BackgroundClassical morphological taxonomy places the approximately 1400 recognized species of Scleractinia (hard corals) into 27 families, but many aspects of coral evolution remain unclear despite the application of molecular phylogenetic methods. In part, this may be a consequence of such studies focusing on the reef-building (shallow water and zooxanthellate) Scleractinia, and largely ignoring the large number of deep-sea species. To better understand broad patterns of coral evolution, we generated molecular data for a broad and representative range of deep sea scleractinians collected off New Caledonia and Australia during the last decade, and conducted the most comprehensive molecular phylogenetic analysis to date of the order Scleractinia.MethodologyPartial (595 bp) sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 (CO1) gene were determined for 65 deep-sea (azooxanthellate) scleractinians and 11 shallow-water species. These new data were aligned with 158 published sequences, generating a 234 taxon dataset representing 25 of the 27 currently recognized scleractinian families.Principal Findings/ConclusionsThere was a striking discrepancy between the taxonomic validity of coral families consisting predominantly of deep-sea or shallow-water species. Most families composed predominantly of deep-sea azooxanthellate species were monophyletic in both maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses but, by contrast (and consistent with previous studies), most families composed predominantly of shallow-water zooxanthellate taxa were polyphyletic, although Acroporidae, Poritidae, Pocilloporidae, and Fungiidae were exceptions to this general pattern. One factor contributing to this inconsistency may be the greater environmental stability of deep-sea environments, effectively removing taxonomic “noise” contributed by phenotypic plasticity. Our phylogenetic analyses imply that the most basal extant scleractinians are azooxanthellate solitary corals from deep-water, their divergence predating that of the robust and complex corals. Deep-sea corals are likely to be critical to understanding anthozoan evolution and the origins of the Scleractinia.

BackgroundScleractinian corals are currently a focus of major interest because of their ecological importance and the uncertain fate of coral reefs in the face of increasing anthropogenic pressure. Despite this, remarkably little is known about the evolutionary origins of corals. The Scleractinia suddenly appear in the fossil record about 240 Ma, but the range of morphological variation seen in these Middle Triassic fossils is comparable to that of modern scleractinians, implying much earlier origins that have so far remained elusive. A significant weakness in reconstruction(s) of early coral evolution is that deep-sea corals have been poorly represented in molecular phylogenetic analyses.ResultsBy adding new data from a large and representative range of deep-water species to existing molecular datasets and applying a relaxed molecular clock, we show that two exclusively deep-sea families, the Gardineriidae and Micrabaciidae, diverged prior to the Complexa/Robusta coral split around 425 Ma, thereby pushing the evolutionary origin of scleractinian corals deep into the Paleozoic.ConclusionsThe early divergence and distinctive morphologies of the extant gardineriid and micrabaciid corals suggest a link with Ordovician "scleractiniamorph" fossils that were previously assumed to represent extinct anthozoan skeletonized lineages. Therefore, scleractinian corals most likely evolved from Paleozoic soft-bodied ancestors. Modern shallow-water Scleractinia, which are dependent on symbionts, appear to have had several independent origins from solitary, non-symbiotic precursors. The Scleractinia have survived periods of massive climate change in the past, suggesting that as a lineage they may be less vulnerable to future changes than often assumed.

Recent molecular analyses have challenged the traditional classification of scleractinian corals at all taxonomic levels suggesting that new morphological characters are needed. Here we tackle this problem for the family Mussidae, which is polyphyletic. Most of its members belong to two molecular clades composed of: (1) Atlantic Mussidae and Faviidae (except Montastraea) and (2) Pacific Mussidae (Cynarina, Lobophyllia, Scolymia, Symphyllia) and Pectiniidae. Other Pacific mussids (e.g. Acanthastrea) belong to additional clades. To discover new characters that would better serve as phylogenetic markers, we compare the skeletal morphology of mussid genera in different molecular‐based clades. Three sets of characters are considered: (1) macromorphology (budding; colony form; size and shape of corallites; numbers of septal cycles), (2) micromorphology (shapes and distributions of septal teeth and granules), and (3) microstructure (arrangement of calcification centres and thickening deposits within costosepta). Although most traditional macromorphological characters exhibit homoplasy, several new micromorphological characters are effective at distinguishing clades, including the shapes and distribution of septal teeth and granules, the area between teeth, and the development of thickening deposits. Arrangements of calcification centres and fibres differ among clades, but the fine‐scale structure of thickening deposits does not.

Recent molecular phylogenies conflict with traditional scleractinian classification at ranks ranging from suborder to genus, challenging morphologists to discover new characters that better agree with molecular data. Such characters are essential for including fossils in analyses and tracing evolutionary patterns through geologic time. We examine the skeletal morphology of 36 species belonging to the traditional families Faviidae, Merulinidae, Pectiniidae, and Trachyphylliidae (3 Atlantic, 14 Indo-Pacific, 2 cosmopolitan genera) at the macromorphological, micromorphological, and microstructural levels. Molecular analyses indicate that the families are not monophyletic groups, but consist of six family-level clades, four of which are examined [clade XV = Diploastrea heliopora; clade XVI = Montastraea cavernosa; clade XVII ("Pacific faviids") = Pacific faviids (part) + merulinids (part) + pectiniids (part) + M. annularis complex; clade XXI ("Atlantic faviids") = Atlantic faviids (part) + Atlantic mussids]. Comparisons among molecular clades indicate that micromorphological and microstructural characters (singly and in combination) are clade diagnostic, but with two exceptions, macromorphologic characters are not. The septal teeth of "Atlantic faviids" are paddle-shaped (strong secondary calcification axes) or blocky, whereas the septal teeth of "Pacific faviids" are spine-shaped or multidirectional. Corallite walls in "Atlantic faviids" are usually septothecal, with occasional trabeculothecal elements; whereas corallite walls in "Pacific faviids" are usually trabeculothecal or parathecal or they contain abortive septa. Exceptions include subclades of "Pacific faviids" consisting of a) Caulastraea and Oulophyllia (strong secondary axes) and b) Cyphastrea (septothecal walls). Diploastrea has a diagnostic synapticulothecal wall and thick triangular teeth; Montastraea cavernosa is also distinct, possessing both "Pacific faviid" (abortive septa) and "Atlantic faviid" (paddle-shaped teeth) attributes. The development of secondary axes is similar in traditional Atlantic faviids and mussids, supporting molecular results placing them in the same clade. Subclades of "Pacific faviids" reveal differences in wall structure and the arrangement and distinctiveness of centers of rapid accretion.