4.8 Article

Molecular Timetrees Reveal a Cambrian Colonization of Land and a New Scenario for Ecdysozoan Evolution

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 392-398

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.026

关键词

-

资金

  1. Marie Curie/Trentino Province (Cofound)
  2. Irish Research Council (Empower)
  3. Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsradet)
  4. Science Foundation Ireland [11/RFP.1/EOB/3106]
  5. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [11/RFP.1/EOB/3106] Funding Source: Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ecdysozoans have been key components of ecosystems since the early Cambrian, when trilobites and soft-bodied Burgess Shale-type ecdysozoans dominated marine animal communities [1]. Even today, the most abundant animals on Earth are either nematode worms or plankton-forming crustaceans, whereas the most diverse are the insects [2]. Throughout geological time, several ecdysozoan lineages independently colonized land [3], shaping both marine and terrestrial ecosystems and providing an adequate environment for successive animal terrestrialization. The timing of these events is largely uncertain [4,5] and has been investigated only partially using molecular data [6-10]. Here we present a timescale of ecdysozoan evolution based on multiple molecular data sets, the most complete set of fossil calibrations to date, and a thorough series of validation analyses. Results converge on an Ediacaran origin of all major ecdysozoan lineages (similar to 587-543 million years ago [mya]), followed by a fast Cambrian radiation of the pancrustaceans (similar to 539-511 mya), a Cambro-Ordovician colonization of land of different arthropod lineages (similar to 510-471 mya), and a relatively recent radiation of extant nematodes, onychophorans, and tardigrades (similar to 442 mya). Arthropods colonized land nearly synchronously with land plants. Further diversification within flying insects, nematodes and onychophorans might be related to the evolution of vascular plants and forests.

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