Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2018 Nov 28;48(2):168–184. doi: 10.1111/zsc.12330

Reappraisal of the Eocene whiptail stingrays (Myliobatiformes, Dasyatidae) of the Bolca Lagerstätte, Italy

Giuseppe Marramà 1,✉, Giorgio Carnevale 2, Gavin J P Naylor 3, Jürgen Kriwet 1
PMCID: PMC6446806  PMID: 30983683

Abstract

The Eocene whiptail stingrays of the family Dasyatidae from the Bolca Lagerstätte, NE Italy, are revised herein in detail. The analysis of the anatomical and morphometric features allows us to identify the species “Dasyatis” zigni (Molin, 1861) as a junior synonym of “D.” muricatus (Volta, 1796), and to assign it to the new genus Tethytrygon gen. n. This new taxon exhibits a unique combination of features (e.g., rhombic disc wider than long, elongated tail folds fail to reach the tip of the tail, thorns absent, single serrated tail sting, “caniniform” teeth on upper jaw, tooth crown ornamentation absent, 175–179 vertebrae, 108–117 pectoral radials, 24–27 pelvic radials and other features of clasper anatomy) that clearly support its attribution to the subfamily Neotrygoninae of the stingray family Dasyatidae. The morphological and phylogenetic affinities of Tethytrygon gen. n. with the living neotrygonines (Neotrygon and Taeniura) suggest a close association of this taxon with the tropical shallow‐water habitats hypothesized for the Bolca palaeoenvironment during the early Eocene. Moreover, the analysis of the fossil occurrences of the neotrygonines provides new insights into the role of the Tethys for the origin and evolutionary history of certain whiptail stingrays.

Keywords: Monte Bolca, myliobatiformes, Neotrygoninae, phylogeny, Tethys, Tethytrygon gen. n.

1. INTRODUCTION

The family Dasyatidae, whose representatives are known as whiptail stingrays, includes about 86 living species in 19 genera of small to large stingrays (up to 2.6 m disc width, weighing up to 600 kg) living in demersal inshore habitats of continental and insular shelves up to a depth of 600 m (Last, Naylor, & Manjaji‐Matsumoto, 2016; Last, White, Carvalho, et al., 2016). Morphological characters traditionally used to distinguish whiptail stingrays from other myliobatiformes include a variably depressed circular to rhombic disc not more than 1.3 times as broad as long, an angular to obtuse and sometimes very elongated snout, absent caudal and dorsal fins, greatly elongated and slender to whip‐like tail, one to four long venomous spines, and a skin ranging from being completely smooth to covered with dermal denticles and thorns (Cappetta, 2012; Last, Naylor et al., 2016; Last, White, Carvalho, et al., 2016; Nelson, Grande, & Wilson, 2016). Although some previous studies suggest that the Dasyatidae might be a non‐monophyletic group (e.g., Aschliman, Claeson, & McEachran, 2012; Carvalho, Maisey, & Grande, 2004; Lovejoy, 1996), recent morphological and molecular analyses proposed that this family should be actually regarded as monophyletic (e.g., Aschliman, Nishida, et al., 2012; Bertozzi, Lee, & Donnellan, 2016; Marramà, Klug, Vos, & Kriwet, 2018; Naylor et al., 2012) consisting of four major subgroups at subfamilial level: the Dasyatidae, Hypolophinae, Urogymninae and Neotrygoninae (Last, Naylor et al., 2016). The latter subfamily was created by Last, Naylor, et al. (2016) and comprises species of Neotrygon and Taeniura, two genera today restricted to the Indian Ocean and Indo‐Australian Archipelago, which are unique among dasyatids in having a series of enlarged caniniform teeth on the upper jaw in both sexes and a short tail that is <1.7 times the disc width (Cappetta, 2012; Last, Naylor et al., 2016; Last, White, Carvalho, et al., 2016).

Although the fossil record of stingrays is well represented and dates back to the Early Cretaceous, it is heavily biased towards isolated teeth, dermal denticles and caudal spines (Cappetta, 2012; Underwood, Mitchell, & Veltcamp, 1999). Nearly complete and articulated fossil stingrays have been only recovered from Palaeogene marine sediments of the Bolca Lagerstätte in Italy (Marramà, Carnevale, Engelbrecht, et al., 2018) and Grube Unterfeld in Germany (Hovestadt, Hovestadt‐Euler, & Micklich, 2010), from Eocene freshwater deposits of the Green River Formation, USA (Carvalho et al., 2004), and from Miocene marine deposits of Indonesia (Marramà et al., 2018). The celebrated Eocene (Ypresian, ca. 49 Ma; Papazzoni, Carnevale, Fornaciari, Giusberti, & Trevisani, 2014) Bolca Konservat‐Lagerstätte from north‐eastern Italy is mainly known for the outstanding diversity and preservational quality of bony fish species that provide evidence of the recovery of shallow marine settings associated with reefs after the K‐Pg boundary (Carnevale, Bannikov, Marramà, Tyler, & Zorzin, 2014; Friedman & Carnevale, 2018; Marramà, Garbelli, & Carnevale, 2016b). However, Bolca is also one of the few fossiliferous sites in which fossils of chondrichthyan fishes are exquisitely preserved and represented by nearly complete and articulated skeletons. Recent studies have provided a new perspective about the chondrichthyan palaeobiodiversity of this deposit, which includes possibly more than a dozen of species‐level taxa belonging to a variety of holocephalan, selachian and batoid lineages, including chimaeriformes, carcharhiniformes, lamniformes, torpediniformes, rhinopristiforms and myliobatiformes (Fanti, Minelli, Larocca Conte, & Miyashita, 2016; Marramà et al., 2018; Marramà, Carnevale, & Kriwet, 2018; Marramà, Claeson, Carnevale, & Kriwet, 2018; Marramà, Engelbrecht, Carnevale, & Kriwet, 2017). However, since the comprehensive account of cartilaginous fishes from Bolca written by Jaekel (1894), no modern systematic studies have been carried out on the Bolca stingrays. The goal of this paper is therefore to redescribe the anatomy of the two species from Bolca included in the family Dasyatidae (“Dasyatis” muricatus and “D.” zigni) in detail, to review their taxonomic status and to discuss their relationships within the Myliobatiformes.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study is based on 13 nearly complete and articulated specimens, which are currently housed in the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona (MCSNV), Museo dei Fossili di Bolca (technically part of the MCSNV), registered private collection of Cerato Massimo Cipriano (CMC), Museo di Geologia e Paleontologia dell'Università degli Studi di Padova (MGP‐PD), Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN), Museo Geologico Giovanni Capellini, Università degli Studi di Bologna (MGGP), Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh (CMNH), and Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University (MCZ). The studied material includes both the historical specimens and new specimens collected from excavations carried out in the second half of 20th century. Some of the specimens were examined under ultraviolet light in order to distinguish the preserved soft tissues from grout or pigments used in historical reconstruction. Measurements were taken to the nearest 0.1 mm, and body proportions are detected based on disc width (DW) following Last, Naylor, & Manjaji‐Matsumoto (2016); Last, White, Carvalho, et al. (2016); Last, White, and Naylor (2016). Osteological and tooth terminology primarily follow Herman, Hovestadt‐Euler, Hovestadt, and Stehmann (1998), Herman, Hovestadt‐Euler, Hovestadt, and Stehmann (1999), Herman, Hovestadt‐Euler, Hovestadt, and Stehmann (2000), Lovejoy (1996), Nishida (1990), and Carvalho et al. (2004). Morphometric terminology is adopted and modified from Last, Naylor, & Manjaji‐Matsumoto (2016); Last, White, Carvalho, et al. (2016); Last, White, and Naylor (2016). Biometric analyses (Supporting information Appendix S1), performed to test the homogeneity of the sample and to confirm its assignment to a single species, follow those from Marramà and Carnevale (2015), Marramà, Lombardo, Tintori, and Carnevale (2017) and Cawley, Marramà, Carnevale, and Kriwet (2018).

The phylogenetic analysis is based on the morphological data set of Marramà et al. (2018), which in turn is based on the matrices of Carvalho et al. (2004) and Claeson et al. (2010), and supplemented with characters from Herman et al. (1998), Herman et al. (1999), Herman et al. (2000), Schaefer and Summers (2005), Aschliman, Claeson, et al. (2012), Lim, Lim, Chong, and Loh (2015), Last, White, Carvalho, et al. (2016); Last, Naylor, & Manjaji‐Matsumoto (2016) and Underwood, Kolmann, and Ward (2017) (Supporting information Appendix S1). The matrix was compiled in mesquite v.3.03 (Maddison & Maddison, 2008), and the phylogenetic analysis was performed with tnt v.1.5 using the branch‐and‐bound method (Goloboff, Farris, & Nixon, 2008). All characters are unordered and given equal weight. Tree length, consistency and retention indices, and Bremer support were subsequently calculated for the single parsimonious tree retrieved.

2.1. Extant comparative material examined

Taeniura lymma, IUWP (Department of Palaeontology of the University of Vienna) uncatalogued specimen; Neotrygon sp. IPUW 7355: these two specimens were cleared and stained at the Department of Palaeontology of the University of Vienna following the procedure used by Walker & Kimmel (2007) and investigated non‐invasively with a micro‐CT device SkyScan/Bruker 1173 at the Department of Palaeontology of University of Vienna. The processing of the tiff‐image stacks was performed with amira v.5.4.1 (Visualization Sciences Group); Neotrygon kuhlii, BMNH (Natural History Museum of London) 2015.1.25.6 (CT scan renders provided by C. Underwood); Potamotrygon tigrina, IUWP 7361; Rhinoptera sp., IUWP uncatalogued, dissected specimen.

3. REASSESMENT OF THE WHIPTAIL STINGRAYS OF BOLCA

Whiptail stingrays of the family Dasyatidae are among the first cartilaginous fishes described from the Bolca Lagerstätte, but their taxonomic history is characterized by an intricate and complex scenario. The first taxon was described and figured by Volta (1796, pl. 9, fig. 1) under the name Raja muricata based on a single specimen from the Gazola collection in part and counterpart, today housed in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris, registered under MNHN F.Bol.564 (Figure 1). On the same plate, Volta (1796, pl. 9, fig. 2) figured an incomplete portion of a tail preserving a caudal sting using the same name that was later assigned to Taeniura knerii by Molin (1861), a taxon considered a synonym of Urolophus crassicaudatus by Eastman (1904, 1905a, 1905b). Later, de Blainville (1818) assigned MNHN F.Bol.564 to Trygonobatus vulgaris, and Agassiz (1835), Agassiz (1833–1844) to Trygon gazzolae, without any reliable new description or anatomical interpretation. Subsequently, based on specimen MGP‐PD 159Z/160Z, Molin (1861) created the genus Alexandrinum, which was specified as Alexandrinum molini by de Zigno (1874a) and figured in unpublished material (Figure 2). All these taxa and their respective specimens were referred to Trygon by Jaekel (1894), with R. muricata being considered as the holotype (Trygon Cuvier, 1816 is today regarded as a junior synonym of Dasyatis Rafinesque, 1810). The synonymy of Trygon muricatus was subsequently confirmed by Eastman (1904, 1905a, 1905b, 1911).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

(a‐c) Tethytrygon muricatus (Volta, 1796) from the Eocene of Bolca Lagerstätte. (a) Historical plate of the holotype of T. muricatus MNHN F.Bol.564 illustrated and specified as Raja muricata in Volta (1796, pl. 9); photo: courtesy of Roberto Zorzin and Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona. (b and c) The holotype MNHN F.Bol.564 in part and counterpart. Scale bars 50 mm [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

(a‐c) Tethytrygon muricatus (Volta, 1796) from the Eocene of Bolca Lagerstätte. (a) Unpublished plate of the specimen MGP‐PD 159Z/160Z illustrated and specified as Alexandrinum molinii by Achille de Zigno (1813–1892); photo: courtesy of Università degli Studi di Padova. (b and c) Part and counterpart of the specimen MGP‐PD 159Z/160Z. Scale bars 50 mm [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Based on another single incomplete specimen lacking part of the tail and the sting (MGP‐PD 150Z/151Z), Molin (1861) described another dasyatid taxon as Anacanthus zigni. As reported later by de Zigno (1874a, 1874b), who also figured the specimen in unpublished material (Figure 3), Molin diagnosed and distinguished the new taxon from R. muricata based on the supposed absence of a caudal sting and a tail that is shorter than the disc length. Subsequently, Jaekel (1894) recognized that the presence of a very short tail and the absence of a sting in MGP‐PD 150Z/151Z were due to the incompleteness of the specimen, and assigned the species to the genus Trygon. However, he maintained and distinguished Trygon zigni (Molin, 1861) from T. muricatus (Volta, 1796) based on the “much smaller size […] a less rounded outline of the disc […] and pelvic fins triangular in shape.” Since then, no detailed anatomical descriptions and taxonomic interpretation of the whiptail stingrays of Bolca were carried out. Our revision of the material showed that no substantial morphological differences support the hypothesis that MGP‐PD 150Z/151Z (nor MGP‐PD 159Z/160Z) should be recognized as a different species. The analysis of the anatomical and morphometric features allow us to recognize the species “Dasyatis” zigni (Molin, 1861) as a junior synonym of “Dasyatis” muricatus (Volta, 1796) and to assign it to the new genus Tethytrygon gen. n. The new taxon is represented by 13 partially complete and articulated skeletons (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4). The large number of available specimens and their good preservation allowed for the recognition and description of several skeletal and dental characters, which are useful to distinguish and separate the taxon from any other known living and fossil dasyatid (see the detailed anatomical description in the Supporting information Appendix S1). The specimens examined comprise different ontogenetic stages, with the largest one (an adult male) being characterized by 60 cm disc width and possibly reaching 150 cm in total length. The disc of Tethytrygon gen. n. is rhombic, not wing‐like, reaching the maximum width in the anterior third of disc length. The disc length is slightly shorter than the disc width (0.9 times), whereas the total length is about 2.6 and 2.8 times those of the disc width and disc length, respectively. The tail is long and about 1.8 times the disc width. Tethytrygon muricatus lacks dorsal fins, whereas a single serrated sting can be recognized in most of the specimens. The placement within the subfamily Neotrygoninae is particularly supported by the presence of files of “caniniform” teeth in the upper jaw (Figure 5), which represent a unique and derived trait for Neotrygon and Taeniura among stingrays (Cappetta, 2012; Last, Naylor, & Manjaji‐Matsumoto, 2016; Last, White, Carvalho, et al., 2016) and supports the grouping of Tethytrygon gen. n. with these genera in our phylogeny. Tethytrygon muricatus is a unique neotrygonine in having the following autapomorphic traits: large size (up to 60 cm DW and possibly 150 cm TL), long tail (170.4%–184.7% DW) and low number of monospondylous trunk vertebrae (23–26). Additionally, Tethytrygon gen. nov is also characterized by a unique combination of morphological and meristic characters that allow to distinguish it from the other neotrygonines (Table 1). These features include a disc rhombic in shape, disc length 87.2%–95.2% DW, total length 249.5%–263.0% DW, subtriangular pelvic fins 24.6%–29.9% DW and eye diameter 2.7%–4.5% DW. The skin of T. muricatus is mostly smooth without thorns but with small scattered star‐shaped dermal denticles in largest individuals. A single serrated sting of 26.1%–32.7% DW can be recognized in most of the specimens. The vertebral column is composed of 175–179 vertebrae. The pectoral disc contains 108–117 pectoral radials of which 49–53 are propterygial, 16–20 are mesopterygial, and 40–45 are metapterygial radials. The pelvic fins have 24–26 radials. The tail folds are located posterior to caudal sting origin and fail to reach the tip of the tail as in Neotrygon. The teeth are rhombic in occlusal view and possess well‐marked concavely arched cutting edges. Their lingual surface is low and strongly concave and the crown ornamentation is absent.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

(a‐c) Tethytrygon muricatus (Volta, 1796) from the Eocene of Bolca Lagerstätte. (a) Unpublished plate of the specimen MGP‐PD 150Z/151Z illustrated and specified as Anacanthus zignii by Achille de Zigno (1813–1892); photo: courtesy of Università degli Studi di Padova. (b and c) Part and counterpart of the specimen MGP‐PD 150Z/151Z. Scale bars 50 mm [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

(a‐f) Selected specimens of Tethytrygon muricatus (Volta, 1796) from the Eocene of Bolca Lagerstätte. (a) CMC2, juvenile female individual. (b) MCSNV IG.23194, adult male. (c) MCSNV IG.186653, adult female. (d) MCSNV T.1021, subadult female. (e) MCSNV II.B.92, subadult female. (f) MNHN F.Bol568, adult female. Scale bars 50 mm [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

(a‐j) Tethytrygon muricatus (Volta, 1796) from the Eocene of Bolca Lagerstätte (specimen MCSNV IG.186653) . (a‐e) A single tooth from the file of “caniniform” teeth in (a) occlusal, (b) lingual, (c) labial, (d) lateral and (e) basal view; the picture depicted in A1 represent the same tooth still in place (the cusp has broken during the extraction). (f‐j) Another isolated tooth (not coming from the file of “caniniform” teeth) in (f) occlusal, (g) lingual, (h) labial, (i) lateral and (j) basal view. Scale bar is 500 μm [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Table 1.

Morphological and meristic characters useful to distinguish Tethytrygon gen. n. from the living neotrygonines Taeniura and Neotrygon. All measurements as percentage of disc width (%DW) and mean values are within parentheses. The living species include Neotrygon annotata, N. australiae, N. caeruleopunctata, N. indica, N. kuhli, N. leylandi, N. ningalooensis, N. orientalis, N. picta, N. trigonoides, N. varidens, Taeniura lymma and T. lessoni. Data from Schwartz (2005), Schwartz, (2007), Schwartz (2008), Last and White (2008), Last, White, Carvalho, et al. (2016), Last, Naylor, et al. (2016), Last, White, and Naylor (2016) and Pavan‐Kumar, Kumar, Pitale, Shen, and Borsa (2018)

Morphometric character Tethytrygon Taeniura Neotrygon
Max disc width (cm) 60.3 37.0 47.0
Max total length (cm) ≈150 75.0 70.0
Clasper length 19.0 (19.0) 21.2 20.0–23.3
Disc length 88.2–95.3 (92.3) 110.5–120.4 79.2–87.3
Snout to pectoral‐fin insertion 77.2–85.8 (81.9) 92.6–106.1 68.1–77.2
Orbit to pectoral‐fin insertion 61.5–68.7 (64.7) 63.4–74.1 44.5–55.9
Snout (preorbital) length 15.1–18.5 (16.9) 21.5–25.7 13.3–18.5
Pectoral‐fin insertion to sting 73.9–80.1 (79.1) 71.9–88.3 32.6–44.5
Eye diameter 2.7–4.5 (3.7) 6.6–8.4 5.1–6.6
Inter‐eye width 10.7–17.7 (14.6) 17.3–20.0 12.7–18.8
Snout to max disc width 36.3–43.5 (40.1) 51.7–57.8 36.8–41.5
Pelvic fin length 24.5–30.0 (27.6) 28.8–34.3 13.6–22.4
Pelvic girdle width 21.3–23.5 (22.7) 17.6–24.1 13.7–22.1
Preoral length 13.4–16.1 (15.0) 17.7–20.7 15.9–18.8
Prescapular distance (head length) 42.9–50.0 (45.8) 49.8–57.1 38.2–42.3
Sting length 25.3–32.8 (29.7) 20.4–29.1 13.4–19.2
Tail length 170.4–184.7 (178.2) 150.0–170.0 110.0–150.0
Total length 249.5–263.0 (255.0) 232.5–265.6 159.1–224.6
Mouth–scapulocoracoid distance 28.1–31.5 (30.0) ? ?
Neurocranial length 22.5–24.9 (23.9) ? ?
Neurocranial width 14.7–18.3 (16.2) ? ?
Pelvics to tip of tail length 141.8–156.7 (149.0) ? ?
Prepelvic distance 71.7–78.2 (75.4) ? ?
Presting length 152.6–173.4 (162.3) ? ?
Scapulocoracoid width 19.7–22.8 (21.1) ? ?
Meristic and body characters Tethytrygon Taeniura Neotrygon
Propterygial radials 49–53 (51) 47–50 40–51
Mesopterygial radials 16–20 (18) 15–18 12–17
Metapterygial radials 40–45 (43) 47–50 44–50
Total pectoral radials 108–117 (112) 110–115 101–113
Pelvic radials 24–27 (25) 18–25 19–24
Monospondylous trunk vertebrae (excl. synarcual) 23–26 (24) 37–39 34–46
Diplospondylous vertebrae (anterior to sting) 100–109 (105) 90–101 57–67
Diplospondylous vertebrae (posterior to sting) 45–54 (48) 40–55 14–40
Total vertebrae 175–179 (177) 175–184 109–145
Number of stings 1 (1) 1–2 1–2
Sting serrations (total) 48–90 (69) 59–69 ?
Tooth ornamentation Absent Present Absent
Denticles Absent/present Absent/present Absent/present
Thorns Absent Present Absent/present
Open in a new tab

4. PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS

Carvalho et al. (2004, fig. 51) tentatively placed T. muricatus (as “Dasyatis” muricata) within the Myliobatiformes. Though they recognized its affinities with dasyatids, they placed it conservatively in an unsolved polytomy together with Dasyatis, Himantura, Styracura (as “Himantura”), Pteroplatytrygon and Taeniura. Our analysis of 103 traits coded for 30 taxa produced a single parsimonious tree (length 216 steps, C.I 0.65, R.I 0.79) that resolved many of the systematic affinities of T. muricatus (Figure 6). A complete list of synapomorphies at each node is listed in Table 2. The tree is similar to the one depicted in by Marramà et al. (2018, fig. 8b) and only differs in the improved resolution of the positions of Plesiobatis as well as of the Eocene freshwater stingrays Asterotrygon and Heliobatis. The monophyly of the Myliobatiformes, as recognized by McEachran, Dunn, and Miyake (1996), Carvalho et al. (2004), McEachran and Aschliman (2004), Aschliman, Claeson, et al. (2012) and Marramà et al. (2018), is confirmed and strongly supported herein (Bremer value 9) by 10 synapomorphies: basihyal as a single element, but separate from first hypobranchials (character 19[1]); presence of a median projection of the basibranchial medial plate (ch. 22[1]); presence of levator and depressor rostri muscles (ch. 66[1]), serrated tail stings (ch. 67[1]); thorns absent (ch. 69[1]); rostral cartilage vestigial or absent (ch. 73[1]); postorbital process very broad and shelf‐like (ch. 74[1]); jugal arch absent (ch. 75[1]); presence of ball and socket articulation between scapular process and synarcual (ch. 78[1]); presence of a thoracolumbar synarcual (ch. 79[1]).

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

The single parsimonious tree retrieved in tnt v.1.5 based on 103 morphological characters showing the hypothetical relationships of Tethytrygon muricatus (Volta, 1796) within the Myliobatiformes. Numbers on nodes indicate the Bremer support. Extinct taxa are marked with a dagger. The list of synapomorphies on each node (capital letters) is given in Table 2

Table 2.

List of synapomorphies for each node depicted in Figure 6. See the explanation of characters and states in Supporting information Appendix S1

Node Clade Synapomorphies
A Myliobatiformes 19(1), 22(1), 66(1), 67(1), 69(1), 73(1), 74(1), 75(1), 78(1), 79(1),
B – 12(1), 21(1), 43(1)
C Myliobatoidea 10(1), 27(1), 28(1), 34(2), 81(3), 100(0), 101(1)
D Myliobatidae 7(1), 11(1), 15(1), 17(1), 18(1), 19(3), 21(2), 22(0), 23(1), 25(1), 33(1), 35(1), 37(1), 38(1), 44(1), 45(1), 46(1), 48(1), 54(1), 57(1), 60(1), 61(1), 70(3), 71(2), 76(3), 96(1), 97(1), 98(1)
E – 55(1), 92(2)
F – 9(1), 24(1), 27(2), 51(1)
G – 5(1), 6(1), 28(0)
H – 44(0), 95(1)
I Dasyatoidea 88(1)
J Urolophidae 8(1), 29(2), 99(1)
K – 68(1)
L – 69(0)
M Heliobatidae 34(1)
N – 19(2), 25(1), 76(1)
O Urotrygonidae 1(1), 41(1)
P – 33(1), 34(2), 81(2), 85(1), 88(2)
Q Potamotrygonidae 3(2), 25(0), 30(1), 39(1), 40(1)
R – 3(1), 14(1), 24(1), 26(1), 34(1), 36(2), 71(1)
S Dasyatidae 87(1), 89(1)
T Urogymninae 99(1), 102(1)
U – 34(1), 83(0), 84(1)
V Neotrygoninae 36(1), 92(1), 103(1)
W – 82(1), 88(1)
X – 57(1&2)
Open in a new tab

The absence of ribs (ch. 80), traditionally recognized as a synapomorphy of stingrays, does not support the clade in our phylogeny, since skates (here represented by Raja) lack ribs as well (Marramà, Schultz, & Kriwet, 2018). Hexatrygon (Sixgill stingray) is inferred to be the sister to all other stingrays in most analyses based on morphological data (Aschliman, Claeson, et al., 2012; Aschliman, Nishida, et al., 2012; Carvalho et al., 2004; Claeson et al., 2010; Marramà et al., 2018), but not in recent molecular phylogenies, where it was recovered nested within myliobatiformes being sister to the urolophids (Naylor, Caira, Jensen, Rosana, Straube et al., 2012; Naylor, Caira, Jensen, Rosana, White et al., 2012) or to Gymnura (Bertozzi et al., 2016).

