From embryo to adult—beyond the conventional periodization of arthropod development

The traditional framework for the description of arthropod development takes the molt-to-molt interval as the fundamental unit of periodization, which is similar to the morphological picture of the main body axis as a series of segments. Developmental time is described as the subdivision into a few major stages of one or more instars each, which is similar to the subdivision of the main body axis into regions of one to many segments each. Parallel to recent criticisms to the segment as the fundamental building block of arthropod anatomy, we argue that, while a firm subdivision of development in stages is useful for describing arthropod ontogeny, this is limiting as a starting point for studying its evolution. Evolutionary change affects the association between different developmental processes, some of which are continuous in time whereas others are linked to the molting cycle. Events occurring but once in life (hatching; first achieving sexual maturity) are traditionally used to establish boundaries between major units of arthropod developmental time, but these boundaries are quite labile. The presence of embryonic molts, the 'gray zone' of development accompanying hatching (with the frequent delivery of an immature whose qualification as 'free-embryo' or ordinary postembryonic stage is arbitrary), and the frequent decoupling of growth and molting suggest a different view. Beyond the simple comparison of developmental schedules in terms of heterochrony, the flexible canvas we suggest for the analysis of arthropod development opens new vistas into its evolution. Examples are provided as to the origin of holometaboly and hypermetaboly within the insects.

Larval development of Japanese 'conchostracans': part 2, larval development of Caenestheriella gifuensis (Crustacea, Branchiopoda, Spinicaudata, Cyzicidae), with notes on homologies and evolution of certain naupliar appendages within the Branchiopoda

As part of a larger project examining and comparing the ontogeny of all major taxa of the Branchiopoda in a phylogenetic context, the larval development of Caenestheriella gifuensis (Ishikawa, 1895), a Japanese spinicaudatan 'conchostracan', is described by scanning electron microscopy. Seven different larval stages are recognised, in most cases based on significant morphological differences. They range in length from about 200 to 850mum. Nauplius 1 has a plumb and lecithotrophic appearance with a rounded hind body and a labrum with an incipient medial spine. Limb segmentation is mostly unclear but the second antennae have more putative segments delineated than are expressed in the later stages. Feeding structures such as the mandibular coxal process and antennal coxal spine are only weakly developed. Nauplius 2 is very different from nauplius 1 and has three large spines on the labral margin and two long caudal spines. Feeding structures such as the mandibular coxal process and various spines and setae are developed, but whether feeding begins at this stage was not determined. The mandible has developed an 'extra' seta on endopod segment 1, absent in Nauplius 1. The segmentation of the second antenna has changed significantly due to fusions of various early segments. Nauplius 3 is like nauplius 2 in morphological detail, but larger and more elongate. Nauplius 4 has developed a pair of small anlagen of the carapace and rudiments of the first five pairs of trunk limbs, and the coxal spine of the antenna has become distally bifid. Nauplius 5 has a larger carapace anlage, externally visible enditic portions of the elongate trunk limbs, and a pair of primordial dorsal telson setae. Nauplius 6 has a larger and partly free carapace and better-developed, partly free trunk limbs with incipient enditic, endopodal, and exopodal setation. A pair of caudal spines, dorsal to the large caudal spines, has appeared. Nauplius 7 is quite similar to nauplius 6 but is larger and has slightly longer caudal and labral spines; also, the setation of the most anterior trunks limbs is better developed. The larval development is largely similar to that of other spinicaudatans. The larval mandible, which is evolutionarily conservative within the Branchiopoda, reveals a setation pattern similar to that of the Anostraca and Notostraca (two setae on mandibular endopod segment 1). Most other spinicaudatans and all examined laevicaudatans share another setal pattern (one seta on mandibular endopod segment 1), which could indicate a close relationship among these taxa. The second antenna undergoes a special development, which provides an insight into the evolution of this limb within the Branchiopoda. In nauplius 1 the basipod, endopod, and exopod are all superficially divided into a relatively high number of segments. In later nauplii some of these have fused, forming fewer but larger segments. We suggest that this ontogeny reflects the evolution of antennae in the conchostracans. Various aspects of the morphology of the antennae are discussed as possible synapormorphies for either the Diplostraca or subgroups of the Conchostraca.