Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T15:37:30.851Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Rearing the Hydroid Zanclea Implexa (Alder) and its Medusa Zanclea Gemmosa McCrady, with a Review of the Genus Zanclea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

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

Extract

Descriptions of the hydroid Zanclea implexa (Alder) in British waters have been given by the following authors, Alder (1857, as Tubularia implexa and Coryne pelagica), Allman (1859, as Coryne Briareus), Strethill Wright (1859) and Alder (1862 as Coryne implexa), Allman (1864 as Zanclea implexa and 1872 as Gemmaria implexa) and Hincks (1872, as Zanclea (Gemmaria) implexa). All these descriptions have been based upon full grown colonies in which the hydranths had a perisarc on the hydrocaulus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , November 1936 , pp. 107 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1936

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

Agassiz, Louis. 1862. Contributions to the Natural History of the United States of America, Vol. IV, pp. 1–380.Google Scholar
Agassiz, Alexander. 1865. Illustrated Catalogue of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy at Harvard College. No. II, North American Acalephæ, pp. 1–234.Google Scholar
Alder, Joshua. 1857. A Catalogue of the Zoophytes of Northumberland and Durham. Trans. Tyneside Naturalists' Field Club, Vol. III, pp. 93–162.Google Scholar
Alder, Joshua. 1862. Supplement to a Catalogue of the Zoophytes of Northumberland and Durham. Trans. Tyneside Nat. Field Club, Vol. V, Pt. III, pp. 225–247.Google Scholar
Allman, G. J. 1859. Notes on the Hydroid Zoophytes. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 3, Vol. 4, pp. 48–55; and pp. 137–144.Google Scholar
Allman, G. J. 1864. On the Construction and Limitation of Genera among the Hydroida. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 3, Vol. 13, pp. 345–380.Google Scholar
Allman, G. J. 1864. Notes on the Hydroida. Ibid., Vol. 14, pp. 57–64.Google Scholar
Allman, George James. 1871–1872–1872. A Monograph of the Gynmoblastic or Tubularian Hydroids, pp. 1–450.Google Scholar
Allman, G. J. 1888. Report on the Hydroida dredged by H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873–1876. Pt. 2. The Tubularinse, Corymorphinæ, Campanulinæ, Sertularinæ, and Thalmophora. Rep. Sci. Res. Voy. Challenger (Zool.), Vol. 23, LXIX, 90 pp.Google Scholar
Bigelow, Henry B. 1909. Rep. Sci. Res. Exped. Eastern Tropical Pacific … “Albatross.” XVI. The Medusæ. Mem. Mus. Comp. Zoöl. Harvard, Vol. XXXVII, pp. 1–243.Google Scholar
Bigelow, Henry B. 1914. Fauna of New England. 12. List of the Medusæ Craspedotæ, Siphonophoræ, Scyphomedusæ, Ctenophoræ Occ. Papers Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. VII, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
Bonnevie, Kr. 1901. Meeresfauna von Bergen, Heft. I, pp. 1–15. Bergens Museum.Google Scholar
Brooks, W. K. 1882. List of Medusæ found at Beaufort N.C. during the summers of 1880 and 1881. Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies from Biol. Lab., Vol. 2 (No. 2), pp. 135–146.Google Scholar
Browne, Edward T. 1896. On British Hydroids and Medusæ. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, pp. 459–500.Google Scholar
Browne, Edward T. 1898. On the Pelagic Fauna of Plymouth for September, 1897. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., N.S., Vol. V, No. 2, pp. 186–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, Edward T. 1905. A Report on the Medusæ found in the Firth of Clyde (1901–1902). Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, Vol. XXV, Pt. IX, pp. 738–778.Google Scholar
Browne, Edward T. 1910. Cœlentera. V. Medusæ. National Antarctic Exped. 1901–1904. Nat. Hist., Vol. V, pp. 1–62.Google Scholar
Browne, Edward T. 1916. Medusæ from the Indian Ocean. Trans. Linn. Soc. London, 2nd Ser. Zool., Vol. XVII, Pt. 2, pp. 169–210.Google Scholar
Browne, E. T. and Vallentin, R. 1904. On the Marine Fauna of the Isles of Scilly. Journ. R. Instit. Cornwall, Vol. 50, pp. 120–132.Google Scholar
Brückner, Erich. 1914. Beitrag zur Kenntnis von Perigonimus cidaritis Weismann und Gemmaria implexa var. neapolitana Hargitt. Z. wiss. Zool. Leipzig, Bd. CXI, pp. 445–505.Google Scholar
