Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Mosasauridae by megabass22 Mosasauridae by megabass22
A complete phylogeny of the mosasauridae, as in featuring every single known mosasaur species that I could find enough information on and that is not invalid. Mainly done as a personal resource, but it might be interesting to some of you. The only mosasaur not featured is Goronyosaurus since I do not know where to put it. I am fairly certain that it is a rather derived mosasaurine, but anything beyond that is hard to say. Though sometimes seen as a third branch of mosasaurs ("Halisauromorpha"), the Halisaurinae are placed within the Russellosaurina here, mostly because of similarities to said group (in particular to the primitive Tethysaurines and Yaguarasaurines) but also because it means that hydropedality only needs to evolve twice, not thrice. I also split Prognathodon since it is overlumped beyond belief. "Prognathdonkianda is most often found to be much more primitive than Prognathodon and to be closer to stuff like Clidastes and Liodon. The primitive-critera also applies to "P". waiparaensis, which is split off and the two species "P". overtoni and "P". rapax, which are grouped in under the here resurrected genus Ancylocentrum (since "P". overtoni was once Ancylocentrum overtoni). Prognathodon proper remains but "P". lutugini is split off into Dollosaurus, alongside a fragmentary and distinct swedish species. With several genera, the otherwise rarely used tribe "Prognathodonini" comes into the picture here. 
My take on the Mosasauridae currently features 92 species (84 of which are named) in 42 genera (39 of which are named).
I was inspired by :iconbricksmashtv:'s very impressive (and far more massive) sauropod phylogenetic tree: bricksmashtv.deviantart.com/ar…

Update #1 (2017-07-16): Quick update based on the latest published phylogeny: journals.plos.org/plosone/arti…. As pointed out by :iconyutyrannus:, the Halisaurinae seems to not want to end up within the Russellosaurina. The latest phylogenies place it as a sister group to the Mosasaurinae (close to Dallasaurus) which means that hydropedality does indeed need to evolve thrice independently. The Plioplatecarpinae collapsed and died and I now applied the name to what was previously the tribe "Plioplatecarpini". Angolasaurus is more basal and is a sister to both the Tylosaurinae and the Plioplatecarpinae, while Selmasaurus and Ectenosaurus ended up as mosasaurines. The relationships within the genus Mosasaurus were slightly revised and Plotosaurus was lumped into Mosasaurus.
The previous version can be seen here: sta.sh/01z0o8m418zl

Update #2 (2017-09-12): I added Goronyosaurus. Did I add it right? Who knows. Though its true position in the overall mosasaur family tree requires further studies to really be sure of, one of the few major analyses to include it at all (most exclude it due to its weirdness) done in 2010 (covers most of Anguimorpha; www.academia.edu/386721/A_Comb…) recovers Goronyosaurus as forming a clade with Prognathodon, Plesiotylosaurus and Ectenosaurus. I thus put Goronyosaurus as a basal Prognathodonin, though it represents a highly derived and specialized genus. With Goronyosaurus added, this tree now features every known species of mosasaur.
The previous version can be seen here: sta.sh/0y3j73tsxqg
 Note #2.5 (five minutes after update #2) Looks like I managed to completely forget about Moanasaurus, it will be added whenever something new exciting happens (e.g. a new species or a new big analysis), until then just pretend it is there right alongside Eremiasaurus in the Mosasaurini.

Do note that while much of this is based on smaller-scale phylogenetic analyses, there are no "complete" ones featuring every species. It is thus not based on any single published tree. While it mostly follows consensus, some conclusions are my own ones and should be taken as such. This is also my first attempt at a phylogeny at this scale, and mistakes might exist. Basically, do not take it too seriously, since no proper character data sets were used.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Aug 13, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I have several questions about this now. Still a nice tree however.

1. Why not include kianda in Liodon, as both are astonishingly similar and have been recovered to be very close?
2. M.maximus is valid?
3. Are you sure about ´Plotosaurus bennisoni being a sister taxon to M.hoffmani? Hoffmannii is much more similar to lemonnieri in flipper shape and skull shape, while Plotosaurus has extremely distinctive flippers and skull. In any case I would opt to keep Plotosaurus separate from Mosasaurus due to their differences, meaning that if this tree is correct, beaugei, lemonnieri and conodon need new genera.
4.wasn´t P.stadtmani recovered outside of Prognathodon proper? In any case solvayi and saturator look much more alike than it.
Reply
:iconmegabass22:
megabass22 Featured By Owner Aug 14, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
This tree is in need of major changes (some taxa are even missing) that I have been postponing due to a lack of time. I'll research as much as possible and take your questions into account when ever the new tree is made. I don't have my references at hand right now (tree #2 will probably include a list of references for the ideas displayed) but for point 4 I'm pretty sure the internal phylogeny of Prognathodon can differ a lot from analysis to analysis depending on which characters are seen as more important.
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Aug 14, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Ah, I see.
Good luck with the update.
Reply
:iconcarnoferox:
Carnoferox Featured By Owner May 22, 2018
You’re missing a few tylosaurines, namely Tylosaurus iembeensis and T. capensis (Lingham-Soliar, 1992), T. kansasensis (Everhart, 2005), and the brand new T. saskatchewanensis (Jiménez-Huidobro et al. 2018). Additionally, a recent study has found the species of Hainosaurus to be congeneric with Tylosaurus (Jiménez-Huidobro & Caldwell, 2016). There are also some mispellings: Tylosaurus “gaudriyi” should be Tylosaurus gaudryi and Hainosaurus “newmilleri” should be Hainosaurus neumilleri.
Reply
:iconmegabass22:
megabass22 Featured By Owner May 23, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I have been planning to update this chart for a while. I did note down some things about the chart when making it, will see if I can recover it, but there were reasons for excluding T. iembeensis and T. kansasensis (pretty sure T. kansasensis may be synonymous with T. nepaeolicus). When the update is done you can expect T. saskatchewanensis to be added alongside the currently missing Moanasaurus. Some positions in the tree are in need of change as well and of course the misspellings need to be fixed.
Reply
:icondontknowwhattodraw94:
Dontknowwhattodraw94 Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
This is... extensive. So nice!
Reply
:iconmegabass22:
megabass22 Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thanks :)
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Sep 12, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
This is epic man, I love me some mosasaurs (Partly because I´m Dutch and we have lots of mosasaurs for such a small country).
I have one thing to note though. It may not necessarily be true, but:
A. Schulp recovered Liodon sectorius as a species of Prognathodon, this was kind of recent (2005 I think?).
Reply
:iconmegabass22:
megabass22 Featured By Owner Edited Sep 12, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Hehe thanks :) We have loads of mosasaurs in Sweden too (13 if I haven't missed any), though their remains are not as well preserved as what you get in the Netherlands.

Liodon
is a messy genus that I first considered not putting in at all. Schulp did indeed recover L. sectorius as a species of Prognathodon in 2008, alongside L. mosasaurides and L. compressidens also becoming Prognathodon mosasaurides and P. compressidens respectively. The problem is that she also considered "Prognathodon" kianda as Prognathdon (this was the paper in which it was described) and later studies find it to be far more basal and more similar to "Liodon" than to the rest of Prognathodon (which is also a messy genus, though better understood than Liodon). This is a bit related to the overall problems with the genus Prognathodon and how it is seemingly quite overlumped.
I originally thought of putting in a new tribe, the "Clidastini" or "Leidontini" (which has been proposed in the past) for Clidastes + Kourisodon + Liodon + "P."kianda, but decided against it since most analyses do not support the monophyly of such a group.

The point here being that most consider Liodon to be a dubious genus, and the type species of L. anceps to be particularly dubious, but what to do with the species referred to it remains unclear. I am yet to fully read up on it because it is rather obscure, but when I have the time you might see some changes in what it consists of and where it is placed here.
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Ah, I see.
Thanks for the clarification.
Reply
:iconrizkiusmaulanae:
RizkiusMaulanae Featured By Owner Sep 12, 2017  Student Traditional Artist
Not enuf species
Reply
:iconmegabass22:
megabass22 Featured By Owner Sep 12, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I'll just follow in Asuma's footsteps and name 12 new ones out of the blue.
Reply
:iconrizkiusmaulanae:
RizkiusMaulanae Featured By Owner Sep 12, 2017  Student Traditional Artist
Lmao
Reply
:iconthemaukerko:
TheMaukerko Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Holy
That must be a pain to write lol
Reply
:iconmegabass22:
megabass22 Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Hehe, it took a while, yeah
Reply
:iconshaochilong66:
Shaochilong66 Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2017
looks H O T
Reply
:iconmegabass22:
megabass22 Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Didn't know you were a phylogeniphile Shao
Reply
:iconshaochilong66:
Shaochilong66 Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2017
Im a phylogeny ninja 
Reply
:iconmegabass22:
megabass22 Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
You engage in espionage, sabotage, infiltration, assasination and warfare against phylogenies while upholding the traditions of feudal Japan?
Reply
:iconshaochilong66:
Shaochilong66 Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2017
yes
Reply
:iconyutyrannus:
Yutyrannus Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Looks good for the most part, but I have a few things to note based on the more recent mosasaur phylogenies. Halisaurines end up at the base of Mosasauridae near Dallasaurus, Plioplatecarpinae seems to be polyphyletic between Tylosaurinae and Mosasaurinae, and "Plotosaurus" actually lands within Mosasaurus as the sister taxon of Mosasaurus hoffmannii. Other than that it looks like you mostly have things in the right place, and I have to give you props for showing Prognathodon's polyphyly.
Reply
:iconmegabass22:
megabass22 Featured By Owner Edited Jul 16, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thanks for taking the time to look through this :)
This is the most recent mosasaur phylogeny that I am aware of: journals.plos.org/plosone/arti… (May 2017). It does put the Halisaurinae as a sister group to the Mosasaurinae, yes. I went with putting them within the Russellosaurina based on the phylogenetic analysis done when "Prognathodon" lutugini in 2013 since it would mean that hydropedality only needs to evolve twice (which makes it simpler in my mind). It would probably be better to put them at the base near Dallasaurus, as you say. 
Plotosaurus could very well be a sister taxon to Mosasaurus hoffmannii, yes. A bit weird considering that Plotosaurus and Mosasaurus do not strike me as congeneric. 
Yeah, it looks like Plioplatecarpinae dies with that analysis (journals.plos.org/plosone/arti…). One could keep the subfamily but only apply it to what is called the "Plioplatecarpini" here, with Angolasaurus as a sister to both Tylosaurinae and Plioplatecarpinae and with Selmasaurus and Ectenosaurus within the Mosasaurinae (as sisters to the Prognathodonini + Mosasaurini clade maybe?). I updated it so that it more closely follows that analysis, should be up-to-date now.
Reply
:iconyutyrannus:
Yutyrannus Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Looks good Thumbs Up 
Reply
:icondinosaurlover83:
Dinosaurlover83 Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2017  Student Artist
Beautiful.
Reply
:iconmegabass22:
megabass22 Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thanks :)
Reply
:iconzimices:
Zimices Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2017  Hobbyist
I did known about Ancylocentrum. Is curious also see to Eonatator coellensis not so close to E. sternbergii.
Reply
:iconmegabass22:
megabass22 Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Yeah, it is a bit odd. They are as close as Mosasaurus conodon is to the rest of Mosasaurus and Halisaurus arambourgi is to Halisaurus platyspondylus, though, so they are not that far apart.
Reply
:iconveterufreak:
Veterufreak Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Interesting
Reply
:iconmegabass22:
megabass22 Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
If you say so :)
Reply
:icon105697:
105697 Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2017
woah.
Reply
:iconmegabass22:
megabass22 Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Hehe. I went from "Hey, I want to fix Prognathodon since it is a mess" to "ah, better do the rest of the Mosasaurinae to show the relationships" to "oh, better do the whole thing then".
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
July 15, 2017
Image Size
1.6 MB
Resolution
1589×3350
Submitted with
Sta.sh
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
1,064
Favourites
70 (who?)
Comments
31