Deep molluscan phylogeny: synthesis of palaeontological and neontological data

The position of the earliest-derived living molluscs, the Polyplacophora (chitons) and shell-less vermiform Aplacophora, remains highly contentious despite many morphological, developmental and molecular studies of extant organisms. These two groups are thought to represent either a basal molluscan grade or a clade (Aculifera) sister to the ‘higher’ molluscs (Conchifera). These incompatible hypotheses result in very different predictions about the earliest molluscs. A new cladistic analysis incorporating both Palaeozoic and extant molluscs is presented here. Our results support the monophyly of Aculifera and suggest that extant aplacophorans and polyplacophorans both derive from a disparate group of multivalved molluscs in two major clades. Reanalysis of the critical Ordovician taxon ‘Helminthochiton’ thraivensis shows that this animal lacks a true foot despite bearing polyplacophoran-like valves. Its position within our phylogenetic reconstruction indicates that many fossil ‘polyplacophorans’ in the order Palaeoloricata are likely to represent footless stem-group aplacophorans. ‘H.’ thraivensis and similar forms such as Acaenoplax may be morphological stepping stones between chitons and the shell-less aplacophorans. Our results imply that crown-group molluscan synapomorphies include serial repetition, the presence of a foot, a mineralized scleritome and a creeping rather than worm-like mode of life

Assembling the lophotrochozoan (=spiralian) tree of life

The advent of numerical methods for analysing phylogenetic relationships, along with the study of morphology and molecular data, has driven our understanding of animal relationships for the past three decades. Within the protostome branch of the animal tree of life, these data have sufficed to establish its two main side branches, the moulting Ecdysozoa and the non-moulting Lophotrochozoa. In this review, I explore our current knowledge of protostome relationships and discuss progress and future perspectives and strategies to increase resolution within the main lophotrochozoan clades. Novel approaches to coding morphological characters are needed by scoring real observations on species selected as terminals. Still, methodological issues, for example, how to deal with inapplicable characters or the coding of absences, may require novel algorithmic developments. Taxon sampling is another key issue, as phyla should include enough species so as to represent their span of anatomical disparity. On the molecular side, phylogenomics is playing an increasingly important role in elucidating animal relationships, but genomic sampling is still fairly limited within the lophotrochozoan protostomes, for which only three phyla are represented in currently available phylogenies. Future work should therefore concentrate on generating novel morphological observations and on producing genomic data for the lophotrochozoan side of the animal tree of life

Phylogenetic analysis of phenotypic characters of Tunicata supports basal Appendicularia and monophyletic Ascidiacea

With approximately 3000 marine species, Tunicata represents the most disparate subtaxon of Chordata. Molecular phylogenetic studies support Tunicata as sister taxon to Craniota, rendering it pivotal to understanding craniate evolution. Although successively more molecular data have become available to resolve internal tunicate phylogenetic relationships, phenotypic data have not been utilized consistently. Herein these shortcomings are addressed by cladistically analyzing 117 phenotypic characters for 49 tunicate species comprising all higher tunicate taxa, and five craniate and cephalochordate outgroup species. In addition, a combined analysis of the phenotypic characters with 18S rDNA ‐sequence data is performed in 32 OTU s. The analysis of the combined data is congruent with published molecular analyses. Successively up‐weighting phenotypic characters indicates that phenotypic data contribute disproportionally more to the resulting phylogenetic hypothesis. The strict consensus tree from the analysis of the phenotypic characters as well as the single most parsimonious tree found in the analysis of the combined dataset recover monophyletic Appendicularia as sister taxon to the remaining tunicate taxa. Thus, both datasets support the hypothesis that the last common ancestor of Tunicata was free‐living and that ascidian sessility is a derived trait within Tunicata. “Thaliacea” is found to be paraphyletic with Pyrosomatida as sister taxon to monophyletic Ascidiacea and the relationship between Doliolida and Salpida is unresolved in the analysis of morphological characters; however, the analysis of the combined data reconstructs Thaliacea as monophyletic nested within paraphyletic “Ascidiacea”. Therefore, both datasets differ in the interpretation of the evolution of the complex holoplanktonic life history of thaliacean taxa. According to the phenotypic data, this evolution occurred in the plankton, whereas from the combined dataset a secondary transition into the plankton from a sessile ascidian is inferred. Besides these major differences, both analyses are in accord on many phylogenetic groupings, although both phylogenetic reconstructions invoke a high degree of homoplasy. In conclusion, this study represents the first serious attempt to utilize the potential phylogenetic information present in phenotypic characters to elucidate the inter‐relationships of this diverse marine taxon in a consistent cladistic framework.Peer Reviewe