The larval development of an Australian limnadiid clam shrimp (Crustacea, Branchiopoda, Spinicaudata), and a comparison with other Limnadiidae

Nervous system development in Spinicaudata and Cyclestherida (Crustacea, Branchiopoda)--comparing two different modes of indirect development by using an event pairing approach

Cladocera are the ecologically most important group within the Branchiopoda. They are unquestionably branchiopods but their evolutionary origin remains unclear. One favored explanation of their origin is that they evolved from a reproductive larva of a clam shrimp-like ancestor. To reveal a transformation and identify (potential) changes in chronology (heterochrony), we investigated and compared the development of representatives of two clam shrimp taxa, one of the Spinicaudata (Leptestheria dahalacensis) and one of the Cyclestherida (Cyclestheria hislopi), the sister group of Cladocera. Both taxa develop indirectly although the exact modes are quite different. The development of the nervous system, labeled and analyzed using immunohistochemical techniques and confocal microscopy, and that of the external morphology, scanned with an electron microscope, was investigated. L. dahalacensis hatch as a free-swimming nauplius and the nervous system and external morphology develop gradually. In C. hislopi, on the other hand, several internal and external structures develop before the hatching of a nonswimming embryo-like larva which is still carried in a dorsal brood pouch. The development in L. dahalacensis is directed from anterior to posterior, whereas in C. hislopi a more synchronous anterior and posterior differentiation is present. A comparison of both developmental sequences gives us the first indications of the evolutionary transformation which the Cladocera may have undergone from a clam shrimp-like ancestor.

Segmental mismatch in crustacean appendages: the naupliar antennal exopod of Artemia (Crustacea, Branchiopoda, Anostraca)

Based on traditional techniques and confocal laser scanning microscopy for external morphology, and immunohistochemistry for the muscular system, we describe here the segmental features of the antennal exopod of Artemia nauplii. Two kinds of serial elements are present, i.e. setae (with cuticular folds at their base) and ringlets (serially arranged sclerites separated by joint-like cuticular folds not extending to form complete rings around the appendage). The two series are usually not in register. The cuticular folds of the setae and of the ringlets are also sites of intermediate insertions of the three exopod muscles: as the two tegumentary structures are discordant in periodicity, this is also mirrored in the pattern of muscle insertions on the two sides of the appendage. Similar cases of segmental mismatch are known for the trunk of several arthropods, but segmental mismatch along the appendages has received very little attention. The occurrence of segmental mismatch in the naupliar appendages of both extant and fossil crustaceans is reviewed and it is suggested here to be a primitive feature of the exopods of both second antennae and mandibles. Problems in the interpretation of morphological evidence are discussed, also in relation to development and evolution of segmentation of naupliar appendages.