghost lineages to (as a gifted artist) has helped him to interpret and identify diversification events in the fossil record. portray the complexities of fish morphology, as Biology Letters, 3, 201–204. the beautiful illustrations in his papers show. Peter CAVIN, L., FOREY, P. L., BUFFETAUT,E.&TONG,H. also paints watercolours and has exhibited and 2005. Latest European coelacanth shows Gondwanan sold many paintings. His keenness extends to affinities. Biology Letters, 2005, 176–177. taking a sketchpad with him wherever he goes, CAVIN, L., FOREY,P.L.&LECUYER, C. 2007. Correlation between environment and Late Mesozoic even to the most remote (and some would say ray-finned fish evolution. Palaeogeography, artistically-uninspiring) field areas (Fig. 3). Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 245, 353–367. Peter’s wide-ranging knowledge of and interest CHALONER, W. G., FOREY, P. L., GARDINER, B. G., in fossil fishes and palaeobiogeography, and the HILL,A.J.&YOUNG, V. T. 1980. Devonian fish and inspiration his contributions have given to others, plants from the Bokkeveld Series of South Africa. are acknowledged and reflected in the scope and Annals of the South African Museum, 81, 127–157. subjects of the papers herein: this book is dedicated CHENERY, S., WILLIAMS, T., ELLIOT, T., FOREY,P.L. to him. &WERDELIN, L. 1996. Determination of rare earth elements in biological and mineral apatite by EPMA and LAMP-ICP-MS. Mikrochimica Acta, Supplement Alison Longbottom would like to thank Julien Kimmig for 13, 259–269. help compiling Peter Forey’s bibliography. CLOUTIER,R.&FOREY, P. L. 1991. Diversity of extinct and living actinistian fishes (Sacropterygii). Environ- References mental Biology of Fishes. 32, 59–74. DONOGHUE,P.C.J.&FOREY, P. L. 1998. Conodont affi- GEE, H. 1999. In search of Deep Time. The Free Press, nity, chordate phylogeny and the origin of vertebrate New York. dermal skeleton. Palaeontology Newsletter, 39,7. GREENWOOD, P. H., MILES,R.S.&PATTERSON,C.