{"title":"环节动物的系统学、进化和系统发育——形态学的观点","authors":"G. Purschke, C. Bleidorn, Torsten H. Struck","doi":"10.24199/J.MMV.2014.71.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purschke, G., Bleidorn, C. and Struck, T. 2014. Systematics, evolution and phylogeny of Annelida – a morphological perspective . Memoirs of Museum Victoria 71: 247–269. Annelida, traditionally divided into Polychaeta and Clitellata, is an evolutionary ancient and ecologically important group today usually considered to be monophyletic. However, there is a long debate regarding the in-group relationships as well as the direction of evolutionary changes within the group. This debate is correlated to the extraordinary evolutionary diversity of this group. Although annelids may generally be characterised as organisms with multiple repetitions of identically organised segments and usually bearing certain other characters such as a collagenous cuticle, chitinous chaetae or nuchal organs, none of these are present in every subgroup. This is even true for the annelid key character, segmentation. The first morphology-based cladistic analyses of polychaetes showed Polychaeta and Clitellata as sister groups. The former were divided into Scolecida and Palpata comprising Aciculata and Canalipalpata. This systematisation definitely replaced the old concept of dividing polychaetes into Errantia and Sedentaria, whereas the group Archiannelida had already been abandoned. The main critics came from a contradicting hypothesis relying on scenario based on plausibility considerations regarding Clitellata as highly derived annelids nesting within polychaetes and rendering the latter paraphyletic. In this hypothesis the absences of typical polychaete characters were regarded as losses rather than as primary absences. However, to date attempts to unambiguously identify the sister group of Clitellata on the basis of morphological characters have failed. Thus, two hypotheses on the last common annelid ancestor have been put forward either being an oligochaete-like burrowing animal or a parapodia-bearing epibenthic worm. These attempts to understand the major transitions in annelid evolution are reviewed and discussed in the light of new morphological evidence such as photoreceptor cell and eye evolution as well as the evolution of the nervous system and musculature. We also discuss the plausibility of these scenarios with regard to recent advances in molecular phylogenetic analyses.","PeriodicalId":53647,"journal":{"name":"Memoirs of Museum Victoria","volume":"7 1","pages":"247-269"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"44","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematics, evolution and phylogeny of Annelida – a morphological perspective\",\"authors\":\"G. Purschke, C. Bleidorn, Torsten H. Struck\",\"doi\":\"10.24199/J.MMV.2014.71.19\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purschke, G., Bleidorn, C. and Struck, T. 2014. Systematics, evolution and phylogeny of Annelida – a morphological perspective . Memoirs of Museum Victoria 71: 247–269. Annelida, traditionally divided into Polychaeta and Clitellata, is an evolutionary ancient and ecologically important group today usually considered to be monophyletic. However, there is a long debate regarding the in-group relationships as well as the direction of evolutionary changes within the group. This debate is correlated to the extraordinary evolutionary diversity of this group. Although annelids may generally be characterised as organisms with multiple repetitions of identically organised segments and usually bearing certain other characters such as a collagenous cuticle, chitinous chaetae or nuchal organs, none of these are present in every subgroup. This is even true for the annelid key character, segmentation. The first morphology-based cladistic analyses of polychaetes showed Polychaeta and Clitellata as sister groups. The former were divided into Scolecida and Palpata comprising Aciculata and Canalipalpata. This systematisation definitely replaced the old concept of dividing polychaetes into Errantia and Sedentaria, whereas the group Archiannelida had already been abandoned. The main critics came from a contradicting hypothesis relying on scenario based on plausibility considerations regarding Clitellata as highly derived annelids nesting within polychaetes and rendering the latter paraphyletic. In this hypothesis the absences of typical polychaete characters were regarded as losses rather than as primary absences. However, to date attempts to unambiguously identify the sister group of Clitellata on the basis of morphological characters have failed. Thus, two hypotheses on the last common annelid ancestor have been put forward either being an oligochaete-like burrowing animal or a parapodia-bearing epibenthic worm. These attempts to understand the major transitions in annelid evolution are reviewed and discussed in the light of new morphological evidence such as photoreceptor cell and eye evolution as well as the evolution of the nervous system and musculature. We also discuss the plausibility of these scenarios with regard to recent advances in molecular phylogenetic analyses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53647,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Memoirs of Museum Victoria\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"247-269\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"44\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Memoirs of Museum Victoria\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24199/J.MMV.2014.71.19\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memoirs of Museum Victoria","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24199/J.MMV.2014.71.19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 44
摘要
Purschke, G., Bleidorn, C.和Struck, T. 2014。环节动物的系统学、进化和系统发育——形态学的观点。维多利亚博物馆回忆录71:247-269。环节动物,传统上分为多毛纲和cliitellata,是一个古老的进化和生态重要的群体,今天通常被认为是单系的。然而,关于群体内关系以及群体内进化变化的方向存在着长期的争论。这场争论与这个群体非同寻常的进化多样性有关。虽然环节动物通常可以被描述为具有相同组织部分的多个重复的生物体,并且通常具有某些其他特征,例如胶原角质层,几丁质毛羽或颈器官,但这些特征在每个亚群中都不存在。这甚至适用于环节动物的关键特征——分割。首次基于形态学的多毛纲分支分析表明,多毛纲和cliitellata是姐妹类群。前者分为头齿科和齿齿科,包括针叶科和齿齿科。这种系统划分无疑取代了将多毛纲划分为Errantia和Sedentaria的旧概念,而Archiannelida已经被抛弃了。主要的批评来自于一个矛盾的假设,它依赖于基于似是而非的考虑,认为Clitellata是高度衍生的环节动物,在多毛纲动物中筑巢,并使后者成为副纲动物。在这一假设中,典型多毛类性状的缺失被认为是损失,而不是主要缺失。然而,迄今为止,试图在形态特征的基础上明确地识别cliitellata的姐妹群都失败了。因此,关于最后的共同环节动物祖先提出了两种假设,要么是一种寡毛类穴居动物,要么是一种副足底栖蠕虫。这些试图理解环节动物进化中的主要转变的尝试,在新的形态学证据,如光感受器细胞和眼睛的进化,以及神经系统和肌肉组织的进化,进行了回顾和讨论。我们还讨论了这些情景的合理性,关于分子系统发育分析的最新进展。
Systematics, evolution and phylogeny of Annelida – a morphological perspective
Purschke, G., Bleidorn, C. and Struck, T. 2014. Systematics, evolution and phylogeny of Annelida – a morphological perspective . Memoirs of Museum Victoria 71: 247–269. Annelida, traditionally divided into Polychaeta and Clitellata, is an evolutionary ancient and ecologically important group today usually considered to be monophyletic. However, there is a long debate regarding the in-group relationships as well as the direction of evolutionary changes within the group. This debate is correlated to the extraordinary evolutionary diversity of this group. Although annelids may generally be characterised as organisms with multiple repetitions of identically organised segments and usually bearing certain other characters such as a collagenous cuticle, chitinous chaetae or nuchal organs, none of these are present in every subgroup. This is even true for the annelid key character, segmentation. The first morphology-based cladistic analyses of polychaetes showed Polychaeta and Clitellata as sister groups. The former were divided into Scolecida and Palpata comprising Aciculata and Canalipalpata. This systematisation definitely replaced the old concept of dividing polychaetes into Errantia and Sedentaria, whereas the group Archiannelida had already been abandoned. The main critics came from a contradicting hypothesis relying on scenario based on plausibility considerations regarding Clitellata as highly derived annelids nesting within polychaetes and rendering the latter paraphyletic. In this hypothesis the absences of typical polychaete characters were regarded as losses rather than as primary absences. However, to date attempts to unambiguously identify the sister group of Clitellata on the basis of morphological characters have failed. Thus, two hypotheses on the last common annelid ancestor have been put forward either being an oligochaete-like burrowing animal or a parapodia-bearing epibenthic worm. These attempts to understand the major transitions in annelid evolution are reviewed and discussed in the light of new morphological evidence such as photoreceptor cell and eye evolution as well as the evolution of the nervous system and musculature. We also discuss the plausibility of these scenarios with regard to recent advances in molecular phylogenetic analyses.