% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Boudinot:639693,
      author       = {Boudinot, Brendon and Beutel, Rolf G. and Weingardt,
                      Michael and van de Kamp, Thomas and Hammel, Jörg U. and Li,
                      Di and Richter, Adrian and Wipfler, Benjamin},
      title        = {{T}he insect head rewound: {C}larifications to the
                      groundplan of {H}exapoda ({P}ancrustacea)},
      journal      = {Arthropod structure $\&$ development},
      volume       = {89},
      issn         = {1467-8039},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {PUBDB-2025-04620},
      pages        = {101490},
      year         = {2025},
      abstract     = {The organization of the hexapod head remains a cornerstone
                      problem in arthropod systematics, central to segmental
                      homology, character definition, higher-level phylogeny, and
                      functional and evolutionary morphology. Recently, Nel et al.
                      (2025) proposed an alternative interpretation of insect head
                      segmentation that departs markedly from established
                      anatomical and comparative frameworks. We evaluate the
                      internal consistency and external coherence of that
                      hypothesis using their model groups, broader taxonomic
                      samples, prior studies (including crustaceomorph
                      Pancrustacea) and our own investigations. We identify
                      multiple implausible anatomical interpretations and logical
                      contradictions in their reconstruction. Our reanalysis,
                      supported by microtomographic imaging (μ- and SR-μ-CT),
                      shows that the proposed revision lacks empirical foundation
                      (e.g. Psocodea), does not meet its own definitions (e.g.
                      Neuropteroidea), misidentifies homologs (e.g. Coleoptera,
                      Formicidae), and is unsupported by fossil or developmental
                      evidence. Consequently, the new theory yields unreliable
                      homology statements and obscures groundplan conditions and
                      character polarities of the hexapod head. We therefore
                      reject the hypothesis that “intercalate” and
                      “promandible” sclerites existed in the groundplan of
                      Hexapoda, and the assumed plesiomorphy of dicondyly. Our
                      findings clarify relationships among major head sclerites,
                      endoskeletal elements, and the head capsule's strengthening
                      ridges, underscoring the need for comprehensive anatomy,
                      broad sampling, and logical rigor in resolving arthropod
                      head evolution.},
      cin          = {DOOR ; HAS-User / Hereon},
      ddc          = {590},
      cid          = {I:(DE-H253)HAS-User-20120731 / I:(DE-H253)Hereon-20210428},
      pnm          = {6G3 - PETRA III (DESY) (POF4-6G3)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-6G3},
      experiment   = {EXP:(DE-H253)P-P05-20150101},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:41160967},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.asd.2025.101490},
      url          = {https://bib-pubdb1.desy.de/record/639693},
}