44 



also speaks against the contention that Mirounga is more closely allied to the lobodontines 

 than either is to Monachus (Hendey 1972; King 1983; but see Sarich 1976). However, it 

 appears noteworthy that the similarity between Monachus and the lobodontines was 

 recognized long before Mirounga was added to the Monachinae (see Introduction). 

 Monophyly of Monachus is indicated, again in contrast to the findings of Wyss (1988a). 

 As well, this analysis supports the older contention of a sister group relationship between 

 M. schauinslandi and M. tropicalis (e.g., King 1956; Kenyon & Rice 1959; King & 

 Harrison 1961; de Muizon 1982a), as opposed to the more recent opinion which holds M. 

 schauinslandi to be the most primitive member of the genus (if not the phocids as a whole) 

 (Repenning & Ray 1977; Wyss 1988a). Support for both the terminal position of Monachus 

 spp. (as indicated by the strength of the Lobodon-Monachus spp. grouping) and their 

 interrelationships are marked by a relatively large number of synapomorphies (Fig.5C; 

 Appendices D and E). 



The terminal placement of Monachus spp. now renders the Lobodontini paraphyletic, 

 which has, at best, only been previously hinted at with the inclusion of fossil forms 

 (Hendey 1972; McLaren 1975; Ray 1976a; Berta & Wyss 1994). However, as again 

 estimated by the strength of a Lobodon-Monachus spp. alliance, this paraphyly is strongly 

 indicated. As well, novel internal relationships are proposed for the lobodontines. A 

 Lobodon-Ommatophoca pairing is indicated (momentarily ignoring Monachus spp.), with 

 Leptonychotes and Hydrurga forming successive sister taxa to this clade, in contrast to 

 the more traditional Hydrurga-Lobodon, Leptonychotes-Ommatophoca split (Hendey 1972; 

 de Muizon & Hendey 1980; de Muizon 1982a; King 1983). Although some of our 

 lobodontine relations are comparatively weak, they are generally supported by more 

 characters than the traditional pairings, which are based primarily on the larger size and 

 more complex morphology of the postcanines in Hydrurga and Lobodon, or, equivalently. 

 the reduced nature of the postcanines in Leptonychotes and Ommatophoca (Hendey 1972; 

 de Muizon & Hendey 1980; de Muizon 1982a; King 1983). 



Relationships within the Phocinae 



As indicated above, support for this subfamily is reasonably strong. Many of the general 

 themes observed for the monachines were also observed here. Again, a novel suggestion 

 for the most primitive member of the subfamily is obtained, with Cystophora adopting 

 the traditional placement of Erignathus. Although Cystophora is generally agreed to be 

 relatively primitive within the phocines [only de Muizon (1982a), Mouchaty et al. (1995). 

 Perry et al. (1995), and possibly Arnason et al. (1995) depart from this view, embedding 

 Cystophora well within the Phocini from its traditional sister taxon status, although this 

 result may be peculiar to phylogenies derived from cytochrome b data in particular], to 

 our knowledge, a basal placement for any taxon besides Erignathus is unique. The parallel 

 positions of Cystophora and Mirounga as the basal members of their respective subfamilies 

 hint that some of the similarities between these members of the now abandoned subfamily 

 Cystophorinae might be based on phocid symplesiomorphies, rather than on convergent 

 features (see King 1966). This contention is strengthened by evidence that similar 

 cystophorine features may have been present in Allodesmus (Mitchell 1975), a taxon now 



