I have a few issues wið statements of ðe page on synapsids about scutes.
Ðe page states
“Among the early synapsids, only two species of small varanopids have been found to possess scutes”
and cites “The integumentary skeleton of tetrapods: origin, evolution, and development” as a source. However, ðis wellspring of info says ðat osteoderms have been found only in two varanopids among synapsids, not ðat scutes have. Moreover, a few words later, ðe page rightly states ðat skin impressions have shown some synapsids to have had scutes on ðeir undersides. Indeed, ophiacodonts and ðe trackmaker of ðe Polish tracks (ðe paper, “A supposed eupelycosaur body impression from the early Permian of the Intra-Sudetic basin, Poland”, about ðis is cited by ðe page) have ðus been shown to have had belly scutes. Ðis shows ðat synapsid scutes have not been found just in varanopids (if varanopids are synapsids at all).
Why does ðe page cite “A mixed-age classed ‘pelycosaur’ aggregation from South Africa: earliest evidence of parental care in amniotes?” as a wellspring of ðe (true) info ðat some synapsids had belly scales? Said source seems to not hold ðat info. Instead, “Pennsylvanian pelycosaurs from Linton, Ohio and Nýřany, Czechoslovakia” does.
Ðe page doesn’t draw attention to ðe possible placement of Varanopidae in Sauropsida raðer ðan Synapsida.