svp abstracts of interest or bombast 2024: C–G

It is abstract season.
Here are selected sentences from selected abstracts from SVP 2024 – Minneapolis:

Crowell JW et al The auditory bulla of the Paleocene plesiadapiform Carpolestes simpsoni (Euarchonta, Carpolestidae) differs in composition from that of crown Primates.
“documenting the composition of the auditory bulla in plesiadapoids is critical.”

In the LRT plesiadapiformes are related to rodents and aye-ayes, not to primates, so some of their parts should differ. The authors report so.

Figure 1. Miocaperea is a Miocene mysticete with vestigial molars. Its a giant desmostylian. Compare to Desmostylus to scale at lower right. ” data-image-caption=”

Figure 1. Miocaperea is a Miocene mysticete with vestigial molars. Its a giant desmostylian. Compare to Desmostylus to scale at lower right.

” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/miocaperea-skull588-1.jpg?w=126″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/miocaperea-skull588-1.jpg?w=432″ class=”size-full wp-image-85863″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/miocaperea-skull588-1.jpg” alt=”Figure 1. Miocaperea is a Miocene mysticete with vestigial molars. Its a giant desmostylian. Compare to Desmostylus to scale at lower right.” width=”584″ height=”1386″ />

Figure 1. Miocaperea is a Miocene mysticete with vestigial molars. Its a giant desmostylian. Compare to Desmostylus to scale at lower right.

Ekdale EG et al: Palatal foramina in artiodactyls and their relation to baleen.
“Palatal foramina with internal connections to the IOC and SAC in the late Oligocene mysticete Aetiocetus weltoni are putatively homologous to LPF in extant mysticetes and thus have been interpreted to indicate the presence of baleen (or protobaleen)
in this toothed taxon.”

In the LRT hippo-derived desmostylians gave rise to mysticetes (Fig 1).

“This provides further support that LPF optimize on mysticete phylogeny at the ancestor of Kinetomenta (Aetiocetidae + Chaeomysticeti), suggesting evolution of baleen (or proto-baleen) prior to tooth-loss in mysticetes.”

In the LRT Aetiocetus gave rise to odontocetes, not mysticetes.

Evans AR et al: Getting to the point of sabre teeth: functional optimality underpins the repeated evolution of extreme ‘sabre-tooth’  morphology
“Within canine teeth there is a trade-off between the aspects of shape that improve food fracture and those that increase tooth strength.”

Let’s not forget that some deer have saberteeth. They are not carnivores.

Fitch AJ: Pterosaur femoral anatomy elucidates the evolution of Lagerpetidae (Panaves:
Pterosauromorpha).
“Lagerpetids are a group of Triassic-endemic stem-avians representing the sole sister
lineage to Pterosauria, the first flying vertebrates.”

More bombast. In the LRT lagerpetids arose from proterochampsids (Fig 2). Pterosaurs arose from Cosesaurus a tiny tanystropheid.

Figure 3. The closest kin of Tropidosuchus are the much larger Chanaresuchus (matching Nesbitt 2011) and the smaller Lagerpeton. ” data-image-caption=”

Figure 3 The closest kin of Tropidosuchus are the much larger Chanaresuchus (matching Nesbitt 2011) and the smaller Lagerpeton.

” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/tropido-chanares1.jpg?w=287″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/tropido-chanares1.jpg?w=584″ class=”size-full wp-image-6860″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/tropido-chanares1.jpg” alt=”Figure 3. The closest kin of Tropidosuchus are the much larger Chanaresuchus (matching Nesbitt 2011) and the smaller Lagerpeton.” width=”584″ height=”610″ />

Figure 2. The closest kin of Tropidosuchus are the much larger Chanaresuchus (matching Nesbitt 2011) and the smaller Lagerpeton.

Flora GW: Species taxonomy and biogeography of the Dinocerata (Mammalia)’
“19 genera and 67 species were considered for revaluation. The uintathere species found to be valid include: Prodinoceras matyr, “

In the LRT Prodinoceras (Fig 3) is not related to Uintatherium.

Figure 1. Prodinoceras and relatives in the LRT go back to the extant tiny marsupial, Monodelphis sorex, and include Ectocion cedrus, Alcidedorbignya and nearly toothless Metacheiromys and Ernanodon. ” data-image-caption=”

Figure 1. Prodinoceras and relatives in the LRT go back to the extant tiny marsupial, Monodelphis sorex, and include Ectocion cedrus, Alcidedorbignya and nearly toothless Metacheiromys and Ernanodon.

” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/prodinoceras.relatives588-1.jpg?w=50″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/prodinoceras.relatives588-1.jpg?w=172″ class=”size-full wp-image-89339″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/prodinoceras.relatives588-1.jpg” alt=”Figure 1. Prodinoceras and relatives in the LRT go back to the extant tiny marsupial, Monodelphis sorex, and include Ectocion cedrus, Alcidedorbignya and nearly toothless Metacheiromys and Ernanodon.” width=”584″ height=”3479″ />

Figure 3. Prodinoceras and relatives in the LRT go back to the extant tiny marsupial, Monodelphis sorex, and include Ectocion cedrus, Alcidedorbignya and nearly toothless Metacheiromys and Ernanodon.

Godoy PL et al: The reproducibility crisis in phylogenetic analysis
“Focusing only on parsimony analyses, the topology and/or number of most parsimonious trees obtained by the Phylogenetics Editor were different from those reported by the authors for about one third of manuscripts, regardless of whether the analysis was part of a first-time submission or resubmission. Common issues encountered included not specifying the operational outgroup used and/or not specifying detailed search algorithm parameters.”

That result is confirmed by one PterosaurHeresies reader who has tested various subsets of the LRT on his own using data posted to FigShare.com. This is disturbing. I don’t understand why the difference in results. Interesting to hear that others have the same problem.

Goldsmith ER et al: Histology of a tiny phytosaur femur reveals unexpected growth patterns near the base of Archosauria.
“The growth dynamics and body size of hatchling archosaurs can provide a necessary
baseline from which to compare studies of growth trajectories, early ontogenetic
morphologies, and heterochronic shifts.”

In the LRT Archosauria = just crocs and birds,  their last common ancestor and its descendants. That list/branch does not include phytosaurs.