Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T03:25:15.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The anatomy of Turinia pagei (Powrie), and the phylogenetic status of the Thelodonti

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2007

Philip C. J. Donoghue
Affiliation:
[[email protected]] School of Earth Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K.
M. Paul Smith
Affiliation:
[[email protected]] School of Earth Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K.

Abstract

Little is known regarding the internal anatomy of thelodonts, with most of the available information coming from a single specimen, the holotype of Turinia pagei (Powrie). Previous descriptions have led to many partial, or conflicting interpretations. Herein, we describe fully the anatomy of T. pagei based on the holotype and additional material. T. pagei possessed a branchial system composed of eight pairs of gills, a buccal/nasohypophyseal region lined with minute denticles, comparable to buccopharyngeal denticles of sharks, and possessed a stomach which is preserved by sediment infill in the holotype specimen. Contrast between the petrological character of the gut infill and the sediment in which the animal is preserved suggests that the gut was infilled in vivo and that T. pagei was probably a deposit feeder. Phylogenetic analysis resolves T. pagei and the Galeaspida as sister-taxa, comprising a sister-group to the Osteostraci plus jawed vertebrates. In contrast to the view that has prevailed hitherto, thelodonts with a dorsoventrally compressed cross-sectional profile comprise a monophyletic group, of which T. pagei is the least derived member. The furcacaudiforms are resolved as an unnatural group, one taxon being the sister taxon to the ‘conventional’ thelodont clade, and the other, the sister taxon to this clade plus galeaspids, osteostracans and jawed vertebrates. The analysis agrees with the earlier view that thelodonts lack distinct synapomorphies, but we argue that distinct synapomorphies are not a requisite of monophyly.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Royal Society of Edinburgh 2001

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.)