COMMENTS ON CLASSIFICATIONS
Classification of Carboniferous coelacanths has been difficult, partly because the remains are commonly fragmentary, and significant changes in anatomy did not become apparent in early studies. In general, coelacanths have been remarkably stable in most characters, and it has been difficult to divide the group into families. As Schaeffer (1952:56) pointed out, definition of coelacanth genera and species has previously been made on non-meristic characters, and the range of variation within a species has received little attention. For example, Reis (1888:71) established the genus Rhabdoderma, using the strong striation of the scales, gular plates and posterior mandible as the main characters of this Carboniferous genus. Moy-Thomas (1937:399-411) referred all Carboniferous species to Rhabdoderma, redescribed the genus and compared it to Coelacanthus, the Permian genus. He cited as specific characters the ornamentation of the angulars, operculars and gular plates (Moy-Thomas, 1935:39; 1937:385). Individual variation in some species has rendered ornamentation a poor criterion. This variation is apparent in Synaptotylus newelli (Hibbard), some specimens having little or no ornamentation; others having much more. The number of ridges and pattern of ridges on the scales also varies. Schaeffer (1952:56) has found this to be true of Diplurus also. Moy-Thomas (1935:40; 1937:385) realized that the type of scale is a poor criterion for specific differentiation. In the search for features useful in distinguishing genera of coelacanths, Schaeffer and Gregory (1961:3, 7) found the structure of the basisphenoid to be distinctive in known genera, and thought it had taxonomic significance at this level. Higher categories should have as their basis characters that display evolutionary sequences. A recent classification (Berg, 1940), followed in this paper, reflects two evolutionary trends in endocranial structure of coelacanths: reduction of endocranial ossification and loss of the basipterygoid processes. Because there has been little change in other structures in coelacanths, Berg's classification is the most useful. Berg (1940:390) includes Rhabdoderma in the suborder Diplocercidoidei because of the presence of the basipterygoid processes, and in the single family, Diplocercidae, but remarks that because of the reduced amount of endocranial ossification the Carboniferous Diplocercidae "probably constitute a distinct family." In considering this concept of classification, the subfamilies Diplocercinae and Rhabdodermatinae of the family Diplocercidae are proposed above. The subfamily Rhabdodermatinae includes at present Rhabdoderma and Synaptotylus. The principal characters of the subfamily Rhabdodermatinae, named for the first known genus, are the retention of the basipterygoid processes and the reduction of endocranial ossification. Application of this classification based upon endocranial structure would probably change existing groupings of species of Carboniferous coelacanths; the entire complex of Carboniferous genera should be redescribed and redefined. It will be necessary to consider endocranial structure in any future classification.
The greater part of the evolution previously mentioned appears to have been accomplished during the Carboniferous; thereafter coelacanth structure became stabilized. The trend progressed from Devonian coelacanths which had two large unpaired bones in the endocranium, and both antotic and basipterygoid processes on the basisphenoid, to Carboniferous fishes in which ossification was reduced to a number of paired and unpaired bones embedded in cartilage, and retaining both processes, and then post-Carboniferous kinds with reduced ossification and no basipterygoid processes. The Pennsylvanian was evidently the time of greatest change for the coelacanths, and they have not changed significantly since, in spite of the fact that since the Jurassic they have shifted their environment from shallow, fresh water to moderate depth in the sea (Schaeffer, 1953:fig. 1). The changes in endocranial structure appear to be significant, and are perhaps related to higher efficiency of the mouth parts in catching and swallowing prey (see p. 482).