Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:36:58.798Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in the Physiology of Commensalism. IV. the Polynoid Genera Polynoë, Lepidasthenia and Harmothoe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Demorest Davenport
Demorest Davenport
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The host-response of the polynoid Polynoë scolopendrina Savigny, commensal with the terebellid Polymnia nebulosa (Montagu), is relatively specific within the family Terebellidae.

Evidence is presented that an unstable or closely bound attractant is present on the outside of the host and perhaps in tube material, but apparently absent in the mucus secreted by the host. Efforts to demonstrate its presence in ground-up whole host resulted in failure.

The polynoid Lepidasthenia argus Hodgson demonstrates a similar specificity of response to its host Amphitrite edwardsi Quatrefages.

The polynoid Harmothoë spinifera Ehlers, commensal with Amphitrite gracilis Grube, responds to the alternate host Polycirrus caliendrum Claparede as strongly as to its own host, and more strongly than to other species of Amphitrite. Likewise, Polynoë scolopendrina, commensal with Polymnia, responds with greater intensity to the alternate host, the eunicid Lysidice ninetta Audouin and Milne-Edwards, than to any non-host terebellid. This behaviour may be i terpreted as evidence that the specificity of at least some single commensal species for hosts which are not closely related to each other may depend upon the production of similar attractants by these hosts.

The responses of three commensal populations of Harmothoe lunulata (Delle Chiaje), commensal respectively with the ophiuroid Acrocnida brachiata (Montagu), the holothurian Leptosynapta inhaerens (O. F. Miiller), and the terebellid Amphitrite johnstoni Malmgren were tested against seven alternate hosts. Each gave maximum response to its own host. However, the population from Acrocnida responded as strongly to Leptosynapta as to its own host, while giving no responses at all to any of the other five.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , October 1953 , pp. 273 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1953

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

Darboux, J. G., 1899. Recherches sur les Aphroditiens. Trav. Inst. Zool. Univ. Montpelier & Stat. Mar. Cette, Mem. No. 6, 276 pp.Google Scholar
Davenport, D., 1950. Studies in the physiology of commerisalism. 1. The polynoid genus Arctonoë. Biol. Bull: Woods Hole, Vol. 98, pp. 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, D., 1953. Studies in the physiology of commensalism. III. The polynoid genera Acholoë, Gattyana and Lepidasthenia. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc, Vol. 32, pp. 161–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, D. & Hickok, J. F., 1951. Studies inthe physiology of commensalism. 2. The polynoid genera Arctonoe and Halosydna. Biol. Bull. Woods Hole, Vol. 100, pp. 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauvel, P., 1923. Polychetes errantes. Faune de France, T. 5. 488 pp., Paris.Google Scholar
Laing, J., 1937. Host-finding by insect parasites. 1. Observations on the finding of hosts by Alysia manducator, Mormoniella vitripennis and Trichogramma evanescens. Journ. Anim. Ecol., Vol. 6, pp. 298–317.Google Scholar
Mcintosh, W. C., 1874. On British Annelida. Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., Vol. 9, PP. 371–94.Google Scholar
Mcintosh, W. C., 1900. A Monograph of the British Marine Annelids, Vol. 1, part 2, pp. 217–444. Ray Society, London.Google Scholar
Orton, J. H. & Smith, C. L., 1935. Experiments with Amphitrite and its commensals. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Vol. 16, pp. 644–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. P. 1951. Life of the Shore and Shallow Sea. London.Google Scholar