To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Only six species of the genus Cylindrobulla have been described anatomically. A new species from Ghizo Island, Solomon Islands, is here described. It is the first anatomically described species from the South Pacific Ocean. The new species, Cylindrobulla ghizoensis sp. nov., has a thin, semi-transparent shell 2–6 mm long and a white head and foot, which are completely retractable inside the shell. The foot is slightly longer than the head. The uniseriate radula has numerous small (6–8 µm) teeth with a short central cusp only marginally longer than the few lateral cusps. The short penis has no stylet. A comparison of all described species of Cylindrobulla permits an emended genus diagnosis including a shell with a deep, oblique apical keel with excentric nucleus, a thickened edge of body whorl, a suctorial pharynx, and numerous (80–100+) small, uniformly sized radular teeth, including several formative teeth and a poorly defined ascus. Comparing the feeding structures of Cylindrobulla with those of other sacoglossans shows a pharynx with weaker musculature and teeth unsuitable for piercing algal cell walls, indicating a different feeding method.
Arborea elegans sp. nov., a new species of the clade Arboreomorpha, is described and figured based on three specimens preserved in mudstone from the Ediacaran Mistaken Point Formation at Halfway Cove, near the town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, Newfoundland, Canada. Arborea elegans is readily attributed to the clade Arboreomorpha because of its parallel primary branches diverging orthogonally from the central stalk, and merging at their apices to form a distinct marginal rim. It is assigned to the genus Arborea because of its distally tapered petalodium, rectangular first-order branches arising orthogonally from a prominent stalk, and first-order axes exposed over the entire length of the branches. It is distinguishable from other species of the genus by its slender petalodium, reduced stem, relatively broad first-order branches, and proportionally wide basal disc.
The crustose cyanolichen Fuscopannaria frullaniae (syn. Moelleropsis nebulosa subsp. frullaniae) is a poorly understood taxon that occurs on mosses and liverworts, described from eastern Canada and reported from the Iberian Peninsula, Macaronesia and the eastern USA. Originally placed in the genus Moelleropsis, the position of the species has been debated in the absence of sexual fruiting structures and, until now, DNA sequences from the fungal symbiont. We produced nine sequences from two fungal ribosomal loci from F. frullaniae collected at five different localities in Nova Scotia, Canada and North Carolina, USA. Initial BLASTn queries against public databases revealed high similarity between these sequences and basidiomycete sequences from the Dictyonema clade in Hygrophoraceae, specifically from the genus Acantholichen. We did not obtain ascomycete sequences from any locus or specimen. Phylogenetic analyses recovered the obtained sequences within the broader Acantholichen clade. We conclude that the lichen fungal symbiont is in fact a basidiomycete and introduce for it the new combination Acantholichen frullaniae.Acantholichen frullaniae is the first species of the genus to possess a granular, crustose thallus. The species lacks the characteristic, spiny, balloon-shaped cells called acanthohyphidia that are found in other species of the genus, though it possesses similar, albeit spineless cells on the surface of thallus granules; we suggest that these structures within the wider genus are homologous and represent spiny or smooth cystidia. Numerous samples yielded evidence of basidiospores and basidia produced from thallus granules, evident only after treatment with diluted potassium hydroxide, representing the first sexual structures reported in the genus. We discuss the possible reasons for this, as well as the ecology and threats to the species across its Canadian populations.
A new species of spionid polychaete from the coastal waters of southwest India, Trochochaeta chakara sp. nov., is described and illustrated. Adults are common on Alappuzha mud banks (locally known as Chakara) off the coast of Kerala. They live in silty tubes in soft sediment and are characterized by the presence of two pairs of red eyes, caruncle extending to end of chaetiger 1, heavy falcate spines in neuropodia of chaetigers 2 and 3 (those in chaetiger 3 much stronger and darker), capillary chaetae in notopodia of chaetigers 1, 3–10, frayed heavy spines in neuropodia of chaetigers 4–13, hirsute capillaries in neuropodia from chaetiger 14, lateral interneuropodial membranes from chaetiger 14, one pair of ventral papillae on each chaetiger from chaetigers 14–16, bundles of acicular spines in notopodia from chaetigers 50–52, and small pygidium with up to six pairs of short cirri. This is the third species of Trochochaeta described and found in the Indian Ocean, including T. orissae (Fauvel, 1932) and T. cirrifera (Hartman, 1975).
This leading textbook introduces students and practitioners to the identification and analysis of animal remains at archaeology sites. The authors use global examples from the Pleistocene era into the present to explain how zooarchaeology allows us to form insights about relationships among people and their natural and social environments, especially site-formation processes, economic strategies, domestication, and paleoenvironments. This new edition reflects the significant technological developments in zooarchaeology that have occurred in the past two decades, notably ancient DNA, proteomics, and isotope geochemistry. Substantially revised to reflect these trends, the volume also highlights novel applications, current issues in the field, the growth of international zooarchaeology, and the increased role of interdisciplinary collaborations. In view of the growing importance of legacy collections, voucher specimens, and access to research materials, it also includes a substantially revised chapter that addresses management of zooarchaeological collections and curation of data.
This study provides the first integrative analysis of Megacoelium spinicavum Thatcher & Varella, 1981 (Digenea: Haploporidae) from the Amazon sailfin catfish Pterygoplichthys pardalis Castelnau, 1855 (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) in the Peruvian Amazon. A detailed morphological description is presented, including the first scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of tegumental structures, which revealed two distinct types of tegumental spines: (1) small, button-like spines and (2) sharply pointed spines. Partial sequences of the 28S rDNA and mitochondrial cox1 genes were generated and analysed to investigate the phylogenetic position of Megacoelium Szidat, 1954, within the Haploporidae Nicoll, 1914. Phylogenetic analyses placed M. spinicavum within the ‘robust species’ clade of Saccocoelioides Szidat, 1954, clustering with S. bacilliformis Szidat, 1973, although with weak support. These results provide additional evidence that Saccocoelioides is not monophyletic and support restricting the genus to the ‘minute species’ clade containing the type species. The ‘robust species’ clade appears to comprise at least three divergent lineages, potentially representing distinct genera, one of which includes M. spinicavum. The absence of molecular data for M. plecostomi Szidat, 1954, the type species of Megacoelium, continues to obscure its phylogenetic placement. We highlight the need for comprehensive morphological and multilocus molecular analyses, including SEM, to clarify the taxonomic status of Megacoelium and to resolve the evolutionary relationships of chalcinotrematine digeneans in Neotropical fishes.
Avian schistosomatids are blood flukes parasitizing a wide spectrum of aquatic birds. However, its research in the Neotropics is ongoing with several putative new taxa pending description. Although waterfowl represent the most important avian hosts for these flukes, only a small proportion of these birds have been assessed for schistosomatids. This study aimed to describe avian schistosomatids from two native ducks from the Southern Cone of South America. A total of 24 Chiloe wigeon (Mareca sibilatrix) and three Cinnamon teals (Spatula cyanoptera) from different localities in Chile and Argentina were dissected to retrieve schistosomatids. The retrieved worms were described through an integrative approach considering morphology (staining and SEM) and molecular tools (PCR: COI, 28S rRNA genes). The new schistosomatid: Trichobilharzia kulfu sp. nov. was recovered from the viscera of Chiloe wigeon. It was closely related to other undescribed Trichobilharzia taxa from the United States, also from Mareca ducks. The new species was morphologically and molecularly different from other Trichobilharzia species, and it was included in the clade Q. In addition, SEM imaging proved to be an important tool to describe unnoticed traits on the tegument of worms. This new species represents the second Trichobilharzia taxon from the Neotropics described through an integrative approach. Furthermore, the Cinnamon teals harboured Trichobilharzia querquedulae. Considering there are several avian schistosomatids described only through morphological or molecular tools, there is a clear need to include a comprehensive approach in the description of avian schistosomatids, considering the remarkable richness of schistosomatids in Neotropics.
A new phylogenetic analysis of Lecanora s. lat. is presented based on a dataset of seven loci, including recently published mitochondrial markers. In this analysis, comprising 136 specimens and 572 sequences, several clades that can be circumscribed taxonomically are recovered as monophyletic with strong support. Lecanora divides into two large monophyletic subclades. The well-supported MPRPS clade sensu Medeiros et al. (2021) combines the genera Lecanoropsis, Myriolecis, Protoparmeliopsis, Rhizoplaca and the Lecanora polytropa- and L. varia-groups. The second unsupported clade contains the genera Bryonora, Palicella, Pulvinora and Vainionora, plus the Lecanora albella/subcarnea-, L. carpinea/rupicola-, L. intumescens-, L. subfusca- and L. symmicta-groups. Japewia, Lecidella, Miriquidica, Ramboldia and members of the Lecanora fuscescens-group are placed outside these two clades. Phylogenetic, morphological and chemical evidence supports the resurrection of three genera: Glaucomaria (for the Lecanora carpinea/rupicola-group), Straminella (for the L. varia-group), and Zeora (for the L. symmicta-group). Descriptions for each of the resurrected genera are provided, including new taxonomic combinations and lists of additional Lecanora species likely to be transferred to the proposed new genera pending further studies. Comments on the nomenclature of the new genera, as well as for Lecanoropsis and Myriolecis, are provided.
The first known trochurine lichid from the Lower Devonian of southern France is assigned to the genus Branikarges Basse & Müller, 2023, replacing the invalid genus Lobopyge Přibyl & Erben. Branikarges euanclarksoni sp. nov. occurs in cherty limestones of the upper Emsian middle Izarne Formation in the Cabrières klippes, in the southeast of the Montagne Noire. Among the few contemporary representatives of typical Branikarges, the new species is closest to north Gondwana related taxa. Silicified early growth stages assigned to B. euanclarksoni have been recovered from the middle Bissounel Formation, a temporal equivalent of the middle Izarne Formation in the Montagne Noire nappe succession. The material includes, besides a questionable metaprotaspis, some meraspid cranidial fragments, librigenae and hypostomes, as well as an almost complete succession of transitory pygidia. This material allows for the first establishment of the meraspid stage development of Branikarges through applying the distribution model of spine markers on alternate pleurae developed by B. D. E. Chatterton in 1971.
Cambrian trilobites from two separate allochthonous limestone blocks of La Cruz olistoliths at the Quebrada Oblicua (Precordillera of Mendoza, Argentina), originally described by the naturalist Carlos Rusconi in the 1950s, are revised herein. One of the olistoliths is dominated by the late Guzhangian cedariid Cedaria puelchana Rusconi, whereas the other block contains Pseudagnostus cf. P. idalis Öpik, Dunderbergia punctata (Rusconi) new combination, Sigmocheilus cf. S. sigmoidalis (Palmer), Litocephalus obliquoanus (Rusconi) new combination, and Onchonotopsidae? gen. et sp. indet., which indicate a late Paibian age (Dunderbergia Zone). The genera Dunderbergia Walcott (=Tabalqueia Rusconi), Sigmocheilus Palmer, and Litocephalus Resser (=Cayupania Rusconi) are reported from South America for the first time. In line with previous studies on Cambrian faunas from the Precordillera, the assemblages revised here show North American (Laurentian) affinities.
Outside of our fellow mammals, our next closest relatives are reptiles. As both birds and mammals are warm blooded (endothermic) and have four-chambered hearts, one might be tempted to think that the sister group to mammals would be birds. But the story is much more complicated than that, especially because birds are actually reptiles.
Reptiles include four main lineages: (1) turtles, (2) lizards and snakes, (3) crocodilians, and (4) dinosaurs, including birds. Indeed, birds are reptiles – birds are a surviving lineage descended from bipedal predatory dinosaurs! In decades past, there were five “classes” of vertebrates (animal groups with backbones): fishes, amphibians, mammals, reptiles, and birds. In fact, many basic treatments still list these groups. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica still has an article entitled: “Five Vertebrate Groups.” But there are major problems with two of these old groups: neither fishes nor scaly reptiles are monophyletic.
I have argued that one of the major misconceptions about evolution and the tree of life is that some species or lineages are considered more “primitive” than others – this chapter will delve more deeply into this misconception and one of its key causes. Across the tree of life, certain lineages – including the platypus, lungfishes, and mosses – are frequently labeled as more primitive than other members of their groups. Mammals provide several good case studies demonstrating the reasons for this longstanding misperception. Researchers, journalists, and filmmakers all seem obsessed with discussing certain lineages that somehow seem primitive to them. This misconception about primitive lineages is problematic for two major reasons. First, it leads to a general misunderstanding of evolution, which can lead to fundamental misunderstandings across all of biology, including human health.
Fossils provide a unique window into how evolution has unfolded. In particular, transitions in the fossil record provide compelling evidence for how major evolutionary changes have happened. One of the most well-known transitions is from fish-like vertebrates to the first land vertebrates – our earliest tetrapod ancestors. (The word tetrapod refers to the groups of vertebrates with four legs, namely mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.) Paleontologists had known that transitional fossils connecting aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates must exist. There were abundant fossils of vertebrates with fins from around 400 mya, and there were abundant fossils of terrestrial tetrapods with limbs from around 350 mya. But key fossils were missing – those that could show details of how the evolutionary crawl onto land had occurred.
If we think of ourselves as the “highest” forms of life, we often think of Bacteria as the “lowest” forms of life. We also think of Bacteria as ancient, “primitive,” and ancestral. As discussed for many other extant branches of the tree of life, these views are misleading. But these views may be especially hard to jettison when thinking of Bacteria – aren’t they more ancestral than we are? But we must always come back to this idea: Bacteria are not our ancestors – they are extant cousins. As will be detailed below, all lineages of organisms descended from the LUCA; the major lineages of life did not descend from Bacteria.
The clade Bacteria includes species that are ecologically essential (e.g., as decomposers that impact the carbon cycle) and that comprise key organisms of our microbiome (e.g., the symbiotic Bacteria normally found on our skin and in our digestive tracts). Bacteria also cause many diseases, including stomach ulcers (Helicobacter pylori), tetanus (Clostridium tetani), and acne (Cutibacterium acnes).
This chapter begins with the strong statement that fish do not exist as a true evolutionary group. Of the five traditional “classes” of vertebrates, fishes are the most problematic. The concept “fish” is wildly paraphyletic. In contrast, extant amphibians form a monophyletic clade. Mammals are also a true evolutionary group. In the previous chapter we learned that the former paraphyletic group Reptilia can be fixed by recognizing that birds are reptiles.
But there is no simple fix for fishes. One possible solution is to say that all tetrapods are fishes too. In other words, you and I and frogs and birds would all be fishes. That could work and it does reflect true evolutionary relationships, but it makes the former concept fishes fairly useless. Another solution is to recognize at least six separate lineages as distinct monophyletic groups.
For decades, biologists have assumed that our most distant animal cousins were sponges (Porifera). This seemed to make a lot of sense, because sponges are very different from us and from all other animals. Sponges do not have different types of tissues, such as skin, muscles, and nerves. Their colonies of cells form the colorful but irregular shapes that are common on coral reefs. There is no way to cut a sponge into two equal halves – adult sponges are asymmetrical. Surely animals such as this must be very distantly related to us, no? (Note that for this chapter, I have switched things up to talk about our most distant animal relatives first.)
But beginning around 2010, new data began to emerge suggesting that another group of animals, the comb jellies, might be our most distant animal relatives. Comb jellies, also known as ctenophores (Ctenophora), are aquatic organisms with generally translucent gel-filled bodies.
According to Aristotle and Linnaeus, there were only two “kingdoms” – Plantae and Animalia. In the 1800s, Haeckel carved kingdom “Protista” off of Linnaeus’ Plantae. Kingdoms for Fungi and Bacteria (Monera) were later added. By the time I was in secondary school, I learned a five-kingdom system. The five “kingdoms” that I learned are still frequently used in biology lessons: animals, plants, fungi, protists, and bacteria. But we now know that a five-kingdom story is so simplified as to be misleading, and it tells us very little about the broad tree of life. Back then, in the 1900s, our limited understanding made things seem more simple, but recent DNA sequence data indicate that the groupings are much more complex.
The five-kingdom system was first proposed in 1969. (1) Animalia were multicellular creatures that eat other organisms. (2) Fungi were generally multicellular decomposers that fed by a network of filamentous cells. (3) Plantae included especially the land plants.
Chimpanzees are not our ancestors! Rather, they are our closest living cousins. Approximately 7 mya there was a species of ape in Africa, the common ancestor that you and I share with the chimps. That species was not a chimpanzee – we know that thousands of changes in DNA have occurred in the descendant lineages since that ancestor. And many resulting skeletal and biological changes have occurred in both the human lineage and the chimpanzee lineage since that ancestor.
The idea that humans descended from chimpanzees is one of the most common misconceptions about evolution. The notion that we evolved from chimps fits well with the concept of the ladder of progress. We might think that chimpanzees are more “primitive” than we are, so if evolution were a progression toward more “advanced” forms, then we might think that the other living apes evolved first, and that we evolved from those apes. We might think that chimpanzees and gorillas are older species, and that Homo sapiens is a younger species that evolved more recently.
Imagine looking out on the plains of Africa sometime several hundred thousand years ago. You see a group of people – perhaps a family group with grandparents, parents, adolescents, and younger children. You can sense their connection to you – they are fellow humans and you recognize the key features that we all share today. Perhaps some of them are sharing meat from a gazelle they have killed. Others might be gathering fruit or seeds. The children might be running around chasing one another. Imagine a young woman in that clan, perhaps in her early twenties. She could be a woman that you and I and every other living human can trace our ancestry back to. Such a woman lived in East Africa approximately 150,000 years ago; she is a common ancestor that you and I share, along with every other human currently alive on Earth. We all inherited a key piece of our DNA from her. This is a segment of DNA that you inherited from your mother, and she from her mother, and she from her mother … all the way back to this woman who lived perhaps in present-day Kenya, Tanzania, or Ethiopia. She has been nicknamed “mitochondrial Eve.”
All species on Earth share common ancestry – we are all part of the same family tree. The tree of life is a representation of how all those species are related to one another. All living species on Earth are the product of billions of years of evolution, so all are evolutionary equals in that way. However, we tend to think of life in a hierarchical way. We think there are lower animals and higher animals. We may incorrectly think that species of bacteria are old and primitive, and that humans are recent and advanced. Many news articles about evolution can feed into the perceptions that some species are younger, more advanced, or more evolved. But all of those perceptions are misleading. Each of these present-day species are our evolutionary cousins. All species alive today are the product of the same 3.5 billion years of evolutionary change, each adapting to their own environment. (Note that species are the units of evolution, frequently defined based on the distinctiveness of their appearance and genetics, and often on their ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.)