| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Belonostomus
Taxonomy
Belonostomus was named by Agassiz (1834) [Sepkoski's age data: J Kimm K Maes Sepkoski's reference number: 2,452,915].
It was assigned to Sauroidei by Wagner (1863); to Pachycormidae by Woodward (1895); to Pachycormiformes by Sepkoski (2002); to Aspidorhynchiformes by Arratia (2015); and to Aspidorhynchidae by Woodward (1918), Gardiner (1960), Estes (1964), Estes and Berberian (1970), Bryant (1989), Peng et al. (2001), Forey et al. (2003), Brito and Suarez (2003), Bogan et al. (2011), Bice and Shimada (2016), Hoganson et al. (2019), Amalfitano et al. (2020).
It was assigned to Sauroidei by Wagner (1863); to Pachycormidae by Woodward (1895); to Pachycormiformes by Sepkoski (2002); to Aspidorhynchiformes by Arratia (2015); and to Aspidorhynchidae by Woodward (1918), Gardiner (1960), Estes (1964), Estes and Berberian (1970), Bryant (1989), Peng et al. (2001), Forey et al. (2003), Brito and Suarez (2003), Bogan et al. (2011), Bice and Shimada (2016), Hoganson et al. (2019), Amalfitano et al. (2020).
Species
Species lacking formal opinion data
Entered
by J. Sepkoski on 2003-01-23; modified by M. Clapham on 2021-07-31
Synonyms
|
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 1834 | Belonostomus Agassiz p. 388 |
| 1863 | Belonostomus Wagner |
| 1895 | Belonostomus Woodward p. 428 |
| 1902 | Diphyodus Lambe p. 30 |
| 1918 | Belonostomus Woodward p. 100 |
| 1960 | Belonostomus Gardiner p. 362 |
| 1964 | Belonostomus Estes p. 22 |
| 1970 | Belonostomus Estes and Berberian p. 3 |
| 1989 | Belonostomus Bryant p. 24 |
| 2001 | Belonostomus Peng et al. p. 13 |
| 2002 | Belonostomus Sepkoski |
| 2003 | Belonostomus Brito and Suarez |
| 2003 | Belonostomus Forey et al. p. 228 |
| 2011 | Belonostomus Bogan et al. p. 237 |
| 2015 | Belonostomus Arratia p. 48 |
| 2016 | Belonostomus Bice and Shimada p. 184 |
| 2019 | Belonostomus Hoganson et al. p. 52 |
| 2020 | Belonostomus Amalfitano et al. p. 275 |
Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data
|
|
If no rank is listed, the taxon is considered an unranked clade in modern classifications. Ranks may be repeated or presented in the wrong order because authors working on different parts of the classification may disagree about how to rank taxa.
G. †Belonostomus Agassiz 1834
show all | hide all
†Belonostomus aciculiferus Nessov 1985
†Belonostomus attenuatus Dixon 1850
†Belonostomus brachysomus Agassiz 1834
†Belonostomus carinatus Mawson and Woodward 1907
†Belonostomus cinctus Agassiz 1837
†Belonostomus dalmaticus Gorjanović-Kramberger 1895
†Belonostomus helgolandicus Taverne and Ross 1973
†Belonostomus hooleyi Woodward 1918
†Belonostomus kochii Agassiz 1843
†Belonostomus lamarquensis Bogan et al. 2011
†Belonostomus lesinaensis Bassani 1882
†Belonostomus longirostris Lambe 1902
†Belonostomus matteuzi Gorjanović-Kramberger 1895
†Belonostomus muensteri Agassiz 1834
†Belonostomus novaki Gorjanović-Kramberger 1895
†Belonostomus sphyraenoides Agassiz 1834
†Belonostomus subulatus Agassiz 1834
†Belonostomus tenuirostris Agassiz 1833
†Belonostomus ventralis Agassiz 1834
Invalid names: Diphyodus Lambe 1902 [synonym]
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| J. Wagner 1863 | Although no sharp boundary can be drawn between Aspidorhynchus and Belonostomus, it is nevertheless advisable to retain the latter genus because it can be established for at least most species. In the majority of these, the lower jaw is of the same or almost the same length as the upper jaw, which definitively excludes the genus Aspidorhynchus. However, even if a species of Belonostomus approaches Aspidorhynchus in the shortness of its lower jaw, its much slimmer, more slender form remains as a distinguishing characteristic, since instead of three longitudinal rows of large scales, Belonostomus actually only has two. Furthermore, the teeth in the latter genus vary more in size than in the other. Moreover, the scaling is exactly the same as in Aspidorhynchus, and the insertion of the scales is identical. A major difficulty lies in species identification, as specimens are usually very damaged, especially on their jaws, making a reliable interpretation uncertain or even impossible. Agassiz distinguished six species, of which only A seems to me to be more or less reliably identifiable. This genus is widespread, as remains of it have also been found in *Nusplingus* and *Cirinus* (1). | |
| A. S. Woodward 1918 | As Aspidorhynchus , but mandible almost or quite as long as the rostrum , and all the scales of the lateral line deeper than those immediately beneath |