Advertisement

Journal of Ichthyology

, Volume 46, Supplement 1, pp S38–S83 | Cite as

Fossil myctophoid fishes (Myctophiformes: Myctophoidei) from Russia and adjacent regions

  • A. M. Prokofiev
Article

Abstract

This study provides a revision of myctophiform fishes (families Neoscopelidae and Myctophidae) from Paleocene, Eocene, and Oligocene deposits of Russia and adjacent regions of the Thetys and Parathetys basins. Diagnoses of the order Myctophiformes and suborders, families, and subfamilies of the suborder Myctophoidei are given. Four genera and four species of myctophiform fishes found in this territory are described in detail: Neocassandra mica, Beckerophotus gracilis (Neoscopelidae), Eomyctophum koraense, and Oligophus moravicus (Myctophidae). Nominal species Eomyctophum menneri Dan., 1947 and E. limicola Dan., 1960 are referred to synonyms, respectively, to E. koraense and O. moravicus. O. moravicus may be represented in the lower Oligocene of the Caucasus by more than one species, so that specimens in better condition are necessary to describe them. The ranks of the families Sardinioididae and Neocassandridae were reduced to subfamilies within Neoscopelidae. The genus Eomyctophum was separated into the subfamily Eomyctophinae, differing from other myctophiform fishes by the absence of lenslike thickenings of the photophores. The classification and the origin of Myctophiformes are discussed, phylogenetic interrelationships within the order Myctophoidei are considered, a brief review of fossil myctophiforms is presented, and the history of their study is given.

Keywords

Ventral Margin Horizontal Branch Articular Process Vertebral Number Vertebral Centra 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    L. Agassiz, Recherches sur les poissons fossiles (Neuchatel et Soleure, Petitpierre, 1833–1844), Vols. 1–5 + Suppl.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Andelkovic, “Fosilne ribe iz donjeg sarmata teritorije Beograda,” Glas. Prirod. Muzeja Beogradu, Ser. A, Book 24, 127–167 (1969).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andelkovic, “Tertiary Fishes of Yugoslavia: A Stratigraphic-Paleontologic-Paleoecological Study,” Palaeontol. Jugoslav. No. 38 (1989).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. W. Anderson, F. H. Berry, J. E. Böhlke, R. L. Bolin, J. W. Genringer, R. H. Gibbs, W. A. Gosline, N. B. Marshall, G. W. Mead, R. R. Rofen, and N. J. Wilimovsky, “Order Iniomi. Order Lyomeri,” in Fishes of the Western North Atlantic, Part 5 Sears. Found. Mar. Res. Mem., No. 1 (1966).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Anfossi and S. Mosna, “Otoliti del Bacino terziario ligure-piemontese,” Atti Inst. Geol. Univ. Pavia 20, 23–49 (1969a).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Anfossi and S. Mosna, “Ulteriori contributi allo studio degli otoliti del Bacino terziario ligure-piemontese,” Atti Inst. Geol. Univ. Pavia 20, 57–66 (1969b).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Anfossi and S. Mosna, “Otoliti del Pliocene inferiore di Lugagnano (Piacenza),” Atti Inst. Geol. Univ. Pavia 23, 90–118 (1973).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Anfossi and S. Mosna, “Otoliti del Pliocene Iinferiore della liguria occidentale,” Atti Inst. Geol. Univ. Pavia 26, 15–29 (1977).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Anfossi and S. Mosna, “La fauna ittiologica di Monteu Roero (Alba, Italie nw). Otoliti,” Atti. Inst. Geol. Univ. Pavia 27–28, 111–132 (1978–1979).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Animal Life, 2nd ed. (Prosveshchenie, Moscow, 1983), Vol. 4 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Aoki and K. Baba, “Some Pleistocene Fish Otoliths from the Boso and Miura Peninsulas (Third Report),” Ann. Rep. Inst. Geosci. Univ. Tsukuba, No. 6, 55–61 (1980).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Arambourg, “Sur un Scopélide fossile a organes lumineux: Myctophum prolaternatum n. sp. du Sahélien oranais,” Bull. Soc. Géol. France, Ser. 4 20, 233–239 (1921).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Arambourg, “Revision des poissons fossiles de Licata,” Ann. Paléontol. 14(2/3), 39–132 (1925).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Arambourg, “Les poissons fossiles d’Oran,” Mat. Carte Géol. Algérie (Paléontol.), No. 6, 1–298 (1927).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Arambourg, “Les poissons crétacés du Jebel Tselfat,” Remarks Mem. Serv. Geol. Maroc., No. 118 (1954)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Arambourg and C. Montenat, “Le gisement de poissons fossiles du Miocéne supérieur de Columbares (Province de Murcia, Espagne),” C. R. Acad. Sci., Ser. D 266(16), 1649–1651 (1968).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. C. Baldwin and G. D. Johnson, “Aulopiform interrelationships,” in Interrelationships of Fishes, Ed. by M.L.J. Stiassny, L.R. Parenti, and G.D. Johnson (Acad. Press, San Diego, 1996), pp. 355–404.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. F. Bannikov, V. F. Fedotov, D. P. Naidin, and A. S. Alekseev, “Teleostei of Upper Cenozoic Deposits in Crimea,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 262(4), 971–973 (1982).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. F. Bannikov and N. N. Parin, “The List of Marine Fish from Cenozoic (Upper Paleocene-Middle Miocene) Localities in Southwestern European Russia and Adjacent Countries,” Vopr. Ikhtiol. 37(2), 149–161 (1997) [J. Ichthyol. 37 (2), 133–146 (1997)].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    F. Bassani, “Descrizione dei pesci fossili di Lesina,” Denskschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien. 45, 195–288 (1882).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    V.E. Bekker, Myctophidae of the World Ocean (Nauka, Moscow, 1983) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    L. S. Berg, “System of Pisciformes and Fish, Living and Fossil,” Ezheg. Zool. Muz. Akad. Nauk SSSR 5(2), 87–517 (1940).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. S. Berg, “system of Pisciformes and Fish, Living and Fossil,” Tr. Zool. Muz. Akad. Nauk SSSR 20, 1–286 (1940).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. Bianucci and W. Landini, “Systematic and Biogeographical Relationships of Some Neogenic Mediterranean Groups of Marine Vertebrates (Teleost Fishes and Odontocente Cetaceans),” Paleontol. Evol. (Barcelona) 24–25, 185–197 (1992).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    V. V. Bogachev, “Luminescent Fishes in Oligocene Deposits of the Caucasus,” Priroda, No. 7, 85–87 (1939a).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    V. V. Bogachev, “Luninous in the Maikop Suite of the Apsheron,” Izv. Azerbaidzh. Fil. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Nos. 1–2, 154–155 (1939b).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. L. Bolin, “A Review of the Myctophid Fishes of the Pacific Coast of the USA and Lower California,” Stanford Ichthyol. Bull. 1(4), 89–156 (1939).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    C. L. Bonaparte, Iconografia della fauna italica per le quattro classi degli animali vertebrati, Vol. 3: Pesci (Rome, 1840), Fasc. 27–29, pp. 136–154.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    I. Bonomi, “Contributo alla conescenza dell’ittiofauna miocenica di Mondaino,” Riv. Ital. Paleontol. 2,(4), 199–239 (1896).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    O. D. Borodulina, “Identification of Remnants of Mesopelagic Fish from Predators’ Stomachs. Communication 4. Specific Features of the Axial Skeleton of Mass Fish of the Superfamily Alepisauroidea,” Vopr. Ikhtiol. 25(6), 986–994 (1985).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    O. D. Borodulina, “Specific Features of the Axial Skeleton of Chlorophthalmoidea (Pisces),” Byull. Mosk. O-va Ispyt. Prir., Otd. Biol. 91(3), 61–65 (1986).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    O. D. Borodulina, “Identification of Remnants of Mesopelagic Fish. VI. Specific Features of the Axial Skeleton of Myctophoidea,” Vopr. Ikhtiol. 27(1), 159–163 (1987).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    A. Brauer, “Die Tiefseefische. 1. Systematischer Teil,” in Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition auf dem Dampfer “Valdivia” 1898–1899 (Jena, 1906), Vol. 15, Part 1, pp. 1–432.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    R. Brzobohaty, “Die bisher alteste Tertiäre Otolithen fauna (Teleostei) der Westkarpaten,” Acta Univ. Carolae (Geol.), No. 4, P. 341–355 (1984).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    R. Brzobohaty, “Einige neue Arten von Knochenfischen (Teleostei, Otolithen) aus dem Westkarpatischen Tertiär,” Acta Mus. Morav. (Sci. Nat.) 71 65–92 (1986).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    R. Brzobohaty and D. Nolf, “Otolithes de myctophidés (poissons Telostéens) des terrains tertiaires d’Europe: Révision des genres Benthosema, Hygophum, Lampadena, Notoscopelus et Symbolophorus,” Bull. Inst. R. Sci. Nat. Belg. Sci. Terre 66, 151–176 (2000).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    R. Brzobohaty and D. Nolf, “Diaphus Otoliths from the European Neogene (Myctophidae, Teleostei),” Bull. Inst. R. Sci. Nat. Belg. Sci. Terre 70, 185–206 (1966).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    E. Casier, Faune ichthyologique du London Clay (British Museum (Nat. Hist.), London, 1966), pp. 1–403, 465–496 (text), 1–65 (atlas).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    G. Chapelle and J. Gaudant, “Decouverte de deux nouveaux gisements de poissons fossiles messiniens dans le Bassin de Nijar-Carboneras (Andalousie Orientale): signification paleoecologique et implications paleogeographiques,” Estud. Geol., No. 43, 279–297 (1987).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    M. Ciobanu, Fauna fosilă din Oligocenul de la Piatra Neamț (Acad. R. S. R., Bucuresti, 1977).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    A. Cocco, “Su di alcuni nuovi pesci de Mari di Messina,” Giorn. Sci. Lett. Art. Sicilia, Anno 7, 26, fasc. 77, 138–147 (1829).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    A. Cocco, “Su di alcuni Salmonidi del Mare di Messina,” Nuovi Ann. Sci. Nat. Bologna, Anno 1, 2,fasc. 9, 161–194 (1838).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    A. Cocco, “Indice ittiologico del Mare di Messina,” Atti. Sett. Adunanza Sci. Ital. Napoli, 750–751 (1846).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    A. Corsi, W. Landini, and C. Sorbini, “A New Ichthyofauna from the Upper Miocene of Ca’Matterella (Ravenna, Italy); Palaeoecological and Paleobiogeographical Considerations,” Studi Ric. Giac. Terziari Bolca. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Verona, No. 8, P. 59–76 (1999).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    G. L. Cuvier, Le regne animal distribué d’apres son organisation pour servir de base a l’histoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction a l’anatomie comparée (Paris, 1817), Vol. 2.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    P. G. Danil’chenko, “Fish of the Family Myctophidae from the Caucasus Oligocene,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 56(2), 193–196 (1947).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    P. G. Danil’chenko, “Bony Fish from Maikop Deposits in the Caucasus,” Tr. Paleontol. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR 78 (1960).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    P. G. Danil’chnko, “Fish of the Dabakhan Suite of Georgia,” Paleontol. Zh., No. 1, 111–126 (1962).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    P. G. Danil’chenko, “Superorder Teleostei. Bony Fish,” in Foundations of Paleontology. Agnatha, Pisces (Nauka, Moscow, 1964), pp. 369–472.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    P. G. Danil’chenko, “Fish of the Upper Paleocene of Turkmenia,” in Surveys on Phylogeny and Systematics of Fossil Fish and Agnatha (Nauka, Moscow, 1968), pp. 113–156.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    P. G. Danil’chenko, “Order Myctophiformes,” in Fossil Bony Fish of the USSR, Tr. Paleontol. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR 178, 45–49 (1980).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    P. G. Danil’chenko and A. K. Rozhdestvenskii, “Findings of Fish in the Menilite Suite of the Eastern Cis-Carpathian Region,” Priroda, No. 8, 72 (1949).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    L. R. David, “Miocene Fishes of Southern California,” Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am., No. 43, 1–733 (1943).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    L. R. David, “Some Typical Upper Eocene Fish Scales from California,” Contrib. Paleontol. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ., No. 551, 45–79 (1946).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    J. W. Davis, “The Fossil Fishes of the Chalk of Mount Lebanon in Syria,” Sci. Trans. R. Soc. Dublin, Ser. 2, 3, 457–636 (1887).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    d’Erasmo, “Studi sui pesci neogenici d’Italia. II. L’ittiofauna fossile di Senigallia,” Atti R. Accad. Sci. Fis. Mat. Napoli, Ser. 2a, 18(1) (1929).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    G. d’Erasmo, “L’ittiofauna fossile del Gabbro,” Atti R. Accad. Sci. Fis. Mat. Napoli, Ser. 2, 18(6), 1–118 (1946).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    G. d’Erasmo, “L’ittiofauna cretacea di Comeno nel Carso Triestino,” Atti R. Accad. Sci. Fis. Mat. Napoli, Ser. 3a, 2(8), 1–136 (1918).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    G. de Stefano, “I pesci fossili di Licata in Sicilia,” Mem. Serv. Descr. Carta Geol. Ital. 7, Part 1, 1–92 (1918).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    K. Dietze, “Fishes from the Late Cretaceous of Sendenhorst (Westphalia; Germany),” in Obruchev Symposium on Evolutionary Palaeoichthyology, Moscow, 2001 (Moscow, 2001), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    K. Dietze, Fishes from the Late Cretaceous of Sendenhorst (Westphalia; Germany): Relationships. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Zh. D. Dzhafarova, “On Otoliths from Neogene Deposits of Azerbaidjan,” in Issues of Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Azerbaijan (Elm, Baku, 1984).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    L. Facciola, “Pesci nuovi o poco noti dello Stretto di Messina,” Naturalisto Sicil. 1,fasc. 7, 166–168 (1882).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    J. E. Fitch, “Fossil Lanternfish Otoliths of California, with Remarks of Fossil Myctophidae of North America,” Contrib. Sci. Los Angeles Co. Mus., No. 173, 1–20 (1969).Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    P. L. Forey, Lu Y. Patterson, C. E. Davies, “Fossil Fishes from the Cenomanian (Upper Cretaceous) of Namoura, Lebanon,” J. Syst. Paleontol. 1(4), 227–330 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    T. H. Fraser, “Some Thoughts about the Teleostean Fish Concept—the Paracanthopterygii,” Jpn. J. Ichthyol. 19(4), 232–242 (1972).Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    A. Fraser-Brunner, “A Classification of the Fishes of the Family Myctophidae,” Proc. Zool. Soc. London 118, Part 4, 1019–1116 (1949).Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    J. Gaudant, “Signification bathymétrique, paléoclimatique et paléogéographique de l’ichthyofaune marine du Miocéne terminal de la Mediterranée occidentale. Remarques préeliminaires,” Bull. Mus. Nat. Hist. Nat., Ser. C, Sci. Terre, No. 70, 137–148 (1978).Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    J. Gaudant, “Poissons téléostéens, bathymétrique et paléogéographique du Messinien d’Espagne meridionale,” Bull. Soc. Geol. France 5(6), 1161–1167 (1989).Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    J. Gaudant, “Nouvelles recherches sur l’ichthyofaune messinienne des environs de Lorca (Murcia, Espagne),” Rev. Espan. Paleontol. 10(2), 175–189 (1996).Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    J. Gaudant and D. Ambroise, “Réexamen critique des Myctophidae messiniens de Licata (Sicile, Italie): Conséquences taxonomiques,” Cybium 23, No. 2, 131–145 (1999).Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    J. Gaudant, “Recherches sur l’anatomie et la systématique des Ctenothrissiformes et des Pattersonichthyiformes (poissons téléostéens) du Cénomanien du Liban,” Mem. Mus. Nat. Hist. Nat., Ser. C, Sci. Terre 41, 1–124 (1978).Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    T. N. Gill, “Arrangement of the Families of Fishes, or Pisces, Marsipobranchii and Leptocardii,” Smiths. Misc. Coll. 11(247) (1872).Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    T. N. Gill, “Families and Subfamilies of Fishes,” Natl. Acad. Sci. 6, Mem. 6, 125–138 (1893).Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    A. Girone and D. Nolf, “Lampadena ionica: A New Species Teleost from the Mediterranean Pleistocene,” Riv. Ital. Paleontol. Stratigr. 108(3), 493–500 (2002).Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    G. B. Goode and T. H. Bean, “Oceanic Ichthyology,” U.S. Nat. Mus. Spec. Bull., No. 2 (2002).Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    P. Goody, “The Skull of Enchodus fajuasi from the Maastricht of Southern Holland,” Proc. Kon. Nederl. Acad. Wetensch. Amsterdam, Ser. B, 71, 209–231 (1968).Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    P. Goody, “The Relationships of Certain Upper Cretaceous Teleosts with Special Reference to the Myctophiforms,” Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Geol. (Suppl. 7) (1969a).Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    P. Goody, Sedenhorstia dayi (Hay), a New Elopoid from the Cenomanian of Hajula in the Lebanon, Am. Mus. Novit., No. 2358 (1969b).Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    W. A. Gosline, Functional Morphology and Classification of Teleostean Fishes (Univ. Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1971).Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    W. A. Gosline, N. B. Marshall, and G. W. Mead, “Order Iniomi. Characters and Synopsis of Families,” in Fishes of the Western North Atlantic, Part 5, Sears. Found. Mar. Res. Mem., No. 1, 1–18 (1966).Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    P. H. Greenwood, D. E. Rosen, S. H. Weitzman, and G. S. Myers, “Phyletic Studies of Teleostean Fishes, with a Provisional Classification of Living Forms,” Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 131, Art 4, 339–456 (1966).Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    R. Gregorová, “A New Oligocene Genus of Lanternfish (Family Myctophidae) from the Carpathian Mountains,” Rev. Paleobiol., Geneve 9, 81–97 (2004a).Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    R. Gregorová, “The Assemblage of the Oligocene Fish Fauna from the “Menilitic Formation” of the West Carpathians (Czech Republic),” in 2nd EAVP Meeting, 2004, Brno, Czech Republic) (Moravské Zemské Museum, Brno, 2004b), p. 15.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    R. Gregorová and M. Požár, “Rybí fauna menilitového souvrství (střední oligocén) na nové lokalitě Rysova Hora (Rožnov od Radhoštěm),” Acta Mus. Moraviae, Sci. Geol. 88, 191–206 (2003).Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    H. R. Grenfell, “Early Miocene Teleosts Otoliths from Parengarenga Harbour, New Zealand,” N. Z. J. Geol. Geophys. 27(1), 51–96 (1984).Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    L. T. Gronow, Zoophylacii Gronoviani fasciculus primus exhibens animalia quadrupeda, amphibia atque pisces, quae in museo suo adsevatrite examinativ, systematice disposuit, descripsit atque iconibus illustrativ Laurent Theodor Gronovius, J.U.D. … Lugduni Bataviorum (cited from www.fishbase.org).Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    A. Günther, Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum, vol. 5 (Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), London (1864).Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    A. Günther, Handbuch der Ichthyologie (Carl Gerold’s Sohn, Wien, 1886).Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    A. Günther, “Report on the Deep-Sea Fishes Collected by H.M.S. Challenger During the Years 1873–76,” in Report of the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger During the Years 1873–76, Zoology 22, Part 57 (1887)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    R. R. Harry, “Studies on the Bathypelagic Fishes of the Family Paralepididae. 1. Survey of the Genera,” Pac. Sci. 7(2), 219–249 (1953).Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    K. E. Hartel and M. L. J. Stiassny, “The Identification of Larval Parasudis (Teleostei, Chlorophthalmidae); with Remarks on the Anatomy and Relationships of Aulopiform Fishes,” Breviora, No. 478 (1986).Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    O. P. Hay, “On Certain Genera and Species of North American Cretaceous Actinopterous Fishes,” Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 19, Art. 1, 1–95 (1903a).Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    O. P. Hay, “On a Collection of Upper Cretaceous Fishes from Mount Lebanon, Syria, with Descriptions of Four New Genera and Nineteen New Species,” Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 19(10), 395–452 (1903b).Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    W. Hennig, Grundzuge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik (Dtsch. Zentralverlag, Berlin, 1950).Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    W. Hennig, Phylogenetic Systematics (Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana, 1966).Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    P. Holec, “Fisch-Otolithen aus dem oberen Baden (Miozän) des nördöstlichen Teiles des Wiener Beckens (Gebiet von Rohožnik),” Geol. Zb. 24(2), 393–414 (1973).Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    P. Holec, “Fisch-Otolithen aus dem Baden (Miozän) des nördlichen Teiles des Wiener Beckens und der Donau-Tiefebene,” Geol. Zb. 26(2), 253–266 (1975).Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    P. Holec, “Fischotolithen aus dem Baden (Miozän) des nördlichen Teiles des Wiener Beckens und des Donaubeckens in der Slowakei,” Acta Geol. Geogr. Univ. Comen. Geol., No. 33, 149–176 (1978).Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    G. Hollister, “Caudal Skeleton of Bermuda Shallow Water Fishes. III. Order Iniomi: Synodontidae,” Zoologica. N.Y. 22, Part 4 (28), 385–399 (1937).Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    C. L. Hubbs and K. E. Lagler, “Fishes of the Great Lakes Region,” Cranbrook Inst. Sci. Bull. 26 (1958).Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    P. A. Hulley, “Results of the Research Cruises of FRW “Walter Herwig” to South America. 58. Family Myctophidae (Osteichthyes, Myctophiformes),” Arch. Fischereiwiss. 31(Suppl. 1), 1–300 (1981).Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    B. Huyghebaert and D. Nolf, “Otolithes de teleosteens et biostratigraphie des sables de Zonderschot (Miocene moyen de la Belgique),” Meded. Wkgrp. Tert. Kwart. Geol. 16(2), 59–100 (1979).Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    A. Jerzmańska, “Ichtiofauna łlupków Iaselskich z Sobniowa,” Acta Paleontol. Pol. 5(4), 367–420 (1960).Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    A. Jerzmańska, “Ichthyofaune des couches (Menilite (Flysh des Karpathes),” Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 13(3), 379–488 (1968).Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    A. Jerzmańska and S. Jucha, “Stanowisko ryb w łupkach jasielskich z Ł ubna koło Dynowa,” Rocz. Pol. Tow. Geol. 33(2), 159–180 (1963).Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    G. D. Johnson, “Monophyly of the Euteleostean Clades—Neoteleostei, Eurypterygii, and Ctenosquamata,” Copeia, No. 1, 8–25 (1992).Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    G. D. Johnson and C. Patterson, “Relationships of Lower Euteleostean Fishes,” in Interrelationships of Fishes, Ed by M.L.J. Stiassny, L.R. Parenti, and G. D. Johnson (Acad. Press, San Diego, 1996), pp. 251–332.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    J. Y. Johnson, “Description of Five New Species of Fishes Obtained at Madeira,” Proc. Zool. Soc. London, Part 1, 36–46 (1863).Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    R. K. Johnson, “Fishes of the Families Evermanellidae and Scopelarchidae: Systematics, Morphology, Interrelationships and Zoogeography,” Fieldiana (Zool.), New Ser., No. 12 (1982).Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    R. K. Johnson, “Giganturidae: Development and Relationships,” in Ontogeny and Systematics of Fishes, Am. Soc. Ichthyol. Herpetol. Spec. Publ., No. 1, 199–201 (1984).Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    R. K. Johnson and E. Bertelsen, “The Fishes of the Family Giganturidae: Systematics, Development, Distribution and Aspects of Biology,” Dana Rep. No. 91, 1–45 (1991).Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    M. T. Jollie, “The General Anatomy of Lampanyctus leucopsarus (Eigenmann and Eigenman).” A Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Biological Sciences and the Committee on Graduate Study of Stanford University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    D. S. Jordan, “A Classification of Fishes, Including Families and Genera as Far as Known,” Stanford Univ. Publ., Biol. Sci. 3(2), 79–243 (1923).Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    D. S. Jordan, The Genera of Fishes and a Classification of Fishes (Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, 1963).Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    V. Kalabis, “Ryby se světelný mi orgány z menilitových břidlic moravských a způsob života jejich recentních forem ve Středozemním moři,” Věst. Klubu Přírodověd. Prostějově 26, 28–73 (1939–1940).Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    V. Kalabis, “Sur les poissons fossiles à organes lumineux du Paleocéne (schistes menilitiques) en Moravie (CSR),” Čas. Morav. Muz. Zem. Brně. Vědy Příir. 32, 131–234 (1948).Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    V. Kalabis and O. Schultz, “Die Fischfauna der paläogenen Menilitschichten von Speitsch in Mähren, ČSSR,” Geol. Paläont. 78, 183–192 (1974).Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    R. Kner, “Kleine Beitr(ge zur Kenntnis der fossilen Fische Oesterreichs,” Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien. 45(1), 485–498 (1862).Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    D. Kramberger, “Beitrage zur Kenntniss der fossilen Fische der Karpathen,” Paleontographica, Ser. A, 26, 51–68 (1879–1880).Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    B. G. E. Lacepede, Histoire naturelle des poissons (Paris, 1803).Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    W. Landini and E. Menesini, “L’ittiofauna Plio-pleistocenica della sezione della Vrica (Crotone-Calabria),” Atti Soc. Tosc. Sci. Nat., Ser A, 84, 1–14 (1977).Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    W. Landini and E. Menesini, “L’ittiofauna Plio-pleistocenica della sezione della Vrica (Crotone, Calabria),” Bull. Soc. Paleontol. Ital., Ser. 2, 17, 143–175 (1978).Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    W. Landini and E. Menesini, “L’ittiofauna Pliocenica della sezione di Stuni e suoi rapporti con l’ittiofauna Plio-pleistocenica della Vrica (Crotone, Calabria),” Boll. Soc. Paleont. Ital. 25(1), 41–63 (1986).Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    W. Landini and A. Varola, “L’ittiofauna del pleistocene inferiore di Matera,” Thalassia Salentina, Nos. 12–13, 16–49 (1983).Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    G. V. Lauder, “Form and Function: Structural Analysis in Evolutionary Morphology,” Paleobiology, No. 7, 430–442 (1981).Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    G. V. Lauder and K. F. Liem, “The Evolution and Interrelationships of Actinopterygian Fishes,” Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 150(3), 95–197 (1983).Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    G. U. Lindberg, Identification Key and Characteristic of Fish Families of the World Fauna (Nauka, Leningrad, 1971) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    G. U. Lindberg and M. I. Legeza, Fishes of the Sea of Japan and Adjacent Parts of the Sea of Okhotsk and the Yellow Sea. Part 2. Teleostomi XII. Acipenseriformes—XXVIII. Polynemiformes (Nauka, Moscow, 1965) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    R. T. Lowe, “Description of Alepisaurus, a New Genus of Fishes,” Proc. Zool. Soc. London, Part 1, 104 (1833).Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    R. T. Lowe, A History of the Fishes of Madeira, with Original Figures from Nature of All the Species by Hon. C.E.C. Norton and M. Young (Bernard Quaritch, London, 1843–1860).Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    W. Marck, “Fossile Fische, Krebse und Pflanzen aus dem Plattenkalke der jüngsten Kreide in Westphalen,” Paläontographica 11, 1–83 (1863–1865).Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    W. Marck and C. Schlüter, “Neue Fische und Krebse aus der Kreide von Westphalen,” Paläontographica 15, 269–305 (1868).Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    D. E. McAllister, “Evolution of Branchiostegals and Classification of Teleostome Fishes,” Bull. Nat. Mus. Can. 221 (1968).Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    N. R. Merrett, “Chlorophthalmidae,” in Checklist of the Fishes of the Eastern Tropical Atlantic, Ed. by J. C. Quero, J. C. Hureau, C. Karrer, et al. (UNESCO, Paris, 1990), Vol. 1, pp. 351–360.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    H. N. Moseley, “Report on the Structure of the Peculiar Organs in the Head of Ipnops,” in A. Günther, Report on the Deep-Sea Fishes Collected by H.M.S. Challenger During the Years 1873–76. Appendix A, in Report of the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger During the Years 1873–76, Zoology 22, Part 57, 269–276 (1887).Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    H. G. Moser and E. H. Ahlstrom, “Development of Lanternfishes (Family Myctophidae) in the California Current. Part. 1. Species with Narroweyed Larvae,” Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., No. 7, 1–145 (1970).Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    H. G. Moser and E. H. Ahlstrom, “Development of the Lanternfish, Scopelopsis multipunctatus Brauer 1906, with the Discussion of Its Phylogenetic Position in the Family Myctophidae and Its Role in a Proposed Mechanism for the Evolution of Photophore Patterns in Lanternfishes,” Fish. Bull. 70(3), 541–564 (1972).Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    H. G. Moser and E. H. Ahlstrom, “Role of Larval Stages in Systematic Investigation of Marine Teleosts: the Myctophidae, a Case Study,” Fish. Bull. 72(2), 391–413 (1974).Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    M. V. Nazarkin and L. A. Nessov, “A New Species of the Family Myctophidae from Miocene Deposits of Karaginskii Island (the Bering Sea),” Vopr. Ikhtiol. 35(4), 419–423 (1995).Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    J. S. Nelson, Fishes of the World (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1976).Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    J. S. Nelson, Fishes of the World (John Wiley Sons, Inc., New York, 1994).Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    D. Nolf, “Otolithi Piscium,” in Handbook of Paleoichthyology, Ed. by H.-P. Schultze (Enke, Stuttgart, 1985)Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    D. Nolf, “Les otolithes de téléostéens (ocenes d’Aquitaine et leur intéret stratigraphique,” Mém. Classe Sci. Acad. R. Belg. 19(2), 1–147 (1988).Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    D. Nolf and R. Brzobohaty, “Fish Otoliths from the Late Oligocene (Eger and Kiscell Formations) in the Eger Area (North-Eastern Hungary),” Bull. Inst. R. Sci. Nat. Belg. Sci. Terre 64, 225–252 (1994).Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    D. Nolf and D. T. Dockery, “Fish Otoliths from the Matthews Landins Marl Member (Porters Creek Formation), Palaeocene of Alabama,” Mississippi Geol. 14(2), 24–39 (1993).Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    D. Nolf and J. Martinell, “Otolithes de Téléostéens du Pliocene des environs de Figueras (Catalogue),” Geol. Paleontol. 14, 209–234 (1980).Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    G. R. Norden, “Comparative Osteology of Representative Salmonid Fishes, with Particular Reference to the Grayling (Thymallus thymallus) and its Phylogeny,” J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 18(5), 679–791 (1961).Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    N. S. Novikova, “History of Investigation of the Oceanic Ichthyofauna of the Pacific Ocean,” in Biology of the Pacific Ocean, Book 3: Fishes of Open Waters, Ed. by T.S. Rass (Nauka, Moscow, 1967), pp. 7–25.Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Y. Nybelin, “Zur Morphologie und Terminologie des Schwanzskelettes der Actinopterygier,” Arkiv Zool. 15(35), 485–516 (1963).Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    F. Ohe, “Osteichthyes. Deep Sea Fish Assemblage from the Middle Miocene Morozaki Group, Southern Part of Chita Peninsula, Aichi Prefecture, Central Japan,” in Fossils from the Miocene Morozaki Group, Ed. by F. Ohe, K. Nonogaki, and T. Tanaka (Tokai Fossil Society, 1993), pp. 157–262.Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    F. Ohe and Y. Araki, “Some Miocene Fish Otoliths from the Yakuoji Formation, Tsu, Mie Prefecture,” Sci. Rep. Tohoku Univ., Ser. 2, Spec. Vol., (6), 407–413 (1973).Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    M. Okiyama, “The Larval Taxonomy of the Primitive Myctophiform Fishes,” in The Early Life History of Fishes, Ed. by J. H. S. Blaxter (Springer, New York, 1974), pp. 609–621.Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    J. E. Olney, C. C. Baldwin, and G. D. Johnson, “Phylogeny of Lampridiform Fishes,” Bull. Mar. Sci. 52(1), 137–169 (1993).Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    N. V. Parin, Pseudotrichonotus xanthotaenia (Pseudotrichonotidae, Aulopiformes)—A New Fish from the Saya de Malha Seamount,” Vopr. Ikhtiol. 32(3), 156–158 (1992).Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    N. V. Parin, A. P. Andriyashev, O. D. Borodulina, and V. M. Chuvasov, “Pelagic Deep-Water Fishes of the Southwestern Part of the Atlantic Ocean,” Tr. Inst. Okeanol. Akad. Nauk SSSR 98, 76–140 (1974).Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    A. E. Parr, “Deep-Sea Fishes of the Order Iniomi from the Waters around Bahama and Bermuda Islands,” Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. Bull. 3, Art. 3 (1928).Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    A. E. Parr, “A Contribution to the Osteology and Classification of the Orders Iniomi and Xenoberyces,” Occas. Pap. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll., No. 2, 1–45 (1929).Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    C. Patterson, “A Review of Mesozoic Acanthopterygian Fishes, with Special Reference to Those of the English Chalk,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B, 247 No. (739), 213–482 (1964).Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    C. Patterson, “Two Upper Cretaceous Salmoniform Fishes from the Lebanon,” Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. (Zool.) 19(5), 207–296 (1970).Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    C. Patterson, “Osteichthyes: Teleostei,” in The Fossil Record 2, Ed. by M. J. Benton (Chapman & Hall, London, 1993), pp. 621–656.Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    C. Patterson and G. D. Johnson, “The Intermuscular Bones and Ligaments of Teleostean Fishes,” Smithson. Contrib. Zool., No. 559 (1995).Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    M. Paucă, “Zwei Fischfaunen aus den Oligozanen Menilitschieferen von Mahren,” Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien. 46, 147–152 (1931).Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    J. R. Paxton, “Osteology and Relationships of the Lanternfishes (Family Myctophidae),” Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co. Sci., No. 13, 1–81 (1972).Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    J. R. Paxton, “Nominal Genera and Species of Lanternfishes (Family Myctophidae),” Contrib. Sci. Los Angeles Co. Mus., No. 322 (1979).Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    J. R. Paxton, E. H. Ahlstrom, and H. G. Moser, “Myctophidae: Relationships,” in Ontogeny and Systematics of Fishes, Am. Soc. Ichthyol. Herpetol. Spec. Publ., No. 1, 239–244 (1984).Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    F. J. Pictet, Description de quelques poissons fossiles du Mont Liban (Jules Guillaume Fick, Geneve, 1850).Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    F. J. Pictet and A. Humbert, Nouvelles recherches sur les poissons fossiles du Mont Liban (Balliere, Paris, 1866).Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    S. V. Popov, M. A. Akhmetiev, E. M. Bugrova, et al., “Biogeography of the Northern Peri-Tethys from the Late Eocene to the Early Miocene: Part 2. Early Oligocene,” Paleontol. J. 36(Suppl. 3), S185–S259 (2002).Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    A. M. Prokofiev, “A New Genus of Neoscopelidae for Eomyctophum gracile Daniltshenko from the Middle Eocene of Georgia (Pisces: Osteichthyes: Myctophiformes),” Zoosyst. Rossica 10(1), 215–218 (2001).Google Scholar
  171. 171.
    A. M. Prokofiev, “Morphology and Relationships of Neocassandra mica Daniltshenko, 1968 (Pisces: Aulopiformes: Neocassandridae fam. nov.) from the Late Paleocene of Turkmenistan,” Paleontol. Zh., No. 1, 69–71 (2002a) [Paleontolol. J., No. 1, 64–71 (2002a)].Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    A. M. Prokofiev, “New Data on Miocene Lanternfishes (Myctophidae) of California,” Vopr. Ikhtiol. 42(5), 697–700 (2002b) [J. Ichthyol. 42 (8), 671–674 (2002b)].Google Scholar
  173. 173.
    A. M. Prokofiev, Candidate’s Dissertation in Biology (Paleontol. Inst., Russian Academy of Sciences, 2004).Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    A. M. Prokofiev, “Redescription and Relationships of Beckerophotus gracilis (Daniltshenko, 1962) (Teleostei: Myctophiformes: Neoscopelidae) from the Middle Eocene of Georgia,” Paleontol. Zh., No. 2, 65–72 (2005) [Paleontol. J., No. 6, 639-645 (2005)].Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    C.S. Rafinesque-Schmalz, Indice d’Ittiologia Siciliana (Giovanni del Nobol, Mesina, 1810).Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    T. S. Rass and G. U. Lindberg, “Modern Concepts of Present-Day Living Fish,” Vopr. Ikhtiol. 11(3), 380–407 (1971)Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    C. T. Regan, “The Anatomy and Classification of the Teleostean Fishes of the Order Iniomi,” Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 8, 7, 120–133 (1911).Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    C. T. Regan, “The Classification of the Stomiatoid Fishes,” Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 9, 11, 612–614 (1923).Google Scholar
  179. 179.
    E. Robba, “Otoliti del Tortoniano-tipo (Piemonte),” Riv. Ital. Paleontol. Stratigr. 76(1), 89–172 (1970).Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    C. D. Roberts, “Comparative Morphology of Spined Scales and Their Phylogenetic Significance in the Teleostei,” Bull. Mar. Sci. 52(1), 60–113 (1993).Google Scholar
  181. 181.
    D. E. Rosen, “Interrelationships of Higher Euteleostean Fishes,” Interrelationships of Fishes, Ed. by P.H. Greenwood, R.S. Miles, and C. Patterson (Acad. Press, London, 1973), pp. 397–513.Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    D. E. Rosen and C. Patterson, “The Structure and Relationships of the Paracanthopterygian Fishes,” Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 141, Art. 3, (1969).Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    L. Roule, “Nouvelle observations sur un poisson abyssal (Anotopterus pharao Zugm.),” Bull. Soc. Zool. France 60, 324–330 (1935).Google Scholar
  184. 184.
    N. Rückert-Ülkümmen, “Erstnachweis eines fossilen Vertreters der Gattung Myctophum für die Türkei: Myctophum formosum n.sp.,” Mitt. Bayer. Staatssamml. Paläontol. Hist. Geol. 41, 73–83 (2001).Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Y. Sato, “Miocene Fishes from the Western Area of Shizuikuishi Basin, Iwate Prefecture, Northeastern Japan,” Earth Sci.: J. Assoc. Geol. Collaborat. Jpn, No. 59, 1–29 (1962).Google Scholar
  186. 186.
    Y. Sato, “Myctophid Fish from the Ashikawa Formation, Southern Fossa Magna, Japan,” Earth. Sci.: J. Assoc. Geol. Collaborat. Jpn, No. 81, 17–20 (1965).Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    T. Sato and T. Nakabo, “Paraulopidae and Paraulopus, a New Family and Genus of Aulopiform Fishes with Revised Relationships within the Order,” Ichthyol. Res. 49(1), 25–46 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    H.-E. Sauvage, “Mémoire sur la faune ichthyologique de la période tertiaire, et plus spücialement sur les poissons fossiles d’Oran (Algérie) et sur ceux découverts par M.R. Alby a Licata en Sicile,” Ann. Sci. Güol. 4, Art. 1, 1–272 (1873).Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    W. Schwarzhans, “Otolithen aus dem Unter-Pliozän von Süd-Sizilien und aus der Toscana,” Berl. Geowiss., Abh., Ser. A, 8, 1–52 (1978).Google Scholar
  190. 190.
    W. Schwarzhans, “Die Tertiäre Teleosteer-Fauna Neuseelands, rekonstruiert anhand von Otolithen,” Berl. Geowiss., Abh., Ser. A., 26, 1–211 (1980).Google Scholar
  191. 191.
    W. Schwarzhans, “Fish Otoliths from the New Zealand Tertiary,” Rep. N. Z. Geol. Surv. 113, 1–269 (1984).Google Scholar
  192. 192.
    W. Schwarzhans, “Tertiäre Otolithen aus South Australia und Victoria (Australien),” Palaeo Ichthyol. 3, 1–60 (1985).Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    W. Schwarzhans, “Die Otolithen des Unter-Pliozän von Le Puget, S-Frankreich,” Senckenbergiana Lethaea 67(1–4), 219–273 (1986).Google Scholar
  194. 194.
    J. A. Scopoli, Introductio ad historiam naturalem, sistens genera lapidum, plantarum et animalium hactenus detecta, caracteribus essentialibus donata, in tribus divisa, subinde ad leges naturae (Prague, 1777).Google Scholar
  195. 195.
    Yu. N. Shcherbachev, “A Preliminary Survey of the Indian Ocean Species of the Family Chlorphthalmidae (Myctophiformes),” in Fishes of the open Ocean, Ed. by N.V. Parin (Inst. Okeanol. AN SSSR, 1981), pp. 41–67.Google Scholar
  196. 196.
    B. A. Shtyl’ko, “Neogene Fauna of Freshwater Fish from Western Siberia,” Tr. Vsesouyzn. Geol.-Razved. Ob’ed., Issue 359,1-96 (1934).Google Scholar
  197. 197.
    T. Smigielska, “Fish Otoliths from the Lower Tortonian Deposits at Niskowa near Nowy Sacz,” Rocz. Pol. Tow. Geol. 43(1), 3–40 (1973).Google Scholar
  198. 198.
    C. L. Smith and E. H. Atz, “Hermaphroditism in the Mesopelagic Fishes Omosudis lowei and Alepisaurus ferox,” Copeia. No. 1, 41–44 (1973).Google Scholar
  199. 199.
    Smith’s Sea Fishes, Ed. by M. M. Smith and P. C. Heemstra (Macmillan South Africa, Johannesburg, 1986).Google Scholar
  200. 200.
    C. Sorbini and W. Landini, “A New Fishfauna in the Plio-Pleistocene of Monte Signa (Calabria, Southern Italy),” Boll. Soc. Paleont. Ital. 42(1–2), 185–189 (2003).Google Scholar
  201. 201.
    E. Steurbaut, “Les otolithes de Téléostéens des Marnes de Saubrigues (Miocene d’Aquitaine meridionale, France),” Paleontographica, Ser. A, 166(1–3), 48–91 (1979).Google Scholar
  202. 202.
    E. Steurbaut, “Les otolithes de Téléostéens de la Formation de Tanaro (Langhenien inférieur du Piémont, Italie septentrionale),” Geol. Paläontol. 17, 255–269 (1983).Google Scholar
  203. 203.
    E. Steurbaut, “Les otolithes de Téléosténs de l’Oligo-Miocene d’Aquitaine (Sud-Ouest de la France),” Paleontographica, Ser. A, 186(1–6), 1–162 (1984).Google Scholar
  204. 204.
    M. L. J. Stiassny, “Basal Ctenosquamate Relationships and the Interrelationships of the Myctophiform (Scopelomorph) Fishes,” in Interrelationships of Fishes, Ed. by M. L. J. Stiassny, L. R. Parenti, and G. D. Johnson (Acad. Press, San Diego, 1996), pp. 405–426.Google Scholar
  205. 205.
    F. C. Stinton, “Fish Otoliths from the English Eocene,” Paleontogr. Soc. Monogr., Part 3, 127–189 (1977).Google Scholar
  206. 206.
    B. Strachimirov, “Otoliths from the Lower Sarmatian of North Bulgaria,” Paleontol. Stratigr. Lithol. No. 20, 15–32 (1984).Google Scholar
  207. 207.
    B. Strachimirov, “Otoliti ot gorniya sarmat na severozapadna B’lgariya,” Godishn. Vish. Min.-Geol. Inst., Sv. 2 31, 21–37 (1984(1985)).Google Scholar
  208. 208.
    K. J. Sulak, “The Systematics and Biology of Bathypterois (Pisces: Chlorophthalmidae) with a Revised Classification of Benthic Myctophiform Fishes,” Galathea Rep. 14, 49–108 (1977).Google Scholar
  209. 209.
    K. J. Sulak, “Chlorophthalmidae,” in Fishes of the North-Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean (UNESCO, Paris, 1984), Vol. 1, pp. 412–420.Google Scholar
  210. 210.
    K. J. Sulak, “Family No. 76: Chlorophthalmidae,” in Smith’s Sea Fishes, Ed. by M.M. Smith and P.C. Heemstra (Macmillan South Africa, Johannesburg, 1986), pp. 261–265.Google Scholar
  211. 211.
    E. K. Suvorov, Essentials of Ichthyology (Sov. Nauka, Moscow, 1948) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  212. 212.
    E. K. Sytchevskaya, “Marine Fishes,” in Geologic and Biotic Events of the Late Eocene-Early Oliogocene, Part 2, Tr. Geol. Inst. Ross. Akad. Nauk 507, 68–75 (1998).Google Scholar
  213. 213.
    L. Taverne, “Les Actinoptérygiens de l’Aptien Inférieur (Toeck) d’Helgoland,” Mitt. Geol.-Paläont. Inst. Univ. Hamburg 51, 43–82 (1981).Google Scholar
  214. 214.
    L. Taverne, “Les Aulopiformes (Pisces, Teleostei) du Crétacé supérieur de la Mésogée eurafricaine. I. Ostéologie et affinités systématiques de Rharbichthys Arambourg, C., 1954,” Bull. Cl. Sci. Acad. R. Belg. 71(1–2), 26–46 (1985).Google Scholar
  215. 215.
    B. Theisen, “On the Cranial Morphology of Ipnops murrayi Günther 1878, with Special Reference to the Relations between the Eyes and Skull,” Galathea Rep. 8, 7–18 (1966).Google Scholar
  216. 216.
    T. Uyeno and N. Matsui, “Late Cretaceous Fish Fossils from Nemuro, Hokkaido, Japan,” Mem. Nat. Sci. Mus. Tokyo 26, 39–46 (1993).Google Scholar
  217. 217.
    V. Walters, “A Contribution to the Biology of the Giganturidae with Description of a New Genus and Species,” Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 125(10), 297–319 (1961).Google Scholar
  218. 218.
    V. Walters, “Order Giganturoidei,” in Fishes of the Western North Atlantic, Part 4 Sears. Found. Mar. Res. Mem., No. 1, 566–577 (1964).Google Scholar
  219. 219.
    M. Weber and L. F. de Beaufort, The Fishes of the Indo-Australian Archipelago, Vol. 2: Malacopterygii, Myctophoidea, Ostariophysi I: Siluroidea (Brill, Leiden, 1913).Google Scholar
  220. 220.
    W. Weiler, “Die Fischfauna des unteren und oberen Meeresmolasse Oberbayerns,” Neues Jahrb. Mineral., Ser. B, 68, 305–352 (1932).Google Scholar
  221. 221.
    W. Weiler, “Fisch-Otolithen aus dem Ober-Oligozän und dem Mittelmiozän der Niederrheinischen Bucht,” Fortschr. Geol. Rheinland Westphalen 1, 323–361 (1958).Google Scholar
  222. 222.
    S. H. Weitzman, “The Origin of Stomiatoid Fishes with Comments on the Classification of Salmoniform Fishes,” Copeia, No. 4, 507–540 (1967).Google Scholar
  223. 223.
    E. I. White and J. F. Moy-Thomas, “Remarks on the Nomenclature of Fossil Fishes, Part 2. Homonyms D-L,” Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 11, 6, 98–103 (1940).Google Scholar
  224. 224.
    R. L. Wisner, “A New Genus and Species of Myctophid Fish from the South-Central Pacific Ocean, with Remarks on Related Genera and the Designation of a New Tribe, Electronini,” Copeia, No. 1, 24–28 (1963).Google Scholar
  225. 225.
    A. S. Woodward, Catalogue of the fossil fishes in the British Museum. Pt. IV. Trust. Brit. Mus. (Natur. Hist.) (1901).Google Scholar
  226. 226.
    A. S. Woodward, The Fossil Fishes of the English Chalk (Paleontogr. Soc. Monogr., London, 1902), pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
  227. 227.
    A. S. Woodward, “Some New and Little Known Upper Cretaceous Fishes from Mount Lebanon,” Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 11, 9, 537–568 (1942).Google Scholar
  228. 228.
    Y. Yabumoto and T. Uyeno, “Late Mesozoic and Cenozoic Fish Faunas of Japan,” Isl. Arc 3, 255–269 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  229. 229.
    M. Yakubovskii, “Methods of Detecting and Staining Lateral Line Canals and Bony Formations in Fish,” Zool. Zh. 49(9), 1398–1401 (1970).Google Scholar
  230. 230.
    T. Yoshino and C. Araga, “Pseudotrichonotidae Yoshino et Araga,” in Coastal Fishes of Southern Japan, Ed. by A. Masuda, C. Arago, and T. Yoshino (Tokai Univ. Press, Tokyo, 1975), pp. 176–177.Google Scholar
  231. 231.
    B. J. Zahuranec, “Zoogeography and Systematics of the Lanternfishes of the Genus Nannobrachium (Myctophidae: Lampanyctini),” Smithson. Contrib. Zool. No. 607 (2000).Google Scholar
  232. 232.
    E. Zugmayer, “Diagnoses des poissons nouveaux provenat des campagnes du yacht “Princesse Alice” (1901–1910),” Bull. Inst. Oceanogr. Monaco, No. 193 (1911).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. Prokofiev
    • 1
  1. 1.Severtsov Institute of Ecology and EvolutionRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations