180 



independent origin. It is often forgotten that the interpretation of apparent homologies as 

 true homologies in a cladistic analysis is based on parsimony. Given other lines of evidence 

 (which need not necessarily be additional cladistic analyses), such features may turn out 

 to be homoplastic. 



We do wish to add that we do not necessarily subscribe to the view that the aquatically 

 related features of pinnipeds are convergently derived. We merely want to point out that 

 the potential paleobiogeographical ramifications of a monophyletic Pinnipedia have largely 

 been ignored to date (see below). 



Taxonomic implications 



One inescapable consequence of any systematic study is its potential impact on the 

 taxonomy of the group being examined. The many novel relationships posited here for 

 the phocids would argue for a fairly dramatic re-organization of the taxonomy of this 

 group. Although we will outline what some of these changes should be (or at least provide 

 a list of equally acceptable options), we do not intend to propose these changes in a formal 

 manner. They are merely presented as the logical extension of the phylogeny that we have 

 presented. 



The monophyly of both Monachus and of the Monachinae as a whole allows for these 

 entities to retain their taxonomic status (as a genus and subfamily respectively), without 

 having their names placed in quotation marks (as in Wyss 1988a; Berta & Wyss 1994). 

 The paraphyly of the Lobodontini, meanwhile, argues for one of two solutions. The first 

 has the Monachini (= Monachus spp.) subsumed within the Lobodontini, which has priority 

 [see historical review in Scheffer (1958)]. The Miroungini (= Mirounga spp.) would remain 

 as a distinct tribe. The second option is for the Lobodontini to be abolished, possibly 

 together with all tribal designations in the monachines as suggested by Hendey & 

 Repenning (1972) and King (1983). 



Within the phocines, a similar list of choices is available for the paraphyletic Phocini: 

 either outright abolition or the inclusion of Erignathus. The former option seems more 

 tenable, as there appears to be no legitimate reason to exclude only Cystophora from the 

 fairly wide range of morphological variation encompassed by such a newly defined 

 Phocini. [Arnason et al. (1995) also indicate that the distinction between Cystophora and 

 the Phocini (excluding Erignathus) appears to be fairly minor.] The more derived position 

 of Erignathus also renders Phoca (sensu Burns & Fay 1970) paraphyletic. The elevation 

 of the various subgenera to full generic status, as was done in this study, is not permissible 

 as Phoca (sensu stricto), and possibly Pusa, would be paraphyletic. This is true regardless 

 of whether Phoca largha is granted species status or not. Again, there are two possible 

 solutions to this problem. The first, and the simplest, involves subsuming Erignathus as 

 a subgenus within Phoca (sensu Burns & Fay). There is some precedence for this, as 

 Phoca is the senior synonym for Erignathus (as is the case for most phocids) (see Scheffer 

 1958). A similar procedure has also been advocated for Halichoerus by Arnason et al. 

 (1993, 1995). The second solution involves the elevation of all subgenera back to generic 

 status, but with new generic appellations being found for Phoca largha and possibly Pusa 

 caspica, neither of which possess available generic synonyms. 



