|
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||
| Geological Magazine |  |
| JOURNAL HOME | HELP | CONTACT PUBLISHER | SUBSCRIBE | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università di Pisa, via Santa Maria, 53, I-56126 Pisa, Italy, and Museo di Storia Naturale e del Territorio, Università di Pisa, via Roma, 79, I-56011 Calci, Italy
* E-mail: carnevale{at}dst.unipi.it
(Received 7 December 2006; accepted 19 April 2007)
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract 1. Introduction2. Locality and age3. Material and methods4. Systematic palaeontology5. Relationships and comparison6. Discussion7. ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
Key Words: Teleostei • Stomiiformes • Discosternon federicae • Miocene • Italy
|
1. Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstract1. Introduction2. Locality and age3. Material and methods4. Systematic palaeontology5. Relationships and comparison6. Discussion7. ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
The family Sternoptychidae includes some of the most bizarre stomiiforms, the deep-sea hatchetfishes. These fishes are characterized by a deep and strongly compressed body, with vertically flattened silvery sides that are used to reflect the incident light so that they appear invisible at all angles of view. The peculiar morphology of these fishes has stimulated intense debates about their origin, attracting the curiosity of many naturalists (e.g. see Thompson, 1917). The deep-sea hatchetfishes mostly feed on planktonic crustaceans (amphipods, copepods, euphasiids, ostracods) and are relatively common in the mesopelagic realm, usually below 200 m, exhibiting a slight diurnal vertical migration toward the surface (Hopkins & Baird, 1985; Kinzer & Schulz, 1988). Several studies of vertical distribution and trophic ecology have demonstrated that the different sympatric deep-sea hatchetfish species tend to minimize competitive interactions and are found at different depths during periods of foraging, showing a high level of time-space and food resource partitioning (see Hopkins & Baird, 1985; Howell & Krueger, 1987). As with other stomiiform groups, the deep-sea hatchetfish body plan was already in existence in the Eocene (see Prokofiev, 2005). In contrast to that of other stomiiform groups like gonostomatids and photichthyids, however, the fossil record of deep-sea hatchetfishes is relatively poor, and has been scarcely investigated (Baird & Eckardt, 1972; Prokovief, 2002; Carnevale, 2003). The purpose of this paper is to describe a new deep-sea fossil hatchetfish characterized by a unique morphology, and to discuss its affinities and evolutionary significance. The fossil was recently collected from a Miocene sedimentary series cropping out near the town of Gessopalena, in the Abruzzo Apennines, Italy.
|
2. Locality and age |
|---|
|
TopAbstract1. Introduction2. Locality and age3. Material and methods4. Systematic palaeontology5. Relationships and comparison6. Discussion7. ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
), the most external of the palaeogeographical domains recorded in the Molisan Units (Patacca et al. 1992). Lithologically, the Tufillo Unit mostly consists of varicoloured clays overlain by Orbulina calcarenites and calcilutites. The Orbulina calcarenitic–calcilutitic series has a variable thickness of 300 to 800 m (Selli, 1962; Di Nocera & Torre, 1987), representing a calciturbiditic system apparently belonging to a deep-sea conoid (Ciaranfi et al. 1980). A fossiliferous series cropping out near the town of Torricella Peligna, a few kilometres south of Gessopalena, has been recently described by Carnevale (2002, 2003, 2005). In this locality, the stratigraphic series consists of a rhythmic alternation of graded and laminated bioclastic marly calcarenites and massive calcilutites rich in planktonic foraminifera. The entire series has been interpreted as characterized by truncated Bouma sequences spaced out by calcilutitic episodes (Carnevale, 2005). Fossil fishes are invariably associated with the laminated calcarenites, and their accumulation and definitive burial was caused and favoured by the turbiditic events that episodically occurred in this basin (Carnevale, 2005). The stratigraphic series of Gessopalena is identical to that of Torricella Peligna, thereby suggesting that similar palaeoenvironmental and sedimentary conditions occurred in the two localities.
|
|
3. Material and methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstract1. Introduction2. Locality and age3. Material and methods4. Systematic palaeontology5. Relationships and comparison6. Discussion7. ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
). Thanks to the efforts of Mr Di Carlo, the fossil was made available for study in September of 2006. The specimen was prepared at the Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra of the Università di Pisa. The specimen required matrix removal before examination in order to allow investigation of its skeletal structure in as much detail as possible. This was achieved using entomological mounting needles. The fossil is deposited in the collections of the Museo Geopaleontologico dell’Alto Aventino (MGPA), Palena, central Italy. Observations were performed using a Leica MS5 stereomicroscope with an attached camera lucida drawing arm. Measurements were taken using a dial caliper, to the nearest 0.1 mm. Comparative information was derived mainly from the literature. Counts and measurements were made following Baird (1971).
|
|
4. Systematic palaeontology |
|---|
|
TopAbstract1. Introduction2. Locality and age3. Material and methods4. Systematic palaeontology5. Relationships and comparison6. Discussion7. ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
Order STOMIIFORMES sensu Harold & Weitzman, 1996
Infraorder GONOSTOMATA sensu Harold, 1998 Family STERNOPTYCHIDAE sensu Weitzman, 1974
Discosternon gen. nov.
Diagnosis.
A miniature deep-sea hatchetfish with strongly discoid body; body depth 96.6 % of standard length; abdominal keel-like structure absent; preabdominal and preanal spines present; caudal peduncle short and deep; frontal and parietal bones sculptured; parasphenoid strongly convex; basisphenoid present; premaxilla with a reduced ascending process; vertical preopercular limb much longer than the horizontal limb; 28 (15 + 13) vertebrae; neural and haemal spines slender; 11 pairs of pleural ribs; two anteriormost pairs of pleural ribs large and thick, apparently associated with the pelvic girdle; three supraneural bones; caudal fin slightly downturned; hypurals 1 + 2 and 3 + 4 + 5 fused; dorsal blade absent; dorsal fin contains at least 26 rays; anal-fin origin opposite to dorsal-fin origin; anal fin contains at least 24 rays; first anal-fin pterygiophore elongate and distally expanded; anal-fin hiatus absent; posttemporal and supracleithrum not fused; posttemporal spine present; external surface of cleithrum smooth; eight pectoral-fin rays; pelvic fin probably inserts just behind the pectoral-fin origin.
Derivation of name.
From discos (Greek) meaning disk and sternon (Greek) meaning chest.
Discosternon federicae sp. nov.
Diagnosis.
As for genus, only species.
Holotype.
MGPA GES001. Complete fish of 14.8 mm standard length.
Horizon and locality.
Middle Miocene (Serravallian) of Gessopalena, Abruzzo, central Italy.
Derivation of name.
In honour of Mrs Federica Giudice, my wife and my helpmate with this and others of my manuscripts.
4.a. Description (Figs 2
–6)
The holotype of Discosternon federicae consists of a well-preserved nearly complete articulated skeleton (Fig. 2). The specimen is small, its total length measuring 18 mm; standard length is 14.8 mm. Other measurements as percentage of standard length: body depth 96.6 %, head length 40.5 %, head depth 79 %, orbit diameter 25.6 %, caudal peduncle length 7.4 %, caudal peduncle depth 20.2 %, dorsal-fin length 45.9 %, anal-fin length 52.7 %, predorsal length 52.7 %, preanal length 52 %, prepectoral length 28.3 %.
|
|
|
|
, 6). The body trunk, which is the region posterior to the anal-fin origin (see Carnevale, 2003), is deep and extensively shortened. The head is strongly compressed antero-posteriorly (Fig. 3). The orbit is very large. The caudal peduncle is very short and deep. The caudal fin is forked, with slightly unequal lobes. The anterior rays of the dorsal fin are longer than the others. Despite its very reduced size, the specimen appears to be an adult, based on the heavy ossification of most of the skeletal elements.
The neurocranium is especially deep posteriorly and roughly triangular in shape (Fig. 3). The braincase is very small. The precise structure of the ethmoid region cannot be determined. This is probably due to the abundant cartilage that usually characterizes this portion of the neurocranium of the deep-sea hatchetfishes. The frontals are the largest bones of the skull roof. These bones are strongly ossified and heavily sculptured by irregular pits and low ridges. The ornamentation extends posteriorly onto the parietal region. Each parietal also bears a dorsolateral ridge. The structure and morphology of the supraoccipital and its relationships with the parietals are rather confused due to lateral compression. The bones of the otic and occipital regions are poorly preserved. The parasphenoid is robust and strongly arched; this is very similar to that of certain species of the genus Argyropelecus (e.g. A. aculeatus, A. hemigymnus, A. logearti). As suggested by Weitzman (1974), such a morphology could be related to several factors, including a very deep head, presence of large eyes, and lack of otic bullae. Therefore, it is possible to assume that the otic bullae were not present in the neurocranium of Discosternon. A tube-like basisphenoid is also preserved. Its ventral end is in firm contact with the parasphenoid, while its dorsal end contacts the (pro)otic region of the neurocranium.
The bones of the circumorbital series are not preserved.
The gape of the mouth is strongly oblique. The premaxilla is a relatively short bone with a small ascending process. The maxilla is long and slender. The presumed presence of the supramaxillae is difficult to demonstrate because of inadequate preservation. The lower jaw is slender. The dentary and anguloarticular appear to be disarticulated from each other. Such a disarticulation was probably facilitated by the presence of an original hiatus between these bones. Teeth are apparently absent in both the upper and lower jaws. However, this apparent absence probably represents the result of taphonomic loss.
In relation to the suspensorium, the ectopterygoid, endopterygoid, hyomandibula, metapterygoid, palatine and quadrate can be recognized. The entire suspensorium is broadly developed vertically. The hyomandibula is extremely elongate and apparently spineless. The articular process for the reception of the opercle is situated in the upper quarter of its length. The quadrate is partially recognizable. Originally, the quadrate–mandibular joint was probably placed under the mid-region of the orbit. The metapterygoid seems to be rather large. The posterior margin of this bone closely contacts the ventral shaft of the hyomandibula. The endopterygoid is roughly triangular. Endopterygoid teeth appear to be absent. The ectopterygoid is elongate and slender. The palatine is poorly preserved.
The opercular bones are vertically elongate. The opercle is a crescent-shaped laminar bone, with a convex and lanceolate ventral portion. The opercular–hyomandibular joint consists of a nearly flat articular surface. The subopercle is characterized by a concave dorsal margin. The preopercle has a very short horizontal limb that forms a large acute angle with an elongate vertical limb. A small spine appears to be present posteriorly along the ventral margin of the horizontal limb. An irregular incomplete interopercle also can be recognized.
The gill arches are not distinguishable. Of the hyoid bar, only a few posterior incomplete branchiostegal rays can be recognized. These appear to be greatly enlarged anteroposteriorly.
