New animal phylogeny: future challenges for animal phylogeny in the age of phylogenomics
- PDF / 494,100 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 39 Downloads / 214 Views
REVIEW
New animal phylogeny: future challenges for animal phylogeny in the age of phylogenomics Gonzalo Giribet 1
Received: 10 July 2015 / Accepted: 27 August 2015 # Gesellschaft für Biologische Systematik 2015
Abstract The science of phylogenetics, and specially the subfield of molecular systematics, has grown exponentially not only in the amount of publications and general interest, but also especially in the amount of genetic data available. Modern phylogenomic analyses use large genomic and transcriptomic resources, yet a comprehensive molecular phylogeny of animals, including the newest types of data for all phyla, remains elusive. Future challenges need to address important issues with taxon sampling—especially for rare and small animals—orthology assignment, algorithmic developments, and data storage and to figure out better ways to integrate information from genomes and morphology in order to place fossils more precisely in the animal tree of life. Such precise placement will also aid in providing more accurate dates to major evolutionary events during the evolution of our closest kingdom. Keywords Genomics . Transcriptomics . Metazoan phylogeny . New animal phylogeny . Fossils . Tip dating . Total evidence dating
Introduction Almost two decades have passed since the publication of what has become to be known as BThe New Animal Phylogeny^ This article is part of the Special Issue The new animal phylogeny: The first 20 years * Gonzalo Giribet [email protected] 1
Museum of Comparative Zoology & Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
(Adoutte et al. 2000; Halanych 2004)—a new set of phylumlevel relationships largely driven by molecular data and mostly derived from two of the most influential papers on animal molecular phylogenetics (Halanych et al. 1995; Aguinaldo et al. 1997). These seminal studies introduced two Bnew^ clades of animals, Lophotrochozoa (Halanych et al. 1995)— a clade unfortunately later incorrectly equated with Spiralia by subsequent authors (see a discussion in Laumer et al. 2015a)—and Ecdysozoa (Aguinaldo et al. 1997). These studies were based on analyses of 18S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) sequence data and were subsequently corroborated by a series of likewise influential papers using larger 18S rRNA datasets, additional markers, and sometimes morphology (e.g., Giribet et al. 1996; Zrzavý et al. 1998; Giribet et al. 2000; Peterson and Eernisse 2001). Few other major changes in animal phylogeny are comparable to the ones introduced by Halanych et al. (1995) and Aguinaldo et al. (1997), perhaps followed closely only by another major rearrangement related to Platyhelminthes, proposing their non-monophyly and a special position for Acoela and Nemertodermatida, as sister groups to the remaining Bilateria—i.e., Nephrozoa (Carranza et al. 1997; Ruiz-Trillo et al. 1999; Jondelius et al. 2002). Much more recently, and based on first-generation phylogenomic analyses, Dunn et al. (2008) shook the animal tree once more by p
Data Loading...
