Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:31:22.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional constraints on coiling geometry and aperture inclination in gastropods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Koji Noshita ,
Takahiro Asami  and
Takao Ubukata
Koji Noshita
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Systems Life Sciences, Kyushu University, Hakozaki 6-10-1, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8581, Japan. E-mail: [email protected]
Takahiro Asami
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Shinshu University, Asahi 3-1-1 Matsumoto 390-8621, Japan. E-mail: [email protected]
Takao Ubukata
Affiliation:
Institute of Geosciences, Shizuoka University, Oya 836, Suruga-ku, Shizuoka 422-8529, Japan. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We studied the morphological diversity of gastropod shell forms from the viewpoint of theoretical morphology, emphasizing the relationships of shell form to postural stability and the available space for soft body, which we assessed in terms of the moment of force and soft-tissue ratio calculations, respectively. The results of computer simulations suggest a functional trade-off between postural stability and available space for soft body: a compact shell possessing a low spire and small umbilicus exhibits high postural stability, whereas a less overlapped shell form with a high spire and large umbilicus makes available space for soft body. A functional morphospace analysis using theoretical models reveals that outward and downward inclination of the aperture moderates the functional trade-off between these parameter values and permits compatibility between stable posture and efficient shell construction. The hypothetical optimum that realizes this compatibility is consistent with the observed range of forms estimated from 359 extant gastropod species. The biometric results also suggest that land snails are more highly constrained than marine species in achieving a balance between postural stability and available space for soft body.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , Spring 2012 , pp. 322 - 334
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

Ackerly, S. C. 1989. Kinematics of accretionary shell growth, with examples from brachiopods and mollusks. Paleobiology 15:147–164.Google Scholar
Bayer, U. 1978. Morphogenetic programs, instabilities, and evolution—a theoretical study. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 156:226–261.Google Scholar
Cain, A. J. 1977. Variation in spire index of some coiled gastropod shells, and its evolutionary significance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 277:377–428.Google Scholar
Cain, A. J., and Cowie, R. H. 1978. Activity of different species of land-snail on surfaces of different inclinations. Journal of Conchology 29:267–272.Google Scholar
Cameron, R. A. D. 1981. Functional-aspects of shell geometry in some British land snails. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 16:157–167.Google Scholar
Cook, L. M., and Jaffar, W. N. 1984. Spire index and preferred surface orientation in some land snails. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 21:307–313.Google Scholar
Denny, M. 1980. The role of gastropod pedal mucus in locomotion. Nature 285:160–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewoldt, R. H., Hosoi, A. E., and McKinley, G. H. 2006. Rheology of mucin films for molluscan adhesive locomotion. Soft Matter 3:634–643.Google Scholar
Goodfriend, G. A. 1986. Variation in land-snail shell form and size and its causes—a review. Systematic Zoology 35:204–223.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1968. Ontogeny and the explanation of form. Journal of Paleontology 5:81–98.Google Scholar
Graus, R. R. 1974. Latitudinal trends in shell characteristics of marine gastropods. Lethaia 7:303–314.Google Scholar
Hammer, Ø., and Bucher, H. 2005. Models for the morphogenesis of the molluscan shell. Lethaia 38:111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, D. J. 1985. Whorl overlap and the economical construction of the gastropod shell. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 24:165–174.Google Scholar
Illert, C. 1989. Formulation and solution of the classical seashell problem. II. Tubular three-dimensional seashell surfaces. Il Nuovo Cimento D 11:761–780.Google Scholar
Kideys, A. E., and Hartnoll, R. G. 1991. Energetics of mucus production in the common whelk Buccinum undatum L. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 150:91–105.Google Scholar
Kohn, A. J., and Riggs, A. C. 1975. Morphometry of the Conus shell. Systematic Zoology 24:346–359.Google Scholar
Korn, D., and Klug, C. 2003. Morphological pathways in the evolution of Early and Middle Devonian ammonoids. Paleobiology 29:329–348.Google Scholar
Lauga, E., and Hosoi, A. E. 2006. Tuning gastropod locomotion: modeling the influence of mucus rheology on the cost of crawling. Physics of Fluids 18:113102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsley, R. M. 1977. Some “laws” of gastropod shell form. Paleobiology 3:196–206.Google Scholar
Linsley, R. M. 1978a. Locomotion rates and shell form in the Gastropoda. Malacologia 17:193–206.Google Scholar
Linsley, R. M. 1978b. Shell form and the evolution of gastropods. American Scientist 66:432–441.Google Scholar
L⊘vtrup, S., and L⊘vtrup, M. 1988. The morphogenesis of molluscan shells—a mathematical account using biological parameters. Journal of Morphology 197:53–62.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. R. 1978. Analysis of the shell torsion phenomenon in the Bivalvia. Lethaia 11:15–329.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. R. 1980. Shell form in the biconvex articulate Brachiopoda—a geometric analysis. Paleobiology 6:57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNair, C. G., Kier, W. M., LaCroix, P. D., and Linsley, R. M. 1981. The functional significance of aperture form in gastropods. Lethaia 14:63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monnet, C., Zollikofer, C., Bucher, H., and Goudemand, N. 2009. Three-dimensional morphometric ontogeny of mollusc shells by microcomputed tomography and geometric analysis. Paleontologia Electronica 12(3/12A):1–13.Google Scholar
Niklas, K. J. 1997. Effects of hypothetical developmental barriers and abrupt environmental changes on adaptive walks in a computer-generated domain for early vascular land plants. Paleobiology 23:63–76.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, S. V., and Barskov, I. S. 1994. Morphogenetic trends in the evolution of Carboniferous ammonoids. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 193:401–418.Google Scholar
Noshita, K. 2010. Spiral Shell Form: a computer software pakage for theoretical morphological analysis of spiral shell form. Geoscience Reports of Shizuoka University 37:57–73.Google Scholar
Okajima, R., and Chiba, S. 2009. Cause of bimodal distribution in the shape of a terrestrial gastropod. Evolution 63:2877–2887.Google Scholar
Okamoto, T. 1988a. Analysis of heteromorph ammonoids by differential geometry. Paleontology 31:35–52.Google Scholar
Okamoto, T. 1988b. Changes in life orientation during the ontogeny of some heteromorph ammonoids. Paleontology 31:281–294.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1962. Computer as aid in describing form in gastropod shells. Science 138:150–152.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. Journal of Paleontology 40:1178–1190.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1967. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: coiling in ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology 41:43–65.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Chamberlain, J. A. Jr. 1967. Equations for volume and center of gravity in ammonoid shells. Journal of Paleontology 41:566–574.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Graus, R. R. 1972. General equations for volume and surface area of a logarithmically coiled shell. Mathematical Geology 4:307–316.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Michelson, A. 1965. Theoretical morphology of coiled shell. Science 147:1294–1295.Google Scholar
Rice, S. H. 1998. The bio-geometry of mollusc shells. Paleobiology 24:133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Swan, A. R. H. 1984. Morphology and morphologic diversity of mid-Carboniferous (Namurian) ammonoids in time and space. Paleobiology 10:195–228.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Work, D. M. 1996. Shell morphology and suture complexity in Upper Carboniferous ammonoids. Paleobiology 22:189–218.Google Scholar
Savazzi, E. 1987. Geometric and functional constraints on bivalve shell morphology. Lethaia 20:293–306.Google Scholar
Schindel, D. E. 1990. Unoccupied morphospace and the coiled geometry of gastropods: architectural constraint or geometric covariation? Pp. 270–304inRoss, R. M.and Allmon, W. D., eds. Causes of evolution: a paleontological perspective. 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. The evolution of ideas: a phylogeny of shell models. American Naturalist 148:904–929.Google Scholar
Stone, J. R. 1997. Mathematical determination of coiled shell volumes and surface areas. Lethaia 30:213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, J. R. 1999. Using a mathematical model to test the null hypothesis of optimal shell construction by four marine gastropods. Marine Biology 134:397–403.Google Scholar
Stone, J. R. 2004. Nonoptimal shell forms as overlapping points in functional and theoretical morphospaces. American Malacological Bulletin 18:129–134.Google Scholar
Tanabe, K., Obata, I., and Futakami, M. 1981. Early shell morphology in some Upper Cretaceous heteromorph ammonites. Transactions and Proceedings of the Palaeontological Society of Japan, new series 124:215–234.Google Scholar
Tanaka, G. 2006. Functional morphology and light-gathering ability of podocopid ostracod eyes and the palaeontological implications. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 147:97–108.Google Scholar
Ubukata, T. 2001. Morphological significance of the orientation of shell coiling and the outline of “the aperture” in bivalve molluscs. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 221:249–270.Google Scholar
Ubukata, T. 2003. Pattern of growth rate around aperture and shell form in Bivalvia: a theoretical morphological study. Paleobiology 29:480–491.Google Scholar
Ubukata, T. 2005. Theoretical morphology of bivalve shell sculptures. Paleobiology 31:643–655.Google Scholar
Ubukata, T., Tanabe, K., Shigeta, Y., Maeda, H., and Mapes, R. H. 2008. Piggyback whorls: a new theoretical morphologic model reveals constructional linkages among morphological characters in ammonoids. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 53:113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1971. Gastropod evolution and morphological diversity in relation to shell geometry. Journal of Zoology 163:15–23.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1979. Shell architecture and causes of death of Micronesian reef snails. Evolution 33:686–696.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J., and Covich, A. P. 1978. Coevolution of freshwater gastropods and their predators. American Naturalist 112:833–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar