Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A key aim in evolutionary biology is to deduce ancestral states to better understand the evolutionary origins of clades of interest and the diversification process(es) that has/have elaborated them. These ancestral deductions can hit difficulties when undetected loss events are misinterpreted as ancestral absences. With the ever-increasing amounts of animal genomic sequence data, we are gaining a much clearer view of the preponderance of differential gene losses across animal lineages. This has become particularly clear with recent progress in our understanding of the origins of the Hox/ParaHox developmental control genes relative to the earliest branching lineages of the animal kingdom: the sponges (Porifera), comb jellies (Ctenophora) and placozoans (Placozoa). These reassessments of the diversity and complexity of developmental control genes in the earliest animal ancestors need to go hand-in-hand with complementary advances in comparative morphology, phylogenetics and palaeontology to clarify our understanding of the complexity of the last common ancestor of all animals. The field is currently undergoing a shift from the traditional consensus of a sponge-like animal ancestor from which morphological and molecular elaboration subsequently evolved, to a scenario of a more complex animal ancestor, with subsequent losses and simplifications in various lineages.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David Ferrier (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: