Palaeos		Crustacea
Arthropoda		References

Crustacean References

PROTOSTOMIA  
|--ARTHROPODA
|  |--Trilobita
|  `--PANCRUSTACEA 
|     |--CRUSTACEA  
|     |  |--Pentastomida  
|     |  `--+--Remipedia    
|     |     `--+--Cephalocarida    
|     |        `--+--Branchiopoda
|     |           `--+--Maxillopoda  
|     |              `--Malacostraca  
|     `--INSECTA
`--LOPHOTROCHOZOA
   |--MOLLUSCA 
   `--ANNELIDA

Abzhanov, A & TC Kaufman (2000), Crustacean (malacostracan) Hox genes and the evolution of the arthropod trunk.  Development 127: 2239-2249. 

Anger, K (2006), Contributions of larval biology to crustacean research: a review. Invert. Reprod. Devel. 49: 175-205.

Averof, M & NH Patel (1997), Crustacean appendage evolution associated with changes in Hox gene expression.  Nature 388: 682-686. 

Budd GE (2002), A palaeontological solution to the arthropod head problem. Nature 417: 271-275. 

Carroll, SB (2005), Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom.  Norton, 350+pp. 

Carroll, SB (2005a), Evolution at two levels: On genes and form.  PLOS Biology 3: 1159-1166. 

Cook, CE, Q-Y Yue & M Akam (2005), Mitochondrial genomes suggest that hexapods and crustaceans are mutually paraphyletic.  Proc. R. Soc. B 272: 1295–1304. 

Costlow, JD Jr & CG Bookhout (1966), Larval stages of the crab, Pinnotheres maculatus, under laboratory conditions. Chesapeake Sci. 7: 153-163. 

Fanenbruck M, S Harzsch & JW Wägele (2004), The brain of the Remipedia (Crustacea) and an alternative hypothesis on their phylogenetic relationships. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (USA) 101: 3868–3873. 

Giribet G, GD Edgecombe, WC Wheeler & C Babbitt (2002), Phylogeny and systematic position of Opiliones: A combined analysis of chelicerate relationships using morphological and molecular data. Cladistics 18: 5–70.

Giribet, G, S Richter, GD Edgecombe, & WC Wheeler (2005), The position of crustaceans within Arthropoda - evidence from nine genes and morphology, in S Koenemann & R Jenner (eds.), Crustacea and Arthropod Relationships. Crustacean Issues 16: 307-352. 

Harzsch, S (2006), Neurophylogeny: Architecture of the nervous system and a fresh view on arthropod phyologeny.  Integr. Comp. Biol. 46: 162–194. 

Lavrov, DV, WM Brown & JL Boore (2004), Phylogenetic position of the Pentastomida and (pan)crustacean relationships.  Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271: 537-544. 

Maxmen A, WE Browne, MQ Martindale & G Giribet (2005), Neuroanatomy of sea spiders implies an appendicular origin of the protocerebral segment. Nature 437: 1144-1148. 

Meinhardt, H (2002), The radial-symmetric hydra and the evolution of the bilateral body plan: an old body became a young brain.  BioEssays 24: 185-191.  

Minguillón, C, J Gardenyes, E Serra, LFC Castro, A Hil-Force, PWH Holland, CT Amemiya & J Garcia-Fernàndez (2005), No more than 14: the end of the amphioxus Hox cluster.  Int. J. Biol. Sci. 1: 19-23. 

Martin, JW & GE Davis (2001), An updated classification of the recent Crustacea.  Science Ser., Nat. Hist. Mus. L.A. Co., No. 39, 124 pp.

Monteiro, AS & DEK Ferrier (2006), Hox genes are not always colinear. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2: 95-103. 

Müller KJ & D Waloszek (1985), A remarkable arthropod fauna from the Upper Cambrian "Orsten" of Sweden. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 76: 161-172. 

Oleson, J (2007), Monophyly and phylogeny of Branchiopoda, with focus on morphology and homologies of branchiopod phyllopodous limbs.  J. Crust. Biol. 27(2): 165–183. 

Parmley, JL, AO Urrutia, L Potrzebowski, H Kaessmann, & LD Hurst (2007), Splicing and the evolution of proteins in mammals.  PLoS Biol. 5: e14. 

Prpic NM (2004), Homologs of wingless and decapentaplegic display a complex and dynamic expression profile during appendage development in the millipede Glomeris marginata (Myriapoda: Diplopoda). Fronteirs Zool. 1: 6. 

Richards, AM (1955), The anatomy and morphology of the cave-orthopteran Macropathus filifer Walker, 1869. Trans. R. Soc. N.Z. 83: 405-452.

Scholtz, G & GD Edgecombe (2005), Heads, hox and the phylogenetic position of trilobites. In S Koenemann & R Jenner (eds.), Crustacea and Arthropod Relationships. Crust. Issues 16: 139-165.

Schram, FR & S Koenemann (2004), Developmental genetics and arthropod evolution: On body regions of Crustacea in G Scholtz (ed.), Evolutionary Developmental Biology of Crustacea, Crustacean Issues 15: 75-92.

Regier, JC, JW Shultz & RE Kambic (2005), Pancrustacean phylogeny: hexapods are terrestrial crustaceans and maxillopods are not monophyletic.  Proc. R. Soc. B 272: 395–401.   

Waloszek, D (1995), The Upper Cambrian Rehbachiella, its larval development, morphology and significance for the phylogeny of Branchiopoda and Crustacea.  Hydrobiologia 298: 1-13. 

Waloszek, D (1996), Rehbachiella, der bisher älteste Branchiopode. Stapfia No. 42. 

Notes

[1] We will treat thorax and pereon as synonymous.  Most writers also treat abdomen and pleon as synonymous.  Here, we will try to be more careful in view of the distinction suggested by Schramm & Koenemann (2004), which will be discussed later.  Briefly they propose that pleon be used for body regions expressing Abd-B during development and generally bearing a distinctive form of appendage. Abdomen corresponds to a posterior hox-free zone without appendages.   

[2] In any case, you should review our excuses for certain idiosyncracies of nomenclature and typography at Nomenclature.

[3] Like the median, light-sensitive pineal organ of many vertebrates, with which it may share some distant homology. 

[4] For an excellent site on the biology and ecology of Artemia, see ARTEMIA SALINA. 

[5] Variously spelled Waloszek, Walossek, and Waloßek. We suspect that Waloszek has also influenced many real arthropod workers (which we, of course, are not) in the same way.  Waloszek began working on the Furongian Orsten arthropods in the 1980's and has published numerous, striking electron micrographs of his discoveries.  Orsten exposures lack the near-perfect preservation of sites such as the Burgess Shale or Chengjiang.  However, Orsten animals are often uncrushed and, critically, Waloszek eventually assembled virtually complete developmental sequences of several species.  Waloszek's influence is communicated through the cumulative impact of his images, together with his clear identification of homologous larval structures. These have reshaped the way scientists perceive arthropod body plans, but in a manner not easily captured by citation to particular papers.