Results of phylogenetic analysis - Amazon S3€¦ · Web viewJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology,...

Supplementary Material

Material examinated and references

Institutional Abbreviations. AMNH, American Museum of Natural History, New

York, USA; BMNH, British Museum (Natural History), London, England; BGH,

Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Niedersächsisches Landesamt

für Bodenforschung, Hannover, Germany; BSPG, Bayerische Staatssammlung für

Paläontologie und Geologie, Munich, Germany; CMNH, Carnegie Museum of

Natural History, Pitts-burgh, Pennsylvania; FMNH, Field Museum of Natural History,

Chicago, Illinois, USA; GMPKU, Geological Museum of Peking University, Beijing,

China; JG, Jose Luis Gonzalez-Redondo (private collection), Bar-celona, Spain;

KUNHM, Division of Ichthyology, Natural History Museum, University of Kansas,

Lawrence, Kansas, USA; HLMD, Hessisches Landesmuseum, Darmstadt, Germany;

IEI, Institute d'Estudis Ilerdencs, Lleida, Spain; IGM, Instituto Geológico de México

(now Instituto de Geología, at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México); IVPP,

Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of

Science, Beijing, China; JFBM, James Ford Bell Museum, Saint Paul, Minnesota,

USA; JME, Jura Museum Eichstuse, Eichstätt, Germany; MCSN, Museo Cantonale

di Storia Naturale, Switzerland; MCSNIO, Civico Museo Insubrico di Storia Naturale

di Induno Olona,Varese, Italy; MCZ, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard

University, Cambridge, Massachusetts; MHNL, Muséum d’ Histoire naturelle de

Lyon, France; MNHN, Museum national d'Histoire naturelle (Institut de

Pale'ontologie), Paris, France. MPUM, Museo Paleontologia dell’Università degli

Studi di Milano; MVSLZ, Museo della Vicaria di San Lorenzo in Zogno, Zogno

(BG), Italy. PIMUZ, Paläiontologischen Institut und Museum der Universität Zürich

hinterlegt. PXFM, Panxian Fossil Museum, Liupanshui City, Guizhou Province,

China; SMF, Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt, Germany; YPM, Peabody

Museum of Natural History, Yele University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; USNM,

National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., USA.

Allolepidotus: MCSNIO P643-660; P669-677, P690; MCSN 316, P1256; Lombardo

2001.

Asialepidotus: IVPP V. 2434 (holotype), GMPKU and Xingyi National Geopark

collections;

Amia calva: AMNH 56510, 90970 SD, 92587 SD, 92588 SD, 30842 SD, 82985 SD;

FMNH 102432, 102446, 104041; Grande Bemis 1998.

Amiopsis lepidota: CMNH 4732, 4767, 4862; JME 2966; MCZ 5336, 5340a-b;

Grande Bemis 1998.

Calamopleurus cylindricus: AMNH 11837; BMNH P.7584, FMNH PF111837, 11846,

11847, 14344, 14348a, 14899, 14381; Grande Bemis 1998.

Caturus furcatus: BMNH 20577, 20578, 37906; Grande Bemis 1998.

Cyclurus kehreri: FMNH PF 14372, 14377, 14378a,b, 14073, 14079, 14379; HLMD

ME 7894; Grande Bemis 1998.

Liodesmus gracilis: BSPG AS VII 1122, 1123; Grande Bemis 1998.

Ikechaoamia meridionalis: IVPP V5805.1; Zhang Zhang 1980; Grande Bemis

1998.

Ionoscopus cyprinoides: BMNH P.37795a, CMNH 4036; Grande Bemis 1998.

Pachyamia mexicana: FMNH PF14901, 14902; IGM 7380-7384, 7386, 7387; Grande

Bemis 1998.

Sinamia zdanskyi: IVPP 1114.1, 1106; Su Li 1990; Grande Bemis 1998.

Solnhofenamia elongata: BSPG AS VII 324; BSPG 1875 XIV 32; CMNH 4731 ;

FMNH PF14314, 14315; JME 1956 124a; SMF P3072; Grande Bemis 1998.

Vidalamia catalunica: BMNH P.10992, 37498; JG-1; IEI-1313; Grande Bemis

1998.

Atractosteus spatula: AMNH 216449 SD, 93237 SD, 216431 SD; FMNH 105523,

109160, 109199; USNM 4755; Grande 2010.

Dorsetichthys (‘Pholidophorus’) bechei: BMNH P. 19010, 51682, 51683; Patterson

1975; Grande Bemis 1998; Arratia 2013.

Eoeugnathus: BMNH P19291, 19330, 19348; PIMUZ A/I 0095, 1964, 2733, 2751,

3330, 3380; Brough 1939; Herzog 2003.

Furo muensteri: JME ETT977, 2077; MHNL 20015181; BSPG AS.VII.1135,

1870.IV.2; Lane Ebert 2012.

Hiodon alosoides: JFBM 43312, 43306; KUNHM 9618, 9661, 13993; Hilton 2002;

Arratia, 2013.

Lepidotes elvensis: BMNH P.32421, 14539; Thies 1989; Cavin 2010.

Leptolepis coryphaenoides: BMNH P. 51685, 51696, 51699, 51702, 51703, 51705,

51712; BGH 1931-4, BGH 1956-8, BGH 1957-2, BGH 1957-5, and BGH 1960;

Patterson 1975; Arratia 1997, 1999, 2013.

Macrepistius arenatus: AMNH 2435; Shaeffer 1960, 1971.

Macrosemius rostratus: BMNH P 37094, 37051; BSPG AS.I. 639, 640, 769, 770;

Bartram 1977.

Ophiopsis procera: BMNH P1070, 6939, 8659; FMNH UC 2037; Bartram 1975;

Grande Bemis 1998.

Oshunia brevis: AMNH 11895, 12000, 12793; Wenz Kellner 1986; Grande

Bemis 1998.

Perleidus altolepis: MCSNIO P461-463, P501, P599-616, P676-681, P686, P687,

P691ab, P692ab; MCSN 3007, 3008, 5004ab, 5005, 5006ab, 5007abcd; Lombardo

2001.

Panxianichthys imparilis: GMPKU-P-1194, 1195, 1344, 1345, 3116, 3117, 3118,

3120, 3121; PXFM-P-0001~0012; Xu Shen 2015.

Quetzalichty sperrilliatae: IGM 8592, 8593. 2,, 8593. 3, 8593. 4; Alvarado-Ortega

and Espinosa-Arrubarrena 2008.

Robustichthys luopingensis: IVPP V18568 (holotype), V18571; GMPKU-P-1355,

1699; Xu et al. 2014.

Semionotus elegans: AMNH 1328, 1540, 2986, 3980; YPM 5906, 6567, 7193, 7473,

8226, 8601, 8603, 8187, 8602, 9363, 9367; USNM 1876, 42566; Olsen McCune

1991.

Teochthys kallistos: IGM 6741a, 6741b, 6742, 6744, 6745; Applegate 1988; Machado

et al. 2013.

Watsonulus eugnathoides: YPM 8834, 8835, 8890, 8989, 8994, 8895; MCZ 13494,

13876; MNHN MAE 15, 2507b; Olsen 1984; Grande Bemis 1998.

Characters used in the analysis

Characters 1-67, 94 and 106 were taken or modified from Grande Bemis (1998)’s

monograph of the Halecomorphi; most of the remaining characters were taken or

modified from characters used in previous phylogenetic analyses of the Halecomorphi

(characters 72, 75, 76, 82-84, 87, 91, 92, 98, 105, 109; Gardiner et al. 1996;

Alvarado-Ortega Espinosa-Arrubarrena 2008; López-Arbarello et al. 2014; Xu et

al. 2014), of the Ginglymodi (characters 68-71, 73, 74, 77, 88, 90, 93, 95, 97-100;

Grande 2010; Cavin 2010; López-Arbarello 2012), of the Teleostei (characters 79-81,

89, 101, 104; Patterson 1975; Arratia Schuttze 1990; Arratia 1999, 2013), and of

the lower actionpterygians (characters 78, 85, 86, 108; Coates 1999; Gardiner

Schaeffer 1999; Xu Gao 2011). Characters (102, 103, 107, 110-112) were defined

here for the first time. Characters which were modified or newly proposed were

discussed below.

1 Posterior extent of exoccipitals in adult-sized individuals

0 reaches posterior margin of occiput

1 does not reach posterior margin of occiput

2 Anteriorly projecting spine-like processes on neural and/or haemal arches

0 absent

1 present

3 Solid vertebral centra of adult-sized individuals

0 absent

1 present, with two lateral fossae on each side of most centra

2 present, with three or more lateral fossae on each side of most centra

3 present, centra smooth-sided

4 Number of supraneurals

0 15 or more

1 13 or 14

2 5 to 11

5 Articular ossification of lower jaw

0 a single element, or two elements tightly sutured to each other

1 two separate elements not in contact with each other

6 Suborbital bones

0 present

1 absent

7 Rostral/frontal contact

0 present

1 absent

8 Hypural-ural centra fusion in adult-sized individuals

0 all hypurals autogenous (separate) from the ural centra

1 all but first hypural fused to corresponding centra

9 Large parapophyses fused to most of the abdominal centra

0 absent

1 present

10 Substantial scapulocoracoid ossification in adult-sized individuals

0 one or more elements present in the shoulder girdle

1 absent

11 Supraorbital bones

0 present

1 absent

12 Urodermals in the caudal skeleton

0 present

1 absent

13 Sclerotic ring ossification

0 present

1 absent

14 Size and shape of dorsal fin

0 short, with straight to falcate margin, 14-29 segmented rays and 14-29

proximal radials

1 medium long, with bow-shaped or straight margin, 30-35 segmented rays, and

an estimated 30-35 proximal radials

2 very long, with bow-shaped margin, 36-47 segmented rays, and 37-48 dorsal

proximal radials

3 extremely long, with bow-shaped margin, 48-53 segmented rays, and 49-54

proximal radials

15 Morphology of teeth on anterior coronoids

0 conical, with pointed tips

1 styliform, with broadly rounded or flattened tips

2 inapplicable because of absence of anterior coronoids

16 Anterior extent of parasphenoid tooth patch

0 extends well anterior to the lateral ascending arms of parasphenoid

1 short, does not extend anterior to the lateral ascending arms

2 parasphenoid tooth patch absent

Remarks: Allolepidotus was coded as state 0 based on personal observation by Z. Y.

Sun.

17 Parietal length

0 relatively short, with a width-to-length ratio range well exceeding 0.90

1 relatively long, with a width-to-length ratio range not exceeding 0.90

18 Number of ural centra

0 10 or fewer

1 11 to 22

19 Shape of preopercle

0 expanded dorsally

1 L-shaped

2 crescent-shaped

3 ovoid

Remarks: we herein add state 0.

20 Morphology of caps of the jaw teeth in adult-sized individuals

0 round in cross-section, not sharply carinate

1 labiolingually compressed, sharply carinate (keeled)

21 Lateral edge of posttemporal in adult-sized individuals

0 shorter than length of anterior edge

1 elongate, about equal to or greater than width of anterior edge

Remarks: We here code Allolepidotus with state 0 following to Lombardo (2001)’s

restoration of the skull of Allolepidotus.

22 Shape of posterior margin of caudal fin

0 forked

1 convexly rounded or nearly vertical

23 Elongation of opercular process of hyomandibula

0 absent

1 present

24 Number of tooth rows on coronoids

0 two or more rows for at least part of one or more coronoids

1 one row

2 inapplicable because of absence of coronoids

25 Arrangement of vomerine teeth

0 tooth patch with two to several rows of teeth

1 tooth patch with only a single anterior marginal row, plus one or more teeth in

a longitudinal series perpendicular to the anterior marginal row

26 Dermopterotic ribs

0 absent

1 present

27 Number of epurals

0 2-8

1 10-15

28 Shape of basipterygium

0 proximal end flat and widened anteriorly

1 proximal end long and rod-like, without significant widening anteriorly

29 Morphology of pleural ribs

0 distal ends pointed or with rounded points

1 distal ends flatly truncated, even in large adults

30 Median gular

0 present

1 absent

31 Peculiar ornamentation pattern of strongly defined, converging lines on opercles

in adult-sized individuals

0 absent

1 present

32 Frontal width in adult-sized individuals

0 relatively wide, with a width-to-length ratio of 0.26 to -0.65

1 relatively narrow, with a width-to-length ratio of 0.13 to 0.21

33 Shape of dermopterotic

0 greatly widened posteriorly and tapered anteriorly

1 subrectangular, not substantially tapered anteriorly or widened posteriorly

34 Width of opercle

0 narrow, with width-to-height ratio of 0.56 to 1.06

1 wide, with width-to-height ratio in range of 1.07 to 1.39

35 Interfrontal fontanelle in adult-sized individuals

0 absent, frontals sutured to each other medially for their entire length

1 frontals separated for about one-half their length or more by a fontanelle

36 Position of dermosphenotic relative to orbit in adult-sized individuals

0 anterior or anteroventral margin of dermosphenotic included in circumorbital

margin, even in large individuals of 200 mm SL or more

1 dermosphenotic excluded from orbital margin in large individuals of 200 mm

SL or more

37 Supramaxilla

0 absent

1 present, elongate

2 present, extremely deep, shaped like a rounded triangle

38 Number of vertebral centra except the preural vertebrae sensu Nybelin (1963)

0 40 to 73

1 75 to 82

Remarks: The preural vertebral centra are first defined as vertebrae supporting caudal

fin rays (Nybelin 1963). However, the terminology of preural vertebrae is incorrectly

used by Grande and Bemis (1998) in their phylogenetic analysis to include the total

number of vertebrae, except the ural vertebrae. Herein, we keep the define of the

character of Grande and Bemis (1998) and corrected it as “Number of vertebral centra

except the preural vertebrae sensu Nybelin (1963).

39 Shape of posterior end of posttemporal in adult-sized individuals

0 elongate, with rounded apex or apices

1 elongate but abruptly truncated

40 Ventral transverse ridge of gular

0 absent

1 present

41 Shape of anterior subinfraorbital bone in adult-sized individuals

0 short, subrectangular, longer than deep

1 short, subrectangular, deeper than long

2 long and low

3 long, posteriorly expansive, tapering anteriorly

42 Number of epaxial procurrent caudal fin rays

0 0 to 11

1 12 to 15

43 Fringing fulcra on caudal fins

0 present

1 absent

44 One-to-one arrangement of hypurals and caudal fin rays

0 last few hypurals each articulate with the bases of several caudal fin rays

1 each hypural normally bears a single caudal ray

45 Number of ossified ural neural arches in adult-sized individuals

0 normally four or more

1 normally 2 or fewer

46 Number of parietal bones

0 paired parietals normally present

1 only a single median parietal present

47 Number of pairs of extrascapular bones

0 only one pair present

1 three pairs normally present

48 Dermopterotic length to parietal length

0 dermopterotic significantly longer

1 lengths about equivalent

49 Opisthotic

0 present

1 absent

50 Pterotic

0 present

1 absent

51 Maxilla extremely slender and rod-like

0 absent

1 present

52 Number of branchiostegal rays

0 21 or fewer

1 22 or more

53 Numerous paired, block-like ural neural arch ossifications

0 absent

1 present

54 Dermosphenotic attachment to skull roof in adult-sized individuals

0 loosely attached on the skull roof or hinged to the side of skull roof

1 firmly sutured into skull roof, forming part of it

55 Shape of rostral bone

0 plate-like

1 much reduced, short tube-like

2 roughly V-shaped with lateral horns

3 lost

Remarks: This character was modified from Grande Bemis’s (1998) character 57.

We add state 0 (flat, plate-like rostral ) for Watsonulus and Perleidus. Such a rostral is

also present in some basal ginglymodians like Sangiorgioichthys sui, Kyphosiichthys,

etc. with a variation of sizes. In contrast, advanced ginglymodians have a reduced,

tube-like rostral, without lateral horns. All halecomorphs other than

parasemionotiformes have a roughly V-shaped rostral, with lateral horns (Gardiner et

al. 1996; Grande Bemis 1998).

56 Lachrymal shape

0 longer than deep, and smaller than orbit

1 deeper than long, and massive, about size of orbit

2 deeper than long, and smaller than orbit

57 Quadrate-mandibular articulation

0 below or posterior to orbit

1 anterior to orbit

58 Lateral line canal in maxilla

0 absent

1 present

59 Symplectic involvement in jaw joint

0 does not articulate with lower jaw

1 distal end articulates with articular bone of lower jaw

60 Distinct supramaxillary notch of maxilla

0 absent

1 present

61 Inner orbital flange of dermosphenotic

0 smooth, without sensory canal

1 bearing sensory canal tube

62 Posterior margin of gular

0 smooth

1 deeply scalloped with a series of sharp points and concavities

2 gular absent

63 Shape of haemal spines

0 spine-like or rod-like

1 broadly spatulate in the transverse plane

64 Relative size of uppermost postinfraorbital in adult-sized individuals

0 short, much shorter than lowermost postinfraorbital

1 long, about equal in length to lowermost postinfraorbital

65 Orientation of preural haemal and neural spines near caudal peduncle

0 positioned at about 25º to 45 º from the horizontal

1 strongly inclined to nearly horizontal

66 Interopercle

0 absent

1 present

67 Number of supramaxillae

0 none

1 one

2 two

68 Premaxilla immovably attached to braincase by means of a long nasal process

tightly sutured to frontals

0 absent

1 present

From Grande (2010) character 6.

