No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Anomalies of embryonic shell growth in post-Triassic Nautilida
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 April 2016
Abstract
No egg of any fossil nautiloid has yet been discovered. However, anomalies of embryonic shell growth, described for the first time in several Mesozoic Nautilida, provide important clues on morphology, structure, and size of their egg capsules; on the physical characteristics where egg laying occurred; and on the hatching processes. Roughness inside the inner egg capsule–caused by hard and uneven egg-laying substrate, locally and temporarily slowing down or stopping the apertural shell growth–could cause temporary deformations of growth lines. Such roughness, caused by stone, is described inside an egg capsule of Nautilus, which was fixed obliquely relative to the egg-laying substrate. This reduced the space between the inner and outer capsules, which locally fused together. The lateral-umbilical grooves, furrows, and deformations of growth lines were probably caused by the inner egg capsule during the prehatching stage. In fossil Nautilida, as in Nautilus, the size of this capsule was relatively small compared with the shell diameter at hatching. During the last stages of embryonic development, the shell extended backwards outside the egg capsule before hatching. This prehatching stage, during which the egg capsule continued to press against the shell, can be marked by a prehatching constriction. In fossil species, as in Nautilus, the inner capsule constituted a kind of “straitjacket” during the last stages of embryonic development. The expansion in whorl width at hatching, in normal as well as in abnormal shells, marks release of this straitjacket. Important deformations of the whorl section probably result from an abnormal form and size of the egg capsules mainly caused by the manipulations by the female during the egg laying on a hard and hollow substrate, increasing the straitjacket effect. An alternative explanation could be that the chorion did not expand adequately. From relatively early embryonic stages (approximately 180° adapical of the nepionic constriction) to hatching, both flaps of the hyponome could be turned backward under the shell, jammed between the inner wall of the egg capsule and the mantle margin, resulting in the formation of paired ventral parallel grooves. Many normal features of the embryonic development of nautiloids can be clarified through the study of the anomalies of embryonic shell growth.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Paleontological Society
References
Literature Cited
Arnold, J. M. 1985. Shell growth, trauma, and repair as an indicator of life history for Nautilus. Veliger 27:386–396.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. M. 1987. Reproduction and embryology of Nautilus. Pp. 353–372in Saunders, and Landman, 1987.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. M., and Carlson, B. A. 1986. Living Nautilus embryos: preliminary observations. Science 232:73–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnold, J. M., Landman, N. H., and Mutvei, H. 1987. Development of the embryonic shell of Nautilus. Pp. 373–400in Saunders, and Landman, 1987.Google Scholar
Bond, P. N., and Saunders, W. B. 1989. Sublethal injury and shell repair in Upper Mississippian ammonoids. Paleobiology 15:414–428.Google Scholar
Carlson, B. A. 1979. Chambered Nautilus: a new challenge for aquarists. Freshwater and Marine Aquarium 2:48–51.Google Scholar
Carlson, B. A. 1985. The first known embryos of the chambered Nautilus. Hawaiian Shell News 33:1.Google Scholar
Carlson, B. A. 1991. Nautilus hatches at Waikiki Aquarium. Chambered Nautilus Newsletter 63:2–3.Google Scholar
Carlson, B. A., Awai, M. L., and Arnold, J. M. 1992. Waikiki Aquarium's chambered Nautilus reach their first “hatch-day” anniversary. Hawaiian Shell News 40:2–4.Google Scholar
Chirat, R., and Rioult, M. 1998. Occurrence of early post-hatching Jurassic Nautilida in Normandy, France: palaeobiologic, palaeoecologic and palaeobiogeographic implications. Lethaia 31:137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, J. K., Rye, D. M., and Landman, N. H. 1981. Growth rate and habitat of Nautilus pompilius inferred from radioactive and stable isotope studies. Paleobiology 7:469–480.Google Scholar
Dauphin, Y. 1979. Coquilles juvéniles de nautiles des Iles Loyauté (Pacifique Sud). Cahiers de l'Indo-Pacifique 1:447–460.Google Scholar
Davis, R. A., and Mohorter, W. 1973. Juvenile Nautilus from the Fiji Islands. Journal of Paleontology 47:925–928.Google Scholar
Eichler, R., and Ristedt, H. 1966. Untersuchungen zur frühontogenie von Nautilus pompilius (Linne). Paläontologische Zeitschrift 40:173–191.Google Scholar
Erben, H. K., and Flajs, G. 1975. Über die cicatrix der nautiloideen. Mitteilungen aus dem Geologish-Paläontologischen Institut der Universität Hamburg 44:59–68.Google Scholar
