Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-ckh7h Total loading time: 0.256 Render date: 2022-07-04T16:00:36.623Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Some Dimensions of the Angular Acceleration Receptor Systems of Cephalopods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Linda Maddock
Affiliation:
The Laboratory, Marine Biological Association, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, PL PB and Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, 183 Euston Road, London, NW BP
J. Z. Young
Affiliation:
The Laboratory, Marine Biological Association, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, PL PB and Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, 183 Euston Road, London, NW BP

Extract

The shapes and dimensions of the statocysts of cephalopods have been measured and compared with the semi-circular canals of vertebrates. The cavities grow much more slowly than the body as a whole, but there are knobs, anticristae, which restrict the cavity, and these grow relatively faster. This ensures that the flow of endolymph across the cupulae remains small. Where the liquid is constrained within canals the radius of curvature of the whole canal, R, is similar to that of fishes, whereas its internal radius, r, is twice as large in non-buoyant and four times as large in deep-sea buoyant cephalopods as in fishes of similar size. As in fishes the restriction is greatest in the horizontal plane, providing for operation at higher frequencies in turning about the yaw axis.

The statocysts of seven species of Loligo all have similar proportions. The largest individuals of 16 genera of non-buoyant squids also have these same relative dimensions. The statocyst of Sepia is more like that of non-buoyant than of other buoyant cephalopods but yet differs significantly from that of Loligo at all sizes. On the other hand 21 genera of squids known to be neutrally buoyant are very different. Their statocysts are often larger than in the non-buoyant forms and there is less restriction of the cavity by anticristae. The greater flow of endolymph acting across the cupulae presumably provides greater sensitivity at the lower frequencies of turning of these deep-sea animals.

The data suggest that the cristae of the cephalopod statocyst may operate in the frequency band where they act as angular accelerometers whereas the vertebrate semi-circular canals operate at higher frequencies as angular velocity meters.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1984

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

Budelmann, B.-U. 1977. Structure and function of the angular acceleration receptor systems in the statocysts of cephalopods. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, no. 38, 309324.Google Scholar
Clarke, M. R.Denton, E. J. & Gilpin-Brown, J. B. 1979. On the use of ammonium for buoyancy in squids. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 59, 259276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, M. R.Fitch, J. E.Kristensen, T.Kubodera, T. & Maddock, L. 1980. Statoliths of one fossil and four living gonatid squids (Gonatidae: Cephalopoda). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 60, 329347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collewijn, H. 1970. Oculomotor reactions in the cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Journal of Experimental Biology, 52, 369384.Google Scholar
Hanlon, R. T.Hixon, R. F.Hulet, W. H. & Yang, W. T. 1979. Rearing experiments on the California market squid. Veliger, 21, 428431.Google Scholar
Howland, H. C. & Masci, J. 1973. The functional allometry of semi-circular canals, fins, and body dimensions in the juvenile centrarchid fish, Lepomis gibb osus (L.). Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, 29, 721743.Google Scholar
Jones, G. M. 1974. The functional significance of semi-circular canal size. In Handbook of Sensory Physiology, vol. 6, part 1 (ed. H. H. Kornhüber), pp. 171184. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G. M. & Spells, K. E. 1963. A theoretical and comparative study of the functional dependence of the semi-circular canal upon its physical dimensions. Proceedings of the Royal Society (B), 157, 403419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ten Kate, J. H.Van Barneveld, H. H. & Kuiper, J. W. 1970. The dimensions and sensitivities of semicircular canals. Journal of Experimental Biology, 53, 501514.Google ScholarPubMed
Roper, C. F. E. & Boss, K. J. 1982. The giant squid. Scientific American, 246 (4), 8289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, P. R. & Young, J. Z. 1975. The statocysts of various cephalopods. Journal of Physiology, 249, 1P.Google ScholarPubMed
Stephens, P. R. & Young, J. Z. 1976. The statocyst of Vampyroteuthis infernalis (Mollusca: Cephalopoda). Journal of Zoology, 180, 565588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, p. R. & Young, J. Z. 1978. Semi-circular canals in squids. Nature, London, 271, 444445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, P. R. & Young, J. Z. 1982. The statocyst of the squid Loligo. Journal of Zoology, 197, 241266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voss, G. L. 1977. Present status and new trends in cephalopod systematics. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, no. 38, 4960.Google Scholar
Wells, M. J. 1958. Factors affecting reactions to Mysis by newly hatched Sepia. Behaviour, 13, 96111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, V. J. & Jones, G. M. 1979. Mammalian Vestibular Physiology. 365 pp. Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. Z. 1960. The statocysts of Octopus vulgaris. Proceedings of the Royal Society (B), 152, 329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, J. Z. 1984. The statocysts of cranchiid squids (Cephalopoda). Journal of Zoology, 202. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Young, R. E. 1977. Ventral bioluminescent countershading in midwater cephalopods. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, no. 38, 161190.Google Scholar
21
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Some Dimensions of the Angular Acceleration Receptor Systems of Cephalopods
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Some Dimensions of the Angular Acceleration Receptor Systems of Cephalopods
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Some Dimensions of the Angular Acceleration Receptor Systems of Cephalopods
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *