Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T04:58:38.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shell morphology and identification of early life history stages of congeneric species of Crassostrea and Ostrea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Ya-Ping Hu ,
S. Cynthia Fuller ,
Michael Castagna ,
Robert C. Vrijenhoek  and
Richard A. Lutz
Ya-Ping Hu
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine & Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA
S. Cynthia Fuller
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine & Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA
Michael Castagna
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, Wachapreague, VA 23480, USA
Robert C. Vrijenhoek
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine & Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA
Richard A. Lutz
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine & Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Series of sequences of SEM micrographs are presented to elucidate species-specific shell features in larval and post-larval stages of four Ostreidae (Bivalvia) species (Crassostrea gigas (Thunberg), C. virginica (Gmelin), Ostrea edulis L., and O. equestris Say). The diagnostic characters, including hinge structure, shell shape, and the dimensions of the prodissoconch, are identified and summarized in a key at both generic and species levels. In larval Crassostrea the skewed, backwards-pointed umboned shells with two hinge teeth on each side of the provinculum are significantly different from the round, dorsally-directed umboned shell with fewer, remarkably asymmetric teeth of larval Ostrea.In C. gigas the dimensions of the provinculum are longer and narrower (56x10 µrn) than those of C. virginica (50x14 µm); the lengths of prodissoconch I and the provinculum are greater in O. edulis (168 µm and 86 µm, respectively) than in O. equestris (120 µm and 74 µm, respectively). The present study suggests that precise quantitative measurements are needed for differentiation of the studied congeneric oyster species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 73 , Issue 3 , August 1993 , pp. 471 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1993

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

Angell, C. L., 1986. The biology and culture of tropical oysters. ICLARM Studies and Reviews, 13, 42 pp.Google Scholar
Bernard, F., 1898. Recherches ontogéniques et morphologiques sur la coquille des lamellibranches. I. Taxodontes et anisomyaires. Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie), 8, 1–208.Google Scholar
Carriker, M. R. & Palmer, R. E., 1979. Ultrastructural morphogenesis of prodissoconch and early dissoconch valves of the oyster Crassostrea virginica. Proceedings. National Shellfisheries Association, 69, 103–128.Google Scholar
Castagna, M. & Kraeuter, J. N., 1984. Manual for growing the hard clan Mercenaria. Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, no. 249. Virginia: Virginia Institute of Marine Science.Google Scholar
Castro, N. F. & Le Pennec, M., 1988. Modalities of brooding and morphogenesis of larvae in Ostrea puelchana (D'Orbigny) under experimental rearing. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 68, 399–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chanley, P. & Andrews, J. D., 1971. Aids for identification of bivalve larvae of Virginia. Malacologia, 11, 45–119.Google Scholar
Chanley, P. & Dinamani, P., 1980. Comparative descriptions of some oyster larvae from New Zealand and Chile, and a description of a new genus of oyster, Tiostrea. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 14, 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinamani, P., 1973. Embryonic and larval development in the New Zealand rock oyster, Crassostrea glomerata (Gould). Veliger, 15, 295–299.Google Scholar
Dinamani, P., 1976. The morphology of the larval shell of Saccostrea glomerata (Gould, 1850) and a comparative study of the larval shell in the genus Crassostrea Sacco, 1897 (Ostreidae). Journal ofMolluscan Studies, 42, 95–107.Google Scholar
Forbes, M. L., 1967. Generic differences in prodissoconchs of Gulf of Mexico oysters. Bulletin of Marine Science, 17, 338–347.Google Scholar
Fuller, S. C., Lutz, R. A. & Pooley, A., 1989. Procedures for accurate documentation of shapes and dimensions of larval bivalve shells with scanning electron microscopy. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 108, 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, C. B., 1946. Reproduction and larval development of Danish marine bottom invertebrates, with special reference to the planktonic larvae in the Sound (øresund). 9. Lamellibranchia. Meddelelser fra Kommissionen for Danmarks Fiskeri-og Havundersøgelser. Serie: Plankton, 4, 277–311.Google Scholar
Le Pennec, M., 1980. The larval and post-larval hinge of some families of bivalve molluscs. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 60, 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebour, M. V., 1938. Notes on the breeding of some lamellibranchs from Plymouth and their larvae. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 23, 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loosanoff, V. L. & Davis, H. C., 1963. Rearing of bivalve mollusks. Advances in Marine Biology, 1, 1–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loosanoff, V. L., Davis, H. C. & Chanley, P. E., 1966. Dimensions and shapes of larvae of some marine bivalve mollusks. Malacologia, 4, 351–435.Google Scholar
Lutz, R.et al., 1982. Preliminary observations on the usefulness of hinge structures for identification of bivalve larvae. Journal of Shellfish Research, 2, 65–70.Google Scholar
Miyazaki, I., 1962. On the identification of lamellibranch larvae. Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries, 28, 955–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E., 1971. Morfologia de la charnela larvaria de Crassostrea angulata (Lmk.) en diferentes fases de su desarrollo. Investigatión Pesquera. Barcelona, 35, 549–563.Google Scholar
Pascual, E., 1972. Estudio de las conchas larvarias de Ostrea stentina, Payr. y Ostrea edulis L. Investigatión Pesquera. Barcelona, 36, 297–309.Google Scholar
Ranson, G., 1960. Les prodissoconques (coquilles larvaires) des Ostréidés vivants. Bulletin de l'Institut Océanographique. Monaco, no. 1183, 1–41.Google Scholar
Rees, C. B., 1950. The identification and classification of lamellibranch larvae. Hull Bulletins of Marine Ecology, 3, 73–104.Google Scholar
Stafford, J., 1912. On the recognition of bivalve larvae in plankton collections. Contributions to Canadian Biology, 1906–1910,221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Cm., 1948. Bivalve larvae of Malpeque Bay, PEI Bulletin. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, no. 77, 36 pp.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y., 1980. Identification of bivalve larvae. Aquabiology, 2, 289–291; 369–371.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y., 1981. Identification of bivalve larvae. Aquabiology, 3, 56–58; 153–155; 200–203.Google Scholar
Turner, R. D. & Boyle, P. J., 1975. Studies of bivalve larvae using the scanning electron microscope and critical point drying. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union Incorporated, 1974, 59–65.Google Scholar
Ver, L. M. M., 1986. Early Development of Crassostrea iredalei (Faustino, 1932) (Bivalvia: Ostreidae), with notes on the structure of the larval hinge. Veliger, 29, 78–85.Google Scholar
Waller, T. R., 1981. Functional morphology and development of veliger larvae of the European oyster, Ostrea edulis Linné. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, no. 328, 70 pp.Google Scholar