Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:04:36.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparative study of the British species of Nucula and Nuculana

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

J. A. Allen
J. A. Allen
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, The University, Glasgow, and the Marine Station, Millport
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The survey of the sublittoral fauna of the Clyde Sea Area from 1949 onwards has shown that five species of the Protobranchiata are abundant throughout this region on a variety of substrata. Pelseneer (1891, 1899, 1911), Heath (1937), and Yonge (1939) have contributed much to the knowledge of the group as a whole, but little comparative work has been done at species level. Verrill & Bush (1897, 1898) studied the shell characters of the American Atlantic species. Moore (1931 a, b) worked on the faecal pellets of the British Nuculidae and attempted to distinguish the species by this means, while Winckworth (1930,1931), mainly in the light of the latter work, attempted to clarify the nomenclature of these species. Winckworth (1932) lists six British species of the family Nuculidae: Nucula sulcata Bronn, N. nucleus (Linné), N. hanleyi Winckworth, N. turgida Leckenby & Marshall, N. moorei Winckworth and N. tenuis (Montagu); and four species of the family Nuculanidae: Nuculana minuta (Müller), Yoldiella lucida (Loven), Y. tomlini Winckworth and Phaseolus pusillus (Jeffreys). All species of Nucula, except N. hanleyi, were taken from the Clyde Sea Area, although the latter species is included in the Clyde fauna list (Scott Elliot, Laurie & Murdoch, 1901). Only Nuculana minuta of the Nuculanidae has been taken on the present survey. Yoldiella tomlini is included in the 1901 list but is noted as being ‘insufficiently attested’. Nucula hanleyi was obtained from the Marine Station, Port Erin, but Yoldiella and Phaseolus were unobtainable.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 1954 , pp. 457 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1954

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., 1953 a. Observations on Nucula turgida Leckenby and N. moorei Winckworth. J. Mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 31, pp. 515–28.Google Scholar
Allen, J. A., 1953 b. Observations on the epifauna of the deep water muds of the Clyde Sea Area, with special reference to Chlamys septemradiata (Müller). J. Anim. Ecol., Vol. 22, pp. 240–60.Google Scholar
Forbes, E. & Hanley, S., 1853. A History of the British Marine Mollttsca, and their Shells, Vol. 11. London.Google Scholar
Heath, H., 1937. The anatomy of some protobranch mollusks. Mém. Mus. Hist. nat. Belg., T. 2, fasc. 10, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of Relative Growth. London.Google Scholar
Jeffreys, J. G., 1863. British Conchology, Vol. 11. London.Google Scholar
Jones, N. S. 1951. The bottom fauna off the south of the Isle of Man. J. Anim. Ecol, Vol. 20, pp. 132–44.Google Scholar
Lebour, M. V. 1938. Notes on the breeding of some lamellibranchs from Plymouth and their larvae. J. Mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 23, pp. 119–44.Google Scholar
Lison, L., 1949. Recherches sur la forme et la méchanique de développement des coquilles des lamellibranches. Mém. Inst. Sci. nat. Belg., 1949 (2), Fasc. 34, pp. 1–87.Google Scholar
Moore, H. B., 1931 a. The systematic value of a study of Mollusca faeces. Proc. malacol. Soc. Lond., Vol. 19, pp. 281–90.Google Scholar
Moore, H. B., 1931 b. The specific identification of faecal pellets. J. Mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 17, pp. 359–65.Google Scholar
Owen, G., 1952. Shell form in the Lamellibranchia. Nature, Lond., Vol. 170, pp. 148–9.Google Scholar
Owen, G., 1953. The shell of the Lamellibranchia. Quart. J. micr. Sci., Vol. 94, pp. 57–70. Pelseneer, P., 1891. Contribution à l'étude des lamellibranches. Arch. Biol., Paris, T. 11, pp. 147–312.Google Scholar
Pelseneer, P., 1899. Recherches morphologiques et phylogénétiques sur les mollusques archaiques. Mém. Acad. R. Belg., T. 57, pp. 1–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelseneer, P., 1911. Les lamellibranches de l'expédition du Siboga. Partie anatomique. Siboga Exped., Vol. 53 a, pp. 1–125.Google Scholar
Scott, Elliot G. F., Laurie, M. & Murdoch, J. B., 1901. Fauna, Flora and Geology of the Clyde Area. Glasgow.Google Scholar
Thompson, D'arcy W., 1942. On Growth and Form. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Verrill, A. E. & Bush, H. J., 1897. Revision of the genera of Ledidae and Nuculidae of the Atlantic coast of the United States. Amer. J. Sci., Vol. 3, pp. 51–63.Google Scholar
Verrill, A. E. & Bush, H. J., 1898. Revision of the deep-water Mollusca of the Atlantic coast of North America, with descriptions of new genera and species. Part I. Bivalvia. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., Vol. 20, pp. 775–901.Google Scholar
Winckworth, R., 1930. Notes on nomenclature. Proc. malacol. Soc. Lond., Vol. 29, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
Winckworth, R., 1931. On Nucula nitida Sowerby. Proc. malacol. Soc. Lond., Vol. 29, pp. 280–1.Google Scholar
Winckworth, R., 1932. The British marine Mollusca. J. Conch., Vol. 19, pp. 211–52.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1939. The protobranchiate Mollusca; a functional interpretation of their structure and evolution. Phil. Trans. B, Vol. 230, pp. 79–147.Google Scholar