Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:27:44.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The cephalopod statolithan-introduction to its form

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Malcolm R. Clarke
Malcolm R. Clarke
Affiliation:
The Laboratory, Marine Biological Association, Citadel Hill, Plymouth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Terms, dimensions and ratios for statolith description are defined. The form of the calcareousstatoliths in the Teuthoidea, Sepiodea and Octopoda is described by reference to Loligo forbesi, Sepia officinalis and Eledone cirrosa. While statoliths change in form and size during the growth of a cephalopod, the adult form is often characteristic for a species, despite some variation. Description of statoliths is important in studies of the fossil remains of cephalopods lacking calcareous shells, and will probably become important in the taxonomy of living species, in food analysis of cephalopod predators and in the study of deep sea deposits.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , August 1978 , pp. 701 - 712
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1978

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

Budelmann, B.-U. 1975. Gravity receptor function in cephalopods with particular referenceto Sepia officinalis. Fortschritte der Zoologie, 23(1), 84–96.Google Scholar
Budelmann, B.-U. 1977. Structure and function of the angular acceleration receptor systems in the statocysts of cephalopods. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 38, 309–324.Google Scholar
Clarke, M. R. 1977. Beaks, nets and numbers. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 38, 89–126.Google Scholar
Clarke, M. R. & Fitch, J. E. 1975. First fossil recordsof cephalopod statoliths. Nature, London, 257, 380–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, M. R. & Maul, G. E. 1962. A description of the 'scaled' squid Lepidoteuthis grimaldi Joubin 1895. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 139, 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilly, P. N. 1976. The structure of some cephalopod statoliths. Cell and Tissue Research, 175, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitch, J. E. & Brownell, R. L. 1968. Fish otoliths in cetacean stomachs ard their importance in interpreting feeding habits. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 25, 2561–2574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlyn-Harris, R. 1903. Die Statocysten der Cephalopoden. Zoologische Jahrbiicher (Abteilung fur Anatomie und Ontogenie der Tiere), 18, 327–358.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, M. 1924. On the phylogenetic position of the cephalopod genera of Japan based on the structure of the statocysts. Journal of the College of Agriculture, Imperial University of Tokyo, 7, 165–210.Google Scholar
Stephens, P. R. & Young, J. Z. 1978. Semicircular canals in squids. Nature, London, 271, 444–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voss, G. L. 1977. Present status and new trends in cephalopod systematics. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 38, 49–60.Google Scholar
Young, J. Z. 1960. The statocysts of Octopus vulgaris. Proceedings of the Royal Society (B), 152, 3–29.Google ScholarPubMed