Cited by 71Marine Invertebrate Physiology and EcologyEvolution and Paleontology StudiesProtist diversity and phylogeny

Novel scenarios of early animal evolution--is it time to rewrite textbooks?

Dohrmann, M., Worheide, G.·2013·Integrative and Comparative Biology

Abstract

Understanding how important phenotypic, developmental, and genomic features of animals originated and evolved is essential for many fields of biological research, but such understanding depends on robust hypotheses about the phylogenetic interrelationships of the higher taxa to which the studied species belong. Molecular approaches to phylogenetics have proven able to revolutionize our knowledge of organismal evolution. However, with respect to the deepest splits in the metazoan Tree of Life-the relationships between Bilateria and the four non-bilaterian phyla (Porifera, Placozoa, Ctenophora, and Cnidaria)-no consensus has been reached yet, since a number of different, often contradictory, hypotheses with sometimes spectacular implications have been proposed in recent years. Here, we review the recent literature on the topic and contrast it with more classical perceptions based on analyses of morphological characters. We conclude that the time is not yet ripe to rewrite zoological textbooks and advocate a conservative approach when it comes to developing scenarios of the early evolution of animals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/icb/ict008

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Traditionally, sponges (Porifera) have been interpreted as the sister group to the remaining animals (Porifera-sister hypothesis).

    “Traditionally, sponges have been recognized as the sister group to the remaining animals (the ' Porifera-sister ' hypothesis)”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dohrmann, M., & Worheide, G.
Affiliations
Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und Geologie (DE)
Venue
Integrative and Comparative Biology
Published
2013-03-28
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
503-511
ISSN
  • 1540-7063 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7023
OpenAlex
W2124743553
Cited by
71
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Integrative and Comparative Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
American Microscopical Society
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Marine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protist diversity and phylogeny
Keywords
early animal evolution, metazoan phylogeny, sponges, Placozoa, Ctenophora, Cnidaria, Bilateria, molecular phylogeny, morphological characters, evolutionary scenarios, textbook revision
MeSH terms
Animals, Biological Evolution, Invertebrates, Phylogeny, Species Specificity

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