. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum Zoology. 130 MOOI AND AC. GILL III rPM .Dl. Fig. 8 An unusual Type 1 epaxial morphology in Normanichthys crockeri (USNM 176507, mm SL). I - portion of the epaxial that inserts on to the anterior pterygiophores largely separate from the main body of the epaxial, with only a few fibres shared from each myoseptal section. The exceptions are the insertions on the two anteriormost pterygiophores which have many of their fibres originating from the main epaxial muscle body. II - portion inserting on to pterygiophores that is not separate from the ma
. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum Zoology. 130 MOOI AND AC. GILL III rPM .Dl. Fig. 8 An unusual Type 1 epaxial morphology in Normanichthys crockeri (USNM 176507, mm SL). I - portion of the epaxial that inserts on to the anterior pterygiophores largely separate from the main body of the epaxial, with only a few fibres shared from each myoseptal section. The exceptions are the insertions on the two anteriormost pterygiophores which have many of their fibres originating from the main epaxial muscle body. II - portion inserting on to pterygiophores that is not separate from the main epaxial body. Ill - portion inserting on to the ptergygiophores bearing segmented rays, is mostly separate until just beyond the last ray where it merges with the rest of the epaxial musculature. RPT, rayless pterygiophore; other abbreviations and methods of presentation as in Figs 1, 3. Scale bar = 5 mm. al., 1989: 482) have regarded Hypopterus as a valid, mono- typic genus. We provisionally retain the Centropomidae (Centropomus only) until its relationships are better under- stood. The Trachinoidei as defined by Pietsch & Zabetian (1990) exhibit a variety of epaxial morphologies (Table 1). Ammodytids and chiasmodontids have Type 0, champsodon- tids and cheimarrichthyids have Type 1, and Type 2 is found in the creediids, percophidids, pinguipedids and ura- noscopids. Considering the discussion by Johnson (1993: 13-15), this epaxial character distribution casts further doubt on the integrity of this suborder as currently constituted. Although it seems likely that the epaxial morphologies as defined here have evolved more than once among acantho- morphs, it is difficult to reconcile their distribution with the phylogeny provided by Pietsch & Zabetian (1990). One of their phylogenetic hypotheses is a sister group relationship between the Chiasmodontidae and the Champsodontidae. The Chiasmodontidae do not exhibit any muscle insertions on the dorsal-fin pterygiophores, w
Size: 3517px × 710px
Photo credit: © Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bhlconsortium, bookcentury1900, bookcollectionbiodiversity, bookl
