Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T05:12:17.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theoretical morphology of hinge and shell form in Bivalvia: geometric constraints derived from space conflict between umbones

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Takao Ubukata
Takao Ubukata*
Affiliation:
Institute of Geosciences, Shizuoka University, Oya 836, Shizuoka 422-8529, Japan. E-mail: sbtubuk@ipc.shizuoka.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Geometric properties of the shells of 123 species of extant Bivalvia were analyzed from the viewpoint of theoretical morphology. The effects of shell form and the structure of ligament on the interumbonal space and the maximum shell opening received particular attention. The results of computer simulation and morphospace analysis indicate that possessing both prosogyrous shell form and an extended hinge without the parivincular ligament tends to cause space conflict between umbones or dorsal shell margins of right and left valves. To a large degree, a prosogyrous shell form with a long parivincular ligament helps shell opening without umbonal conflict, if the shell is flat enough to avoid the mutual interference between dorsal shell margins of closed valves. Extension of the ligament and plunging of the anterior part of the coiling axis into the ventral side provide enough space along the dorsal shell margins in which a parivincular ligament and its substrata are developed.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , Fall 2000 , pp. 606 - 624
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

Ackerly, S. C. 1989. Shell coiling in gastropods: analysis by stereographic projection. Palaios 4:374–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, U. 1978. Morphologic programs, instabilities, and evolution—a theoretical study. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 156:226–261.Google Scholar
Carter, J. G. 1990. Evolutionary significance of shell microstructure in the Palaeotaxodonta, Pteriomorphia and Isofilibranchia (Bivalvia: Mollusca). Pp. 135–296in Carter, J. G., ed. Skeletal biomineralization: pattern, process and evolutionary trends, Vol. 1. Van Nostrand, New York.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. R. Jr. 1978. Analysis of the shell torsion phenomenon on the Bivalvia. Lethaia 11:315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGhee, G. R. Jr. 1980. Shell form in the biconvex articulate Brachiopoda: a geometric analysis. Paleobiology 6:57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGhee, G. R. Jr. 1999. Theoretical morphology: the concept and its applications. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Okamoto, T. 1988. Analysis of heteromorph ammonoids by differential geometry. Palaeontology 31:35–52.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. Journal of Paleontology 40:1178–1190.Google Scholar
Savazzi, E. 1985. SHELLGEN, a BASIC program for the modeling of molluscan shell ontogeny and morphogenesis. Computer and Geoscience 11:521–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savazzi, E. 1987. Geometric and functional constraints on bivalve shell morphology. Lethaia 20:293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1984. Constructional morphology of bivalves: evolutionary pathways in primary versus secondary soft-bottom dwellers. Palaeontology 27:207–237.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1970. Relation of shell form to life habits in the Bivalvia (Mollusca). Geological Society of America Memoir 125:1–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1972. Functional morphology and evolution of byssal attached bivalve mollusks. Journal of Paleontology 46:165–212.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1975. Why clams have the shape they have: an experimental analysis of burrowing. Paleobiology 1:48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasek, C. R. 1963. Geometrical form and gnomonic growth in the bivalved mollusca. Journal of Morphology 112:215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, J. R. 1995. CerioShell: a computer program designed to simulate variation in shell form. Paleobiology 21:509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueman, E. R. 1969. Ligament. Pp. N58–N64in Cox, L. R. et al. Mollusca 6, Bivalvia. Part N ofMoore, R. C., ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Ubukata, T.In press. Morphological significance of the orientation of shell coiling and the outline of aperture in bivalve molluscs. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen.Google Scholar
Ubukata, T., and Nakagawa, Y.In press. Modelling various sculptures in the Cretaceous bivalve Inoceramus hobetensis. Lethaia.Google Scholar
Waller, T. R. 1990. The evolution of ligament systems in the Bivalvia. Pp. 49–71in Morton, B., ed. The Bivalvia. Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong.Google Scholar