Because there is continuity between the groups in the Pearson BDC results, it would make sense that the two groups are part of a single holobaramin, but not all of the methods agree. PAM and FANNY also separate the two from each other and from the “basal” rhynchosaurs. Where Noteosuchus, Eohyosaurus, and Langeronyx fall into these baramins can be researched in greater detail once more fossils are discovered that provide us with greater detail of their morphology. D. Proterosuchidae, Erythrosuchidae, and Euparkeriidae Based on the BDC, MDS, PAM, and FANNY results, we believe that two groups best represent the taxa: Proterosuchidae and Erythrosuchidae. Each group shows strong evidence for internal continuity, and they are discontinuous from each other and from Euparkeria. Sarmatosuchus was a problematic taxon, showing correlation with neither group in Pearson and Spearman BDC results, although it clustered with the proterosuchids in MDS (yet at a distance). FANNY results placed Sarmatosuchus in with the erythrosuchids, whereas it grouped with proterosuchids in PAM. However, in both cases Sarmatosuchus had low silhouette values. We conclude from these results that there are likely two holobaramins: Erythrosuchidae and Proterosuchidae. Alternatively, it is also possible that these are two monobaramins in one holobaramin with Sarmatosuchus linking the two, although the inclusion of Euparkeria and Osmolskina to the analysis (Supplemental Figures 4 and 5) did not remove the evidence of discontinuity between Proterosuchidae and Erythrosuchidae. Surprisingly, Osmolskina did not cluster with Euparkeria and instead grouped with the erythrosuchids. Euparkeria may be in its own holobaramin (since it shows strong evidence of discontinuity separating it from Proterosuchidae and Erythrosuchidae), although further research is needed since Euparkeriidae including Osmolskina appears to be polybaraminic according to this analysis. E. Proterochampsia Removing the outgroup from the proterochampsian dataset did not significantly alter the results. The position of Doswelliidae within the clade Proterochampsia is not universally acknowledged, so there is little surprise that there was essentially no evidence of positive correlation or close clustering in MDS between the families Proterochampsidae and Doswelliidae. The continuity within Proterochampsidae is not surprising and was expected. However, the evidence for incredible discontinuity between the species in Doswelliidae is something to note. From these data, it would appear that the families Proterochampsidae and Erpetosuchidae are each holobaramins. Vancleavea + Litorosuchus may also be a separate holobaramin. These, in turn, are separate from the “true” doswelliids (Doswellia and Jaxtasuchus) that show some evidence for continuity, although not in all analyses. Because of the uncertainty of where the “true” doswellids (Doswelliia + Jaxtasuchus) go, we cannot state with confidence the baraminic status of the Doswelliidae. F. Phytosauria As expected, the BDC, MDS, and PAM results all strongly indicate that Parasuchidae (traditional Phytosauria) has internal continuity and is surrounded by discontinuity. FANNY was an outlier among the methods, and we suspect that the results are not particularly informative. As such, we recognize Parasuchidae as a holobaramin. The position of Diandongosuchus is not so clear, as the Pearson BDC and MDS results show clear evidence of discontinuity, whereas the Spearman BDC and PAM results show weak evidence of continuity. Given that even the best evidence for continuity between Diandongosuchus and other phytosaurs is very weak, we propose that it is not part of the phytosaur (parasuchid) holobaramin. G. Pseudosuchia It is important to note—before diving into the particulars of this analysis—that pseudosuchian diversity and disparity are very poorly represented by this analysis. Only three of the twenty or so aetosaur genera were included, and the “stem aetosaur” Revueltosaurus was not included. The study lacks any shuvosaurids or poposaurids, resulting in a depleted Poposauroidea. A few “basal” loricatans are included, but not a single member of Crocodylomorpha. As such, these results should be interpreted with great caution. A few things are very clear. Firstly, Lotosaurus is a very unique animal. This has already been recognized in the conventional literature, as evidenced by it being the only member of the family Lotosauridae (Zhang 1975). It is tempting to suggest at this stage that Lotosaurus (and therefore Lotosauridae) is a holobaramin, but no shuvosaurids or poposaurids were included. There is good evidence for continuity between the other poposauroids, and this may be evidence for continuity between Ctenosauriscidae and Qilosuchus, but once again, without more poposauroid taxa, these results are very tentative. Figure 24: 3D multidimensional scaling (MDS) results for the Phytosauria subset dataset in three views: A, B, and C. Phytosaurs are represented by green and outgroup taxa (including Diandongosuchus) by red. MCLAIN, CLAUSEN, PEREZ, BEEBE, AND AHTEN Archosauromorph Baraminology 2023 ICC 510
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=