Clarifying phylogenetic relationships and the evolutionary history of the bivalve order Arcida (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Pteriomorphia)

The systematics of the bivalve order Arcida constitutes an unresolved conundrum in bivalve systematics. The current definition of Arcida encompasses two superfamilies: Limopsoidea, which includes the recent families Philobryidae and Limopsidae, and Arcoidea, which encompasses the families Arcidae, Cucullaeidae, Noetiidae, Glycymerididae and Parallelodontidae. This classification, however, is controversial particularly with respect to the position and taxonomic status of Glycymerididae. Previous molecular phylogenies were limited either by the use of only a single molecular marker or by including only a few limopsoid and glycymeridid taxa. The challenging nature of Arcida taxonomy and the controversial results of some of the previous studies, prompted us to use a broad range of taxa (55 species), three nuclear markers (18S rRNA, 28S rRNA and histone H3) and a wide range of algorithmic approaches. This broad but stringent approach led to a number of results that differ significantly from previous studies. We provide the first molecular evidence that supports the separation of Arcoidea from Limopsoidea, although the exact position of Glycymerididae remains unresolved, and the monophyly of Limopsoidea is algorithm-dependent. In addition, we present the first time-calibrated evolutionary tree of Arcida relationships, indicating a significant increase in the diversification of arcidan lineages at the beginning of the Cretaceous, around 140 Ma. The monophyly of Arcida, which has been supported previously, was confirmed in all our analyses. Although relationships among families remain somehow unresolved we found support for the monophyly of most arcidan families, at least under some analytical conditions (i.e., Glycymerididae, Noetiidae, Philobryidae, and Limopsidae). However, Arcidae, and particularly Arcinae, remain a major source of inconsistency in the current system of Arcida classification and are in dire need of taxonomic revision. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.