1
2
3
4
5
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR EZCURRA “Biogeography of Triassic
tetrapods: evidence for provincialism and driven sympatric cladogenesis in the early
evolution of modern tetrapod lineages”.
6
S1. ABBREVIATIONS FOR FIGURE 1.
7
Node abbreviations: Ae, Aetosaurinae; Aet, Aetosauria; An, Anapsida; Ar,
8
Archosauria; Arc, Archosauriformes; Arcs, Archosauromorpha; Av, Avemetatarsalia;
9
Br, Brachyopidae; Ca, Capitosauroidea; Ch, Chigutisauridae; Cr, Crocodylomorpha;
10
Cru, Crurotarsi; Cy, Cynognathia; De, Desmatosuchinae; Di, Dinosauria; Dia, Diapsida;
11
Dic, Dicynodontia; Din, Dinosauromorpha; Dr, Drepanosauridae; Er, Erythrosuchidae;
12
Eu, Eusaurischia; Euc, Eucynodontia; Gu, Guaibasauridae; He, Herrerasauria; Ic,
13
Ictidosauria; Ka, Kannemeyerioidea; La, Lagerpetidae; Le, Leptopleuroninae; Ma,
14
Massopoda; Ne, Neotheropoda; Or, Ornithischia; Orn, Ornithosuchidae; Ph,
15
Phytosauria; Pl, Plateosauridae; Po, Poposauridae; Pr, Proterochampsidae; Pro,
16
Probainognathia; Proc, Procolophonidae; Pt, Pterosauria; Ra, Rauisuchia; Rh,
17
Rhynchosauria; Rio, Riojasauridae; Ry, Rhytidostea; Sa, Saurischia; Sh,
18
Shansiodontidae; Si, Silesauridae; Sim, Simiosauria, Sp, Sphenodontia, St,
19
Stereospondyli; Sy, Synapsida; Ta, Tanystropheidae; Te, Testudinata; Tem,
20
Temnospondyli; Tr, Tritheledontidae; Tra, Traversodontidae; Tre, Trematosauroidea;
21
Tri, Trirachodontidae; Ty, Typothoracisinae.
22
23
24
Area abbreviations: AF, meridional Africa; AS, Asia; EU, Europe; IN, India; IS,
Ischigualasto; NA, North America; SM, Santa Maria.
Temporal abbreviations: Col, Coloradian; Isc, Ischigualastian.
25
26
S2. PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS OF MIDDLE AND LATE TRIASSIC
27
TETRAPODS
1
The present cladistic palaebiogeographic analysis was performed with the
2
information provided by Middle and Late Triassic tetrapods. The employment of
3
several independent phylogenies of tetrapod lineages would reduce sampling failures
4
and weak phylogenetic signals for certain clades, which are potential causes of artificial
5
results in a TRA (Turner et al. 2009). The phylogenetic evidence provided by Middle
6
and Late Triassic tetrapods was introduced to this analysis through a composite tree
7
(‘informal supertree’) constructed by hand of the group (figure 1). The topologies
8
recovered by several independent cladistic analyses have been employed in order to
9
perform this composite tree (see below). The terminals dating from non-Middle/Late
10
Triassic beds were not considered. The phylogenetic relationships among the main
11
lineages of Tetrapoda were reconstructed according to the analysis of Gauthier et al.
12
(1988). Programs employed to perform TRA analyses (COMPONENT 2.0 and
13
TreeMap 1.0; Page 1993, 1995) cannot deal with polytimized phylogenetic tress. Thus,
14
the following data sources and pruning criteria for polytomized trees were applied for
15
each tetrapod clade:
16
(1) Temnospondyli: the supertree generated by Ruta et al. (2007) was used to
17
consider the phylogenetic interrelationships among temnospondyls. The cladogram
18
performed in this study presents a fully resolved topology, thus it was not necessary to
19
prune any Middle or Late Triassic temnospondyl from the geographic areas considered
20
here.
21
(2) Procolophonidae: the phylogenetic analysis of Procolophonidae performed by
22
Cisneros (2008) was used for this tetrapod clade. The strict consensus tree recovered by
23
Cisneros (2008) exhibit fully resolved relationships for Middle and Late Triassic
24
procolophonids, thus no taxon was pruned.
1
(3) Testudinata: the phylogenetic relationships of basal testudinates recovered by
2
the analysis of Joyce et al. (2009) were followed in this contribution. The topology
3
recovered by these authors presents two trichotomies, one composed of Chinlechelys,
4
Proganochelys, and more crown-ward forms, and the other constituted by
5
Palaeochersis, Australochelys, and more derived taxa. The latter polytomy is not
6
problematic, because Australochelys is Early Jurassic in age and goes beyond the time
7
span considered in this study. However, the more basal trichotomy is composed of Late
8
Triassic taxa and a pruning criterion was adopted. For the sake of increase the available
9
geographic area information, Proganochelys was excluded from the composite tree of
10
Tetrapoda, because this taxon and Proterochersis come from European beds and
11
Chinlechelys will provide information of the North American fauna.
12
(4) Dicynodontia: the phylogenetic relationships of Middle Triassic dicynodonts
13
were reconstructed after the analysis of Damiani et al. (2007). The most parsimonious
14
tress recovered by these authors exhibit fully resolved relationships among Middle
15
Triassic dicynodonts (i.e., Kannemeyeriiformes). For the Late Triassic time slice,
16
although they were not included in the analysis of Damiani et al. (2007), the South
17
American dicynodont genera Ischigualastia and Jachaleria (composed of two species)
18
were included for the sake of increasing geographic data (Cox 1962; Bonaparte 1970;
19
Araújo & Gonzaga 1980).
20
(5) Cynognathia: the phylogenetic relationships of cynongnathian cynodonts found
21
by Abdala et al. (2006) were followed in this contribution. The majority rule consensus
22
of this study depicted two politomies, a trichotomy at the base of Traversodontidae
23
composed of Luangwa, Scalenodon angustifrons, and more derived forms, and the other
24
is a fourth order polytomy constituted by “Scalenodon” hirschsoni, Pascualgnathus,
25
Traversodon, and more derived taxa. The trichotomy was avoided pruning Scalenodon
1
angustifrons, because this species comes from central Africa (Tanzania) (Parrington
2
1946) and Luangwa provides more geographic data, coming from South America and
3
meridional Africa (Brink 1963, Abdala & Sa-Texeira 2004; Abdala & Smith 2009). In
4
the other polytomy, “Scalenodon” hirschsoni and Traversodon were excluded from the
5
analysis, and Pascualgnathus was included in order to increase the data coming from
6
the “Ischigualasto” geographic area.
7
(6) Probainognathia: the analysis of Martinelli & Rougier (2007) was followed
8
regarding the phylogenetic relationships of probainognathian eucynodonts. The
9
topology recovered by these authors is fully resolved.
10
(7) Sphenodontia: the phylogenetic analysis of Evans (2003) was followed for
11
sphenodontian interrelationships. This phylogeny presents a trichotomy composed of
12
the European clade (Brachyrhinodon + Polysphenodon), Clevosaurus, and more crown-
13
ward taxa. However, no pruning was implemented, because the taxa more derived than
14
Clevosaurus in this study are recorded in post-Triassic rocks.
15
(8) Simiosauria: the phylogenetic relationships among simiosaurians were followed
16
according to the analysis of Senter (2004). No polytomy was found by this author.
17
(9) Tanystropheidae: the phylogenetic relationships of tanystropheids and their
18
position as basal archosauromorphs were followed from Senter (2004). No polytomy
19
was found by this author.
20
(10) Rhynchosauria: the phylogenetic analysis of Langer & Schultz (2000) was
21
adopted for rhynchosaur interrelationships. This analysis recovered a polytomy
22
composed of Hyperodapedon mariensis, Hyperidapedon gordoni + Hyperodapedon
23
huxleyi, and Hyperodapedon sanjuanensis. In order to avoid this polytomy,
24
Hyperodapedon mariensis was pruned from the analysis, because it presents the same
25
geographic information as the sister-taxon of this entire group, Hyperodapedon huenei.
1
(11) Non-archosaurian Archosauriformes: the phylogenetic relationships of non-
2
archosaurian archosauriforms recently found by Nesbitt et al. (2009a) were followed,
3
but with some changes. In order to include a “proterosuchid”, the Middle Triassic
4
Sarmatosuchus (sensu Gower & Sennikov 1997) was included instead of the Early
5
Triassic Proterosuchus. The information provided by the erythrosuchids was enlarged
6
adding the Russian species Vjushkovia triplicostata, a widely accepted close relative of
7
Erythrosuchus africanus (von Huene 1960; Parrish 1992). In the Middle Triassic time
8
slice, the type species of the proterochampsid genus Chanaresuchus was included
9
(Romer 1971) together with a Chanaresuchus sp. from the Santa Maria Formation
10
(Dornelles 1992, 1995). Besides, a Chanresuchus sp. from the Ischigualasto Formation
11
(Sill et al. 1994) and the two species of Proterochampsa (Sill 1967; Barberena 1982)
12
were incorporated to the Late Triassic tetrapod tree.
13
(12) Phytosauria: the analysis of Parker & Irmis (2006) was followed regarding the
14
phylogenetic relationships of phytosaur crurotarsans. The topology recovered by these
15
authors is fully resolved. Additionally, the relationships among the main lineages of
16
crurotarsans (i.e., phytosaurs, aetosaurs, ornithosuchians, rauisuchians,
17
crocodylomorphs) were reconstructed according to Brusatte et al. (2008).
18
(13) Aetosauria: the phylogenetic relationships of aetosaurs recovered by the
19
analysis of Parker (2007) were followed in this contribution. The phylogenetic
20
relationships among desmatosuchins and typothoracisins are fully resolved. By contrast,
21
the relationships among aetosaurins exhibit two politomies. In order to avoid these
22
ambiguities, Coahomasuchus and both species of Stagonolepis were pruned from the
23
analysis, leaving the taxa that provide more geographic information (i.e.,
24
Neoaetosauroides, Aetosaurus, Aetosauroides).
1
(14) Rauisuchia: the phylogenetic relationships among rauisuchians were
2
reconstructed according to the phylogenetic analysis of Brusatte et al. (2008). No
3
poltimies were recovered by these authors within Rauisuchia, and ornithosuchians were
4
found as members of this group as the sister-taxon of Poposauroidea.
5
(15) Pterosauria: the phylogenetic relationships of pterosaurs were reconstructed
6
after the analysis of Brusatte et al. (2008), which does not recover politomies within this
7
clade.
8
(16) Non-dinosaurian Dinosauromorpha: the cladistic analysis performed by
9
Nesbitt et al. (2009b) was used for the phylogenetic relationships of non-dinosaurian
10
dinosauromorphs. No politomies were obtained in this analysis.
11
(17) Ornithischia: the extremely poor Triassic record of ornithischians (Irmis et al.
12
2007) is reflected in the present analysis, in which the only two currently valid Triassic
13
species of the group are included. The ornithischian nature of this species is followed
14
according to Casamiquela (1967) and Butler et al. (2007).
15
(18) Herrerasauria: the phylogenetic relationships among herrerasaurians were
16
considered following the analyses of Novas et al. (2009) and Ezcurra et al. (in review),
17
in which a specimen from the Late Triassic of India (ISI R282) is found as the sister-
18
taxon of Herrerasauridae.
19
(19) Sauropodomorpha: the phylogenetic analyses performed by Novas et al.
20
(2009) and Ezcurra et al. (in review) were used to consider the phylogenetic
21
interrelationships among basal sauropodomorphs. Some politomies were found in this
22
analyses, as consequence Panphagia, Agnosphytis and Pantydraco were pruned with
23
the goal of avoiding such ambiguities but maintaining the maximum of geographic data.
24
25
(20) Non-neotheropod Theropda: Nesbitt et al. (2009c) performed the most recent
cladistic analysis of basal theropods, which includes the recently described basal
1
theropod Tawa. Accordingly, this analysis was selected here. No polotimies were found
2
by these authors among non-neotheropod theropods.
3
(21) Neotheropoda: the analysis of Ezcurra & Novas (2007) was chosen for the
4
phylogenetic relationships within Neotheropoda. The European Procompsognathus was
5
pruned from the analysis in order to avoid the polytomy found by these authors within
6
Coelophysoidea.
7
8
9
S3. GEOGRAPHIC AREAS AND TIME SLICES SELECTION
Key Middle and Late Triassic tetrapod-bearing assemblages have been selected as
10
geographic areas because of their abundant and/or diverse fossil content. Seven
11
geographic areas were designated to conduct the present cladistic palaeobiogeographic
12
analysis:
13
(1) Ischigualasto-Cuyo (western Argentina: Ischigualasto-Villa Unión, Sierra
14
Pintada, and Cuyo basins): the Cuyo Basin, cropping out in central western Argentina,
15
bears rich tetrapod-bearing assemblages of Middle and Late Triassic age (Marsicano et
16
al. 2001). The Sierra Pintada Basin has rich tetrapod faunas of Early and early Middle
17
Triassic age (Bonaparte 1981; Martinelli et al. 2009). The Ischigualasto-Villa Unión
18
Basin is located in northwestern Argentina, and it is famous for its abundant and diverse
19
late Middle and Late Triassic fossil content, including one of the oldest known dinosaur
20
faunas (Rogers et al. 1993). These geological basins of western Argentina have been
21
considered as a single geographic area (Ischigualasto-Cuyo) because they document a
22
quite continuous temporal sequence in the southwestern extreme of the supercontinent
23
of Pangaea.
24
25
(2) Santa Maria (southern Brazil: Santa María Supersequence): this sequence crops
out in southern Brazil and documents abundant Early, Middle, and Late Triassic
1
tetrapod faunas (Langer et al. 2007). The tetrapod faunas of the Santa Maria (late
2
Middle and early Late Triassic) and Caturrita (middle Late Triassic) formations were
3
considered in this analysis (Langer 2005a).
4
(3) Africa (meridional Africa depocenters): several localities from meridional
5
Africa, most of them corresponding to the Karoo Basin, were considered as composing
6
a single geographic area (Africa). The Ischigualastian Triassic record of meridional
7
Africa is quite biased, so this geographic area was not considered in the analysis of this
8
time slice (Anderson et al. 1998; Lucas & Hancox 2001).
9
(4) Asia: several Asiatic tetrapod-bearing sedimentary units of Middle and Late
10
Triassic age have been included in this analysis and all grouped in the geographic area
11
of Asia. The Late Triassic record from this geographic area is strongly patched, and it
12
was not considered in the analyses of the Ischigualastian and Coloradian time slices
13
(Benton 1983).
14
(5) Europe: in this geographic area the tetrapod-bearing beds of Middle and Late
15
Triassic age of the West European depocenters and the Keuper Group were included
16
(Benton 1983).
17
(6) North America (meridional North America): in this geographic area the basins of
18
the Newark Supergroup and the Chinle Group were considered. These beds preserve an
19
abundant and diverse sample of tetrapods that inhabited the northwestern extreme of
20
Pangaea during the Middle and Late Triassic (e.g., Long & Murry 1995; Irmis 2005).
21
(7) India (central India: Pranhita-Gondavari and Son-Mahanadi basins): the Middle
22
and Late Triassic tetrapod record of India is well-represented in the Pranhita-Gondavari
23
and Son-Mahanadi basins (Bandyopadhyay & Sengupta 2006). Accordingly, the
24
tetrapods collected from these sedimentary basins have been grouped in the geographic
25
area of India.
1
2
The time slicing protocol introduced by Upchurch et al. (2002) for TRAs was
3
implemented here. Three time-frames were selected to conduct the palaeobiogeographic
4
analysis: Middle Triassic, Ischigualastian (early Late Triassic), and Coloradian (late
5
Late Triassic) (Bonaparte 1973; Langer 2005a, b). The Reptile-Ages Ischigualastian and
6
Coloradian were chosen over stratigraphical ages (i.e., Carnian-Rhaetian), because they
7
are defined by key tetrapod taxa among Triassic continental tetrapod faunas which seem
8
to be of global extent (Bonaparte 1973; Langer 2005a, b). By contrast, the
9
stratigraphical ages are largely determined by marine conodont biozones (Muttoni et al.
10
2001), and absolute age assessments and correlations among continental Triassic rock
11
units are notoriously difficult (Muttoni et al. 2004). Accordingly, Reptile-Ages are more
12
adequate as time-slices in order to conduct a TRA of Triassic continental biotas.
13
14
S4. TREATMENT OF THE “WIDESPREAD TAXA” PROBLEM
15
When a taxon is found in two or more of the employed geographic areas this is
16
considered a “widespread taxon”. Such distributions would be consequence of several
17
different reasons, including missing data and biotic dispersal. Cladistic biogeographers
18
have coped with this problem following three different alternative assumptions
19
(assumption 0, 1 or 2), which differ in the allowed cladogenetic relationships among the
20
areas in which the taxon is distributed (Nelson & Platnick 1981; Zandee & Roos 1987;
21
Sanmartin & Ronquist 2002). The use of these assumptions allows widespread taxa to
22
be included in these analyses (Upchurch et al. 2002).
23
In the present cladistic palaeobiogeographic analysis some widespread taxa are
24
present, including Aetosauroides, Hyperodapedon sanjuanensis, Exaeretodon spp.,
25
Metoposaurus, Massetognathus, Luangwa, Diademodon, Cynognathus, Kannemeyeria,
1
and Cyclotosaurus. With the exception of the genus Exaeretodon, all the other taxa are a
2
single widespread species or no sufficient information is currently available to separate
3
specimens at an alfa-taxonomic level. Accordingly, these taxa were treated following
4
the assumption 2 of Nelson & Platnick (1981), which allows a failure to vicariate,
5
extinction, dispersal, or any combination of these events as an explanation for the origin
6
of widespread distributions (van Veller et al. 1999). By contrast, Exaeretodon has four
7
distinct species recognized in three geographic areas (i.e., Exaeretodon major: Santa
8
Maria; Exaeretodon riograndensis; Exaeretodon statisticae: India; Exaeretodon
9
frenguelli: Ischigualasto; Cabrera 1943; Chatterjee 1982; Abdala et al. 2002). This
10
genus should be treated following the assumption 0 of Zandee & Roos (1987), in which
11
the widespread distribution of the taxon is result of a failure to speciate in response to
12
vicariant events affecting other lineages and it is considered as a synapomorphy of the
13
areas in which it occurs (Sanmartin & Ronquist 2002). However, no currently available
14
analysis successfully reconstructed the phylogenetic relationships among the species of
15
Exaeretodon, and since the programs used here to conduct the TRAs cannot deal with
16
politomies, the assumption 2 has been also used for the genus Exaeretodon.
17
18
S5. OPTIMAL AREA CLADOGRAMS (OACs) SEARCH PARAMETERS
19
The OACs have been reconstructed with the program COMPONENT 2.0 (Page
20
1993) based on the information provided by the composite tree of Middle and Late
21
Triassic tetrapods performed here. The geographic areas (hosts) without associates were
22
interpreted as missing information. A heuristic search employing nearest-neighbor
23
interchanges as branch swapping algorithm was conducted and “losses” was used as the
24
optimal criterion instead of the optimization of “leaves added”.
1
The use of “leaves added” as the optimal criterion during the search of the OACs
2
maximizes the number of codivergences among the geographic areas. However, when
3
some of the employed geographic areas have a poor taxonomic sample, usual when we
4
are working with palaeontological evidence, the leaves added optimization will tend to
5
recover these areas closer to the root of the tree or clade. This is result of the low
6
number of taxa sampled from these areas, which result in a lower probability of
7
codivergences with other areas than it would be recovered between two well-sampled
8
territories. By contrast, the optimization of “losses” during the search is less sensitive to
9
these poorly sampled geographic areas, and will be more effective to reconstruct their
10
palaeobiogeographic affinities. Accordingly, I have used the latter optimal criterion in
11
order to perform the search of the OACs.
12
13
14
In order to compare the two optimal criteria, the following results are found when
the “leaves added” criterion is used:
(1) Middle Triassic: in this time slice almost the same topology is recovered for the
15
single OAC. The difference relapses in the position of India, the worst sampled
16
geographic area of this time slice (an unsurprising result because of the sensitive of the
17
algorithm for poorly sampled areas). In this analysis, India is found as the sister-area of
18
the clade which includes Asia, Europe, and North America. The randomization test
19
found a significant statistical support (p < 0.05) for the TRA of this time slice.
20
21
22
(2) Ischigualastian: the same OAC has been recovered for the Ischigualastian
employing either of the two optimal criteria.
(3) Coloradian: this time slice exhibits the greater difference between the
23
employments of the two optimal criteria. The optimization of “leaves added” found a
24
single OAC of the following topology: (Santa Maria, (India, (South Africa,
25
(Ischigualasto, (Europe, North America))))). It must be noted that Ischigualasto and the
1
Europe + North America clade share several codivergent events, but Santa Maria and
2
India seem to be found artificially outside all the other geographic areas because of the
3
poor sample of their Coloradian tetrapod record (Langer et al. 2007, 2009; Kutty &
4
Sengupta 1989; Bandyopadhyay & Sengupta 2006). The randomization test recovered
5
that the reconstruction generated by the TRA in this time slice was not statistically
6
significant (p > 0.05).
7
8
S6. RECONSTRUCTION OF BIOGEOGRAPHIC EVENTS AND
9
RANDOMISATION TEST ANALYSES
10
Reconstructions of biogeographic events for each time-slice were conducted in
11
TreeMap 1.0 (Page 1995) through heuristic searches. Regarding the statistical analyses,
12
a randomisation test which generates random area cladograms and reconciles each of
13
them with the phylogenetic cladogram was performed (Page 1991). This test has the
14
goal of determining the probability that the observed biogeographical pattern could have
15
occurred only by chance (Page 1994a, 1995). The area cladograms were randomized
16
instead of the tetrapod phylogeny, because in this analysis I wanted to test which was
17
the effect in the reconciliation analysis of alternative random OACs onto a steady
18
phylogenetic framework. Besides, it was considered here that the size of the OACs (the
19
smaller one with 5 terminals) was sufficient to provide a good statistical test for the
20
TRA. Accordingly, for each time slice, 10,000 randomised replications were conducted
21
using the “proportional to distinguishable” algorithm. This randomisation test was
22
conducted in TreeMap 1.0. The topology recovered in the OACs was considered as
23
statistically significant if less than 5% of the replicates (p < 0.05) reached the number of
24
codivergences found in the original TRA.
25
1
2
S7. SSf CALCULATION
The TRAs performed in TreeMap 1.0 recover the number of codivergences
3
(coespeciations), sympatric splits (duplications), extinctions (sorting events), and
4
dispersals (host switches) present at each data frame (Sanmartin & Ronquist 2002). In
5
the present contribution, the frequency of sympatric splits (SSf) was calculated
6
following equation 1, in order to compare the importance that had this
7
macroevolutionary event at each time slice.
8
9
10
11
SSf = (SS/CE)*100
(1)
SSf: frequency of sympatric split events over the total of cladogenetic events present
in the taxon cladogram.
12
SS: number of sympatric events found by the TRA.
13
CE: number of cladogenetic events document by the phylogenetic tree.
14
15
S8. PALAEOLATITUDINAL OPTIMIZATION ON THE OACs,
16
PALAEOLATITUDINAL CONSISTENCY INDEX, AND STATISTICAL
17
SUPPORT.
18
In order to obtain a quantitative measure of the relationships between
19
palaeolatitudinal distinctions and the topology obtained in the OACs, a
20
“palaeolatitudinal consistency index” was calculated. First, the palaeolatitudes of the
21
respective geographic areas were scored in the continuous character “palaeolatitude”,
22
treated as such (Goloboff et al. 2006). This character was treated a priori polarization.
23
Then, this character was optimized on the topologies of the recovered OACs of each
24
time slice using the program TNT 1.1. (Goloboff et al. 2008). Finally, the consistency
25
index of the character “palaeolatitude” (PltCI) was calculated (see equation 2). A closer
1
value of the consistency index to 1 indicates less degree of homoplasy for the character
2
(Kluge & Farris 1969) (Fig. S9). Accordingly, a stronger palaeolatitudinal signal in the
3
reconstructed OAC is indicated as closer the PalCI is to 1.
4
5
PltCI = Pltm/Plts (2)
6
PltCI: palaeolatitudinal consistency index.
7
Pltm: number of states of the palaeolatitudinal character – 1 (i.e. minimum number
8
9
10
of changes in any tree).
Plts: number of steps recovered in the optimization of the palaeolatitudinal character
on the OACs.
11
12
Finally, a statistical analysis generating P-values was performed through a sample
13
of randomized trees in order to test the likelihood of recovering the Ischigualastian
14
palaeolatitudinal signal by chance alone. 10,000 random rooted trees of the same
15
number of leaves recovered in the Ischigualastian OAC (i.e., 5 geographic areas) were
16
generated with the program COMPONENT 2.0. This program generates random trees
17
through an algorithm which uses the numbering scheme of Furnas (1984). It establishes
18
a one-to-one correspondence between the integers 1 to k, where k is the number of
19
unlabelled trees for n taxa (Page 1993). Using a uniform random number generator a
20
random number between 1 and k is obtained, and employed to recover a random tree
21
(Page 1993). The character palaeolatitud was optimized onto this set of random
22
cladograms and the consistency index of the character was calculated with TNT 1.1. A p
23
value was generated with the number of random trees which recovered the same
24
palaeobiogeographic signal as the original OAC (i.e., the same PltCI). Through these
1
proceeding a significant statistical support was found (p = 0.0094), indicating that the
2
Ischigualastian palaeolatitudinal signal is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.
3
1
2
Figure S9. Optimization of the palaeolatitud of each geographic area as a continuous
3
character onto the OACs of each time slice. The palaeolatitud of each terminal was
4
divided by 10 in order to work with smaller values (e.g., for Africa during the
5
Coloradian: 55°/10 = 5.5). Abbreviations: CI, consistency index.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES IN SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Abdala, F. & Teixeira, A. M. S. 2004. A traversodontid cynodont of African affinity in
the South American Triassic. Palaeontol. Afr. 40, 11–22.
Abdala, F., Barberena, M. A. & Dornelles, J. 2002. A new species of the traversodontid
cynodont Exaeretodon from the Santa Maria Formation (Middle/Late Triassic) of
southern Brazil. JVP 22, 313–325.
Abdala, F., Neveling, J. & Welman, J. 2006. A new trirachodontid cynodont from the
lower levels of the Burgersdorp Formation (Lower Triassic) of the Beaufort Group,
South Africa and the cladistic relationships of Gondwanan gomphodonts. ZJLS 147,
383–413.
Abdala, F. & Smith, R. M. H. 2009. A Middle Triassic cynodont fauna from Namibia
and its implications for the biogeography of Gondwana. JVP 29, 837–851.
Anderson, J. M., Anderson, H. M. & Cruickshank, A. I. 1998. Late Triassic ecosystems
of the Molteno/Lower Elliot biome of southern Africa. Palaeontology 41, 387–422.
Araújo, D.C. & Gonzaga, T.D. 1980. Uma nova especie de Jachaleria (Therapsida,
Dicynodontia) do Triassico do Brasil. Actas del II Congreso Argentino de
Paleontología y Biostratigrafía / I Congresso Latinoamericano de Paleontología,
159–174.
Barberena, M. C. 1982. Uma nova espécie de Proterocampsa (P. nodosa sp. nov.) do
Triássico do Brasil. Anais da Academia de Ciências 54, 127–141.
Bonaparte, J. F. 1970, Annotated list of the South American Triassic tetrapods.
Proceedings and Papers of the 2nd Symposium on Gondwana Stratigraphy, 665–
682.
Bonaparte, J.F. 1973. Edades/Reptil para el Triásico de Argentina y Brasil. 5º Congreso
Geológico Argentino, Actas 3, 93–129.
Bonaparte, J. F. 1981. Nota sobre una nueva fauna del Triásico Inferior del sur de
Mendoza, Argentina, correspondiente a la Zona de Lystrosaurus (Dicynodontia Proterosuchia). Anales II Congreso Latinoamericano de Paleontología, Porto
Alegre 1981 1, 277–288.
Brink, A. S. 1963. Two cynodonts from the Ntawere Formation in the Luangwa valley
of Northern Rhodesia. Palaeontol. Afr. 8, 77–96.
Brusatte, S. L., Benton, M. J., Ruta, M. & Lloyd, G. T. 2008. Superiority, Competition,
and Opportunism in the Evolutionary Radiation of Dinosaurs. Science 321, 1485–
1488.
Butler, R. J., Smith, R. M. H. & Norman, D. B. 2007. A primitive ornithischian
dinosaur from the Late Triassic of South Africa, and the early evolution and
diversification of Ornithischia. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 274, 2041–2046.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Cabrera, A. 1943. El primer hallazgo de tera´psidos en la Argentina. Notas del Museo
de La Plata 8, 317–331.
Casamiquela, R. M. 1967. Un nuevo dinosaurio ornitisquio Triásico (Pisanosaurus
mertii; Ornithopoda) de la Formación Ischigualasto, Argentina. Ameghiniana 4, 47–
64.
Chatterjee S. 1982. A new cynodont reptile from the Triassic of India. J. Paleontol. 56,
203–214.
Cisneros, J. C. 2008. Phylogenetic relationships of procolophonid parareptiles with
remarks on their geological record. J. Syst. Palaeontol. 6, 345–366.
Cox, C. B. 1962. Preliminary diagnosis of Ischigualastia, a new genus of dicynodont
from Argentina. Breviora 156, 8–9.
Damiani, R., Vasconcelos, C., Renaut, A., Hancox, J. & Yates, A. 2007. Dolichuranus
primaevus (Therapsida: Anomodontia) from the Middle Triassic of Namibia and its
phylogenetic relationships. Palaeontology 50, 1319–1576.
Dornelles, J. F. 1992. Cerritosaurus binsfeldi Price 1946 e Chanaresuchus sp.
(Thecodontia, Proterosuchis, Cerritosauridae) da Formação Santa Maria,
Triássico do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Dissertação de Mestrado em
Geociências, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, pp. 1–82.
Dornelles, J. F. 1995. Um tecodonte proterosuquídeo (Chanaresuchus sp.) do Triássico
do Rio Grande do Sul. Comunicações do Museu de Ciências e Tecnologia
UBEA/PUCRS, Série Ciências da Terra 1, 63–68.
Evans, S. E. 2003. At the feet of the dinosaurs: the early history and radiation of lizards.
Biol. Rev. 78, 513–551.
Ezcurra, M. D. & Novas, F. E. 2007. Phylogenetic relationships of the Triassic theropod
Zupaysaurus rougieri from NW Argentina. Historical Biology 19, 35–72.
Furnas, G. W. 1984. The generation of random, binary unordered trees. J. Classif. 1,
187–233.
Gauthier, J. A., Kluge, A. G. & Rowe, T. 1988. The early evolution of the Amniota. In
The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods, Volume 1: Amphibians,
Reptiles, Birds (ed Benton M. J.), pp. 103–155. Systematics Association Special
Volume: Clarendon Press 35A.
Goloboff, P. A., Mattoni, C. I. & Quinteros, A. S. 2006. Continuous characters analyzed
as such. Cladistics 22, 1–13.
Gower, D. J. & Sennikov, A. G. 1997. Sarmatosuchus and the early history of the
Archosauria. JVP 17, 60–73.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Huene, F. von. 1960. Ein grosser Pseudosuchier aus der Orenburger Trias.
Palaeontographica Abteilung A 114, 105–111.
Irmis, R. B. 2005. The vertebrate fauna of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in
northern Arizona. In Guidebook to the Triassic Formations of the Colorado Plateau
in northern Arizona: Geology, Paleontology, and History (eds Nesbitt, S. J., Parker,
W. G. & Irmis, R. B.), pp. 1-26. Mesa Southwest Museum, Bulletin 9.
Irmis, R. B., Parker, W.G., Nesbitt, S. J. & Liu, J. 2007. Early ornithischian dinosaurs:
the Triassic record. Historical Biology 19, 3–22.
Joyce, W. G., Lucas, S. G., Scheyer, T. M., Heckert, A. B. & Hunt, A. P. 2009. A thinshelled reptile from the Late Triassic of North America and the origin of the turtle
shell. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 507–513.
Kutty, T. S. & Sengupta, D. P. 1989. The Late Triassic Formations of the PranhitaGodavary Valley and their vertebrate faunal succession - a reappraisal. Indian
Journal of Earth Sciences 16, 189–206.
Langer, M. C. 2005a. Studies on continental Late Triassic tetrapod biochronology. I.
The type locality of Saturnalia tupiniqium and the faunal succesion in south Brazil.
Journal of South American Earth Sciences 19, 205–218.
Langer, M. C. 2005b. Studies on continental Late Triassic tetrapod biochronology. II.
The Ischigualastian and a Carnian global correlation. Journal of South American
Earth Sciences 19, 219–239.
Langer, M. C., Ezcurra, M. D., Bittencourt, J. S. & Novas, F. E. 2009. The origin and
early evolution of dinosaurs. Biol. Rev. 84, doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00094.x
Long, R. A. & Murry, P. A. 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from
the southwestern United States. New Mexico Mus. Nat. Hist. Sci. Bull. 4, 1–254.
Lucas, S. G. & Hancox, P. J. 2001. Tetrapod-based correlation of the nonmarine Upper
Triassic of southern Africa. Albertiana 25, 5–9.
Marsicano, C., Gallego, O & Arcucci, A. 2001. Faunas del Triásico: relaciones patrones
de distribución y sucesión temporal. In El Sistema Triásico en la Argentina (eds
Artabe, A. E., Morel, E. M. & Zamuner, A. B.), pp. 131–141. La Plata: Fundación
Museo de La Plata “Francisco Pascasio Moreno”.
Martinelli, A. G. & Rougier, G. W. 2007. On Chaliminia musteloides (Eucynodontia:
Tritheledontidae) from the Late Triassic of Argentina, and a phylogeny of
Ictidosauria. JVP 27, 442–460.
Martinelli, A. G., de la Fuente, M. & Abdala, F. 2009. Diademodon tetragonus Seeley,
1894 (Therapsida: Cynodontia) in the Triassic of South America and its
biostratigraphic implications. JVP 29, 852–862.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Muttoni, G., Kent, D.V., Di Stefano, P., Gullo, M., Nicora, A., Tait, J. & Lowrie, W.
2001. Magnetostratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the Carnian/Norian boundary
interval from the Pizzo Mondello section (Sicani Mountains, Sicily). PPP 166, 383–
399.
Muttoni, G., Kent, D. V., Olsen, P. E., Di Stefano, P., Lowrie, W., Bernasconi, S. M. &
Hernandez, F. M. 2004. Tethyan magnetostratigraphy from Pizzo Mondello (Sicily)
and correlation to the Late Triassic Newark astrochronological polarity time scale.
Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 116, 1043–1058.
Nelson, G. J. & Platnick, N. I. 1981. Systematics and Biogeography: cladistics and
vicariance. New York: Columbia University Press.
Nesbitt, S. J., Stocker, M. R., Small, B. J. & Downs, A. 2009a. The osteology and
relationships of Vancleavea campi (Reptilia: Archosauriformes). ZJLS 157, 814–
864.
Nesbitt, S. J., Irmis, R. B., Parker, W.G., Smith, N. D., Turner, A. H. & Rowe, T.
2009b. Hindlimb osteology and distribution of basal dinosauromorphs from the Late
Triassic of North America. JVP 29, 498–516.
Nesbitt, S. J., Smith, N. D., Irmis, R. B., Turner, A. H., Downs, A. & Norell, M. A.
2009c. A Complete Skeleton of a Late Triassic Saurischian and the Early Evolution
of Dinosaurs. Science 326, 1530–1533.
Novas F. E., Chatterjee S., Ezcurra M. D & Kutty T. S. 2009. New dinosaur remains
from the Late Triassic of Central India. JVP 29, 156A.
Parrington, F. R. 1946. On the cranial anatomy of cynodonts. PZSL 116, 181–197.
Parker, W. G. 2007. Reassessment of the aetosaur “Desmatosuchus” chamaensis with a
reanalysis of the phylogeny of the Aetosauria (Archosauria: Pseudosuchia). J. Syst.
Palaeontol. 5, 41–68.
Parker, W. G. & Irmis, R. B. 2006. A new species of the Late Triassic phytosaur
Pseudopalatus (Archosauria: Pseudosuchia) from Petrified Forest National Park,
Arizona. In A Century of Research at Petrified Forest Natonal Park: Geology and
Paleontology (eds Parker, W. G., Ash, S. R. & Irmis, R. B.), pp. 126–143. Museum
of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 62.
Parrish, J. M. 1992. Phylogeny of the Erythrosuchidae (Reptilia: Archosauriformes).
JVP 12, 93–102.
Rogers, R. R., Swisher III, C. C., Sereno, P.C., Forster, C. A. & Monetta, A. M. 1993.
The Ischigualasto tetrapod assemblage (Late Triassic) and 40Ar/39Ar calibration of
dinosaur origins. Science 260, 794–797.
Romer, A. S. 1971. The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XI. Two new longsnouted thecodonts, Chanaresuchus and Gualosuchus. Breviora, 379, 1–22.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Ruta, M., Pisani, D., Lloyd, G. T. & Benton, M. J. 2007. A supertree of Temnospondyli:
cladogenetic patterns in the most species-rich group of early tetrapods. Proc. R. Soc.
Lond. B 274, 3087–3095.
Sanmartín, I. & Ronquist, F. 2002. New solutions to old problems: widespread taxa,
redundant distributions and missing areas in event–based biogeography. Animal
Biodiversity and Conservation 25.2, 75–93.
Senter, P. 2004. Phylogeny of Drepanosauridae (Reptilia: Diapsida). J. Syst. Palaeontol.
2, 257–268.
Sill, W. D. 1967. Proterochampsa barrionuevoi and the early evolution of the
Crocodilia. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 135, 415–446.
Sill, W.D., Alcober, O. & Contreras, V.H. 1994. A complete skeleton of a new
archosauriform (?Proterocampsidae) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Triassic,
San Juan, Argentina. JVP 14, 9A.
Turner, A.H., Smith, N.D. & Callery, J.A. 2009. Gauging the effects of sampling failure
in biogeographic analysis. J. Biogeogr., doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.02020.x
Van Veller, M. G. P., Zandee, M. & Kornet, D. J. 1999. Two requirements for obtaining
valid common patterns under assumptions 0, 1 and 2 in vicariance biogeography.
Cladistics 15, 393–406.
Zandee, M. & Roos, M. C. 1987. Component compatibility in historical biogeography.
Cladistics 3, 305–332.