69 Foramen for olfactory nerves on premaxilla

0 absent

1 present


70 Supraoccipital bone

0 absent

1 present


71 Number of lachrymal bone(s)

0 single

1 a series of 3 or more


72 Posterior notch of second infraorbital for supramaxilla

0 absent

1 present

From Xu et al. (2014) character 72.

73 Sphenotic with small dermal component

0 absent

1 present


74 Tube-like canal bearing anterior arm of antorbital

0 absent

1 present


75 Intercalar/parasphenoid contact

0 absent

1 present

From Gardiner et al. (1996) character 6.

76 Antorbital contributing to orbital margin

0 present

1 absent


77 Ethmoid ossification

0 present

1 absent


78 Mobile maxilla in cheek

0 absent

1 present

From Coates (1999) character 16.

79 Elongated posteroventral process of quadrate

0 absent

1 present

From Arratia & Schultze (1990) and later discussed by Arratia (1999).

80 Uroneurals

0 absent

1 present, both preural and ural neural arches modified as uroneurals

2 present, only ural neural arches modified as uroneurals

From Arratia (1999).

81 Vomer in adults

0 paired

1 median

From Patterson (1975).

82 Parasphenoid/basioccipital contact

0 absent

1 present


83 Internal carotid foramen on parasphenoid

0 absent

1 present


84 Efferent pseudobranchial foramen on parasphenoid

0 absent

1 present


85 Dermohyal

0 present

1 absent

From Xu Gao (2011) character 28.

86 Coronoid process

0 absent

1 present

From Gardiner Schaeffer (1989) character 17.

87 Intercalar

0 present

1 absent


88 Number of hypobranchials

0 three

1 four


89 A diastema between hypurals 2 and 3

0 absent

1 present

From Arratia (2013) character 141.

90 Symplectic/quadrate contact

0 present

1 absent, symplectic separated from quadrate by quadratojugal


91 Lateral line ossicles extending onto caudal fin

0 absent

1 present


92 Scales

0 rhomboid

1 amioid-type, subrectangular to elongate oval

2 cycloid

From Alvarado-Ortega Espinosa-Arrubarrena (2008) character 15.

93 Quadratojugal

0 somewhat plate-like, placed lateral to the quadrate

1 splint-like

2 absent


Remarks: Characters of quadratojugal have been well defined by Grand (2010: pp.

784) and López-Arbarello et al. (2012, pp. 7-8). The presence of quadratojugal is

always considered as a plesiomorphic feature in actionpterygians and a flat, plate-like

dermal ossification placed lateral to the quadrate is present in lower actinopterygians

(López-Arbarello 2012). Within neopterygians, the ginglymodians are often

characterized by the presence of a dermal splint-like bone, which does not resemble

the plate-like bone of the chondrosteans; a small plate-like quadratojugal has been

identified in one specimen of Watsonulus by Olsen (1984: Figs. 3, 17C of specimen

YPM8995). We herein identified this character state in Panxianichthys, Asialepidotus,

Robustichthys based on GMPKU’s collections and in Allolepidotus based on

specimens in the Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra ‘A. Desio’. Considering that the

presence or absence of a quadratojugal is possibly independent of its shape and thus

we described the presence or absence of a quadratojugal as a separate character

(character 107).

94 Shape of posterior margin of maxilla

0 convexly rounded or straight

1 concave or with a posterior maxillary notch present

From Grande Bemis (1998) character 62.

Remarks. The character is taken from character 62 of Grande Bemis (1998).

Herein, we code Watsonulus eugnathoides as ‘?’ because it is possibly polymorphic.

As shown In Fig. 417 C and D of Grande Bemis (1998), it is clearly notched, whereas

in Fig. 414B (the syntype) and Fig. 415, it seems to be convex or straight.

95 Pattern and disposition of suborbitals

0 one or more than one, arranged in a single row

1 more than one, a mosaic of suborbitals

96 Suboperculum with well-developed ascending process

0 absent

1 present

From López-Arbarello (2012) character 64.

97 Cheek region

0 not complete (quadrate largely visible)

1 nearly complete, covered by dermal bones

From Cavin (2010) character 19.

98 Ventral surface of lower circumorbital bones.

0 smooth

1 intensely pitted

From Alvarado-Ortega Espinosa-Arrubarrena (2008) character 18.

99 The portion of frontal in front of the orbit constriction

0 broad, with relatively straight anterior margin

1 tapering anteriorly

2 tubular


100 Nasals long and narrow

0 absent

1 present


101 Clavicle articulated to the anteroventral margin of cleithrum

0 present

1 absent


102 Symplectic articulation much ventral than the quadrate one

0 present

1 absent

Remarks: Double jaw join involving both quadrate and symplectic is a key feature to

define the Halecomorphi (Patterson 1973; Gardiner et al. 1996; Grande Bemis

1998). The level of the symplectic and quadrate articulation variable among

halecomorphs. In Watsonulus (e.g., Grande Bemis 1998: Figs. 417C, D),

Panxianichthys, Asialepidotus (personal observation on GMPKU’s collections,

GMPKU-P-3025) and Eoeugnathus (Herzog 2003: Figs. 8, 9), symplectic articulation

is posterior to and much more ventral than the quadrate one. The state is unkown in

Allolepidotus and Robustiichthys.