Our phylogeny detected a dichotomous nature of remaining myliobatiformes as determinated by Marramà et al. (2018). The dichotomy is formed by two main clades that correspond in part to the superfamilies Myliobatoidea and Dasyatoidea. The nature of the dichotomy is possibly linked to the different calcifications of radial cartilages, body shapes and swimming modes detected in these two main groups by Schaefer and Summers (2005). The monophyly of the myliobatoids, including Gymnura as sister to pelagic stingrays, is supported herein by seven synapomorphies: short orbital region with more anteriorly placed supraorbital and postorbital process (ch. 10[1]); mesopterygium fragmented (ch. 27[1]); lateral expansion of radials in pectoral region (ch. 28[1]); caudal fin absent (ch. 34[2]); first segment of propterygium adjacent to anterior margin of antorbital cartilage or anterior to margin of nasal capsule (ch. 81[3]); “crustal” calcification pattern of radials (ch. 100[0]); and wing‐like body shape with pectoral fins greatly expanded (ch. 101[1]). This clade includes those stingrays with crustal calcification of radials and a wing‐like body shape that possibly reflect their unique oscillatory swimming mode (Schaefer & Summers, 2005).

The tree presents a hypothesis that contrasts with more recent analyses (e.g., Aschliman, Nishida, et al., 2012; Naylor, Caira, Jensen, Rosana, Straube et al., 2012; Naylor, Caira, Jensen, Rosana, White et al., 2012) in resurrecting the Gymnura + Myliobatidae clade, whose relationship is only weakly supported according to Aschliman (2014) because of the limited set of taxa and ambiguous character states. Recent molecular analyses resolved Gymnura as sister to Urolophus (Aschliman, Nishida, et al., 2012), Plesiobatis (Naylor et al., 2012), Hexatrygon (Bertozzi et al., 2016), or placed it much closer to the base of all myliobatiformes (Last, White, Carvalho, et al., 2016). The family Myliobatidae (including Aetomylaeus, Myliobatis, Aetobatus, Rhinoptera, Manta and Mobula) is herein detected as monophyletic and well supported (Bremer value 5) by 28 characters (see Table 2). The monophyly of the clade Dasyatoidea (including all remaining stingrays) is weakly supported (Bremer value 1) by a single character, the spiracularis split into lateral and medial bundles, with the medial bundle inserting on to the posterior surface of Meckel's cartilage and the lateral bundle inserting onto the dorsal edge of the hyomandibula (ch. 88[1]). This group includes stingrays having rhomboidal or oval disc shapes and “catenated” calcification of radials, which reflect their undulatory swimming mode and benthic habits (Schaefer & Summers, 2005). The family Urolophidae (Urolophus + Trygonoptera) is sister to all dasyatoids, and its monophyly as detected by Carvalho et al. (2004) and Bertozzi et al. (2016) is confirmed and well supported herein (Bremer value 3) by three characters: very enlarged foramen for the optic (II) nerve (ch. 8[1]); external margin of mesopterygium highly sinuous, fused with articulating radial elements (ch. 29[2]); and presence of a second transverse tooth keel (ch. 99[1]). In Marramà et al. (2018, Figure 8) the systematic position of Plesiobatis, Asterotrygon and Heliobatis was poorly resolved and the analysis detected two different hypotheses. Possibly due to the recoding of some characters (Supporting information Appendix S1) and to the inclusion of the new taxon described herein, our new analysis detected a single tree in which Plesiobatis is more basal than the Eocene freshwater stingrays Asterotrygon and Heliobatis. These two fossil taxa form a monophyletic clade supported by a single character (caudal fin reduced to tail folds; ch. 34[1]). In fact, since this character is absent in the outgroups, Hexatrygon, urolophids and Plesiobatis (all of them having a fully developed caudal fin), the reduction of the caudal fin to tail folds seems to have been achieved originally in the common ancestor of Asterotrygon and Heliobatis and later, independently, in more advanced dasyatids. Although the relationship between Asterotrygon and Heliobatis is weakly supported (Bremer value 1), this might corroborate the hypothesis that the two genera diverged after their common ancestor invaded the freshwater system of Green River Formation, contrary to the hypothesis of Carvalho et al. (2004), who hypothesized that Asterotrygon and Heliobatis might have invaded independently the Eocene freshwaters of Fossil Lake. It is therefore reasonable to recognize a single monophyletic family, which includes these two extinct genera (Heliobatidae Marsh, 1877). The family Urotrygonidae (Urotrygon + Urobatis) is monophyletic as detected in Aschliman, Claeson, et al. (2012), Naylor et al. (2012) and Bertozzi et al. (2016), and sister to a polytomy that includes Styracura, freshwater potamotrygonids and dasyatids. Representatives of this grouping are supported by the following traits: presence of a cartilaginous rod in tail (ch. 33[1]); caudal fin absent (ch. 34[2]); first segment of propterygium adjacent to the nasal capsule (ch. 81[2]); cartilage forming component claw in claspers absent (ch. 85[1]); and spiracularis that extends beyond the hyomandibula and Meckel's cartilage (ch. 88[2]). Although a close relationship between the freshwater potamotrygonids and the marine stingray Styracura is almost certainly true as detected by morphological, molecular and chrono/geographic evidences (Aschliman, Claeson, et al., 2012; Bertozzi et al., 2016; Carvalho et al., 2004; Carvalho, Loboda, & Silva, 2016; Lovejoy, 1996; Naylor, Caira, Jensen, Rosana, Straube et al., 2012; Naylor, Caira, Jensen, Rosana, White et al., 2012), our phylogeny did not recognize Styracura as a genuine member of the family Potamotrygonidae, due to the fact that the Styracura lacks some characters of the lateral‐line, and pectoral and pelvic fin skeleton typically found in freshwater potamotrygonids (Carvalho et al., 2016).

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Schematic map of the Tethys area during the Eocene showing the oldest and reliable only occurrences of fossil neotrygonines. Map adopted and modified from Scotese (2002) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

The monophyletic status of whiptail stingrays of the family Dasyatidae (including here Himantura, Neotrygon, Taeniura, Pteroplatytrygon, Pastinachus and Dasyatis), as recognized by Aschliman, Nishida, et al. (2012), Naylor et al. (2012), Bertozzi et al. (2016), Marramà et al. (2018), but not by Carvalho et al. (2004), Aschliman, Claeson, et al. (2012) and Lim et al. (2015), is recognized and supported herein by two features: ventral terminal cartilage free of axial cartilage (ch. 87[1]) and presence of sexual heterodonty (ch. 89[1]). The presence of tail folds used to diagnose the family Dasyatidae by Bigelow and Schroeder (1953), Compagno and Roberts (1982, 1984) and Nishida (1990) is not supportive of the clade because they are also present in Styracura, some freshwater potamotrygonids and extinct heliobatids. The sister‐group relationship between the urogymnines Protohimantura and Himantura is again recognized as in Marramà et al. (2018) supported by a second transverse tooth keel in these taxa (ch. 99[1]), and mid‐dorsal surface of disc covered by heart‐shaped denticles arranged in an antero‐posteriorly directed patch with sharply defined outlines (ch. 102[1]). The placement of urogymnines as the sister of all other dasyatids is in accordance with molecular analysis presented by Puckridge, Last, White, and Andreakis (2013) but inconsistent with the molecular and morphological phylogenetic results of Lim et al. (2015) and Last, Naylor, et al. (2016). Tethytrygon gen. n. is clearly a genuine member of the subfamily Neotrygoninae (including the living Neotrygon and Taeniura) which is supported herein by three synapomorphies: spiracularis muscle projecting ventrally and posteriorly beyond hyomandibulae and both sets of jaws to insert dorsal to coracomandibularis (ch. 36[1]), presence of anterior process of the Meckel's cartilage (ch. 92[1]), and file of “caniniform” teeth in the upper jaw (ch. 103[1]). It is interesting to note that the monophyly of living neotrygonines has been also detected by the molecular analyses of Aschliman, Nishida, et al. (2012), Puckridge et al. (2013), Lim et al. (2015) Bertozzi et al. (2016) and Last, Naylor, et al. (2016), as well as in the morphology‐based study by Marramà et al. (2018). Although Tethytrygon gen. n., Neotrygon and Taeniura have been resolved in a polytomy, the analysis detected some autapomorphic characters (not shown) useful to distinguish the three genera. For example, Tethytrygon gen. n. is unique in the absence of thorns (ch. 69[1]), which instead are present in at least a single antero‐posteriorly directed row of thorns dorsally on disc in living neotrygonine genera (e.g., Last, White, Carvalho, et al., 2016), whereas Neotrygon can be distinguished from Taeniura in the absence of levator and depressor rostri muscles (ch. 66[0]), and in the presence of a jugal arch (ch. 75[0]). Finally the clade Pteroplatytrygon + (Dasyatis + Pastinachus) is recovered here as the most derived clade among dasyatoids, supported by two synapomorphies: pseudosiphon present in claspers (ch. 82[1]) and spiracularis split into lateral and medial bundles, with the medial bundle inserting onto the posterior surface of Meckel's cartilage and the lateral bundle inserting onto the dorsal edge of the hyomandibula (ch. 88[1]). The bootstrap tree (Figure 7) looses resolution as expected, but a close relationship between Tethytrygon, Neotrygon and Taeniura (Neotrygoninae) is still retrieved.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Bootstrap consensus tree based on the same data matrix. Numbers on nodes are bootstrap values. Extinct taxa are marked with a dagger

5. DISCUSSION

5.1. Comparison and relationships

The detailed morphological analysis of T. muricatus (Supporting information Appendix S1), has revealed the presence of a number of characters that strongly support its inclusion within the order Myliobatiformes, including the absence of rostral cartilage, presence of a broad and shelf‐like postorbital process, thoracolumbar synarcual, serrated tail sting and basihyal separated from first hypobranchials (e.g., Compagno, 1977; Carvalho et al., 2004; Aschliman, Claeson, et al., 2012). The placement of T. muricatus within the Dasyatidae is supported by the ventral terminal cartilage that is free of the axial cartilage, and presence of sexual heterodonty. Moreover, a combination of several plesiomorphic characters argues against the placement of T. muricatus in other clades. For example, the presence of tail folds excludes its assignment to myliobatids and dasyatoids characterized by developed caudal fin (e.g., urolophids and urobatis). The absence of angular and secondary cartilages separate the new genus from potamotrygonids, whereas the first segment of the propterygium adjacent to the anterior margin of the antorbital cartilage or anterior to the margin of the nasal capsule separate T. muricatus from non‐dasyatids dasyatoids (posterior to the mouth, between mouth and antorbital cartilage, or adjacent to the nasal capsule in these latter). An external margin of the mesopterygium that is more or less straight and not fused to radials exclude any relationship between T. muricatus and Gymnura (undulated, not fused to radials) or the Urolophidae (highly sinuous, fused with radials; e.g., Carvalho et al., 2004). Moreover, the absence of all the shared derived traits characterizing Gymnura and pelagic stingrays (Table 2) supports the exclusion of Tethytrygon gen. n. from the group of myliobatoid stingrays.

The morphological and phylogenetic analysis identified Tethytrygon gen. n. as a genuine member of the Neotrygoninae, in a polytomous relationship with the extant representatives of this subfamily Neotrygon and Taeniura. The placement within the subfamily is supported by the presence of the anterior processes of the Meckel's cartilage and the file of “caniniform” teeth in the upper jaw. Tethytrygon gen. n. differs from the two living neotrygonine genera by its larger size, longer tail and lower number of trunk vertebrae in addition to morphometric and meristic features (Table 1). Tethytrygon gen. n. can be readily separated from Taeniura by proportional measurements in disc length, snout to pectoral‐fin insertion, preorbital and preoral length, eye diameter, snout to maximum disc width, and tail length (Table 1). Moreover, the absence of any tooth ornamentation and thorns, and tail folds failing to reach the tip of the tail in Tethytrygon gen. n. distinguish it furthermore from Taeniura. Tethytrygon gen. n. differs from Neotrygon in having different proportions of the snout and orbit to pectoral‐fin insertions, pectoral‐fin insertion to sting length, eye diameter, pelvic fin, sting, tail and total lengths, and vertebral counts (Table 1).

5.2. Palaeoecology, palaeobiogeography and evolutionary significance

Extant stingrays of the subfamily Neotrygoninae are demersal, benthic marine batoids occurring inshore on continental or insular shelves at depths up to 90 m (Last, White, Carvalho, et al., 2016; Nelson et al., 2016). Neotrygon and Taeniura mainly inhabit warm‐temperate and tropical shallow waters, and are often associated with the coral reefs of the Indian Ocean, and Indo‐Australian Archipelago, feeding mainly on small bony fishes, crustaceans, worms and bivalves (Last, White, Carvalho, et al., 2016). In this perspective, the presence of several specimens of Tethytrygon gen. n., which represents the most common batoid in the Bolca palaeobiotope, suggests close affinities of this taxon with the shallow‐water habitats, possibly associated with coral reefs, hypothesized for the Pesciara palaeobiotope (Marramà, Bannikov, Tyler, Zorzin, & Carnevale, 2016; Papazzoni & Trevisani, 2006).

Although the fossil record of Dasyatidae is extensive and well documented, probably dating back at least to the Early Cretaceous (Cappetta, 2012; Underwood et al., 1999), fossils of the subfamily Neotrygoninae are rare and, with the exception of Tethytrygon gen. n., solely represented by isolated teeth. However, the paucity of the fossils probably represents an artefact, since many neotrygonine teeth might have been misassigned to Dasyatis, which has been traditionally used as catch‐all genus for many fossil teeth exhibiting “dasyatoid” morphology (Cappetta, 2012; Underwood et al., 1999). Fossils of the genus Neotrygon have been reported so far only from the middle to late Eocene deposits of the Fayum area, Egypt. The single tooth figured by Underwood et al. (2011, fig. 7p) is very similar to teeth of Tethytrygon gen. nov. Based on palaeobiogeographic, palaeoecological and palaeoenvironmental evidences, we do not exclude that teeth reported as Neotrygon sp. by Underwood et al. (2011) may belong to Tethytrygon gen. n. Conversely, the genus Taeniura was reported from several localities. However, the relative abundance of Taeniura in the fossil record from the Miocene to the Pliocene might be an artefact since teeth traditionally reported as Taeniura grabata and Taeniura cavernosa should be referred to the dasyatid genus Taeniurops (subfamily Dasyatinae), recently resurrected by Last and Stevens (2009) based on unambiguous morphological and dental differences with respect to Taeniura (see Cappetta, 2012). Thus, reliable reports of Taeniura (as T. sp.) appear to be solely restricted from the middle to late Eocene of the Fayum area, Egypt (Underwood et al., 2011). Teeth of Taeniura sp. are also reported from the lower Miocene of Brazil (Aguilera et al., 2017) and from the Pliocene of Libya (Pawellek et al., 2012), although it is not clear whether the authors recognized their affinities with Taeniurops (T. grabata or T. cavernosa) or Taeniura (T. lymma or T. lessoni). Therefore, the oldest remains referable to neotrygonines are from Eocene tropical shallow Tethyan localities (Bolca and Fayum area; Figure 7).

The Bolca chondrichthyan assemblage is remarkably different from those of other contemporaneous Boreal (London Clay, Paris basin, Lede Sand Formation, Fürstenau Formation, Lillebælt Clay) or Tethyan (SW France and Northern Morocco) deposits, suggesting that its taxonomic composition is largely influenced by the different palaeoenvironmental setting (Marramà et al., 2018). Conversely, the Bolca palaeoenvironmental and palaeoecological characters appear to be more consistent with the tropical shallow settings reported from south‐western Morocco and, even more, with those of the Fayum area in Egypt (Marramà et al., 2018). Like the latter, in particular, the Bolca fauna is characterized by the presence of small odontaspidids, small carcharhinids, and juvenile triakids, all generalist feeders preying on small nectobenthic preys and zooplanktivorous coastal bony fishes. Among batoids, the Fayum area and the Bolca Lagerstätte share the presence of thornbacks (Platyrhinidae) and, as detected in the present study, neotrygonines, which are absent in other deposits (Marramà et al., 2018; Underwood et al., 2011).

Today, the neotrygonines Neotrygon and Taeniura are restricted to continental and insular shelves of the Indian Ocean and Indo‐Australian Archipelago (Last, White, Carvalho, et al., 2016). Divergence time estimates indicate that living neotrygonines diverged from other dasyatids in the Late Cretaceous and that Neotrygon diverged from Taeniura around the K‐Pg boundary (Puckridge et al., 2013). However, Aschliman, Nishida, et al. (2012) placed the divergence of neotrygonines from Dasyatis around 50 million years ago. Later, a series of rapid cladogenetic events (triggered by tectonics and eustatism) were probably responsible for the isolation and high diversity of Neotrygon species in the Indo‐West Pacific area (Puckridge et al., 2013). The authors also suggested an austral origin for the genus Neotrygon. Although collecting and taphonomic biases must be considered, since the earliest known neotrygonines appear to be the Ypresian to Priabonian occurrences of Bolca and Fayum area, one can suppose a Tethyan origin for the group and an eastward migration of its representatives from the Tethys during the Eocene, to the Arabian Peninsula and the Indo‐Australian Archipelago in the Miocene, following the shift of the centre of marine biodiversity across the globe from the Eocene to today (Renema et al., 2008). This pattern was also highlighted at least for two other dasyatid subfamilies, the Hypolophinae and the Urogymninae, whose more abundant fossil record indicates an Eocene origination in the Tethys, followed by a widespread colonization of the proto‐ Mediterranean Sea and Indo‐Pacific from late Palaeogene to the early Neogene (Adnet et al., 2018; Marramà et al., 2018).

6. CONCLUSIONS

The revision of the Eocene stingrays from the Bolca Lagerstätte traditionally referred to “Dasyatis” muricatus and “D.” zigni allowed a detailed reinterpretation of their morphology and taxonomic status. A unique combination of morphological features allowed the recognition of a new genus of the family Dasyatidae, Tethytrygon gen. n. The phylogenetic analysis suggested close affinity to the living representatives of the subfamily Neotrygoninae. The scarce fossil record of neotrygonines seems to suggest a Tethyan origin for the group, and that their modern distribution restricted to the Indian Ocean and Indo‐Australian Archipelago may be the final result of their spatial dynamics across the Palaeogene and Neogene, following the eastward shift of the marine centre of palaeobiodiversity across the globe, a model also detected for hypolophines and urogymnines, among stingrays.

Supporting information

 

Click here for additional data file. (5.7MB, pdf)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Anna Vaccari (curator technician of the palaeontological section of the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona) who sadly passed away too early. The authors thank Roberto Zorzin (MCSNV), Massimo Cerato (Museo dei Fossili di Bolca), Mariagabriella Fornasiero and Letizia Del Favero (MGP‐PD), Federico Fanti e Roberto Barbieri (MGGC), Alan Pradel (MNHN), Amy Henrici and Alan Tabrum (CMNH) and Jessica D. Cundiff (MCZ) for the access to facilities and material under their care. Thanks are also due to Stefano Castelli (Padova University), Christian Lemzaouda and Elise Porez (MNHN, CNRS, RECOLNAT) for some of the photographs. The Department of Geosciences of the University of Padova is deeply acknowledged for kind permission to reproduce the two unpublished plates of Bolca fossil rays by Achille De Zigno housed at the Library of the Department of Geosciences of Padova University. Luca Giusberti (Padova University) is thanked for the useful suggestions and support in this. The authors also thank Faviel Lopez Romero (University of Vienna) for having cleared and stained the Neotrygon and Taeniura specimens; Cathrin Pfaff (University of Vienna) in performing micro‐CT scans of Taeniura used for comparisons; and Charlie Underwood for the useful discussion about the Eocene neotrygonine teeth from the Fayum area in Egypt, and for kindly providing pictures of Neotrygon kuhlii (BMNH 2015.1.25.6) and the Fayum tooth used for comparisons. The manuscript was also greatly improved with the constructive reviews provided by Todd Cook (Penn State Behrend) and by editorial comments. Financial support was provided by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [M2368‐B25 to G.M.] and the Università degli Studi di Torino [ex‐60% 2017 and 2018 grants to G.C.]. Open access funding was provided by University of Vienna.

Marramà G, Carnevale G, Naylor GJP, Kriwet J. Reappraisal of the Eocene whiptail stingrays (Myliobatiformes, Dasyatidae) of the Bolca Lagerstätte, Italy. Zool Scr. 2019;48:168–184. 10.1111/zsc.12330

REFERENCES

  1. Adnet, S. , Mouana, M. , Charruault, A.‐L. , Essid, E. M. , Khayati Ammar, H. , Marzougui, W. , … Marivaux, L. (2018). Teeth, fossil record and evolutionary history of the cowtail stingray Pastinachus Rüppell, 1829. Historical Biology, 10.1080/08912963.2018.1431779. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Agassiz, L. (1833. –1844). Recherches sur les Poissons fossiles. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Petitpierre et Prince. [Google Scholar]
  3. Agassiz, L. (1835). Revue critique des Poissons fossiles figurés dans l’Ittiolitologia Veronese. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Petitpierre et Prince. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aguilera, O. , Luz, Z. , Carrillo‐Briceño, J. D. , Kocsis, L. , Vennemann, T. W. , de Toledo, P. M. , … Monteiro‐Neto, C. (2017). Neogene sharks and rays from the Brazilian Blue Amazon'. PLoS ONE, 12, e0182740 10.1371/journal.pone.0182740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Aschliman, N. C. (2014). Interrelationships of the durophagous stingrays (Batoidea: Myliobatidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes, 97, 967–979. 10.1007/s10641-014-0261-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Aschliman, N. C. , Claeson, K. M. , & McEachran, J. D. (2012). Phylogeny of Batoidea In Carrier J. C., Musick J. A., & Heithaus M. R. (Eds.), Biology of sharks and their relatives, 2nd ed. (pp. 57–96). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Aschliman, N. C. , Nishida, M. , Miya, M. , Inoue, J. G. , Rosana, K. M. , & Naylor, G. J. P. (2012). Body plan convergence in the evolution of skates and rays (Chondrichthyes: Batoidea). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 63, 28–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bertozzi, T. , Lee, M. S. Y. , & Donnellan, S. C. (2016). Stingray diversification across the end‐Cretaceous extinctions. Memoirs of Museum Victoria, 74, 379–390. 10.24199/j.mmv.2016.74.26 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bigelow, H. B. , & Schroeder, W. C. (1953). Fishes of the western north Atlantic. Part II. Sawfishes, guitarfishes, skates, rays and chimaeroids. New Haven, CT: Sears Foundation for Marine Research. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cappetta, H. (2012). Handbook of paleoichthyology – Chondrichthyes – Mesozoic and Cenozoic elasmobranchii: Teeth. Munich, Germany: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil. [Google Scholar]
  11. Carnevale, G. , Bannikov, A. F. , Marramà, G. , Tyler, J. C. , & Zorzin, R. (2014). The Pesciara‐Monte Postale Fossil‐Lagerstätte: 2. Fishes and other vertebrates In Papazzoni C. A., Giusberti L., Carnevale G., Roghi G., Bassi D., & Zorzin R. (Eds.), The Bolca Fossil‐Lagerstätte: A window into the Eocene World (pp. 37–63). Modena, Italy: Società Paleontologica Italiana. [Google Scholar]
  12. Carvalho, M. R. , Loboda, T. S. , & Silva, J. P. (2016). A new subfamily, Styracurinae, and new genus, Styracura, for Himantura schmardae (Werner, 1904) and Himantura pacifica (Beebe & Tee‐Van, 1941) (Chondrichthyes: Myliobatiformes). Zootaxa, 4175, 201–221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Carvalho, M. R. , Maisey, J. C. , & Grande, L. (2004). Freshwater stingrays of the Green River Formation of Wyoming (Early Eocene), with the description of a new genus and species and an analysis of its phylogenetic relationships (Chondrichthyes: Myliobatiformes). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 284, 1–136. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cawley, J. J. , Marramà, G. , Carnevale, G. , & Kriwet, J. (2018). A quantitative approach to determine the taxonomic identity and ontogeny of the pycnodontiform fish Pycnodus (Neopterygii, Actinopterygii) from the Eocene of Bolca Lagerstätte, Italy. PeerJ, 6, e4809 10.7717/peerj.4809 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Claeson, K. M. , O’Leary, M. A. , Roberts, E. M. , Sissoko, F. , Bouaré, M. , Tapanila, L. , … Gottfried, M. D. (2010). First Mesozoic record of the stingray Myliobatis wurnoensis from Mali and a phylogenetic analysis of Myliobatidae incorporating dental characters. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 55, 655–674. [Google Scholar]
  16. Compagno, L. J. V. (1977). Phyletic relationships of living sharks and rays. American Zoologist, 17, 303–322. 10.1093/icb/17.2.303 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Compagno, L. J. V. , & Roberts, T. R. (1982). Freshwater stingrays (Dasyatidae) of Southeast Asia and New Guinea, with description of a new species of Himantura and reports of unidentified species. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 7, 321–339. 10.1007/BF00005567 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Compagno, L. J. V. , & Roberts, T. R. (1984). Marine and freshwater stingrays (Dasyatidae) of West Africa, with description of a new species. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 43, 283–300. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cuvier, G. L. C. F. D. (1816). Le Règne Animal distribué d’après son organisation pour servir de base à l’histoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction à l’anatomie comparée. Les reptiles, les poissons, les mollusques et les annélides. Paris, France: Deterville. [Google Scholar]
  20. de Blainville, H. D. (1818). Sur les ichthyolites ou les poissons fossiles. Nouveau Dictionnaire D’histoire Naturelle, 27, 310–391. [Google Scholar]
  21. de Zigno, A. (1874a). Annotazioni paleontologiche. Pesci fossili nuovi del calcare eoceno dei monti Bolca e Postale. Memorie Del Reale Istituto Veneto Di Scienze, Lettere Ed Arti, 18, 287–301. [Google Scholar]
  22. de Zigno, A. (1874b). Catalogo Ragionato dei Pesci Fossili del Calcare Eoceno di M. Bolca e M. Postale. Venice, Italy: Stabilimento Tipografia Grimaldo e C. [Google Scholar]
  23. Eastman, C. R. (1904). Description of Bolca fishes. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 46, 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  24. Eastman, C. R. (1905a). Les types de Poissons fossiles du Monte Bolca au Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris. Mémoires De La Société Géologique De France, 34, 1–33. [Google Scholar]
  25. Eastman, C. R. (1905b). Catalog of fossil fishes in the Carnegie Museum. Part I. Fishes from the Upper Eocene of Monte Bolca, 4, 349–415. [Google Scholar]
  26. Eastman, C. R. (1911). Catalog of the fossil fishes in the Carnegie Museum. Part II. Supplement to the catalog of fishes from the Upper Eocene of Monte Bolca. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, 6, 315–348. [Google Scholar]
  27. Fanti, F. , Minelli, D. , Larocca Conte, G. , & Miyashita, T. (2016). An exceptionally preserved Eocene shark and the rise of modern predatory‐prey interaction in the coral reef food web. Zoological Letters, 2, 9 10.1186/s40851-016-0045-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Friedman, M. , & Carnevale, G. (2018). The Bolca Lagerstätten: Shallow marine life in the Eocene. Journal of the Geological Society, 175(4), 569–579. 10.1144/jgs2017-164 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Goloboff, P. A. , Farris, J. S. , & Nixon, K. C. (2008). TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics, 24, 774–786. [Google Scholar]
  30. Herman, J. , Hovestadt‐Euler, M. , Hovestadt, D. C. , & Stehmann, M. (1998). Contributions to the study of the comparative morphology of teeth and other relevant ichthyodorulites in living supra‐specific taxa of Chondrichthyan fishes. Part B: Batomorphii 4a: Order Rajiformes ‐ Suborder Myliobatoidei ‐ Superfamily Dasyatoidea ‐ Family Dasyatidae ‐ Subfamily Dasyatinae ‐ Genera: Amphotistius, Dasyatis, Himantura, Pastinachus, Pteroplatytrygon, Taeniura, Urogymnus and Urolophoides (incl. supraspecific taxa of uncertain status and validity), Superfamily Myliobatoidea ‐ Family Gymnuridae ‐ Genera: Aetoplatea and Gymnura, Superfamily Plesiobatoidea ‐ Family Hexatrygonidae ‐ Genus: Hexatrygon . Bulletin De L’institut Royal Des Sciences Naturelles De Belgique, Biologie, 68, 145–197. [Google Scholar]
  31. Herman, J. , Hovestadt‐Euler, M. , Hovestadt, D. C. , & Stehmann, M. (1999). Contributions to the study of the comparative morphology of teeth and other relevant ichthyodorulites in living supra‐specific taxa of Chondrichthyan fishes. Part B: Batomorphii 4b: Order Rajiformes ‐ Suborder Myliobatoidei ‐ Superfamily Dasyatoidea ‐ Family Dasyatidae ‐ Subfamily Dasyatinae ‐ Genera: Taeniura, Urogymnus, Urolophoides ‐ Subfamily Potamotrygoninae ‐ Genera: Disceus, Plesiotrygon, and Potamotrygon (incl. supraspecific taxa of uncertain status and validity), Family Urolophidae ‐ Genera: Trygonoptera, Urolophus and Urotrygon ‐ Superfamily Myliobatidea ‐ Family: Gymnuridae ‐ Genus: Aetoplatea. Bulletin De L’institut Royal Des Sciences Naturelles De Belgique, Biologie, 69, 161–200. [Google Scholar]
  32. Herman, J. , Hovestadt‐Euler, M. , Hovestadt, D. C. , & Stehmann, M. (2000). Contributions to the study of the comparative morphology of teeth and other relevant ichthyodorulites in living supra‐specific taxa of Chondrichthyan fishes. Part B: Batomorphii 4c: Order Rajiformes ‐ Suborder Myliobatoidei ‐ Superfamily Dasyatoidea ‐ Family Dasyatidae ‐ Subfamily Dasyatinae ‐ Genus: Urobatis, Subfamily Potamotrygoninae Genus: Paratrygon, Superfamily Plesiobatoidea ‐ Family Plesiobatidae ‐ Genus: Plesiobatis, Superfamily Myliobatoidea ‐ Family Myliobatidae ‐ Subfamily Myliobatinae ‐ Genera: Aetobatus, Aetomylaeus, Myliobatis and Pteromylaeus, Subfamily Rhinopterinae ‐ Genus: Rhinoptera and Subfamily Mobulinae ‐ Genera: Manta and Mobula. Addendum 1 to 4a: Erratum to Genus Pteroplatytrygon . Bulletin De L’institut Royal Des Sciences Naturelles De Belgique, Biologie, 70, 5–67. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hovestadt, D. C. , Hovestadt‐Euler, M. , & Micklich, N. (2010). A review of the chondrichthyan fauna of Grube Unterfeld (Frauenweiler) clay pit. Kaupia, 17, 57–71. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jaekel, O. (1894). Die eocänen Selachier vom Monte Bolca: Ein Beitrag zur Morphogenie der Wirbelthiere. Berlin, Germany: J. Springer. [Google Scholar]
  35. Last, P. R. , Naylor, G. J. P. , & Manjaji‐Matsumoto, B. M. (2016). A revised classification of the family Dasyatidae (Chondrichthyes: Myliobatiformes) based on new morphological and molecular insights. Zootaxa, 4139, 345–368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Last, P. R. , & Stevens, J. D. (2009). Sharks and rays of Australia . Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia, Cambridge, MA, London.
  37. Last, P. R. , & White, W. T. (2008). Resurrection of the genus Neotrygon Castelnau (Myliobatoidei: Dasyatidae) with the description of Neotrygonpicta sp. n., a new species from the Northern Australia In Last P. R., White W. T., & Pogonoski J. J. (Eds.), Descriptions of New Australian Chondrichthyans (pp. 315–325). Hobart, Australia: CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research. [Google Scholar]
