Vai ai contenuti. | Spostati sulla navigazione | Spostati sulla ricerca | Vai al menu | Contatti | Accessibilità

| Crea un account

Maruzzo, Diego (2008) Morphogenesis and evolution of annuli in arthropod appendages. [Tesi di dottorato]

Full text disponibile come:

Documento PDF

Abstract (inglese)

A widely used distinction among articles that usually composed an arthropod appendage is the one between true articles and annuli. This distinction is often claimed to be based on the anatomy of the muscular system, true articles have intrinsic musculature while annuli do not. Annuli are also usually considered a subdivision of a true article. Recently, it has also been noted that annuli tend to be produced later during development. Observations on development of Drosophila appendages also seem to support a basic difference between the process that produce true article and the one that produce annuli.
In the present project I studied selected aspects of article anatomy and development, in order to understand: a) which are (if present) the developmental similarities among annuli of different appendages and different arthropods, and b) which are (if present) the developmental differences between annuli and true articles. I decided to focalise the research on two topics: a) the relationships between muscles, muscle insertions and joints, and b) the mechanism of annulation in flagellar structures (terminal part of an appendage composed of only annuli) and its relationship with growth at the cellular level. According to the definitions of true articles and annuli given above, the anatomy of the muscular system is the most important aspect. For the most studied true articles, those of insect leg, there is evidence of a close developmental relationship between the development of the arthrodial membrane cells (epidermal cells that produce the joint) and muscle insertions. However some variation is expected as annuli are supposed to be joint without any muscle insertion. Parts of appendages composed of only annuli often show indeterminate postembryonic increasing in the number of annuli. The mechanism by which new annuli are produced has been studied only in few species or groups, and only for the antennae. Where both the mechanism of article production and the overall growth have been studied, a close relationship between the two was noted, but little is known about the development of the epidermis (cellular division, differentiation and apoptosis) during segmentation.
Different models have been employed to study the relationships between muscles, muscle insertions and joints and these are: the naupliar appendages (first antennae and exopod of both second antennae and mandibles) of the cirriped crustacean Balanus improvisus Darwin, 1854, the exopod of the naupliar second antennae of the branchiopod crustacean Artemia sp., the antennae of the centipede Lithobius forficatus (Linnaeus, 1758) and the rami of the pleopods of the malacostracan crustacean Gammarus roeselii Gervais, 1835. In these models the segmentation, the muscular system and the postembryonic changes have been studied. Literature on naupliar appendages anatomy and postembryonic development has also been reviewed in detail.
There are some muscles running parallel to the proximo-distal axis throughout the first antennae and the exopod of both second antennae and mandibles in the nauplii of B. improvisus. These muscles have insertions on every joint. The exopod of both second antennae and mandibles increase in article number during naupliar development and new joints have new intermediate insertion of already present muscles. Very similar conditions are usually found in the naupliar appendages of other crustaceans.
Unexpected results have been obtained on the exopod of naupliar second antennae of Artemia. The exopod has 8-10 natatory setae (number with individual variation) on the posterior-ventral side, which have some cuticular folds at their base, resembling a joint; on the opposite side there are 8-14 (number with individual variation) cuticular folds. Number and position of setae and cuticular folds do not match and thus complete joints are lacking. Three muscles are present within the exopod; they run parallel to the proximo-distal axis and have insertions at the base of a seta (for the two muscles that are on that side) or on a cuticular fold (for the single muscle that run on that side). Since setae and cuticular folds do not match, there is mismatch also in the muscular insertions of the two sides.
In the antennae of L. forficatus there are four muscles that run parallel to the proximo-distal axis throughout their length. These muscles have an insertion on each joint. The rami of the pleopods of G. roeselii have two muscles that run parallel to the proximo-distal axis throughout their length, with insertion on each joint.
Thus, even if the articles of the antennae of Lithobius are usually considered true articles and those of the naupliar exopod of second antennae and mandibles of Balanus (and other crustaceans) as well as those of the rami of the pleopods of Gammarus are usually considered annuli, there is no difference on the presence/absence of muscular insertions. Anatomical differences are present in the structure of the muscular insertion (tendon matrix) and of the joint (extent of arthrodial membrane). All the appendages originally studied here or those discussed in the review that increase in article number during postembryonic development produce new joints with new intermediate insertions of already present muscles.
The mechanism of annulation in flagellar structures has been studied in detail in the flagellum of the second antennae of isopod crustaceans. Asellus aquaticus (Linnaeus, 1758) has been the main species studied, with observations on both normal postembryonic development and regeneration; other species studied have been Idotea chelipes (Pallas, 1766), Lirceus fontinalis Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1820 e Sphaeroma serratum (Fabricius, 1787). Most of the flagellum of A. aquaticus is composed of "quartets": four articles units where each article has a specific setal distribution pattern. New articles and quartets are produced during the whole life, in the proximal part of the flagellum: the first article divides and produces articles that, relatively independently from each others, divides three more times producing a quartet. During regeneration the mechanism is identical, although there are some difference in the relative development of different quartets, irrespectively of the amputation point. In L. fontinalis (Asellidae) most of the flagellum is composed of couples of articles, each one of which bearing setae correspondent to those of two articles of an A. aquaticus quartet. The mechanism of production is also very similar, but articles produced by the first one divide just once. In L. fontinalis some variability is, anyhow, present and it is sometimes possible to observe three articles units (an article produced by the first one divided twice) and even four article units identical to those of A. aquaticus. In S. serratum (Sphaeromatidae) most of the flagellum has articles with subequal setal pattern; the mechanism of new article production involves the division of the first article and one further division of the articles produced by it. In I. chelipes (Idoteidae) most of the flagellum has articles with subequal setal pattern; the mechanism of new article production involves, unlike S. serratum, the division of the first article only.
The mechanism of annulation in flagellar structures and its relationship with growth at the cellular level has been studied in two models (already used for other observations previously described): the flagellum of the second antennae of A. aquaticus and the rami of the pleopods of G. roeselii. The pleopodal rami of G. roeselii increase their article number for the whole life. New articles are produced in the proximal part, by division of the first article only. In this structure, as well as in the second antennal flagellum of A. aquaticus, mitotic figures are found only in the proximal part and going distally, to "older" parts, nuclei becomes more spaced and longer. Thus, in both the models studied there is a proximal proliferative zone; cells produced there are then moved distally by the production of new cells and they go through a shape change. How this process is related to the diversity of the segmentation mechanism is not currently understood.
The production of joints and muscle insertions are developmentally correlated processes. Evidence for it was already available for the articles (except tarsomeres) of insect leg, but I have shown in this thesis this is also true for other arthropod appendages, since new joints produced during postembryonic development have also new muscle insertions, if a muscle is present. Joints without any muscle insertion can occur in arthropod appendages, but these have either no muscle passing through or just tendon(s); the occurrence of joints without any muscle insertion but with muscle(s) passing through is currently very doubtful. Thus, the traditional distinction between true article and annuli based on the presence/absence of intrinsic musculature is wrong; articles usually considered annuli may have muscle insertion. Functionally, however, this distinction is still valid, since articles with intermediate insertions of muscles parallel to the proximo-distal axis can not move the appendage independently from other articles as the other true articles (equipped with intrinsic and antagonist muscles confined within them) can do. The naupliar antennal exopod of Artemia also provide evidence that joints and muscle insertions are developmentally correlated processes. In this model there are not complete joints, but just "partial" cuticular folds, but also these (which are probably derived from a complete joint) have muscle insertions. A general difference in the timing of expression of true articles and annuli was previously noted and has been here discussed in some deep. A difference in timing exists, but it is not between true articles and annuli (if defined by the presence/absence of muscle insertions) but between articles with independent movements and articles with movements not independent to each others. Also this ontogenetic difference is connected with the different functional morphology of these articles. Flagellar structure also exhibits similarities in their postembryonic development, and these similarities are connected to the presence of a specific proximal "growth zone" (a zone where both new articles are produced and mitoses are localized). The phylogenetic distribution of this growth zone is discussed and it is here proposed to be an ancestral condition for the postembryonic development of (first) antennae and rami of postantennulary appendages of, at least, mandibulate (myriapods, insects and crustaceans) arthropods.

