, Volume 97, Issue 12, pp 1035–1040 | Cite as

Diversity of Mesozoic semionotiform fishes and the origin of gars (Lepisosteidae)

  • Lionel Cavin
Original Paper


Gars (Lepisosteidae) are ray-finned fishes with controversial relationships to other actinopterygian lineages. When fossil taxa are considered, gars are grouped with Mesozoic macrosemiids and ‘semionotids’ in the Semionotiformes, but the intra-relationships within this order are still elusive. Here, the evolutionary history of gars is reinvestigated using a set of well-preserved extinct semionotiform taxa in a phylogenetic analysis. Results indicate that the gar lineage roots in a clade of Late Jurassic–Cretaceous semionotiform fishes. The closest relatives to gars were plant-eating and detritivorous freshwater fishes. The occurrence of semionotiform remains in Early and early Late Cretaceous continental deposits worldwide possibly reflects an important radiation of this group, comparable to the present-day diversification of cypriniforms. Other Late Triassic to Early Cretaceous semionotiform taxa are gathered in a single clade with weakly supported internal nodes, pointing out the necessity to better understand the osteology of these fishes.


Actinopterygii Semionotiformes Fossils Phylogeny 



This research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 200021-113980). I thank Peter L. Forey and Zerina Johanson (The Natural History Museum, London), Varavudh Suttethorn (Department of Mineral Resources, Thailand) and Jean Le Loeuff (Musée des Dinosaures, France) for access to fossil material under their care, and four anonymous referees for their significant comments and suggestions, which greatly improved the manuscript.

Supplementary material

114_2010_722_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (133 kb)
ESM Fig. 1 (PDF 123 kb)


  1. Arratia G, Schultze H-P (1999) Semionotiform fish from the Upper Jurassic of Tendaguru. Mitt Mus Natkd Berl Geowiss 2:135–153Google Scholar
  2. Cavin L (2010) The Late Jurassic ray-finned fish peak of diversity: biological radiation or preservational bias? In: Nelson JS, Schultze H-P, Wilson MVH (eds) Origin and phylogenetic interrelationships of teleosts. Honoring Gloria Arratia. Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich, pp 111–121Google Scholar
  3. Cavin L, Suteethorn V (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. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00539.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Forey P, Kitching IJ (2000) Experiments in coding multistate characters. In: Scotland RW, Pennington RT (eds) Homology and systematics. Taylor and Francis, New York, pp 54–80Google Scholar
  5. Forey PL et al. A new species of Lepidotes (Actinopterygii: Semionotiformes) from the Cenomanian (Upper Cretaceous) of Morocco. Palaeontographica Electronica (in press)Google Scholar
  6. Gallo V (2005) Redescription of Lepidotes piauhyensis Roxo and Löfgren, 1936 (Neopterygii, Semionotiformes, Semionotidae) from the ?Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous of Brazil. J Vertebr Paleontol 25:757–769. doi: 10.1671/0272-4634(2005)025[0757:ROLPRA]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gardiner BG, Maisey JG, Littlewood DTJ (1996) Chapter 6. Interrelationships of basal neopterygians. In: Stiassny MLJ, Parenti LR, Johnson GD (eds) Interrelationships of fishes. New York, Academic, pp 117–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grande L (2005) Phylogenetic study of gars and closely related species, based mostly on skeletal morphology. The resurrection of Holostei. In: Poyato-Ariza FJ (ed) Fourth international meeting on Mesozoic fishes—systematics, homology and nomenclature, extended abstracts. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid/UAM Ediciones, Spain, pp 119–121Google Scholar
  9. Hurley IA, Mueller RL, Dunn KA, Schmidt EJ, Friedman M, Ho RK, Prince VE, Yang Z, Thomas MG, Coates MI (2007) A new time-scale for ray-finned fish evolution. Proc R Soc B 274:489–498. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3749 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F (2001) MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Bioinformatics 17:754–755. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Inoue JG, Miya M, Tsukamoto K, Nishida M (2003) Basal actinopterygian relationships: a mitogenomic perspective on the phylogeny of the “ancient fish”. Mol Phylogenet Evol 26:110–120. doi: 10.1016/S1055-7903(02)00331-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kammerer CF, Grande L, Westneat MW (2006) Comparative and developmental functional morphology of the jaws of living and fossil gars (Actinopterygii: Lepisosteidae). J Morph 267:1017–1031. doi: 10.1002/jmor.10293 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kearney M, Clark JM (2003) Problems due to missing data in phylogenetic analyses including fossils: a critical review. J Vert Palaeontol 23:263–274. doi: 10.1671/0272-4634(2003)023[0263:PDTMDI]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis PO (2001) A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Syst Biol 50:913–925. doi: 10.1080/106351501753462876 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. López-Arbarello A, Sferco E New semionotiform (Actinopterygii: Neopterygii) from the Late Jurassic of southern Germany. J Syst Palaeontol (in press)Google Scholar
  16. Maddison DR (1991) The discovery and importance of multiple islands of most-Parsimonious trees. Syst Zool 40:315–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maisey JG (1991) Araripelepidotes Silva Santos, 1985. In: Maisey JG (ed) Santana fossils. An illustrated atlas. TFH, Neptune City, pp 118–123Google Scholar
  18. McCune AR (1996) Biogeographic and stratigraphic evidence for rapid speciation in semionotid fishes. Paleobiology 22:34–48Google Scholar
  19. Müller J, Reisz RR (2006) The phylogeny of early eureptiles: comparing parsimony and Bayesian approaches to the investigation of a basal fossil clade. Syst Biol 55:503–511. doi: 10.1080/10635150600755396 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Near TJ, Miya M (2009) Actinopterygii. In: Hedges SB, Kumar S (eds) Timetree of life. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 328–331Google Scholar
  21. Olsen PE, McCune AR (1991) Morphology of the Semionotus elegans group from the Early Jurassic part of the Newark Supergroup of Eastern North America with comments on the family Semionotidae (Neopterygii). J Vertebr Paleontol 11:269–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Patterson C (1973) Interrelationships of holosteans. In: Greenwood PH, Miles RS, Patterson C (eds) Interrelationships of fishes. Academic, New York, pp 207–226Google Scholar
  23. Schaeffer B, Dunkle DH (1950) A semionotid fish from the Chinle Formation, with consideration of its relationships. Amer Mus Novitates 1457:1–29Google Scholar
  24. Swofford DL (2001) PAUP*: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and other methods (software). Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  25. Thies D (1996) The jaws of Araripelepidotes temnurus (Agassiz, 1841) (Actinopterygii, Semionotiformes) from the Early Cretaceous of Brazil. J Vertebr Paleontol 16:369–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich, pp 107–120Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Muséum d’Histoire NaturelleGeneva 6Switzerland

Personalised recommendations