4.8 Article

Evolution of centralized nervous systems: Two schools of evolutionary thought

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1201889109

关键词

Cambrian explosion; Neoproterozoic; phyletic comparisons; Urbilateria

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [IBN-0919077]
  2. Direct For Biological Sciences
  3. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems [1120844, 0919077] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the evolution of centralized nervous systems requires an understanding of metazoan phylogenetic interrelationships, their fossil record, the variation in their cephalic neural characters, and the development of these characters. Each of these topics involves comparative approaches, and both cladistic and phenetic methodologies have been applied. Our understanding of metazoan phylogeny has increased greatly with the cladistic analysis of molecular data, and relaxed molecular clocks generally date the origin of bilaterians at 600-700 Mya (during the Ediacaran). Although the taxonomic affinities of the Ediacaran biota remain uncertain, a conservative interpretation suggests that a number of these taxa form clades that are closely related, if not stem clades of bilaterian crown clades. Analysis of brain-body complexity among extant bilaterians indicates that diffuse nerve nets and possibly, ganglionated cephalic neural systems existed in Ediacaran organisms. An outgroup analysis of cephalic neural characters among extant metazoans also indicates that the last common bilaterian ancestor possessed a diffuse nerve plexus and that brains evolved independently at least four times. In contrast, the hypothesis of a tripartite brain, based primarily on phenetic analysis of developmental genetic data, indicates that the brain arose in the last common bilaterian ancestor. Hopefully, this debate will be resolved by cladistic analysis of the genomes of additional taxa and an increased understanding of character identity genetic networks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据