Lepospondyls | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Diplocaulus, adiplocaulid "nectridean" | |
Scientific classification![]() | |
Domain: | Eukaryota |
Kingdom: | Animalia |
Phylum: | Chordata |
Clade: | Sarcopterygii |
Clade: | Tetrapodomorpha |
Clade: | Stegocephali |
Subclass: | †Lepospondyli Zittel, 1888 |
Groups | |
Lissamphibia? |
Lepospondyliis a diverse taxon of early tetrapods. With the exception of one late-surviving lepospondyl from theLate Permian ofMorocco (Diplocaulus minimus),[6] lepospondyls lived from theVisean stage of theEarly Carboniferous to theEarly Permian and were geographically restricted to what is nowEurope andNorth America.[7][2] Five major groups of lepospondyls are known:Adelospondyli;Aïstopoda;Lysorophia;Microsauria; andNectridea. Lepospondyls have a diverse range of body forms and include species with newt-like, eel- or snake-like, andlizard-like forms. Various species were aquatic, semiaquatic, or terrestrial. None were large (the biggest genus, the diplocaulidDiplocaulus, reached a meter in length, but most were much smaller), and they are assumed to have lived in specialized ecological niches not taken by the more numeroustemnospondyl amphibians that coexisted with them in the Paleozoic. Lepospondyli was named in 1888 byKarl Alfred von Zittel, who coined the name to include some tetrapods from thePaleozoic that shared some specific characteristics in thenotochord andteeth. Lepospondyls have sometimes been considered to be either related or ancestral to modern amphibians[8][3][4] or toAmniota (the clade containing reptiles and mammals).[9] It has been suggested that the grouping ispolyphyletic, with aïstopods being primitive stem-tetrapods, whilerecumbirostran microsaurs are primitive reptiles.[10]
All lepospondyls are characterised by having simple, spool-shapedvertebrae that did notossify fromcartilage, but rather grew as bony cylinders around the notochord. In addition, the upper portion of the vertebra, the neural arch, is usually fused to the centrum (the main body of the vertebra).[11]
The position of the Lepospondyli within the Tetrapoda is uncertain because the earliest lepospondyls were already highly specialized when they first appeared in the fossil record. Some lepospondyls were once thought to be related or perhaps ancestral to modernsalamanders (Urodela), but not the other modern amphibians. This view is no longer held and all modern amphibians (frogs, salamanders, andcaecilians) are now grouped within the cladeLissamphibia. For a long time, the Lepospondyli were considered one of the three subclasses ofAmphibia, along with the Lissamphibia and theLabyrinthodontia.[11][12][13] However, the dissolution of "labyrinthodonts" into separate groups such astemnospondyls andanthracosaurs has cast doubt on these traditional amphibian subclasses.
Much like "Labyrinthodontia", some studies proposed that Lepospondyli is an artificial (polyphyletic) grouping with some members closely related to extinctstem tetrapod groups and others more closely related to modern amphibians or reptiles.[14] Early phylogenetic analyses conducted in the 1980s and 1990s often maintained the idea that lepospondyls were paraphyletic, with nectrideans close to colosteids and microsaurs close to temnospondyls, which were considered to be ancestral to modern amphibians.
However, a 1995 paper byRobert Carroll argued that lepospondyls were actually a monophyletic group closer to reptiles. Carroll considered them closer to reptiles than theseymouriamorphs, but not as close as thediadectomorphs.[15] Many phylogenetic analyses since Carroll (1995) agreed with his interpretation, including Laurin & Reisz (1997),[16] Anderson (2001),[17] and Rutaet al. (2003).[9] A few have still considered lepospondyls ancestral to amphibians, but came to this conclusion without changing the position of lepospondyls compared to seymouriamorphs and diadectomorphs.[4]
Lepospondyl and tetrapod classification is still controversial, and even recent studies have had doubts about lepospondyl monophyly. For example, a 2007 paper has suggested that adelospondyls are stem-tetrapods close tocolosteids[5] and a 2017 paper onLethiscus has Aïstopoda in the tetrapod stem based on their primitive braincase.[18] These studies differ in the internal and external relationships of the remaining lepospondyl taxa. The former places the remaining lepospondyls into a single clade along the amniote stem. The latter does not treat the relationships of nectrideans or adelospondyls, but finds microsaurs to be early amniotes, and places lysorophians within microsaurs.
Five main groups of lepospondyls are often recognized:Microsauria, a superficially lizard- or salamander-like and species-rich group;Lysorophia, a group with elongated bodies and very small limbs;Aïstopoda, a group of limbless, extremely elongated snake-like forms;Adelospondyli, a group of presumably aquatic forms that resemble aïstopods, but have more solidly built skulls; andNectridea, another diverse group that includes terrestrial and aquatic newt-like forms. Microsauria is generally consideredparaphyletic; rather than being amonophyletic group, it has been considered anevolutionary grade ofbasal ("primitive") lepospondyls, although there is growing consensus that a large subset of fossorially-adapted microsaurs, theRecumbirostra, is monophyletic. Lysorophia may belong within the Recumbirostran clade, distinct from other derived lepospondyls. Nectridea may also be paraphyletic, consisting of a range of more anatomically-specialized lepospondyls.[19] The nameHolospondyli has been proposed for a clade including aïstopods, and nectrideans, and possibly adelospondyls, although not all recent phylogenetic analyses support the grouping. The followingcladogram, simplified, is after an analysis of tetrapods and stem-tetrapods presented by Rutaet al. in 2003:[9]
|
The "lepospondyl hypothesis" of modern amphibian origins proposes that lissamphibians aremonophyletic (that is, they form their own clade) and that they evolved from lepospondyl ancestors. Two alternatives are the "temnospondyl hypothesis", in which lissamphibians originated within Temnospondyli, and the "polyphyly hypothesis", in which caecilians originated from lepospondyls while frogs and salamanders (collectively grouped withinBatrachia) evolved from temnospondyls. Of the three hypotheses, the temnospondyl hypothesis is currently the most widely accepted among researchers. Strong support for this relationship comes from a suite of anatomical features shared between lissamphibians and a group of Paleozoic temnospondyls calleddissorophoids.[20] Under this hypothesis, Lepospondyli either falls outside crown group Tetrapoda (the smallest clade containing all living tetrapods, i.e. the smallest clade containing Lissamphibia and Amniota), or is closer to amniotes and therefore part ofReptiliomorpha.[9] However, somephylogenetic analyses continue to find support for the lepospondyl hypothesis. The analysis by Vallin and Laurin (2004) found lissamphibians to be most closely related to lysorophians, followed by microsaurs. Pawley (2006) also found lysorophians to be the closest relatives of lissamphibians, but found aïstopods and adelogyrinids rather than microsaurs to be the second most closely related groups. Marjanović (2010) found holospondyls to be the most closely related group to lissamphibians, followed by lysorophians. Under this hypothesis, lepospondyls would be crown tetrapods and temnospondyls would be stem tetrapods.[4]
Below is a cladogram from Rutaet al. (2003) that supports the "temnospondyl hypothesis", showing the position of Lepospondyli within crown group Tetrapoda:[9]