The articulation of annelids

Rouse, Greg W.; Fauchald, Kristian

doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.1995.tb00476.x

Cited by 164 publications

(162 citation statements)

References 151 publications

(238 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

148

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The taxon name for a clade including oligochaetes, leeches and leech-like worms could be the Oligochaeta or Clitellata. However, in accordance with Rouse & Fauchald (1995), although Oligochaeta is an older name (Grube 1850) than Clitellata (Michaelsen 1928), the latter was explicitly formulated in order to include the Hirudinea and, hence, follows the priority principle for the phylogenetic taxon names of de Queiroz & Gauthier (1990, 1992.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the Euhirudinea and leech-like worms, i.e. the Branchiobdellida and the Acanthobdellida (Sawyer 1986;Brusca & Brusca 1990;Rouse & Fauchald 1995). However, the monophyly of the Oligochaeta has been regularly questioned and many authors have proposed schemes in which the Hirudinea are contained within the Oligochaeta (Erse¨us 1987;Jamieson et al 1987;Jamieson 1988;Gelder & Brinkhurst 1990;Brinkhurst & Gelder 1991;Ferraguti & Gelder 1991;Purschke et al 1993;Brinkhurst 1994Brinkhurst , 1999aSiddall & Burreson 1996;Ferraguti & Erse¨us 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While there is general agreement about the monophyletic nature of the Clitellata, if only due to their possession of a clitellum (Michaelsen 1928;de Bauchamp 1959;Sawyer 1986;Purschke et al 1993;Rouse & Fauchald 1995;Brinkhurst 1999a;Ferraguti & Erse¨us 1999;Purschke 1999;Westheide et al 1999), the phylogenetic relationships within the group still remain a matter of considerable debate (Brinkhurst 1999a,b;Martin et al 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

Martin

2001

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

Martin

2001

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first paper suggested that Annelida can be a monophyletic taxon only by assuming that chaetae arose independently in the Echiura and the 'Annelida'. Polychaeta and Clitellata both belong to the clade Articulata together with the Arthropoda {sensu lato) and Pogonophora (Rouse & Fauchald 1995). We suggested in that paper that the Polychaeta may be monophyletic and that the relation between Polychaeta and Pogonophora was unresolved.…”

Section: Zoologica Scripta 26mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Usage of the term 'antennae' is deeply ingrained and would be difficult to change. It is, however, important that the presence of 'antennae' in both arthropods and polychaetes not be considered a statement of homology (Rouse & Fauchald 1995).…”

Section: Zoológica Scripla 26mentioning

confidence: 99%

Polychaete systematics: Past and present

1997

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we first demonstrate the historical background for the current unsatisfactory state of systematics of the polychaetes. We then briefly discuss our knowledge of internal and external structures. A review of the polychaete families makes up the third section; 81 families are treated in detail. Five families have been recently synonymized with others, and six families are too poorly known to be sufficiently characterized. Fossil polychaetes are briefly mentioned, with specific attention to problems associated with incorporating them in recent systematics.The traditional separation in 'errant' and 'sedentary' polychaetes has increasingly become recognized as being unsatisfactory; however, the current trend towards grouping the polychaetes in many orders without specifying the relationships among the orders, is no more satisfactory. The lack of consistent morphological information is a major source of uncertainty. Intensive morphological studies should remove terminological ambiguities and alleviate some of the problems.

show abstract

Trochophora larvae: Cell‐lineages, ciliary bands, and body regions. 1. Annelida and Mollusca

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The trochophora concept and the literature on cleavage patterns and differentiation of ectodermal structures in annelids (''polychaetes'') and molluscs are reviewed. The early development shows some variation within both phyla, and the cephalopods have a highly modified development. Nevertheless, there are conspicuous similarities between the early development of the two phyla, related to the highly conserved spiral cleavage pattern. Apical and cerebral ganglia have almost identical origin in the two phyla, and the cell-lineage of the prototroch is identical, except for minor variations between species. The cell-lineage of the metatrochs is almost unknown, but the telotroch of annelids and the ''telotroch'' of the gastropod Patella originate from the 2d-cell, as does the gastrotroch in the few species which have been studied. The segmented annelid body, i.e. the region behind the peristome, develops through addition of new ectoderm from a ring of 2d-cells just in front of the telotroch. This whole region is thus derived from 2d-cells. Conversely, the mollusc body is covered by descendants of cells from both the C and D quadrants and a growth zone is not apparent. This supports the notion that the molluscs are not segmented like the annelids, and that the repeated structures seen in polyplacophorans and monplacophorans do not represent a segmentation homologous to that of the annelids.

show abstract

The articulation of annelids

Cited by 164 publications

References 151 publications

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

Polychaete systematics: Past and present

Trochophora larvae: Cell‐lineages, ciliary bands, and body regions. 1. Annelida and Mollusca

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About