Playing another round of metazoan phylogenetics: Historical epistemology, sensitivity analysis, and the position of arthropoda within the metazoa on the basis of morphology

Crustacea and Arthropod Relationships

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 355-385

  Jenner, Ronald A ^a   Scholtz, Gerhard ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922533927     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1201/9781420037548     Document Type: Chapter

References (93)

1. Aguinaldo, A.M.A., Turbeville, J.M., Linford, L.S., Rivera, M.C., Garey, J.R., Raff, R.A. & Lake, J.A. 1997. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods and other moulting animals. Nature 387: 489-493.
2. Almeida, W.O., Christoffersen, M.L., Amorim, D.S., Garraffoni, A.R.S. & Silva, G.S. 2003. Polychaeta, Annelida, and Articulata are not monophyletic: articulating the Metameria (Metazoa:Coelomata). Rev. Brasil. Zool. 20: 23-57.
3. Asma, S.T. 1996. Following Form and Function. A Philosophical Archaeology of Life Science. Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press.
4. Ax, P. 1984. Das phylogenetische System. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
5. Ax, P. 1999. Das System der Metazoa II. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
6. Bivort, B.L. de & Giribet, G. 2004. A new genus of cyphophtalmid from the Iberian Peninsula with a phylogenetic analysis of the Sironidae (Arachnida: Opiliones, Cyphophtalmi) and a SEM database of external morphology. Invert. Syst. 18: 7-52.
7. Blair, J.E., Ikeo, K., Gojobori, T., Hedges, S.B. 2002. The evolutionary position of nematodes. BMC Evol. Biol. 2: 7.
8. Bowler, P.J. 1996. Life’s Splendid Drama; Evolutionary Biology and the Reconstruction of Life’s Ancestry, 1860-1940. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. Bowler, P.J. 2000. Philosophy, instinct, intuition: what motivates the scientist in search of a theory? Biol. Phil. 15: 93-101.
10. Brusca, R.C. & Brusca, G.J. 1990. Invertebrates. Massachusetts: Sinauer Assoc.
11. Brusca, R.C. & Brusca, G.J. 2003. Invertebrates; Second edition. Massachusetts: Sinauer Assoc.
12. Budd, G.E. 1999. The morphology and phylogenetic significance of Kerygmachela kierkegaardi Budd (Buen Formation, Lower Cambrian, N. Greenland). Trans. R. Soc. Edinburgh, Earth Sci., 89: 249-290.
13. Budd, G.E. 2001. Why are arthropods segmented? Evol. Dev. 3: 332-342.
14. Bütschli, O. 1876. Untersuchungen über freilebende Nematoden und die Gattung Chaetonotus. Z. wiss. Zool. 26: 363-413.
15. Copley, R.R., Alor, P., Russell, R.B. & Telford, M.J. 2004. Systematic searches for molecular synapomorphies in model metazoan genomes give some support for Ecdysozoa after accounting for the idiosyncrasies of Caenorhabditis elegans. Evol. Devel. 6: 164-169.
16. Dewel, R.A. & Dewel, W.C. 1996. The brain of Echiniscus viridissimus Peterfi, 1956 (Heterotardigrada):A key to understanding the phylogenetic position of tardigrades and the evolution of the arthropod head. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 116: 35-49.
17. Dohle, W. 1986. Die Evolution der Wirbellosen. Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin, N.F., 26: 67-90.
18. Dohle, W. 1989. Zur Frage der Homologie ontogenetischer Muster. Zool. Beitr., N.F., 32: 67-90.
19. Donoghue, M.J. & Ackerly, D.D. 1996. Phylogenetic uncertainties and sensitivity analyses in comparative biology. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B, 351: 1241-1249.
20. Donoghue, M.J. & Sanderson, M.J. 1994. Complexity and homology in plants. In: Hall, B.K. (ed.), Homology; The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology: 393-421. San Diego: Academic Press.
21. Donoghue, P.C.J., Forey, P.L. & Aldridge, R.J. 2000. Conodont affinity and chordate phylogeny. Biol. Rev. 75: 191-251.
22. Dopazo, H., Santoyo, J. & Dopazo, J. 2004. Phylogenomics and the number of characters required for obtaining an accurate phylogeny of eukaryote model species. Bioinformatics, Suppl. 1, 20: i116- i121.
23. Eernisse, D.J. 1997. Arthropod and annelid relationships re-examined. In: Fortey, R.A. & Thomas, R.H. (eds.), Arthropod Relationships: 43-56. London: Chapman & Hall.
24. Eernisse, D.J., Albert, J.S. & Anderson, F.E. 1992. Annelida and Arthropoda are not sister taxa: a phylogenetic analysis of spiralian metazoan morphology. Syst. Biol. 41: 305-330.
25. Eriksson, B.J. & Budd, G.E. 2000. Onychophoran cephalic nerves and their bearing on our understanding of head segmentation and stem-group evolution of Arthropoda. Arthr. Struc. Devel. 29: 197-209.
26. Eriksson, B.J., Tait, N.N. & Budd, G.E. 2003. Head development in the onychophoran Euperipatoides kanangrensis with particular reference to the central nervous system. J. Morph. 255: 1-23.
27. Forey, P.L. & Kitching, I.J. 2000. Experiments in coding multistate characters. In: Scotland, R. & Pennington, R.T. (eds.), Homology and Systematics; Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis:54-80. London: Taylor & Francis.
28. Ghiselin, M.T. 1984. Narrow approaches to phylogeny: a review of nine books of cladism. Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol. 1: 209-222.
29. Ghiselin, M.T. 1991. Classical and molecular phylogenetics. Boll. Zool. 58: 289-294.
30. Giribet, G. 2003a. Molecules, development and fossils in the study of metazoan evolution; Articulata versus Ecdysozoa revisited. Zoology 106: 303-326.
31. Giribet, G. 2003b. Stability in phylogenetic formulations and its relationship to nodal support. Syst. Biol. 52: 554-564.
32. Giribet, G., DeSalle, R. & Wheeler, W.C. 2002. ‘Pluralism’ and the aims of phylogenetic research. In: DeSalle, R., Giribet, G. & Wheeler, W. (eds.), Molecular Systematics and Evolution: Theory and Practice: 141-146. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.
33. Giribet, G., Distel, D.L., Polz, M., Sterrer, W. & Wheeler, W.C. 2000. Triploblastic relationships with emphasis on the acoelomates and the position of Gnathostomulida, Cycliophora, Plathelminthes, and Chaetognatha: a combined approach of 18S rDNA sequences and morphology. Syst. Biol. 49: 539-562.
34. Grant, T. & Kluge, A.G. 2003. Data exploration in phylogenetic inference: scientific, heuristic, or neither. Cladistics 19: 379-418.
35. Gruner, H.-E. 1980. Einführung. In: Gruner, H.-E. (ed.), Lehrbuch der Speziellen Zoologie, Band I, 1. Teil: 15-156. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
36. Hausdorf, B. 2000. Early evolution of the Bilateria. Syst. Biol. 49: 130-142.
37. Hawkins, J.A. 2000. A survey of primary homology assessment: different botanists perceive and define characters in different ways. In: Scotland, R. & Pennington, R.T. (eds.), Homology and Systematics; Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis: 22-53. London: Taylor & Francis.
38. Hawkins, J.A., Hughes, C.E. & Scotland, R.W. 1997. Primary homology assessment, characters and character states. Cladistics 13: 275-283.
39. Hennig, W. 1972. Wirbellose II, Gliedertiere; Taschenbuch der Speziellen Zoologie, Teil 2, 3. Auflage. Frankfurt: H. Deutsch.
40. Hennig, W. 1979. Wirbellose I, Ausgenommen Gliedertiere; Taschenbuch der Speziellen Zoologie, Teil 1, 4. Auflage. Frankfurt: H. Deutsch.
41. Hennig, W. 1983. Die Stammesgeschichte der Chordaten. Hamburg: Parey Verlag.
42. Jenner, R.A. 2002. Boolean logic and character state identity: pitfalls of character coding in metazoan cladistics. Contr. Zool. 71: 67-91.
43. Jenner, R.A. 2003. Unleashing the force of cladistics? Metazoan phylogenetics and hypothesis testing. Integ. Comp. Biol. 43: 207-218.
44. Jenner, R.A. 2004a. Accepting partnership by submission? Morphological phylogenetics in a molecular millennium. Syst. Biol. 53: 333-342.
45. Jenner, R.A. 2004b. The scientific status of metazoan cladistics: why current research practice must change. Zool. Scr. 33: 293-310.
46. Jenner, R.A. 2004c. Towards a phylogeny of the Metazoa: evaluating alternative phylogenetic positions of Platyhelminthes, Nemertea, and Gnathostomulida, with a critical reappraisal of cladistic characters. Contr. Zool. 73: 3-163.
47. Jenner, R.A. 2004d. When molecules and morphology clash: reconciling conflicting phylogenies of the Metazoa by considering secondary character loss. Evol. Devel. 6: 372-378.
48. Jenner, R.A. 2004e. Historical imagination, colonial theories and phylogenetic fashion. Pal. Ass. Newsl. 56: 50-59.
49. Jenner, R.A. 2004f. Libbie Henrietta Hyman (1888-1969): from developmental mechanics to the evolution of animal body plans. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 5: 413-423.
50. Jenner, R.A. & Schram, F.R. 1999. The grand game of metazoan phylogeny: rules and strategies. Biol. Rev. 74: 121-142.
51. Kluge, A.G. 1997. Testability and the refutation and corroboration of cladistic hypotheses. Cladistics 13: 81-96.
52. Kluge, A.G. 1998. Sophisticated falsification and research cycles: consequences for differential character weighting in phylogenetic systematics. Zool. Scr. 26: 349-360.
53. Kristensen, R.M. 1991. Loricifera. In: Harrison, F.W. & Ruppert, E.E (eds.), Microscopic Anatomy of Invertebrates; Vol. 4., Aschelminthes: 351-375. New York: Wiley-Liss.
54. Lee, M.S.Y. & Doughty, P. 1997. The relationship between evolutionary theory and phylogenetic analysis. Biol. Rev. 72: 471-495.
55. Lieberman, B.S. 2003. A new soft-bodied fauna: the Pioche formation of Nevada. J. Paleontol. 77: 674-690.
56. Mallatt, J., Garey, J.R. & Shultz, J.W. 2004. Ecdysozoan phylogeny and Bayesian inference: first use of nearly complete 28S and 18S rRNA gene sequences to classify the arthropods and their kin. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 31: 178-191.
57. Mallatt, J. & Winchell, C.J. 2002. Testing the new animal phylogeny: first use of combined largesubunit and small-subunit rRNA gene sequences to classify the protostomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19: 289-301.
58. Manuel, M., Kruse, M., Müller, W.E.G. & Le Parco, Y. 2000. The comparison of b-thymosin homologues among Metazoa supports an arthropod-nematode clade. J. Mol. Evol. 51: 378-381.
59. Meglitsch, P.A. & Schram, F.R. 1991. Invertebrate Zoology. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
60. Nielsen, C. 2001. Animal evolution; Interrelationships of the Living Phyla. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
61. Nielsen, C. 2003. Proposing a solution to the Articulata-Ecdysozoa controversy. Zool. Scr. 32: 475-482.
62. Peterson, K.J. & Eernisse, D.J. 2001. Animal phylogeny and the ancestry of bilaterians: inferences from morphology and 18S rDNA gene sequences. Evol. Dev. 3: 170-205.
63. Prendini, L. 2001. Species or supraspecific taxa as terminals in cladistic analysis? Groundplans versus exemplars revisited. Syst. Biol. 50: 290-300.
64. Prendini, L. 2003. A new genus and species of bothriurid scorpion from the Brandberg Massif, Namibia, with a reanalysis of bothriurid phylogeny and a discussion of the phylogenetic position of Lisposoma Lawrence. Syst. Entomol. 28: 149-172.
65. Rauther, M. 1909. Morphologie und Verwandschaftsbeziehungen der Nematoden. Ergeb. Fortschr. Zool. 1: 491-596.
66. Remane, A. 1952. Die Grundlagen des natürlichen Systems der vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Leipzig: Geest & Portig.
67. Riedl, R. 1975. Die Ordnung des Lebendigen. Hamburg: Parey.
68. Rouse, G.W. 2001. A cladistic analysis of Siboglinidae Caullery, 1914 (Polychaeta, Annelida): formerly the phyla Pogonophora and Vestimentifera. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 132: 55-80.
69. Rouse, G.W. & Fauchald, K. 1997. Cladistics and polychaetes. Zool. Scr. 26: 139-204.
70. Schmidt-Rhaesa, A., Bartolomaeus, T., Lemburg, C., Ehlers, U. & Garey. J.R. 1998. The position of the Arthropoda in the phylogenetic system. J. Morph. 238: 263-285.
71. Scholtz, G. 1997. Cleavage, germ band formation and head segmentation: the ground pattern of the Euarthropoda. In: Fortey, R.A. & Thomas, R.H. (eds.), Arthropod Relationships: 317-332. London:Chapman & Hall.
72. Scholtz, G. 2002. The Articulata hypothesis - or what is a segment? Org. Divers. Evol. 2: 197-215.
73. Scholtz, G. 2003. Is the taxon Articulata obsolete? Arguments in favour of a close relationship between annelids and arthropods. In: Legakis, A., Sfentourakis, S., Polymeni, R. & Thessalou-Legaki, M. (eds.), The new panorama of animal evolution: 489-501. Sofia: Pensoft Publishers.
74. Schram, F.R. 1991. Cladistic analysis of metazoan phyla and the placement of fossil problematica. In: Simonetta, A.M. & Conway Morris, S. (eds.), The Early Evolution of Metazoa and the Significance of Problematic Taxa: 35-46. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
75. Schram, F.R. 1997. Of cavities - and kings. Contrib. Zool. 62: 143-150.
76. Schram, F.R. 2004. The truly new systematics - megascience in the information age. Hydrobiologia 519: 1-7.
77. Siddall, M.E. & Kluge, A.G. 1997. Probabilism and phylogenetic inference. Cladistics 13: 313-336.
78. Simmons, N.B. & Geisler, J.H. 2002. Sensitivity analysis of different methods of coding taxonomic polymorphism: an example from higher-level bat phylogeny. Cladistics 18: 571-584.
79. Sørensen, M.V., Funch, P., Willerslev, E., Hansen, A.J. & Olesen, J. 2000. On the phylogeny of the Metazoa in the light of Cycliophora and Micrognathozoa. Zool. Anz. 239: 297-318.
80. Swofford, D.L. 2002. PAUP*. Sunderland: Sinauer Assoc.
81. Telford, M.J. 2004. The multimeric b-thymosin found in nematodes and arthropods is not a synapomorphy of the Ecdysozoa. Evol. Dev. 6: 90-94.
82. Tudge, C. 2000. The Variety of Life. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
83. Turbeville, J.M. 2002. Progress in nemertean biology: development and phylogeny. Integ. Comp. Biol. 42: 692-703.
84. Wägele, J.W., Erikson, T., Lockart, P. & Misof, B. 1999. The Ecdysozoa: artifact or monophylum? J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 37: 211-223.
85. Wägele, J.W. & Misof, B. 2001. On quality of evidence in phylogeny reconstruction: a reply to Zrzavý‘s defence of the ‘Ecdysozoa’ hypothesis. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 39: 165-176.
86. Wägele, J.W. & Stanjek, G. 1995. Arthropod phylogeny inferred from partial 12S rRNA revisited:monophyly of the Tracheata depends on sequence alignments. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Research 33: 75-80.
87. Westheide, W. 2004. Review of “Anderson, D.T. (ed.), Invertebrate Zoology”. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 42: 171-172.
88. Wheeler, W.C. 1995. Sequence alignment, parameter sensitivity, and the phylogenetic analysis of molecular data. Syst. Biol. 44: 321-331.
89. Wolf, Y.I., Rogozin, I.B. & Koonin, E.V. 2004. Coelomata and not Ecdysozoa: evidence from genome- wide phylogenetic analysis. Genome Res. 14: 29-36.
90. Zrzavý, J. 2001. Ecdysozoa versus Articulata: clades, artifacts, prejudices. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 39: 159-163.
91. Zrzavý, J. 2003. Gastrotricha and metazoan phylogeny. Zool. Scr. 32: 61-81.
92. Zrzavý, J., Hypsa, V. & Tietz, D.F. 2001. Myzostomida are not annelids. Molecular and morphological support for a clade of animals with anterior sperm flagella. Cladistics 17: 170-198.
93. Zrzavý, J., Mihulka, S., Kepka, P., Bezdek, A. & Tietz, D. 1998. Phylogeny of the Metazoa based on morphological and 18S ribosomal DNA evidence. Cladistics 14: 249-285.