Convergent evolution in invertebrates.

J Moore, P Willmer
{"title":"Convergent evolution in invertebrates.","authors":"J Moore,&nbsp;P Willmer","doi":"10.1017/s0006323196004926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Resemblance between animal taxa may be due to convergence rather than to recent common ancestry. Constraints on biological materials and adaptation to particular habits or habitats will produce widespread convergence. How may we distinguish the two causes of resemblance? The relationship between convergence and taxonomy is discussed, demonstrating that the choice of taxonomic method will itself determine the extent to which convergence is perceived. In particular, cladistic analysis based on parsimony will tend to minimise and thus conceal convergence: neither the resulting cladogram nor a consistency index derived from it can be used to assess the prevalence of convergence. With any taxonomic system, there can be no substitute for evaluation of the morphological characters used. Complementary use of molecular characters shows promise: we wait further understanding of constraints in genetic evolution and of the possibilities of convergence at this level also. These general principles are illustrated with a range of examples from within and between invertebrate phyla: the phylogeny of Cnidaria and Platyhelminthes cannot be traced with certainty, but where the fossil record allows clear rooting, as for the echinoderms and in particular the echinoids, combination of morphological and molecular methods has made much progress. Sub-groups within a phylum, for example opisthobranch molluscs and the dipteran Phoridae, may show an uncontested phylogeny, and here studies have precisely identified convergence and shown that it may be the commoner cause of resemblance. Adaptation to exacting environments shown by terrestial and freshwater nemertines may also result in a predominance of convergent resemblance. Traditional grouping of phyla breaks down on re-examination of supposedly key characters, such as segmentation, body cavities, germ layers and symmetry, each of which must have had multiple origins: nor are developmental stages (especially not larvae) a reliable guide to relationships. Demarcation of phyla may be difficult, as with arthropods, and location of phyla is even more difficult, due to their early and rapid radiation. Over-simplified definition of characters has bedevilled invertebrate classification and the use of molecular data has not yet resolved the major controversies. The question \"How common is convergence?' remains unanswered and may be unanswerable. Our examples indicate that even the minimum detectable levels of convergence are often high, and we conclude that at all levels convergence has been greatly underestimated.</p>","PeriodicalId":8893,"journal":{"name":"Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0006323196004926","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Resemblance between animal taxa may be due to convergence rather than to recent common ancestry. Constraints on biological materials and adaptation to particular habits or habitats will produce widespread convergence. How may we distinguish the two causes of resemblance? The relationship between convergence and taxonomy is discussed, demonstrating that the choice of taxonomic method will itself determine the extent to which convergence is perceived. In particular, cladistic analysis based on parsimony will tend to minimise and thus conceal convergence: neither the resulting cladogram nor a consistency index derived from it can be used to assess the prevalence of convergence. With any taxonomic system, there can be no substitute for evaluation of the morphological characters used. Complementary use of molecular characters shows promise: we wait further understanding of constraints in genetic evolution and of the possibilities of convergence at this level also. These general principles are illustrated with a range of examples from within and between invertebrate phyla: the phylogeny of Cnidaria and Platyhelminthes cannot be traced with certainty, but where the fossil record allows clear rooting, as for the echinoderms and in particular the echinoids, combination of morphological and molecular methods has made much progress. Sub-groups within a phylum, for example opisthobranch molluscs and the dipteran Phoridae, may show an uncontested phylogeny, and here studies have precisely identified convergence and shown that it may be the commoner cause of resemblance. Adaptation to exacting environments shown by terrestial and freshwater nemertines may also result in a predominance of convergent resemblance. Traditional grouping of phyla breaks down on re-examination of supposedly key characters, such as segmentation, body cavities, germ layers and symmetry, each of which must have had multiple origins: nor are developmental stages (especially not larvae) a reliable guide to relationships. Demarcation of phyla may be difficult, as with arthropods, and location of phyla is even more difficult, due to their early and rapid radiation. Over-simplified definition of characters has bedevilled invertebrate classification and the use of molecular data has not yet resolved the major controversies. The question "How common is convergence?' remains unanswered and may be unanswerable. Our examples indicate that even the minimum detectable levels of convergence are often high, and we conclude that at all levels convergence has been greatly underestimated.

无脊椎动物的趋同进化。
动物类群之间的相似性可能是由于趋同而不是由于最近的共同祖先。对生物材料的限制和对特定习性或栖息地的适应将产生广泛的趋同。我们如何区分这两种相似的原因?讨论了收敛与分类学之间的关系,表明分类学方法的选择本身就决定了收敛的感知程度。特别是,基于简约的枝状图分析将倾向于最小化,从而隐藏收敛性:无论是最终的枝状图还是由此得出的一致性指数都不能用于评估收敛的普遍性。对于任何分类系统,都不能代替对所使用的形态特征的评价。分子特征的互补使用显示出希望:我们等待进一步了解遗传进化的限制和在这一水平上收敛的可能性。从无脊椎动物门内部和门之间的一系列例子可以说明这些一般原则:刺胞动物和白蛉的系统发育不能确定地追溯到,但在化石记录允许明确生根的地方,如棘皮动物,特别是棘皮动物,形态学和分子方法的结合取得了很大进展。一个门内的亚群,例如蛇门软体动物和双翅目软体动物,可能显示出一种无可争议的系统发育,这里的研究已经精确地确定了趋同,并表明它可能是相似的常见原因。陆地生物和淡水生物对严酷环境的适应也可能导致趋同相似性的优势。传统的门分类在重新审视所谓的关键特征(如分割、体腔、胚层和对称性)后就被打破了,每一个特征都必须有多个起源;发育阶段(尤其是幼虫)也不是关系的可靠指南。门的划分可能很困难,就像节肢动物一样,由于门的早期和快速辐射,门的定位更加困难。过于简化的字符定义一直困扰着无脊椎动物的分类,而分子数据的使用至今仍未解决主要争议。“趋同有多普遍?”的问题仍然没有答案,而且可能无法回答。我们的例子表明,即使是最小的可检测的收敛水平往往是高的,我们得出的结论是,在所有水平的收敛已被大大低估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
99
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信