Biol. Bull.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nielsen, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nielsen, C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Development
Right arrow Evolution
Right arrow Larval Biology
Right arrow Miscellaneous Invertebrates
Right arrow Systematics
Biol. Bull. 216: 203-215. (June 2009)
© 2009 Marine Biological Laboratory

How Did Indirect Development With Planktotrophic Larvae Evolve?

Claus Nielsen

Zoological Museum, The Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark

E-mail: cnielsen{at}snm.ku.dk

The two main types of theories for the evolution of the biphasic life cycles in marine invertebrates are discussed. The "intercalation" theories propose that the larval stages (planktotrophic or lecithotrophic) have evolved as specializations from the ancestral, direct life cycle. The opposing "terminal addition" theories propose that the ancestor was holopelagic and that the adult stage was added to the life cycle with the pelagic stage retained as a planktotrophic larva. It is emphasized that theories based on hypothetical ancestors that were unable to feed must be rejected. This applies to planula theories based on a compact planula. Various arguments against the theories that consider the feeding larvae as ancestral in the major eumetazoan lineages and in particular against the trochaea theory are discussed and found untenable. It is suggested that the "Cambrian explosion" was actually a rapid Ediacaran radiation of the eubilaterians that was made possible by the evolution of a tubular gut with all the resulting possibilities for new body plans.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Biol. Bull.Home page
R. B. Emlet, S. A. Maslakova, A. L. Shanks, and C. M. Young
Biological Bulletin Virtual Symposium: Biology of Marine Invertebrate Larvae
Biol. Bull., June 1, 2009; 216(3): 201 - 202.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the Marine Biological Laboratory.