Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:42:38.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Copepods from the Interstitial Fauna of a Sandy Beach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

A. G. Nicholls
A. G. Nicholls
Affiliation:
Assistant Naturalist, Marine Station, Millport.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Attention was first drawn by Wilson (1932) to the large copepod fauna which can be found in an ordinary sandy beach. In his introduction he describes his method of collecting these copepods (p. 7) and in the course of the paper describes a number of new genera and species thus obtained.

Sand-dwelling animals, particularly Crustacea and worms (excluding sessile forms), are usually regarded as burrowers, since in their migrations they displace the particles of their environment. The fauna opened up by Wilson's discovery is of a quite different type. In contrast to true sand-burrowing animals, these copepods do not displace the particles of the sand through which they move but crawl over the surface of the grains, which, by capillarity, always hold more or less water, even high up on the beach at low tide. Such copepods, together with nematodes, rotifers, protozoa and other animals sufficiently small, may be regarded as part of an “interstitial” fauna.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , August 1935 , pp. 379 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1935

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

Gurney, R. 1932. British Fresh-Water Copepoda. II. Ray Society. London.Google Scholar
Herrick, C. L. 1895. Microcrustacea from New Mexico. Zool. Anz., XVIII, pp. 40–47.Google Scholar
Monard, A. 1927. Synopsis universalis generum Harpacticoidarum. Zool. Jahrb., 54, pp. 139–176.Google Scholar
Sars, G. O. 1911. An Account of the Crustacea of Norway. V. Copepoda (Harpacticoida). Bergen.Google Scholar
Scott, T. 1894. Additions to the fauna of the Firth of Forth. 12th Ann. Rep. Fish. Board Scot., pp. 231–271.Google Scholar
Scott, T. 1901. Land, Fresh-Water, and Marine Crustacea. Clyde Fauna List, pp. 328–358, Glasgow.Google Scholar
Scott, T., and Scott, A. 1895a. On some new and rare Crustacea from Scotland. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (6), XV, pp. 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, T., and Scott, A. 1895b. On new and rare species of Copepoda from Scotland. Ann. Scot. Nat. Hist., pp. 28–35.Google Scholar
Scott, T., and Scott, A. 1896. A Revision of the British Copepoda belonging to the Genera Brady a Boeck, and Ectinosoma Boeck. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., VI (5), pp. 419–446.Google Scholar
Thompson, I. C., and Scott, A. 1900. Some Recent Additions to the Copepoda of Liverpool Bay. Trans. L'pool. Biol. Soc., XIV, pp. 139–144.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. B. 1932. The Copepoda of the Woods Hole Region, Massachusetts. Bull. 158, U.S. Nat. Mus., Smithsonian Institution, Washington.Google Scholar