Monoplacophorans and the Origin and Relationships of Mollusks
© The Author(s) 2009
Received: 5 September 2008
Accepted: 4 March 2009
Published: 15 April 2009
The story of the discovery and study of the Monoplacophora (or Tryblidia) and how they have contributed to our understanding of the evolution of the Mollusca highlights the importance of integrating data from the fossil record with the study of living forms. Monoplacophora were common in the early Paleozoic and were thought to have become extinct during the Devonian Period, approximately 375 Mya. In the mid 1950s, they were recovered from abyssal depths off of Costa Rica and were immediately heralded as a “living fossil.” The living specimens confirmed that some of the organs (kidneys, heart, and gills) were repeated serially, just like the shell muscles that had been observed in fossil specimens. This supported the hypothesis that they were closely related to other segmented organisms such as annelids and arthropods. Today, there are 29 described living species and a growing body of work examining their anatomy, phylogeny, and ecology. Additional fossil specimens have also been discovered, and what was once thought to be a possible missing link between annelid worms and mollusks now appears to be a highly specialized branch of the molluscan tree that tells us little about the ancestral mollusk condition. However, some assumptions and generalizations from those early days still remain—such as the abyssal nature of the living species. A large part of the evolutionary history of the lineage remains to be discovered and will likely prove more complicated and interesting than afforded by the living fossil designation.
KeywordsMonoplacophora Tryblidia Mollusca Evolution Limpet
The story of the discovery of living Monoplacophora (or Tryblidia) and the study of both fossil and living species has greatly shaped our ideas of the evolution of the Mollusca, and this body of work highlights the importance of integrating data from the fossil record with the study of living forms. However, it also provides important examples of the caution that must be exercised when studying lineages across such broad expanses of the history of life. Monoplacophorans are one of the least known members of the living Mollusca as compared to the other groups such as Gastropoda (snails), Bivalvia (clams), and Cephalopoda (octopus and squids). All of these molluscan groups, as well as monoplacophorans, are also well represented in the early Paleozoic Era, and it was there that the monoplacophorans apparently reached their greatest abundance and diversity.
The name Monoplacophora places these animals in a group of mollusks referred to by paleontologists as the placophorans or “plate” mollusks. Members of this level of morphological organization (or grade) typically have elongate bodies and either a single shell (Monoplacophora), seven, eight, or up to 17 plates (Polyplacophora) or lack plates altogether and instead have calcium carbonate spicules (Aplacophora). In the 1990s, new fossil discoveries in the Cambrian of Greenland and later in China revealed an elongate animal with both spicules and plates—the Halkieria (Conway Morris and Peel 1990). Some paleontologists and zoologists have argued that these animals are mollusks and therefore are yet another representative of the placophoran grade of organization. Others argue that while they are closely related to mollusks and other lophotrochozoan groups such as annelid worms or perhaps brachiopods, they are not members of the Mollusca (see Vinther and Nielsen 2005; Caron et al. 2006; Butterfield 2006 for a sampling of both pro and con arguments).
The discovery of living monoplacophorans in the 1950s was one of the great biological discoveries of the last century, similar to the discovery of the living coelacanth off the coast of Africa in 1938 and the discovery of the Wollemi Pine in Australia in 1995. Living monoplacophorans were first recovered by the Danish research ship Galathea from a dark, muddy clay bottom at a depth of 3,570 m off the coast of Costa Rica in 1952. Ten living animals and three empty shells were recovered, and like many specimens collected during deep-sea expeditions, they were preserved on board ship and set aside for study upon return to mainland laboratories where the significance of these specimens was first realized. Whether the official discovery of living monoplacophorans dates from the collection of Neopilina galatheae in 1952 or the formal description by Hennig Lemche in 1957, at least four living monoplacophoran shells had been collected prior to 1900, but their significance went unrecognized. Neopilina goesi was first dredged in 1869 off the Virgin Islands in the Caribbean (Warén 1988) and Rokopella euglypta (Dautzenberg and Fischer 1897), Veleropilina reticulata (Seguenza 1876), and Veleropilina zografi Dautzenberg and Fischer (1896) were all originally described as patellacean limpets. After the discovery of N. galatheae, additional species were soon discovered, and today there are 29 described taxa distributed worldwide between 175 and 6,400 m (Haszprunar 2008).
The shell structure of the Galathea specimens and fossil monoplacophorans was studied by Schmidt (1959), Erben et al. (1968), Meenakshi et al. (1970), McLean (1979), and Hedegaard and Wenk (1998). In Recent species, the outer surface of the shell is covered by a thin periostracum, and under the periostracum is an outer prismatic shell layer and an inner nacreous layer—the traditional primitive shell structure configuration. This same configuration of shell layers is also present in fossil monoplacophorans.
One of the most controversial anatomical structures described by Lemche and Wingstrand were the paired “dorsal coeloms” that were thought to connect with the anterior excretory organs and were topographically similar to the fused gonads in chitons. Because other living mollusks do not have distinct coelomic spaces, these structures suggested an even more primitive character than the other paired structures and a character that might align the monoplacophorans even closer to the coelomate annelid worms. However, later studies found that these structures were associated with the foregut and were actually esophageal pouches (see Haszprunar and Schaefer 1997a).
Another misinterpretation occurred with the monoplacophoran protoconch—the larval shell. Lemche and Wingstrand (1959) illustrated a spirally coiled “protoconch” on a single specimen of N. galatheae. However, all subsequent Recent monoplacophoran shells that have retained this earliest ontogenetic stage of the shell and all known Paleozoic examples have bulbous protoconchs. As suggested by Bouchet et al. (1983), Lemche and Wingstrand's observation was in error and the spirally coiled structure actually an area of shell repair. Figured bulbous protoconchs range in size from 123 µm to 150 µm in diameter, and this size compares favorably with the known mature egg diameters of 200–350 μm for the taxon (Gonor 1979; Haszprunar and Schaefer 1997a).
Monoplacophorans as Living Fossils
The term living fossil emphasizes a taxon that appears little changed since its initial appearance in the fossil record. In addition, these taxa typically have survived a large portion of geological time and have low living diversity. Because they so closely resemble their putative fossil ancestors, it is assumed that they have been in morphological and/or physiological stasis and therefore retain primitive characters for their group. Lastly, this remarkable survival is often coupled with their occurrence in some sort of refugial habitat. Monoplacophorans fit these criteria well. They have retained the simple limpet shell morphology with the same shell microstructure; the shell musculature appears unchanged over a half a billion years; the living representatives have both low diversity and abundances; and they are found at abyssal depths in the deep sea.
So, as living fossils, what might they tell us about molluscan relationships? One of the main questions surrounding molluscan relationships has been the identity of the sister taxon of the Mollusca—the group that shares the last common ancestor with the Mollusca. Two major positions have been taken—one aligning the flatworms with the Mollusca and the other the annelid worms. Because segmentation is such a defining character of the annelids, the multiple paired muscles of chitons and fossil monoplacophorans was suggestive of the possibility of segmentation in the ancestral molluscan lineage as well. However, living chitons with a single pair of kidneys, digestive glands, gonoducts, etc. did little to resolve the argument. Thus, the discovery of living Monoplacophora with their multiplication of several organ systems and structures (gills, gonads, kidneys, etc.) was interpreted as evidence for a segmented molluscan ancestor (e.g., Lemche 1959a, b; Lemche and Wingstrand 1959; Götting 1980; Wingstrand 1985). However, others (e.g., Steinböck 1963; Vagvolgyi 1967; Salvini-Plawen 1972, 1981, 1985, 1991; Haszprunar 2008) argued against this interpretation and for an independent development of duplicated organs and structures.
As pointed out by Haszprunar (2008), the Monoplacophora have yet to be subjected to a rigorous cladistic analysis, and the limited molecular data currently available produce an unexpected outcome, with the monoplacophorans residing within the polyplacophorans (Giribet et al. 2006). Most morphological analyses place the Monoplacophora at or near the base of the conchiferan clade [=monoplacophorans, bivalves, gastropods, scaphopods, and cephalopods] (Wingstrand 1985; Runnegar 1996; Salvini-Plawen and Steiner 1996; Waller 1998; Haszprunar 2000; Haszprunar et al. 2008). Cladistic analyses of gastropod relationships by Ponder and Lindberg (1996, 1997) used both Polyplacophora and Monoplacophora as outgroups, and while not specifically addressing character state polarity within the Monoplacophora, the results of these larger scale analyses identified numerous unique or autapomorphic character states relative to the polyplacophorans and basal gastropods (Ponder and Lindberg 1997: Appendix 3). Schaefer and Haszprunar (1997b) also came to a similar conclusion and provided a listing of 11 autapomorphic character states, which they argued identified the Monoplacophora as an early, but highly modified branch of the molluscan tree.
Several lines of evidence suggest that the monoplacophorans appear to be primitive because many of their systems and character states appear to exhibit a developmental state referred to as paedomorphosis. Changes in the timing of the development of organs and structures is a process called heterochrony (Gould 1977), and the forms of expression have been described qualitatively and quantitatively by de Beer (1951), Gould (1977), Alberch et al. (1979), McKinney and McNamara (1991), Zeldrich (2001), and references therein. In summary, heterochrony produces two forms of morphological expression: paedomorphosis, the retention of ancestral juvenile characters by later ontogenetic stages of descendants and peramorphosis, new descendant characters produced by additions to the ancestral ontogeny. The role of heterochrony in biotic evolution received renewed interest and study since the appearance of Gould's (1977) seminal treatment of ontogeny and phylogeny.
Paedomorphic mesodermal structures
Repetition of organs in monoplacophoran species
Shell size (mm)
Haszprunar and Schaefer (1997b)
Warén and Bouchet (1990)
Schaefer and Haszprunar (1997)
Wingstrand (1985:47) was aware of this and discussed the potential role of the mesoderm in producing this pattern and also identified the critical question—is monoplacophoran “metamerism” pleisiomorphic (primitive) or autapomorphic (uniquely derived)? In other words, is it homologous and shared with the annelids via a common ancestor or is it a unique, derived character of the monoplacophorans? Outgroup comparison (chitons or even aplacophorans) does suggest that the musculature might be pleisiomorphic, but the serial repetition of the other structures is clearly autapomorphic.
There was also a non-correspondence in the direction of the addition of structures during development between Annelida, chitons, and monoplacophorans. Although developmental studies of Monoplacophora are lacking, several authors have made studies of size series within well-collected species to postulate developmental sequences. For example, Starobogatov (1970) and Moskalev et al. (1983) have noted that that the gills appear and develop from the posterior to the anterior during growth and that the number of leaflets of the individual gills also increased with the size of the animal. Haszprunar (2008) made similar observations of the number and direction of addition of the gills in five species of small monoplacophorans, as well as in the size and developmental state of the gonads in Micropilina arntzi and Laevipilina antarctica and the state of development of the post-oral tentacles. Especially informative was his observation that in a male specimen of L. antarctica, the most anterior gonad was not completely separated and still partially fused with the posterior ones, and small specimens of L. antarctica only had four rather than five gills.
In the outgroup Polyplacophora, Russell Hunter and Brown (1965) demonstrated that chiton gills are added posteriorly (Lepidopleurida) or anteriorly (Chitonida) and often exhibit asymmetric conditions. They argued that this occurs to meet increased respiratory needs as the animal grows and surface to volume ratios increases, and the multiplication of gills reflected functional needs rather than the vestiges of an ancestral condition. A similar scenario may also be applicable for monoplacophorans, and the anterior addition of gills in monoplacophoran suggests a polarity for the addition of structures (i.e., duplication) and may provide insights into the causality of serial repetition in monoplacophoran organs. However, it may not be the gills that are providing the additional respiratory surfaces.
The monoplacophoran gills are located in the mantle groove surrounding the foot; there are between three and six pairs depending on the taxon, and the structure of the central axis is similar to that found in the polyplacophorans (Fig. 3). However, the gill retractor muscles are more organized and defined in the monoplacophoran gill as compared to the polyplacophoran gill. In addition, the monoplacophorans gills are densely ciliated and lack squamous epithelium that distinguishes the respiratory zone of other molluscan gills (Schaefer and Haszprunar 1997; see also Lindberg and Ponder 2001: Fig. 6).
Lowenstam (1978) filmed and photographed living monoplacophorans showing the gills vibrating, apparently to move water through the pallial groove—vibrating gills are unknown in other mollusks where ciliary action, sometimes assisted by muscular contractions, moves water over the gill surfaces (Haszprunar 1992). In a subsequent paper, Lowenstam (1978) mentioned that movements of the shell were accompanied by an acceleration of gill beating, but did not further elaborate on this atypical function for these supposed respiratory structures. Lowenstam's observation of beating gills led Lindberg and Ponder (1996) to restudy the arrangement of the kidneys, gills, and auricles of N. galatheae (Lemche and Wingstrand 1959: Fig. 144) and to propose a new functional and evolutionary scenario for the monoplacophorans “gills”.
The size and number of vessel connections between the auricles, kidneys, and gills of N. galatheae suggest the kidneys are important respiratory sites in monoplacophorans. Whereas each gill has a single connection with the auricle, the kidneys typically have two connections. Although unlabeled, Lemche and Wingstrand (1959) illustrated over 25 connections to the kidneys in N. galatheae and only ten with the gills. Thus, anteriorward serial replication of the mesoderm-derived structures (shell muscles excepted) in the Monoplacophora could be driven by selection for increasing respiratory surface. The gills or perhaps more correctly, ventilators, are each associated with a nephridial respiratory site which they ventilate. Size and ancestry of a monoplacophoran lineage probably determines the number of respiratory sites (both kidneys and ventilators). Lindberg and Ponder (1996) proposed that heterochronic changes (both paedomorphic and peramorphic), operating primarily on developing mesodermal tissues, led to the addition or deletion of ventilators and respiratory sites. Changes in the timing of formation of kidney rudiments could also produce different numbers of kidneys. And because gonads are also offshoots of the kidney rudiments (Moor 1983), the number of these structures may also have been affected. Schaefer and Haszprunar (1997b) reached a similar conclusion regarding the ventilator function of the gills based on the lack of a distinct respiratory zone on the monoplacophorans gills and comparisons to them to gill and ventilator configurations in other mollusks (see Haszprunar 1992). Whether or not the larger Paleozoic monoplacophorans had primarily respiratory gills or ventilators is not known, but this question might be explored using models that incorporate gas diffusion measurements with volume to surface area ratios.
The outstanding anatomical studies of the brooding monoplacophoran M. arntzi (Haszprunar and Schaefer 1997a) and other species (Schaefer and Haszprunar (1997); Haszprunar and Schaefer 1997b; Haszprunar 2008) demonstrated paedomorphic trends in organ systems of other living monoplacophorans species taxa. M. arntzi is less than a 1 mm in length and shows numerous reductions and simplifications of “typical” monoplacophoran anatomy. Warén and Hain (1992) reported that the animal lacked post-oral tentacles. Haszprunar and Schaefer (1997a) recounted that although the typical eight pairs of shell muscles are present, there are only three pairs of gills and kidneys and a single pair of gonads. Components of the alimentary system are also reduced and simplified, and the radular cartilages are reduced to a single pair. In contrast, the nervous system appears identical to larger monoplacophoran species. This pattern of modification and reorganization of the kidneys, gonads, and heart and simplification of endodermal alimentary structures, while leaving the nervous system relatively unmodified, is identical to the heterochronic patterns seen in the evolution of brooding in the Patellogastropoda (Lindberg 1983, 1988). Here again, it appears that the combination of mosaic development and dissociation of structures produced by different germ layers has produced mollusks with heterochronic anatomical patterns with some ectodermally derived structures that differ little from their ancestors, endodermally derived structures that have been juvenilized, and mesodermally derived structures that have produced new morphologies.
Although the pedal nerve cords of the brooding species appeared to have little change relative to larger monoplacophoran species, the pedal nerve configuration of monoplacophorans does differ from other mollusks and is likely autapomorphic as well. Lindberg and Ponder (1996) compared polyplacophorans, monoplacophorans, and basal gastropods. In the polyplacophorans, the pedal nerve cords are thick, lie parallel to one another, and have numerous cross-connections. In the vetigastropods, the pedal nerve cords also show this arrangement regardless if the taxon is coiled or limpet-like. In the patellogastropods, the pedal nerve cords are also stout with several cross-connections. However, in the monoplacophorans, the pedal nerve cords are not parallel but arranged in a broad oval, fused posteriorly and have cross-connections to the lateral nerve cords rather than to each other.
Reduction of the radular apparatus
The monoplacophoran radula is another structure that shows putative reductions. This includes both the radular dentition as well as the radular support structures that press the dentition against the substrate during feeding. As noted above, monoplacophoran radular dentition is more similar to the gastropod limpets than it is to chitons, cephalopods, or other non-torted molluscan groups.
The number of radular teeth are reduced in the monoplacophoran radula (Fig. 4) compared with polyplacophoran radulae (five teeth flanking the central tooth on each side, compared with eight). In the patellogastropod group Patellidae, the number of lateral teeth and plates is about nine on either side of the central teeth. The monoplacophoran radula is reduced relative to the Polyplacophora and the Patellidae, but appears convergent with radulae of the patellogastropod group Lottiidae (Fig. 4).
Stuber and Lindberg (1989) argued that the habitat changes exhibited by Monoplacophora through geological time (see below) required dietary shifts that correlate with particular radular modifications. They concluded that the number and morphology of radular teeth found in Recent monoplacophorans living in deep water habitats could not have been employed effectively by early Paleozoic monoplacophorans, which apparently lived exclusively in intertidal and nearshore habitats, and had become convergent with members of the Lottiidae.
The radula support structure, or odontophore, consists of a pair of hollow, fluid-filled vesicles to which are attached vesicular tissue bands commonly referred to as radular cartilages. In the Monoplacophora, there are two distinct pairs of cartilages: the lateral cartilages and the medial cartilages. Wingstrand (1985) also noted a pair of small cartilages, detached from the medial cartilage in N. galatheae. Although monoplacophoran radular vesicles are proportional in size to those found in polyplacophorans, the radular cartilages are substantially reduced in size. For example, although the lateral cartilages of polyplacophorans typically extend almost the entire length of the radular vesicles and the medial cartilages typically half the length, both radular cartilages of the monoplacophoran radular support are confined to the anterior third of the vesicles. Here again is evidence for reduction (or elaboration) in the Monoplacophora relative to the Polyplacophora.
The eight pairs of muscles of the Monoplacophora are the single most diagnostic character of the group and unite fossils and living representatives across half a billion years of time. However, as discussed above, there remains some controversy as to what are and what are not monoplacophorans in the fossil record and especially in the Cambrian (see Peel 1991 and Parkhaev 2008 for overviews). One of the most problematic and controversial groups are the Early Paleozoic limpets with continuous muscle scars (Peel and Horný 1999). These limpets resemble monoplacophorans shells in their overall morphology but have continuous bands of shell attachment muscles rather than the paired muscle scars of monoplacophorans. These muscle patterns are more similar and in some case almost identical to muscle scars found in living gastropods (e.g., Patellogastropoda, Cocculinoidea, Fissurelloidea). One of these taxa is Floripatella rousseaui from the Middle Ordovician of Utah, USA (Yochelson 1988). Yochelson considered this specimen to represent the earliest representative of the Patellogastropoda and therefore a gastropod rather than a monoplacophoran. However, a unique structure preserved on the specimen may provide additional information for interpreting this fossil and determining at least part of the potential range of variation in monoplacophoran musculature.
As unusual as it seems, circulatory patterns are sometimes preserved in fossil limpets. Hickman and Lindberg (1985) described and illustrated how the mantle vein of Recent patellogastropod species produces an impression on the shell interior just anterior of the left shell muscle attachment point. For Recent species, the morphology of this vessel and its impression is correlated with the type of respiratory structures present. There is also a slight depression just within and posterior of the left anterior shell muscle that corresponds to the position of the pericardium in living taxa. These same features are present in Floripatella and other fossil limpets. Lindberg and Squires (1990) described and illustrated Eocene Patelloida species from California and Oregon that have vessel impressions that are indicative of the presence of mantle gills. This is of particular interest because mantle gills are not found in any living Patelloida sp. today. Vessel impressions are also found in some living and fossil fissurelloidean taxa; however, in this group, it is an impression of the anterior aorta rather than the circumpallial vessel.
Although Yochelson (1988) considers this specimen to represent the earliest representative of the Patellogastropoda, I would argue that the Y-shape structure on the posterior margin of the steinkern represents the efferent mantle vessel, probably homologous with the circumpallial veins of the Pleurotomarioidea, Haliotoidea, Fissurelloidea, and Patellogastropoda. The size and morphology are similar to those described above in living and fossil patellogastropod taxa, and the depression into which the Y-shaped structure opens is possibly the pericardium depression. These depressions are also common in patellogastropod taxa. The position of the Y-shaped structure and its association with a posterior depression would require that F. rousseaui be an untorted mollusk and possibly a monoplacophoran with a continuous muscle band. If this interpretation is correct, it also suggests that consolidation of the mantle vessels and a reduction in the number of atria occurred one or more times in early conchiferan evolution and that only one lineage of monoplacophorans—the one having multiple paired muscle bundles—survived into the Recent.
In the literature, Paleozoic monoplacophorans have been associated with a wide range of habitats. Although Horný (1963) concluded that most Paleozoic species lived on soft sediments in shallow epicontinental seas, Paleozoic taxa have also been found in association with stromatolites, where they are thought to have been algal/bacterial grazers in shallow marine environment of varying energy regimes. They have also been reported from Silurian hydrothermal vents (Little et al. 1997).
Living Monoplacophora show a similar diversity of habitats, occurring on deep sea oozes as well as on a variety of mud, silt, sand, and gravel sediments. They have also been found attached to ferromanganese and phosphorite nodules, stones, and boulders. Based on stomach contents, monoplacophorans appear to be benthic feeders taking in radiolarians, bacteria, foraminiferans, diatoms, polychaetes, and sponges. Bacterial endosymbionts have been reported in the mantle edge, the tips of gills, the lateral foot sides, and on the head and postoral tentacles of L. antarctica and Laevipilina theresae (Haszprunar et al. 1995). The bacteria were found between epidermal microvilli and aggregated within bacteriocytes (Haszprunar and Schaefer 1997a).
“Presumably it [Neopilina] originated from an ancestor inhabiting shallow water Cambrian-Devonian epicontinental seas and has been conserved in the abyss up to this day in a reasonably unchanged form.” (Menzies et al. 1959: 169).
Fifty years after Menzies et al. made the above statement, there are 29 additional described species and a body of work examining their anatomy using the latest methods and techniques. Additional fossil specimens have also been discovered and described, and what was once thought to be a possible missing link between annelid worms and mollusks now appears to be a highly specialized branch on the molluscan tree that tells us little about the ancestral mollusk condition.
One of the important remaining questions is, when did these unique characters appear in the Monoplacophora? For example, the multiple paired muscle scars are a diagnostic character of both fossil and living Monoplacophora, and this arrangement provides space for the placement of the kidneys in the roof of the mantle groove and the related functioning of the gills as ventilators rather than respiratory surfaces. Was this a feature of Early Paleozoic taxa or a subsequent modification as they moved into deep water habitats? Would such an arrangement function in intertidal habitats of the Paleozoic? Questions like these go to the heart of the idea of “conserved” character states versus subsequent change during their hiatus from the fossil record.
While many of the characters discussed above appear to have resulted from changes in developmental timing, it is difficult to determine if they were correlated or separate events and whether they are of Paleozoic or later origin. In other molluscan groups, there is evidence that some developmental changes within specific cell lineages will have ramifications for later development events (Moor 1983; van den Biggelaar and Haszprunar 1996; van den Biggelaar et al. 1997; Dictus and Damen 1997; Lindberg and Guralnick 2003). Developmental studies of Monoplacophora will be critical in providing insights into this question. However, the methodological obstacles of doing developmental work on free-spawning mollusks that occur at a minimum depth of 175 m are formidable.
While much work remains to be done to further resolve the monoplacophoran's position on the molluscan Tree of Life, there also needs to be recognition of the innovative and integrative research approaches that these curious animals have attracted. J. B. Knight (1952), who would interpreted monoplacophorans as non-torted, primitive mollusks and grouped them with the chitons and aplacophorans, did this by integrating stratigraphic data from the fossil record with both anatomical and functional studies of living taxa and ontogenetic data from developmental studies. He then worked back through time, what he referred to as “climbing down the family tree,” using data from living taxa to incorporate less well-known extinct forms into his evolutionary scenario. From these reconstructions, he then moved to other branches and reclimbed his tree looking for concurrence of characters across his evolutionary scenario. Four years after Knight's innovative use of paleontological and neontological data to construct hypotheses of molluscan evolution, the discovery of N. galatheae validated his interpretation of Tryblidium, and invertebrate zoologists and malacologists anointed the newly discovered limpets from the abyssal plains off Costa Rica as a living fossil. While the living fossil designation remains ambiguous, the methodology that J. B. Knight and others have employed in the study of these unique mollusks has been validated.
I thank W. Ponder and G. Haszprunar for countless critical discussions of molluscan relationships, R. Stuber for her detailed study of monoplacophoran fossil occurrences, the late M. Taylor for preparing Figs. 3–5, the late E. Yochelson for sharing Floripatella with me, P. Wagner for specimen data, and G. Haszprunar and three anonymous reviewers for helpful criticism of the manuscript. The Paleobiology Database (http://paleodb.org/), assembled by J. Alroy and contributors, provided data and resources for the preparation of this paper, for which I am most grateful. I also thank D. Prothero and N. Eldredge for the opportunity to contribute to this volume. This is UC Museum of Paleontology contribution number 1991.
- Alberch P, Gould S, Oster G, Wake D. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology. 1979;5:296–317.Google Scholar
- Angelin N, Lindström G. Fragmenta Silurica e Dono Caroli Henrici Wegelin. Opus Studio Nicolai Petri Angelin Inchoatum Jussu et Impensis Academiae Regiae Scientarum Suecicae. 1880;1–60.Google Scholar
- Bouchet P, McLean J, Warén A. Monoplacophorans in the North Atlantic. Oceanol Acta. 1983;6:117–8.Google Scholar
- Butterfield N. Hooking some stem-group “worms”: fossil lophotrochozoans in the Burgess Shale. Bioessays. 2006;28:1161–6. doi:10.1002/bies.20507.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Caron J, Scheltema A, Schander C, Rudkin D. A soft-bodied mollusk with radula from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale. Nature. 2006;442:159–63. doi:10.1038/nature04894.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cleland H. Further notes on the Calciferous (Beekmantown) formation of the Mohawk valley, with descriptions of new species. Bull Am Paleontol. 1903;4:29–50.Google Scholar
- Conway Morris S, Peel J. Articulated halkieriids from the Lower Cambrian of north Greenland. Nature. 1990;345:802–5. doi:10.1038/345802a0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dall W. Phylogeny of the Docoglossa. Proc Acad Nat Sci Philadelphia. 1893;1893:285–7.Google Scholar
- Dautzenberg P, Fischer H. Dragages effectués par l'Hirondella et par la Princesse-Alice, 1888–1896: 1, Mollusques Gastéropodes. Mem Soc Zool Fr. 1896;9:395–498.Google Scholar
- Dautzenberg P, Fischer H. Dragages effectués par l'Hirondella et par la Princesse-Alice, 1888–1896. Mem Soc Zool Fr. 1897;10:139–234.Google Scholar
- de Beer G. Embryos and ancestors. Revised edition. Oxford: Clarendon; 1951. p. 1–159.Google Scholar
- Dictus W, Damen P. Cell-lineage and clonal contribution map of the trochophore larva of Patella vulgata (Mollusca). Mech Dev. 1997;62:213–26. doi:10.1016/S0925-4773(97)00666-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Erben H, Flass G, Siehl A. Über die Schalenstruktur von Monoplacophoren. Abh Akad Wissens Lit, Mainz. Math-Natur Kl. 1968;1968:1–24.Google Scholar
- Giribet G, Okusu A, Lindgren A, Huff S, Schrödl M, Nishiguchi M. Evidence for a clade composed of mollusks with serially repeated structures: monoplacophorans are related to chitons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:7723–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.0602578103.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Golikov A, Starobogatov Y. Questions of phylogeny and systematics of prosobranch gastropods. Tr Zool Inst Akad Nauk SSSR. 1988;176:4–77. in Russian.Google Scholar
- Gonor J. Monoplacophora, first edition, reproduction of marine invertebrates vol. V. New York: Academic; 1979. p. 87–93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Götting K. Origin and relationships of the Mollusca. Zeit Zool Syst Evolutionsforsch. 1980;18:24–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gould S. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Massachusetts: Belknap; 1977. p. 1–501.Google Scholar
- Haszprunar G. On the origin and evolution of major gastropod groups, with special reference to the Streptoneura (Mollusca). J Moll Stud. 1988;54:367–441. doi:10.1093/mollus/54.4.367.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Haszprunar G. The first mollusks—small animals. Boll Zool. 1992;59:1–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Haszprunar G. Is the Aplacophora monophyletic? A cladistic point of view. Am Malacol Bull. 2000;15:115–30.Google Scholar
- Haszprunar G. Monoplacophora (Tryblidia), first edition, phylogeny and evolution of the mollusca. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2008. p. 97–104.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Haszprunar G, Schaefer K. Monoplacophora, microscopic anatomy of invertebrates vol. 6B: mollusca II. New York: Wiley-Liss; 1997a. p. 415–57.Google Scholar
- Haszprunar G, Schaefer K. Anatomy and phylogenetic significance of Micropilina arntzi (Mollusca, Monoplacophora, Micropilinidae fam.nov.). Acta Zool. 1997b;77:315–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Haszprunar G, Schaefer K, Warén A, Hain S. Bacterial symbiosis in the epidermis of an Antarctic neopilinid limpet (Mollusca, Monoplacophora). Phil Tran Roy Soc London. Ser B. 1995;347:181–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Haszprunar G, Schander C, Halanych K. Relationships of higher molluscan taxa, First Edition, Phylogeny and Evolution of the Mollusca. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2008. p. 19–32.Google Scholar
- Hedegaard C, Wenk R. Microstructure and texture patterns of mollusk shells. J Moll Stud. 1998;64:133–6. doi:10.1093/mollus/64.1.133.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hickman C, Lindberg D. Perspectives on molluscan phylogeny, Mollusks. Notes for a short course. Univ Tennessee Dept Geol Sci. Stud Geol (Tulsa). 1985;13:13–6.Google Scholar
- Horný R. Lower Paleozoic Bellerophontina (Gastropoda) of Bohemia. Sborni'k Geol Ved. 1963;2:57–164.Google Scholar
- Hyman L. The invertebrates vol. VI. Mollusca I, first edition. New York: McGraw- Hill; 1967. p. 1–792.Google Scholar
- Jablonski D, Sepkoski J, Bottjer D, Sheehan P. Onshore-offshore patterns in the evolution of Phanerozoic shelf communities. Science. 1983;222:1123–5. doi:10.1126/science.222.4628.1123.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Knight J. Primitive fossil gastropods and their bearing on gastropod classification. Smithson Misc Collect. 1952;117:1–56.Google Scholar
- Knight J, Yochelson E. Monoplacophora, treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Mollusca 1, first edition. Lawrence: Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press; 1960. p. I77–84.Google Scholar
- Lauterbach K-E. Gedanken zur Entstehung der mehrfach paarigen Exkretionsorgane von Neopilina (Mollusca, Conchifera). Z zool Sys Evolutionsforsch. 1983;21:38–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lemche H. A new living deep-sea mollusk of the Cambrio-Devonian class Monoplacophora. Nature. 1957;179:413–6. doi:10.1038/179413a0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lemche H. (1959a) Molluscan phylogeny in the light of Neopilina. Proc 15th Intern Cong Zool, London: 380–381.Google Scholar
- Lemche H. (1959b) Protostomian interrelationships in the light of Neopilina. Proc 15th Intern Cong Zool, London: 381–389.Google Scholar
- Lemche H, Wingstrand K. The anatomy of Neopilina galatheae Lemche, 1957. Galathea Rep. 1959;3:9–71.Google Scholar
- Lindberg D. Anatomy, systematics, and evolution of brooding acmaeid limpets. Ph. D. dissertation, Biology, University of California: Santa Cruz, 1983;1–277.Google Scholar
- Lindberg D. Gastropods: The neontological view. Heterochrony in Evolution: An Interdisciplinary Approach. New York: Plenum Press; 1988. p. 197–216.Google Scholar
- Lindberg D, Guralnick R. Phyletic patterns of early development in gastropod mollusks. Evol Dev. 2003;5:494–507. doi:10.1046/j.1525-142X.2003.03055.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lindberg D, Ponder W. An evolutionary tree for the Mollusca: branches or roots? First edition, origin and evolutionary radiation of the Mollusca. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 67–75.Google Scholar
- Lindberg D, Ponder W. The influence of classification on the evolutionary interpretation of structure - a re-evaluation of the evolution of the pallial cavity of gastropod mollusks. Org Divers Evol. 2001;1:273–99. doi:10.1078/1439-6092-00025.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lindberg D, Squires R. Patellogastropods (Mollusca) from the Eocene Tejon Formation of southern California. J Paleontol. 1990;64:578–87.Google Scholar
- Little C, Herrington R, Maslennikov V, Morris N, Zaykov V. Silurian hydrothermal vent community from the southern Urals, Russia. Nature. 1997;385:146–8. doi:10.1038/385146a0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lowenstam H. Recovery, behaviour, and evolutionary implications of live Monoplacophora. Nature. 1978;213:231–2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- McKinney M, McNamara K. Heterochrony. The evolution of ontogeny, first edition. New York: Plenum; 1991. p. 1–437.Google Scholar
- Mclean J. A new genus and species of Monoplacophora from the continental shelf of southern California. Contr Sci Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles Co. 1979;307:1–19.Google Scholar
- Meenakshi V, Hare P, Watabe N, Wilbur K, Menzies R. Ultrastructure, histochemistry, and amino acid composition of the shell of Neopilina. Anton Bruun Rept 2 Sci Res Southeast Pacific Exped: 1970;3–12.Google Scholar
- Menzies R, Ewing M, Worzel J, Clarke A. Ecology of the recent Monoplacophora. Oikos. 1959;10:168–82. doi:10.2307/3565144.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Moor B. Organogenesis. Mollusca, Vol. 3, Development, First Edition. New York: Academic; 1983. p. 123–77.Google Scholar
- Moskalev L, Starobogatov Z, Filatova Z. New data on the abyssal Monoplacophora from the Pacific and South Atlantic oceans. Zool Zh. 1983;62:981–95.Google Scholar
- Parkhaev P. Phylogenesis and the system of the Cambrian univalved mollusks. Paleon J. 2002;36:25–36.Google Scholar
- Parkhaev P. The early Cambrian radiation of Mollusca, first edition, phylogeny and evolution of the Mollusca. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2008. p. 33–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Peel J. The classes Tergomya and Helcionelloida, and early molluscan evolution. Gronlands Geologiske Undersuch Bull. 1991;161:11–65.Google Scholar
- Peel J, Horný R. Muscle scar and systemtic position of the lower Palaeozoic limpets Archininacella and Barrandicella gen. n. (Mollusca). J Czech Geol Soc. 1999;44:97–116.Google Scholar
- Pojeta J, Runnegar B. The paleontology of rostoconch mollusks and the early history of the phylum Mollusca. US Geol Surv Prof Pap. 1976;968:1–88.Google Scholar
- Ponder W, Lindberg D. Gastropod phylogeny: challenges for the 90's, first edition, evolutionary radiation of the Mollusca. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 135–54.Google Scholar
- Ponder W, Lindberg D. Towards a phylogeny of gastropod mollusks—a preliminary analysis using morphological characters. Zool J Linn Soc. 1997;119:83–265. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1997.tb00137.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Runnegar B. Early evolution of the Mollusca: the fossil record, first edition, evolutionary radiation of the Mollusca. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 77–87.Google Scholar
- Russell-Hunter W, Brown S. Ctenidial number in relation to size in certain chitons, with a discussion of its phyletic significance. Biol Bull. 1965;128:508–21. doi:10.2307/1539910.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Salvini-Plawen L. Zur Morphologie und Phylogenie der Mollusken: Die Beziehungen der Caudofoveata und der Solenogastres als Aculifera, als Mollusca und als Spiralia. Zeit Wissenschaf Zool Leipzig. 1972;184:205–394.Google Scholar
- Salvini-Plawen L. On the origin and evolution of the Mollusca. Atti dei convegni Lincei. 1981;49:235–93.Google Scholar
- Salvini-Plawen L. Early evolution and the primitive groups. First edition, the mollusca, evolution, 10. Orlando: Academic; 1985. p. 59–150.Google Scholar
- Salvini-Plawen L. Origin, phylogeny and classification of the phylum Mollusca. Iberus. 1991;9:1–33.Google Scholar
- Salvini-Plawen L, Steiner G. Synapomorphies and pleisomorphies in higher classification of Mollusca, first edition, origin and evolutionary radiation of the Mollusca. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 29–51.Google Scholar
- Schaefer K, Haszprunar G. Organisation and fine structure of the mantle of Laevipilina antarctica (Mollusca, Monoplacophora). Zool Anz. 1997;236:13–23.Google Scholar
- Schmidt W. Bemerkungen zur Schalenstruktur. von Neopilina galatheae. Galathea Rep. 1959;3:73–8.Google Scholar
- Schwabe E. A sumamry of reports of abyssal and hadal Monoplacophora and Polyplacophora (Mollusca). Zootaxa. 2008;1866:205–22.Google Scholar
- Seguenza G. Studi stratigrafici sulla formazione Pliozena dell`Italia meridionale. Elenco dei Cirripedi e Molluschi dell Antico Plioceno. Boll Comm Geol Ital. 1876;7:259–71.Google Scholar
- Sepkoski J. Environmental trends in extinction during the Paleozoic. Science. 1987;235:64–6. doi:10.1126/science.11539724.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sepkoski J. A compendium of fossil marine animal genera. Bull Am Paleontol. 2002;363:1–560.Google Scholar
- Signor P. Gastropod evolutionary history. Mollusks, Notes for a Short Course. Univ Tennessee, Dept Geol Sci. Stud Geol (Tulsa). 1985;13:157–73.Google Scholar
- Starobogatov Y. Syst Early Paleoz Monoplacophora. Paleont J. 1970;10:293–302.Google Scholar
- Steinböck O. Origin and affinities of the lower Metazoa. First Edition, The Lower Metazoa. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1963. p. 45–54.Google Scholar
- Stuber R, Lindberg D. Is the radula of living monoplacophorans primitive? Abstr Progr Ann Mtg. Geol Soc Am. 1989;21:A289.Google Scholar
- Vagvolgyi J. On the origin of mollusks, the coelom, and coelomic segmentation. Syst Zool. 1967;16:153–68. doi:10.2307/2411408.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- van den Biggelaar J, Haszprunar G. Cleavage patterns and mesentoblast formation in the Gastropoda: an evolutionary perspective. Evol. 1996;50:1520–40. doi:10.2307/2410889.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- van den Biggelaar J, Dictus A, Van Loon A. Cleavage patterns, cell-lineages and cell specification are clues to phyletic lineages in Spiralia. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 1997;8:367–78. doi:10.1006/scdb.1997.0161.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vinther J, Nielsen C. The Early Cambrian Halkieria is a mollusk. Zool Scr. 2005;34:81–9. doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.2005.00177.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- von Zittel K. Text-book of Palaeontology, vol. 1. In: Eastman C, editor. Second edition. London: Macmillan; 1913. p. 1–839.Google Scholar
- Waller T. Origin of the molluscan class Bivalvia and a phylogeny of the major groups, First Edition, Bivalves: an eon of evolution. Alberta: University of Calgary Press; 1998. p. 1–45.Google Scholar
- Warén A. Neopilina goesi, a new Caribbean monoplacophoran dredged in 1869. Proc Biol Soc Wash. 1988;101:676–81.Google Scholar
- Warén A, Bouchet P. Laevipilina rolani, a new monoplacophoran from off southwestern Europe. J Moll Stud. 1990;56:449–53. doi:10.1093/mollus/56.3.449.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Warén A, Hain S. Laevipilina antarctica and Micropilina arntzi, two new monoplacophorans from the Antarctic. Veliger. 1992;35:165–76.Google Scholar
- Wenz W. Hanbuch der Palaozoologie (Herausgegaben v. Schindewolf) Band 6, Gastropoda, Teil 1, Allgmeiner Teil und Prosobranchia (pars.), 1938;1–240.Google Scholar
- White K. Mytilus. First edition, L.M.B.C. Memoirs on Typical British Marine Plants and Animals. Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press; 1937. p. 1–117.Google Scholar
- Whitfield R. Observations on some imperfectly known fossils from the Calciferous Sandrock of Lake Champlain, and descriptions of several new forms. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 1889;2:41–63.Google Scholar
- Wingstrand K. On the anatomy and relationships of Recent Monoplacophora. Galathea Rep. 1985;16:7–94.Google Scholar
- Yochelson E. A new genus of Patellacea (Gastropoda) from the Middle Ordovician of Utah: the oldest known example of the superfamily. N Mex Bur Mine Min Res Mem. 1988;44:195–200.Google Scholar
- Zeldrich M. Beyond heterochrony: the evolution of development, first edition. New York: Wiley-Liss; 2001. p. 1–392.Google Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.