Development Genes and Evolution

, Volume 221, Issue 3, pp 133–140 | Cite as

Complicated evolution of the caprellid (Crustacea: Malacostraca: Peracarida: Amphipoda) body plan, reacquisition or multiple losses of the thoracic limbs and pleons

  • Atsushi Ito
  • Masakazu N. Aoki
  • Kensuke Yahata
  • Hiroshi WadaEmail author
Original Article


The Caprellidea (Crustacea) have undergone an interesting morphological evolution from their ancestral gammarid-like form. Although most caprellid families have markedly reduced third and fourth pereopods (the walking thoracic limbs) and pleons (the posterior body parts), one family, Caprogammaridae, has developed pleon with swimming appendages (pleopods), whereas another family, Phtisicidae, possesses well-developed functional third and fourth pereopods. The unique character status of these families implies that there has been reacquisition or multiple losses of both pereopods and the pleon within the Caprellidea lineages. Although the Caprellidea are fascinating animals for the study of morphological evolution, the phylogenetic relationships among the Caprellidea are poorly understood. One obstacle to studying the evolution of the Caprellidea is the difficulty of collecting samples of caprogammarid species. In this study, we obtained live samples of a Caprogammaridae species and confirmed that its pleon and pleopods could perform similar locomotive functions and swimming movements as observed in gammarids. From the phylogenetic analyses on 18S ribosomal RNA gene sequences, we identified three distinct clades of Caprellidea. The ancestral state reconstruction based on the obtained phylogeny suggested that once lost, the third and fourth pereopods were regained in the Phtisicidae, while the pleon was regained in the Caprogammaridae, while we could not exclude the possibility of independent losses. In either case, the caprellid lineage underwent a quite complicated morphological evolution, and possibly the Caprellidea may be an exception to Dollo’s law.


Caprellid Molecular phylogeny 18S rRNA Pereopod Pleon Dollo’s law 



We express our special thanks to the staff of the Akkeshi Marine Station (Hokkaido University) for their technical support with the fieldwork to collect the C. gurjanovae samples and the researchers and crew of the JARPA II and the Institution of Cetacean Research for collecting and providing us with the Cyamus balaenopterae samples. A research grant from the Research Institute of Marine Invertebrates funded this work.

Supplementary material

427_2011_365_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (29 kb)
Sup. Table 1 Primers used for PCR and cycle sequencing [8]. (PDF 29 kb)
427_2011_365_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (322 kb)
Supplementary Figure 1 Maximum likelihood tree based on the 18S rRNA gene sequences of the Caprellidea, Corophioidea (a gammarid superfamily that is closely related to the Caprellidea [4–6]) and two gammarid outgroup species. According to Fig. 3, the branches supporting each caprellid clade (Clades 1, 2, and 3) are colored. In the maximum likelihood analysis with PhyML 3.0 [13], the GTR + I + G model selected by the Akaike information criterion (AIC) in Modeltgenerator version 0.85 [15] was used. The estimated parameter values were as follows: nucleotide frequencies, pi (A) = 0.25716, pi (C) = 0.24198, pi (G) = 0.27938 and pi (T) = 0.22148; GTR rate parameters, RA→C = 2.88, RA→G = 5.31, RA→T = 3.73, RC→G = 0.67, RC→T = 13.10 and RG→T = 1.00; proportion of invariable sites = 0.54; and gamma distribution parameter alpha = 0.41. The analysis was performed using SPR branch swapping, and 1000 bootstrap pseudoreplicates were conducted. The numbers under the branches in each tree represent the bootstrap values; values less than 70% are not shown. See Table 1 and our previous study [4] for the accession number of each taxon’s sequence. (PDF 321 kb)
Movie S1

(AVI 14454 kb)


  1. Collin R, Chaparro OR, Winkler F, Veliz D (2007) Molecular phylogenetic and embryological evidence that feeding larvae have been reacquired in a marine gastropod. Biol Bull 212:83–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collin R, Miglietta MP (2008) Reversing opinions on Dollo’s law. Trends Ecol Evol 23:602–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Deutsch JS, Mouchel-Vielh E, Quéinnec E, Gibert JM (2004) Genes, segments and tagmata in cirripedes. In: Scholtz G (ed) Evolutionary developmental biology of Crustacea. A. A. Balkema, Lisse, pp 19–42Google Scholar
  4. Englisch U, Coleman CO, Wagele JW (2003) First observations on the phylogeny of the families Gammaridae, Crangonyctidae, Melitidae, Niphargidae, Megaluropidae and Oedicerotidae (Amphipoda, Crustacea), using small subunit rDNA gene sequences. J Nat Hist 37:2461–2486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gould SJ (1970) Dollo on Dollo’s law: irreversibility and the status of evolutionary laws. J Hist Biol 3:182–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Guindon S, Gascuel O (2003) A simple, fast and accurate algolithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst Biol 52:696–704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hasegawa M, Hashimoto T (1993) Ribosomal RNA trees misleading? Nature 361:23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ito A, Wada H, Aoki MN (2008) Phylogenetic analysis of caprellid and corophioid amphipods (Crustacea) based on the 18S rRNA gene, with special emphasis on the phylogenetic position of Phtisicidae. Biol Bull 214:176–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jimenez-Guri E, Philippe H, Okamura B, Holland PWH (2007) Buddenbrockia is a Cnidarian worm. Science 317:116–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Keane TM, Creevey CJ, Pentony MM, Naughton TJ, McInerney JO (2006) Assessment of methods for amino acid matrix selection and their use on empirical data shows that ad hoc assumptions for choice of matrix are not justified. BMC Evol Biol 6:29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim CB, Kim W (1993) Phylogenetic relationships among gammaridean families and amphipod suborders. J Nat Hist 27:933–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kohlsdorf T, Wagner GP (2006) Evidence for the reversibility of digit loss: a phylogenetic study of limb evolution in Bachia (Gymnophthalmidae: Squamata). Evolution 60:1896–1912PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kudrjaschov VA, Vassilenko SV (1966) A new family Caprogammaridae (Amphipoda, Gammaridea) found in the North-West Pacific. Crustaceana 10(2):192–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Laubitz DR (1976) On the taxonomic status of the family Caprogammaridae Kudrjaschov & Vassilenko (Amphipoda). Crustaceana 31:145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laubitz DR (1979) Phylogenetic relationships of the Podoceridae (Amphipoda, Gammaridea). Bull Biol Soc Wash 3:144–152Google Scholar
  16. Laubitz DR (1993) Caprellidea (Crustacea, Amphipoda)—towards a new synthesis. J Nat Hist 27:965–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maddison DR, Maddison WP (2001) MacClade 4: analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. Version 4.03. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Maddison WP, Maddison DR (2009) Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.6.
  19. Myers AA, Lowry JK (2003) A phylogeny and a new classification of the Corophiidea leach, 1814 (Amphipoda). J Crustac Biol 23:443–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Notredame C, Higgins DG, Heringa J (2000) T-coffee: a novel method for fast and accurate multiple sequence alignment. J Mol Biol 302:205–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oakley TH, Cunningham CW (2002) Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the independent evolutionary origin of an arthropod compound eye. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:1426–1430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2003) MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schram FR, Koenemann S (2004) Developmental genetics and arthropod evolution: on body regions of Crustacea. In: Scholtz G (ed) Evolutionary developmental biology of Crustacea. A.A. Balkema, LisseGoogle Scholar
  24. Takeuchi I (1993) Is the Caprellidea a monophyletic group? J Nat Hist 27:947–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Takeuchi I, Ishimaru S (1991) Redescription of Caprogammarus gurjanovae Kudrjaschov & Vassilenko, 1966 (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from Hokkaido, Japan, with notes on the taxonomic status of Caprogammarus. Hydrobiol 223:283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Whiting MF, Bradler S, Maxwell T (2003) Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects. Nature 421:264–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Xia X, Xie Z (2001) DAMBE: Software package for data analysis in molecular biology and evolution. J Heredity 92:371–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atsushi Ito
    • 1
  • Masakazu N. Aoki
    • 2
  • Kensuke Yahata
    • 1
  • Hiroshi Wada
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Graduate School of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Shimoda Marine Research CenterUniversity of TsukubaShimodaJapan

Personalised recommendations