The animal phylum Arthropoda is very useful for the study of body plan evolution given its abundance of morphologically diverse species and our profound understanding of Drosophila development. However, there is a lack of consistently resolved phylogenetic relationships between the four extant arthropod subphyla, Hexapoda, Myriapoda, Chelicerata and Crustacea. Recent molecular studies have strongly supported a sister group relationship between Hexapoda and Crustacea, but have not resolved the phylogenetic position of Chelicerata and Myriapoda. Here we sequence the mitochondrial genome of the centipede species Lithobius forficatus and investigate its phylogenetic information content. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of conserved regions from the arthropod mitochondrial proteome yields highly resolved and congruent trees. We also find that a sister group relationship between Myriapoda and Chelicerata is strongly supported. We propose a model to explain the apparently parallel evolution of similar head morphologies in insects and myriapods.

To choose one or more appropriate molecular markers or gene regions for resolving a particular systematic question among the organisms at a certain categorical level is still a very difficult process. The primary goal of this review, therefore, is to provide a theoretical information in choosing one or more molecular markers or gene regions by illustrating general properties and phylogenetic utilities of nuclear ribosomal DNA (rDNA) and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that have been most commonly used for phylogenetic researches. The highly conserved molecular markers and/or gene regions are useful for investigating phylogenetic relationships at higher categorical levels (deep branches of evolutionary history). On the other hand, the hypervariable molecular markers and/or gene regions are useful for elucidating phylogenetic relationships at lower categorical levels (recently diverged branches). In summary, different selective forces have led to the evolution of various molecular markers or gene regions with varying degrees of sequence conservation. Thus, appropriate molecular markers or gene regions should be chosen with even greater caution to deduce true phylogenetic relationships over a broad taxonomic spectrum.

No abstract

No abstract