Nesbitt and his Characters – part 7 – Lagerpetidae

Earlier in the last six blogs we looked at characters Nesbitt (2011) used to define Archosauriformes and nested clades up to Ornithodira with a special emphasis [his not mine] on the nesting of pterosaurs within all these clades. Nesbitt (2011) was satisfied that pterosaurs nested well here, but did not test competing candidates among the Fenestrasauria and Tritosauria, the only clades that actually provide a gradual accumulation of pterosaurian traits.

In Today’s Installment
Nesbitt (2009, 2011) nested Lagerpeton and Dromomeron at the base of the Dinorsauromorpha (Silesauridae + Dinosauria), robustly supported by five unambiguous synapomorphies, and these from a clade known only by the pelvis, anterior caudals and hind limb.

Closer to Pterosaurs?
Nesbitt (2011) found Lagerpeton closer to pterosaurs than to dinosaurs, chiefly due to ankle traits. Nesbitt (2011) lists these as 1) calcaneum and astragalus coosified; 2) ventral surface of calcaneum rounded like the astragalus; 3) no posterior groove of the astragalus; 4) calcaneum lacks any sort of tuber. All these traits are absent in basal dinosauriforms, including Marasuchus and Asilisaurus.

Unfortunately, Nesbitt (2011) considered the proximal tarsals (astragalus + calcaneum) fused to the tibia/fibula as homologous to the astragalus + calcaneum fused to each other distinct from the tibia/fibula. They are not. In fact, in Dimorphodon, they are separated from one another as two distinct condyles. A similar morphology is present in Sharovipteryx, which shares the three remaining traits (see above).

By the Way…
The large reptile tree found Lagerpeton to nest with Tropidosuchus, far from the Dinosauria/Dinosauromorpha. Nesbitt did not mention the ascending process of the astragalus, which is present on Lagerpeton and dinosaurs. However, in Lagerpeton this appears on the posterior surface, while in dinos the ascending process is an anterior structure. Also, Huehuecuetzpalli has a pterosaurian mesotarsal ankle composed of two larger proximal elements unfused to one another, which is distinct from traditional lizards.

Traits Shared with Dinosaurs…
Nesbitt (2011) reported the following traits lagerpetids share with other basal dinosauromorphs, and these are apparently absent in pterosaurs: 1) posterolateral portion of the femoral head ventrally descended; 2) a straight cnemial crest; 3) the longest metatarsal longer than 50% of tibial length; 4) metatarsal V ‘‘hooked’’ proximal end absent; 5) articular face for distal tarsal 4 subparallel to shaft axis; and 6) metatarsal V without phalanges and tapers to a point.

Well, 1) can’t comment on this because I’m not sure what this is; 2) shared with Tropidosuchus and Chanaresuchus; 3) ditto; 4) ditto; ditto; ditto.

I hate to keep pointing out the same Achilles heel in all these recent studies, but workers should not be afraid to add a few fenestrasaurs to their studies to get a fix on this situation instead of digging themselves deeper and deeper into the SOS.

Tomorrow: Silesaurids.

As always, I encourage readers to see specimens, make observations and come to your own conclusions. Test. Test. And test again.

Evidence and support in the form of nexus, pdf and jpeg files will be sent to all who request additional data.

References
Nesbitt SJ 2011.
 The early evolution of archosaurs: relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 352: 292 pp.

Advertisements

One thought on “Nesbitt and his Characters – part 7 – Lagerpetidae

  1. You contradict yourself here. Where does Nesbitt say Lagerpeton is a pterosauromorph?

    Of the dinosauromorph characters you say are present in Chaneresuchus and Tropidosuchus…

    “posterolateral portion of the femoral head ventrally descended” is Nesbitt’s confusing way to say the fossa trochanterica is present (see it labeled pd in figure 3 of Novas, 1996). Tropidosuchus (Nesbitt’s coding) and Chaneresuchus (Romer, 1972 fig. 2) do not have it.

    Tropidosuchus (Arcucci, 1990 fig. 7) and Chaneresuchus (Romer, fig. 1, pg. 14) also don’t have cnemial crests.

    They are also coded as lacking a metatarsus >50% of femoral length, and it is 44% in Chaneresuchus (Romer, 1972 fig. 2). Tropidosuchus is harder to judge by Arcucci’s paper, but seems close to 50% if the tibiofemoral ratio really is 1:1.

    Nesbitt coded them as having a hooked metatarsal V. Arcucci could not determine this for Tropidosuchus, though I agree with you Chaneresuchus lacks it based on figure 2. However, note Sereno (1991, pg. 26) states Romer’s reconstruction of it is inaccurate and that it is actually hooked. The articular surface angle you list is actually the same character.

    You are right absent metatarsal V lacking phalanges, and Nesbitt codes them accordingly.

    So for Chaneresuchus and Tropidosuchus, you say
    ?1111
    ?1111

    Nesbitt says
    00001
    00001

    And I say based on the non-Nesbitt literature
    000?1
    ?0??1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s