Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T00:47:38.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rhizodont crossopterygian fish from the Dinantian of Foulden, Berwickshire, Scotland, with a re-evaluation of this group

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

S. M. Andrews
Affiliation:
Royal Scottish Museum, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland.

Abstract

Material of crossopterygian fishes from Foulden, Berwickshire, is important in including the first known entire specimen giving a clear picture of the body form of the Family Rhizodontidae (sensu Andrews 1973). This group is specialised in having numerous subsidiary lateral lines on the body, a ventrally expanded shoulder girdle, fins with peculiar stiffened structure, the pectorals forming greatly enlarged paddles and other fins being reduced in size. The Foulden remains fall into large and small size-ranges occurring largely at different levels in the sequence, but although these may represent growth in one taxon the available parts of the body are mostly complementary. Separate preliminary descriptions of the two size-ranges are therefore given, the small complete form being named ?Strepsodus anculonamensis sp. nov., and the large form remaining unnamed pending further study. An abridged historical account of previously named rhizodont genera (Rhizodus, Strepsodus, Sauripterus and Pycnoctenion) is given in order to explain why the new Foulden form(s) cannot at present be generically assigned more closely. A revised diagnosis of the Family Rhizodontidae leads to a discussion of the functional morphology and mode of life of fish of this type. Analogies with modern forms indicate that, like some sharks and crocodiles, they may have fed by tearing flesh off large prey, rotating or shaking against its inertia. Ways in which variously shaped rhizodont teeth (recurved, sigmoid etc.) may have functioned are suggested. Addenda deal with (1) the possible occurrence at Foulden of a large lungfish and (2) (after considering primitive and advanced rhizodont features) the renaming of Rhizodus ornatus Traquair 1878 from higher in the Scottish lower Carboniferous, as the type of a new genus, Screbinodus.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agassiz, J. L. R. 18331843 (1844). Recherches sur les poissons fossiles Text (5 vols) & Atlas (5 vols). Neuchatel: Petitpierre.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, R. M. 1967. Functional design in fishes. London: Hutchinson University Library.Google Scholar
Andrews, S. M. 1972. The shoulder girdle of ‘Eogyrinus’. In Joysey, K. A. & Kemp, T. S. (eds) Studies in vertebrate evolution, 3548. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Andrews, S. M. 1973. Interrelationships of crossopterygians. In Greenwood, P. H., Miles, R. S. & Patterson, C. (eds) Interrelationships of fishes, 137–77. ZOOL J LINN SOC 53 Suppl 1.Google Scholar
Andrews, S. M. 1977. The axial skeleton of the coelacanth, Latimeria. In Andrews, S. M., Miles, R. S. & Walker, A. D. (eds) Problems in vertebrate evolution, 271–88. LINN SOC SYMP SER 4.Google Scholar
Andrews, S. M. 1982. The discovery of fossil fishes in Scotland up to 1845, with checklists of Agassiz's figured specimens. Edinburgh: Royal Scottish Museum Studies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, S. M. & Westoll, T. S. 1970a. The postcranial skeleton of Eusthenopteron foordi Whiteaves. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH 68, 207329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, S. M. & Westoll, T. S. 1970b. The postcranial skeleton of rhipidistian fishes excluding Eusthenopteron. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH 68, 391489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, D. 1962. A haplolepid fish fauna in the early Pennsylvanian of Nova Scotia. PALAEONTOLOGY 5, 22–9.Google Scholar
Barkas, T. P. 1873. Illustrated guide to the fish, amphibian, reptilian and supposed mammalian remains of the Northumberland Carboniferous strata. London: Hutchings.Google Scholar
Berg, L. S. 1958. System der rezenten und fossilen Fischartigen und Fische. Berlin: Veb Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Binney, E. W. 1841. On the fossil fishes of the Pendleton coal field. TRANS MANCHESTER GEOL SOC 1, 153–78.Google Scholar
Buckland, W. 1837. Geology and mineralogy considered with reference to natural theology (2 vols). London: William Pickering.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burdak, V. D. 1979. Funktsional'naya morfologiya cheshuynogo pokrova ryb. Kiev: Naukova Dumka (in Russian).Google Scholar
Chabakov, A. V. 1927. O kisteperych iz russkogo karbona. IZV GEOL KOM 46, 299309 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Cott, H. B. 1961. Scientific results of an inquiry into the ecology and economic status of the Nile Crocodile (Crocodilus niloticus) in Uganda and Northern Rhodesia. TRANS ZOOL SOC LONDON 29, 211358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, J. W. 1868. Acadian geology. The geological structure, organic remains, and mineral resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, 2nd edn. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forey, P. L. 1981. The coelacanth Rhabdoderma in the Carboniferous of the British Isles. PALAEONTOLOGY 24, 203–29.Google Scholar
Forey, P. L. & Young, V. T. 1985. Acanthodian and coelacanth fish from the Dinantian of Foulden, Berwickshire, Scotland. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH EARTH SCI 76, 53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, E. H. 1983. Carboniferous. In Craig, G. Y. (ed.) Geology of Scotland 2nd edn, 253–96. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
Frazzetta, T. H. 1966. Studies on the morphology and function of the skull in the Boidae (Serpentes). Part II. Morphology and function of the jaw apparatus in Python sebae and Python molurus. J MORPHOL 118, 217–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, E. 1982. Ecology, locomotion and tail muscle anatomy of crocodiles. NEUES JAHRB GEOL PALAONT MONATSH 1982 ABH194–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geikie, A. 1864. The geology of eastern Berwickshire. MEM GEOL SURV SCOTLAND 34.Google Scholar
Gregory, W. K. 1935. Further observations on the pectoral girdle and fin of Sauripterus taylori Hall, a crossopterygian fish from the Upper Devonian of Pennsylvania, with special reference to the origin of the pentadactylate extremities of Tetrapoda. PROC AM PHILOS SOC 75, 673–90.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1843. Natural history of New York. Part IV Geology comprising the survey of the fourth geological district. New York.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. A. & Atthey, T. 1868. Notes on the remains of some reptiles and fishes from the shales of the Northumberland coal-field. ANN MAG NAT HIST (4) 1, 266–78, 346–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. A. & Atthey, T. 1870. Note on an undescribed fossil fish from the Newsham coal-shale near Newcastle upon Tyne. ANN MAG NAT HIST (4) 5, 266–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. A. & Atthey, T. 1871. Description of a considerable portion of a mandibular ramus of Anthracosaurus russelli; with notes on Loxomma and Archichthys. ANN MAG NAT HIST (4) 7, 7383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbert, S. 1836 [1835]. On the fresh-water limestone of Burdiehouse in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, belonging to the Carboniferous group of rocks, with supplementary notes on other fresh-water limestones. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH 13, 169282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, T. H. 1861. Preliminary essay upon the systematic arrangement of the fishes of the Devonian epoch. MEM GEOL SURV U K—Figures and descriptions of British organic remains Dec 10, 140.Google Scholar
Jarvik, E. 1937. On the species of Eusthenopteron found in Russia and the Baltic States. BULL GEOL INST UNIV UPSALA 27, 63127.Google Scholar
Jarvik, E. 1944. On the dermal bones, sensory canals and pit-lines of the skull in Eusthenopteron foordi Whiteaves, with some remarks on E. säve-söderberghi Jarvik. K SVEN VETENSKAPSAKAD HANDL 21 (3), 348.Google Scholar
Jarvik, E. 1952. On the fish-like tail in the ichthyostegid stegocephalians, with descriptions of a new stegocephalian anda new crossopterygian from the Upper Devonian of East Greenland. MEDD GRØNLAND 114 (12), 190.Google Scholar
Jarvik, E. 1959. Dermal fin-rays and Holmgren's principle of delamination. K SVEN VETENSKAPSAKAD HANDL (4), 6 (1), 151.Google Scholar
Jarvik, E. 1968. The systematic position of the Dipnoi. In Ørvig, T. (ed.) Current problems of lower vertebrate phylogeny, 223–45. NOBEL SYMP 4.Google Scholar
Jarvik, E. 1980. Basic structure and evolution of vertebrates (2 vols). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jessen, H. 1966. Die Crossopterygier des oberen Plattenkalkes (Devon) der Bergisch-Gladbach-Paffrather Mulde (Rheinisches Schiefergebirge) unter Berücksichtigung von amerikanischem und europäischem Onychodus-matenal. ARK ZOOL 18, 305–91.Google Scholar
Lankester, E. R. 1884. Report on fragments of fossil fishes from the Palaeozoic strata of Spitzbergen. K SVEN VETENSKAPSAKAD HANDL (4) 20 (9), 17.Google Scholar
Lindley, J. & Hutton, W. 18311833. Fossil flora of Great Britain, vol. 1. London: Ridgway.Google Scholar
Lyon, G. 1871. On a new species of Rhizodus. TRANS EDINBURGH GEOL SOC 2, 125.Google Scholar
Melville, R. V. & China, W. E. 1970. Megalichthys Agassiz, 1835, and Rhizodus Owen, 1840 (Pisces): preserved under the plenary powers in their accustomed usage. BULL ZOOL NOMENCL 27, 97–9.Google Scholar
Miall, L. C. 1875. On the structure of the skull of Rhizodus. Q J GEOL SOC LONDON 31, 624–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, R. S. 1970. Remarks on the vertebral column and caudal fin of acanthodian fishes. LETHAIA 3, 343–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, R. 1840. Odontography. Part 1. London.Google Scholar
Panchen, A. L. 1972. The skull and skeleton of Eogyrinus attheyi Watson (Amphibia: Labyrinthodontia). PHILOS TRANS R SOC LONDON B263, 279326.Google Scholar
Panchen, A. L. 1975. A new genus and species of anthracosaur amphibian from the Lower Carboniferous of Scotland and the status of Pholidogaster pisciformis Huxley. PHILOS TRANS R SOC LONDON B269, 581637.Google Scholar
Panchen, A. L. 1977. On Anthracosaurus russelli Huxley (Amphibia: Labyrinthodontia) and the family Anthracosauridae. PHILOS TRANS R SOC LONDON B279, 447512.Google Scholar
Paton, R. L. 1975. A catalogue of fossil vertebrates in the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, Part four, Amphibia and Reptilia. R SCOTT MUS INF SER GEOL 5.Google Scholar
Portlock, J. E. 1843. Report on the geology of Londonderry, and of parts of Tyrone and Fermanagh. Dublin.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1979. A functional interpretation of the varanid dentition (Reptilia, Lacertilia, Varanidae). GEGENBAURS MORPHOL JAHRB 125, 797817.Google ScholarPubMed
Schultze, H-P. 1969. Die Faltenzähne der rhipidistiiden Crossopterygier, der tetrapoden und der actinopterygier-Gattung Lepisosteus; nebst einer Beschreibung der Zahnstruktur von Onychodus (struniiformer Crossopterygier). PALAEONTOGR ITAL 65 (N. Ser 35), 59137.Google Scholar
Sedgwick, A. & McCoy, F. 1855. A synopsis of the classification of the British Palaeozoic rocks, with a systematic description of British Palaeozoic fossils. London: Parker.Google Scholar
Somervail, A. 1872. On the occurrence of Strepsodus and Rhizodopsis in the Upper Coal Measures of Edmonstone, Midlothian. TRANS EDINBURGH GEOL SOC 2, 137–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, S. 1961. Dynamics of the feeding mechanism of large galeoid sharks. AM ZOOL 1, 183–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stensiö, E. A. 1925. Note on the caudal fin of Eusthenopteron. ARK ZOOL 17B (11), 13.Google Scholar
Stock, T. 1883. On the discovery of a nearly entire Rhizodus in the Wardie shales. TRANS EDINBURGH GEOL SOC 4, 38–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, K. S. 1964. Revised generic diagnoses of the fossil fishes Megalichthys and Ectosteorhachis (Family Osteolepidae). BULL MUS COMP ZOOL HARVARD 131, 283312.Google Scholar
Thomson, K. S. 1966. Megalichthys and Rhizodus (Pisces, Rhipidistia): proposal for the stabilization of these generic names. BULL ZOOL NOMENCL 23, 117–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, K. S. 1967. Mechanisms of intracranial kinetics in fossil rhipidistian fishes (Crossopterygii) and their relatives. J LINN SOC (ZOOL) 46, 223–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toombs, H. A. & Rixon, A. E. 1959. The use of acids in the preparation of vertebrate fossils. CURATOR 11, 304–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traquair, R. H. 1875. On some fossil fishes from the neighbourhood of Edinburgh. ANN MAG NAT HIST (4), 15, 258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traquair, R. H. 1877. On the structure of the lower jaw in Rhizodopsis and Rhizodus. ANN MAG NAT HIST (4), 19, 299305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traquair, R. H. 1878. On the genus Rhizodus. PROC R SOC EDINBURGH 9, 657–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traquair, R. H. 1881. On the cranial osteology of Rhizodopsis. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH 30, 167–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traquair, R. H. 1882. Notice of new fish remains from the blackband ironstone of Borough Lee, near Edinburgh, No III. GEOL MAG N. S., Dec 2, 9, 540–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traquair, R. H. 1884. Remarks on the genus Megalichthys (Agassiz), with description of a new species. PROC R PHYS SOC EDINBURGH 8, 6777.Google Scholar
Traquair, R. H. 1890. List of the fossil Dipnoi and Ganoidei of Fife and the Lothians. PROC R SOC EDINBURGH 17, 385400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traquair, R. H. 1897. Additional notes on the fossil fishes of the Upper Old Red Sandstone of the Moray Firth area. PROC R PHYS SOC EDINBURGH 13, 376–85.Google Scholar
Traquair, R. H. 1903. On the distribution of fossil fish-remains in the Carboniferous rocks of the Edinburgh district. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH 40, 687707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ure, D. 1793. History of Rutherglen and East Kilbride. Glasgow.Google Scholar
Vorobjeva, E. I. & Obrucheva, E. D. 1977. Rizodontnye kisteperye ryby (sm. Rhizodontidae) iz srednepaleozoiskix otlozheniy aziatskoy chasti SSSR. In Ocherki po filogenii i sistematike iskopayemych ryb i beschelyustnych, 89–97, 162–3. Nauka. (in Russian)Google Scholar
Wallis, F. S. 1928. The Old Red Sandstone of the Bristol district. Q J GEOL SOC LONDON 83, 760–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, J. 1875. On the organic remains of the Coal Measures of North Staffordshire, their range and distribution, with a catalogue of the fossils and their mode of occurrence. NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE NAT FIELD CLUB, Addresses and papers 1875, 184251.Google Scholar
Ward, J. 1890. The geological features of the North Staffordshire coal-fields. TRANS NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE INST MIN MECH ENG 10, 1189.Google Scholar
Watson, D. M. S. 1926. The evolution and origin of the Amphibia. PHILOS TRANS R SOC LONDON B214, 189257.Google Scholar
White, E. I. 1927. The fish-fauna of the Cementstones of Foulden, Berwickshire. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH 55, 255–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, E. I. & Baird, D. 1967. Comment on the proposals concerning the generic names Megalichthys and Rhizodus Pisces. BULL ZOOL NOMENCL 24, 262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, S. P. & Rolfe, W. D. I. 1985. Introduction to the palaeontology of the Dinantian of Foulden, Berwickshire, Scotland. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH EARTH SCI 76, 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, A. S. 1891. Catalogue of the fossil fishes in the British Museum (Natural History) Part II. London: British Museum (Natural History).Google Scholar
Woodward, A. S. 1906. On a Carboniferous fish fauna from the Mansfield district, Victoria. MEM NATL MUS MELBOURNE 1, 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. 1865. Notice on the occurrence of Rhizodus hibberti in Carboniferous strata in the neighbourhood of Glasgow. TRANS GEOL SOC GLASGOW 2, 38–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. 1866a. Note on the scales of Rhizodus Owen. Q J GEOL SOC LONDON 22, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. 1866b. Notice of new genera of Carboniferous glyptodipterines. Q J GEOL SOC LONDON 22, 596608.Google Scholar