Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:32:40.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Primitive life habits and adaptive significance of the pelecypod form

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Michael J. S. Tevesz  and
Peter L. McCall
Michael J. S. Tevesz
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, The Cleveland State University; Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Peter L. McCall
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, Case Western Reserve University; Cleveland, Ohio 44106
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The typical pelecypod form, long thought to be primitively adaptive to burrowing, is likely to have been originally adaptive to a suspension feeding, epifaunal, possibly crawling mode of life. At small body size (< 1 cm), pelecypods possessing typical burrowing features can function as epifaunal crawlers. Pelecypods arose at small body sizes and are part of a molluscan evolutionary sequence in which relative size of the mantle cavity increased to accommodate a few large gills specialized for suspension feeding.

Acquisition of a bivalved shell by ancestral epifaunal suspension feeders may have offered protection from sediment clogging on soft bottoms, additional control over the direction, volume, and rate of water flow through the mantle cavity, more effective protection from predators, and better short-term control of the internal environment. Consideration of invertebrate groups analogous to the pelecypods (Branchiopoda, Cladocera, Ostracoda, Phyllocarida) support the view that the bivalve condition is primarily an adaptation for suspension feeding and predator avoidance in benthic environments.

The earliest known pelecypod, Fordilla troyensis Barrande, was not necessarily infaunal just because it had features similar to much larger, Recent burrowers. The size, shell morphology and environment of preservation of F. troyensis all suggest that it is reasonable to envision Cambrian pelecypods as epifaunal suspension feeders, possibly crawling on sedimentary bottoms. Moreover, the sudden Ordovician expansion of pelecypods and increase in individual size may be explained as a result of invasion of the infaunal adaptive zone.

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , Summer 1976 , pp. 183 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

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

Literature Cited

Bayne, B. L. 1965. Growth and delay of metamorphosis of the larvae of Mytilus edulis (L.). Ophelia. 2:1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, J. L. 1959. Cladocera. In: Edmondson, W. T., ed. Freshwater Biology. 2nd edition. J. Wiley and Sons. N.Y. p. 587–656.Google Scholar
Cannon, H. G. 1927. On the feeding mechanisms of Nebalia bipes. R. Soc. Edinburgh Trans. 55:355–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannon, H. G. 1933a. On the feeding mechanism of the Branchiopoda. R. Soc. London. Philos. Trans. (B). 222:267–352.Google Scholar
Cannon, H. G. 1933b. On the feeding mechanisms of certain marine ostracods. R. Soc. Edinburgh Trans. 57:739–764.Google Scholar
Carter, J. G. and Aller, R. C. 1975. Calcification in the bivalve periostracum. Lethaia. 8:315–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elofson, O. 1941. Marine Ostracoda of Sweden with special consideration of the Skagerrak. In: Israel Program for Scientific Translation. 1969. IPST Press Jerusalem. pp. i–v; 1–286. Maps 1–42.Google Scholar
Hutchinnson, G. E. 1967. A Treatise on Limnology. Vol. 2. 1115 pp. J. Wiley and Sons; N.Y.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C. 1972. The ecology of molluscs of Thalassia communities, Jamaica, West Indies. II. Molluscan population variability along environmental stress gradient. Mar. Biol. 14:304–337.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C. 1974. Biogeographic consequences of eurytopy and stenotopy among marine bivalves and their evolutionary significance. Amer. Nat. 108:541–560.Google Scholar
Krutak, P. 1972. Some relationships between grain size of substrate and carapace size in modern brackish water Ostracoda. Micropaleontology. 18:153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lochman, C. 1956. Stratigraphy, paleontology, and paleogeography of the Elliptocephala acaphoides strata in the Cambridge and Hoosick quadrangles. N.Y. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 67:1331–1396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meglitsch, P. 1972. Invertebrate Zoology. 2nd ed.834 pp. Oxford Univ. Press; N.Y.Google Scholar
Morris, N. J. 1967. Mollusca: Scaphopoda and Bivalvia. pp. 469–477. In: Harland, W. B. et al., eds. The Fossil Record. London, Geol. Soc. Londdon.Google Scholar
Morton, J. E. 1957. The adaptations of Lasaea rubra (Montagu), a small intertidal lamellibranch. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 36:383–405.Google Scholar
Morton, J. E. 1973. The biology and functional morphology of Galeomma (Paralepida) takii (Bivalvia: Leptonacea) J. Zool. 169:133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paine, R. T. 1974. Intertidal community structure. Oecologia. 15:93–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pojeta, J. 1971. Review of Ordovician pelecypods. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 696:1–46.Google Scholar
Pojeta, J., Runnegar, B., and Kriz, J. 1973. Fordilla troyensis Barrande: the oldest known pelecypod. Science. 180:866–868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popham, M. 1940. The mantle cavity of some of the Erycinidae, Montacutidae, and Galeommatidae with special reference to the ciliary mechanisms. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 24:549–587.Google Scholar
Puri, H. S. 1971. Distribution of ostracods in the oceans. pp. 163–169. In: Funnel, B. M. and Riedl, W. R., eds. The Micropaleontology of Oceans. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1970. Living and Fossil Brachiopods. 199 pp. Hutchinson and Co.; London.Google Scholar
Runnegar, B. and Pojeta, J. 1974. Molluscan phylogeny: the paleontological viewpoint. Science. 186:311–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell-Hunter, W. D. 1969. A Biology of the Higher Invertebrates. 224 pp. MacMillan; N.Y.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1953. The Major Features of Evolution. 434 pp. Columbia University Press; N.Y.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1970. Relation of shell form to life habits of the Bivalvia (Mollusca). Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 125:1–494.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1972. Functional morphology and evolution of byssally attached bivalve molluscs. J. Paleontol. 46:165–212.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1975a. Adaptive themes in the evolution of the Bivalvia (Mollusca). Annu. Rev. Earth. Planet. Sci. 3:361–385.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1975b. Why clams have the shape they have: an experimental analysis of burrowing. Paleobiology. 1:48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tasch, P. 1969. Branchiopoda. In: Moore, R. C., ed. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part. R. Arthropoda. 4:R218–R291.Google Scholar
Thompson, D' A. W. 1942. On Growth and Form. 1116 pp. Cambridge Univ. Press; Cambridge.Google Scholar
Teichert, C. 1967. Major features of cephalopod evolution. pp. 162–210. In: Teichert, C. and Yochelson, E. H., eds. Essays in Paleontology and Stratigraphy. Dept. Geol. Univ. Kans. Spec. Publ. 2.Google Scholar
Tiegs, O. W. and Manton, S. M. 1958. The evolution of the Arthropoda. Biol. Rev. 33:255–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1973. Evolutionary Paleoecology of the Marine Biosphere. 511 pp. Prentice-Hall; N.J.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W. and Gertman, R. L. 1972. The primitive ecospace of the Pelecypoda. Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. with Program. 4:646.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M. 1962. On the primitive significance of the byssus in the Bivalvia and its effects in evolution. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 42:112–124.Google Scholar