Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science

A New Specimen of Chinlea sorenseni from the Chinle Formation, Dolores River, Colorado Author(s): David K. Elliott Source: Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science, Vol. 22, No. 1, Triassic Continental Deposits of the American Southwest (1987), pp. 47-52 Published by: Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40024383 . Accessed: 22/02/2011 12:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anas. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science.

http://www.jstor.org

A NEW SPECIMENOF CHINLEA SORENSENIFROM THE CHINLE FORMATION, DOLORESRIVER, COLORADO

DAVID K. ELLIOTT Department of Geology, Box 6030 Northern Arizona University Flagstaff,Arizona 86011 ABSTRACT Chinlea sorenseni is a coelacanth originally described from the Chinle Formation by Schaeffer (1967). In 1980, a particularlylarge and well-preservedskull was found in the upper Chinle Formation in the Dolores River Canyon by an amateurcollector. This skull providessome additionalinformationon the dermalelements of the skull of Chinlea sorenseni and allows a more complete reconstruction to be made (Elliott 1983).

INTRODUCTION Coelacanthsare a specializedgroupof crossopterygians that range in age from the Middle Devonian until the present day. During that period, they have shown a very limited rangeof evolutionary changes in basic body shape, fin position, andhead andmouth shape,the main difference between the earliest and latest members of the grouplying in the extent to which the skull is ossified (Jarvik1964). Coelacanths are not common in the continental Triassic of North America and are chiefly known through the work of Schaefferwho redescribedDiplurus (Schaeffer 1948, 1952) and describedMoenkopia from the Moenkopi Formation(Schaefferand Gregory 1961) and Chinlea from the Chinle Formationof the western United States (Schaeffer 1967). It is important, therefore, that a new and very complete skull of Chinlea soienseni has recently been discovered in the Chinle Formation as it provides new information on this genus. The skull was found in 1980 by an amateur collector, Tony B. Raines, while prospecting in the upper Chinle Formationin the Dolores River Canyon south of Bedrock, Colorado,and he kindly made it available for description. Though the specimen, itself, has been retained by the collector, a cast has been deposited with the museum of Northern Arizona and bears the catalogue number (MNA V5470) of that institution. Mechanical preparationof the skull has been carriedout by the collector and little additional preparation attempted.All line illustrationswere was preparedfrom a photographicbase.

SYSTEMATIC PALEONTOLOGY Order - Coelacanthiformes Suborder- Coelacanthoidei Family - Coelacanthidae Genus - Chinlea Schaeffer 1967 Type species. - Chinlea soienseni Schaeffer 1967 Diagnosis.- (AfterSchaeffer1967).Coelacanth resembling Diplurus in form of basisphenoid, in length of ossified pleural ribs, in shape of pelvic plates and unpaired basal plates, and in length of supplementary caudal lobe, but differing from that genus in the following characters: Greater posterior extension of supratemporal (dermoprobust terotic);more complete ossificationof extrascapulars,anteroventral processon lateralrostral; postorbitalrelatively largerand triangular,relativelylargerdentary,with notched teeth on dentary posteriorborder; angularnarrowanteriorly; teeth on premaxilla, numerous, small, closely spaced; dermopalatine, ?ectopterygoidand precoracoid large and tusk-like; denticles absent from anteriorbordersof dorsal and caudal fins. Comments.- The type specimen (AMNH 5652) is a nearly complete skull from the upper part of the Chinle Formation, Little Valley, San JuanCounty, Utah. Schaeffer(1967) also refers specimens from the upper part of the Chinle Formation in the Dolores River Canyon near Bedrock, Colorado and tentatively, assigns specimens from the

Elliott, D. K. 1987. A New Specimen of Chinlea Sorenseni from the Chinle Formation, Dolores River, Colorado.Journal of the Arizona-NevadaAcademy of Science 22:47-52.

48

JOURNAL OF THE ARIZONA-NEVADA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE

VOL. 22

upper part of the Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation at Ghost Ranch, New Mexico, and from the upperpartof the Tecovas Formation,Dockum Group,Palo Duro Canyon, Texas (Schaefferand Gregory 1961). Locality.-The new specimen was collected from the Chinle Formation in the Dolores River Canyon about 1.6 km south of Bedrock in Montrose County, Colorado (Sec.30, T47N, R18W).The specimen was found weathered out on a slope of reddish-brownsandstone, but did not appearto have been moved far from its original location (T. B. Raines, personal commun.). Plant impressions and an unidentified limb bone were also found nearby. In this area the Chinle Formation consists predominantly of reddish-brownsiltstones and sandstones and is probably mostly equivalent to the Church Rock Member of the Chinle Formationfurtherwest (Stewartet al. 1972). This locality appearsto be very close to those that yielded some of the original specimens of Chinlea soienseni (Schaeffer 1967). Description.- The new specimen consists of an almost complete skull showing some dorso-ventral crushing (Figures1, 2). All the dermal elements of the skull are in association including the more poorly sutured cheek elements,-however, these have been rotated out of their original position in some instances. The lower jaw is still also in association with the skull. Erosionhas affected the ventral partof the skull, removing the posteriorpart of the angulars,part of one gular and also part of the cleithra. This specimen is unusually large, measuring 190mm from the snout to the posterior margins of the operculars. The snout is elongated and composed of a series of small rostral elements as it is also in Diplurus (Schaeffer1952) and Whitea (Lehman1952). Though the bones are tightly sutured, it appears that there are at least three pairs of almost square nasal elements. However, there is considerablevariation in size and shape from the left to the right side in this series of elements and the degree of fusion together with the extremely rugose ornamentation makes it difficult to be certain about the course of plate margins in some areas. The pre-maxillais missing in this specimen. Posteriorly,the nasals are succeeded by a series of frontals which again show variation in size and shape. On the left-hand side one large posterior plate is followed anteriorlyby four smaller plates. On the right, the series cannot be seen clearly due to surface damage to the bone, but appearsto consist of only three plates (Figure 1A). The orbit is borderedby a series of supraorbitals.Once again, there is disparity in numbers on either side of the skull, six plates on the left occupying the space filled by five on the right (Fig. 1A). The most posterior element is crescentic in shape and fits with a smooth margin against the anterolateraledge of the postorbitals ventrally. Anteriorly, the series reduces in size and forms a sequence of four elements borderingthe nasals of which the left series arelargerand more rectangularthan those on the right. No

enlargedantorbital element is present in this specimen as occurs in forms such as Whitea(Lehman1952).The supraorbitals are very closely sutured and no pores are present between them for the supraorbitalcanal. The posterior moiety of the skull is covered principally by a pair of large parietals. Elongatedsupratemporals fit into embayments in the posterolateral corners of the parietals and extend posteriorly enclosing a series of four rectangularextrascapulars(Figure 1A). The lateral rostralis elongated and normally bearstwo large pores (Schaeffer1967) though in this specimen erosion of the bone surface has obscured them and only the anteriorpore on the left lateralrostralis visible. Anteriorly, the plate shows a ventrally directedprocess similar to that seen in Maciopoma (Watson1921)and Undina (Saint-Seine 1949). As noted by Schaeffer (1967), this process is also present,though weakly developed,in Diplurus. Posteriorly, the lateral rostral narrows and fits into an embayment in the anterior part of the lachrymojugal. The lachrymojugal articulates anteriorly with the lateral rostraland two of the supraorbital series, posteriorly it is in contact with the squamosaland the dermosphenotic. It bends up sharply to form the entire lower borderof the orbit and it is expandedanteriorly and bears a deep groove as in Diplurus and Macropoma. The postorbital is large and somewhat triangular in shape. Dorsally it has a smooth curved margin that abuts the first two of the supraorbital series and part of the parietal. Ventrally it contacts the squamosal, a large plate with a posterior process that contacts the supratemporals. The preopercularbears a short anterior process that fits below the posterior margin of the lachrymojugal. The posterior and ventral margins of both operculars are missing, however, these seem to have been largetriangular plates that shows none of the surface rugosity developed on the other elements of the skull. In the lower jaw the dentary fits into an embayment in the anteriormargin of the angular.No teeth are visible on the anterior part of the dentary in this specimen. The prearticular and the precoronoid are not present. The splenial is a narrow splint-like bone that can be seen most clearlyin ventralview (Figs.IB, 2B)and which bearsa short, ventrally directed process anteriorly. The gulars are preserved in place and though the posterior part of the right gular and much of the left is missing, the impression of the left gular shows that this was an elongated bone, rounded anteriorly and narrowing posteriorly. DISCUSSION This specimen is chiefly of interest because of its size and completeness. The skulls available to Schaeffer(1967) when he originally described the genus were very much smaller, rangingfrom 32 to 100mm in length, however, he did tentatively assign to this genus an extremely weathered skull from the Dockum in Palo Duro Canyon, Texas that

ISSUE1, 1987

A NEW SPECIMEN CHINLEA FROMTHE CHINLEFORMATION OF SORENSENI

4<

Figure 1. Chinlea sorenseni. Photographsof MNA V5470 in dorsal (A), ventral (B), and lateral (C) views.

50

ACADEMYOF SCIENCE* JOURNALOF THE ARIZONA-NEVADA

VOL. 22

Figure 2. Chinlea sorenseni. Illustrations of MNA V5470 showing dermal elements of the skull. A, dorsal; B, ventral; C, lateral views. Abbreviationsused in this figure and Figure3: ang, angular;bo, basioccipital; cl, cleithrum; dent, dentary; exsc, extrascapular;fr, frontal; gu, gular; laju, lachrymo-jugal;lr, lateral rostral; na, nasal; op, opercular;pa, parietal; pmx, premaxilla;po, postorbital;pop, preopercular; pra,prearticular;so, supraorbital;sp, splenial; sq, squamosal;st, supratemporal.

ISSUE1, 1987

A NEW SPECIMEN CHINLEA OF FROMTHE CHINLEFORMATION SORENSENI

51

Figure3. Chinlea sorenseni. Reconstruction of skull in lateral view based on reconstruction by Schaeffer(1967)with additional information from MNA V5470. For abbreviations, see Figure 2. was 200mm long. This skull had been originally described by Schaefferand Gregory(1961)though it was not assigned to a genus at that time. It is clear now from comparison with the new specimen that the large skull from the Dockum should be assigned to Chinlea. The main differences between this skull and the reconstruction published by Schaeffer (1967) lie in the overall proportions.The new skull shows in particularthe very elongated snout which seems to be a characteristicof this genus (Fig.3). It also appearsthat there may have been a less pronounced "forehead" than was shown in the original reconstruction though it is difficult to gauge just how much crushing the new specimen has suffered. The differencesin size andproportions the skull elements and of the greaterdegreeof fusion shown in the new specimen are featuresthat are mostly attributableto its greatersize, and presumablyage. This is particularlytrue of the increase in number and greater degree of fusion shown by the supraorbital and nasal series. The closest forms stratigraphically to Chinlea are Moenkopia from the Moenkopi Formation and Diplurus from the Dockum. Moenkopia is known only from disarticulated fragmentsof which the most diagnosticelement, the basisphenoid, is quite different from that seen in Chinlea (Schaeffer1967).Diplurus is consideredto be most closely related to Chinlea (Schaeffer1967) as they are the only coelacanths known to have long ossified pleural ribs, a feature that may be related to increased mechanical efficiency in swimming. In addition, the basisphenoid is very similar in both genera. The two genera show obvious differences in the skull roof including a greater degree of subdivision of the postrostralareain Chinleaand largerand bones that do not have more completely fused supraorbital large pores between them for the supraorbitalcanal as is the case in Diplurus. The dentition is also very different in the two genera,Chinleapossessing tusk-like teeth on the and which arenot precoracoid, dermopalatine ectopterygoid present in Diplurus. Despite these differences,however, it is clear that these two genera are more closely related to each other than to any other coelacanths. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Tony B. Raineswho collected the specimen of Chinlea sorenseni and made it availableto me for study. Ted Melis preparedthe photographs. REFERENCES CITED D. ELLIOTT, K. 1983. New material of Chinlea sorenseni from the Chinle Formation, Dolores River, Colorado. Abstractsof the Symposiumon SouthWesternGeology and Paleontology, Museum of Northern Arizona, 4. JARVIK,E. 1964. Specializations in early vertebrates. Annales des Societe Royale Zoologique de Belgique 94:11-95.

52

ACADEMYOF SCIENCE JOURNALOF THE ARIZONA-NEVADA

VOL. 22

LEHMAN,J. P. 1952. Etude complementaire des poissons de l'Eotrias de Madagascar.Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps-AkademiensHandlingar (4)2:1-201. SAINT-SEINE,P. De. 1949. Les poissons des calcaires de lithographiques Cerin.Nouvelles Archives.Museum Histoire Naturelle de Lyon 2:1-357. B. SCHAEFFER, 1948. A study of Diplurus longicaudatus with notes on the body form and locomotion in the Coelacanthini. American Museum Novitates 1378:1-32. . 1952. The Triassic coelacanth fish Diplurus, with observations on the evolution of the Coelacanthini. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 99:25-78.

. 1967. Late Triassic fishes from the western United States. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 135:285-342. 1961. Coelacanth fishes and J.T. GREGORY. from the Continental Triassic of the western United States. American Museum Novitates 2036:1-18. STEWART,J. H., F. G. POOLEand R. F. WILSON. 1972. Stratigraphyand Origin of the Chinle Formation and Related Upper Triassic Stratain the ColoradoPlateau Region. Geological Survey Professional Paper 690, 336 p. WATSON, D. M. S. 1921. On the coelacanth fish. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 8:320-337.