Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T18:25:04.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Notes on the Life History of Anaphia petiolata (Kröyer)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Marie V. Lebour
Affiliation:
Assistant Lecturer in Zoology, Leeds University. Temporary Naturalist at the Plymouth Laboratory.

Extract

In the early summer of 1915 it was' noticed that many medusæ brought in with the tow-nettings contained larval Pycnogonids in the manubrium and at the junction of manubrium and stomach. The medusæ specially noticed to contain them were Obelia sp., Cosmetira pilosella, Turris pileata, Stomotoca dinema and Phialidium hemisphericum. By far the greater number were in Obelia, although many were in Phialidium hemisphericum and Cosmetira pilosella. They were extremely abundant in June, after that became scarcer, and finally disappeared by October. On examination they were seen to be larval stages of Anaphia petiolata (Kröyer), a Pycnogonid common in Plymouth Sound. The older larvæ sometimes were seen to cast their skins, so that the species could be easily recognised, although the fourth pair of walking legs were not fully developed. This is evidently the species described by Dogiel (1913) as Anoplodactylus pygmœus, the life history of which he traces from its first entry into the Obelia hydroid to the older stages when it is ready to leave its host. The form he refers to as Anoplodactylus petiolatus occurring in cysts in Coryne with Phoxichilidium femoratum must be some other species, as his figures prove clearly that it differs from A. pygmœus, and also the colour is totally different (a bright pink, while the present form is a pale yellow). Dogiel believes he has proved that Anoplodactylus petiolatus and A. pygmœus are different species from the difference in their life histories, and it is evident that he is dealing with two different species, but his A. petiolatus cannot be the same as our form, which is certainly identical with his A. pygmœus, and shows that Sars (1891) and Norman (1894) were right in regarding A. pygmœus as the young form of A. petiolatus (Kröyer).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1916

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

1915. Calman, W. T.—Pycnogonida. British Antarectic (“Terra Nova”) Expedition. 1910.Google Scholar
1913. Dogiel, V.—Embryologische Studien an Pantopoden. Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Zollogie, Bd. 107, pp. 575-741.Google Scholar
1864. Hodge, G.—List of the British Pyenogonoidea with Descriptions of Several New Species. Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Feb., 1864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1881. Hoek, P. P. C.—Nouvelles Etudes surles Pyenogonides. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, pp. 445542.Google Scholar
1906. Merton, H.—Eine auf Tethys leporina parasitisch lebende Pantopodenlarve (Nymphon parasiticum, n. sp.). Mittheilungen aus der Zoologischen Station zu Neapel, Bd. 18, pp. 136–41.Google Scholar
1894. Norman, Canon A. M.—A Month on the Trodhjem Fiord. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Ser. 6, Vol. XIII. Feb., 1894.Google Scholar
1908. Ibid.—The Podosomata (=Pycnogonida) of the Temperate Atlantic and Aretic Oceans. Journal of the Linnean Society, Zoology, Vol. XXX, pp. 198238.Google Scholar
1909. Prell, H.—Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Lebensweise einiger Pantopoden. Bergens Museums Aarbog, 1909. No. 10.Google Scholar
1891. Sars, G. O.—Pycnogonidea. Norwegian North Atlantic Expedition, 18761878.Google Scholar