Origin of turtle body plan: Schoch and Sues 2019

Schoch and Sues 2019 once again bring us
their invalidated scenario for the origin of turtles (= Odontochelys and Proganochelys) from traditional ancestors Pappochelys, Eunotosaurus and Eorhynochelys (Fig. 1, bottom) that nest elsewhere in the large reptile tree (LRT, 1612+ taxa; subset Fig. 5), which tests these taxa AND pertinent taxa that Schoch and Sues ignore.

Figure 1. Competing turtle origin hypotheses. Bottom: from Schoch and Sues 2019. Top: From the LRT, which tests all taxa from Schoch and Sues, then adds over 1000 more.

Figure 1. Competing turtle origin hypotheses. Bottom: from Schoch and Sues 2019. Top: From the LRT, which tests all taxa from Schoch and Sues, then adds over 1000 more. On the top left are soft-shell turtles and in. On the top right are hardshell turtles and kin. Note the longer tails n club-tailed taxa ignored by Schoch and Sues. Note the use of freehand drawings, which allows bias to creep in and draws us further from the raw data.

Unfortunately,
Schoch and Sues 2019 do not examine and describe the actual ancestors of turtles recovered by the LRT, Stephanospondylus, Bunostegos, Elginia and Sclerosaurus. And because of this they do they do not realize that turtles had a dual ancestry within small, horned pareiasaurs (Fig. 1). Instead, Schoch and Sues cherry-picked their taxa and made up a ‘just-so’ story.

Schoch and Sues are not aware of ‘The Big Picture’
that the first dichotomy splitting all reptiles is the Lepidosauromorpha / Archosauromorpha split. Instead they rely on traditional tree topologies (many of them invalid genomic studies) that do not go back to the origin of reptiles and do not include pertinent taxa. Uncritically they rely on the flawed work of others.

Schoch and Sues do not realize
how rampant convergence is within the Tetrapoda, including the Reptilia. They do not realize that only a wide gamut phylogenetic analysis that recovers a well-resolved tree can correctly nest taxa. Instead they ‘pull a Larry Martin’ and hope the traits and taxa they pick are correct. They are not correct based on testing a wider gamut of taxa in the LRT.

The LRT tells a better ‘just-so’ story
because it does not omit key taxa. And it nests the ancestors hanbd-picked by Schoch and Sues far from turtles on the LRT.

When Pappochelys was added to the LRT,
(Fig. 2) it nested at the base of the Placodontia along with Palatodonta, between Diandongosaurus and Palacrodon and the rest of the placodonts, some of which also had broad ribs and gastralia, all far from turtles. Some placodonts even became turtle mimics.

Figure 6. Pappochelys compared to placodont sister taxa and compared to the Schock and Sues reconstruction, which appears to have several scale bar errors and underestimated the number of dorsal vertebrae. Click to enlarge. So few ribs and vertebrae are known for Pappochelys that their order, size and number could vary from that shown here. Note the ribs of Paraplacodus are also expanded. The number of dorsal vertebrae is unknown and probably more than nine based on sister taxa.

Figure 2. Pappochelys compared to placodont sister taxa and compared to the Schock and Sues reconstruction, which appears to have several scale bar errors and underestimated the number of dorsal vertebrae. Click to enlarge. So few ribs and vertebrae are known for Pappochelys that their order, size and number could vary from that shown here. Note the ribs of Paraplacodus are also expanded. The number of dorsal vertebrae is unknown and probably more than nine based on sister taxa.

Shoch and Sues 2019
discuss several hypotheses from a hundred years ago or more. They report, “Goodrich (1916) already considered it likely that the absence of temporal openings in turtles represented a secondary condition. His hypothesis has received strong support from the discovery of the Middle Triassic stem-turtle Pappochelys, which has two clearly defined temporal openingson either side of the cranium (Schoch & Sues 2015, 2018).” Seems to fit their scenario, so why not? Testing other candidates (Fig. 1) was apparently never considered.

Not sure why Schoch and Sues keep pursuing this myth.
This is John Ostrom’s lament. Paleontology has always moved at a snail’s pace. Why? Perhaps because workers avoid testing previously published papers and cladograms. It’s not that much work. All they have to do is add taxa, like I do, and the software does the rest.

When the turtle mimics,
Eunotosaurus (Fig. 6) and Eorhinchochelys (Fig. 7), were added to the LRT, they nested together, but with Acleistorhinus and Microleter, taxa also omitted from Schoch and Sues 2019.

Figure 2. Shoch and Sues compared Pappochelys to Odontochelys and Proganochelys, but deleted the more primitive Eunotosaurus. And it's easy to see why. Eunotosaurus has wider ribs than its two purported successors. That and the LRT tell you its not a turtle, but a turtle mimic. Note the inaccuracy Schoch and Sues applied to their Odontochelys. The version from ReptileEvolution.com appears in frame 2 of this GIF animation.

Figure 3. Shoch and Sues compared Pappochelys to Odontochelys and Proganochelys, but deleted the more primitive Eunotosaurus. And it’s easy to see why. Eunotosaurus has wider ribs than its two purported successors. That and the LRT tell you its not a turtle, but a turtle mimic. Note the inaccuracy Schoch and Sues applied to their Odontochelys. The version from ReptileEvolution.com appears in frame 2 of this GIF animation.

Figure 2. Eorhynchochelys in situ alongside manus, pes, pectoral and pelvic girdle, plus Eunotosaurus to scale. By convergence Eorhynchochelys resembles Cotylorhychus.

Figure 4. Eorhynchochelys in situ alongside manus, pes, pectoral and pelvic girdle, plus Eunotosaurus to scale. By convergence Eorhynchochelys resembles Cotylorhychus.

Details:
Schoch and Sues 2019 report, “Specifically, we consider four interconnected issues:

  1. what are the closest relatives of turtles among extant reptiles: lepidosaurs (squamates and rhynchocephalians) or archosaurs (crocodylians and birds);
  2. what are the closest relatives of turtles among extinct amniotes;
  3. how does the bony shell develop in extant turtles; and
  4. how did the bony shell evolve in stem-turtles.

Unfortunately
Schoch and Sues do little first hand testing, they rely on genomics and, worst of all, omit taxa that are key to understanding turtle origins (Fig. 8).

Figure 5. Subset of the LRT focusing on turtle origins and unrelated eunotosaurs.

Figure 5. Subset of the LRT focusing on turtle origins and unrelated eunotosaurs. Pappochelys nests on a completely different branch of the Reptilia, the Archosauromorpha, close to the base of the Enaliosauria.

Ironic (= by convergence)
that I the updated turtle video came out a few days ago. Here it is again.

I still find it wondrous
that soft-shell turtles and hard-shell turtles evolved so many trait in parallel with roots among the small horned pareiasaurs. It’s all so obvious once you get them together.


References
Schoch RR and Sues H-D 2015. A new stem-turtle from the Middle Triassic of Germany and the evolution of the turtle body plan. Nature, 523: 584–587.
Schoch RR and Sues H-D 2018. Osteology of the stem-turtle Pappochelys rosin and the early evolution of the turtle skeleton. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 16: 927–965.
Schoch RR and Sues H-D 2019. The origin of the turtle body plan: evidence from fossils and embryos. Palaeontology 2019:1–19.

Read the ResearchGate.net paper on the dual origin of turtles here.

Updated Origin of Turtles video on YouTube

This update
to the original Origin of Turtles YouTube video documents the dual origin of turtles (PDF avaialble on Resarchgate.net) that was not covered in the earlier video, now deleted. This hypothesis was recovered from the large reptile tree (LRT) which now tests 1612 taxa (subset Fig. 2). Other that the turtles themselves, the rest of the included taxa (from birds to fish) are all competing to be the closest outgroup(s) to the turtles. All other candidate taxa, like Eunotosaurus and Pappochelys, are tested in the LRT and featured in the video.

This is a seven-minute video
unfortunately with another eleven minutes of black soundless screen tacked on at the end. Not sure how that happened, but there you are. I would have attempted a repair, but YouTube does not permit identical or near identical videos to be uploaded.

If you want to learn more
about the dual origin of turtles by reading an academic paper on the subject, click this link to ResearchGate.net.

Figure 3. Subset of the large reptile tree (LRT, 1199 taxa) with the addition of three basal turtles

Figure 2. Subset of the large reptile tree (LRT, 1612 taxa) focusing on basal turtles

Abstract from The Dual Origin of Turtles from Pareiasaurs
“The origin of turtles (traditional clade: Testudines) has been a vexing problem in paleontology. New light was shed with the description of Odontochelys, a transitional specimen with a plastron and teeth, but no carapace. Recent studies nested Owenetta (Late Permian), Eunotosaurus (Middle Permian) and Pappochelys (Middle Triassic) as turtle ancestors with teeth, but without a carapace or plastron. A wider gamut phylogenetic analysis of tetrapods nests Owenetta, Eunotosaurus and Pappochelys far from turtles and far apart from each other. Here dual turtle clades arise from a clade of stem turtle pareiasaurs. Bunostegos (Late Permian) and Elginia (Late Permian) give rise to dome/hard-shell turtles with late-surviving Niolamia (Eocene) at that base, inheriting its Baroque horned skull from Elginia. In parallel, Sclerosaurus (Middle Triassic) and Arganaceras (Late Permian) give rise to flat/soft-shell turtles with Odontochelys (Late Triassic) at that base. In all prior phylogenetic analyses taxon exclusion obscured these relationships. The present study also exposes a long-standing error. The traditional squamosal in turtles is here identified as the supratemporal. The actual squamosal remains anterior to the quadrate in all turtles, whether fused to the quadratojugal or not.”

SVP abstracts – Are meiolaniform turtles stem turtles?

Kear et al. 2019 talk about
‘stem’ turtles with skull horns and club tails: the meiolaniforms.

From the abstract:
“Meiolaniforms (Meiolaniformes) are an enigmatic radiation of stem turtles with an exceptionally protracted 100 million-year evolutionary record that spans the mid-Cretaceous (Aptian–Albian) to Holocene. Their fossils have been documented for over 130 years, with the most famous examples being the derived Australasian and southern South American meiolaniids – bizarre horned turtles with massive domed shells and tail clubs that are thought to have been terrestrial and probably herbivorous.”

In the large reptile tree (LRT, 1592 taxa, subset Fig. 2) meiolaniforms (Fig. 1) are not enigmatic. They are basalmost hard-shell turtles derived from similarly-horned Elginia-type small pareiasaurs in parallel with Sclerosaurus-type small pareiasaurs basal to soft-shell turtles.

Figure 2. Another gap is filled by nesting E. wuyongae between Bunostegos and Elginia at the base of hard shell turtles in the LRT.

Figure 2. Another gap is filled by nesting E. wuyongae between Bunostegos and Elginia at the base of hard shell turtles in the LRT.

“Despite a long history of research, the phylogenetic affinities of meiolaniids have proven contentious because of ambiguous character state interpretations and incomplete fossils
representing the most ancient Cretaceous meiolaniform taxa.”

This problem is contentious only because of taxon exclusion. Prior workers have not included analyses of meiolaniforms and Elginia.

“Here, we therefore report the significant discovery of the stratigraphically oldest demonstrable meiolaniform remains, which were excavated from Hauterivian–Barremian high-paleolatitude (around 80°S) deposits of the Eumeralla Formation in Victoria, southeastern Australia. Synchrotron microtomographic imaging of multiple virtually complete skulls and shells provides a wealth of new data, which we combine with the most comprehensive meiolaniform dataset and Bayesian tip-dating to elucidate relationships, divergence timing and paleoecological diversity.”

Did the authors include Elginia, Sclerosaurus, Arganceras and Bunostegos? The abstract does not mention them.

“Our results reveal that meiolaniforms emerged as a discrete Austral Gondwanan lineage,
and basally branching sister group of crown turtles (Testudines) during the Jurassic.”

The LRT invalidated a monophyletic Testudines. Rather soft-shell and hard-shell turtles had separate parallel origins from within the small horned pareisaurs.

Figure 5. Subset of the LRT focusing on turtle origins and unrelated eunotosaurs.

Figure 5. Subset of the LRT focusing on turtle origins and unrelated eunotosaurs.

“We additionally recover a novel dichotomy within Meiolaniformes, which split into a unique Early Cretaceous trans-polar radiation incorporating apparently aquatic forms with flattened shells and vascularized bone microstructure, versus the larger-bodied terrestrial meiolaniids that persisted as Paleogene–Neogene relic species isolated in Patagonia and Australasia.”

That’s interesting. The LRT sort of separates the meiolaniform Niolama from the meiolaniform Meiolania + Proterochersis + Proganochelys. The latter taxon also has a club tail. Perhaps more meiolanforms would continue to nest with one or the other.

“Finally, our analyses resolve the paraphyletic stem of crown Testudines, which otherwise includes endemic clades of Jurassic–Cretaceous turtles distributed across the northern Laurasian landmasses. These had diverged from the Southern Hemisphere meiolaniforms by at least the Middle Jurassic, and thus parallel the vicariant biogeography of crown turtles, which likewise diversified globally in response to continental fragmentation and possibly climate.”

Outgroups are key to understanding turtle evolution in the LRT. So is taxon inclusion. Based on the dual origin of turtles from horned small pareiasaurs in the LRT, the list of stem turtles now includes pareiasaurs, if the concept of a monophyletic turtle still stands with a last common ancestor lacking a carapace and plastron within the pareiasaurs.


References
Kear BP et al. 2019. Cretaceous polar meiolaniform resolves stem turtle relationships. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology abstracts.

Evolution of Sea Turtles video has no idea where turtles came from

 A new Ben Thomas video brings us old and invalid view on turtle origins.

I wrote in the comments section:
“Several traditional, but invalid hypotheses in this video. The ability to pull the head inside the shell, whether sideways or straight back is a highly derived character in the hardshell turtle lineage. Sea turtles and their ancestors never could do this. They branched off earlier. Only some soft shell turtles, like the Asian giant soft-shell turtle (Pelochelys) manage to pull half the skull inside a huge mass of scaly flesh by convergence. Eorhynchochelys is a giant eunotosaur. Both are derived from Acleistorhinus not close to turtles. Pappochelys is a basal sauropterygian, again not close to turtles. Sorry, Ben. Eunotosaurus details here:” http://www.reptileevolution.com/eunotosaurus.htm

“Hard shell and soft shell turtles had dual and parallel origins from the small, horned pareiasaurs Elginia and Sclerosaurus. We know turtle origins back to Silurian jawless fish. Cladogram of relationships that tests all published turtle origin candidates here: http://www.reptileevolution.com/reptile-tree.htm

No longer an enigma: Kudnu mackinlayi

I live for discoveries like this one,
which started as a Facebook post of the tiny specimen. This is what the LRT (Fig. 3) was built for.

Benton 1985 wrote:
“Bartholomai (1979) has described Kudnu [QMF8181], a partial snout from the early Triassic of Australia, as a paliguanid. The exact relationships of these forms to each other, and to other early ‘lizard-like’ forms are unclear (Carroll, 1975a, b, 1977; Currie, 1981c: 163-164; Estes, 1983: 12-15). Indeed, the group cannot be defined by any apomorphy, and the genera must be considered separately. As far as can be determined, all of these genera are lepidosauromorphs. Kudnu lacks the lepidosaur character X4 and the squamate character Y 1, but none of the others may be determined. Blomosaurus and Kudnu are classified here as Lepidosauromorpha, incertae sedis.”

Figure 1. Kudnu colorized using DGS and slight restored postcranially, shown 10x natural size at a 72 dpi standard screen resolution. Here's a taxon basal to Stephanospondylus, pareiasaurs and turtles. Prior workers excluded Stephanospondylus from their studies.

Figure 1. Kudnu colorized using DGS and slight restored postcranially, shown 10x natural size at a 72 dpi standard screen resolution. Here’s a taxon basal to Stephanospondylus, pareiasaurs and turtles. Prior workers excluded Stephanospondylus from their studies.

Contrad 2008 wrote:
“Other authors have followed this opinion and have described new ‘‘paliguanids’’, including Blomosaurus (Tatarinov, 1978) and Kudnu (Bartholomai, 1979). Even so, ‘‘Paliguanidae’’is widely regarded as a paraphyletic taxon and, unfortunately, the preservation of specimens constituting the known ‘‘paliguanid’’ genera (including Paliguana, Palaeagama, and Saurosternon) makes it impossible to characterize them except through plesiomorphy (Benton, 1985; Gauthier et al., 1988a; Rieppel, 1994). Thus, their position within Lepidosauromorpha is currently impossible to ascertain with any kind of precision.”

Evans and Jones 2010 wrote:
Kudnu (Australia, Bartholomai, 1979) and Blomosaurus (Russia, Tatarinov, 1978) are too poorly preserved to interpret with confidence but are probably also procolophonian.”

Figure 1. Click to enlarge. Stephanospondylus was considered a type of diadectid, but it nests with turtles and pareiasaurs, all derived from millerettids.

Figure 2.  Stephanospondylus was considered a type of diadectid, but it nests with turtles and pareiasaurs, all derived from millerettids,.. next to diadectids.

All that being said,
what does the LRT recover? In the large reptile tree (LRT, 1583 taxa, subset Fig. 3) Kudnu nests basal to Stephanospondylus (Fig. 2), a late survivor from deep in the lineage of pareiasaurs + turtles, not far from bolosaurids + diadectids + procolophonids. These clades are derived from Milleretta (Fig. 2) which was  2 to 3x larger.

Due to its small size,
Kudnu
can be considered phylogenetically miniaturized, the kind of taxon we often find at the base of many major reptile clades.

Sadly, earlier workers (see above)
were looking at the wrong candidates for sister taxa, excluding the right taxa. This is a problem that is minimized by the LRT due to its large number of taxa over a wide gamut.

Figure 1. Carbonodraco enters the LRT alongside another recent addition, Kudnu, at the base of the pareiasaurs + turtles.

Figure 2. Carbonodraco enters the LRT alongside another recent addition, Kudnu, at the base of the pareiasaurs + turtles.Figure 1. Carbonodraco enters the LRT alongside another recent addition, Kudnu, at the base of the pareiasaurs + turtles.

Once again,
you don’t need to see the fossil firsthand in a case like this. What you need is a wide gamut phylogenetic analysis like the LRT, to figure out how an enigma like Kudnu  nests with other reptiles.

If
Kudnu was earlier associated with Stephanospondylus, let me know and I will publish the citation. Otherwise, this is a novel hypothesis of interrelationships that inserts Kudnu without disturbing the rest of the LRT tree topology.


References
Bartholomai A 1979. New lizard-like reptiles from the Early Triassic of Queensland. Alcheringa: An Australasian Journal of Palaeontology 3:225–234.
Benton MJ 1985. Classification and phylogeny of the diapsid reptiles. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 84:97–164.
Conrad JL 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology.  Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 310: 182pp.
Evans SE and Jones MEH 2010. Chapter 2 The Origin, Early History and Diversification of Lepidosauromorph Reptiles in Bandyopadhyay S (ed.), New Aspects of Mesozoic Biodiversity, Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences 132, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-10311-7_2 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Did the turtle nuchal evolve from cleithra?

Lyson et al.  2013
propose a homology of the turtle nuchal (central anterior roof-like bone of the carapace) with the primitive cleithra (singular: cleithrum, slender, stem-like bone anterior to the scapula). In order to do so, they produced a set of turtle ancestors (or engineering models) that is not validated by the large reptile tree (LRT, 1395 taxa).

Frogs, lepidosaurs, diadectids and para-caseasaurs,
according to Lyson et al., model the ancestry of turtle shoulders and shells (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. On the left, from Lyson et al. 2013 with graphics added. On the right taxa basal to turtles according to the LRT.

Figure 1. On the left, from Lyson et al. 2013 with graphics added. On the right taxa basal to turtles according to the LRT. The right sequence documents a more gradual accumulation of traits. Even so, the gap between Bunostegos and Meiolania includes the complete development of the carapace and plastron… but almost everything else was present. A skull-only taxon, Elginia, nests between the two.

