Phylogenomic analyses of lophophorates (brachiopods, phoronids and bryozoans) confirm the Lophotrochozoa concept

Based on embryological and morphological evidence, Lophophorata was long considered to be the sister or paraphyletic stem group of Deuterostomia. By contrast, molecular data have consistently indicated that the three lophophorate lineages, Ectoprocta, Brachiopoda and Phoronida, are more closely related to trochozoans (annelids, molluscs and related groups) than to deuterostomes. For this reason, the lophophorate groups and Trochozoa were united to Lophotrochozoa. However, the relationships of the lophophorate lineages within Lophotrochozoa are still largely unresolved. Maximum-likelihood and Bayesian analyses were performed based on a dataset comprising 11,445 amino acid positions derived from 79 ribosomal proteins of 39 metazoan taxa including new sequences obtained from a brachiopod and a phoronid. These analyses show that the three lophophorate lineages are affiliated with trochozoan rather than deuterostome phyla. All hypotheses claiming that they are more closely related to Deuterostomia than to Protostomia can be rejected by topology testing. Monophyly of lophophorates was not recovered but that of Bryozoa including Ectoprocta and Entoprocta and monophyly of Brachiozoa including Brachiopoda and Phoronida were strongly supported. Alternative hypotheses that are refuted include (i) Brachiozoa as the sister group of Mollusca, (ii) ectoprocts as sister to all other Lophotrochozoa including Platyzoa, and (iii) ectoprocts as sister or to all other protostomes except chaetognaths.     

Protonephridia in the larvae of the paleonemertean species Carinoma mutabilis (Carinomidae,Nemertea) and Cephalothrix (Procephalothrix) filiformis (Cephalothricidae,Nemertea)

During spiralian development, the first pair of nephridia forms anterior to the mouth. Each organ consists of a few cells, which is characteristic for spiralian larvae. In nemerteans, one of the unambiguously spiralian taxa, so far protonephridia, has been reported only in advanced pilidium larvae, where they likely persist as juvenile and adult nephridia. These organs have not been recorded in larvae of the basally branching nemertean taxa. In search for these organs, we examined the ultrastructure of pelagic planuliform larvae of the palaeonemerteans Carinoma mutabilis and Cephalothrix (Procephalothrix) filiformis. In both species, a pair of protonephridia is located at the level of the stomodaeum. Each protonephridium of C. mutabilis consists of two terminal cells, two duct cells and one nephropore cell, while that of C. filiformis consists of three terminal cells, three duct cells and one nephropore cell. In C. mutabilis and in C. filiformis, all terminal cells contribute to forming a compound filtration structure. In both species, the protonephridia seem to develop subepidermally, since in C. filiformis, the nephropore cells pierce the larval epidermis and in C. mutabilis, the nephropores are initially covered by the binucleated multiciliated trophoblast cells. On the fifth day, these cells degenerate, so that the protonephridium becomes functional. The occurrence of protonephridia in the larvae of both paleonemertean species is in accordance with the hypothesis that a common ancestor of Nemertea and Trochozoa had a larval stage with a pair of protonephridia. This does not contradict previous hypotheses on placing the Nemertea as an ingroup of the Trochozoa or Spiralia (= Lophotrochozoa). Whether these protonephridia are restricted to the larval phase or whether they are transformed into the adult protonephridia, like those of the pilidium larva, remains to be answered.     

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

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.     

The phylogenetic status of arthropods, as inferred from 18S rRNA sequences

Partial 18S rRNA sequences of five chelicerate arthropods plus a crustacean, myriapod, insect, chordate, echinoderm, annelid, and platyhelminth were compared. The sequence data were used to infer phylogeny by using a maximum-parsimony method, an evolutionary-distance method, and the evolutionary-parsimony method. The phylogenetic inferences generated by maximum-parsimony and distance methods support both monophyly of the Arthropoda and monophyly of the Chelicerata within the Arthropoda. These results are congruent with phylogenies based on rigorous cladistic analyses of morphological characters. Results support the inclusion of the Arthropoda within a spiralian or protostome coelomate clade that is the sister group of a deuterostome clade, refuting the hypothesis that the arthropods represent the "primitive" sister group of a protostome coelomate clade. Bootstrap analyses and consideration of all trees within 1% of the length of the most parsimonious tree suggest that relationships between the nonchelicerate arthropods and relationships within the chelicerate clade cannot be reliably inferred with the partial 18S rRNA sequence data. With the evolutionary-parsimony method, support for monophyly of the Arthropoda is found in the majority of the combinations analyzed if the coelomates are used as "outgroups." Monophyly of the Chelicerata is supported in most combinations assessed. Our analyses also indicate that the evolutionary-parsimony method, like distance and parsimony, may be biased by taxa with long branches. We suggest that a previous study's inference of the Arthropoda as paraphyletic may be the result of (a) having two few arthropod taxa available for analysis and (b) including long-branched taxa.      

Phylogeny of the Metazoa Based on Morphological and 18S Ribosomal DNA Evidence

Cladistic analysis of traditional (i.e. morphological, developmental, ultrastructural) and molecular (18S rDNA) data sets (276+501 informative characters) provides a hypothesis about relationships of all meta-zoan higher taxa. Monophyly of Metazoa, Epith-eliozoa (= -03non-Porifera), Triploblastica, Mesozoa, Eutriploblastica (=Rhabditophora+Catenulida+“higher triploblasts”=Neotriploblastica, including Xeno- turbellida and Gnathostomulida), Rhabditophora, Syndermata (=“Rotifera”+Acanthocephala), Neotrichozoa (=Gastrotricha+Gnathostomulida), Nematozoa (=Nematoda+Nematomorpha), Panarthropoda (=Onychophora+Tardigrada+ Arthropoda), Cephalorhyncha, Deuterostomia, Ambulacralia (=Hemichordata+Echinodermata), Chordata, Phoronozoa (=Phoronida+“Brachiopoda”), Bryozoa, Trochozoa (=Eutrochozoa+Entoprocta+ Cycliophora), Eutrochozoa, and Chaetifera (=Annelida+ Pogonophora+Echiura) is strongly supported. Cnidaria (including Myxozoa), Ecdysozoa (=Cepha- lorhyncha + Nematozoa + Chaetognatha + Panarthropoda), Eucoelomata (=Bryozoa+Phoronozoa+Deuterostomia+Trochozoa, possibly including also Xenoturbellida), and Deuterostomia+Phoronozoa probably are monophyletic. Most traditional “phyla” are monophyletic, except for Porifera, Cnidaria (excluding Myxozoa), Platyhelminthes, Brachiopoda, and Rotifera. Three “hot” regions of the tree remain quite unresolved: basal Epitheliozoa, basal Triploblastica, and basal Neotriploblastica. A new phylogenetic classification of the Metazoa including 35 formally recognized phyla (Silicispongea, Calcispongea, Placozoa, Cnidaria, Ctenophora, Acoela, Nemertodermatida, Orthonecta, Rhombozoa, Rhabditophora, Catenulida, Syndermata, Gnathostomulida, Gastrotricha, Cephalorhyncha, Chaetognatha, Nematoda, Nematomorpha, Onychophora, Tardigrada, Arthropoda, Echinodermata, Hemichordata, Chordata, Phoronozoa, Bryozoa s. str., Xenoturbellida, Entoprocta, Cycliophora, Nemertea, Mollusca, Sipuncula, Echiura, Pogonophora, and Annelida) and few i ncertae sedis g roups (e.g. Myzostomida and Lobatocerebromorpha) is proposed.     

A molecular phylogeny of the Cephinae (Hymenoptera, Cephidae) based on mtDNA COI gene: a test of traditional classification

Cephinae is traditionally divided into three tribes and about 24 genera based on morphology and host utilization. There has been no study testing the monophyly of taxa under a strict phylogenetic criterion. A molecular phylogeny of Cephinae based on a total of 68 sequences of mtDNA COI gene, representing seven genera of Cephinae, is reconstructed to test the traditional limits and relationships of taxa. Monophyly of the traditional tribes is not supported. Monophyly of the genera are largely supported except for Pachycephus. A few host shift events are suggested based on phylogenetic relationships among taxa. These results indicate that a more robust phylogeny is required for a more plausible conclusion. We also report two species of Cephus for the first time from Turkey.     

Evidence from Hox genes that bryozoans are lophotrochozoans

Bryozoans, or moss animals, are small colonial organisms that possess a suspension-feeding apparatus called a lophophore. Traditionally, this "phylum" has been grouped with brachiopods and phoronids because of the feeding structure. Available molecular and morphological data refute this notion of a monophyletic "Lophophorata." Alternative hypotheses place bryozoans either at the base of the Lophotrochozoa or basal to the Lophotrochozoa/Ecdysozoa split. Surprisingly, the only molecular data bearing on this issue are from the 18S nuclear ribosomal gene. Here we report the results of a Hox gene survey using degenerate polymerase chain reaction primers in a gymnolaemate bryozoan, Bugula turrita. Putative orthologs to both the Post2 and the Lox5 genes were found, suggesting that bryozoans are not a basal protostome group but closely allied to other lophotrochozoan taxa. We also found the first definitive evidence of two Deformed/Hox4 class genes in a nonvertebrate animal.     

Phylogeny of the Cocculinoidea (Mollusca, Gastropoda)

Abstract. The superfamily Cocculinoidea is a group of marine, deep-water, limpet-like gastropods. Recent speculation surrounding their affinities has concentrated on their placement within the Gastropoda. However, phylogenetic relationships within the Cocculinoidea, especially the monophyly of families and genera within the group, remain poorly understood. Phylogenetic analysis of 31 morphological characters for 15 cocculinoidean taxa and 2 outgroups resulted in a single most parsimonious tree, length=70, CI=0.62, and RI=0.71. Monophyly of the Cocculinoidea, Cocculinidae, and the genera Cocculina and Coccopigya was supported; Paracocculina and Coccocrater were found to be paraphyletic. Character optimization demonstrates that many characters often cited as diagnostic of various taxa, are often homoplastic and/or synapomorphies at different hierarchical levels.     

Phylogenetic relationships within Passerida (Aves: Passeriformes): a review and a new molecular phylogeny based on three nuclear intron markers

The avian clade Passerida was first identified based on DNA-DNA hybridization data [C.G. Sibley, J.E. Ahlquist, Phylogeny and Classification of Birds, 1990, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT]. Monophyly of the Passerida, with the exception of a few taxa, has later been corroborated in several studies; however, the basal phylogenetic relationships have remained poorly understood. In this paper, we review the current knowledge of the phylogenetic relationships within Passerida and present a new phylogeny based on three nuclear introns (myoglobin intron 2, ornithine decarboxylase introns 6 and 7, as well as beta-fibrinogen intron 5). Our findings corroborate recent molecular hypotheses, but also identify several hitherto unrecognized relationships.     

Testing the new animal phylogeny: first use of combined large-subunit and small-subunit rRNA gene sequences to classify the protostomes

Although the small-subunit ribosomal RNA (SSU rRNA) gene is widely used in the molecular systematics, few large-subunit (LSU) rRNA gene sequences are known from protostome animals, and the value of the LSU gene for invertebrate systematics has not been explored. The goal of this study is to test whether combined LSU and SSU rRNA gene sequences support the division of protostomes into Ecdysozoa (molting forms) and Lophotrochozoa, as was proposed by Aguinaldo et al. (1997) (Nature 387:489) based on SSU rRNA sequences alone. Nearly complete LSU gene sequences were obtained, and combined LSU + SSU sequences were assembled, for 15 distantly related protostome taxa plus five deuterostome outgroups. When the aligned LSU + SSU sequences were analyzed by tree-building methods (minimum evolution analysis of LogDet-transformed distances, maximum likelihood, and maximum parsimony) and by spectral analysis of LogDet distances, both Ecdysozoa and Lophotrochozoa were indeed strongly supported (e.g., bootstrap values >90%), with higher support than from the SSU sequences alone. Furthermore, with the LogDet-based methods, the LSU + SSU sequences resolved some accepted subgroups within Ecdysozoa and Lophotrochozoa (e.g., the polychaete sequence grouped with the echiuran, and the annelid sequences grouped with the mollusc and lophophorates)-subgroups that SSU-based studies do not reveal. Also, the mollusc sequence grouped with the sequences from lophophorates (brachiopod and phoronid). Like SSU sequences, our LSU + SSU sequences contradict older hypotheses that grouped annelids with arthropods as Articulata, that said flatworms and nematodes were basal bilateralians, and considered lophophorates, nemerteans, and chaetognaths to be deuterostomes. The position of chaetognaths within protostomes remains uncertain: our chaetognath sequence associated with that of an onychophoran, but this was unstable and probably artifactual. Finally, the benefits of combining LSU with SSU sequences for phylogenetic analyses are discussed: LSU adds signal, it can be used at lower taxonomic levels, and its core region is easy to align across distant taxa-but its base frequencies tend to be nonstationary across such taxa. We conclude that molecular systematists should use combined LSU + SSU rRNA genes rather than SSU alone.     

Testing the new animal phylogeny: a phylum level molecular analysis of the animal kingdom

The new animal phylogeny inferred from ribosomal genes some years ago has prompted a number of radical rearrangements of the traditional, morphology based metazoan tree. The two main bilaterian clades, Deuterostomia and Protostomia, find strong support, but the protostomes consist of two sister groups, Ecdysozoa and Lophotrochozoa, not seen in morphology based trees. Although widely accepted, not all recent molecular phylogenetic analyses have supported the tripartite structure of the new animal phylogeny. Furthermore, even if the small ribosomal subunit (SSU) based phylogeny is correct, there is a frustrating lack of resolution of relationships between the phyla that make up the three clades of this tree. To address this issue, we have assembled a dataset including a large number of aligned sequence positions as well as a broad sampling of metazoan phyla. Our dataset consists of sequence data from ribosomal and mitochondrial genes combined with new data from protein coding genes (5139 amino acid and 3524 nucleotide positions in total) from 37 representative taxa sampled across the Metazoa. Our data show strong support for the basic structure of the new animal phylogeny as well as for the Mandibulata including Myriapoda. We also provide some resolution within the Lophotrochozoa, where we confirm support for a monophyletic clade of Echiura, Sipuncula and Annelida and surprising evidence of a close relationship between Brachiopoda and Nemertea.     

Old trees, new trees--is there any progress?

The amount of comparative data for phylogenetic analyses is constantly increasing. Data come from different directions such as morphology, molecular genetics, developmental biology and paleontology. With the increasing diversity of data and of analytical tools, the number of competing hypotheses on phylogenetic relationships rises, too. The choice of the phylogenetic tree as a basis for the interpretation of new data is important, because different trees will support different evolutionary interpretations of the data investigated. I argue here that, although many problematic aspects exist, there are several phylogenetic relationships that are supported by the majority of analyses and may be regarded as something like a robust backbone. This accounts, for example, for the monophyly of Metazoa, Bilateria, Deuterostomia, Protostomia (= Gastroneuralia), Gnathifera, Spiralia, Trochozoa and Arthropoda and probably also for the branching order of diploblastic taxa (“Porifera”, Trichoplax adhaerens, Cnidaria and Ctenophora). Along this “backbone”, there are several problematic regions, where either monophyly is questionable and/or where taxa “rotate” in narrow regions of the tree. This is illustrated exemplified by the probable paraphyly of Porifera and the phylogenetic relationships of basal spiralian taxa. Two problems span wider regions of the tree: the position of Arthropoda either as the sister taxon of Annelida (= Articulata) or of Cycloneuralia (= Ecdysozoa) and the position of tentaculate taxa either as sister taxa of Deuterostomia (= Radialia) or within the taxon Spiralia. The backbone makes it possible to develop a basic understanding of the evolution of genes, molecules and structures in metazoan animals.     

A Review of Arthropod Phylogeny: New Data Based on Ribosomal DNA Sequences and Direct Character Optimization

Ribosomal gene sequence data are used to explore phylogenetic relationships among higher arthropod groups. Sequences of 139 taxa (23 outgroup and 116 ingroup taxa) representing all extant arthropod "classes" except Remipedia and Cephalocarida are analyzed using direct character optimization exploring six parameter sets. Parameter choice appears to be crucial to phylogenetic inference. The high level of sequence heterogeneity in the 18S rRNA gene (sequence length from 1350 to 2700 bp) makes placement of certain taxa with "unusual" sequences difficult and underscores the necessity of combining ribosomal gene data with other sources of information. Monophyly of Pycnogonida, Chelicerata, Chilopoda, Chilognatha, Malacostraca, Branchiopoda (excluding Daphnia ), and Ectognatha are among the higher groups that are supported in most of the analyses. The positions of the Pauropoda, Symphyla, Protura, Collembola, Diplura, Onychophora, Tardigrada, and Daphnia are unstable throughout the parameter space examined.     

Phylogeny of Dicranophoridae (Rotifera: Monogononta) – a maximum parsimony analysis based on morphological characters

This study presents the first phylogenetic analysis of Dicranophoridae (Rotifera: Monogononta), a species rich rotifer family of about 230 species currently recognized. It is based on a maximum parsimony analysis including 77 selected ingroup and three outgroup taxa and a total of 59 phylogenetically informative morphological characters. Character coding is based on personal investigation of material collected by the authors and an extensive survey of the literature. Apart from covering general body organization, character coding primarily relies on scanning electron microscopic preparations of the mastax jaw elements. Our study suggests monophyly of Dicranophoridae with a clade of Dicranophorus and Dorria as the sister taxon of all other dicranophorid species. Monophyly of Encentrum , the most species rich genus within Dicranophoridae, cannot be demonstrated. Within Dicranophoridae our study identifies the monophyletic taxa Caudosubbasifenestrata, Intramalleata, Praeuncinata and Proventriculata, each based on unambiguous character transformations evolved in their stem lineages. However, resolution within Praeuncinata and Proventriculata is very limited. Although some terminal clades within Praeuncinata and Proventriculata are recognized, basal splits remain obscure. Probably, other characters such as DNA sequence data are needed to further our understanding of phylogenetic relationships within these poorly resolved taxa.     

Phylogeny of Sabellidae (Annelida) and relationships with other taxa inferred from morphology and multiple genes

The monophyly of Sabellidae, the phylogenetic relationships of its lineages, and the composition of Sabellida have been debated for many decades. Most studies on sabellid phylogeny have focused on morphological features but little DNA work has been published to date. We performed analyses using maximum‐parsimony methods that included 36 sabellids and members of previously related taxa. We integrated morphological and DNA sequence data to resolve relationships at different hierarchical levels (135 morphological features, fragments of the nuclear ribosomal RNA genes 18S and 28S, and the mitochondrial gene 16S). The results indicate the monophyly of Sabellida, including Sabellidae and Serpulidae. Monophyly of Fabriciinae and Serpulidae is assessed and the two groups are recovered as sister taxa, but with weak support. There is no significant support for the monophyly of Sabellinae. Relationships between members of the Sabellidae are still partially unresolved due to incongruence between partitions and low support for most clades. The evolution and transformation of certain characters within Sabellidae is explored.
© The Willi Hennig Society 2010.     

Species monophyly

In biological systematics, as well as in the philosophy of biology, species and higher taxa are individuated through their unique evolutionary origin. This is taken by some authors to mean that monophyly is a (relational) property not only of higher taxa, but also of species. A species is said to originate through speciation, and to go extinct when it splits into two daughter species (or through terminal extinction). Its unique evolutionary origin is said to bestow identity on a species through time and change, and to render species names rigid designators. Species names are thus believed to function just like names of supraspecific taxa. However, large parts of the Web of Life are composed of species that do not have a unique evolutionary origin from a single population, lineage or stem-species. Further, monophyly is an ambiguous concept if it is defined simply in terms of 'unique evolutionary origin'. Disambiguating the concept by defining a monophyletic taxon as 'a taxon that includes the ancestor and all, and only, its descendant' renders monophyly inapplicable to species. At the heart of the problem lies a fundamental distinction between species and monophyletic taxa, where species form mutually exclusive reticulated systems, while higher taxa form inclusive hierarchical systems. Examples are given both at the species level and below to illustrate the problems that result from the application of the monophyly criterion to species. The conclusion is that the concepts of exclusivity and monophyly should be treated as non-overlapping: exclusivity marks out a species synchronistically, i.e. in the present time. Monophyly marks out clades (groups of species) diachronistically, i.e. within an historical dimension.     

Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) and the monophyly of life

Ernst Haeckel, who first introduced the term ‘monophyly’ into the biological literature, has in the past been appealed to in adjudication of the modern use of that concept. A contextual analysis of his writings reveals an inconsistent use of the term ‘monophyly’ by Haeckel. Morphological phylogeny was decoupled in Haeckel’s thinking from the evolutionary history of taxa. Monophyly could mean the derivation of one taxon from another, ancestral one, where these taxa could be species or of supraspecific rank. Monophyly could also mean the phylogenetic differentiation of a diversity of organismal ‘forms’ (morphologies) from a common primitive ‘form’ (morphological stage). And finally, monophyly, as also polyphyly, could apply to the origin of specific anatomical structures, in which case the monophyly/polyphyly of anatomical structures needed not to correlate with the monophyly/polyphyly of the taxon characterized by these structures. With respect to the issue of the unity and reality of monophyletic taxa, Haeckel’s writings again are indeterminate as is his stance on the monophyletic origin of life.     

Phylogenetic relationships of some common Indo-Pacific snappers (Perciformes: Lutjanidae) based on mitochondrial DNA sequences, with comments on the taxonomic position of the Caesioninae

The phylogenetic relationships of 27 species of common Indo-Pacific snappers (Lutjanidae) were explored using the 16S ribosomal RNA and cytochrome b mitochondrial genes with minimum evolution, maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference analyses. Included were species representing four subfamilies, the Caesioninae, Etelinae, Paradicichthyinae, and Lutjaninae. Members of the closely related families Haemulidae, Lethrinidae, Nemipteridae and Sparidae, were included for outgroup comparisons and to explore the relationships between the Haemuloidea, Lutjanoidea and Sparoidea. Monophyly of the Lutjanidae was resolved. The Caesioninae was nested within the Lutjaninae, supporting the recent view that the Caesionidae should be treated as a synonym of the Lutjanidae. The subfamilies Etelinae and Paradicichthyinae were resolved as sister taxa to the remainder of the Lutjanidae, which corroborates previous cladistic analyses conducted to determine relationships of lutjanid subfamilies. Bayesian inference and maximum likelihood analyses suggest that Macolor is the sister taxon to the Caesioninae and may represent a transitional form between the Lutjaninae and Caesioninae. Three species of Western Atlantic lutjanids, Lutjanus campechanus, L. synagris, and Rhomboplites aurorubens, were included in the analyses to examine their relationships to Indo-Pacific species; they formed a well-supported clade nested within Pacific lutjanines suggesting that Atlantic species of Lutjaninae are derived from an Indo-Pacific lineage. Results of our molecular phylogenetic analyses are congruent with the general morphology and external colouration of the resolved groups of species of Lutjanus. The "black spot" complex containing L. fulviflamma, L. monostigma, and L. russelli was resolved with strong support, and had L. carponotatus nested within. The morphology of L. carponotatus suggests a close relationship to this group, and the lack of the black spot near the lateral line below the soft dorsal fin is possibly a secondary loss. As expected, the "blue-lined" species, L. kasmira and L. quinquelineatus, formed a strongly supported clade. Lutjanus bohar and L. gibbus, both distinctly red, long-lived fish that often accumulate large quantities of ciguatera toxin in their tissues, were resolved as sister taxa.     

Molecular phylogeny of gastrotricha based on 18S rRNA genes comparison: rejection of hypothesis of relatedness with nematodes

Gastrotrichs are meiobenthic free-living aquatic worms whose phylogenetic and intra-group relationships remain unclear despite some attempts to resolve them on the base of morphology or molecules. In this study we analysed complete sequences of the 18S rRNA gene of 15 taxa (8 new and 7 published) to test numerous hypotheses on gastrotrich phylogeny and to verify whether controversial interrelationships from previous molecular data could be due to the short region available for analysis and the poor taxa sampling. Data were analysed using both maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference. Results obtained suggest that gastrotrichs, together with Gnathostomulida, Plathelminthes, Syndermata (Rotifera + Acanthocephala), Nemertea and Lophotrochozoa, comprise a clade Spiralia. Statistical tests reject phylogenetic hypotheses regarding Gastrotricha as close relatives of Nematoda and other Ecdysozoa or placing them at the base of bilaterian tree close to acoels and nemertodermatides. Within Gastrotricha, Chaetonotida and Macrodasyida comprise two well supported clades. Our analysis confirmed the monophyly of the Chaetonotidae and Xenotrichulidae within Chaetonida as well as Turbanellidae and Thaumastodermatidae within Macrodasyida. Mesodasys is a sister group of the Turbanellidae, and Lepidodasyidae appears to be a polyphyletic group as Cephalodasys forms a separate lineage at the base of macrodasyids, whereas Lepidodasys groups with Neodasys between Thaumastodermatidae and Turbanellidae. To infer a more reliable Gastrotricha phylogeny many species and additional genes should be involved in future analyses.