David Marjanović

Detlef Weigel

eLife Assessment
Cryptovaranoides, an end-Triassic animal (just over 200 Ma old), was originally described as a possibly anguimorph squamate, i.e., more closely related to snakes and some extant lizards than to other extant lizards, making Squamata much older than previously thought and providing a new calibration date inside it. Following a rebuttal and a defense, this fourth important contribution to the debate makes a meticulous and solid argument that Cryptovaranoides is not a squamate. However, further comparisons to potentially closely related animals would greatly benefit this study, and parts of the text require clarification.

anonymous

Reviewer #1 (Public review):
In the Late Triassic and Early Jurassic (around 230 to 180 Ma ago), southern Wales and adjacent parts of England were a karst landscape. The caves and crevices accumulated remains of small vertebrates. These fossil-rich fissure fills are being exposed in limestone quarrying. In 2022 (reference 13 of the article), a partial articulated skeleton and numerous isolated bones from one fissure fill of end-Triassic age (just over 200 Ma) were named Cryptovaranoides microlanius and described as the oldest known squamate - the oldest known animal, by some 20 to 30 Ma, that is more closely related to snakes and some extant lizards than to other extant lizards. This would have considerable consequences for our understanding of the evolution of squamates and their closest relatives, especially for their speed and absolute timing, and was supported in the same paper by phylogenetic analyses based on different datasets.
In 2023, the present authors published a rebuttal (reference 18) to the 2022 paper, challenging anatomical interpretations and the irreproducible referral of some of the isolated bones to Cryptovaranoides. Modifying the datasets accordingly, they found Cryptovaranoides outside Squamata and presented evidence that it is far outside. In 2024 (reference 19), the original authors defended most of their original interpretation and presented some new data, some of it from newly referred isolated bones. The present article discusses anatomical features and the referral of isolated bones in more detail, documents some clear misinterpretations, argues against the widespread but not justifiable practice of referring isolated bones to the same species as long as there is merely no known evidence to the contrary, further argues against comparing newly recognized fossils to lists of diagnostic characters from the literature as opposed to performing phylogenetic analyses and interpreting the results, and finds Cryptovaranoides outside Squamata again.
Although a few of the character discussions and the discussion of at least one of the isolated bones can probably still be improved (and two characters are addressed twice), I see no sign that the discussion is going in circles or otherwise becoming unproductive. I can even imagine that the present contribution will end it.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Congratulations on this thorough manuscript on the phylogenetic affinities of Cryptovaranoides. Recent interpretations of this taxon, and perhaps some others, have greatly changed the field's understanding of reptile origins- for better and (likely) for worse.
This manuscript offers a careful review of the features used to place Cryptovaranoides within Squamata and adequately demonstrates that this interpretation is misguided, and therefore reconciles morphological and molecular data, which is an important contribution to the field of paleontology. The presence of any crown squamate in the Permian or Triassic should be met with skepticism, the same sort of skepticism provided in this manuscript.
I have outlined some comments addressing some weaknesses that I believe will further elevate the scientific quality of the work. A brief, fresh read‑through to refine a few phrases, particularly where the discussion references Whiteside et al. could also give the paper an even more collegial tone.
This manuscript can be largely improved by additional discussion and figures, where applicable. When I first read this manuscript, I was a bit surprised at how little discussion there was concerning both non-lepidosauromorph lepidosaurs as well as stem-reptiles more broadly. This paper makes it extremely clear that Cryptovaranoides is not a squamate, but would greatly benefit in explaining why many of the characters either suggested by former studies to be squamate in nature or were optimized as such in phylogenetic analyses are rather widespread plesiomorphies present in crownward sauropsids such as millerettids, younginids, or tangasaurids. I suggest citing this work where applicable and building some of the discussion for a greatly improved manuscript. In sum:
(1) The discussion of stem-reptiles should be improved. Nearly all of the supposed squamate features in Cryptovaranoides are present in various stem-reptile groups. I've noted a few, but this would be a fairly quick addition to this work. If this manuscript incorporates this advice, I believe arguments regarding the affinities of Cryptovaranoides (at least within Squamata) will be finished, and this manuscript will be better off for it.
(2) I was also surprised at how little discussion there was here of putative stem-squamates or lepidosauromorphs more broadly. A few targeted comparisons could really benefit the manuscript. It is currently unclear as to why Cryptovaranoides could not be a stem-lepidosaur, although I know that the lepidosaur total-group in these manuscripts lacks character sampling due to their scarcity.
(3) This manuscript can be improved by additional figures, such as the slice data of the humerus. The poor quality of the scan data for Cryptovaranoides is stated during this paper several times, yet the scan data is often used as evidence for the presence or absence of often minute features without discussion, leaving doubts as to what condition is true. Otherwise, several sections can be rephrased to acknowledge uncertainty, and probably change some character scorings to '?' in other studies.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
The study provides an interesting contribution to our understanding of Cryptovaranoides relationships, which is a matter of intensive debate among researchers. My main concerns are in regard to the wording of some statements, but generally, the discussion and data are well prepared. I would recommend moderate revisions.
Strengths:
(1) Detailed analysis of the discussed characters.
(2) Illustrations of some comparative materials.
Weaknesses:
Some parts of the manuscript require clarification and rewording.
One of the main points of criticism of Whiteside et al. is using characters for phylogenetic considerations that are not included in the phylogenetic analyses therein. The authors call it a "non-trivial substantive methodological flaw" (page 19, line 531). I would step down from such a statement for the reasons listed below:
(1) Comparative anatomy is not about making phylogenetic analyses. Comparative anatomy is about comparing different taxa in search of characters that are unique and characters that are shared between taxa. This creates an opportunity to assess the level of similarity between the taxa and create preliminary hypotheses about homology. Therefore, comparative anatomy can provide some phylogenetic inferences. That does not mean that tests of congruence are not needed. Such comparisons are the first step that allows creating phylogenetic matrices for analysis, which is the next step of phylogenetic inference. That does not mean that all the papers with new morphological comparisons should end with a new or expanded phylogenetic matrix. Instead, such papers serve as a rationale for future papers that focus on building phylogenetic matrices.
(2) Phylogenetic matrices are never complete, both in terms of morphological disparity and taxonomic diversity. I don't know if it is even possible to have a complete one, but at least we can say that we are far from that. Criticising a work that did not include all the possibly relevant characters in the phylogenetic analysis is simply unfair. The authors should know that creating/expanding a phylogenetic matrix is a never-ending work, beyond the scope of any paper presenting a new fossil.
(3) Each additional taxon has the possibility of inducing a rethinking of characters. That includes new characters, new character states, character state reordering, etc. As I said above, it is usually beyond the scope of a paper with a new fossil to accommodate that into the phylogenetic matrix, as it requires not only scoring the newly described taxon but also many that are already scored. Since the digitalization of fossils is still rare, it requires a lot of collection visits that are costly in terms of time.
(4) If I were to search for a true flaw in the Whiteside et al. paper, I would check if there is a confirmation bias. The mentioned paper should not only search for characters that support Cryptovaranoides affinities with Anguimorpha but also characters that deny that. I am not sure if Whiteside et al. did such an exercise. Anyway, the test of congruence would not solve this issue because by adding only characters that support one hypothesis, we are biasing the results of such a test.
To sum up, there is nothing wrong with proposing some hypotheses about character homology between different taxa that can be tested in future papers that will include a test of congruence. Lack of such a test makes the whole argumentation weaker in Whiteside et al., but not unacceptable, as the manuscript might suggest. My advice is to step down from such strong statements like "methodological flaw" and "empirical problems" and replace them with "limitations", which I think better describes the situation.

Cryptovaranoides is not a squamate

Figures and data

Comparison of jugal morphologies among living lepidosaurs.

Comparison of palatine morphologies. Blue shading indicates choanal fossa.

Choanal fossa character scoring.

Comparison of vomer morphologies.

Quadrate-squamosal articulation character scoring.

Anterior articulation of vomer and maxilla character scoring.

Presence of a medially positioned posterior mylohyoidal foramen on the mandible.

Comparison of the humerus of Cryptovaranoides microlanius to Puercosuchus traverorum [26].

Be the first to read new articles from eLife