Zemes un vides zinātnes Earth and Environment Sciences - Latvijas ...
Zemes un vides zinātnes Earth and Environment Sciences - Latvijas ... Zemes un vides zinātnes Earth and Environment Sciences - Latvijas ...
70 ADVANCES IN PALAEOICHTHYOLOGY Fig. 6. Lophosteus uralensis n. sp.; lower Lochkovian, Lower Devonian; Kuba River, Ufa amphitheatre, western slope of Central Ural. A, scale of right flank, holotype GIT 297-62; B, C, details of A. SEM pictures, scale bars equal 100 µm. chevrons in the lower ridges; the ridgelets are separated by a distinct crest in the most prominent ridge. The angle between the crest and the ridgelets is around 10°. The pores between the ridges open in a meshwork of bone (Fig. 6 C) in contrast to the smooth bony surface evident in scales of other species. A second scale shows the same features, but the anterior pustulate area is more distinct; small pustules form rows parallel to the anterior margin of the scale, and more posteriorly they partially join with each other. The plate surface is also uneven posteriorly. Vascular canal pores are very small and hidden between the fine pustules of the basal plate. Comparison: The species is distinguished from L. canadensis by the length of the ridges, the formation of a crest in adult ridges, ridgelets that form chevrons and welldeveloped, partially joined fine pustules on the anterior overlapped area. Non Lophosteus 1995 lophosteiform or actinopterygian scale – Turner et al.: fig. 2.3 + 2.6. Material: one scale (IGB B48-y2.1; Turner et al. 1995: fig. 2.3) and one spine (IGB 53-y1.4; Turner et al. 1995: fig. 2.3). Locality: Longmenshan section, southern China. Horizon: Ganxi and Xiejiawan formations, Emsian, Lower Devonian. Description: The figured scale is that of the actinopterygian Ligulalepis.
H.-P. Schultze, T. Marss. Revisiting Lophosteus 71 Systematic position Most researchers considered Lophosteus as a primitive osteichthyan, but difficult to be assigned systematically. Rohon (1893: 70) was the first to recognize its osteichthyan relationship; he placed the genus close to the “Cyclodipterinen” (Holoptychius, Glyptolepis etc.) of Pander (1856). Gross (1969, 1971) identified Lophosteus, together with Andreolepis as basal osteichthyan in the family Lophosteidae and order Lophosteiformes. This was based on plesiomorphic histological characters, and he left the question open, if the family and order are closer to the Actinopterygii or the Sarcopterygii. Schultze (1977) separated these genera and placed Andreolepis at the base of Actinopterygii, because he described ganoine in the latter genus, and identified Lophosteus as a basal osteichthyan between the actinopterygians and sarcopterygians. Janvier (1978) agreed with the placement of Andreolepis in Actinopterygii. He suggested assignment of the order Lophosteiformes at the base of the Actinopterygii, preceding the Palaeonisciformes; nevertheless he left open the question whether both genera belong „to a hitherto unknown class of fishes which became extinct at the end of the Silurian and possessed characters in common with the actinopterygians, the struniiformes and the acanthodians“ (Janvier 1978: 94). Long (1989) considered the lophosteiforms as the probable sister group to all osteichthyans. Schultze (1992) employed Lophosteus as an outgroup to arrange early actinopterygians phylogenetically, whereas Janvier (1996) placed the genus at the base of the Actinopterygii. Märss (2001) agreed with Schultze (1977) that Andreolepis is an actinopterygian and that Lophosteus is different from that genus; she placed Andreolepis in the new family Andreolepididae because the lateral line canals are situated differently in the dermal skeleton in the genera Andreolepis and Lophosteus. Lophosteus has rather wide and deep open canals whereas in Andreolepis they are closed as in actinopterygians. Otto (1991) suggested an intermediary position between acanthodians and osteichthyans. Burrow (1995a) indicated similarities with placoderms, but those were considered superficial by Märss (2001). A limited number of characters are known only in Lophosteus (Appendix 2). The main characters are those of the scales, their shape, ornament and histology. In addition, few characters can be extracted from spines, teeth and tesserae. We have analysed these characters in comparison with early osteichthyans, one acanthodian and one arthrodiran placoderm (Appendix 3). Phylogenetic analysis (PAUP 3.1.1: DELTRAN) with Climatius and Sigaspis as outgroups, and Terenolepis, Naxilepis and Orvikuina deleted because of missing characters, results in a shortest tree of 42 steps, a consistency index of 0.714 and a homoplasy index of 0.452. This analysis consistently places Lophosteus with Climatius in the outgroup outside the osteichthyans. The analysis separates the actinopterygians from the sarcopterygians within the osteichthyans (Fig. 7). Andreolepis forms a sister group of all other actinopterygians, and the Chinese sarcopterygians at the base to all other sarcopterygians except Achoania. Interrelationships within the sarcopterygians, including Psarolepis and Achoania, are unresolved. The database is too restricted to achieve a resolved cladogram for the sarcopterygians, which in any case is not the goal of this analysis. Interrelationships within actinopterygians are still resolved with the inclusion of Orvikuina and Naxilepis; only the additional inclusion of Tenerolepis results in an unresolved interrelationship of all actinopterygians above Andreolepis.
- Page 19 and 20: Olga Afanassieva. Microrelief on th
- Page 21 and 22: Olga Afanassieva. Microrelief on th
- Page 23 and 24: D.K. Elliott, E. Mark-Kurik, E.B. D
- Page 25 and 26: D.K. Elliott, E. Mark-Kurik, E.B. D
- Page 27 and 28: D.K. Elliott, E. Mark-Kurik, E.B. D
- Page 29 and 30: D.K. Elliott, E. Mark-Kurik, E.B. D
- Page 31 and 32: D.K. Elliott, E. Mark-Kurik, E.B. D
- Page 33 and 34: D.K. Elliott, E. Mark-Kurik, E.B. D
- Page 35 and 36: D.K. Elliott, E. Mark-Kurik, E.B. D
- Page 37 and 38: D.K. Elliott, E. Mark-Kurik, E.B. D
- Page 39 and 40: D.K. Elliott, E. Mark-Kurik, E.B. D
- Page 41 and 42: D.K. Elliott, E. Mark-Kurik, E.B. D
- Page 43 and 44: D.K. Elliott, E. Mark-Kurik, E.B. D
- Page 45 and 46: D.K. Elliott, E. Mark-Kurik, E.B. D
- Page 47 and 48: C.G.Miller, T. Marss, H. Blom. New
- Page 49 and 50: C.G.Miller, T. Marss, H. Blom. New
- Page 51 and 52: C.G.Miller, T. Marss, H. Blom. New
- Page 53 and 54: C.G.Miller, T. Marss, H. Blom. New
- Page 55 and 56: C.G.Miller, T. Marss, H. Blom. New
- Page 57 and 58: ACTA UNIVERSITATIS LATVIENSIS, 2004
- Page 59 and 60: H.-P. Schultze, T. Marss. Revisitin
- Page 61 and 62: H.-P. Schultze, T. Marss. Revisitin
- Page 63 and 64: H.-P. Schultze, T. Marss. Revisitin
- Page 65 and 66: H.-P. Schultze, T. Marss. Revisitin
- Page 67 and 68: H.-P. Schultze, T. Marss. Revisitin
- Page 69: H.-P. Schultze, T. Marss. Revisitin
- Page 73 and 74: H.-P. Schultze, T. Marss. Revisitin
- Page 75 and 76: H.-P. Schultze, T. Marss. Revisitin
- Page 77 and 78: H.-P. Schultze, T. Marss. Revisitin
- Page 79 and 80: ACTA UNIVERSITATIS LATVIENSIS, 2004
- Page 81 and 82: O.A. Lebedev. A new tetrapod from R
- Page 83 and 84: O.A. Lebedev. A new tetrapod from R
- Page 85 and 86: O.A. Lebedev. A new tetrapod from R
- Page 87 and 88: O.A. Lebedev. A new tetrapod from R
- Page 89 and 90: O.A. Lebedev. A new tetrapod from R
- Page 91 and 92: O.A. Lebedev. A new tetrapod from R
- Page 93 and 94: O.A. Lebedev. A new tetrapod from R
- Page 95 and 96: O.A. Lebedev. A new tetrapod from R
- Page 97 and 98: O.A. Lebedev. A new tetrapod from R
- Page 99 and 100: ACTA UNIVERSITATIS LATVIENSIS, 2004
- Page 101 and 102: E. Lukševičs, I. Zupiņš. Sedime
- Page 103 and 104: E. Lukševičs, I. Zupiņš. Sedime
- Page 105 and 106: E. Lukševičs, I. Zupiņš. Sedime
- Page 107 and 108: E. Lukševičs, I. Zupiņš. Sedime
- Page 109 and 110: E. Lukševičs, I. Zupiņš. Sedime
- Page 111 and 112: E. Lukševičs, I. Zupiņš. Sedime
- Page 113 and 114: E. Lukševičs, I. Zupiņš. Sedime
- Page 115 and 116: E. Lukševičs, I. Zupiņš. Sedime
- Page 117 and 118: E. Lukševičs, I. Zupiņš. Sedime
- Page 119 and 120: E. Lukševičs, I. Zupiņš. Sedime
70 ADVANCES IN PALAEOICHTHYOLOGY<br />
Fig. 6. Lophosteus uralensis n. sp.; lower Lochkovian, Lower Devonian; Kuba River, Ufa<br />
amphitheatre, western slope of Central Ural.<br />
A, scale of right flank, holotype GIT 297-62; B, C, details of A. SEM pictures, scale bars<br />
equal 100 µm.<br />
chevrons in the lower ridges; the ridgelets are separated by a distinct crest in the most<br />
prominent ridge. The angle between the crest <strong>and</strong> the ridgelets is aro<strong>un</strong>d 10°. The pores<br />
between the ridges open in a meshwork of bone (Fig. 6 C) in contrast to the smooth<br />
bony surface evident in scales of other species. A second scale shows the same features,<br />
but the anterior pustulate area is more distinct; small pustules form rows parallel to the<br />
anterior margin of the scale, <strong>and</strong> more posteriorly they partially join with each other.<br />
The plate surface is also <strong>un</strong>even posteriorly. Vascular canal pores are very small <strong>and</strong><br />
hidden between the fine pustules of the basal plate.<br />
Comparison: The species is distinguished from L. canadensis by the length of the<br />
ridges, the formation of a crest in adult ridges, ridgelets that form chevrons <strong>and</strong> welldeveloped,<br />
partially joined fine pustules on the anterior overlapped area.<br />
Non Lophosteus<br />
1995 lophosteiform or actinopterygian scale – Turner et al.: fig. 2.3 + 2.6.<br />
Material: one scale (IGB B48-y2.1; Turner et al. 1995: fig. 2.3) <strong>and</strong> one spine (IGB<br />
53-y1.4; Turner et al. 1995: fig. 2.3).<br />
Locality: Longmenshan section, southern China.<br />
Horizon: Ganxi <strong>and</strong> Xiejiawan formations, Emsian, Lower Devonian.<br />
Description: The figured scale is that of the actinopterygian Ligulalepis.