Tulerpeton restoration

A reconstruction
puts the in situ bones back into their in vivo places.

A restoration
imagines the bones and soft tissues that are missing from the data. Adding scaled elements from a sister taxon is usually the best way to handle a restoration as we await further data from the field.

Figure 1. Tulerpeton restored based on the bauplan of Silvanerpeton and to the same scale.

Figure 1. Tulerpeton restored based on the bauplan of Silvanerpeton and to the same scale.

We looked at
Tulerpeton, the Upper Devonian taxon known chiefly from its limbs, earlier. I reconstructed the limbs several ways, but did not attempt a restoration. Here (Fig. 1) that oversight is remedied based on the bauplan of Viséan sister, Silvanerpeton. 

Among the overlapping elements,
in Tulerpeton the pectoral girdle and forelimbs are larger. An extra digit is present laterally.

References
Clack JA 1994. Silvanerpeton miripedes, a new anthracosauroid from the Visean of East Kirkton, West Lothian, Scotland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences 84 (for 1993), 369–76.
Coates MI and Ruta M 2001
 2002. Fins to limbs: What the fossils say. Evolution & Development 4(5): 390–401.
Lebedev OA 1984. The first find of a Devonian tetrapod in USSR. Doklady Akad. Navk. SSSR. 278: 1407–1413.
Lebedev OA and Clack JA 1993. Upper Devonian tetrapods from Andreyeva, Tula Region, Russia. Paleontology36: 721-734.
Lebedev OA and Coates MI 1995. postcranial skeleton of the Devonian tetrapod Tulerpeton curtum Lebedev. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 114 (3): 307–348.
Mondéjar-Fernandez J, Clément G and Sanchez S 2014. New insights into the scales of the Devonian tetrapods Tulerpeton curtum Lebedeve, 1984. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 34:1454-1459.

wiki/Silvanerpeton
wiki/Tulerpeton

Advertisements

Diplovertebron and amphibian finger loss patterns

Updated June 13, 2017 with the fact that Diplovertebron is the same specimen I earlier illustrated as Gephyrostegus watsoni. And the Watson 1926 version of Diplovertebron (Fig. 1) was so inaccurately drawn (by freehand) that the data nested is apart from the DGS tracing. Hence this post had deadly errors now deleted.

Figure 2. The gradual loss of basal tetrapod fingers. Unfortunately fingers are not known for every included taxon.

Figure 2. The gradual loss of basal tetrapod fingers. Unfortunately fingers are not known for every included taxon. Odd Tulerpeton with 6 fingers may result from taphonomic layering of the other manus peeking out below the top one. See figure 6. Mentally delete Diplovertebron from this chart. 

The presence of five manual digits
in Balanerpeton (Figs. 4, 5) sheds light on their retention in Acheloma + Cacops. There is a direct phylogenetic path between them (Fig. 2). Note that all other related clades lose a finger or more. Basal and stem reptiles also retain five fingers.

Figure 2. Utegenia nests as a sister to Diplovertebron.

Figure 3. Utegenia nests as a sister to Diplovertebron.

Distinct from the wide frontals
in Utegenia and Kotlassia,  Balanerpeton (Fig. 4) had narrower frontals like those of Silvanerpeton, a stem reptile.

Figure 4. The basal amphibian, Balanerpeton apparently has five fingers (see figure 5).

Figure 4. The basal amphibian, Balanerpeton apparently has five fingers (see figure 5).

As reported
earlier, finger five was lost in amphibians,while finger one was lost in temonospondyls. Now, based on the longest metacarpal in Caerorhachis and Amphibamus (second from medial), apparently manual digit one was lost in that clade also, distinct from the separate frog and microsaur clades. In summary, loss from five digits down to four was several times convergent in basal tetrapods.

Figure 5. DGS recovers five fingers in Balanerpeton with a Diplovertebron-like phalangeal pattern.

Figure 5. DGS recovers five fingers in Balanerpeton with a Diplovertebron-like phalangeal pattern. Two 5-second frames are shown here.

Finally, we have to talk about
Tulerpeton (Fig. 6). The evidence shows that the sixth manual digit is either a new structure – OR – all post-Devonian taxa lose the sixth digit by convergence, since they all had five fingers. Finger 6 has distinct phalangeal proportions, so it is NOT an exposed finger coincident rom the other otherwise unexposed hand in the fossil matrix.

