Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:31:40.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I.—The Œsophagus of the Stenoglossan Prosobranchs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Alastair Graham
Alastair Graham
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Birkbeck college, University of London.
Get access

Extract

The structure of the anterior part of the alimentary canal of stenoglossan prosobranchs has been previously investigated by several workers, of whom the most important are Haller (1888) and Amaudrut (1898), although Haller's account, accurate so far as it goes, was published before there was any real knowledge of the comparative morphology of that part of the prosobranch gut. This knowledge we owe to Amaudrut, but in the case of the stenoglossan œsophagus the description which he gives is wrong, the various parts being orientated upside down.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , 1941 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1941

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

References to Literature

Amaudrut, A., 1898. “La Partie antérieure du tube digestif et la Torsion chez les Mollusques gastéropodes,” Ann.Sci. Nat. Zool., ser. 7, vol. viii,pp. 1–291.Google Scholar
Ankel, W. E., 1937. “Wie bohrt Natica?” Biol. Zbl., vol. lvii, pp. 75–82.Google Scholar
Ankel, W. W., 1938. “Erwerb und Aufnahme der Nahrung bei den Gastropoden,” Verh. Dtsch. Zool. Ges., Zool. Anz., supp. xi, pp. 223–95.Google Scholar
Bouvier, E.-L., 1887. “Système nerveux, Morphologie générale et Classi-fication des Gastéropodes prosobranches,” Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool., ser. 7, vol. iii, pp. 1–510.Google Scholar
Brock, F., 1936. “Suche, Aufnahme und enzymatische Spaltung der Nahrung durch die Wellhornschnecke Buccinum undatum L.,” Zoologica, Stuttgart, vol. xxxiv, pp. 1–136.Google Scholar
Dakin, W. J., 1912. “Buccinum, the Whelk,” L.M.B.C. Memoir, London: Williams & Norgate.Google Scholar
Forbes, E., and Hanley, S., 1853. A History of British Mollusca and their Shells, London: van Voorst.Google Scholar
Fretter, V., 1941. “The Genital Ducts of some British Stenoglossan Proso-branchs,” Journ. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K., vol. xxv. In the press.Google Scholar
Graham, A., 1932. “On the Structure and Function of the Alimentary Canal of the Limpet,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. lvii, pp. 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, A., 1939. “On the Structure of the Alimentary Canal of Style-bearing Proso-branchs,” Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., ser. B, vol. cix, pp. 75–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haller, B., 1888. “Die Morphologie der Prosobranchier I,” Morph. Jb., vol. xiv, pp. 54–169.Google Scholar
Hirsch, G. C, 1915. “Die Ernährungsbiologie fleischfressender Gastropoden,” Zool.Jb. (Abt. Zool. Physiol.), vol. xxxv, pp. 357–504.Google Scholar
Küttler, A., 1913. “Die Anatomie von Oliva peruviana Lamarck,” Zool.Jb., supp. xiii (Fauna chilensis, iv), pp. 477–544.Google Scholar
Mansour-Bek, J. J., 1934. “Über die proteolytischen Enzyme von Murex anguliferus Lamk.,” Zeits. Vergl. Physiol., vol. xx, pp. 343–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendel, L. B., and Bradley, H. C, 1905. “Experimental Studies on the Physiology of the Molluscs,” Amer. Journ. Physiol., vol. xiii, p. 17.Google Scholar
Orton, J. H., 1927. “The Habits and Economic Importance of the Rough Whelk-Tingle (Murex erinaceus),” Nature, London, vol. cxx, pp. 653–4.Google Scholar
Peile, A. J., 1937. “Some Radula Problems,” Journ. Conch., vol. xx, pp. 292–304.Google Scholar
Pelseneer, P., 1935. Essai d'Ethologie zoologique d'aprés I' Etude des Mollusques.Google Scholar
Pieron, H., 1933. “Notes éthologiques sur les Gastéropodes perceurs et leur comportement avec l'utilisation de méthodes statistiques,” Arch. Zool. exp. gén., vol. lxxv, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Poirier, J., 1885. “Sur la structure anatomique et la position systématique de l'Halia priamus (Risso),” C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, vol. c, pp. 461–4.Google Scholar
Schiemenz, P., 1891. “Wie bohrt Natica die Muscheln an?” Mitt. Zool. Stn. Neapel, vol. x, pp. 153–69.Google Scholar
Shaw, H. O. N., 1915. “On the Anatomy of Conus tulipa, Linn., and Conus textile, Linn.,” Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., vol. lx, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar
Thiele, J., 1931. Handbuch der Systematische Weichtierkunde.I. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
Vanstone, J. H., 1894. “Some Points in the Anatomy of Melongena melongena,” Journ. Linn. Soc. (Zool.), vol. xxiv, pp. 369–73.Google Scholar
Winckworth, R., 1932. “The British Marine Mollusca,” Journ. Conch., vol. xix, pp. 211–52.Google Scholar
Woodward, M. F., 1901. “Note on the Anatomy of Voluta ancilla (Sol.), Neptuneopsis gilchristi Sby., and Volutilithes abyssicola (Ad. and Rve.),” Proc. Malacol. Soc. Lond., vol. iv, pp. 117–25.Google Scholar