Pristis sp.

Adnet, Sylvain, Marivaux, Laurent, Cappetta, Henri, Charruault, Anne-Lise, Essid, El Mabrouk, Jiquel, Suzanne, Ammar, Hayet Khayati, Marandat, Bernard, Marzougui, Wissem, Merzeraud, Gilles, Temani, Rim, Vianey-Liaud, Monique & Tabuce, Rodolphe, 2020, Diversity and renewal of tropical elasmobranchs around the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum (MECO) in North Africa: New data from the lagoonal deposits of Djebel el Kébar, Central Tunisia, Palaeontologia Electronica (a 38) 23 (2), pp. 1-62 : 27-28

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.26879/1085

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B6B8E985-F1CF-4C10-BB00-602E5BF36C1C

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BA87C1-FFD6-FFC0-C2E0-E721CE39B56F

treatment provided by

Felipe

scientific name

Pristis sp.
status

 

Pristis sp. Figures 9 View FIGURE 9 G-M, 10E

2016 Pristis sp ; Merzeraud et al., p. 14-15, tab. 1.

Material. More than 200 oral teeth (including the figured specimens KEB 1-158 to 1-164; Figure 9 View FIGURE 9 GM), and some fragmentary rostral denticles (e.g., KEB 1-165; Figure 10E View FIGURE 10 ) from the KEB- 1 locality, Souar-Fortuna formations, Djebel el Kébar, Tunisia.

Description

Rostral denticles. These structures are badly preserved, often broken and strongly smoothed. The largest one ( Figure 10E View FIGURE 10 ) probably reached 8 up to 10 cm long. They are thick, elongated and curved ventrally. Dorsal and ventral surfaces are only weakly convex. When preserved, the anterior edge is very convex. In contrast, the posterior edge bears a deep sulcus running along the length of the tooth, and there is a distinct ridge on both the dorsal and ventral margins, contrary to what is observed in rostral denticles of Anoxypristis . Most of rostral denticles exhibit clear signs of wear, with the distal half of each specimen being smooth.

Oral teeth. As rostral denticles, oral teeth of Pristis are conservative, exposing a dental pattern close to that observed in living species (e.g., Pristis pristis ). As a consequence, there is no report in the literature of oral teeth belonging strictly to Pristis lathami Galeotti, 1837 , the species commonly recovered in Eocene deposits from rostral denticles. In fact, all the oral teeth of Middle-Late Eocene Pristis are left in open nomenclature (e.g., Underwood et al., 2011; Cappetta and Case, 2016) and Case and Cappetta (1991) suggested that P. lathami possessed rather different oral teeth compared to living species. The re-examination of the material from EG (pers. observ. SA, HC.) suggests that the material attributed with uncertainty to? Rhinobatos sp. (Strougo et al., 2007, plate 2, fig. 3) belongs in fact to oral teeth of Pristis , and are besides rather comparable to those figured here.

Remarks

Pristis lathami is the common representative of Pristis that frequented the tropical Atlantic and Tethys during the Middle-Late Eocene. Numerous records of rostral denticles, sometimes still imbedded in the rostrum (e.g., Cicimuri, 2007), are reported in the literature (Cappetta, 2012) contrary to the oral teeth that seemingly did not attracted particular attention until now. Given that the largest specimens of pristid teeth from KEB-1 share similar sizes and morphologies, we can expect that they are associated with the largest rostral denticles. For the first time, the oral teeth and the rostral denticles from an Eocene sawfish are figured together, however, and for the similar reasons advocated for the previous species, we remain cautious about attributing these materials to P. lathami and preferred to leave it in open nomenclature.

Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF