Proscinetes Gistl, 1848

Poyato-Ariza F. J. & Wenz S., 2002, A new insight into pycnodontiform fishes, Geodiversitas 24 (1), pp. 139-248 : 150-151

Genus Proscinetes Gistl, 1848

TYPE SPECIES. — By monotypy: Microdon elegans Agassiz, 1833 ( Fig. 5A ). Lower Tithonian from the “Solnhofener Plattenkalke” Bavaria, Germany. Holotype of Proscinetes elegans: Bayerischen Staatssamlung für Paleontologie und Historische Geologie, München, Germany after Woodward (1895a: 222). First mention by Agassiz in 1833 (vol. II, pt. 1, p. 16), later illustration by the same author in 1839 (pl. 69b, fig. 1).

OTHER SPECIES. —? Proscinetes bassanii ( D’Erasmo, 1914) . This specific name is removed from both Coelodus and Palaeobalistum to this genus in the present paper. As explained at the end of the Results section below, it does not seem to show the characters of either genus. This assessment is to be taken with caution, this species being in need of revision. P. bernardi ( Thiollière, 1852; figured in 1854; Fig. 5B ), Kimmeridgian from Cerin, France; P. egertoni ( Thiollière, 1852) (plate published in 1854), Kimmeridgian from Cerin, France;? P. itieri ( Thiollière, 1850) , Kimmeridgian from Cerin, France; P.? radiatus (Agassiz, 1839), late Portlandian to early Berriasian from Swanage, Dorsetshire, United Kingdom; P. sauvanasi? ( Thiollière, 1852) , Kimmeridgian from Cerin, France; P. thiollieri? (Saint-Seine, 1949) , Kimmeridgian from Cerin, France; P.? wagneri ( Thiollière, 1852; plate published separately in 1853), Kimmeridgian from Cerin, France; plus numerous nominal species, in need of revision, based on isolated dentitions (e.g., Woodward 1895a; Saint-Seine 1949). Proscinetes bernardi and P. egertoni are herein regarded as valid species, as they present the same anatomic characters as Proscinetes elegans , with consistent differences on the meristic accounts.? Proscinetes itieri may be a valid species, but the body shape is so different that it probably does not belong to the genus. The holotype of P.? radiatus, as figured by Agassiz (1839: pl. 69c, figs 1, 2), shows large spines on the ventral keel scales, with relative size and arrangement very different from those of P. elegans ; therefore, it may not belong to Proscinetes . The species P. thiollieri ? is based on a poorly preserved specimen, and its validity remains to be tested. Same applies to the species P. sauvanasi ?. Proscinetes ? wagneri has traditionally been considered a species of Proscinetes (formerly Microdon ; e.g., Woodward 1895a). Saint-Seine (1949) reassessed it to the genus Gyrodus , but we agree with Lambers (1991) that it does not belong to it. The general anatomic features of this species are in fact quite similar to those of the available species of Proscinetes . However, the occurrence of scale bars behind the level of the dorsal and anal fins indicates that wagneri may not belong to this genus. Therefore, considering the amount of issues to be solved at specific level in Proscinetes , for the codification of this genus in our analysis we have only used the type species plus P. bernardi and P. egertoni . We coded the anatomical characters as consistently present in the three species, and the meristic characters as present in the type species.

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Proscinetes elegans: JM 1941.12 ( Fig. 5A ); MNHN SLN 205 (cast) ; P. bernardi : neotype, ML 15.199 ; other specimens, ML 15.194, 15.288 ( Fig. 5B ), 15916 (ex 15194 bis) ; P. egertoni : holotype, ML 15.275 ; other specimens, ML 15273 , 15.390 ; “ P.” itieri : holotype 15268, specimen 15267; P. “ thiollieri ”: type and only specimen; “ P ”. wagneri ML 15207 , 15214 , 15317 ; MNHN, CRN-31, 56; NHML P. 1636, P. 4649. Proscinetes sp. : FSL 400047 (nearly complete, partially disarticulated specimen showing dentition) .

Figures

FIG. 5. — Two species of the genus Proscinetes Gistl, 1848; A, P. elegans (Agassiz, 1833), type species, specimen JM 1941.12.a. Photo courtesy G. Viohl; B, P. bernardi Thiollière, 1852, specimen ML 15288. Notice the stomach content, previously reported in this specimen by Nursall (1996a: 121) as “finely comminuted shell” in “Microdon bernardi”; it represents the first illustration of direct evidence of the diet in pycnodontiform fishes. Photo Serrette, under ultraviolet light. Scale bars: 1 cm.