Statistiche Download - Aggiungi a RefWorks
Tipo di EPrint:Tesi di dottorato
Relatore:Minelli, Alessandro
Dottorato (corsi e scuole):Ciclo 20 > Corsi per il 20simo ciclo > BIOLOGIA EVOLUZIONISTICA
Data di deposito della tesi:2008
Anno di Pubblicazione:2008
Parole chiave (italiano / inglese):Arthropoda, appendages, segmentation, postembryonic development
Settori scientifico-disciplinari MIUR:Area 05 - Scienze biologiche > BIO/05 Zoologia
Struttura di riferimento:Dipartimenti > Dipartimento di Biologia
Codice ID:779
Depositato il:10 Set 2008
Simple Metadata
Full Metadata
EndNote Format


I riferimenti della bibliografia possono essere cercati con Cerca la citazione di AIRE, copiando il titolo dell'articolo (o del libro) e la rivista (se presente) nei campi appositi di "Cerca la Citazione di AIRE".
Le url contenute in alcuni riferimenti sono raggiungibili cliccando sul link alla fine della citazione (Vai!) e tramite Google (Ricerca con Google). Il risultato dipende dalla formattazione della citazione.

1. ANGELINI D.R. & KAUFMAN T.C. 2005. Insect appendages and comparative ontogenetics. Developmental Biology, 286: 57-77. Cerca con Google

2. BAENA-LÓPEZ L., BAONZA A. & GARCÍA-BELLIDO A. 2005. The orientation of cell divisions determinates the shape of Drosophila organs. Current Biology, 15: 1640-1644. Cerca con Google

3. BALL E.E., HO R.K. & GOODMAN C.S. 1985. Muscle development in the grasshopper embryo. 1. Muscles, nerves and apodemes in the metathoracic leg. Developmental Biology, 111: 383- 398. Cerca con Google

4. BEUTEL R.G. & POHL H. 2006. Endopterygote systematics – where do we stand and what is the goal (Hexapoda, Arthropoda)? Systematic Entomology, 31: 202-219. Cerca con Google

5. BITSCH J. 2001. The hexapod appendage: basic structure, development and origin. In DEUVE T. ed. Origin of the Hexapoda. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 37: 175-193. Cerca con Google

6. BOUDRIAS M.A. 2002. Are pleopods just “more legs”? The functional morphology of the swimming limbs in Euythenes gryllus (Amphipoda). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 22: 581-594. Cerca con Google

7. BOXSHALL G.A. 2004. The evolution of arthropod limbs. Biological Reviews, 79: 253-300. Cerca con Google

8. BRUSCA R.C. & BRUSCA G.J. 2003. Invertebrates. 2nd edition. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates. Cerca con Google

9. CAMPBELL F.L. & PRIESTLEY J.D. 1970. Flagellar annuli of Blatta germanica (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae). Changes in their numbers and dimensions during postembryonic development. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 63: 81-88. Cerca con Google

10. CARAPELLI A., LIÒ P., NARDI F., VAN DER WATH E. & FRATI F. 2007. Phylogenetic analysis of mithocondrial protein coding genes confirms the reciprocal paraphyly of Hexapoda and Crustacea. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7: S8. Cerca con Google

11. CARROLL S.B., GRENIER J.K. & WEATHERBEE S.D. 2005. From DNA to Diversity. 2nd edition. Malden: Blakwell Publishing. Cerca con Google

12. CASARES F. & MANN R.S. 2001. The ground state of ventral appendage in Drosophila. Science, 293: 1477-1480. Cerca con Google

13. CHILD C.M. & YOUNG A.N. 1903. Regeneration of appendages in nymphs of the Agrionidae. Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen, 15: 543-602. Cerca con Google

14. CRIEL G.R.J. & MACRAE T.H. 2002. Artemia morphology and structure. In ABATZOPOULOS Th.J., BEARDMORE J.A., CLEGG J.S. & SORGELOOS P. eds. Artemia: Basic and Applied Biology. Pp. 1-37. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. Cerca con Google

15. COOK C.E., YUE Q. & AKAM M. 2005. Mithocondrial genomes suggest that hexapods and crustaceans are mutually paraphyletic. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272: 1295-1304. Cerca con Google

16. COUZIJN H.W.C. 1976. Functional anatomy of the walking-legs of Scorpionida with remarks on terminology and homologization of leg segments. Netherlands Journal of Zoology, 26: 453-501. Cerca con Google

17. DAHMS H.-U., FORNSHELL J.A. & FORNSHELL B.J. 2006. Key for the identification of crustacean nauplii. Organisms, Diversity & Evolution, 6: 47-56. Cerca con Google

18. EGREDZIJA M. 2006. Rigenerazione del Complesso Apicale delle Antenne II di Asellus aquaticus (L.) (Crustacea, Isopoda). Unpublished master thesis, University of Padova. Cerca con Google

19. FREEMAN J.A. 2005. Cell differentiation is a primary growth process in developing limbs of Artemia. Biological Bulletin, 208: 189-199. Cerca con Google

20. FREEMAN J.A., CHESHIRE L.B., MACRAE T.H. 1992. Epithelial morphogenesis in developing Artemia: the role of cell replication, cell shape change, and the cytoskeleton. Developmental Biology, 152: 279-292. Cerca con Google

21. FOURNIER B. 1968. Contribution à l’étude expérimentale des relations entre l’ectoderme et le mésoderme au cours du développement embryonnaire de la patte de Carausius morosus Br.: les ébauches d’apodèmes et la ségrégation des masses musculaires présemptives. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris D, 266: 1864-1867. Cerca con Google

22. GALINDO M.I., BISHOP S.A. & COUSO J.P. 2005. Dynamics EGFR-Ras signalling in Drosophila leg development. Developmental Dynamics, 233: 1496-1508. Cerca con Google

23. GARM A. 2004. Revising the definition of the crustacean seta and setal classification systems based on examinations of the mouthpart setae of seven species of decapods. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 142: 233-252. Cerca con Google

24. GIORGIANNI M. & PATEL N.H. 2005. Conquering land, air and water: the evolution and development of arthropod appendages. In Briggs D.E.G. ed. Evolving Form and Function: Fossils and Development. Pp. 159-180. New Haven: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University. Cerca con Google

25. GIRIBET G., RICHTER S., EDGECOMBE G.D. & WHEELER W.C. 2005. The position of crustaceans within Arthropoda – Evidence from nine molecular loci and morphology. In KOENEMANN S. & JENNER R. eds. Crustacea and Arthropod Relationships. Crustacean Issues 16. Pp. 305-352. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Cerca con Google

26. GLENNER H., THOMSEN P.F., HEBSGAARD M.B., SØRENSEN M.V. & WILLERSLEV E. 2006. The origin of insects. Science, 314: 1883-1884. Cerca con Google

27. GOULD S.J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cerca con Google

28. HAAS H. 1955. Untersuchungen zur Segmentbildung an der Antenne von Periplaneta americana L. Roux’ Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik, 147: 434-473. Cerca con Google

29. HANSEN H.J. 1893. A contribution to the morphology of limbs and mouthparts in crustaceans and insects. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (6th series), 12: 417-434. [translation of: HANSEN H.J. 1893. Zur Morphologie der Gliedmassen und Mundtheile bei Crustaceen und Insecten. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 16: 193-198 and 201-212]. Cerca con Google

30. HANSEN H.J. 1925. Studies on Artrhopoda II. On the Comparative Morphology of the Appendages in the Arthropoda. A. Crustacea. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske. Cerca con Google

31. HANSEN H.J. 1930. Studies on Artrhopoda III. On the Comparative Morphology of the Appendages in the Arthropoda. B. Crustacea (supplement), Insecta, Myriapoda, and Arachnida. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske. Cerca con Google

32. HARZSCH S. 2006. Neurophylogeny: architecture of the nervous system and a fresh view on arthropod phylogeny. Integrative & Comparative Biology, 46: 162-194. Cerca con Google

33. HASSANIN A. 2006. Phylogeny of Arthropoda inferred from mithocondrial sequences: strategies for limiting the misleading effects of multiple changes in pattern and rates of substitution. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution, 38: 100-116. Cerca con Google

34. HE B. & ADLER P.N. 2001. Cellular mechanism in the development of the Drosophila arista. Mechanisms of Development, 104: 69-78. Cerca con Google

35. HEEGAARD P. 1957. The second maxilla in the Decapoda. Annals of Zoology, 2: 39-46. Cerca con Google

36. HEMING B.S. 2003. Insect Development and Evolution. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Cerca con Google

37. HONG S.Y. 1988. Development of epipods and gills in some pagurids and brachyurans. Journal of Natural History, 22: 1005-1040. Cerca con Google

38. IMMS A.D. 1939. On the antennal muscolature in insects and other arthropods. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 81: 273-320. Cerca con Google

39. IMMS A.D. 1940. On growth processes in the antennae of insects. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 81: 585-593. Cerca con Google

40. KADO R. & HIRANO R. 1994. Larval development of two Japanese megabalanine barnacles, Megabalanus volcano (Pilsbry) and Megabalanus rosa (Pilsbry) (Cirripedia, Balanidae), reared in the laboratory. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology & Ecology, 175: 17-41. Cerca con Google

41. KOENEMANN S., SCHRAM F.R., BLOECHL A., ILIFFE T.M., HOENEMANN M. & HELD C. 2007. Post-embryonic development of remipede crustaceans. Evolution & Development, 9: 117- 121. Cerca con Google

42. KOJIMA T. 2004. The mechanism of Drosophila leg development along the proximodistal axis. Development, Growth & Differentiation, 46: 115-129. Cerca con Google

43. KUKALOVÁ-PECK J. 1997. Arthropod phylogeny and ‘basal’ morphological structures. In FORTEY R.A. & THOMAS R.H. eds. Arthropod Relationships. Pp. 249-268. London: Chapman & Hall. Cerca con Google

44. LEWONTIN R.C. 2000. The Triple Helix. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cerca con Google

45. MALLATT J. & GIRIBET G. 2006. Further use of nearly complete28S and 18S rRNA genes to classify Ecdysozoa: 37 more arthropods and a kinorhynch. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution, 40: 772-794. Cerca con Google

46. MANJÓN C., SÁNCHEZ-HERRERO E. & SUZANNE M. 2007. Sharp boundaries of Dpp signalling trigger local cell death required for Drosophila leg morphogenesis. Nature Cell Biology, 9: 57-63. Cerca con Google

47. MANTON S.M. 1977. The Arthropoda. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cerca con Google

48. MARUZZO D. 2003. Segmentazione delle Antenne II di Asellus aquaticus (Crustacea, Isopoda) durante la Morfogenesi e la Rigenerazione. Unpublished master thesis, University of Padova. Cerca con Google

49. MARUZZO D., BONATO L., BRENA C., FUSCO G. & MINELLI A. 2005. Appendage loss and regeneration in arthropods: a comparative view. In KOENEMANN S. & JENNER R. eds. Crustacea and Arthropod Relationships. Crustacean Issues 16. Pp. 215-245. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Cerca con Google

50. MCLAUGHLIN P.A. 1982. Comparative morphology of crustacean appendages. In D.E. BLISS & L.G. ABELE eds. The Biology of Crustacea. Vol. 2. Embryology, Morphology, and Genetics. Pp. 197-256. New York: Academic Press. Cerca con Google

51. MINELLI A. 2003. The Development of Animal Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

52. MIRTH C. & AKAM M. 2002. Joint development in the Drosophila leg: cell movements and cell populations. Developmental Biology, 246: 391-406. Cerca con Google

53. NAGY L.M. & WILLIAMS T.A. 2001. Comparative limb development as a tool for understanding the evolutionary diversification of limbs in arthropods: challenging the modularity paradigm. In WAGNER G.P. ed. The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology. Pp. 455- 388. San Diego: Academy Press. Cerca con Google

54. PERCIVAL-SMITH A., TEFT W.A. & BARTA J.L. 2005. Tarsus determination in Drosophila melanogaster. Genome, 48: 712-721. Cerca con Google

55. PRPIC N.-M. & DAMEN W.G.M. 2008. Arthropod appendages: a prime example for the evolution of morphological diversity and innovation. In MINELLI A. & FUSCO G. eds. Evolving Pathways. Pp. 381-398. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

56. RACOVITZA É.G. 1925. Notes sur les Isopodes. 13. Morphologie et phylogénie des antennes II. Le fouet. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, 63: 533-622. Cerca con Google

57. REGIER J.C., SHULTZ J.W. & KAMBIC R.E. 2005. Pancrustacea phylogeny: hexapods are terrestrial crustaceans and maxillopods are not monophyletic. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272: 395-401. Cerca con Google

58. RONCO M. 2004. Arthropod Antennal Morphogenesis through Development and Evolution: a Molecular and Morphological Analysis. Unpublished phd thesis, University of Padova. Cerca con Google

59. SAKURAI K.T., KOIJMA T., AIGAKI T. & HAYASHI S. 2007. Differential control of cell affinity required for progression and refiniment of cell boundary during Drosophila leg segmentation. Developmental Biology, 309: 126-136. Cerca con Google

60. SCHRAM F.R. & KOENEMANN S. 2001. Developmental genetics and arthropod evolution: part I, on legs. Evolution & Development, 3: 343-354. Cerca con Google

61. SEMMLER H. 2005. Immunocytochemische Studien zur larvalen Myo- und Neuroanatomie von Balanus improvisus (Crustacea, Cirripedia, Thecostraca). Unpublished master thesis, Humboldt University of Berlin. Cerca con Google

62. SEMMLER H., HØEG J.T., SCHOLTZ G. & WANNINGER A. 2006. Preliminary results on the anatomy of the larval musculature of Balanus improvisus (Darwin, 1854) (Crustacea: Cirripedia: Thecostraca) using phalloidin staining in combination with confocal laserscanning microscopy. Invertebrate Reproduction & Development, 49: 207-212. Cerca con Google

63. SHULTZ J.W. 1989. Morphology of locomotor appendages in Arachnida: evolutionary trends and phylogenetic implications. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 97: 1-56. Cerca con Google

64. SOLER C., DACZEWSKA M., DA PONTE J.P., DASTUGUE B. & JAGLA K. 2004. Coordinated development of muscles and tendons of the Drosophila leg. Development, 131: 6041- 6051. Cerca con Google

65. SNODGRASS R.E. 1935. Principles of Insect Morphology. New York and London: McGraw-Hill. Cerca con Google

66. STOLLEWERK A. & CHIPMAN A.D. 2006. Neurogenesis in myriapods and chelicerates and its importance for understanding arthropod relationships. Integrative & Comparative Biology, 46: 195-206. Cerca con Google

67. STRAUSFELD N.J., STRAUSFELD C.M., LOESEL R., ROWELL D. & STOWE S. 2006. Arthropod phylogeny: onychophoran brain organization suggests an archaic relationship with a chelicerate stem lineage. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 273: 1857-1866. Cerca con Google

68. TAIJRI R., TSUJI T., UEDA R., SAIGO K. & KOJIMA T. 2007. Fate determination of Drosophila leg distal regions by trachealess and tango through repression and stimulation, respectively, of Bar homeobox gene expression in the future pretarsus and tarsus. Developmental Biology, 303: 461-473. Cerca con Google

69. TAYLOR J. & ADLER P.N. 2008. Cell rearrangement and cell division during the tissue level morphogenesis of evaginating Drosophila imaginal discs. Developmental Biology, 313: 739-751. Cerca con Google

70. VAN DER HAMMEN L. 1989. An Introduction to Comparative Arachnology. The Hague: SPB Academic Publishing. Cerca con Google

71. WALOSSEK D. & MÜLLER K.J. 1997. Cambrian ‘Orste’-type arthropods and the phylogeny of Crustacea. In FORTEY R.A. & THOMAS R.H. eds. Arthropod Relationships. Pp. 139-153. London: Chapman & Hall. Cerca con Google

72. WALOSZEK D. 2003. Cambrian ‘Orsten’-type preserved arthropods and the phylogeny of Crustacea. In LEGAKIS A., SFENTHOURAKIS S., POLYMENI R. & THESSALOU-LEGAKI M. eds. The New Panorama of Animal Evolution. Proceedings of the 18th Internaltional Congress of Zoology. Pp. 69-87. Sofia, Moskow: PENSOFT publisher. Cerca con Google

73. WALOSZEK D., MAAS A., CHEN J. & STEIN M. 2007. Evolution of cephalic feeding structures and the phylogeny of Arthropoda. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 254: 272-287. Cerca con Google

74. WILLIAMS T.A. 2004. The evolution and development of crustacean limbs: an analysis of limb homologies. In SCHOLTZ G. ed. Evolutionary Developmental Biology of Crustacea. Crustacean Issues 15. Pp. 169-193. Lisse: A.A. Balkema. Cerca con Google

75. WILLIAMS T.A. 2007. Structure and development of setae on thoracic limbs of the anostracan crustacean, Thamnocephalus platyurus. Arthropod Structure & Development, 36: 63-76. Cerca con Google

76. WILLIAMS T.A. & MÜLLER G.B. 1996. Limb development in a primitive crustacean, Triops longicaudatus: subdivision of the early limb bud gives rise to multibranched limbs. Development, Genes & Evolution, 206: 161-168. Cerca con Google

77. WILLIAMS T.A. & NAGY L.M. 1996. Comparative limb development in insects and crustaceans. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, 7: 615-628. Cerca con Google

78. WILLIAMS T.A. & NAGY L.M. 2001. Developmental modularity and the evolutionary diversification of arthropod limbs. Journal of Experimental Zoology B (Molecular and Developmental Evolution), 291: 241-257. Cerca con Google

79. WEGE W. 1991. Morphologische und experimentelle Studien an Asellus aquaticus. Zoologische Jahrbücher. Abteilung für Allgemeine Zoologie und Physiologie der Tiere, 30: 217-320. Cerca con Google

80. WOLFF T. 1993. More than 200 years of crustacean research in Denmark. In TRUESDALE F. ed. History of Carcinology. Crustacean Issues 8. Pp. 207-223. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. Cerca con Google

81. ZHANG X.-G., SIVETER D.J., WALOSZEK D. & MAAS A. 2007. An epipodite-bearing crown-group crustacean from the Lower Cambrian. Nature, 449: 595-598. Cerca con Google

Download statistics

Solo per lo Staff dell Archivio: Modifica questo record