Vaškaninová Valéria, Ahlberg Per E
Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Subdepartment of Evolution and Development, Department of Organismal Biology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 5;12(4):e0174794. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174794. eCollection 2017.
The taxonomy of Early Devonian placoderm material from the Lochkovian and Pragian of the Prague basin, previously attributed to the genera Radotina and Holopetalichthys, is revised. The Pragian species Radotina tesselata Gross 1958 shares detailed similarities with the holotype of the Lochkovian Radotina kosorensis Gross 1950, which is also the holotype of the genus; the assignation of both species to Radotina is supported. However, the Lochkovian material previously attributed to Radotina kosorensis also contains two unrecognised taxa, distinguishable from Radotina at the generic level: these are here named Tlamaspis and Sudaspis. The disputed genus Holopetalichthys, synonymised with Radotina by some previous authors, is shown to be valid. Furthermore, whereas Radotina, Tlamaspis and Sudaspis can all be assigned to the group Acanthothoracii, on the basis of several features including possession of a projecting prenasal region of the endocranium, Holopetalichthys lacks such a region and is probably not an acanthothoracid. Skull roof patterns and other aspects of morphology vary greatly between these taxa. Radotina has a substantially tesselated skull roof, whereas the skull roofs of Tlamaspis and Holopetalichthys appear to lack tesserae altogether. Tlamaspis has an extremely elongated facial region and appears to lack a premedian plate. Sudaspis has a long prenasal region, but unlike Tlamaspis the postnasal face is not elongated. Past descriptions of the braincase of 'Radotina' and the skull roofs of 'Radotina' and 'Holopetalichthys' incorporate data from more than one taxon, giving rise to spurious characterisations including an apparently extreme degree of skull roof variability. These descriptions should all be disregarded.
对布拉格盆地洛赫科夫阶和普拉吉安阶的早泥盆世盾皮鱼材料的分类进行了修订,这些材料先前被归为拉多蒂纳属和全瓣鱼属。普拉吉安阶物种拉多蒂纳镶嵌纹种(Gross,1958年)与洛赫科夫阶的科索拉多拉多蒂纳(Gross,1950年)的正模标本有详细的相似之处,而科索拉多拉多蒂纳的正模标本也是该属的正模标本;这两个物种归为拉多蒂纳属得到了支持。然而,先前归为科索拉多拉多蒂纳的洛赫科夫阶材料还包含两个未被识别的分类单元,在属级水平上可与拉多蒂纳区分开来:这里将它们命名为特拉萨皮斯和苏达斯皮斯。有争议的全瓣鱼属,一些先前的作者将其同义于拉多蒂纳属,现证明是有效的。此外,基于包括内颅前鼻区突出等几个特征,拉多蒂纳、特拉萨皮斯和苏达斯皮斯都可归为棘胸鱼群,但全瓣鱼缺乏这样一个区域,可能不是棘胸鱼。这些分类单元之间的颅顶模式和形态的其他方面差异很大。拉多蒂纳有一个基本呈镶嵌状的颅顶,而特拉萨皮斯和全瓣鱼的颅顶似乎完全没有镶嵌小方块。特拉萨皮斯有一个极其细长的面部区域,似乎没有前中板。苏达斯皮斯有一个长的前鼻区,但与特拉萨皮斯不同,鼻后脸不细长。过去对“拉多蒂纳”脑壳以及“拉多蒂纳”和“全瓣鱼”颅顶的描述纳入了来自多个分类单元的数据,导致了虚假的特征描述,包括颅顶明显的极端变异性。这些描述都应被忽略。