Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:51:15.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The complete dentition of Edaphodon mirificus (Chondrichthyes: Holocephali) from a single individual

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Barbara J. Stahl  and
David C. Parris
Barbara J. Stahl
Affiliation:
Saint Anselm College, Manchester, New Hampshire 03102-1310 and New Jersey State Museum, P.O. Box 530, Trenton 08625-0530,
David C. Parris
Affiliation:
Saint Anselm College, Manchester, New Hampshire 03102-1310 and New Jersey State Museum, P.O. Box 530, Trenton 08625-0530,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The chimaeroid fishes enter the fossil record in the Triassic, multiply and diversify to at least 16 genera in the later Mesozoic (Stahl, 1999), and then dwindle during the Cenozoic to only six extant genera (Didier, 1995). Their origin and subsequent evolution have been difficult to trace because, like many other chondrichthyans, their remains consist most often of isolated teeth and fin spines freed and scattered after the cartilaginous skeleton disintegrated. Fossil species are commonly based on dental elements—tooth plates that were not shed like shark teeth but worn at the occlusal surface as they grew slowly from the base throughout life. The entire dentition is known from the extant taxa and from the few fossil specimens preserved with the head intact. It consists of a pair of mandibular tooth plates that occludes with two pairs of plates above, a large posterior palatine pair, and a smaller anterior vomerine pair (for dental terminology, see Stahl, 1999).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , March 2004 , pp. 388 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

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

Bonaparte, C. 1832. Selachorum tabula analytica. Nuovi Annali della Scienza Naturali (Bologna), 1(2):195–214.Google Scholar
Buckland, W. 1838. On the discovery of fossil fishes in the Bagshot Sands at Goldworth Hill, 4 miles north of Guilford. Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 2:687–688.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1869a. Second addition to the history of the fishes of the Cretaceous of the United States. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 11:240–244.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1869b. Descriptions of some extinct fishes previously unknown. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, 12:310–317.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1870. Supplementary notice of a new chimaeroid from New Jersey, Leptomylus cookii Cope. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 11:384.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1875. The vertebrata of the Cretaceous formations of the West. Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories 2, Holocephali, p. 281–293. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Dean, B. 1906. Chimaeroid fishes and their development. Publications of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, 32:1–194.Google Scholar
Didier, D. A. 1995. The phylogenetic systematics of extant chimaeroid fishes (Holocephali, Chimaeroidei). American Museum Novitates, 3119:1–86.Google Scholar
Didier, D. A., Stahl, B. J., and Zangerl, R. 1994. Development and growth of compound tooth plates in Callorhincus milii (Chondrichthyes, Holocephali). Journal of Morphology, 222:73–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duffin, C. J., and Reynders, J. P. H. 1995. A fossil chimaeroid from the Gronsveld Member (late Maastrichtian, late Cretaceous) of northeastern Belgium. Belgium Geological Survey Professional Paper, 278:Elasmobranches et Stratigraphie, (1994):111–156.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W. 1911. A description of the fossil fish remains of the Cretaceous, Eocene, and Miocene formations of New Jersey. Geological Survey of New Jersey Bulletin, 4, 192 p.Google Scholar
Gallagher, W. B. 2002. Faunal changes across the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary in the Atlantic coastal plain of New Jersey: restructuring the marine community after the K-T mass-extinction event. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 356:291–301.Google Scholar
Gallagher, W. B., Parris, D. C., and Spamer, E. E. 1986. Paleontology, biostratigraphy, and depositional environments of the Cretaceous-Tertiary transition in the New Jersey coastal plain. The Mosasaur, 3:1–35.Google Scholar
Garman, S. 1901. Genera and families of the chimaeroids. Proceedings of the New England Zoological Club, 2:75–77.Google Scholar
Garman, S. 1904. The chimaeroids (Chismopnea Raf., 1815; Holocephala Mull., 1834), especially Rhinochimaera and its allies. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 40:243–272.Google Scholar
Hussakof, L. 1912. The Cretaceous chimaeroids of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 31:195–228.Google Scholar
Huxley, T. 1880. A manual of the anatomy of vertebrated animals. D. Appleton, New York, 431 p.Google Scholar
Leidy, J. 1856. Notice of the remains of extinct vertebrated animals of New Jersey, collected by Prof. Cook of the State Geological Survey under the direction of Dr. W. Kitchell. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 8:220–221.Google Scholar
Leriche, M. 1902. Les poissons palèocène de la Belgique. Mémoires du Musée royal d'Histoire naturelle de Belgique, 2:1–48.Google Scholar
Newton, E. T. 1878. Chimaeroid fishes of the British Cretaceous rocks. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of the United Kingdom Monograph, 4, viii, 62 p.Google Scholar
Obruchev, D. V. 1953. Studies on edestids and the works of A. P. Karpinski. U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences. Works of the Palaeontological Institute Publication, 45:1–86.Google Scholar
Olson, S. L., and Parris, D. C. 1987. The Cretaceous Birds of New Jersey. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleontology, 63, 22 p.Google Scholar
Olsson, R. K. 1987. Cretaceous stratigraphy of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, Atlantic Highlands of New Jersey, p. 87–90. In Roy, D. C. (ed.), Geological Society of America Centennial Field Guide—Northeastern Section. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, R. K., Gibson, T. G., Hansen, H. J., and Owens, J. P. 1988. Geology of the northern Atlantic coastal plain: Long Island to Virginia, p. 87–105. In Sheridan, R. E. and Grow, J. A. (eds.), The Geology of North America, Volumes 1–2, The Atlantic Continental Margin: U.S., chapter 6. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
Parris, D. C. 1987. Biostratigraphy of the Fossil Crocodile Hyposaurus Owen from New Jersey. New Jersey State Museum Investigations, 4, 16 p.Google Scholar
Parris, D. C., and Hope, S. 2002. New interpretations of the birds from the Navesink and Hornerstown Formations, New Jersey, U.S.A. (Aves: Neornithes), p. 113–124. In Zhou, Z. and Zhang, F. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Symposium of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution. Science Press, Beijing.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1965. The phylogeny of the chimaeroids. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (B), 249:101–219.Google Scholar
Stahl, B. J. 1999. Chondrichthyes III. Holocephali. Handbook of Paleoichthyology 4. Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich, 164 p.Google Scholar
Staron, R. M., Grandstaff, D. E., and Grandstaff, B. S. 1999. Mosasaur taphonomy and geochemistry implications for a K-T bone bed in the New Jersey coastal plain. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 19:78A.Google Scholar
Ward, D. J., and Grande, L. 1991. Chimaeroid fish remains from Seymour Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Antarctic Science, 3(3):323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zangerl, R. 1979. New chondrichthyans from the Mazon Creek fauna (Pennsylvanian) of Illinois, p. 449–500. In Nitecki, M. H. (ed.), Mazon Creek Fossils. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zangerl, R. 1981. Chondrichthyes I. Paleozoic Elasmobranchii. Handbook of Paleoichthyology 3A. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, vi, 115 p.Google Scholar