Letter | Published:

Homology of arthropod anterior appendages revealed by Hox gene expression in a sea spider

Nature volume 441, pages 506508 (25 May 2006) | Download Citation



Arthropod head segments offer a paradigm for understanding the diversification of form during evolution, as a variety of morphologically diverse appendages have arisen from them. There has been long-running controversy, however, concerning which head appendages are homologous among arthropods, and from which ancestral arrangement they have been derived. This controversy has recently been rekindled by the proposition that the probable ancestral arrangement, with appendages on the first head segment, has not been lost in all extant arthropods as previously thought, but has been retained in the pycnogonids, or sea spiders1. This proposal was based on the neuroanatomical analysis of larvae from the sea spider Anoplodactylus sp., and suggested that the most anterior pair of appendages, the chelifores, are innervated from the first part of the brain, the protocerebrum. Our examination of Hox gene expression in another sea spider, Endeis spinosa, refutes this hypothesis. The anterior boundaries of Hox gene expression domains place the chelifore appendages as clearly belonging to the second head segment, innervated from the second part of the brain, the deutocerebrum. The deutocerebrum must have been secondarily displaced towards the protocerebrum in pycnogonid ancestors. As anterior-most appendages are also deutocerebral in the other two arthropod groups, the Euchelicerata and the Mandibulata, we conclude that the protocerebral appendages have been lost in all extant arthropods.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    , , & Neuroanatomy of sea spiders implies an appendicular origin of the protocerebral segment. Nature 437, 1144–1148 (2005)

  2. 2.

    A palaeontological solution to the arthropod head problem. Nature 417, 271–275 (2002)

  3. 3.

    & Heads, Hox and the phylogenetic position of trilobites. Crustac. Issues 16, 139–165 (2005)

  4. 4.

    , & Head development in the onychophoran Euperipatoides kanangrensis with particular reference to the central nervous system. J. Morphol. 255, 1–23 (2003)

  5. 5.

    & Ultrastructure and fate of the nephridial anlagen in the antennal segment of Epiperipatus biolleyi (Onychophora, Peripatidae)—evidence for the onychophoran antennae being modified legs. Arthrop. Struct. Dev. 34, 471–480 (2005)

  6. 6.

    , , , & Molecular evidence for the gnathobasic derivation of arthropod mandibles and for the appendicular origin of the labrum and other structures. Dev. Genes Evol. 208, 142–150 (1998)

  7. 7.

    , , & A conserved mode of head segmentation in arthropods revealed by the expression pattern of Hox genes in a spider. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 10665–10670 (1998)

  8. 8.

    & Expression of homeobox genes shows chelicerate arthropods retain their deutocerebral segment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 10671–10675 (1998)

  9. 9.

    & Development of the nervous system in the “head” of Limulus polyphemus (Chelicerata: Xiphosura): morphological evidence for a correspondence between the segments of the chelicerae and of the (first) antennae of Mandibulata. Dev. Genes Evol. 213, 9–17 (2003)

  10. 10.

    , & Ecdysozoan phylogeny and bayesian inference: first use of nearly complete 28S and 18S rRNA gene sequences to classify the arthropods and their kin. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 31, 178–191 (2004)

  11. 11.

    & Pycnogonid affinities: a review. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 43, 8–21 (2005)

  12. 12.

    , & Arthropod phylogeny based on eight molecular loci and morphology. Nature 413, 157–161 (2001)

  13. 13.

    & Invertebrates 2nd edn (Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 2003)

  14. 14.

    & Along came a sea spider. Nature 437, 1099–1102 (2005)

  15. 15.

    & Hox genes and the evolution of the arthropod body plan. Evol. Dev. 4, 459–499 (2002)

  16. 16.

    Beiträge zur entwicklungsgeschichte der pantopoden. I. Die entwicklung von Ammothea echinata hodge bis zur ausbildung der larvenform. Z. Wiss. Zool. 72, 191–248 (1902)

  17. 17.

    Beiträge zur morphologie und embryologie des vorderen körperabschnitts (Cephalosoma) der Pantopoda gerstaecker, 1863. Z. Zool. Syst. Evol.-Forsch. 18, 27–61 (1980)

  18. 18.

    Le Développement des Pycnogonides et leurs Affinités avec les Arachnides. Thesis, CNRS, Paris (1959)

  19. 19.

    A contribution to the embryology and phylogeny of the pycnogonids. Stud. Biol. Lab. Johns Hopkins Univ. 5, 1–76 (1891)

  20. 20.

    Anatomy of the central nervous system of arachnids. Zool. Jb. Anat. 82, 1–154 (1965)

  21. 21.

    in Neurobiology of Arachnids (ed. Barth, F. G.) 20–37 (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, 1985)

  22. 22.

    , & Brain evolution in decapod Crustacea. J. Exp. Zool. 295, 112–133 (1993)

  23. 23.

    The nervous system of the pycnogonids. Microentomology USA 18, 16–36 (1953)

  24. 24.

    , , , & The position of the Arthropoda in the phylogenetic system. J. Morphol. 238, 263–285 (1998)

  25. 25.

    Zur morphologie und phylogenie der pantopoden. Zool. Bidr. Uppsala 6, 41–181 (1918)

  26. 26.

    & Structure and Function in the Nervous Systems of Invertebrates Vol. 2 (Freeman, San Francisco/London, 1965)

  27. 27.

    in Arthropod Relationships (eds Fortey, R. A. & Thomas, R. H.) 317–332 (Chapman and Hall, London, 1997)

  28. 28.

    , & hedgehog is a segment polarity gene in a crustacean and a chelicerate. Dev. Genes Evol. 214, 537–545 (2004)

  29. 29.

    , , & Barnacle duplicate engrailed genes: divergent expression patterns and evidence for a vestigial abdomen. Evol. Dev. 2, 194–202 (2000)

Download references


We thank the Station Biologique de Roscoff for providing laboratory facilities for specimen collection and preparation. We are grateful to E. Quéinnec, N. Rabet and P. Bunje for advice and discussion, to P. Lamarre for technical help and to T. Jaffredo for laboratory facilities. E. Houliston and G. Scholtz provided much help and insight. This work was funded by the CNRS and the French Ministry of Research.

Author information

Author notes

    • Jérôme Murienne
    •  & Céline Clabaut

    †Present addresses: Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, UMR 5202 CNRS, Département Systématique et Evolution, case 50, 45 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France (J.M.); Department of Biology, Evolutionary Biology, University of Konstanz, D-78457 Konstanz, Germany (C.C.)


  1. Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6, UMR 7138 CNRS UPMC MNHN ENS IRD, Case 05, 9 quai St Bernard, 75005 Paris, France

    • Muriel Jager
    • , Jérôme Murienne
    • , Céline Clabaut
    • , Hervé Le Guyader
    •  & Michaël Manuel
  2. Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6, UMR 7622 CNRS UPMC, 9 quai St Bernard, 75005 Paris, France

    • Jean Deutsch


  1. Search for Muriel Jager in:

  2. Search for Jérôme Murienne in:

  3. Search for Céline Clabaut in:

  4. Search for Jean Deutsch in:

  5. Search for Hervé Le Guyader in:

  6. Search for Michaël Manuel in:

Competing interests

Sequences from this work have been deposited in the GenBank database with the following accession numbers: DQ315728 (E. spinosa lab); DQ315730 (E. spinosa pb); DQ315733 (E. spinosa Dfd); and DQ315734 (E. spinosa Scr). Reprints and permissions information is available at npg.nature.com/reprintsandpermissions. The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michaël Manuel.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Figure 1

    Amino-acid sequence alignment of pycnogonid Hox genes from this work with representative genes from various arthropods.

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Figure 2

    Phylogenetic analysis of Endeis spinosa Hox genes from this work, establishing their orthology relationships.

Word documents

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Figure Legends

    Text to accompany Supplementary Figures 1 and 2.

About this article

Publication history






Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.