Journal
BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS
Volume 89, Issue 4, Pages 950-971Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/brv.12086
Keywords
ichthyology; teleost; palaeontology; Palaeozoic; systematics; molecular clocks; diversification; fossils
Categories
Funding
- University of Chicago Committee on Evolutionary Biology, Evolving Earth Foundation
- Paleontological Society
- Palaeontological Association
- American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
- National Science Foundation [DDIGDEB-1011002]
- University of Michigan
- Michigan Society of Fellows
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) dominate modern aquatic ecosystems and are represented by over 32000 extant species. The vast majority of living actinopterygians are teleosts; their success is often attributed to a genome duplication event or morphological novelties. The remainder are living fossils' belonging to a few depauperate lineages with long-retained ecomorphologies: Polypteriformes (bichirs), Holostei (bowfin and gar) and Chondrostei (paddlefish and sturgeon). Despite over a century of systematic work, the circumstances surrounding the origins of these clades, as well as their basic interrelationships and diagnoses, have been largely mired in uncertainty. Here, I review the systematics and characteristics of these major ray-finned fish clades, and the early fossil record of Actinopterygii, in order to gauge the sources of doubt. Recent relaxed molecular clock studies have pushed the origins of actinopterygian crown clades to the mid-late Palaeozoic [Silurian-Carboniferous; 420 to 298 million years ago (Ma)], despite a diagnostic body fossil record extending only to the later Mesozoic (251 to 66 Ma). This disjunct, recently termed the Teleost Gap' (although it affects all crown lineages), is based partly on calibrations from potential Palaeozoic stem-taxa and thus has been attributed to poor fossil sampling. Actinopterygian fossils of appropriate ages are usually abundant and well preserved, yet long-term neglect of this record in both taxonomic and systematic studies has exacerbated the gaps and obscured potential synapomorphies. At the moment, it is possible that later Palaeozoic-age teleost, holostean, chondrostean and/or polypteriform crown taxa sit unrecognized in museum drawers. However, it is equally likely that the Teleost Gap' is an artifact of incorrect attributions to extant lineages, overwriting both a post-Palaeozoic crown actinopterygian radiation and the ecomorphological diversity of stem-taxa.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available