Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T17:20:27.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shell morphology, shell texture and species discrimination of Caribbean Tucetona (Bivalvia, Glycymeridae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2021

Pascal E. Tschudin
Pascal E. Tschudin*
Affiliation:
Institute of Geology, University of Berne, and Institute of Geology and Paleontology, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 36, 4056 Basel, Switzerland,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous descriptions of Tucetona lack a consistent system using diagnostic characters and only two recent Caribbean ‘species' are recognized. In this study, textural and structural features of the Tucetona shell are examined and used as the basis for comparison to other glycymerids and in the recognition of morphospecies. Standard diagnostic characters based mainly on the cross-sectional shape of ribs and on hinge teeth ontogeny are presented and used to distinguish six recent Caribbean morphospecies. The shell texture has been examined by light and scanning electron microscopy, showing the interior of glycymerid hinge teeth structured by two bundles of crossed lamellar texture. Whereas European Glycymeris examined for comparison correspond in their hinge plate textures to the one found in Tucetona, differences from a Caribbean Glycymeris sp. are described. Simple lamellar, crossed-lamellar and cone complex crossed-lamellar textures showed the same basic crystallite subunits.

Type
Reprinted Articles
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 75 , Issue 5 , September 2001 , pp. 658 - 679
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society

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

Ansell, A. D., and Trueman, E. R. 1967. Observations on burrowing in Glycymeris glycymeris (L.) (Bivalvia, Arcacea). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 1:65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandel, K. 1979. Transitions from simple structural types to the crossed-lamellar structure in gastropod shells. Biomineralization Research reports, 10:9–38.Google Scholar
Bernard, F. 1896. Deuxième note sur le développement et la morphologic de la coquille chez les lamellibranches (Taxodontes). Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, troisième série, 24:54–82.Google Scholar
Bonanni, P. 1684. Recreatio Mentis Oculi. In Observatione Animalium Testaceorum. Varesij, Roma, 270 p.Google Scholar
Bonanni, P. 1709. Musaeum Kircherianum. Georgius Plachus, Roma.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1973. Ontogeny of a Miocene Pelecypod. Mathematical Geology, 5(1):73–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. P., and Pilsbry, H. A. 1911. Fauna of the Gatun Formation, Isthmus of Panama. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, p. 336–373, 8 pls.Google Scholar
Carter, J. G. (ed.). 1990. Skeletal Biomineralization: Patterns, Processes, and Evolutionary Trends, volumes 1, 2 (Atlas). Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 832 p.Google Scholar
Chavan, A. 1943. Observations sur la structure des cǒtes et sur les impressions musculaires des Glycymeris. Compte Rendu Sommaire des Séances, Société Géologique de France, 9:90–92.Google Scholar
Chemnitz, M. 1784. Neues systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet. Volume 7. Nürnberg, 356 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, E. M. da. 1778. Historia Naturalis Testaceorum Britanniae, or, the British Conchology. Millan, White, Elmsley and Robson, London, 254 p.Google Scholar
Cotton, B. C. 1961. South Australian Mollusca: Pelecypoda. W.L. Hawes, Government Printer, Adelaide, 363 p.Google Scholar
De Queiroz, K. 1999. The general lineage concept of species and the defining properties of the species category, p. 49–89. In Wilson, R.A. (ed.), Species. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gmelin, J. F. 1791. Caroli a Linné, Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis, tomus I, Pt. VI, p. 3021–3909. Georg Emanuel Beer, Lipsiae.Google Scholar
Gualtteri, N. 1742. Index testarum conchyliorum. Caietano Albizzino, Firenze, 133 p.Google Scholar
Ideler, J. L. 1841. Physici et Medici Graeci Minores. Volume 1. Berlin, 121 p.Google Scholar
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1986. Opinion 1414, The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 43(3):258–261Google Scholar
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Fourth Edition. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, 306 p.Google Scholar
Iredale, T. 1931. Australian Molluscan Notes No. 1. Records of the Australian Museum, 18:201–235, pl. 222–225.Google Scholar
Iredale, T. 1939. Great Barrier Reef Expedition 1928–29. Scientific Reports, 5(6), Mollusca, Pt. 1, p. 209–425, pls. 1–7. British Museum (Natural History), London.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., and Lutz, R. A. 1980. Molluscan larval shell morphology. Ecological and paleontological applications, p. 323–377. In Rhoads, D. C. and Lutz, R. A. (eds.), Skeletal Growth of Aquatic Organisms. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., and Cheetham, A. H. 1999. Tempo and mode of speciation in the sea. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14(2):72–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., Todd, J. A., Fortunato, H., and Jung, P. 1999. Diversity and assemblages of Neogene Caribbean Mollusca of lower Central America. In Collins, L. S. and Coates, A. G. (eds.), A Paleobiotic Survey of Caribbean Faunas from the Neogene of the Isthmus of Panama. Bulletins of American Paleontology, no. 357, 351 p.Google Scholar
Knowlton, N. 1993. Sibling species in the sea. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 24:189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraus, O. (ed.). 1970. Internationale Regeln für die Zoologische Nomenklatur beschlossen vom 15. internationalen Kongress für Zoologie, zweite Auflage. Senckenberg-Buch 51. Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main, 92 p.Google Scholar
Kraus, O. 1973. Internationale Regeln für die Zoologische Nomenklatur: Bericht über Änderungen, gültig ab 1. Januar 1973. Senckenbergiana biologica, 54(1):219–225Google Scholar
Lamarck, J. B. de. 1819. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres, tome sixième, première partie. A. Belin, Paris.Google Scholar
Lamy, E. 1911. Révisions des Pectunculus vivants du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris. Journal de Conchyliologie, 13(59):81–156, pls. 2, 3.Google Scholar
Linné, C. von. 1758. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae, 1. Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Linné, C. von. 1764. Museum […] Ludovicae Ulricae Reginae […]. Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Lison, L. 1949. Recherches sur la forme et la méchanique de développement des coquilles des lamellibranches. Mémoires de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, 34:1–87.Google Scholar
Lister, M. 1687. Historiae sive Synopsis Methodicae Conchyliorum quorum Omnium Picturae, ad vivum delineatae, exhibetur, Liber III qui est de Bivalvibus marinis (1687). London.Google Scholar
Mansfield, W. C. 1937. Mollusks of the Tampa and Suwanee Limestones of Florida. State of Florida, Geological Bulletin, no. 15, 334 p.Google Scholar
Martini, F. H. W. 1777. Zwoschalichte Konchylien mit gekerbtem Schloss überhaupt, und einige dahin gehoerige neu entdekte Schalen. Beschaeftigungen der Berlinischen Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde, 3:273–312.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1938. Late Paleozoic Pelecypods: Pectinacea. Bulletin of the State Geological Survey of Kansas, 10:1–123.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1969. Superfamily Arcacea Lamarck, 1809, p. 250–269. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, P. N, Mollusca 6, Bivalvia 1. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Newton, R. B. 1916. On the conchological features of the Lenham sandstones of Kent and their stratigraphical importance. Journal of Conchology, 15(3, 4):65–84, 112–118.Google Scholar
Nicol, D. 1956. Distribution of living glycymerids with a new species from Bermuda. The Nautilus, 70(2):48–53Google Scholar
Olsson, A. A. 1922. The Miocene of Northern Costa Rica. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 9(39):1–168Google Scholar
Olsson, A. A. 1961. Mollusks of the Tropical Eastern Pacific: Panamic-Pacific Pelecypoda. Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca N.Y., 574 p.Google Scholar
Omori, M., Kobayashi, I., Shibata, M., Mano, K., and Kamiya, H. 1976. On some problems concerning calcification and fossilization of taxodontid bivalves, p. 403–426. In Watabe, M. and Wilbur, K. M. (eds.), International Symposium on the Mechanisms of Mineralization in the Invertebrates and Plants. The Belle W. Baruch library in marine science, no. 5. University of South Carolina, Georgetown, S.C.Google Scholar
Reeve, L. 1843. Monograph of the Genus Pectunculus. Conchologia Iconica. volume 1.Google Scholar
Reeve, L. 1843. Descriptions of New Species of Shells Figured in the ‘Conchologia Iconica'. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, p. 168–197.Google Scholar
Seed, R. 1980. Shell growth and form in the Bivalvia, p. 23–67. In Rhoads, D. C. and Lutz, R. A. (eds.), Skeletal Growth of Aquatic Organisms. Topics in Geobiology 1, University of Florida. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1970. Relation of shell form to life habits in the Bivalvia (Mollusca). Geological Society of America, Memoirs 125, 296 p.Google Scholar
Stenzel, H. B., Krause, E. K., and Twining, J. T. 1957. Pelecypoda from the Type Locality of the Stone City Beds (Middle Eocene) of Texas. University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology Publication 5704, 461 p.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. 1999. Species as Ecological Mosaics, p. 119–138. In Wilson, R. A. (ed.), Species. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. B. 1930. Gabb's California Cretaceous and Tertiary Type Lamellibranchs. Special Publication no. 3, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 314 p.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. D., Kennedy, W. J., and Hall, A. 1969. The Shell Structure and Mineralogy of the Bivalvia: Introduction, Nuculacea-Trigonacea. The Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology series Supplement No. 3.Google Scholar
Tennison-Woods, J. E. 1878. On some new marine mollusca. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 14:55–65.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. D. K. 1975. Functional morphology, ecology, and evolutionary conservatism in the Glycymerididae (Bivalvia). Palaeontology, 18(2):217–258Google Scholar
Thomas, R. D. K. 1976. Constraints of ligamental growth, form and function on evolution in the Arcoida (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Paleobiology, 2:64–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, T. R. 1980. Scanning electron microscopy of shell and mantle in the Order Arcoida (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 313:1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisbord, N. E. 1964. Late Cenozoic Pelecypods from Northern Venezuela. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 45(204), 564 p.Google Scholar