False teeth: conodont-vertebrate phylogenetic relationships revisited Susan TURNER Monash University Geosciences, Box 28E, Victoria 3800, and Queensland Museum, Geosciences Annex, 122 Gerler Road, Hendra, Queensland 4011 (Australia)
[email protected] Carole J. BURROW Queensland Museum, Geosciences Annex, 122 Gerler Road, Hendra, Queensland 4011 (Australia)
[email protected] Hans-Peter SCHULTZE Natural History Museum, The University of Kansas, 1345 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, Kansas 66046-7561 (USA)
[email protected] Alain BLIECK Université de Lille 1, Sciences de la Terre, FRE 3298 du CNRS Géosystèmes, F-59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq cedex (France)
[email protected] Wolf-Ernst REIF† Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Institut für Geowissenschaften, Sigwartstraße 10, D-72076 Tübingen (Germany) Carl B. REXROAD Indiana Geological Survey, 611 North Walnut Grove, Bloomington, Indiana 47405-2208 (USA) Pierre BULTYNCK Department of Paleontology, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Vautier street 29, B-1000 Brussels (Belgium) Godfrey S. NOWLAN Geological Survey of Canada, 3303 – 33rd Street NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2L 2A7 (Canada) Turner S., Burrow C. J., Schultze H.-P., Blieck A., Reif W.-E.†, Rexroad C. B., Bultynck P. & Nowlan G. S. 2010. — False teeth: conodont-vertebrate phylogenetic relationships revisited. Geodiversitas 32 (4): 545-594. GEODIVERSITAS • 2010 • 32 (4) © Publications Scientifi ques du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. www.geodiversitas.com 545 Turner S. et al. ABSTRACT An evidence-based reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships of cono- donts shows that they are not “stem” gnathostomes, nor vertebrates, and not even craniates. A signifi cant group of conodont workers have proposed or accepted a craniate designation for the conodont animal, an interpretation that is increasingly becoming established as accepted “fact”.