Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T13:19:41.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VI.—The Anatomy of a New Species of Bathydoris, and the Affinities of the Genus: Scottish National Antarctic Expedition.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

T. J. Evans
T. J. Evans
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Zoology in theUniversity of Sheffield.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The genus Bathydoris was created by Bergh in 1884 in his Report on the Nudibranch Mollusca collected by the Challenger. In his account of the anatomy of the new genus Bergh draws attention to the anomalous combination of characters possessed by the animal, and gives it an annectent position between the Dorids and the Tritonids, but places it among the Dorids on account of the predominance of Dorid features. The single specimen of Bathydoris abyssorum was dredged off New South Wales in 2425 fathoms. A second specimen of this peculiar genus was obtained by the Danish Ingolf Expedition and described by Bergh in 1900. This specimen came from 1870 fathoms in Davis Strait, and resembled B. abyssorum, with specific variations. Thus Bathydoris came to be regarded as an isolated genus with the characters of a connecting link, and appropriately a denizen of deep water. Our anatomical knowledge of the animal is derived almost entirely from Bergh's accounts of the two species mentioned, and is moderately extensive, considering the rather imperfect state of preservation of the material and the fact that he was dependent on single specimens in each case.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , 1914 , pp. 191 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1914

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

(1)Bergh, R., “Report on the Nudibranchiata,” “Challenger” Expedition, vol. x., 1884.Google Scholar
(2)Bergh, R., “Nudibranchiate Gasteropoda,” Danish “Ingolf” Expedition, vols. ii.–iii., 1900.Google Scholar
(3)Dreyer, T. H., “Über das Blutgefäss- und Nervensystem der Aeolididae und Tritoniadae,” Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool., Bd. xcvi., 1910.Google Scholar
(4)SirEliot, Charles, A Monograph of the British Nudibranchiate Mollusca, part viii., Ray Society, 1910.Google Scholar
(5)SirEliot, Charles, “Report on the Mollusca Nudibranchiata collected by the Discovery,” National Antarctic Expedition Reports, 1907.Google Scholar
(6)Guiart, J., “Les Mollusques Tectibranches,” Causeries scientifiques de la Soc. Zool. de France, 1900.Google Scholar
(7)Guiart, J., Contribution à l'étude des Gastéropodes Opisthobranches, Lille, 1901.Google Scholar
(8)Hancock, , “On the Structure and Homologies of the Renal Organ in the Nudibranchiate Mollusca,” Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., xxv., 1865.Google Scholar
(9)Hancock, and Embleton, , “On the Anatomy of Doris,” Phil. Trans., London, 1852.Google Scholar
(10)Hecht, E., “Contribution à l'étude des Nudibranches,” Mém. Soc. Zool. de France, vol. viii., 1895.Google Scholar
(11)De Lacaze-Duthiers, H., “Histoire anatomique et physiologique du Pleurobranche orangé,” Ann. Sci. Nat. (4), xi., 1859.Google Scholar
(12)Moquin-Tandon, G., Recherches anatomiques sur l'Ombrelle de la Méditerranée, Thèse de Paris, 1870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Pelseneer, P., Recherches sur divers Opistobranches, Gand, 1893.Google Scholar
(14)Thiele, J., “Die antarktischen Schnecken und Muscheln,” Deutsche Südpolar Expedition, Berlin, 1912.Google Scholar