Abstract

The early evolution of archosauromorphs during the Permo-Triassic constitutes an excellent empirical case study to shed light on evolutionary radiations in deep time and the timing and processes of recovery of terrestrial faunas after a mass extinction. However, macroevolutionary studies of early archosauromorphs are currently limited by poor knowledge of their phylogenetic relationships. In particular, one of the main early archosauromorph groups that need an exhaustive phylogenetic study is “Proterosuchia,” which as historically conceived includes members of both Proterosuchidae and Erythrosuchidae. A new data matrix composed of 96 separate taxa (several of them not included in a quantitative phylogenetic analysis before) and 600 osteological characters was assembled and analysed to generate a comprehensive higher-level phylogenetic hypothesis of basal archosauromorphs and shed light on the species-level interrelationships of taxa historically identified as proterosuchian archosauriforms. The results of the analysis using maximum parsimony include a polyphyletic “Prolacertiformes” and “Protorosauria,” in which the Permian Aenigmastropheus and Protorosaurus are the most basal archosauromorphs. The enigmatic choristoderans are either found as the sister-taxa of all other lepidosauromorphs or archosauromorphs, but consistently placed within Sauria. Prolacertids, rhynchosaurs, allokotosaurians and tanystropheids are the major successive sister clades of Archosauriformes. The Early Triassic Tasmaniosaurus is recovered as the sister-taxon of Archosauriformes. Proterosuchidae is unambiguosly restricted to five species that occur immediately after and before the Permo-Triassic boundary, thus implying that they are a short-lived “disaster” clade. Erythrosuchidae is composed of eight nominal species that occur during the Early and Middle Triassic. “Proterosuchia” is polyphyletic, in which erythrosuchids are more closely related to Euparkeria and more crownward archosauriforms than to proterosuchids, and several species are found widespread along the archosauromorph tree, some being nested within Archosauria (e.g., “Chasmatosaurus ultimus,” Youngosuchus). Doswelliids and proterochampsids are recovered as more closely related to each other than to other archosauromorphs, forming a large clade (Proterochampsia) of semi-aquatic to aquatic forms that includes the bizarre genus Vancleavea. Euparkeria is one of the sister-taxa of the clade composed of proterochampsians and archosaurs. The putative Indian archosaur Yarasuchus is recovered in a polytomy with Euparkeria and more crownward archosauriforms, and as more closely related to the Russian Dongusuchus than to other species. Phytosaurs are recovered as the sister-taxa of all other pseudosuchians, thus being nested within Archosauria.

Highlights

  • The early evolution of the archosauromorphs during the Triassic is an excellent example of an adaptative radiation in the fossil record (Brusatte et al, 2008; Nesbitt, 2011)

  • The most parsimonious trees (MPTs) of analysis 1 have a length of 2,651 steps, with a consistency index (CI) of 0.2972 and a retention index (RI) of 0.6290, and the MPTs of analysis 2 have a length of 2,664 steps, with a CI of 0.2958 and a RI of 0.6264

  • The topology of the strict consensus tree is identical in analyses 1 and 2, being rather well resolved for relationships among taxa usually considered as non-archosauriform diapsids and more crownward species than proterosuchians and Euparkeria capensis

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The early evolution of the archosauromorphs during the Triassic is an excellent example of an adaptative radiation in the fossil record (Brusatte et al, 2008; Nesbitt, 2011). Many early archosauromorph species have not been previously included in a quantitative phylogenetic analysis, and have been historically included within groups that are probably non-monophyletic as often conceived (e.g., ‘‘Prolacertiformes,’’ Proterosuchidae; Dilkes, 1998; Modesto & Sues, 2004; Gottmann-Quesada & Sander, 2009; Ezcurra, Lecuona & Martinelli, 2010; Ezcurra, Butler & Gower, 2013; Ezcurra, Scheyer & Butler, 2014). The higher-level phylogenetic relationships of the main lineages of archosauromorphs are highly contentious and there is limited consensus between the results recovered by different studies (e.g., Dilkes, 1998; Modesto & Sues, 2004; Gottmann-Quesada & Sander, 2009; Ezcurra, Scheyer & Butler, 2014; Pritchard et al, 2015)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call