Delap, M. and Delap, C. 1905. Notes on the Plankton of Valencia Harbour. Fisheries, Ireland, Sci. Invest., No. VII, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
Du Plessis, G. 1881. Catalogue provisoire des Hydroïdes médusipares (Hydroméduses vraies) observès durant l'hiver 1879–80 à la Station zoologique de Naples. Mitt. Zool. Stat. Neapel, Bd. II, pp. 143–149.Google Scholar
Fewkes, J. Walter. 1881. Studies of the Jelly-fishes of Marragausett Bay. Bull. Mus. comp. Zoöl. Harvard, Vol. VIII, No. 8, pp. 141–182.Google Scholar
Gegenbaur, Carl. 1856. Versuch eines Systemes der Medusen, mit Beschreibung neuer oder wenig gekannter Formen; zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kenntniss der Fauna des Mittelmeeres. Z. wiss. Zool. Leipzig, Bd. VIII, pp. 202–273.Google Scholar
Gosse, Philip Henry. 1853. A Naturalist's Rambles on the Devonshire Coast. London, John van Voorst, pp. 1–448.Google Scholar
Graeffe, Ed. 1884. Uebersicht der Seethierfauna des Golfes von Triest nebst Notizen über Vorkommen, Lebens-weise, Erscheinungs- und Fort-pflanzungs-zeit der einzelnen Arten. Arb. Zool. Inst. Univ. Wien u. Zool. Stat. Triest, Tom. V, Heft. 3, pp. 333–362.Google Scholar
Günther, R. T. 1903. On the Structure and Affinities of Mnestra parasites Krohn; with a revision of the classification of the Cladonemidæ. Mitt. Zool. Stat. Neapel, Bd. 16 (1903–1904), Heft I and II, pp. 35–62.Google Scholar
Haeckel, Ernst. 1879. Das System der Medusen.Google Scholar
Hargitt, Chas. W. 1904. Notes on some Hydromedusse from the Bay of Naples. Mitt. Zool. Stat. Neapel, Bd. 16 (1903–1904), Heft. 4, pp. 553–585.Google Scholar
Hargitt, Chas. W. 1905. The Medusæ of the Woods Hole Region. Bull. Bur. Fish. Washington, Vol. XXIV (1904), pp. 23–79.Google Scholar
Hargitt, Chas. W. 1908. Notes on a few Cœlenterates of Woods Holl. Biol. Bull. Woods Hole, Vol. XIV, No. 2, pp. 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartlaub, Clemens. 1887. Zur Kenntnis der Cladonemiden. Zool. Anz. Leipzig, X Jahrg., II. Wiss. Mitth., 3, pp. 651–658.Google Scholar
Hartlaub, Cl. 1905. Die Hydroiden der magelhaensischen Region und Chilensis Küste. Zool. Jahrb. System. Suppl. VI (Fauna Chilensis III, Heft. 3, pp. 497–714).Google Scholar
Hartlaub, Cl. 1907. Nordisches Plankton. Lief. 6. XII. Craspedote Medusen. Teil 1. Lief. 1. Codoniden und Cladonemiden, pp. 1–135.Google Scholar
Hartlaub, Cl. 1917. Nordisches Plankton. Lief. 19. XII.. Craspedote Medusen. Teil 1. Lief. 4, pp. 365–479.Google Scholar
Hastings, Anna B. 1930. On the Association of a Gymnoblastic Hydroid (Zanclea protecta, sp. n.) with various Cheilostomatous Polyzoa from the Tropical E. Pacific. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. Ser. 10. Vol. V, pp. 552–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastings, Anna B. 1932. The Polyzoa, with a note on an Associated Hydroid. Great Barrier Reef Exped. 1928–1929. Sci. Rep. (Brit. Mus.), Vol. IV, No. 12, pp. 399–458.Google Scholar
Hincks, Thomas. 1868. A History of the British Hydroid Zoophytes Vols. I–II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hincks, Thomas. 1871. Supplement to a “Catalogue of the Zoophytes of South Devon and South Cornwall,” with Descriptions of new species. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist, Vol. VIII (4th Ser.), No. 44, IX, pp. 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hincks, Thomas. 1872. Contributions to the History of the Hydroida. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Vol. X (4th Ser.), No. 59, LIV, pp. 385–395.Google Scholar
Jickelt, C. F. 1883. Der Bau der Hydroidpolypen. Morph. Jahrb. Bd. 8, pp. 373–416 and 580–680.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, R. 1890. Reports on the Zoological collections made in Torres Straits by Professor A. C. Haddon, 1888–1889. Hydroida and Polyzoa. Sci. Proc. roy. Dublin Soc., Vol. VI, Pt. X, pp. 603–626.Google Scholar
Leslie, G. and Herdman, W. A. 1881. The Invertebrate fauna of the Firth of Forth. 106 pp. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Lo Bianco, Salvatore. 1909. Notizie biologiche riguardanti specialmente il periodo di maturità sessuale degli animali del Golfo di Napoli. Mitt. Zool. Stat. Neapel, Bd. XIX, Heft. 4, pp. 513–761.Google Scholar
Mayer, Alfred Goldsborough. 1900. Some Medusæ from the Tortugas, Florida. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard, Vol. XXXVII, No. 2, pp. 13–82.Google Scholar
Mayer, Alfred Goldsborough. 1910. Medusæ of the World. Vol. I. Hydromedusæ.Google Scholar
McCrady, John. 1857. Gymnophthalmata of Charleston Harbour. Proc. Elliott Soc. Nat. Hist. Charleston, South-Carolina, Vol. I, 1859 (Nov. 1853-Dec. 1858), pp. 103ߝ294.Google Scholar
Motz-Kossowska, S. 1905. Contribution á la Connaissance des Hydraires de la Méditerranée occidentale. I.—Hydraires Gymnoblastiques. Arch. Zool. Exper. Gen., Ser. 4, Tome III, pp. 39–98.Google Scholar
Murbagh, L. 1899. Hydroids from Wood's Holl. Mass. Hippolytus peregrinus, a new unattached Marine Hydroid: Conjnitis Agassizii and its medusa. Quart. J. Micr. Sci., London, Vol. 42, Pt. 3, N.S., pp. 341–360.Google Scholar
Neppi, Valeria. 1920. Nuove osservazioni sui polipi idroidi del Golfo di Napoli. Pubb. Stat. Zool., Napoli, Vol. 3 (1921), pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Neppi, Valeria and Stiasny, Gustav. 1913. Die Hydromedusen des Golfes von Triest. Arb. Zool. Inst. Univ. Wien u. Zool. Stat. Triest, Bd. XX, pp. 23–90.Google Scholar
Nutting, C. C. 1901. The Hydroids of the Woods Hole Region. Bull. U. S. Fish Comm., Washington, Vol. XIX (1899), pp. 325–386.Google Scholar
Pennington, Arthur. S. 1885. British Zoophytes: An Introduction to the Hydroida, Actinozoa and Polyzoa found in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Channel Islands, 363 pp. London.Google Scholar
Ranking, James. 1901. Hydroida, p. 369 in Fauna, Flora, and Geology of the Clyde Area, Glasgow.Google Scholar
Robson, J. H. 1914. Catalogue of the Hydrozoa of the North-east Coast (Northumberland and Durham). Dove Marine Laboratory Report for the year ending June, 1914, pp. 87–103.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. C. 1890. Histologie von Hydra fusca mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Nerven Systems der Hydropolypen. Arch. Mikrosk. Anat., Bd. 35, pp. 321–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, K. C. 1898. Hydropolypcn von Rovigno, nebst Übersicht über das System der Hydropolypen im Allgemeinen. Zool. Jahrb. (Syst.), Bd. X, pp. 472–555.Google Scholar
Stechow, E. 1911. Hydroidpolypen der Japanischen Ostkuste, I. Teil. Athecata und Plumularidae. Abhandlungen Math.-Phys. Klasse K. Bayr. Akademie der Wissenschaften (Doflein Naturgeschichte Ostasiens), I. Suppl.-Band 6. Abhandlung, p. 1–111.Google Scholar
Stechow, E. 1919. Zur Kenntnis der Hydroidenfauna des Mittelmeeres, Amerikas und anderer Gebiete. Zool. Jahrb. Jena (Syst.), Bd. 42, pp. 1–172.Google Scholar
Stechow, E. 1923. Zur Kenntnis der Hydroidenfauna des Mittelmeeres, Amerikas und anderer Gebiete. Zool. Jahrb. Syst. Bd. 47, pp. 29–270.Google Scholar
Stechow, E. 1923, b. Die Hydroidenfauna der Japanischen Region. J. Coll. Sci., Tokyo. Imp. Univ., Vol. XLIV, Art. 8, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Stechow, Eberhard. 1925. Hydroiden der Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition. Wiss. Ergebn. Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition Valdivia 1898–1899, Bd. XVII, Heft 3, pp. 387–546.Google Scholar
Swenander, Gust. 1904. Über die Athecaten Hydroiden des Drontheimsfjordes. K. norske Vidensk. Selsk. Trondheim. 1903. No. 6, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Uchida, Tohru. 1927. Studies on Japanese Hydromedusee. l.Anthomedusæ. J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, Zool., Vol. I, Pt. 3, pp. 145–241.Google Scholar
Vanhöffen, Ernst. 1891. Versuch einer natürlichen Gruppierung der Anthomedusen. Zool. Anz. Leipzig, XIV Jahrg., I Wiss. Mitth., pp. 439–446.Google Scholar
Vanhöffen, Ernst. 1911. Die Authomedusen und Leptomedusen der Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition 1898–1899. Wiss. Ergeb. Deutschen TiefseeExped. Valdivia, Bd. XIX, 1925, Heft. 5, pp. 193–233.Google Scholar
Weill, Robert. 1934. Contribution à l'étude des Cnidaires et de leur Nématocystes. II. Valeur taxonomique du Cnidome. Trav. Stat. Zool. Wimereux, Tome XI, pp. 349–701.Google Scholar
Wright, T. Strethill. 1859. Observations on British Zoophytes. Edinb. New Philos. Journ., N.S., Vol. 10, pp. 105–114.Google Scholar
Zoja, Raffaello. 1895. Sullo sviluppo dei blastomeri isolati dalleuova di alcune meduse (e di altri organismi). Arch. Entw. Org. Bd. II, Heft 1, pp. 1–37, PI. IV, Figs. 121–123.Google Scholar