2025 in paleoichthyology

Jawless vertebrate research

• Märss (2025) revises jawless vertebrates from the Silurian (Wenlock) to Devonian (Lochkovian) strata of the Ufa Amphitheatre (Russia), and names a new family Tahulaspididae within Osteostraci.^[3]
• Sanchez-Sanchez, Sanisidro & Ferrón (2025) study the hydrodynamic performance of headshield processes of members of Pteraspidomorphi, reporting evidence of repeated, independent evolution of frontal, dorsal and lateral processes in response to functional demands.^[4]
• A study on the phylogenetic relationships of members of Heterostraci is published by Randle, Keating & Sansom (2025).^[5]
• Schnetz et al. (2025) reconstruct the whole-body morphology of Anglaspis heintzi, and interpret its oral apparatus as indicative of adaptation to suspension feeding.^[6]
• Gai et al. (2025) review the fossil record of galeaspids from China and Vietnam.^[7]
• Miyashita et al. (2025) provide new information on the anatomy of the head–trunk interface in Norselaspis glacialis, reporting evidence of presence of features previously known only in jawed vertebrates, and interpret their findings and indicative of evolution of sensory elaborations and increase of cardiac output and locomotory control in vertebrates before the appearance of the vertebrate jaw.^[8]

Placoderm research

• Babcock (2025) designates the neotype for Macropetalichthys rapheidolabis and the lectotype for Agassichthys manni, redescribes the lectotype of Agassichthys sullivanti, and interprets A. manni, A. sullivanti and Pterichthys norwoodensis as junior synonyms of M. rapheidolabis.^[15]
• Pears et al. (2025) reconstruct the appendicular skeleton and musculature of arthrodires from the Devonian Gogo Formation (Australia), providing evidence of anatomical similarity of fins and musculature of the studied specimens.^[16]
• Redescription and a study on the affinities of Exutaspis megista is published by Xue et al. (2025).^[17]
• Trinajstic et al. (2025) describe new fossil material of Bullerichthys fascidens from the Devonian Gogo Formation (Australia), providing new information on the morphology of the headshield in the studied species, as well as evidence resorption and remodelling of teeth similar to those seen in bony fishes.^[18]
• Engelman et al. (2025) present a new reconstruction of parts of skeleton and musculature of Dunkleosteus terrelli involved in feeding.^[19]

Cartilaginous fish research

• Griffin et al. (2025) study the morphological diversity of jaws of cartilaginous fishes throughout their evolutionary history, providing evidence of a shift from morphologies optimized for strength and speed toward more robust ones.^[48]
• Evidence from the study of teeth of Ctenacanthus concinnus, Phoebodus saidselachus and Maghriboselache mohamezanei, indicative of high diversity of histology and mineralisation patterns early in the evolution of cartilaginous fishes, is presented by Greif et al. (2025).^[49]
• A study on the development of the dermal skeleton of Fanjingshania renovata is published by Andreev et al. (2025).^[50]
• A diverse assemblage of cartilaginous fish fossils, including the youngest record of Phoebodus latus reported to date, is described from the Upper Devovian strata from the South Urals (Russia) by Ivanov et al. (2025).^[51]
• A study on the composition of the Permian fish assemblages from the Guadalupe Mountains National Park (Texas, United States), including the youngest records of Bransonella lingulata, Stethacanthulus decorus, Glikmanius myachkovensis and Heslerodus divergens in the world, is published by Ivanov, Hearst & Nestell (2025).^[52]
• Li et al. (2025) report the discovery of a new fish assemblage dominated by cartilaginous fishes from the Permian (Changhsingian) Dalong Formation (Sichuan, China), including a probable neoselachian which might represent the earliest record of a cartilaginous fish with holaulacorhize-like root vascularization.^[53]
• A study on the development and evolution of tenaculum and its tooth-like denticles in chimaeras, as indicated by their development during ontogeny in extant spotted ratfish and by anatomy of Carboniferous Helodus simplex, is published by Cohen, Coates & Fraser (2025), who interpret the denticles of the tenaculum as more likely to be true teeth than modified dermal denticles.^[54]
• Zhao et al. (2025) interpret Laffonia helvetica as a holocephalan egg capsule morphologically intermediate between Carboniferous Crookallia and Vetacapsula and extant chimaerid capsules.^[55]
