Jump to content
  • Nematonotus bottae (Pictet & Humbert, 1866)




    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata Haeckel 1874
    Class: Actinopteri Cope1871
    Order: Aulopiformes Rosen 1973
    Family: Aulopidae Cope 1872
    Genus: Nematonotus
    Species: Nematonotus bottae
    Author Citation (Pictet & Humbert, 1866)

    Geological Time Scale

    Eon: Phanerozoic
    Era: Mesozoic
    Period: Cretaceous
    Sub Period: None
    Epoch: Late
    International Age: Cenomanian


    Sannine Formation


    Acquired by: Purchase/Trade


    Length: 7 cm


    Byblos (Jbeil)
    Mount Lebanon


    The transcription of the Arabic terms and names is often ambiguous. In the literature the locality is called Hakel, Haqel or Haquel.

    Taxonomy from Forrey et al., 2003.
    Alternative combination: Clupea bottae Pictet & Humbert, 1866; Synonym: Pseudoberyx longispina Davis 1887.

    Diagnosis for the genus Nematonotus according to Woodward, 1901: ”Head large, trunk short and robust. Mandibular suspensorium nearly vertical; jaws delicate and maxilla apparently not expanded behind; teeth minute. Vertebrae about 30 in number, half being caudal; the centra at least as long as deep, with a few prominent longitudinal ridges; ribs moderately robust. Pectoral fins small, close to the ventral border; pelvic fins smaller, opposed to the dorsal fin, which is situated within the anterior half of the back and exhibits one anterior ray excessively elongated and closely articulated; anal fin very small and remote; caudal fin stout but deeply forked. Scales large, smooth, and uniform, moderately thick, not serrated at the hinder border; lateral line conspicuous.”

    According to Forrey et al., 2003, p.302, the validity of N. bottae needs to be investigated: ”There are two recognized species, the other being N. longispinus (Davis, 1887), which is distinguished from the type species by having a greatly elongated third dorsal fin ray and an elongated second pectoral fin ray. Unfortunately, these hypertrophied fin rays are both extremely delicate and in all but the best-preserved specimens are usually broken. Further, it needs to be said that these fin rays are also extended to some extent in N. bottae. This makes separation of the two species difficult. … We cannot find any other differences between the two species except the elongation of the fin rays in N. longispinus. Clearly, a more intensive study of more specimens is needed to justify the validity of the two species and their defining characters.”

    Identified by oilshale using Forey et al., 2003.

    Pictet, F. J., and Humbert, A. (1866): Nouvelles recherches sur les poissons fossiles du mont Liban. Arch. Sci. Phys. Nat., Geneve, n. s. 26, 117-133.
    Woodward, A. S.  (1899): Note on some Cretaceous clupeoid fishes with pectinated scales (Ctenothrissa and Pseudoberyx). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 7 (3):489-492.
    Woodward, A. S.  (1901): Catalogue of Fossil Fishes in the British Museum (Natural History), Part IV :1-636.
    Forey, P. L., Yi, L., Patterson, C. and Davis, C. E. (2003): Fossil fishes from the Cenomanian (Upper Cretaceous) of Namoura, Lebanon. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 1 (4) :227-330.

    User Feedback

    There are no comments to display.

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

  • Create New...