CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 531Marine Invertebrate Physiology and EcologyInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyProtist diversity and phylogeny

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 266 of the 270 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Animal phylogeny and the ancestry of bilaterians: inferences from morphology and 18S rDNA gene sequences

Peterson, Kevin J., Eernisse, Douglas J.·2001·Evolution & Development
DOI 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2001.003003170.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

SUMMARY Insight into the origin and early evolution of the animal phyla requires an understanding of how animal groups are related to one another. Thus, we set out to explore animal phylogeny by analyzing with maximum parsimony 138 morphological characters from 40 metazoan groups, and 304 18S rDNA sequences, both separately and together. Both types of data agree that arthropods are not closely related to annelids: the former group with nematodes and other molting animals (Ecdysozoa), and the latter group with molluscs and other taxa with spiral cleavage. Furthermore, neither brachiopods nor chaetognaths group with deuterostomes; brachiopods are allied with the molluscs and annelids (Lophotrochozoa), whereas chaetognaths are allied with the ecdysozoans. The major discordance between the two types of data concerns the rooting of the bilaterians, and the bilaterian sister‐taxon. Morphology suggests that the root is between deuterostomes and protostomes, with ctenophores the bilaterian sister‐group, whereas 18S rDNA suggests that the root is within the Lophotrochozoa with acoel flatworms and gnathostomulids as basal bilaterians, and with cnidarians the bilaterian sister‐group. We suggest that this basal position of acoels and gnathostomulids is artifactal because for 1000 replicate phylogenetic analyses with one random sequence as outgroup, the majority root with an acoel flatworm or gnathostomulid as the basal ingroup lineage. When these problematic taxa are eliminated from the matrix, the combined analysis suggests that the root lies between the deuterostomes and protostomes, and Ctenophora is the bilaterian sister‐group. We suggest that because chaetognaths and lophophorates, taxa traditionally allied with deuterostomes, occupy basal positions within their respective protostomian clades, deuterostomy most likely represents a suite of characters plesiomorphic for bilaterians.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2001.003003170.x

Cites

266 of 266 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 270 references

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Adrianov A. V., 1989, Floscules: specific organs of kinorhynchs, priapulids, and loriciferans., Dok. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 307, 1277
  2. Ahlrichs W., 1995, Ultrastruktur und Phylogenie von Seison nebaliae (Grube 1859) und Seison annulatus (Claus 1876). Hypothesen zu phylogenetischen Verwandtschafts‐verhältnissen innerhalb der Bilateria
  3. Baccetti B., 1979, The Spermatozoon, 305
  4. Bartolomaeus T., 1994, On the ultrastructure of the coelomic lining in the Annelida, Sipuncula and Echiura., Microfauna Marina, 9, 171
  5. Benito J., 1997, Microscopic Anatomy of Invertebrates, 15: Hemichordata, Chaetognatha, and in the Invertebrate Chordates, 15
  6. Böger H., 1988, Versuch über das phylogenetische System der Porifera., Meyniana, 40, 143
  7. Brusca R. C., 1990, Invertebrates
  8. 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2000.tb00352.x · DOI
  9. Eibye‐Jacobsen J., 1996, New observations on the embryology of the Tardigrada., Zool. Anz, 235, 201
  10. Franzén Å., 1983, Reproductive Biology of Invertebrates, 2: Spermatogenesis and Sperm Function, 505
  11. 10.1002/(sici)1097-4687(199612)230:3<231::aid-jmor1>3.0.co;2-h · DOI
  12. 10.1006/clad.1999.0122 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Haas W., 1981, Evolution of calcareous hardparts in primitive molluscs., Malacologia, 21, 403
  14. Hyman L. H., 1955, The Invertebrates: Echinodermata, 4
  15. Lake J. A., 1989, The Hierarchy of Life: Molecules and Morphology in Phylogenetic Analysis, 273
  16. 10.1007/s004350050002 · DOI
  17. Lüter C., 2000, Ultrastructure of larval and adult setae of Brachiopoda., Zool. Anz, 239, 75
  18. Maslakova S. A., 1999, Indirect development in the order Hoplonemertea (Phylum Nemertea)., Am. Zool, 39, 38A
  19. 10.1007/s001140050190 · DOI
  20. Neuhaus B., 1994, Ultrastructure of alimentary canal and body cavity, ground pattern, and phylogenetic relationships of the Kinorhyncha., Microfauna Marina, 9, 61
  21. 10.1006/clad.1996.0016 · DOI
  22. 10.1006/clad.1999.0121 · DOI
  23. Nyholm Karl‐G., 1983, Reproductive Biology of Invertebrates, 2: Spermatogenesis and Sperm Function, 207
  24. 10.1111/j.1096-0031.1995.tb00092.x · DOI
  25. Rieger R. M., 1991, Microscopic Anatomy of Invertebrates, 7
  26. Ruppert E. E., 1991, Microscopic Anatomy of Invertebrates, 4. Aschelminthes, 1
  27. Ruppert E. E., 1997, Microscopic Anatomy of Invertebrates, 15: Hemichordata, Chaetognatha, and the Invertebrate Chordates, 1
  28. Ruppert E. E., 1994, Invertebrate Zoology 6th
  29. Schmidt‐Rhaesa A., 1997, Phylogenetic relationships of the Nematomorpha: a discussion of current hypotheses., Zool. Anz, 236, 203
  30. Scholtz G., 1997, Arthropod Relationships, 317
  31. 10.1006/clad.1998.0079 · DOI
  32. Swofford D. L., 2000, PAUP*
  33. Van Holde K. E., 1997, Respiratory proteins of invertebrates: structure, function and evolution., Zoology, 100, 287
  34. 10.1006/clad.1993.1001 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Wingstrand K.G., 1972, Comparative spermatology of a pentastomid, Raillietiella hemidactyli, and a branchiuran crustacean, Argulus foliaceus, with a discussion of pentastomid relationships., K. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Biol. Skr, 19, 1
  36. Zrzavý J., 1997, Arthropod Relationships, 97
  37. 10.1006/clad.1998.0070 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 531

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Peterson, K. J., & Eernisse, D. J.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • California State University, Fullerton (US)
ORCID
Venue
Evolution & Development
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-05
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
170-205
ISSN
  • 1520-541X (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-142X
DOI
10.1046/j.1525-142x.2001.003003170.x
OpenAlex
W2128919173
Semantic Scholar
b53cb97dcc586e3a139989e3611350c2c6a26feb
Cited by
529
References
270
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
FWCI
41.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 233 d)
Locations
  • Evolution & Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Marine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Protist diversity and phylogeny
Keywords
animal phylogeny, bilaterian origin, 18S rDNA, morphological characters, Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, deuterostomes, protostomes, ctenophores, acoel flatworms, chaetognaths, lophophorates, root placement
MeSH terms
Animals, Annelida, Arthropods, Classification, DNA, Ribosomal, Phylogeny, RNA, Ribosomal, 18S, Software, Models, Statistical, Evolution, Molecular

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review