Palatodonta: hypothetical post-crania based on phylogenetic bracketing

Palatodonta (Fig. 1), the basal placodont, is known from a skull only (or perhaps that is all that was published by Neenan et al. 2013). If we want to see what the rest of Palatodonta looks like, we have to guess based on the shapes of sister taxa, like Claudiosaurus, Paraplacodus and Pachypleurosaurus. This is known as phylogenetic bracketing. These sister taxa differ in neck/torso and limb proportions (Fig. 1), along with several other skull and limb ratios. There is no guarantee that the estimate will be right, but it provides a best guess as to the transition from Cladiosaurus to Paraplacodus.

Figure 1. Click to enlarge. Hypothetical post-crania of Palatodonta, the basal placodont, based on sister taxa Claudiosaurus, Pachypleurosaurus and Paraplacodus. The size of the Palatodonta skull is estimated with regard to the torso, of course.

Figure 1. Click to enlarge. Hypothetical post-crania of Palatodonta, the basal placodont, based on sister taxa Claudiosaurus, Pachypleurosaurus and Paraplacodus. The size of the Palatodonta skull is estimated with regard to the torso, of course.

If this is at all close to reality…
We already know that Palatodonta had a larger and taller skull than the ancestral Claudiosaurus. Likely the neck was shorter and the torso longer with taller neural spines based on the morphology of Paraplacodus. The scapula likely separated from the coracoid in Palatodonta. The ilium likely lost its posterior process because it is lost in sauropterygians.

Figure 2. Paraplacodus palate. Here the internal nares are much reduced and moved toward the midline. The maxilla are more robust. That palatal teeth are likewise more robust.

Figure 2. Paraplacodus palate. Here the internal nares are much reduced and moved toward the midline. The maxilla are more robust. That palatal teeth are likewise more robust.

The palate is interesting
Claudiosaurus has a shagreen of tiny teeth over most of the palate. Pachypleurosaurus lost these palatal teeth. Palatodonta reduced the number but increased the size of the palatal teeth. In Paraplacodus the enlargement of the maxillary teeth expanded the maxilla medially, reducing the internal nares and pushing them toward the midline. The suborbital fenestra disappeared as the ectopterygoid narrowly bordered the toothless pterygoid in Paraplacodus.

What does it mean that the internal nares are so reduced in placodonts? Of course the overall size of Paraplacodus is many times larger than Palatodonta. With that increased size and likely more lethargic lifestyle perhaps rapid exchange of large amounts of air was not so important.

References
Neenan JM, Klein N and Scheyer TM 2013. European origin of placodont marine reptiles and the evolution of crushing dentition in Placodontia. Nature Communications 4:1621. – DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2633 |www.nature.com/naturecommunications. wiki/Palatodonta

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.