Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:27:40.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II.—On the Heteromyarian Condition in the Bivalvia with Special Reference to Dreissena polymorpha and Certain Mytilacea*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

C. M. Yonge  and
J. I. Campbell
C. M. Yonge
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Glasgow.
J. I. Campbell
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Glasgow.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

The adaptive character and possible course of evolution—following permanent byssal attachment—of the heteromyarian form in the Bivalvia is considered in relation to the eulamellibranch Dreissenacea and the filibranch Mytilacea. In both it assumes the extreme condition of ventral (anterior) flattening representing a high degree of adaptation for epifaunal life. The presence of a shell shelf in the umbonal regions of Dreissena and Septifer is associated with the greatest degree of ventral flattening; it permits retention of the anterior adductor and its attachment to parallel surfaces. Enlargement of the posterior regions of the visceropedal mass and the posterior territory of the mantle/shell involves formation of an elongated opisthodetic ligament. That of the Dreissenacea, here initially described, is of unique complication. In primitive infaunal isomyarians an organ of locomotion through soft substrates, in these heteromyarians the foot becomes essentially concerned with byssal attachment with which much the greatest part of the small anterior and large posterior retractors becomes exclusively concerned. Although strikingly similar to the Mytilacea, the Dreissenacea which now inhabit slowly moving or still, silt-laden freshwaters would seem most probably to have evolved under very different marine conditions prior to their relatively recent migration into freshwaters.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , 1968 , pp. 21 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1968

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

Allen, J. A., 1958. “On the basic form and adaptations to habitat in the Lucinacea (Eulamellibranchia)”, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B, 241, 421–484.Google Scholar
Ansell, A. D., 1961. “The functional morphology of the British species of Veneracea (Eulamellibranchia)”, J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K., 41, 489–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansell, A. D., and Trueman, E. R., 1967. “Burrowing in Mercenaria mercenaria (L.) (Bivalvia, Veneridæ)”, J. Exp. Biol., 46, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkins, D., 1936. “On the ciliary mechanisms and interrelationships of Lamellibranchs. Part I. Some new observations on sorting mechanisms in certain lamellibranchs”, Quart. Jl Microsc. Sci., 79, 181–308.Google Scholar
Atkins, D., 1937. “Part III. Types of Lamellibranch gills and their food currents”, Quart. Jl Microsc. Sci., 79, 375–421.Google Scholar
Clarke, K. B., 1952. “The infestation of waterworks by Dreissensia polymorpha, a fresh water mussel”, J. Instn Water Engrs, 6, 370–379.Google Scholar
Field, I. A., 1922. “Biology and economic value of the sea mussel Mytilus edulis”, Bull. Bur. Fish. Wash., 38, 128–259.Google Scholar
Hoyle, G., 1964. “Muscle and neuromuscular physiology”. In Physiology of Mollusca, I, 313–351. Ed. Wilbur, K. M. and Yonge, C. M.. Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, G., 1953. “On the biology of Glossus humanus (L.) (Isocardia cor Lam.)”, J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K., 32, 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, G., 1959. “Observations on the Solenacea with reasons for excluding the family Glaucomyidæ”, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B, 242, 59–97.Google Scholar
Owen, G., Trueman, E. R., and Yonge, C. M., 1953. “The ligament in the Lamellibranchia”, Nature, Lond., 171, 73–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelseneer, P., 1911. “Les lamellibrances de l'expédition du Siboga. Partie anatomique”, Siboga Exped., 53a, 1–125.Google Scholar
Purchon, R. D., 1960. “The stomach in the Eulamellibranchia; Stomach types IV and V”, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 135, 431–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soot-Ryen, T., 1955. “A report of the family Mytilidæ (Pelecypoda)”, Allan Hancock Pacif. Exped., 20, 1–175.Google Scholar
Thiele, J., 1935. Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde, 3, Classis Bivalvia. Jena.Google Scholar
Trueman, E. R., 1950. “Observations on the ligament of Mytilus edulis”, Quart. Jl Microsc. Sci., 91, 225–235.Google ScholarPubMed
Trueman, E. R., 1966. “Bivalve mollusks: fluid dynamics of burrowing”, Science, N.Y., 152, 523–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trueman, E. R., 1967. “The dynamics of burrowing in Ensis (Bivalvia)”, Proc. Roy. Soc., B, 166, 459–476.Google Scholar
White, K. M., 1937. “Mytilus”, L.M.B.C. Mem. Typ. Br. Mar. Pl. Anim., 31.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. R., 1967. “A new generic name for three recent and one fossil species of Mytilidæ (Mollusca: Bivalvia) in southern Australasia with redescriptions of the species”, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., 37, 265–295.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1936. “Mode of life, feeding, digestion and symbiosis with Zooxanthellæ in the Tridacnidæ”. Scient. Rep. Gt Barrier Reef Exped., 1, 283–321.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1949. “On the structure and adaptations of the Tellinacea, deposit-feeding Lamellibranchia”, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B, 234, 29–76.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1951 a. “Observations on Sphenia binghami Turton”, J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K., 30, 387–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1951 b. “Studies on Pacific Coast Mollusks. III. Observations on Hinnites multirugosus (Gale)”, Univ. Calif. Publs Zool., 55, 409–420.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1952a. “Studies on Pacific Coast Mollusks. IV. Observations on Siliqua patula Dixon and on evolution within the Solenidæ”, Univ. Calif. Publs Zool., 55, 421–438.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1952 b. “Studies on Pacific Coast Mollusks. V. Structure and adaptation in Entodesma saxicola (Baird) and Mytilimeria nuttallii Conrad with a discussion on evolution within the family Lyonsiidæ (Eulamellibranchia)”, Univ. Calif. Publs Zool., 55, 439–50.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1953 a. “The monomyarian condition in the Lamellibranchia”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 62, 443–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1953 b. “Form and habit in Pinna carnea Gmelin”, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B, 237, 335–374.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1955 a. “Adaptation to rock boring in Botula and Lithophaga (Lamellibranchia, Mytilidæ) with a discussion on the evolution of this habit”, Quart. Jl Microsc Sci., 96, 383–410.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M. 1955 b. “A note on Arca (Senilia) senilis Lamarck”, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., 31, 202–208.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1957. “Mantle fusion in the Lamellibranchia”, Pubbl. Staz. Zool. Napoli, 29, 151–171.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1962 a. “On Etheria elliptica Lam. and the course of evolution, including assumption of monomyarianism, in the family Etheriidæ (Bivalvia: Unionacea)”, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B, 244, 423–458.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1962 b. “On the primitive significance of the byssus in the Bivalvia and its effects in evolution”, J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K., 42, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1967. “Form, habit and evolution in the Chamidæ (Bivalvia) with reference to conditions in the rudists (Hippuritacea)”, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B, 252, 49–105.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1968. “Form and habit in species of Malleus (included the “Hammer Oysters”) with comparative observations on Isognomon isognomon“, Biol. Bull. Mar. Biol Lab., Woods Hole, (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar