Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T22:18:43.466Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bony Fishes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

Colin Patterson
Colin Patterson*
Affiliation:
Department of Palaeontology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Bony fishes or osteichthyans comprise two main monophyletic groups: the actinopterygians (rayfins, including the staples of the fish market and aquarium) and sarcopterygians (lobefins, fringefins or tasselfins, including lungfishes, coelacanths, and, perhaps unexpectedly or inconveniently, all land vertebrates or tetrapods). In the broadest terms, the two groups have similar histories, each with beginnings in the late Silurian or earliest Devonian, each with a primary radiation in the late Devonian and Mississippian, a secondary radiation in the Mesozoic, and a major Tertiary radiation, and each with an extant diversity of roughly 25,000 species (Nelson, 1994, p. 2). The remainder of this course (eight topics) is devoted to sarcopterygians, so I shall give almost all my space to the other half of bony fish diversity, the actinopterygians.

Type
Research Article
Information
Short Courses in Paleontology , Volume 7: Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution , 1994 , pp. 57 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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

Agassiz, J.L.R. 1844. Recherches sur les Poissons Fossiles, Vol. 1. Petitpierre, Neuchatel, 188 p.Google Scholar
Ahlberg, P.E., Luksevics, E., and Lebedev, O. 1994. The first tetrapod finds from the Devonian (Upper Famennian) of Latvia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, (B) 343: 303–328.Google Scholar
Ahlberg, P.E., and Milner, A.R. 1994. The origin and early diversification of tetrapods. Nature, 368: 507–514.Google Scholar
Allis, E.P. 1897. The cranial muscles and cranial and first spinal nerves in Amia calva . Journal of Morphology, 12: 487–808.Google Scholar
Bartram, A.W.H. 1977. The Macrosemiidae, a Mesozoic family of holostean fishes. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology, 29: 137–234.Google Scholar
De Beer, G.R. 1937. The Development of the Vertebrate Skull. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 552 p.Google Scholar
Benton, M.J. (ed.) 1993. The Fossil Record 2. Chapman and Hall, London, 845 p.Google Scholar
Berg, L.S. 1940. Classification of fishes, both Recent and fossil. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta, Akademiya Nauk SSSR, 5: 87–517.Google Scholar
Bernardi, G., D'Onofrio, G., Caccio, S., and Bernardi, G. 1993. Molecular phylogeny of bony fishes, based on the amino acid sequence of the growth hormone. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 37: 644–649.Google Scholar
Bertin, L., and Arambourg, C. 1958. Super-ordre des Téléostéens, p. 2204–2500. In Grassé, P.P. (ed.), Traité de Zoologie, Vol. 13, pt. 3. Masson, Paris.Google Scholar
Bjerring, H.C. 1985. Facts and thoughts on piscine phylogeny, p. 31–57. In Foreman, R.E., Gorbman, A., Dodd, J.M. and Olsson, R. (eds.), Evolutionary Biology of Primitive Fishes. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bonde, N. In press. Osteoglossids (Teleostei: Osteoglossomorpha) of the Mesozoic. Comments on their interrelationships. In Arratia, G. and Viohl, G. (eds.), Mesozoic Fishes—Systematics and Ecology. Pfeil, Munich.Google Scholar
Broman, I. 1899. Die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Gehörknöchelchen beim Menschen. Anatomische Hefte, 11: 509–661.Google Scholar
Broom, R. 1904. On the structure of the theriodont mandible, and on its mode of articulation with the skull. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1904 (1):490–498.Google Scholar
Brough, J. 1936. On the evolution of bony fishes during the Triassic period. Biological Reviews, 11:385–405.Google Scholar
Brough, J. 1939. The Triassic Fishes of Besano, Italy. British Museum (Natural History), London, 117 p.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N.J. 1990. A reassessment of the enigmatic Burgess Shale fossil Wiwaxia corrugata (Matthew) and its relationship to the polychaete Canadia spinosa Walcott. Paleobiology, 16: 287–303.Google Scholar
Chapleau, F. 1993. Pleuronectiform relationships: a cladistic reassessment. Bulletin of Marine Science, 52: 516–540.Google Scholar
Colbert, E.H., and Morales, M. 1991. Evolution of the Vertebrates (4th ed.). Wiley-Liss, New York, 470 p.Google Scholar
De Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Systematic Zoology, 39: 307–322.Google Scholar
De Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23: 449–480.Google Scholar
Donoghue, M.J., Doyle, J.A., Gauthier, J., Kluge, A.G., and Rowe, T. 1989. The importance of fossils in phylogeny reconstruction. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 20: 431–460.Google Scholar
Doyle, J.A., and Donoghue, M.J. 1987. The importance of fossils in elucidating seed plant phylogeny and evolution. Review of Paleobotany and Palynology, 50: 63–95.Google Scholar
Farris, J.S. 1988. Hennig86, version 1.5. Published by the author, Port Jefferson, NY.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1990. PHYLIP Version 3.3. University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Fink, S.V., Greenwood, P.H., and Fink, W.L. 1984. A critique of recent work on fossil ostariophysan fishes. Copeia, 1984: 1033–1041.Google Scholar
Gadow, H. 1901. The evolution of the auditory ossicles. Anatomische Anzeiger, 19: 396–491.Google Scholar
Gardiner, B.G. 1993. Osteichthyes: basal actinopterygians, p. 611–619. In Benton, M.J. (ed.), 1993. The Fossil Record 2. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Gardiner, B.G., and Schaeffer, B. 1989. Interrelationships of lower actinopterygian fishes. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 97: 135–187.Google Scholar
Gaupp, E. 1895. Zur vergleichenden Anatomie der Schläfengegend am knochernen Wirbelthier-Schädel. Morphologische Arbeiten, 4: 77–128.Google Scholar
Gaupp, E. 1906. Die Entwickelung des Kopfskelettes, p. 573–874. In Hertwig, O. (ed.), Handbuch der Entwickelungslehre der Wirbeltiere, Vol. 3, pt. 2. G. Fischer, Jena.Google Scholar
Gauthier, J., Cannatella, D., De Queiroz, K., Kluge, A.G., and Rowe, T. 1989. Tetrapod phylogeny, p. 337–353. In Fernholm, B., Bremer, K. and Jörnvall, H. (eds.), The Hierarchy of Life. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Gauthier, J., Kluge, A.G., and Rowe, T. 1988. Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics, 4: 105–209.Google Scholar
Gayet, M., and Meunier, F.J. 1992. Polyptériformes (Pisces, Cladistia) du Maastrichtien et du Paléocène de Bolivie. Geobios, Mémoire Spéciale, 14: 159–168.Google Scholar
Gayet, M., Meunier., F.J., and Levrat-Calviac, V. 1988. Mise en évidence des plus anciens Polypteridae dans le gisement sénonien, d'In Becetem (Niger). Compte Rendu Hebdomadaire des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris, (II) 397: 205–210.Google Scholar
Gegenbaur, C. 1898. Vergleichende Anatomie der Wirbelthiere, vol 1. W. Engelmann, Leipzig, 978 p.Google Scholar
Goodrich, E.S. 1928. Polypterus a palaeoniscid? Palaeobiologica, 1:87–92.Google Scholar
Goodrich, E.S. 1930. Studies on the Structure and Development of Vertebrates. Macmillan, London, 837 p.Google Scholar
Goody, P.C. 1969. The relationships of certain Upper Cretaceous teleosts with special reference to the myctophoids. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology, Supplement 7: 1–255.Google Scholar
Gould, S.J. 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. W.W. Norton, New York, 347 p.Google Scholar
Grande, L. 1985. Recent and fossil clupeomorph fishes with materials for revision of the subgroups of clupeoids. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 181: 231–372.Google Scholar
Grande, L., and Bemis, W.E. 1991. Osteology and relationships of fossil and Recent paddlefishes (Polyodontidae) with comments on the interrelationships of Acipenseriformes. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 11, Supplement to no. 1 (SVP Memoir 1): 1–121.Google Scholar
Greenwood, P.H., Rosen, D.E., Weitzman, S.H., and Myers, G.S. 1966. Phyletic studies of teleostean fishes, with a provisional classification of living forms. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 131: 339–456.Google Scholar
Greenwood, P.H., Myers, G.S., Rosen, D.E., and Weitzman, S.H. 1967. Named main divisions of teleostean fishes. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 80: 227–228.Google Scholar
Hedges, S.B. 1994. Molecular evidence for the origin of birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 91: 2621–2624.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1969. Die Stammesgeschichte der Insekten. Kramer, Frankfurt, 436 p.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1981. Insect Phylogeny [Translation of Hennig, 1969]. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 514 p.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J.P. 1992. When are fossils better than extant taxa in phylogenetic analysis? Systematic Zoology, 40: 458–469.Google Scholar
Johnson, G.D. 1986. Scombroid phylogeny: an alternative hypothesis. Bulletin of Marine Science, 39: 1–41.Google Scholar
Johnson, G.D. 1992. Monophyly of the euteleostean clades—Neoteleostei, Eurypterygii, and Ctenosquamata. Copeia, 1992: 8–25.Google Scholar
Johnson, G.D., and Patterson, C. 1993. Percomorph phylogeny: a survey of acanthomorphs and a new proposal. Bulletin of Marine Science, 52: 554–626.Google Scholar
Jollie, M. 1962. Chordate Morphology. Reinhold, New York, 478 p.Google Scholar
Jollie, M. 1984. Development of cranial and pectoral girdle bones of Lepisosteus with a note on scales. Copeia, 1984: 476–502.Google Scholar
Kampen, P.N. Van. 1905. Die Tympanalgegend des Säugetierschädels. Morphologisches Jahrbucher, 34: 321–722.Google Scholar
Lauder, G.V. 1980. Evolution of the feeding mechanism in primitive actinopterygian fishes: a functional anatomical analysis of Polypterus, Lepisosteus, and Amia . Journal of Morphology, 163: 283–317.Google Scholar
Jollie, M. 1989. Caudal fin locomotion in ray-finned fishes: historical and functional analyses. American Zoologist, 29: 85–102.Google Scholar
Jollie, M., and Liem, K.F. 1983. The evolution and interrelationships of the actinopterygian fishes. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 150: 95–157.Google Scholar
Lec, H.L.V., Lecointre, G., and Perasso, R. 1993. A 28S rRNA-based phylogeny of the gnathostomes: first steps in the analysis of conflict and congruence with morphologically based cladograms. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2: 31–51.Google Scholar
Lecointre, G. 1993. Etude de l'impact de l'échantillonage des espèces et de la longueur des séquences sur la robustesse des phylogénies moléculaires. Implications sur la phylogénie des téléostéens. , Université Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Lecointre, G., Philippe, H., Lec, H.L.V., and Le Guyader, H. 1993. Species sampling has a major impact on phylogenetic inference. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2: 205–224.Google Scholar
Maisey, J.G. 1986. Heads and tails: a chordate phylogeny. Cladistics, 2: 201–256.Google Scholar
Maisey, J.G. 1991. Santana Fossils: An Illustrated Atlas. TFH Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey, 459 p.Google Scholar
Maxwell, W.D., and Benton, M.J. 1990. Historical tests of the absolute completeness of the fossil record of tetrapods. Paleobiology, 16: 322–335.Google Scholar
Müller-Schmid, , Ganss, B., Gorr, T., and Hoffmann, W. 1993. Molecular analysis of ependymins from the cerebrospinal fluid of the orders Clupeiformes and Salmoniformes: no indication for the existence of an euteleost infradivision. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 36: 578–595.Google Scholar
Nelson, J.S. 1984. Fishes of the World (2nd ed.). John Wiley, New York, 523 p.Google Scholar
Nelson, J.S. 1994. Fishes of the World (3rd ed.). John Wiley, New York, 600 p.Google Scholar
Norell, M., Clark, J., and Chiappe, L. 1993. Naming names. Nature, 366: 518.Google Scholar
Normark, B.B., McCune, A.R., and Harrison, R.G. 1991. Phylogenetic relationships of neopterygian fishes, inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 8: 819–834.Google Scholar
Novacek, M.J. 1992a. Fossils, topologies, missing data, and the higher level phylogeny of eutherian mammals. Systematic Biology, 41: 58–73.Google Scholar
Novacek, M.J. 1992b. Fossils as critical data for phylogeny, p. 46–88. In Novacek, M.J. and Wheeler, Q.D. (eds.), Extinction and Phylogeny. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Nursall, J.R. In press. The phylogeny of the pycnodont fishes. In Arratia, G. and Viohl, G. (eds.), Mesozoic Fishes—Systematics and Ecology. Pfeil, Munich.Google Scholar
Olsen, P.E. 1984. The skull and pectoral girdle of the parasemionotid fish Watsonulus eugnathoides from the early Triassic Sakamena Group of Madagascar with comments on the relationships of the holostean fishes. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 4: 481–499.Google Scholar
Olsen, P.E., and McCune, A.R. 1991. Morphology of the Semionotus elegans species group from the early Jurassic part of the Newark Supergroup of eastern North America with comments on the family Semionotidae (Neopterygii). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 11: 269–292.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1973. Interrelationships of holosteans, p. 233–305. In Greenwood, P.H., Miles, R.S. and Patterson, C. (eds.), Interrelationships of Fishes. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1975. The braincase of pholidophorid and leptolepid fishes, with a review of the actinopterygian braincase. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, (B) 269: 275–579.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1977. The contribution of paleontology to teleostean phylogeny, p. 579–643. In Hecht, M.K., Goody, P.C., and Hecht, B.M. (eds.), Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1981. Significance of fossils in determining evolutionary relationships. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 12: 195–223.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1982. Morphology and interrelationships of primitive actinopterygian fishes. American Zoologist, 22: 241–259.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1993a. An overview of the early fossil record of acanthomorphs. Bulletin of Marine Science, 52: 29–59.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1993b. Bird or dinosaur? Nature, 365: 21–22.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1993c. Naming names. Nature, 366: 518.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. and Johnson, G.D., in press. The intermuscular bones and ligaments of teleostean fishes. Smithsonian Contributions in Zoology, 559, in press.Google Scholar
Patterson, C., and Rosen, D.E. 1977. Review of ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 158: 81–172.Google Scholar
Patterson, C., and Smith, A.B. 1987. Is periodicity of mass extinctions a taxonomic artefact? Nature, 330: 248–251.Google Scholar
Patterson, C., and Smith, A.B. 1989. Periodicity in extinction: the role of systematics. Ecology, 70: 802–811.Google Scholar
Patterson, C., Williams, D.M., and Humphries, C.J. 1993. Congruence between molecular and morphological phylogenies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 24: 153–188.Google Scholar
Philippe, H., Lecointre, G., Lec, H.L.V., and Le Guyader, H. In press. A critical study of homoplasy in molecular data in the light of morphologically based cladograms, and the consequences for character weighting. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, submitted.Google Scholar
Presley, R. 1993. Preconception of adult structural pattern in the analysis of the developing skull, p. 347–377. In Hanken, J. and Hall, B.K. (eds.), The Skull, Vol. 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Ramsköld, L. and Hou, X. 1991. New early Cambrian animal and onychophoran affinities of enigmatic metazoans. Nature, 351: 225–228.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1994. The role of paleontological data in testing homology by congruence. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 38: 295–302.Google Scholar
Romer, A.S. 1933. Vertebrate Paleontology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 491 p.Google Scholar
Romer, A.S. 1945. Vertebrate Paleontology (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 687 p.Google Scholar
Romer, A.S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 468 p.Google Scholar
Rosen, D.E. 1973. Interrelationships of higher euteleostean fishes, p. 397–513. In Greenwood, P.H., Miles, R.S. and Patterson, C. (eds.), Interrelationships of Fishes. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Rosen, D.E., Forey, P.L., Gardiner, B.G., and Patterson, C. 1981. Lungfishes, tetrapods, paleontology, and plesiomorphy. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 167: 159–276.Google Scholar
Rowe, T., and Gauthier, J. 1992. Ancestry, paleontology, and definition of the name Mammalia. Systematic Biology, 41: 372–378.Google Scholar
