Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T13:00:55.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Larval Development of Ophelia Bicornis Savigny

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Douglas P. Wilson
Affiliation:
Zoologist at the Plymouth Laboratory

Extract

Fertilizations of Ophelia bicornis Savigny were made and the larvae reared. This is the first time the larval development of any member of the family Opheliidae has been described.

The trochosphere is small and somewhat yolky; it has a broad prototroch, a narrow telotroch, a strong apical tuft and a long anal cilium.

Annulation is accompanied by the appearance of parapodial lobes and bristles. When the first pair of bristles of the third setiger protrude the larva is ready to metamorphose. It has two, sometimes three eyes.

The larva in its later stages can adhere strongly to solid objects, such as sand grains, by a secretion from the four anal papillae and the parapodial lobes. This is interpreted as an adaptive aid to settlement on sand banks swept by strong currents.

At metamorphosis the larval external cilia are lost and the bristles rapidly elongate, especially those of the third setiger.

Some of the larval bristles are slightly winged. So far only capillary bristles have been known in the Opheliidae.

It is pointed out that a development such as that of Ophelia is more typical of polychaetes as a whole than are the developments of certain species commonly used as text-book types.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1948

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

Allen, E. J. & Todd, R. A., 1902. The fauna of the Exe estuary. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. VI, pp. 295335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benham, W. B., 1896. Archiannelida, Polychaeta and Myzostomaria. The Cambridge Natural History, Vol. II London.Google Scholar
Brown, R. S., 1938. The anatomy of the polychaete Ophelia duthensis McGuire 1935. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., Vol. LVIII, pp. 135–60.Google Scholar
Bullot, G., 1904. Artificial parthenogenesis and regular segmentation in an annelid (Ophelia). Arch. Entwickmech., Bd. 18, pp. 161–70.Google Scholar
Fauvel, P., 1925. Sur les ophéliens des côtes de France. Bull. Soc. Zool. France, T. L, pp. 7788.Google Scholar
Fauvel, P., 1927. Polychètes sédentaires. Faune de France. 16. Paris.Google Scholar
Mcguire, I. P., 1935. Note on a new species of polychaete (Ophelia cluthensis). Scot. Nat., 1935, pp. 45–6.Google Scholar
Segrove, F. J. 1941. The development of the serpulid Pomatoceros triqueter L. Quart. J. Micr. Sci., Vol. 82, pp. 467540.Google Scholar
Shearer, C. 1911. On the development and structure of the trochophore of Hydroides uncinatus (Eupomatus). Quart. J. Micr. Sci., Vol. 56, pp. 543–90.Google Scholar
Southern, R., 1914. Archiannelida and Polychaeta. Clare Island Survey. Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., Vol. xxxi, Section 2, Part 47, pp. 1160.Google Scholar
Stolte, H. A., 1937. Gestaltung, Zeichnung und Organabbau unter dem Einfluss normaler und ‘alternder’ Gonaden bei Polyophthalmus pictus Duj. (Polychaeta). Zeit. Wiss. Zool., Bd. 150, pp. 107–54.Google Scholar
Thorson, G., 1946. Reproduction and larval development of Danish marine bottom invertebrates. Medd. Komm. Danmarks Fisk. Havund., Ser. Plankton, Bd. 4, pp. 1523.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. P., 1936. The development of the sabellid Branchiomma vesiculosum. Quart. J. Micr. Sci., Vol. 78, pp. 543603.Google Scholar