  38. Last, P. R. , White, W. , Carvalho, M. R. , Séret, B. , Stehmann, M. , & Naylor, G. J. P. (2016). Rays of the world. Clayton North: CSIRO Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  39. Last, P. R. , White, W. T. , & Naylor, G. J. P. (2016). Three new stingrays (Myliobatiformes: Dasyatidae) from the Indo‐West Pacific. Zootaxa, 4147, 377–402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lim, K. C. , Lim, P. E. , Chong, V. C. , & Loh, K. H. (2015). Molecular and morphological analyses reveal phylogenetic relationships of stingrays focusing on the family Dasyatidae (Myliobatiformes). PLoS ONE, 10, e0120518. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lovejoy, N. R. (1996). Systematics of myliobatoid elasmobranchs: With emphasis on the phylogeny and historical biogeography of Neotropical freshwater stingrays (Potamotrygonidae: Rajiformes). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 117, 207–257. 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1996.tb02189.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Maddison, W. P. , & Maddison, D. R. (2008). Mesquite: A modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 3.03. Retrieved from http://mesquiteproject.org. accessed 16 June 2018.
  43. Marramà, G. , Bannikov, A. F. , Tyler, J. C. , Zorzin, R. , & Carnevale, G. (2016). Controlled excavations in the Pesciara and Monte Postale sites provide new insights about the paleoecology and taphonomy of the fish assemblages of the Eocene Bolca Konservat‐Lagerstätte, Italy. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 454, 228–245. [Google Scholar]
  44. Marramà, G. , & Carnevale, G. (2015). The Eocene sardine Bolcaichthys catopygopterus (Woodward, 1901) from Monte Bolca, Italy: Osteology, taxonomy, and paleobiology. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 35, e1014490 10.1080/02724634.2015.1014490 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Marramà, G. , Carnevale, G. , Engelbrecht, A. , Claeson, K. M. , Zorzin, R. , Fornasiero, M. , & Kriwet, J. (2018). A synoptic review of the Eocene (Ypresian) cartilaginous fishes (Chondrichthyes: Holocephali, Elasmobranchii) of the Bolca Konservat‐Lagerstätte, Italy. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 92, 283–313. 10.1007/s12542-017-0387-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Marramà, G. , Carnevale, G. , & Kriwet, J. (2018). New observations on the anatomy and paleobiology of the Eocene requiem shark Eogaleus bolcensis (Carcharhiniformes, Carcharhinidae) from Bolca Lagerstätte, Italy. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 17, 443–459. 10.1016/j.crpv.2018.04.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Marramà, G. , Claeson, K. M. , Carnevale, G. , & Kriwet, J. (2018). Revision of Eocene electric rays (Torpediniformes, Batomorphii) from the Bolca Konservat‐Lagerstätte, Italy, reveals the first fossil embryo in situ in marine batoids and provides new insights into the origin of trophic novelties in coral reef fishes. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 16, 1189–1219. 10.1080/14772019.2017.1371257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Marramà, G. , Engelbrecht, A. , Carnevale, G. , & Kriwet, J. (2017). Eocene sand tiger sharks (Lamniformes, Odontaspididae) from the Bolca Konservat‐Lagerstätte, Italy: palaeobiology, palaeobiogeography and evolutionary significance. Historical Biology. 10.1080/08912963.2017.1341503 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Marramà, G. , Garbelli, C. , & Carnevale, G. (2016a). A morphospace for the Eocene fish assemblage of Bolca, Italy: A window into the diversification and ecological rise to dominance of modern tropical marine fishes. Bollettino Della Società Paleontologica Italiana, 55, 11–21. [Google Scholar]
  50. Marramà, G. , Garbelli, C. , & Carnevale, G. (2016b). A clade‐level morphospace for the Eocene fishes of Bolca: Patterns and relationships with modern tropical shallow marine assemblages. Bollettino Della Società Paleontologica Italiana, 55, 139–156. [Google Scholar]
  51. Marramà, G. , Klug, S. , De Vos, J. , & Kriwet, J. (2018). Anatomy, relationships and palaeobiogeographic implications of the first Neogene holomorphic stingray (Myliobatiformes: Dasyatidae) from the early Miocene of Sulawesi, Indonesia, SE Asia. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 10.1093/zoolinnean/zly020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Marramà, G. , Lombardo, C. , Tintori, A. , & Carnevale, G. (2017). Redescription of ‘Perleidus’ (Osteichthyes, Actinopterygii) from the Early Triassic of northwestern Madagascar. Rivista Italiana Di Paleontologia E Stratigrafia, 123, 219–242. [Google Scholar]
  53. Marramà, G. , Schultz, O. , & Kriwet, J. (2018). A new Miocene skate from Central Paratethys (Upper Austria): The first unambiguous skeletal record for the Rajiformes (Chondrichthyes: Batomorphii). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 10.1080/14772019.2018.1486336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. McEachran, J. D. , & Aschliman, N. (2004). Phylogeny of Batoidea In Carrier J. C., Musick J. A., & Heithaus M. R. (Eds.), Biology of sharks and their relatives (pp. 79–113). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
  55. McEachran, J. D. , Dunn, K. A. , & Miyake, T. (1996). Interrelationships of the batoid fishes (Chondrichthyes: Batoidea) In Stiassny M. J., Parenti L. R., & Johnson G. D. (Eds.), Interrelationships of fishes (pp. 63–82). London, UK: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  56. Molin, R. (1861). De Rajidis tribus bolcanis. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Mathematisch‐naturwissenschaftliche Klasse), 42, 576–582. [Google Scholar]
  57. Naylor, G. J. P. , Caira, J. N. , Jensen, K. , Rosana, A. M. , Straube, N. , & Lakner, C. (2012). Elasmobranch phylogeny: A mitochondrial estimate based on 595 Species In Carrier J. C., Musick J. A., & Heithaus M. R. (Eds.), Biology of sharks and their relatives, 2nd ed. (pp. 31–56). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
  58. Naylor, G. J. P. , Caira, J. N. , Jensen, K. , Rosana, A. M. , White, W. T. , & Last, P. R. (2012). A DNA sequence‐based approach to the identification of shark and rays species and its implication of global elasmobranch diversity and parasitology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 367, 1–262. [Google Scholar]
  59. Nelson, J. S. , Grande, T. C. , & Wilson, M. V. H. (2016). Fishes of the world, 5th ed Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  60. Nishida, K. (1990). Phylogeny of the suborder Myliobatoidei. Hokkaido University Fisheries Memoir, 37, 1–108. [Google Scholar]
  61. Papazzoni, C. A. , Carnevale, G. , Fornaciari, E. , Giusberti, L. , & Trevisani, E. (2014). The Pesciara‐Monte Postale Fossil‐Lagerstätte: 1. Biostratigraphy, sedimentology and depositional model In Papazzoni C. A., Giusberti L., Carnevale G., Roghi G., Bassi D., & Zorzin R. (Eds.), The Bolca Fossil‐Lagerstätte: A window into the Eocene World (pp. 29–36). Modena, Italy: Società Paleontologica Italiana. [Google Scholar]
  62. Papazzoni, C. A. , & Trevisani, E. (2006). Facies analysis, palaeoenvironmental reconstruction, and biostratigraphy of the “Pesciara di Bolca” (Verona, northern Italy): An early Eocene Fossil‐ Lagerstätte. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 242, 21–35. [Google Scholar]
  63. Pavan‐Kumar, A. , Kumar, R. , Pitale, P. , Shen, K.‐N. , & Borsa, P. (2018). Neotrygon indica sp. n., the Indian‐Ocean blue spotted maskray (Myliobatoidei, Dasyatidae). Comptes Rendus Biologies, 341, 120–130. 10.1016/j.crvi.2018.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Pawellek, T. , Adnet, S. , Cappetta, H. , Metais, E. , Salem, M. , Brunet, M. , & Jaeger, J.‐J. (2012). Discovery of an earliest Pliocene relic tropical fish fauna in a newly detected cliff section (Sabratah Basin, NW Libya). Neues Jahrbuch Für Geologie Und Paläontologie Abhandlungen, 266, 93–114. 10.1127/0077-7749/2012/0272 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Puckridge, M. , Last, P. R. , White, W. T. , & Andreakis, N. (2013). Phylogeography of the Indo‐West Pacific maskrays (Dasyatidae, Neotrygon): A complex example of chondrichthyan radiation in the Cenozoic. Ecology and Evolution, 3, 217–232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Rafinesque, C. S. (1810). Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie di animali e pinate della Sicilia, con varie osservazioni sopra i medisimi, lère partie. Palermo, Italy: Per le stampe di S. Filippo. [Google Scholar]
  67. Renema, W. , Bellwood, D. R. , Braga, J. C. , Bromfield, K. , Hall, R. , Johnson, K. G. , … Pandolfi, J. M. (2008). Hopping hotspots: Global shifts in marine biodiversity. Science, 321, 654–657. 10.1126/science.1155674 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Schaefer, J. T. , & Summers, A. P. (2005). Batoid wing skeletal structure: Novel morphologies, mechanical implications, and phylogenetic patterns. Journal of Morphology, 264, 298–313. 10.1002/jmor.10331 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Schwartz, F. J. (2005). Tail spine characteristics of stingrays (order Myliobatiformes) found in the northeast Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Black Seas. Electronic Journal of Ichthyology, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  70. Schwartz, F. J. (2007). Tail spine characteristics of stingrays (Order Myliobatiformes) frequenting the FAO Fishing Area 61 (20°N 120°E ‐ 50°N 150°E) of the northwest Pacific Ocean. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 14, 121–130. [Google Scholar]
  71. Schwartz, F. J. (2008). A survey of tail spine characteristics of stingrays frequenting African, Arabian to Chagos‐Maldive Archipelago waters. Smithiana Bulletin, 8, 41–52. [Google Scholar]
  72. Scotese, C. R. (2002). Paleomap. http://www.scotese.com. accessed 09 April 2018.
  73. Underwood, C. J. , Kolmann, M. A. , & Ward, D. J. (2017). Paleogene origin of planktivory in the Batoidea. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 37(3), e1293068 10.1080/02724634.2017.1293068. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Underwood, C. J. , Mitchell, S. F. , & Veltcamp, K. J. (1999). Shark and ray teeth from the Hauterivian (Lower Cretaceous) of north‐east England. Palaeontology, 42, 287–302. 10.1111/1475-4983.00074 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Underwood, C. J. , Ward, D. J. , King, C. , Antar, S. M. , Zalmout, I. S. , & Gingerich, P. D. (2011). Shark and ray faunas in the middle and late Eocene of the Fayum, Egypt. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, 122, 47–66. 10.1016/j.pgeola.2010.09.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Volta, G. S. (1796). Ittiolitologia Veronese del Museo Bozziano ora annesso a quello del Conte Giovambattista Gazola e di altri gabinetti di fossili veronesi. Verona, Italy: Stamperia Giuliari. [Google Scholar]
  77. Walker, M. B. , & Kimmel, C. B. (2007). A two-color acid-free cartilage and bone stain for zebrafish larvae. Biotechnic & Histochemistry, 82, 23–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

 

Click here for additional data file. (5.7MB, pdf)

Articles from Zoologica Scripta are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES