Advertisement

Paläontologische Zeitschrift

, Volume 74, Issue 1–2, pp 113–143 | Cite as

New teleostean fishes from the Jurassic of southern Germany and the systematic problems concerning the ‘pholidophoriforms’

  • Gloria Arratia
Article

Abstract

A new genus,Siemensichthys, from the Upper Jurassic of southern Germany is described. The new genus includes two species,S. macrocephalus (Agassiz) which was formerly in the genusPholidophorus, andS. siemensi n. sp. The two species share synapomorphies such as only one supramaxillary bone covering the dorsal margin of the maxilla. Both species are described, and their phylogenetic position is analyzed. The phylogenetic analyses, based on 27 taxa and 141 characters, show thatAnkylophorus from the Kimmeridgian of Cerin,Siemensichthys andEurycormus from the Solnhofen Lithographic Limestone of Bavaria, form a monophyletic group. The new extinct clade (preliminarily identified as theSiemensichthys- group) is proposed as the sister-group ofPholidophorus s. str. plus more advanced teleosts. This sister-group relationship is supported by eight characters (e.g., supraoccipital bone extending forward in the roof of the otic region; articular bone fused with both the angular and retroarticular; presence of an elongated posteroventral process of quadrate; presence of dorsal processes at the base of the innermost caudal rays of upper lobe; mobile premaxillary bone). Comparisons with species ofPholidophorus s. str. provide a new understanding of the genusPholidophorus. At least four synapomorphies are proposed to support the monophyly ofPholidophorus. As a consequence of this new interpretation, the European Late Jurassic species previously assigned to the Pholidophoridae and to the genusPholidophorus (e.g., ‘Ph.’armatus, ‘Ph.’ falcifer, ‘Ph.’ micronyx, ‘Ph.’ microps) should be reexamined because they do not belong to the family nor to the genus. The order PholidophoriformesBerg is not a monophyletic group as currently constructed. Therefore, all so-called pholidophoriforms are in need of revision.

Keywords

Jurassic Posterior Margin Nasal Bone Frontal Bone Dorsal Margin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Zusamenfassung

Die neue GattungSiemensichthys aus dem Oberen Jura Süddeutschlands wird beschrieben. Sie umfaßt die zwei ArtenS. macrocephalus (Agassiz) (ursprünglich in die GattungPholidophorus gestellt) undS. siemensi n. sp., die einige wenige Synapomorphien gemeinsam haben (z. B. nur ein Supramaxillare, das den dorsalen Rand des Maxillare bedeckt). Beide Arten werden beschrieben und ihre phylogenetische Stellung analysiert. Die phylogenetischen Analysen von 27 Taxa und 141 Merkmalen zeigen, daßAnkylophorus aus dem Kimmeridgium von Cerin undSiemensichthys sowieEurycormus aus dem Solnhofener Plattenkalk Bayerns eine monophyletische Gruppe bilden. Diese neue ausgestorbene Gruppe (vorläufig alsSiemensichthys- Gruppe bezeichnet) ist die Schwestergruppe vonPholidophorus s. str. und weiter fortgeschrittener Teleosteer. Das Schwestergruppen-Verhältnis ist durch 8 Merkmale belegt (z. B. Besitz eines Supraoccipitales; das Supraoccipitale reicht vorwärts in das Dach der Oticalregion; Articulare verschmolzen mit Angulare und Retroarticulare; Besitz eines verlängerten posteroventralen Fortsatzes des Quadratum; Besitz von dorsalen Fortsätzen an der Basis der innersten caudalen Flossenstrahlen des oberen Schwanzlobus; bewegliches Prämaxillare). Vergleiche mit Arten vonPholidophorus s. str. eröffnen ein neues Verständnis der GattungPholidophorus. Mindestens vier Synapomorphien werden aufgezeigt, die die Monophylie vonPholidophorus unterstützen. Daraus folgt, daß europäische spätjurassische Arten, die früher zu den Pholidophoridae und zur GattungPholidophorus (z. B. ‘Ph.’armatus, ‘Ph.’ falcifer, ‘Ph.’ micronyx, ‘Ph.’ microps) gestellt wurden, neu untersucht werden müssen, denn sie gehören weder in die Familie noch in die Gattung. Die Ordnung PholidophoriformesBerg ist keine monophyletische Gruppe. Die sogenannten ‘Pholidophoriformes’ bedürfen einer Revision.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agassiz, L. 1832. Untersuchungen über die fossilen Fische der Lias-Formation. - Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde3: 139–149, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  2. - 1833–44. Recherches sur les Poissons Fossiles. - 5 vols., 1420 pp., with supplements; Neuchâtel et Soleure (Petitpierre).Google Scholar
  3. Airaghi, C. 1908. Di unPholidophorus del Retico Lombardo. - Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo41(2): 768–772, Milano.Google Scholar
  4. Arratia, G. 1984. Some osteological features ofVarasichthys ariasi Arratia (Pisces, Teleostei) from the Late Jurassic of Chile.- Paläontologische Zeitschrift58(1/2): 149–163, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  5. — 1991. The caudal skeleton of Jurassic teleosts; a phylogenetic analysis. - [In:]Chang, M.-M.;Liu, Y.-H. &Zhang, G.-R. [eds.] Early Vertebrates and Related Problems in Evolutionary Biology: 249–340, Beijing (Science Press).Google Scholar
  6. — 1996. Reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships of certain Jurassic teleosts and their implications on teleostean phylogeny. - [In:]Arratia, G. &Viohl, G. [eds.] Mesozoic Fishes - Systematics and Paleoecology: 219–242, München (Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil).Google Scholar
  7. — 1997. Basal teleosts and teleostean phylogeny. - Palaeo Ichthyologica7: 1–168, München.Google Scholar
  8. — 1999. The monophyly of Teleostei and stem-group teleosts. Consensus and disagreements. - [In:]Arratia, G. &Schultze, H.-P. [eds.] Mesozoic Fishes - Systematics and Fossil Record: 265–334, München (Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil).Google Scholar
  9. Arratia, G. &Schultze, H.-P. 1987. A new halecostome fish (Actinopterygii, Osteichthyes) from the Late Jurassic of Chile and its relationships. - Dakoterra3: 1–13, Rapid City, South Dakota.Google Scholar
  10. Arratia, G. &Schultze, H.-P. 1990. The urohyal: Development and homology within osteichthyans. - Journal of Morphology203: 247–382, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Arratia, G. &Schultze, H.-P. 1991. Development and homology of the palatoquadrate in osteichthyans. -Journal of Morphology208: 1–81, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berg, L. S. 1940. Classification of fishes, both Recent and fossil. - Doklady Zoological Institute5: 85–517. [English translation by J. W. Edwards, Ann Arbor, Michigan].Google Scholar
  13. Bertin, L. &Arambourg, C. 1958. Superordre des Téléostéens (Teleostei). - [In:]Grassé, P. [ed.] Traité de Zoologie13(3): 2204–2500, Paris (Masson et Cie.).Google Scholar
  14. Biese, W. 1927. Ueber einige Pholidophoriden aus den lithographischen Schiefern Bayerns. - Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie58: 50–100, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  15. Brito, P. 1997. Révision des Aspidorhynchidae (Pisces, Actinopterygii) du Mésozoïque: ostéologie, relations phylogénétiques, données environnementales et biogéographiques. - Geodiversitas19(4): 681–772, Paris.Google Scholar
  16. Carroll, R. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. - xiv + 698 pp., New York (W. H. Freeman and Company).Google Scholar
  17. Gardiner, B. G.;Maisey, J. G. &Littlewood, T. J. 1996. Interrelationships of basal neopterygians. - [In:]Stiassny, M. L. J.;Parenti, L. R. &Johnson, G. D. [eds.] Interrelationships of Fishes: 117–146, San Diego (Academic Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaudant, J. 1978. Essai de revision taxonomique des„Pholidophorus“ (Poissons actinoptérygiens) du Jurassique supérieur de Cerin (Ain). - Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d’Histoire naturelle de Lyon16: 101–121, Lyon.Google Scholar
  19. Giebel, C. G. 1848. Fauna der Vorwelt, mit steter Berücksichtigung der lebenden Tiere. Erster Band: Wirbelthiere. Dritte Abtheilung: Fische. - xii + 467 pp., Leipzig (Brockhaus).Google Scholar
  20. Grande, L. &Bemis, W. 1998. A comprehensive phylogenetic study of amiid fishes (Amiidae) based on comparative skeletal anatomy. An empirical search for interconnected patterns of natural history. - Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology18, supplement 1, Memoir 4: 1–690, Lawrence/ Kansas.Google Scholar
  21. Griffith, J. &Patterson, C. 1963. The structure and relationships of the Jurassic fishIchthyokentema purbeckensis. - Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History, Geology8(1): 1–43, London.Google Scholar
  22. Heinere, E. 1907. Die Ganoiden und Teleostier des lithographischen Schiefers von Nusplingen. - Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen12: 159–214, Jena.Google Scholar
  23. Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. -263 pp., Urbana (University of Illinois Press).Google Scholar
  24. Jarvik, E. 1981. Basic Structure and Evolution of Vertebrates. -1: xvi + 575 pp., New York (Academic Press).Google Scholar
  25. Jessen, H. 1972. Schultergürtel und Pectoralflosse bei Actinopterygiern. - Fossils and Strata1: 1–101, Oslo.Google Scholar
  26. Lehman, J.-P. 1966. Actinopterygii. - [In:]Piveteau, J. [ed.] Traité de Paléontologie -4(3): 1–242, Paris (Masson et Cie.).Google Scholar
  27. Li, G.-Q. &Wilson, M. V. H. 1996. Phylogeny of Osteoglossomorpha. - [In:]Stiassny, M. L. J.;Parenti, L. R. &Johnson, G. D. [eds.] Interrelationships of Fishes: 167–174, San Diego (Academic Press).Google Scholar
  28. Liu, H. T. 1955. A newBaleichthys from Shensi. - Acta Paleontologica Sinica3(4): 317–322, Beijing. [In Chinese with English summary].Google Scholar
  29. Mainwaring, A. J. 1978. Anatomical and systematic revision of the Pachycormidae, a family of Mesozoic fossil fishes. -Unpublished Doctoral thesis: 127 pp., Westfield College, London.Google Scholar
  30. Münster, G. von 1842. Beiträge zur Kenntniss einiger neuen seltenen Versteinerungen aus den lithographischen Schiefern in Baiern. - Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde1842: 35–64, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  31. Nelson, J. S. 1994. Fishes of the World. - xiii + 600 pp, New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore (J. Wiley & Sons, Inc.) [3rd. ed.].Google Scholar
  32. Normark, B. B.;McCune, A. R. &Harrison, M. G. 1991. Phylogenetic relationships of the neopterygian fishes, inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. - Molecular Biology and Evolution8(6): 819–834, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Nursall, J. R. 1996. The phylogeny of pycnodont fishes. - [In:]Arratia, G. &Viohl, G. [eds.] Mesozoic Fishes - Systematics and Paleoecology: 125–152, München (Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil).Google Scholar
  34. Nybelin, O. 1966. On certain Triassic and Liassic representatives of the family Pholidophoridae s.str. -Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History, Geology11: 351–432, London.Google Scholar
  35. — 1974. A revision of the leptolepid fishes. - Acta Regiae Societatis scientiarum et litterarum Gothoburgensis, Zoologica9: 1–202, Göteborg.Google Scholar
