2026 in paleoichthyology

This list records new taxa of fossil fish that were announced or described in 2026. Other peer-reviewed publications on discoveries related to fish paleontology which occurred in that year are also detailed here.

• Evidence of presence of a pair of lateral eyes and pineal/parapineal organs likely functioning as camera-type eyes capable of image formation is reported in 6 specimens of Haikouichthys and 4 specimens of indeterminate myllokunmingids by Lei et al. (2026).^[3]
• Reeves et al. (2026) provide new information on the anatomy of Jamoytius and Lasanius, including evidence of vertebrate biomineralization in both taxa and evidence of presence of complex camera-eye vertebrate eyes in Jamoytius.^[4]

• Maisey (2026) describes the internal morphology of the holotype braincase of Tamiobatis vetustus, and considers the species to be founded upon the type specimen inadequate for definitive diagnosis.^[10]
• Duffin & Schweigert (2026) report the first discovery of fossil material of Chimaeropsis paradoxa from the Kimmeridgian strata of the Nusplingen Limestone (Germany).^[11]
• New fossil material of distobatid, hybodontid and lonchidiid hybodontiform sharks is described from the Cenomanian Alcântara Formation (Brazil) by Neves et al. (2026), providing evidence of biogeographic links between Cretaceous shark assemblages from South America and Africa.^[12]
• Gardiner et al. (2026) reconstruct changes of neoselachian diversity patterns throughout the last 145 million years, reporting evidence of a long-term diversity increase during the Cretaceous, approximately 10% decline in diversity during the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, mid-Eocene diversity peak and gradual decline afterwards.^[13]
• Redescription and a study on the affinities of Bavariscyllium tischlingeri is published by Stumpf et al. (2026).^[14]
• Baptista et al. (2026) report the discovery of a tooth of Otodus megalodon at the Rio Grande Rise, providing evidence of presence of the species in southern Atlantic Ocean during the early–middle Miocene.^[15]
• Herraiz et al. (2026) revise the fossil record of teeth of Otodus megalodon, finding no evidence of a significant differences of body size of members of Atlantic populations and Mediterranean populations other than the one known from the Miocene strata from the Reverté quarries (Spain), and interpret the Reverté assemblage as likely to be a fossil record of a nursery.^[16]
• Schwenk et al. (2026) compare zinc enrichment of the enameloid of Otodus obliquus and O. megalodon, finding evidence of higher concentrations of zinc in regions of teeth of O. megalodon affected by high stress during feeding and finding evidence of less pronounced spatial variation of zinc in teeth of O. obliquus, and interpret this finding as suggestive of a shift from a fish-based diet to preying on marine mammals during the evolutionary history of otodontid sharks.^[17]
• McCormack et al. (2026) study the ecology of Late Cretaceous (Turonian–Coniacian) sharks from the Western Interior Seaway as indicated by enameloid zinc isotope values, providing evidence of high trophic positions of members of the genera Archaeolamna, Cretodus and Cretoxyrhina, and evidence of opportunistic and flexible dietary habits of members of the genus Cretalamna.^[18]
• Feichtinger et al. (2026) study changes of composition of the elasmobranch assemblages from the Byala Formation (Bulgaria) during the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition, reporting evidence of stronger ecological restructuring in shallower environments compared to deep-marine and high-latitude settings, and report the first discovery of fossil material of Cretascymnus from the Danian strata, indicative of survival of members of this genus past the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.^[19]
• Lambert et al. (2026) report shark feeding traces on bones of cetacean specimens from the Pliocene Kattendijk Formation (Belgium), including evidence of a bluntnose sixgill shark feeding on a right whale Balaenella brachyrhynus and evidence of Carcharodon plicatilis feeding on a member of the genus Casatia.^[20]