103 Number of suborbitals

0 one

1 two or three

2 more than three

Remarks: As previously pointed out by Grande (2010), the number of suborbitals is

relatively low in halecomorphs, often less than three. In contrast, ginglymodians

generally have more suborbitals than in Halecomorphi, in particular for gars. In

Lepisosteus and Atractosteus, there are numerous suborbitals ranging from 13 to 57.

104 Maxilla

0 elongate, extending behind orbit

1 moderately long, extending below the orbit

2 very short, anterior to orbit


105 Number of supraorbital bones

0 two

1 more than two

2 none

Remarks: Modified from character 22 of Alvarado-Ortega Espinosa-Arrubarrena

(2008). The presence or absence of supraorbital bones is represented with a separate

character (11) corresponding to state 2 of Alvarado-Ortega Espinosa-Arrubarrena

(2008), because the presence of supraorbital bones is independent of their number and

arrangement. Two supraorbitals bordering the dorsal margin of the orbit are present in

basal halecomorphs Watosonulus, Allolepidotus, Panxianichthys, Asialepidotus and

also basal ginglymodians Robustiichthys, ‘Sangiorgioichthys’ sui, Sangiorgioichthys

aldae (Tintori Lombardo 2007; López-Arbarello et al. 2011; Xu et al. 2014). The

state is uncertain at present in the basal halecomorph Eoeugnathus and basal

ginglymodian Kyphosiichthys pending future investigations.

106 Solid, perichordally ossifie, diplospondylous centra in adult-sized individuals.

0 absent

1 present

Character 1 of Grande Bemis (1998).

107 Quadratojugal

0 present

1 absent

108 Number of infraorbitals between antorbital and dermosphenotic

0 two or three

1 four or five

2 six or more

Modified from Xu et al. (2014) character 82.

Remarks: State 1 is the result of merging state 1 and state 2 of the character 82 of Xu

et al. (2014). The number of infraorbitals between the antorbital and dermosphenotic

is relatively low in all halecomorphs (four or five infraorbitals) other than

Ikechaoamia which bears more than six. Ginglymodians generally have more

infraorbitals than that of the Halecormorphi, and the number of infraorbitals between

antorbital and dermosphenotic is often more than six (e.g., Semionotus, Olsen

McCune 1991: Fig. 4; Lepisosteus, Grande 2010: Fig. 117; Macrosemius, Bartram

1977: Fig. 2), other than Sangiorgioichthys aldae (4 infraorbitals, Tintori

Lombardo 2007: Fig. 5).

109 Body lobe scale row.

0 absent

1 present, with additional incomplete row

2 present, without additional incomplete row


110 A single massive subinfraorbital (infraorbital under the orbit) forming the ventral

margin of the orbit.

0 absent

1 present

Remarks: A single massive subinfraorbital (infraorbital under the orbit) forming the

ventral margin of the orbit seems to be unique to Ionoscopiform genera, although it is

uncertain in Teoichthys brevipinna pending better material (Machado et al. 2013).

111 Supramaxilla large, but less than half the maxilla length, usually higher in the

anterior region than in the posterior one

0 present

1 absent

Remarks: In Robustichthys, Panxianichthys, Asialepidotus, and Allolepidotus, the

anterior region of the supramaxilla is usually higher than the posterior portion.

112 Preopercular sensory canal

0 running along the posterior margin of the preopercle, not branching

1 in the middle or close to the anterior margin of the preopercle, posteriorly

branching

Remarks: The preopercular sensory canal always runs along the posterior margin of

the preopercle and does not branch posteriorly in the chondrosteans (e.g., Olsen 1984:

Figs. 17A, B) and subholosteans (Peltopleurus, Lombardo 1999: Fig. 2; Perleidus,

Lombardo 2001: Fig. 10; Altisolepis, Sun et al. 2015: Fig. 2). The course of the

preopercular sensory canal of Watsonulus resembles that of the chondrosteans (Olsen

1984: Fig. 17C; Grande Bemis 1998: Fig. 415). The preopercular sensory canal of

neopterygians other than Watsonulus run through the preopercle close to or anterior to

the mid-length of the element and shows well-developed posteriorly (e.g., Amia,

Grande Bemis 1998: Fig. 20; Semionotus elegan, Olsen McCune 1991: Fig. 4;

pholidophorid genera, Arratia 2013: Fig. 8).

Data matrix

Perleidus ??0??00?0?00?0000?000000?0??000000000?00200??0000000?

000000000?0?000000000000000000000????00000010000?00100000-0

Amia_calva 1?

321111111113001020010000001000000011000011100011000120001000010111100

01101010001001101000121-1000011-021110011

Amiopsis_lepidota ?

12000100000000010200100000010000000100000111000??000120001000000111??

0011010100010011??000121010000110111110011

Calamopleurus_cylindricus

113111100000000011211111110010000000100000111000110000200010010001111

0001101010001001101001121-1000011-011110011

Caturus_furcatus 00000010000000000021000?

100010000000100030000000111111200010001011111000110001000100110?

000121001000111010110011

Cyclurus_kehreri

113211111111121100200100000010000000100000111000110001200011000101111

?00110101000100110?000121-1000011-121110001

Dorsetichthys_bechei 00?1-00000000?2000100002?00?

00000000100000000000000000000000000011200100000001111111110?

1000200110101-00(0 1)0110011

Hiodon 001001-010110-

2000100002000001000000000020100000100000300000020001000100000?

0112110011001002200110011--1201100-1

Leptolepis_coryphaenoides 0031-0-00001?-2000100002?00?

00000000100000000000?000001000000000?1200100000001121111110?

1002200110111-01(0 1)0110011

Ikechaoamia_meridionalis ?010??100000?00?-020?1?0?00010000000100?

00111111??00012000100?000111??0011?0?100010011??000021-0000011?1?

0120011

Liodesmus_gracilis ?000?0100?00000?00210000?000100000001000?

0001000??110120001000101111??0011???100010011??0001210??00011??101100?

1

Pachyamia_mexicana 113?111000000100112111000011201111112101?

1111000??0001200010?00001111?0011?10100010011??000121-1000011-

011110011

Sinamia_zdanskyi 00300?100000?00?-020110??00?100000001000001??

111110001200010000001111?0011110100010011??000021-0000011?1?01100?1

Solnhofenamia_elongata 113100100000000000200100000010?

00100100021111000?1000120001000000111??0011?001000100110?

000121000000110011110011

Vidalamia_catalunica ?13??110000000001121110000112011110?

1000001110001?000120001100000111??0011?10100010011??000121-1000011-

011110011

Atractosteus

101000101000100010110100100001001000000000010011110000101000020000011

01011011000010011110100101110101-22100210-1

Lepidotes_elvensis ?00?00?00?00?0001020000000??010000001000100?

00011?00?01211000200?1111010110111000100111?0100100110?11-221?021011

Semionotus_elegans ?00000100?00?

000002000000000010000001000100000001?

000012100002000111101011011100010011110100100110111-0210021011

Macrosemius_rostratus ?00?011???10?20?0?100100?0?

00100000010001000000010000012100002?0?1000010110101000100111?000010-

100211--1200210-1

Robustichthys_luopingensis ??0??01???00?0001?2000???0??000010001?

00000??000??00?0?001?1?0?0?111??0011?0?1000???11??0?00?01110111?

2100021001

Eoeugnathus ??0?001???00000?0?20000??0??100010001?00?00??

000??00?0?20?10?0?0?111??0?1????100????11????00?10010001010?0??2??1

Asialepidotus 0?0?001???00?0000?20100??0??100010001?00000??

010??00?0200?1100?0?111??0011?0?100????110???0001010000101000011?01

Panxianichthys_imparilis ??0?001???0000000?20100?00??100010001?

00000??000??00?020011100?0?111??001110?100????11????000101000?

101000011001

Allolepidotus ??0?001???0000000?20000??0??100010001?00000??

000??00?0200??0?0?0?111??00?1?0?100????11????00010010001?0000012001

Watsonulus_eugnathoides 000000100000000000300000000?

0000000010000000?000000000000010000001111000110?01000100110?000001?

0100000?00001?0?0

Furo_muensteri ??3??01?0?001000??20000?00??100?00001?00000??

001??00?1?10111???0?111??00?1?0?10?0???11???0102101100011101?111111

Ophiopsis_procera 0?31?010000000??10200000?0?010000000100?1000?

001??00012101?010000111??001111?1000?0011??001021010000111111111111

Teoichthys_brevipina ??3??01??000?3??1?20000??0??10000000100?100??

00???00?12101101??0?11???0011?1?100????11??001021101000112111111?11

Macrepistius_arenatus 003??01?0?00?1??1?2000?0?0??100000001000100??

0010000?1?101101?00011??00?11110100?100110?00102101?000111011111111

Ionoscopus_cyprinoides 10100010000000001?

20000010001000000010000000000000000120011010000111?

001111101000100110?000121010100111010110111

Oshunia_brevis 001000100010?0001?2000?0000010001000100?0?

00000001000120011010000111?001111001000100110?0001210??10011?0?01101?1

Quetzalichthys_perrilliatae ??10?01?0000?00?10200000?00?10000000100?

00000000??000120011010000111??0111?1?100????11??

000121011100111010110111

Remarks on changes of character scorings for Robustichthys Xu et al., 2014

Character 54 (equal to character 56 of Xu et al., 2014) Dermosphenotic attachment

to skull roof: 0, loosely attached on the skull roof or hinged to the side of skull roof; 1,

firmly sutured into skull roof, forming part of it. It is difficult to decide with certainty

whether or not there is a full attachment between the dermosphenotic and the

supposed sphenotic for Robustichthys based on all specimens available at present. The

dermosphenotic of Robustichthys shown in Fig. 1b of Xu et al. (2014) seems to be

loosely hinged at the posterodorsal corner of the orbit and lacks any attachment with

the underlying supposed sphenotic. The sphenotic of Fig. 2c of Xu et al. (2014) is

possibly a dermosphenotic rather than a sphenotic due to its size, shape, and position

compared to that of Fig. 1 of Xu et al. (2014). Similarly, it also does not show an

evidence anteroventral process to tightly attach the sphenotic. Thus, we herein prefer

to code ‘?’ for Robustichthys.

Character 59 (equal to character 61 of Xu et al., 2014). Symplectic involvement in

jaw joint: 0, does not articulate with lower jaw; 1, distal end articulates with articular

bone of lower jaw. Xu et al. (2014) scored Robustichthys 1, and we prefer to code it

‘?’ because the idea that a large, flat bone with ganoine covering on the surface, which

is placed postero-lateral to the quadrate, was interpreted as a symplectic is highly

questionable. The supposed symplectic of Xu et al. (2014) (seen in photographs and

drawings: fig 1b, 1d=S2a, S2b, S2c) displays different shapes. Fig. 1d=S2a and the

drawing of S2c seem to be artificial because the posterior part of the bone is

overlapped by a dermal bone (somewhat rectangular in shape, with ganoinecovering).

Directed observations on IVPP collections (IVPP V18568, 18571) and GMPKU

collections (GMPKU-P-1355, Fig. 1) show that 1) the large, flat bone posterolateral to

the quadrate bears thick ganoine on the surface; 2), a posteriorlylocated notch or

articular fossa of the lower jaw is not visible in all specimens available. Considering

all aspects mentioned above, the large flat bone with ganoinecovering, placed postero-

lateral to the quadrate, is herein interpreted as a quadratojugal, and such a

quadratojugal is mosaically present in basal ginglymodians (like Kyphosiichthys) and

Halecomorphs (Panxianichthys imparilis Xu Shen 2015).

Supplementary Figure 1. Robustichthys luopingensis Xu et al., 2014. A, GMPKU-P-

3155; B, line drawing of the head of GMPKU-P-3155, note especially a large, flat

quadratojugal (Qj) with ganoine tubercles on the surface, the small sphenotic (Spo)

behind the dermosphenotic, and the dermosphenotic (Dsph) bearing a short

descending process without sensory canal; C, reinterpretation of the supposed

symplectic of IVPP V18571; D, ganoine tubercles on the surface of the supposed

symplectic of ZMNH M1690; E, close-up of the large quadratojual with ganoine

tubercles on the surface of GMPKU-P-3155.

Character 61 (equal to character 63 of Xu et al., 2014) Inner orbital flange of

dermosphenotic: 0, smooth, without sensory canal; 1, bearing sensory canal tube. Xu

et al. (2014) scored it 1, and we prefer to code it ‘?’, because the presumed

innerorbital flange of the dermosphenotic is only present in specimen IVPP V18571,

in which the dermosphenotic or main part of the dermosphenotic is lost. It covers the

area where the anterior portion of the dermosphenotic lies, and unevenly shows

ganoine tubercles on the surface. The complete dermosphenotic preserved in Xu et al.

’s (2014) specimens (Fig. 1b, S2c) did not show any trace of the innerorbital flange.

However the dermosphenotic of specimen GMPKU-P-1355 shows an anteroventral

flange anterior to the uppermost infraorbital, but no sensory canal is visible at present

pending more and better-preserved material (ESM Figure 1B).

The position and ornamentation of the bone supports that it is better to be interpreted

as the remains of the anterior portion of the dermosphenotic rather than an

innerorbital flange. Therefore, we herein conservatively code this character as ‘?’ for

Robustichthys.

Character 93. Quadratojugal: 0, somewhat plate-like, placed lateral to the quadrate;

1, splint-like; 2, absent.

Xu et al. (2014) did not include this character in the analysis. Based on the above

discussion of character 59, sufficient evidence supports that a flat, large quadratojugal

is present in Robustichthys. However, to avoid any assumption of ginglymodian

affinity judged before the analysis, we herein code Robustichthys as ‘?’ in our analysis

rather than ‘1’.

Additionally, López-Arbarello et al. [2014 in Text_S1(1)] remarked other character

scorings for Robustichthys Xu et al., 2014. Herein, we carefully followed López-

Arbarello et al. (2014)’s comments for those characters (i.e., character 14, 20, 32, 44

of Xu et al., 2014).

Results of phylogenetic analysis

Supplementary Figure 2.

Character changes plotted on the first of 3 parsimonious trees (length=270;

CI=0.5111; RI=0.7105, HI=0.4889; RC=0.3632). All characters are unordered and

have equal weight. ACCTRAN optimisation of characters is given below nodes

(single-lined arrows mean that the transformation is ambiguous and could be different

on alternative equally parsimonious trees or different under the DELTRAN option,

double-lined arrows mean the change is unambiguous).

References

Alvarado-Ortega, J. Espinosa-Arrubarrena, L. 2008. A new genus of

Ionoscopiform fish (Halecomorphi) from the lower Cretaceous (Albian)

lithographic limestones of the Tlayùa Quarry, Puebla, Mexico. Journal of

Paleontology, 82, 163-175.

Applegate, S. P. 1988. A new genus and species of holostean belonging to the family

Ophiopsidae, Teoichthys kallistos, from the Cretaceous, near Tepexi de

Rodriguez, Puebla. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de

Geología, Revista, 7, 200-205.

Arratia, G. 1997. Basal teleosts and teleostean phylogeny. Palaeo Ichthyologica, 7,

1–168.

Arratia, G. 2013. Morphology, taxonomy, andphylogeny of Triassic pholidophorid

fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 33, 1-138.

Arratia, G. Schultze, H. P. 1990. The urohyal: development and homology within

osteichthyans. Journal of Morphology, 203, 247–282.

Bartram, A. W. H. 1975. The holostean fish genus Ophiopsis Agassiz. Zoological

Journal of the Linnean Society, 56, 183-502.

Bartram, A. W. H. 1977. The Macrosemiidae, a Mesozoic family of holostean fishes.

Bull British Mus (Nat Hist), Geol, 29, 137-234.

Cavin, L. 2010. Diversity of Mesozoic semionotiform fishes and the origin of gars

(Lepisosteidae). Naturwissenschaften, 97, 1035-1040.

Coates, M. I. 1999. Endocranial preservation of a Carboniferous actinopterygian

from Lancashire, UK, and the interrelationships of primitive actinopterygians.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London series B-Biological

Sciences, 345, 435–462.

Gardiner, B. G., Maisey, J. G. Littlewood, D. T. J. 1996. Interrelationships of

basal neopterygians. Chapter 6, 117-146.

Gardiner, B. G. Schaeffer, B. 1989. Interrelationships of lower actinopterygian

fishes. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 97, 135–187.

Grande, L. 2010. An empirical synthetic pattern study of gars (Lepisosteiformes) and

closely related species, based mostly on skeletal anatomy: the resurrection of

Holostei. American Society of Ichthyologists Herpetologists, Special Publication,

6, 1-871.

Grande, L. Bemis, W. E. 1998. A comprehensive phylogenetic study of amiid

fishes (Amiidae) based on comparative skeletal anatomy, an empirical search for

interconnected patterns of natural history. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

Memoir 4, Supplement to Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 18, 1-690.

Herzog, A. 2003. A revision of the genus Eoeugnathus Brough, 1939 (Actinopterygii,

Halecomorphi) from the Alpine Middle Triassic of Grisons (Switzerland).

Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 77, 223-240.

Hilton, E. J. 2002. Osteology of the extant North American fishes of the genus

Hiodon Lesueur, 1818 (Teleostei: Osteoglossomorpha: Hiodontiformes).

Fieldiana (Zoology), New Series 100, 1–142.

Lane, J. A. Ebert, E. 2012. Revision of Furo muensteri (Halecomorphi,

Ophiopsidae) from the Upper Jurassic of Western Europe, with comments on the

genus. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 32, 799-819.

Lombardo, C. 2001. Actinopterygians from the Middle Triassic of northern Italy and

Canton Ticino (Switzerland): anatomical descriptions and nomenclatural problems.

Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia, 107, 345-369.

López-Arbarello, A. 2012. Phylogenetic interrelationships of ginglymodian fishes

(Actinopterygii: Neopterygii). PLoS ONE, 7, e39370. doi:10.1371/

journal.pone.0039370

López-Arbarello, A., Stockar, R. Bürgin, T. 2014. Phylogenetic relationships of

the Triassic Archaeosemionotus Deecke (Halecomorphi, Ionoscopiformes) from

the ‘Perledo Fauna’. PLOS ONE, 9, e108665.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108665.

Machado, G. P., Alvarado-Ortega, J., Machado, L. P. Brito, P. M. 2013.

Teoichthys brevipinna, sp. nov., a new Ophiopsid fish (Halecomorphi,

Ionoscopiformes) from the Lower Cretaceous Tlayúa Formation, Central

Mexico. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 33, 482-487.

Maisey, J. G. 1991. Oshunia Wenz and Kellner, 1986. Pp. 157-168 in J. G. Maisey

(ed) Santana Fossils: An Illustrated Atlas. T. F. H. Publications, Neptune City,

New Jersey, U.S.A.

Olsen, P. E. 1984. The skull and pectoral girdle of the parasemionotid fish

Watsonulus eugnathoides from the Early Triassic Sakamena Group of

Madagascar, with comments on the relationship of the holostean fishes. Journal

of Vertebrae Paleontology, 4, 481-499.

Olsen, P. E. McCune, A. R. 1991. Morphology of the Semionotus elegans species

group from the Early Jurassic part of the Newark Supergroup of eastern North

America with comments on the family semionotidae (Neopterygii). Journal of

Vertebrate Paleontology, 11, 269-292.

Patterson, C. 1973. Interrelationships of holosteans. Pp. 233-305 in P. H.

Greenwood, R. S. Miles C. Patterson (eds), Interrelationships of fishes.

Academic Press, London.

Patterson, C. 1975. The braincase of pholidophorid and leptolepid fishes, with a

review of the actinopterygian braincase. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society of London B, 269, 275–579.

Schaeffer, B. 1960. The Cretaceous holostean fish Macrepistius. American Museum

Novitates, 2011, 1-18.

Schaeffer, B. 1971. The braincase of the holostean fish Macrepistius, with comments

on neurocranial ossification in the actinopterygii. American Museum Novitates,

2459, 1-34.

Sun, Z. Y., Lombardo, C., Tintori, A. Jiang, D. Y. 2015. A new species of

Altisolepis (Peltopleuriformes, Actinopterygii) from the Middle Triassic of

Southern China. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, DOI:

10.1080/02724634.2014.909819

Thies, D. 1989. Sinneslinien bei dem knochenfisch Lepidotes elvensis (Blainville

1818) (Actinopterygii, Semionotiformes) aus dem Oberlias (Unter Toarcium) von

Grimmen in der DDR. Neues Jahrbuch Geol. u. Paläont., Monatshefte, 1989,

692-704.

Tintori, A. 1996. Paralepidotus ornatus (Agassiz, 1833-43): a semionotid from the

Norian (Late Triassic) of Europe. Pp. 167-179 in G. Arratia G. Viohl (eds)

Mesozoic Fishes-Systematics and Paleoecology. Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil, München.

Tintori, A., Hitij, T., Jiang, D. Y., Lombardo, C. Sun, Z. Y. 2014. Triassic

actinopterygian fishes: the recovery after the end-Permian crisis. Integrative

Zoology, 9, 394-411.

Xu, G. H. Gao, K. Q. 2011. A new scnilepiform from the lower Triassic of

northern Gansu Province, China, and phylogenetic relationships of non-

teleostean Actinopterygii. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 161, 595–

612.

Xu, G. H. Shen, C. C. 2015. Panxianichthys imparilis gen. et sp. nov., a new

ionoscopiform (Halecomorphi) from the Middle Triassic of Guizhou, China.

Vertebrata PalAsiatica, 53, 1-15.

Xu, G. H. Wu, F. X. 2012. A deep-bodied ginglymodian fish from the Middle

Triassic of eastern Yunnan Province, China, and the phylogeny of lower

neopterygians. Chinese Science Bulletin, 57, 111-118.

Xu, G. H., Zhao, L. J. Coates, M. 2014. The oldest ionoscopiform from China

sheds new light on the early evolution of halecomorph fishes. Biology Letter

20140204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0204.

Results of phylogenetic analysis - Amazon S3€¦ · Web viewJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology,...

Documents

Transcript of Results of phylogenetic analysis - Amazon S3€¦ · Web viewJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology,...