Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T04:42:09.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XII.—The Monomyarian Condition in the Lamellibranchia*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

C. M. Yonge
C. M. Yonge
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

The Mollusca possess two growth axes associated with the body and the mantle/shell respectively. Evolution of the Lamellibranchia involved assumption by the mantle/shell of responsibility for growth and form; also the formation of anterior and posterior adductors. Change from this dimyarian to a heteromyarian and finally monomyarian condition involved changes in the relations of body and mantle/shell. These are considered with regard to their two major axes in the saggital plane. Although body form may be greatly influenced by changes in that of the mantle/shell, its proportions are only altered where the body is attached by byssus. Then the anterior half may be reduced and the anterior adductor finally lost. This occurs in many Anisomyaria, these monomyarians being divisible into five groups according to habit. Apart from the Limidæ, all are bilaterally asymmetrical. In those which have lost the foot, both axes of the body are effectively lost. Primary pallial attachment is lost but secondary attachment has been achieved in most cases. In the Tridacnidæ (Eulamellibranchia) the mantle/shell has rotated in the saggital plane in relation to the fixed body with resultant loss of the anterior adductor. There is hypertrophy and extension antero-dorsally of the originally posterior siphonal tissues in which zooxanthellæ are contained. Evolution may have proceeded by way of now extinct heteromyarians such as Lithocardium. In the freshwater Acostœa (Mulleria) the anterior adductor is lost during growth following cementation by one or other valve. The form of the body is little affected. Variation and natural selection account for the variety of form and habit exhibited by these diverse monomyarians.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , 1954 , pp. 443 - 478
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References to Literature

Anthony, R., 1903. “Organisation et morphogénie des Tridacnidés”, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, CXXXVIII, 296–298.Google Scholar
Anthony, R., 1905. “Influence de la fixation pleurothétique sur la morphologie des mollusques acéphales dimyaires”, Ann. Sci. nat. Zool. (9), I, 165–396.Google Scholar
Anthony, R., 1907. “Étude monographique des Ætheriidæ (Anatomie, Morphogénie, Systématique)”, Ann. Soc. roy. Malac. Belg., XLI, 322–430.Google Scholar
Anthony, R., 1920. “L'interpretation du type morphologique de la Tridacna et de l'Hippopus”, Bull. Soc. Sci. nat. Ouest. Nantes (3), VI, 99–107.Google Scholar
Atkins, D., 1936. “On the ciliary mechanisms and interrelationships of lamellibranchs. Part I”, Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., LXXIX, 181–308.Google Scholar
Blainville H. M. D., De, 1825. Manuel de Malacologie et de Conchyliologie, Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boschma, H., 1924. “On the food of Madreporaria”, Proc. Acad. Sci. Amsterdam, XXVII, 13–23.Google Scholar
Boutan, L., 1919. “Condsidérations nouvelles sur les affinités réciproques des Mollusques gastéropodes”, Actes Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, LXXI, 1–116.Google Scholar
Brock, J., 1888. “Über die sogenannten Augen von Tridacna und das Vorkommen von Pseudochlorophyllkörpen im Gefässsystem der Muscheln”, Zeits. wiss. Zool., XLVI, 270–288.Google Scholar
Buddenbrock W., Von, 1911. “Untersuchungen über die Schwimmbewegungen und die Statocysten der Gattung Pecten”, S.B. Heidelberg Akad. Wiss., Jahrg. 1911, 28 Abh.Google Scholar
Buddenbrock W., Von, 1915. “Die Statocyste von Pecten, ihre Histologie und Physiologie”, Zool. Jb. abt. Zool. Physiol., xxxv, 301–356.Google Scholar
Dakin, W. J., 1909. “Pecten”, L.M.B.C. Memoir, No. 17, Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
Dakin, W. J., 1928. “The anatomy and phylogeny of Spondylus, with a particular reference to the lamellibranch nervous system”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., B, CIII, 337–354.Google Scholar
Douvillé, H., 1912. “Classification des Lamellibranches”, Bull. Soc. Géol. France (4), XII, 419–467.Google Scholar
Drew, G. A., 1906. “The habits, anatomy, and embryology of the giant scallop (Pecten tenuicostatus, Mighels)”, Univ. Maine Studies, No. 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, A., 1938. “On a ciliary process of food-collecting in the gastropod Turritella communis Risso”, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., A, CVIII, 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grobben, C., 1898. “Beiträge sur Morphologie und Anatomie der Tridacniden”, Zoologische Ergebnisse der Expedition “Pola”, Denkschr. Akad. wiss. Wien., LXV, 433–444.Google Scholar
Gutsell, J. S., 1931. “Natural history of the bay scallop”, Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish., XLVI, 569–632.Google Scholar
Hedley, C., 1921. “A revision of the Australian Tridacna”, Rec. Aust. Mus., XIII, 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herdman, W. A., 1903. “Observations and experiments on the life-history and habits of the Pearl Oyster”, Rep. Pearl Oyster Fish. Gulf Manaar, Roy. Soc. Lond., I, 125–146.Google Scholar
Herdman, W. A., 1904. ’Anatomy of the pearl oyster (Margaritifera vulgaris, Schum.)”, Rep. Pearl Oyster Fish. Gulf Manaar, Roy. Soc. Lond., II, 37–76.Google Scholar
Hornell, J., 1909. “Report upon the anatomy of Placuna placenta, with notes upon its distribution and economic uses”, Rep. Mar. Zool. Okhamandal, I, 43–97.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. T., 1890. “Phylogeny of the Pelecypoda. The Aviculidæ and their allies”, Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., IV, 277–400.Google Scholar
Johansson, J., 1952. “On the phylogeny of the Mollusca”, Zool. Bidr. fr. Uppsala, XXIX, 277–292.Google Scholar
Kawaguti, S., 1950. “Observations on the heart shell, Corculum cardissa (L.) and its associated Zooxanthellæ”, Pacific Science, IV, 43–49.Google Scholar
Kellogg, J. L., 1915. “Ciliary mechanisms of lamellibranchs with descriptions of anatomy”, Journ. Morph., XXVI, 625–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacaze-Duthiers H., De, 1854. “Mémoire sur l'organisation de l'anomie (Anomia ephippium)”, Ann. Sci. nat. Zool. (4), II, 5.Google Scholar
Lacaze-Duthiers H., De, 1902. “Morphologie de Tridacna elongata et de Hippopus”, Arch. Zool. Exp. Gen. (3), x, 99–212.Google Scholar
Lebour, M. V., 1937. “Larval and post-larval Lima from Plymouth”, Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., XXI, 705–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansour, K., 1946 a. “Communication between the dorsal edge of the mantle and the stomach in Tridacna”, Nature, CLVII, 844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansour, K., 1946 b. “Source and fate of the Zooxanthellæ of the visceral mass of Tridacna elongata”, Nature, CLVIII, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansour, K., 1946 c. “Mantle chambers of Tridacna elongata”, Nature, CLVIII, 523–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansour, K., 1946 d. “The zooxanthellæ, morphological peculiarities and food and feeding habits of the Tridacnidæ, with reference to other Lamellibranchs”, Proc. Egypt. Acad. Sci., I, 1–11.Google Scholar
Moore, H. B., 1934. “The relation of shell growth to environment in Patella vulgata”, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., XXI, 217–222.Google Scholar
Morton, J. E., 1951. “The structure and adaptations of the New Zealand Vermetidæ”, Trans, roy. Soc. N.Z., LXXIX, 1–51.Google Scholar
Nelson, T. C., 1938. “The feeding mechanism of the oyster. I. On the pallium and branchial chambers of Ostrea virginica, O. edulis and O. angulata, with comparisons with other species of the genus”, Journ. Morph., LXIII, 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odhner, N., 1912. “Morphologische und physiologische Untersuchungen über die Nephridien der Lamellibranchien”, Zeits. wiss. Zool., C, 287–391.Google Scholar
Orton, J. H., 1933. “Studies on the relation between organisms and environment”, Trans. L'pool. Biol. Soc., XLVI, 1–16.Google Scholar
Orton, J. H., and Awati, P. R., 1926. “Modification by habitat in the Portuguese oyster Ostrea (Gryphcea) angulata”, Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., XIV, 227–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, G., 1952. “Shell-form in the Lamellibranchia”, Nature, CLXX, 148–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, G., Trueman, E. R., and Yonge, C. M., 1952. “The ligament in the Lamellibranchia”, Nature, CLXXI, 73–75.Google Scholar
Pelseneer, P., 1906 a. Mollusca. A Treatise on Zoology (ed. Lankester, E. Ray), V, London, A. & C. Black.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelseneer, P., 1906 b. “Un genre de lamellibranches a bouches multiples”, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, CXLII, 722–723.Google Scholar
Pelseneer, P., 1907. “La concentration du systeme nerveux chez les lamellibranches”, Bull. Acad. roy. Belg., 1907, 874–878.Google Scholar
Pelseneer, P., 1911. “Lamellibranches de l'expédition du Siboga. Partie anatomique”, Siboga-Expeditie, Monographie LIIIa.Google Scholar
Pelseneer, P., 1931. “Quelques particularites d'organisation chez des Pectinacea”, Ann. Soc. roy. Zool. Belg., LXI, 12–17.Google Scholar
Popham, M. L., 1940. “The mantle cavity of some of the Erycinidæ, Montacutidæ and Galeommatidæ, with special reference to the ciliary mechanisms”, Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., XXIV, 549–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prashad, B., 1928. “The mantle and the shell of the Viviparidæ”, Mem. Indian Mus., VIII, 253–319.Google Scholar
Ridewood, W. G., 1903. “On the structure of the gills of the Lamellibranchia”, Phil. Trans., B, cxcv, 147–284.Google Scholar
Roche, W. L., 1925. “Note on the microscopic anatomy of the tentacular sense organ of Cardium edule”, Journ. Roy. Micr. Soc., 1925, 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, H., 1908. “Der Stilplan der Bivalven”, Morph. Jb., XXXVIII, 93–134.Google Scholar
Seydel, E., 1909. “Untersuchungen über den Byssusapparat der Lamellibranchiaten”, Zool. Jb., abt. Morph., XXVII, 465–582.Google Scholar
Studnitz G., Von, 1930. “Die Morphologie und Anatomie von Lima inflata, der Feilenmuschel, nebst biologischen Untersuchungen an Lima Mans Gmel.”, Zool. Jb., abt. Anat., LIII, 199–316.Google Scholar
Thiele, J., 1935. Handbuch der systematische Weichtierkunde, Teil III, Classis Bivalvia, Jena, G. Fischer.Google Scholar
Thompson, D'Arcy W., 1942. On Growth and Form, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vaillant, L., 1865. “Recherches sur la famille des Tridacnides”, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool. (5), IV, 65–172.Google Scholar
Watson, H., 1940 a. “On the anatomy and affinities of Plicatula”, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., XIX, 25–31.Google Scholar
Watson, H., 1930 b. “On the central nervous sytem of Spondylus and what happens to a headless mollusc's brain”, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., XIX, 31–36.Google Scholar
Watson, H., 1930 c. “Additional note on bivalves' brains”, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., XIX, 139–140.Google Scholar
Woodward, M. F., 1898. “On the anatomy of Mulleria dalyi, Smith”, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., III, 87–91.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1926. “Structure and physiology of the organs of feeding and digestion in Ostrea edulis”, Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., XIV, 295–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1936 a. “The evolution of the swimming habit in the Lamellibranchia”, Mém. Mus. roy. Hist. nat. Belg. (2), III, 77–100.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1936 b. “Mode of life, feeding, digestion and symbiosis with Zooxanthellæ in the Tridacnidæ”, Sci. Rep. G. Barrier Reef Exped., 1928–1929, Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), I, 283–321.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1938. “Evolution of ciliary feeding in the Prosobranchia, with an account of feeding in Capulus ungaricus”, Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., XXII, 453–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1939. “The protobranchiate Mollusca: a functional interpretation of their structure and evolution”, Phil. Trans., B, ccxxx, 79–147.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1944. “Experimental analysis of the association between invertebrates and unicellular algæ”, Biol. Rev., XIX, 68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1947. “The pallial organs in the aspidobranch Gastropoda and their evolution throughout the Mollusca”, Phil. Trans., B, CCXXXII, 443–518.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1948. “Formation of siphons by Lamellibranchia”, Nature, CLXI, 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1949. “On the structure and adaptations of the Tellinacea, deposit-feeding Lamellibranchia”, Phil. Trans., B, CCXXXIV, 29–76.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1951 a. “Observations on Sphenia binghami Turton”, Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc, xxx, 387–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1951 b. “Studies on Pacific coast Mollusks. III. Observations on Hinnites multirugosus (Gale)”, Univ. Calif. Publ. Zoöl., LV, 409–420.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1952 a. “Studies on Pacific coast Mollusks. IV. Observations on Siliqua patula Dixon and on evolution within the Solenidæ”, Univ. Calif. Publ. Zoöl., LV, 421–438.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1952 b. “Studies on Pacific coast Mollusks. IV. Structure and adaptation in Entodesma saxicola (Baird) and Mytilimeria nuttallii Conrad, with a discussion on evolution within the family Lyonsiidæ (Eulamellibranchia)”, Univ. Calif. Publ. Zoöl, LV, 439–450.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1952 c. “Studies on Pacific coast Mollusks. VI. A note on Kellia laperousii (Deshayes)”, Univ. Calif. Publ. Zoöl, LV, 451–454.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1953. “Mantle chambers and water circulation in the Tridacnidæ”, Proc Zool. Soc. Lond. [In the press.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar