Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-16T20:47:06.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VIII.—The Oogenesis of Carcinus mœnas Penn., with Special Reference to Yolk Formation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

L. A. Harvey
L. A. Harvey
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Zoology, University of Edinburgh.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The present paper is the third of a series recording the results of investigations into the relations of the structures present in the oocyte during the growth period, particularly in their bearing on yolk formation. A Crustacean was selected for various reasons: firstly, as representing a large class about the oogenesis of which little is known, this in contrast to most other Arthropod groups which have been studied by several authors; secondly, in the hope that it would prove to have no yolk nucleus, and would exhibit nucleolar extrusion, a hope which has been fairly satisfactorily justified; thirdly, for the utilitarian reason that it is a common animal, easily obtainable, and able to live under laboratory conditions during considerable periods.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , 1929 , pp. 157 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1929

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

Binford, R. “The Germ Cells and the Process of Fertilisation in the Crab, Menippe mercenaria,” J. Morph., 24, 1913, pp. 147–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, R. H. “On a Possible Relation between the Golgi Apparatus and Secretory Products,” Amer. J. Anat., 33, 1924, pp. 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, R. H. “Studies on the Golgi Apparatus in Gland Cells, I–IV.” Quart. J. Micr. Sci., 70, 1926.Google Scholar
Cramer, W., and Ludford, R. J.. “On Cellular Changes in Intestinal Fat Absorption,” J. Physiol., 60, 1925, pp. 342–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elmhirst, R. “Notes on the Breeding and Growth of Marine Animals in the Clyde Sea Area,” Scol. Mar. Biol. Ass. Ann. Rep., 1922, p. 34.Google Scholar
Fasten, N. “Spermatogenesis of the American Crayfish, Cambarus virilis and Cambarus immunis,” J. Morph., 25, 1914, pp. 587–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, M. S. “Oogenesis in Limulus polyphemus,” J. Morph., 44, 1927, pp. 217–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatenby, J. B. “The Cytoplasmic Inclusions of the Germ Cells, I,” Quart. J. Micr. Sci., 64, 1919–1920, pp. 133–154.Google Scholar
Gatenby, J. B. and Nath, V.. “The Oogenesis of Certain Invertebrata,” Quart. J. Micr. Sci., 70, 1926, pp. 371–389.Google Scholar
Harvey, L. A. “On the Relation of the Mitochondria and Golgi Apparatus to Yolk Formation in the Eggs of the Common Earthworm,” Quart. J. Micr. Sci., 69, 1925, pp. 291–314.Google Scholar
Harvey, L. A. “The History of the Cytoplasmic Inclusions of the Egg of Ciona iniestinalis (L) during Oogenesis and Fertilisation,” Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B 101, 1927, pp. 136–162.Google Scholar
Hibbard, H. “Cytoplasmic Constituents in the Developing Egg of Discoglossus pictus,” J. Morph., 45, 1928 a, pp. 233–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbard, H. “Contribution à l'étude de l'ovogenèse, de la fécondation, et de l'histogenèse chez Discoglossus pictus Otth.,” Arch. Biol., 38, 1928 b, pp. 251–326.Google Scholar
Hibbard, H. and Parat, M.. “Oogenesis in Certain Teleosts, J. Anat., 61, 1927, pp. 494–497.Google Scholar
Hirschler, J. “Uber die Plasmakomponenten der weiblichen Geschlechtzellen,” Arch. mikr. Anat., 89, 1917, pp. 1–58.Google Scholar
Hirschler, J. “Studien über die Plasmakomponenten an vitalgefärbten männlichen Geschlechtzellen einiger Tierarten,” Z. Zellf. mikr. Anat., 7, 1928, pp. 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschler, J. and Monné, L.. “Studien über die Plasmakomponenten an vitalgefärbten männlichen Geschlechtzellen einiger Säuger,” idem, 7, 1928, pp. 201–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogben, L. T. “Studies in Synapsis, I,” Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B 91, 1920 a, pp. 268–293.Google Scholar
Hogben, L. T. “Studies in Synapsis, II,” idem, 91, 1920 b, pp. 305–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogben, L. T. “Studies in Synapsis, III,” idem, 92, 1921, pp. 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, S. D. “Oogenesis in Lithobius forficatus,” Sci. Proc. R. Dublin Soc., 18, 1924, pp. 29–36.Google Scholar
King, S. D. “Oogenesis in Oniscus asellus,” Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B 100, 1926 a, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
King, S. D. “Note on the Oogenesis of Peripatopsis capensis (Purcell),” Quart. J. Micr. Sci, 70, 1926 b, pp. 553–558.Google Scholar
Koch, A. “Morphologie des Eiwachstums dor Chilopoden,” Z. Zellf. mikr. Anal., 2, 1925, pp. 292–346.Google Scholar
Kuhn, A. “Die Entwicklung der Keimzellen in den parthenogenetischen Generationen der Cladoceren Daphnia pulex De Geer und Polyphemus pediculus De Geer,” Arch. Zellforsch.,” I, 1908, pp. 538–586.Google Scholar
Lérat, P. “Les phénomenes de maturation dans l'ovogenèse et la spermatogenèse du Cyclops strenuus,” Cellule, 22, 1905, pp. 161–199.Google Scholar
Moroff, T. “Oogenetischen Studien I. Copepoden,” Arch. Zellforsch., 2, 1909, pp. 432–493.Google Scholar
Nassonov, D. “Das Golgische Binnennetz and seine Beziehungen zu der Sekretion.” Arch. mikr. Anat., 97, 1923, pp. 136–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassonov, D. “Das Golgische Binnennetz und seine Beziehungen zu der Sekretion (Fortsetz),” idem, 100. 1924 a, pp. 433–472.Google Scholar
Nassonov, D. “Der Exkretionsapparat der Protozoa als Homologon des Golgisehen Apparats der Metazoazellen,” idem, 103, 1924 b, pp. 437–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassonov, D. “Zur Frage über den Ban und die Bedeutung des lipoiden Exkretionsapparats bei Protozoa,” Z. Zellf. mikr. Anat., 2, 1925, pp. 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nath, V. “Oogenesis of Lithobius forficatus.” Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc. Biol., 1, 1924, pp. 148–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nath, V. “Cell Inclusions in the Oogenesis of Scorpions,” Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B 98, 1925, pp. 44–58.Google Scholar
Nath, V. “Origin of Yolk in the Eggs of Spiders,” Nature, 117, 1926 a, p. 693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nath, V. “The Golgi Origin of Fatty Yolk in the Light of Parat's Work,” Nature, 118, 1926 b, pp. 767–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nath, V. and Hussain, T.. “Origin of Yolk in the Eggs of Scolopendra,” Nature, 118, 1926, pp. 660–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nath, V. and Mehta, D. R.. “Origin of Yolk in the Eggs of Luciola gorhami,” Nature, 119, 1927, pp. 13–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parat, Marguèrite. “Le vacuome au cours de l'ovogenèse et du développement de l'oursin Paracentrotus lividus LK.,” C.R. Soc. Biol., 96, 1927. pp. 1360–1363.Google Scholar
Parat, M. “Evolution du vacuome au cours de l'ovogenèse et de l'outogenèse,” C.R. Ass. des Anatomistes Londres, 1927, p. 197.Google Scholar
Schleip, W. “Vergleichende Untersuchung der Eireifung bei parthenogenetischen und bei geschlechtlichsich fortpflanzenden Ostrakoden,” Arch. Zellforsch., 2, 1909, pp. 390–431.Google Scholar
Spaul, E. A. “The Gametogenesis of Nepa cinerea,” J.R. Micr. Soc., 1922, pp. 237–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steopoe, I. “L'Appareil de Golgi dans la vitellogenèse chez la Nepa cinerea,” C.R. Soc. Biol., 94, 1926, pp. 142–143.Google Scholar
Tschernjachiwsky, A. “Zur Technik der Darstellung des Netzapparats Golgi,” Z. wiss. Mikr., 44, 1927, pp. 40–42.Google Scholar
Voïnov, D. “Les éléments sexuelles de Gryllotalpa vulgaris Latr.,” Arch. Zool. exp. gén., 63, 1925, pp. 437–523.Google Scholar
Weiner, P. “Contributions à l'etude des noyaux vitellius,” Arch. Russ. Anat. Hist. Embr., 4, 1925, pp. 153–164.Google Scholar
Weiner, P. “Sur la résorption des graisses dans l'intestin,” idem, 5, 1926, pp. 145–156.Google Scholar
Wheeler, J. F. G. “The Growth of the Egg in the Dab,” Quart. J. Micr. Sci., 68, 1924, pp. 641–660.Google Scholar