Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T06:48:38.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The hydroid and the medusa Bougainvillia principis, and a review of the British species of Bougainvillia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

C. Edwards
C. Edwards
Affiliation:
The Marine Station, Millport
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The hitherto unknown hydroid of the anthomedusa Bougainvillia principis has been found in the Firth of Clyde, and medusae from it have been reared. The hydroid and the stages of development of the medusa are described and figured. The medusa is commonly present in the plankton in this area, and its seasonal occurrence is described.

The historical development of our knowledge of B. principis and of B. superciliaris, which have been confused, is discussed. The hydroid and the young medusae of B. principis are shown to be identical with those described by Hartlaub and attributed by him to B. superciliaris.

Several doubtful species of Bougainvillia medusae described from British waters are considered and are identified with accepted species. Medusa ocilia and M. duodecilia are probably synonymous with Bougainvillia pyramidata and B. principis respectively; and B. nigritella is identified with B. muscoides, B. simplex with B. principis, B. dinema with B. britannica., and B. charcoti with Nemopsis crucifera, itself a probable synonym of N. bachei. The medusa B. alderi is a probable synonym of B. ramosa.

The hydroids and the medusae of the British species of Bougainvillia are reviewed and compared; and records of B. superciliaris and B. macloviana are given.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , February 1966 , pp. 129 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1966

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

Agassiz, A., 1865. North American Acalephae. Ill. Cat. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard, No. 2, 234 pp.Google Scholar
Agassiz, L., 1849. Contributions to the natural history of the Acalephae of North America. Part 1. On the naked-eyed medusae of the shores of Massuchusetts, in their perfect state of development. Mem. Am. Acad. Arts Set., Vol. 4, pp. 221–316.Google Scholar
Agassiz, L., 1862. Contributions to the Natural History of the United States of America, Vol. 4, 380 pp. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.Google Scholar
Allman, G. J., 1864. On the construction and limitation of genera among the Hydroida. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., Ser. 3, Vol. 13, pp. 345–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allman, G. J., 1871–72. A Monograph of the Gymnoblastic or Tubularian Hydroids. 450 pp. London: Ray Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beneden, P. J. Van, 1844. Recherches sur l'embryogenie des Tubulaires, et 1'histoire naturelle des differents genres de cette famille qui habitent la cote d'Ostende. Mem. Acad. r. Sci. Lett. Belg., T. 17, pp. 1–72.Google Scholar
Berrill, N. J., 1949. Growth and form in gymnoblastic hydroids. I. Polymorphic development in Bougainvillia and Aselomaris. J. Morph., Vol. 84, pp. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breemen, Van, 1908. [No title: record of Nemopsis in Zuiderzee.]Tijdschr. ned. dierk. Vereen., Ser. 2, D. 10, Vers. Wetensch. Vergad., p. xxiv.Google Scholar
Brink, R., 1924. Notes concerning the variability and the action of environmental influences on the structure and growth of the hydroid colony Bougainvillia ramosa (v. Ben.) Lesson, and its bearing on systematics. Proc. Sect. Sci. K. ned. Akad. Wet., Vol. 27, pp. 726–33.Google Scholar
Brink, R., 1925. Beitrage zur Herstellung einer rationellen Hydroidensystematik. I. Uber einige lokale Formen der Hydroidenart Bougainvillia ramosa (v. Ben.) Lesson. Tijdschr. ned. dierk. Vereen., Ser. 2, Vol. 19, pp. 126–66.Google Scholar
Browne, E. T., 1903. Report on some medusae from Norway and Spitzbergen. Bergens Mus. Arb., 1903, No. 4, 36 pp.Google Scholar
Browne, E. T.& Kramp, P. L., 1939. Hydromedusae from the Falkland Islands. 'Discovery’ Rep., Vol. 18, pp. 265–322.Google Scholar
Carruthers, J. N., 1928. The flow of water through the Straits of Dover as gauged by continuous current meter observations at the Varne Lightvessel (50° 56′ N., I° 17′ E.). Fishery Invest., Lond., Ser. 2, Vol. 11, No. 1, 109 pp.Google Scholar
Carruthers, J. N., 1930. The water movements in the Straits of Dover. Exceptional currents in winter 1929–30. J. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Vol. 5, pp. 167–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalyell, Sir J. G., 1847. Rare and Remarkable Animals of Scotland, represented from living subjects: with practical observations on their nature. Vol. 1, 268 pp. London: John van Voorst.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, C, 1958. Hydromedusae new to the British list from the Firth of Clyde. Nature, Lond., Vol. 182, pp. 1564–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, C, 1964a. The hydroid of the anthomedusa Bougainvillia britannica. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 44, pp. 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, C, 1964b.On the hydroids and medusae Bougainvillia pyramidata and B. muscoides. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 44, pp. 725–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, E., 1841. Contributions to British actinology. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., Ser. i. Vol. 7, pp. 81–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, E., 1846. On the pulmograde medusae of the British seas. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., Ser. 1, Vol. 18, pp. 284–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, E., 1848. A Monograph of the British Naked-eyed Medusae. 104 pp. London: Ray Society.Google Scholar
Forbes, E. & Goodsir, J., 1851. On some remarkable marine Invertebrata new to the British seas. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb., Vol. 20, pp. 307–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, J. R., 1857 On the Acalephae of Dublin coast, with descriptions of seven new naked-eyed forms. Nat. Hist. Rev., Proc. Soc, Vol. 4, pp. 242–50.Google Scholar
Haeckel, E., 1879–80. Das System der Medusen. Erster Theil, 1879, pp. 1–360; Zweite Hiilfte, 1880, pp. 361–672. Jena: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
Hallez, P., 1905. Bougainvillia fruticosa Allm. est le facies d'eau agitee du Bougainvillia ramosa Van Ben. C. r. hebd. Seanc. Acad. Sci., Paris, T. 140, pp. 457–9.Google Scholar
Hamond, R., 1964. Further notes on the Hydrozoa of the Norfolk coast. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., Ser. 13, Vol. 6, pp. 659–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartlaub, C., 1897. Die Hydromedusen Helgolands. Wiss. Meeresunters., Abt. Helgoland, N.F., Bd. 2, Heft 1, pp. 449–536.Google Scholar
Hartlaub, C, 1911. Craspedote Medusen. Teil 1, Lief. 2, Familie III, Margelidae. Nord. Plankt., Lief. 15, pp. 137–235.Google Scholar
Hartlaub, C, 1917. Craspedote Medusen. Teil 1, Lief. 4, Familie Williadae (und Anhang). Nord. Plankt., Lief. 19, pp. 365–479.Google Scholar
Hincks, T., 1868. A History of the British Hydroid Zoophytes. Vol. 1, 338 pp.; Vol. 2, 67 pis. London: John van Voorst.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, G., 1861. On a new hydroid zoophyte (Podocoryne alderi). Trans. Tyneside Nat. Fid Club, Vol. 5, pp. 82–4.Google Scholar
Hummelinck, P. W., 1954. Coelenterata. In:Veranderingen in de Flora en Fauna van de Zuiderzee (thans Ijsselmeer) na de Afsluiting in 1932, edited by De Beaufort, L. F.; pp. 158–68. Nederlandse Dierkundige Vereniging.Google Scholar
Kampen, P. N. Van, 1922. Hydromedusen, actinien en ctenophoren. In: Flora en Fauna der Zuiderzee, edited by Redeke, H. C.; pp. 211–13. Nederlandsche Dierkundige Vereeniging.Google Scholar
Kramp, P. L., 1926. Medusae. Part II. Anthomedusae. Dan. Ingolf-Exped., Vol. 5, Pt. 10, 102 pp.Google Scholar
Kramp, P. L., 1930. Hydromedusae collected in the south-western part of the North Sea and in the eastern part of the Channel in 1903–1914. Mem. Mus. r. Hist. nat. Belg., No. 45, 55 pp.Google Scholar
Kramp, P. L., 1959. The Hydromedusae of the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent waters. Dana Rep., No. 46, 283 pp.Google Scholar
Kramp, P. L., 1961. Synopsis of the medusae of the world. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 40, 469 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramp, P. L. & Damas, D., 1925. Les Meduses de la Norvege. Introduction et Partie speciale. I. Vidensk. Meddr dansk naturh. Foren., Bd. 80, pp. 217–323.Google Scholar
Kunne, C., 1933. Zur Kenntnis der Anthomeduse Bougainvillia macloviana Lesson. Zool. Anz., Bd. 101, pp. 249–54.Google Scholar
Kunne, C., 1952. Untersuchungen Uber das Grossplankton in der Deutschen Bucht und im Nordsylter Wattenmeer. Helgoldnder wiss. Meeresunters., Bd. 4, pp. 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Danois, E., 1913a. Coelenteres du plankton recuellis pendant la croisiere oceanographique du yacht ‘Pourquois Pas?’ dans l'Atlantique Nord et 1'Ocean Glacial (sous le commandement du Dr Charcot)-Ete 1912. Bull. Soc. zool. Fr., Vol. 38, pp. 13–34.Google Scholar
Le Danois, E., 1913b. Sur les meduses recuellies dans le plankton pendant la croisiere d'ete 1912 du ‘Pourquoi-Pas?’ dans les mers du nord, sous le commandement du Dr J.-B. Charcot. C. r. hebd. Seanc. Acad. Sci., Paris, T. 156, pp. 351–4.Google Scholar
Le Danois, E., 1913c. Note sur trois nouvelles meduses et liste des coelenteres du plankton, recuellis a bord du ‘Pourquoi-Pas?’ dans sa croisiere dans les mers du nord. Bull. Mus. natn. Hist, nat., Paris, T. 19, pp. 110–13.Google Scholar
Lesson, R.-P., 1836. Memoire sur la famille des Beroides. Annls Sci. nat., Zool., Ser. 2, T. 5, PP. 235–66.Google Scholar
Marshall, S. M., 1925. A survey of Clyde plankton. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb., Vol. 45, pp. 117–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, A. G., 1910. Medusae of the World. Vol. I. The Hydromedusae. Pp. 1–230. Washington: Carnegie Institution.Google Scholar
Nagao, Z., 1964. The life cycle of the hydromedusa, Nemopsis dofleini Maas, with a supplementary note on the life-history of Bougainvillia superxiliaris (L. Agassiz). Annotnes zool. jap., Vol. 37, pp. 153–62.Google Scholar
Rees, W. J., 1938. Observations on British and Norwegian hydroids and their medusae. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 23, pp. 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, W. J., 1941. Medusae. Rep. Scot. mar. biol. Ass., 1940–41, pp. 11–13.Google Scholar
Russell, F. S., 1953. The Medusae of the British Isles: Anthomedusae, Leptomedusae, Limnomedusae, Trachymedusae and Narcomedusae. 530 pp. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sars, M., 1846. Fauna littoralis Norvegiae, Heft 1, 94pp. Christiania: Johann Dahl.Google Scholar
Steenstrup, J. J. S., 1850. In: C. F. Liitken. Nogel Bemaerkninger om Medusernes systematiske Inddeling, navnlig med Hensyn til Forbes’ History of British Naked-eyed Medusae. Vidensk. Meddr dansk naturh. Foren., 1850, pp. 15–35.Google Scholar
Tiffon, Y., 1957. Presence de Nemopsis bachei (Agassiz) dans les eaux saumatres de la Gironde (Anthomeduse). Vie Milieu, T. 7, pp. 550–3.Google Scholar
Uchida, T. & Nagao, Z., 1960. The life-history of the hydromedusa, Bougainvillia superciliaris (L. Agassiz). Annotnes zool. jap., Vol. 33, pp. 249–53.Google Scholar
Vanhoffen, E., 1910. Die Hydroiden der Deutschen Sudpolar-Expedition 1901–1903. Dt. Sudpol.-Exped., Bd. 11, Zool. Bd. 3, pp. 269–340.Google Scholar
Vannucci, M. & Rees, W. J., 1961. A revision of the genus Bougainvillia (Anthomedusae). Bolm Inst. Oceanogr., S Paulo, T. 11, pp. 57–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, B., 1961. Morphologie und Lebensgeschichte, sowie Temperaturabhangigkeit der Verbreitung und des jahreszeitlichen Auftretens von Bougainvillia superciliaris (L. Agassiz) (Athecatae-Anthomedusae). Helgoldnder zviss. Meeresunters., Bd. 7, pp. 206–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar