There‘s also Pappochelys which is considered a stem turtle with a diapsid skull. I do think turtles are Diapsids but whether they are in the lepidosaur line or archosaur line is still a pretty tough question
So in the paper on Chinlechelys they actually recover Pappochelys as a stem sauropterygian, not related to turtles, and they recover turtles as parareptilians. So what's really needed is just more fossils to try and link turtles to something. There is evidence both for and against relations to archisauromorphs and to pareaisaurs, and until something more definitive is found it will still be a little bit up in the air. Personally, I think the genetics are a very strong argument for the archosauromorph hypothesis, but I'm also not a genetics expert, so I'm mostly basing this on the opinions of people who do know genetics better.
I do kind of love that even though turtles are so common in our modern time that some of us even keep them as pets, palentologically, we're still not really sure where the hell they came from.
Basically to me,Scutosaurus may not be either turtles or dinosaur,but is basically just a turtle + a dinosaur,and this was a great video on these Permian oddballs. Also I hope y'all are having a great day.
Scutosaurus was part of a now extinct group. The turtles are the real question, as they align with both archosaurs genetically, and Pareiasaurs morphologically. So there's just debate about where they came from.
Gotta love UA-cam. In this super-sciency (and very informative!) video about a random/arbitrary ancient reptile species, you’re having to field questions about the size and tightness of your shirt 😂 Keep up the good work! Loved the video!
Yeah, the shirt was a slim, not normal fit, so it's a bit tight. But glad you liked the video! & I appreciate that you recognized the sheer volume of shirt comments I got. If that's what I need to drive content though Maybe I just need to find a smaller one lol.
They are at least a bit yeah. The genetic argument does seem stronger in general, and a lot of the fossil reptiles in the Triassic were diverging rapidly, so convergence morphologically isn't out of the question.
The channel Aron Ra has a great video lecture called something like "The Turtle and Monkey issues" or something like that. The video is a couple years old at this point, but it's got an amazing amount of information about the evolution arguments surrounding turtles, and I believe something about monkeys as well but I don't remember what the issue was with that. It might have even been something different than monkeys..... But if you search his name and something like turtle issue. You should be able to find the video. I highly recommend He covers a lot of evolution, biology, and birds are dinos subjects. Often debunking anti evolutionists. But he has a whole series about the classification of life, where he uses the cladistic method of classification, and starts at the beginning of life, until today, working thru the clades until you get to vertebrates and eventually humans. Great series all in a playlist on his channel. I'm hooked on this channel and Aron Ra, and Stephen Milo. All 3 I find fascinating, and while they have a little overlap, all 3 cover different things in different ways. And Stephen Milo mostly covers human archeology and evolution, but he also covers a Vast range of anything to Do with humans. From pyramids, to native American migration, to early civilizations, etc. Quite a broad range of topics about humans
Your background has inspired me to take the time and house fossils, or stuff generally related to animals, in exquisite glass cases If I ever somehow manage to find any (authentic) lol
Go for it. There's a reasonable amount of stuff that is pretty reasonable to get, and reasonably ethical. I have a video where I discuss my collection if you're looking for ideas.
if you look for small crustaceans from the jurassic time i can maybe hook you up for free, i susally go fossil hunting and i doubt it being illegal to send it over to people.
Assuming the genetic evidence for turtles is solid, would it be too far fetched to consider the placement of the parareptilians as wrong. Is there any strong evidence that parareptilians are that distant? I mean, if it is just about holes in the skulls, isn't that a feature that can get lost again (especially considering what some of their ancestors have been doing with their heads). Does it cause any (timing) conflict with split of snakes and lizards from the birds and crocodilian linages?
So this would inherently mean that Parareptiles are Archosauromorphs, and that the Lepidosaur/Archosaur split had already occured by the time Parareptiles evolved. The problem is genetically and based on the fossil record the Lepidosaur/ Archosaur split only happened near the end of the Permian, but there are Parareptile fossils from at least the early Permian. it is still possible, but would probably take a few incredibly intermediate fossils to really show it with any level of confidence.
I always thought the Scutosaurus was an anapsid, which, from my initial understanding, was a separate group derived off of amniotes. It was once thought turtles were anapsids, distantly related to scutosaurus, but were later discovered to be a type of diapsid. The diapsids include the thecodonts, thought to be the ancestor of just about all living reptiles and dinosaurs. So in other words, I thought that turtles were not actually related to scutosaurs, but rather the scutosaurs were part of a completely different branch of amniotes, just like synapsids which evolved into mammals. Now I don't know what to believe.
This is literally what the video just said: Scutosaurs have no postorbital fenestrae, making them anapsids. at the 6:29 mark the video says that most researchers don't believe that Scutosaurs and tetsudines (turtles & tortoises & their closest relatives) are directly related to each other. The genetic studies show that the Tetsudines are located **within** diapsids, indicating that they are secondary diapsids, having come from a lineage that evolved fenestrae for muscle attachment, but their branch lost those fenestrae and used different muscle geometries. Anapsida is a different branch of amniote than diapsida or synapsida. Scutosaurus belongs within anapsida. Turtles belong within diapsida, as do nothosaurines, the plesiosauridae, squamates, crocodylomorphs, pterisauridae, the ornithischians, the sauropodomorphs, eusauropodae, theropods, and their most famous subgroup: aves. One interesting unknown is the location of the ichthyosaurs. Ichthyosauridae may be an offshoot of either the anapsids or the diapsids. Truthfully they could also have split from the synapsids as we know so little about their ancestry, but there are no major proponents of that possibility among professional paleontologists (of which I am not one) which I have been able to find, so serious consideration should only be given to anapsid and diapsid possible ancestries.
It's pretty much what the other commenter said. Scutosaurus and Turtles were thought to be closely related for a long time. Genetic studies now suggest that the turtles are closer to archosaurs, which are diapsids. Like I mentioned though there is still some debate about this, so it will probably take more definitive evidence to really establish for sure where they are. But probably eudiapsid reptiles, related to archosaurs.
I love the Scutosaurus, my Red Footed Tortoise very much reminds me of of it. I think the figurine for the Jurassic World toy line is a pretty nice take, I couldn't find one in the US so I ordered it from Japan. It's too bad this interesting creature is extinct, it would be very interesting to know what kind of colors it displayed. Bright like several tortoise species, or camouflage. I imagine the horned features on its head probably displayed some coloration, and it wasn't exactly like gender dimorphism, more for general display. Just a theory of course.
Yeah, I really like how Dr. David Hone really points out that many features like that may not be dimorphic, but for general communication. As far as I know there's no evidence for dimorphism in any pareiasaur, so general display/ conflict resolution is probably the safest bet right now.
Let's be honest, _the real reason_ we're sad _scutosaurus_ is extinct is because we'd all have one instead of a turtle, not because we missed out on seeing their coloration.
Oh, I'm confident in myself enough to not be too concerned. Although I do admit to myself I could slow down a bit, but that's cause I've always talked fast. As for the shirt, it's a bit tight, but I wasn't expecting all of that reaction lol.
Latest Mongolian digs imply that juvenile T. Rex's hung out in gangs, smoking cigarettes and weed and making crude jokes about Ceratopsians. A Brontosaurus chunged past the pack whilst they chanted: "What is your name, this week, Apatta, Apatta...".
has there been much research into the possiblity that para reptilians may actually be closer to archosauromorphs than either groups are to squamata? like could it be that turtles evolved from the para reptiles but are fairly closely related to archosaurs like crocodiles and dinosaurs because the para reptiles as a whole are sister taxa?
Eh Raptor Chatter !!! Your videos are very good ... in general people probably would still prefer to see pictures of dinosaurs than a bearded human species from the ice age standing there ... { don't feel bad >>> I've got a trendy beard these days myself ... hehe } - btw your voice is good for the voice over of the videos fyi ... still pictures are still great man !!! Art from dinosaur books usually looks way better than animations still in my humble opinion anyway ... maybe just have some picture(s) of you with your fossils or something ... that would actually be good !!! still i say >>> good video(s) man !!! :)
This is actually fascinating! I did not realize that turtles were more closely related to crocodilians, than they are to lizards. I suppose you learn new things every day! I will definitely be looking at your other videos after this one! As for a minor critique, I believe when you say, "Theraspids", you are referring to Therapsids? I think you may have added an extra "S".
