Archaeomanta, HERMAN, 1979

Adnet, Sylvain, Cappetta, Henri, Guinot, Guillaume & Sciara, Giuseppe Notarbartolo Di, 2012, Evolutionary history of the devilrays (Chondrichthyes: Myliobatiformes) from fossil and morphological inference, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 166 (1), pp. 132-159 : 140-141

GENUS † ARCHAEOMANTA HERMAN, 1979

Included species: † Archaeomanta hermani Kozlov, 2001 ; † Archaeomanta melenhorsti Herman, 1979 ; † Archaeomanta priemi Herman, 1979 .

Occurrences: Widely recorded in Palaeogene deposits from north Europe to East and West Africa (e.g. Herman, 1979; Cappetta, 1987; Noubhani & Cappetta, 1997; Kozlov, 2001; Strougo, Cappetta & Elnahas, 2007; Van Den Eeckhaut & De Schutter, 2009; Adnet, Cappetta & Tabuce, 2010; Underwood et al., 2011),

Remarks: The genus † Archaeomanta Herman, 1979 , resembles † Cretomanta and is more diversified with at least three different species (see above). Their remains, also restricted to isolated teeth, are scarce in Palaeogene deposits (except in some Moroccan localities) but widely distributed in the tropical zone from North Europe to East and West Africa, as expected with a supposed filter-feeding behaviour. Morphologically very close to those of † Cretomanta , the teeth are distinctive in having a broad and deep axial groove on the root (sometimes with secondary labiolingually orientated grooves) that separates two rather mesiodistally inclined lobes and a labiolingual crest on the occlusal part of the crown. However, this crest is irregular and sometimes disappears in lateral files, thus resembling the morphology observed in some putative contemporaneous fossil Gymnuridae such as in males of the genus Ouledia . Moreover, Underwood et al. (2011) observed a well-developed pulp cavity, which extends to the tip of the cusp in Archaeomanta , making their supposed position within the mobulids doubtful. Another uncertainty concerns the monospecific genus † Eomobula , which was originally described from a small tooth sample from the Lower Eocene of Egem Formation ( Belgium) but was secondarily recorded by rare specimens in some Early–Middle Eocene localities (e.g. Kemp, 1994; Gheerbrant et al., 2003; Tabuce et al., 2005). Having very small teeth, this genus was attributed to a mobulid despite its teeth that show a very large convex occlusal face compared to the extremely reduced lingual and labial faces and a wide polyaulacorhize root as in Myliobatid. The authors themselves ( Herman et al., 1989) remarked that there is no real affinity in tooth morphology with other mobulids such as † Burhnamia (see below) or Mobula and suggested that this primitive mobulid probably represents an intermediate group between living representatives of the Myliobatidae and mobulids.