Phylogenetic systematics of the Eucarida (Crustacea malacostraca)

Christoffersen, Martin Lindsey

doi:10.1590/s0101-81751988000200014

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A ‘typical’ euphausiacean character, the luminescent organs, is absent in Bentheuphausia amblyops , and the presence of such organs is possibly an apomorphy of the Euphausiidae (other characters see below). Christoffersen (1988) suggested the reduced eighth thoracopod, with an endopod containing only four segments in adults, as the only apomorphy of the entire Euphausiacea. However, this character state is only true for Bentheuphausia .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, they did not provide any phylogenetic hypothesis. Christoffersen (1988) suggested four characters as support for a monophyletic Dendrobranchiata: dendrobranchiate gills, endopod of the first pleopod transformed to a petasma attached to the proximal portion of the protopodite, appendices internae absent from the pleopods, postlarval mandibular palp expanded and lamellar. The characters ‘petasma’ and ‘missing appendices internae’ are included in our data matrix because they are not unique to the Dendrobranchiata.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Felgenhauer and Abele (1983) suggested that the trichobranchiate gills are derived from dendrobranchiae, however, this hypothesis is not supported by any observation. The expanded mandibular palp is possibly not a valid character, since different parts of the palps are expanded in the different taxa (see Christoffersen 1988).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Stenopodidea comprises the Stenopodidae with four genera and the Spongicolidae with five genera (Schram 1986; Holthuis 1993). Christoffersen (1988) suggested as an autapomorphy that the sixth thoracopods (third pereiopods) are much more strongly developed than the seventh and eighth.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Phylogenetic analysis of the Malacostraca (Crustacea)

Richter

Scholtz

2001

J Zoological System

185

223

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Malacostraca comprises about 28 000 species with a broad disparity in morphology, anatomy, embryology, behaviour and ecology. The phylogenetic relationships of the major taxa are still under debate. Is the Leptostraca the sister group of the remaining Malacostraca, or is this taxon more closely related to other Crustacea? Does the Stomatopoda or the Bathynellacea represent the most basal taxon within the remaining taxa? Is the Peracarida monophyletic or are some peracarid taxa more closely related to other ‘caridoid’ taxa? Is the Thermosbaenacea part of the Peracarida or its sister group, and how much support is there for a taxon Amphipoda + Isopoda? To answer these questions a phylogenetic analysis of the Malacostraca combining different phylogenetic approaches was undertaken. In a first step, the monophyly of the Malacostraca including the Leptostraca is shown using the ‘Hennigian approach’. A computer cladistic analysis of the Malacostraca was carried out with NONA and PEE‐WEE, based on 93 characters from morphology, anatomy and embryology. Nineteen higher malacostracan taxa are included in our analysis. Taxa whose representatives are exclusively fossils were not included. The Leptostraca was used as an operational out‐group. The present analysis supports the basal position of the Stomatopoda. Syncarida and Peracarida (including Thermosbaenacea) are supported as monophyletic, the Eucarida is not. Instead a sister‐group relationship is suggested between Euphausiacea and Peracarida (including Thermosbaenacea), with the Syncarida as the sister group to both taxa. Certain embryonic characters are interpreted as support for the monophyly of the Peracarida (without Thermosbaenacea) because convergences or reversals of these characters seem implausible. Within the Peracarida, the Mysidacea (Lophogastrida + Mysida) represents the sister group to the remaining taxa. A sister‐group relationship between Amphipoda and Isopoda is not supported.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Phylogenetic analysis of the Malacostraca (Crustacea)

Richter

Scholtz

2001

J Zoological System

185

223

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the relationships among the major infraorders within Pleocyemata are still highly controversial (see Tsang et al, 2008;Bracken et al, 2009a;De Grave et al, 2009). Morphologically, three different hypotheses have been proposed for the relative position of Stenopodidea within Decapoda (Burkenroad, 1963(Burkenroad, , 1981Abele and Felgenhauer, 1986;Christoffersen, 1988) (Fig. 4).…”

Section: Phylogenetic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%