Hydrobiologia

, Volume 365, Issue 1–3, pp 47–54 | Cite as

There is no support for Jensen's hypothesis of nemerteans as ancestors to the vertebrates

  • Per Sundberg
  • J. M. Turbeville
  • Mikael S. Härlin
Article

Abstract

Nemerteans (phylum Nemertea) have been viewed by mostzoologists as descended from, or closely related to,the flatworms. This view is based mainly on theirsupposedly acoelomate body. Their ancestry, however,is a point of controversy and there is evidence for acoelomate, protostomous origin. Notwithstanding thesedifferent views, most zoologists consider nemerteansto be phylogenetically distant from the chordates.Four authors (Hubrecht, Macfarlane, Jensen, Willmer),however, have postulated that nemerteans instead areclosely related to the chordates and that they sharea most recent common ancestor with the vertebrates. We argue that this view is based on a flawed view ofhomology and of seeing evolution as a series ofprogressions, which has no support in modernevolutionary thinking. Since there are nomorphological synapomorphies supporting aChordata-Nemertea clade, these authors instead guesswhat characteristics in extant nemerteans gave rise tocharacters observed in recent chordates. For example,they propose that the nemertean proboscis sheath hasevolved into the notochord. This is mere speculation,lacking testable propositions and is hence void ofinformation, and thus becomes futile in our view. However, the idea of a nemertean-vertebrate sisterrelationship as such is a testable hypotheses, and wetest it by applying the parsimony criterion to a setof morphological characters, and a set of molecular(the 18S rRNA gene) characters. Both tests reject thehypothesis.

Phylogeny 18S rDNA morphology Nemertea Chordata 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brusca, R. C. & G. J. Brusca, 1990. Invertebrates. Sinauer Ass., Inc., Massachusetts, 922 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Darwin, C., 1859. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. J. Murray, London, 502 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Eernisse, D. J., J. S. Albert & F. E. Anderson, 1992. Annelida and Arthropoda are not sister taxa: a phylogenetic analysis of spiralian metazoan morphology. Syst. Zool. 41: 305–330.Google Scholar
  4. Gibson, R., 1972. Nemerteans. Hutchinson University Library, London, 224 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Gould, S. J., 1991. Wonderful Life. Penguin Books, Ltd, London, 344 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Hubrecht, A. A. W., 1883. On the ancestral form of the Chordata. Quart. J. microsc. Sci. 23: 349–368.Google Scholar
  7. Hubrecht, A. A. W., 1887. The relation of the Nemertea to the Vertebrata. Quart. J. microsc. Sci. 27: 605–644.Google Scholar
  8. Nielsen, C., 1985. Animal phylogeny in the light of the trochaea theory. Biol. J. linn. Soc. 25: 243–299.Google Scholar
  9. Nielsen, C., 1987. Structure and function of metazoan ciliary bands and their phylogenetic significance. Acta Zool. 68: 205–262.Google Scholar
  10. Norenburg, J. L., 1985. Structure of the nemertine integument with consideration of its ecological and phylogenetic significance. Am. Zool. 25: 37–51.Google Scholar
  11. Patterson, C., 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In K. A. Joysey & A. E. Friday (eds), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Academic Press, London: 21–74.Google Scholar
  12. Russell, E. S., 1916. Form and Function: a Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology. John Murray, London, 383 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Sundberg, P. & M. Svensson, 1994. Homoplasy, character function, and nemertean systematics. J. Zool., London 234: 253–263.Google Scholar
  14. Swofford, D. L., G. J. Olsen, P. J. Waddell & D. M. Hillis. 1996. Phylogenetic inference. In D. M. Hillis, C. Moritz & B. K. Mable (eds), Molecular Systematics, 2nd edition. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass: 407–514.Google Scholar
  15. Turbeville, J. M., 1991. Nemertinea. In F. W. Harrison & B. J. Bogitsch (eds), Microscopic Anatomy of Invertebrates, Vol. 3: Platyhelminthes and Nemertinea. Wiley Liss, Inc., New York: 285–328.Google Scholar
  16. Turbeville, J. M. & E. E. Ruppert, 1985. Comparative ultrastructure and the evolution of nemertines. Am. Zool. 25: 53–71.Google Scholar
  17. Turbeville, J. M., J. R. Schulz & R. A. Raff, 1994. Deuterostome phylogeny and the sister group of the chordates: Evidence from molecules and morphology. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11: 648–655.Google Scholar
  18. Turbeville, J. M., K. G. Field & R. A. Raff, 1992. Phylogenetic position of phylum Nemertini inferred from 18S rRNA sequences: molecular data as a test of morphological character homology. Mol. Biol. Evol. 9: 235–249.Google Scholar
  19. Willmer, E. N., 1974. Nemertines as possible ancestors of the vertebrates. Biol. Rev. 49: 321–363.Google Scholar
  20. Winnepenninckx, B., T. Backeljau & R. De Wachter, 1995. Phylogeny of protostome worms derived from 18S rRNA sequences Mol. Biol. Evol. 12: 641–649.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Per Sundberg
    • 1
  • J. M. Turbeville
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mikael S. Härlin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyGöteborg UniversityGöteborgSweden
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborU.S.A.
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleU.S.A

Personalised recommendations