Abstract
Thanks to the labors of numerous workers during the past half-century, the general pattern of reptilian evolution has become clear in most regards. Except for occasional problematica, most fossil and recent reptiles can be assigned to one or another of half a dozen or so evolutionary lines and arrayed, in orders and subclasses, in a reasonable system of classification, such as that which I recently outlined in this journal (Romer, 1967). But while I believe a majority of competent workers would agree to most features of such a pattern of phylogeny and classification, the situation is far from being in a set, solid state. Complacency is unwarranted, and suggestions of alternatives should be welcomed and carefully considered. I wish here to discuss two proposals for modification with which I do not agree but which are advocated by very competent workers and hence worthy of careful consideration. These are (1) Reig's suggestion that the great archosaur group has arisen from primitive members of the mammal-like synapsid stock, and (2) Kuhn-Schnyder's advocacy of the theory that the reptiles are not a natural group, but have arisen in a number of independent lines from amphibian ancestors.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callMore From: Evolution; international journal of organic evolution
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
