†Sorbinicharax verraesi: An unexpected case of a benthic fish outside Acanthomorpha in the Upper Cretaceous of the Tethyan Sea

†Sorbinicharax verraesi is a marine teleostean fish from the Upper Cretaceous of Nardò (Italy). It was first attributed to the otophysan order Characiformes, which represents potential evidence for the controversial marine origin of the clade. Through a review of all the available material, we demonstrate that this species is not an otophysan since it lacks key structures that would allow for its inclusion in this group. †Sorbinicharax has a body shape that recalls ground fishes classically assigned to Acanthomorpha. However, no unambiguous feature allows us to relate it to this clade. In fact, the presence of cellular bony tissue supports its exclusion from Eurypterygii. Since no feature permits the definitive attribution of †Sorbinicharax to any teleost group, it remains as Teleostei incertae sedis. We infer that the morphology of †Sorbinicharax indicates a benthic ecology. It displays: an anteriorly wide body with enlarged ribs; large pectoral fins, while anal and dorsal fins are reduced; a large head measuring ¼ of the total body length; and a mouth opening dorsally in a high position. Such morphology was so far undescribed in Nardo. It is surprisingly displayed by a non-eurypterygian teleost fish which means by a fish which does not belong to the clades that diversify since the upper Cretaceous and include the extant families that show ground ecomorphologies.

[1]  B. Berkovitz.  Chapter 4 – Osteichthyes , 2017 .

[2]  O. Otero,et al.  Anatomical review of †Salminops ibericus, a Teleostei incertae sedis from the Cenomanian of Portugal, anciently assigned to Characiformes and possibly related to crossognathiform fishes , 2015 .

[3]  O. Otero,et al.  Review of the osteology of the fossil fish formerly attributed to the genus †Chanoides and implications for the definition of otophysan bony characters , 2015 .

[4]  J. Vinther,et al.  Constraints on the timescale of animal evolutionary history , 2015 .

[5]  P. Cowman.  Historical factors that have shaped the evolution of tropical reef fishes: a review of phylogenies, biogeography, and remaining questions , 2014, Front. Genet..

[6]  Diego R. Barneche,et al.  Diet and Diversification in the Evolution of Coral Reef Fishes , 2014, PloS one.

[7]  M. Friedman,et al.  Five hundred million years of extinction and recovery: a phanerozoic survey of large‐scale diversity patterns in fishes , 2012 .

[8]  D. Bellwood,et al.  Fishes on coral reefs: changing roles over the past 240 million years , 2010, Paleobiology.

[9]  E. Wiley,et al.  A teleost classification based on monophyletic groups , 2010 .

[10]  Alison M. Murray,et al.  A NEW LATE CRETACEOUS MACROSEMIID FISH (NEOPTERYGII, HALECOSTOMI) FROM MOROCCO, WITH TEMPORAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL RANGE EXTENSIONS FOR THE FAMILY , 2009 .

[11]  D. Bellwood,et al.  Morphological structure in a reef fish assemblage , 2009, Coral Reefs.

[12]  T. Steuber,et al.  Chronostratigraphy of Campanian–Maastrichtian platform carbonates and rudist associations of Salento (Apulia, Italy) , 2008 .

[13]  O. Otero,et al.  Cretaceous characiform fishes (Teleostei: Ostariophysi) from Northern Tethys: description of new material from the Maastrichtian of Provence (Southern France) and palaeobiogeographical implications , 2008 .

[14]  D. Bellwood.  The Eocene fishes of Monte Bolca: the earliest coral reef fish assemblage , 1996, Coral Reefs.

[15]  P. Sale.  Coral reef fishes : dynamics and diversity in a complex ecosystem , 2002 .

[16]  David R. Bellwood,et al.  Ecomorphology of feeding in coral reef fishes , 2002 .

[17]  O. Otero,et al.  Anatomy and phylogeny of the Aipichthyoidea nov. of the Cenomanian Tethys and their place in the Acanthomorpha (Teleostei) , 1996 .

[18]  M. Stiassny.  Chapter 15 – Basal Ctenosquamate Relationships and the Interrelationships of the Myctophiform (Scopelomorph) Fishes , 1996 .

[19]  C. Patterson.  An overview of the early fossil record of acanthomorphs , 1993 .

[20]  C. D. Roberts.  Comparative morphology of spined scales and their phylogenetic significance in the teleostei , 1993 .

[21]  David M. Johnson,et al.  Percomorph phylogeny: a survey of acanthomorphs and a new proposal , 1993 .

[22]  G. Johnson.  Monophyly of the Euteleostean Clades - Neoteleostei, Eurypterygii, and Ctenosquamata , 1992 .

[23]  P. Wainwright.  Ecomorphology: Experimental Functional Anatomy for Ecological Problems , 1991 .

[24]  L. Parenti.  The phylogenetic significance of bone types in euteleost fishes , 1986 .

[25]  M. Gayet.  About ostariophysan fishes: a reply to S.V. Fink, P.H. Greenwood and W.L. Fink's criticisms , 1986 .

[26]  W. Fink,et al.  A Critique of Recent Work on Fosil Ostariophysan Fishes , 1984 .

[27]  W. Fink,et al.  Interrelationships of the ostariophysan fishes (Teleostei) , 1981 .

[28]  A. Bartram.  A problematical Upper Cretaceous holostean fish genus Aphanepygus , 1977 .

[29]  Moss Ml.  STUDIES OF THE ACELLULAR BONE OF TELEOST FISH. V. HISTOLOGY AND MINERAL HOMEOSTASIS OF FRESH-WATER SPECIES. , 1965 .

[30]  A. Kolliker.  II. On the different types in the microscopic structure of the skeleton of osseous fishes , 1859, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.

[31]  J. Müller.  Über den Bau und die Grenzen der Ganoiden, und über das natürliche System der Fische , 1845 .