Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:40:43.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Change in inheritance in echinoid hybrids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Sven Hörstadius
Sven Hörstadius
Affiliation:
From the Plymouth Laboratory, and theZootomical Institute, Stockholm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1932 crosses were made at Plymouth between Psammechinus miliaris ♀, both Z-type (from the shore) and S-type (from Eddystone), and Echinus esculentus ♂. The larvae from the S eggs differed in size and shape from those from the Z eggs (cf. Figs. 1,2 with 3–6). None of the hybrid plutei possessed the green pigment of P. miliaris, nor the posterior epaulettes of E. esculentus. Some of the larvae (Figs. 3, 4) had a posterior pedicellaria, like E. esculentus, in others this organ was missing (Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6). Some of these plutei were preserved, others went through metamorphosis. Healthy larvae of these combinations (00+ and 000) have not hitherto been described. The results are compared with those of previous authors (see table, p. 100). Some possible causes of change of inheritance in different years are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 1940 , pp. 99 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1940

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

REFERENCE

Fuchs, H. M., 1914. On F2Echinus hybrids. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. X, pp. 464–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Curt, 1906a. Vererbungsstudien I–III. Arch. Entw.-mech., Vol. 21, pp. 173–305.Google Scholar
Herbst, Curt, 1906b. Vererbungsstudien IV. Arch. Entw.-mech., Vol. 22, pp. 473–97.Google Scholar
Hörstadius, Sven, 1923. Physiologische Studien über die Eireifung bei Pomatoceros triqueter L. Arch. mikr. Anat. u. Entw.-mech., Vol. 98, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Hörstadius, Sven, 1925. Temperaturanpassung bei den Eiern von Paracentrotus lividus Lk. Biologia Generalis, Vol. I, pp. 522–36.Google Scholar
Hörstadius, Sven, 1935. Über die Determination im Verlaufe der Eiachse bei Seeigeln. Pubbl. Staz. Zool. Napoli, Vol. 14, pp. 251–479.Google Scholar
Hörstadius, Sven, 1936. Studien über heterosperme Seeigelmerogone etc. Mém. Mus. R. d'Hist. Nat., Bruxelles, sér. 2, fasc. 3, pp. 801–80.Google Scholar
Koehler, O., 1916. Über die Ursachen der Variabilität bei Gattungsbastarden von Echiniden. Zeitschr. ind. Abst. u. Vererb., Vol. 15.Google Scholar
Lindahl, P. E., 1936. Zur Kenntnis der physiologischen Grundlagen der Determination im Seeigelkeim. Acta Zool., Vol. 17, pp. 179–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindahl, P. E., & Runnström, J., 1929. Variation und Ökologie von Psammechinus miliaris (Gmelin). Acta Zool., Vol. 10, pp. 401–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeb, Jacques, Redman King, W. O. & Moore, A. R., 1910. Über Dominanzerscheinungen bei den hybriden Pluteen des Seeigels. Arch. Entw.-mech., Vol. 29, pp. 354–62.Google Scholar
Mortensen, Th., 1913. On the development of some British Echinoderms. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. X, pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nümann, Wilhelm, 1933. Untersuchungen der Skelette an Varianten, Bastarden und Chimären von regulären und irregulären Seeigeln. Zeitschr. ind. Abst. u. Vererb., Vol. 65, pp. 447–522.Google Scholar
Shearer, Cr., Morgan, W. De & Fuchs, H. M., 1911. Preliminary notice on the experimental hybridization of Echinoids. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. IX, pp. 121–41.Google Scholar
Shearer, Cr., Morgan, W. De & Fuchs, H. M., 1912. On paternal characters in Echinoid hybrids. Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., Vol. 58, pp. 337–52.Google Scholar
Shearer, Cr., Morgan, W. De & Fuchs, H. M., 1914. On the experimental hybridization of Echinoids. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, ser. B, Vol. 204, pp. 255–362.Google Scholar
Tennent, D. H., 1911. Echinoderm hybridization. Papers Tortugas Lab., Vol. 3, pp. 117–52.Google Scholar
V. Ubisch, L., 1932. Untersuchungen über Formbildung. III. Roux Arch. Entw.-mech., Vol. 127, pp. 216–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vernon, H. M., 1898. The relations between the hybrid and parent forms of Echinoid larvae. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, ser. B, Vol. 190, pp. 465–529.Google Scholar