Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:22:43.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hinge morphogenesis in the shells of larval and early post-larval mussels (Mytilus edulis L. and Modiolus modiolus (L.))

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Richard A. Lutz  and
Herbert Hidu
Richard A. Lutz
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
Herbert Hidu
Affiliation:
Department of Oceanography, University of Maine, Walpole, Maine 04573
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Scanning electron and optical microscopic examination of the hinge apparatus and primary ligament pit of two Recent mytilids (Mytilus edulis and Modiolus modiolus) revealed a similar sequence of ontogenetic changes in both species from the prodissoconch I stage through metamorphosis. Hinge-line dentition was absent at the prodissoconch I stage. Provinculum length and complexity increased throughout larval development with progressive lateral thickening characteristic of the family Mytilidae.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , February 1979 , pp. 111 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1979

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

Ansell, A. D., 1961. Reproduction, growth and mortality of Venus striatula (da Costa) in Kames Bay, Millport. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 41, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansell, A. D., 1962. The functional morphology of the larva, and the post-larval development of Venus striatula (da Costa). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 42, 419–443-CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayne, B. L., 1965. Growth and the delay of metamorphosis of the larvae of Mytilus edulis (L.) Ophelia, 2, 1–47.Google Scholar
Bayne, B. L., 1971. Some morphological changes that occur at the metamorphosis of the larvae of Mytilus edulis. In Proceedings of the Fourth European Marine Biology Symposium, Bangor, 1969 (ed. Crisp, D. J.), pp. 259–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bayne, B. L., 1976. The biology of mussel larvae. In Marine Mussels: Their Ecology and Physiology (ed. Bayne, B. L.), pp. 81–120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bernard, F., 1895. Premiére note sur la développement et la morphologie de la coquille chez les lamellibranchs. Bulletin de la Société géologique de France, 23 (3), 104–154.Google Scholar
Bernard, F., 1896 a. Deuxiéme note sur le développment et la morphologie de la coquille chez les lamellibranchs. Bulletin de la Société geologique de France, 24 (3), 54–82.Google Scholar
Bernard, F., 1896 a. Troisiéme note sur le développment et la morphologie de la coquille chez les lamellibranchs (anisomyaires). Bulletin de la Société géologique de France, 24 (3), 412–449.Google Scholar
Bernard, F., 1897. Quatriéme et derniére note sur le développment et la morphologie de la coquille chez les lamellibranches. Bulletin de la Société géologique de France, 25 (3), 559–566.Google Scholar
Bernard, F., 1898. Recherches ontogeniques et morphologiques sur la coquille des lamelli-branches. I. Taxodontes et anisomyaires. Annales des sciences naturelles (Zoologie), 8, 1–208.Google Scholar
Boyle, P. J. & Turner, R. D., 1976. The larval development of the wood boring piddock Martesia striata (L.) (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Pholadidae). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 22, 55–68.Google Scholar
Chanley, P. E., 1965. Larval development of a boring clam, Barnea truncata. Chesapeake Science, 6, 162–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chanley, P., 1969. Larval development of the Coquina clam, Donax variabilis Say, with a discussion of the structure of the larval hinge in the Tellinacea. Bulletin of Marine Science, 19, 214–224.Google Scholar
Chanley, P., 1970. Larval development of the hooked mussel, Brachidontes recurvus Rafinesque (Bivalvia: Mytilidae) including a literature review of larval characteristics of the Mytilidae. Proceedings. National Shellfisheries Association, 60, 86–94.Google Scholar
Chanley, P. & Andrews, J. D., 1971. Aids for identification of bivalve larvae of Virginia. Malacologia, 11, 45–119.Google Scholar
Chanley, P. & Castagna, M., 1966. Larval development of the pelecypod Lyonsia hyalina. Nautilus, 79, 123–128.Google Scholar
Chanley, P. & Castagna, M., 1971. Larval development of the stout razor clam, Tagelus plebius Solander (Solecurtidae: Bivalvia). Chesapeake Science, 12, 167–172.Google Scholar
Chanley, P. & Chanley, M. H., 1970. Larval development of the commensal clam, Montacuta percompressa Dall. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 39, 59–67.Google Scholar
Culliney, J. L., Turner, R. D. & Boyle, P. J., 1975. New approaches and techniques for studying bivalve larvae. In Culture of Marine Invertebrate Animals (ed. Smith, W. C. and Chanley, M. H.), pp. 257–271. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culliney, J. L. & Turner, R. D., 1976. Larval development of the deep-water wood boring bi-valve, Xylophaga atlantica Richards (Mollusca, Bivalvia, Pholadidae). Ophelia, 15, 149–161.Google Scholar
De Schweinitz, E. H. & Lutz, R. A., 1976. Larval development of the northern horse mussel Modiolus modiolus (L.), including a comparison with lie larvae of Mytilus edulis L. as an aid in planktonic identification. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 150, 348–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinamani, P., 1976. The morphology of the larval shell of Saccostrea glomerata (Gould, 1850) and a comparative study of the larval shell in the genus Crassostrea Sacco, 1897 (Ostreidae). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 42, 95–107.Google Scholar
Hickman, R. W. & Gruffydd, L. L. D., 1971. The history of the larva of Ostrea edulis during metamorphosis. In Proceedings of the Fourth European Marine Biology Symposium, Bangor, 1969 (ed. Crisp, D. J.), pp. 281–294. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
JØrgensen, C. B., 1946. Lamellibranchia. Meddelelser fra Kommissionen for Danmarks Fiskeri- og Havundersegelser (Serie: Plankton), 4, 277–311.Google Scholar
Kauffman, E. G., 1975. Dispersal and biostratigraphic potential of Cretaceous benthonic Bivalvia in the Western Interior. Geological Association of Canada Special Paper, no. 13, 163–194.Google Scholar
Labarbera, M., 1974. Larval and post-larval development of five species of Miocene bivalves (Mollusca). Journal of Paleontology, 48, 265–277.Google Scholar
Labarbera, M., 1975. Larval and post-larval development of the giant clams Tridacna maxima and Tridacna squamosa (Bivalvia, Tridacnidae). Malacologia, 15, 69–79.Google Scholar
Labarbera, M. & Chanley, P., 1970. Larval development oiChione cancellata Linne (Veneridae, Bivalvia). Chesapeake Science, 11, 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebour, M. V., 1938. Notes on the breeding of some lamellibranchs from Plymouth and their larvae. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 23, 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Pennec, M. & Masson, M., 1976. Morphogenése de la coquille de Mytilus galloprovincialis (Lmk.) elevé au laboratoire. Cahiers de biologie marine, 17, 113–118.Google Scholar
Loosanoff, V. L. & Davis, H. C., 1963. Rearing of bivalve mollusks. In Advances in Marine Biology, vol. 1 (ed. Russell, F. S.), pp. 1–136. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Loosanoff, V. L., Davis, H. C. & Chanley, P. E., 1966. Dimensions and shapes of larvae of some marine bivalve mollusks. Malacologia, 4, 351–435.Google Scholar
Lovén, S., 1948. Bidrag till Kännedomen om Utvecklingen af Mollusca Acephala, Lamellibranchiata. Kungliga Svenska vetenskapsakademiens handlingar, 4, 299–435.Google Scholar
Lutz, R. A. & Jablonski, D., 1978. Cretaceous bivalve larvae. Science, New York, 199, 439–440.Google Scholar
Miyazaki, I., 1962. On the identification of lamellibranch larvae. Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries, 28, 955–966.Google Scholar
Newell, G. E. & Newell, R. C, 1963. Marine Plankton: A Practical Guide. 207 pp. London: Hutchinson Educational Limited.Google Scholar
Ockelmann, K. W., 1965. Developmental types in marine bivalves and their distribution along the Atlantic coast of Europe. In Proceedings of the First European Malacological Congress, London, 1962 (ed. Cox, L. R. and Peake, J. F.), pp. 25–35. London: Conchological Society of Great Britain and Ireland and the Malacological Society of London.Google Scholar
Odhner, N. H., 1914. Notizen über die Fauna der Adria bei Rovigno. Berträge zur Kenntnis der marine Molluskenfauna von Rovigno in Istrein. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 44, 156–170.Google Scholar
Pascual, E., 1971. Morfologiá de la charnela larvaria de Crassostrea angulata (Lmk.) en diferentes fases de ur desarrolla. Investigación pesquera, 35, 549–563.Google Scholar
Pascual, E., 1972. Estudio de las conchas larvarias de Ostrea stentina, Payr. y Ostrea eduiis L. Investigacion pesquera, 36, 297–310.Google Scholar
Quayle, D. B., 1950. Structure and biology of the larva and spat of Venerupis pullastra (Montagu). Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 62, 255–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, C. B., 1950. The identification and classification of lamellibranch larvae. Hull Bulletins of Marine Ecology 3, 73–104.Google Scholar
Scheltema, R. S., 1971 a. Dispersal of phytoplanktotrophic shipworm larvae (Bivalvia: Teredinidae) over long distances by ocean currents. Marine Biology, 11, 5–11.Google Scholar
Scheltema, R. S., 1971 b. Larval dispersal as a means of genetic exchange between geographically separated populations of shallow-water benthic invertebrates. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 140, 284–322.Google Scholar
Scheltema, R. S., 1972. Dispersal of larvae as a means of genetic exchange between widely sepa-rated populations of shoal-water benthic invertebrate species. In Proceedings of the Fifth European Marine Biological Symposium, Venice, 1970 (ed. Battaglia, B.), pp. 101–114. Padua: Piccin Editore.Google Scholar
Scheltema, R. S., 1975. Relationship of larval dispersal, gene-flow and natural selection to geo-graphical variation of benthic invertebrates in estuaries and along coastal regions. Estuarine Research, 1, 372–392.Google Scholar
Scheltema, R. S., 1977. Dispersal of marine invertebrate organisms: paleobiogeographic and biostratigraphic implications. In Concepts and Methods of Biostratigraphy (ed. Kauffman, E. G. and Hazel, J. E.), pp. 73–108. Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.Google Scholar
Siddall, S. E., 1977. Temperature and salinity effects on mussels. F.A.O. Aquaculture Bulletin, 8 (2), 12.Google Scholar
Siddall, S. E., 1978. The development of the hinge line in tropical mussel larvae of the genus Perna. Proceedings. National Shellfisheries Association, 68, 86.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G., 1971. Statistical Methods. 563 pp. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J., 1969. Biometry. 776 pp. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Stafford, J., 1912. On the recognition of bivalve larvae in plankton collections. Contributions to Canadian Biology and Fisheries, 1906–1910, pp. 221–242.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H., 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics with Special Reference to the Biological Sciences. 481 pp. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Stenzel, H. B., 1971. Ontogeny. In Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part N, vol. 3 (of 3), Mollusca 6, Bivalvia (ed. Moore, R. C.), pp. N1006–N1016. Boulder: The Geological Society of America, Inc., and University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Sullivan, C. M., 1948. Bivalve larvae of Malpeque Bay, P.E.I. Bulletin. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 77, 1–36.Google Scholar
Thiede, J., 1974. Marine bivalves: distribution of mero-planktonic shell-bearing larvae in eastern North Atlantic surface waters. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 15, 267–290.Google Scholar
Thorson, G., 1946. Reproduction and larval development of Danish marine bottom invertebrates. Meddelelser fra Kommissionen for Danmarks Fiskeri- og HavundersØgelser (Serie: Plankton), 4, 1–523.Google Scholar
Trueman, E. R., 1950. Observations on the ligament of Mytilus edulis. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 91, 225–236.Google Scholar
Turner, R. D., 1976. Some factors involved in the settlement and metamorphosis of marine bi-valve larvae. In Proceedings of the Third International Biodegredation Symposium, Kingston, Rhode Island (ed. Sharpley, J. M. and Kaplan, A. M.), pp. 409–416. London: Applied Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Turner, R. D., 1977. Search for a ‘weak link’. In Proceedings of a Workshop on the Biodeterioration of Tropical Woods: Chemical Basis for Natural Resistance, pp. 31–40. Washington, D.C.: Naval Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
Turner, R. D. & Boyle, P. J., 1974. Studies of bivalve larvae using the scanning electron micro-scope and critical point drying. Bulletin. American Malacological Union, 40, 59–65.Google Scholar
Turner, R. D. & Johnson, A. C., 1969. Some problems and techniques in rearing bivalve larvae. Report. American Malacological Union, Pacific Division, 1969, 9–13.Google Scholar
Werner, B., 1939. über die Entwicklung und Artunterscheidung von Muschellarven des Nordseeplanktons, unter besonderer Beriichsichtigung der Schalenentwicklung. Zoologische Jahrbucher, 66, 1–54.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1962. Primitive significance of the byssus in the Bivalvia and its effects in evolution. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 42, 113–125.Google Scholar