Significance of the suture line in cephalopod taxonomy revealed by 3D morphometrics in the modern nautilids Nautilus and Allonautilus.

Assessing the taxonomic importance of the suture line in shelled cephalopods is a key to better understanding the diversity of this group in Earth history. Because fossils are subject to taphonomic artifacts, an in-depth knowledge of well-preserved modern organisms is needed as an important reference. Here, we examine the suture line morphology of all known species of the modern cephalopods Nautilus and Allonautilus. We applied computed tomography and geometric morphometrics to quantify the suture line morphology as well as the conch geometry and septal spacing. Results reveal that the suture line and conch geometry are useful in distinguishing species, while septal spacing is less useful. We also constructed cluster trees to illustrate the similarity among species. The tree based on conch geometry in middle ontogeny is nearly congruent with those previously reconstructed based on molecular data. In addition, different geographical populations of the same species of Nautilus separate out in this tree. This suggests that genetically distinct (i.e., geographically isolated) populations of Nautilus can also be distinguished using conch geometry. Our results are applicable to closely related fossil cephalopods (nautilids), but may not apply to more distantly related forms (ammonoids).

Genomic signatures of evolution in Nautilus-An endangered living fossil.

Living fossils are survivors of previously more diverse lineages that originated millions of years ago and persisted with little morphological change. Therefore, living fossils are model organisms to study both long-term and ongoing adaptation and speciation processes. However, many aspects of living fossil evolution and their persistence in the modern world remain unclear. Here, we investigate three major aspects of the evolutionary history of living fossils: cryptic speciation, population genetics and effective population sizes, using members of the genera Nautilus and Allonautilus as classic examples of true living fossils. For this, we analysed genomewide ddRAD-Seq data for all six currently recognized nautiloid species throughout their distribution range. Our analyses identified three major allopatric Nautilus clades: a South Pacific clade, subdivided into three subclades with no signs of admixture between them; a Coral Sea clade, consisting of two genetically distinct populations with significant admixture; and a widespread Indo-Pacific clade, devoid of significant genetic substructure. Within these major clades, we detected five Nautilus groups, which likely correspond to five distinct species. With the exception of Nautilus macromphalus, all previously described species are at odds with genomewide data, testifying to the prevalence of cryptic species among living fossils. Detailed FST analyses further revealed significant genome-wide and locus-specific signatures of selection between species and differentiated populations, which is demonstrated here for the first time in a living fossil. Finally, approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) simulations suggest large effective population sizes, which may explain the low levels of population differentiation commonly observed in living fossils.

A study of the type series of Nautilus pompilius Linnaeus, 1758 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda, Nautilida).

Few animals are treasured by zoologists more than Nautilus, and Nautilus pompilius Linnaeus, 1758, the type species of the genus, in particular. However, the type series of this species has not been studied in great detail. According to the rules of zoological nomenclature the type series consists of all the specimens included by the author in the new nominal taxon at the time of description (whether directly or by bibliographic reference), and any evidence, published or unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens are included. The type series of Nautilus pompilius includes specimens in the Linnean Society of London, the University Museum in Uppsala, and specimens figured by pre-Linnaean authors indicated by reference by Linnaeus (1758). One specimen in London and four specimens in Uppsala, which are still extant, are likely to have been known to Linnaeus at the time when he prepared the 10th Edition of Systema Naturae (Linnaeus 1758), although none of these specimens was specifically mentioned by him. Even though it is widely believed that Linnaeus (1767) designated as lectotype a specimen figured by Rumphius (1705) in his D'Amboinsche Rariteitkamer, referred to in the Systema Naturae, this presumed lectotypification is not valid because Linnaeus did not explicitly indicate that any particular specimen was considered to be the type of the species. Later lectotype designations of Rumphius' illustrations are invalid because they show three different specimens. It seems that the best approach, given the quality of the material and the lack of clarity as to its type status, would be to apply to the ICZN asking to set aside all previous type fixations and designate a neotype, preferably a DNA sequenced specimen of known provenance.