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 ...
94 ADVANCES IN PALAEOICHTHYOLOGY situation especially refers to the near-shore environments of the Russian platform localities: Ketleri-Pavari, Rybnitsa and Gornostayevka. Coarse or fine-grained embedding rock may also provide information on the duration of transportation. Before 1984 it was generally accepted that the earliest tetrapods dwelled exclusively in fresh-water basins. The discovery of Tulerpeton (Lebedev 1984; Lebedev and Clack 1993) demonstrated that the habitats of these animals were more diverse than thought earlier, and tetrapods could also live in the brackish-water conditions close to marine. As deduced from sedimentological and invertebrate information, analysed localities are separated by salinity level into presumably fresh-water (Scat Craig, Ala-Archa and East Greenland), that follows from their intramontane position and absence of geological information on connection to marine basins, and presumably brackish (most of the remaining ones). Gornostayevka is considered here as mostly marine with occasional fresh water influxes from nearby uplands. The presence of macrofloral remains in East Greenland, Red Hill, Ningxia and Ala-Archa might support their presumed fresh-water or almost fresh water environmental conditions. At this time within Laurussia, epicontinental marine, deltaic near-shore and fluvial vertebrate assemblages are known. The poorly known East Gondwanan Jemalong locality is believed to be fluvial (Campbell and Bell 1977); the Kazakhstan Ala-Archa is supposed intramontane. Thus, the original idea of the rigid relation of tetrapods to fresh-water basins may be rejected, as tetrapod habitats show a great variety of environmental conditions. Tolerance of these animals to non fresh water corroborates Thompson’s (1980) and Milner’s (1993) idea of the possibility they might also live in the littoral zone that gave them wide possibilities of migration from one continent to another. This implies that the faunal exchange between the Laurussian, Gondwanan and North Chinese block was rather active, and the Tethys intercontinental basin was comparatively shallow, making possible migrations. The second part of Table I deals with assemblages’ composition. The most striking feature, as noted earlier by Lebedev (1985) is the presence of Remigolepis antiarch fishes in all Devonian tetrapod localities known at that time and his suggestion of the potential for a tetrapod find in Ningxia. Such a close association, as we now know, is not invariable. Examples of this are the absence of this genus from Scat Craig, Ketleri and Red Hill. The first of these localities dated as Frasnian that explains the situation, as Remigolepis is not yet recorded from such early deposits. At Red Hill, in contrast to the localities of the Russian platform and Greenland, the assemblage includes abundant groenlandaspidids, but no Holoptychius or Bothriolepis (Daeschler et al. 2003; Daeschler, pers. comm.), highly characteristic of these central and east Laurussian communities. Possibly, the biocoenosis structure at Red Hill was quite different from that of the Russian platform and Greenland or groenlandaspidids might in some respects substitute for Remigolepis in the community. The sarcopterygian Sauripterus might occupy the ecological niche of Holoptychius and Hyneria that of Eusthenodon. At Ketleri the dominant members of the assemblage are Holoptychius and Bothriolepis. These genera are also highly characteristic of East Greenland tetrapod localities, but Bothriolepis is not the dominant antiarch there. Direct substitution of Remigolepis with Bothriolepis in the ecological niche does not seem convincing, as in many other cases these groups, which are rather different morphologically, coexist in the same community, obviously playing their own separate roles. On the other hand,