Haas, O., and Miller, A. K. 1952. Eocene nautiloids of British Somaliland. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 99:317–354.Google Scholar
Hayasaka, S., Kakinuma, Y., Saisho, T., Tabata, M., and Nagayama, T. 1983. Additional record of observation on Nautilus pompilius in the aquarium of Kamoike marine park, Kagoshima, Japan. In Hayasaka, S., ed. Studies on Nautilus pompilius and its associated fauna from Tañon Strait, the Philippines. Occasional Papers Kagoshima University Research Center for the South Pacific 1:51–54.Google Scholar
Hengsbach, R. 1996. Ammonoid pathology. Pp. 581–605in Landman, N. H., Tanabe, K., and Davis, R. A., eds. Ammonoid paleobiology. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Hirano, H., and Obata, I. 1979. Shell morphology of Nautilus pompilius and N. macromphalus. Bulletin of the National Science Museum Tokyo C 5:113–130.Google Scholar
Hyatt, A. 1894. Phylogeny of an acquired characteristic. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 32:349–647.Google Scholar
Kakinuma, Y., Maki, K., Tsukahara, J., and Tabata, M. 1995. The breeding behavior of Nautilus belauensis. In Kakinuma, Y., ed. Studies of Nautilus belauensis in Palau. Occasional Papers Kagoshima University Research Center for the South Pacific 27:91–105.Google Scholar
Landman, N. H. 1988. Early ontogeny of Mesozoic ammonites and nautilids. Pp. 215–228in Wiedmann, J. and Kullmann, J., eds. Cephalopods—present and past. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Landman, N. H., and Waage, K. M. 1986. Shell abnormalities in scaphitid ammonites. Lethaia 19:211–224.Google Scholar
Landman, N. H., Rye, D. M., and Shelton, K. L. 1983. Early ontogeny of Eutrephoceras compared to Recent Nautilus and Mesozoic ammonites: evidence from shell morphology and light stable isotopes. Paleobiology 9:269–279.Google Scholar
Landman, N. H., Arnold, J. M., and Mutvei, H. 1989. Description of the embryonic shell of Nautilus belauensis (Cephalopoda). American Museum Novitates 2960:1–16.Google Scholar
Landman, N. H., Cochran, J. K., Rye, D. M., Tanabe, K., and Arnold, J. M. 1994. Early life history of Nautilus: evidence from iso-topic analyses of aquarium-reared specimens. Paleobiology 20:40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, N. 1983. Pathologically deformed Graphoceras (Ammonitina) from the Jurassic of Skye, Scotland. Palaeontology 26:443–453.Google Scholar
Okutani, T. 1990. Hatching of Nautilus in captivity. Chambered Nautilus Newsletter 59:1–2.Google Scholar
Sakurai, Y., Young, R. E., Hirota, J., Mangold, K., Vecchione, M., Clarke, M. R., and Bower, J. 1995. Artificial fertilization and development through hatching in the oceanic squids Ommastrephes bartramii and Sthenoteuthis oualaniensis (Cephalopoda: Ommastrephidae). Veliger 38:185–191.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Landman, N. H. 1987. Nautilus: the biology and paleobiology of a living fossil. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B., Spinosa, C., and Davis, L. E. 1987. Predation on Nautilus. Pp. 201–212in Saunders, and Landman, 1987.Google Scholar
Schindewolf, O. H. 1933. Vergleichende morphologie und phylogenie der anfangskammern tetrabranchiater cephalopoden. Abhandlungen der Preußischen Geologischen Landesanstalt 148:1–115.Google Scholar
Stenzel, H. B. 1964. Living Nautilus. Pp. K59–K93in Teichert, C. et al. Mollusca 3, Cephalopoda, general features, Endoceratoidea, Actinoceratoidea, Nautiloidea, Bactritoidea. Part K ofMoore, R. C., ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America, New York, and University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Stenzel, H. B. 1997. Development of the embryonic shell structure in Nautilus. Veliger 40:203–215.Google Scholar
Teichert, C. 1964. Morphology of hard parts. Pp. K13–K53in Teichert, C. et al., eds. Mollusca 3, Cephalopoda, General Features, Endoceratoidea, Actinoceratoidea, Nautiloidea, Bactritoidea. Part K ofMoore, R. C., ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America, New York, and University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Uchiyama, K., and Tanabe, K. 1999. Hatching of Nautilus macromphalus in the Toba Aquarioum Japan. Pp. 13–16in Olóriz, F. and Rodríguez-Tovar, J. J., eds. Advancing research on living and fossil cephalopods: development and evolution, form, construction, and function, taphonomy, palaeoecology, palaeobiogeography, biostratigraphy, and basin analysis. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Willey, A. A. 1897a. On the nepionic shell of recent Nautilus (Zoological observations in the south Pacific). Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, new series 39:219–231.Google Scholar
Willey, A. A. 1897c. The oviposition of Nautilus macromphalus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 60:467–471.Google Scholar