[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]
David Peters a écrit :
Romer states that
Limnoscelis is a "true primitive reptile."
True or false?
*Limnoscelis* is considered as the closest relative of Diadectidae according to
Laurin and Reisz (1995), Ruta et al. (2003) and a number of other works. Both
forms the clade Diadectomorpha which is one of the possible sister group of
Amniota (the relationships of Lepospondyli, Diadectomorpha, and *Westlothiana*
with Amniota are still disputed).
It's hard to say if Romer was right or not about the taxonomic position of
*Limnoscelis*. It's not a fact, but the result of a comparative work based on
observations and interpretations, in a given taxonomic frame. Give me first a
definition of Reptilia and I could answer your question. According to the most
consensual one (and not the appropriate one), Reptilia (= Sauropsida) is the
sister group of Synapsida and do not include *Limnoscelis*.
"Macrocnemus now appears to be definitely a lepidosaur"
True or false?
Same remark. It was a Prolacertiformes til the clade exploded with the revision
of *Prolacerta* and *Protorosaurus* and the description of new Drepanosauridae
during the last decade. According to Gottman-Quesada and Sander (2009),
*Tanystropheus* and *Macrocnemus* form a clade (which should reasonably be
called Tanystropheidae) close to Archosauriformes than to Lepidosauria. But
their taxonomic sampling was too small in my opinion, as they included
*Youngina* as the only non-saurian diapsid. (I don't have the paper within my
reach but I think they used a simplified version of the analysis of Dilkes
(1998)). Modesto and Sues (2004) found *Macrocnemus* within a rather classical
Protorosauria but without *Prolacerta* which appeared as the sister group of
Archosauriformes (btw, their matrix is also a modified version of that of