No abstract

The origin of the turtle body plan remains one of the great mysteries of reptile evolution. The anatomy of turtles is highly derived, which renders it difficult to establish the relationships of turtles with other groups of reptiles. The oldest known turtle, Proganochelys from the Late Triassic period of Germany, has a fully formed shell and offers no clue as to its origin. Here we describe a new 220-million-year-old turtle from China, somewhat older than Proganochelys, that documents an intermediate step in the evolution of the shell and associated structures. A ventral plastron is fully developed, but the dorsal carapace consists of neural plates only. The dorsal ribs are expanded, and osteoderms are absent. The new species shows that the plastron evolved before the carapace and that the first step of carapace formation is the ossification of the neural plates coupled with a broadening of the ribs. This corresponds to early embryonic stages of carapace formation in extant turtles, and shows that the turtle shell is not derived from a fusion of osteoderms. Phylogenetic analysis places the new species basal to all known turtles, fossil and extant. The marine deposits that yielded the fossils indicate that this primitive turtle inhabited marginal areas of the sea or river deltas.

Recent debates concerning conflicting hypotheses of higher-level phylogeny such as the sister-group relationships of tetrapods, turtles, birds and snakes, serve as examples in the analysis of the nature of morphological evidence as it is currently used in phylogeny reconstruction. We note a recent shift of emphasis towards ever-larger data matrices, which may come at the cost of detailed character analysis and argumentation. Because the assessment of morphological characters necessarily entails a conceptual element of abstraction, there is also a threat that preconceived notions of phylogeny influence character analysis. Because the test of congruence does not address character analysis in itself, we argue that character hypotheses, i.e. primary conjectures of homology, need to be testable, and potentially refutable, in their own right. We demonstrate the use of classical criteria of homology (topological relations and/or connectivity, in conjunction with the subsidiary criteria of special similarity and intermediate forms) in the test, and refutation, of morphological characters. Rejection of the classical criteria of homology in the test of morphological character hypotheses requires the formulation of alternative methods of test and potential falsification of morphological characters that have so far not been proposed.

▪ Abstract  A critical reexamination of turtle relationships continues to support a sister-group relationship of turtles with a clade of marine reptiles, Sauropterygia, within crown-group Diapsida (Sauria). The high Homoplasy Index raises concerns about the phylogenetic information content of various morphological characters in broad-scale phylogenetic analyses. Such analyses may also suffer from inadequate statements of primary homology. Several such statements that have played an important role in the analysis of turtle relationships (dermal armor, acromion, astragalo-calcaneal complex, hooked fifth metatarsal) are reviewed in detail. An evolutionary scenario for the origin of the turtle bauplan suggests an aquatic origin of turtles, which is supported not only by their sauropterygian relationships, but also by paleobiogeographic and stratigraphic considerations. However, turtle relationships remain labile, and further investigations of their relationships are required, involving molecular and physiological data.

A 95-million-year-old fossil snake from the Middle East documents the most extreme hindlimb development of any known member of that group, as it preserves the tibia, fibula, tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges. It is more complete than Pachyrhachis, a second fossil snake with hindlimbs that was recently portrayed to be basal to all other snakes. Phylogenetic analysis of the relationships of the new taxon, as well as reanalysis of Pachyrhachis, shows both to be related to macrostomatans, a group that includes relatively advanced snakes such as pythons, boas, and colubroids to the exclusion of more primitive snakes such as blindsnakes and pipesnakes.