Multiple origins of cephalic sutures in trilobites and their relatives

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
Du et al. report 16 new well-preserved specimens of atiopodan arthropods from the Chengjiang biota, which demonstrate both dorsal and ventral anatomies of a potential new taxon of antipodeans that are closely related to trilobites. Authors assigned their specimens to Acanthomeridion serratum and proposed A. anacanthus as a junior subjective synonym of Acanthomeridion serratum. Critically, the presence of ventral plates (interpreted as cephalic liberigenae), together with phylogenic results, lead authors to conclude that the cephalic sutures originated multiple times within the Artiopoda.

Strengths:
New specimens are highly qualified and informative. The morphology of the dorsal exoskeleton, except for the supposed free cheek, was well illustrated and described in detail, which provides a wealth of information for taxonomic and phylogenic analyses.

Weaknesses:
The weaknesses of this work are obvious in a number of aspects. Technically, ventral morphology is less well revealed and is poorly illustrated. Additional diagrams are necessary to show the trunk appendages and suture lines. Taxonomically, I am not convinced by the authors' placement. The specimens are markedly different from either Acanthomeridion serratum Hou et al. 1989 or A. anacanthus Hou et al. 2017. The ontogenetic description is extremely weak and the morpholical continuity is not established. Geometric and morphometric analyses might be helpful to resolve the taxonomic and ontogenic uncertainties. I am confused by the author's description of the free cheek (libragena) and ventral plate. Are they the same object? How do they connect with other parts of the cephalic shield, e.g. hypostome, and fixgena? Critically, the homology of cephalic slits (eye slits, eye notch, dorsal suture, facial suture) is not extensively discussed either morphologically or functionally. Finally, the authors claimed that phylogenic results support two separate origins rather than a deep origin. However, the results in Figure 4 can explain a deep homology of the cephalic suture at molecular level and multiple co-options within the Atiopoda.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Overall: This paper describes new material of Acanthomeridion serratum that the authors claim supports its synonymy with Acanthomeridion anacanthus. The material is important and the description is acceptable after some modification. In addition, the paper offers thoughts and some exploration of the possibility of multiple origins of the dorsal facial suture among artiopods, at least once within Trilobita and also among other non-trilobite artiopods. Although this possibility is real and apparently correct, the suggestions presented in this paper are both surprising and, in my opinion, unlikely to be true because the potential homologies proposed with regard to Acanthomeridion and trilobite-free cheeks are unconventional and poorly supported.

What to do? I can see two possibilities. One, which I recommend, is to concentrate on improving the descriptive part of the paper and omit discussion and phylogenetic analysis of dorsal facial suture distribution, leaving that for more comprehensive consideration elsewhere. The other is to seek to improve both simultaneously. That may be possible but will require extensive effort.

Major concerns

Concern 1 - Ventral sclerites as free cheek homolog, marginal sutures, and the trilobite doublure

Firstly, a couple of observations that bear on the arguments presented - the eyes of A. serratum are almost marginal and it is not clear whether a) there is a circumocular suture in this animal and b) if there was, whether it merged with the marginal suture. These observations are important because this animal is not one in which an impressive dorsal facial suture has been demonstrated - with eyes that near marginal it simply cannot do so. Accordingly, the key argument of this paper is not quite what one would expect. That expectation would be that a non-trilobite artiopod, such as A. serratum, shows a clear dorsal facial suture. But that is not the case, at least with A. serratum, because of its marginal eyes. Rather, the argument made is that the ventral doublure of A. serratum is the homolog of the dorsal free cheeks of trilobites. This opens up a series of issues.

The paper's chief claim in this regard is that the "teardrop" shaped ventral, lateral cephalic plates in Acanthomeridion serratum are potential homologs of the "free cheeks" of those trilobites with a dorsal facial suture. There is no mention of the possibility that these ventral plates in A. serratum could be homologs of the lateral cephalic doublure of olenelloid trilobites, which is bound by an operative marginal suture or, in those trilobites with a dorsal facial suture, that it is a homolog of only the doublure portions of the free cheeks and not with their dorsal components.

The introduction to the paper does not inform the reader that all olenelloids had a marginal suture - a circumcephalic suture that was operative in their molting and that this is quite different from the situation in, say, "Cedaria" woosteri in which the only operative cephalic exoskeletal suture was circumocular. The conservative position would be that the olenelloid marginal suture is the homolog of the marginal suture in A. serratum: the ventral plates thus being homolog of the trilobite cephalic doublure, not only potential homolog to the entire or dorsal only part of the free cheeks of trilobites with a dorsal facial suture. As the authors of this paper decline to discuss the doublure of trilobites (there is a sole mention of the word in the MS, in a figure caption) and do not mention the olenelloid marginal suture, they give the reader no opportunity to assess support for this alternative.

At times the paper reads as if the authors are suggesting that olenelloids, which had a marginal cephalic suture broadly akin to that in Limulus, actually lacked a suture that permitted anterior egression during molting. The authors are right to stress the origin of the dorsal cephalic suture in more derived trilobites as a character seemingly of taxonomic significance but lines such as 56 and 67 may be taken by the non-specialist to imply that olenelloids lacked a forward egression-permiting suture. There is a notable difference between not knowing whether sutures existed (a condition apparently quite common among soft-bodied artiopods) and the well-known marginal suture of olenelloids, but as the MS currently reads most readers will not understand this because it remains unexplained in the MS.

With that in mind, it is also worth further stressing that the primary function of the dorsal sutures in those which have them is essentially similar to the olenelloid/limulid marginal suture mentioned above. It is notable that the course of this suture migrated dorsally up from the margin onto the dorsal shield and merged with the circumocular suture, but this innovation does not seem to have had an impact on its primary function - to permit molting by forward egression. Other trilobites completely surrendered the ability to molt by forward egression, and there are even examples of this occurring ontogenetically within species, suggesting a significant intraspecific shift in suture functionality and molting pattern. The authors mention some of this when questioning the unique origin of the dorsal facial suture of trilobites, although I don't understand their argument: why should the history of subsequent evolutionary modification of a character bear on whether its origin was unique in the group?

The bottom line here is that for the ventral plates of A. serratum to be strict homologs of only the dorsal portion of the dorsal free cheeks, there would be no homolog of the trilobite doublure in A. serratum. The conventional view, in contrast, would be that the ventral plates are a homolog of the ventral doublure in all trilobites and ventral plates in artiopods. I do not think that this paper provides a convincing basis for preferring their interpretation, nor do I feel that it does an adequate job of explaining issues that are central to the subject.

Concern 2. Varieties of dorsal sutures and the coexistence of dorsal and marginal sutures

The authors do not clarify or discuss connections between the circumocular sutures (a form of dorsal suture that separates the visual surface from the rest of the dorsal shield) and the marginal suture that facilitates forward egression upon molting. Both structures can exist independently in the same animal - in olenelloids for example. Olenelloids had both a suture that facilitated forward egression in molting (their marginal suture) and a dorsal suture (their circumocular suture). The condition in trilobites with a dorsal facial suture is that these two independent sutures merged - the formerly marginal suture migrating up the dorsal pleural surface to become confluent with the circumocular suture. (There are also interesting examples of the expansion of the circumocular suture across the pleural fixigena.) The form of the dorsal facial suture has long figured in attempts at higher-level trilobite taxonomy, with a number of character states that commonly relate to the proximity of the eye to the margin of the cephalic shield. The form of the dorsal facial suture that they illustrate in Xanderella, which is barely a strip crossing the dorsal pleural surface linking marginal and circumocular suture, is comparable to that in the trilobites Loganopeltoides and Entomapsis but that is a rare condition in that clade as a whole. The paper would benefit from a clear discussion of these issues at the beginning - the dorsal facial suture that they are referring to is a merged circumcephalic suture and circumocular suture - it is not simply the presence of a molt-related suture on the dorsal side of the cephalon.

Concern 3. Phylogenetics
While I appreciate that the phylogenetic database is a little modified from those of other recent authors, still I was surprised not to find a character matrix in the supplementary information (unless it was included in some way I overlooked), which I would consider a basic requirement of any paper presenting phylogenetic trees - after all, there's no a space limit. It is not possible for a reviewer to understand the details of their arguments without seeing the character states and the matrix of state assignments.

The section "phylogenetic analyses" provides a description of how tree topology changes depending on whether sutures are considered homologous or not using the now standard application of both parsimony and maximum likelihood approaches but, considering that the broader implications of this paper rest of the phylogenetic interpretation, I also found the absence of detailed discussion of the meaning and implications of these trees to be surprising, because I anticipated that this was the main reason for conducting these analysis. The trees are presented and briefly described but not considered in detail. I am troubled by "Circles indicate presence of cephalic ecdysial sutures" because it seems that in "independent origin of sutures" trilobites are considered to have two origins (brown color dot) of cephalic ecdysial sutures - this may be further evidence that the team does not appreciate that olenelloids have cephalic ecdysial sutures, as the basal condition in all trilobites. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding their views, but from what's presented it's not possible to know that. Similarly, in the "sutures homologous" analyses why would there be two independent green dots for both Acanthomeridion and Trilobita, rather than at the base of the clade containing them both, as cephalic ecdysial sutures are basal to both of them? Here again, we appear to see evidence that the team considers dorsal facial sutures and cephalic ecdysial sutures to be synonymous - which is incorrect.

This point aside, and at a minimum, that team needs to do a more thorough job of characterizing and considering the variety of conditions of dorsal sutures among artiopods, their relationships to the marginal suture and to the circumocular suture, the number, and form of their branches, etc.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary: Well-illustrated new material is documented for Acanthomeridion, a formerly incompletely known Cambrian arthropod. The formerly known facial sutures are shown to be associated with ventral plates that the authors very reasonably homologise with the free cheeks of trilobites. A slight update of a phylogenetic dataset developed by Du et al, then refined slightly by Chen et al, then by Schmidt et al, and again here, permits another attempt to optimise the number of origins of dorsal ecdysial sutures in trilobites and their relatives.

Strengths: Documentation of an ontogenetic series makes a sound case that the proposed diagnostic characters of a second species of Acanthomeridion are variations within a single species. New microtomographic data shed some light on appendage morphology that was not formerly known. The new data on ventral plates and their association with the ecdysial sutures are valuable in underpinning homologies with trilobites.

Weaknesses: The main conclusion remains clouded in ambiguity because of a poorly resolved Bayesian consensus and is consistent with work led by the lead author in 2019 (thus compromising the novelty of the findings). The Bayesian trees being majority rules consensus trees, optimising characters onto them (Figure 7b, d) is problematic. Optimising on a consensus tree can produce spurious optimisations that inflate tree length or distort other metrics of fit. Line 264 refers to at least three independent origins of cephalic sutures in artiopodans but the fully resolved Figure 7c requires only two origins. We can't say how many origins are required by Figures 7b and 7d.

The question of how many times dorsal ecdysial sutures evolved in Artiopoda was addressed by Hou et al (2017), who first documented the facial sutures of Acanthomeridion and optimised them onto a phylogeny to infer multiple origins, as well as in a paper led by the lead author in Cladistics in 2019. Du et al. (2019) presented a phylogeny based on an earlier version of the current dataset wherein they discussed how many times sutures evolved or were lost based on their presence in Zhiwenia/Protosutura, Acanthomeridion, and Trilobita. To their credit, the authors acknowledge this (lines 62-65). The answer here is slightly different (because some topologies unite Acanthomeridion and trilobites).

The following points are not meant to be "Weaknesses" but rather are refinements:

I recommend changing the title of the paper from "cephalic sutures" to "dorsal ecdysial sutures" to be more precise about the character that is being tracked evolutionarily. Lots of arthropods have cephalic sutures (e.g., the ventral marginal suture of xiphosurans; the Y-shaped dorsomedian ecdysial line in insects). The text might also be updated to change other instances of "cephalic sutures" to a more precise wording.

The authors have provided (but not explicitly identified) support values for nodes in their Bayesian trees but not in their parsimony ones. Please do the jackknife or bootstrap for the parsimony analyses and make it clear that the Bayesian values are posterior probabilities.

In line 65 or somewhere else, it might be noted that a single origin of the dorsal facial sutures in trilobites has itself been called into question. Jell (2003) proposed that separate lineages of Eutrilobita evolved their facial sutures independently from separate sister groups within Olenellina.

I have provided minor typographic or terminological corrections to the authors in a list of recommendations that may not be publicly available.