• A well-preserved specimen of Chimaeropsis paradoxa, displaying soft parts, is described from the Tithonian strata in the Solnhofen area (Germany) by Duffin, Lauer & Lauer (2025).^[56]
• Duffin & Ward (2025) describe a quasi-complete but poorly preserved specimen of Elasmodectes cf. willetti from the Cenomanian strata in Morocco, and identify the first fossil of a member of the genus Elasmodectes (a tooth plate) from the Albian Gault Clay of Folkestone (Kent, United Kingdom.^[57]
• Popov & Rogov (2025) describe chimaeroid fossil material from the Coniacian strata from the Krasnoyarsk Krai (Russia), providing evidence of presence of Edaphodon sp. and Harriotta sp. in the polar latitudes of eastern Siberia during the Late Cretaceous.^[58]
• A study on the histology and growth of dental plates of Ischyodus dolloi is published by Cerda, Gouiric Cavalli & Reguero (2025).^[59]
• Gayford & Jambura (2025) review evidence of different drivers of diversification of elasmobranchs throughout their evolutionary history.^[60]
• The first dermal denticles of Listracanthus hystrix from Ireland are described from the Carboniferous Clare Shale Formation (County Clare, Republic of Ireland) by Doyle (2025).^[61]
• Greif et al. (2025) reconstruct feeding habits of Ctenacanthus concinnus, interpreting it as likely opportunistic feeder that used an array of feeding mechanisms.^[62]
• Vida, Kriwet & Martin (2025) revise the cartilaginous fish assemblage from the Rhaetian Contorta Beds of Bonenburg (Exter Formation; Germany), interpret Rhomphaiodon minor as a junior synonym of Nemacanthus monilifer, and reconstruct the food web of fishes from Bonenburg, providing evidence of presence of diverse mesopredators and of likely niche partitioning in cartilaginous fishes.^[63]
• Eltink et al. (2025) report the first discovery of fossil material of Priohybodus arambourgi from the Upper Jurassic Aliança Formation (Brazil), and study tooth morphology of members of the species and its variation.^[64]
• Valentin et al. (2025) describe new fossil material of hybodont sharks from the Campanian strata in France, including the first record of Parvodus from the Late Cretaceous.^[65]
• Staggl et al. (2025) study diversity dynamics of neoselachians throughout the Mesozoic, providing evidence that higher atmospheric CO₂ concentrations had negative effect on neoselachian diversity.^[66]
• A study on changes of diversity dynamics of neoselachians throughout the Cenozoic and on drivers of those changes is published by Staggl et al. (2025).^[67]
• Kocáková et al. (2025) study the diversification trajectories of neoselachians over the past 145 million years, providing evidence that young species consistently faced higher extinction risk than older ones, and identifying previously undetected extinction events in the evolutionary history of the studied group.^[68]
• Evidence from the study of oxygen isotope composition of teeth of Cretoxyrhina mantelli, Cretalamna appendiculata, Scapanorhynchus texanus, Squalicorax kaupi, Squalicorax pristodontus and Ptychodus mortoni from the Upper Cretaceous strata from the Gulf Coastal Plain, interpreted as likely indicative of increased body temperature of P. mortoni and indicative of active heating and migration from warmer waters by C. mantelli, is presented by Comans, Tobin & Totten (2025)^[69]
• Benavides-Cabra et al. (2025) describe a new specimen of Protolamna ricaurtei from the Aptian Paja Formation (Colombia), representing the first Early Cretaceous lamniform specimen preserved with both teeth and vertebrae, and providing evidence of large overall body size of this shark, but with proportionally small teeth.^[70]
• The first isolated chondrichthyan vertebral centrum from the Aptian Santana Formation (Brazil), identified as belonging to a lamniform shark, is described by Brito et al. (2025).^[71]
• Cardabiodontid fossil material, likely belonging to one of the largest lamniform sharks in the fossil record reported to date, is described from the Aptian Darwin Formation (Australia) by Bazzi et al. (2025).^[72]
• Amadori et al. (2025) reconstruct the lower crushing plate of Ptychodus decurrens on the basis of new fossil material from the Upper Cretaceous strata in Croatia.^[73]
• Goedert et al. (2025) describe new fossil material of members of the genus Otodus from the Crescent, Aldwell, Lincoln Creek, Pysht and Astoria formations (Washington, United States), providing evidence of presence of members of this genus in northeastern Pacific Ocean from at least the early Eocene to the Miocene.^[74]
• Shimada et al. (2025) argue that Otodus megalodon likely had slenderer body than the great white shark, and estimate that it might have reached about 24.3 m in body length.^[75]
• McCormack et al. (2025) study the trophic ecology of marine vertebrates from the Miocene (Burdigalian) Upper Marine Molasse sediments (Germany), and report evidence indicating that members of the genus Otodus did not feed exclusively on high trophic level prey, as well as evidence indicating that most of the studied specimens of Carcharodon hastalis fed on a lower trophic level prey than extant great white shark.^[76]
• Godfrey et al. (2025) describe teeth of Carcharodon hastalis embedded in cetacean vertebrae from the Miocene Calvert Formation (Maryland, United States), confirming that the studied shark fed on marine mammals.^[77]
• A study on the evolution of members of Squaliformes is published by Marion, Condamine & Guinot (2025), who find evidence of multiple colonizations of the deep sea that coincided with marine transgressions and were likely facilitated by the evolution of bioluminescence.^[78]
• Greenfield (2025) reidentify the large rostrum and four fragmentary rostral denticles from the Dakhla Formation originally attributed to Onchopristis sp. by Capasso et al. (2024)^[79] as Sclerorhynchoidei indet. and Sclerorhynchus cf. leptodon, respectively,^[80] while Capasso et al. (2025) supported their original identification and stated that any taxonomic determination without direct examination is unacceptable.^[81]
• Collareta & Mollen (2025) identify fossil material of Nebriimimus wardi from the Pliocene strata from Guardamar del Segura (Spain), representing the first record of this species outside Italy.^[82]
• A study on the evolution of the shark body form is published by Gayford et al. (2025), who interpret their findings as indicating that ancestral shark were living in benthic environments, as well as indicative of four independent cases of transition of sharks to the pelagic zone and related adaptations of their body form, likely linked to increased habitat availability during the Jurassic and Cretaceous.^[83]
• Assemat, Adnet & Martin (2025) study the trophic ecology of Maastrichtian elasmobranchs from Morocco, and report evidence of similarities of the studied assemblage with modern trophic food webs, as well as evidence of consumption of tetrapods by Squalicorax pristodontus.^[84]
• Cañete-Cañete et al. (2025) revise the fossil record of cartilaginous fishes from Chile from the Late Cretaceous to the Eocene, finding no evidence of a significant turnover during the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition, and finding evidence of increase of diversity during the Eocene.^[85]
• Fossil material of diverse Miocene (Aquitanian) shark assemblage is described from the Khari Nadi Formation (Kachchh, India) by Chaskar et al. (2025).^[86]
• New elasmobranch fossil material is described from the Miocene strata of the Upper Marine Molasse from the Ursendorf and Rengetsweiler sites (Germany) by Höltke et al. (2025).^[87]
• New Miocene shark and ray fossil material, including the first records of Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides, Carcharhinus brevipinna, Physogaleus hemmooriensis and Aetobatus cappettai from the Miocene of the Indian subcontinent, is described from the Baripada Beds (India) by Singh et al. (2025).^[88]
• A new assemblage of deep-marine elasmobranchs, including fossils of representatives of five different orders with a wide range of feeding behaviors, is described from the Miocene (Langhian) strata in Austria by Feichtinger et al. (2025).^[89]
• Maisch et al. (2025) describe a diverse assemblage of Miocene-Pliocene sharks and rays from the strata of the Peace River and Tamiami formations from the submerged continental shelf near Venice (Florida, United States).^[90]
• Evidence from the study of isolated teeth of living and fossil lamniform sharks, indicative of utility of geometric morphometrics for identification of isolated fossil teeth, is presented by Pagliuzzi et al. (2025).^[91]

Otolith taxa

Ray-finned fish research

• A study on the development of teeth of a stem ray-finned fish specimen from the Devonian Gneudna Formation (Australia), providing evidence of similarities with the organization of lungfish tooth plates, is published by Chen (2025).^[147]
