Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Invertebrate Systematics Invertebrate Systematics Society
Systematics, phylogeny and biogeography
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > IS > IS09049
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 24(2)

Phylogenetic analysis using rDNA reveals polyphyly of Oplophoridae (Decapoda : Caridea)

Tin-Yam Chan A C , Ho Chee Lei B C , Chi Pang Li B and Ka Hou Chu B D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Institute of Marine Biology, National Taiwan Ocean University, 2 Pei-Ning Road, Keelung 20224, Taiwan.

B Simon F. S. Li Marine Science Laboratory, Department of Biology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N. T., Hong Kong.

C These two authors contributed equally to this work.

D Corresponding author. Email: kahouchu@cuhk.edu.hk

Invertebrate Systematics 24(2) 172-181 https://doi.org/10.1071/IS09049
Submitted: 6 December 2009  Accepted: 28 April 2010   Published: 29 June 2010

Abstract

Molecular phylogenetic analysis on nine of the ten genera in the caridean family Oplophoridae Dana, 1852, as well as 14 other caridean families using mitochondrial 16S and nuclear 18S rRNA genes, does not support the monophyletic status of Oplophoridae. Two disparate groups of oplophorids are revealed, with different morphological characters and ecology. It is proposed that the family Oplophoridae is restricted to the three genera Oplophorus, Systellaspis and Janicella. These three genera tend to be distributed in shallower water than the other oplophorid genera, and can also be distinguished from them by certain morphological characters. They have a thicker integument, superficial cuticular photophores and larger eyes, and the molar process of their mandibles is greatly reduced or bears a deep channel. The family Acanthephyridae Bate, 1888 is resurrected for the other seven genera, which are generally distributed in deeper water and are characterised by red soft integument, no cuticular photophores, smaller eyes and well-developed molar process of the mandibles without a deep channel. The relationships between these two families and other caridean families could not be clearly resolved in this study.


Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank A. Crosnier and R. Cléva of the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN) for the sample of Hymenodora glacialis. The sample of Discias sp. was collected by the SANTO 2006 expedition. The SANTO 2006 expedition to Vanuatu was organised by MNHN, Pro Natura International (PNI) and Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD). The expedition operated under a permit granted to P. Bouchet of MNHN by the Environment Unit of the Government of Vanuatu. The Marine Biodiversity part of the expedition, a part of Census of Marine Life’s CReefs programme, was specifically funded by grants from the Total Foundation and the Sloan Foundation. The specimen of Alvinocaris longirostris was obtained through the courtesy of Shinji Tsuchida of JAMSTEC, Japan. All material has been collected under appropriate collection permits and approved ethics guidelines. We are indebted to D. Wilmshurst of The Chinese University of Hong Kong for his editorial comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by grants from the National Science Council, Taiwan, R.O.C., Academia Sinica and the Center for Marine Bioenvironment and Biotechnology of the National Taiwan Ocean University. The molecular analysis was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council, Hong Kong SAR, China (project no. CUHK4419/04M).


References


Apakupakul K., Siddall M. E., Burreson E. M. (1999) Higher level relationships of leeches (Annelida: Clitellata: Euhirudinea) based on morphology and gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 12, 350–359.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed | [Verified 7 May 2010]

Saitou N., Nei M. (1987) The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 4, 406–425.
|  CAS | PubMed |
open url image1

Shimodaira H. (2002) An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection. Systematic Biology 51, 492–508.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | open url image1

Shimodaira H., Hasegawa M. (1999) Multiple comparisons of log-likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16, 1114–1116.
|  CAS |
open url image1

Shimodaira H., Hasegawa M. (2001) CONSEL: for assessing the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection. Bioinformatics Applications Note 17, 1246–1247.
|  CAS |
open url image1

Simon C., Frati F., Beckenbach A., Crespi B., Liu H., Flook P. (1994) Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain reaction primers. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 87, 652–701. open url image1

Stamatakis A. (2006) RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22, 2688–2690.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed | open url image1

Swofford D. L. (2002). ‘PAUP* 4.0: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and other methods).’ (Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA.)

Thompson J. R. (1967). Comments on phylogeny of section Caridea (Decapoda Natantia) and the phylogenetic importance of the Oplophoroidea. In ‘Proceedings of the Symposium on Crustacea, Marine Biological Association of India Part 1’. pp. 314−326.

Tsang L. M., Ma K. Y., Ahyong S. T., Chan T. Y., Chu K. H. (2008) Phylogeny of Decapoda using two nuclear protein-coding genes: origin and evolution of the Reptantia. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 48, 359–368.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed | open url image1

Welsh J. H., Chace F. A. (1937) Eyes of deep sea crustaceans. The Biological Bulletin 72, 57–74.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1