• Vanhaesebroucke & Cloutier (2026) study the morphological variation among Devonian and Carboniferous ray-finned fishes, and interpret their diversification as most likely driven by adaptations to diverse feeding strategies.^[34]
• Murray et al. (2026) report the discovery of fossil material of bichirs from the Maastrichtian Maevarano Formation (Madagascar), representing the first known record of the group outside of South America and continental Africa.^[35]
• Zhang et al. (2026) report the first fossil evidence of presence of Saurichthys in the Early Triassic Nanzhang-Yuan'an fauna (China).^[36]
• Friedman & Giles (2026) study the cranial anatomy of Chondrosteus acipenseroides and reevaluate purported anatomical evidence of affinities of fishes such as saurichthyiforms, Birgeria, Errolichthys, coccolepidids and Eochondrosteus with Acipenseriformes, finding no compelling evidence for placement of taxa other than chondrosteids in the acipenseriform stem group.^[37]
• Taxonomic revision and a study on the affinities of Macromesodon and Apomesodon is published by Ebert (2026).^[38]
• Cooper & Maxwell (2026) redescribe Sauropsis longimana, interpret it as the sole species belonging to the genus Sauropsis, and transfer "Sauropsis" depressus to the genus Simocormus.^[39]
• Drumheller et al. (2026) report the discovery of a fish tooth embedded in a cervical vertebra of a specimen of Polycotylus latipinnis from the Cretaceous Mooreville Chalk (Alabama, United States), interpreted as likely evidence of an attack by Xiphactinus.^[40]
• Veiga et al. (2026) consider Tharrhias castellanoi to be a nomen dubium, and assign its fossil material to Tharrhias cf. araripis.^[41]
• Yang et al. (2026) describe fossil material of an indeterminate cyprinid and an indeterminate member of Barbini from the Miocene strata of the Dingqing Formation (Lunpola Basin, Tibet, China), interpreted as indicative of greater diversity of cyprinids in the hinterland of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau during the early–middle Miocene compared to the present.^[42]
• Redescription of the anatomy and a study on the affinities of Palaeocentrotus boggildi is published by Schrøder, Lindow & Carnevale (2026).^[43]
• The largest diodontid tooth plate batteries reported to date are described from the Pliocene Yorktown Formation on the continental shelf of Onslow Bay (North Carolina, United States) by Maisch et al. (2026).^[44]
• Kovalchuk et al (2026) document the paleofauna of a Middle Miocene-aged locality in Rivne Oblast, Ukraine, identifying 5 genera and 3 families of ray-finned fish, and finding evidence that it represented a marginal freshwater habitat on the outskirts of the Forecarpathian Basin.^[45]

• Pawlak et al. (2026) identify lungfish aestivation burrows in the Triassic strata of the Ørsted Dal Formation (Greenland), interpreted as indicative of a seasonally dry climate in the studied area during the late Norian.^[48]
• Redescription of Megalichthys pygmaeus, based on data from new fossil material from the Carboniferous Scottish Lower Coal Measures Formation (United Kingdom), is published by Elliott (2026).^[49]

• Lu et al. (2026) report the discovery of new fossil material of Megamastax amblyodus providing new information on its anatomy, compare it with fossil material of Lophosteus and Andreolepis, and interpret the three taxa as likely stem-bony fishes.^[51]

• Evidence from the study of the fossil record of early to mid-Paleozoic fishes, interpreted as indicative of diversification of jawed vertebrates and their close jawless relatives in isolated refugia in the aftermath of the Late Ordovician mass extinction, is presented by Hagiwara & Sallan (2026).^[52]
• Shan et al. (2026) study the histology of the dermal skeleton of Moythomasia durgaringa and evaluate the distribution of cosmine-related characters in bony fishes, reporting evidence of sparse distribution of characters associated with cosmine among early bony fishes and evidence of presence of true cosmine only in Rhipidistia.^[53]
• Xian et al. (2026) report the discovery of a new vertebrate site in the Devonian (Pragian) strata of the Posongchong Formation (Yunnan, China), preserving fossil material of galeaspids, antiarchs, petalichthyids and sarcopterygians.^[54]
• Jobbins et al. (2026) study the composition of the fish (placoderm and sarcopterygian) assemblage from the Devonian (Eifelian) Elm Point Formation (Manitoba, Canada), and identify a possible osteolepiform postparietal shield representing the oldest record of a tetrapodomorph from Canada reported to date.^[55]
• Gonçalves et al. (2026) study the composition of the Carboniferous (late Moscovian) fish assemblage from the Vaulnaveys-le-Bas locality (France), including the oldest occurrence of Aeduellidae, and interpret the studied assemblage as fossil evidence of faunal transition at the end of the Westphalian.^[56]
• Comans, Tobin & Totten (2026) reconstruct the thermoregulatory modes of marine predatory fishes from the Smoky Hill Chalk Member of the Niobrara Formation (Kansas, United States) on the basis stable oxygen isotope composition of tooth enameloid, interpreted as consistent with ectothermy of the majority of the studied taxa, but suggestive of elevated body temperatures consistent with endothermy in Cretoxyrhina, Ptychodus and Xiphactinus.^[57]
• Crothers et al. (2026) study the composition of a diverse, actinopterygian-dominated fish assemblage from the ReBecca's Hollow locality from the Upper Cretaceous Williams Fork Formation (Colorado, United States), different from contemporary assemblages from higher latitudes and interpreted as indicative of provincialism of fish assemblages from Laramidia dating to the Campanian-Maastrichtian transition.^[58]