Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:00:25.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Carboniferous shark Tristychius arcuatus Agassiz from Scotland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

John R. F. Dick
John R. F. Dick
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

Skeletal remains of Tristychius arcuatus commonly occur in ironstone nodules from the Scottish Upper and Lower Oil Shale Groups. This material is clearly distinguishable from the small shark from Glencartholm described by Traquair, Woodward and Moy-Thomas under this name. Study of the latter shows that its finspines are distinctly different from the holotype of T. arcuatus and, therefore, it has been renamed.

Tristychius arcuatus sensu stricto is a medium-sized hybodont shark with a short gape, a functionally heterocercal tail and narrow-based, tribasal pectoral fins. Its most unusual feature is a well developed opercular gill cover composed of long hyoid rays. Evidence suggests that this character was present in several Palaeozoic sharks, although it is absent in all Recent elasmobranchs. It is not clear whether it was primitively present in chondrichthyans or evolved separately in several lineages.

Hybodonts and ctenacanths are recognised as separate, specialised shark radiations, neither of which can be directly ancestral to Recent sharks. Of the two, hybodonts appear to be more closely related to Recent forms, although the presence of typical hybodont finspines in Tristychius arcuatus indicates that they had diverged from ancestral euselachians before the beginning of the Carboniferous.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 70 , Issue 4 , 1978 , pp. 63 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1978