Hey, could you do a "What the Hell is" video on Anteosaurus? Being that it's the largest known therapsid, it would make for an interesting video to cover on that and Anteosauridae and how it connected to other Therapsids and their connection to mammals :)
Yeah that's fair about the shirt. I normally wear small, but this was small slim. I suppose I'm not as slim as i used to be, so I need to keep that in mind for the future.
Dave is a smart guy. Keep an eye on Mister Hone. Rhymes with bone. ua-cam.com/video/lsnoFVQe0Ik/v-deo.html - something about his childhood home, his geophysical POV that Aussies and Aukies and Maori share, a sublime perspective on animal behavior. Paleontology is a blast. Get it? Dynomite? Never mind. Great minds.
Genetic convergence is frankly new to me. I would have thought that phenotypic convergence to be far more probable and would like to understand why that is ruled out here. But I am speaking from ignorance on that point. Thanks.
I fully admit I am not a genetics expert either, but the Chinlechelys paper is open access if you're interested in reading their justification. It's under the Molecular Studies heading. palaeo-electronica.org/content/2021/3316-triassic-turtle-chinlechelys
Is it possible that parareptiles are polyphyletic, with some being basal sauropsids and others like pareiasaurs being with turtles in archosauromorpha? Similar to the defunct classification of insectivora.
I actually really like this idea too. I am not familiar enough with the parareptiles to comment on it in detail though. It's definitely somethign that should be tested. The fact Bunostegos could also start walking upright may also be a line of evidence that it isn't too unreasonable.
@@RaptorChatter My uneducated guess is that some parareptiles are paraphyletic like mesosaurs being basal sauropsids, and pareiasaurs being grouped with turtles in a clade outside of sauria but still within diapsids. It may also explain why it is difficult to pin down a relation to archosaurs or lepidosaurs, depending on the methods, they have found to be related to either. It also would help explain why some parareptiles have fenestra and others don't.
Anapsids are interesting, because it seems like they evolved from different places, not all as one group. So they are kind of a made up group, which needs to be reassigned on an individual basis based on what we currently know.
I mean, comparing turtle DNA to crocs and birds doesn't REALLY prove anything since the DNA for pareiasaurs isn't available for comparison. Yeah, sure, maybe pareiasaurs were close relatives of the archosaurs?
Maybe. But since they had such a distinctly different skull condition and based on the genetic timeline for where turtles split from other archosaurs you would need the diapsid condition to secondarily re-evolve that condition. And we don't see any steps like that taking place in any relatives of pareiasaurs
So, under the archosauromorph hypothesis the sauropterygians which includes plesiosaurs are also archosauromorphs. So yes, the genetic hypothesis also uses morphology to suggest that the plesiosaurs were closely related to turtles. To be clear there is no genetic material from plesiosaurs, but the studies often combine morphology and genetic information.
Yeah, I do try to be clear about that. It is still up for debate, and that's the main thing I was trying to emphasize. I did try to be clear where most researchers side on that debate though.
Essentially. But even lizards lost one of the fenestra, it just became an arc at the bottom of the temporal bone. But turtles were absolutely one of the earliest groups to modify the body plan so significantly.
If I were inclined to be a Creationist (I am not) and fearful for my eternal soul, discussions like this would be the source to profound psychological stress. Thumbs up on your presentation.
So they didn't. I may actually make a video on that, because it's an interesting topic. But the short version is that the swim bladder in fish became the lungs, and then the gills were lost, because they weren't needed as animals move more and more onto land.
@@jimwinship7159 Im not sure what's worse, wasting someones time when you had no intention to listen to an answer, mistaking faith for logic, or using laziness as an excuse for it all. I mean, I think I would be ashamed to admit I was that lazy about anything, especially as a defence of Faith, which requires anything but laziness.
