2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2004.02.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Molecular phylogeny of Demospongiae: implications for classification and scenarios of character evolution

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

23
207
2
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 230 publications
(237 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
23
207
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Unfortunately, molecular phylogenies have failed to resolve the relationships and polarity of the sponge classes, although two scenarios have received most of the support: (i) (Hexactinellida plus Demospongea) (Calcarea plus Eumetazoa) (5,6,(33)(34)(35)(36)(37) in which Silicspongea is monophyletic, and (ii) Hexactinellida (Demospongea (Calcarea plus Eumetazoa)) (8,(38)(39)(40)(41), which gives a paraphyletic Silicispongea. The balance of recent molecular phylogenies, based on a range of genes, is approximately equal (42), but with an increasing shift toward silicisponge monophyly [albeit with Homoscleromorpha excluded from both Demospongiae (43) and Silicispongea (44)], particularly in light of corroborative biochemical (7), paleontological (45), and of course mineralogical data. Molecular analyses also consistently identify a close relationship between Calcarea and Ctenophora plus Cnidaria The discovery of an evolutionary intermediate between hexactinellids and calcareans argues strongly against a basal Hexactinellida because this result would require repeated derivation of siliceous spicules secreted onto axial filaments, in hexactinellids and demosponges, and perhaps also Homoscleromorpha.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, molecular phylogenies have failed to resolve the relationships and polarity of the sponge classes, although two scenarios have received most of the support: (i) (Hexactinellida plus Demospongea) (Calcarea plus Eumetazoa) (5,6,(33)(34)(35)(36)(37) in which Silicspongea is monophyletic, and (ii) Hexactinellida (Demospongea (Calcarea plus Eumetazoa)) (8,(38)(39)(40)(41), which gives a paraphyletic Silicispongea. The balance of recent molecular phylogenies, based on a range of genes, is approximately equal (42), but with an increasing shift toward silicisponge monophyly [albeit with Homoscleromorpha excluded from both Demospongiae (43) and Silicispongea (44)], particularly in light of corroborative biochemical (7), paleontological (45), and of course mineralogical data. Molecular analyses also consistently identify a close relationship between Calcarea and Ctenophora plus Cnidaria The discovery of an evolutionary intermediate between hexactinellids and calcareans argues strongly against a basal Hexactinellida because this result would require repeated derivation of siliceous spicules secreted onto axial filaments, in hexactinellids and demosponges, and perhaps also Homoscleromorpha.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All these three sponge species belong to Demospongiae (subclass Ceractinomorpha) but in different orders: H. erectus to Dictyoceratida, S. carteri to Halichondrida, X. testudinaria to Haplosclerida. Molecular evidence suggested a closer phylogenetic relationship between the orders Halichondrida and Haplosclerida (Borchiellini et al, 2004), but this was not reflected in the associated microbial communities of S. carteri and X. testudinaria. The phylogeny of sponge, especially for Demospongiae, remains far from being clearly resolved (Boury-Esnault, 2006).…”
Section: Influence Of Environment On Microbial Communitiesmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Tetractines (based on tetrahedral symmetry) are present in demosponges (but are probably derived; Borchiellini et al, 2004), and also in Homoscleromorpha and Calcarea, but this symmetry form is unknown (barring fortuitously aberrant spicules) in living or fossil hexactinellids. It is currently unclear to what extent tetractines evolved convergently, and to what extent they are homologous, so that their early record is of significant interest.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Traditional palaeontological views of demosponge phylogeny (summarised by Reid, 1963) assumed that tetraxonid sponges were basal to other groups. This appears to have been largely a result of the assumed primitiveness of Homoscleromorpha, which include tetraxonid taxa; the Homoscleromorpha, however, are now typically regarded as being more closely allied to Calcarea than to demosponges based on molecular work (e.g., Borchiellini et al, 2004;Erpenbeck and Wörheide, 2007), and are therefore irrelevant to demosponge evolution. Finks (1967) questioned the primitive status of tetraxonids due to their late appearance in the fossil record, but this was based on very incomplete knowledge, and Cambrian tetraxons have been discovered subsequently (Van Kempen, 1985;Bengtson et al, 1990).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%