Renewed perspectives on the sedentary-pelagic last common bilaterian ancestor

Various evaluations of the last common bilaterian ancestor (lcba) currently suggest that it resembled either a microscopic, non-segmented motile adult; or, on the contrary, a complex segmented adult motile urbilaterian. These fundamental inconsistencies remain largely unexplained. A majority of multidisciplinary data regarding sedentary adult ancestral bilaterian organization is overlooked. The sedentary-pelagic model is supported now by a number of novel developmental, paleontological and molecular phylogenetic data: (1) data in support of sedentary sponges, in the adult stage, as sister to all other Metazoa; (2) a similarity of molecular developmental pathways in both adults and larvae across sedentary sponges, cnidarians, and bilaterians; (3) a cnidarian-bilaterian relationship, including a unique sharing of a bona fide Hox-gene cluster, of which the evolutionary appearance does not connect directly to a bilaterian motile organization; (4) the presence of sedentary and tube-dwelling representatives of the main bilaterian clades in the early Cambrian; (5) an absence of definite taxonomic attribution of Ediacaran taxa reconstructed as motile to any true bilaterian phyla; (6) a similarity of tube morphology (and the clear presence of a protoconch-like apical structure of the Ediacaran sedentary Cloudinidae) among shells of the early Cambrian, and later true bilaterians, such as semi-sedentary hyoliths and motile molluscs; (7) recent data that provide growing evidence for a complex urbilaterian, despite a continuous molecular phylogenetic controversy. The present review compares the main existing models and reconciles the sedentary model of an urbilaterian and the model of a larva-like lcba with a unified sedentary(adult)-pelagic(larva) model of the lcba.

Ontogeny, Phylotypic Periods, Paedomorphosis, and Ontogenetic Systematics

The key terms linking ontogeny and evolution are briefly reviewed. It is shown that their application and usage in the modern biology are often inconsistent and incorrectly understood even within the “evo-devo” field. For instance, the core modern reformulation that ontogeny not merely recapitulates, but produces phylogeny implies that ontogeny and phylogeny are closely interconnected. However, the vast modern phylogenetic and taxonomic fields largely omit ontogeny as a central concept. Instead, the common “clade-” and “tree-thinking” prevail, despite on the all achievements of the evo-devo. This is because the main conceptual basis of the modern biology is fundamentally ontogeny-free. In another words, in the Haeckel’s pair of “ontogeny and phylogeny,” ontogeny is still just a subsidiary for the evolutionary process (and hence, phylogeny), instead as in reality, its main driving force. The phylotypic periods is another important term of the evo-devo and represent a modern reformulation of Haeckel’s recapitulations and biogenetic law. However, surprisingly, this one of the most important biological evidence, based on the natural ontogenetic grounds, in the phylogenetic field that can be alleged as a “non-evolutionary concept.” All these observations clearly imply that a major revision of the main terms which are associated with the “ontogeny and phylogeny/evolution” field is urgently necessarily. Thus, “ontogenetic” is not just an endless addition to the term “systematics,” but instead a crucial term, without it neither systematics, nor biology have sense. To consistently employ the modern ontogenetic and epigenetic achievements, the concept of ontogenetic systematics is hereby refined. Ontogenetic systematics is not merely a “research program” but a key biological discipline which consistently links the enormous biological diversity with underlying fundamental process of ontogeny at both molecular and morphological levels. The paedomorphosis is another widespread ontogenetic-and-evolutionary process that is significantly underestimated or misinterpreted by the current phylogenetics and taxonomy. The term paedomorphosis is refined, as initially proposed to link ontogeny with evolution, whereas “neoteny” and “progenesis” are originally specific, narrow terms without evolutionary context, and should not be used as synonyms of paedomorphosis. Examples of application of the principles of ontogenetic systematics represented by such disparate animal groups as nudibranch molluscs and ophiuroid echinoderms clearly demonstrate that perseverance of the phylotypic periods is based not only on the classic examples in vertebrates, but it is a universal phenomenon in all organisms, including disparate animal phyla.

Multiple paedomorphic lineages of soft-substrate burrowing invertebrates: parallels in the origin of Xenocratena and Xenoturbella

Paedomorphosis is an important evolutionary force. It has previously been suggested that a soft-substrate sediment-dwelling (infaunal) environment facilitates paedomorphic evolution in marine invertebrates. However, until recently this proposal was never rigorously tested with robust phylogeny and broad taxon selection. Here, for the first time, we present a molecular phylogeny for a majority of the 21 families of one of the largest nudibranch subgroups (Aeolidacea) and show that the externally highly simplified vermiform nudibranch family, Pseudovermidae, with clearly defined paedomorphic traits and inhabiting a soft-substrata environment, is a sister group to the complex nudibranch family, Cumanotidae. We also report the rediscovery of one of the most enigmatic nudibranchs-Xenocratena suecica-on the Swedish and Norwegian coasts 70 years after it was first found. Xenocratena was described from the same location and environment in the Swedish Gullmar fjord as one of the most enigmatic vermiform organisms, Xenoturbella bocki, which represents either an original simple bilaterian body plan or secondary simplification of a more complex organisation. Our results show that Xenocratena suecica reveals an onset of parallel paedomorphic evolution so we have proposed the new family, Xenocratenidae fam. n., to accommodate the molecular and morphological disparities we discovered. The paedomorphic origin of another aeolidacean family, Embletoniidae, is also demonstrated for the first time. Thus, by presenting three independent lineages from non-closely related aeolidacean families, Xenocratenidae fam. n., Cumanotidae and Embletoniidae, we confirm with phylogenetic data that a soft-substrata burrowing-related environment strongly favours paedomorphic evolution. We suggest criteria to distinguish ancestral and derived characters in the context of modifications of ontogenetic cycles. Applying an evolutionary model of the soft substrate-driven multiple paedomorphic origin of several families of nudibranch molluscs we propose that it is plausible to extend this model to other marine invertebrates and suggest that the ancestral organisation of the enigmatic metazoan, Xenoturbella, might correspond to the larval part of a complex ancestral bilaterian ontogenetic cycle with sedentary/semi-sedentary adult stages and planula-like larval stages.

Quantitative study of developmental biology confirms Dickinsonia as a metazoan

The late Ediacaran soft-bodied macroorganism Dickinsonia (age range approx. 560-550 Ma) has often been interpreted as an early animal, and is increasingly invoked in debate on the evolutionary assembly of eumetazoan body plans. However, conclusive positive evidence in support of such a phylogenetic affinity has not been forthcoming. Here we subject a collection of Dickinsonia specimens interpreted to represent multiple ontogenetic stages to a novel, quantitative method for studying growth and development in organisms with an iterative body plan. Our study demonstrates that Dickinsonia grew via pre-terminal 'deltoidal' insertion and inflation of constructional units, followed by a later inflation-dominated phase of growth. This growth model is contrary to the widely held assumption that Dickinsonia grew via terminal addition of units at the end of the organism bearing the smallest units. When considered alongside morphological and behavioural attributes, our developmental data phylogenetically constrain Dickinsonia to the Metazoa, specifically the Eumetazoa plus Placozoa total group. Our findings have implications for the use of Dickinsonia in developmental debates surrounding the metazoan acquisition of axis specification and metamerism.