@@patreekotime4578 all I did was ask a question. And while you’re at it, which Dino evolved to Bro birds? When did the chest and back muscles adapt for flight? Which dino adapted their heart from 3 chambers to 4. But since you’re to lazy to answer questions, I don’t expect anything from you.
From modern species yes. It is essentially testing how far apart modern turtles and modern crocs and lizards are. So not from the fossil record. This also means there is a gap of knowledge in the genetics of animals like Scutosaurus. But paleontology is all about forming and testing hypotheses of how closely related animals are, and genetics are just one part of that.
A quick question to clarify some terminology: When you state that Bunostegos was "... able to stand upright." Do you mean that its legs descended more or less straight down from the shoulder and hip joints, as opposed to what we see in Crocodiles and Alligators, where the limbs jut out sharply to the sides and then down to the ground?
Yes. But also crocs & alligators aren't the best example for this. The first crocodile line archosaurs did stand upright. They also had a different mechanism for it relative to things like dinosaurs though. So while Brunostegos could stand upright it wasn't quite like other reptiles which could do so. So it may have been just another iteration on that body plan to get up right, with turtles inheriting (and like crocs later losing) the Brunostegos type posture. Really it comes down to needing more fossils. While sure a more upright posture evolved multiple times, until we have more fossils it's hard to say how well that posture preformed relative to other groups.
@@RaptorChatter First of all, thank you for the in-depth reply. I feel that it's more than my rather simple question deserves (I was seeking clarification that the word "upright" was not being used as a synonym for the word "erect" as it's applied to hominids). But, overall you've whetted my appetite for more information, and I thank you for that as well.
"Herbivores weren't large until the permian"
Authraplura: am I joke to you
That's fair. When writing this I was pretty much focused just on tetrapods, so just spaced it.
Yes. *chad music plays*
@@RaptorChatter Well, in that case (even though I posted it already)....
Most of the dinocephalians and cotylorhynchus: Are we a joke to you?
Athropleura ate decaying matter, though
@@WanOlDan But those are both from the permian.
There‘s also Pappochelys which is considered a stem turtle with a diapsid skull. I do think turtles are Diapsids but whether they are in the lepidosaur line or archosaur line is still a pretty tough question
Darn it u beat me to it haha 😤
So in the paper on Chinlechelys they actually recover Pappochelys as a stem sauropterygian, not related to turtles, and they recover turtles as parareptilians. So what's really needed is just more fossils to try and link turtles to something. There is evidence both for and against relations to archisauromorphs and to pareaisaurs, and until something more definitive is found it will still be a little bit up in the air. Personally, I think the genetics are a very strong argument for the archosauromorph hypothesis, but I'm also not a genetics expert, so I'm mostly basing this on the opinions of people who do know genetics better.
@@RaptorChatter the system kinda falls apart when mutations are expressed in the temporal fenestra
I do kind of love that even though turtles are so common in our modern time that some of us even keep them as pets, palentologically, we're still not really sure where the hell they came from.
Basically to me,Scutosaurus may not be either turtles or dinosaur,but is basically just a turtle + a dinosaur,and this was a great video on these Permian oddballs.
Also I hope y'all are having a great day.
Scutosaurus was part of a now extinct group. The turtles are the real question, as they align with both archosaurs genetically, and Pareiasaurs morphologically. So there's just debate about where they came from.
@@RaptorChatter could you make a Video On Dakotaraptor Steini because I think it’s an extremely underrated Dromaeosaurid dinosaur
Gotta love UA-cam. In this super-sciency (and very informative!) video about a random/arbitrary ancient reptile species, you’re having to field questions about the size and tightness of your shirt 😂 Keep up the good work! Loved the video!
Yeah, the shirt was a slim, not normal fit, so it's a bit tight. But glad you liked the video! & I appreciate that you recognized the sheer volume of shirt comments I got. If that's what I need to drive content though Maybe I just need to find a smaller one lol.
Ooh interesting! I didn't know that turtles were so ambiguous
They are at least a bit yeah. The genetic argument does seem stronger in general, and a lot of the fossil reptiles in the Triassic were diverging rapidly, so convergence morphologically isn't out of the question.
