Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:52:58.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Devonian actinopterygian Cheirolepis Agassiz

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

D. Michael Pearson  and
T. Stanley Westoll
D. Michael Pearson
Affiliation:
Department of Geology,University of Newcastle upon Tyne
T. Stanley Westoll
Affiliation:
Department of Geology,University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

The structure of the fishes constituting the Devonian genus Cheirolepis is investigated. Articulated remains from the Scottish Old Red Sandstone and the Canadian Upper Devonian were studied and two species are recognised, the Middle Devonian C. trailli and the Upper Devonian C. canadensis. Recently described fragmentary material from Europe assigned to the genus is best regarded as incertae sedis. Cheirolepis is the earliest actinopterygian genus with extensive material. Neurocranial remains are described, with a crossopterygian-like parasphenoid. There seems to have been a mobile rostral region with several small bones between premaxilla and postrostral extending to the anterior corner of the small dermal orbit. New palatoquadrate and pectoral girdle material is described. The apparently primitive nature of the head skeleton is related to the cranial dynamics and the likely mode of life. The small scales and the elongate-fusiform body shape are a corollary of the method of swimming. The ecology of the fishes is touched upon. A taxonomic investigation of the two species was carried out but although interesting variation in the scale-row numbers came to light no changes at the specific level were deemed necessary. Revised generic and specific diagnoses are given.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 70 , Issue 13-14 , 1979 , pp. 337 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1979

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, L., 1835–1836. Récherches sur les Poissons fossiles, vol. II, part I, pp. 128–134 (1835), Pls ID and IE(1836). Neuchâtel.Google Scholar
Agassiz, L., 1843. Recherches sur les Poissons fossiles, vol. II, part I, p. 301. Neuchâtel.Google Scholar
Agassiz, L., 1844–1845. Monographie des Poissons fossiles du Vieux Grès Rouge ou Système Dévonien (Old Red Sandstone) des Îles Brittaniques et de Russie, xxxvi + 171 pp., Pls 43. Neuchâtel; Soleure, Jent and Gassmann.Google Scholar
Aldinger, H., 1937. Permische Ganoidfische aus Ostgronland. Meddr Grønland, 102, 1–392.Google Scholar
Alexander, R. McN., 1967. Functional Design in Fishes, pp. 160, figs 16. London: Hutchison.Google Scholar
Allis, E. P., 1935. On a general pattern of arrangement of the cranial roofing bones in fishes. J. Anat., 69, 233–291.Google Scholar
Bryan, C. H., 1900. The action of bilge keels. Trans. Instn Nav. Archit., 42, 198.Google Scholar
Cala, P., 1971. Scale formation as related to length of young-of-the-year Ide Idus idus and Roach Rutilus rutilus. J. Zool., Lond., 165, 337–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dineley, D. L. and Williams, B. P. J., 1968. Sedimentation and palaeoecology of the Devonian Escuminac Formation and related strata, Escuminac Bay, Quebec. Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am., 106, 241–264.Google Scholar
Egerton, P. M. G., 1860. Palichthyological Notes, No. 12: Remarks on the Nomenclature of the Devonian Fishes. Q. Jl Geol. Soc. Lond., 16, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichwald, E. d', 1844. Über die Fische des devonischen Systems in der Gegend von Pawlowsk. Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Moscou, 17, 824–843.Google Scholar
Fowler, J. A., 1970. Control of vertebral number in teleosts—an embryological problem. Q. Rev. Biol., 45, 148–167.Google Scholar
Gardiner, B. G., 1963. Certain Palaeoniscoid fishes and the evolution of the snout in actinopterygians. Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. (Geol.), 8, 255–325.Google Scholar
Gardiner, B. G., 1966. A Catalogue of Canadian Fossil Fishes. Roy. Ont. Mus. Univ. Toronto, 68, 1–154.Google Scholar
Gardiner, B. G., 1967. The significance of the preoperculum in actinopterygian evolution. J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.), 47, 197–209.Google Scholar
Gardiner, B. G., 1973. Interrelationships of teleostomes. In Greenwood, P. H., Miles, R. S. and Patterson, C. (eds), Interrelationships of Fishes, 105–135, figs 10. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gardiner, B. G. and Bartram, A. W. H., 1977. The homologies of ventral cranial fissures in osteichthyans. In Andrews, S. M., Miles, R. S. and Walker, A. D. (eds), Problems in Vertebrate Evolution, 227–245, figs 8. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geikie, A., 1878. On the Old Red Sandstone of Western Europe. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 28, 345–452.Google Scholar
Goodrich, E. S., 1970. On the scales of fish, living and extinct, and their importance in classification. Proc. Zool. Soc. London., 1907, 751–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodrich, E. S., 1909. Vertebrate Craniata: Cyclostomes and Fishes. In Lankester, R. (ed.), A Treatise on Zoology, IX, Vol. 1, xv + 518 pp., figs 515.Google Scholar
Goodrich, E. S., 1930. Studies on the Structure and Development of Vertebrates, xxx + 837 pp., figs 754. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosline, W. A., 1947. Some meristic characters in a population of the fish Poecilichthys exilis: their variation and correlation. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich., 500, 1–23.Google Scholar
Gregory, W. K., 1951. Evolution Emerging, xxvi + 736 pp. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gross, W., 1947. Die Agnathen und Acanthodier des Obersilurischen Beyrichienkalks. Palaeontographica Abt. A, 96, 91–161.Google Scholar
Gross, W., 1973. Kleinschuppen, Flossenstacheln und Zähne von Fischen aus europäischen und nordamerikanischen Bonebeds des Devons. Palaeontographica Abt. A, 142, 51–155.Google Scholar
Harris, J. E., 1936. The Role of the Fins in the Equilibrium of the Swimming Fish. I: Wind-tunnel tests on a model of Mustelus canis (Mitchill). J. Exp. Biol., 13, 476–493.Google Scholar
Harris, J. E., 1938. The Role of the Fins in the Equilibrium of the Swimming Fish. II: The role of the Pelvic Fins. J. Exp. Biol., 15, 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrichsen, I. G. C., 1970. A catalogue of fossil vertebrates in the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh. Part one: Actinop-terygii. Roy. Scott. Mus. Inf. Ser., Geol. 1, ix + 102 pp.Google Scholar
Heyler, D., 1969. Vertébrés de l'autunien de France. Cahiers de Paléontologie, 255 pp., Pls 52, figs 166. Paris: C.N.R.S.Google Scholar
Hussakof, L. and Bryant, W. L., 1918. Catalog of the Fossil Fishes in the Museum of the Buffalo Society of Natural Science. Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci., 12, 1–345.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O., 1925. Das Mundskelett der Wirbeltiere. Morph. Jb., 55, 402–484.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O., 1927. Der kopf der Wirbeltiere. Ergebn. Anat. EntwGesch., 27, 815–974.Google Scholar
Jarvik, E., 1944 a. 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. Svenska Vetensk Akad. Handl., 21 (3), 1–48.Google Scholar
Jarvik, E., 1944 b. On the Exoskeletal Shoulder-Girdle of Teleostome Fishes, with Special Reference to Eusthenopteron foordiWhiteaves. K. Svenska Vetensk Akad. Handl., 21 (7), 1–32.Google Scholar
Jarvik, E., 1954. On the visceral skeleton of Eusthenopteron with a discussion of the palatoquadrate and parasphenoid in fishes. K. Svenska Vetensk Akad. Handl., 5 (13-14), 1–104.Google Scholar
Jarvik, E., 1959. Dermal Fin Rays and Holmgren's Principle of Delamination. K. Svenska Vetensk Akad. Handl., 6 (13-14), 1–51.Google Scholar
Jarvik, E., 1964. Specialisations in early vertebrates. Annls Soc. Roy. Zool. Belg., 94, 11–95.Google Scholar
Jarvik, E., 1967. The homologies of frontal and parietal bones in fishes and tetrapods. In Problèmes actuels de Paléontologie (Évolution des Vertébrés). Coll. Int. C.N.R.S., 163, 181–213.Google Scholar
Jeannet, A., 1928. Les poissons fossiles originaux conservés à l'lnstitut de Géologie de l'Université de Neuchâtel. Bull. Soc. Neuchâtel. Sci. Nat., 52, 102–124.Google Scholar
Jessen, H. L., 1968. Moythomasia nitida Gross und M. cf. striata Gross, devonische Palaeoniscoiden aus dem oberen Plattenkalk der Bergisch-Gladbach-Paffrather-Mulde (Rheinisches Schiefergebirge). Palaeontographica Abt. A, 128, 87–114.Google Scholar
Jollie, M., 1962. Chordate Morphology, xiv + pp. 478, figs 515. New York: Reinhold.Google Scholar
Lang, W. H., 1926. Contributions to the study of the Old Red Sandstone Flora of Scotland etc. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 54, 785–799.Google Scholar
Le Cren, E. D., 1947. The determination of the age and growth of the perch (Perca fluviatilis) from the opercular bone. J. Anim. Ecol., 16, 188–204.Google Scholar
Lehman, J.-P., 1947. Descriptions de quelques exemplaires de Cheirolepis canadensis (Whiteaves). K. Svenska Vetensk Akad. Handl., 24 (4), 1–40.Google Scholar
Lehman, J.-P., 1952. Étude complémentaire des poissons de l'Eotrias de Madagascar. K. Svenska Vetensk Akad. Handl., 2 (6), 1–201.Google Scholar
Lehman, J.-P., 1966. Actinopterygii. In Piveteau, J. (ed.), Traité de Paléontologie, 4 (3), 1–242, figs 211. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. and Westoll, T. S., 1952. A primitive dipnoan fish from the Lower Devonian of Germany. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., 140B, 403–421.Google Scholar
Lemaire, F., 1957. Contribution à l'étude de Cheirolepis trailli. Univ. Paris dissertation, typescript.Google Scholar
McCoy, F., 1848. On some new Ichthyolites from the Scotch Old Red Sandstone. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 2, 297–312.Google Scholar
McCoy, F., 1855. In A Synopsis of the Classification of the British Palaeozoic Rocks, etc. by Sedgwick, A. and McCoy, F., cvi + 661 pp.Google Scholar
Miles, R. S., 1970. Remarks on the vertebral column and caudal fin of acanthodian fishes. Lethaia, 3, 343–362.Google Scholar
Miles, R. S. and Westoll, T. S., 1968. The Placoderm Fish Coccosteus cuspidatus Miller ex Agassiz from the Middle Old Red Sandstone of Scotland. Pt. 1: Descriptive Morphology. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 67, 373–476.Google Scholar
Miller, H., 1841. The Old Red Sandstone. Edinburgh: Constable.Google Scholar
Murchison, R. I., 1828. Supplementary Remarks on the Strata of the Oolitic Series, and the Rocks associated with them, in the Counties of Sutherland and Ross, and in the Hebrides. Trans. Geol. Soc., 2, 353–368.Google Scholar
Nielsen, E., 1936. Some few preliminary remarks on Triassic Fishes from East Greenland. Meddr Grønland, 112, 1–55.Google Scholar
Nielsen, E., 1942. Studies on Triassic Fishes from East Greenland. I: Glaucolepis and Boreosomus. Meddr Grønland, 138, 1–403.Google Scholar
Nielsen, E., 1949. Studies on Triassic Fishes from East Greenland. II: Australosomus and Birgeria. Meddr Grønland, 146, 1–309.Google Scholar
Obruchev, D. V., 1940. On some psammosteids from the Leningrad and Baltic Middle Devonian. Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, 28, 766–768.Google Scholar
Obruchev, D. V., 1967. Fundamentals of Paleontology. XI: Agnatha and Pisces, x + 825 pp. Jerusalem: Israel Progr. Sci. Transl.Google Scholar
Pander, C. H., 1860. Über die Saurodipterinen, Dendrodonten, Glyptolepiden und Cheirolepiden des Devonischen Systems. ix + 89 pp. St Petersburg.Google Scholar
Pehrson, T., 1940. The development of the dermal bones in the skull of Amia calva. Acta Zool., Stockh., 21, 1–50.Google Scholar
Powrie, J., 1867. On the genus Cheirolepis, from the Old Red Sandstone. Geol. Mag., 4, 147–152.Google Scholar
Rayner, D. H., 1951. On the cranial structure of an early Palaeoniscid, Kentuckia, gen. nov. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 62, 53–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, D. H., 1963. The Achanarras Limestone of the Middle Old Red Sandstone, Caithness, Scotland. Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc., 34, 117–138.Google Scholar
Romer, A. S., 1924. Pectoral Limb Musculature and Shoulder-Girdle Structure in Fish and Tetrapods. Anat. Rec, 27, 119–143.Google Scholar
Romer, A. S., 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd edn, vii + 468 pp., figs 443, Tab. 4. Chicago: Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, B. and Rosen, D. E., 1961. Major adaptive levels in the evolution of the actinopterygian feeding mechanism. Am. Zoologist, 1, 187–204.Google Scholar
Schultze, H.-P., 1968. Palaeoniscoidea-Schuppen aus dem Unterdevon Australiens und Kanadas und aus dem Mittel-devon Spitzbergens. Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. (Geol.), 16, 343–368.Google Scholar
Simons, J. R., 1970. The Direction of the Thrust produced by the heterocercal Tails of two Dissimilar Elasmobranchs, the Port Jackson Shark, Heterodontus portusjacksoni (Meyer), and the Piked Dogfish, Squalus megalops (Macleay). J. Exp. Biol., 52, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stensiö, E. A., 1963. Anatomical Studies on the Arthrodire Head. I. Preface, Geological and Geographical Distribution, the Organisation of the Arthrodires, the Anatomy of the Head in Dolichothoraci, Coccosteomorphi and Pachyosteomorphi. Taxonomic Appendix. K. Svenska Vetensk Akad. Handl., 9, 1–419.Google Scholar
Tarlo, L. B. H., 1965. Psammosteiformes (Agnatha)—A Review with Descriptions of New Material from the Lower Devonian of Poland. II. Systematic Part. Palaeont. Pol., 15, 1–168.Google Scholar
Thomson, K. S., 1976. On the heterocercal tail in sharks. Palaeobiology, 2, 19–38.Google Scholar
Traquair, R. H., 1875. On the structure and systematic position of the genus Cheirolepis. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 15, 237–249.Google Scholar
Traquair, R. H., 1888. Notes on the nomenclature of the fishes of the Old Red Sandstone of Great Britain. Geol. Mag., 5, 507–517.Google Scholar
Traquair, R. H., 1895. The extinct vertebrate animals of the Moray Firth Area. In Harvie-Brown, J. A. and Buckley, T. E., A Vertebrate Fauna of the Moray Basin, Vol. II, pp. 1–309, Pls 17, 1 map. Edinburgh: David Douglas.Google Scholar
Watson, D. M. S., 1925. The Structure of Certain Palaeoniscoids and the Relationships of that Group with other Bony Fish. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1925, 815–970.Google Scholar
Watson, D. M. S., 1935. Fossil fishes of the Orcadian Old Red Sandstone. In Wilson, G. V., Edwards, W., Jones, R. C. B., Knox, J. and Stevens, J. V., The Geology of the Orkneys, pp. 157–169, figs 22–36. Edinburgh, H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Watson, D. M. S., 1937. The Acanthodian Fishes. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 228B, 49–146.Google Scholar
Westoll, T. S., 1934. The Permian Palaeoniscid Fauna of Northumberland and Durham. Univ. Durham dissertation, typescript.Google Scholar
Westoll, T. S., 1936. On the structure of the dermal ethmoid shield of Osteolepis. Geol. Mag., 73, 157–171.Google Scholar
Westoll, T. S., 1937 a. On a specimen of Eusthenopteron from the Old Red Sandstone of Scotland. Geol. Mag., 74, 507–524.Google Scholar
Westoll, T. S., 1937 b. The Old Red Sandstone fishes of the north of Scotland, particularly of Orkney and Shetland. Proc. Geol. Ass., 48, 13–45.Google Scholar
Westoll, T. S., 1937 c. On the Cheek Bones in Teleostome Fishes. J. Anat., 71, 362–382.Google Scholar
Westoll, T. S., 1938. The Ancestry of the Tetrapods. Nature, Lond., 141, 127.Google Scholar
Westoll, T. S., 1943. The origin of the tetrapods. Biol. Rev., 18, 78–98.Google Scholar
Westoll, T. S., 1944. The Haplolepidae, a new Family of Late Carboniferous Bony Fishes. A Study in Taxonomy and Evolution. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 83, 1–122.Google Scholar
Westoll, T. S., 1951. The Vertebrate-bearing strata of Scotland. Int. Geol. Congr., 18, Pt XI, 1–21, London.Google Scholar
White, E. I., 1939, A New Type of Palaeoniscoid Fish, with remarks on the Actinopterygian Pectoral Fins. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 109B, 41–61.Google Scholar
Whiteaves, J. F., 1881. On some remarkable fossil fishes from the Devonian Rocks of Scaumenac Bay, P.Q., with descriptions of a new genus and three new species. Can. Nat., Montreal, 10, 27–35.Google Scholar
Whiteaves, J. F., 1888. Illustrations of Fossil Fishes of the Devonian Rocks of Canada, Pt. II. Trans. Roy. Soc. Can., 6, 77–96.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. S., 1891. Catalogue of Fossil Fishes in the British Museum (Natural History) London, Vol. 2. xliv + 567 pp., Pls 6.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. S., 1906. The Study of Fossil Fishes. Proc. Geol. Ass., 19, 266–282.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. S. and Sherborn, C. D., 1890. A Catalogue of the British Fossil Vertebrata, xxxv + 396 pp. London: Dulau.Google Scholar