Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:28:50.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Structure and Function of the Tube Feet in Certain Echinoderms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

J. E. Smith
J. E. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University, Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Comparison of the methods of adhesion and locomotion of the typical members of the four classes of the Eleutherozoa reveals a similarity of the adhesive mechanism in the Asteroidea, Echinoidea and Holothuroidea in that adhesion is due in part to suction and in part to the secretion of mucus. The ophiuroid, on the other hand, has tube feet which, because of their lack of a well-defined sucker, must adhere merely by their intrinsic stickiness. The ability to make use of suction results from the possession of a sucker so fashioned that the median part of the disk may be withdrawn from the surface of contact, with the resultant production of a vacuum. The sucker of the asteroid, echinoid or holothurian tube foot is well adapted for this purpose. An essential feature of such a disk is the presence of an arborescent system of connective tissue fibres extending from the basal plate to the outer limit of the ectoderm. By means of this system, the pull initiated by contraction of the longitudinal musculature of the podium is transmitted to the ectoderm of the sucking disk, the central part of which is thereby lifted up. Where suction plays no part in adhesion, as in the Ophiuroidea, the arborescent system of fibres is lacking.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , November 1937 , pp. 345 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1937

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

Brooks, W. K. and Grave, C., 1899. Ophiura brevispina. Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci Washington, Vol. 8, 4th memoir, pp. 79–100.Google Scholar
Cowles, R. P., 1910. Stimuli produced by light and by contact with solid walls as factors in the behaviour of Ophiuroids. Journ. Exp. Zool., Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 386–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, O., 1889. Die Anatomie und Histologie der Ophiuren und Crinoiden. Beiträge zur Histologie der Echinodermen. Jena.Google Scholar
Hamann, O., 1901. Bronn's Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier-reichs. Bd. 2, Abt. 3.Google Scholar
May, R. M., 1925. Les réactions sensorielles d'une Ophiure (Ophionereis reticulatd). Bull. Biol. France et Beige, T. 50, pp. 372–402.Google Scholar
Östergren, H., 1904. Über die Funktion der Füsschen bei der Schlangensternen. Biol. Centralbl., Bd. 24, pp. 559–65.Google Scholar
Paine, V. L., 1926. Adhesion of the tube feet in starfishes. Journ. Exp. Zool., Vol. 45, pp. 361–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preyer, W., 1886–1887. Über die Bewegungen der Seesterne. Mitt. Zool. Stat. Neapel., Bd. 7, pp. 27–127.Google Scholar
Smith, J. E., 1937. On the nervous system of the starfish Marthasterias glacialis (L.). Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., Ser. B, Vol. 227, pp. 111–73.Google Scholar