Morrolepis

The Morrison Formation of the western United States is one of the most famous deposits of late Jurassic strata anywhere in the world. It is here that dinosaur fossils from famous species like Allosaurus, Stegosaurus, Apatosaurus, and others were discovered and continue to be uncovered by paleontologists to this day. While the Morrison Formation is world-renowned for its superb dinosaur fossils, this landscape was home to many other species that dwelt here 150 million years ago. In addition to dinosaurs, fossils of pterosaurs, crocodiles, lizards, turtles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates have also been uncovered.

As you can see from the above list, there are many aquatic or semi-aquatic animals that are mentioned. This may sound bizarre because, as anyone who has even a vague knowledge of the Morrison Formation knows, this landscape was arid and dry for much of the year during the late Jurassic; click here for a video that talks about this. However, since fossilization is most likely to occur in areas that are prone to flooding, it would make sense that many of the fossils that we find come from creatures that made their homes in and around the water.

One of those creatures was Morrolepis, one of the fish species that lived in western North America during the Late Jurassic. Morrolepis belonged to a group of primitive fish called the palaeoniscoids, which superficially resemble something that you’d find in the deep ocean – very large eyes, short snout, big mouth, big snaggly teeth, and a general appearance that can be best described as “prehistoric”. The creature was officially named Morrolepis schaefferi in 1998 by Jim Kirkland, although there are other species of this genus that have been found elsewhere, notably in Europe. This creature only measured eight inches long, far larger than its contemporary, the minnow-sized Hulettia, but at the same time it was far smaller than its other major contemporary, the three-foot-long lungfish Ceratodus. By the way, lungfish were the most common fish found in the Morrison Formation. Being able to breathe when you’re out of water is very helpful if you live in a landscape that has a long dry season and is prone to droughts.

We know quite a bit about Morrolepis’ anatomy based upon the fossils that have been uncovered, but how would it have lived? We know from geology that Morrolepis’ remains were found inland. Therefore, it was not a marine species, but was instead a freshwater species. The Morrison Formation was, as said before, a largely dry area, but there were a few places where there were permanent sources of fresh water. The landscape was mostly flat, and rivers that flow through flat terrain usually flow very slowly because the incline of the land is barely noticeable. Moreover, flat-land rivers tend to be very wide but very shallow, unless they happen to be cutting through a gorge or ravine. So, it appears that Morrolepis was at home in standing or slow-moving water, such as ponds, lakes, and slow-moving rivers. Water bodies that are standing or slow-moving usually have a lot of aquatic vegetation. This is because seeds and spores of aquatic plants have a better chance of taking root and growing because the current won’t sweep them away, like in faster-moving streams and rivers. Therefore, in water bodies such as this, there is a sufficient amount of aquatic plants and algae. In some circumstances, the water might appear to be green due to the heavy concentration of algae (visit Kissena Park in Queens, New York if you don’t believe me; the lake there looks like pea soup). So, what we have so far is a slow-moving river that is wide but shallow, and probably has a fair amount of aquatic vegetation in it – ambush country.

Predatory fish that live in this type of environment are almost exclusively ambush predators, waiting under cover for prey to pass by too close, and then suddenly lunging forward and gobbling them up. Morrolepis had large eyes set close to the front of the head, ideal for spotting its prey. Also, if the water was indeed so thick with algae that it appeared to be dyed green, visibility would be very low. Large eyes would compensate for the murky water. A large mouth lined with noticeably long spiky teeth would seem to be a good go-to method for swallowing down small prey in water that had low visibility. With a gaping maw like that, even if your aim was not 100% accurate, you still stood a fair chance of catching your victim anyway. Unlike other palaeoniscoid fish, Morrolepis is distinctive for having large fins (most palaeoniscoids have small fins in proportion to body size), with the dorsal fin and the anal fin set back much closer towards the tail than in its relatives. Morrolepis’ tail was asymmetrical, resembling the tail of a sturgeon or a shark. In fact, the whole animal sort of resembles a modern deep sea shark in terms of its general body plan. Morrolepis appears to have had the body plan of a hoverer or a slow cruiser, being able to use its large tail for a powerful forward thrust. This is a feature of ambush predators like pikes and gars.

Due to the environment that it lived in, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to imagine that Morrolepis was patterned in blotches or wavy stripes, and presumably would have been colored in various shades of tan, brown, and green to camouflage it in the murky muddy water and match the surrounding submerged vegetation.

I like to imagine Morrolepis as an ambush predator with good eyesight, and was likely covered in stripy or blotchy brown/green camouflage, which inhabited standing or slow-moving bodies of water. Below is a drawing that I have made of this creature. This illustration was made after consulting numerous photographs and scientific illustrations of Morrolepis fossils and comparing them with fossils of other palaeoniscoid fish. The drawing was made with a fine-tip black marker and colored pencils. Please provide any commentary or feedback below.



Categories: Paleontology, Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

6 replies

  1. This is a great article! I love the idea of Morrolepis slowly cruising the plant-choked riverbed, ready to ambush anything that flushes out of the weeds. 😀

    I’m curious, where did you find the information on thick scales? My book mentions thin scales, but I’m curious if there are more recent papers that suggest otherwise. 🙂

    • Greetings. I’m glad that you like the article. In regards to my statement about its scales, I was not able to find any well-preserved specimens of Morrolepis schaefferi which showed scales. However, I was able to find photographs and illustrations of other palaeoniscoid fish species (such as Moythomasia, Pteroniscus, and Rhadinichthyes) which do show scales. Since all palaeoniscoids have the same general body plan, I made some inferences.

      I looked through my copy of “Jurassic West, 1st Edition” by John Foster (2007), and I was not able to find any mention of the size dimensions of Morrolepis’ scales. Which book/page number did you find that info?

      • Ok, so we found the same sources then. 🙂 I found the images of other palaeoniscoid fish as well since they came up in my search for Morrolepis, and I almost reconstructed Morrolepis with those sort of scales. Plus I found one paper of a different Morrolepis species mentioning a line of thicker scales down it’s side.

        I only have the 1st Edition of Jurassic West thus far (thank you for bringing the new edition to my attention, I immediately ordered it!), but on page 134, paragraph 2, Mr. Foster compares the scales of Hulettia to the contemporary Morrolepis.

        “The skeleton of Hulettia hawesi is covered in most specimens by its distinctive scale pattern. Unlike Morrolepis, whose scales are thin and barely make an impression in the rock in most specimens.”

        If it wasn’t for this line I would’ve gone for the thicker scales, but it seems Morrolepis was a bit unusual since it was so isolated from any others of its kind. 🙂

      • Thanks for the info! My eyes must have skipped over that for some strange reason. I’ll remove that sentence from the article immediately. However, based upon the other palaeoniscoid fossils that I’ve seen, I think that the overall pattern of scales on the body is still accurate. Now the question comes to the size/texture of the scales.

        The only info that I’ve found regarding the size/patterning of Morrolepis’ scales is that it possessed “cycloid flank scales” (Mark A. Gorman, Ian M. Miller, Jason D. Pardo, and Bryan J. Small. “Plants, Fish, Turtles, and Insects from the Morrison Formation: A Late Jurassic Ecosystem near Cañon City, Colorado”. Page 15. https://www.handsontheland.org/garden-park/data/articles/gorman_et_al2008_TCFieldGuide_small.pdf. This information is also seen in Robert G. H. Reynolds, ed., “The Geological Society of America., Field Guide 10 – Roaming the Rocky Mountains and Environs: Geological Field Trips”. Boulder: The Geological Society of America, 2008. Page 304).

        A “cycloid scale” is round and has rings like the cross-section of a tree. I mistakenly illustrated my Morrolepis with polygonal or diamond-shaped “ganoid scales” which are seen on fish like gars and on other palaeoniscoid fish like Palaeoniscum (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palaeoniscus_macropomus.jpg). At the time, I thought that this was accurate because every other palaeoniscoid fish fossil that I had seen had scales like this.

        Therefore, a more accurate Morrolepis illustration would have small round-edged scales, but arranged more-or-less in the same scale pattern on the body that you see in the illustration above. Oh well, that makes another drawing on my “to-do list”.

      • It’s a passage that’s easily missed! I kept looking for it in the section for Morrolepis. It’s a bit counterintuitive to only mention it in the passage on Hulettia. 🙂

        Coming across new information can be both frustrating and fascinating! Must we update our drawings and illustrations for all eternity each time we come across new research? But at the same time it can be fun to reimagine a creature when we discover something new, or find out we misinterpreted the data we were looking at (I need to update Steggy’s plates. She doesn’t have near enough keratin on them and they’re too small).

        I think it’s good to have our older drawings as well as updated ones, because paleontology and paleoart are constantly shifting as we discover more and understand more about the prehistoric world. I think it’s important that people who don’t know as much about it can understand that we don’t know very much and we’re always learning. Especially when it comes to obscure species like Morrolepis! We do the best we can and make our best guess, and sometimes things slip through the cracks. And that’s ok! 🙂

        I think both of our posts are the single-most comprehensive explorations of Morrolepis on the internet. At least for the general public. Where you able to find the paper describing Morrolepis? I had to piece-meal my post primarily from Jurassic West, and only found a few brief mentions of it in other papers.

      • Unfortunately, I was not able to find Jim Kirkland’s original article which officially named and described Morrolepis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: