38 



1994). Otherwise, the tribe is almost certainly monophyletic (Wyss 1988:5). To our 

 knowledge, paraphyly of Mirounga has never been suggested. 



Consensus character states for each higher level taxon were determined from the character 

 states of its constituent species using the same modified majority rule algorithm used to 

 condense specimen observations into the consensus species states (see above; states listed 

 in Appendix B). A heuristic search according to the pattern described above was employed. 



Unweighted analysis 



The use of inverse weighting for multistate characters is fairly infrequent in phylogenetic 

 systematics (as is the use of multistate characters). Thus, an analysis designed to assess 

 the impact of these different weighting schemes (i.e., inversely versus identically weighted 

 characters) was undertaken. It was performed in exactly the same manner as the overall 

 parsimony analysis except that all characters were unweighted (i.e., each had a weight 

 of 1). 



Taxonomic conventions 



The ever-changing taxonomy of the carnivores, and especially that within the pinnipeds, 

 reflects the changing opinions on the phylogenetic relationships within this order. 

 Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion, we will refer to the carnivoran taxa as outlined 

 in Tab.l. We will forgo the use of the monotypic phocid tribes Cystophorini (=Cystophora 

 cristata), Erignathini (-Erignathus barbatus), Miroungini {-Mirounga spp.), and 

 Monachini (-Monachus spp.) in favour of their constituent taxa. Unless otherwise 

 mentioned, membership of all taxa applies solely to their extant representatives. 



Table 1: Indented hierarchy displaying taxonomic conventions employed in this study. Unless 

 otherwise noted, this taxonomy applies only to extant forms. References do not necessarily correspond 

 to the first mention of the group in the literature, but to the manner in which the group is to be 

 recognized here. 



Caniformia (Wyss & Flynn 1993) - canids (Canis), ursids (Ursus), procyonids (Procyon), mustelids 

 {Martes, Enhydra, and Lutra), and Pinnipedia 

 Arctoidea (Wyss & Flynn 1993) - all caniforms above excluding canids 

 Lutrinae (Wozencraft 1993) - otters (Enhydra and Lutra) 

 Mustelinae (Wozencraft 1993) - weasels, marten (Martes), wolverine 

 Pinnipedia (Illiger 1811) - seals, sea lions, fur seals, and walrus 

 Otarioidea (Smirnov 1908) - sea lions, fur seals, and walrus 

 Odobenidae (Allen 1880) - walrus (Odobemts) 

 Otariidae (Gill 1866) - sea lions (Zalophus) and fur seals 

 Phocidae (Brooks 1828) - phocid seals 

 Monachinae (King 1966) - southern seals (Mirounga spp., Monachus spp., and the lobodontines) 



Lobodontini (Scheffer 1958) - Hydrurga, Leptonychotes, Lobodon, and Ommatophoca 

 Phocinae (King 1966) - northern seals (Cystophora, Erignathus, and the Phocini) 

 Phocini (Chapskii 1955a) - Halichoerus, Histriophoca, Pagophilus, Phoca spp., and Pusa spp. 



