[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Reptilian Subclass Parareptilia?



My question here is in regard to non-dinosaur reptiles that lived during the Permian and Triassic periods.

I've become most acquainted with the old cladistic scheme of classifications advocated by Romer (Romer, A. S., Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd edn., 1968) and its extension by Carroll  (Carroll, R. S., Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, 1988).  This places the families procolophonidae, pareiasauridae,  millerettidae, and mesosauridae in the reptile subclass anapsida.

I found today in a slightly more recent book, Vertebrate Paleontology by M. J. Benton (1990), a different cladistic scheme in which these families (procolophonidae, pareiasauridae,  millerettidae, and mesosauridae) are placed in a special reptile subclass of their own, named parareptilia, which does not occur at all in the schemes of Romer and Carroll.  Benton gives as his source for this particular revision of  Romer and Carroll's original scheme as an article, "The Early Evolution of the Amniotes", by J. A. Gauthier, A. G. Kluge, and T. Rowe, published in 1988 in The Phylology and Classification of the Tetrapods, edited by Benton.

I am wondering if today the existence of the subclass parareptilia has been accepted by an overwhelming majority of  professional paleontologists and paleobiologists.  If not, does this mean that the original scheme of Romer & Carroll in this regard is still the standard model?  Or that so many variations of their original scheme have been argued with merit by professionals that there is no simple answer to my question?

Any help on this would be appreciated.

Patrick Johnson
StrigoiVii@aol.com