Why are arthropods segmented?

Segmentation as an attribute of organisms is being increasingly discussed in the recent literature because (1) new phylogenies suggest that organisms classically considered to be segmented may lie in separate clades; (2) the molecular basis of segmental development has been much studied; (3) various theories of bilaterian origins place weight on segmentation as a primitive character; (4) there has been recent stress on the importance of modularity as an evolutionary topic. However, the definition and extent of segmentation are highly ambiguous and usually typological. Here, segmentation is regarded as an attribute of organs, not organisms. The evolution of just one system, the arthropod epidermis, is examined on the basis of the fossil record and the extant euarthropods, tardigrades, and onychophorans. It may be seen to have become segmented in a complex pathway that necessitated shifts in function, redundancy, and changes in associated organs. This complexity must inevitably reflect on, and to an extent have primacy over, the genetic basis for the changes involved. Evolutionary functional morphology has been relatively little considered in the context of the evolution of development, but may play an important role in defining the framework within which this evolution occurs.

Onychophoran cephalic nerves and their bearing on our understanding of head segmentation and stem-group evolution of Arthropoda

The extant Onychophora are basal representatives of the Arthropoda, resembling Cambrian arthropod stem-group fossils such as Aysheaia and other so-called lobopodians. They thus provide an important model system for early stages in arthropod evolution, especially those of the head. However, homologies between onychophoran and euarthropod head structures have remained uncertain, and previous descriptions of the onychophoran head are contradictory. Our investigation examines the cephalic nerves of two species of onychophoran using immunohistochemical and confocal laser scanning microscopical techniques. Our new reconstruction for the distribution of onychophoran cephalic nerves differs significantly from previous accounts. The so-called "labrum" of the Onychophora appears to be part of the pharynx, and any affinities to the various pre-oral outgrowths of crown-group arthropods referred to as hypostomata and/or labra can be ruled out. The innervation of the mouth is particularly noteworthy, as its nerves originate from three different regions of the brain, including the dorsum. This suggests that the mouth was primitively terminal/frontal, although subsequent ventral rotation of the mouth may have been parallelly achieved in Onychophora and in Euarthropoda. Our model allows the onychophoran cephalic nervous system to be interpreted as a modified circumoral nerve ring, similar to that seen in the nematodes and other cycloneuralians. We regard this as supporting the Ecdysozoa model of arthropod relationships.

A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla

It has long been assumed that the extant bilaterian phyla generally have their origin in the Cambrian explosion, when they appear in an essentially modern form. Both these assumptions are questionable. A strict application of stem- and crown-group concepts to phyla shows that although the branching points of many clades may have occurred in the Early Cambrian or before, the appearance of the modern body plans was in most cases later: very few bilaterian phyla sensu stricto have demonstrable representatives in the earliest Cambrian. Given that the early branching points of major clades is an inevitable result of the geometry of clade diversification, the alleged phenomenon of phyla appearing early and remaining morphologically static is seen not to require particular explanation. Confusion in the definition of a phylum has thus led to attempts to explain (especially from a developmental perspective) a feature that is partly inevitable, partly illusory. We critically discuss models for Proterozoic diversification based on small body size, limited developmental capacity and poor preservation and cryptic habits, and show that the prospect of lineage diversification occurring early in the Proterozoic can be seen to be unlikely on grounds of both parsimony and functional morphology. Indeed, the combination of the body and trace fossil record demonstrates a progressive diversification through the end of the Proterozoic well into the Cambrian and beyond, a picture consistent with body plans being assembled during this time. Body-plan characters are likely to have been acquired monophyletically in the history of the bilaterians, and a model explaining the diversity in just one of them, the coelom, is presented. This analysis points to the requirement for a careful application of systematic methodology before explanations are sought for alleged patterns of constraint and flexibility.