Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:43:42.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anatomy, cranial ontogeny and phylogenetic relationships of the pareiasaur Deltavjatia rossicus from the Late Permian of central Russia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2013

Linda A. Tsuji
Linda A. Tsuji*
Affiliation:
Museum für Naturkunde, Leibniz-Institut für Evolutions- und Biodiversitätsforschung an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Invalidenstraße 43, D-10115, Berlin, Germany Department of Biology, University of Washington, Box 351800, Seattle, WA 98195-1800, USA
*
Email: linda.tsuji@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New material of the pareiasaur Deltavjatia rossicus from the Kotel'nich locality, Kirov Province, Russia, is described in detail. The taxon is characterised by a distinctive pattern of dermal sculpture and the exaggerated embayment of the posterior skull roof, resulting in the dorsal exposure of the braincase. Postcranially, Deltavjatia shares some aspects of its morphology with basal pareiasaurs, including the osteoderm pattern. Features such as the forward-slanting and pointed iliac blade are shared with stratigraphically younger, more derived forms. Well-preserved material of the taxon spans a wide size-range, allowing an assessment of ontogenetic trends. A geometric morphometric analysis of the skull roof of Deltavjatia reveals an allometric increase in snout length and postorbital area, a result that can serve as a basis for examining morphological trends within pareiasaurs. A reassessment of pareiasauromorph relationships, using both parsimony and Bayesian methods of phylogenetic inference, recovers similar topologies in both cases. Four Bayesian analyses were completed, with and without a gamma-shaped parameter and with and without the inclusion of autapomorphies. Despite differing taxon and outgroup selection, the recovered topologies are similar to previous phylogenies of pareiasaurian relationships, with Deltavjatia appearing as a relatively basal taxon.

Keywords

Bayesian analysisgeometric morphometricsParareptiliaPareiasauriaPermianphylogenetic analysisReptilia
Type
Articles
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 104 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 81 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Society of Edinburgh 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