  36. Olsen, P. E. 1984. The skull and pectoral girdle of the parasemionotid fishWatsonulus eugnathoides from the Early Triassic Sakamena Group of Madagascar, with comments on the relationhips of the holostean fishes. - Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology4: 481–499, Lawrence/ Kansas.Google Scholar
  37. Patterson, C. 1968. The caudal skeleton in Lower Liassic pholidophorid fishes. - Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History, Geology16: 201–239, London.Google Scholar
  38. — 1973. Interrelationships of holosteans. - [In:]Greenwood, P. H.;Miles, R. S. &Patterson, C. [eds.] Interrelationships of Fishes. - Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society53, Supplement 1: 233–305, London (Academic Press).Google Scholar
  39. — 1975. The braincase of pholidophorid and leptolepid fishes, with a review of the actinopterygian braincase. - Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, (B)269: 275–579, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. - 1977. Contribution of Paleontology to teleostean phylogeny. - [In:] Hecht, M. K.; Goody, P. C. & Hecht, B. M. [eds.] Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. NATO Advanced Study Institute Series, Serie A: 579–643, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Patterson, C. &Rosen, D. E. 1977. Review of the ichthyodectiforms and other Mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. - Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History158: 83–172, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Pinna, M. de 1996. Teleostean monophyly. - [In:]Stiassny, M. L. J.;Parenti, L. R. &Johnson, G. D. [eds.] Interrelationships of Fishes: 147–162, San Diego (Academic Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Quenstedt, F. A. 1852. Handbuch der Petrefactenkunde. - 792 pp., Tübingen (H. Laupp).Google Scholar
  44. — 1858. Der Jura. - vi + 842 pp., Tübingen (H. Laupp).Google Scholar
  45. Rayner, D. H. 1941. The structure and evolution of the Holostean fishes. - Biological Review16: 218–237, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Romer, A. S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. - viii + 468 pp., Chicago, London (The University of Chicago Press) [3rd. ed.].Google Scholar
  47. Saint-Seine, P. de 1949. Les poissons des calcaires lithographiques de Cerin (Ain). - Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d’Histoire naturelle, Lyon2: 1–257, Lyon.Google Scholar
  48. Schaeffer, B. 1972. A Jurassic fish from Antarctica. - American Museum Novitates2495: 1–17, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Schaeffer, B. &Patterson, C. 1984. Jurassic fishes from the western United States, with comments on Jurassic fish distribution. - American Museum Novitates2796: 1–86, New York.Google Scholar
  50. Schultze, H.-P. 1966. Morphologische und histologische Untersuchungen an den Schuppen mesozoischer Actinopterygier (Übergang von Ganoidzu Rundschuppen). - Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen126: 232–314, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  51. — 1996. The scales of Mesozoic actinopterygians. - [In:]Arratia, G. &Viohl, G. [eds.] Mesozoic Fishes - Systematics and Paleoecology: 243–259, München (Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil).Google Scholar
  52. Schultze, H.-P. &Arratia, G. 1986. Reevaluation of the caudal skeleton of actinopterygian fishes. I.Amia andLepisosteus. - Journal of Morphology190: 215–241, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schultze, H.-P. &Arratia, G. 1989. The composition of the caudal skeleton of teleosts (Actinopterygii, Osteichthyes). - Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society97: 189–231, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schultze, H.-P. &Wiley, E. O. 1984. The neopterygianAmia as a living fossil. - [In:]Eldredge, N. &Stanley, S. M. [eds.] Living Fossils: 153–159, New York (Springer Verlag).Google Scholar
  55. Su, D. 1985. On Late Mesozoic fish fauna from Xiujiang (Sinkiang, China). - Memoirs of the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology, Academia Sinica17: 61–136, Beijing. [In Chinese with English summary].Google Scholar
  56. Swofford, D. 1993. PAUP: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony. Version 3.1.- 264 pp., Champaign (Illinois Natural History Survey).Google Scholar
  57. Taverne, L. 1975. Considérations sur la position systématique des genres fossilesLeptolepis etAllothrissops au sein des Téléostéens primitifs et sur l’origine et le polyphylétisme des Poissons Téléostéens. - Bulletin de la Classe des Sciences, Académie Royal de Belgique, (5)70: 335–371, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  58. — 1980. Sur quelques particularités ostéologiques du crâned’Arapaima Müller, 1843 (Téléostéens Ostéoglossomorphes). - Bulletin de l’Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique52(6): 1–5, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  59. — 1981. Les Actinoptérygians de l’Aptien Inférieur (Töck) d’Helgoland. - Mitteilungen aus dem Geologisch-Paläontologischen Institut der Universität Hamburg51: 43–82, Hamburg.Google Scholar
  60. Vetter, B. 1881. Die Fische aus dem lithographischen Schiefer im Dresdener Museum. - Mittheilungen aus dem königlich mineralogisch-geologischen und praehistorischen Museum in Dresden4: 1–118, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  61. Wagner, J. A. 1860. Vergleichung der urweltlichen Fauna des lithographischen Schiefers von Cirin mit den gleichnamigen Ablagerungen im fränkischen Jura. - Gelehrten Anzeiger der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften48–51: 390–412, München.Google Scholar
  62. — 1863. Monographie der fossilen Fische aus dem lithographischen Schiefer Bayern’s. Zweite Abtheilung. -Abhandlungen der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, mathematisch-physikalische Klasse9(3): 612–748, München.Google Scholar
  63. Waldman, M. 1971. Fish from the freshwater Lower Cretaceous of Victoria, Australia with comments on the palaeo-environment. -Special Papers in Palaeontology9: 1–62, London.Google Scholar
  64. Wenz, S. 1968. Compléments à l’étude des poissons actinoptérygiens du Jurassique français. - Cahiers de Paléontologie: 1–276, Paris.Google Scholar
  65. Wenz, S. &Brito, P. M. 1992. Première découverte de Lepisosteidae (Pisces, Actinopterygii) dans le Crétacé inférieur de la Chapada do Araripe (N-E du Brésil). Conséquences sur la phylogénie des Ginglymodi. - Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, (II)314: 1519–1525, Paris.Google Scholar
  66. — 1996. New data about des lepisosteids and semionotids from the Early Cretaceous of Chapada do Araripe (NE Brazil): Phylogenetic implications. - [In:]Arratia, G. &Viohl, G. [eds.] Mesozoic Fishes - Systematics and Paleoecology: 153–165, München (Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil).Google Scholar
  67. Woodward, A. S. 1890. The fossil fishes of the Hawkesbury Series at Gosford. - Memoirs of the Geological Survey of New South Wales (Palaeontographic Series)4: I–XIII, 1 - 56, New South Wales.Google Scholar
  68. — 1895. Catalogue of the Fossil Fishes in the British Museum (Natural History). - 3 (Pholidophoridae): 446–478 London (Trustees of the British Museum of Natural History).Google Scholar
  69. - 1919. The fossil fishes of the English Wealden and Purbeck Formation. Part III. - Palaeontographical Society, Monographs: 105–148, London.Google Scholar
  70. — 1941. The Mesozoic ganoid fishes of the genusPholidophorus Agassiz. -Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (11)8: 88–91, London.Google Scholar
  71. Zambelli, R. 1975. Note suiPholidophoriformes. I. -Parapholidophorus nybelini gen. n. sp. n. - Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo, Accademia di Scienze e Lettere109: 3–49, Milano.Google Scholar
  72. — 1977. Note sui Pholidophoriformes. II.Pholidoctenus serianus gen. n. sp. n. - Rendiconti Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, (5)3: 101–124, Roma.Google Scholar
  73. — 1980. Note suiPholidophoriformes. IV Contributo:Pholidorhynchodon malzanni gen. nov. sp. nov.- Rivista del Museo Civico di Scienze Naturali „E. Caffi“2: 129–167, Bergamo.Google Scholar
  74. — 1986. Note suiPholidophoriformes. VI Contributo.Pholidophorinae subfamiglia nuova del Triassico Superiore. - Rivista del Museo Civico di Scienze Naturali „E. Caffi“10: 1–32, Bergamo.Google Scholar
  75. — 1990. Note sui Pholidophoriformes. VII Contributo.Eopholidophorus forojuliensis n.g., n.sp. -Gortania - Atti del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale11 [1989]: 63–76, Udine.Google Scholar
  76. Zittel, K. A. von 1887–90. Handbuch der Palaeontologie. I. Abtheilung Palaeozoologie. III. Band Vertebrata (Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves). - xiii + 900 pp., München, Leipzig (R. Oldenbourg).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gloria Arratia
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für PaläontologieMuseum für Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universität, BerlinBerlin

Personalised recommendations