O.A. Lebedev. A new tetrapod from Russia 95 Ketleri differs from the Greenland localities, on the one hand, and from Andreyevka, on the other, by the almost complete absence of dipnoans (it provided only a few isolated remains of Orlovichthys, see Lebedev and Lukševics 1996), which constitute one of the most substantial elements in two other communities. Despite all these facts, Remigolepis is recorded in the majority of known Devonian tetrapod communities (at least five of 8), but the nature of this association is not yet understood and requires further study. Interestingly, the assemblage composition of the locality Rybnitsa (Lebedev 1995; Lebedev and Lukševics 1996) is very close to that of Ketleri and differs in gross features only by the dominance of several dipnoan species (Krupina 2000). However, during almost 30 years of exhaustive exploration of this site, no traces of tetrapods have been found at Rybnitsa; the same also applies to the absence of Remigolepis. These differences cannot be explained by aspects of physical geography in this region, because as it was demonstrated above, they were very similar to those at Andreyevka and Gornostayevka. One more interesting feature characterising Upper Devonian tetrapod assemblages is the absence of arthrodires. There are three exceptions; these are the Gornostayevka locality, Red Hill and Scat Craig. In the first one, pachyosteomorph arthrodire plates were found in the fossiliferous lens itself and in the overlaying clays and sands above it. This suggests that wherever the tetrapod and accompanying fish materials were brought, arthrodires dwelled both within this community and separately from it. The possibility of transportation of the tetrapod and fish materials from upland basins cannot be excluded. The presence of the tristichopterid osteolepiform Eusthenodon, highly characteristic of the west Laurussia localities, is however not recorded in the Ketleri community. This genus is also missing from the Gondwanan, Chinese and Kazakhstan assemblages. Daeschler (2000) noted that tetrapod morphological diversity in the Red Hill community suggests numerous morphological lineages, which specialised in a variety of ecological niches in Late Devonian ecosystems. This seems to be corroborated by data from other localities and from Red Hill itself. A classic example of that is the coexistence of Ichthyostega and Acanthostega in East Greenland (Bendix-Almgreen et al. 1990); Ventastega coexisted with a “second tetrapod ?” in Ketleri (Ahlberg et al. 1994) and Tulerpeton and “undetermined tetrapod” in Andreyevka-2 (Lebedev and Clack 1993), Hynerpeton and Densignathus in Red Hill Daeschler (2000). The presence of more than one tetrapod within the same community might argue for their much more diverse trophic specialisations than previously thought (for example, Lebedev 1992). Acknowledgements. - Excavations in the Gornostayevka quarry became possible due to the hospitable staff of the Livny town Natural history and Local Lore museum. Special thanks to its member O.L. Jakubson, who enthusiastically supported excavations and other field work in the Livny District in general. References Ahlberg P.E. 1995. Elginerpeton pancheni and the earliest tetrapod clade. Nature, 373 (6513): 420-424. Ahlberg P.E. 1998. Postcranial stem tetrapod remains from the Devonian of Scat Craig, Morayshire, Scotland. In: Norman, D.B., Milner, A.R., Milner, A.C. (eds.) A Study of Fossil Vertebrates. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 122: 99-141.
- 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 and 70: H.-P. Schultze, T. Marss. Revisitin
- Page 71 and 72: 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: 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
- Page 121 and 122: J. Valiukevičius. Silurian acantho
- Page 123 and 124: J. Valiukevičius. Silurian acantho
- Page 125 and 126: J. Valiukevičius. Silurian acantho
- Page 127 and 128: J. Valiukevičius. Silurian acantho
- Page 129 and 130: J. Valiukevičius. Silurian acantho
- Page 131 and 132: J. Valiukevičius. Silurian acantho
- Page 133 and 134: J. Valiukevičius. Silurian acantho
- Page 135 and 136: J. Valiukevičius. Silurian acantho
- Page 137 and 138: J. Valiukevičius. Silurian acantho
- Page 139 and 140: J. Valiukevičius. Silurian acantho
- Page 141 and 142: J. Valiukevičius. Silurian acantho
- Page 143 and 144: J. Valiukevičius. Silurian acantho
O.A. Lebedev. A new tetrapod from Russia<br />
95<br />
Ketleri differs from the Greenl<strong>and</strong> localities, on the one h<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> from Andreyevka, on<br />
the other, by the almost complete absence of dipnoans (it provided only a few isolated<br />
remains of Orlovichthys, see Lebedev <strong>and</strong> Lukševics 1996), which constitute one of<br />
the most substantial elements in two other comm<strong>un</strong>ities.<br />
Despite all these facts, Remigolepis is recorded in the majority of known Devonian<br />
tetrapod comm<strong>un</strong>ities (at least five of 8), but the nature of this association is not yet<br />
<strong>un</strong>derstood <strong>and</strong> requires further study.<br />
Interestingly, the assemblage composition of the locality Rybnitsa (Lebedev 1995;<br />
Lebedev <strong>and</strong> Lukševics 1996) is very close to that of Ketleri <strong>and</strong> differs in gross features<br />
only by the dominance of several dipnoan species (Krupina 2000). However, during<br />
almost 30 years of exhaustive exploration of this site, no traces of tetrapods have been<br />
fo<strong>un</strong>d at Rybnitsa; the same also applies to the absence of Remigolepis. These differences<br />
cannot be explained by aspects of physical geography in this region, because as it was<br />
demonstrated above, they were very similar to those at Andreyevka <strong>and</strong> Gornostayevka.<br />
One more interesting feature characterising Upper Devonian tetrapod assemblages<br />
is the absence of arthrodires. There are three exceptions; these are the Gornostayevka<br />
locality, Red Hill <strong>and</strong> Scat Craig. In the first one, pachyosteomorph arthrodire plates<br />
were fo<strong>un</strong>d in the fossiliferous lens itself <strong>and</strong> in the overlaying clays <strong>and</strong> s<strong>and</strong>s above it.<br />
This suggests that wherever the tetrapod <strong>and</strong> accompanying fish materials were brought,<br />
arthrodires dwelled both within this comm<strong>un</strong>ity <strong>and</strong> separately from it. The possibility<br />
of transportation of the tetrapod <strong>and</strong> fish materials from upl<strong>and</strong> basins cannot be<br />
excluded.<br />
The presence of the tristichopterid osteolepiform Eusthenodon, highly characteristic<br />
of the west Laurussia localities, is however not recorded in the Ketleri comm<strong>un</strong>ity. This<br />
genus is also missing from the Gondwanan, Chinese <strong>and</strong> Kazakhstan assemblages.<br />
Daeschler (2000) noted that tetrapod morphological diversity in the Red Hill<br />
comm<strong>un</strong>ity suggests numerous morphological lineages, which specialised in a variety<br />
of ecological niches in Late Devonian ecosystems. This seems to be corroborated by<br />
data from other localities <strong>and</strong> from Red Hill itself. A classic example of that is the<br />
coexistence of Ichthyostega <strong>and</strong> Acanthostega in East Greenl<strong>and</strong> (Bendix-Almgreen et<br />
al. 1990); Ventastega coexisted with a “second tetrapod ?” in Ketleri (Ahlberg et al.<br />
1994) <strong>and</strong> Tulerpeton <strong>and</strong> “<strong>un</strong>determined tetrapod” in Andreyevka-2 (Lebedev <strong>and</strong><br />
Clack 1993), Hynerpeton <strong>and</strong> Densignathus in Red Hill Daeschler (2000). The presence<br />
of more than one tetrapod within the same comm<strong>un</strong>ity might argue for their much more<br />
diverse trophic specialisations than previously thought (for example, Lebedev 1992).<br />
Acknowledgements. - Excavations in the Gornostayevka quarry became possible due to the<br />
hospitable staff of the Livny town Natural history <strong>and</strong> Local Lore museum. Special thanks to its<br />
member O.L. Jakubson, who enthusiastically supported excavations <strong>and</strong> other field work in the<br />
Livny District in general.<br />
References<br />
Ahlberg P.E. 1995. Elginerpeton pancheni <strong>and</strong> the earliest tetrapod clade. Nature, 373 (6513):<br />
420-424.<br />
Ahlberg P.E. 1998. Postcranial stem tetrapod remains from the Devonian of Scat Craig,<br />
Morayshire, Scotl<strong>and</strong>. In: Norman, D.B., Milner, A.R., Milner, A.C. (eds.) A Study of Fossil<br />
Vertebrates. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 122: 99-141.