Skip Navigation

American Zoologist 1994 34(4):502-512; doi:10.1093/icb/34.4.502
© 1994 by The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by STRATHMANN, R. R.
Right arrow Articles by EERNISSE, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

What Molecular Phylogenies Tell Us about the Evolution of Larval Forms1

R. R. STRATHMANN and D. J. EERNISSE
Friday Harbor Laboratories, University of Washington, 620 University Road Friday Harbor, Washington 98250
Museum of Zoology and Department of Biology, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1079

SYNOPSIS. There is interest in assembling a robust hypothesis of animal relationships based on molecular and other character-based evidence, but even if a high degree of phylogenetic resolution is available, there remain challenging problems for postulating ancestral larval traits. This distinction between hypotheses of genealogies and our knowledge of specific traits is illustrated with specific examples of the portion of variable larval traits that are homoplastic (i.e., they require convergences, parallelisms, or character reversals) with respect to specific molecular-based genealogical hypotheses. Corresponding molecular studies suggest (1) maximal incongruity in larval form and metamorphosis for extant echinoderm classes, (2) convergences in larval size and form associated with coloniality in ascidians, (3) multiple losses of the locomotory larval tail in molgulid ascidians, (4) multiple losses of larval feeding and gain of apomictic parthenogenesis within a genus of bivalves, (5) multiple losses of larval feeding in echinoids, (6) alternative explanations of the distribution of feeding and non-feeding larvae among gastropods, and (7) recent modifications in embryonic and larval development of echinoids following prolonged stasis. These examples show that inferences from phylogenetic studies will ultimately be limited by the extent to which homoplasy and polarity can be unambiguously assessed for larval traits. These limitations are illustrated by alternative hypotheses for larval trait synapomorphies among phyla, evolution of feeding with opposed prototrochal and metatrochal ciliary bands, and the retention or reacquisition of the locomotory nauplius of the Euphausiacea and Dendrobranchiata. Inferences on the evolution of larval traits require other sorts of evidence, perhaps including information on the evolution of genes that play important roles in morphogenesis and their sites of expression


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.