• Igielman et al. (2025) study the anatomy of lower jaws of Devonian ray-finned fishes, report evidence of overall similarity in similarity in gross shape and composition, but also report evidence of differences that might be related to a previously unrecognized functional diversity.^[148]
• Flannery Sutherland et al. (2025) interpret the fossil record of early ray-finned fishes as suggestive of their cryptic diversification in the Late Devonian instead of an explosive radiation in the Carboniferous, as well as suggestive of high lineage survivorship across the Hangenberg event.^[149]
• Wilson, Mansky & Anderson (2025) describe occipital ossifications of two ray-finned fishes from the Tournaisian Horton Bluff Formation (Nova Scotia, Canada), and report similarities of one of the studied specimens to early-diverging Devonian ray-finned fishes, as well as similarities of the other specimen to later, Carboniferous taxa, providing new information on diversity of ray-finned fishes from the Horton Bluff Formation.^[150]
• Mo, Caron & Coates (2025) revise Rhadinichthys ornatissimus and reinterpret Woodichthys bearsdeni as a species belonging to the genus Rhadinichthys.^[151]
• Giles, Kolmann & Friedman (2025) describe a specimen of Platysomus parvulus from the Carboniferous Pennine Middle Coal Measures Formation (Staffordshire, England, United Kingdom) preserving evidence of presence of enlarged basibranchial tooth plates opposing an upper tooth field including small, pointed teeth on the surface of the vomer and longitudinal bands of teeth on the entopterygoids, representing the earliest record of a tongue-bite mechanism in a ray-finned fish reported to date.^[152]
• A study on the composition of the ray-finned fish assemblages from Permian localities in the Nizhny Novgorod Oblast (Russia) is published by Karaseva & Bakaev (2025).^[153]
• A study on the evolution of ray-finned fish assemblages known from the Permian and Triassic strata of the Kuznetsk Basin (Russia) is published by Bakaev & Karaseva (2025).^[154]
• Redescription of Palaeoniscum delessei is published by Gonçalves & Luccisano (2025),^[155] who synonymise this species to Aeduella blainvillei.
• Gonçalves & Luccisano (2025) redescribe all the aeduellid specimens from the Decazeville Basin (Aveyron, France), and carry out a phylogenetic analysis of this family including the other actinopterygians of the Permo-Carboniferous of Europe. They highlight that the aeduellids present in the Decazeville Basin are Aeduella blainvillei and Decazella vetteri.^[156]
• Redescription and a study on the phylogenetic affinities of Pteronisculus gunnari is published by Cavicchini et al. (2025).^[157]
• Romanov, Shakhparonov & Korzun (2025) study the force distribution in the skull of Pteronisculus to determine the function of its symplectic bone, and report possible evidence of presence of a mouth-opening mechanism different from those seen in extant bony fishes.^[158]
• Cooper et al. (2025) study the skull roof anatomy of Gyrosteus mirabilis, and interpret both G. mirabilis and Strongylosteus hindenburgi as species distinct from Chondrosteus acipenseroides.^[159]
• Miyata et al. (2025) describe fossil material of a sturgeon from the Maastrichtian Hakobuchi Formation (Japan), representing the first record of a sturgeon from the Upper Cretaceous strata in East Asia.^[160]
• Stack (2025) studies the phylogenetic relationships of extant and extinct ray-finned fishes, and recovers bobasatraniids and guildayichthyids as placed outside Neopterygii.^[161]
• Capasso & Witzmann (2025) identify pycnodontomorph specimens with supernumerary rays of dorsal and anal fins, and interpret the studied anomalies as likely atavisms and as evidence supporting the interpretation of pycnodontomorph as basal neopterygians.^[162]
• A study on the morphological variation of dentary bones of members of Gyrodontiformes and Pycnodontiformes is published by Capasso, Zorzin & Duffin (2025).^[163]
• Fossil material of Eomesodon sp., representing the oldest record of pycnodonts from Gondwana reported to date, is described from the Middle Jurassic (Bajocian) Jaisalmer Formation (India) by Ghosh, Kumar & Swami (2025).^[164]
• Pacheco-Ordaz, Reyes-López & Alvarado-Ortega (2025) identify a specimen of Paranursallia gutturosa from the Turonian strata from the San José de Gracia Quarry (Mexico), assign further nursalliine pycnodontid specimens from the Agua Nueva Formation to the same species, and discard report of the presence of Nursallia tethyensis in the Turonian strata of the Huehuetla Quarry.^[165]
• Fossil material of cf. Coelodus sp., representing the first vertebrate material reported from the Santonian Jákó Marl Formation (Hungary), is described by Szabó, Haas & Cawley (2025).^[166]
• Tintori (2025) reports the discovery of fossil material of Thoracopterus wushaensis (otherwise known from the Xingyi Fauna from southwestern China) from the Ladinian strata from the Pelsa/Vazzoler fossil site (Sciliar Formation, Italy).^[167]
• Brinkman et al. (2025) study the composition of the ray-finned fish assemblage from the Turonian Bissekty Formation (Uzbekistan), reporting evidence of presence of basal neopterygians and teleosts (mostly members of early-diverging lineages, but also a characiform and an acanthomorph) and evidence of differences in composition between the studied assemblage and earlier Cenomanian assemblages from Laurasia, and link the reported differences to climate changes and intercontinental dispersal events.^[168]
• Gardner, Brinkman & Murray (2025) identify the holotype of Arotus hieroglyphus as a scale of a holostean fish.^[169]
• Hunt & Lucas (2025) describe a regurgitalite from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation in Utah, United States (preserving amphibian bones and likely produced by an amioid fish), and name new ichnotaxon Purgotybaris fosteri.^[170]
• Redescription and a study on the affinities of Guizhoubrachysomus minor, interpreted as a basal dapediid, is published by Xu et al. (2025).^[171]
• A study on the anatomy and affinities of "Semionotus" manselii is published by Ebert & Etches (2025), who transfer this species to the genus Brachyichthys.^[172]
• Ribeiro-Souza et al. (2025) revise ganoid scales from the Alcântara Formation (Brazil), and interpret the studied fossil material as belonging to at least three lepisosteiform taxa.^[173]
• Ganoid scales probably representing the oldest fossil material of Lepisosteus reported from Southern Hemisphere are described from the Albian–Cenomanian Açu Formation (Brazil) by Costa et al. (2025).^[174]
• Gar remains representing the first record of this group from the Late Cretaceous of Japan are described from the Turonian Mifune Group by Ikegami, Yabumoto & Brito (2025).^[175]
• Ebert & Kölbl-Ebert (2025) identify teleost and crustacean remains within gastrointestinal tracts attached to fossil material of Aspidorhynchus from the Upper Jurassic strata in Germany preserving fossils of animals from the Solnhofen Archipelago.^[176]
• Miyazato et al. (2025) describe two partial aspidorhynchid skulls from the Upper Cretaceous Dinosaur Park Formation (Alberta, Canada), providing new information on the anatomy of the skulls of members of the group (including the braincase and the sensory canals), interpreted as indicating that aspidorhynchids were unlikely to be teleosts.^[177]
• A study on the scale histology of Pachycormus is published by Maxwell & Cooper (2025).^[178]
• Fossil material of the oldest hypsocormine pachycormid reported to date is described from the Toarcian Posidonia Shale (Germany) by Cooper & Maxwell (2025).^[179]
• Kanarkina, Zverkov & Popov (2025) identify fin fragments of members of the genus Bonnerichthys from the Campanian strata of the Rybushka Formation (Saratov Oblast, Russia), representing the first record of fossils of this genus outside the United States.^[180]
• Ebert & Kölbl-Ebert (2025) report the discovery of specimens of Tharsis from the Upper Jurassic strata of the Plattenkalk basins of Eichstätt or Solnhofen Basin (Germany) found with belemnites lodged in their mouth and gill apparatus, and interpret the studied specimens as sucking remnants of belemnite soft tissue of algal or bacterial overgrowth and accidentally sucking belemnites into their mouth, resulting in suffocation.^[181]
• Evidence of variation of morphology of the gastrointestinal tract of teleosts from the Barremian La Huérguina Formation (Spain) is presented by San Román, Marugán Lobón & Martín-Abad (2025).^[182]
• Brinkman et al. (2025) compare the composition of teleost assemblages from the Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation and from the Paleocene Fort Union Formation (Montana, United States) and Ravenscrag Formation (Saskatchewan, Canada), and find that the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event mainly affected taxa that were already rare in the Maastrichtian, but also find evidence of reduced taxonomic richness of teleosts during the early Paleocene.^[183]
• Serafini et al. (2025) identify a plethodid rostrum from the Upper Cretaceous (Campanian-Maastrichtian) strata from northern Italy, preserving evidence of presence of cranial and dental traits convergent with those of extant billfishes.^[184]
• A study on fossil melanin in an eye of a probable specimen of Dastilbe crandalli from the Crato Formation (Brazil), providing evidence of high density but low diversity of melanosomes from the retinal pigment epithelium which might be indicative of limited visual capabilities of the studied fish, is published by Prado et al. (2025).^[185]
• Redescription and a study on the affinities of Plesioschizothorax macrocephalus is published by Yang et al. (2025).^[186]
• Přikryl et al. (2025) describe fossil material of Luciobarbus graellsii from the Pliocene strata from the Camp dels Ninots site (Spain), and interpret the studied fossils as indicating that the species was able to adapt to environmental changes from the warmest period of the Pliocene to the coldest period of the Pleistocene.^[187]
• Murray, Brinkman & Krause (2025) identify fossil material of at least three acanthomorph (probably percomorph) taxa from the Maastrichtian strata in the Mahajanga Basin (Madagascar), interpreted as likely evidence of a single invasion of Madagascan fresh waters during the Cretaceous.^[188]
• Khalloufi et al. (2025) describe new fossil material of Phosphichthys thomasi from the Eocene strata of the Oulad Abdoun Basin (Morocco), providing new information on the anatomy of the studied species, and interpret Phosphichthys as an acanthomorph of uncertain affinities.^[189]
• Carnevale & Bannikov (2025) redescribe Protorhamphosus parvulus, and confirm its placement within Syngnathoidei and are unable to determine its exact phylogenetic affinities within this group.^[190]
• Schwarzhans & Bannikov (2025) report the first discovery of a specimen of Pinichthys shirvanensis from the Miocene strata of the North Shirvanskaya Formation (Krasnodar Krai, Russia) preserved with an otolith, and transfer the otolith-based taxon "Stromateus" steurbauti Schwarzhans (1994) to the genus Pinichthys.^[191]
• Revision of Oligocene palaeorhynchids from Romania is published by Grădianu, Monsch & Baciu (2025).^[192]
• Chanet (2025) revises the anatomy and affinities of the Miocene scaldfish Arnoglossus sauvagei.^[193]
• A study on changes of morphology of teeth of haplochromine cichlids in Lake Victoria during the last 17,000 years, providing evidence of rapid morphological diversification during the first three millennia of the radiation (even before the definitive establishment of modern deep lake conditions), is published by Ngoepe et al. (2025) .^[194]
• Redescription of Zignoichthys oblongus, based on data from new fossil material from the Pesciara site of the Bolca locality (Italy), is published by Ridolfi et al. (2025).^[195]
• Collareta et al. (2025) report the discovery of fused dentaries of an ocean sunfish from the Lower Pliocene strata of the Siena-Radicofani Basin (Italy), representing the first finding of fossil material of a member of this group in post-Miocene strata outside North America.^[196]
• Přikryl et al. (2025) report the presence of fossil material of an indeterminate goby and members of the genera Herklotsichthys and Ophisternon in the Pleistocene Laguna Formation (Philippines).^[197]
• Dalla Vecchia et al. (2025) report the discovery of a new assemblage of Late Cretaceous (possibly Campanian-Maastrichtian) fishes from the Friuli Carbonate Platform (Italy), dominated by pycnodontiforms and basal non-acanthomorph teleosts.^[198]
• Dubikovska et al. (2025) study the composition of the Miocene fish assemblage from the Mykolaiv Beds (Ukraine), and report the first discovery of fossil material of Acanthurus haueri, Oligodiodon sp. and indeterminate diodontids and tetraodontiforms of uncertain familiar placement from the Forecarpathian Basin.^[199]
• Evidence of changes of diversity of ray-finned fishes from the south of Eastern Europe (Moldova, Russia and Ukraine) from the late Miocene to the late Pleistocene is presented by Barkaszi & Kovalchuk (2025).^[200]
• Brinkman et al (2025) document the paleoichthyofauna of the early Maastrichtian-aged Prince Creek Formation of Alaska, including the descriptions of new genera (Nunikuluk, Archaeosiilik, Sivulliusalmo), the first documentation of several previously-described taxa (Oldmanesox, Horseshoeichthys) within the formation, and the oldest known fossil record of Cypriniformes.^[97]
• Melendez-Vazquez et al. (2025) link the evolution of endothermy in ray-finned fishes with evolution of large body size, adaptations to distinct swimming modes, and interactions with cetaceans during the Eocene-Miocene.^[201]
• A study on changes of diversity of bony fishes in Chile from the Neogene to the present is published by Oyanadel-Urbina et al. (2025).^[202]

Lobe-finned fish research

• Babcock (2025) revises the type specimens of Onychodus sigmoides and O. hopkinsi, and interprets the latter taxon as a junior synonym of the former one.^[207]
• Review of the completeness of the fossil record of coelacanths is published by Yuan, Cavin & Song (2025).^[208]
• Cui et al. (2025) provide new information on the anatomy of Styloichthys changae, and study the evolution of cosmine in lobe-finned fishes.^[209]
• Ferrante & Cavin (2025) study the phylogenetic relationships of extant and fossil members of Actinistia, and name a new family Axeliidae and new subfamilies Diplurinae and Mawsoniinae.^[210]
• Quinn et al. (2025) revise the coelacanth fossil material from the Rhaetian strata in the United Kingdom.^[211]
• Fossil material of an indeterminate latimeriid, representing the first record of the family from the Lower Jurassic strata in Germany, is described from the Toarcian Posidonia Shale by Cooper (2025).^[212]
• Barbosa et al. (2025) describe a juvenile specimen of Axelrodichthys araripensis from the Lower Cretaceous Romualdo Formation (Brazil), and interpret the studied coelacanth as likely to be a marine fish that bred in shallow waters.^[213]
• Gottfried (2025) describes fossil material of a member of the genus Axelrodichthys from the Aptian strata from the "Fish Mountain" site near Ingal (Niger).^[214]
• Evidence from the study of mechanical performance of lungfish mandibles from the Devonian Gogo Formation (Australia), indicating that mandible morphology and dentition type both had impact on stress and strain distribution during biting, is presented by Bland et al. (2025), who interpret their findings as consistent with niche specialization of the studied lungfishes.^[215]
• Szrek et al. (2025) describe lungfish traces from the Devonian (Emsian) strata from the Świętokrzyskie Mountains (Poland), including traces of the snout that anchored in the sediment to create leverage for lifting the body while the fish moved through shallow water or across exposed sediment, and name new ichnotaxa Reptanichnus acutori and Broomichnium ujazdensis.^[216]
• Description of the braincase and associated endocast of Durialepis edentatus is published by Friedman et al. (2025).^[217]
• A lungfish tooth plate with morphology similar to that of Carboniferous sagenodontids is described from the Devonian (Famennian) Lemgaïrinat Formation (Morocco) by El Fassi El Fehri et al. (2025).^[218]
• Pardo et al. (2025) describe a lungfish occiput from the Tournaisian strata of the Horton Group from Blue Beach (Nova Scotia, Canada) sharing characteristics with both holodontids and dipterids, and interpret this finding as evidence that a wider range of lungfish lineages survived the Late Devonian mass extinction.^[219]
• Rose et al. (2025) describe new lungfish fossils from the Lower Triassic strata of the Burgersdorp Formation (South Africa), extending known geographical range of Arganodus and Gnathorhiza, and providing evidence of rapid lungfish recovery in the aftermath of the Permian–Triassic extinction event.^[220]
• Fossil material of the largest articulated ceratodontiform lungfish from the Triassic reported to date is described from the Anisian Ermaying Formation (Shanxi, China) by Shi et al. (2025).^[221]
• Casal et al. (2025) describe a tooth plate of cf. Metaceratodus kaopen from the Upper Cretaceous Lago Colhué Huapí Formation (Argentina), expanding known geographic distribution of this taxon in South America, and interpret the studied specimen as living in environment with warm climate with dry periods.^[222]
• Batt et al. (2025) report the discovery of new rhizodontid fossil material from the Tournaisian Ballagan Formation (Scotland, United Kingdom), representing one of the earliest and most complete Carboniferous rhizodontids reported to date.^[223]
• Redescription and a study on the affinities of Eusthenodon wangsjoi is published by Downs (2025).^[224]
• Evidence indicating that evolution of morphological diversity of early sarcopterygians coincided with and likely was influenced by Devonian to Carboniferous environmental changes is presented by Vanhaesebroucke, Larouche & Cloutier (2025).^[225]