4.3 Article

Phylogenetic relationships of procolophonid parareptiles with remarks on their geological record

Journal

JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC PALAEONTOLOGY
Volume 6, Issue 3, Pages 345-366

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1017/S1477201907002350

Keywords

Parareptilia; Procoophonidae; Triassic; phylogeny

Funding

  1. Palaeontology Scientific Trust (PAST) in South Africa

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The phylogenetic intrarelationships of procolophonid parareptiles are determined via a comprehensive cladistic analysis using a data matrix Of 21 taxa and 58 characters. Most taxa are included forthefirsttime in a phylogenetic analysis and 27charactersare novel.The relationships within the group are more firmly resolved than in previous analyses. Procolophoninae and Leptopleuroninae, two of the three traditional subdivisions of the Proco[ophonidae, arevalid monophyletic groups, but Spondylolestinae is polyphyletic. The Chinese genera Pentoedrusaurus and Neoprocolophon are the most primitive members of the Leptopleuroninae. A new group, Theledectinae, is erected. The latter c[ade consists of small procolophonids with a reduced marginal dentition and wide bulbous monocuspid teeth. Eumetabolodon from China and the former genus 'Thelegnothus' from South Africa are shown to be polyphyletic. The successful radiation of the Procolophoniclae during the Triassic is likely to be related to the development of feeding adaptations that allowed exploration of various ecological niches, particularly the exploitation of high-hbre herbivory. The scarcity of Permian records of procolophonids is examined and the genus Spondylolestes from the Upper Permian of South Africa is considered to be a valid taxon with procolophonid affinities. Finally, a review of the records from the Middle and Upper Triassic reveals a procolophonid global hiatus of more than 15 Ma in Ladinian-Lower Carnian rocks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available