Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-03T00:57:58.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Characters in context: molluscan shells and the forces that mold them

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Geerat J. Vermeij*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of California at Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616. E-mail: vermeij@geology.ucdavis.edu

Abstract

The characters and body parts of organisms are shaped by mechanical forces at two temporal scales. At the ontogenetic scale, the relevant forces are those of every day, exerted by muscles, other metabolism-powered processes, and normal interactions between the body and the external environment. At the phylogenetic scale, forces are strong enough to kill some individuals or to cause reproductive failure. These forces act more intermittently.

I explore these ideas by examining the characters of molluscan shells, which grow by the addition of skeletal material along the rim of the open end of a hollow, conical tube that is closed at its narrow (apical) end. In the idealized case of a null shell, the skeleton is a right circular cone, in which the magnitude and direction of growth are the same at each point along the rim. The rate of expansion of the cone is determined by the shell-builder's metabolism. Real shell-builders are exposed to, and themselves exert, forces that affect shell shape. These forces are generated by contact between the shell-secreting mantle margin and the substratum, by local or temporary deformations of the mantle margin imposed by other parts of the body and previously formed parts of the shell, and by contraction of muscles that connect the soft tissues to the inner shell surface. Early mollusks whose shells more or less resemble the null shell were slow-moving, epifaunal animals that clamped the shell against the substratum. Evolutionary increases in metabolic rate, associated with greater mobility and faster growth, made some ontogenetically important forces stronger and introduced new forces. As a result, the range of available phenotypes expanded. Refinements in genetic regulation of form, perhaps including an increase in the number of semiautonomous regulatory regions, further added to the specification and range of variation of characters that were subject either to evolutionary conservation or to natural selection. For example, the mantle margin in plesiomorphic gastropods appears to comprise one such region, which produces a growing shell margin in the form of a logarithmic spiral; in more-derived gastropods, the mantle margin may comprise two or more regions, which together produce a growing shell margin that departs strikingly from the logarithmic form of the outer shell lip.

The morphospace occupied by accretionary shells can be described by (1) the number of semiautonomous developmental modules, (2) selective regimes observable as phenotypic adaptive evolution, and (3) metabolic rate. The perspective outlined here implies that shells initially occupied a limited morphospace encompassing one or two modules, adaptation as an epifaunal clamping animal, and slow growth (low expansion rates) and metabolism. Further compartmentalization, together with increased metabolic rates in ecologically dominant taxa, caused the morphospace to expand both in the number of independent descriptors and in the range of values that each parameter spans. These trends in morphospace may characterize all major multicellular clades.

Type
Articles
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

Literature Cited

Alexander, R. M. 1981. Factors of safety in the structure of animals. Science Progress (Oxford) 67:109130.Google ScholarPubMed
Alexander, R. M. 1984. Optimum strengths of bones liable to fatigue and accidental fracture. Journal of Theoretical Biology 109:621636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alroy, J. 2000. Understanding the dynamics of trends within evolving lineages. Paleobiology 26:319329.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleton, R. D., and Palmer, A. R. 1988. Water-borne stimuli released by predatory crabs and damaged prey induce more predator-resistant shells in a marine gastropod. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 85:43874391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandel, K. 1982. Morphologie und Bildung der frühontogenetischen Gehäuse bei conchiferen Mollusken. Facies 7:1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandel, K. 1988. Early ontogenetic shell and shell structure as aids to unravel gastropod phylogeny and evolution. Malacological Review Supplement 4:267272.Google Scholar
Bernays, E. A. 1986. Diet-induced head allometry among foliage-chewing insects and its importance for graminivores. Science 231:495497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackstone, N. W. 1999. Redox control in development and evolution: evidence from colonial hydroids. Journal of Experimental Biology 202:35413553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackstone, N. W., and Buss, L. W. 1992. Treatment with 2–4-dinitrophenol mimics ontogenetic and phylogenetic changes in a hydractiniid hydroid. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89:40574061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogan, A., and Bouchet, P. 1998. Cementation in the freshwater bivalve family Corbiculidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia): a new genus and species from Lake Poso, Indonesia. Hydrobiologia 389:131139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchet, P. 1990. Turrid genera and mode of development: the use and abuse of protoconch morphology. Malacologia 32:6977.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. B. 2001. Chance and necessity: the evolution of morphological complexity and diversity. Nature 409:11021109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Checa, A. 1995. A model for the morphogenesis of ribs in ammonites inferred from associated microsculptures. Palaeontology 37:863888.Google Scholar
Checa, A. G., and Jiménez-Jiménez, A. P. 1998. Constructional morphology, origin, and the evolution of the gastropod operculum. Paleobiology 24:109132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cisne, J. L. 1974. Evolution of the world fauna of aquatic free-living arthropods. Evolution 28:337366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collin, R., and Voltzow, J. 1998. Initiation, calcification, and form of larval “archaeogastropod” shells. Journal of Morphology 235:7789.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corruccini, R. S., and Beecher, R. M. 1982. Occlusal variation related to soft diet in a nonhuman primate. Science 218:7476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denny, M. W. 2000. Limits to optimization: fluid dynamics, adhesive strength and the evolution of shape in limpet shells. Journal of Experimental Biology 203:26032622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denny, M. W., and Blanchette, C. A. 2000. Hydrodynamics, shell shape, behavior and survivorship in the owl limpet Lottia gigantea. Journal of Experimental Biology 203:26232639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doyle, J. A., and Hickey, L. J. 1976. Pollen and leaves from the Mid Cretaceous Potomac Group and their bearing on early angiosperm evolution. Pp. 139206in Beck, C. B., ed. Origin and early evolution of angiosperms. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ellers, O. 1993. A mechanical model of growth in regular sea urchins: predictions of shape and a developmental morphospace. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 254:123129.Google Scholar
Ellers, O., and Telford, M. 1997. Muscles advance the teeth in sand dollars and other sea urchins. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 264:15251530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endress, P. K. 2001. Origins of flower morphology. Pp. 493510in Wagner, 2001.Google Scholar
Flessa, K. W., Powers, K. V., and Cisne, J. L. 1975. Specialization and evolutionary longevity in the Arthropoda. Paleobiology 1:7181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, L. E., Cook, K. E., and Busse, J. S. 2000. The origin of plants: body plan changes contributing to a major evolutionary radiation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97:45354540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gubanov, A. P., and Peel, J. S. 2000. Cambrian monoplacophoran molluscs (Class Helcionelloida). American Malacological Bulletin 15:139145.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E., and Sprinkle, J. 2001. Earliest crinoids: new evidence for the origin of the dominant Paleozoic echinoderms. Geology 29:131134.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haasl, D. M. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships among nassariid gastropods. Journal of Paleontology 74:839852.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, Ø. 1999. The development of ammonoid septa: an epithelial invagination process controlled by morphogens? Historical Biology 13:153171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, Ø. 2000. A theory of the formation of comarginal ribs in mollusc shells by regulative oscillation. Journal of Molluscan Studies 66:183191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickman, C. S., and Hadfield, M. G. 2001. Larval muscle contraction fails to produce torsion in a trochoidean gastropod. Biological Bulletin 200:257260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotchkiss, F. H. C. 1998. A “rays-as-appendages” model for the origin of pentamerism in echinoderms. Paleobiology 24:200214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, P., and Bertness, M. D. 1984. Snail shape and growth rates: evidence for plastic shell allometry in Littorina littorea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 81:811813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, W. J., Morris, N. J., and Taylor, J. D. 1970. The shell structure, mineralogy and relationships of the Chamacea (Bivalvia). Palaeontology 13:379413.Google Scholar
Kirby, M. X. 2001. Differences in growth rate and environment between Tertiary and Quaternary Crassostrea oysters. Paleobiology 27:84103.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, M. X., Soniat, T. M., and Spero, H. J. 1998. Stable isotope schlerochronology of Pleistocene and Recent oyster shells. Palaios 13:560569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschner, M., and Gerhart, J. 1998. Evolvability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95:84208427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knoll, A. H., and Carroll, S. B. 1999. Early animal evolution: emerging views from comparative biology and geology. Science 285:21292137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, D. R., and Ponder, W. F. 1996. An evolutionary tree for the Mollusca: branches or roots? Pp. 6775in Taylor, J. E., ed. Origin and evolutionary radiation of the Mollusca. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Lowe, C. J., and Wray, G. A. 1997. Radial alterations in the roles of homeobox genes during echinoderm evolution. Nature 389:718721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowell, R. B. 1985. Selection for increased safety factors of biological structures as environmental unpredictability increases. Science 228:10091011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowell, R. B. 1987. Safety factors of tropical versus temperate limpet shells: multiple selection pressures on a single structure. Evolution 41:638650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, A. P. 1999. Increasing genomic complexity by gene duplication and the origin of the vertebrates. American Naturalist 154:111128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsukuma, A. 1996. Transposed hinges: a polymorphism of bivalved shells. Journal of Molluscan Studies 62:415431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morita, R. 1991a. Finite element analysis of a double membrane tube (DMS-tube) and its implication for gastropod shell morphology. Journal of Morphology 207:8192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morita, R. 1991b. Mechanical constraints on aperture form in gastropods. Journal of Morphology 207:93102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morita, R. 1993. Development mechanisms of retractor muscles and the “Dead Spiral Model” in gastropod shell morphogenesis. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 190:191217.Google Scholar
Morris, N. J. 1990. Early radiation of the Mollusca. Pp. 7390in Taylor, P. D. and Larwood, G. P., eds. Major evolutionary radiations. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Nagy, L. M., and Williams, T. A. 2001. Comparative limb development as a tool for understanding the evolutionary diversification of limbs in arthropods: challenging the modular paradigm. Pp. 455488in Wagner, 2001.Google Scholar
Newman, S. A., and Müller, G. B. 2001. Epigenetic mechanisms for character origination. Pp. 559579in Wagner, 2001.Google Scholar
Nordsieck, H. 1982. Die Evolution des Verschlussapparats der Schliessmundschnecken (Gastropoda: Clausiliidae). Archiv für Molluskenkunde 112:2743.Google Scholar
Palmer, A. R. 1990. Effect of crab effluent and scent of damaged conspecifics on feeding, growth, and shell morphology of the Atlantic dogwhelk Nucella lapillus (L.). Hydrobiologia 193:155182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, A. R. 1996. From symmetry to asymmetry: phylogenetic patterns of symmetry variation in animals and their evolutionary significance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 93:1427914286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, A. R., Taylor, G. M., and Barton, A. 1999. Cuticle strength and the size-dependence of safety factors in Cancer crab claws. Biological Bulletin 196:281294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, K. J., and Davidson, E. H. 2000. Regulatory evolution and the origin of the bilaterians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97:44304433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pigliucci, M. 2001. Characters and environments. Pp. 363388in Wagner, 2001.Google Scholar
Ponder, W. F., and Lindberg, D. R. 1997. Towards a phylogeny of gastropod molluscs: an analysis using morphological characters. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 119:83265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, S. H. 1998. The bio-geometry of mollusc shells. Paleobiology 24:133149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgway, S. A., Reid, D. G., Taylor, J. D., Branch, G. M., and Hodgson, A. N. 1998. A cladistic phylogeny of the family Patellidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 353:16451671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedel, F. 2000. Ursprung und Evolution der “höheren” Caenogastropoda. Berliner Geowissenschaftliche Abhandlungen E 32:1240.Google Scholar
Rosa, R. de, Grenier, J. K., Andreeva, T., Cook, C. E., Adoutte, A., Acham, M., Carroll, S. B., and Balavoine, G. 1999. Hox genes in brachiopods and priapulids and protostome evolution. Nature 399:772776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenberg, G. D., Hughes, W. W., and Tkachuck, R. D. 1988. Intermediary metabolism and shell growth in the brachiopod Terebratalia transversa. Lethaia 21:219230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, G. D., Hughes, W. W., and Tkachuck, R. D. 1989. Shell form and metabolic gradients in the mantle of Mytilus edulis. Lethaia 22:343344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1959. The growth and form of brachiopod shells. Geological Magazine 96:124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, T. 1998. Comparative anatomy and phylogeny of the Recent Archaeogastropoda (Mollusca: Gastropoda). University Museum, University of Tokyo Bulletin 38:1223.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1973. Fabricational noise in adaptive morphology. Systematic Zoology 22:451465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1975. Mechanische Simulation und funktionelle Evolution des Ammoniten-Septums. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 49:268286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1979. Constructional morphology of sand dollars. Paleobiology 5:191221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1988. Why are nautiloid and ammonoid sutures so different? Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 177:4169.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1991. Self-organizing mechanisms in morphogenesis and evolution. Pp. 251271in Schmidt-Kittler, N., ed. Constructional morphology and evolution. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shubin, N., Tabin, C., and Carroll, S. 1997. Fossils, genes and the evolution of animal limbs. Nature 388:639648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, L. D., and Palmer, A. R. 1994. Effects of manipulated diet on size and performance of brachyuran crab claws. Science 264:710712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smits, J. D., Witte, F., and van Veen, F. G. 1996. Functional changes in the anatomy of the pharyngeal jaw apparatus of Astateochromis alluaudi (Pisces, Cichlidae), and their effects on adjacent structures. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 59:389409.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. W. 1942. On growth and form, 2d ed.Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
Trussell, G. C. 1996. Phenotypic plasticity in an intertidal snail: the role of a common crab predator. Evolution 50:448454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trussell, G. C., and Smith, L. D. 2000. Induced defenses in response to an invading crab predator: an explanation of historical and geographic phenotypic change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95:21232127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tursch, B., Ouin, J. M., and Bouillon, J. 1995. On the structure of a population of Oliva oliva (L., 1758) in Papua New Guinea (studies on Olividae. 22). Apex 10:2938.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1971a. Gastropod evolution and morphological diversity in relation to shell geometry. Journal of Zoology 163:1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1971b. The geometry of shell sculpture. Forma et Functio 4:319325.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1973. Adaptation, versatility, and evolution. Systematic Zoology 22:466477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1978. Left asymmetry in the animal kingdom. Behavioral and Brain Science 2:320322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1980. Gastropod growth rate, allometry, and adult size: environmental implications. Pp. 379394in Rhoads, D. C. and Lutz, R. A., eds. Skeletal growth of aquatic organisms: biological records of environmental change. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and escalation: an ecological history of life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1990. Tropical Pacific pelecypods and productivity. Bulletin of Marine Science 47:6267.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1993. A natural history of shells. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1994. The evolutionary interaction among species: selection, escalation, and coevolution. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 25:219236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1995. Economics, volcanoes, and Phanerozoic revolutions. Paleobiology 21:125152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1996. Adaptations of clades: resistance and response. Pp. 363380in Rose, M. R. and Lauder, G. V., eds. Adaptation. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1999. Inequality and the directionality of history. American Naturalist 153: 243–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vermeij, G. J., and Carlson, S. J. 2000. The muricid gastropod subfamily Rapaninae: phylogeny and ecological history. Paleobiology 26:1946.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, C. H. 1962. New patterns in genetics and development. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, C. H. 1968. Does evolution depend on random search? Pp. 111139in Waddington, C. H., ed. Towards a theoretical biology, Vol. 1. Aldine, Chicago.Google ScholarPubMed
Wagner, G. P., ed. 2001. The character concept in evolutionary biology. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Wagner, G. P., and Altenberg, L. 1996. Complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution 50:967976.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, P. J. 1995. Testing evolutionary constraint hypotheses with early Paleozoic gastropods. Paleobiology 21:248272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1996. Patterns of morphologic diversification of the “Archaeogastropoda.” Pp. 161169in Taylor, J. D., ed. Origin and evolutionary radiation of the Mollusca. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wainwright, S. A. 1969. Stress and design in bivalved mollusc shells. Nature 224:777779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanninger, A., Ruthensteiner, B., and Haszprunar, G. 2000. Torsion in Patella caerulea (Mollusca: Patellogastropoda): ontogenetic process, timing, and mechanisms. Invertebrate Biology 119:177187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yonge, C. M. 1947. The pallial organs in the aspidobranch Gastropoda and their evolution throughout the Mollusca. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 232:443518.Google ScholarPubMed