Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Use of Morphology in Criticizing Molecular Trees

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites

image of Journal of Crustacean Biology

Abstract A recent phylogenomic analysis of arthropod relationships (Regier et al., 2010) produced several surprising clades within Tetraconata (Pancrustacea). The first discussion of these heterodox findings in the carcinological literature was published in the Journal of Crustacean Biology by Ferrari (2010). Ferrari criticized the findings of Regier et al. from three perspectives: 1) that morphological and developmental evidence was not considered by Regier et al., thus casting doubt on their results; 2) that Regier et al.'s tree implies incredible transformations in crustacean body plans; and 3) that Regier et al.'s results could be a methodological artifact. I show that none of these criticisms can withstand scrutiny. One should take care in structuring a phylogenetic critique. Not doing so may well be counterproductive if the aim is to increase respect for non-molecular evidence in phylogenetics.

Affiliations: 1: ( Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

1. Ahyong S. T. , Schnabel K. E. , Maas E. W. 2009 "Anomuran phylogeny: new insights from molecular data" pp. 399 414 In, Martin J. W. , Crandall K. A. , Felder D. L. (eds.) Decapod crustacean phylogenetics CRC Press Boca Raton
2. Assis L. C. S. 2009 "Coherence, correspondence, and the renaissance of morphology in phylogenetic systematics" Cladistics Vol 25 528 544
3. Assis L. C. S. , de Carvalho M. R. 2010 "Key innovations: further remarks on the importance of morphology in elucidating systematic relationships and adaptive radiations" Evolutionary Biology Vol 37 247 254
4. Assis L. C. S. , Rieppel O. 2010 "Are monophyly and synapomorphy the same or different? Revisiting the role of morphology in phylogenetics" Cladistics Vol 27 94 102
5. Boxshall G. A. , Danielopol D. L. , Horne D. J. , Smith R. J. , Tabacaru I. 2010 "A critique of biramous interpretations of the crustacean antennule" Crustaceana Vol 83 153 167
6. Brooks H. K. 1955 "A crustacean from the Tesnus Formation in Texas" Journal of Paleontology Vol 29 852 856
7. Bybee S. M. , Zaspel J. M. , Beucke K. A. , Scott C. H. , Smith B. W. , Branham M. A. 2010 "Are molecular data supplanting morphological data in modern phylogenetic studies?" Systematic Entomology Vol 35 2 5
8. Conway Morris S. 2010 "Evolution: like any other science it is predictable" Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences Vol 365 133 145
9. Emerson M. J. , Schram F. R. 1991 "Remipedia Paleontology Part 2" Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History Vol 7 1 52
10. Ferrari F. D. 2010 "Morphology, development, and sequence" Journal of Crustacean Biology Vol 30 767 769
11. Glenner H. , Hoeg J. T. , Grygier M. J. , Fujita Y. 2008 "Induced metamorphosis in crustacean y-larvae: towards a solution to a 100-year-old riddle" BMC Biology Vol 6 21
12. Grant T. , Kluge A. G. 2003 "Data exploration in phylogenetic inference: scientific, heuristic, or neither" Cladistics Vol 19 379 418
13. Grimaldi D. , Engel M. S. 2005 Evolution of the insects Cambridge University Press Cambridge
14. Jenner R. A. 2004 "Accepting partnership by submission? Morphological phylogenetics in a molecular millennium" Systematic Biology Vol 53 333 342
15. Jenner R. A. 2010 "Higher-level crustacean phylogeny: consensus and conflicting hypotheses" Arthropod Structure & Development Vol 39 143 153
16. Koenemann S. , Schram F. R. , Hoenemann M. , Iliffe T. M. 2007 "Phylogenetic analysis of Remipedia (Crustacea)" Organisms Diversity & Evolution Vol 7 33 51
17. Koenemann S. , Jenner R. A. , Hoenemann M. , Stemme T. , Reumont B. Mv 2010 "Arthropod phylogeny revisited, with a focus on crustacean relationships" Arthropod Structure & Development Vol 39 88 110
18. Mooi R. D. , Gill A. C. 2010 "Phylogenies without synapomorphies-a crisis in fish systematics: time to show some character" Zootaxa 26 40
19. Pérez-Losada M. , Høeg J. T. , Crandall K. A. 2009 "Remarkable convergent evolution in specialized parasitic Thecostraca (Crustacea)" BMC Biology Vol 7 15
20. Regier J. C. , Shultz J. W. , Zwick A. , Hussey A. , Ball B. , Wetzer R. , Martin J. W. , Cunningham C. W. 2010 "Arthropod relationships revealed by phylogenomic analysis of nuclear protein-coding sequences" Nature Vol 463 1079 1083
21. Schram F. R. 2010 "The first 30 years of the Journal of Crustacean Biology - systematics and evolution" Journal of Crustacean Biology Vol 30 550 556
22. Schram F. R. , Jenner R. A. 2001 "The origin of Hexapoda: a crustacean perspective" pp. 243 264 In, Deuve T. (ed.) Origin of the Hexapoda. Annales de la Société entomologique de France Vol 37 1 304
23. Scotland R. W. , Olmstead R. G. , Bennett J. R. 2003 "Phylogeny reconstruction: the role of morphology" Systematic Biology Vol 52 539 548
24. Tshudy D. , Sorhannus U. 2000 "Pectinate claws in decapod crustaceans: convergence in four lineages" Journal of Paleontology Vol 74 474 486<0474:PCIDCC>2.0.CO;2

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation