4.7 Article

Phylogenomic resolution of scorpions reveals multilevel discordance with morphological phylogenetic signal

Journal

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2014.2953

Keywords

Arthropoda; arachnids; missing data; paralogy; relict; transcriptomics

Funding

  1. Museum d'Histoire Naturelle de la Ville de Geneve
  2. UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT [IN213612]
  3. National Science Foundation [DBI-1202751]
  4. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1202751] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Scorpions represent an iconic lineage of arthropods, historically renowned for their unique bauplan, ancient fossil record and venom potency. Yet, higher level relationships of scorpions, based exclusively on morphology, remain virtually untested, and no multilocus molecular phylogeny has been deployed heretofore towards assessing the basal tree topology. We applied a phylogenomic assessment to resolve scorpion phylogeny, for the first time, to our knowledge, sampling extensive molecular sequence data from all superfamilies and examining basal relationships with up to 5025 genes. Analyses of supermatrices as well as species tree approaches converged upon a robust basal topology of scorpions that is entirely at odds with traditional systematics and controverts previous understanding of scorpion evolutionary history. All analyses unanimously support a single origin of katoikogenic development, a form of parental investment wherein embryos are nurtured by direct connections to the parent's digestive system. Based on the phylogeny obtained herein, we propose the following systematic emendations: Caraboctonidae is transferred to Chactoidea new superfamilial assignment; superfamily Bothriuroidea revalidated is resurrected and Bothriuridae transferred therein; and Chaerilida and Pseudochactida are synonymized with Buthida new parvordinal synonymies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available