[Taxacom] Evolution of molluscs and other invertebrates

Edwards, James EDWARDSJL at si.edu
Fri Jul 10 10:19:02 CDT 2009

The reference is P.A. Goloboff et al. Phylogenetic analysis of 73 060
taxa corroborates major eukaryotic groups. Cladistics 25 (2009) 211-230.

The relevant paragraph reads:

Mollusca is the only phylum which, as in other
studies, is clearly non-monophyletic in our results. The
tree displays molluscs divided in two, with Scaphopoda
and Bivalvia as successive sister groups of several other
invertebrate phyla, and the rest of the molluscan classes
forming a monophyletic group. The most recent analysis
(Giribet et al., 2006) displayed Bivalvia and Gastropoda
as diphyletic, and Monoplacophora included within
Polyplacophora. In our results, Gastropoda, Bivalvia,
and Polyplacophora are monophyletic, and Monoplacophora
is most closely related to Polyplacophora
(instead of nested inside).

            --  Jim
Dr. James L. Edwards
Executive Director
Encyclopedia of Life
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
P.O. Box 37012, MRC 106
Washington, DC 20013-7012
Phone:  1 202 633 8730
Mobile:  1 571 230 4098
Fax:      1 202 633 8742
Email:   edwardsjl at si.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:57 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Evolution of molluscs and other invertebrates

Hi Doug,  
       I don't recall a recent paper by Goloboff et al. being discussed
here (or anywhere else for that matter).  It sounds very interesting!!!

      There was a paper by Giribet et al, 2006 (in Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci., if I recall correctly).  It came up with a new molluscan clade
called Serialia, but also came up with some strange results (such as a
polyphyletic Gastropoda).  I strongly suspect that Giribet's choice of
outgroups was flawed, because if some of those outgroups actually
evolved from molluscs, then they are actually ingroup taxa (and as I
have stated before, using ingroup taxa as outgroups totally screws up
your results, especially for molecular data).   
      In any case, I am not presently advocating removing Bivalvia from
Phylum Mollusca (I still think gastropods probably evolved directly from
bivalves).  I will have to see what data (and outgroups) Goloboff et al.
used.  They had the scaphopods splitting off first???  That sounds very
odd.  I hope they didn't use annelids (or other worms) in their
outgroup.  Anyway, I'll have to try to track down their paper.  
Doug wrote:
     Wasn't it here where someone just posted a link to the recent
Goloboff et al. genomic analysis indicating that molluscs were not a
monophyletic unit? The paper explained that scaphopods and bivalves came
off the tree sequentially, followed by some other miscellaneous
invertebrate phyla (presumably "worms"), and THEN came the clade that
comprised the remaining molluscan classes. That implies that the only
way to keep mollusca s.l. as a phylum is to either include those other
invertebrate groups in between, or remove and elevate scaphopods and
bivalves to become separate phyla. It's not that bivalves make the
remaining molluscs paraphyletic, it's that they're apparently not even
in the same phylum! I imagine that the prediction that molluscs will
"become a primary target for analysis" is probably true, but going in a
very different direction. 
Doug Yanega  Dept. of Entomology  Entomology Research Museum 
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314    


Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

More information about the Taxacom mailing list