Animals have evolved diverse appendages adapted for locomotion, feeding and other functions. The genetics underlying appendage formation are best understood in insects and vertebrates. The expression of the Distal-less (Dll) homeoprotein during arthropod limb outgrowth and of Dll orthologs (Dlx) in fish fin and tetrapod limb buds led us to examine whether expression of this regulatory gene may be a general feature of appendage formation in protostomes and deuterostomes. We find that Dll is expressed along the proximodistal axis of developing polychaete annelid parapodia, onychophoran lobopodia, ascidian ampullae, and even echinoderm tube feet. Dll͞Dlx expression in such diverse appendages in these six coelomate phyla could be convergent, but this would have required the independent co-option of Dll͞Dlx several times in evolution. It appears more likely that ectodermal Dll͞Dlx expression along proximodistal axes originated once in a common ancestor and has been used subsequently to pattern body wall outgrowths in a variety of organisms. We suggest that this pre-Cambrian ancestor of most protostomes and the deuterostomes possessed elements of the genetic machinery for and may have even borne appendages.

Understanding the phylogenetic relationships of the three major urochordate groups within the deuterostomes is central to understanding the evolution of the chordates. We have prepared a detailed phylogenetic analysis of urochordates based on comparisons of 10 new urochordate 18S ribosomal DNA sequences with other urochordate sequences in GenBank. Maximum parsimony, neighbor-joining, minimum evolution, and maximum likelihood analyses of this large urochordate data set are consistent with a topology in which the urochordates are monophyletic within the deuterostomes and there are four separate clades of urochordates. These four distinct clades--styelid + pyurid ascidians, molgulid ascidians, phlebobranch ascidians + thaliaceans, and larvaceans--are mostly consistent with traditional morphological hypotheses and classifications. However, we find that the ascidians may not be a monophyletic group (as they have been considered traditionally) but instead appear paraphyletic. Another disparity with traditional classification is that the thaliaceans do not form a separate urochordate clade but rather cluster with the phlebobranch ascidians. Larvaceans have long branch lengths, which can be problematic for molecular phylogenetic methods, and their position within the urochordates cannot be unequivocally determined with 18S rDNA. This is important because the tadpole morphology of larvacean and ascidian larvae is the key trait of interest that distinguishes urochordates as chordates. Nevertheless, the present data set resolves at least three clades of urochordates and suggests strongly that urochordates form a monophyletic clade within the deuterostomes.