Proteus, the blind cave salamander, enters the LRT

Losing its maxilla
(Fig. 1) did not stop this taxon from sporting a lot of other teeth in the palatine, ectopterygoid and maybe the vomer, even though only the premaxillary teeth line up with dentary teeth.

Figure 1. Skull of Proteus the white olm. Colors added. Note the lack of a lacrimal and maxilla.

Figure 1. Skull of Proteus the white olm. Colors added. Note the lack of a lacrimal and maxilla.

 Proteus the white olm
(Figs. 1, 2), is a blind cave salamander with a long torso, tiny limbs and external gills (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Skeleton of Proteus, the white olm.

Figure 2. Skeleton of Proteus, the white olm.

Proteus anguinus
(Laurenti 1768) nests with Necturus, the mudpuppy. The lacrimal and maxilla are absent. The postorbital and postfrontal are stretched out. External gills enable Proteus to remain underwater. Apparently the dorsal portion of the vertebral column is very short (about 5 vertebrae), with the majority comprised of lumbar vertebrae (without dorsal ribs).


References
Laurenti JN 1768. Synopsin Reptilium. J.T. de Trattnern, Viennae, pp. 35–36.

wiki/Olm

Triassurus: a tiny Triassic salamander?

Summary for those just skimming:
Including more taxa and using DGS to gather more data from fossils upsets academic results again.

Shoch et al. 2020 discuss the origin of salamanders
by directing their attention to a tiny juvenile Triassic tetrapod, Triassurus (PIN-2584/10, skull length 3.8 mm; Ivakhnenko 1978; Figs. 1–3). The discovery of a larger referred specimen (FG 596/V/20), provided Schoch et al. a reason to reexamine the type.

Science first learned about tiny Triassurus
from Ivakhnenko 1978 (here reproduced in a book, Fig. 1). Not much detail back then.

Figure 1. Illustration and description Triassurus (Ivakhnenko 1978).

Figure 1. Illustration and description Triassurus (Ivakhnenko 1978). Little more than the outline of the skull was illustrated back then.

The Schoch et al. tracing of the tiny holotype
(Fig. 2) likewise offers few details. DGS colors (Fig. 2) provide more and different details.

Figure 3. Triassurus in situ with tracing from Schoch et al. 2020 and DGS color tracing.

Figure 2. Triassurus in situ with tracing from Schoch et al. 2020. DGS color tracing added here. See figure 3 for a reconstruction.

Pushing those DGS details around
to create a reconstruction (Fig. 3) helps one understand the anatomy of Triassurus, enough to score it.

Figure 4. The type specimen of Triassurus in situ and reconstructed.

Figure 3. The type specimen of Triassurus in situ and reconstructed.

Scoring the Middle Triassic Triassurus type
nests it with Early Permian Gerrobatrachus (Fig. 4), one node away from extant salamanders in the large reptile tree (LRT, 1690+ taxa; subset Fig. 5). So, if Triassic Triassurus is the earliest known salamander (as Schoch et al report), then Early Permian Gerobatrachus is one, too. And it is tens of millions of year older. If Gerobatrachus is not a salamander, then both are not salamanders.

Figure 5. Gerrobatrachus adult.

Figure 4. Gerrobatrachus adult.

The LRT tree topology
is distinctly different than the cladogram published by Shoch et al. 2020 (Fig. 6).

Figure 5. Subset of the LRT focusing on basal tetrapods including Triassurus, type and referred specimen FG 596 V 20.

Figure 5. Subset of the LRT focusing on basal tetrapods including Triassurus, type and referred specimen FG 596 V 20.

Unfortunately,
the cladogram employed by Schoch et al. 2020 (Fig. 6) needs more taxa. Currently it nests Proterogyrinus as the outgroup taxon. That creates problems. Relative to the LRT (Fig. 5) one branch of the Schoch et al. cladogram is inverted such that the basalmost tetrapods, Siderops and Gerrothorax, nest as highly derived terminal taxa. The other branch with caecilians, frogs and salamanders is not inverted relative to the LRT, but in the LRT caecilians do not nest with frogs and salamanders. Caecilians nest with microsaurs in the LRT.

Figure 6. Cladogram from Schoch et al. 2020 nests both specimens of Triassurus close to salamanders. Colors match colors in figure 5.

Figure 6. Cladogram from Schoch et al. 2020 nests both specimens of Triassurus close to salamanders. Colors match colors in figure 5.

Schoch et al. 2020 reported on Triassicus,
“to reconstruct crucial steps in the evolution of the salamander body plan, sharing numerous features with ancient amphibians, the temnospondyls. These finds push back the rock record of salamanders by 60 to 74 Ma and at the same time bridge the wide anatomic gap among salamanders, frogs, and temnospondyls.”

In the LRT the salamander body plan goes back to the Early Permian, at least.

From the abstract:
“The origin of extant amphibians remains largely obscure, with only a few early Mesozoic stem taxa known, as opposed to a much better fossil record from the mid-Jurassic on.”

In the LRT the origin of extant amphibians can be traced in detail over several dozen taxa (Fig. 5) back to Cambrian chordates.

Figure 2. Cladogram from Schoch et al. 2020. They insert Eocaecilia here derived from Doleserpeton. The LRT nests Eocaecilia with microsaurs. Note how the morphology does not fit here. Where is Apteon in this cladogram?

Figure 7. Cladogram from Schoch et al. 2020. They insert Eocaecilia here derived from Doleserpeton. The LRT nests Eocaecilia with microsaurs. Note how the morphology does not fit here. Where is Apteon in this cladogram?

From the abstract:
“Yet the most ancient stem-salamanders, known from mid-Jurassic rocks, shed little light on the origin of the clade.Here we report a new specimen of Triassurus sixtelae, a hitherto enigmatic tetrapod from the Middle/Late Triassic of Kyrgyzstan, which we identify as the geologically oldest stem-group salamander.”

“The new, second specimen is derived from the same beds as the holotype, the Madygen Formation of southwestern Kyrgyzstan. It reveals a range of salamander characters in this taxon, pushing back the rock record of urodeles by at least 60 to 74 Ma (Carnian–Bathonian). In addition, this stem-salamander shares plesiomorphic characters with temnospondyls, especially branchiosaurids and amphibamiforms.”

FIgure 8. The FG 596 V20 specimen that Schoch et al. referred to Triassurus does not nest with Triassurus in the LRT. See Figure 9 for reconstruction.

FIgure 8. The FG 596 V20 specimen that Schoch et al. referred to Triassurus does not nest with Triassurus in the LRT. See Figure 9 for reconstruction.

Speaking of that second specimen…
a reconstruction of the narrow-snouted FG 596 V20 specimen (Fig. 8) does not look like the wide-mouth type of Triassurus. In the LRT the second larger FG 596 V20 specimen nests with the CGH129 specimen of the legless microsaur, Phlegethontia (Fig. 9) far from Triassurus and other salamanders.

Figure 9. Reconstruction of the specimen referred to Triassurus, which does not nest with Triassurus in the LRT.

Figure 9. Reconstruction of the specimen referred to Triassurus, which does not nest with Triassurus in the LRT.

What Schoch et al. identified as a large horizontal quadrate (q)
in the FG 596 V20 specimenn(Fig. 8) is re-identified here as a large humerus, larger than the ones they identified. The forelimb goes into the left mouth. The left maxilla is displaced back to the occiput.

Figure 10. Phlegethontia longissima skull (CGH 129) has relatively large temporal plates, a wide flat cranium and a long pointed rostrum.

Figure 10. Phlegethontia longissima skull (CGH 129) has relatively large temporal plates, a wide flat cranium and a long pointed rostrum.

In conclusion, the tiny Triassurus type
nests close to salamanders, but closer to Early Permian Gerobatrachus (Fig. 4). The larger referred FG 596 V20 specimen with legs (Fig. 9) nests with legless Late Carboniferous Phelgethontia (Fig. 10), far from salamanders. Adding taxa and getting deeper into the details using the DGS method upsets the simpler and inaccurate Schoch et al. tracings, tree topology and conclusions.


References
Ivakhnenko M 1978. Tailed amphibians from the Triassic and Jurassic of Middle Asia. Paleontological Journal 1978(3):84-89.
Schoch RR et al. 2020. A Triassic stem-salamander from Kyrgyzstan and the origin of salamanders, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2001424117

https://phys.org/news/2020-05-triassurus-sixtelae-fossil-kyrgyzstan-oldest.html

Recalibrating clade origins, part 5

Earlier
we looked at the first part, second part, third part and fourth part of Marjanovic’s 2019 chronological recalibration of vertebrate nodes. Today we conclude.

Batrachia (Caudata + Salientia) = Amphibians (= extant Frogs + Salamanders) Marjanovic discusses Triadobatrachus from the Early Triassic (Olenekian, 249mya) and concludes that 249 mya “is a perfectly adequate hard minimum age for this calibration point.” And “290mya may be a defensible soft maximum value.”

After adding Triadobatrachus (Fig. 1) to the large reptile tree (LRT, 1631+ taxa), Gerobatrachus (Early Permian, 300mya) mentioned once by Marjanovic, nests basal to the few tested extant frogs and salamanders. So, 300mya is pretty close to his estimate of 290mya.

Figure 1. Triadobatrachus skull, as originally colorized and redone with tetrapod colors here.

Figure 1. Triadobatrachus skull, as originally colorized and dorsal surface redone with tetrapod colors here with bone fusion identified and the maxilla + premaxilla restored. Compare to Rana in figure 2. Distinct from extant frogs, a squamosal is present here.

Figure 2. Skull of the frog, Rana with colors matching those of Triadobatrachus.

Figure 2. Skull of the frog, Rana with colors matching those of Triadobatrachus. Here the squamosal and jugal are missing. The quadratojugal is present.

Chondrichthyes (Holocephalii + Elasmobranchii)
= (ratfish + sharks and skates) Marjanovic reports, “By current understanding (Frey et al., 2019), the oldest known crown-chondrichthyan is the stem elasmobranch Phoebodus fastigatus from the middle Givetian. The Givetian, part of the Middle Devonian, …so I propose 385 Ma as the hard minimum age of the chondrichthyan crown-group.”

By contrast, the LRT recovers the whale shark + manta ancestor, Loganellia (Early Silurian, 440mya; Fig. 3) as the oldest known ancestor of sharks and other fish. Sturgeons are more primitive, and therefore must be older, but Ordovician sturgeon and osteostracan fossils have not been found. Taxon inclusion recovers these novel interrelationships.

Figure 2. Loganellia, a thelodont with whale shark shape including dorsal fin. Image from OldRedSandstone.com. This appears to be Loganellia, not Thelodus (Fig. 7).

Figure 2. Loganellia, a thelodont with a whale shark shape including dorsal fin. Image from OldRedSandstone.com. This appears to be Loganellia, not Thelodus.


Marjanovic reports, “There is not as much interest in phylogeny among specialists of early elasmobranchs than among specialists of early mammals or early dinosaurs.” The LRT does not have that problem. Enigmas are answered with this powerful tool that works well by avoiding tooth-only taxa.

Marjanovic considers the clade Batoidea (skates + rays) to be monophyletic.

In the LRT, so far, three origins for ray-like basal tetrapods have been recovered based on taxon inclusion.

Marjanovic considers the clade Neopterygii (Holosteomorpha + Teleosteomorpha) = (bowfins and gars + other teleosts or bony fish) to be monophyletic.

In the LRT, this hypothesis of relationships has been invalidated.

Marjanovic reports, “I cite 228 references for calibration purposes.”

In the LRT, I’m not sure how many citations I cite for 1631+ taxa, but once again, adding taxa brings new insights to hypothetical interrelationships. Marjanovic was testing the results of a previous publication, but should have done so with a greater authority, with more taxa and with no reference whatsoever to genomics.

Tomorrow: something new. 


References
Marjanovic D 2019. Recalibrating the transcriptomic timetree of jawed vertebrates.
bioRxiv 2019.12.19.882829 (preprint)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.19.882829
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.19.882829v1

Newt pre-pollux phase shift?

Wagner and Chiu 2001
printed an X-ray image of a newt (genus: Triturus) foot with six toes (Fig. 1). They call the new one a pre-pollux. Figure 1. Left to right: Original illustration from Wagner and Chiu 2001. Cleaned up and labeled. Placed on top of an in vivo pes with a phase shift movement of the metatarsals. Some toes are curled, so the graphic bones extend beyond the curl. 

Figure 1. Left to right: Original illustration from Wagner and Chiu 2001. Cleaned up and labeled. Placed on top of an in vivo pes with a phase shift movement of the metatarsals. Some toes are curled, so the graphic bones extend beyond the curl.I have been calling a similar medial manus digit
digit zero‘ for the last three years.

The problem I had with the Wagner and Chiu newt
was matching toes 1–5 to the toes in a photo of another specimen. It was impossible to do so while retaining the original connections to the distal tarsals (Fig. 1). Instead the toes had to be shifted medially with regard to the Wagner and Chiu tarsal images.

In other words, when digit zero is present
digits 4 and 5 arise from the lateral distal carpal and digit 1 arises from distal carpal 2.

When digit zero is absent
digits 4 and 5 each have their own distal carpal and digit 1 arises from distal carpal 1.

Still thinking about this one.
Not sure what the ramifications are with regard to newts and other tetrapods. Where is the error? Perhaps there is no error. It is what it is. There was a phase shift.

Earlier we looked at digit zero on the manus
of the theropod Limusaurus (which opened up the whole phase shift question in theropods), and the screamer, Chauna (which could have done the same with its ‘spike’, but never did).


References
Wagner GP and Chiu C-H 2001. The tetrapod limb: a hypothesis on its origin. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol) 291:226–240.

The skull of the bizarre mudpuppy (Necturus) under review

Updated March 17, 2021
with the addition of Proteus and new identifications for several bones in Necturus.

Necturus maculosus (Rafinesque 1818, Fig. 1) is the extant mudpuppy, a salamander with gill slits.

Strangely,
the maxilla is absent (Fig. 1). The ectopterygoid is ventral to the pterygoid. All jaw bones that reach the margin have large teeth. the postorbital and postfrontal are both stretched out.

On the palate,
the choana (internal naris, Fig. 1) is barely open and it does not have a posterior border. A central opening perforates the anterior palate. Otherwise the parasphenoid is wider than in any other taxon. It creates a nearly solid palate.

On the mandible,
both the dentary and the coronoid have teeth.

Sister taxa  
do not have such a long premaxilla. Similarly online images do not identify the palatine, but label the entire bone a vomer. Traditionally and in sister taxa vomers do not extend to the lateral skull. Thus, several skull bones here are reidentified based on homologs with sister taxa. Thus Necturus is not quite as bizarre as dissection guides indicate.

Figure 1. Necturus skull and in vivo. The maxilla is missing. Note the pterygoid and ectopterygoid are fused. The ectopterygoid has large teeth aligned with the palatine teeth. The frontal is divided in two.

Figure 1. Necturus skull and in vivo. The maxilla is missing. Note the pterygoid and ectopterygoid are fused. The ectopterygoid has large teeth aligned with the palatine teeth. The frontal is divided in two.

Postcranially,
pedal digit 5 is absent, distinct from all sister taxa. In the large reptile tree (LRT, 1471 taxa) Necturus nests between Rana, the bullfrog, and Andrias, the Chinese giant salamander.


References
Rafinesque CS 1818. The American monthly magazine and critical review 4: 41.\

wiki/Necturus

Karaurus and the origin of frogs + salamanders

Figure 1. Karaurus in situ. About the size of a living salamander.

Figure 1. Late Jurassic Karaurus in situ. About the size of a living salamander.

Karaurus sharovi (Ivachnenko 1978; Late Jurassic; Figs. 1, 2) nests with Celtedens (Fig. 3) in the large reptile tree (LRT, 1467 taxa; Fig. 4)  and resembled living salamanders (Fig. 5) in size, shape and lifestyle. Here (Fig. 2) certain skull bones are reidentified. The orbit was confluent with an upper + lateral temporal fenestra that appeared by the loss of the posterior circumorbital bones.

Figure 2. Karaurus drawing from Carroll 1988, originally from Ivanchenko 1978, photo of same, DGS of same. Colors standard. Some re-identify bones. Hypothetical eyeball added. It does not have to fill the orbit, but it could.

Figure 2. Karaurus drawing from Carroll 1988, originally from Ivanchenko 1978, photo of same, DGS of same. Colors standard. Some re-identify bones. Hypothetical eyeball added. It does not have to fill the orbit, but it could. The former squamosal is a tabular + supratemporal. The lacrimal and prefrontal are not fused. Postparietals are present.

Post circumorbital bones are also missing,
in Celtedens (Fig. 3). distinct from frogs, like Rana, and salamanders, like Andrias (Fig. 5).

Figure 3. Celetendens is the closest relative to Karaurus in the LRT.

Figure 3. Celetendens is the closest relative to Karaurus in the LRT.

FIgure 2. Subset of the LRT focusing on lepospondyls including salamanders and frogs.

Figure 4. Subset of the LRT focusing on lepospondyls including salamanders and frogs.

The previous illustration of the giant Chinese salamander skull
(genus: Andrias; Fig. 5) is here updated based in new understandings of homologous bumps and sutures.

Figure 3. Revised skull of Andrias japonicas, the giant Chinese salamander. This was informed by recent studies of the mudpuppy, Necturus.

Figure 3. Revised skull of Andrias japonicas, the giant Chinese salamander. This was informed by recent studies of the mudpuppy, Necturus.


References
Ivanchenko KF 1978. Urodelans from the Triassic and Jurassic of Soviet Centra Asia. Paleontological Journal 12(3):362–368.

Temnospondyl evolution (Fortuny and Steyer 2019)

Adding taxa and reviewing scores
are slightly modifying the cladogram of basal tetrapods (Fig. 1), distinct from traditional cladograms.

Fortuny and Steyer 2019 report:
“Phylogenetic analysis of a large dataset (72 taxa, 212 characters) focuses on the in-group relationships of temnospondyls, the largest lower tetrapod clade. The following groups were unequivocally found to be monophyletic: Edopoidea (node), Dvinosauria (stem, excl. Brachyopidae), Dissorophoidea (node), Eryopidae (stem), and Stereospondyli (node). In all variant analyses, edopoids form the basalmost temnospondyl clade, followed by a potential clade (or grade) of small terrestrial taxa containing Balanerpeton and Dendrerpeton (‘Dendrerpetontidae’). All taxa higher than Edopoidea are suggested to form the monophyletic stem taxon Eutemnospondyli, tax. nov. The remainder of Temnospondyli fall into four robust and undisputed clades: (1) Dvinosauria; (2) Zatracheidae plus Dissorophoidea; (3) Eryopidae; and (4) Stereospondyli.”

By contrast
the large reptile tree (LRT, 1447 taxa, subset FIg. 1) finds Balanerpeton closer to reptiles and dvinosaurs closer to basalmost tetrapods. So Fortuny and Steyer’s traditional in-group includes out-group taxa.

Figure1. Subset of the LRT focusing on basal tetrapods, modified from earlier versions by adding taxa and re-scoring after better data was found.

Figure1. Subset of the LRT focusing on basal tetrapods, modified from earlier versions by adding taxa and re-scoring after better data was found. Here amphibians are temnospondyls and mammals are amphibians, by definition. Nomenclature needs to be reviewed. 

The traditional clade Stereospondyli
is paraphyletic in the LRT.

The traditional clade Eutemnospondyli (Schoch 2013)
is paraphyletic in the LRT.

Amphibia, by definition,
now includes Reptilomorpha, Reptilia, Mammalia and Primates.

Tetrapodomorpha requires a contrast with
lungfish (clade: Dipnoi) and coelacanths (clade: Actinista), which need to be added to the LRT.


References
Fortuny J and Steyer J-S 2019. New insights into the evolution of temnospondyls. Journal of Iberian Geology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41513-019-00104-0
Schoch RR 2013. The evolution of major temnospondyl clades: an inclusive phylogenetic analysis. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 11(6):673–705.

SVP 2018: Seeking the origin of living amphibians

Danto et al. 2018 reports,
“Despite increasing knowledge about the fossil record of lissamphibians (frogs,salamanders, and caecilians), their origin is still unresolved and different origins within Paleozoic early tetrapods are proposed.”

By contrast
the large reptile tree (LRT, 1313 taxa; subset Fig. 1) confidently recovers a monophyletic and completely resolved lissamphibia that also includes microsaurs (Fig. 1) and other non-traditional members. Utegina is close to the ancestry of frogs + salamanders + the more distantly related caecilians.

Figure 1. Subset of the LRT focusing on basal tetrapods, colorized according to chronology. Note the wide dispersal of Early Carboniferous taxa, suggesting a Late Devonian radiation as yet largely undiscovered.

Figure 1. Subset of the LRT focusing on basal tetrapods, colorized according to chronology. Note the wide dispersal of Early Carboniferous taxa, suggesting a Late Devonian radiation as yet largely undiscovered. Utegenia is close to the ancestry of all living amphibians (in white).

The Danto team sought the answer
to their enigma not in a phylogenetic analysis, but in a study of developing salamanders. They report, “In this study, we sought to investigate if the ossification sequence of neural arches and centra and the mode of centrum formation in extinct and extant forms could be indicative of phylogenetic relationships.  Here we demonstrate that the mode of centrum formation is highly variable in early tetrapods and lissamphibians and cannot be used to determine the origin of lissamphibians within early tetrapods.”

References
Danto M et al. 2018. The implication of the vertebral development on the origin of lissamphibians. SVP abstract

 

 

 

The ‘armadillo’ ‘frog’: Dissorophus

Figure 1. Images from Cope 1896 of the armored dissorophid, Dissorophus (=Otocoelus)

Figure 1. Images from Cope 1896 of the armored dissorophid, Dissorophus (= Otocoelus). At first I did not see the limbs preserved with the armor and skull. Did you?

Dissorophus multicinctus (Cope 1895; Late Carboniferous, 280 mya; 13 cm skull length) had a large head and short trunk, but more extensive dermal and sub dermal ossifications than the related Cacops, a basal lepospondyl in the large reptile tree (LRT, 1166 taxa). This terrestrial basal tetrapod was originally considered a “bratrachian armadillo” with its double-layer armor. Distinct from most basal tetrapods, (but like members of the sister clade Reptilia!) the limbs were quite large. Together with the armor, and with comparisons to sister taxa, Dissorophus was fully terrestrial

What were its tadpoles/juveniles like?
I don’t think we’ve found any. Let me know if any are known.

Wikipedia reports:
Dissorophus was a temnospondyl. The online cladogram of Dissorophus relatives from Schoch 2010 lists all lepospondyls in the LRT. Temnospondyls, like Metaposaurus, split off earlier in the LRT.

Figure 1. Cacops and its sisters.

Figure 1. Cacops and its sisters.

References
Cope ED 1895. A batrachian armadillo. The American Naturalist 29:998
Cope ED 1896. The Ancestry of the Testudinata. The American Naturalist 30(353):398-400
Cope ED 1896. Second contribution to the history of the Cotylosauria. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 35(151):122-139
DeMar RE 1966. Longiscitula houghae, a new genus of dissorophid amphibian from the Permian of Texas. Fieldiana: Geology 16:45-53
Schoch RR 2013. The evolution of major temnospondyl clades: an inclusive phylogenetic analysis. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology [R. Butler/R. Butler]
Schoch RR and Milner AR. 2014. Handbook of Paleoherpetology Part 3A2 Temnospondyli I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissorophus

Synonyms:
Dissorophus articulatus Cope 1896 (no. 345457)
Longiscitula houghae DeMar 1966 (no. 345456)
Otocoelus mimeticus Cope 1896 (no. 138240)
Otocoelus testudineus Cope 1896 (no. 138239)

The origin of Lissamphibia (frogs, salamanders, caecilians)

The origin of modern amphibians has been controversial.
A new paper by Pérez-Ben et al. 2018 seeks to clarify the issue. According to Wikpedia, “Currently, the three prevailing theories of lissamphibian origin are:

  1. Monophyletic within the temnospondyli
  2. Monophyletic within lepospondyli
  3. Diphyletic (two separate ancestries) with apodans within the lepospondyls and salamanders and frogs within the temnospondyli.”

From the Pérez-Ben et al. abstract:
Current hypotheses propose that the living amphibians (lissamphibians) originated within a clade of Paleozoic dwarfed dissorophoid temnospondyls. Morphological traits shared by these small dissorophoids have been interpreted as resulting from constraints imposed by the extreme size reduction, but these statements were based only on qualitative observations. Herein, we assess quantitatively morphological changes in the skull previously associated with miniaturization in the lissamphibian stem lineage by comparing evolutionary and ontogenetic allometries in dissorophoids. Our results show that these features are not comparable to the morphological consequences of extreme size reduction as documented in extant miniature amphibians, but instead they resemble immature conditions of larger temnospondyls. We conclude that the truncation of the ancestral ontogeny, and not constraints related to miniaturization, might have been the factor that played a major role in the morphological evolution of small dissorophoids.

The authors appear to be dividing
tiny (miniaturized) frogs from frogs in general (= immature temnospondyls). And that’s a good start.

The second hypothesis (above)
is supported and recovered in the large reptile tree (LRT (1154 taxa, subset in figure 1) in which Lissamphibians are indeed derived from dissorophids, but dissorophids are lepospondyls (yellow-green clade below), which are derived from reptilomorphs and seymouriamorphs (orange clade below), while temnospondyls are much more primitive and diphyletic (pink and blue clades below). The phylogenetic miniaturization occurred much earlier than Lissamphibia, which is a much larger clade if it is still defined by the inclusion of the more distantly related caecilians, deep within the Microsauria.

FIgure 2. Subset of the LRT has a larger gamut of taxa. Here lepospondyls nest together when more basal tetrapods are added to the taxon list than are present in figure 1.

FIgure 2. Subset of the LRT has a larger gamut of taxa. Here lepospondyls nest together when more basal tetrapods are added to the taxon list than are present in figure 1.

Quantitive approaches
have never trumped phylogenetic approaches.

First: Recover the cladogram.
Let it tell you what happened, and when and how. The dissorophids are indeed derived from more primitive temnospondyls, but several intervening transitional clades must be accounted for. 

References
Pérez-Ben CM, Schoch RR and Báez  AM 2018. Miniaturization and morphological evolution in Paleozoic relatives of living amphibians: a quantitative approach
https://doi.org/10.1017/pab.2017.22Published online: 23 January 2018