Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:11:57.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predation on chaetognaths by typhloscolecid polychaetes: one explanation for headless specimens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

David Feigenbaum
David Feigenbaum
Affiliation:
Nova University, Ocean Sciences Center, 8000 North Ocean Drive, Dania, Florida 33004, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Phylum Chaetognatha consists of morphologically and biologically similar species and its relationship with other invertebrate groups is obscure (Hyman, 1959; Ghirardelli, 1968). The possibility of regenerative power has been investigated as one of the clues to the affinity of the phylum. Kulmatycki (1918) made cross-sectional and diagonal cuts through the body and tail fin of Spadella cephaloptera Busch and reported that this species could regenerate the whole caudal section including the body proper. Further support for regenerative ability came from Pierce (1951) who caught 26 specimens of Sagitta enflata Grassi and Sagitta helenae Ritter Zahony which appeared to be in the process of regenerating their heads (presumably lost to a large predator). He noted that the loss of this section of the body did not kill the animal. Both Kulmatycki and Pierce are cited in Hyman's (1959) important review of the phylum and headless chaetognaths have been referred to as animals with regenerating heads (e.g. Almeida Prado, 1968).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , August 1979 , pp. 631 - 633
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

Almeido, Prado M. S. De, 1968. Distribution and annual occurrence of Chaetognatha off Cananéia and Santos coast (Säo Paulo, Brazil). Boletim do Instituto oceanogräfico, 17, 33–55.Google Scholar
Ghirardelli, E., 1968. Some aspects of the biology of the chaetognaths. Advances in Marinen Biology, 6, 271–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L. H., 1959. The Invertebrates, vol. 5. 783 pp. New York, London and Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Kulmatycki, W. J., 1918. Bericht über die Regenerationsfähigkeit der Spadella cephaloptera. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 49, 281–284.Google Scholar
Lebour, M. V., 1923. Food of plankton organisms. II. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 13, 70–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, E. L., 1951. The chaetognaths of the west coast of Florida. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 100, 206–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakusa-Suszczewski, S. J., 1968. Predation of Chaetognatha by Tomopteris helgolandica Greff. Rapports et procès-verbeaux des réunions. Conseil permanent international pour l'exploration de la mer, 32, 226–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reibisch, J., 1895. Die pelagischen Phyllodociden und Typhloscoleciden der Plankton-Expedition der Humboldt-Stiftung. 63 pp. Kiel and Leipzig: Lipsius and Tischer.Google Scholar
Ushakov, P. V., 1972. Polychaeta, vol. 1. Polychaetes of the suborder Phyllodociformia of the Polar Basin and the north-western part of the Pacific (Family Phyllodocidae, Alciopidae, Tomopteridae, Typholoscolecidae and Lacydoniidae). 271 pp. Leningrad: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Zoological Institute. (Fauna of the USSR, n.s. no. 102.) [Translated by the Israel Program for Scientific Translation, Jerusalem, 1974.]Google Scholar