Re: synapsids are reptiles

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 11:13 PM

> Yes, _Reptilia_ is node-based and _Sauropsida_ is stem-based, so they are
different clades, even
> if we do not currently know of any non-reptilian sauropsids. But
_Eureptilia_ is actually a
> synonym of _Romeriida_ (_Sauria_ <-- _Testudines_), and meant as the
sister group to
> _Parareptilia_, a.k.a. _Anapsida_ (_Testudines_ <-- _Sauria_).

I wasn't certain about the original usage of Eureptilia, much less its
definition; Benton (Vertebrate Palaeontology 2nd Ed.) uses it for the node
others call Reptilia (and doesn't give any definitions). From p. 130:

"BOX 5.6
RELATIONSHIPS OF EARLY AMNIOTES

AMNIOTA
|--Synapsida
`--SAUROPSIDA
    |--Mesosauridae
    `--EUREPTILIA
        |--ANAPSIDA
        `--+--Captorhinidae
           `--+--*Paleothyris*
               `--DIAPSIDA"

> Anthracosauria (ugh ... also "Amniotiformes")
> |--Diadectomorpha
> `--Amniota

"Amniotiformes" sounds like a node, Anthracosauria (excluding all classic
anthracosaurs = Embolomeri) is a stem (Laurin & Reisz strike again):

Anthracosauria
|--*Solenodonsaurus*
`--"Amniotiformes"
     |--Diadectomorpha
     `--Amniota

__________________
(And here a shameless ad for PhyloCode which will get us out of problems
like that, and also end all quarrels about p- or ps- ... among those who'll
use it. :-) )