Skip to main content
Log in

Madreporites of Ophiuroidea: are they phylogenetically informative?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Zoomorphology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The madreporite of brittle stars is poorly studied, and the features of its structure are rarely used in the taxonomy. However, it is known that there is diversity in the madreporite structure. But are the ophiuroid madreporites phylogenetically informative? To check this hypothesis, we investigated the structure of the madreporite of 33 species of brittle stars from 4 families of Euryalida and 12 families of Ophiurida. The fixed specimens were processed with sodium hypochlorite using the standard procedure and then studied using SEM. If we combine our results with the modern phylogenetic data about brittle stars (O’Hara et al. in Curr Biol 24(16):1874–1879, 2014), we will find wide morphological diversity of the madreporites present in each of the three clades of Ophiuroidea. The madreporites with numerous pores, the well-developed oral shields in other interradii instead of irregularly arranged plates and the multiple madreporites occur in the representatives of all three clades. Only in Euryalida, which belongs to the clade A as well as the sister clade Ophiuridae + Ophiomusium, the definite oral shields are absent in all interradii except CD. Whereas in the family Ophiuridae (as in the clades B and C), the oral interradial shields are regularly formed. Contrary to this, the multiple madreporites and numerous madreporic pores appear to have evolved several times in different clades. Hence, the hypothesis that madreporite morphology is phylogenetically informative must be rejected since madreporites are highly homoplasious.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cuénot L (1888) Études anatomiques et morphologiques sur les ophiures. Arch Zool Exp Gén 2(6):33–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuénot L (1948) Anatomie, éthologie et systématique des Échinodermes. In: Grassé PP (ed) Traité de Zoologie, vol 11. Masson et C-ie, Paris, pp 1–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyakonov AM (1954) Ophiurans of the seas of USSR. Opredeliteli po faune SSSR, vol 55. Zoological Institute, Moskva—Leningrad, 136 p (in Russian)

  • Ezhova OV, Lavrova EA, Malakhov VV (2014) The morphology of the axial complex and associated structures in Asterozoa (Asteroidea, Echinoidea, Ophiuroidea). Russ J Mar Biol 40(3):153–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezhova OV, Lavrova EA, Ershova NA, Malakhov VV (2015) Microscopic anatomy of the axial complex and associated structures in the brittle star Ophiura robusta Ayres, 1854 (Echinodermata, Ophiuroidea). Zoomorphology 134(2):247–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson JC (1995) The structure and mode of function of the water vascular system of a brittlestar, Ophioderma appressum. Biol Bull 188:98–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyman LH (1955) Echinodermata. In: Boell EJ (ed) The invertebrates. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp 310–313, 589–689

  • Ivanova-Kazas OM (1978) Comparative embryology of invertebrates: echinoderms and hemichordates. Nauka, Moscow, pp 29–42 (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig H (1878) Trichaster elegans. Z Wiss Zool 31:59–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Martynov AV (2010) Reassessment of the classification of the Ophiuroidea (Echinodermata), based on morphological characters. I. General character evaluation and delineation of the families Ophiomyxidae and Ophiacanthidae. Zootaxa 2697:1–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortensen T (1927) Handbook of the Echinoderms of the British Isles, vol 9. Oxford University Press, London, p 471

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara TD, Hugall AF, Thuy B, Moussalli A (2014) Phylogenomic resolution of the class Ophiuroidea unlocks a global microfossil record. Curr Biol 24(16):1874–1879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reichensperger A (1908) Zur Kenntnis der Genus Ophiopsila. Z Wiss Zool 89:173–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith AB, Paterson GLJ, Lafay B (1995) Ophiuroid phylogeny and higher taxonomy: morphological, molecular and palaeontological perspectives. Zool J Linn Soc 114:213–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart B (2000) Anatomical features of the euryalid snake star Astrobrachion constrictum (Ophiuroidea: Asteroschematidae). Invertebr Biol 119(2):222–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thuy B, Stöhr S (2011) Lateral arm plate morphology in brittle stars (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea): new perspectives for ophiuroid micropalaeontology and classification. Zootaxa 3013:1–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Thuy B, Kutscher M, Płachno BJ (2015) A new brittle star from the early Carboniferous of Poland and its implications on Paleozoic modern-type ophiuroid systematics. Acta Palaeontol Pol 60(4):923–929

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Zoological Museum of the Moscow State University for the material, as well as the employees of the Laboratory of Electron Microscopy of Biological Faculty of Moscow State University. SEM study and specimens deposition were supported by grant from the Russian Science Foundation (No. 14-50-00029). Phylogenetic analysis was supported by grant from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (No. 14-04-00366a).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga V. Ezhova.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing financial or non-financial interests.

Additional information

Communicated by A. Schmidt-Rhaesa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ezhova, O.V., Malakhov, V.V. & Martynov, A.V. Madreporites of Ophiuroidea: are they phylogenetically informative?. Zoomorphology 135, 333–350 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-016-0315-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-016-0315-x

Keywords

Navigation