9. References

Abdala, F. & Giannini, N. P. 2000. Gomphodont cynodonts of the Chañares Formation: the analysis of an ontogenetic sequence. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 20, 501–06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amalitzky, V. 1922. Diagnoses of the new forms of vertebrates and plants from the Upper Permian on North Dvina. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences 16, 1–12.Google Scholar
Angielczyk, K. D. & Sheets, D. H. 2007. Investigation of simulated tectonic deformation in fossils using geometric morphometrics. Paleobiology 33, 125–48.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J., Newell, A. J., Khlyupin, A. Y., Shumov, I. S., Price, G. D. & Kurkin, A. A. 2012. Preservation of exceptional vertebrate assemblages in Middle Permian fluviolacustrine mustones of Kotel'nich, Russia: stratigraphy, sedimentology, and taphonomy. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 319–320, 58–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, M. J. & Kirkpatric, R. 1989. Heterochrony in a fossil reptile: juveniles of the rhynchosaur Scaphonyx fischeri from the Late Triassic of Brazil. Palaeontology 32, 335–53.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. New York: Cambridge University Press. 435 pp.Google Scholar
Boonstra, L. D. 1929a. Pareiasaurian studies. Part III. On the pareiasaurian manus. Annals of the South African Museum 28, 97–112.Google Scholar
Boonstra, L. D. 1929b. Pareiasaurian studies. Part IV. On the pareiasaurian pes. Annals of the South African Museum 28, 113–22.Google Scholar
Boonstra, L. D. 1930. A contribution to the cranial osteology of Pareiasaurus serridens Owen. Annals of the University of Stellenbosch 8, 1–18.Google Scholar
Boonstra, L. D. 1932. Pareiasaurian studies. Part VIII. The osteology and mycology of the locomotor apparatus B. Fore Limb. Annals of the South African Museum 28, 436–503.Google Scholar
Boonstra, L. D. 1934a. Pareiasaurian studies. Part XI. The vertebral column and ribs. Annals of the South African Museum 31, 49–66.Google Scholar
Boonstra, L. D. 1934b. Pareiasaurian studies. Part X. The dermal armour. Annals of the South African Museum 31, 39–48.Google Scholar
Brink, A. S. 1955. On Nanoparia Broom. Palaeontologia Africana 3, 57–63.Google Scholar
Broom, R. 1913. On the manus and pes of Pareiasaurus . Annals of the South African Museum 7, 353–57.Google Scholar
Bulanov, V. V. & Yashina, O. V. 2005. Elginiid pareiasaurs of Eastern Europe. Paleontological Journal 39, 428–32.Google Scholar
Bystrov, A. P. 1957. Cherep pareiazavra. Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta Akademiya Nauk SSSR 68, 3–18.Google Scholar
Campione, N. E. & Evans, D. C. 2011. Cranial growth and variation in Edmontosaurs (Dinosauria: Hadrosauridae): implications for Latest Cretaceous megaherbivore diversity in North America. PLoS ONE 6, e25186. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025186.Google Scholar
Carroll, R. L. & Lindsay, W. 1985. Cranial anatomy of the primitive reptile Procolophon . Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 22, 1571–87.Google Scholar
Cisneros, J. C., Abdala, F. & Malabarba, M. C. 2005. Pareiasaurids from the Rio do Rasto Formation, Southern Brazil: biostratigraphic implications for Permian faunas of the Paraná Basin. Revista Brasileira de Paleontologia 8, 13–24.Google Scholar
Cisneros, J. C., Rubidge, B. S., Mason, R. & Dube, C. 2008. Analysis of millerettid parareptile relationships in the light of new material of Broomia perplexa Watson, 1914, from the Permian of South Africa. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 6, 453–62.Google Scholar
Clack, J. A. 1997. The evolution of tetrapod ears and the fossil record. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 50, 198–212.Google Scholar
Clack, J. A. 2002. Gaining Ground: the origin and evolution of tetrapods. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 369 pp.Google Scholar
Coffa, A. A. 2007. Geology and stratigraphy of the Upper Permian Kotel'nich locality, Vyatka River, Russia. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Damiani, R. & Modesto, S. P. 2001. The morphology of the pareiasaurian vomer. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte 2001, 423–34.Google Scholar
deBraga, M. & Reisz, R. R. 1996. The Early Permian reptile Aceistorhinus pteroticus and its phylogenetic position. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16, 384–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
deBraga, M. & Rieppel, O. 1997. Reptile phylogeny and the interrelationships of turtles. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 120, 281–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, S. B. & Bramble, D. M. 1993. Scaling and the evolution of skull design. In Hanken, J. & Hall, B. K. (eds) The Vertebrate Skull. Vol. III, 384–421. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goloboff, P. A., Farris, J. S. & Nixon, K. C. 2008. TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics 24, 774–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann-Weinberg, A. P. 1933. Die Evolution der Pareiasauriden. Trudy Paleontogichesky Akademii Nauk SSSR 3, 3–66.Google Scholar
Hartmann-Weinberg, A. P. 1937. Pareiasauriden als Leitfossilien. Problems in Paleontology 2/3, 649–712.Google Scholar
Haughton, S. H. 1929. Pareiasaurian studies. Part II. Notes on some pareiasaurian brain-cases. Annals of the South African Museum 28, 21–26.Google Scholar
Haughton, S. H. & Boonstra, L. D. 1929. Pareiasaurian studies. Part I. An attempt at classification of the Pareiasauria based on skull features. Annals of the South African Museum 28, 79–87.Google Scholar
Hauser, D. L. & Presch, W. 1991. The effect of ordered characters on phylogenetic reconstruction. Cladistics 7, 243–65.Google Scholar
Hedges, S. B. & Poling, L. L. 1999. A molecular phylogeny of reptiles. Science 283, 998–1001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, R. V. 2005. Integration of morphological data sets for phylogenetic analysis of Amniota: the importance of integumentary characters and increased taxonomic sampling. Systematic Biology 54, 530–47.Google Scholar
Holder, M. & Lewis, P. O. 2003. Phylogeny estimation: traditional and Bayesian approaches. Nature Reviews: Genetics 4, 275–84.Google Scholar
Horner, J. & Goodwin, M. B. 2006. Major cranial changes during Triceratops ontogeny. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273, 2757–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huelsenbeck, J. P. & Ronquist, F. 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Bioinformatics 17, 754–55.Google Scholar
Ivakhnenko, M. F. 1987. [Permian parareptiles of the USSR]. Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituita, Akademiia Nauk SSSR 223, 1–160. [Russian]Google Scholar
Jalil, N.-E. & Janvier, P. 2005. Les pareiasaures (Amniota, Parareptilia) du Permien supérieur du Bassin d'Argana, Maroc. Geodiversitas 27, 35–132.Google Scholar
Jones, M. E. H. 2008. Skull shape and feeding strategy in Sphenodon and other Rhynchocephalia (Diapsida: Lepidosauria). Journal of Morphology 269, 945–66.Google Scholar
Kass, R. E. & Rafferty, A. E. 1995. Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90, 773–95.Google Scholar
Ketchum, H. F. & Barrett, P. M. 2004. New reptile material from the Lower Triassic of Madagascar: implications for the Permian-Triassic extinction event. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 41, 1–8.Google Scholar
Klingenberg, C. P. 2008. MorphoJ. Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, UK. http://www.flywings.org.uk/MorphoJ_page.htm.Google Scholar
Kordikova, E. G. & Khlyupin, A. J. 2001. First evidence of a neonate dentition in pareiasaurs from the Upper Permian of Russia. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 46, 589–94.Google Scholar
Kuhn, O. 1969. Part 6: Cotylosauria. In Kuhn, O. (ed) Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie. Jena: VEB Gustav Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Laurenti, J. N. 1768. Classis Reptilium. Specimen medicum, exhibens synopsis Reptilium emendatum, cum experimentis circa venena et antidote Reptilium Austriacorum. Vienna: Joan. Thomae, Nob. de Trattnern.Google Scholar
Laurin, M. & Reisz, R. R. 1995. A reevaluation of early amniote phylogeny. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 113, 165–223.Google Scholar
Lee, M. S. Y. 1995a. Evolutionary morphology of pareiasaurs. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Cambridge University, UK.Google Scholar
Lee, M. S. Y. 1995b. Historical burden in systematics and the interrelationships of ‘parareptiles’. Biological Reviews 70, 459–547.Google Scholar
Lee, M. S. Y. 1996. Correlated progression and the origin of turtles. Nature 379, 812–15.Google Scholar
Lee, M. S. Y. 1997a. Pareiasaur phylogeny and the origin of turtles. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 120, 197–280.Google Scholar
Lee, M. S. Y. 1997b. A taxonomic revision of pareiasaurian reptiles: implications for Permian terrestrial Palaeoecology. Modern Geology 21, 231–98.Google Scholar
Lee, M. S. Y. 1998. Similarity, parsimony and conjectures of homology: The chelonian shoulder girdle revisited. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 11, 379–87.Google Scholar
Lee, M. S. Y. 2000. The Russian pareiasaurs. In Benton, M. J., Shishkin, M. A., Unwin, D. M. & Kurochkin, E. N. (eds) The Age of Dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia, 71–85. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, M. S. Y., Gow, C. E. & Kitching, J. W. 1997. Anatomy and relationships of the pareiasaur Pareiasuchus nasicornis from the Upper Permian of Zambia. Palaeontology 40, 307–35.Google Scholar
Lee, M. S. Y. & Worthy, T. H. 2011. Likelihood reinstates Archaeopteryx as a primitive bird. Biology Letters 8, 299–303.Google Scholar
Lewis, P. O. 2001. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Systematic Biology 50, 913–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyson, T. R., Bever, G. S., Bhullar, B.–A., Joyce, W. G. & Gauthier, J. A. 2010. Transitional fossils and the origin of turtles. Biology Letters 6, 830–33.Google Scholar
Lyson, T. R., Sperling, E. A., Heimberg, A. M., Gauthier, J. A., King, B. L. & Petersen, K. J. 2012. MicroRNAs support a turtle+lizard clade. Biology Letters 8, 104–07.Google Scholar
Maddison, W. P. & Maddison, D. R. 2009. Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.72 http://mesquiteproject.org.Google Scholar
Maxwell, W. D. 1991. The pareiasaur Elginia from Elgin, north-east Scotland, and the Late Permian extinction event . PhD Thesis, Queen's University Belfast, UK.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. & Zardoya, R. 2003. Recent Advances in the (Molecular) Phylogeny of Vertebrates. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 34, 311–38.Google Scholar
Modesto, S. P. & Rybczynski, N. 2000. The amniote faunas of the Russian Permian: implications for Late Permian terrestrial vertebrate biogeography. In Benton, M. J., Shishkin, M. A., Unwin, D. M. & Kurochkin, E. N. (eds) The Age of Dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia, 17–34. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, J. 2004. The relationships among diapsid reptiles and influence of taxon selection. In Arratia, G., Wilson, M. V. H. & Cloutier, R (eds) Recent Advances in the Origin and Early Radiation of Vertebrates, 379–408. Munich: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.Google Scholar
Müller, J. & Reisz, R. R. 2006. The phylogeny of early Eureptiles: comparing parsimony and Bayesian approaches in the investigation of a basal fossil clade. Systematic Biology 55, 503–11.Google Scholar
Müller, J. & Tsuji, L. A. 2007. Impedance-matching hearing in Paleozoic reptiles: evidence of advanced sensory perception at an early stage of amniote evolution. PloS ONE 2, e889.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000889.Google Scholar
Olson, E. C. 1947. The Family Diadectidae and its bearing on the classification of reptiles. Fieldiana: Geology 11, 1–53.Google Scholar
Reisz, R. R., Müller, J., Tsuji, L. & Scott, D. 2007. The cranial osteology of Belebey vegrandis (Parareptilia: Bolosauridae), from the Middle Permian of Russia, and its bearing on reptilian evolution. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 151, 191–214.Google Scholar
Reisz, R. R. & Scott, D. 2002. Owenetta kitchingorum, sp. nov., a small parareptile (Procolophonia: Owenettidae) from the Lower Triassic of South Africa. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22, 244–56.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. & Reisz, R. R. 1999. The origin and early evolution of turtles. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30, 1–22.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F. J. 2006. TPS-Dig. Ver. 2.05. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Romer, A. S. 1956. Osteology of the Reptiles. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.Google Scholar
Ronquist, F. & Huelsenbeck, J. P. 2003. Mr. Bayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19, 1572–74.Google Scholar
Seeley, H. G. 1888. Researches on the structure, organisation, and classification of the fossil Reptilia. II. On Pareiasaurus bombidens (Owen), and the significance of affinities to amphibians, reptiles and mammals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 179, 59–109.Google Scholar
Sidor, C. A., Blackburn, D. C. & Gado, B. 2003. The vertebrate fauna of the Upper Permian of Niger—II Preliminary description of a new pareiasaur. Palaeontologica Africana 39, 45–52.Google Scholar
Slowinski, J. B. 1993. “Unordered” versus “ordered” characters. Systematic Biology 42, 155–65.Google Scholar
Snively, E., Russel, A. P. & Powell, G. L. 2004. Evolutionary morphology of the coelurosaurian arctometatarsus: descriptive, morphometric and phylogenetic approaches. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 142, 525–53.Google Scholar
Spencer, P. S. 2000. The braincase structure of Leptopleuron lacertinum Owen (Parareptilia: Procolophonidae). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21, 21–30.Google Scholar
Spencer, P. S. & Lee, M. S. Y. 2000. A juvenile Elginia and early growth in pareiasaurs. Journal of Paleontology 74, 1191–95.Google Scholar
Stayton, C. T. & Ruta, M. 2006. Geometric morphometrics of the skull roof of the stereospondyls (Amphibia: Temnospondyli). Palaeontology 49, 307–37.Google Scholar
Sues, H. –D. & Reisz, R. R. 2008. Anatomy and phylogenetic relationships of Sclerosaurus armatus (Amniota: Parareptilia) from the Buntsandtein (Triassic) of Europe. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 28, 1031–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, C., Reisz, R. R. & Smith, R. M. H. 2003. The Permian mammal-like herbivore Diictodon, the oldest known example of sexually dimorphic armament. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, Series B 270, 173–78.Google Scholar
Sumida, S. S., Lombard, R. E. & Berman, D. S. 1992. Morphology of the atlas–axis complex of the Late Palaeozoic tetrapod suborders Diadectomorpha and Seymouriamorpha. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Series B 336, 259–73.Google Scholar
Tsuji, L. A. 2006. Cranial anatomy and phylogenetic affinities of the Permian parareptile Macroleter poezicus . Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26, 849–65.Google Scholar
Tsuji, L. A., Müller, J. & Reisz, R. R. 2010. Microleter mckinzieorum gen. et sp. nov. from the Lower Permian of Oklahoma: the basalmost parareptile from Laurasia. Systematic Palaeontology 8, 245–55.Google Scholar
Tsuji, L. A., Müller, J. & Reisz, R. R. 2012. Anatomy of Emeroleter levis and the phylogeny of the nycteroleter parareptiles. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 31, 45–67.Google Scholar
Tsuji, L. A., Sidor, C. A., Steyer, J.–S., Smith, R. M. H., Tabor, N. J. & Ide, O. 2013. The vertebrate fauna of the Upper Permian of Niger-VII. Cranial anatomy and relationships of Bunostegos akokanensis (Pareiasauria). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 33, 747–63.Google Scholar
Tsuji, L. A. & Müller, J. 2008. A reevaluation of Parasaurus geinitzi, the first named pareiasaur (Amniota, Parareptilia). Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 45, 1111–21.Google Scholar
Tsuji, L. A. & Müller, J. 2009. Assembling the history of the Parareptilia: phylogeny, diversification, and a new definition of the clade. Fossil Record 12, 71–81.Google Scholar
Watson, D. M. S. 1914. On the skull of a pareiasaurian reptile, and on the relationship of that type. Journal of Zoology 1914, 155–180.Google Scholar
Wiens, J. J. 2003. Missing data, incomplete taxa, and phylogenetic accuracy. Systematic Biology 52, 528–38.Google Scholar
Wiens, J. J., Fetzner, J. W. Jr., Parkinson, C. L. & Reeder, T. W. 2005. Hylid frog phylogeny and sampling strategies for speciose clades. Systematic Biology 54, 778–807.Google Scholar
Wiens, J. J. & Moen, D. S. 2008. Missing data and the accuracy of Bayesian phylogenetics. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 46, 307–14.Google Scholar
Wild, R. 1985. Ein Schädelrest von Parasaurus geinitzi H. v. Meyer (Reptilia, Cotylosauria) aus dem Kupferschiefer (Perm) von Richelsdorf (Hessen). Geologische Blätter für Nordost-Bayern 34/35, 897–920.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O., Siegel-Causey, D., Brooks, D. R. & Funk, V. A. 1991. The Compleat Cladist: A Primer of Phylogenetic Procedures. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Special Publication 19.Google Scholar
Witzmann, F., Scholz, H. & Ruta, M. 2009. Morphospace occupation of temnospondyl growth series: a geometric morphometric approach. Alcheringa 33, 237–55.Google Scholar
Zardoya, R. & Meyer, A. 2001. The evolutionary position of turtles revised. Naturwissenschaften 88, 193–200.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L., Sheets, H. D. & Fink, W. L. 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 443 pp.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Tsuji Supplementary Material

Appendix 2

Download Tsuji Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 30.6 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Tsuji Supplementary Material

Appendix 3

Download Tsuji Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 35.1 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Tsuji supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download Tsuji supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 90.8 KB