Phylogenetic relationships within Serpulidae (Sabellida, Annelida) inferred from molecular and morphological data

Abstract

Phylogenetic relationships within Serpulidae (Sabellida, Annelida) inferred from molecular and morphological data. -Zoologica Scripta , 35 , 421-439. We assessed phylogenetic relationships within Serpulidae (including Spirorbinae) using parsimony and Bayesian analyses of 18S rDNA, the D1 and D9 − D10 regions of 28S rDNA, and 38 morphological characters. In total, 857 parsimony informative characters were used for 31 terminals, 29 serpulids and sabellid and sabellariid outgroups. Following ILD assessment the two sequence partitions and morphology were analysed separately and in combination. The morphological parsimony analysis was congruent with the results of the 2003 preliminary analysis by Kupriyanova in suggesting that a monophyletic Serpulinae and Spirorbinae form a clade, while the remaining serpulids form a basal grade comprising what are normally regarded as Filograninae. Bremer support values were, however, quite low throughout. In contrast, the combined analyses of molecular and morphological data sets provided highly resolved and well-supported trees, though with some conflict when compared to the morphologyonly analysis. Spirorbinae was recovered as a sister group to a monophyletic group comprising both 'filogranin' taxa ( Salmacina , Filograna , Protis , and Protula ) and 'serpulin' taxa such as Chitinopoma , Metavermilia , and Vermiliopsis . Thus the traditionally formulated subfamilies Serpulinae and Filograninae are not monophyletic. This indicates that a major revision of serpulid taxonomy is needed at the more inclusive taxonomic levels. We refrain from doing so based on the present analyses since we feel that further taxon sampling and molecular sequencing are required. The evolution of features such as the operculum and larval development are discussed.

Written in stone: history of serpulid polychaetes through time

“…Thus, the family status of Spirorbinae is not justified because recognition of Spirorbidae would make Serpulidae sensu stricto a paraphyletic group. All phylogenetic molecular analyses indicate that neither traditional Serpulinae, nor Filograninae are monophyletic and that spirorbins are close to "filogranin" taxa (Kupriyanova et al, 2006;Lehrke et al, 2007;, with the result that the traditional subfamilies were abandoned. The analyses inferred two major clades (tentatively termed A and B) within Serpulidae ( fig.…”

“…Pillai (1970) elevated Spirorbinae to the family Spirorbidae, which was widely accepted until phylogenetic data, both based on morphology and molecular analyses (e.g. Kupriyanova, 2003;Kupriyanova et al, 2006;Lehrke et al, 2007) indicated that spirorbins are nested inside Serpulidae. Thus, the family status of Spirorbinae is not justified because recognition of Spirorbidae would make Serpulidae sensu stricto a paraphyletic group.…”

Character mapping and cladogram comparison versus the requirement of total evidence: does it matter for polychaete systematics?

“…An equally widespread approach involves comparisons of cladogram topologies inferred from different datasets for the same group of organisms (cf. Rousset et al, 2003Rousset et al, , 2004Eeckhaut and Lanterbecq, 2005;Halanych, 2005;McHugh, 2005;Kupriyanova et al, 2006;Sperling et al, 2009;Zrzavý et al, 2009;Parry et al, 2014). The popularity of character mapping and cladogram comparisons is by no means limited to polychaetes, as perusals of such journals as Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Nature, and Systematic Biology will attest.…”

Two new species of serpulid polychaetes (Annelida) from the Barents Sea

“…The new family was widely accepted for over 20 years, until new phylogenetic data (e.g., Fitzhugh 1989, Smith 1991, Kupriyanova 2003, Kupriyanova et al 2006, Lehrke et al 2007) indicated that spirorbins are nested inside Serpulidae, and thus, the family status of Spirorbinae is not justified. Currently the Spirorbinae is the only monophyletic clade within the Serpulidae, whereas the traditionally defined Serpulinae and Filograninae are paraphyletic (Kupriyanova et al 2006).…”

“…The new family was widely accepted for over 20 years, until new phylogenetic data (e.g., Fitzhugh 1989, Smith 1991, Kupriyanova 2003, Kupriyanova et al 2006, Lehrke et al 2007) indicated that spirorbins are nested inside Serpulidae, and thus, the family status of Spirorbinae is not justified. Currently the Spirorbinae is the only monophyletic clade within the Serpulidae, whereas the traditionally defined Serpulinae and Filograninae are paraphyletic (Kupriyanova et al 2006). Because spirorbins are treated here as subfamily Spirorbinae, their six traditionally recognized subfamilies are thus lowered to the tribes Paralaeospirini, Spirorbini, Circeini, Romanchellini, Pileolariini and Januini, although, clearly, a revision and re-classification of the entire family Serpulidae and of the subfamily Spirorbinae are needed.…”