The vertebral column is compact and sturdy, its abdominal portion bent in a kyphotic curve, with the concave side oriented toward the ventrum of the fish (Fig. 2). The vertebral column consists of 28 vertebrae. The centra, except for the eight posteriormost, are shortened, anteroposteriorly compressed and higher than long. The eight posterior centra are longer than high and sub-rectangular. The lateral surface of each centrum is ornamented by prominent ridges and fossae. The separation of vertebrae into caudal and precaudal portions appears rather problematic. Weitzman (1974) suggested that precaudal vertebrae of sternoptychids include those elements that do not bear a long, single haemal spine, and/or are not directly associated with the anal-fin pterygiophores. He also pointed out that the anterior haemal spine is invariably associated with the anterior pterygiophore of the anal fin. In Discosternon the five vertebrae anterior to the anterior pterygiophore of the anal fin bear short haemal spines of progressively increasing size. Following the criterion discussed by Weitzman (1974), these five vertebrae are interpreted herein as the posteriormost precaudal elements. As a consequence, it is possible to establish that Discosternon has 15 precaudal and 13 caudal vertebrae. The neural and haemal arches appear to be fused with their centra. The neural spine of the first centrum is shortened and roughly triangular in outline. The bases of certain neural and haemal spines are slightly expanded. In general, the neural and haemal spines are elongate, well-ossified and slender. The two anterior precaudal vertebrae bear no pleural ribs. The third and fourth vertebrae bear large and thick pleural ribs attached to the parapophyses. These ribs extend ventrally to the ventral profile of the body and were probably associated with the pelvic girdle. Following these, there are nine pairs of thin and slender ribs, of which the six posteriormost attach on the haemal arches and spines. There are no traces of the intermuscular bone complement.
The caudal skeleton of Discosternon is slightly down-turned (Figs 2, 4). The first preural centrum and the ural centra are evidently fused. What appears to be an uroneural is co-ossified with the fused first preural plus ural centra. The first and second hypurals are co-ossified and autogenous. The third to fifth hypurals are fused into an autogenous bony plate. The sixth hypural cannot be recognized due to the partial incompleteness of the caudal skeleton. The parhypural appears to be fused to the first preural centrum. It is robust and laterally flattened. A single epural was probably present. The neural spine of the second preural centrum is flattened and expanded. There are 19 (10 + 9) principal caudal-fin rays. The procurrent rays are not preserved.
The dorsal fin consists of at least 26 short rays supported by 25 pterygiophores. As in Sternoptyx (see Weitzman, 1974), the first proximal + middle pterygiophore bears two distal pterygiophores and fin rays. There are three slender supraneurals. There is no dorsal blade. The anal-fin origin is approximately opposite to that of the dorsal fin. The structure of this fin resembles that observed in Sternoptyx (see Weitzman, 1974). The fin consists of at least 24 rays, supported by at least 24 pterygiophores. The first pterygiophore is greatly modified (Fig. 5). It is remarkably expanded and spatulate distally. A small obtuse and laterally flattened preanal spine (see Schultz, 1961) projects externally along the ventral margin of the expanded portion of the anteriormost pterygiophore. The proximal shaft of this pterygiophore is bent backward over the adjacent three pterygiophores. These are firmly applied along the posterior margin of the proximal shaft of the first pterygiophore. The proximal shafts of the fourth to posteriormost pterygiophores are parallel to each other and to the proximal shaft of the anteriormost element. There is no hiatus between the anal-fin pterygiophores (anal-fin hiatus).
The pectoral fin contains eight rays (Fig. 3). The bones of the pectoral girdle are relatively slender. The posttemporal is rather irregular in outline. It consists of two heavily ossified limbs with a membrane of bone interposed between them. The upper limb bears a moderately developed posterior spinous process. The supracleithrum is a large and vertically elongate blade-like bone. It appears to be completely separate from the posttemporal but articulates with it. The cleithrum is an elongate, obliquely oriented bone that terminates ventrally in a prominent preabdominal spine (sensu Schultz, 1961). A bony lamina with a rounded smooth profile can be observed along the posterior margin, approximately in the middle of its length. The lateral surface of this bone is not ornamented by the deep pits and rugosities typical of other deep-sea hatchetfishes. The morphology of the scapula and coracoid is rather confused. The pectoral-fin radials are not preserved.
The structure of the pelvic girdle is somewhat confused and difficult to interpret. A robust irregular bone placed just posterior to the pectoral girdle could represent the pelvic bone. The main axis of this bone projects beyond the ventral profile of the body (Fig. 3). However, it is not possible to provide conclusive information about the basipterygia of Discosternon, and the anatomical nature of this apparently disarticulated bone will remain elusive until better preserved and more complete specimens become available for study. In any case, even if its structure and composition remain unknown, the pelvic fin probably inserted just behind the pectoral-fin origin. This assumption is based on the presence of two pairs of enlarged ribs (1st and 2nd) just posterior to the pectoral girdle, which were probably closely associated with the pelvic girdle, as in other deep-bodied sternoptychids. Such a (presumed) advanced origin of the pelvic fins certainly contributes to the discoid ventral profile of the body, mostly related to the disappearance of the abdominal keel typical of deep-sea hatchetfishes, which usually extends from the ventral tip of the cleithrum (preabdominal spine sensu Schultz, 1961) to the anterior margin of the pelvic bone.
The whole body is covered by thin irregular scales. These are closely associated, elongate, and arranged in vertical to oblique rows.
|
5. Relationships and comparison |
|---|
|
TopAbstract1. Introduction2. Locality and age3. Material and methods4. Systematic palaeontology5. Relationships and comparison6. Discussion7. ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
, 6). Due to the diverse anatomical and morphological structure of stomiiforms in general, and of sternoptychids in particular, it is rather problematic to assess its phylogenetic placement at the familial level. The first well-supported definition of the Stomiiformes was provided by Rosen (1973), who diagnosed the group mostly based on gill arch morphology and on myological features. The diagnosis of the order was revised and expanded by Fink & Weitzman (1982), who defined this highly heterogeneous group of fishes based on several characters of the photophores, teeth, muscles, ligaments, gill arches, hyoid bar and gas bladder (see also Lauder & Liem, 1983). Such a definition was broadly supported by the subsequent analysis of the group performed by Harold & Weitzman (1996). Of these features, only one, the greatly expanded posterior branchiostegal rays, can be detected on the fossil described herein, since the others correspond to soft anatomy or to very delicate osteological structures that only have a slight chance of being preserved during the fossilization processes.
The inclusion of the fossil within the Sternoptychidae is also rather problematic. The structure and composition of this family have been subjected to a number of different interpretations since the second half of the nineteenth century (see Günther, 1864; Gill, 1884; Goode & Bean, 1896). In particular, many authors have discussed the problems and difficulties in separating them from gonostomatids (e.g. Regan, 1923; Grey, 1959, 1960; Schultz, 1964; Weitzman, 1967). Baird (1971) restricted the Sternoptychidae to the deep-sea hatchetfish genera and concluded that these fishes are closely related to the maurolicid genera Maurolicus and Valenciennellus. A few years later, Weitzman (1974) presented a comprehensive study of the family Sternoptychidae and defined its sister-group relationships with the Gonostomatidae. According to the phylogenetic analysis of Weitzman (1974), Sternoptychidae includes ten genera (Araiophos, Argyripnus, Argyropelecus, Danaphos, Maurolicus, Polyipnus, Sonoda, Sternoptyx, Thorophos, Valenciennellus). These taxa share many synapomorphic features, such as the presence of Type Alpha photophores and their occurrence in glandular clusters, presence of three branchiostegal rays associated with the posterior ceratohyal, parietals separated by the supraoccipital, basihyal absent, and lack of endopterygoid teeth. In their recent phylogenetic study of the stomiiforms, Harold & Weitzman (1996) pointed out that the unique and unreversed characters that define the Sternoptychidae are the presence of parietal bones separated by the supraoccipital, and photophores arranged in clusters as a result of their development by budding. In addition, they listed many features that concur to complete the diagnosis of the family.
As discussed in the descriptive section, Discosternon has some of the diagnostic sternoptychid features listed by Harold & Weitzman (1996), including: absence of endopterygoid teeth, presence of fused hypurals 1 + 2 and 3 + 4 + 5, and parhypural (apparently) fused to the first preural (+ ural) centrum. Within the Sternoptychidae, the deep-sea hatchetfishes (subfamily Sternoptychinae) clearly form a morphologically cohesive clade. The monophyly of this group is well established and has been progressively corroborated by a number of studies. In restricting the Sternoptychidae to the deep-sea hatchetfish taxa, Baird (1971) indicated several features that support their separate status. In the comprehensive analysis of Weitzman (1974), the deep-sea hatchetfishes were considered to be the more morphologically derived sternoptychids, representing the sister group of Argyripnus and Sonoda. Such a phylogenetic hypothesis has been supported by successive investigations (Harold, 1993; Harold & Weitzman, 1996) that refined the diagnosis, and extended to 26 the number of unequivocal synapomorphies of the group.
The inclusion of Discosternon within the Sternoptychinae is justified by many features (see Harold & Weitzman, 1996), including: frontal crest prominent, parietal crest present, opercle elongate and subrectangular, subopercle roughly triangular, presence of preopercular spines, hyomandibula greatly elongate, a deep body 0.96 times the standard length, posttemporal elongate and strongly ossified, and neural spine of the second preural centrum broad and flat. The deep-sea hatchetfish clade includes three extant genera, Argyropelecus, Polyipnus and Sternoptyx, and at least two fossil genera, Horbatshia from the Oligocene of the Carpathians, and Polypnoides from the Eocene of Georgia (see Prokofiev, 2002, 2005). Therefore, Discosternon represents the sixth genus of this morphologically peculiar group of oceanic fishes.
Discosternon has many autapomorphic features that strongly support its recognition as a new genus of the Sternoptychinae clade. It is characterized by an unusual combination of features, among which the absence of the abdominal keel-like structure, absence of the anal-fin hiatus, presence of 13 caudal vertebrae, presence of 11 pairs of pleural ribs, presence of three supraneural bones, presence of at least 26 dorsal-fin rays, and presence of at least 24 anal-fin rays are unique within the deep-sea hatchetfish clade.
Strong morphological evidence indicates that Polyipnus is the sister group of Argyropelecus + Sternoptyx. The limits and composition of Polyipnus recently have been discussed by Harold (1994), who demonstrated that this genus is monophyletic. None of the uniquely derived characters that diagnosed Polyipnus (see Harold, 1994; Harold & Weitzman, 1996) are present in Discosternon. Discosternon shares several osteological features with the Argyropelecus + Sternoptyx clade (Harold & Weitzman, 1996), including: presence of strongly convex parasphenoid, (presumed) absence of otic bullae, vertical limb of the preopercle much longer than the horizontal one, and external surface of frontals and parietals extensively sculptured. Prokofiev (2002, 2005) proposed that the extinct genera Horbatshia and Polypnoides must be included in this clade and provided a new phylogenetic interpretation of the group based on both Recent and fossil sternoptychids. Unfortunately, this phylogeny was based on a restricted number of taxa and a weak dataset often characterized by ambiguous or equivocal character interpretations. Furthermore, the osteological analysis of fossil material was not very detailed and several character complexes could not be determined due to inadequate preservation. Nevertheless, both Horbatshia and Polypnoides share similiarities with Argyropelecus and Sternoptyx, sharing a number of features (preopercular morphology, presence of the dorsal blade, ventral anterior portion of the cleithrum highly angular, shaft of the pubic process of the basipterygium tightly bound and parallel to distal end of pleural rib, external surface of frontal and parietal bones pitted) that justify their inclusion within this highly derived sternoptychid clade.
Compared with the derived clade of deep-sea hatchetfishes that includes Argyropelecus, Horbatshia, Polypnoides and Sternoptyx, Discosternon clearly differs in having a smooth external surface of the cleithrum, dorsal blade absent, extreme shortening of the caudal region of the body, very short caudal peduncle and slender neural and haemal spines. Discosternon differs from Argyropelecus by the presence of a basisphenoid and the posttemporal not fused with the supracleithrum. The Eocene Polypnoides differs from Discosternon in many morphological, morphometric and meristic features, among which the structure of the caudal skeleton, which includes at least four separate hypural bones, seems to be the most relevant. Horbatshia exhibits many morphological and osteological similarities to Sternoptyx, to which it appears to be closely related. Discosternon shares similarities with both Horbatshia and Sternoptyx, including a very deep body, presence of an elongate and distally expanded first anal-fin pterygiophore, shortening of the caudal region of the body, and origin of the anal fin opposite to the dorsal fin origin. It differs from both these genera by having a posttemporal spine and in the structure of the caudal skeleton. In Horbatshia the caudal skeleton is characterized by fused hypurals 1 + 2 and separated hypurals 3, 4, 5 and 6, whereas the caudal skeleton of Sternoptyx consists of a single co-ossified structure that resulted from the fusion of hypurals + uroneural + epural + parhypural + ural + preural centra. Horbatshia differs from both Discosternon and Sternoptyx by its fused posttemporal + supracleithrum. Finally, Discosternon shares with Sternoptyx a similar arrangement of the anterior portion of the anal-fin skeleton, but differs from it by the possession of a poorly developed ascending process of the premaxilla.
Discosternon appears to be closely related to the derived deep-sea hatchetfish genera Horbatshia and Sternoptyx, from which it can be easily distinguished because of its peculiar morphology (see above). However, even though the above morphological analysis of Discosternon has revealed convincing evidence that it represents a new genus of the sternoptychid subfamily Sternoptychinae, additional more complete and better-preserved material is necessary to conclusively infer its precise phylogenetic position. Moreover, a comprehensive phylogenetic study of fossil and living deep-sea hatchetfishes cannot be performed until a more detailed morphological study of Horbatshia and Polypnoides is available. The unusual set of characters of Discosternon poses numerous questions, many of which can only be answered in future wider-based studies involving both fossil and extant deep-sea hatchetfishes.
|
6. Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstract1. Introduction2. Locality and age3. Material and methods4. Systematic palaeontology5. Relationships and comparison6. Discussion7. ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
The quantification of the consequences of miniaturization, however, is rather problematic. Extreme cases of miniaturized taxa may be dwarfed images of their larger relatives, or may resemble an early developmental stage of them (Britz & Kottelat, 2003). The co-occurrence of small size and morphologically reductive features, typical of miniature taxa, are often explained with the emergence of progenesis, an evolutionary process that produces paedomorphic phenotypes, evidently implying retardation of somatic development. In progenesis, a truncated development with an accelerated maturation produces dwarfed adults characterized by larval features (e.g. Gould, 1977). The clupeoid Sundasalanx (see Siebert, 1997) and the gobioid Schindleria (see Johnson & Brothers, 1993; Watson & Walker, 2004) provide good examples of developmentally truncated larval-like fishes, and evidence of less extreme progenetic expression has been documented in many teleost groups (see, e.g. Springer, 1983; Weitzman & Fink, 1983; Whitehead & Teugels, 1985; Springer, 1988; Weitzman & Vari, 1988; Schaefer, Weitzman & Britski, 1989; Winterbottom, 1990; Kottelat et al. 2006). The suite of reductive features of Discosternon may possibly be the result of developmental truncation (see Alberch, 1985). In sharp contrast to the reductions and simplifications found in the skeleton, Discosternon possesses a larger number of pleural ribs and dorsal- and anal-fin rays in comparison with its close relatives. Moreover, contrary to the situation in teleosts characterized by progenetic expression, Discosternon possesses a complete and well-ossified skull with deeply pitted bones, rather than an incomplete skull with very thin, perforated or cartilaginous elements and complete squamation, which usually is lost in progenetic fishes. A comprehensive comparative study of fossil and extant deep-sea hatchetfishes is still lacking but Discosternon seems to exhibit no evident morphological features of salient character states typical of earlier ontogenetic stages of its closest extant relatives (see Sanzo, 1931; Badcock & Baird, 1980; Ahlstrom, Richards & Weitzman, 1984). Therefore, it is possible to conclude that although miniaturization has certainly occurred in Discosternon, there is no convincing evidence of developmental truncation as reported in many teleost groups.
Miniaturization is an evolutionary phenomenon leading to the achievement of extremely small body size within a lineage. This phenomenon is widespread in animals, and relatively common in all vertebrate lineages, in which it is most frequently encountered in teleosts (Weitzman & Vari, 1988; Costa & Le Bail, 1999). In their discussion of the evolutionary consequences of this phenomenon, Hanken & Wake (1993) remarked that miniaturization often produces dramatic changes in physiology, ecology, life history and behaviour, representing a primary source of morphological novelty (see also Raff, 1996; West-Eberhard, 2003). The factors promoting an extreme decrease in size are often elusive, but the ecological consequences of this phenomenon are very diverse, sometimes associated with the evolution of novel bauplans and habitat exploitation. Miniature taxa are especially common in certain environments. As far as the teleost fishes are concerned, miniature taxa are predominantly associated with still or slow-flowing fresh waters (e.g. Weitzman & Vari, 1988) and deep-sea environments (Regan, 1925; Bertelsen, 1951; Pietsch, 1976, 2005). Other striking cases of miniature teleosts are those associated with certain specialized trophic niches, such as commensals and inquilines (see, e.g. Tyler, 1970).
Like other sternoptychids, Discosternon was probably a mesopelagic fish. Together with gigantism and bizarreness, miniaturization is a remarkable feature of the deep-sea biota (Lipps & Hickman, 1982). In general, structural reduction and simplification in fishes, as well as miniaturization, commonly occur in water-column foragers (Fryer, 1959; Davis & Birdsong, 1973). The water-column forager hypothesis is consistent with both the structural reduction and functional morphology of Discosternon. Discosternon had very large eyes, a rigid leaf-like and deep body plan, and a nearly vertically oriented mouth apparently devoid of teeth. As suggested above, the loss of the abdominal keel-like structure and the anal-fin hiatus observed in Discosternon probably resulted in the loss of abdominal and anal photophore series, thereby implying that it was characterized by a reduced total number of photophores. The mouth structure and (apparent) absence of teeth appear well suited for capturing small planktonic prey (Hopkins & Baird, 1973; Kinzer & Schulz, 1988). The body of Discosternon has a ‘stepped’ configuration, with the centres of the mouth and tail not in horizontal alignment and the tail centring well above the mouth (see Hopkins & Baird, 1985). Such a body configuration and the strongly reduced post-abdominal length are indicative of a highly decreased locomotory ability and minimally effective thrust for predator avoidance and rapid pursuit. All these features suggest a sedentary behaviour and possibly a greater reliance on ambush capture of prey (Hopkins & Baird, 1985). The reduced number of photophores could suggest that Discosternon was commonly exposed to low light intensities (see Hopkins & Baird, 1985) where it maximized its invisibility. Moreover, like extant deep-sea hatchetfishes, Discosternon was probably characterized by a silvery body, an adaptive strategy to appear invisible at all angles of view (see Warrant & Locket, 2004). In conclusion, a number of morphological characteristics suggest that Discosternon was a midwater mesopelagic and visually oriented (large-eyed) predator adapted for capturing prey of small size.
|
7. Conclusions |
|---|
|
TopAbstract1. Introduction2. Locality and age3. Material and methods4. Systematic palaeontology5. Relationships and comparison6. Discussion7. ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
Discosternon federicae gen. et sp. nov. represents the fourth deep-sea hatchetfish taxon recorded from the Mediterranean Neogene based on articulated skeletal remains. The Miocene Argyropelecus logearti was reported by Arambourg (1929) from the Messinian of Chelif Basin, Algeria, and was recently redescribed in more detail by Carnevale (2003), who also extended its stratigraphic distribution back to the Serravallian. The extant species Argyropelecus hemigymnus has been recorded from several Italian localities of Pliocene and Pleistocene age (Landini & Menesini, 1978, 1986; Landini & Sorbini, 1993; Sorbini & Landini, 2003). Finally, an indeterminate species of the genus Argyropelecus has been documented by Sorbini (1988) from the Pliocene deposits of the Metauro River, central Italy.
|
Acknowledgements |
|---|
|
TopAbstract1. Introduction2. Locality and age3. Material and methods4. Systematic palaeontology5. Relationships and comparison6. Discussion7. ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstract1. Introduction2. Locality and age3. Material and methods4. Systematic palaeontology5. Relationships and comparison6. Discussion7. ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
AGASSIZ, L. 1833–44. Recherches sur les poissons fossiles. Neuchâtel: Petitpierre, 1420 pp.
AHLSTROM, E. H., RICHARDS, W. J. & WEITZMAN, S. H. 1984. Families Gonostomatidae, Sternoptychidae, and associated stomiiform groups: development and relationships. In Ontogeny and Systematics of Fishes (eds H. G. Moser, W. J. Richards, D. M. Cohen, M. P. Fahay, A. W. Kendall Jr & S. L. Richardson), pp. 184–98. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Special Publication 1.
ALBERCH, P. 1985. Problems with the interpretation of developmental sequences. Systematic Zoology 34, 46–58.
ARAMBOURG, C. 1929. Argyropelecus logearti, un nouveau poisson bathypelagique du Sahélien. Bulletin de la Société Gèologique de France 29, 11–5.
ARAMBOURG, C. 1952. Les poissons crétacés du Jebel Tselfat (Maroc). Notes et Mémoires du Service Géologique du Maroc 118, 1–188.
BADCOCK, J. & BAIRD, R. C. 1980. Remarks on the systematics, development, and distribution of the hatchetfish genus Sternoptyx (Pisces, Stomiatoidei). Fishery Bulletin 77, 803–20.[Web of Science]
BAIRD, R. C. 1971. The systematics, distribution, and zoogeography of the marine hatchetfishes (family Sternoptychidae). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 142, 1–128.
BAIRD, R. C. & ECKARDT, M. J. 1972. Divergence and relationship in deep-sea hatchetfishes (Sternoptychidae). Systematic Zoology 21, 80–90.
BERTELSEN, E. 1951. The ceratioid fishes. Ontogeny, taxonomy, distribution and biology. Dana Report 39, 1–276.
BRITZ, R. & KOTTELAT, M. 2003. Descriptive osteology of the Family Chaudhuriidae (Teleostei, Synbranchiformes, Mastacembeloidei), with a discussion of its relationships. American Museum Novitates 3418, 1–62.[CrossRef]
CARNEVALE, G. 2002. A new barbeled dragonfish (Teleostei: Stomiiformes: Stomiidae) from the Miocene of Torricella Peligna, Italy: Abruzzoichthys erminioi gen. & sp. nov. Eclogae geologicae Helvetiae 95, 471–9.[Web of Science]
CARNEVALE, G. 2003. Redescription and phylogenetic relationships of Argyropelecus logearti (Teleostei: Stomiiformes: Sternoptychidae) with a brief review of fossil Argyropelecus. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 109, 63–76.[Web of Science][GeoRef]
CARNEVALE, G. 2005. Fossil fishes from the Serravallian (Middle Miocene) of Torricella Peligna, Italy. Palaeontographia Italica 91, 3–69.
CIARANFI, N., DAZZARO, L., PIERI, P. & RAPISARDI, L. 1980. I depositi del Miocene superiore al confine molisanoabruzzese. Bollettino della Società Geologica Italiana 99, 103–18.
COSTA, W. J. E. M. & LE BAIL, P.-Y. 1999. Fluviphylax palikur: a new poeciliid from the Rio Oiapoque Basin, Northern Brazil (Cyrpinodontiformes: Cyprinodontoidei), with comments on miniaturization in Fluviphylax and other neotropical freshwater fishes. Copeia 1999, 1027–34.[CrossRef]
DAVIS, W. P. & BIRDSONG, R. J. 1973. Coral reef fishes which forage in the water column. Helgoländer Wissenshaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen 24, 292–306.[CrossRef]
DI NOCERA, S. & TORRE, M. 1987. Geologia dell’area compresa tra Deliceto e Scampitella (Appennino foggiano). Bollettino della Società Geologica Italiana 106, 351–64.[GeoRef]
FINK, W. L. & WEITZMAN, S. H. 1982. Relationships of the stomiiform fishes (Teleostei), with a description of Diplophos. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 150, 31–93.
FOREY, P. L. & PATTERSON, C. 2006. Description and systematic relationships of 
Tomognathus, an enigmatic fish from the English Chalk. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 4, 157–84.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
FORNACIARI, E., DI STEFANO, A., RIO, D. & NEGRI, A. 1996. Middle Miocene quantitative calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy in the Mediterranean region. Micropaleontology 42, 37–63.[Abstract][CrossRef][Web of Science][GeoRef]
FRYER, G. 1959. Some aspects of evolution in Lake Nyassa. Evolution 13, 440–51.[Medline]
GILL, T. N. 1884. Note on the Sternoptychidae. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 7, 349–51.
GOODE, G. B. & BEAN, T. H. 1896. Oceanic ichthyology, a treatise on the deep-sea and pelagic fishes of the world, based chiefly upon the collections made by the steamers Blake, Albatross, and Fish Hawk in the northwestern Atlantic, with an atlas containing 417 figures. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 22, 1–553.
GOULD, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 501 pp.
GREY, M. 1959. Three new genera and one new species of the family Gonostomatidae. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 121, 167–84.
GREY, M. 1960. A preliminary review of the family Gonostomatidae, with a key to the genera and the description of a new species from the tropical Pacific. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 122, 57–125.
GUNTHER, A. 1864. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum. Catalogue of the Physostomi, London, vol. 5. London: British Museum (Natural History), 455 pp.
HANKEN, J. & WAKE, D. B. 1993. Miniaturization of body size: organismal consequences and evolutionary significance. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24, 501–19.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
HAROLD, A. S. 1993. Phylogenetic relationships of the sternoptychid Argyropelecus (Teleostei: Stomiiformes). Copeia 1993, 123–33.[CrossRef]
HAROLD, A. S. 1994. A taxonomic revision of the sternoptychid genus Polyipnus (Teleostei: Stomiiformes), with an analysis of phylogenetic relationships. Bulletin of Marine Science 54, 428–534.[Web of Science]
HAROLD, A. S. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of the Gonostomatidae (Teleostei: Stomiiformes). Bulletin of Marine Science 62, 715–41.[Web of Science]
HAROLD, A. S. & WEITZMAN, S. H. 1996. Interrelationships of stomiiform fishes. In Interrelationships of fishes (eds M. L. J. Stiassny, L. R. Parenti & G. D. Johnson), pp. 333–53. San Diego: Academic Press.
HOPKINS, T. L. & BAIRD, R. C. 1973. Diet of the hatchetfish Sternoptyx diaphana. Marine Biology 21, 34–46.[CrossRef]
HOPKINS, T. L. & BAIRD, R. C. 1985. Feeding ecology of four hatchetfishes (Sternoptychidae) in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 36, 260–77.[Web of Science]
HOWELL, W. H. & KRUEGER, W. H. 1987. Family Sternoptychidae, marine hatchetfishes and related species. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 452, 32–50.
JOHNSON, G. D. & BROTHERS, E. B. 1993. Schindleria: a paedomorphic goby (Teleostei: Gobioidei). Bulletin of Marine Science 52, 441–71.[Web of Science]
KINZER, J. & SCHULZ, K. 1988. Vertical distribution and feeding patterns of midwater fish in the central equatorial Atlantic. II. Sternoptychidae. Marine Biology 99, 261–9.[CrossRef]
KOTTELAT, M., BRITZ, R., HUI, T. H. & WITTE, K.-E. 2006. Paedocypris, a new genus of Southeast Asian cyprinid fish with a remarkable sexual dimorphism, comprises the world’s smallest vertebrate. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 273, 895–9.[Medline]
LANDINI, W. & MENESINI, E. 1978. L’ittiofauna pliopleistocenica della sezione della Vrica (Crotone – Calabria). Bollettino della Societa Paleontologica Italianà 17, 143–75.[GeoRef]
LANDINI, W. & MENESINI, E. 1986. L’ittiofauna della sez. di Stuni e i suoi rapporti con l’ittiofauna pliopleistocenica della Vrica (Crotone, Calabria). Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 25, 41–63.[GeoRef]
LANDINI, W. & SORBINI, L. 1993. Biogeographic and palaeoclimatic relationships of the Middle Pliocene ichthyofauna of the Samoggia Torrent (Bologna, Italy). Ciências da Terra 12, 83–9.[GeoRef]
LAUDER, G. V. & LIEM, K. F. 1983. The evolution and interrelationships of actinopterygian fishes. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 150, 65–197.
LIPPS, J. H. & HICKMAN, C. S. 1982. Origin, age, and evolution of Antarctic and deep-sea faunas. In The Environment of the Deep Sea (eds W. G. Ernst, J. G. Morin & I. I. Rubey), pp. 324–56. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
MYERS, G. S. 1958. Trends in the evolution of teleostean fishes. Stanford Ichthyological Bulletin 7, 27–30.
NELSON, J. S. 1994. Fishes of the World. 3rd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 600 pp.
PATACCA, E., SCANDONE, P., BELLATALLA, M., PERILLI, N. & SANTINI, U. 1992. La zona di giunzione tra l’arco appenninico settentrionale e l’arco appenninico meridionale nell’Abruzzo e nel Molise. In Studi preliminari all’acquisizione dati del profilo CROP 11 Civitavecchia-Vasto (eds M. Tozzi, G. P. Cavinato & M. Parlotto). Studi Geologici Camerti Special Publication 1991/2, 417–41.
PATTERSON, C. 1993. Osteichthyes: Teleostei. In The Fossil Record 2 (ed. M. J. Benton), pp. 621–56. London: Chapman & Hall.
PATTERSON, C. & 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.
PIETSCH, T. W. 1976. Dimorphism, parasitism and sex: reproductive strategies among deep-sea ceratioid angler-fishes. Copeia 1976, 781–93.[CrossRef]
PIETSCH, T. W. 2005. Dimorphism, parasitism, and sex revisited: modes of reproduction among deep-sea ceratioid anglerfishes (Teleostei: Lophiiformes). Ichthyological Research 52, 207–36.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
PROKOFIEV, A. M. 2002. Sternoptychidae (Stomiiformes) in Eocene to Lower Oligocene of Caucaus and Ukrainian Carpathian Mountains. Journal of Ichthyology 42, 19–27.
PROKOFIEV, A. M. 2005. Systematics and phylogeny of the stomiiform fishes (Neoteleostei: Stomiiformes) from the Paleogene–Neogene of Russia and adjacent regions. Journal of Ichthyology 45, S89–S162.
RAFF, R. A. 1996. The shape of life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 520 pp.
REGAN, C. T. 1923. The classification of stomiatoid fishes. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 11, 612–14.
REGAN, C. T. 1925. Dwarfed males parasitic on the females in oceanic angler-fishes (Pediculati, Ceratioidea). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 97, 386–400.
ROSEN, D. E. 1973. Interrelationships of euteleostean fishes. In Interrelationships of fishes (eds P. H. Greenwood, R. S. Miles & C. Patterson), pp. 397–513. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 53, Supplement 1.
SANZO, L. 1931. Sottordine: Stomiatoidei. Fauna e Flora del Golfo di Napoli 38, 42–92.
SCHAEFER, S. A., WEITZMAN, S. H. & BRITSKI, H. A. 1989. Review of the neotropical catfish genus Scolopax (Pisces: Loricarioidea: Scolopacidae) with comments on reductive characters in phylogenetic analysis. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 141, 181–211.[Web of Science]
SCHULTZ, L. P. 1961. Revision of the marine silver hatchetfishes (family Sternoptychidae). Proceedings of the United States National Museum 112, 587–649.
SCHULTZ, L. P. 1964. Family Sternoptychidae. Memoirs of the Sears Foundation for Marine Research 4, 241–73.
SELLI, R. 1962. Il Paleogene nel quadro dell’Italia meridionale. Memorie della Società Geologica Italiana 3, 1–54.[Medline]
SIEBERT, D. 1997. Notes on the anatomy and relationships of Sundasalanx Roberts (Teleostei, Clupeidae), with descriptions of four new species from Borneo. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, London (Zoology) 63, 13–26.
SORBINI, C. & LANDINI, W. 2003. A new fishfauna in the Plio-Pleistocene of Monte Singa (Calabria, southern Italy). Bollettino della Societa Paleontologica Italianà 42, 185–9.[GeoRef]
SORBINI, L. 1988. Biogeography and climatology of Pliocene and Messinian fossil fish of Eastern-Central Italy. Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona 14, 1–85.
SPRINGER, V. G. 1983. Tyson belos, new genus and species of western Pacific fish (Gobiidae, Xenisthminae), with discussions of gobioid classification. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 390, 1–40.
SPRINGER, V. G. 1988. Rotuma lewisi, new genus and species of fish from the southwest Pacific (Gobioidei, Xenisthmidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 101, 530–9.[Web of Science]
THOMPSON, D. W. 1917. On Growth and Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1116 pp.
TYLER, J. C. 1970. A redescription of the inquiline carapid fish Onuxodon parvibrachium, with a discussion of the skull structure and the host. Bulletin of Marine Science 20, 148–64.[Web of Science]
WARRANT, E. J. & LOCKET, N. A. 2004. Vision in the deep sea. Biological Reviews 79, 671–712.[Medline]
WATSON, W. & WALKER, H. J. JR. 2004. The world’s smallest vertebrate, Schindleria brevipinguis, a new paedomorphic species in the family Schindleriidae (Perciformes: Gobioidei). Records of the Australian Museum 56, 139–42.[Web of Science]
WEITZMAN, S. H. 1967. The origin of stomiatoid fishes with comments on the classification of salmoniform fishes. Copeia 1967, 507–40.[CrossRef]
WEITZMAN, S. H. 1974. Osteology and evolutionary relationships of the Sternoptychidae with a new classification of stomiatoid families. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 153, 329–479.
WEITZMAN, S. H. & FINK, W. L. 1983. Relationships of the neon tetras, a group of South American freshwater fishes (Teleostei, Characidae), with comments on the phylogeny of New World characiforms. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 150, 339–95.
WEITZMAN, S. H. & VARI, R. P. 1988. Miniaturization in South American freshwater fishes: An overview and discussion. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 101, 444–65.[Web of Science]
WEST-EBERHARD, M. J. 2003. Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 794 pp.
WETTSTEIN, A. 1886. Überdie Fishfauna des tertiären Glarnenschiefers. Abhandlungen der Schweizerischen Gesellshaft 13, 1–103.
WHITEHEAD, P. J. P. & TEUGELS, G. G. 1985. The West African pygmy herring Sierrathrissa leonensis; general features, visceral anatomy, and osteology. American Museum Novitates 2835, 1–44.
WINTERBOTTOM, R. 1990. The Trimmatom nanus species complex (Actinopterygii, Gobiidae): phylogeny and progenetic heterochrony. Systematic Zoology 39, 253–65.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| JOURNAL HOME | HELP | CONTACT PUBLISHER | SUBSCRIBE | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
