Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T13:14:59.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The developmental stages of Lernaeocera Branchialis (Linn.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Nora G. Sproston
Nora G. Sproston
Affiliation:
From The Laboratory, Plymouth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The morphology of a complete series of developmental stages of Lernaeocera branchialis is described. Seven stages are passed through before reaching the gadoid (final) host.

The structure of the mouth tube and appendages is discussed in detail and compared with those of related genera in which the resemblances are close.

The free single nauplius and copepodid stages are immediately followed by four chalimus stages on Pleuronectes flesus; these show some dedifferentiation though segmentation is not lost. An explanation is given for the peculiar suspensory mechanism of the chalimus.

A second dedifferentiation follows the second well-developed pelagic phase in which the adult form is attained and copulation takes place. Some irregularity is noted in the details of the retrogressive metamorphosis of the maturing female on the gadoid host.

The rate of increase in body length in Lernaeocera decreases regularly up to the assumption of the adult form (stage VII). In this respect it is similar to the free-living copepods Diaptomus, Eurytemora and Calanus, but is in strong contrast to Caligus centrodonti which has an increasing growth rate up to the fourth chalimus stage. In the latter at this stage there is a marked acceleration in the growth rate unaccompanied by any change in shape or any other discontinuity, whereas in Lernaeocera there are early discontinuities in development, yet the growth rate is continuous when expressed graphically: it is a straight line rather than a logarithmic curve as would be expected from our knowledge of the higher Crustacea.

The size of the female is greater than that of the male: that of the female overlapping the male of the succeeding stage. Variations in size of the larvae in a stage group are not seasonal, and an explanation is offered for giant larvae.

Similar lernaeocerid larvae and males to those of Lernaeocera branchialis on Pleuronectes flesus were found on Solea solea and Cyclopterus lumpus. No characters of generic or specific significance could be found which would serve o t separate them from Lernaeocera branchialis so that their identity is not determined.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , October 1942 , pp. 441 - 466
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1942

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

REFERENCES

Brian, A., 1912. Copépodes parasites des Poissons et des Échinides provenant des Campagnes scientifiques de S.A.S. le Prince de Monaco 1886–1910. Res. Camp. Sci. Monaco, Fasc. 38.Google Scholar
Brian, A., 1929. Copepodes parasites de Poissons et d'Annélides. Res. Camp. Sci. Monaco, Fasc. 76.Google Scholar
Claus, C. 1868a. Ueber die Metamorphose und systematische Stellung der Lernaeen. Sitzungsb. Ges. Nat. Marburg, No. 2, pp. 5–13.Google Scholar
Claus, C. 1868b. Beobachtungen ueber Lernaeocera, Peniculus und Lernaea. Ein Beitrag zur Naturgeschichte der Lernaeen. Schrift. Ges. Nat. Marburg, Bd. 9, Suppl. Heft. 2, 32 pp.Google Scholar
Gurney, R., 1913. Some notes on the parasitic copepod Thersitina gasterostei Pagenstecher. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (8), Vol. XII, pp. 415–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurney, R., 1928. Dimorphism and rate of growth in Copepoda. Internat. Rev. d. ges. Hydrobiol. u. Hydrogr., Bd. 21, pp. 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurney, R. 1930. The larva of Nicothoë astaci and its systematic position. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. XVI, pp. 453–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurney, R. 1933 British Freshwater Copepoda. Ray Society, Vol. III (Family Lernaeoceridae, pp. 334–6)Google Scholar
Gurney, R. 1934 The development of certain parasitic copepoda of the families Caligidae and Clavellidae. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, pp. 177–217.Google Scholar
Gurney, R. 1940. Some notes on the biology of the Copepod Diaptomus castor. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (II), Vol. vi, pp. 277–83.Google Scholar
Gurney, R. & Lebour, M. V., 1941. On the larvae of certain Crustacea Macrura, mainly from Bermuda. Journ. Linn. Soc, London, Vol. xvi, pp. 89–181.Google Scholar
Harrison, R. J., 1940. On the biology of the Caprellidae. Growth and moulting of Pseudoprotella phasma Montagu. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. XXIV pp. 483–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jungersen, H. F. E., 1911. On a new Gymnoblastic Hydroid (Ichthyocodium sarcotretis) epizoic on a new parasitic copepod (Sarcotretes scopeli) infesting Scopelus glacialis Rhdt. Vid. Medd. Natur. Foren. Copenhagen, Bd. LXIV, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Leigh-Sharpe, W. H., 1930. Lernaea [Lernaeocera] barbicola n.sp., A parasitic copepod of Barbus sp. from the Transvaal. Parasitology, Vol. XXII pp. 334–7.Google Scholar
Leigh-Sharpe, W. H., 1935 Some new and rare Lernaeidae (Copepoda) from Plymouth. Parasitology, Vol. XXVII pp. 107–10.Google Scholar
Marshall, S. M., 1933. On the biology of Calanus finmarchicus. II. Seasonal variations in the size of Calanus finmarchicus in the Clyde Sea-Area. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. XIX pp. 111–38.Google Scholar
Pedaschenko, D. D., 1898. Die Embryonalentwickelung und Metamorphose von Lernaea branchialis. Trav. Soc. Impér. Nat. St. Pétersbourg, Vol. XXVI (4), No. 7. (German text: pp. 247–307.)Google Scholar
Przibram, H., 1931. Connecting Laws in Animal Morphology. University of London Press.Google Scholar
Scott, Andrew, 1901. Lepeophtheirus and Lernaea. L.M.B.C. Memoirs, No. 6.Google Scholar
Scott, Thomas, 1901. Notes on some parasites of fishes. 19th. Ann. Rep. Fish. Bd. Scotland, Pt. III, Sci. Invest., pp. 120–53.Google Scholar
Sproston, N. G. & Hartley, P. H. T., 1941a. The ecology of some parasitic cope-pods of gadoids and other fishes. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. XXV pp. 361–92.Google Scholar
Sproston, N. G. & Hartley, P. H. T., 1941b. Observations on the bionomics and physiology of Trebius caudatus and Lernaeocera branchialis. Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc., Vol. XXV pp. 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stekhoven, JR, Schuurmans, J. H., 1935. Copepoda Parasitica from the Belgian Coast. Bull. Mus. Roy. Hist. Nat. Belg., Vol. XI No. 7, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Stekhoven, JR, Schuurmans, J. H., 1936a. Copepoda Parasitica from the Belgian coast (including some habitats in the North Sea). Mem. Mus. Roy. Hist. Nat. Belg., No. 74, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Stekhoven, JR, Schuurmans, J. H., 1936b. Beobachtungen zur Morphologie und Physiologie der Lernaeocera branchialis L. und der Lernaeocera lusci Bassett-Smith (Crustacea parasitica). Zeits. Parasitenk., Bd. vii, Heft 6, pp. 659–96.Google Scholar
Stekhoven, JR, Schuurmans, J. H. & Punt, A., 1937. Weitere Beiträge zur Morphologie und Physiologie der Lernaeocera branchialis L. Zeits. Parasitenk., Bd. IX. Heft 5, pp. 648–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Beneden, P. J., 1861. Recherches sur la Faune littorale de Belgique: Crustaces. Mem. Acad. Roy. Belg., T. XXXIII, 174 pp.Google Scholar
Wierzejski, A., 1877. Ueber Schmarotzerkrebse von Cephalopoden. Zeitschr.f. wiss. Zool., Bd. XXIX, pp. 563–82.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. B., 1917. North American Parasitic Copepods belonging to the Lernaeidae with a revision of the entire family. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. LIII (No. 2154), pp. 1–150Google Scholar