|
|
Papers of note
Luk_evi_s E. 1999. Stratigraphic occurrence
of vertebrate remains in the Upper Devonian
of Severnaya Zemlya (Russia). Acta
Geologica Polonica49(2):125-131.
Paper in press
Esin D., Ginter M., Ivanov A., Lebedev O.,
Luk_evi_s E., Avkhimovich V., Golubtsov V.
& Petukhova L. Vertebrate correlation of
the Upper Devonian and Lower
Carboniferous on the East European
Platform. Courier Forschungs-Institut
Senckenberg
Kurshs V., Luk_evi_s E., Upeniece I., &
Zupins I. (In press). Late Devonian marine
deltaic clastics and associated fish remains
in Lode quarry (Latvia). Latvijas Geologijas
Vestis.
Luk_evi_s E., & Sorokin V. (In press). New
species of placoderm fish Bothriolepis
(Placodermi, Antiarcha) from the Upper
Devonian of North Timan.
Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal. [In Russian]
|
|
|
|
|
stethacanthids Damoclesand Falcatus, and
thus that the holocephalans are sister taxa of
those two but not the other stethacanthid
cladodonts. This result is singularly difficult to
accept.
Hans-Peter Schultze presented a
paper on Dialipina, which has rhombic ganoid
peg-and socket scales, submandibulars, the
skull arrangement of something non-
actinopterygian, the body of an onychodontid,
the fins of an onychodontid, the tail of an
onychodontid, and claimed that it was a stem
group actinopterygian. C'est possible.
Mark Wilson did his usual brilliant,
understated, and simple, thing, presenting
startling new animals with startling new
information, that unsettled me and gave me
lots to think about. BUT, and this is directed
at all of us, he took two essentially identical
species of fish and claimed that one is a
chondrichthyan and one an acanthodian, on
the basis of the scales. Sorry, there is
something fundamentally missing from our
information about the development and
distribution of scales if this result could have
emerged. It is material such as Mark's, plus
modern developmental studies, that will
unlock the secret of stem-group
gnathostomes.
Psarolepisis an interesting fish, like
the proverbial camel (built by a committee).
Much was presented to think about here. The
authors are confident that the bits and pieces
all belong to the same animal, and so I have
to tentatively accept this. But I believe the
cladistics every bit as much as Xiaobo does.
That, incidentally, may not be saying an awful
lot, as he demonstrated in his talk on playing
strategies for the cladistics computer game.
Meanwhile, having reexamined the
Helodusspecimens that Moy-Thomas used,
Dr. E.D. Grogan and I presented two poster
sessions, one on the already published
embryological analysis of Callorhinchusjaws
and skull, the other on Helodusand a raft of
new paraselachians that conform, in
fundamental ways, with the skull plan of
Helodus. Moy-Thomas' original study did not
fare too badly here. However, the ethmoid of
Helodusis completely roofed over, with
excellent ethmoid canals, and there are very
large and long tooth-bearing adsymphysials,
upon which the 'Diclitodus'teeth are borne.
And no, there are no tooth plates in those
specimens; none at all, just families of
Helodusteeth. And, as Moy-Thomas noted
(and Barbara Stahl), there is no synarcuum.
So here Eileen Grogan and I are with the
Paraselachii, a group name I coined long ago
in an ill-advised moment of desperation and
have tried to ignore ever since, but it is now
filling up with fascinating fish, with fascinating
arrangements of heterodont teeth. Watch the
Journal of Morphology in the new year for the
first of these fish.
The Barbara Stahl Holocephalan
volume (Handbook Vol. 4, F. Pfeil, Munich) is
now out, and she has done a masterful job on
all those isolated teeth and tooth plates. I do
|
|
|
|
London, shark teeth and stuff
I managed to get to the latest London
conference (NHM, April 1999). What I have to
say is not necessarily a proper report in the
strict sense of the word, but my impressions
of the highlights of the meetings, which were
extremely stimulating and very successful. I
do urge the conveners to assemble more
meetings of the disciplines of molecular,
developmental, and paleontological folks.
The molecular geneticists run into
severe and understandable problems when
they try to deal with 3-4 extant species and a
large number of extinct taxa. They might as
well use an ouija board; there are far too
many pieces of the puzzle missing. Oh yes,
and many have this wonderful habit of using
one, just one, teleost, amphibian, reptile, bird,
and mammal. The topology of the branches of
a tree provides vital information; without this
information one just gets a Hennig's Ladder,
which is not at all informative. It certainly
does not work well with a problem like the
agnathan-gnathostome transition. By
contrast, the lamprey head is yielding
marvellous and useful information to the
developmental people. It is turning out to be
just about exactly like a gnathostome in all
the early stages that matter. This definitely
puts lampreys very close to the
gnathostomes. There was some elegant
developmental work presented by several
Japanese colleagues and some of Andrew
Lumsden's students as well.
Michael Coates presented a paper
claiming that the holocephalans originated
from between the sister species of the
|
|
|
|
|