Schultze, H.-P. 1992. Early Devonian actinopterygians (Osteichthyes, Pisces) from Siberia, p. 233–242. In Mark-Kurik, E. (ed.), Fossil Fishes as Living Animals. Academy of Sciences of Estonia, Tallinn.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J.J. 1982. A compendium of fossil marine families. Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions in Biology and Geology, 51:1–125.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J.J. 1992. A compendium of fossil marine families, second edition. Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions in Biology and Geology, 83: 1–156.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J.J. 1993. Ten years in the library: new data confirm paleontological patterns. Paleobiology, 19: 43–51.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B. 1994. Systematics and the Fossil Record. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 223 p.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B., and Patterson, C. 1988. The influence of taxonomic method on the perception of patterns of evolution. Evolutionary Biology, 23: 127–216.Google Scholar
Springer, V.G. 1993. Definition of the suborder Blennioidei and its included families (Pisces: Perciformes). Bulletin of Marine Science, 52: 472–495.Google Scholar
Stensiö, E.A. 1921. Triassic Fishes from Spitzbergen. Part I. A. Holzhausen, Vienna, 307 p.Google Scholar
Stensiö, E.A. 1925. Triassic fishes from Spitzbergen. Part II. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, (3) 2 (1): 1–261.Google Scholar
Stock, D.W., Gibbons, J.W., and Whitt, G.S. 1991. Strengths and limitations of molecular sequence comparisons for inferring the phylogeny of the major groups of fishes. Journal of Fish Biology, 39 (Supplement A): 225–236.Google Scholar
Swofford, D.L. 1985. PAUP: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, Version 2.4.1. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign.Google Scholar
Taverne, L. 1991. Révision du genre Protostomias, téléostéen stomiiforme crétacique de la Mésogée Eurafricaine. Biologisch Jaarboek Dodonaea, 59: 57–76.Google Scholar
Thies, D. 1988. Dapedium pholidotum (Agassiz, 1832)? (Pisces, Actinopterygii) aus dem Unter-Toarcium NW-Deutschlands. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 22: 89–121.Google Scholar
Thies, D. 1991. The osteology of the bony fish Tetragonolepis semicincta Bronn 1830 (Actinopterygii, Semionotiformes) from the Early Jurassic (Lower Toarcian) of Germany. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 25:251–297.Google Scholar
Tyler, J.C. 1980. Osteology, phylogeny, and higher classification of the fishes of the order Plectognathi. NOAA Technical Report, National Marine Fisheries Service Circular, 434:1–422.Google Scholar
Véran, M. 1988. Les éléments accessoires de l'arc hyoidien des poissons téléostomes (Acanthodiens et Osteichthyens) fossiles et actuels. Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, (C) 54: 1–98.Google Scholar
Wenz, S., and Brito, P.M. 1992. Premiére découverte de Lepisosteidae (Pisces, Actinopterygii) dans le Crétacé inférieur de la Chapada do Araripe (N-E du Brésil). Conséquences sur la phylogénie des Ginglymodi. Compte Rendu Hebdomadaire des Séances de l'Academie des Sciences, Paris, (II) 314: 1519–1525.Google Scholar
Wiley, E.O. 1976. The phylogeny and biogeography of fossil and Recent gars (Actinopterygii: Lepisosteidae). Miscellaneous Publications of the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, 64: 1–111.Google Scholar
Wiley, E.O., and Schultze, H.-P. 1984. Family Lepisosteidae as living fossils, p. 160–165. In Eldredge, N. and Stanley, S.M. (eds.), Living Fossils. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Wilson, M.V.H. 1993. Importance for phylogeny of single and multiple stem-group fossil species with examples from freshwater fishes. Systematic Biology, 41: 462–470.Google Scholar
Wilson, M.V.H., and Williams, R.R.G. 1992. Phylogenetic, biogeographic, and ecological significance of early fossil records of North American freshwater teleostean fishes, p. 224–244. In Mayden, R.L. (ed.), Systematics, Historical Ecology, and North American Freshwater Fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
Winterbottom, R. 1993. Search for the gobioid sister group (Actinopterygii: Percomorpha). Bulletin of Marine Science, 52: 395–414.Google Scholar
Zhou, Z. 1992. Review on Peipiaosteus based on new materials of P. pani . Vertebrata Palasiatica, 30: 85–101. [In Chinese with English summary].Google Scholar