Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T14:15:33.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Sibling Species Group of Hydractinia in the North-Eastern United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Leo W. Buss  and
Philip O. Yund
Leo W. Buss
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA
Philip O. Yund
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many symbiotic organisms are narrowly distributed on one or a few host species. These associations are intriguing, as they invite the development of hypotheses regarding the pattern and process of speciation and serve as laboratories for the testing of methods of phylogenetic reconstruction (Kraus, 1978; Futuyma & Slatkin, 1983; Stone & Hawks worth, 1986). The evolution of host-specificity in the sea may be expected to be severely constrained by the difficulty of achieving reproductive isolation in taxa whose gametes are freely released into the water column and/or whose larvae are potentially widely distributed (Scheltema, 1977). Yet this difficulty may well be overestimated, given the recent demonstrations of limited gamete (Pennington, 1985; Yund, in press) and larval dispersal (Knight-Jones & Moyse, 1961; Ryland, 1981; Olsen, 1985; Jackson & Coates, 1986; Grosberg, 1987). Indeed, if gamete and larval dispersal are as limited as has recently been contended (Jackson, 1986), local isolation of populations may be a routine occurence, offering repeated opportunities for speciation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 69 , Issue 4 , November 1989 , pp. 857 - 874
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1989

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

Agassiz, L., 1862. Contributions to the Natural History of the United States of America, vol. 4. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.Google Scholar
Allman, G.J., 1871. A monograph of the gymnoblastic or turbularian hydroids. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 13, 345–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballard, W.W., 1942. The mechanism of synchronous spawning in Hydractinia and Pennaria. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 82,329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackstone, N.W., 1985. Hermit Crabs and Carcinization: Trends in the Development and Evolution of Some Decapod Crustaceans. PhD thesis, Yale University, New Haven.Google Scholar
Blackstone, N.W. & Joslyn, A.R., 1984. Utilization and preference for the introduced gastropod Littorina littorea (L.) by the hermit crab Pagurus longicarpus (Say) at Guilford, Connecticut. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 80, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackstone, N.W. & Yund, P.O., 1989. Morphological variation in a colonial marine hydroid: a comparision of size-based and age-based heterochrony. Paleobiology, 15, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, M., 1894. The origins of sex-cells in Hydractinia and Podocoryne. Journal of Morphology, 9, 203–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, L.W., McFadden, C.S. & Keene, D.R., 1984. Biology of hydractiniid hydroids. 2. Histocompatibility effector system/competitive mechanism mediated by nematocyst discharge. Bio-logical Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 167,131–158.Google Scholar
Buss, L.W. & Yund, P.O., 1988. A comparison of modern and historical populations of the colonial hydroid Hydractinia. Ecology, 69, 646–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cazaux, C, 1958. Facteurs de la morphogenese chez un hydraire polymorphe, Hydractinia echinata Flem. Compte Rendu Hebdomadaire des Seances de VAcademie des Sciences, 247, 2195–2197.Google Scholar
Chia, F.S. & Bickell, L., 1978. Mechanisms of larval settlement and the induction of settlement and metamorphosis: a review. In Settlement and Metamorphosis of Marine Invertebrate Larvae (ed. Chia, F.-S. and Rice, M.E.), pp. 1–12. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fraser, Cm., 1912. Some hydroids from Beaufort, North Carolina. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries, 30, 337–389.Google Scholar
Futuyma, D.J. & Slatkin, M. (ed.), 1983. Coevolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Grosberg, R.K., 1987. Limited dispersal and proximity-dependent mating success in the colonial ascidian Botryllus schlosseri. Evolution, 41, 372–384.Google ScholarPubMed
Hincks, T., 1868. A History of the British Hydroid Zoophytes. London: J. Van Voorst.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargitt, C.W., 1901. Synopses of North-American invertebrates. XIV. The hydromedusae. American Naturalist, 35, 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight-Jones, E.W. & Moyse, J., 1961. Intraspecific competition in sedentary marine organisms. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, no. 15, 72–95.Google Scholar
Kraus, O. (ed.), 1978. Coevolution. Hamburg: Paul Parey.Google Scholar
Jackson, J.B.C., 1986. Modes of dispersal of clonal benthic invertebrates: consequences for species distributions and genetic structure of populations. Bulletin of Marine Science, 39,588–606.Google Scholar
Jackson, J.B.C. & Coates, A.G., 1986. Life cycles and evolution of clonal (modular) animals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (B), 313, 7–22.Google Scholar
McFadden, C.S., Macfarland, M. & Buss, L.W., 1984. Biology of hydractiniid hydroids. 1. Colony ontogeny in Hydractinia echinata. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 166, 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mariscal, R.N. 1974. Nematocysts. In Coelenterate Biology: Reviews and New Perspectives (ed. Muscatine, L.), pp. 129–178. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MÜller, W.A., 1969. Auslosung der Metamorphose durch Bakkterien bei den Larven von Hydractinia echinata. Zoologische Jahrbucher (Abteilung fur Anatomie und Ontogenie der Tiere), 86, 84–95.Google Scholar
Müller, W.A., 1973. Induction of metamorphosis by bacteria and ions in the planulae of Hydractinia echinata: an approach to mode of action. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, 20, 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, W.A. & Spindler, K.D., 1972. Induction of metamorphosis by bacteria and by a lithium pulse in the larvae of Hydractinia echinata (Hydrozoa). Wilhelm Roux Archiv fur Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen, 169, 271–280.Google Scholar
Nutting, C.C., 1901. The hydroids of the Woods Hole region. Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, 19, 325–386.Google Scholar
Olsen, R.R., 1985. The consequences of short-distance larval dispersal in a sessile marine invertebrate. Ecology, 66, 30–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennington, J.T., 1985. The ecology of fertilization of echinoid eggs: the consequences of sperm dilution, adult aggregation, and synchronous spawning. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 169, 417–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proctor, W., 1933. Biological Survey of the Mount Desert Region. Part V. Marine Fauna. Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia: Wistar Institute.Google Scholar
Rebach, S., 1974. Burying behavior in relation to substrate and temperature in the hermit crab, Pagurus longicarpus. Ecology, 55, 195–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryland, J.S., 1981. Colonies, growth and reproduction. In Recent and Fossil Bryozoa (ed. Larwood, G.P. and Nielson, C.), pp. 221–226. Fredensborg: Olsen and Olsen.Google Scholar
Scheltema, R., 1977. Dispersal of marine invertebrate organisms: paleobiographic and biostrati-graphic implications. In Concepts and Methods of Biostratigraphy (ed. Kauffman, E.G. and Hazel, J.E.), pp. 73–108. Stroudsberg, Pennsylvannia: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.Google Scholar
Schijfsma, K., 1935. Observations on Hydractinia echinata (Flem.) and Eupagurus bernhardus (L.). Archives Neerlandaises de Zoologie, 4, 93–102.Google Scholar
Selander, R.K., Smith, M.H., Yang, S.Y., Johnson, W.E. & Gentry, J.B., 1971. Biochemical polymorphism and systematics in the genus Peromyscus. I. Variation in the old field mouse Peromyscus polionotus). Studies in genetics VI. University of Texas Publications, no. 7103, 49–90.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J., 1981. Biometry. San Francisco, Freeman.Google Scholar
Spencer, A.N. & Schwab, W.E., 1982. The hydrozoa. In Electrical Conduction and Behavior in ‘Simple’ Invertebrates (ed. Shelton, G. A. B.), pp. 73–148. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stone, A.R. & Hawksworth, D.L. (ed.), 1986. Coevolution and Systematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Weis, V. & Buss, L.W., 1987. Ultrastructure of the metamorphosis in the colonial hydroid Hydractinia. Postilla, no. 199, 20 pp.Google Scholar
Weis, V., Keene, D.R. & Buss, L.W., 1985. Biology of hydractiniid hydroids. 4. Ultrastructure of the Hydractinia planulae. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 168, 403–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. B., 1984. Shrimps, Lobsters, and Crabs of the Atlantic Coast of the Eastern United States, Maine to Florida. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution PressGoogle Scholar
Yund, P.O., 1987. Intraspecific Competition and the Maintenance of Morphological Variation in the Colonial Hydroid Hydractinia symbioacadianus. PhD thesis, Yale University, New Haven.Google Scholar
Yund, P.O., in press. An in situ measurement of sperm dispersal in a colonial marine hydroid. Journal of Experimental Zoology.Google Scholar
Yund, P.O., Cunningham, C.W. & Buss, L.W. 1987. Recruitment and post-recruitment interactions in a colonial hydroid. Ecology, 68, 971–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yund, P.O. & Parker, H.M., 1989. Population structure of the colonial hydroid Hydractinia sp. nov. C in the Gulf of Maine. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 125, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar