Gregory Edgecombe has assembled premier specialists in the study of arthropods, each of whom addresses a major issue in arthropod diversity by reviewing evidence of key fossils from a common perspective and examining the interplay between extinct and extant species through inference of the structure of the arthropod evolutionary tree.With the most complete collection of modern perspectives on the history of Arthropoda, this volume advances the current debate on paleontology's role in discovering life's hierarchy. Of interest to specialists in a wide range of fields including paleontology, petroleum geology, oceanography, and entomology, Arthropod Fossils and Phylogeny will be the standard general reference on arthropod paleontology for years to come.

The basis of phylogenetic studies; The origin of the arthropods; The lobopods; The arthropoda; Phylogeny of the arthropod classes; The insects: monophyletic or polyphyletic; Evolution in the class insecta.

More than two thirds of all living organisms described to date belong to the phylum Arthropoda. But their diversity, as measured in terms of species number, is also accompanied by an amazing disparity in terms of body form, developmental processes, and adaptations to every inhabitable place on Earth, from the deepest marine abysses to the earth surface and the air. The Arthropoda also include one of the most fashionable and extensively studied of all model organisms, the fruit-fly, whose name is not only linked forever to Mendelian and population genetics, but has more recently come back to centre stage as one of the most important and more extensively investigated models in developmental genetics. This approach has completely changed our appreciation of some of the most characteristic traits of arthropods as are the origin and evolution of segments, their regional and individual specialization, and the origin and evolution of the appendages. At approximately the same time as developmental genetics was eventually turning into the major agent in the birth of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), molecular phylogenetics was challenging the traditional views on arthropod phylogeny, including the relationships among the four major groups: insects, crustaceans, myriapods, and chelicerates. In the meantime, palaeontology was revealing an amazing number of extinct forms that on the one side have contributed to a radical revisitation of arthropod phylogeny, but on the other have provided evidence of a previously unexpected disparity of arthropod and arthropod-like forms that often challenge a clear-cut delimitation of the phylum.

The arthropods contain more species than any other animal group, but the evolutionary pathways which led to their current diversity are still an issue of controversy. Arthropod Relationships provides an overview of our current understanding, responding to the new data arising from sequencing DNA, the discovery of new Cambrian fossils as direct evidence of early arthropod history, and developmental genetics. These new areas of research have stimulated a reconsideration of classical morphology and embryology. Arthropod Relationships is the first synthesis of the current debate to emerge: not since the volume edited by Gupta was published in 1979 has the arthropod phylogeny debate been, considered in this depth and breadth. Leaders in the various branches of arthropod biology have contributed to this volume. Chapters focus progressively from the general issues to the specific problems involving particular groups, and thence to a consideration of embryology and genetics. This wide range of disciplines is drawn on to approach an understanding of arthropod relationships, and to provide the most timely account of arthropod phylogeny. This book should be read by evolutionary biologists, palaeontologists, developmental geneticists and invertebrate zoologists. It will have a special interest for post-graduate students working in these fields.

"As a young and impetuous gradate student, I thought that sorting out the phylogeny of crustaceans would simply take but a little time and concerted effort to eventually reveal the truth. Everyone could then agree and further research would proceed apace. How naïve I was. First of all, I had never heard of Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems and hence the impossibility of achieving such an end. But even so, what progress we might have made turned out to take longer than anyone could have imagined, and the effort would be immense involving many people and a number of laboratories-and that task still continues. What no one could foresee in the 1960s was that the focus of everyone's attentions would completely transform. Traditional pure anatomy would be augmented with more sophisticated developmental genetic work. Concurrent with that effort molecular sequencing would become a remarkably effective tool. And with these new sources of data, the concept of "crustaceans" would yield to a new construct-Pancrustacea-within which the arthropods that we referred to by the name of "Crustacea" became a series of monophyletic smaller groups that mark a paraphyletic transition from a mandibulate ancestor all the way up to a crown group that few in the 1960s expected-Hexapoda emerged within the pancrustaceans"--