Abstract

As a result of their plastic body plan, the relationships of the annelid worms and even the taxonomic makeup of the phylum have long been contentious. Morphological cladistic analyses have typically recovered a monophyletic Polychaeta, with the simple-bodied forms assigned to an early-diverging clade or grade. This is in stark contrast to molecular trees, in which polychaetes are paraphyletic and include clitellates, echiurans and sipunculans. Cambrian stem group annelid body fossils are complex-bodied polychaetes that possess well-developed parapodia and paired head appendages (palps), suggesting that the root of annelids is misplaced in morphological trees. We present a reinvestigation of the morphology of key fossil taxa and include them in a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of annelids. Analyses using probabilistic methods and both equal- and implied-weights parsimony recover paraphyletic polychaetes and support the conclusion that echiurans and clitellates are derived polychaetes. Morphological trees including fossils depict two main clades of crown-group annelids that are similar, but not identical, to Errantia and Sedentaria, the fundamental groupings in transcriptomic analyses. Removing fossils yields trees that are often less resolved and/or root the tree in greater conflict with molecular topologies. While there are many topological similarities between the analyses herein and recent phylogenomic hypotheses, differences include the exclusion of Sipuncula from Annelida and the taxa forming the deepest crown-group divergences.

Highlights

  • Rouse & Fauchald [1] introduced many key concepts to polychaete systematics in the first comprehensive cladistic analysis of annelids

  • The analyses including fossils all support the inclusion of Echiura and Clitellata within polychaetes, the polyphyly of Scolecida, and the monophyly of Aciculata

  • Echiurans group with either some or all of these scolecidan taxa, and a clade of Opheliidae, Capitellidae and Echiura is likewise recovered from phylogenomic data [12]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Rouse & Fauchald [1] introduced many key concepts to polychaete systematics in the first comprehensive cladistic analysis of annelids. Their tree supported polychaete monophyly and established three major groupings within Polychaeta: Scolecida, Canalipalpata and Aciculata. Molecular studies of Annelida found little resolution and failed to resolve many polychaete higher taxa recognized by morphologists as monophyletic [3]. These analyses clearly indicated that clitellates and echiurans, and possibly sipunculans (the latter two traditionally separated as distinct phyla), are derived subgroups of polychaetes [4,5,6,7,8,9,10].

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.