Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T01:09:12.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The glands of the larval foot in Pecten maximus L. and possible homologues in other bivalves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Ll. D. Gruffydd ,
D. J. W. Lane  and
A. R. Beaumont
Ll. D. Gruffydd
Affiliation:
N.E.R.C. Unit of Marine Invertebrate Biology, Marine Science Laboratories, Menai Bridge, Anglesey, North Wales, U.K.
D. J. W. Lane
Affiliation:
N.E.R.C. Unit of Marine Invertebrate Biology, Marine Science Laboratories, Menai Bridge, Anglesey, North Wales, U.K.
A. R. Beaumont
Affiliation:
N.E.R.C. Unit of Marine Invertebrate Biology, Marine Science Laboratories, Menai Bridge, Anglesey, North Wales, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A survey by Yonge (1962) of the byssal apparatus in the Bivalvia indicates that the formation of byssus is a larval characteristic which may or may not be retained in the adult. Some species such as the mussel, Mytilus edulis, retain the byssal attachment but have the ability to break the byssus and move over a limited area. Others, such as the scallop, Pecten maximus, lose the byssus entirely, become unattached and move by swimming. Yet others, such as the oyster, Ostrea edulis, relinquish all mobility at metamorphosis by cementing the shell to the substratum, and after metamorphosis lose all trace of the foot. Ostrea, Mytilus and Pecten therefore encompass a wide variety of life styles in the adult and are chosen as examples for detailed comparison of the byssus forming glands and other foot glands in the pediveligers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , May 1975 , pp. 463 - 476
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1975

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

Allen, J. A., 1968. The functional morphology of Crassinella mactracea (Linsley) (Bivalvia: Astartacea). Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 38, 27–40.Google Scholar
Ansell, A. D., 1962. The functional morphology of the larva, and the post-larval development of Venus striatula (da Costa). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 42, 419–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayne, B. L., 1971. Some morphological changes that occur at the metamorphosis of the larvae of Mytilus edulis. In: Fourth European Marine Biology Symposium, ed. Crisp, D. J., 259–80. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Belding, D. L., 1910. A report upon the scallop fishery of Massachusetts. 150 pp. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Belding, D. L., 1912. A report upon the quahaug and oyster fisheries of Massachusetts. 134 pp. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Boutan, L., 1895. Recherches sur le byssus des lamellibranches. Archives de zoologie experimentale et generate, 3rd series, 3, 297–338.Google Scholar
Brown, C. H., 1952. Some structural proteins of Mytilus edulis. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 93, 487–502.Google Scholar
Carriker, M. R., 1961. Interrelation of functional morphology, behaviour and autecology in early stages of the bivalve Mercenaria mercenaria. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society, 77, 168–241.Google Scholar
Clausen, C, 1958. On the anatomy and histology of the Eulamellibranch Kelliella miliaris (Philippi) with observations on the ciliary mechanisms in the mantle cavity. Nytt magasin for zoologi, 6, 144–75.Google Scholar
Cole, H. A., 1938. The fate of the larval organs in the metamorphosis of Ostrea edulis. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 23, 469–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranfield, H. J., 1973 a. A study of the morphology, ultrastructure, and histochemistry of the foot of the pediveliger of Ostrea edulis. Marine Biology, 22, 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranfield, H. J., 1973 b. Observations on the behaviour of the pediveliger of Ostrea edulis during attachment and cementing. Marine Biology, 22, 203–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranfield, H. J., 1973 c. Observations on the function of the glands of the foot of the pediveliger of Ostrea edulis during settlement. Marine Biology, 22, 211–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'asaro, C. N., 1967. The morphology of larval and postlarval Chione cancellata Linne (Eulamellibranchia: Veneridae) reared in the laboratory. Bulletin of Marine Science, 17, 949–72.Google Scholar
Drew, G. A., 1899. Some observations on the habits, anatomy and embryology of members of the Protobranchia. Anatomischer Anzeiger, 15, 493–519.Google Scholar
Drew, G. A., 1901. The life-history of Nucula delphinodonta (Mighels). Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 44, 313–91.Google Scholar
Erdmann, W., 1934. Untersuchungen Über die Lebensgeschichte der Auster. 5. Über die Entwicklung und die Anatomie der ‘ansatzreifen’ Larve von Ostrea edulis. Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, Abt. Helgoland, 19, 1–25.Google Scholar
Gerzeli, G., 1961. Ricerche istomorfologiche e istochimiche sulla formazione del bisso in Mytilus galloprovincialis. Pubblicazioni della Stazione Zoologica di Napoli, 32, 88–103.Google Scholar
Gruffydd, Ll. D. & Beaumont, A. R., 1972. A method for rearing Pecten maximuslarvae in the laboratory. Marine Biology, 15, 350–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbers, K., 1914. Entwicklungsgeschichte von Anodonta cellensis Schrot. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 108, 1–174.Google Scholar
Herdman, W. A., 1904. Report on the pearl oyster fisheries of the Gulf of Manaar: 2, 299 pp. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. F., Kelly, F. C, North, A. C. T., Randall, J. T., Seeds, W. E., Watson, M. & Wilkinson, G. R., 1953. The byssus threads of Mytilus edulis and Pinna nobilis. In: Nature and structure of collagen, eds Randall, J. T. and Jackson, S. F., 106–16. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Lane, D. J. W. & Nott, J. A., 1975. A study of the morphology, fine structure and histochemistry of the foot of the pediveliger of Mytilus edulis L. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 55, 477–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, G. L., Qadri, S. U. & Clarke, A. H., 1974. Byssus structure of larval forms of the fingernail clam, Musculium securis (Prime). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 52, 945–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maheo, R., 1968. Observations sur l'anatomie et le fonctionnement de l'appareil byssogene de Chlamys varia L. Cahiers de biologie marine, 9, 373–9.Google Scholar
Maheo, R., 1969a. Contribution a l'etude de l'anatomie et du fonctionnement du complex byssogene de quelques Bivalves. Ph.D. Thesis, Universite de Rennes.Google Scholar
Maheo, R., 1969b. Observations sur l'appareil byssogene de Venerupis pullastra Mon. Cahiers de biologie marine, 10, 181–6.Google Scholar
Meisenheimer, J., 1901. Entwicklungsgeschichte von Dreissensia polymorpha Pall. Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 69, 1–137.Google Scholar
Merrill, A. S. & Turner, R. D., 1963. Nest building in the bivalve genera Musculus and Lima. Veliger, 6, 55–9.Google Scholar
Monk, C. R., 1928. The anatomy and life history of a fresh-water mollusk of the genus Sphaerium. Journal of Morphology, 45, 473–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldfield, E., 1955. Observations on the anatomy and mode of life of Lasaea rubra (Montagu) and Turtonia minuta (Fabricus). Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 31, 226–49.Google Scholar
Oldfield, E., 1961. The functional morphology of Kellia suborbicularis (Montagu), Montacuta ferruginosa (Montagu) and M. substriata (Montagu), (Mollusca, Lamellibranchiata). Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 34, 255–95.Google Scholar
Oldfield, E., 1964. The reproduction and development of some members of the Erycinidae and Montacutidae (Mollusca, Eulamellibranchiata). Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 36, 79–120.Google Scholar
Palladini, G. & Lauro, G., 1966. Ricerche istotopochimiche sulle secrezioni mucose del piede di Mytilus galloprovincialis Lam. Monitore zoologico italiano, 74, 49–66.Google Scholar
Ponder, W. F., 1965. The biology of the genus Arthritica. Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 6, 75–86.Google Scholar
Popham, M. L., 1940. The mantle cavity of some of the Erycinidae, Montacutidae and Galeommatidae with special reference to the ciliary mechanisms. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 24, 549–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prytherch, H. F., 1934. The role of copper in the setting, metamorphosis, and distribution of the American oyster, Ostrea virginica. Ecological Monographs, 4, 47–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pujol, J. P., 1967. Le complex byssogene des mollusques bivalves. Histochimie comparee des secretions chez Mytilus edulis L. et Pinna nobilis L. Bulletin de la Societe linne'enne de Normandie, 8, 308–33.Google Scholar
Pujol, J. P., Bocquet, J. & Tiffon, Y., 1970. Analyse biochimique du byssus calcifie d'Anomia ephippium L. (Mollusque bivalve). Calcified Tissue Research, 5, 317–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quayle, D. B., 1952. Structure and biology of the larva and spat of Venerupis pullastra (Montagu). Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 62, 255–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saleuddin, A. S. M., 1965. The mode of life and functional anatomy of Astarte spp. (Eulamellibranchia). Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 36, 229–57.Google Scholar
Sellmer, G. P., 1967. Functional morphology and ecological life history of the gem clam, Gemma gemma (Eulamellibranchia: Veneridae). Malacologia, 5, 137–223.Google Scholar
Seydel, E., 1909. Untersuchungen Uber den byssusapparat der Lamellibranchiaten. Zoologische Jahrbucher. Abteilung fur Anatomie und Ontogenie der Tiere, 27, 465–582.Google Scholar
Sigerfoos, C. P., 1907. Natural history, organisation, and late development of the Teredindaei or shipworms. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, v27, 191–231.Google Scholar
Smyth, J. D., 1954. A technique for the histochemical demonstration of polyphenol oxidase and its application to egg-shell formation in helminths and byssus formation in Mytilus. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 95, 139—52.Google Scholar
Stafford, J., 1913. The Canadian oyster, its development, environment and culture. 159 pp. Ottawa: Commission of Conservation Canada.Google Scholar
Tamarin, A. & Keller, P. J., 1972. An ultrastructural study of the byssal thread forming system in Mytilus. Journal of Ultrastructure Research, 40, 401–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tullberg, T., 1877. Ueber die Byssus des Mytilus edulis. Nova acta Regiae Societatis scientiarum upsaliensis, 18, series 3, 1–9.Google Scholar
Turchini, J. & Broussy, J., 1934. Contribution a l'etude histologique de la glande byssogene des lamellibranchs. 1. Mytilus edulis L. Bulletin de la Societe zoologique de France, 59, 528–34.Google Scholar
Williamson, H. C, 1907. The spawning, growth, and movement of the mussel (Mytilus edulis, L.), horse-mussel (Modiolus modiolus, L.) and the spoutfish (Solen siliqua, L.). Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, 25, 221–55.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1962. On the primitive significance of the byssus in the Bivalvia and its effects in evolution. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 42, 113–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar