Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T15:22:27.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Rearing the Hydroids of Certain Medusae, with an Account of the Methods Used

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

W.J. Rees  and
F.S. Russell
W.J. Rees
Affiliation:
Research Assistant at the Plymouth Laboratory
F.S. Russell
Affiliation:
Naturalist at the Plymouth Laboratory
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The development of the hydroid of Amphinema dinema (Peron & Lesueur) has been followed in the laboratory until the production of young medusae and the hydroid identified as Perigonimus serpens Allman.

The hydroid of Amphinema rugosum (Mayer) is described for the first time. It is very similar to P. serpens but more robust.

The hydroid has been reared from Rathkea octopunctata (Sars); it is very minute and the hydranths possess a single whorl of long filiform tentacles/

A small Cuspidella hydroid was reared from Mitrocomella brownei (Kramp).

Certain points in the synonymy of these species are discussed. An account of the methods of rearing used is also given.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , November 1937 , pp. 61 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1937

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

Allman, G. J., 1863. Notes on the Hydroida. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 3, Vol. XI, pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allman, G.J., 1872. A Monograph of the Gymnoblastic Hydroids. Ray Society.Google Scholar
Brooks, W. K., 1883. Notes on the medusae of Beaufort, N.C. Part II. Johns Hopkins Univ. Stud. Biol. Lab., Vol. II, XXXIV, pp. 465–75.Google Scholar
Browne, Edward T., 1898. On keeping medusae alive in an aquarium. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. V, pp. 176–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, Edward T., 1907. A new method for growing hydroids in small aquaria by means of a continuous current tube. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol.VIII, pp. 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, Edward T., 1910. Coelenterata. V. Medusae. National Antarct. Exped. 1901–1904. Nat. Hist., Vol. V, Zool. and Bot., pp. 1–62.Google Scholar
Cannon, H.Graham, 1937. A new biological stain for general purposes. Nature, Vol. 139, No. 3517, p. 549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, J. H. & Wilson, Douglas, P., 1934. On the relation of the substratum to the metamorphosis of Scolecolepis fuliginosa (Claparède). Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. XIX, pp. 655–62.Google Scholar
Gosse, Philip, Henry 1853. A Naturalist's Rambles on the Devonshire Coast. London: John van Voorst.Google Scholar
Haeckel, Ernst, 1879. Das System der Medusen.Google Scholar
Hartlaub, , Clemens, , 1897. Die Hydromedusen Helgolands. Wiss. Meeresuntersuch., N.F. Bd. 11, Abt. Helgoland Heft I, X, pp. 449–512.Google Scholar
Hartlaub, Clemens, 1914. Nordisches Plankton. Lief. 6, xn,Craspedote Medusen. Teil 1, Leif. 3, Familie IV, Tiaridae, pp. 237–363.Google Scholar
Hincks, , Thomas, , 1868. A History of the British Hydroid Zoophytes. London: John vanVoorst.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hincks, Thomas, 1877. Contributions to the History of the Hydroida. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 4, Vol. 19, pp. 148–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramp, P. L., 1932. A revision of the medusae belonging to the family Mitrocomidae. Vidensk. Medd. Naturh. Foren. Køjb., Vol. 92, pp. 305–83.Google Scholar
Mayer, , Alfred, Goldsborough, 1900. Descriptions of new and little-know medusae from the western Atlantic. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zoo¨l. Harvard, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 1, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Mayer, Alfred, Goldsborough, 1910. Medusae of the World. Vol. 1. Hydromedusae.Google Scholar
Motz-Kossowska, S., 1905. Contribution à la connaissance des Hydraires de la Méediterranéee occidentale. I. Hydraires gymnoblastiques. Arch. Zool. Exp. Géen., Sér. 4, Tome 3, pp. 39–98.Google Scholar
Péron, & Lesueur, 1809. Histoire générale et particulière de tous les animaux qui composent la familie des Méduses. Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, Tome XIV, pp. 312–66.Google Scholar
Richiardi, S., 1880. Contribuzioni all fauna d'ltalia. III. Idroidi del Mare della Toscana. Catal. Gener. Sezione Ital. Espos. Intern. Pesca Berlin, pp. 154–5.Google Scholar
Rittenhouse, , Samuel, , 1910. The embryology of Stomotoca apicata. Journ. Exper. Zool., Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 333–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, F. S., 1936. On the hydroid of Laodicea undulata (Forbes & Goodsir). Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. XX, pp. 581–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sars, M., 1846. Fauna Littoralis Norvegiae, 1, pp. 1–94. Christiania.Google Scholar
Stechow, E., 1923. Zur Kenntnis der Hydroidenfauna des Mittehneeres, Amerikas und anderer Gebiete. II. Teil. Zool. Jahrb. Jena (Syst.), Bd. 47, pp. 29–270.Google Scholar
Van Beneden, P.-J., 1866. Recherches sur laFaune Littorale de Belgique. Méem. Acad. R. Belg., Vol. XXXVI, pp. 3–207.Google Scholar
Winther, G., 1880. Fortegnelse over de i Danmark og dets nordlige Bilande fundne Hydroide. Naturhist. Tidsskr., Ræk. 3, Bd. XII, pp. 223–78.Google Scholar