RE: A question about Mickey's non-theropod tree

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

David Marjanovic wrote-

> The taxon selection strikes me as rather small. Few basal diapsids and
> "anapsids". Even basal (insectivorous) captorhinomorphs are IMHO
> underrepresented. The surprisingly large number of younginiforms suggests
> that time/computer power constraints were not that much of an issue.

Agreed, but which analyses use more of these basal taxa?
Lee's (2001) has three more parareptilian OTU's, two more synapsid ones (the 
four it has which Modesto's lacks are all derived anyway), only one 
captorhinid, one younginiform, and no mesosaurids.
Muller's (2003) has single OTU's for Synapsida, Parareptilia, Captorhinidae 
and Younginiformes.  It does have Coelurosauravus and Apsisaurus, but lacks 
protorothyridids and mesosaurids.

> > molecular phylogenies finding turtles sister to Archosauria (Zardoya and
> > Meyer, 1998; Hedges and Poling, 1999; Kumazawa and Nishida, 1999; Rest
> > et al., 2003; Iwabe et al., 2005),
>
> Or sometimes inside it.

Only by Hedges and Poling (1999) and Mannen and Li (1999), where they were 
pseudosuchians.

> IMHO this reeks of long-branch attraction. *Alligator mississippiensis*
> has a branch as long as the Mississippi.

Iguana and Gallus both have longer branches than Caiman in Iwabe et al.'s 
study.

> > defining Anapsida as turtles and taxa more closely related to them
> > than to extant saurians.
>
> (In this wording, ironically, there would be much less of a problem --
> _if_ by Sauria the group were meant that most herpetologists who use it
> still mean by that name, namely the paraphyletic lizards without snakes
> and sometimes without amphisbaenians.)

No, then Anapsida would be a synonym of Archosauromorpha instead.  Seems 
like more of a problem to me.

Mickey Mortimer