176 



and as suggested by Sarich (1976), Wayne et al. (1989), Perry et al. (1995), and CA. 

 Repenning (pers. comm.), the specific pattern advocated here for the outgroup 

 interrelationships might be an unnatural resolution of what should really be a polytomy. 

 Reasonably strong support was also obtained for the phocids as a whole and for each 

 phocid subfamily, but, beyond this, support drops off markedly. Yet, despite relatively 

 weak statistical support, the pattern of monachine interrelationships (and the monophyly 

 of Monachus in particular) appears to be exceptionally robust, emerging unaltered in 

 virtually every analysis (again, unless specific changes were imposed upon the subfamily). 

 Relationships within the phocines, and especially within the Phocini (plus Erignathus), 

 were demonstrably more labile, showing slightly different patterns with almost every 

 analysis. Topological changes within the Phocini (plus Erignathus) could also be effected 

 by imposing changes within the Monachinae. The analogous reverse situation was never 

 observed. 



Although many novel, non-traditional relationships are indicated within the phocids by 

 this study, it is worth noting that most studies of phocid phylogeny that employed some 

 form of rigorous methodology (e.g., King 1966; Burns & Fay 1970; Wyss 1988a) have, 

 for their respective times, also advocated some fairly non-traditional relationships. As well, 

 the novel relationships advocated here enjoy reasonable support throughout the many 

 analyses within this study. This is particularly true of the more terminal position within 

 the phocines advocated herein for Erignathus. In fact, this historically-regarded "primitive" 

 and "monachine-like" phocine is apparently responsible for causing Histriophoca and 

 Pagophilus to occupy a more terminal position, and possibly even a relationship based on 

 synapomorphies and not symplesiomorphies, than they might otherwise possess without 

 its influence. The new relationships presented for Erignathus likely arise from a fairer 

 appraisal of its overall morphology, without an undue emphasis on some of its (undisputed) 

 more primitive, monachine-like characters. Instead, Cystophora is proposed as the sister 

 taxon to the remaining phocines. The similar role played by Mirounga within the 

 monachines suggests that the now defunct Cystophorinae may display a large number of 

 phocid symplesiomorphies, especially in features originating from the nasal region. This 

 supposition is strengthened by the appearance of similar features in the fossil pinniped 

 Allodesmus (Mitchell 1975), especially with its re-interpreted position as part of the sister 

 group to the phocids (Wyss 1987; Berta 1991; Wyss & Flynn 1993; Berta & Wyss 1994). 

 This distinctive nasal region morphology is also apparently responsible for the moderately 

 strong tendency of Cystophora to form the sister taxon of the monachines. The species 

 level approach adopted here permits paraphyly of the lobodontines, a reasonably poorly 

 examined group whose assumed monophyletic status had apparently never been rigorously 

 examined. However, paraphyly of this tribe is dependent on the invasion of the 

 monophyletic Monachus. Like Erignathus, a more terminal position for Monachus may 

 have been hindered historically by a disproportionate emphasis on the (again undisputed) 

 more primitive features of this genus. But. like the other relationships within the 

 monachines, this more terminal position for Monachus appears to be fairly robust. 

 Thus, of the five questions raised in the Introduction we propose the following answers: 

 1) Monachus is monophyletic, with M. schauinslanai and ivl. tropicalis sharing a common 



