{"title":"Relationships Within Eumalacostracan Crustacea","authors":"F. Schram","doi":"10.5962/BHL.PART.29008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":". A cladistic analysis was performed on 20 constituent higher taxa within the Eumala-costraca based on 3 1 characters of external anatomy. Variants of the most parsimonious scheme are presented, and the effects of tolerating different levels of uncertainty are evaluated. It is concluded that: 1) while the basic outline of Caiman's (1904) taxonomy of Eumalacostraca might be utilized, the arrangement within peracarids postulated by Siewing (1956) cannot be maintained; 2) the Baupldne approach of Schram (1981) has some merit and some of the controversial higher taxonomic groupings of eumalacostracan \"orders\" originally indicated by that method are vindicated; 3) the idea that the carapace is a derived feature within eumalacostracans, advanced by Dahl (1983), can be maintained only if a high level of homoplasy is tolerated; 4) the concept of a taxon Mysidacea seems best abandoned.","PeriodicalId":417333,"journal":{"name":"Transactions of the San Diego society of natural history","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"41","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions of the San Diego society of natural history","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5962/BHL.PART.29008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 41
Abstract
. A cladistic analysis was performed on 20 constituent higher taxa within the Eumala-costraca based on 3 1 characters of external anatomy. Variants of the most parsimonious scheme are presented, and the effects of tolerating different levels of uncertainty are evaluated. It is concluded that: 1) while the basic outline of Caiman's (1904) taxonomy of Eumalacostraca might be utilized, the arrangement within peracarids postulated by Siewing (1956) cannot be maintained; 2) the Baupldne approach of Schram (1981) has some merit and some of the controversial higher taxonomic groupings of eumalacostracan "orders" originally indicated by that method are vindicated; 3) the idea that the carapace is a derived feature within eumalacostracans, advanced by Dahl (1983), can be maintained only if a high level of homoplasy is tolerated; 4) the concept of a taxon Mysidacea seems best abandoned.