Root causes of phylogenetic incongruence observed within basal sauropodomorph interrelationships

Abstract

The relationships among basal sauropodomorphs are controversial. Results of cladistic analyses vary from a fully paraphyletic assemblage to a monophyletic core-prosauropod. We apply the comparative cladistics method to three published cladistic analyses of sauropodomorph dinosaurs, in order to identify root causes for differences between phylogenetic results. Except for three taxa (Saturnalia, Thecodontosaurus, and Efraasia) and one clade (Gravisauria), the remaining genera are recovered with conflicting positions. The comparative method is based on indices that allow for the quantification of the degree of similarity in characters and character states among analyses. A comparison of primary data, character selection, and scoring highlights significant discrepancies in data sets. Our results suggest that one character out of two varies from one analysis to the other. These are the root causes for the phylogenetic incongruence observed. The hurdle of the phylogenetic definition of the clade Sauropoda, which has been defined in four different ways, is also treated. We concur with several recent papers following the first node-based definition of Sauropoda.