Skip to content

HIERARCHICAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBPHYLUM MYRIAPODA

HIERARCHICAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBPHYLUM MYRIAPODA (LATREILLE 1802)

EUKARYA> UNIKONTA> OPISTHOKONTA> ANIMALIA> BILATERIA> PROTOSTOMATA> ECDYSOZOA> PANARTHROPODA> ARTHROPODA> MYRIAPODA
MYRIAPODA LINKS

Introduction

Synoptic Description

This fairly standard taxonomic system is from Brusca and Brusca (2003). Although the taxonomy at this level has been quite stable, the taxonomy of the classes, especially the Diplopoda, has been and still is in flux.

CLASS DIPLOPODA (10 ORDERS IN 2 SUBCLASSES)

  • All but first 4 trunk segments fused into pairs, each diplosegment with 2 pairs of legs, ganglia and heart ostia; simple, 7-jointed antennae; maxillae fused into gnathochilarium; integument normally reinforced with calcium carbonate; gonopores opening on or near coxae of 2nd pair of legs; 1st trunk segment legless; without compound eyes; each with diplosegment covered by dorsal tergum, 2 lateral pleura, and 2-3 sterna, with various degrees of fusion; young usually hatch with 3 pairs of legs.
    • Polyxenus, Glomeridesmus, Glomeris, Platydesmus, Striaria, Polydesmus, Julus, Spirobolus.

CLASS PAUROPODA (1 ORDER)

  • Small; eyeless; poorly developed mouthparts including 1 pair of maxillae; branched antennae; without heart or limbs on 1st postcephalic segment, mostly without tracheae; gonopores on 3rd trunk segment; trunk usually with 11 segments, the central 9 each with 1 pair of legs; some tergal plates large, extending over 2 segments and bearing long tactile setae; integument soft, uncalcified.
    • Pauropus.

CLASS CHILOPODA (5 ORDERS IN 2 SUBCLASSES)

  • Elongate; dorsoventrally flattened; numerous segments, each with 1 pair of legs except 1st trunk segment, which bears one pair of large poison fangs, and last 2 segments; simple antennae, two pairs of maxillae; integument without calcium carbonate, eyes ocelli, compound or absent; poison fangs occupy undersurface of head; last 2 segments small, forming pregenital and genital segments; female with 1 ovary and 1 gonopore on genital segment, male with 1-24 testes and 2 gonopores on genital segment.
    • Scutigera, Lithobius, Geophilus, Scolopendra.

CLASS SYMPHYLA (1 ORDER)

  • Small; eyeless; trunk with 14 segments, the last fused to the telson; first 12 trunk segments each with 1 pair of legs, penultimate segment with cerci and 1 pair of long sensory hairs; dorsal surface with 15-22 tergal plates; antennae long, simple, thread-like; 2nd maxillae fused together; 1 pair of spiracles on head, tracheae supplying first 3 segments; 1st pair of legs short; young hatch with 6 or 7 pairs of legs; gonopores on 3rd trunk segment; soft uncalcified integument.
    • Scutigerella.
LITERATURE CITED

Averof, M. and M. Akam. 1995. Insect-crustacean relationships: insights from comparative developmental and molecular studies. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London. B. 347: 293-303.

Ax, P. 2000. Multicellular Animals II. Springer Verlag. Berlin.

Brusca, R. C. and G. J. Brusca. 2003. Invertebrates. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, Mass.

Buchsbaum, R. 1938. Animals Without Backbones, An Introduction to the Invertebrates. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

Budd, G. E. 1998. Arthropod body plan evolution in the Cambrian with an example from anomalocaridid muscle. Lethaia. 31: 197-210.

Budd, G. E. 2001. Tardigrades as ‘Stem-Group Arthropods’: The evidence from the Cambrian fauna. Zool. Anz. 240: 265-279.

Conway Morris, S. (1998). The crucible of creation: the Burgess Shale and the rise of animals. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. pp. 56–9.

Dunn, C.W., A. Hejnol, D.Q. Matus, K. Pang, W.E. Browne, S.A. Smith, E. Seaver, G.W. Rouse, M. Obst, G.D. Edgecombe, M.V. Sørensen, S.H.D. Haddock, A. Schmidt-Rhaesa, A. Okusu, R.M. Kristensen, W.C. Wheeler, M.Q. Martindale, and G. Giribet. 2008. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature. 452: 745-749.

Garey, J. R. 2001. Ecdysozoa: The relationship between Cycloneuralia and Panarthropoda. Zoologischer Anzeiger 240: 321-330.

Giribet, G., G. D. Edgecombe, J. M. Carpenter, C. A. D’Haese, and W. C. Wheeler. 2004. Is Ellipura monophyletic? A combined analysis of basal hexapod relationships with emphasis on the origin of insects. Organisms, Diversity and Evolution. 4: 319-340.

Hickman, C. P. 1973. Biology of the Invertebrates. The C. V. Mosby Company. Saint Louis.

Ivantsov, A. Yu. 2004. New Proarticulata from the Vendian of the Arkhangel’sk Region. Paleontological Journal. 38(3): 247-253.

Lavrov, D. V., W. M. Brown, and J. L. Boore. 2004. Phylogenetic position of the Pentastomida and (pan)crustacean relationships. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. 271: 537-544.

Mallatt, J. M., J. R. Garey, and J. W. Shultz. 2003. Ecdysozoan phylogeny and Baysean inference: first use of nearly complete 28S and 18S rRNA gene sequences to classify the arthropods and their kin. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 31: 178-191.

Manton, S. F. 1977. The arthropod habits, functional morphology, and evolution. Clarendon Press. Oxford.

Margulis, L. and K. Schwartz. 1998. Five kingdoms, an illustrated guide to the phyla of life on earth. 3rd Edition. W. H. Freeman and Company. New York.

Mayer, G. 2006. Structure and development of onychophoran eyes: What is the ancestral visual organ in arthropods? Arthropod Structure and Development. 35: 231-245.

Mayer, G. and P. M. Whittington. 2009. Velvet worm development links myriapods with chelicerates
Nielsen, C. 2001. Animal Evolution: Interrelationships of the Living Phyla. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Patel, N. H., E. Martin-Blanco, K. G. Coleman, S. J. Poole, M. C. Ellis, T. B. Kornberg, and C. S. Goodman. 1989. Expression of engrailed proteins in arthropods, annelids, and chordates. Cell. 58: 955-968.

Pechenik, J. A. 2005. Biology of the Invertebrates. McGraw-Hill. New York.

Regier, J. C., J. W. Shultz, and R. E. Kambic. 2005. Pancrustacean phylogeny: hexapods are terrestrial crustaceans and maxillopods are not monophyletic. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. 272: 395-401.

Reiger, J. C., J. W. Schultz, A. R. D. Ganley, A. Hussey, D. Shi, B. Ball, A. Zwick, J. E. Stajich, M. P. Cummings, J. W. Martin, and C. W. Cunningham. 2008)Resolving arthropod phylogeny: exploring phylogenetic signal within 41 kb of protein-coding nuclear gene sequence. Syste. Biol 57(6): 920-938.

Ruppert, E. E. and R. D. Barnes. 1994. Invertebrate Zoology. 6th edition. Saunders. Ft Worth, TX.

Ruppert, E. E., R. S. Fox, and R. D. Barnes. 2004. Invertebrate Zoology: A Functional Evolutionary Approach. Seventh Edition. Thomson, Brooks/Cole. New York. pp. 1-963.

Strausfeld, N. J., C. M. Strausfeld, R. Loesel, D. Rowell, and S. Stowe. 2006. Arthropod phylogeny: onychophoran brain organization suggests an archaic relationship with a chelicerate stem lineage. Proc. R. Soc. London. B. 273: 1857-1866.

Telford, M. J. S. J. Bourlat, A. Economou, D. Papillion, and O. Rota-Stabelli. 2008. The evolution of Ecdysozoa. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 363: 1529-1537.

Tudge, C. 2000. The Variety of Life, A Survey and a Celebration of all the Creatures That Have Ever Lived. Oxford University Press. New York.

Waggoner, B. M. 1996. Phylogenetic hypotheses of the relationships of arthropods to Precambrian and Cambrian problematic fossil taxa. Systematic Biology 45(2): 190-222.

Whittington, H. B. and D. E. G. Briggs. 1985. The largest Cambrian animal, Anomalocaris, Burgess Shale, British Columbia. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London. B. 309: 569-609.

Willmer, P. 1990. Invertebrate relationships, patterns in animal evolution. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
By Jack R. Holt and Carlos A. Iudica. Last revised: 02/04/2012
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Document Footer

Skip to toolbar