Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T18:32:14.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The bio-geometry of mollusc shells

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Sean H. Rice
Sean H. Rice*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The shells of gastropods and cephalopods grow by production of new material, by the mantle, at the lip of the shell. I derive a model of shell form that allows us to describe the morphology of a shell in terms of independently definable biological parameters. These are (1) the relative rates of shell production at different points around the aperture, (2) the total amount of shell produced per time interval, (3) the growth rate of the aperture, (4) aperture shape, and (5) the orientation of the animal within the shell. Describing shell form in these terms allows us to see what biological changes must occur in development in order to change one shell morphology into another and what constraints are associated with particular morphological transformations. The model shows that it is developmentally easy to derive a slightly coiled limpet shell from that of a high-spired ancestor, but difficult to take the next step to a fully conical limpet. Many, if not most, real gastropod shells are not conical but rather have a convex or concave profile. I show that these forms result from a decoupling of shell production rates from the growth rate of the animal within the shell. The model also shows how truly different forms, such as vermetid snails and heteromorph ammonites, escaped the confines of spiral growth–sometimes by rotating the body within the shell, and sometimes by taking up a growth strategy that does not constrain them to coil. This model is compatible with shell morphometric models that have been widely discussed in the literature but strives toward a different goal: understanding the relationships between the various biological processes involved in shell development.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , Winter 1998 , pp. 133 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

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

Literature Cited

Abbot, R. T. 1986. Compendium of seashells. E. P. Dutton, New York.Google Scholar
Ackerly, S. C. 1989a. Kinematics of accretionary shell growth, with examples from brachiopods and molluscs. Paleobiology 15:147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerly, S. C. 1989b. Shell coiling in gastropods: analysis by stereographic projection. Palaios 4:374–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branch, G. M. 1985. Limpets: evolution and adaptation. Pp. 187–220in Trueman, E. R. and Clarke, M. R., eds. The Mollusca, Vol. 10. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Checa, A. 1991. Sectorial expansion and shell morphogenesis in molluscs. Lethaia 24:97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1994. Petaloconchus sculpturatus alaminatus, a new Pliocene subspecies of vermetid gastropods lacking its defining generic character, with comments on vermetid systematics in general. Journal of Paleontology 68:1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, J. M. C. 1990. Control of gastropod shell form via apertural growth rates. Journal of Morphology 206:259–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, J. 1932. Problems of relative growth. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Illert, C. 1990. Nipponites mirabilis—a challenge to seashell theory? Il Nuovo Cimento 12:1405–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illert, C., and Pickover, C. A. 1992. generating irregularly oscillating seashells. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 12:18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinger, H. C. 1981. Speculations on buoyancy control and ecology in some heteromorph ammonites. Pp. 337–355in House, M. R. and Senior, J. R., eds. The Ammonoidea. The evolution, classification, mode of life and geological usefulness of a major fossil group. Academic Press, London(Systematics Association Special Volume 18).Google Scholar
Løvtrup, S., and Løvtrup, M. 1988. The morphogenesis of molluscan shells: a mathematical account using biological parameters. Journal of Morphology 197:53–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morita, R. 1991. Mechanical constraints on aperture form in gastropods. Journal of Morphology 207:93–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moseley, H. 1838. On the geometrical forms of turbinated and discoid shells. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 128:351–370.Google Scholar
Nutbourne, A. W., and Martin, R. R. 1988. Differential geometry applied to curve and surface design, Vol. 1. Ellis Horwood., Chichester, England.Google Scholar
Okamoto, T. 1988. Analysis of heteromorph ammonoids by differential geometry. Palaeontology 31:35–52.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. Journal of Paleontology 40:1178–1190.Google Scholar
Rice, S. H. 1990. A geometric model for the evolution of development. Journal of Theoretical Biology 143:319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savazzi, E. 1990. Biological aspects of theoretical shell morphology. Lethaia 23:195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savazzi, E. 1996. Adaptations of vermetid and siliquariid gastropods. Palaeontology 39:157–177.Google Scholar
Schindel, D. E. 1990. Unoccupied morphospace and the coiled geometry of gastropods: Architectural constraint or geometric covariation. Pp. 270–304in Ross, R. M. and Allmon, W. D., eds. Causes of evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Stone, J. R. 1995. CerioShell: a computer program designed to simulate variation in shell form. Paleobiology 21:509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, J. R. 1996. Computer simulated shell size and shape variation in the Caribbean land snail genus Cerion: a test of geometrical constraints. Evolution 50:341–347.Google ScholarPubMed
Thompson, D. W. 1968. On growth and form, 2d ed. Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and escalation: an ecologic history of life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1993. A natural history of shells. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Wilbur, K. M. and Saleuddin, A. S. M. 1983. Shell formation. Pp. 235–287in Saleuddin, A. S. M. and Wilbur, K. M., eds. The Mollusca 4. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar