Funcusvermis gilmorei is a new caecilian, but taxon exclusion mars this report

The stem caecilian question
The Kligman et al hypothesis of interrelationships posited a rapid loss of large limbs from taxa like Celtedens (Fig 4) to Eocaecilia. Other caecilian-like taxa recovered by the LRT (Figs 2–5) were either omitted or recovered as convergent (some of these taxa are listed below).

I would be more interested in arguments for convergence if Kligman et al had included the microsaur taxa in the LRT (subset Fig 3) they omitted. With regard to time, the LRT recovers older stem caecilians than Late Triassic Funcusvermis (Fig 5).

With regard to all those other taxa mis-nested in Kligman et al,
in the LRT (subset Fig 3) Proterogyrinus, is not a proper outgroup, but a taxon without descendants. Brachydectes, Batropetes and Rhynchonkos nest within Microsauria, not close to the dissimilar basal tetrapod, Greererpeton. In like manner, Plagiosuchus and Gerrothorax are basal tetrapods when more taxa are added, not relatives of the dissimilar basal caecilian, Chinlestegophis.

Kligman et al. wrote,
“We tested the relationships of Funcusvermis gilmorei in a modified dataset of 63 terminal taxa including stem tetrapods, stem and crown amniotes, and temnospondyl amphibians including stereospondyls and lissamphibians.”

63 cherry-picked taxa is not enough, according to the LRT. Those 63 taxa gave the authors a distorted idea how tetrapods evolved from fish, which taxa were basal to reptiles, and which taxa were related to caecilians. Adding taxa resolves all issues. Omitting taxa does not.

In either hypothesis
(Figs 2, 4) caecilians are the product of phylogenetic miniaturization and neotony. Perhaps those details are worth exploring sometime soon.

References
Kligman BT et al (6 co-authors) 2023. Triassic stem caecilian supports dissorophoid origin of living amphibians. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05646-5

wiki/Funcusvermis

Publicity
phys.org/news reported:
“The smallest of newly found fossils can upend what paleontologists know about our history.”

Not true. Caecilians are not in the human lineage. Neither are frogs nor salamanders.

“A team of paleontologists from Virginia Tech and the U.S. Petrified Forest National Park, among others, have discovered the first “unmistakable” Triassic-era caecilian fossil—the oldest-known caecilian fossils—thus extending the record of this small, burrowing amphibian by roughly 35 million years. The find also fills a gap of at least 87 million years in the known historical fossil record of the amphibian-like creature.”

The time span between the Late Triassic of Funcusvermis and the Early Jurassic of Eocaecilia is actually somewhat less than 87 million years.

“The discovery of the oldest caecilian fossils highlights the crucial nature of new fossil evidence. Many of the biggest outstanding questions in paleontology and evolution cannot be resolved without fossils like this,’ said Kligman, ‘Seeing the first jaw under the microscope, with its distinctive double row of teeth, sent chills down my back,” Kligman said. “We immediately knew it was a caecilian, the oldest caecilian fossil ever found, and a once-in-a-lifetime discovery.”

That double row of teeth on such tiny jaws (Fig. 1) is a strong sign of caecilian affinity.

Crucial? Biggest? Outstanding? Chills down my back? Once-in-a-lifetime? I wonder if Romer, Colbert, Broom, Marsh and Cope ever got this excited about their discoveries? Or is this Kligman’s nature? Or just a sign of the modern age of Internet journalism?