Ichthyostega’s toes – evidence of regeneration?

Figue 1. The pes (foot) of Ichthyostega has 7 digits. Those five that most parsimoniously match related taxa are  listed. The vestigial digit between 2 and 3 may be the result of injury and rejuvenation.

Figue 1. The pes (foot) of Ichthyostega has 7 digits. Those five that most parsimoniously match related taxa are listed. The vestigial digit between 2 and 3 may be the result of injury and imperfect or unfinished regeneration.

You might remember
earlier the basal tetrapod Ichthyostega (Fig. 1) shifted its nesting closer to Proterogyrinus (Figs. 2, 3) and Eucritta (Fig. 4) at the base of the Reptilomorpha. One of the reasons for that shift was a reexamination of the pes of Ichthyostega, which has seven digits. Which digits are homologous with the five that are found in many other higher tetrapods?

Figure 2. Proterogyrinus pes according to Holmes.

Figure 2. Proterogyrinus pes according to Holmes.

Metatarsal and phalangeal proportions 
provide clues. If the above digit identities ares used, there is a pretty close match to related taxa. Acanthostega, for instance, has eight pedal digits with metatarsal 3 about twice as long as the more medial metatarsals. Distinct from Ichthyostega, Acanthostega has only one phalanx on digit 1 and only 2 phalanges on digit 2, but in keeping with the ‘one less’ phalangeal formula, digits 3–7 stop at 3 phalanges. In Ichthyostega digits 4 and 5 each add a phalanx, approaching the pattern seen in Proterogyrinus.

Figure 3. Proterogyrinus pedes in situ (black) and restored (blue).

Figure 3. Proterogyrinus pedes in situ (black) and restored (blue).

Holmes 1984
reconstructed the pes of Proterogyrinus (Fig. 2). If one takes the data from in situ drawings provided by Holmes (Fig. 3), reconstructions of both pedes can be created to check the accuracy of the Holmes reconstruction while removing any freehand bias.

Figure 4. Eucritta in situ and reconstructed. Note the large pes in green.

Figure 4. Eucritta in situ and reconstructed. Note the large pes in green.

The pes of the related Eucrtta also bears another look.
It is more difficult to reconstruct based on the taphonomic scattering of the elements. If you’ll notice the medial three digits of Eucritta each appear to have one less phalanx, as in Acanthostega.

 Which makes one wonder about Ichthyostega.
The vestigial digit between 2 and 3 in particular gives one pause. We know that salamanders can regrow their extremities. Based on the unusual apparent binding of pedal digits 1 and 2 in Ichthyostega, along with the vestige of a digit between 2 and 3, One may wonder if that unusual morphology is the result of an accident or injury with subsequent imperfect or unfinished regeneration. Another identical Ichthyostega pes would falsify this hypothesis.

References
Ahlberg PE, Clack JA and Blom H 2005. The axial skeleton of the Devonian trtrapod Ichthyostega. Nature 437(1): 137-140.
Clack JA 1998. A new Early Carboniferous tetrapod with a mélange of crown group characters. Nature 394: 66-69.
Clack JA 2007. Eucritta melanolimnetes from the Early Carboniferous of Scotland, a stem tetrapod showing a mosaic of characteristics. Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh 92:75-95.
Holmes R 1984. The Carboniferous Amphibian Proterogyrinus scheelei Romer, and the Early Evolution of Tetrapods. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 306: 431-524.
Jarvik E 1952. On the fish-like tail in the ichthyostegid stegocephalians. Meddelelser om Grønland 114: 1-90.
Jarvik E 1996. The Devonian tetrapod Ichthyostega. Fossils and Strata. 40:1-213.
Romer AS 1970. A new anthracosaurian labyrinthodont, Proterogyrinus scheelei, from the Lower Carboniferous. Kirtlandia 10:1-16.
Ruta M, Jeffery JE and Coates MI 2003. A supertree of early tetrapods. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B (2003) 270, 2507–2516 DOI 10.1098/rspb.2003.2524 online pdf
Säve-Söderbergh G 1932. Preliminary notes on Devonian stegocephalians from East Greenland. Meddelelser øm Grönland 94: 1-211.

wiki/Ichthyostega
wiki/Eucritta
wiki/Proterogyrinus

Stegops spikes?

Stegops divaricata (Cope 1885; AMNH 2559; 5.6 cm skull length; Westphalian, Late Carboniferous, 310 mya) is a basal tetrapod that has bounced around the family tree without settling down.

Moodie 1916 reported 
the skull of Stegops was small, oval and “the quadrate angles project into sharp horns.” One can presume Moodie meant the squamosal had horns, because that’s how he drew them (Fig. 1). The quadrates in this and related taxa are hidden beneath the cheek bones. He considered Stegops a microsaur.

Figure 1. Stegops does not have the squamosal spikes shown by Moodie 1916, but does have a deep squamosal roofed over by an extended cranium with long tabulars. And little spikes appear to be present on several temporal bones.

Figure 1. Stegops does not have the squamosal spikes shown by Moodie 1916, but does have a deep squamosal roofed over by an extended cranium with long tabulars. And little spikes appear to be present on several temporal bones. You’ll have to look hard to see them.

According to Wikipedia:
“Stegops is an extinct genus of euskelian temnospondyl from the Late Carboniferous of the eastern United States. Fossils are known from the Pennsylvanian coal deposits of Linton, Ohio. It was once classified in the eryopoid family Zatrachydidae because it and other zatrachydids have spikes extending from the margins of its skull, but it is now classified as a dissorophoid that independently evolved spikes.”

After Moodie 1916,
this taxon was largely ignored for decades until about ten years ago.

Then Milner and Schoch 2005 reported:
“The spiky-headed temnospondyl amphibian Stegops divaricata from the Middle Pennsylvanian coal of Linton, Ohio has remained neglected and enigmatic for several decades. It has been argued to be the ancestor of the Permian Zatrachydidae, also spiky-headed temnospondyls, although there are few resemblances other than the spikes. An examination of previously undescribed material of Stegops, along with a re-evaluation of the original specimens, permits a redescription and partial systematic assignment of it. All specimens have bony spikes on the tabular, quadratojugal and angular, but in apparent dimorphism, only some have squamosal and supratemporal spikes. A phylogenetic analysis of 52 characters in 15 temnospondyl taxa places Stegops within the dissorophoid clade but leaves its position uncertain within that clade. The Zatrachydidae, represented by Acanthostomatops, fall outside the Dissorophoidea, and the zatrachydid affinities of Stegops asserted by previous workers are based on homoplasious similarities in ornamentation. Internal relationships of the Dissorophoidea remain unresolved and Stegops shares conflicting similarities with Amphibamidae in some resolutions and with an Ecolsonia + Dissorophidae + Trematopidae clade in others.”

Figure 2. Dissorophus nests with Stegops among basal lepospondyls in the LRT.

Figure 2. Dissorophus nests with Stegops among basal lepospondyls in the LRT.

After phylogenetic analysis
Stegops nested with Dissorophus (Fig. 2) agreeing with Milner and Schoch. The new reconstruction bears little resemblance to the Moodie illustration (Fig. 1). The open palate with palatine exposure on the cheek, together with a deeply emarginated squamosal roofed over by large supratemporals and tabulars are traits uniting thiese taxa. In the large reptile tree (LRT) dissorphids nest with basal lepospondyls.

References
Milner AR and Schoch RR 2005. Stegops. A problematic spiky-headed temnospondyl
SVPCA Platform Presentation, (London)
Moodie RL 1909. Journal of Geology 17(1):79
Moodie RL 1916. The microsaurian family stegpidae. The coal measures amphibia of North America. Carnegie Institution of Washintion 238: 222pp.

wiki/Stegops

Diplovertebron and amphibian finger loss patterns

Diplovertebron punctatum (Fritsch 1879, Waton 1926; Moscovian, Westphalian, Late Carboniferous, 300 mya, Fig. 1) was considered an anthracosaur or reptile-like amphibian. That is confirmed by the large reptile tree (LRT, subset Fig. 2), where it nests with  Utegenia transitional between basal seymouriamorpha, like Kotlassia, and basal amphibians, like Balanerpeton (Fig. 3), yet close to the origin of stem reptiles, like Silvanerpeton. Based on the nesting of Tulerpeton in the LRT, Diplovertebron had origins in the Late Devonian.

Figure 1. Diplovertebron nests at the base of the lineage of amphibians, close to the base of the reptiles, all derived from seymouriamorphs. Note the retention of five fingers. Wish I had better data than this.

Figure 1. Diplovertebron nests at the base of the lineage of amphibians, close to the base of the reptiles, all derived from seymouriamorphs. Note the retention of five fingers. Wish I had better data than this.

In Diplovertebron,
the vertebral structure is primitive. The notochord persisted in adults. The ribs were long and slender as in basal taxa, not shortened as in lepospondyl amphibians. Five manual digits were preserved with a 2-3-3-3-4 formula, a formula similar to amphibians, not like reptiles (2-3-4-5-5). The ilium is bifurcate with a long posterior process. The pubis did not ossify, as in several basal tetrapods including Crassigyrinus and derived Amphibia. Small scutes covered the entire torso ventrally, as in basalmost tetrapods and basal reptiles.

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.

The presence of five manual digits
in Diplovertebron and 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.

Note the narrow frontals,
on Diplovertebron distinct from the wide frontals in Utegenia and Kotlassia, but more similar to those in Balanerpeton (Fig. 4), another basal amphibian, and Silvanerpeton, a stem reptile. Yet none have the hourglass shape found in Diplovertebron.

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

Little red flags for a Saharastega reconstruction

Updated April 17, 2017 with a removal of the nonexistent dorsal tusk holes in Nigerpeton. Thanks DM!

Saharastega moradiensis (Sidor et al., 2005; Late Permian; Fig. 1) is a large, flat-headed, temnospondyl basal tetrapod. According to the original reconstruction (Fig. 1) it is the only temnospondyl in the large reptile tree (LRT, now 962 taxa) in which the jugal has no posterior process and the quadratojugal contacts the postorbital. Those autapomorphies raised red flags that started the present investigation.

Figure 1. Saharastega fossil skull, tracing of fossil skull, freehand reconstruction, all by Sidor et al., followed by color tracing that finds nares at the dorsal rostrum, concave dorsal rostrum and posterior jugal separating the quadratojugal from the postorbital overlooked by Sidor et al.

Figure 1. Saharastega fossil skull, tracing of fossil skull, freehand reconstruction, all by Sidor et al., followed by color tracing that finds nares at the concave dorsal rostrum and posterior jugal separating the quadratojugal from the postorbital

Taking the Saharastega freehand reconstruction at face value
Saharastega was scored and it nested with the coeval Nigerpeton (Fig. 2) which has dorsal nares and anterior fang holes along with a concave rostral profile. These are traits not shared by Saharastega according to the freehand reconstruction (Fig. 1).

Going back to the fossil
and colorizing the bones of Saharastega reveals a skull more like that of Nigerpeton than the freehand reconstruction indicates. Fang holes are not presesent, according to those who have seen the fossil (see below), so they are removed here. Both share dorsal nares and a concave rostral profile, together with a jugal that separates the quadratojugal from the postorbital. Note the placement of the internal nares relative to the external nares in Nigerpeton (Fig. 2). That pattern is more or less shared by Saharastega (Fig. 1).

Figure 2. Nigerpeton nests with its contemporary, Saharastega (figure 1) and has dorsal nares and a concave rostrum.

Figure 2. Nigerpeton nests with its contemporary, Saharastega (figure 1) and has dorsal nares and a concave rostrum.

The two taxa, Nigerpeton and Saharastega,
are not congeneric, but they do appear to share more traits than the authors originally indicated. The crack across the rostrum in Saharastega somewhat obliterated the nares. Otherwise they would have not been overlooked.

References
Sidor CA, O’Keefe FR, Damiani R, Steyer JS, Smith RMH, Larsson HCE, Sereno PC, Ide O and Maga A 2005. Permian tetrapods from the Sahara show climate-controlled endemism in Pangaea. Nature. 434 (7035): 886–889. doi:10.1038/nature03393. PMID 15829962.
Damiani R, Sidor CA, Steyer JS. Smith RMH, Larsson HCE, Maga A and Ide O 2006. The vertebrate fauna of the Upper Permian of Niger. V. The primitive temnospondyl Saharastega moradiensis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 26 (3): 559–572. doi:
wiki/Saharastega

Tulerpeton becomes the last common ancestor of all Reptilia (=Amniota)

Yesterday we looked at the nesting of Tulerpeton (Lebedev 1984; Latest Devonian; PIN 2921/7) as a basal reptile, rather than 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 all reptiles (= amniotes). replacing Gephyrostegus bohemicus, the taxon that held that node in the large reptile tree (LRT) for the last six years.

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 bohemicus. 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.” They did not test Silvanerpeton, Gephyrostegus, Eldeceeon or Urumqia, which all now nest as proximal kin to Tulerpeton.

Autapomorphies
Manual digit 6 is present as a vestigeAn 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. Silvanerpeton and Gephyrostegus to the same scale. Each of the two frames takes five seconds. Novel traits are listed. This transition occurred in the early Viséan, over 340 mya. Gephyrostgeus is more robust and athletic with a larger capacity to carry and lay eggs.

Figure 3. Silvanerpeton and Gephyrostegus to the same scale. Each of the two frames takes five seconds. Novel traits are listed. These two give some idea about the size and shape of Tulerpeton.

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

Douzhanopterus: Not the pterosaur they think it is + overlooked wing membranes.

A new paper by Wang et al. 2017
describes a ‘transitional’ pterosaur (Figs. 1,4) that was purported to link long-tail basal pterosaurs to short-tail derived pterosaurs (Fig. 2).

Unforunately this pterosaur does not do that.
No one single pterosaur can do that (see below, Fig. 3). But the new pterosaur is a new genus with a set of unique traits that nests at the base of the Pterodactylus clade, the Pterodactylidae, not the base of the so-called ‘Pterodactyloidea.’

Figure 1. Douzhanopterus at top in situ compared to scale with related pterosaurs, including Jianchangopterus, Ningchengopterus and the Painten pterosaur, all at the base of the Pterodactylidae.

Figure 1. Douzhanopterus (Wang et al. 2017) at top in situ compared to scale with related pterosaurs, including Jianchangopterus, Ningchengopterus and the Painten pterosaur, all nesting at the base of the Pterodactylidae.

Douzhanopterus zhengi (Wang et al. 2017; STM 19–35A & B; Late Jurassic, Fig. 1) originally nested (Fig. 2) between the Wukongopterids (Wukongopterus, Darwinopterus, Kunpengopterus.) and the Painten pterosaur (Fig. 1) and the rest of the purported clade Pterodactyloidea, beginning with Pterodactylus antiquus. Unfortunately, this is an antiquated matrix based on Wang et al. 2009 modified from Andres et al. 2014 with additional taxa. Unfortunately it includes far too few additional taxa and it produces an illogical cladogram in which clade members recovered by the large pterosaur tree (LPT) become separated from one another.

Figure 2. Basal portion of a cladogram provided by Liu et al. but colorized here to show the division of clades recovered in the LPT.

Figure 2. Basal portion of a cladogram provided by Wang et al. but colorized here to show the division of clades recovered in the LPT. Note that dorygnathids are basal to all derived cyan taxa and Scaphognathids are basal to all derived amber taxa.

As readers of this blogpost know
there was not one origin to the ‘Pterodactyloidea” clade, there were four origins to the pterodactyloid grade: two out of two Dorygnathus specimens and two out of small Scaphognathus descendants (subset of the LPT, Fig. 3). Once again, taxon exclusion is the problem in Wang et al. 2017. Too few taxa were included and many key taxa were ignored.

Should we get excited about the length of the tail
or the retention of an elongate pedal digit 5? No. These are common traits widely known in sister taxa and too often overlooked by pterosaur workers.

I understand the difficulties here.
Wang et al. saw no skull (but see below!) and the rest of the small skeleton is rather plesiomorphic, except for those long shins (tibiae). Even so, plugging in traits to the LPT reveals that Douzhanopterus is indeed a unique genus.

Figure 3. Subset of the LPT focusing on Pterodactylus with Douzhanopterus at its base.

Figure 3. Subset of the LPT focusing on Pterodactylus with Douzhanopterus at its base. Many of these taxa were not included in the Wang et al. 2017 study, but not the proximity of the Painten pterosaur, similar to the Wang et al study.

Here Douzhanopterus nests
in the LPT as a larger sister to Jianchangopterus (Lü and Bo 2011; Middle Jurassic; Fig. 1) at the base of the Pterodactylidae. These are just those few taxa closest to the holotype Pterodactylus and includes the Painten pterosaur, as in the Wang et al. study. Here that pterosaur was likewise demoted from the base of the Pterodactyloidea to the base of the Pterodactylidae.

Figure 4. Douzhanopterus in situ, original drawing and color tracing showing the overlooked soft tissue membranes and skull. Click to enlarge.

Figure 4. Douzhanopterus in situ, original drawing and color tracing showing the overlooked soft tissue membranes and skull. Click to enlarge.

Wang et al. overlooked
the skull and soft tissue membranes (Fig. 4) that are readily seen in the published in situ photo image. Click here to enlarge the image. These shapes confirm earlier findings (Peters 2002) in which the wing membranes had a narrow chord + fuselage fillet and were stretched between the elbow and wingtip, not the knee or ankle and wingtip. The uropatagia were also had narrow chords and were separated from one another, not connected to the tail or to each other, contra traditional interpretations.

DGS
This is what Digital Graphic Segregation is good for. I have not seen the specimen firsthand yet I have been able to recover subtle data overlooked by firsthand observation. The headline for this specimen should have been about the wing membranes, not the erroneous phylogenetic placement.

References:
Andres B, Clark J and Xu X 2014. The earliest pterodactyloid and the origin of the group. Curr. Biol. 24, 1011–1016.
Lü J and Bo X 2011. A New Rhamphorhynchid Pterosaur (Pterosauria) from the Middle Jurassic Tiaojishan Formation of Western Liaoning, China. Acta Geologica Sinica 85(5): 977–983.
Peters D 2002.  A New Model for the Evolution of the Pterosaur Wing – with a twist.  Historical Biology 15: 277–301.
Wang X.Kellner AWA, Jiang S and  Meng X 2009. An unusual long-tailed pterosaur with elongated neck from western Liaoning of China. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 81, 793–812.
Wang et al. 2017. New evidence from China for the nature of the pterosaur evolutionary transition. Nature Scientific Reports 7, 42763; doi: 10.1038/srep42763

wiki/Jianchangopterus
wiki/Ningchengopterus
wiki/Douzhanopterus (not yet posted)

Eocaecilia and Brachydectes: old mistakes and new insights

Updated February 9, 13 and 17, 2017 with more taxa added to the LRT and revisions to the skull bone identification.

Further updated March 18, 2017 with new skull bone identities for Brachydectes

Earlier we looked at the long-bodied
basal tetrapod sisters, Eocaecilia (Fig. 1) and Brachydectes (Fig 2). Adding new closely related taxa, like Adelogyrinus (Fig. 3) to the large reptile tree (LRT, 945 taxa, Fig. 5) illuminates several prior mistakes in bone identification and moves the long-bodied Microbrachis (Fig. 4) to the base of the extant caecilian clade. Here are the corrected images.

Figure 1. Eocaecilia skull with original and new bone identifications based on comparisons to sister taxa listed here. Like Brachydectes, the jaw joint has moved forward, beneath the jugal now fused to the quadratojugal creating a long retroarticular process, otherwise rare in amphibians. Also rare is the fusion of the squamosal with the postorbital.

Figure 1. Eocaecilia skull with original and new bone identifications based on comparisons to sister taxa listed here. Like Brachydectes, the jaw joint has moved forward, beneath the jugal now fused to the quadratojugal creating a long retroarticular process, otherwise rare in amphibians. Also rare is the fusion of the squamosal with the postorbital.

Eocaecilia micropodia
(Jenkins and Walsh 1993; Early Jurassic ~190 mya, ~8 cm in length) was derived from a sister to Adelospondylus and phylogenetically preceded modern caecilians. Originally the supratemporal was tentatively labeled a tabular and the postorbital was originally labeled a squamosal. The lacrimal and maxilla are coosified as are the ectopterygoid and palatine. The squamosal and quadratojugal are absent.

Unlike Eocaecilia,
extant caecilians do not have limbs. The tail is short or absent. The eyes are reduced and the skin has annular rings. More skull bones fuse together. A pair of tentacles between the eye and nostril appear to be used for chemical sensations (smelling). Some caecilians grow to 1.5 m in length.

Figure 2. The skull of Brachydectes revised. Like Eocaecilia, the squamosal and quadratojugal are missing.

Figure 2. The skull of Brachydectes revised. Like Eocaecilia, the squamosal and quadratojugal are missing.

Brachydectes newberryi
(Wellstead 1991; Latest Carboniferous) Similar in body length to EocaeceliaBrachydectes (Carboniferous, 43 cm long) was a lysorophian amphibian with a very small skull and vestigial limbs. The skull has a large orbit. Like its current sister, Eocaecilia (Fig. 1), Brachydectes lacked a squamosall and quadratojugal. The mandible was shorter than the skull. Brachydectes had up to 99 presacral vertebrae. Earlier I made the mistake of thinking this was a burrowing animal with tiny eyes close to the lacrimal. As in unrelated baphetids, the orbit is much larger in Brachydectes than the eyeball, even when the eyeball is enlarged as shown above.

Figure 3. Adelogyrinus skull. This less derived taxa provides clues to the identification of the bones in the skulls of Eocaecili and Brachydectes.

Figure 3. Adelogyrinus skull. This less derived taxa provides clues to the identification of the bones in the skulls of Eocaecili and Brachydectes.

Adelogyrinus simorhynchus
(Watson 1929; Viséan, Early Carboniferous, 340 mya) had a shorter, fish-like snout and longer cranium. Note the loss of the otic notch and the posterior displacement of the tiny postorbital.

Dolichopareias disjectus 
(Watson 1929; 1889, 101, 17 Royal Scottish Museum) helps one understand the fusion patterns in Adelospondylus and Adelogyrinus (Fig. 3).

Figure 4. Microbrachis slightly revised with a new indented supratemporal here rotated to the lateral side of the skull above the squamosal and quadratojugal. Otherwise this image is from Carroll, who did not indent the supratemporal.

Figure 4. Microbrachis slightly revised with a new indented supratemporal here rotated to the lateral side of the skull above the squamosal and quadratojugal. Otherwise this image is from Carroll, who did not indent the supratemporal.

Figure 5. Microbrachis skull in several views. Note the freehand reconstruction offered by Vallin and Laurin 2008 (ghosted beneath) does not match the shapes traced from the in situ drawing also presented by them. This is the source of the supratemporal indent in figure 4.

Figure 5. Microbrachis skull in several views. Note the freehand reconstruction offered by Vallin and Laurin 2008 (ghosted beneath) does not match the shapes traced from the in situ drawing also presented by them. This is the source of the supratemporal indent in figure 4.

Microbrachis
(Fritsch 1875) Middle Pennsylvanian, Late Carboniferous ~300 mya, ~15 cm in length, is THE holotype microsaur, which makes all of its descendants microsaurs. So extant caecilians are microsaurs, another clade that is no longer extinct.

Figure 6. Subset of the large reptile tree focusing on basal tetrapods, updated with Gerrothorax.Figure 6. Subset of the large reptile tree focusing on basal tetrapods, updated with Gerrothorax.

Figure 6. Subset of the large reptile tree focusing on basal tetrapods, updated with Gerrothorax.

Thank you for your patience
to those awaiting replies to their comments. It took awhile to clean up this portion of the LRT with reference to better data and new sisters. I should be able to attend to those comments shortly.

References
Brough MC and Brough J 1967. Studies on early tetrapods. II.  Microbrachis, the type microsaur. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 252B:107-165.
Carroll RL 1967. An Adelogyrinid Lepospondyl Amphibian from the Upper Carboniferous: Canadian Journal of Zoology 45(1):1-16.
Carroll RL and Gaskill P 1978. The order Microsauria. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 211 pp.
Fritsch A 1875. Fauna der Gaskohle des Pilsener und Rakonitzer Beckens. Sitzungsberichte der königliche böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Prag. Jahrgang 70–79.
Jenkins FA and Walsh M 1993. An Early Jurassic caecilian with limbs. Nature 365: 246–250.
Jenkins FA, Walsh DM and Carroll RL 2007. Anatomy of Eocaecilia micropodia, a limbed caecilian of the Early Jurassic. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 158(6): 285-366.
Vallin G and Laurin M 2004. Cranial morphology and affinities of Microbrachis, and a reappraisal of the phylogeny and lifestyle of the first amphibians. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology: Vol. 24 (1): 56-72 online pdf
Watson DMS 1929. The Carboniferous Amphibia of Scotland. Palaeontologia Hungarica 1:223-252
Wellstead C F 1991
. Taxonomic revision of the Lysorophia, Permo-Carboniferous lepospondyl amphibians. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 209: 1–90.

wiki/Adelospondylus
wiki/Adelogyrinus
wiki/Dolichopareias
wiki/Eocaecilia
wiki/Brachydectes
wiki/Microbrachis