Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T10:32:26.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observation on the life history and functional morphology of Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu) and Triphora perversa (L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Vera Fretter
Vera Fretter
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Birkbeck College, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cerithiopsis tubercularis and Triphora perversa feed on siliceous sponges: a long proboscis is thrust through an osculum of the sponge, or into breaks in the surface, to reach the softer parts. These are loosened by jaws, entangled in saliva and swept into the buccal cavity by the radula.

The formation of a long introvert, which must be withdrawn through the narrow space in the nerve ring and narrow enough to go through an osculum, has brought about (i) a lengthening of the mid-oesophagus in Cerithiopsis, with a narrowing of its diameter, and a spreading of the oesophageal glands along its length, (ii) in Triphora, a reduction of the ventral glandular part of the mid-oesophagus, its stripping from the food channel and a displacement of the salivary ducts so that they open into the glandular part of the oesophagus. In Triphora there is a dorsal gland of unknown function on the posterior oesophagus.

The stomach in both species is a simple ciliated sac: the oesophagus opens anteriorly and ventrally, and the intestine originates above this opening; there are two ducts from the digestive gland.

The pallial region of the male and female genital duct is open; and there is no penis. It is suggested that the open condition of the duct and the absence of a penis in the mesogastropods is correlated with a long, narrow mantle cavity which contains a relatively large ctenidium.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , February 1951 , pp. 567 - 586
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1951

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

Amaudrut, A., 1898. La partie antérieure du tube digestif et la torsion chez les mollusques gastéropodes. Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool., Sér. 7, Vol. VIII, pp. 1–291.Google Scholar
Berkeley, M. J. & Hoffman, G. H., 1835. A description of the anatomical structure of Cerithium telescopium Brug. Zool. Journ., Vol. V., pp. 431–9.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
Fischer, P., 1887. Manuel de Conchyliologie. Paris.Google Scholar
Fretter, V., 1946. The genital ducts of Theodoxus, Lamellaria and Trivia, and a discussion on their evolution in the prosobranchs. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. XXVI, pp. 312–51.Google Scholar
Fretter, V., 1948. The structure and life history of some minute prosobranchs of rock pools: Skeneopsis planorbis (Fabricius), Omalogyra atomus (Philippi), Rissoella diaphana (Alder) and Rissoella opalina (Jeffreys). Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. XXVII, pp. 597–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, A., 1939. On the structure of the alimentary canal of style-bearing prosobranchs. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, B, Vol. CIX, pp. 75–112.Google Scholar
Graham, A., 1941. The oesophagus of the stenoglossan prosobranchs. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., B, Vol. LXI, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Graham, A., 1949. The molluscan stomach. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin. Vol. LXI, pp. 737–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, J., 1947. Über den offenen Uterus bei einigen Monotocardiern ohne Kopulationsorgan. Zool. Bidrag, Uppsala Vol. XXV, pp. 102–10.Google Scholar
Lebour, M. V., 1933. The life-histories of Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu), C. barleei Jeffreys and Triphora perversa (L). Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. XVIII, pp. 491–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebour, M. V., 1936. Notes on the eggs and larvae of some Plymouth prosobranchs. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. XX, pp. 547–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, H. B., 1936. The biology of Purpura lapillus. I. Shell variation in relation to environment. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. XXI, pp. 61–89.Google Scholar
Pelseneer, P., 1926. Notes d'embryologie malacologiques. Bull. Biol. France Belgique, Vol. LX, pp. 88–112.Google Scholar
Risbec, J., 1943. Recherches anatomiques sur les Prosobranches de Nouvelle-Calédonie. Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool., Vol. V, pp. 89–112.Google Scholar
Soós, L., 1936. Zur Anatomie der ungarischen Melaniiden. Állatt. Közlem., Vol. XXXIII, pp. 103–28.Google Scholar
Sunderbrink, O., 1929. Zur Frage der Verwandtschaft zwischen Melaniiden und Cerithiiden. Z. Morph. Ökol. Tiere, Vol. XIV, pp. 261–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiele, J., 1929. Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde. Teil 1. Jena.Google Scholar
Thompson, D'A. W., 1942. On Growth and Form. Cambridge.Google Scholar