Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T21:43:32.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constraints of ligament growth, form and function on evolution in the Arcoida (Mollusca: Bivalvia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

R. D. K. Thomas
R. D. K. Thomas*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17604
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Growth processes and patterns set functional limits on the adaptive range of organisms that have evolved a particular “Bauplan.” The design of the elastic ligament has played a large part in determining the scope of the evolutionary radiation of the Arcoida. Tensional lamellar and compressional fibrous materials of this ligament, which appear to be similar in their elastic properties to those of other bivalves, are not segregated in positions where they could best perform their different mechanical functions. The growth of this unspecialized ligament exhibits strong positive allometry, with respect to shell size, in many fossil and living arcoids. A simple mechanical model shows that this allometry is essential if the strength of the ligament is to keep up with the weight of the animal, during ontogeny. Inherent disadvantages of the allometry include increasing dorsal breakage of the ligament itself, interference with the function of the hinge teeth and reduction of the closing moment exerted by the adductor muscles. Direct measurements of living arcoids show that allometric growth just maintains a linear relationship between ligament strength and animal volume. Major differences in ligament strength are related to shell growth patterns and substantially different environmental adaptations. Ligament strength is highly variable within individual populations; between populations, it is correlated with shell thickness and local environmental conditions. Most arcoids are adapted for shallow-burrowing or epifaunal modes of life in physically unstable environments, where they are frequently disturbed. The large, muscular foot enables these mobile animals to regain suitable living positions after such disturbances. The weak ligament has limited the potential specialization of the arcoids for either deeper burrowing or permanent epibyssal attachment, also requiring the retention of the foot in epifaunal forms. This ligament has made diverse adaptations possible, while preventing extreme specialization, except in isolated taxa. As such, it is largely responsible for the evolutionary reversals documented by Stanley (1972). This is konstrukionsmorphologie No. 46.

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , Winter 1976 , pp. 64 - 83
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

Alexander, R. McN. 1966. Rubber-like properties of the inner hinge-ligament of Pectinidae. J. Exp. Biol. 44:119–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alexander, R. McN. 1968. Animal Mechanics. 346 pp. Univ. Wash. Press; Seattle, Wash.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. O. 1967. Isolation of a new type of cross link from the hinge ligament protein of molluscs. Nature, Lond. 216:1029–1030.Google Scholar
Ansell, A. D. and Nair, N. B. 1969. A comparative study of bivalves which bore mainly by mechanical means. Am. Zool. 9:857–868.Google Scholar
Ansell, A. D. and Trueman, E. R. 1967. Observations on burrowing in Glycymeris glycymeris (L.) (Bivalvia, Arcacea). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 1:65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frizzell, D. L. 1946. A study of two arcid pelecypod species from western South America. J. Paleontol. 20:38–51.Google Scholar
Heath, H. 1941. The anatomy of the pelecypod family Arcidae. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. (n.s.) 31:287–319.Google Scholar
Hunter, W. R. and Grant, D. C. 1962. Mechanics of the ligament in the bivalve Spisula solidissima in relation to mode of life. Biol. Bull. Mar. Biol. Lab., Woods Hole. 122:369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, C. F. 1966. Comparative morphology of the digestive system of Anadara from different habitats. J. Anim. Morphol. Physiol. 13:1–8.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1937. Late Paleozoic pelecypods: Pectinacea. Publ. Kans. Geol. Surv. 10(1):1–123.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1942. Late Paleozoic pelecypods: Mytilacea. Publ. Kansas Geol. Surv. 10(2):1–115.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1969. Superfamily Arcacea Lamarck, 1809. pp. 250–269. In: Moore, R. C., ed. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part N. Mollusca 6, Bivalvia, vol. 3. Univ. Kans. Press; Lawrence, Kans. and Geol. Soc. Am.; Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Nicol, J. A. C. 1967. The Biology of Marine Animals. 2nd edit.699 pp. John Wiley; New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
Owen, G. 1953. The shell in the Lamellibranchia. Q. J. Microsc. Sci. 94:57–70.Google Scholar
Owen, G., Trueman, E. R., and Yonge, C. M. 1953. The ligament in the Lamellibranchia. Nature, Lond. 171:73–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pojeta, J. 1971. Review of Ordovician pelecypods. Prof. Pap. U.S. Geol. Surv. 695:1–46.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1972. Approaches to morphologic analysis. pp. 28–44. In: Schopf, T. J. M., ed. Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper; San Francisco, Calif.Google Scholar
Reeve, L. A. 1844. Conchologia Iconica: v. 2, Monograph of the Genus Arca. 17 pl. Reeve Brothers; Lond.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1970. Arbeitskonzept zur Konstruktions-Morphologie. Lethaia. 3:393–396.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1970. Relation of shell form to life habits in the Bivalvia (Mollusca). Mem. Geol. Soc. Am. 125:1–296.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1972. Functional morphology and evolution of byssally attached bivalve mollusks. J. Paleontol. 46:165–212.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1973. Effects of competition on rates of evolution, with special reference to bivalve mollusks and mammals. Syst. Zool. 22:486–506.Google Scholar
Stasek, C. R. 1963. Geometrical form and gnomonic growth in the bivalved Mollusca. J. Morphol. 112:215–231.Google Scholar
Stenzel, H. B. 1971. Oysters, pp. 953–1224. In: Moore, R. C., ed. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part N. Mollusca 6, Bivalvia, vol. 3. Univ. Kans. Press; Lawrence, Kans. and Geol. Soc. Am.; Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. D. K. 1970. Functional Morphology, Ecology and Evolution in the Genus Glycymeris (Bivalvia). 397 pp. Unpubl. Ph.D. thesis; Harvard Univ.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. D. K. 1975. Functional morphology, ecology and evolutionary conservatism in the Glycymerididae (Bivalvia). Palaeontology. 18:217–254.Google Scholar
Trueman, E. R. 1949. The ligament of Tellina tenuis. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 119:719–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueman, E. R. 1953. Observations on certain mechanical properties of the ligament of Pecten. J. Exp. Biol. 30:453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueman, E. R. 1964. Adaptive morphology in paleoecological interpretation. pp. 45–74. In: Imbrie, J. and Newell, N. D., eds. Approaches to Paleoecology. John Wiley; New York, N.Y. Trueman, E. R. 1968. The burrowing activities of bivalves. Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. 22: 167–186.Google Scholar
Trueman, E. R. 1969. Ligament. pp. 58–64. In: Moore, R. C., ed. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part N, Mollusca 6, Bivalvia, vol. 3. Univ. Kans. Press; Lawrence, Kans. and Geol. Soc. Am.; Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M. 1953. The monomyarian condition in the Lamellibranchia. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 62:443–478.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M. 1955. Adaptations to rock boring in Botula and Lithophaga (Lamellibranchia: Mytilidae) with a discussion on the evolution of the habit. Q. J. Microsc. Sci. 96:383–410.Google Scholar