By contrast,
in the LRT Milleretta, is basal to Stephanospondylus, which is basal to diadectids on one branch and pareiasaurs, like Bunostegos, and the basal turtle Meiolania, on the other, documenting a more gradual accumulation of traits without introducing frogs and lepidosaurs. In the LRT, the gap between Bunostegos and Meiolania includes the unchronicled development of the carapace and plastron. Given that issue, almost everything else was present in the skeleton. A skull-only taxon, Elginia (not shown in Fig. 1), nests between the two. There is an online paper on turtle ancestors here.

Taxon exclusion is once again the problem.
Since Lyson et al. used inappropriate and unrelated taxa to demonstrate their hypothesis, it was invalid from the get-go. To my knowledge (let me know if I am wrong):

  1. No one recently suggested that frogs, like Rana, are basal to turtles.
  2. No one recently suggested that Diadectes is basal to turtles.
  3. No one recently suggested that Sphenodon is basal to turtles.
  4. Several authors (many from the Lyson et al. list) have suggested that Eunotosaurus was basal to turtles, but they did not test the above-listed LRT competing candidates when they published.

From Wikipedia Diadectidae
“Paleontologist E.C. Case compared diadectids to turtles in 1907, noting their large pectoral girdles, short, strong limbs, and robust skulls. Case described them as “lowly, sluggish, inoffensive herbivorous reptiles, clad in an armor of plate to protect them from the fiercely carnivorous pelycosaurs.”

The better method
for figuring out anything about turtles is to employ the valid ancestors of turtles, validated by testing against all other published candidates. I know, from testing, that all other candidates, like Eunotosaurus, nest far from turtles.

Getting back to our headline
and the title of the Lyson et al. paper, the genesis of the turtle carapace in hard-shell turtles is not preserved in the fossil record at present. Even so, the rarely preserved cleithrum gives little to no indication that it evolved into an anterior carapace bone… at present. Some day it may.

Lyson et al. note:
“unlike the other midline carapacial elements, the nuchal develops from paired mesenchymal condensations each of which contains a separate ossification center… first observed by Vallén (1942) and led him to conclude the nuchal was homologous with the supracleithra.”

The supracleithrum
by definition, “is a bone of the pectoral girdle situated dorsal to the cleithrum in some fishes and amphibians.”  That definition does not include reptiles.

If we look for a pre-nuchal in pareiasaurs
it is easy to find parasagittal osteoderms (Fig 2). Lyson et al. do not mention the word ‘pareiasaur’ in their paper.

Figure 2. The pareiasaur, Deltavjatia, with osteoderms in orange. Note the anterior set is simple and paired.

Figure 2. The pareiasaur, Deltavjatia, with osteoderms in orange. Note the anterior set is simple and paired, as hoped for by Lyson et al. but not found, except in turtle embryos, by Lyson et al.

Taxon exclusion can ruin a paper.
You can talk about thousands of characters for Eunotosaurus, but if you don’t include one pareiasaur, you’ll in the wrong ballpark on game day. Deltavjatia (Fig. 2) does not preserve a cleithrum. Rather, given its close, but not direct relation to turtles, the turtle nuchal likely arises from the osteoderms that are in place in Deltavjatia. They are the right size, in the correct orientation, and used for the same reason. So the nuchal probably arose from the foremost osteoderms on the torso, while those on the neck became neck armor. Remember, early turtles could not withdraw their neck.

It’s probably worthwhile to remind you of other body parts
that evolve in the ancestry of turtles until they become turtle traits at this time.

Figure 6. Turtle pelvis evolution. Here are the changes in the pelvis of pre-turtles and basal hard-shelled turtles.

Figure 3. Turtle pelvis evolution. Here are the changes in the pelvis of pre-turtles and basal hard-shelled turtles.

Take the turtle pelvis, for instance.
Similar precursors can be seen in stem turtle pareiasaurs (Fig. 3). And the skull is interesting. Workers have discussed Elginia with pareiasaurs and Meiolania with turtles, but never Meiolania with pareiasaurs or Elginia with turtles. That you heard here first in a three-part series five years ago.

Figure 2. Hard shell turtle evolution featuring Bunostegos, Elgenia, Meiolania and Proganochelys - NOT to scale.

Figure 4. Hard shell turtle evolution featuring the skulls of  Bunostegos, Elgenia, Meiolania and Proganochelys – NOT to scale. Note the long list of shared traits, longer than in any competing candidate.

If you know one of the seven authors
of Lyson et al. 2013, please make sure they become aware of this critique. A few of them are among those who rejected the submitted manuscript on the origin of turtles. Evidently they prefer the invalid status quo rather than this novel hypothesis for turtle origins.

References
Case EC 1907. Restoration of Diadectes. The Journal of Geology. 15 (6): 556–559.
Lyson TR, Bhullar B-AS, Bever GS, Joyce WG, de Queiroz K, Abzhanov A and Gauthier JA 2013. Homology of the enigmatic nuchal bone reveals novel reorganization of the shoulder girdle in the evolution of the turtle shell. Evolution & Development 15(5):317–325. DOI: 10.1111/ede.12041
Vallén E 1942. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Ontogenie und der vergleichenden. Anatomie des Schildkrötenpanzers. Acta Zool. Stockholm 23: 1–127.

Resurrecting extinct taxa: Pareiasauria, Compsognathidae and Ophiacodontidae

Earlier we looked at
four clades thought to be extinct, but are not extinct based on their nesting in the large reptile tree (LRT, 1366 taxa). Today, three more:

Figure 2. Another gap is filled by nesting E. wuyongae between Bunostegos and Elginia at the base of hard shell turtles in the LRT.

Figure 1. Another gap is filled by nesting E. wuyongae between Bunostegos and Elginia at the base of hard shell turtles in the LRT.

Pareiasauria
According to Wikipedia, “Pareiasaurs (meaning “cheek lizards”) are an extinct group of anapsid reptiles classified in the family Pareiasauridae. They were large herbivores that flourished during the Permian period.”

In the LRT two clades of turtles (Fig. 1) are derived in parallel from two small horned pareiasaurs.

Figure 1. Lately the two clades based on two specimens of Compsognathus (one much larger than the other) have merged recently.

Figure 2.  Lately the two clades based on two specimens of Compsognathus (one much larger than the other) have merged recently.

Compsognathidae
According to Holtz 2004, “The most inclusive clade containing Compsognathus longipes but not Passer domesticsus.” Traditionally Compsognathus nests outside the Tyrannoraptora, a clade that traditionally leads to birds.

In the LRT Compsognathus specimens nest at the base of several theropod clades (Fig. 2) including the tyrannosaurs and Mirischia, Ornitholestes and the feathered theropods leading to birds.

Figure 1. Varanosaurus, Ophiacodon, Cutleria and Ictidorhinus. These are taxa at the base of the Therapsida. Ophiacodon did not cross into the Therapsida, but developed a larger size with a primitive morphology. This new reconstruction of Ophiacodon is based on the Field Museum (Chicago) specimen. Click to enlarge.

Figure  3. Varanosaurus, Ophiacodon, Cutleria and Ictidorhinus. These are taxa at the base of the Therapsida. Ophiacodon did not cross into the Therapsida, but developed a larger size with a primitive morphology. This new reconstruction of Ophiacodon is based on the Field Museum (Chicago) specimen. Click to enlarge.

Ophiacodontidae
According to Wikipedia, “Ophiacodontidae is an extinct family of early eupelycosaurs from the Carboniferous and Permian. Ophiacodontids are among the most basal synapsids, an offshoot of the lineage which includes therapsids and their descendants, the mammals. The group became extinct by the Middle Permian.”

In the LRT Ophiacodon (Fig. 3) and Archaeothyris, neither members of the Pelycosauria, are more directly related to basal therapsids, including derived the therapsids: mammals.

References
Holtz TR 2004. Basal tetanurae. PP. 71–110 in The Dinosauria, U of California Press.

/wiki/Pareiasaur
wiki/Ophiacodontidae