New Ray-Finned Fishes (Actinopterygii, Osteichthyes) from the Permian of European Russia

Esin, D. N.; Bakaev, A. S.

doi:10.1134/s0031030122110053

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, increased sampling of multiple localities has contributed to the rising rate of new descriptions from Europe. Extensive work in Central Europe (Štamberg, 2007 , 2010 , 2013 , 2016 a , b , 2021 ; Štamberg & Zajíc, 2008 ; Choo, 2015 ) and European Russia (Minikh, 1992 , 1998 ; Esin, 1995 ; Yankevich & Minikh, 1998 ; Minikh & Minikh, 2009 ; Minikh et al ., 2016 ; Bakaev & Kogan, 2020 ) in recent years is responsible for the increase from these regions (Fig. 8 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The early diversification of ray‐finned fishes (Actinopterygii): hypotheses, challenges and future prospects

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Actinopterygii makes up half of living vertebrate diversity, and study of fossil members during their Palaeozoic rise to dominance has a long history of descriptive work. Although research interest into Palaeozoic actinopterygians has increased in recent years, broader patterns of diversity and diversity dynamics remain critically understudied. Past studies have investigated macroevolutionary trends in Palaeozoic actinopterygians in a piecemeal fashion, variably using existing compendia of vertebrates or literature‐based searches. Here, we present a comprehensive occurrence‐based dataset of actinopterygians spanning the whole of the Palaeozoic. We use this to produce the first through‐Palaeozoic trends in genus and species counts for Actinopterygii. Diversity through time generally tracks metrics for sampling, while major taxonomic problems pervading the Palaeozoic actinopterygian record obscure diversity trends. Many described species are concentrated in several particularly problematic ‘waste‐basket’ genera, hiding considerable morphological and taxonomic diversity. This taxonomic confusion also feeds into a limited understanding of phylogenetic relationships. A heavy sampling bias towards Europe and North America exists in both occurrence databases and available phylogenetic matrices, with other regions underrepresented despite yielding important data. Scrutiny of the extent to which spatial biases influence the actinopterygian record is lacking, as is research on other forms of bias. Low richness in some time periods may be linked to geological biases, while the effects of taphonomic biases on Palaeozoic actinopterygians have not yet been investigated. Efforts are already underway both to redescribe poorly defined taxa and to describe taxa from underrepresented regions, helping to address taxonomic issues and accuracy of occurrence data. New methods of sampling standardisation utilising up‐to‐date occurrence databases will be critical in teasing apart biological changes in diversity and those resulting from bias. Lastly, continued phylogenetic work will enable the use of phylogenetic comparative methods to elucidate the origins of actinopterygian biogeography and subsequent patterns of radiation throughout their rise to dominate aquatic faunas.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The early diversification of ray‐finned fishes (Actinopterygii): hypotheses, challenges and future prospects

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…† Kazanichthys is a palaeoniscoid (Esin 1995a, 1995b, 1997; Palaeoniscimorpha incertae sedis , Schultze et al . 2021), with a fossil record restricted to coastal marine and non‐marine Permian deposits of the East European Platform.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2021), with a fossil record restricted to coastal marine and non‐marine Permian deposits of the East European Platform. † Kazanichthys encompasses five species: † K. curiosus and † K. peculiaris from the coastal marine Ufimian deposits (Yankevich & Minikh 1998; upper Kungurian, uppermost Cisuralian), the type species † K. golyushermensis from coastal marine lower and upper Kazanian deposits (Esin 1995a; Roadian, lower Guadalupian), † K. viatkensis from coastal marine and non‐marine upper Kazanian deposits (Esin & Mashin 1996), and † K. uralensis from the non‐marine upper Urzhumian deposits (Minikh & Minikh 2009; Wordian, lower Guadalupian). Most species are known only from fragmentary remains, whereas relatively complete (but mostly damaged) skeletons of † K. viatkensis are known.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, all known skeletons were seriously damaged during excavation, therefore there is no qualitative description of the skull. Kazanichthys was interpreted as a Permian actinopterygian fish from the East European Platform specialized in durophagy (Esin 1995a, 1995b, 1997). However, this conclusion was made on the basis of only the ‘molariform’ tooth shape, without consideration of the dental system as a whole.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The dental system of †Kazanichthys viatkensis (Actinopterygii, Acrolepididae) from the middle Permian of European Russia: palaeobiological and palaeoecological inferences

Bakaev

Johanson

LeBlanc

2023

Papers in Palaeontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among ray‐finned fishes (Actinopterygii), the crushing, durophagous feeding strategy first evolved in the early Carboniferous period, with the †Eurynotiformes possessing dentitions with single layers of partially to fully fused blunt teeth. In the †‘Platysomidae’ (Permian), a new form of crushing dentition evolved (phyllodonty), in which multiple layers of superimposed crushing teeth developed intraosseously, within the jaw. The phyllodont durophagous dentition is also recovered from later‐occurring taxa originating mainly in the Mesozoic, such as the †Bobastraniiformes, the neopterygians †Pycnodontiformes and Ginglymodi, and in the teleost group †Phyllodonta. By comparison, †Kazanichthys viatkensis, an actinopterygian from the middle Permian of European Russia, is characterized by a third, putatively durophagous dentition, with anterior conical teeth and closely packed molariform teeth on the buccal dental plates (a potential similarity with eurynotiforms). Whereas the conical teeth are similar to those of basal actinopterygians, the molariform teeth superficially resemble teeth of some teleosts (Characiformes, Tetraodontiformes), but are unique among known fossil and living Actinopterygii in being crowned by anastomosing, sharp apical ridges. Teeth are ankylosed to the jaw and acrodont in implantation. There is neither evidence of plicidentine, nor cavities corresponding to intraosseous crypts. Most replacement teeth formed extraosseously, differing from the phyllodont dentition, but similar to several more phylogenetically basal actinopterygians. The dental system morphologically resembles recent Sparidae (Teleostei; Perciformes), possibly indicating a similar trophic adaptation. Based on these comparisons and patterns of wear, we propose that †K. viatkensis was a generalist durophagous feeder, with the ability to switch prey types with its unique and complex dentition.

show abstract

New Ray-Finned Fishes (Actinopterygii, Osteichthyes) from the Permian of European Russia

Cited by 2 publications

References 11 publications

The early diversification of ray‐finned fishes (Actinopterygii): hypotheses, challenges and future prospects

The early diversification of ray‐finned fishes (Actinopterygii): hypotheses, challenges and future prospects

The dental system of †Kazanichthys viatkensis (Actinopterygii, Acrolepididae) from the middle Permian of European Russia: palaeobiological and palaeoecological inferences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About