Paläontologische Zeitschrift

, Volume 82, Issue 1, pp 40–54 | Cite as

Revision ofSemionotus bergeri Agassiz, 1833 (Upper Triassic, Germany), with comments on the taxonomic status ofSemionotus (Actinopterygii, Semionotiformes).

  • Adriana Löpez-ArbarelloEmail author


Semionotus bergeri Agassiz, 1833, from the Upper Triassic (Carnian) of southern Germany, the type species ofSemionotus, is here described in detail for the first time, including so far unstudied material in the Naturkunde-Museum Coburg, which allows a fairly complète reconstruction of this fish. The species is diagnosed by the présence of long frontals, about 4 times longer than wide, with antorbital lateral processes, 6–7 posterior infraorbitals, infraorbital at the posteroventral corner of the orbit notably larger than adjacent ones, infraorbitals at the posterior border of the orbit being as deep as long, and the middle élément anteroventrally expanded, dorsal fin base about two times the anal fin base.S. elegans from the Late Triassic-Early Jurassic of the Newark Supergroup in North America, is so far the best know species ofSemionotus and is the only species of this genus that has been included in phylogentic analyses. However, the comparison ofS. bergeri with other proposed speciesof Semionotus, such asS. elegans, and other semionotids casts doubt on the monophyly of this genus as currently understood, since these species exhibit a mosaic distribution of characters.


Semionotus Semionotiformes Neopterygii Upper Triassic Coburger Sandstein Hassberge Formation Germany 


Die Typusart der GattungSemionotus, Semionotus bergeri Agassiz, 1833, aus der oberen Trias (Karnium) Süddeutschlands, wird hier zum ersten Mal im Detail beschrieben, unter anderem anhand von bisher unbeschriebenem Material aus dem Naturkunde-Museum Coburg, was eine fast vollständige Rekonstruktion dieses Fisches erlaubt. Die Art lässt sich anhand der folgenden Merkmale diagnostizieren: verlängerte Frontalia, die circa 4 mal so lang wie breit sind und laterale Fortsätze vor der Orbita aufweisen, 6–7 posteriore Infraorbitalia, Infraorbitale am posteroventralen Rand der Orbita deutlich größer als die angrenzenden Infraorbitalia, Infraorbitalia am Hinterrand der Orbita so hoch wie lang und das mittlere Element nach anteroventral expandiert, Ansatz der Rückenflosse in etwas zweimal so lang wie der Ansatz der Analflosse.S. elegans aus der oberen Trias / unterem Jura der Newark Supergruppe Nordamerikas war bisher die bestbekannte Art vonSemionotus und der einzige Vertreter dieser Gattung, der in phylogenetischen Analysen berücksichtigt wurde. Der Vergleich vonS. bergeri mit anderen zu der GattungSemionotus gestellten Arten, darunterS. elegans, und mit anderen Gattungen der Semionotiden lässt allerdings Zweifel an der Monophylie dieser Gattung, wie sie derzeit verstanden wird, aufkommen, da diese Arten eine mosaikartige Verteilung von Merkmalen aufweisen.


Semionotus Semionotiformes Neopterygii Obere Trias Coburger Sandstein Hassberge-Formation Deutschland 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agassiz, L. 1832. Untersuchungen über die fossilen Fische der Lias-Formation. — Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde3: 139–149.Google Scholar
  2. Agassiz, L. 1833–1844. Recherches sur les Poissons Fossiles. — 1420 p., Neuchâtel et Soleure, Suisse (Petitpierre).Google Scholar
  3. Allessandri, G. De 1910. Studi sui pesci Triasici délia Lombardia. — Memoria délia Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali7: 1–145.Google Scholar
  4. Bartram, A.W.H. 1977. The Macrosemiidae, a Mesozoic family of holostean fishes. — Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History),Geology29: 137–234.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, H.A.C. 1832. Die Versteinerungen der Fische und Pflanzen im Sandsteine der Coburger Gegend. — 29 p. Coburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  6. Berger, H.A.C. 1843. No title (letter onSemionotus andThalassides, dated Coburg, 24 October 1842). — Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde1843: 86.Google Scholar
  7. Bocchino, A. 1973. Semionotidae (Pisces, Holostei, Semionotiformes) de la Formaciön Lagarcito (Juräsico Superior?), San Luis, Argentina. — Ameghiniana10: 254–268.Google Scholar
  8. Bornemann, J.G. 1854. ÜberSemionotus im oberem Keupersandstein. — Zeitschrift der Deutsche Geologischen Gesellschaft1854:612–615.Google Scholar
  9. Brito, P.M. 1997. Révision des Aspidorhynchidae (Pisces, Actinopterygii) du Mésozoïque: ostéologie, relations phylogénétiques, données environnementales et biogéographiques. — Geodiversitas19 (4): 681–772.Google Scholar
  10. Brito, P.M. 2006. Consideraçôes sobre os halecomorfos e os lepisosteídeos (Actinopterygii: Neopterygii) no Cretâceo da parte ocidental do continente Gondwana. — In:Gallo, V.;Brito, P.M.;Silva, H.M.A. &Figueiredo, F.J.D., eds., Paleontologia de Vertebrados: Grandes Temas e Contribuições Científicas: 53–70, Rio de Janeiro (Interciência).Google Scholar
  11. Cavin, L. &Suteethorn, V. 2006. A new semionotiform (Actinopterygii, Neopterygii) from Upper Jurassic — Lower Cretaceous deposits of North-East Thailand, with comments on the relation-ships of semionotiforms. — Palaeontology49 (2): 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chang, M.M. &Chou, C.C. 1977. On Late Mesozoic fossil fishes from Zhejiang Province, China. — Memoire of Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Academia Sinica12: 1–59 (in Chinese with English summary).Google Scholar
  13. Deecke, W. 1889. Ueber Fische aus verschiedenen Horizonten der Trias. — Palaeontographica35: 97–138.Google Scholar
  14. German Stratigraphic Commission, ed., 2002. Stratigraphie Table of Germany 2002.Google Scholar
  15. González-Rodríguez, K.A. &Reynoso, V.-H. 2004. A newNotagogus (Macrosemiidae, Halecostomi) species from the Albian Tlayüa Quarry, Central Mexico. — In:Arratia, G. &Tintori, A., eds., Mesozoic Fishes 3. Systematics, Paleoenvironments and Biodiversity: 265–278, München (F. Pfeil).Google Scholar
  16. González-Rodri’guez, K.A.;Applegate, S.P. &Espinosa-Arrubarrena, L. 2004. A new world macrosemiid (Neopterygii: Halecostomi) in the Albian of Tepexi de Rodriguez, Puebla, Mexico. — Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology24 (2): 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fraas, O. 1861. ÜberSemionotus und einige Keuper-Conchylien. — Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde17: 81–101.Google Scholar
  18. International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (IC-ZN) 2000. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, United Kingdom ( Scholar
  19. Kozur, H.W. &Bachmann, G.H. 2005. Corrélation of the Germanic Triassic with the international scale. — Albertiana32: 21–35.Google Scholar
  20. Lombardo, C. &Tintori, A. in press. A new semionotid fish (Actinopterygii, Osteichthyes) from the Late Triassic of the Northern Italy. — In:Arratia, G.;Schultze, H.-P. &Wilson, M.V.H., eds., Mesozoic Fishes 4, München (F. Pfeil).Google Scholar
  21. López-Arbarello, A. 2004. The record of Mesozoic fishes from Gondwana (exeluding India and Madagascar). — In:Arratia, G. &Tintori, A., eds., Mesozoic Fishes 3. Systematics, Paleoenvironments and Biodiversity: 597–624, München (F. Pfeil).Google Scholar
  22. López-Arbarello, A. 2006. Taxonomie und Diversität der Semionotiden aus dem deutschen Sandsteinkeuper, mit Anmerkungen zur Systematik der Semionotiden. — Berichte des Institutes für Geowissenschaften der Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel22: 76–77.Google Scholar
  23. López-Arbarello, A. &Codorniú, L. 2007. Semionotids (Neopterygii, Semionotiformes) from the Lower Cretaceous Lagarcito Formation, San Luis Province, Argentina. — Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology27 (4): 811–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCune, A.R. 1985.Semionotus Agassiz 1832 (Pisces): désignation ofSemionotus bergeri as the type species under the plenary powers. — Bulletin of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature42 (4): 371–373.Google Scholar
  25. McCune, A.R. 1986 A revision ofSemionotus (Pisces: Semionotidae) from the Triassic and Jurassic of Europe. — Palaeontology29 (2): 213–233.Google Scholar
  26. McCune, A.R. 1987. Toward the phylogeny of a fossil species flock: Semionotid fishes from a lake deposit in the Early Jurassic Towaco Formation, Newark Basin. — Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University43: 1–108.Google Scholar
  27. McCune, A.R. 2004. Diversity and speciation of semionotid fishes in Mesozoic rift lakes. — In:Dieckmann, U.;Doebeli, M.;Metz, J.A.J. &Tautz, D., eds., Adaptive Speciation: 362–379, Cambrigde (Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  28. Milesi, M.;Lombardo, C. &Tintori, A. 2005. A new semionotid from the Norian (Late Triassic) of Northern Italy. — In:Poyato Ariza, F.J., ed., Fourth International Meeting on Mesozoic Fishes. Systematics, Homology, and Nomenclature, Extended Abstracts: 191–195, Madrid (Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Autönoma de Madrid/U AM Ediciones).Google Scholar
  29. Murray, A.M. 2000. The Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Early Cenozoic fishes of Africa. — Fish and Fisheries1: 111–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newberry, J.S. 1888. Fossil fishes and fossil plants of the Triassic rocks of New Jersey and the Connecticut Valley. — United States Geological Survey, Monograph14: 1–152.Google Scholar
  31. Olsen, P.E. & McCune, A.R. 1991. Morphology of theSemionotus elegans species group from the Early Jurassic part of the Newark Supergroup of eastern North America with comments on the family Semionotidae (Neopterygii). — Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology11: 269–292.Google Scholar
  32. Regan, C.T. 1923. The skeleton ofLepidosteus, with remarks on the origin and évolution of the lower neopterygian fishes. — Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London1923: 445–461.Google Scholar
  33. Rusconi, C. 1950. Notas sobre faunas paleozoicas de Mendoza. — Anales de la Sociedad Cientifica Argentina149: 157–177.Google Scholar
  34. Santos, R.S. 1990. Nova conceituação genérica deLepidotes temnurus Agassiz, 1841 (Pisces Semionotiformes). — Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências62 (3): 239–249.Google Scholar
  35. Schaeffer, B. &Dunkle, D.H. 1950. A semionotid fish from the Chinle Formation, with considération of its relationships. — American Museum Novitates1457: 1–30.Google Scholar
  36. Schauroth, K. von 1851. Über das Vorkommen desSemionotus bergeri im Keuper bei Coburg. — Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft3: 405–410.Google Scholar
  37. StensiÖ, A.E. 1921. Triassic fishes from Spitzbergen, Part 1. — 335 p., Vienna (Adolf Holzhausen).Google Scholar
  38. Stolley, E. 1920. Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Ganoiden des deutschen Muschelkalks. — Palaeontographica63: 25–86.Google Scholar
  39. Strüver, J. 1864. Die fossilen Fische aus dem Keupersandstein von Coburg. — Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft16:303–331.Google Scholar
  40. Su, D.Z. 1996. A new semionotid fish from the Jurassic of Sichuan Basin and its biostratigraphic significance. — Vertebrata PalAsiatica34 (2): 91–101 (in Chinese with English summary).Google Scholar
  41. Thies, D. 1989.Lepidotes gloriae, sp. nov. (Actinopterygii: Semionotiformes) from the Late Jurassic of Cuba. — Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology9: 18–40.Google Scholar
  42. Thies, D. &Zapp, M. 1997. EinLepidotes (Actinopterygii, †Semionotiformes) aus den Plattenkalken (Oberjura, oberes Kimmeridgium) bei Schamhaupten (Süddeutschland). — Archaeopteryx15: 11–26.Google Scholar
  43. Tintori, A. 1996.Paralepidotus ornatus (Agassiz 1833–43): A semionotid from the Norian (Late Triassic) of Europe. — In:Arratia, G. &Viohl, G., eds., Mesozoic Fishes: Systematics and Paleoecology. 167–179, München (F. Pfeil).Google Scholar
  44. Tintori, A. &Lombardo, C. 2007. A new early Semionotidae (Semionotiformes, Actinopterygii) from the Upper Ladinian of the Monte San Giorgio area (Southern Switzerland and Northern Italy). — Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia113 (3): 369–381.Google Scholar
  45. Wade, R.T. 1940. The Triassic fishes of Gosford, New South Wales. — Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales73: 206–217.Google Scholar
  46. Wei, F. et al. 1976. New discovery of Early Cretaceous fossil fishes from Jinhua, Zhejiang. — Vertebrata PalAsiatica14 (3): 154–159 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  47. Wenz, S. 1999.†Pliodetes nigeriensis, gen. nov. et sp. nov., a new semionotid fish from the Lower Cretaceous of Gadoufaoua (Niger Republic): phylogenetic comments — In:Arratia, G. &Schultze, H.-P., eds., Mesozoic Fishes 2. Systematics and Fossil Record: 107–120, München, Germany (F. Pfeil).Google Scholar
  48. Westoll, T.S. 1944. The Haplolepidae, a new family of Late Carboniferous bony fishes. A study in Taxonomy and Evolution. — Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History83: 1–121.Google Scholar
  49. Wiley, E.O. 1976. The Phylogeny and Biogeography of Fossil and Récent Gars (Actinopterygii: Lepisosteidae). — University of Kansas, Miscellaneous Publications64: 1–111.Google Scholar
  50. Woodward, A.S. 1890. The fossil fishes of the Hawkesbury Séries at Gosford. — Memoirs of the Geological Survey of New South Wales (Paleontological Séries)4: 1–56.Google Scholar
  51. Woodward, A.S. 1916. The fossil fishes of the English Wealden and Purbeck Formations. — 56 p., London (The Palaeontographical Society).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und GeologieMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations