A Synoptical Classification of the Bivalvia (Mollusca)

Abstract

The following classification summarizes the suprageneric taxonomy of the Bivalvia for the upcoming revision of the Bivalvia volumes of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part N. The development of this classification began with Carter (1990a), Campbell, Hoekstra, and Carter (1995), Campbell (2000, and Campbell (2000, 2006), who, with assistance from the United States National Science Foundation, conducted large-scale morphological phylogenetic analyses of mostly Paleozoic bivalves, as well as molecular phylogenetic analyses of living bivalves. During the past several years, their initial phylogenetic framework has been revised and greatly expanded through collaboration with many students of bivalve biology and paleontology, many of whom are coauthors. During this process, all available sources of phylogenetic information, including molecular, anatomical, shell morphological, shell microstructural, bio-and paleobiogeographic as well as stratigraphic, have been integrated into the classification. The more recent sources of phylogenetic information include, but are not limited to, Carter (1990a), Malchus (1990), J. Schneider (1995, 1998a, 1998b, 2002, T. Waller (1998), Hautmann (1999Hautmann ( , 2001aHautmann ( , 2001b, Giribet and Wheeler (2002), Giribet and Distel (2003), Dreyer, Steiner, and Harper (2003), Matsumoto (2003), Harper, Dreyer, and Steiner (2006), Kappner and Bieler (2006), Mikkelsen and others (2006), Neulinger and others (2006), Taylor and Glover (2006), Kříž (2007), B. Morton (2007, Taylor and others (2007), Giribet (2008), andKirkendale (2009). This work has also benefited from the nomenclator of bivalve families by Bouchet and Rocroi (2010) and its accompanying classification by Bieler, Carter, and Coan (2010).This classification strives to indicate the most likely phylogenetic position for each taxon. Uncertainty is indicated by a question mark before the name of the taxon. Many of the higher taxa continue to undergo major taxonomic revision. This is especially true for the superfamilies Sphaerioidea and Veneroidea, and the orders Pectinida and Unionida. Because of this state of flux, some parts of the classification represent a compromise between opposing points of view. Placement of the Trigonioidoidea is especially problematic. This Mesozoic superfamily has traditionally been placed in the order Unionida, as a possible derivative of the superfamily Unionoidea (see Cox, 1952;Sha, 1992Sha, , 1993Gu, 1998;Guo, 1998;Bieler, Carter, & Coan, 2010). However, Chen Jin-hua (2009) summarized evidence that Trigonioidoidea was derived instead from the superfamily Trigonioidea. Arguments for these alternatives appear equally strong, so we presently list the Trigonioidoidea, with question, under both the Trigoniida and Unionida, with the contents of the superfamily indicated under the Trigoniida. Typified Versus Descriptive NamesThe present classification gives preference to typified names over descriptive names above the family-group, following the recommendation by Stys and Kerzhner (1975) an...

Calibrating phylogenies assuming bifurcation or budding alters inferred macroevolutionary dynamics in a densely sampled phylogeny of bivalve families

“…These were: (i) bifurcating, with nodes dated by the oldest known member (base age) of each extant sister pair (Bifurcating I, standard procedure for calibrating molecular phylogenies; figure 1a), (ii) bifurcating, incorporating the ages of extinct paraphyletic lineages (Bifurcating II, figure 1b), (iii) budding among extant lineages, dating the node with the younger occurrence in the fossil record (Budding I, figure 1c) and (iv) budding incorporating the ages of extinct paraphyletic lineages (Budding II, figure 1d). Placement of extinct paraphyletic taxa interposed between extant lineages (as in figure 1b,d), which occur in the classification of many major groups having an extensive fossil record [30], is based largely on the classification provided by the revised Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology [31] (for their approach to paraphyletic stem taxa see [32]; see electronic supplementary material, text for details). Phylogenetic positions of stem lineages were used to infer node ages (figure 1; electronic supplementary material, figure S1 and text), but these taxa were omitted from the final phylogeny of extant families, where branch lengths are time-scaled to reflect millions of years.…”

The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia)

“…Hall and Whitfield, 1872. Strong phylogenetic connections of the solemyids and nuculoids are supported by numerous other studies (e.g., Carter et al, 2000;Carter, 2001;Giribet and Distel, 2003;Giribet, 2008;Carter et al, 2011;Bieler et al, 2014). However, based on stratigraphic occurrences Cope (2002) suggested that these characters might have arisen independently in the two groups.…”

The comparative and genetic methods for East European Unionidae taxonomy

“…However, because Pseudanodonta is rather close genetically to A. cygnea and A. anatina , there is no reason to attribute this genus to the subfamily Pseudanodontinae, as it has been done before [7,15]. Instead, the genus Pseudanodonta should be transferred into the subfamily Anodontinae according to Bogatov and Kijashko [15], or into the subfamily Unioninae (tribe Anodontini) according to Carter et al [37], and the name Pseudanodontinae should be treated as invalid.…”