Basic info Taxonomic history Classification Included Taxa
Morphology Ecology and taphonomy External Literature Search Age range and collections

Leptolepis

Osteichthyes - Leptolepidiformes - Leptolepididae

Synonyms
Synonymy list
YearName and author
1832Leptolepis Agassiz p. 146
1839Ascalabos Münster
1845Oxygonius Agassiz
1848Tharsis Giebel
1850Megastoma Costa
1850Sarginites Costa
1859Leptolepis Owen p. 126
1863Leptolepis Wagner
1895Leptolepis Woodward p. 19
1919Leptolepis Woodward p. 121
1923Leptolepis Gregory p. 223
1947Leptolepis Schaeffer p. 13
1948Leptolepis Rayner p. 325
1960Leptolepis Gardiner p. 314
1967Leptolepis Wenz p. 192
1983Leptolepis Lauder and Liem p. 116 fig. 14
1997Leptolepis Delsate p. 129
2002Leptolepis Sepkoski
2002Tharsis Sepkoski
2017Leptolepis Arratia p. 23
2022Leptolepis Argyriou p. 102

Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data

RankNameAuthor
kingdomAnimalia()
—Bilateria
—EubilateriaAx 1987
—Deuterostomia
phylumChordataHaeckel 1874
subphylumVertebrata
superclassGnathostomata
classOsteichthyes
RankNameAuthor
subclassActinopterygii()
infraclassActinopteri()
—Teleosteomorpha
—Teleostei(Müller 1846)
orderLeptolepidiformes
familyLeptolepididae
genusLeptolepis

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. †Leptolepis Agassiz 1832
show all | hide all
†Leptolepis africana Gardiner 1960
†Leptolepis bahiaensis Schaeffer 1947
†Leptolepis brodiei Agassiz 1845
+
Invalid names: Leptolepis nanus Egerton 1845 [synonym], Megastoma apenninum Costa 1850 [synonym], Oxygonius tenuis Agassiz 1845 [synonym], Sarginites pygmaeus Costa 1850 [synonym]
†Leptolepis caudalis Agassiz 1843
†Leptolepis concentricus Egerton 1849
†Leptolepis contractus Agassiz 1834
+
Invalid names: Leptolepis affinis Sauvage 1874 [synonym], Leptolepis bronni Agassiz 1832 [objective synonym], Leptolepis constrictus Egerton 1852 [synonym], Leptolepis pachystelus Sauvage 1874 [synonym], Leptolepis pronus Sauvage 1874 [synonym]
†Leptolepis crusafonti Wenz 1968
†Leptolepis disjectus Woodward 1890
†Leptolepis dubius Blainville 1818
†Leptolepis euspondylus Gregory 1923
†Leptolepis gregarius Woodward 1895
†Leptolepis jaegeri Agassiz 1832
†Leptolepis koonwarri Waldman 1971
†Leptolepis longus Agassiz 1832
†Leptolepis lowei Woodward 1895
†Leptolepis macrolepidotus Agassiz 1834
†Leptolepis macrophthalmus Egerton 1853
†Leptolepis neocomiensis Bassani 1879
†Leptolepis neumayri Bassani 1879
†Leptolepis nevadensis David 1941
†Leptolepis normandica Nybelin 1962
†Leptolepis polyspondylus Agassiz 1834
†Leptolepis saltviciensis Simpson 1884
†Leptolepis sprattiformis Blainville 1818
†Leptolepis talbragarensis Woodward 1895
†Leptolepis tenellus Agassiz 1833
†Leptolepis voithii Agassiz 1834
+
Invalid names: Leptolepis paucispondylus Agassiz 1844 [synonym]
Invalid names: Ascalabos Münster 1839 [synonym], Megastoma Costa 1850 [synonym], Oxygonius Agassiz 1845 [synonym], Sarginites Costa 1850 [synonym], Tharsis Giebel 1848 [synonym]
Diagnosis
ReferenceDiagnosis
J. Wagner 1863Distinguishing features of Thrissops include the fact that the dorsal fin is positioned centrally, directly opposite the pelvic fin, that the anal fin is small, and the lower jaw is only slightly curved upwards. The inner rays of the caudal fin show only a faint indication of knee-like segmentation. The scaling is similar to that of Thrissops, and in well-preserved specimens, which are admittedly very rare, there seems to be undeniable evidence of scales with enamel. The vast majority of specimens show no trace of teeth, so this genus should be considered entirely toothless were it not for the small, pointed teeth that can be observed on some individuals. The ascending process (corona process), which originates from the upper margin of the lower jaw (approximately Y length behind the symphysis), is taller than in Thrissops but is frequently broken off (1).
Among all the fossil fish of the lithographic shale, those belonging to Leptolepis constitute the majority; by virtue of their great number as well as their inconspicuous appearance, they can be called the plebeians among them. However, they occur in such abundance only in Franconia; they are much scarcer near Nusplingen and Cirin in southern France, from where Thiolliere lists only L. sprattiformis and a larger, indeterminate form. Blainville had assigned these fish to the genus Clupea, and even if he went too far in this association, Heckel has recently placed them in the same family as the herrings. However, since I acknowledge, along with Agassiz and Egerton, a genuine enamel stain on the scales, I cannot, for this reason alone, combine the genus Leptolepis with Clupea, from which it also differs significantly by the absence of the latter's corresponding sternal ribs (2). Agassiz listed a total of 10 species of Leptolepis, of which he only discussed 5—namely L. sprattiformis, Voithii, macrolepidotus, polyspondilus, and crassus—with illustrations and more detailed descriptions. It should be noted, however, that I have referred L. crassus to Aethalion. Of 3 other species, L. knorrii, dubius, and contractus, Agassiz provided only brief characterizations; the other two he listed simply by their names, L. pusillus and latus. Agassiz labeled all these species in this collection with handwritten labels; I have found no such label for L. latus, and therefore cannot consider it further here. Distinguishing these species is very difficult and not always possible with certainty.
Both Agassiz and Münster placed great emphasis on the number of vertebrae, and indeed, this provides a good indication for distinguishing living fish; however, in fossil specimens, the number of vertebrae can only be determined with sufficient certainty in a few cases. Most species only reach a small size.
1) The shape of the jaws was first described in more detail by Egerton in the Memoirs of the Geological Survey, Decade VI (1852), Tab. 8. — Sometimes the two rami of the lower jaw are found, separated from the skull but with a well-preserved erect process. Quenstedt (Petrefaktenk. p. 332, Tab. 25, Fig. 6) initially considered such jaws to be cuttlefish beaks; later (Jura, p. 802, Tab. 99, Fig. 21), however, he himself corrected this error and declared them to be the lower jaws of Leptolepis.
2) In his Fauna of the Prehistoric World (Fish, p. 145), Giebel attempted to distinguish a second genus, Tharsis, from Leptolepis, with six new species, noting that numerous specimens of these new fish adorn the collections in Halle. It must seem quite strange from the outset that Agassiz, who examined several hundred specimens of these fossil fish species in the local and Münster collections, was unable to find a single one of Giebel's six new species. The same applies to Münster, who treated the genus Leptolepis with particular interest and was not at all concerned with the proliferation of species. Even I, who now have at least a thousand individuals of these fish before me, have not been able to identify any species other than those identified by Agassiz and Münster. The genus Tharsis is therefore nothing more than a double name for Leptolepis and its species are to be classified among those of the latter.