, Volume 365, Issue 1–3, pp 33–46 | Cite as

Tree-thinking and nemertean systematics, with a systematization of the Eureptantia

  • Mikael Härlin


I review how some influential nemertean systematistshave perceived and illustrated phylogenetic trees andargue that the nineteenth century nemerteantaxonomists still influence many contemporarynemertean taxonomists to a high degree. By showing hownineteenth century systematics differs from moremodern views on trees, I hope to convey the advantagesof a cladistic approach to tree-thinking and nemerteansystematics. Furthermore I propose a systematizationof the Eureptantia that illustrates the cladisticapproach to tree-thinking but, more importantly, isalso a better representation of eureptantic phylogenythan previous classifications.

Phylogeny cladistics taxonomy systematics classification evolution history chronicle Nemertea Hoplonemertea 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brinkmann, A., 1917. Die pelagische Nemertinen. Bergens Museums Skrifter 3: 1–194.Google Scholar
  2. Bryant, H. N., 1994. Comments on the phylogenetic definition of taxon names and conventions regarding the naming of crown clades. Syst. Biol. 43: 124–130.Google Scholar
  3. Bürger, O., 1895. Die Nemertinen des Golfes von Neapel und der andrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte. Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel. 22: 1–743.Google Scholar
  4. Cedhagen, T. & P. Sundberg, 1986. A previously unrecognized report of a nemertean in the literature. Arch. nat. Hist. 13: 7–8.Google Scholar
  5. Crandall, F. B., 1993. Major characters and enoplan systematics. Hydrobiologia 266: 115–140.Google Scholar
  6. Darwin, C., 1859. Origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. John Murray, London.Google Scholar
  7. de Queiroz, K., 1988. Systematics and the Darwinian revolution. Phil. Sci. 55: 238–259.Google Scholar
  8. de Queiroz, K., 1992. Phylogenetic definitions and taxonomic philosophy. Biol. Phil. 7: 295–313.Google Scholar
  9. de Queiroz, K., 1994. Replacement of an essentialistic perspective on taxonomic definitions as exemplified by the definition of ‘Mammalia’. Syst. Biol. 43: 497–510.Google Scholar
  10. de Queiroz, K., 1995. The definitions of species and clade names: a reply to Ghiselin. Biol. Phil. 10: 223–228.Google Scholar
  11. de Queiroz, K. & J. Gauthier, 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Syst. Zool. 39: 307–322.Google Scholar
  12. de Queiroz, K. & J. Gauthier, 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23: 449–480.Google Scholar
  13. de Queiroz, K. & J. Gauthier, 1994. Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 27–31.Google Scholar
  14. Donoghue, M. J., 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. The Bryologist 88: 172–181.Google Scholar
  15. Ghiselin, M. T., 1984. ‘Definition’, ‘character’, and other equivocal terms. Syst. Zool. 33: 104–110.Google Scholar
  16. Ghiselin, M. T., 1995. Ostensive definitions of the names of species and clades. Biol. Phil. 10: 219–222.Google Scholar
  17. Gibson, R., 1988. Evolutionary relationships between mono-and polystiliferous hoplonemerteans: Nipponnemertes(Cratenemertidae), a ‘missing-link’ genus? Hydrobiologia 156: 61–74.Google Scholar
  18. Gibson, R., 1995. Nemertean genera of the world: an annotated checklist of original names and description citations, synonyms, current taxonomic status, habitats and recorded zoogeographic distribution. J. nat. Hist. 29: 271–562.Google Scholar
  19. Goloboff, P. A., 1991. Homoplasy and the choice among cladograms. Cladistics 7: 215–232.Google Scholar
  20. Gould, S. J., 1989. Wonderful life. The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  21. Griffiths, G. C. D., 1974. On the foundations of biological systematics. Acta Biotheor. 23: 85–131.Google Scholar
  22. Härlin, M., 1996a. Tree-thinking and nemertean systematics. PhD thesis. Göteborg University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  23. Härlin, M., 1996b. Biogeographic patterns and the evolution of eureptantic nemerteans. Biol. J. linn. Soc. 58: 325–342.Google Scholar
  24. Härlin, M. & P. Sundberg, 1995. Cladistic analysis of the eureptantic nemerteans (Nemertea: Hoplonemertea). Invert. Taxon. 9: 1211–1229.Google Scholar
  25. Hillis, D. M. & J. P. Huelsenbeck, 1992. Signal, noise, and reliability in molecular phylogenetic analyses. J. Hered. 83: 189–195.Google Scholar
  26. Hubrecht, A. A. W., 1879. The genera of European nemerteans critically revised, with descriptions of several new species. Notes Leyden Mus. 1: 193–232.Google Scholar
  27. Hylbom, R., 1957. Studies on palaeonemerteans of the Gullmar Fiord area (west coast of Sweden). Ark. Zool. 10: 539–582.Google Scholar
  28. Jensen, D. D., 1988. Hubrecht, Macfarlane, Jensen and Willmer: on the nature and testability of four versions of the nemertean theory of vertebrate origins. Hydrobiologia 156: 99–104.Google Scholar
  29. Käallersjö, M., J. S. Farris, A. G. Kluge & C. Bult, 1992. Skewness and permutation. Cladistics 8: 275–287.Google Scholar
  30. Kuris, A. M., 1993. Life cycles of nemerteans that are symbiotic egg predators of decapod Crustacea: adaptations to host life histories. Hydrobiologia 266: 1–14.Google Scholar
  31. Lovejoy, A. O., 1936. The Great Chain of Being. Harvard University Press, 382 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Moore, J. & R. Gibson, 1985. The evolution and comparative physiology of terrestrial and freshwater nemerteans. Biol. Rev. 60: 257–312.Google Scholar
  33. Moore, J. & R. Gibson, 1988. Further studies of the evolution of land and freshwater nemerteans: generic relationships among the paramonostiliferous taxa. J. Zool., Lond. 216: 1–20.Google Scholar
  34. Moore, J. & R. Gibson, 1993. Methods of classifying nemerteans: an assessment. Hydrobiologia 266: 89–101.Google Scholar
  35. O’Hara, R. J., 1988. Homage to Clio, or, toward an historical philosophy for evolutionary biology. Syst. Zool. 37: 142–155.Google Scholar
  36. O’Hara, R. J., 1991. Representations of the natural system in the nineteenth century. Biol. Phil. 6: 255–274.Google Scholar
  37. O’Hara, R. J., 1992. Telling the tree: narrative representation and the study of evolutionary history. Biol. Phil. 7: 135–160.Google Scholar
  38. Sanderson, M. J. & M. J. Donoghue, 1989. Patterns of variation in levels of homoplasy. Evolution 43: 1781–1795.Google Scholar
  39. Schander, C. & M. Thollesson, 1995. Phylogenetic taxonomy–some comments. Zool. Scr. 24: 263–268.Google Scholar
  40. Schultze, M., 1851. Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte der Turbellarien. Greifswald, C. A. Koch, 78 pp.Google Scholar
  41. Schultze, M., 1853. Zoologische Skizzen. Z.wiss. Zool. 4: 178–195.Google Scholar
  42. Stiasny-Wijnhoff, G., 1923. On Brinkmann’s system of the Nemertea Enopla and Siboganemertes weberi, n. g. n. sp.Q. Jl Microsc. Sci. 67: 627–669.Google Scholar
  43. Stiasny-Wijnhoff, G., 1936. Die Polystilifera der Siboga-Expedition. Siboga Expeditie 22: 1–214.Google Scholar
  44. Stevens, P. F., 1984. Metaphors and typology in the development of botanical systematics 1690–1960, or the art of putting new wine in old bottles. Taxon 33: 169–211.Google Scholar
  45. Stevens, P. F., 1994. The development of biological systematics. Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, nature, and the natural system. Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sundberg, P., 1989a. Phylogeny and cladistic classification of the paramonostiliferous family Plectonemertidae (Phylum Nemertea). Cladistics 5: 87–100.Google Scholar
  47. Sundberg, P., 1989b. Phylogeny and cladistic classification of the terrestrial nemerteans: the genera PantinonemertesMoore & Gibson and GeonemertesSemper. Zool. J. linn. Soc. 95: 363–372.Google Scholar
  48. Sundberg, P., 1993. Phylogeny, natural groups and nemertean systematics. Hydrobiologia 266: 103–113.Google Scholar
  49. Sundberg, P. & F. Pleijel, 1994. Phylogenetic classification and the definition of taxon names. Zool. Scr. 23: 19–25.Google Scholar
  50. Sundberg, P. & M. Svensson, 1994. Homoplasy, character function, and nemertean systematics. J. Zool., Lond. 234: 253–263.Google Scholar
  51. Wijnhoff, G., 1912. Die Systematik der Nemertinen. Zool. Anz. 40: 337–341.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikael Härlin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyGöteborg UniversityGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations