Phylogenetic analysis of the Malacostraca (Crustacea)

By Scholtz. 2001

216 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The Malacostraca comprises about 28 000 species with a broad disparity in morphology, anatomy, embryology, behaviour and ecology. The phylogenetic relationships of the major taxa are still under debate. Is the Leptostraca the sister group of the remaining Malacostraca, or is this taxon more closely related to other Crustacea? Does the Stomatopoda or the Bathynellacea represent the most basal taxon within the remaining taxa? Is the Peracarida monophyletic or are some peracarid taxa more closely related to other ‘caridoid’ taxa? Is the Thermosbaenacea part of the Peracarida or its sister group, and how much support is there for a taxon Amphipoda + Isopoda? To answer these questions a phylogenetic analysis of the Malacostraca combining different phylogenetic approaches was undertaken. In a first step, the monophyly of the Malacostraca including the Leptostraca is shown using the ‘Hennigian approach’. A computer cladistic analysis of the Malacostraca was carried out with NONA and PEE-WEE, based on 93 characters from morphology, anatomy and embryology. Nineteen higher malacostracan taxa are included in our analysis. Taxa whose representatives are exclusively fossils were not included. The Leptostraca was used as an operational out-group. The present analysis supports the basal position of the Stomatopoda. Syncarida and Peracarida (including Thermosbaenacea) are supported as monophyletic, the Eucarida is not. Instead a sister-group relationship is suggested between Euphausiacea and Peracarida (including Thermosbaenacea), with the Syncarida as the sister group to both taxa. Certain embryonic characters are interpreted as support for the monophyly of the Peracarida (without Thermosbaenacea) because convergences or reversals of these characters seem implausible. Within the Peracarida, the Mysidacea (Lophogastrida + Mysida) represents the sister group to the remaining taxa. A sister-group relationship between Amphipoda and Isopoda is not supported.

Subfields: Ecology, Oceanography, Paleontology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ad086cfc115b5d57d9391a06a54eab6ed691de76

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Oceanography

In Paleontology

Citations in the corpus

Decapod crustacean phylogenetics (2009, result): “Interestingly enough, a closer look at the situation in the Amphionida, a possible candidate as the sister group to decapods (Richter and Scholtz 2001), supports this conclusion.”
The Articulata hypothesis – or what is a segment? (2002, background): “Interestingly annelids and several arthropods – in particular malacostracan crustaceans, myriapods, and scorpions – also share the existence of a supraneural longitudinal ventral blood vessel (Hjelle 1990, Richter & Scholtz 2001, Wirkner & Pass 2002).”
FOSSIL CALIBRATIONS FOR THE ARTHROPOD TREE OF LIFE (2016, methodology): “Monophyly is demonstrated by phylogenetic analysis of morphology (Legg et al., 2013; Richter and Scholtz, 2001), nuclear ribosomal and protein-coding genes (Regier et al., 2010), transcriptomes (von Reumont et al., 2012), and combined analysis of molecular and morphological data (Lee et al., 2013;…”
The Tetraconata concept: hexapod-crustacean relationships and the phylogeny of Crustacea (2002, methodology): “The internal phylogeny of the Malacostraca has recently been analysed and reviewed by Richter & Scholtz (2001).”
Organization and evolutionary trends of primary olfactory brain centers in Tetraconata (Crustacea+Hexapoda) (2005, background): “Branchiopoda, Maxillopoda, Ostracoda Comparatively little is known about the olfactory pathway in these taxa, and often conflicting results have been reported.”
Phylogeny of the Decapoda reptantia: Resolution using three molecular loci and morphology (2004, methodology): “Owing to the removal of polychelids and glypheoids from Palinura, we follow Scholtz & Richter (1995), Richter & Scholtz (2001), Dixon et al. (2003) and Poore (2004) in applying Achelata to the clade containing nominate palinuran taxa and allies.”