, Volume 90, Issue 3, pp 543–560 | Cite as

New callipurbeckiid genus (Ginglymodi: Semionotiformes) from the Tithonian (Late Jurassic) of Canjuers, France

  • Adriana López-ArbarelloEmail author
  • Lukardis C. M. Wencker
Research Paper


Ginglymodian fishes are abundant and diverse in Upper Jurassic limestones of Germany, but rarer in coeval sequences in France. Only a single ginglymodian is so far known from the Tithonian at Canjuers. Our study of this excellently preserved specimen revealed that it represents a new taxon †Occitanichthys canjuersensis gen. et sp. nov., which is retrieved in a cladistic analysis as a member of the semionotiform family †Callipurbeckiidae. Additionally, two specimens among fishes from the Middle Purbeck Beds at Swanage referred to †Callipurbeckia minor were found to represent the new callipurbeckiid taxon. The new taxon inhabited the epicontinental seas that covered most of Europe connecting the Tethys with the North Atlantic during Jurassic and Cretaceous, and its minimum biochron ranges from the Early Tithonian to the Early Cretaceous. After incorporation of the new and recently described taxa and the re-evaluation and addition of morphological characters, our cladistic analysis recovered a somewhat different pattern of relationships compared with previous phylogenetic hypotheses for Ginglymodi. Mainly, in the new topology, a monophyletic †Lepidotidae includes the Jurassic genera †Lepidotes and †Scheenstia, and the Tithonian–Berriasian †Camerichthys from Spain, which has been classified in †Semionotiformes. Among semionotiforms, our results retrieved the family †Macrosemiidae as the sister group of †Semionotidae occupying a more distal position within the clade †Semionotiformes than previously thought.


Holostei Callipurbeckiidae Late Jurassic Early Cretaceous phylogeny Purbeck 


Die Fische der Ginglymodi sind im Oberjura von Deutschland weit verbreitet, in gleichaltrigen Schichten Frankreichs hingegen eher selten vorkommend. Nur ein Exemplar der Ginglymodi ist bisher aus dem Tithon von Canjuers in Frankreich bekannt. Unsere Untersuchungen ergaben für dieses gut erhaltenen Stück ein neues Taxon: †Occitanichthys canjuersensis gen. et sp. nov., welches nach kladistischer Analyse innerhalb der †Semionotiformes der Familie der †Callipurbeckiidae zugeordnet werden kann. Zusätzlich zeigte sich, dass zwei Exemplare aus dem Mittleren Purbeck in Swanage, welche als †Callipurbeckia minor beschrieben wurden, weitere Vertreter dieses neuen callipurbeckiid Taxons darstellen. Das neue Taxon bewohnte das Epikontinentalmeer, welches während Jura und Kreide einen Großteil Europas bedeckte und die Tethys mit dem Nordatlantik verband. Die stratigraphische Reichweite des neuen Taxons erstreckt sich mindestens vom Frühen Tithon bis zur Frühkreide. Nach der Einordnung des neu beschriebenen Taxons, der Re-Evaluierung und dem Hinzufügen neuer morphologischer Merkmale, ergaben unsere kladistischen Analysen ein neues Verwandschaftsmuster, verglichen mit früheren phylogenetischen Hypothesen für die Teilklasse der Ginglymodi. In erster Line konnte eine neue Topologie festgestellt werden, bei welcher sich †Lepidotidae als monophyletische Gruppe darstellte, welche die Genera †Lepidotes und †Scheenstia und aus dem Tithonium-Berriasium Spaniens †Camerichthys umfasst. Zuvor wurde †Camerichthys den Semionotiformes zugeordnet. Laut unseren Untersuchungen ist unter den †Semionotiformes die Familie der †Macrosemiidae die Schwestergruppe der †Semionotidae und erhält somit eine distalere Stellung innerhalb der †Semionotiformes als vorher gedacht.


Holostei Callipurbeckiidae Oberjura Unterkreide Phylogenie Purbeck 



Special thanks are due to the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle in Paris and the curators M. Véran, H. Lelièvre and G. Clément, who lent the specimen MNHN CNJ 89 for study, and K. Peyer for her mediation for the return of the specimen. M. Richter, E. Bernard and Z. Johanson are thanked for access to the collection and assistance during work at the Natural History Museum in London. We are very grateful to K. Schröder and O.W.M. Rauhut for discussions and assistance during the work, to H. Tischlinger for his valuable work on UV photography and the two reviewers D.D. Bermúdez-Rochas and L. Cavin for their very helpful comments. Financial support for this study was provided by the German Research Foundation (DFG LO1405/3), the European Commission’s Research Infrastructure Action (SYNTHESYS FR-TAF 2079) and the Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich (LMU Studi_forscht@GEO W14_F2).

Supplementary material

12542_2016_312_MOESM1_ESM.docx (524 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 524 kb)


  1. Agassiz, L. 1832. Untersuchungen über die fossilen Fische der Lias-Formation. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde 3: 139–149.Google Scholar
  2. Agassiz, L. 1833–1844. Recherches sur les Poissons Fossiles. Neuchâtel et Soleure: Petitpierre.Google Scholar
  3. Alvarado-Ortega, J., P.M. Brito, H.G. Porras-Múzquiz, and I.H. Mújica-Monroy. 2016. A Late Cretaceous marine long snout “pejelagarto” fish (Lepisosteidae, Lepisosteini) from Múzquiz, Coahuila, northeastern Mexico. Cretaceous Research 57: 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arambourg, C., and L. Bertin. 1958. Super-ordre des Holostéens et des Halecostomi (Holostei et Halecostomi). In Traité de Zoologie: Anatomie, Systématique, Biologie, 13, ed. P.P. Grassé, 2173–2203. Paris: Masson et Cie.Google Scholar
  5. Bermúdez-Rochas, D.D., and F.J. Poyato-Ariza. 2015. A new semionotiform actinopterygian fish from the Mesozoic of Spain and its phylogenetic implications. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 13(4): 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brito, P.M., and V. Gallo. 2003. A new species of Lepidotes (Neopterygii: Semionotiformes: Semionotidae) from the Santana Formation, Lower Cretaceous of Northeastern Brazil. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23(1): 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavin, L. 2010. Diversity of Mesozoic semionotiform fishes and the origin of gars (Lepisosteidae). Naturwissenschaften 97: 1035–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavin, L., and P.M. Brito. 2001. A new Lepisosteidae (Actinopterygii: Ginglymodi) from the Cretaceous of the Kem Kem beds, southern Morocco. Bulletin de la Société géologique de France 172(5): 661–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cavin, L., and V. Suteethorn. 2006. A new Semionotiform (Actinopterygii, Neopterygii) from Upper Jurassic—Lower Cretaceous Deposits of North-East Thailand, with Comments on the Relationships of Semionotiforms. Palaeontology 49: 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cavin, L., U. Deesri, and V. Suteethorn. 2013. Osteology and relationships of Thaiichthys nov. gen., a Ginglymodi from the Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous of Thailand. Palaeontology 56: 183–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, W., Z. Sun, A. Tintori, and D. Jiang. 2014. A new species of Sangiorgioichthys Tintori & Lombardo, 2007 (Actinopterygii; Semionotiformes) from the Pelsonian (Anisian, Middle Triassic) of Guizhou Province, South China. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen 273(1): 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cope, E.D. 1872. Observations of the systematic relations of the fishes. Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science 20: 317–343.Google Scholar
  13. Deesri, U., K. Lauprasert, V. Suteethorn, K. Wongko, and L. Cavin. 2014. A new species of the ginglymodian fish Isanichthys from the Late Jurassic Phu Kradung Formation, northeastern Thailand. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 59(2): 313–331.Google Scholar
  14. Fabre, J., F. De Broin, L. Ginsburg, and S. Wenz. 1982. Les vertébrés du Berriasien de Canjuers (Var, France) et leur environnement. Geobios 15(6): 891–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forey, P.L., A. López-Arbarello, and N. MacLeod. 2011. A new species of Lepidotes (Actinopterygii: Semiontiformes) from the Cenomanian (Upper Cretaceous) of Morocco. Palaeontologia electronica 14(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
  16. Gallo, V. 2005. Redescription of “Lepidotes piauhyensis” Roxo and Löfgren, 1936 (Neopterygii, Semionotiformes, Semionotidae) from the ?Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous of Brazil. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 25(4): 757–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibson, S.Z. 2013a. A new hump-backed ginglymodian fish (Neopterygii: Semionotiformes) from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation of southeastern Utah. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 33: 1037–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibson, S.Z. 2013b. Biodiversity and evolutionary history of †Lophionotus (Neopterygii: †Semionotiformes) from the western United States. Copeia 2013: 582–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goloboff, P.A., J.S Farris, and K. Nixon. 2003. T.N.T. Tree Analysis Using New Technology- Program and documentation, available from the authors, and at
  20. Goloboff, P.A., J.S. Farris, and K. Nixon. 2008. TNT. A free program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics 24: 774–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. González-Rodríguez, K., and V.H. Reynoso. 2004. A new Notagogus (Macrosemiidae, Halecostomi) species from the Albian Tlayúa Quarry, Central Mexico. In Mesozoic Fishes 3– Systematics, Paleoenvironments and Biodiversity, ed. G. Arratia, and A. Tintori, 265–278. München: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.Google Scholar
  22. González-Rodríguez, K., S.P. Applegate, and L. Espinosa-Arrubarrena. 2004. A New World macrosemiid (Pisces: Neopterygii-Halecostomi) from the Albian of México. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 24: 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grande, L., and W.E. Bemis. 1998. A comprehensive phylogenetic study of amiid fishes (Amiidae) based on comparative skeletal anatomy. An empirical search for interconnected patterns of natural history. Memoirs of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 4: 1–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grande, L. 2010. An empirical synthetic pattern study of gars (Lepisosteiformes) and closely related species, based mostly on skeletal anatomy. The resurrection of Holostei. Supplementary issue of Copeia 10: 2a. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Special Publication 6, 871 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Hubbs, C.L. 1919. A comparative study of the bones forming the opercular series of fishes. Journal of Morphology 33: 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jenner, R.A. 2002. Boolean logic and character state identity: pitfalls of character coding in metazoan cladistics. Contributions to Zoology 71: 67–91.Google Scholar
  27. Lombardo, C., and A. Tintori. 2008. A new semionotid fish (Actinopterygii, Osteichthyes) from the Late Triassic of the Northern Italy. In Mesozoic Fishes 4—Homology and phylogeny, ed. G. Arratia, H.-P. Schultze, and M.V.H. Wilson, 129–142. München: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.Google Scholar
  28. López-Arbarello, A. 2008. Revision of Semionotus bergeri Agassiz, 1833 (Upper Triassic, Germany), with comments on the taxonomic status of Semionotus (Actinopterygii, Semionotiformes). Paläontologische Zeitschrift 82(1): 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. López-Arbarello, A. 2012. Phylogenetic interrelationships of ginglymodian fishes (Actinopterygii: Neopterygii). PLoS One 7(7): e39370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. López-Arbarello, A., and J. Alvarado-Ortega. 2011. New semionotiform (Neopterygii) from the Tlayúa Quarry (Early Cretaceous, Albian), Mexico. Zootaxa 2749: 1–24.Google Scholar
  31. López-Arbarello, A., and L. Codorniú. 2007. Semionotids (Neopterygii, Semionotiformes) from the Lower Cretaceous Lagarcito Formation, San Luis Province, Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27: 811–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. López-Arbarello, A., and E. Sferco. 2011. New semionotiform (Actinopterygii: Neopterygii) from the Late Jurassic of southern Germany. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 9: 197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. López-Arbarello, A., Z.-Y. Sun, E. Sferco, A. Tintori, G.-H. Xu, Y.-L. Sun, F.-X. Wu, and D.-Y. Jiang. 2011. New species of Sangiorgioichthys Tintori and Lombardo, 2007 (Neopterygii, Semionotiformes) from the Anisian of Luoping (Yunnan Province, South China). Zootaxa 2749: 25–39.Google Scholar
  34. Maddison, W.P., and D.R. Maddison. 2015. Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 3.03
  35. Matthews, S.C. 1973. Notes on open nomenclature and on synonymy lists. Palaeontology 16(4): 713–719.Google Scholar
  36. Murray, A.M., L. Xing, J. Divay, J. Liu, and F. Wang. 2015. A Late Jurassic freshwater fish (Ginglymodi, Lepisosteiformes) from Qijiang, Chongqing, China. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 35(2): e911187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Olsen, P.E., and A.R. McCune. 1991. Morphology of the Semionotus 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 Paleontology 11: 269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Owen, R. 1860. Palaeontology, or, a systematic summary of extinct animals and their geological relations. Edinburgh: A. and C. Black.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Patterson, C. 1982. Morphology and interrelationships of primitive actinopterygian fishes. American Zoologist 22: 241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peyer, K., S. Charbonnier, R. Allain, E. Läng, and R. Vacant. 2014. A new look at the Late Jurassic Canjuers conservation Lagerstätte (Tithonian, Var, France). Comptes Rendus Palevol 13(5): 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Regan, C.T. 1923. The skeleton of Lepidosteus, with remarks on the origin and evolution of the lower Neopterygian Fishes. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1923: 445–461.Google Scholar
  42. Roman, J., F. Atrops, M. Arnaud, G. Barale, J.-M. Barrat, A. Boullier, F. De Broin, Michardj.-G., P. Ta-Quet, and S. Wenz 1993. Le gisement tithonique inférieur de Canjuers (Var, France): état actuel des connaissances. Geobios M.S. 16: 126–135.Google Scholar
  43. Santos, R.S. 1990. Nova conceituação genérica de Lepidotes temnurus Agassiz, 1841 (Pisces Semionotiformes). Anais da Academia Brasileira Ciências 62(3): 239–249.Google Scholar
  44. Schaeffer, B., and D.H. Dunkle. 1950. A semionotid fish from the Chinle Formation, with consideration of its relationships. American Museum Novitates 1457: 1–30.Google Scholar
  45. Schröder, K.M., A. López-Arbarello, and M. Ebert. 2012. Macrosemimimus gen. nov. (Actinopterygii, Semionotiformes) from the Late Jurassic of Germany, England and France. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 32(3): 512–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sferco, E., A. López-Arbarello, and A.M. Báez. 2015. Phylogenetic relationships of †Luisiella feruglioi (Bordas) and the recognition of a new clade of freshwater teleosts from the Jurassic of Gondwana. BMC Evolutionary Biology 15: 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stolley, E. 1920. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Ganoiden des deutschen Muschelkalks. Palaeontographica A 63: 25–96.Google Scholar
  48. Thierry, J., and E. Barrier. 2000. Map 11, Early Tithonian. In Atlas Peri-Tethys, Palaeogeographical maps, ed. J. Dercourt, M. Gaetani, B. Vrielynck, E. Barrier, B. Biju-Duval, M.-F. Brunet, J.P. Cadet, S. Crasquin, and M. Sandulescu. Paris: CCGM/CGMW.Google Scholar
  49. Thies, D. 1989. Lepidotes gloriae, sp. nov. (Actinopterygii: Semionotiformes) from the Late Jurassic of Cuba. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 9(1): 18–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thiollière, V. 1858. Note sur les poissons fossiles du Bugey, et sur l’application de la méthode de Cuvier à leur classement. Bulletin de la Société géologique de France 15: 782–793.Google Scholar
  51. Tintori, A., and C. Lombardo. 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 Stratigrafia 113: 369–381.Google Scholar
  52. Wang, N.-C. 1974. A new species of Lepidotes from Luchow, Szechuan [in Chinese]. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 12: 21–24.Google Scholar
  53. Wen, W., Q.Y. Zhang, C.Y. Zhou, J.Y. Huang, Z.Q. Chen, and M.J. Benton. 2012. A new genus of basal actinopterygian fish from the Anisian (Middle Triassic) of Luoping, Yunnan Province, Southwest China. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 57(1): 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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 Mesozoic Fishes 2—Systematics and Fossil Record, eds. G. Arratia, H.-P. Schultze, 107–120. München: Verlag Dr. Friederich Pfeil.Google Scholar
  55. Wenz, S. 2003. Les Lepidotes (Actinopterygii, Semionotiformes) du Crétacé inférieur (Barremien) de Las Hoyas (Province de Cuenca, Espagne). Geodiversitas 25: 481–499.Google Scholar
  56. Woodward, A.S. 1890. The fossil fishes of the Hawkesbury series at Gosford. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of New South Wales: Palaentology 4: 1–55.Google Scholar
  57. Woodward, A.S. 1893. On the cranial osteology of the Mesozoic ganoid fishes, Lepidotus and Dapedius. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 38: 559–565.Google Scholar
  58. Woodward, A.S. 1916-1919. The fossil fishes of the English Wealden and Purbeck formations. London: The Palaeontographical Society.Google Scholar
  59. Xu, G.-H., and F.-X. Wu. 2012. A deep-bodied ginglymodian fish from the Middle Triassic of eastern Yunnan Province, China, and the phylogeny of lower neopterygians. Chinese Science Bulletin 57(1): 111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Paläontologische Gesellschaft 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adriana López-Arbarello
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lukardis C. M. Wencker
    • 1
  1. 1.SNSB-Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und GeologieMunichGermany
  2. 2.GeoBio-CenterLudwig Maximilian UniversityMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations