In the last post of this series, we established that spiders descended from marine arthropods called the eurypterids, distinct and separate from insects, appearing in the fossil record in the late Silurian/early Devonian, about 425 million years ago.
The cladogram we used to analyze the spider's history was based on the organism's morphological characteristics, that is, visible structures like chelicerae and book lungs that can be tied to other organisms that possess the same structures. Limulus (the extant horseshoe crab) has both of these structures and predates the spiders, placing them further back in the chelicerates' evolutionary history.
Paleontologists call this comparison of physical characteristics homology (coined by Richard Owen an anatomist and, ironically an opponent of Darwin). The mouth parts of a spider are homologous to the mouth parts of Limulus because of the cherlicae's exact form and function. This is a different designation than analogy; analogous structures may function in the same way, but they are different in form because of their different lineage. For this reason, scientists call analogy an artificial classification system.
A good example of analogous structures are wings from bat and bird. They perform the same function in varying degrees, but they have evolved very different forms. A bat's wing is basically a modified mammal hand, while the bird wing is a modified tetrapod arm.
Homology is essential in building an organism's phylogeny (evolutionary history). More recently, geneticists have employed this classification technique to analyze and find similarities among the less visible traits in life, RNA (ribonucleic acid) and the building blocks of proteins, amino acids.
Think of these cellular chemicals this way: If DNA is the blueprint of life, RNA is the messenger/builder and its materials are amino acids. When these amino acids are placed in the correct sequence by RNA, they become proteins, the framework of our body. And, since the genetic code for protein constructions is nearly universal, geneticists can compare entire swaths of RNA from one organism to those of another and find homology at the molecular level.
Here's an example (sequences are greatly abbreviated for the sake of our sanity):
Organism 1: ACGC-CCCCC
Organism 2: ACGC-CCCUC
Organism 3: ACGU-CUCUC
Basically, from noting the differences in each RNA sequence, and determining the homologous sequences (such as the ACGU sequence above), a cladogram can be constructed that shows common ancestry without the murky distinctions that sometimes cloud the comparison of bones to bones, or mouth parts to mouth parts.
The problem with this molecular system of analysis is that it often provides different cladograms than the ones crafted through morphological analysis. This is not necessarily the case between the spiders and and Limulus, the molecular evidence supports the fossil record's interpretation of ancestry, but it calls into question the descent of insects from chelicerates like spiders.
In short, the molecular evidence agrees with the morphological evidence in this case: spiders are more closely related to horseshoe crabs than insects. But where and when did the insects arise?
Next time we'll tackle the more recent movements to elucidate the phylogeny of arthropods, including a discussion on the significance Hox genes and evolutionary-developmental biology (evo-devo).