Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Jun 22;272(1569):1295-304.

Mitochondrial genomes suggest that hexapods and crustaceans are mutually paraphyletic.

Author information

1
Department and Museum of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. cecook@alum.exeter.edu

Abstract

For over a century the relationships between the four major groups of the phylum Arthropoda (Chelicerata, Crustacea, Hexapoda and Myriapoda) have been debated. Recent molecular evidence has confirmed a close relationship between the Crustacea and the Hexapoda, and has included the suggestion of a paraphyletic Hexapoda. To test this hypothesis we have sequenced the complete or near-complete mitochondrial genomes of three crustaceans (Parhyale hawaiensis, Squilla mantis and Triops longicaudatus), two collembolans (Onychiurus orientalis and Podura aquatica) and the insect Thermobia domestica. We observed rearrangement of transfer RNA genes only in O. orientalis, P. aquatica and P. hawaiensis. Of these, only the rearrangement in O. orientalis, an apparent autapomorphy for the collembolan family Onychiuridae, was phylogenetically informative.We aligned the nuclear and amino acid sequences from the mitochondrial protein-encoding genes of these taxa with their homologues from other arthropod taxa for phylogenetic analysis. Our dataset contains many more Crustacea than previous molecular phylogenetic analyses of the arthropods. Neighbour-joining, maximum-likelihood and Bayesian posterior probabilities all suggest that crustaceans and hexapods are mutually paraphyletic. A crustacean clade of Malacostraca and Branchiopoda emerges as sister to the Insecta sensu stricto and the Collembola group with the maxillopod crustaceans. Some, but not all, analyses strongly support this mutual paraphyly but statistical tests do not reject the null hypotheses of a monophyletic Hexapoda or a monophyletic Crustacea. The dual monophyly of the Hexapoda and Crustacea has rarely been questioned in recent years but the idea of both groups' paraphyly dates back to the nineteenth century. We suggest that the mutual paraphyly of both groups should seriously be considered.

PMID:
16024395
PMCID:
PMC1564108
DOI:
10.1098/rspb.2004.3042
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center