Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:25:28.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Biomechanical approaches to eurypterid cuticles and chelicerate exoskeletons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

John E. Dalingwater
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, The University, Manchester M13 9PL, England.

Abstract

Microstructural features of eurypterid cuticles are analysed from a biomechanical viewpoint: some fibrous elements are now considered to resemble the macrofibres of extant arthropod cuticles; possible preferred orientation zones in Mycterops are related to directional stresses; pore canals are not viewed as acting as crack-stoppers but laminae (sensu Dennell 1978) may have served this function. Could some eurypterids have walked on land?—this problem is approached by using extant Limulus as a model. It leads on to the use of scaling exponents to determine the limits that possessing an exoskeleton places on the size of land arthropods: moulting may be the limiting factor. Possible critical factors limiting the size of aquatic arthropods are discussed briefly.

Type
Structure and function
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1985

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

Alexander, R. McN. 1981. Factors of safety in the structure of animals. SCI PROG OXFORD 67, 109–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Alexander, R. McN. 1983. Animal Mechanics, 2nd edn. Chichester: Packard Publishing.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. F., Rahn, H. & Prange, H. D. 1979. Scaling of supportive tissue mass. Q REV BIOL 54, 139–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, F. G. 1973. Microfiber reinforcement of an arthropod cuticle. Laminated composite material in biology. Z ZELLFORSCH 144, 409–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briggs, D. E. G. 1985. Gigantism in Palaeozoic arthropods. In Cope, J. C. W. & Skelton, P. (eds) Evolutionary Case Histories from the Fossil Recond. SPEC PAP PALAEONTOL 33. In Press.Google Scholar
Currey, J. D. 1967. The failure of exoskeletons and endoskeletons. J. MORPHOL 123, 116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Currey, J. D. 1977. Problems of scaling in the skeleton. In Pedley, T. J. (ed.) Scaling Effects in Animal Locomotion, 153–67. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dalingwater, J. E. 1975a. Further observations on eurypterid cuticles. FOSSILS STRATA 4, 271–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalingwater, J. E. 1975b. SEM studies on the cuticles of some decapod crustaceans. ZOOL J LINN SOC 56, 327–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalingwater, J. E. 1980. SEM observations on the cuticles of some chelicerates. INT CONGR ARACHNOL 8, 285–89.Google Scholar
Dalingwater, J. E. & Waterston, C. D. 1983. An arthropod fragment from the Scottish Namurian and its remarkably preserved cuticular ultrastructure. In Briggs, D. E. G. and Lane, P. D. (eds) Trilobites and Other Early Arthropods. Papers in Honour of Professor H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. SPEC PAP PALAEONTOL 30, 221–8.Google Scholar
Dennell, R. 1976. The structure and lamination of some arthropod cuticles. ZOOL J LINN SOC 58, 159–64.Google Scholar
Dennell, R. 1978. The cuticle of the hoplocarid crustacean Squilla desmaresti Risso. ZOOL J LINN SOC 62, 309–16.Google Scholar
Foelix, R. F. 1982. The Biology of Spiders. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hepburn, H. R. & Chandler, H. D. 1976. Material properties of arthropod cuticles: the arthrodial membranes. J COMP PHYSIOL 109, 177–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joffe, I., Hepburn, H. R. & Andersen, S. O. 1975. On the mechanical properties of Limulus solid cuticle. J COMP PHYSIOL 101, 147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lighthill, J. 1977. Comments on Dr Prange's paper: the scaling and mechanics of arthropod exoskeletons. In Pedley, T. J. (ed.) Scale Effects in Animal Locomotion, 182–3. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Locke, M. 1967. The development of patterns in the integument of insects. ADV MORPHOGEN 6, 3388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mutvei, H. 1974. SEM studies on arthropod exoskeletons. Part 1: Decapod crustaceans Homarus gammarus L. and Carcinus maenas (L.). BULL GEOL INST UNIV UPSALA NS 4, 7380.Google Scholar
Mutvei, H. 1977. SEM studies on arthropod exoskeletons. 2. Horseshoe crab Limulus polyphemus (L.) in comparison with extinct eurypterids and recent scorpions. ZOOL SCR 6, 203–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neville, A. C. 1965. Chitin lamellogenesis in locust cuticle. Q J MICROSC SCI 106, 269–86.Google ScholarPubMed
Neville, A. C. 1970. Cuticle ultrastructure in relation to the whole insect. SYMP R ENTOMOL SOC LOND 5, 1739.Google Scholar
Neville, A. C. 1975. Biology of the Arthropod Cuticle. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Prange, H. 1977. The scaling and mechanics of arthropod exoskeletons. In Pedley, T. J. (ed.) Scale Effects in Animal Locomotion, 169–81. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rolfe, W. D. I. 1980. Early invertebrate terrestrial faunas. In Panchen, A. L. (ed.) The Terrestrial Environment and the Origin of Land Vertebrates. Systematics Association Special Volume No. 15. 117–57. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1977. Problems of scaling: locomotion and physiological correlates. In Pedley, T. J. (ed.) Scale Effects in Animal Locomotion, 121. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, D. M. 1962. The structure and metabolism of a crustacean integumentary tissue during a molt cycle. BIOL BULL MAR BIOL LAB WOODS HOLE 123, 635–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wainwright, S. A., Biggs, W. D., Currey, J. D. & Gosline, J. M. 1976. Mechanical Design in Organisms. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Yano, I. 1970. A lead acetate investigation for detecting the sequence of the formation of laminary structure in the newly formed endocuticle of a shore crab. BULL JAP SOC SCI FISH 36, 1208–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar