4.3 Article

The evolution of centipede venom claws - Open questions and possible answers

Journal

ARTHROPOD STRUCTURE & DEVELOPMENT
Volume 43, Issue 1, Pages 5-16

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.asd.2013.10.006

Keywords

Chilopoda; Maxilliped; Pleurostigmophora; Heteroterga; Nusplingen Lithographic Limestone; Mazon Creek

Categories

Funding

  1. Alexander von Humboldt foundation
  2. Feodor Lynen return fellowship
  3. German Research Foundation [DFG HA 6300/3-1]
  4. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The maxilliped venom claw is an intriguing structure in centipedes. We address open questions concerning this structure. The maxillipeds of fossil centipedes from the Carboniferous (about 300 million years old) have been described, but not been depicted previously. Re-investigation demonstrates that they resemble their modern counterparts. A Jurassic geophilomorph centipede (about 150 million years old) was originally described as possessing a rather leg-like maxilliped. Our re-investigation shows that the maxilliped is, in fact, highly specialized as in modern Geophilomorpha. A scenario for the evolution of the centipede maxilliped is presented. It supports one of the two supposed hypotheses of centipede phylogeny, the Pleurostigmophora hypothesis. Although this hypothesis appears now well established, many aspects of character evolution resulting from this phylogeny remain to be told in detail. One such aspect is the special joint of the maxilliped in some species of Cryptops. Cryptops is an in-group of Scolopendromorpha, but its maxilliped joint can resemble that of Lithobiomorpha or even possess a mixture of characters between the both. Detailed investigation of fossils, larger sample sizes of extant species, and developmental data will be necessary to allow further improvements of the reconstruction of the evolutionary history of centipedes. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available