Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-k2jvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-08T03:51:51.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XIX.—The Structure and Behaviour of Hiatella gallicana (Lamarck) and H. arctica (L.), with special reference to the Boring Habit*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

W. Russell Hunter
W. Russell Hunter
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Glasgow, and the Marine Biological Laboratory, Millport.
Get access

Extract

Of the genera of rock-boring lamellibranchs which occur in British waters, Hiatella (= Saxicava) is the commonest. But the method of boring remains obscure, and for this reason the present research was suggested by Professor C. M. Yonge, under whose direction it was conducted. Observations were made during 1945 and 1946 in the Clyde Sea Area and at the Millport Laboratory, while other work on living and preserved material from both the Clyde and Plymouth areas was carried out at the Department of Zoology, University of Glasgow. Acknowledgments are due for assistance in technical problems to Dr H. F. Steedman of the University of Glasgow, for help with the nomenclature of the genus to Mr R. Winckworth, and for much kindness and help to the late Mr R. Elmhirst, Director of the Millport Laboratory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , 1949 , pp. 271 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1949

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.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was assisted in publication by a grant from the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland.

References

References to Literature

Amemiya, I., and Ohsima, Y., 1933. “Notes on the habitat of rock-boring molluscs on the coast of Central Japan”, Proc. Imp. Acad. Japan, IX, 120–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annandale, N., 1923. “Bivalves injuring brickwork in Calcutta Docks”, Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, XVIII, 555–557.Google Scholar
Brown, A. W., 1911. “Notes on the breeding and the boring habits of Pholas crispata”, Zoologist, XV, 437–440.Google Scholar
Cailliaud, F., 1850. “Nouvelles observations au sujet de la perforation des pierres par les Mollusques”, Journ. Conchyliol., I, 363–369.Google Scholar
Cailliaud, F., 1854. “Observations et nouveaux faits sur les mollusques perforants”, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, XXXIX, 34–36.Google Scholar
Cailliaud, F., 1856. “Mémoire sur les mollusques perforants”, Natuurk. Verh. Holland. Maatsch. Wet. Haarlem, XI.Google Scholar
Calman, W. T., 1920. “On marine-boring animals”, Inst. Civil Eng. London. Deterioration of Structures in Sea-water, 1st (Interim) Report, 62–78.Google Scholar
Calman, W. T., 1936. “Marine-boring animals” (with revision by Crawford), Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Economic Series, No. 10.Google Scholar
Daudin, , 1801, in Bosc, Suite à Deterville, ed. Buffon, Moll. 3, 120.Google Scholar
Deshayes, G. P., 1850. “Quelques observations au sujet de la perforation des pierres par les mollusques”, Journ. Conchyliol., I, 22–34.Google Scholar
Elliot, W. T., and Lindsay, B., 1911. “Remarks on the boring Mollusca”, Rep. Brit. Ass., 81st Meeting, 433.Google Scholar
Fleuriau de Bellevue, , 1802 a. Journ. de Physique, LIV, 354 and 359.Google Scholar
Fleuriau de Bellevue, , 1802 b. Bull. Sci. philom. Paris, No. 62, 107.Google Scholar
Forbes, E., and Hanley, S., 1853. A History of British Mollusca, London, I, 136–149.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, G. S., and Gunn, D. L., 1940. The Orientation of Animals, Oxford, 246–249.Google Scholar
Hancock, A., 1845. “Note on the boring apparatus of Mollusca”, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., XV, 113–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, A., 1848. “On the boring of Mollusca into rocks”, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2), II, 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, H. W., 1945. Recent Advances in the Chemistry and Biology of Sea-water, Cambridge, 26–27.Google Scholar
Hutton, H. W., 1913. “The boring habits of Pholas”, Naturalist, London, 229.Google Scholar
Irving, J., 1912. “Boring habits of Pholas”, Naturalist, London, 45–46.Google Scholar
Jeffreys, J. G., 1869. British Conchology, London, III, 77–85.Google Scholar
Jehu, T. J., 1918. “Rock-boring organisms as agents in coast erosion”, Scot. Geogr. Mag., XXXIV, 1–12.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, C. B., 1946. “Lamellibranch veligers from Danish waters”, Medd. Komm. Danmarks Fiskog Havunders, Serie: Plankton, IV.Google Scholar
Kellogg, J. L., 1915. “Ciliary mechanisms of lamellibranchs and descriptions of anatomy”, Journ. Morph., XXVI, 625–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kofoid, C. A., and Miller, R., 1923. “Unusual occurrence of rock-boring molluscs in concrete on the Pacific Coast”, Science, LVII, 383–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamarck, A., 1818. Anim. s. Vert., ed. 2, VI, 152.Google Scholar
Lamy, E., 1921. “Les théories explicatives de la perforation par les mollusques lithophages et xylophages”, Rev. Sci., LIX, 423–432.Google Scholar
Lamy, E., 1930. “Quelques mots sur la lithophagie chez Gastéropodes”, Journ. Conchyliol., LXXIV, 1–34.Google Scholar
Lebour, M. V., 1938. “Notes on the breeding of some lamellibranchs from Plymouth and their larvæ”, Journ. Mar. Biol. Ass., XXIII, 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, B., 1912 a. “Some observations on the boring Mollusca”, Rep. Brit. Ass., 82nd Meeting, 516.Google Scholar
Lindsay, B., 1912 b. “On the boring Mollusca of St Andrews”, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., IX, 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, T., 1902. “Die Mytiliden”, Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel, XXVII, 141.Google Scholar
Lloyd, F. E., 1896. “On Pholadidea penita and its method of boring”, Science, IV, 188–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, F. E., 1897. “On the mechanisms in certain boring lamellibranchs”, Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci., XVI, 20.Google Scholar
McIntosh, W. C., 1908. “On the perforations of marine animals”, Zoologist (4), XII, 41–60.Google Scholar
Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K., 1931. Plymouth Marine Fauna, 2nd Edit., 250.Google Scholar
Marshall, S. M., and Orr, A. P., 1927. “The relation of the plankton to some chemical and physical factors in the Clyde Sea Area”, Journ. Mar. Biol. Ass., XIV, 837–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, A., and Meyer, H. A., 1875. Bericht über die Untersuchungsfarth der Pommerania in der Nordese, Berlin, 255.Google Scholar
Meyer, H. A., and Möbius, K., 1872. Fauna der Kieler Bucht, Leipzig, II, 124–126, and pl. 20 (1–4).Google Scholar
Odhner, N. H., 1914. “Beitrage zur Kenntnis der marinen Molluskenfauna von Rovigno in Istrien”, Zool. Anz., XLIV, 156–170.Google Scholar
Osler, E., 1826. “On burrowing and boring marine animals”, Phil. Trans., CXVI, 342–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otter, G. W., 1937. “Rock-destroying organisms in relation to coral reefs”, Sci. Rpts. Gt. Barrier Reef Exped., Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), I, 323–352.Google Scholar
Reid, C., 1907. “Memorandum on natural conditions”, 1st Report R. Comm. Coast Erosion U.K (H.M.S.O.), I, Pt. 2, Appendix No. XII, 166 et sea.Google Scholar
Smith, J., 1894. “Pholas crispata as a borer”, Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc. Glasgow (2), IV, 37–39.Google Scholar
Steedman, H. F., 1947. “Ester Wax: a new embedding medium”, Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., LXXXVIII, 123–133.Google Scholar
Thorent, J., 1850. “De la perforation des pierres par les mollusques”, Journ. Conchyliol., I, 171–174.Google Scholar
Thorson, G., 1936. “Larval development, growth, and metabolism of Arctic marine bottom invertebrates”, Med. Grønland, C., 37–64.Google Scholar
Trueman, E. R., 1942. “Structure and deposition of the shell in Tellina tennis”, Journ. R. Micr. Soc, LXII, 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlés, F., 1909. “Monographie sommaire de la Mye”, Mém. Soc. zool. France, XXII.Google Scholar
Winckworth, R., 1932. “The British marine Mollusca”, Journ. Conch., XIX, 211–252.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1936. “Mode of life, feeding, digestion and symbiosis with zooxanthellæ in the Tridacnidæ”, Sci. Rpts. Gt. Barrier Reef Exped., Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), I, 283–321.Google Scholar