The channel Aron Ra has a great video lecture called something like "The Turtle and Monkey issues" or something like that. The video is a couple years old at this point, but it's got an amazing amount of information about the evolution arguments surrounding turtles, and I believe something about monkeys as well but I don't remember what the issue was with that.
It might have even been something different than monkeys..... But if you search his name and something like turtle issue. You should be able to find the video. I highly recommend
He covers a lot of evolution, biology, and birds are dinos subjects. Often debunking anti evolutionists. But he has a whole series about the classification of life, where he uses the cladistic method of classification, and starts at the beginning of life, until today, working thru the clades until you get to vertebrates and eventually humans.
Great series all in a playlist on his channel.
I'm hooked on this channel and Aron Ra, and Stephen Milo. All 3 I find fascinating, and while they have a little overlap, all 3 cover different things in different ways. And Stephen Milo mostly covers human archeology and evolution, but he also covers a Vast range of anything to Do with humans. From pyramids, to native American migration, to early civilizations, etc. Quite a broad range of topics about humans
Your background has inspired me to take the time and house fossils, or stuff generally related to animals, in exquisite glass cases
If I ever somehow manage to find any (authentic) lol
Go for it. There's a reasonable amount of stuff that is pretty reasonable to get, and reasonably ethical. I have a video where I discuss my collection if you're looking for ideas.
if you look for small crustaceans from the jurassic time i can maybe hook you up for free, i susally go fossil hunting and i doubt it being illegal to send it over to people.
Excellent story! Thank you for sharing.
"Turtles had a muddy origin story...", I see what you did there.
Listen, the fact that the native turtles in my area are called mud turtles may or may not have anything to do with that joke.
Assuming the genetic evidence for turtles is solid, would it be too far fetched to consider the placement of the parareptilians as wrong. Is there any strong evidence that parareptilians are that distant? I mean, if it is just about holes in the skulls, isn't that a feature that can get lost again (especially considering what some of their ancestors have been doing with their heads). Does it cause any (timing) conflict with split of snakes and lizards from the birds and crocodilian linages?
So this would inherently mean that Parareptiles are Archosauromorphs, and that the Lepidosaur/Archosaur split had already occured by the time Parareptiles evolved. The problem is genetically and based on the fossil record the Lepidosaur/ Archosaur split only happened near the end of the Permian, but there are Parareptile fossils from at least the early Permian. it is still possible, but would probably take a few incredibly intermediate fossils to really show it with any level of confidence.
Great vid👍 remember watching then In Primeval
I forgot they were in that. It really needs a reboot.
Pretty cool subject, and interesting video. Thanks for putting it out for us to enjoy!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Bradysaurus? Marshes, marshes marshes! I do not apologize.
Im glad that I found this channel
Me too! & thanks for the comment!
"It was one of the first large-bodied herbivores to evolve on land"
Most of the dinocephalians and cotylorhynchus: Are we a joke to you?
This creature reminds me of the early incorrect prehistoric concept of Iguanadon...
I always thought the Scutosaurus was an anapsid, which, from my initial understanding, was a separate group derived off of amniotes. It was once thought turtles were anapsids, distantly related to scutosaurus, but were later discovered to be a type of diapsid. The diapsids include the thecodonts, thought to be the ancestor of just about all living reptiles and dinosaurs. So in other words, I thought that turtles were not actually related to scutosaurs, but rather the scutosaurs were part of a completely different branch of amniotes, just like synapsids which evolved into mammals. Now I don't know what to believe.
This is literally what the video just said: Scutosaurs have no postorbital fenestrae, making them anapsids. at the 6:29 mark the video says that most researchers don't believe that Scutosaurs and tetsudines (turtles & tortoises & their closest relatives) are directly related to each other. The genetic studies show that the Tetsudines are located **within** diapsids, indicating that they are secondary diapsids, having come from a lineage that evolved fenestrae for muscle attachment, but their branch lost those fenestrae and used different muscle geometries.