Figure 2. Tulerpeton manus and pes in situ, reconstructed by Lebdev and Coates 1995 and newly reconstructed here.

Figure 6. Tulerpeton manus and pes in situ, reconstructed by Lebdev and Coates 1995 and newly reconstructed here. Digit 6 is either a new structure, or a vestige that disappears in all post-Devonian taxa.

References
Fritsch A 1879. Fauna der Gaskohle und der Kalksteine der Permformation “B¨ ohmens. Band 1, Heft 1. Selbstverlag, Prague: 1–92.
Kuznetzov VV and Ivakhnenko MF 1981. Discosauriscids from the Upper Paleozoic in Southern Kazakhstan. Paleontological Journal 1981:101-108.
Watson DMS 1926. VI. Croonian lecture. The evolution and origin of the Amphibia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society, London 214:189–257.

wiki/Diplovertebron

Tulerpeton nests between Ichthyostega and Eucritta

Updated Dec 13, 2017 re-nesting Tulerpeton between Ichthyostega and Eucritta. 

Yesterday we looked at the nesting of Tulerpeton (Lebedev 1984; Latest Devonian; PIN 2921/7) as a basal tetrapod, which is the traditional nesting.

I thank
Dr. Michael Coates for sending a pdf of his 1995 study of Tulerpeton. From the improved data I was able to make new reconstructions of the manus and pes. The differences shift the nesting of Tulerpeton to the last common ancestor of Eucrtta and Seymouriamorpha.

Figure 1. Tulerpeton parts from Lebedev and Coates 1995 here colorized and newly reconstructed. Manus and pes enlarged in figure 2.

Figure 1. Tulerpeton parts from Lebedev and Coates 1995 here colorized and newly reconstructed. Manus and pes enlarged in figure 2. Note the in situ placement of the pedal phalanges. The clavicle is shown as originally published and withe the ventral view reduced in width to compare its unchanged length to the original lateral view image.

In the new reconstruction
only the manus retained 6 digits, with the lateral sixth digit a vestige. The pes has a new reconstruction with only 5 digits, very much in the pattern of Gephyrostegus and Eucritta. Both have five phalanges on digit 5. In the new reconstructions all of the PILs (Peters 2000) line up in sets.

Figure 2. Tulerpeton manus and pes in situ, reconstructed by Lebdev and Coates 1995 and newly reconstructed here.

Figure 2. Tulerpeton manus and pes in situ, reconstructed by Lebdev and Coates 1995 and newly reconstructed here with PILs added. Note the broken mt5 and the reinterpretation of the squarish elements as phalanges, not distal carpals. The tibiale is rotated 90º to cap the tibia.

Lebedev and Coates report:
“A cladistic analysis indicates that Tulerpeton is a reptilomoprh stem-group amniote and the earliest known crown-group tetrapod. The divergence of reptilomorphs from batrachomorphs (frogs and kin) occurred before the Devonian Carboniferous boundary. Polydactyly persisted after the evolutionary divergence of the principal lineages of living tetrapods. Tulerpeton was primarily air-breathing.”

Autapomorphies
Manual digit 6 is present as a novelty. Perhaps it is a new digit after damage. More primitive taxa do not have this digit. An anocheithrum (small bone atop the cleithrum) is present. Metatarsal 1 in Tulerpeton is the largest in the set. The posterior ilium rises. The femur has a large, sharp, fourth (posterior) trochanter.

Scales
on Tulerpeton are also found similar in size and number are also found in related taxa.

Taxon exclusion
and digital graphic segregation AND reconstruction AND comparative anatomy all contributed to the new data scores. As usual, I have not seen the specimen, but I did add it to a large gamut data matrix, the likes of which are not typically employed.

Figure 1. Tulerpeton restored based on the bauplan of Silvanerpeton and to the same scale.

Figure 1. Tulerpeton restored based on the bauplan of Silvanerpeton and to the same scale.

References
Coates MI and Ruta M 2001 (2002). Fins to limbs: What the fossils say. Evolution & Development 4(5): 390–401.
Lebedev OA 1984. The first find of a Devonian tetrapod in USSR. Doklady Akad. Navk. SSSR. 278: 1407–1413.
Lebedev OA and Clack JA 1993. Upper Devonian tetrapods from Andreyeva, Tula Region, Russia. Paleontology36: 721-734.
Lebedev OA and Coates MI 1995. postcranial skeleton of the Devonian tetrapod Tulerpeton curtum Lebedev. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 114 (3): 307–348.
Peters D 2000. Description and Interpretation of Interphalangeal Lines in Tetrapods. Ichnos, 7: 11-41

wiki/Tulerpeton

Marjanovic and Laurin 2016: Basal tetrapods, continued…

rhynSorry this took so long…
As you’ll see there was a lot of work and prep involved that has been several weeks in the making. Thank you for your patience.

Earlier I introduced the Marjanovic and Laurin 2016 study
the way they did, by reporting their confirmation of the Ruta and Coats 2007 basal tetrapod topology that they were testing prior to reevaluating the data. I noted then that both studies (Fig. 5) included many so-called pre-reptiles, including  Bruktererpeton, Chroniosaurus, Solenodonsaurus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, DiadectesOrobates and Westlothiana,should not be in the pre-amniote inclusion set. Those taxa nest within the Reptilia in the large reptile tree (LRT, subset Fig. 4) with Silvanerpeton and Gephyrostegus at the base of the Reptilia (= Amniota). As reported earlier, those two are the amphibian-like reptiles that first developed the amniotic egg that defines the clade Amniota, a junior synonym of the Reptilia, based on the tree that recovers them at the base of both major branches, the new Archosauromorpha and the new Lepidosauromorpha early in the Viséan.

How can one readily compare two competing cladograms? 
You would not want to sit through a comparison of tens of thousands of scores for competing trees in a short blog like this. But we can compare images of taxa (Figs. 1–3. 6–8) placed in their phylogenetic order, subdivided for clarity into the three major lineages of basal tetrapods:

  1. Basalmost tetrapods and the lineage that led to Reptilia
  2. Members of the Lepospondyli
  3. Members of the Microsauria

These images will serve as a ready reference for today’s topics. As a preview, in summary:

The Marjanovic and Laurin (ML) 2016 tree nests

  1. frogs like Rana and salamanders like Andrias with microsaurs.
  2. small amphibamids, Cacops and Micromelerpeton nest with temnospondyls.
  3. basal Amniota splits into Synapsida (Caseasauria + Archaeovenator) and Sauropsida (Captorhinus, Paleothyris, Petrolacaosaurus) arising from an unknown genus basal to Diadectomorpha + Amniota
  4. The clade Amphibia arises near Solenodonsaurus + the crown-group Tetrapoda
  5. The clade Microsauria is divided into three parts separated by non-microsaurs with origins near Westlothiana.

The LRT nests

  1. frogs and salamanders nest with lepospondyls.
  2. small amphibamids, Cacops and Micromelerpeton nest with lepospondyls.
  3. basal Amniota splits into Archosauromorpha  (several basal taxa, Archaeovenator, Paleothyris and Petrolacaosaurus) and Lepiodosauromorpha (several basal taxa, Caseasauria and Captorhinus) with both major clades arising from Gephyrostegus bohemicus a late-surving Westphalian taxon, and Silvanerpeton, a Viséan taxon.
  4. The clade Amphibia arises near Balanerpeton and the amphibamids.
  5. The clade Microsauria has a single origin near Kirktonecta 

What you should be looking for
is a gradual accumulation of traits in every lineage. And look for taxa that don’t fit in the order presented. This can be done visually with these figures, combining hundreds of traits into one small package. Rest assured that all scoring by ML and the competing analysis in the LRT were done with the utmost care and diligence. So, some biased or errant scoring must have taken place in one study or the other or both for the topologies to differ so great. Bear in mind that ML had firsthand access to fossils and may have bowed to academic tradition, while I had photos and figures to work with and no allegiance to academic tradition.

First
the large reptile tree (LRT) taxa (Figs. 1–3) had two separate origins for limbed vertebrates.

Figure 1. CLICK TO ENLARGE. Basal tetrapod subset according to the LRT. These taxa lead to Reptilia, Lepospondyli and through that clade, the Microsauria. Note the convergent development of limbs and digits arising out of Osteolepis.

Figure 1. CLICK TO ENLARGE. Basal tetrapod subset according to the LRT. These taxa lead to Reptilia, Lepospondyli and through that clade, the Microsauria. Note the convergent development of limbs and digits arising out of Osteolepis.

In both studies
basal tetrapod outgroups are tail-propelled sarcopterygians having muscular fins not yet evolved into limbs with digits. Behind the skull are opercular bones that are lost in taxa with limbs. An exoskeleton of bony scales disappears in taxa with limbs. Snout to tail tip length averages 50 cm.

In the LRT
locomotion switches to the limbs in temnospondyls, which tend to be larger (1m+ and have overlapping dorsal ribs. The Greererpeton branch flattens out the ribs and skull, reducing both the tail and the limbs to likely become sit-and-wait predators. Phylogenetic size reduction and limb elongation is the trend that leads to Reptilia (Gephyrostegus). However an early exception, Crassigyrinus (Fig. 1), elongates the torso and reduces the limbs to adopt an eel-like lifestyle. Kotlassia adopts a salamander-like lifestyle from which Utegenia and the Lepospondyli arise (Fig. 2) alongside Reptilia.

Figure 2. CLICK TO ENLARGE. Subset of the LRT representing lepospondyli leading to frogs.

Figure 2. CLICK TO ENLARGE. Subset of the LRT representing lepospondyli leading to frogs.

In the LRT,
short-tailed, salamander-like Utegenia (derived from the Seymouriamorpha, Fig. 2) is a late-surving basal member of the generally small-sized clade Lepospondyli, which ultimately produces salamanders and frogs. A side branch produces the larger, temnospondyl-like Cacops, which develops a bony ridge atop the dorsal spines. Note the nesting here of Gerobatrachus as a salamander and frog relative, distinct from the ML tree (Fig. 6).

Figure 3. CLICK TO ENLARGE. Subset of the LRT focusing on Microsauria.

Figure 3. CLICK TO ENLARGE. Subset of the LRT focusing on Microsauria.

In the LRT
the Microsauria are derived here from the small basal amphibamids, Caerorhachis and more proximally, Kirktonecta. Microsaurs range from salamander-like to lizard-like to worm-like. The tail elongates to become the organ of locomotion in the Ptyonius clade. The head and torso flatten in the Eoserpeton clade.

Below
is the pertinent subset of the LRT (Fig. 4) with a representative, but not complete or exhaustive set of taxa. A summary of the tree’s differences with the ML tree is presented above. The ML tree is summarized below in three parts (6-8).

Figure 4. Subset of the LRT focusing on basal tetrapods.

Figure 4. Subset of the LRT focusing on basal tetrapods.

The Marjanovic and Laurin 2016 tree
(Fig. 5) presents a topology that is similar to the LRT in parts, but distinct in other parts, as summarized above. I realize this presentation is illegible at this column size due to the large number of taxa. Click on it to enlarge it. At the top and down the right column are basal taxa leading to temnspondyls and reptiles at bottom right. Working from the bottom up the left side are the microsaurs ending with the lissamphibians (frogs and salamanders) at the top/middle of the left column.

Figure 4. CLICK TO ENLARGE. The reevaluated Marjanovic and Laurin tree from which taxa on hand were set to match the tree topology (Figs. 5-7).

Figure 5. CLICK TO ENLARGE. The reevaluated Marjanovic and Laurin tree from which taxa on hand were set to match the tree topology (Figs. 5-7).

The ML tree
subdivides into there parts (Figs 6-8): basal taxa, some leading to temnospondyls and amphibamids; taxa leading to and including Amniota; and finally microsaurs leading to and including extant amphibians.

Figure 5. Basal tetrapods according to Marjanovic and Laurin 2016. Figures 6 and 7 lead to Amniota and Microsauria respectively.

Figure 6. Basal tetrapods according to Marjanovic and Laurin 2016. Figures 6 and 7 lead to Amniota and Microsauria respectively.

In the ML topology,
Ichthyostega, a taxon with a very large pectoral girdle, ribs, and pelvis, gives rise the the altogether smaller and more fish-like Acanthostega, which gives rise to members of the Whatcheeridae, tall-skulled Crassigyrinus and flat-skulled Osinodus. The traditional Colosteidae arise next. They have a variety of long shapes with short-legs. Oddly from this seemingly primitive clade arises small, short-torsoed, long-legged Eucritta followed by long torsoed, short-legged Proterogyrinus followed by a large clade of short-torsoed, long-legged taxa, including the >1m temnospondyls and the <30cm amphibamids.

Figure 7. CLICK TO ENLARGE. These are taxa listed on the Marjanovic and Laurin 2016 that lead to Reptilia (Amniota).

Figure 7. CLICK TO ENLARGE. These are taxa listed on the Marjanovic and Laurin 2016 that lead to Reptilia (Amniota).

In the ML tree
Gephyrostegus arises from the small temnospondyl, Balanerpeton, and and gives rise to Chroniosaurus, Solenodonsaurus, the Seymouriamorpha (including Utegenia) and the Diadectomorpha, nesting as the sister clade to the Amniota. Thus, no phylogenetic miniaturization was present at the origin of the Amniota in the ML tree. Moreover, dozens of taxa were not included here that nest at the base of the Amniota (Reptilia) in the LRT.  Basal amniotes in the ML tree are all Latest Carboniferous to Early Permian, while in the LRT basal amniotes arrived at least 40 million years earlier in the Visean (Early Carboniferous) and had radiated widely by the Late Carboniferous, as shown by the ML taxaon list. No amphibian-like reptiles made it to their Amniota.

FIgure 7. Microsauria according to Marjanovic and Laurin 2016. Here frogs and caecilians nest within the Microsauria.

FIgure 8. CLICK TO ENLARGE. Microsauria according to Marjanovic and Laurin 2016. Here frogs and caecilians nest within the Microsauria.

In the ML tree
the three microsaur clades (Fig. 5) arise from the Viséan taxon, Westlothiana (Fig. 8), which nests as a derived reptile when tested against more amniotes in the LRT. Utaherpeton is a basal microsaur in both trees, but it gives rise to the eel-like Acherontiscus and kin in the ML tree. Westlothiana further gives rise to Scincosaurus and kin, including the larger Diplocaulus. Thirdly, Westlothiana gives rise to lizard-like Tuditanus which gives rise to big-skulled Pantylus and tiny-limbed Microbrachis, shark-nosed Micraroter and Rhynchonkos. In both trees, Batropetes bucks the long-body, short-leg trend. In both trees Celtedens, representing the salamander-like albanerpetontids, gives rise to extant salamanders and frogs

So the possibilities are:

  1. Only one tree is completely correct
  2. Only one tree is mostly correct.
  3. Both trees have some correct and incorrect relationships

Problems

  1. Basal tetrapods tend to converge on several traits. For instance in the LRT, the palate is ‘open’ with narrow pterygoids in both temnospondyls and lepospondyls.
  2. Many small derived taxa lose and fuse skull bones
  3. Many taxa fuse vertebral bones as they evolve away from the notochord-based semi-encircling vertebrae of fish toward more complete vertebrae in which the neural spine, pleurocentrum and intercentrum tend to fuse, sometimes in convergent pattern, as widely recognized in basal reptiles and microsaurs.
  4. In basal tetrapods, fingers are not often preserved. So when four fingers appear their identity has to be ascertained. In the LRT mc5 and digit 5 are absent in Lepospondyls. In the LRT mc1 and digit 1 are absent in the temnospondyls. Five fingers and/or metacarpals are preserved in the few other non-amniote, basal tetrapods that preserve fingers (Proterogyrinus, Seymouria). The ML tree assumes that when four digits are present, they represent digits 1–4.

Ultimately
maximum parsimony and Occam’s Razor should rule unless strong evidence to the contrary is provided. After evidence is presented, it’s up to colleagues to accept or reject or ignore hypotheses.

References
Marjanovic D and Laurin M 2016. Reevaluation of the largest published morphological data matrix for phylogenetic analysis of Paleozoic limbed vertebrates. PeerJ. Not peer-reviewed. 356 pp.
Ruta M and Coates MI 2007
. Dates, nodes and character conflict: addressing the lissamphibian origin problem. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 5-69-122.

Continuing problems in vertebrate paleontology – part 1

A quick glance through various paleontology topics
on various Wikipedia pages reveals a rather long list of antiquated views that remain as false paradigms. These were falsified by testing in the large reptile tree. We’ll just bring up a few of these at a time while waiting for more interesting paleo-news to break.

  1. The first amniotes, referred to as “basal amniotes”, resembled small lizards and evolved from the amphibian reptiliomorphs about 312 million years ago. Move that back to 340 mya for phylogenetically widespread fossil evidence of basal amniotes and to 360 mya for their hypothetical origins.
  2. The first dichotomy within the Amniotes produced the clades Synapsida and Sauropsida. In the LRT several amniote clades precede the advent of the Synapsida. The last common ancestors of all amniotes are Silvanerpeton and Gephyrostegus bohemicus. The first dichotomy produced the new Lepidosauromorpha and the new Archosauromorpha. Synapsids nest deeply within the new Archosauromorpha.
  3. Diadectomorpha is a clade of large reptile-like amphibians. The LRT nests all diadectomorphs deep within the new Lepidosauromorpha. 
Figure 1. A new reconstruction of Gephyrostegus bohemicus. This species lived 30 million years after the origin of the Amniota in the Visean, 340 mya. Note the lack of posterior dorsal ribs. This trait shared by all basalmost amniotes, may provide additional space for massive eggs in gravid females, but is also shared with males, if there were males back then.

Figure 1. A new reconstruction of Gephyrostegus bohemicus, a late-surviving basalmost amniote. This species lived 30 million years after the other amniotes in the Visean, 340 mya. Note the lack of posterior dorsal ribs. This trait shared by all basalmost amniotes, may provide additional space for massive eggs in gravid females, but is known in all specimens.

And while we’re at it…
This comes courtesy of Ben Creisler at the DML TheSociety of Vertebrate Paleontology 2016 Meeting Program and Abstract Book is available here:

PLEASE NOTE! Content is embargoed until the actual presentation.
“Unless specified otherwise, coverage of abstracts presented orally at the Annual Meeting is strictly prohibited until the start time of the presentation, and coverage of poster presentations is prohibited until the relevant poster session opens for viewing.”
There is one abstract in there
that confirms something I discovered four years ago, which brings some satisfaction that it was discovered again.

Microsaurs in the Viséan and Middle Devonian footprints

Figure 1. Which came first? The tracks or the trackmakers? In this case the tracks came first, strong indications that the variety of Devonian trackmakers we have found were all commonplace in the Late Devonian. The variety of basal reptiles and microsaurs found in the Visean must also reflect a wide radiation of derived taxa, pointing to an earlier origin.

Figure 1. Which came first? The tracks or the trackmakers? In this case the tracks came first, strong indications that the variety of Devonian trackmakers we have found were all commonplace in the Late Devonian. The variety of basal reptiles and microsaurs found in the Visean must also reflect a wide radiation of derived taxa, pointing to an earlier origin.

The earliest known microsaur,
Kirktonecta milnerae (Clack 2011, UMZC 2002, Viséan, 330 mya), is not the basalmost microsaur, nor is it a basalmost lepospondyl, the parent clade. In the large reptile tree, Kirktonecta nests with Tuditanus, phylogenetically nesting much more recently than the Utegenia(Lepospondyl) /Silvanerpeton (stem-reptile) split.  That means what we have as taxa in the Visréan represents these taxa when they were commonplace, long after their origination and radiation.

On a related note,
the earliest known tetrapod trackways, the early Middle Devonian Zachelmie trackways, precede all known Devonian trackmakers in the Late Devonian. That means we no longer have to wait for the Late Devonian taxa to begin to evolve the earliest reptiles, but we can still use their morphologies. Now we can begin to evolve reptiles earlier, likely during the Tournasian, the first part of Romer’s Gap, a time for which there are (strangely) few to no fossils during the first 15 million years of the Carboniferous. This time succeeded a major extinction event, the Hangenberg event, in which most marine and freshwater groups became extinct or reduced, including the Ichthyostegalia. Evidently the places where these rare survivors were radiating are currently unknown in the fossil record. These survivors include basal temnospondyls and lepospondyls that also include basal microsaurs.

Fortunately,
the Ichthostegalia had already given rise to a wide range of stem-amphibians and stem-reptiles that ultimately produced all the post-Devonian tetrapods. Those Zachelmie trackways dated 10-18 million years earlier, give more time for reptilomorphs and reptiles to have their genesis and radiation. Post-extinction events traditionally produce new clades. So it appears to be with the genesis of the Reptilia (= Amniota).

The Early Devonian
is where we find Meemannia eos, an early ray-finned fish that was originally classified an early lobe-finned fish. So it didn’t take long after the origin of such fish to develop fingers and toes and move onto land.

This just in:
Recent work by Sallan and Galimberti 2015 showed that only small fish survived the Devonian / Carboniferous extinction event. Read more here. And a paper on Late Devonian catastrophes, impacts and glaciation here.

References
Clack JA 2011. A new microsaur from the early Carboniferous (Viséan) of East Kirkton, Scotland, showing soft tissue evidence. Special Papers in Palaeontology. 86:1–11.

Sallan L and Galimberti AK 2015. Body-size reduction in vertebrates following the end-Devonian mass extinction. Science, 2015; 350 (6262): 812 DOI: 10.1126/science.aac7373

Taxa closest to the human lineage in the LRT

The large reptile tree is capable of providing a list of taxa closest to the lineage of any included taxon. And it is updated all the time…

For instance,
in the lineage of humans (Homo sapiens) the following taxa are closest to that main line. Read this list with the understanding that taxa closest to the main line have often evolved traits that we infer (from phylogenetic bracketing) were not present in the actual hypothetical ancestor. The chance of finding the actual ancestors in the fossil record are vanishingly small, so we do the best we can with what specimens we have. Also note that the rare appearance of key fossils may be tens to hundreds of millions of years after their likely first appearance in this lineage. Thus the the chronological order may not match the phylogenetic order, but it does provide a ‘window’ to that first appearance.

  1. Ichthyostegabasal tetrapod  365 mya
  2. Pederpes 350 mya
  3. Proterogyrinus 322 mya
  4. Seymouria 275 mya
  5. Utegenia – also basal to frogs 300 mya
  6. Silvanerpetonproximal to the basalmost reptile 335 mya
  7. Gephyrostegus bohemicusbasalmost reptile/amniote 310 mya
  8. Eldeceeonbasalmost archosauromorph 335 mya
  9. Romeriscus 306 mya
  10. Solenodonsaurus also basal to chroniosuchids 290 mya
  11. Casineria – 335 mya
  12. Brouffia 310 mya
  13. Coelostegus  310 mya
  14. Protorothyris MCZ 1532 290 mya
  15. Protorothyris CM 8617 290 mya
  16. Protorothyris MCA 2149 290 mya
  17. Vaughnictis – last common ancestor of mammals and dinosaurs 290 mya
  18. Apsisaurus –  basalmost synapsid 295 mya
  19. Varanosaurus FMNH PR 1760 280 mya
  20. Varanosaurus BSPHM 1891 XV20 280 mya
  21. Archaeothyris 306 mya
  22. Ophiacodon 290 mya
  23. Haptodus – also basal to pelycosaurs 305 mya
  24. Stenocybus – also basal to anomodontids 295 mya
  25. Cutleria basalmost therapsid 295 mya
  26. Hipposaurusbasalmost kynodont 260 mya
  27. Ictidorhinus 260 mya
  28. Biarmosuchus 260 mya
  29. Eotitanosuchus 260 mya
  30. Lycosuchus 260 mya
  31. Procynosuchusbasalmost cynodont 250 mya
  32. Thrinaxodon 245 mya
  33. Probainognathus 230 mya
  34. Haldanodon 145 mya
  35. Liaoconodon 120 mya
  36. Pachygenelus 195 mya
  37. Sinoconodonbasalmost mammal, also basal to living monotremes 195 mya
  38. Megazostrodon 200 mya
  39. Juramaia 160 mya
  40. Cronopio 98 mya
  41. Didelphisbasalmost metatherian extant
  42. Thylacinus – basal to many living marsupials recently extinct
  43. Monodelphisbasalmost eutherian extant
  44. Eomaia 125 mya
  45. Nandinia – also basal to carnivores extant
  46. Ptilocercus – basalmost primate/dermpteran/bat extant
  47. Notharctus – also basal to lemurs 54 mya
  48. Aegyptopithecus* 33 mya
  49. Proconsulbasalmost anthropoid 18 mya
  50. Ardipithecus* basalmost hominid 5 mya
  51. Australopithecus* 3 mya
  52. Homo sapiens extant

* not yet listed in the LRT, but documented at ReptileEvolution.com

With the recent addition of certain stem mammals,
like Haldanodon and Liaconodon, this list expands upon and refines the list that first appeared in Peters 1991. Each of the names links to further information. There is also a video that includes most of these taxa here on YouTube.com.

References
Peters D 1991. From the Beginning, the Story of Human Evolution. online PDF.