# Are trilobites at all related to modern day myriapods?



## Diamonds (Aug 24, 2009)

Anytime I see a picture or a fossil of a trilobite I cannot help but think they have some relation to modern myriapods. Is this so? 

If they have no relation to modern myriapods, when did centipedes first appear and what was the first species?


----------



## zonbonzovi (Aug 24, 2009)

I *think* that trilobites are generally considered to be the precursor to modern arthropods.


----------



## Lucas339 (Aug 24, 2009)

they are unrelated.  they spilt from a common ancestor before both came about.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_...il_gallery/Class_Myriapoda_fossil_gallery.htm


----------



## Drachenjager (Aug 28, 2009)

Lucas339 said:


> they are unrelated.  they spilt from a common ancestor before both came about.
> 
> http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_...il_gallery/Class_Myriapoda_fossil_gallery.htm


if they split from a common ancestor then they are in fact related. 
its like I am the son of the son of the son of the son of of one of 5 brothers. 1 of which has children. there fore Carlton is my something or another cousin (way down) but ancestrally we are related. Even though we are far enough separated where His sister and I could have married legally.... but thats another tale altogether.
Anyway from an evolutionary standpoint, it seems to me that all things with a common ancestor would be related to some extent. 
but , if you believe all that all species are related at some point.

but really I think you would find that trilobites are closer related to crabs than Myriapoda.


----------



## Lucas339 (Aug 29, 2009)

in taxonomy, the with realtionship i posted, we would conclude that they are not related.  they spilt way too long ago to be "related".  the only real relation is that they are arthopods.

also, in cladian tree, when ever you have a branch that is long, such as with the trilobites, it shows that they are unique and have evolved in way that makes them very different from others in the group.

say they are related is like saying you are realted to every human on the planet.


----------



## skips (Aug 30, 2009)

do a quick search of the subphylum trilobitomorpha (spelling?) and you'll see, well....they are their own subphylum where myriopoda (centipedes and millipedes) are in another subphylum.  So, in the chain of taxonomy (kingndom animalia, phylum arthropoda...and on down to species) saying that they are related would be like saying that because mantises (subphylum mandibulata) are in the same phylum as spiders (subphylum chelicerata) that they are related...it's a stretch but we are all related at some point....several million years ago.

That or like saying that humans are related to fish.  I fact we'd be more related because we're both in the subphylum vertebrata.  also a stretch


----------



## skips (Aug 30, 2009)

that being said, you have to understand that trilobites are deemed "species" purely by their morphology as a fossil, not even alive.  If we could do genetic fingerprinting on them everything would no doubt change.  that is just my opinion though.


----------



## Lucas339 (Aug 31, 2009)

skips said:


> that being said, you have to understand that trilobites are deemed "species" purely by their morphology as a fossil, not even alive.  If we could do genetic fingerprinting on them everything would no doubt change.  that is just my opinion though.


i would not rely on genetics at this point.  the methodologies with genetic finger printing of species has proved to be harder than everyone thought.  its not as cut and dry as we once thought but maybe there will be improvments soon.

having said that, trilobites are really well known.  probably the best known of acient arthopods.  due to their make up, their fossil record is outstanding and species definitions are easy to see.


----------



## skips (Aug 31, 2009)

Lucas339 said:


> i would not rely on genetics at this point.  the methodologies with genetic finger printing of species has proved to be harder than everyone thought.  its not as cut and dry as we once thought but maybe there will be improvments soon.
> 
> having said that, trilobites are really well known.  probably the best known of acient arthopods.  due to their make up, their fossil record is outstanding and species definitions are easy to see.


I'm going to have disagree with that statement.  My lab is about to apply for a grant to do water quality testing and to find point and non point source pollution studies with enterococcus and e coli.  We'll probably use either rybotyping or rep or box PCR (DNA fingerprinting) to do it.  The many studies ive seen have about 90% rates of success with identifying the correct fingerprint from a specific cattle source for example.  As I understand it a member called a aclockworkorange has done some molecular typing of cytochrome C oxidase on myriapods.  There are so many different ways to fingerprint...something will work.  It depends on how much time and money you have and if anyone's done it before.

Plus, and this is my observation, species are always rearranged when more relyable molecular techniques are employed.  If you've got several creatures inhabiting the same niche (ex: triliobytes) you are evolutionarily madated to have some convergent evolution.  I dont put much stock in morphology past maybe, arbitrarily, say the family or genus level.  definately not species for an arthropod, of course depending on the group being studied.


----------



## Lucas339 (Sep 1, 2009)

skips said:


> I'm going to have disagree with that statement.  My lab is about to apply for a grant to do water quality testing and to find point and non point source pollution studies with enterococcus and e coli.  We'll probably use either rybotyping or rep or box PCR (DNA fingerprinting) to do it.  The many studies ive seen have about 90% rates of success with identifying the correct fingerprint from a specific cattle source for example.  As I understand it a member called a aclockworkorange has done some molecular typing of cytochrome C oxidase on myriapods.  There are so many different ways to fingerprint...something will work.  It depends on how much time and money you have and if anyone's done it before.
> 
> Plus, and this is my observation, species are always rearranged when more relyable molecular techniques are employed.  If you've got several creatures inhabiting the same niche (ex: triliobytes) you are evolutionarily madated to have some convergent evolution.  I dont put much stock in morphology past maybe, arbitrarily, say the family or genus level.  definately not species for an arthropod, of course depending on the group being studied.


people at my lab tried it with some deep sea sponges and they aren't getting the results as easy as one would expect.  while DNA finger printing maybe good, it is my opinion that it should be taken with a grain of salt.  according to the prints, they came up with 4 different species of sponge from one sponge sample.  its good for some but no all.

now before you think my lab isn't good at this stuff.......trust me, we are!  all im saying is it might not be as good as everyone thinks on a broad scale.  sure it may work for some groups, but not all.

as for morphologies being key for determining different species,  i work day to day doing microinvert taxonomy.  so far, the morpholgies at species level are great!  its at the family level where things get screwy.  arthopods are the worse next to mollusk!  there are superfamiles and suborders, suborders and supergenus....they don't mean anything!  from a taxonomists perspective, we are hoping the DNA mapping will solve the order, and family mess not really the speices thing.   on a morphological level, species to species are fine.  the characters that split most species are so great that they warrant an unmistakable difference in species.


----------



## Diamonds (Sep 1, 2009)

So if Trilobites are so far down the ancestry chain, what was the first myriapod and when did it appear?


----------



## Lucas339 (Sep 1, 2009)

good luck with that one!


----------



## skips (Sep 1, 2009)

Lucas339 said:


> people at my lab tried it with some deep sea sponges and they aren't getting the results as easy as one would expect.  while DNA finger printing maybe good, it is my opinion that it should be taken with a grain of salt.  according to the prints, they came up with 4 different species of sponge from one sponge sample.  its good for some but no all.
> 
> now before you think my lab isn't good at this stuff.......trust me, we are!  all im saying is it might not be as good as everyone thinks on a broad scale.  sure it may work for some groups, but not all.
> 
> as for morphologies being key for determining different species,  i work day to day doing microinvert taxonomy.  so far, the morpholgies at species level are great!  its at the family level where things get screwy.  arthopods are the worse next to mollusk!  there are superfamiles and suborders, suborders and supergenus....they don't mean anything!  from a taxonomists perspective, we are hoping the DNA mapping will solve the order, and family mess not really the speices thing.   on a morphological level, species to species are fine.  the characters that split most species are so great that they warrant an unmistakable difference in species.


Ok, ok.  To be honest I figured to make a statement like that you had to work in some kind of lab.  I think our argument applies differently for different groups.  My fingerprinting works great for my purposes  and yours for your purposes.  From what I can tell trying to use morphology in centipedes is pretty scetchy at this point.  I'd rather see some genetic data.  I would never suggest anyone doing genetic fingerprinting is bad at it.  there's so much variability and things that can go wrong.  I'm always excited when thing go right!  Can I ask what method you're using to do your fingerprinting?


----------



## Lucas339 (Sep 1, 2009)

skips said:


> Ok, ok.  To be honest I figured to make a statement like that you had to work in some kind of lab.  I think our argument applies differently for different groups.  My fingerprinting works great for my purposes  and yours for your purposes.  From what I can tell trying to use morphology in centipedes is pretty scetchy at this point.  I'd rather see some genetic data.  I would never suggest anyone doing genetic fingerprinting is bad at it.  there's so much variability and things that can go wrong.  I'm always excited when thing go right!  Can I ask what method you're using to do your fingerprinting?


im not doing the fingerprinting directly.  there is an entire seperate part of my lab that focuses on that.  i go to every lecture they give as this up and coming science is interesting and important to me.  the possibilities of finally fixing the taxonomic systems is exciting and i hope they figure out all the bugs.


----------



## Travis K (Sep 2, 2009)

*not a trilobite, but closest thing I can thing of...*

[YOUTUBE]VfcEGK-NfhY[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]4quPALV24Ww[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Drachenjager (Sep 2, 2009)

Travis K said:


> [YOUTUBE]VfcEGK-NfhY[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> [YOUTUBE]4quPALV24Ww[/YOUTUBE]


i want some eggs lol


----------



## skips (Sep 2, 2009)

Lucas339 said:


> im not doing the fingerprinting directly.  there is an entire seperate part of my lab that focuses on that.  i go to every lecture they give as this up and coming science is interesting and important to me.  the possibilities of finally fixing the taxonomic systems is exciting and i hope they figure out all the bugs.


You know, I think it'll just take time.  The only reason I can think of to get 4 different fingerprints for the same spong is either contamination of the sample or...actually that's pretty much it.  That's very interesting.  I wonder, how many times have they repeated that experiment and gotten the same duplicitous result?  Maybe it has something to do with the epigenetics of the sponge.  I mean, they do have multipotent cells which can de differentiate and become other types of cells.  Maybe some places wear a primer would usually attach are silenced/inexcessible?  

Anyway, i'd like to here eventually what your lab finds


----------



## Lucas339 (Sep 3, 2009)

skips said:


> You know, I think it'll just take time.  The only reason I can think of to get 4 different fingerprints for the same spong is either contamination of the sample or...actually that's pretty much it.  That's very interesting.  I wonder, how many times have they repeated that experiment and gotten the same duplicitous result?  Maybe it has something to do with the epigenetics of the sponge.  I mean, they do have multipotent cells which can de differentiate and become other types of cells.  Maybe some places wear a primer would usually attach are silenced/inexcessible?
> 
> Anyway, i'd like to here eventually what your lab finds


yeah they first thougt it was contamination too.  so they used a different method of isolating parts of the sponges first and then running them again.  they worked on it all summer so i pretty sure they did a bunch or runs on it.  not sure the acutal number though.

the triops are really cool!  they are large too!  i need to buy some and hatch them out!!


----------

