Optics and phylogeny: is there an insight? The evolution of superposition eyes in the Decapoda (Crustacea)

Gaten, E.

doi:10.1163/18759866-06704001

Cited by 52 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…33). The Thalassinida are further uni ed by their possession of apposition eyes, in contrast to the re ecting superposition eyes found in most other groups (Gaten, 1998;Richter, 2002), probably in relation to their burrowing behaviour. Scholtz & Richter (1995) considered the construction of complex burrows to be a synapomorphy of Thalassinida, but we believe this may be plesiomorphic (see Discussion).…”

Section: Nodesmentioning

confidence: 94%

A new hypothesis of decapod phylogeny

Dixon¹,

Ahyong²,

Schram³

2003

Crustac

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A cladistic analysis based on external morphology was carried out on 60 taxa of decapod crustaceans. An analysis with unordered characters and one with ordered characters were both in agreement regarding the major relationships. The ordered analysis gave better resolution of more advanced clades, while the unordered analysis gave better resolution of more basal clades. None of the traditional groups Palinura, Anomura, and Macrura is monophyletic. A new classi cation of decapod crustaceans is proposed. Homarida and Astacida are closely related, as shown by the unique process on the ischium of their rst pereiopods. Glypheoidea forms the sister group to Astacura, within an enlarged Astacidea. Achelata is the sister group to Meiura (Anomala + Brachyura) in a new clade, Eurysternalia, characterized by a unique antennular morphology and by the eponymous wide sternum of its members. Thalassinida emerge as the sister group to Eurysternalia, in a new clade, Sterropoda, characterized by fusion of the rst segments of the thoracic limbs. The fractostern is interpreted to be a eureptant feature, and a possible burrowing habitus is posited for the ancestral Eureptantia. RÉSUMÉUne analyse cladistiquefondée sur la morphologie externe a été menée sur 60 taxons de Crustacés Décapodes. Les deux analyses, l'une utilisant les caractères non ordonnés, l'autre les caractères ordonnés étaient toutes les deux en accord sur les principales relations. L'analyse ordonnée a présenté une meilleure résolution des clades les plus avancés, tandis que l'analyse non ordonnée a donné une meilleure résolution des clades plus basaux. Aucun des groupes traditionnels Palinura, Anomura et Macrura n'est monophylétique. Une nouvelle classi cation des Crustacés Décapodes est proposée. Les Homarida et les Astacida sont étroitement apparentés, comme déjà montré par le processus unique sur l'ischium de leurs premiers péréiopodes. Les Glypheoidea constituent le groupe-frère des Astacura, à l'intérieur du groupe élargi des Astacidea. Les Achelata sont le groupe-frère des Meiura (Anomala + Brachyura) dans un nouveau clade, Eurysternalia, caractérisé par une morphologie unique de l'antennule et par le large sternum éponyme de ses membres. Les Thalassinida émergent comme le groupe-frère des Eurysternalia, au sein d'un nouveau clade, les Sterropoda, caractérisé par

show abstract

Section: Nodesmentioning

confidence: 94%

A new hypothesis of decapod phylogeny

Dixon¹,

Ahyong²,

Schram³

2003

Crustac

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The extraordinary benefits provided by the ability to see are also shown by the fact that eyes appeared very early in animal evolution. In fact, most of the major types of eyes are recognizable in fossils from the Cambrian some 530 Mya (Land and Nilsson 2002;Nilsson 5 For more detailed discussions of the form, function, and evolution of diverse animal eyes, see Land (1988), Nilsson (1989), Land and Fernald (1992), Arendt and Wittbrodt (2001), and Land and Nilsson (2002), or consult recent reviews on the eyes of specific groups including annelids (Purschke et al 2006), crustaceans (Gaten 1998;Elofsson 2006;Reimann and Richter 2007;Marshall et al 2007;Cronin and Porter 2008), tardigrades (Greven 2007), insects (Land 1997;Buschbeck and Friedrich 2008), velvet worms (Mayer 2006), millipedes (Müller et al 2007), jellyfishes (Nilsson et al 2005;Kozmik et al 2008a, b), mollusks (Serb and Eernisse 2008), trilobites (Clarkson et al 2006), horseshoe crabs (Battelle 2006), and vertebrates . A basic compound eye in which each receptor is shielded from its neighbor by a simple pigment tube, as found in sea fans and a few bivalve mollusks.…”

Section: Eyes: Definition and Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Complex Organs

Gregory

2008

Evo Edu Outreach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The origin of complex biological structures has long been a subject of interest and debate. Two centuries ago, natural explanations for their occurrence were considered inconceivable. However, 150 years of scientific investigation have yielded a conceptual framework, abundant data, and a range of analytical tools capable of addressing this question. This article reviews the various direct and indirect evolutionary processes that contribute to the origins of complex organs. The evolution of eyes is used as a case study to illustrate these concepts, and several of the most common misconceptions about complex organ evolution are discussed.

show abstract

“…Among recent arthropodan compound eyes, the apposition compound eye is the simplest optical structure. Early lineages of many arthropod taxa, including horseshoe crabs, crustaceans, and hexapods, most likely had apposition eyes, from which more complex types of compound eyes originated (Land, 1981a;Cronin, 1986;Gaten, 1998;Grimaldi and Engel, 2005;Land and Nilsson, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%