33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Proposal for a revised classification of the Demospongiae (Porifera)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Demospongiae is the largest sponge class including 81% of all living sponges with nearly 7,000 species worldwide. Systema Porifera (2002) was the result of a large international collaboration to update the Demospongiae higher taxa classification, essentially based on morphological data. Since then, an increasing number of molecular phylogenetic studies have considerably shaken this taxonomic framework, with numerous polyphyletic groups revealed or confirmed and new clades discovered. And yet, despite a few taxonomical changes, the overall framework of the Systema Porifera classification still stands and is used as it is by the scientific community. This has led to a widening phylogeny/classification gap which creates biases and inconsistencies for the many end-users of this classification and ultimately impedes our understanding of today’s marine ecosystems and evolutionary processes. In an attempt to bridge this phylogeny/classification gap, we propose to officially revise the higher taxa Demospongiae classification.

          Discussion

          We propose a revision of the Demospongiae higher taxa classification, essentially based on molecular data of the last ten years. We recommend the use of three subclasses: Verongimorpha, Keratosa and Heteroscleromorpha. We retain seven (Agelasida, Chondrosiida, Dendroceratida, Dictyoceratida, Haplosclerida, Poecilosclerida, Verongiida) of the 13 orders from Systema Porifera. We recommend the abandonment of five order names (Hadromerida, Halichondrida, Halisarcida, lithistids, Verticillitida) and resurrect or upgrade six order names (Axinellida, Merliida, Spongillida, Sphaerocladina, Suberitida, Tetractinellida). Finally, we create seven new orders (Bubarida, Desmacellida, Polymastiida, Scopalinida, Clionaida, Tethyida, Trachycladida). These added to the recently created orders (Biemnida and Chondrillida) make a total of 22 orders in the revised classification. We propose the abandonment of the haplosclerid and poecilosclerid suborders. The family content of each order is also revised.

          Summary

          The deletion of polyphyletic taxa, the use of resurrected or new names for new clades and the proposal of new family groupings will improve the comparability of studies in a wide range of scientific fields using sponges as their object of study. It is envisaged that this will lead to new and more meaningful evolutionary hypotheses for the end-users of the Demospongiae classification.

          Related collections

          Most cited references98

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Phylogenetic-signal dissection of nuclear housekeeping genes supports the paraphyly of sponges and the monophyly of Eumetazoa.

          The relationships at the base of the metazoan tree have been difficult to robustly resolve, and there are several different hypotheses regarding the interrelationships among sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, placozoans, and bilaterians, with each hypothesis having different implications for the body plan of the last common ancestor of animals and the paleoecology of the late Precambrian. We have sequenced seven nuclear housekeeping genes from 17 new sponges, bringing the total to 29 species analyzed, including multiple representatives of the Demospongiae, Calcarea, Hexactinellida, and Homoscleromorpha, and analyzed a data set also including six nonmetazoan outgroups and 36 eumetazoans using a variety of phylogenetic methods and evolutionary models. We used leaf stability to identify rogue taxa and investigate their effect on the support of the nodes in our trees, and we identified clades most likely to represent phylogenetic artifacts through the comparison of trees derived using different methods (and models) and through site-stripping analyses. Further, we investigated compositional heterogeneity and tested whether amino acid composition bias affected our results. Finally, we used Bayes factors to compare our results against previously published phylogenies. All our maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian analyses find sponges to be paraphyletic, with all analyses finding three extant paraphyletic sponge lineages, Demospongiae plus Hexactinellida, Calcarea, and Homoscleromorpha. All but one of our ML and Bayesian analyses support the monophyly of Eumetazoa (here Cnidaria + Bilateria) and a sister group relationship between Placozoa (here Trichoplax adhaerens) and Eumetazoa. Bayes factors invariably provide decisive support in favor of poriferan paraphyly when compared against either a sister group relationship between Porifera and Cnidaria or with a monophyletic Porifera with respect to a monophyletic Eumetazoa. Although we were able to recover sponge monophyly using our data set, this was only possible under unrealistic evolutionary models, if poorly performing phylogenetic methods were used, or in situations where the potential for the generation of tree reconstruction artifacts was artificially exacerbated. Everything considered, our data set does not provide any support for a monophyletic Diploblastica (here Placozoa + Cnidaria + Porifera) and suggests that a monophyletic Porifera may be better seen as a phylogenetic artifact.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sponge systematics facing new challenges.

            Systematics is nowadays facing new challenges with the introduction of new concepts and new techniques. Compared to most other phyla, phylogenetic relationships among sponges are still largely unresolved. In the past 10 years, the classical taxonomy has been completely overturned and a review of the state of the art appears necessary. The field of taxonomy remains a prominent discipline of sponge research and studies related to sponge systematics were in greater number in the Eighth World Sponge Conference (Girona, Spain, September 2010) than in any previous world sponge conferences. To understand the state of this rapidly growing field, this chapter proposes to review studies, mainly from the past decade, in sponge taxonomy, nomenclature and phylogeny. In a first part, we analyse the reasons of the current success of this field. In a second part, we establish the current sponge systematics theoretical framework, with the use of (1) cladistics, (2) different codes of nomenclature (PhyloCode vs. Linnaean system) and (3) integrative taxonomy. Sponges are infamous for their lack of characters. However, by listing and discussing in a third part all characters available to taxonomists, we show how diverse characters are and that new ones are being used and tested, while old ones should be revisited. We then review the systematics of the four main classes of sponges (Hexactinellida, Calcispongiae, Homoscleromorpha and Demospongiae), each time focusing on current issues and case studies. We present a review of the taxonomic changes since the publication of the Systema Porifera (2002), and point to problems a sponge taxonomist is still faced with nowadays. To conclude, we make a series of proposals for the future of sponge systematics. In the light of recent studies, we establish a series of taxonomic changes that the sponge community may be ready to accept. We also propose a series of sponge new names and definitions following the PhyloCode. The issue of phantom species (potential new species revealed by molecular studies) is raised, and we show how they could be dealt with. Finally, we present a general strategy to help us succeed in building a Porifera tree along with the corresponding revised Porifera classification. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Deep phylogeny and evolution of sponges (phylum Porifera).

              Sponges (phylum Porifera) are a diverse taxon of benthic aquatic animals of great ecological, commercial, and biopharmaceutical importance. They are arguably the earliest-branching metazoan taxon, and therefore, they have great significance in the reconstruction of early metazoan evolution. Yet, the phylogeny and systematics of sponges are to some extent still unresolved, and there is an on-going debate about the exact branching pattern of their main clades and their relationships to the other non-bilaterian animals. Here, we review the current state of the deep phylogeny of sponges. Several studies have suggested that sponges are paraphyletic. However, based on recent phylogenomic analyses, we suggest that the phylum Porifera could well be monophyletic, in accordance with cladistic analyses based on morphology. This finding has many implications for the evolutionary interpretation of early animal traits and sponge development. We further review the contribution that mitochondrial genes and genomes have made to sponge phylogenetics and explore the current state of the molecular phylogenies of the four main sponge lineages (Classes), that is, Demospongiae, Hexactinellida, Calcarea, and Homoscleromorpha, in detail. While classical systematic systems are largely congruent with molecular phylogenies in the class Hexactinellida and in certain parts of Demospongiae and Homoscleromorpha, the high degree of incongruence in the class Calcarea still represents a challenge. We highlight future areas of research to fill existing gaps in our knowledge. By reviewing sponge development in an evolutionary and phylogenetic context, we support previous suggestions that sponge larvae share traits and complexity with eumetazoans and that the simple sedentary adult lifestyle of sponges probably reflects some degree of secondary simplification. In summary, while deep sponge phylogenetics has made many advances in the past years, considerable efforts are still required to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the relationships among and within the main sponge lineages to fully appreciate the evolution of this extraordinary metazoan phylum. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                cpicton01@qub.ac.uk
                paco.cardenas@fkog.uu.se
                Journal
                Front Zool
                Front. Zool
                Frontiers in Zoology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1742-9994
                1 April 2015
                1 April 2015
                2015
                : 12
                : 7
                Affiliations
                [ ]Queen’s University Belfast, Marine Laboratory, Portaferry BT22 1PF, Northern Ireland, UK
                [ ]Department of Organismal Biology, Division of Systematic Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18D, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
                [ ]Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Division of Pharmacognosy, BioMedical Centre, Husargatan 3, Uppsala University, 751 23 Uppsala, Sweden
                Article
                99
                10.1186/s12983-015-0099-8
                4404696
                25901176
                75426c9d-1c75-4110-b4c5-d6ace2a75228
                © Morrow and Cárdenas; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 30 November 2014
                : 12 March 2015
                Categories
                Debate
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Animal science & Zoology
                taxonomy,systematics,sponges,lithistids,heteroscleromorpha,polyphyletic,monophyletic,type taxon

                Comments

                Comment on this article