Advertisement

Paläontologische Zeitschrift

, 83:479 | Cite as

First fossil records of the tholichthys larval stage of butterfly fishes (Perciformes, Chaetodontidae), from the Oligocene of Europe

  • Norbert Richard MicklichEmail author
  • James C. Tyler
  • G. David Johnson
  • Ewa Świdnicka
  • Alexandre F. Bannikov
Research Paper

Abstract

The first fossils of the tholichthys larval stage of a chaetodontid from the lower Oligocene (Rupelian, Fish Shales; about 30.1 MYA) of Frauenweiler (Baden-Württemberg, S Germany) are described, along with two less well-preserved probable tholichthys from the lower Oligocene Menilite-Formation (IPM3, 30–29 MYA and IPM4A, 29–28 MYA) of Przemyśl (Outer Carpathians, SE Poland). The fossils are compared with tholichthys larvae of the extant genus of Chaetodontidae to which they are most similar, namely Chaetodon. The German specimens are identified as tholichthys larvae by the plate-like expansions of the supracleithrum and posttemporal that extend posteriorly well behind the head and by an expanded preopercle with a large posterior spine; these bones, and the frontals and supraoccipital, are distinctively rugose. The Polish specimen from IPM3 has similar features so it is safe to assume that it also is a chaetodontid tholichthys, whereas the specimen from IPM4A is so poorly preserved that it can only very tentatively be referred to the Chaetodontidae. The occurrence of tholichthys larvae prompts reconsideration of the paleoenvironmental situation at their respective fossil sites.

Keywords

Morphology, paleoecology Tholichthys, Chaetodontidae Lower Oligocene Frauenweiler, S Germany Przemyśl, SE Poland 

Kurzfassung

Die ersten fossilen Nachweise des Tholichthys-Postlarvalstadiums von Schmetterlingsfischen (Chaetodontidae) werden beschrieben. Zwei komplett erhaltene Exemplare stammen aus dem Unter-Oligozän (Rupelton, Fischschiefer; ca. 30,1 Mio. J.) der Tongrube Frauenweiler bei Heidelberg (Baden-Württemberg, Süd-Deutschland). Zwei weitere, weniger gut überlieferte Funde stammen aus der unter-oligozänen Menilit-Formation (IPM3, 30-29 Mio. J. und IPM4A, 29-28 Mio. J.) von Przemyśl (Äußere Karpathen, Südost-Polen). Die Fossilien werden mit den Tholichthys-Larven heutiger Chaetodontidae verglichen, und zwar insbesondere mit solchen der Gattung Chaetodon, denen sie am meisten ähneln. Die Funde aus Frauenweiler können aufgrund plattenähnlicher Auswüchse am Supracleithrum und am Posttemporale die deutlich hinter das Kopfende hinausreichen, sowie ein breites Präoperculum mit einem großen, nach hinten gerichteten Stachel als Tholichthys-Larven bestimmt werden. Ebenso typisch ist die rugose Oberflächenskupltur mancher Schädelelemente, insbesondere diejenige der Frontalia und des Supraoccipitales. Übereinstimmungen mit dem polnischen Exemplar aus der IPM3 Zone legen nahe, dass es sich auch bei diesem um einen Vertreter der Chaetodontidae handelt. Der andere Fund kann aufgrund seiner schlechten Erhaltung nur unter Vorbehalt hierzu gestellt werden. Das Vorkommen von Tholichthys- bzw. Tholichthys-ähnlichen Larven gibt Anlass die ehemaligen Lebens- bzw. Umweltbedingungen im Bereich der oben genannten Lokalitäten zu überdenken.

Schlüsselwörter

Morphologie, Paläoökologie Tholichthys, Chaetodontidae Unter Oligozän Frauenweiler, Süd-Deutschland Przemyśl, Südost-Polen 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Frank Sanzenbacher, of Bondorf, Germany, a skillful amateur paleontologist who first found one of the Frauenweiler tholichthys specimens, prepared it, and permitted it to be purchased by the Hessisches Landesmuseum Darmstadt under reasonable conditions. We also thank Annette and Harald Oechsler of Waghäusel, Germany, amateur paleontologists whose ardent and arduous work at the Frauenweiler site during the past few years of field work have obtained many valuable specimens for the scientific community. The other Frauenweiler tholichthys specimen was obtained by the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart and was generously loaned to us for study in Darmstadt and in Washington, DC, through the cooperation of Ronald Böttcher, Curator of Paleontology. We appreciate the cooperation of Jeffery M. Leis, Australian Museum, Sydney, and Keiichi Matsuura, National Science Museum, Tokyo, for the loan of tholichthys specimens. We thank James F. DiLoreto, Smithsonian Photographic Services, for scanning our illustrations and transmitting them between the authors. We are much indebted to Sandra J. Raredon, National Museum of Natural History, for the many hours she devoted to taking digital radiographs of extant chaetodontid fishes to provide us with an extensive survey of vacant interneural space position in that family. Ai Nonaka, National Museum of Natural History, provided technical assistance in sorting, cataloging, photographing and taking data on numerous chaetodontid larvae. Our identifications of chaetodontid specimens at the Smithsonian Institution were greatly aided by Gerry R. Allen of the Western Australian Museum during his visit to the Smithsonian in 2008. The photographs of the Polish specimen ZPALWr. A/4000 were made by Paweł Socha of the Paleozoology Department of Wroclaw University. The research of Alexandre F. Bannikov was supported by the Russian Foundation of Basic Research (grants nos 08-05-00654, 09-05-00170). The manuscript was improved by the editing of Diane M. Tyler. Useful suggestions were offered during the peer review process by Giorgio Carnevale (Università di Pisa) and an anonymous reviewer.

References

  1. Baciu, D.-S., A.F. Bannikov, and J.C. Tyler. 2005. Revision of the fossil fishes of the family Zeidae (Zeiformes). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, Geologia Paleontologia Preistoria 29: 95–128.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, C.C., and G.D. Johnson. 1993. Phylogeny of the Epinephelinae (Teleostei: Serranidae). Bulletin of Marine Science 52(1): 240–283.Google Scholar
  3. Bannikov, A.F. 2004. Fishes from the Eocene of Bolca, northern Italy, previously classified with the Chaetodontidae (Perciformes). Studi e Ricerche sui Giacimenti Terziari di Bolca, Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona 10: 13–92.Google Scholar
  4. Bannikov, A.F., and J.C. Tyler. 1995. Phylogenetic revision of the fish families Luvaridae and †Kushlukiidae, with a new genus and two new species of Eocene luvarids. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 81: 1–45.Google Scholar
  5. Birdsong, R.S., E.O. Murdy, and F.L. Pezold. 1988. A study of the vertebral column and median fin osteology of gobioid fishes with comments on gobioid relationships. Bulletin of Marine Science 42: 174–214.Google Scholar
  6. Blum, S.D. 1988. The osteology and phylogeny of the Chaetodontidae (Teleostei: Perciformes). Unpublished doctoral diss., Honolulu: University of Hawaii. http://research.calacademy.org/research/informatics/sblum/ Accessed December 2008.
  7. Burgess, W.E. 1978. Butterflyfishes of the world. Neptune City: T.F.H. Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Carnevale, G. 2006. Morphology and biology of the Miocene butterflyfish Chaetodon ficheuri (Teleostei: Chaetodontidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 146: 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cocheret de la Morinière, E., B.J.A. Pollux, L. Negelkerken, and G. Van der Velde. 2002. Post-settlement life cycle migration patterns and habitat preferences of coral reef fish that use seagrass and mangrove habitats as nurseries. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 55: 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Day, F. 1870. Notes on some fishes form the western coast of India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1870: 369–374.Google Scholar
  11. Grimm, K., M. Grimm, A. Köthe, and T. Schindler. 2002. Der “Rupelton” (Rupelium, Oligozän) der Tongrube Bott-Eder bei Rauenberg (Oberrheingraben, Deutschland). Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 237: 229–253.Google Scholar
  12. Gunther, A. 1871. On the young state of fishes belonging to the family Squamipinnes. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4th ser 8: 318–320.Google Scholar
  13. Hovestadt, D.C., and M. Hovestadt-Euler. 1999. Weissobatis micklichi n.gen., n.sp., an eagle ray (Myliobatiformes, Myliobatidae) from the Oligocene of Frauenweiler (Baden-Württemberg, Germany). Paläontologische Zeitschrift 73(3/4): 337–349.Google Scholar
  14. Hovestadt, D.C., and M. Hovestadt-Euler. 2002. The remains of a carcharhinid shark with a new triakid species in its digestive tract from the Oligocene of Germany. Tertiary Research 21(1–4): 171–182.Google Scholar
  15. Jerzmańska, A., and J. Kotlarczyk. 1976. The beginnings of the Sargasso Assemblage in the Tethys? Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 20: 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, G.D. 1984. Percoidei: development and relationships. In Ontogeny and systematics of fishes, Special Publication Number 1, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, ed. H.G. Moser, et al., 464–498. Lawrence: Allen Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kaiser, T., and N. Micklich. 1995. Schnellpräparation von Messel-Fossilien zum Erstellen einer osteologischen Referenzsammlung. Der Präparator 41(2): 69–72.Google Scholar
  18. Kotlarczyk, J., and A. Jerzmańska. 1976. Biostratigraphy of the Menilite Beds of Skole Unit from the Polish Flysh Carpathians. Bulletin de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences, Serie des Sciences de la Terre 24(1): 55–61.Google Scholar
  19. Kotlarczyk, J., and A. Jerzmańska. 1988. Ichtiofauna w stratygrafii Karpat. Przegląd Geologiczny 6: 346–352.Google Scholar
  20. Kotlarczyk, J., A. Jerzmańska, E. Świdnicka, and T. Wiszniowska. 2006. A framework of ichthyofaunal ecostratigraphy of the Oligocene-early Miocene strata of the Polish outer Carpathian basin. Annales Societatis Geologorum Poloniae 76: 1–111.Google Scholar
  21. Laegdesgaard, P., and C. Johnson. 2001. Why do juvenile fish utilise mangrove habitats? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 257: 229–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leis, J.M. 1989. Larval biology of butterflyfishes (Pisces, Chaetodontidae): what do we really know? Environmental Biology of Fishes 25: 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martini, E. 1971. Standard tertiary and quaternary calcareous nannoplankton zonation. In Proceedings of the II Planktonic conference, Roma 1970, ed. A. Farinacci, 738–785. Roma: Edizioni Teenoscienza.Google Scholar
  24. Mayr, G. 2000. A new mousebird (Coliiformes: Coliidae) from the Oligocene of Germany. Journal of Ornithology 141: 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mayr, G. 2004. Old World fossil record of modern-type hummingbirds. Science 304: 861–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mayr, G., and A. Manegold. 2004. The oldest European fossil songbird from the early Oligocene of Germany. Naturwissenschaften 91: 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayr, G., S.D. Peters, and S. Rietschel. 2002. Petrel-like birds with a peculiar foot morphology from the Oligocene of Germany and Belgium. Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology 22: 667–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Micklich, N. 1998. New information on the fish fauna of the Frauenweiler fossil site. Italian Journal of Zoology 65(supplement): 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Micklich, N. 2005. The fish fauna of Frauenweiler clay pit and its bearing on the paleoenvironmental reconstructions. Kaupia, Darmstädter Beiträge zur Naturkunde 14: 89.Google Scholar
  30. Micklich, N., and M. Drobek. 2007. Mining, excavations, and preparation. In Messel––Treasures of the Eocene. Book to the exhibition “Messel on Tour”, ed. G. Gruber, and N. Micklich, 15–21. Darmstadt: Hessisches Landesmuseum.Google Scholar
  31. Micklich, N., and L. Hildebrand. 2005. The Frauenweiler clay pit (“Grube Unterfeld”). Kaupia, Darmstädter Beiträge zur Naturkunde 14: 113–118.Google Scholar
  32. Micklich, N., and N.N. Parin. 1996. The fishfauna of Frauenweiler (Lower Oligocene, Rupelian; Germany): preliminary results of a revision. Publicaciones Especiales Instituto Espanol de Oceanographica 21: 129–148.Google Scholar
  33. Parin, N.N., and N. Micklich. 1996a. Two aulostomid fishes (Aulostomidae, Syngnathiformes) from the Lower Oligocene of Germany. Palaeontologysyesky Zhurnal (Moscow) 1: 61–67. [in Russian with English abstract].Google Scholar
  34. Parin, N.N., and N. Micklich. 1996b. Fossil Gasterosteiformes from the Lower Oligocene of Frauenweiler. I. New information on the morphology and systematics of the genus Aeoliscus. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 70(3/4): 521–545.Google Scholar
  35. Parin, N.V., and D.A. Astakhov. 2007. New fossil fish Musculopedunculus micklichi (Trichiuroidei) from the Lower Oligocene of Germany. Journal of Ichthyology 47(8): 581–588.Google Scholar
  36. Pharisat, A., and N. Micklich. 1998. Oligocene fishes in the western Paratethys of the Rhine Valley Rift System. Italian Journal of Zoology 65(supplement): 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roth, R., and N. Micklich. 2006. Eine neue Methode zur Präparation kleiner Messel-Fossilien. Der Präparator 52: 64–67.Google Scholar
  38. Sakamoto, K., T. Uyeno, and N. Micklich. 2003. Oligoscophthalmus weissi gen. et sp. nov., an Oligocene scophthalmid flatfish from Frauenweiler, S-Germany. Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Series C 29: 25–32.Google Scholar
  39. Sakamoto, K., T. Uyeno, and N. Micklich. 2004. Oligopleuronectes germanicus gen. et sp. nov., an Oligocene pleuronectid from Frauenweiler, S-Germany. Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Series C 30: 89–94.Google Scholar
  40. Trunkò, L. 1997. Bericht zum Forschungsprogramm “Sedimentologische Untersuchungen an Tertiärsedimenten der Randfazies im Mittleren Oberrheingraben” gefördert von der DFG in den Jahren 1998–1991. Karlsruhe: Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde. [unveröffentlichter Forschungsbericht].Google Scholar
  41. Trunkò, L., and W. Munk. 1998. Geologische Beobachtungen in drei tertiären Aufschlußkomplexen im Randbereich des Mittleren Rheingrabens. Carolinea 56: 9–28.Google Scholar
  42. Tyler, J.C., G.D. Johnson, I. Nakamura, and B.B. Collette. 1989. Morphology of Luvarus imperialis (Luvaridae), with a phylogenetic analysis of the Acanthuroidei (Pisces). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 485: 1–78.Google Scholar
  43. Tyler, J.C., B. O’Toole, and R. Winterbottom. 2003. Phylogeny of the genera and families of zeiform fishes, with comments on their relationships with tetraodontiforms and caproids. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 618: 1–110.Google Scholar
  44. Wagner-Klett, W. 1919. Das Tertiär von Wiesloch in Baden, ein Beitrag zu seiner tektonischen, stratigraphischen und paläontologischen Kenntnis. Jahresberichte und Mitteilungen des Oberrheinischen Geologischen Vereins, N.F. 8: 73–116.Google Scholar
  45. Weber, H. 1951. Mikropaläontologische Untersuchungen im Tertiär des Rheintalrandes bei Wiesloch in Baden. Erdöl und Kohle 4: 543–549.Google Scholar
  46. Weiler, W. 1966. Die Bedeutung der Fischfunde im Rupelton der Tongrube Frauenweiler bei Wiesloch südlich von Heidelberg. Zeitschrift der Rheinischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Mainz 4: 1–37.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norbert Richard Micklich
    • 1
    Email author
  • James C. Tyler
    • 2
  • G. David Johnson
    • 2
  • Ewa Świdnicka
    • 3
  • Alexandre F. Bannikov
    • 4
  1. 1.Natural History DepartmentHessisches Landesmuseum DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.National Museum of Natural HistorySmithsonian InstitutionWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Palaeozoology, Zoological InstituteUniversity of WrocławWrocławPoland
  4. 4.Borisyak Paleontological InstituteRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations