Development Genes and Evolution

, Volume 222, Issue 5, pp 253–268 | Cite as

A holomorph approach to xiphosuran evolution—a case study on the ontogeny of Euproops

  • Carolin HaugEmail author
  • Peter Van Roy
  • Angelika Leipner
  • Peter Funch
  • David M. Rudkin
  • Lothar Schöllmann
  • Joachim T. Haug
Original Article


Specimens of Euproops sp. (Xiphosura, Chelicerata) from the Carboniferous Piesberg quarry near Osnabrück, Germany, represent a relatively complete growth series of 10 stages. Based on this growth sequence, morphological changes throughout the ontogeny can be identified. The major change affects the shape of the epimera of the opisthosoma. In earlier stages, they appear very spine-like, whereas in later stages the bases of these spine-like structures become broader; the broadened bases are then successively drawn out distally. In the most mature stage known, the epimera are of trapezoidal shape and approach each other closely to form a complete flange around the thoracetron (=fused tergites of the opisthosoma). These ontogenetic changes question the taxonomic status of different species of Euproops, as the latter appear to correspond to different stages of the ontogenetic series reconstructed from the Piesberg specimens. This means that supposed separate species could, in fact, represent different growth stages of a single species. It could alternatively indicate that heterochrony (=evolutionary change of developmental timing) plays an important role in the evolution of Xiphosura. We propose a holomorph approach, i.e., reconstructing ontogenetic sequences for fossil and extant species as a sound basis for a taxonomic, phylogenetic, and evolutionary discussion of Xiphosura.


Euproops danae Euproops rotundatus Fossilized ontogeny Tagmatisation Hapantotype 



Our acknowledgement for the permission to search for fossils in the Piesberg quarry goes to CEMEX Kies and Splitt GmbH, Steinbruch Piesberg, Osnabrück, Germany. Many thanks to the private collectors that are active at the Piesberg quarry, providing new specimens to the collection of the Museum am Schölerberg (MAS), Osnabrück. Special thanks to Michael Sowiak (Glandorf, Germany) who drastically increased the number of Euproops specimens from the Piesberg quarry by looking systematically for the layers yielding most specimens. He donated many specimens to the MAS. Jean-Bernard Caron, Janet Waddington, Peter Fenton, all Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, as well as Susan Butts and Jessica Utrup, Yale Peabody Museum, New Haven, kindly provided us access to comparative material. Furthermore, we would like to thank Dieter Waloszek, Ulm, for valuable discussions, especially about image enhancement methods. Two anonymous reviewers made helpful comments to an earlier draft of the manuscript. We also thank all people involved in programming free software that was used during the course of this study, such as GIMP, Inkscape, OpenOffice, and Microsoft Image Composite Editor. JTH is currently kindly funded by the Alexander von Humboldt-Foundation with a Feodor Lynen research fellowship for postdoctoral researchers. PVR was funded by a Special Research Fund (BOF) scholarship from Ghent University. PF was funded by the Forskningsrådet for Natur og Univers (FNU; grant no. 272-06-0534), the EAC Foundation, and Knud Højgaard. CH, PVR and JTH also express their thanks to their host at the Yale University and the Yale Peabody Museum, Derek E. G. Briggs, for his support.


  1. Ambrose T, Romano M (1972) New Upper Carboniferous Chelicerata (Arthropoda) from Somerset England. Palaeontology 15:569–578Google Scholar
  2. Anderson LI (1994) Xiphosurans from the Westphalian D of the Radstock Basin, Somerset Coalfield, the South Wales Coalfield and Mazon Creek, Illinois. Proc Geol Assoc 105:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson LI, Selden PA (1997) Opisthosomal fusion and phylogeny of Palaeozoic Xiphosura. Lethaia 30:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ax P (2000) Multicellular animals: the phylogenetic system of the Metazoa. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Bengtson S (2000) Teasing fossils out of shales with cameras and computers. Palaeontol Electron 3(1):14, art. 4Google Scholar
  6. Brauckmann C (1982) Der Schwertschwanz Euproops (Xiphosurida, Limulina, Euproopaceae) aus dem Oberkarbon des Piesbergs bei Osnabrück. Osnabr Naturwiss Mitt 9:17–26Google Scholar
  7. Bruton DL, Nakrem HA (2005) Enrolment in a Middle Ordovician agnostoid trilobite. Acta Palaeontol Pol 50:441–448Google Scholar
  8. Casanova B, De Jong L, Moreau X (2002) Carapace and mandibles ontogeny in the Dendrobranchiata (Decapoda), Euphausiacea, and Mysidacea (Crustacea): a phylogenetic interest. Can J Zool 80:296–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chatterton BDE, Speyer SE (1997) Ontogeny. In: Moore RC (ed) Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Part O, revised. Arthropoda 1, Trilobita. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Boulder, CO, pp 173–247Google Scholar
  10. Dunlop JA, Webster M (1999) Fossil evidence, terrestrialization and arachnid phylogeny. J Arachnol 27:86–93Google Scholar
  11. Dunlop JA, Brauckmann C, Steur H (2008) A Late Carboniferous fossil scorpion from the Piesberg, near Osnabrück, Germany. Fossil Rec 11:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunlop JA, Penney D, Jekel D (2010) A summary list of fossil spiders and their relatives. In: Platnick NI (ed) The world spider catalog, version 11.0 American Museum of Natural History. Available online at Accessed 01 March 2012.
  13. Eldredge N (1974) Revision of the suborder Synziphosurina (Chelicerata, Merostomata), with remarks on merostome phylogeny. Am Mus Novit 2543:1–41Google Scholar
  14. Evenhuis NL (2008) A compendium of zoological type nomenclature: a reference source. Bish Mus Tech Rep 41:1–23Google Scholar
  15. Filipiak P, Krawczynski W (1996) Westphalian xiphosurans (Chelicerata) from the Upper Silesia Coal Basin of Sosnowiec, Poland. Acta Palaeontol Pol 41:413–425Google Scholar
  16. Fisher DC (1977) Functional significance of spines in the Pennsylvanian horseshoe crab Euproops danae. Paleobiology 3:175–195Google Scholar
  17. Fisher DC (1979) Evidence for subaerial activity of Euproops danae (Merostomata, Xiphosurida). In: Nitecki MH (ed) Mazon creek fossils. Academic, New York, pp 379–447Google Scholar
  18. Haug JT, Maas A, Haug C, Waloszek D (in press) Chapter 2. Evolution of crustacean appendages. In: Watling L, Thiel M (eds) Vol. 1. Functional morphology and diversity of the Crustacea. The natural history of the Crustacea. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Haug C, Haug JT, Waloszek D, Maas A, Frattigiani R, Liebau S (2009) New methods to document fossils from lithographic limestones of southern Germany and Lebanon. Palaeontol Electron 12(3):12, 6TGoogle Scholar
  20. Haug JT, Haug C, Maas A, Kutschera V, Waloszek D (2010a) Evolution of mantis shrimps (Stomatopoda, Malacostraca) in the light of new Mesozoic fossils. BMC Evol Biol 10:17, art. 290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haug JT, Maas A, Waloszek D (2010b) †Henningsmoenicaris scutula, †Sandtorpia vestrogothiensis gen. et sp. nov. and heterochronic events in early crustacean evolution. Earth Environ Sci Trans R Soc Edinb 100:311–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haug JT, Waloszek D, Haug C, Maas A (2010c) High-level phylogenetic analysis using developmental sequences: the Cambrian †Martinssonia elongata, †Musacaris gerdgeyeri gen. et sp. nov. and their position in early crustacean evolution. Arthropod Struct Dev 39:154–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haug JT, Haug C, Kutschera V, Mayer G, Maas A, Liebau S, Castellani C, Wolfram U, Clarkson ENK, Waloszek D (2011a) Autofluorescence imaging, an excellent tool for comparative morphology. J Microsc 244:259–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haug JT, Olesen J, Maas A, Waloszek D (2011b) External morphology and post-embryonic development of Derocheilocaris remanei (Mystacocarida) revisited, with a comparison to the Cambrian taxon Skara. J Crustac Biol 31:668–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haug JT, Waloszek D, Maas A, Liu Y, Haug C (2012b) Functional morphology, ontogeny and evolution of mantis shrimp-like predators in the Cambrian. Palaeontology 55:369–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hawksworth DL (2010) Terms used in Bionomenclature. The naming of organisms (and plant communities). Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Copenhagen. Available online at Accessed 01 March 2012
  27. Hennig W (1966) Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  28. Hesselbo SP (1992) Aglaspidida (Arthropoda) from the Upper Cambrian of Wisconsin. J Paleontol 66:885–923Google Scholar
  29. Horner JR, Goodwin MB (2009) Extreme cranial ontogeny in the Upper Cretaceous dinosaur Pachycephalosaurus. PLoS One 4(10):11, art. e7626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kerp H, Bomfleur B (2011) Photography of plant fossils—new techniques, old tricks. Rev Palaeobot Palynol 166:117–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moritz M (1957) Zur Embryonalentwicklung der Phalangiiden (Opiliones, Palpatores) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der äußeren Morphologie, der Bildung des Mitteldarmes und der Genitalanlage. Zool Jahrb Abt Anat Ontog Tiere 76:331–370Google Scholar
  32. Müller KJ, Walossek D (1987) Morphology, ontogeny, and life habit of Agnostus pisiformis from the Upper Cambrian of Sweden. Fossils Strata 19:1–124Google Scholar
  33. Olesen J, Haug JT, Maas A, Waloszek D (2011) External morphology of Lightiella monniotae (Crustacea, Cephalocarida) in the light of Cambrian ‘Orsten’ crustaceans. Arthropod Struct Dev 40:449–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Raasch GO (1939) Cambrian Merostomata. Spec Pap Geol Soc Am 19:1–146Google Scholar
  35. Racheboeuf PR, Vannier J, Anderson LI (2002) A new three-dimensionally preserved xiphosuran chelicerate from the Montceau-les-Mines lagerstätte (Carboniferous, France). Palaeontology 45:125–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raw F (1957) Origin of chelicerates. J Paleontol 31:139–192Google Scholar
  37. Scannella JB, Horner JR (2010) Torosaurus Marsh 1891 is Triceratops Marsh 1889 (Ceratopsidae: Chasmosaurinae): synonymy through ontogeny. J Vertebr Paleontol 30:1157–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schaarschmidt F (1973) Pflanzenfossilien in ungewöhnlichem Licht. Nat Mus 103:247–253Google Scholar
  39. Scholl G (1977) Beiträge zur Embryonalentwicklung von Limulus polyphemus L. (Chelicerata, Xiphosura). Zoomorphologie 86:99–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scholtz G, Edgecombe GD (2005) Heads, Hox and the phylogenetic position of trilobites. In: Koenemann S, Jenner RA (eds) Crustacea and arthropod relationships. Crustacean issues 16. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 139–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schultka S (1994) Bellinurus cf. truemanii (Merostomata) aus dem tiefen Oberkarbon (Namur B/C) von Fröndenberg (Nordrhein-Westfalen, Deutschland). Paläontol Z 68:339–349Google Scholar
  42. Schultka S (2000) Zur Palökologie der Euproopiden im Nordwestdeutschen Oberkarbon. Mitt Mus Naturwiss Berl Geowiss R 3:87–98Google Scholar
  43. Selden PA, Siveter DJ (1987) The origin of limuloids. Lethaia 20:383–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Siegfried P (1972) Ein Schwertschwanz (Merostomata, Xiphosurida) aus dem Oberkarbon von Ibbenbüren/Westf. Paläontol Z 46:180–185Google Scholar
  45. Størmer L (1944) On the relationships and phylogeny of fossil and recent Arachnomorpha. A comparative study on Arachnida, Xiphosura, Eurypterida, Trilobita and other fossil Arthropoda. Skr utg Nor Vidensk-Akad Oslo, I. Mat-Naturvidensk Kl 5:1–158Google Scholar
  46. Størmer L (1955) Merostomata. In: Moore RC (ed) Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Part P. Arthropoda 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Boulder, CO, pp 4–41Google Scholar
  47. Van Roy P (2006) An aglaspidid arthropod from the Upper Ordovician of Morocco with remarks on the affinities and limitations of Aglaspidida. Trans R Soc Edinb Earth Sci 96:327–350Google Scholar
  48. Walcott CD (1881) The trilobite: new and old evidence relating to its organization. Bull Mus Comp Zool Harv 8:191–224Google Scholar
  49. Walossek D (1993) The Upper Cambrian Rehbachiella and the phylogeny of Branchiopoda and Crustacea. Fossils Strata 32:1–202Google Scholar
  50. Waloszek D (2003) Cambrian ‘Orsten’-type preserved arthropods and the phylogeny of Crustacea. In: Legakis A, Sfenthourakis S, Polymeni R, Thessalou-Legaki M (eds) The New panorama of animal evolution. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Zoology. Pensoft, Sofia, pp 69–87Google Scholar
  51. Waterston CD (1985) Chelicerata from the Dinantian of Foulden, Berwickshire, Scotland. Trans R Soc Edinb Earth Sci 76:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weygoldt P, Paulus HF (1979a) Untersuchungen zur Morphologie, Taxonomie und Phylogenie der Chelicerata. I. Morphologische Untersuchungen. Z Zool Syst Evolutionsforsch 17:85–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weygoldt P, Paulus HF (1979b) Untersuchungen zur Morphologie. Taxonomie und Phylogenie der Chelicerata. II. Cladogramme und die Entfaltung der Chelicerata. Z Zool Syst Evolutionsforsch 17:177–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Whittington HB (1993) Anatomy of the Ordovician trilobite Placoparia. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 339:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Williams RB (1980) Comment on report of the committee of typification of species of Protozoa. Bull Zool Nomencl 37:137–140Google Scholar
  56. Williams RB (1986) Hapantotypes: a possible solution to some problems of parasite nomenclature. Parasitol Today 2:314–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wirkner CS, Richter S (2010) Evolutionary morphology of the circulatory system in Peracarida (Malacostraca; Crustacea). Cladistics 26:143–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zawischa D (1989) Euproops aus dem Oberkarbon vom Piesberg bei Osnabrück. Arbeitskr Paläontol Hann 17(3):53–56Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolin Haug
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter Van Roy
    • 2
    • 3
  • Angelika Leipner
    • 4
  • Peter Funch
    • 5
  • David M. Rudkin
    • 6
  • Lothar Schöllmann
    • 7
  • Joachim T. Haug
    • 1
  1. 1.Zoological Institute and Museum, Department of Cytology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany
  2. 2.Department of Geology and Geophysics, Kline Geology LaboratoryYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Research Unit Palaeontology, Department of Geology and Soil ScienceGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  4. 4.Museum am SchölerbergOsnabrückGermany
  5. 5.Department of BioscienceAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark
  6. 6.Department of Natural History (Palaeobiology)Royal Ontario MuseumTorontoCanada
  7. 7.LWL-Museum für NaturkundeMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations