Bull. Southern CaliforniaAcad. Sci. 105(2), 2006, pp. 85-90 © SouthernCaliforniaAcademyofSciences,2006 Research Notes A Miocene Chimaeroid Fin Spine from Kern County, California Gary T. Takeuchi1 and Richard W. Huddleston2 ' lDepartment of Vertebrate Paleontology, Natural History Museum ofLos Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007 2 Scientific Research Systems, 11044 McGirk Avenue, El Monte, California 91731 Chimaeroids are cartilaginous marine fishes with continuously growing tooth plates in the upper and lower jaws, and have long been regarded as an obscure lineage (Didier 1995). They first appear in the fossil record in the Early Jurassic (Ward and Duffin 1989; Stahl 1999) and reached a peak of diversity during the Mesozoic. The group dwindled during the Cenozoic and survive today in only six extant genera assigned to three families (Didier 1995). Fossil chimaeroids are typically preserved as isolated dental plates, dorsal fin spines, and very rarely as complete specimens. In the absence of skeletal elements, chimaeroid species are diagnosed on the characteristics of dental plates. Dorsal fin spines are not diag- nostic to species when they are not directly associated with dental or skeletal elements. There is little specific variation in size, length, or ornamentation of fin spines (Case and Herman 1973). A well-preserved dorsal fin spine of the extinct chimaeroid genus Edaphodon Buckland 1838, was recovered from the upper Olcese Sand (late Early Miocene) of California, and is the geochronologically youngest reported occurrence ofEda- phodon from the fossil record of North America. The fin spine, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) 4021 1, was collected from the Barker's Ranch area in the southeastern San Joaquin Basin, approximately 13 km northeast of Bakersfield, Kern County, California, and north of the Kern River. The beds in this area contain a gastropod-rich molluscan fauna (the Barker's Ranch Fauna) that serves as a standard of reference for the Miocene provisional mega-inverte- LACM brate "Temblor Stage" of Addicott (1972). The locality, locality 6602, is NW in one of several north-south trending canyons in the 74 of Sec. 33, T. 28 S., R. 29 E., Rio Bravo Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series (U.S. Geological Survey topographic map). A late Early Miocene age (ca. 16-18 Ma) for this horizon is based on molluscan biochronology (Addicott 1970), biostratigraphic correlation (Savage and Barnes 1972), benthic foraminiferal biostratigraphy (Olson 1990), and strontium isotope data (Olson 1988). The published strontium isotope dates of Olson (1988) yield a mean age of 16.7 Ma near the top of the upper Olcese Sand and are compatible with benthic foraminifera, which suggest an upper Re- lizian age. There is some uncertainty surrounding the exact stratigraphic provenance of LACM locality 6602. Clarke and Fitch (1979:492) placed the locality in the "up- per part of the Olcese Sand." However, Barnes and Mitchell (1984:17) referred the locality to the "lower part of the Round Mountain Silt, below the Sharktooth 85 86 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Hill bone bed." Neither provided accurate stratigraphic nor locality data. In the Barker's Ranch area, the upper Olcese Sand is composed of fossiliferous very fine to fine-grained, marine sandstone to sandy siltstone, with interbeds of trans- ported shells, whereas the lowermost Round Mountain Silt is a mottled siltstone (Olson 1990). The specimen was found in a shell bed directly below a calcare- m ously cemented sandstone that is approximately 14 stratigraphically below a mottled siltstone. The Edaphodon specimen described herein is considered to be from sediments of the upper Olcese Sand. In the 1960's, the late John E. Fitch lead numerous collecting trips to the Barker's Ranch area, and over a period of several years removed and processed nearly 1,800 kg of fossiliferous matrix from the upper Olcese Sand. This material LACM has produced, in addition to 4021 1, more than 100,000 teleostean otoliths (saccular), which represent as many as 65 species belonging to 30 or more fam- ilies, several thousand teeth ofsharks, skates, and rays, Cetorhinus (basking shark) gill rakers, and hundreds of squid statoliths (Clarke and Fitch 1979). Abundant otoliths of sciaenids (drums and croakers), pleuronectids and bothids (right- and left-eyed flatfishes), serranids (basses), atherinids (silversides), mugilids (mullets), clupeids (herrings), and several other families that suggest a nearshore environ- ment, are also present. Otoliths of deepwater forms such as morids (morid cods), melamphaids (bigscale fishes), and myctophids (lanternfishes) are relatively rare. Systematic Paleontology Class Chondrichthyes Huxley, 1880 Subclass Subterbranchialia Zangerl, 1979 Superorder Holocephali Bonaparte, 1832 Order Chimaeriformes Obruchev, 1953 Suborder Chimaeroidei Patterson, 1965 Family Callohynchidae Garman, 1901 Subfamily Edaphodontinae Stahl, 1999 Genus Edaphodon Buckland, 1838 Edaphodon sp. Figs. 1-2 — LACM Material. 40211, incomplete distal end of dorsal fin spine, collected by one of the authors (RWH) in 1969 from LACM locality 6602, Barker's Ranch, Kern County, California. — mm Description. Partial dorsal fin spine (Fig. 1), measuring 1 15 in preserved length, with undetermined amount ofbasal portion missing. Laterally compressed, subovate in cross-section, and only slightly curved posteriorly, with faint longi- tudinal striations on lateral faces. Anterior margin with sharp keel; posterior mar- gin with double row of small, evenly spaced, ventrally curved denticles, separated from each other by a shallow median groove extending for nearly the entire preserved length. In cross-section (Fig. 2), anterior area of spine consists of a thick layer of trabecular tissue with vascular canals; a thin layer of trabecular tissue with vascular canals present on posterior and posterolateral area; a thin layer of lamellar tissue lacking vascular canals present on lateral area of spine; and large subovate pulp cavity present in central region of spine. A MIOCENE CHIMAEROID FIN SPINE 87 Fig. 1. Incomplete dorsal fin spine of Edaphodon sp., LACM 40211. A. right lateral view; B. posterior view. Scale bars equal 2 cm. v.can lam v.can Fig. 2. Cross-sectiondrawing ofdorsal fin spineofEdaphodon sp., LACM 4021 1. Scale barequals 0.5 cm. Abbreviations: lam, lamellar tissue; p.c, pulp cavity; t.dn, trabecular tissue; v.can, vascular canals. 88 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES — LACM Comparisons. 4021 1 is referable to the extinct chimaeroid genus Eda- phodon. Assignment of this specimen to a species is unwise based upon such limited material. The dorsal fin spine of Edaphodon closely resembles that ofthe extinct genus Ischyodus Egerton 1843, but differs from the latter genus by dis- playing a weakly compressed subovate fin spine with a large subovate pulp cavity, and an incomplete trabecular tissue layer confined to the anterior and posterior spine edge. The fin spine of Ischyodus, in contrast, is strongly compressed lat- erally, with a narrow rectangular pulp cavity, and the trabecular tissue layer com- pletely surrounds the outer margin of the spine. For description and figure for the fin spine of Ischyodus compare also Patterson (1965:1 13, fig. 4). In recent chi- maeroids, the trabecular tissue is restricted to the anterior edge ofthe spine (Stahl 1999). Discussion Edaphodon is known only from tooth plates and fragments ofdorsal fin spines, from Early Cretaceous to Pliocene age deposits of Europe, North America, Aus- tralia, and Africa (Stahl 1999). In North America, the genus is largely known from Maastrichtian age deposits, and they survived the biotic stresses of Late Cretaceous time to persist into the early part of the Cenozoic. The callorhynchids were thought to have disappeared from the Northern Hemisphere at the end of the Eocene, and persisted in Southern Hemisphere seas throughout the Tertiary (Stahl and Chatterjee 2002). The Edaphodon specimen described herein extends the range of the genus in North America to the Early Miocene, and represents the first occurrence of the genus around the eastern north Pacific Rim. This is only the second description of a fossil chimaeroid from California, and reported occurrences ofchimaeroids from western North America are very rare. Applegate (1975) described Ischyodus zinsmeisteri, a mandibular tooth plate of Paleocene age, from Simi Hills, Ventura County, California. Ward and Grande (1991) re- garded features used by Applegate (1975) as ontogenetic, and they considered /. zinsmeisteri as a junior synonym of /. dolloi Leriche 1902. Dorsal fin spines generally referred to Edaphodon have been typically described as gently arched, slightly compressed, and smooth-walled, except for fine parallel longitudinal striations with a row of denticles along each of its two posterolateral edges, but none along the anterior keel. Duffin and Reynders (1995) reported a complete fin spine referable to Edaphodon with a single row of anterior denticles as well as the posterolateral rows. Stahl and Parris (2004) reported fragmentary distal ends of two fin spines associated with a complete dentition of E. mirificus Leidy 1856, showing a series of minute enameloid-covered structures on the an- terior keel that closely resemble the denticles that Duffin and Reynders (1995) reported. However, on neither of the fin spine fragments was the series ofanterior LACM denticles complete. In 4021 1, denticles are absent from the anteriormargin of the preserved half, and it is likely that, as in many chimaeroid fin spines referred to Edaphodon, denticles are absent proximally from both the anterior and posterolateral margins. We believe that LACM 4021 1 is referable to this genus, and further study to determine the significance of the variant patterns of denticle development is required. Stahl (1999) noted that fossil chimaeroid remains are found in shallow water environments, but it is not certain these fishes actually inhabited such environ- A MIOCENE CHIMAEROID FIN SPINE 89 ments. Extant chimaeroids inhabit deepwaters, with some species being known to venture into shallower areas offshore to feed, or even to come nearshore to breed (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). Obruchev (1967) reported egg cases, but no skel- etal remains, of chimaeroids in Mesozoic shallow marine deposits; he believed the egg cases were deposited by species of deepwater chimaeroids that are pres- ently unknown from the fossil record. It is possible that Edaphodon, like extant chimaeroids, normally inhabited moderately deepwater environments, but occa- sionally ventured into the shallows, and this may explain why after extensive sampling only a single chimaeroid specimen has been recovered from the upper Olcese Sand. Acknowledgments The late J. E. Fitch first found the locality, initiated excavation, and assisted one of the authors (RWH) in collection of the specimen described in this paper. Comments by L. G. Barnes and C. A. Shaw, and reviews by Kenshu Shimada and two anonymous reviewers greatly improved the clarity of this paper. Many thanks also to S. A. McLeod and J. D. Stewart for access to the collections. Literature Cited Addicott, W. O. 1970. Miocene gastropods and biostratigraphy ofthe Kern River area, California. U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 642:1-174. . 1972. Provincial middle and late Tertiary molluscan stages, Temblor Range, California. Pp. 1-26 in Proceedings of the Pacific Coast Miocene Biostratigraphic Symposium. (E. H. Stine- meyer, ed.), SEPM, 364 pp. Applegate, S. P. 1975. A new species of Paleocene chimaeroid from California. Bull. So. Cal. Acad. Sci., 74(l):27-30. Barnes, L. G., and E. Mitchell. 1984. Kentriodon obscurus (Kellogg, 1931), a fossil dolphin (Mam- malia: Kentriodontidae) from the Miocene Sharktooth Hill bonebed in California. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles County Contrib. Sci., 253:1-23. Bigelow, H., and W. C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Western Atlantic. Part Two: Sawfishes, Gui- tarfishes, Skates and Rays. Chimaeroids. Memoir ofthe Sears Foundation forMarine Research 1:1-588. Bonaparte, C. L. 1832. Selachorum tabula analytica. Nuov. Ann. Sci. Nat. R. Accad. Sci. 1st. Bologna, 1(2):195-214. Buckland, W. 1838. On the discovery offossil fishes in the Bagshot Sands at Goldworth Hill, 4 miles north of Guilford. Proc. Geol. Soc. London, 2:687-688. Case, G. R., and J. Herman. 1973. A dorsal fin spine ofthe chimaeroid fish, Edaphodon cf. bucklandi (Agassiz) from the Eocene of Morocco. Bull. Soc. Beige, Geol., Paleontol., Hydrol., 82(3): 445_449. Clarke, M. E., and J. E. Fitch. 1979. Statoliths ofCenozoic teuthoid cephalopods from North America. Palaeontology, 22:479-51 1. Didier, D. A. 1995. The phylogenetic systematics of extant chimaeroid fishes (Holocephali, Chima- eroidei). Amer. Mus. Novitates, 31 19:1-86. Duffin, C. J., and J. P. H. Reynders. 1995. A fossil chimaeroid from the Gronsveld Member (late Maastrichtian, late Cretaceous) ofnortheastern Belgium. Belg. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 278:11 1- 156. Egerton, P. G. 1843. On some new species offossil chimaeroid fishes, with remarks on their general affinities. Proc. Geol. Soc. London, 4:153-157. Garman, S. 1901. Genera and families of the chimaeroids. Proc. New England Zool. Club, 2:75-77. Huxley, T H. 1880. A manual of the anatomy of vertebrated animals. D. Appleton and Company, New York, 431 pp. Leidy, J. 1856. Notice ofthe remains ofextinct vertebrated animals ofNew Jersey, collected by Prof. 90 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Cook ofthe State Geological Survey under the direction ofDr. W. Kitchell. Proc. Acad. Natur. Sci. Philadelphia, 8:220-221. Leriche. M. 1902. Les poissons paleocenes de la Belgique. Mem. Mus. Hist. Natur. Belg., 2(1):1-48. Obruchev, D. V. 1953. Studies on edestids and the works of A. P. Karpinski. U.S.S.R. Acad. Sci., works ofthe Palaeont. Inst., 45:1-86. . 1967. Fossil chimaera egg capsules. Internatl. Geol. Rev., 9:567-573. Olson, H. C. 1988. Oligocene-middle Miocene depositional systems north ofBakersfield, California: eastern equivalents of the Temblor Formation. Pp. 189-205 in Studies of the Geology of the San Joaquin Basin. (S. A. Graham, ed.), Pacific Sec. SEPM 60, 351 pp. . 1990. Early and middle Miocene foraminiferal paleoenvironments, southeastern San Joaquin Basin, California. J. Foramin. Res., 20(4):289-311. Patterson, C. L. 1965. The phylogeny ofthe chimaeroids. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London (B), 249: 101-219. Savage, D. E., and L. G. Barnes. 1972. Miocene vertebrate geochronology ofthe west coast ofNorth America. Pp. 124-145 in Proceedings of the Pacific Coast Miocene Biostratigraphic Sympo- sium. (E. H. Stinemeyer. ed.), SEPM, 364 pp. Stahl, B. J. 1999. Chondrichthyes III. Holocephali. Pp. 1-164 in Handbook of Paleoichthyology 4. (H.-P Schultze, ed.), Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich. , and S. Chatterjee. 2002. ALateCretaceouscallorhynchid (Chondrichthyes, Holocephali)from Seymour Island, Antarctica. J. Vert. Paleontol., 22(4):848-850. , and D. C. Parris. 2004. The complete dentition of Edaphodon mirificus (Chondrichthyes: Holocephali) from a single individual. J. Paleontol., 78(2):388-392. Ward, D. J., and C. J. Duffin. 1989. Mesozoic chimaeroids. 1. A new chimaeroid from the Early Jurassic ofGloucestershire, England. Mesozoic Res. (Leiden), 2(2):45-51. , and L. Grande. 1991. Chimaeroid fish remains from Seymour Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Antarctic Science, 3(3):323-330. Zangerl, R. 1979. New Chondrichthyes from the Mazon Creek Fauna (Pennsylvanian) ofIllinois. Pp. 449-500 in Mazon Creek fossils. (M. N. Nitecki, ed.), Academic Press, New York, 581 pp. Accepted for publication 27 September 2005.