Our knowledge of the primitive and aberrant early tetrapodCrassigyrinus scoticuswas based on a partial skull roof and mandibles from the Lower Carboniferous of Gilmerton, Edinburgh, plus a skeleton lacking the hind limb and tail from the Namurian, basal Upper Carboniferous, of Cowdenbeath, Fife. New specimens from Cowdenbeath include the pelvic girdle, presacral and sacral rib and most of the hind limb. The ilium of the girdle had a firm articulation with the vertebral column via the sacral rib. The ischium, separated from the ilium by cartilage, was, like that found with the Cowdenbeath skeleton, ornamented as though a dermal bone. No pubis is preserved. The femur lacks an adductor crest, but has a strongly developed internal trochanter. Tibia and fibula are short stout bones, but axial torsion is present in the fibula rather than the tibia. This, and the structure of the femur, suggests a swimming rather than a walking limb. Probable metatarsals and phalanges are recorded. A skeletal reconstruction and a life restoration ofCrassigyrinusare presented in the light of its reconstructed anatomy and physiology.The ornamentation of the ischium ofCrassigyrinus, and that of the colosteidGreererpeton, suggests that the bone may be at least in part dermal. Its homology wth the pelvic fin basal scute of osteolepiform fishes is proposed and the homologies of pectoral and pelvic fins, and thus limbs, discussed.

SUMMARY I. The traditional view of the origin of tetrapod vertebrates is that they are descendants of fossil osteolepiform fish, of which Eusthenopteron is best known. In recent years both that conclusion and the methodology by which it has been reached have been challenged by practitioners of cladistic analysis. Particularly a recent review by Rosen et al. (1981) claims that Dipnoi (lungfish) are the sister‐group of the Tetrapoda, that Osteolepiformes is a non‐taxon and that Eusthenopteron is more distant from tetrapods than are Dipnoi, coelacanths and probably the fossil Porolepiformes. We attempt to refute all these concludions by use of the same cladistic technique. 2. We accept that all the above‐mentioned groups, together with some less well‐known taxa, can be united as Sarcopterygii by means of shared derived (apomorph) characters. We also agree that Porolepiformes and Actinistia (coelacanths) can be characterized as valid taxa. The primitive and enigmatic fossil fish Powichthys is accepted as representing the plesiomorph sister‐group of true porolepiforms. 3. Only two apomorph features, the course of the jaw adductor muscles and the position of incurrent and excurrent nostrils, appear to unite all the fish, living and fossil, currently regarded as Dipnoi. The characteristic tooth plates and the presence of petrodentine both exclude important primitive fossil forms. 4. Contrary to the opinion of Rosen et al., Osteolepiformes can be characterized — by the arrangement of bones forming the cheek plate, the presence of basal scutes to the fins and by the unjointed radials of the median fins. However, if these are true autapomorphies they exclude any osteolepiform from direct tetrapod ancestry. 5. Tetrapoda is a monophyletic group characterized by ten or more autapomorphies, including the bones of the cheek plate, a stapes and fenestra ovalis, and a series of characters of the appendicular skeleton. 6. Tetrapods have a true choana (internal nostril). We accept that the posterior (excurrent) nostril of Dipnoi is the homologue of the tetrapod choana. However, we assert that the posterior nostril of all bony fish is the homologue of the choana. This assertion would be refuted if any fish showed separate posterior nostril and choana. We reject the claim that this ‘three nostril condition’ occurred in porolepiforms and osteolepiforms. The evidence for a choana in porolepiforms is inadequate. Osteolepiforms had a true choana, characterized as in tetrapods by its relationship to the bones of the palate, but no third nostril. Dipnoans are not choanate. 7. Following cladistic practice, the relationship of the extant taxa is established first. Dipnoi are thus shown to be the living sister‐group of tetrapods, but only on ‘soft anatomy’ characters unavailable in fossils. Coelacanths are the living sister‐group of the taxon so formed. 8. The relationship of the fossil taxa to the extant sarcopterygians is then considered. The synapomorphy scheme proposed by Rosen et al. is discussed at length. Virtually all the characters t...

Westlothiana lizziae is known from the Brigantian of East Kirkton, Scotland. The skull resembles that of later amniotes in the large size of the parietal, the apparent loss of the intertemporal, and the absence of a squamosal notch, palatal fangs and labyrinthine infolding of the marginal teeth, but is primitive in the absence of a transverse flange of the pterygoid. The individual trunk vertebrae resemble those of amniotes; large intercentra are retained, but the neural arch is fused to the centrum. A surprising feature is the presence of 36 presacral vertebrae, as is the relative size of the very small but highly ossified limbs. The humerus is much shorter than the femur, but similar in configuration to that of early amniotes. There are three proximal tarsals as in primitive tetrapods, but an amniote phalangeal count. The presence of massive dorsal as well as ventral scales is a more primitive feature than that of most anthracosaurs.Westlothiana is ‘reptiliomorph’, and is judged to be a stem-group amniote on features of the skull roof, the absence of an otic notch, the gastrocentrous vertebrae and the pedal phalangeal formula. It has not, however, reached the amniote condition in the structure of the tarsus, and the palate is more primitive than that of both early amniotes and the ‘diadectomorphs’.

Historically, naturalists who proposed theories of evolution, including Darwin and Wallace, did so in order to explain the apparent relationship of natural classification. This book begins by exploring the intimate historical relationship between patterns of classification and patterns of phylogeny. However, it is a circular argument to use the data for classification. Alec Panchen presents other evidence for evolution in the form of a historically based but rigorously logical argument. This is followed by a history of methods of classification and phylogeny reconstruction including current mathematical and molecular techniques. The author makes the important claim that if the hierarchical pattern of classification is a real phenomenon, then biology is unique as a science in making taxonomic statements. This conclusion is reached by way of historical reviews of theories of evolutionary mechanism and the philosophy of science as applied to biology. The book is addressed to biologists, particularly taxonomists, concerned with the history and philosophy of their subject, and to philosophers of science concerned with biology. It is also an important source book on methods of classification and the logic of evolutionary theory for students, professional biologists, and paleontologists.

No abstract