© 2004 Society of Systematic Biologists
Invertebrates.—R.C. Brusca and G. J. Brusca. 2003. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. xix + 936 pp. ISBN 0–87893–097–3. $109.95(cloth).
Invertebrate Zoology, AmericanMuseumof Natural History New York, NY 10024
Invertebrates.—R.C. Brusca and G. J. Brusca. 2003. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. xix + 936 pp. ISBN 0–87893–097–3. $109.95(cloth).
For good reason, the release of the first edition of Brusca and Brusca's (1990) Invertebrates was a welcome revolution in the content of textbooks designed for postsecondary education in comparative biology: included in most chapters were more than a dozen cladograms with explicit character and state argumentation, culminating with a composite Metazoan Tree of Life in the 24th and final chapter devoted exclusively to "Perspectives on Invertebrate Phylogeny." In light of this revolutionary approach, and noting that at the time there were exceedingly few phylogenies concerning nonarthropod invertebrates, the Bruscas were easily forgiven the fact that few of the cladograms were more than 3- or 4-taxon statements with perfect consistency and with terminals presupposing large groups like "oligochaetes" to be monophyletic. The principal criticism of that first edition was its faith in bauplans and archetypes (Mooi, 1991; Calow, 1992).
If the extent of the phylogenetic approach in the first edition made it revolutionary, its compass in the second is unfortunate. Although the authors state that the book still "takes evolution as its central theme" (p. 15), there has been scant revision of the phylogenetic perspectives that have so dramatically marked the last 10 years of invertebrate systematics. The change from "pseudocoelomates" to "blastocoelomates" is not a major retooling. Though the pogonophorans, tardigrades, and myxozoons may have found their way into chapters on annelids, arthropods, and cnidarians, respectively, there is little else reflecting the revisions that should be required by the 13 year long interval between editions. Chapters that lacked phylogenetic treatments in the first edition still lack them, even where considerable work has been accomplished (e.g., Giribet et al., 1999; Podar et al., 2001). Where they do occur, the majority of the cladograms are identical to those of the first edition and remain as 3- or 4-taxon statements. In several instances these contain even less information than was provided a dozen years earlier (e.g., chapters 11, 13, and 17). The extensive body of literature supporting the clade Ecdysozoa is dismissed in a paragraph (p. 883), in which we are reminded first that ecdysone has not been demonstrated for several members of the clade and second, that if it were, it wouldn't matter anyway. Similarly, the Bruscas still insist on an identity for annelidan and arthropodan metamerism, notwithstanding that for some time we have known the genetic control is distinct (Patel et al., 1989; Seaver and Shankland, 2001). As for the Trochozoa (Eu- or Lopho-), the very brief discussion (p. 883, there is no Index entry) denies its veracity on the grounds that not all of the listed phyla have both lophophores and trochophores (but wingless Hippoboscidae are listed with dipterans). The teleological, and now repudiated, progression from hemichordate through urochordate to cephalochordate and craniate remains intact in this edition, all but ignoring the convincing body of work in favor of a hemichordate-echinoderm clade (e.g., Cameron et al., 2000; Telford et al., 2000). In fact, the text remains replete with scalae naturae (the "evolutionary trees" illustrated distinct from cladograms) that will serve only to confuse students.
The reason given for the lack of protist phylogenies, for the monophyletic Porifera, for the assertion that "the evolutionary relationships of the Acanthocephala are particularly enigmatic" (p. 382), even though they have been repeatedly shown to group with rotifers (Garey et al., 1996; Welch, 2000), for dismissing the earnest endeavors of several dozens of systematists over a dozen years, each of whom sought to tear away the obdurate shrouds of 19th century Naturphilosophie that have so long obscured invertebrate relationships, is that all of this is just "quirky and troublesome" and "still await rigorous testing" (p. XVIII).
Notwithstanding convincing arguments that bauplans cannot be reconciled with the inevitable realization that organisms are composites of plesiomorphic and apomorphic traits, this discredited posture is still central in the second edition. The authors appear to believe there is a single definable superencompassing plan (one presumes they do not intend to imply providential "design" on p. 41) governing all forms of "protists," including ciliates, diplomonads, microsporidans, and even kelp. The very "element of predictability" (p. 43) they trust baupläne entails, belies a rigidity that renders relatedness opaque and leads them, for example, to ignore the fact that Symbion is a rotifer not worthy of a phylum unto itself.
Each chapter is equipped with "Selected References" that, though selective, are mostly not referred to in the body of the chapter. In these bibliographies, readers will find it very difficult to find evidence of work published in the last 5 years. Taking the Phylum Annelida as an example, it is hard to imagine how the extensive contributions by each of Erséus, Ferraguti, Pleijel, Purschke, Sawyer, and Weisblat could be completely overlooked. Under Clitellata one finds Brinkhurst and Gelder's (1989) "Did [sic] the lumbriculids provide the ancestors of the branchiobdellidans, acanthodbellidans and leeches?" but not the affirmative answer appearing a decade later. The Bruscas exculpate themselves from the "shocking and dangerous trend that encourages dilettantes" (p. XVIII) of which the rest of us are so guilty.
This is not to say the new edition is without improvements. There are color pictures for example. Others (Emlet, 2003; Winston, 2003) have commented positively on the degree of taxonomic coverage and the attention to developmental details. But, this coverage was as good in the first edition, used copies of which can be found on-line for about a third of the price and which no student will be misled into believing is up-to-date.
 |
References |
|---|
 Top References |
|---|
-
Brinkhurst R. O., Gelder S. R. Did the lumbriculids provide the ancestors of the branchiobdellidans, acanthodbellidans and leeches? Hydrobiology (1989) 180:7–15.[CrossRef]
Brusca R. C., Brusca G. J. Invertebrates (1990) Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Calow P. Book Review—Invertebrates. Richard C. Brusca and Gary J. Brusca. Quart. Rev. Biol. (1992) 67:215–216.
Cameron C. B., Garey J. R., Swalla B. J. Evolution of the chordate body plan: New insights from phylogenetic analyses of deuterostome phyla. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. (2000) 97:4469–4474.
Emlet R. B. Invertebrates. Second Edition. Richard C. Brusca and Gary J. Brusca. Limnol. Oceanogr. Bull. (2003) 12:57–58.
Garey J. R., Near T. J., Nonnemacher M. R., Nadler S. A. Molecular evidence for Acanthocephala as a subtaxon of Rotifera. J. Mol. Evol. (1996) 43:287–292.[Web of Science][Medline]
Giribet G., Carranza S., Riutort M., Baguna J., Ribera C. Internal phylogeny of the Chilopoda (Myriapoda, Arthropoda) using complete 18S rDNA and partial 28S rDNA sequences. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. (1999) 354:215–222.
Mooi R. Book Review—Invertebrates. Richard C. Brusca and Gary J. Brusca. Syst. Zool. (1991) 40:245–247.[CrossRef]
Patel N. H., Martin-Blanco E., Coleman K. G., Poole S. J., Ellis M. C., Kornberg T. B., Goodman C. S. Expression of engrailed proteins in arthropods, annelids, and chordates. Cell (1989) 58:955–968.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Podar M., Haddock S. H. D., Sogin M. L., Harbison G. R. A molecular phylogenetic framework for the phylum Ctenophora using 18S rRNA genes. Mol. Biol. Evol. (2001) 21:218–230.[CrossRef]
Seaver E., Shankland M. Establishment of segment polarity in the ectoderm of the leech Helobdella. Development (2001) 128:1629–1641.[Abstract]
Telford M. J., Herniou E. A., Russell R. B., Littlewood D. T. Changes in mitochondrial genetic codes as phylogenetic characters: Two examples from the flatworms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. (2000) 97:11359–11364.
Welch M. Evidence from a protein-coding gene that acanthocephalans are rotifers. Invert. Biol. (2000) 119:17–26.
Winston J. E. Invertebrates. Second Edition. Richard C. Brusca and Gary J. Brusca. J. Crustacean Biol. (2003) 23:974–976.[CrossRef]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||