Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Promyliobatis
Taxonomy
Promyliobatis was named by Jaekel (1894).
It was synonymized subjectively with Myliobatis by Cappetta (1987); it was considered an invalid subgroup of Myliobatidae by Carnevale et al. (2014).
It was assigned to Myliobatidae by Marramà et al. (2018); and to Myliobatoidea by Marramà et al. (2019).
It was synonymized subjectively with Myliobatis by Cappetta (1987); it was considered an invalid subgroup of Myliobatidae by Carnevale et al. (2014).
It was assigned to Myliobatidae by Marramà et al. (2018); and to Myliobatoidea by Marramà et al. (2019).
Species
Synonymy list
Year | Name and author |
---|---|
1894 | Promyliobatis Jaekel p. 152 |
2018 | Promyliobatis Marramà et al. p. 287 |
2019 | Promyliobatis Marramà et al. p. 3 |
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.
Diagnosis
Reference | Diagnosis | |
---|---|---|
G. Marramà et al. 2019 | A pelagic stingray unique in having the following characters: tail sting origin displaced posteriorly on the tail, at about 50–60% of tail length (vs. proximally on the tail and just posterior to the pelvic fins in other pelagic stingrays), pectoral fins joining in front of the head (vs. join the head laterally in other pelagic stingrays), anterior and posterior pectoral-fin margins nearly straight (vs. concave or convex in other pelagic stingrays), compagibus laminam absent (vs. present or poorly developed in other pelagic stingrays), mesopterygium as a single element (vs. fragmented or fused to scapulocoracoid in other pelagic stingrays). Moreover, Promyliobatis is characterized by a combination of plesiomorphic traits, including: anterior margin of cephalic lobes continuous (vs. single with an indentation in the Aetobatidae, and completely separated in two distinct cephalic fins in both the Rhinopteridae and Mobuli- dae); continuity of pectoral-rostral radials (vs. interrupted in all the other genera, except in Myliobatis); rostral radials less developed than pectoral radials (vs. equally developed in Myliobatis); pelvic girdle almost straight or slightly bent (vs. strongly bent in the Aetobatidae, Rhinopteridae and Mobulidae); median prepelvic process absent (vs. present in the Rhinopteridae and Mobulidae); crushing/grinding pavement-like dentition formed by interlocked expanded teeth (vs. small individual peg-like teeth in the Mobulidae); about 218 vertebrae (of which 20–22 are monospondylous and 148 are diplospondylous anterior to the sting, and 50 diplospondylous posterior to the sting); about 87 pectoral radials (excluding rostrals) of which 35 are propterygial, 10–12 mesopterygial, and 40 metapterygial; 22 or 23 pelvic radials; one row of hex- agonal and mesio-distally enlarged symphyseal teeth (width/length ratio 3.6–4.5), two rows of hexagonal or rhomboidal lateral teeth, and a single row of posterior teeth in both the upper and lower plates. |
Measurements
No measurements are available
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|||||
|
|
||||
Source: o = order, subp = subphylum | |||||
References: Wagner 2023, Carroll 1988, Hendy et al. 2009 |