There is a long history
of workers creating hypotheses of reptile interrelationships going back to the mid 18th century (Carl von Linneaus 1758). That history, up until 1995 (Laurin and Resiz 1995 and Meckert 1995), was summarized by Dirk Meckert in his PhD thesis, which otherwise concentrated on all available specimens of Barasaurus. You can download that thesis here online and read that short but fascinating history for yourself.
Some interesting notes arise from Meckert’s short history:
- Some studies united pareiasaurs and turtles. Others did not.
- Other studies united pareiasaurs, diadectids and procolophonids (which happened here just yesterday). Meckert wrote: “The Procolophoniformes contain Procolophonia and Testudinomorpha as sister-groups. Testudines are the sister-group of Pareiasauria within the Testudinomorpha.”
- Mesosaurs are commonly considered of uncertain affinities. But not here.
- Many prior studies had the synapsids branch off first. That is incorrect as shown here.
- No prior studies recognized the original dichotomy of lepidosauromorphs and archosauromorphs.
- No prior studies recognized Gephyrostegus bohemicus as a sister to the basalmost amniote.
- Diadectomorpha have been nested in and out of the Amniota. They’re in here.
No studies prior to reptileevolution.com
have included as many as 571 individual species as taxa, not counting the therapsid tree (with 52 additional taxa) and pterosaur tree (with 228 additional taxa) for a total of 851 taxa.
Other studies more recent than 1995
(not included in Meckert’s history) include
- http://www.palaeos.org/Reptilia and http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/amniota/reptiles.html
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amniote as determined by Benton, M.J. (2004). Vertebrate Paleontology. Blackwell Publishers. xii–452.
- University of Maryland (John Merck)
- online pdf, Amniote Origins and Nonavian Reptiles
- YouTube video by Walter Jahn
- Tree of Life
- Hedges 2012
- Gauthier, Kluge and Rowe 1988 online
- Hill 2005
- Mikko’s phylogeny archive
- Let me know if I missed any. I’ll add them here.
A while back
we looked at the differences between astronomy and paleontology. As noted earlier, time is never of the essence in paleontology — and that extends to idea acceptance. So many hypotheses of reptile interrelationships are still floating around out there. A definitive and all encompassing demonstration, like the large reptile tree, will probably just float forever with the other several dozen hypotheses out there, hashed, rehashed and rehashed again without end.
This is one of the frustrations of paleontology. And many think it is largely ego driven.
On that note
In astronomy the data, be it observation or spectral analysis, is immediate and widespread. You just have to look up with the right tool in the right direction. Or study the shared data (photos, etc.) Everyone can confirm the observation.
In paleontology the data comes out piecemeal, in low resolution, or imprecise tracings, not from every angle of view. Some key parts are lost and others are hidden beneath other bones or matrix. Sometimes you have to assemble dozens or hundreds of specimens for a proper study. No one is interested in confirming observations or analyses perhaps for years if ever. They’re all too busy with their own projects. Checking the characters and scores of an analysis can take weeks, months or years (as long as it took to build originally), and to do so requires the same amount of globe-hopping to see all the specimens in all the museums. No one is going to do that. They’d rather be making their own discoveries… and adding their taxa to established trees created by hungry PhD candidates, like Dirk Meckert in 1995, done at the nadir or advent of their experience.
The paleo-mantra remains: you must see the specimen!
And even that is no guarantee.
And if you want to break a paradigm or two,
like Ostrom did in the 1960s, you might have to wait for widespread (but never universal) acceptance. Paleontologists like their paradigms. They don’t like to give them up.
Benton MJ 2004. Vertebrate Paleontology. Blackwell Publishers. xii–452.
Carroll RL 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, WH Freeman & Co.
Laurin M and Reisz R 1995. A reevaluation of early amniote phylogeny. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 113: 165–223.
Linnaeus C 1758. Systema naturæ per regna tria naturæ, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio decima, reformata.
Meckert D 1995. The procolophonid Barasaurus and the phylogeny of early amniotes. PhD thesis McGill University. Online Barasaurus dissertation