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

Re: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]

 As for the antorbital fenestra in
 Varanodon, from what I can tell it seems to be a fenestra above the
 maxilla dorsal process and behind the septomaxilla, while the
 archosaurian equivalent is of course posteroventral to the maxilla
 dorsal process.  So non-homologous anyway.

Worse yet, it's probably simply not there. It's just damage to the very thin lacrimal which stretches (plesiomorphically) from the orbit to the naris. In Olson 1965, the "fenestra" is shown as so big that it completely separates the lacrimal in two!

 Ironically, the two taxa
 listed as linking the captorhinomorphs and archosaurs by Romer
 (Mesenosaurus and Elliotsmithia) are now recognized as varanopid
 synapsids.  So his ideas were no better, merely deriving archosaurs
 from generalized "captorhinomorphs" like all other reptiles.

Having read the paper, I'd say Romer was wrong for the right reasons, and Reig was wrong for the wrong reasons :o)

 He apparently had no good evidence for the other clades
 being derived separately and Romer noted the high degree of
 homoplasy that would entail.

Kuhn-Schnyder was simply the epitome of mid/late-20th-century phylopessimism: people had come to realize that there was no such thing as a reliable character, that everything could evolve twice or three times or six times, and cladistics was unknown to paleontologists -- so they started to view phylogenetics as a more and more speculative art, and what hypotheses they did commit to were based on scenarios. The idea of amniote polyphyly goes back to von Huene in the 1950s and probably earlier, Säve-Söderbergh in the 1930s, and probably others earlier. In fact, the only vertebrate "class" whose monophyly wasn't doubted were the birds, whose direct descent from *Archaeopteryx* was somehow taken for granted; bird polyphyly had to wait for Kurochkin 1996.

 He also thought placodonts and sauropterygians
 were distantly related because the former have a broad bone ventral
 to their temporal fenestra but the latter have a narrow bone.

Too bad that Romer didn't know about *Paraplacodus* yet, which has a very narrow upper temporal bar -- looks like a lizard.

 Romer derived euryapsids from protorosaurs, in
 which he also included the basal diapsid Araeoscelis and the
 archosauromorph Trilophosaurus.  It seems he was incorrect.

Romer's concept of Euryapsida was a bit of a wastebasket taxon for everything that had an upper temporal fenestra and hadn't completely obviously lost the lower one secondarily. Today only the placodonts and the sauropterygians stay in, and possibly the ichthyosaurs (Romer: Parapsida) and, if the ichthyosaurs are in, the thalattosaurs (Romer: Diapsida -- in the wastebasket "Eosuchia").

> How unorthodox was Romer in 1971?

LOL! Whatever Romer said after about 1940 was by definition orthodox till long after his death! :-D In the 1990s I personally witnessed an ammonite specialist (but in charge of all paleontology in the museum in Vienna) take the somewhat tentative opinions in Romer's 1966 textbook as completely unquestionable fact.