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, L., 1843. Recherches sur les poissons fossiles. 5 vols. Neuchatel and Soleure.Google Scholar
Allis, E. P., 1923. The cranial anatomy of Chlamydoselachus anguineus. Acta Zool, Stock., 4, 123–221.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J., Young, J. and Robertson, D., 1876. Catalogue of western Scottish fossils. Blackie, Glasgow.Google Scholar
Bendix-Almgreen, S. E., 1975. The paired fins and shoulder girdle in Cladoselache, their morphology and phyletic significance. Collogues Int. Cent. Natn. Rech. Scient., 218, 111–123.Google Scholar
Brough, J., 1935. On the structure and relationships of the hybodont sharks. Mem. Proc. Manchr Lit. Phil. Soc., 79, 35–50.Google Scholar
Daniel, J. F., 1915. The anatomy of Heterodontus francisci. II. The endoskeleton. J. Morph., 26, 447–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, J. F., 1934. The elasmobranch fishes. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, P., 1918. The musculature of Heptanchus maculatus. Univ. Calif. Publs Zool., 18, 151–170.Google Scholar
Goodrich, E. S., 1930. Studies on the structure and development of vertebrates. Macmillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greensmith, J. T., 1965. Calciferous Sandstone Series sedimentation at the eastern end of the Midland Valley of Scotland. J. Sedim. Petrol., 35, 223–42.Google Scholar
Gross, W., 1937. Das Kopfskelett von Cladodus wildungensis Jaekel. 1. Endocranium und Palatoquadratum. Senckenbergiana, 19, 80–107.Google Scholar
Holmgren, N., 1942. Studies on the head of fishes. Pt 3. The phylogeny of elasmobranch fishes. Acta Zool., Stockh., 23, 129–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotton, N. 1952. Jaws and teeth of American xenacanth sharks. J. Paleont., 26, 489–500.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O., 1895. Über die Organisation der Pleuracanthiden. Sber. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berl., 1895, 61–85.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O., 1906. Neue Rekonstructionen von Pleuracanthus sessilis und Polyacrodus (Hybodus) hauffianus. Sber. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berl., 1906, 155–159.Google Scholar
Maisey, J. G., 1975. The interrelationships of phalacanthous selachians. Neues Jb. Geol. Paläont. Mh., 9, 553–567.Google Scholar
Moy-Thomas, J. A., 1935. On the Carboniferous shark Petrodus patelliformis M'Coy. Proc. Leeds Philos. Lit. Soc, Sci. Sect., 3, 68–72.Google Scholar
Moy-Thomas, J. A., 1936. The structure and affinities of the fossil elasmobranch fishes from the Lower Carboniferous rocks of Glen-cartholm, Eskdale. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1936, 761–788.Google Scholar
Moy-Thomas, J. A. and Miles, R. S., 1971. Palaeozoic Fishes, 2nd Edn. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portlock, J. E., 1843. Report of the geology of the county of Londonderry and of parts of Tyrone and Fermanagh. Mem. Geol. Surv. U.K.Google Scholar
Retzius, M. G., 1881. Das Gehörorgan der Wirbelthiere, 1. Das Gehörorgan der Fische und Amphibien. Sampson and Wallin, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Romer, A. S., 1964. The braincase of the Paleozoic elasmobranch Tamiobatis. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Han., 131, 87–105.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, B., 1967. Comments on elasmobranch evolution, in Sharks, skates and rays, pp. 3–35 (Eds Gilbert, P. W.Mathewson, R. F. and Rail, D. P.). Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, B., 1975. Comments on the origin and basic radiation of the gnathostome fishes with particular reference to their feeding mechanism. Collogues Int. Cent. Natn. Rech. Scient., 218, 101–109.Google Scholar
Smith, B. G., 1942. The heterodontid sharks: Their natural history and the external development of Heterodontus japonicus based on notes and drawings by Bashford Dean. Bashford Dean Mem Vol., Art. 8., pp. 647–784 (Ed. Gudger, E.W.). Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York.Google Scholar
Stensiö, E. A., 1937. Notes on the endocranium of a Devonian Cladodus. Bull. Geol. Instn Univ. Upsala, 27, 128–144.Google Scholar
Stewart, C., 1906. On the membranous labyrinth of certain sharks. J. Linn. Soc. (Zool), 29, 407–409.Google Scholar
Stock, T., 1883. On the structure and afiinities of the genus Tristychius Agass. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 12, 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tait, D., 1925. Notice on a shrimp-bearing limestone in the Calciferous Sandstone Series at Granton, near Edinburgh. Trans. Edinb. Geol. Soc., 11, 131–134.Google Scholar
Traquair, R. H., 1888. Notes on Carboniferous Selachii. Geol. Mag., 5. 81–86.Google Scholar
Traquair, R. H., 1889. Notes on the genera Tristychius and Ptychacanthus Agassiz. Geol. Mag., 6, 27–8.Google Scholar
Traquair, R. H., 1894. Notes on Palaeozoic fishes. No. 1. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 14, 368–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traquair, R. H., 1903. On the distribution of fossil fish-remains in the Carboniferous rocks of the Edinburgh district. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 40, 687–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, S. P., 1975. Recent discoveries of Carboniferous fishes in Edinburgh. Scott. J. Geol., 11, 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, A. S., 1916. The fossil fishes of the English Wealden and Purbeck Formations. Palaeontogr. Soc. (Monogr.), 69, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, A. S., 1921. Observations on some extinct elasmobranch fishes. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond., 133, 29–39.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. S., 1924. On a hybodont shark (Tristychius) from the Calciferous Sandstone Series of Eskdale (Dumfriesshire). Q. Jl Geol. Soc. Lond., 80, 338–342.Google Scholar
Zangerl, R., 1973. Interrelationships of early chondrichthyans. In Interrelationships of fishes, pp 1–14. (Eds Greenwood, P. H., Miles, R. S. and Patterson, C.). Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Zangerl, R. and Case, G. R., 1973. Iniopterygia, a new order of chondrichthyan fishes from the Pennsylvanian of North America. Fieldiana, Geol. Mem., 6, 1–67.Google Scholar
Zangerl, R. and Case, G. R., 1976. Cobelodus aculeatus (Cope) an anacanthous shark from Pennsylvanian black shales of North America. Palaeontographica A, 154, 107–203.Google Scholar
Zangerl, R. and Richardson, E. S., 1963. The paleoecological history of two Pennsylvanian black shales. Fieldiana, Geol. Mem., 4, 1–352.Google Scholar