Arthropod Biology and Evolution 2013
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-45798-6_5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Arthropod Post-embryonic Development

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
51
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 119 publications
4
51
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An alternative, that the nauplius-like larva was ancestral in Euarthropoda, seems unlikely, as early noneucrustacean crustaceans also possessed a hatching larva with the antennula plus three pairs of appendages (5). In either case, however, the phylogenetic position of Leanchoilia (21) supports our conclusion that a larva with just a few anterior limb-bearing segments, which adds segments after hatching [anamorphosis (24)], not only occurs in eucrustaceans (8,14) but was also present in all other major arthropod groups (25)(26)(27), i.e., in the ground pattern of Euarthropoda. Such indirect development with segment-poor larvae can be understood as the evolutionary trigger for an efficient distribution of early euarthropods.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 53%
“…An alternative, that the nauplius-like larva was ancestral in Euarthropoda, seems unlikely, as early noneucrustacean crustaceans also possessed a hatching larva with the antennula plus three pairs of appendages (5). In either case, however, the phylogenetic position of Leanchoilia (21) supports our conclusion that a larva with just a few anterior limb-bearing segments, which adds segments after hatching [anamorphosis (24)], not only occurs in eucrustaceans (8,14) but was also present in all other major arthropod groups (25)(26)(27), i.e., in the ground pattern of Euarthropoda. Such indirect development with segment-poor larvae can be understood as the evolutionary trigger for an efficient distribution of early euarthropods.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 53%
“…The origin of this constraint, and whether it is linked to the colonization of the subterranean environment, remains speculative, but may be related to the existence of programmed timers for the completion of metamorphosis [12] or the specific cell division rate and determination [13,14]. Our results show an increased evolutionary variability of the number of instars with respect to other developmental constraints, in agreement with the view that growth and development are decoupled from traditionally recognized strict boundaries in insect ontogeny, such as moulting [6,11].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…However, with the use of a comprehensive molecular phylogeny, it has recently been shown that the number of independent origins of life cycle modification was low, with a single one in the Pyrenees, the geographical area for which most data are available [10]. In this lineage, there was a single transition during the Late Oligocene-Early Miocene from an ancestral 3-instar cycle [11] in species living in forest litter or under stones to a 2-instar cycle in species with fully subterranean habits (either in deep or shallow subterranean environments), in which the active larva still feeds. From within this lineage with a 2-instar cycle, there was then a single transition to a 1-instar, non-feeding larva in the Lower Miocene, in a lineage found today only in the deep subterranean environment of caves [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Simultaneously, the anteriormost pygidial segment was added (released) into the thorax by the formation of a new articulation. The thorax comprised fully articulated segments [8,9] (see [10] for an outline of trilobite ontogeny and [7] for details of A. koninckii segmentation mode).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%