To Be or Not to Be a Flatworm: The Acoel Controversy

  title={To Be or Not to Be a Flatworm: The Acoel Controversy},
  author={Bernhard Egger and Dirk Steinke and Hiroshi Tarui and Katrien De Mulder and Detlev Arendt and Ga{\"e}tan Borgonie and Noriko Funayama and Robert Gschwentner and Volker Hartenstein and Bert Hobmayer and Matthew D. Hooge and Martina Hrouda and Sachiko Ishida and Chiyoko Kobayashi and Georg Kuales and Osamu Nishimura and Daniela Pfister and Reinhard M. Rieger and Willi Salvenmoser and Julian Mansell Smith and Ulrich Technau and Seth Tyler and Kiyokazu Agata and Walter Salzburger and Peter Ladurner},
  journal={PLoS ONE},
  pages={1 - 16}
Since first described, acoels were considered members of the flatworms (Platyhelminthes). However, no clear synapomorphies among the three large flatworm taxa -- the Catenulida, the Acoelomorpha and the Rhabditophora -- have been characterized to date. Molecular phylogenies, on the other hand, commonly positioned acoels separate from other flatworms. Accordingly, our own multi-locus phylogenetic analysis using 43 genes and 23 animal species places the acoel flatworm Isodiametra pulchra at the… CONTINUE READING
Recent Discussions
This paper has been referenced on Twitter 2 times over the past 90 days. VIEW TWEETS