Cladistic analyses of the animal kingdom
Abstract
A recently published book on the phylogeny of the animal kingdom, written by the first author, provided a classification based on a 'manual' cladistic analysis at the phylum level. We have extracted a data matrix consisting of 61 characters for 32 phyla from this book and treated it in more formal analyses using three different parsimony programs. Following a posteriori weighting, one cladogram emerged as the most parsimonious explanation of the data. This cladogram is compared to those in recent publications. Congruence is greatest with the phylogeny published by the first author, as the monophyly of 18 of the 21 supraphyletic categories proposed therein are supported in our cladogram. The exceptions are Aschelminthes, Frotornaeozoa and Neorenalia, but the latter group does emerge as a monophyletic taxon in a number of equally parsimonious, equally weighted trees. Comparisons with other recent phytogenies show varying degrees of divergence, especially concerning the monophyly of Spiralia and Aiticulata, both of which are advocated in the present paper. Significant characters of most of the supraphyletic taxa proposed by the first author are discussed. C1996 The Linnean Society of London
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Cladistic analyses of morphology tend to suggest a step-wise arrangement where either Porifera or Placozoa diverge first, then Cnidaria, and finally Ctenophora, from the lineage leading to Bilateria.
“Cladistic analyses of morphology tend to suggest a step-wise arrangement where either Porifera or Placozoa diverge first, then Cnidaria, and finally Ctenophora, from the lineage leading to Bilateria (19, 20).”
From Evaluating hypotheses of basal animal phylogeny using complete sequences of large and small subunit rRNA (2001) · cites this paper as [20]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Peterson, K. J., & Eernisse, D. J. (2001) · Evolution & Development · doi:10.1046/j.1525-142x.2001.003003170.x · Cited by 529 · see citing works
The new animal phylogeny: Reliability and implications
Adoutte, A., Balavoine, G., Lartillot, N., Lespinet, O., Prud'homme, B., & de Rosa, R. (2000) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.97.9.4453 · Cited by 512 · see citing works
The New View of Animal Phylogeny
Halanych, K. M. (2004) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.112202.130124 · Cited by 489 · see citing works
Animal phylogeny and its evolutionary implications
Dunn, C. W., Giribet, G., Edgecombe, G. D., & Hejnol, A. (2014) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091627 · Cited by 401 · see citing works
Medina, M., Collins, A. G., Silberman, J. D., & Sogin, M. L. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.171316998 · Cited by 395 · see citing works
Phylogeny of Medusozoa and the evolution of cnidarian life cycles
Collins, A. G. (2002) · Journal of Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00403.x · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Collins, A. G. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.26.15458 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Sperling, E. A., Peterson, K. J., & Pisani, D. (2009) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msp148 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Genomic insights into Wnt signaling in an early diverging metazoan, the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi
Pang, K., Ryan, J. F., Program, N. C. S., Mullikin, J. C., Baxevanis, A. D., & Martindale, M. Q. (2010) · EvoDevo · doi:10.1186/2041-9139-1-10 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Nielsen, C. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B Molecular and Developmental Evolution · doi:10.1002/jez.b.21050 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Self-citationZhao, Y., Vinther, J., Parry, L. A., Wei, F., Green, E., Pisani, D., Hou, X., Edgecombe, G. D., & Cong, P. (2019) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.02.036 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
The scientific status of metazoan cladistics: why current research practice must change
Jenner, R. A. (2004) · Zoologica Scripta · doi:10.1111/j.0300-3256.2004.00153.x · Cited by 78 · see citing works
The mouth, the anus, and the blastopore—open questions about questionable openings
Hejnol, A., & Martindale, M. Q. (2009) · Animal Evolution · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199549429.003.0004 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Genomic, phylogenetic, and cell biological insights into metazoan origins
Nichols, S. A., Dayel, M. J., & King, N. (2009) · Animal Evolution · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199549429.003.0003 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nielsen, C., Scharff, N., & Eibye-Jacobsen, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Copenhagen (DK)
- Venue
- Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996-04
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 385-410
- ISSN
- 0024-4066 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2129628383
- Cited by
- 222
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 4.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protist diversity and phylogeny
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Keywords
- animal phylogeny, animal classification, monophyly, parsimony analysis, character weighting, Spiralia
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
