Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T02:37:31.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shell strength of Nautilus as a depth limiting factor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

W. Bruce Saunders  and
Deborah A. Wehman
W. Bruce Saunders
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pa. 19010
Deborah A. Wehman
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pa. 19010
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Implosion of 47 epoxy-sealed shells of Nautilus pompilius indicates that very young shells (20-30 mm diameter at last septum) can withstand 136 atm pressure (= 1360 m equivalent depth), but intermediate and mature shells (30-145 mm diameter) implode at approximately 30–70 atm (= 300–700 m). Strain gages attached to the shells during implosion tests show that the flank and venter are compressed by external pressure, but the septum undergoes tension and structurally should be the most vulnerable to hydrostatic pressure. Overall shell strength is substantially less than reported values of tensile strength (approximately 364 atm) and compressive strength (approximately 1561 atm) of the constituent shell material, nacre. Shell strength as a depth limiting factor appears to be controlled by shell and septal architecture and by stress concentrators such as flaws and microstructural inhomogeneity. The wide range in implosion values and lack of strong correlation between such parameters as septal thickness and implosion pressure indicate that determination of depth ranges for fossil cephalopods may be difficult.

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , Winter 1977 , pp. 83 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

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 Cited

Bidder, A. M. 1962. Use of the tentacles, swimming and buoyancy control in the pearly nautilus. Nature. 196:451–454.Google Scholar
Currey, J. D. 1975. A comparison of the strength of echinoderm spines and mollusc shells. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U. K. 55:419–424.Google Scholar
Currey, J. D. and Taylor, J. D. 1974. The mechanical behavior of some molluscan hard tissues. J. Zool. 173:395–406.Google Scholar
Davis, R. A. and Mohorter, W. 1973. Juvenile Nautilus from the Fiji Islands. J. Paleontol. 47:925–928.Google Scholar
Denton, E. J. 1974. On buoyancy and the lives of modern and fossil cephalopods. Proc. R. Soc. London. 185:273–299.Google Scholar
Denton, E. J. and Gilpin-Brown, J. B. 1966. On buoyancy of the pearly Nautilus. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U. K. 46:723–759.Google Scholar
Griffin, L. E. 1900. The anatomy of Nautilus pompilius. Mem. Natl. Acad. Sci. 8:100–230, 17 pls.Google Scholar
Haven, N. 1972. The ecology and behavior of Nautilus pompilius in the Philippines. The Veliger. 15:75–80.Google Scholar
Moseley, H. N. 1892. Notes by a Naturalist. An account of observations made during the voyage of “H. M. S. Challenger” round the world in the years 1872–1876. 540 pp. John Murray; London.Google Scholar
Pfaff, E. 1911. Uber Form und Bau der Ammonitensepten und ihre Beziehungen zur Suturlinie. Jahresber. Niedersachsischen Geol. Vereins Hannover. 4:208–223.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. J. 1965. The strength and weakness of brittle materials. Am. Sci. 53:20–51.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. and Takahashi, T. 1966. Experiments on strength of cephalopod shells. Geol. Soc. Am. Annu. Meet. 1966 Abstr. pp. 172–173.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. D. and Layman, M. 1972. The mechanical properties of bivalve (Mollusca) shell structures. Paleontology. 15:73–87.Google Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1971. Form, structure and function of shell and siphuncle in coiled Mesozoic ammonoids. Life Sci. Contrib. R. Ont. Mus. 78:1–39.Google Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1973. Strength of concave septa and depth limits of fossil cephalopods. Lethaia. 6:383–403.Google Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1975a. Architecture and buoyancy of simple cephalopod phragmocones and remarks on ammonites. Palaontol. Z. 49:221–234.Google Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1975b. Model for origin, function and fabrication of fluted cephalopod septa. Palaontol. Z. 49:235–253.Google Scholar
Willey, A. 1902. Contribution to the natural history of the pearly Nautilus. Zoological results based on material from New Britain, New Guinea, Loyalty Islands and elsewhere, collected during the years 1895, 1896 and 1897. Part 6, 691–830, pls. 75–83. Cambridge Univ. Press; Cambridge, England.Google Scholar