Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
  Journal of Paleontology   Email Content Delivery
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Journal of Paleontology; July 2007; v. 81; no. 4; p. 607-631; DOI: 10.1666/pleo0022-3360(2007)081[0607:MOAPOT]2.0.CO;2
© 2007 Paleontological Society
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HUNT, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

ARTICLE

MORPHOLOGY, ONTOGENY, AND PHYLOGENETICS OF THE GENUS POSEIDONAMICUS (OSTRACODA: THAEROCYTHERINAE)

GENE HUNT1

1 Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013-7012. <hunte{at}si.edu>

The ostracode genus Poseidonamicus has been widespread and abundant in deep-sea sediments since the Eocene. Despite its prominent role in a number of evolutionary studies, species identification in this genus is often difficult and phylogenetic relationships among its species are not well understood. Here I present the findings from a comprehensive study of this genus with the purpose of discovering novel phylogenetic characters and clarifying species relationships. I briefly describe the adult carapace and trace some of the major morphological changes that occur over the last several instars. I focus particular attention on the arrangement of fossae in the reticulate mesh; these features have been shown in other ostracodes to correspond to underlying epidermal cells. I describe the development of fossae in the region posterior to the adductor muscle scars, and hypothesize a sequence of specific cell divisions to account for the addition of fossae over ontogeny.

Phylogenetic characters were derived from many different types of characters, including aspects of carapace shape, the presence and location of pores, characteristics of specific ridges and spines, and the relative position of homologous fossae in the reticulum. A parsimony analysis of 42 characters and 40 operational taxonomic units (36 ingroup and four outgroup) resulted in a set of optimal trees whose strict consensus is relatively well resolved, well supported, and generally consistent with the order in which taxa appear in the fossil record. The monophyly of Poseidonamicus is supported, as is the monophyly of all deep-sea members of this genus. Within the clade of deep-sea Poseidonamicus, several subgroups are recovered with varying levels of character support. In addition to providing a general framework for understanding morphological evolution in this genus, the results of this phylogenetic analysis have two specific implications for the evolution of sightedness in this genus. First, because Poseidonamicus ocularis is nested deeply within a clade of entirely deep-sea species, its putatively ocular features are probably not related to vision. Second, there has likely been just a single transition from sighted to blind in Poseidonamicus, coincident with its colonization of the deep sea. No support is found for the recent suggestion that sighted shallow-water dwelling Poseidonamicus species may have evolved from blind deep-sea ancestors, although data from additional taxa will be necessary to test this hypothesis more fully.







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Paleontological Society