Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:51:05.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproduction of Dodecaceria caulleryi (Polychaeta: Cirratulidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

P. H. Gibson  and
R. B. Clark
P. H. Gibson
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Dove Marine Laboratory, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
R. B. Clark
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Dove Marine Laboratory, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

INTRODUCTION

Dodecaceria caulleryi breeds asexually by fragmentation and regeneration (schizogenesis), and sexually as an epitoke. Fragmentation is initiated in September-November in worms generally more than 40 segments long with the autotomy of the anterior 11–34 segments. Some 14–18 isolated segments are then autotomized in succession from the front of the remainder of the worm, leaving a residual 7–19 posterior segments. The anterior, individual segmental, and posterior fragments produced in this way all begin regenerating; anterior regeneration of the posterior fragment is limited to 14 or fewer segments but posterior regeneration and growth of all fragments is unlimited though slow. When the segmental fragment has regenerated about 7 new anterior and posterior segments, these may be autotomized as secondary individuals and the original segment regenerates again. The anterior regenerate is more commonly shed than the posterior regenerate and not all segmental individuals engage in secondary fragmentation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , August 1976 , pp. 649 - 674
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1976

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

Allen, E. J., 1921. Regeneration and reproduction of the syllid Procerastea. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (B), 211, 131–177.Google Scholar
Berkeley, E. & Berkeley, C., 1954. Notes on the life history of the polychaete Dodecaceria fewkesi (nom. n.). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 11, 326—334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caullery, M. & Mesnil, F., 1898. Les formes épitoques et l'évolution des Cirratuliens. Annales de l'Université de Lyon, 39, 1–200.Google Scholar
Cresp, J., 1964. Études expérimentales et histologiques sur la régenération et le bourgeonnement chez les serpulides Hydroides norvegica (Gunn.) et Salmacina incrustans (Clap.). Bulletin biologique de la France et de la Belgique, 98, 3–152.Google Scholar
Dehorne, A., 1924. Multiplication asexuée chez Dodecaceria du Portel per émiettement métamérique, sur processus de ctenodrilisation. Compte rendu hebdomadaire des séances de l'Académie des sciences, 179, 143–145.Google Scholar
Dehorne, A., 1927. Le cycle reproducteur annuel de Dodecaceria concharum au Portel. La Schizométamérie. Compte rendu hebdomadaire des séances de l'Académie des sciences, 184, 547–549.Google Scholar
Dehorne, A., 1932. Nouvelles observations sur la multiplication asexuée d'une Annélide du genre Dodecaceria. Compte rendu hebdomadaire des séances de l'Académie des sciences, 195, 904–906.Google Scholar
Dehorne, A., 1933. La schizométamérie et les segmentes tétragemmes de Dodecaceria caulleryi sp.n. Bulletin biologique de la France et de la Belgique, 67, 298–326.Google Scholar
Dorsett, D. A., 1961 a. The reproduction and maintenance of Polydora ciliata (Johnst.) at Whitstable. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 41, 383–396.Google Scholar
Dorsett, D. A., 1961 b. The behaviour of Polydora ciliata (Johnst.). Tube-building and burrowing. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 41, 577–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. W., 1969. Borers in the shell of the sea scallop Placopecten magellanicus. American Zoologist, 9, 775–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, G. H., 1930. The anatomy and histology of bud-formation in the serpulid Filograna implexa, together with some cytological observations on the nuclei of the neoblasts. Journal of the Linnean Society (Zoology), 37, 109–190.Google Scholar
Fewkes, J. H., 1889. New Invertebrata from the coast of California. Bulletin of the Essex Institute, Boston, 21, 99–146.Google Scholar
Golding, D. W., 1967. Regeneration and growth control in Nereis. I. Growth and regeneration. Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, 18, 67–77.Google Scholar
Herlant-Meewis, H.J 1958. La reproduction asexuée chez les annélides. Année biologique, 34, 133–166.Google Scholar
Kennel, J. V., 1882. Über Ctenodrilus pardalis Clpd. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Anatomie und Knospung der Anneliden. Arbeiten aus dem Zoologischen Institut zu Würzburg, 5, 373–429.Google Scholar
Korschelt, E., 1919. Uber die naturliche und kunstliche Teilung des Ctenodrilus monostylos. Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen, 45, 602–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korschelt, E., 1942. Weiteres über die Dauer der ungeschlechthchen Fortpflanzung der Ctenodrilus monostylos. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 137, 162–166.Google Scholar
Malaquin, A., 1895. La formation du schizozoite dans la scissiparité chez les Filogranes et les Salmacines. Compte rendu hebdomadaire des séances de l'Académie des sciences, 121, 953–955.Google Scholar
Martin, E. A., 1933. Polymorphism and methods of asexual reproduction in the annelid Dodecaceria of Vineyard Sound. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 65, 99–105.Google Scholar
Monticelli, F. S., 1910. Raphidrilus nemasoma Montic, Nuovo Ctenodrilide del Golfo di Napoli. Revisione de Ctenodrilide. Archivio zoologico italiano, 4, 401–436.Google Scholar
Peters, N., 1923. Über das Verhältnis der naturlichen zur kunstlichen Teilung bei Ctenodrilus serratus (O. Schmidt). Zoologische Fahrbücher, Abteilung für Allgemeine Zoologie und Physiologie der Tiere, 40, 293–350.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, E., 1953. Asexual reproduction in Pygospio elegans Claparéde (Polychaeta sedentaria). Nature, London, 171, 1161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scharff, R., 1887. On Ctenodrilus parvulus n.sp. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 27, 391–604.Google Scholar
Vannini, E., 1950. Studi sulla sessualità e sui poteri regenerativi nei polichete ermafrodita Salmacina incrustans Clap. I. Osservazioni sul ciclo riproduttivo sessuale e asessuale. Pubblicazioni della Stazione zoologica di Napoli, 22, 211–256.Google Scholar
Zeppelin, M., 1883. Ueber den Bau und die Teilungsvorgange des Ctenodrilus monostylos n.sp. Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 39, 615–652 and Zoologischer Anzeiger, 6, 44–51.Google Scholar