Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T22:47:06.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Structure and Affinities of the Carboniferous Cochliodont Helodus simplex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

J. A. Moy-Thomas
J. A. Moy-Thomas
Affiliation:
Lecturer of Christ Church, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

1. The anatomy of Helodus simplex Ag. is described.

2. The skull is found to be holostylic, and to have many characters in common with the skull of the Holocephali, but in some respects is less specialized.

3. The pectoral fins, with their long metapterygium, small propterygium, and fused anterior radials, resemble very closely those of the Holocephali.

4. The pelvic and unpaired fins, and general body shape are found to resemble those of the Holocephali.

5. It is concluded that the Cochliodonts are almost certainly closely related to the ancestors of the Holocephali, and the relatively unspecialized condition of the teeth gives support to the view that the holostylic condition of the jaws is primitive for the group. It is suggested that all the Bradyodonts were holostylic, that the hyomandibular may never have been suspensory, and that they may have diverged from the true Selachii before the hyomandibular played a part in the jaw suspension. The difficulties which this view involves are appreciated.

6. The condition of the ethmoid region of Helodus supports the view of the nature of the ethmoidal canal put forward by De Beer and Moy-Thomas (1935) rather than that of Allis (1917, 1926, 1934).

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 73 , Issue 11 , November 1936 , pp. 488 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1936

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

List of Literature Cited

Allis, E. P., 1917. “The prechordal portion of the Chondrocranium of Chimaera colliei ,” Proc. Zool. Soc. London, p. 105.Google Scholar
Allis, E. P., 1926. “On the Homologies of the prechordal portion of the Skull of the Holocephali,” Journ. Anat., 60, p. 335.Google Scholar
Allis, E. P., 1934. “Concerning the Course of the Latero-sensory Canals in Recent Fishes, Prefishes, and Necturus,” Journ. Anat., 68, p. 361.Google Scholar
Bolton, H., 1905. “Palaeontology of the Lancashire Coal Measures. Pt. 1, Middle Coal Measures,” Trans. Manchester Geol. Soc., 28, p. 578.Google Scholar
Davis, J., 1879. “Notes on Pleurodon affinis sp. ined. Agassiz and Description of three Spines of Cestraciodonts from the Lower Coal Measures,” Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 34, p. 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J., 1883. “On the Fossil Fishes of the Carboniferous Limestone Series of Great Britain,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Dublin, ser. 2, vol. 1, p. 410.Google Scholar
Davis, J., 1890. “On the dentition of Pleuroplax (Pleurodus) A. S. Woodward,” Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 5, ser. 6, p. 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, B., 1904. “In the Matter of the Permian Fish, Menaspis ,” Amer. Geol., 34, p. 49.Google Scholar
De Beer, G. R., and Moy-Thomas, J. A., 1935. “On the Skull of Holocephali,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., ser. B, 224, No. 514, p. 287.Google Scholar
Egebton, P. de M. G., 1872. “On Prognathodus güntheri, a new genus of Fossil Fish from the Lias of Lyme Regis,” Quart. Joum. Geol. Soc., 29, p. 232.Google Scholar
Gregory, W. K., 1904. “The Relations of the Anterior Visceral Arches to the Chondrocranium,” Biol. Bull., 7, p. 55.Google Scholar
Hancock, A., and Atthey, T., 1872. “Descriptive Notes on a nearly entire specimen of Pleurodus Rankinei.,” Trans. Northumberland and Durham Nat. Hist. Soc., 4, p. 408.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O., 1891. “Ueber Menaspis, nebst allgemeinen Bemerkungen über die systematische stellung der Elasmobranchii,” Sitzber. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin, p. 115.Google Scholar
Moy-Thomas, J. A., 1935. “On the Structure and Affinities of Chondrenchelys problematica, Tr.”, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, pt. 3, p. 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moy-Thomas, J. A., (In the press.) “The Structure and Affinities of the Fossil Elasmobranch Fishes from the Lower Carboniferous Rocks of Glencartholm, Eskdale,” Proc. Zool. Soc. London.Google Scholar
Nielsen, E., 1932. “Permo-Carboniferous Fishes from East Greenland,” Medd. om Grönland, 86, nr. 3.Google Scholar
Owen, R., 1840–5. “Odontography; or a Treatise on the Comparative Anatomy of Teeth, etc.,” London.Google Scholar
Traquair, R. H., 1888. “Notes on Carboniferous Selachii,” Geol. Mag., 35, p. 101.Google Scholar
Ward, J., 1875. “The Fossil Fishes of the North Staffordshire Coalfield,” Proc. N. Staffs. Inst. Mining Engineers.Google Scholar
Weigelt, J., 1930. “Wichtige Fischreste aus dem Mansfelder Kupferschiefer,” Leopoldina, 6, p. 601.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. S., 1889. “Catalogue of Fossil Fishes on the British Museum (Natural History),” pt. 1. Elasmobranchii, London.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. S., 1898. “Outlines of Vertebrate Palaeontology,” Cambridge.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. S., 1915. “The Uses of Fossil Fishes in Stratigraphy,” Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 71.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. S., 1921. “Observation on Some Extinct Elasmobranch Fishes,” Proc. Linn. Soc. London, Session 133, p. 32.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. S., 1932. “Text-book of Palaeontology,” by Karl von, Zittel, Second English edition. London.Google Scholar