Marine Mussels. Elizabeth Gosling. Читать онлайн. Newlib. NEWLIB.NET

Автор: Elizabeth Gosling
Издательство: John Wiley & Sons Limited
Серия:
Жанр произведения: Техническая литература
Год издания: 0
isbn: 9781119293934
Скачать книгу
of modern bivalves from the more primitive form (Figure 1.3a) was moving the site of water intake to the posterior of the animal so that water both enters and exits the mantle cavity posteriorly (Figure 1.3d; see alternative evolutionary pathway in Figure 1.3b). This made it possible for bivalves to penetrate sand or mud ‘head first’, with the posterior end freely communicating with the water above. Extensions of the mantle to form siphons at the posterior enabled the animals to live deeper and deeper under the surface. As bivalves evolved, plankton in the incoming current were increasingly adopted as a source of food, the ctenidia (gills) replacing the palp processes as the feeding organs (see Chapter 2 for details on mussel morphology). The chief modification of the ctenidia for filtering was the lengthening and folding of individual gill filaments. In addition, many extra filaments were added so that they extended as far forward as the labial palps. Both of these modifications greatly increased the surface area of the ctenidia. It is believed that the triangular‐shaped filaments of the primitive bivalve gill progressively changed over evolutionary time to the W‐shaped filaments of the modern bivalve gill (see Cannuel et al. 2009). A notch at the bottom of each side of the W lines up with similar notches on adjacent filaments to form a food groove that extends the length of the underside of the ctenidia. Yonge (1941) suggested that since the food groove was necessary for nutrition, these notches probably preceded folding of the gill filaments. Changes in both ciliation and water circulation followed. The exploitation of filter feeding led to the first increase in bivalve diversity and body plan divergence, so that by the Ordovician period (~450 mya) all extant higher lineages and feeding types were present and had colonised a wide variety of habitats that had hitherto been inaccessible to their protobranch ancestors (Giribet 2008 and references therein).

Schematic illustration of evolution of the heteromyarian form, and ultimately of the monomyarian form, from an isomyarian ancestor.

      Source: From Morton (1992). Reproduced with permission from Elsevier.

      The heteromyarian condition has been seen as a stepping stone from the isomyarian form of primitive prosobranchs (Figure 1.3a) toward the monomyarian form and the adoption of a horizontal posture (Figure 1.3f). Monomyarian bivalves, such as the Pectinida (scallops) and Ostreida (oysters), have largely circular shells, no trace of the anterior adductor muscle and a body reorganised around the enlarged and more or less centrally placed posterior muscle. Water enters around two‐thirds or more of the rounded margins of the shell. Shell attachment has led to varying degrees of inequality in the size of the two shell valves. In scallops, the shell valves are circular, but they may be concave and similar or the left (uppermost) one may be flat. Like oysters, they also lie in a horizontal position on the substrate. However, scallops, far from being fixed, are active swimming bivalves. In early life, they use byssus threads for attachment to algae, but before they attain a size of 15 mm the majority of species have detached themselves to take up a free‐living existence on the seabed.

      Cementation is another mode of attachment that evolved during the early Mesozoic era (252 mya). This adaptation arose independently in Pteriomorphia, Heterodonta and Palaeohterodonta, peaking in the Late Triassic and Jurassic periods of the Mesozoic era (252–145 mya) as a possible response to the appearance of many predatory groups (Vermeij 1977; Harper 1991). During the Triassic, another important development occurred when an ancestral unionid (Paleoheterodonta) colonised freshwater environments, thereby gaining access to a bivalve‐free ecosystem. Giribet (2008) suggests that this move may have been triggered by the evolution of a novel mode of development using microscopic glochidia larvae with fish as intermediate hosts.