Anapsida is a different branch of amniote than diapsida or synapsida. Scutosaurus belongs within anapsida. Turtles belong within diapsida, as do nothosaurines, the plesiosauridae, squamates, crocodylomorphs, pterisauridae, the ornithischians, the sauropodomorphs, eusauropodae, theropods, and their most famous subgroup: aves.
One interesting unknown is the location of the ichthyosaurs. Ichthyosauridae may be an offshoot of either the anapsids or the diapsids. Truthfully they could also have split from the synapsids as we know so little about their ancestry, but there are no major proponents of that possibility among professional paleontologists (of which I am not one) which I have been able to find, so serious consideration should only be given to anapsid and diapsid possible ancestries.
It's pretty much what the other commenter said. Scutosaurus and Turtles were thought to be closely related for a long time. Genetic studies now suggest that the turtles are closer to archosaurs, which are diapsids. Like I mentioned though there is still some debate about this, so it will probably take more definitive evidence to really establish for sure where they are. But probably eudiapsid reptiles, related to archosaurs.
I love the Scutosaurus, my Red Footed Tortoise very much reminds me of of it. I think the figurine for the Jurassic World toy line is a pretty nice take, I couldn't find one in the US so I ordered it from Japan. It's too bad this interesting creature is extinct, it would be very interesting to know what kind of colors it displayed. Bright like several tortoise species, or camouflage. I imagine the horned features on its head probably displayed some coloration, and it wasn't exactly like gender dimorphism, more for general display. Just a theory of course.
Yeah, I really like how Dr. David Hone really points out that many features like that may not be dimorphic, but for general communication. As far as I know there's no evidence for dimorphism in any pareiasaur, so general display/ conflict resolution is probably the safest bet right now.
@@RaptorChatter Agreed!
Let's be honest, _the real reason_ we're sad _scutosaurus_ is extinct is because we'd all have one instead of a turtle, not because we missed out on seeing their coloration.
@@AmbuBadger This is truth 😂❤️.
@@AmbuBadger who needs a car when you can ride a scutosaurus ? Aside from those quick-tempered people who really need a chill-pill !
Serious question. If they were all predators, what did they eat? Each other?
"Parareptilians" - that's a song title. Good thing I'm a herpetologist.
I love scutosaurus!!!!! I have a figure of one from forever ago from safari ltd named jagger :D
New sub. Thanks for such a thorough and easily understood presentation. 👍👍👍👍
Thanks! Glad to have you join!
Your knowledge is very impressive
Thanks!
You are a great speaker. I enjoy listening to you. I'd ignore any dumb comments about your form and fashion. LOL
Oh, I'm confident in myself enough to not be too concerned. Although I do admit to myself I could slow down a bit, but that's cause I've always talked fast. As for the shirt, it's a bit tight, but I wasn't expecting all of that reaction lol.
Latest Mongolian digs imply that juvenile T. Rex's hung out in gangs, smoking cigarettes and weed and making crude jokes about Ceratopsians. A Brontosaurus chunged past the pack whilst they chanted: "What is your name, this week, Apatta, Apatta...".
has there been much research into the possiblity that para reptilians may actually be closer to archosauromorphs than either groups are to squamata? like could it be that turtles evolved from the para reptiles but are fairly closely related to archosaurs like crocodiles and dinosaurs because the para reptiles as a whole are sister taxa?
Eh Raptor Chatter !!! Your videos are very good ... in general people probably would still prefer to see pictures of dinosaurs than a bearded human species from the ice age standing there ... { don't feel bad >>> I've got a trendy beard these days myself ... hehe } - btw your voice is good for the voice over of the videos fyi ... still pictures are still great man !!! Art from dinosaur books usually looks way better than animations still in my humble opinion anyway ... maybe just have some picture(s) of you with your fossils or something ... that would actually be good !!! still i say >>> good video(s) man !!! :)
This is actually fascinating! I did not realize that turtles were more closely related to crocodilians, than they are to lizards. I suppose you learn new things every day! I will definitely be looking at your other videos after this one! As for a minor critique, I believe when you say, "Theraspids", you are referring to Therapsids? I think you may have added an extra "S".
Yeah, I misspoke on the Therapsids. It's one of those words where unless I'm deliberate about it I just swap the s & the p.
This is so slay. We stan diapsids
Wish I had the skills to create a bunch of 3d models of these lesser known creatures for dioramas. I think those be pretty cool.
Yeah, there's a lot of neat things that really don't get enough of the spotlight.
@@RaptorChatter mhmm be cool to turn them into dioramas and try to give them a bit of fame.
Hey, could you do a "What the Hell is" video on Anteosaurus? Being that it's the largest known therapsid, it would make for an interesting video to cover on that and Anteosauridae and how it connected to other Therapsids and their connection to mammals :)
Maybe. These are all voted on by the patrons on patreon, so it's really up to them which animals I do.
@@RaptorChatter Interesting, alright!
Greta vid. Loved the content. Thumbs up and subbed. Who’s shirt are you wearing? Looks a lil tight in the pits.
Yeah that's fair about the shirt. I normally wear small, but this was small slim. I suppose I'm not as slim as i used to be, so I need to keep that in mind for the future.
@@RaptorChatter love it bro! Keep wearing it. Don’t let clowns like me slow you down. Great vids.
I have no doubt T-Rex used arm prosthetics
U all might like video called, The Civilization Before Time. Check it out.
Dave is a smart guy. Keep an eye on Mister Hone. Rhymes with bone. ua-cam.com/video/lsnoFVQe0Ik/v-deo.html - something about his childhood home, his geophysical POV that Aussies and Aukies and Maori share, a sublime perspective on animal behavior. Paleontology is a blast. Get it? Dynomite? Never mind. Great minds.
Genetic convergence is frankly new to me. I would have thought that phenotypic convergence to be far more probable and would like to understand why that is ruled out here. But I am speaking from ignorance on that point. Thanks.
I fully admit I am not a genetics expert either, but the Chinlechelys paper is open access if you're interested in reading their justification. It's under the Molecular Studies heading. palaeo-electronica.org/content/2021/3316-triassic-turtle-chinlechelys
Was this the animal that got bitten by a venomous cynodont in Walking with Monsters?
Thank you °~.♡.~°
Is it possible that parareptiles are polyphyletic, with some being basal sauropsids and others like pareiasaurs being with turtles in archosauromorpha? Similar to the defunct classification of insectivora.
I actually really like this idea too. I am not familiar enough with the parareptiles to comment on it in detail though. It's definitely somethign that should be tested. The fact Bunostegos could also start walking upright may also be a line of evidence that it isn't too unreasonable.
@@RaptorChatter My uneducated guess is that some parareptiles are paraphyletic like mesosaurs being basal sauropsids, and pareiasaurs being grouped with turtles in a clade outside of sauria but still within diapsids. It may also explain why it is difficult to pin down a relation to archosaurs or lepidosaurs, depending on the methods, they have found to be related to either. It also would help explain why some parareptiles have fenestra and others don't.
Can you do a "What the hell is a Gorgonops"? 🙏🏼
These are all voted on by the patrons, so if they choose it it could be one.
Interestingly, recently I've been hearing people say all anapsids evolved from diapsids.
Anapsids are interesting, because it seems like they evolved from different places, not all as one group. So they are kind of a made up group, which needs to be reassigned on an individual basis based on what we currently know.
@@RaptorChatter Good point :)
I mean, comparing turtle DNA to crocs and birds doesn't REALLY prove anything since the DNA for pareiasaurs isn't available for comparison. Yeah, sure, maybe pareiasaurs were close relatives of the archosaurs?
Maybe. But since they had such a distinctly different skull condition and based on the genetic timeline for where turtles split from other archosaurs you would need the diapsid condition to secondarily re-evolve that condition. And we don't see any steps like that taking place in any relatives of pareiasaurs
no tornadoes
Only the most successful land animal in history.
Aren’t turtles closely related to plesiosaurus?
So, under the archosauromorph hypothesis the sauropterygians which includes plesiosaurs are also archosauromorphs. So yes, the genetic hypothesis also uses morphology to suggest that the plesiosaurs were closely related to turtles. To be clear there is no genetic material from plesiosaurs, but the studies often combine morphology and genetic information.
My guess turtle relative
How in heck is genetic material found in fossils? How how HOW?
I appreciate his knowledge but this is his theory
Yeah, I do try to be clear about that. It is still up for debate, and that's the main thing I was trying to emphasize. I did try to be clear where most researchers side on that debate though.
yhhhhhhhh
Turtles are modified diapsids.
Essentially. But even lizards lost one of the fenestra, it just became an arc at the bottom of the temporal bone. But turtles were absolutely one of the earliest groups to modify the body plan so significantly.
If I were inclined to be a Creationist (I am not) and fearful for my eternal soul, discussions like this would be the source to profound psychological stress. Thumbs up on your presentation.
Thanks! And how so? I just want to understand what you mean so that I can try and address any issues about it if there is something I should do.
they came befor dinosaurs it is not a dinosaur watch waiking with beast
rember. if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...its a scutosaurus
When did gills become lungs?
So they didn't. I may actually make a video on that, because it's an interesting topic. But the short version is that the swim bladder in fish became the lungs, and then the gills were lost, because they weren't needed as animals move more and more onto land.
@@RaptorChatter sounds a little to complicated to me. Creation is easier and more logical.
@@jimwinship7159 Im not sure what's worse, wasting someones time when you had no intention to listen to an answer, mistaking faith for logic, or using laziness as an excuse for it all. I mean, I think I would be ashamed to admit I was that lazy about anything, especially as a defence of Faith, which requires anything but laziness.
@@patreekotime4578 all I did was ask a question. And while you’re at it, which Dino evolved to Bro birds? When did the chest and back muscles adapt for flight? Which dino adapted their heart from 3 chambers to 4. But since you’re to lazy to answer questions, I don’t expect anything from you.
@@jimwinship7159 You can tell birds and dinosaurs are related, look at their skeletons and etc.
Therapsids, not "theraspids"
Yeah, it's one of those things I always say wrong, and also forget that I've been saying wrong in the first place, sorry.
looks like the monster that destroyed tokyo
man what's up with that T Shirt ...... ?
Slim fit, not just small like I normally wear, so it's tighter than I expected
@ 8:14
but mtDNA? is that even possible?
From modern species yes. It is essentially testing how far apart modern turtles and modern crocs and lizards are. So not from the fossil record. This also means there is a gap of knowledge in the genetics of animals like Scutosaurus. But paleontology is all about forming and testing hypotheses of how closely related animals are, and genetics are just one part of that.
@@RaptorChatter
That's surprising, if only because one would think mtDNA's mutations would be independent of nuclear DNA.
That's pretty nifty to know!
What's wrong with your left hand, you keep shaking it while you're talking.?
I just talk with my hands a lot, so when in front of a camera and trying to move them less it just still moves sometimes.
Fun fact they taste like chicken and roast beef
A quick question to clarify some terminology: When you state that Bunostegos was "... able to stand upright." Do you mean that its legs descended more or less straight down from the shoulder and hip joints, as opposed to what we see in Crocodiles and Alligators, where the limbs jut out sharply to the sides and then down to the ground?
Yes. But also crocs & alligators aren't the best example for this. The first crocodile line archosaurs did stand upright. They also had a different mechanism for it relative to things like dinosaurs though. So while Brunostegos could stand upright it wasn't quite like other reptiles which could do so. So it may have been just another iteration on that body plan to get up right, with turtles inheriting (and like crocs later losing) the Brunostegos type posture.
Really it comes down to needing more fossils. While sure a more upright posture evolved multiple times, until we have more fossils it's hard to say how well that posture preformed relative to other groups.
@@RaptorChatter First of all, thank you for the in-depth reply. I feel that it's more than my rather simple question deserves (I was seeking clarification that the word "upright" was not being used as a synonym for the word "erect" as it's applied to hominids). But, overall you've whetted my appetite for more information, and I thank you for that as well.