the best images of the skull of Eunotosaurus were simple drawings (Fig. 1). Now, thanks to Bever et al. (2015) we have CT scans of several skulls in several views (Fig. 2). For those we are all most grateful!
Bever et al. reports, “If turtles are closely related to the other living reptiles then we would expect the fossil record to produce early turtle relatives with diapsid skulls. That expectation remained unfulfilled for a long time, but we can now draw the well-supported and satisfying conclusion that Eunotosaurus is the diapsid turtle. The skull of Eunotosaurus grows in such a way that its diapsid nature is obvious in juveniles but almost completely obscured in adults.”
The important word
in that paragraph is “IF.” Turtles are related to other living reptiles, but they are not either kind of diapsid (lepidosaur or archosaur). And, as you’ll see, the skull of Eunotosaurus does not grow in such a way that its diapsid nature is obvious. Bever et al. made several mistakes in their observations and analyses, as will be shown.
Bever et al. note that “Eunotosaurus africanus, a 260-million-year-old fossil reptile from the Karoo Basin of South Africa, whose distinctive postcranial skeleton shares many unique features with the shelled body plan of turtles.
is that such an armored postcrania has evolved several times independently within the Reptilia. In addition to Eunotosaurus and turtles there are Sinosaurosphargis, Henodus and Cyamodus, not to mention ankylosaurs, aetosaurs, armadillos and pangolins.
The large reptile tree indicates these shell-related features are convergent in the above-named taxa.
Worthy of a Nature paper, if valid. At it happens, secondary anapsids do occur in mesosaurs and ankylosaurs, but not turtles. The large reptile tree indicates turtle ancestors were always anapsids. And that Eunotosaurus and kin were all synapsid in skull morphology, but were not related to the real synapsids: pelycosaurs + therpasids + mammals (pan-mammals). Bever et al. did not test enough taxa or pertinent taxa. Most importantly, even if Eunotosaurus juveniles did have an upper temporal fenestra (Figs. 4, 5), they did so alone. All their closest sisters did not and adult Eunotosaurus did not have the upper temporal fenestra, but instead had a bone in that area.
is that several of these skull morphologies arose more than once by convergence. This fact is not commonly known, but recovered in the large reptile tree. Remind yourself not to follow anyone who holds “held sway” up as evidence.
Bever et al. note: “Our results suggest that Eunotosaurus represents a crucially important link in a chain that will eventually lead to consilience in reptile systematics, paving the way for synthetic studies of amniote evolution and development.”
Eunotosaurus currently represents a dead end in the large reptile tree.
misidentifies several bones on the skull of Proganochelys. They mistakenly follow the original bone identifications, where were changed here.
- The postorbital + postfrontal was mistakenly labeled ‘postorbital.’
- The tabular was mislabeled ‘supratemporal.’
- The supratemporal was mislabeled ‘squamosal.’
- The squamosal was mislabeled ‘quadratojugal.’
- The quadratojugal was not separated from the jugal.
the long Eunotosaurus supratemporal is actually homologous to the mislabeled ‘squamosal’ (actually the supratemporal) of Proganochelys (same shape, same placement), despite their separation on the large reptile tree. Noting that would have added evidence to the Bever et al claims, but they let that one pass and stuck to the old paradigm. Basal turtles, like Elginia and Meiolania, and pre-tuirtles like Sclerosaurus and Arganaceras, had supratemporal horns, not squamosal horns.
- Eothyris is not a member of the Pan-mammals (Synapsida), but is in the Milleretta and Casea clade.
- The term ‘Parareptilia’ does not represent a monophyletic clade.
- Youngina does not belong on this cladogram of several Lepidosauromorpha, but belongs on another branch, the Archosauromorpha.
- Elginia is a more basal and earlier stem turtle than Proganochelys, but is omitted in the cladogram.
- Some of the drawings used are inaccurate, but that may matter only a wee bit.
In the Bever et al. phylogenetic studies
(Fig. 3) Eunotosaurus nests between basal Sauropterygia + Acerosodontosaurus and the turtles, Proganochelys + Odontochelys. Many suprageneric taxa were used, so there were many opportunites to cherry pick traits to fit a preconceived idea. That does not happen in the large reptile tree where every taxon is represented by a specimen or species. The large reptile tree is still fully resolved, and breaks down into fully resolved subsets.
the lower (lateral) temporal fenestra in Eunotosaurus is homologous with that of Acleistorhinus and kin. Turtle ancestors never had a lateral temporal fenestra according to the large reptile tree, but came closest with bolosaurs.
Better ones are to be found. Unfortunately, the best turtle ancestors, Stephanospondylus, Arganaceras, Sclerosaurus, Meiolania and Elginia are not represented in the Bever et al. taxon list. Once again, taxon exclusion raises its ugly head.
of Acleistorhinus and Delorhynchus from the large reptile tree nests Eunotosaurus with its other sisters, Feeserpeton and Australothyris. One look, or deep study, and you’ll see why. Removal of those taxa nests Eunotosaurus between cousins Milleretta and the casesauria. Removal of those taxa nests Eunotosaurus with second cousins, Limnoscelis, Orobates and kin. Still no change in tree topology. Removal of these taxa finally nests Eunotosaurus between Stephanospondylus and Bashkyroleter, each at the base of their own clades with a slight change in tree topology. Still Eunotosaurus does not nest with turtles, Ascerosodontosaurus or basal sauropterygians.
with the Bever et al. report rests with their use of prior phylogenetic analyses, and/or accepting the results of those analyses without their own critical analysis of recovered sister taxa. For instance, the swimming Claudiosaurus and they gliding Kuehneosauridae appear as sister taxa, while Claudiosaurus and another similar swimmer, Hovasaurus, do not. Those are problems. Nesting Diadectomorpha outside the Amniota is a problem.. Nesting bulky Rhynchosaurs as relatives of gliding Kuehneosaurs is also a problem. None of these problems exist in the large reptile tree, where all sister taxa look alike and display gradual accumulations of derived traits. Perhaps Bever et al. should have created their own matrix from scratch, as in the large reptile tree.
why turtle DNA is close to archosaur DNA. It is not supported by morphology.
temporal fenestra in a putative stem turtle, but the first evidence for how that fenestra may have closed before the origin of the turtle crown clade.” Except the juvenile does not have an upper temporal fenestra (careful examination reveals otherwise) and so it cannot close at this point. Bever et al did not examine the specimen carefully enough to find the taphonomically displaced supratemporals. Turtle embryos do not recapitulate this change during ontogeny. No sister taxa have an upper temporal fenestra. This is just a unique fossil that has successfully tempted a set of paleontologists into accepting its illusion, just like the pterosaur, Sordes and the thalattosaur, Vancleavea.
According to Bever et al. the giant supratemporal closed off the upper temporal fenestra in Eunotosaurus, but the supratemporal is a tiny bone at the back of the skull in Proganochelys. The several misidentifications in Proganochelys are noted above.
“but it is important to stress that an expanded supratemporal is not a necessary component of an evolutionary model of fenestral closure in turtles that has Eunotosaurus as a central figure. For example, an analogous secondary expansion of the supratemporal partially or completely covers the upper temporal fenestra of the marine thalattosaurs.” This is false. The upper temporal fenestra in thalattosaurs is not reduced by expansion of the supratemporal, which remains small and not involved. Rather the upper temporal fenestra in thalattosaurs is reduced to a slit or less by the straightening (loss of curvature) of the parietal and postorbital rims.
major vertebrate lineages can shift back and forth considerably relative to the underlying tissues on these timescales.” As you have seen so far, Bever et al. have no idea how the turtle skull evolved, based on evidence from the large reptile tree. They have not included the correct ancestral taxa, but have pulled similar taxa from other clades. They are working in a hopeful vacuum of outmoded analyses, small taxon lists and incorrect bone identities.
underwent profound modifications during its history that similarly obscured anatomical evidence for phylogenetic affinities by the time the crown-group condition was reached.” This is, as you know by now, a conclusion based on mistake after mistake.
let us remind ourselves that turtles developed their own method for creating space for larger temporal adductors. It seems illogical that they would first lose this space by early closure of the upper temporal fenestra only to reacquire additional space by anterior expansion of the posttemporal fenestra and subsequent skull emargination.
This is evolution. Phylogenetic analysis, as recovered in the large reptile tree, provides the story of how the turtle got its skull… and shell… and all of its other accessories.
Bever GS, Lyson TR, Field DJ and Bhular B-A S 2015. Evolutionary origin of the turtle skull. Nature published online Sept 02. 2015.