Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-gndc8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T05:55:53.995Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XVIII.—Records of Potamopyrgus jenkinsi (Smith) in Scottish Fresh Waters over Fifty Years (1906–56)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

W. Russell Hunter  and
T. Warwick
W. Russell Hunter
Affiliation:
Departments of Zoology, Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh.
T. Warwick
Affiliation:
Departments of Zoology, Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Get access

Synopsis

This note presents in summary the recorded occurrences of Potamopyrgus jenkinsi (Smith) in fresh waters in Scotland over the fifty years since it was first reported. Apart from isolated occurrences in the Outer Hebrides, in the Caithness-Orkney area, and in the Borders—Solway area, the records appear to reflect a gradual dispersal (1906—56) from an origin on the Tay, over the Tay and Forth drainage areas, and thence perhaps through the Midland Valley to the west coast. This dispersal has been slower than the rate of spread of the same species through England and Wales earlier in the century, but has been rapid compared with the rates of dispersal assumed for other molluscan species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , 1957 , pp. 360 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1957

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.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was assisted in publication by a grant from the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland.

References

References to Literature

Bondesen, P., and Kaiser, E. W., 1949. “Hydrobia (Potamopyrgus) jenkinsi Smith in Denmark illustrated by its ecology”, Oikos, 1, 252–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boycott, A. E.,1922. “Recorder's report: Non-marine Mollusca”, J. Conch., 16, 273–274.Google Scholar
Boycott, A. E., 1927. “Recorder's report: Non-marine Mollusca”, J. Conch., 18, 182–183.Google Scholar
Boycott, A. E., 1931 “Recorder's report: Non-marine Mollusca”, J. Conch., 19, 123–124.Google Scholar
Boycott, A. E., 1934. “Recorder's report: Non-marine Mollusca”, J. Conch., 20, 27–28.Google Scholar
Boycott, A. E., 1935. “Recorder's report: Non-marine Mollusca”, J. Conch., 20, 187–189.Google Scholar
Boycott, A. E., 1936. “The habitats of fresh-water Mollusca in Britain”, J Anim. Ecol., 5, 116–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boycott, A. E.,1938. “Recorder's report: Non-marine Mollusca”, J Conch., 21, 29–30.Google Scholar
Coates., H., 1922. “Invertebrate fauna of Perthshire: the land and fresh-water Mollusca”, Trans. Perthshire Soc. Nat. Sci., 7, 179–243.Google Scholar
Crapper, E., 1924a. “Paludestrina jenkinsi new to Fifeshire (vice-county 85)”, J. Conch., 17, 98.Google Scholar
Crapper, E., 1924 b. “Paludestrina jenkinsi in Scotland”, J Conch., 17, 104.Google Scholar
Crapper, E., 1924 c. “Paludestrina jenkinsi in Fife and Forfar”,J. Conch., 17. 137.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. E., 1926. British Snails. Oxford.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. E., 1950. “Recorder's report: Non-marine Mollusca”, J Conch., 23, 122–24.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. E., 1951. (Editor) “Census of the distribution of British non-marine Mollusca “, J. Conch., 23, 171–244.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. E., 1952. “Recorder's report: Non-marine Mollusca”,J.Conch., 23, 277.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. E., 1954 “Recorder's report: Non-marine Mollusca”,J.Conch., 23, 417–418.Google Scholar
Forrest, . E., Waterston, A. R., and Watson, E. V., 1936. ‘The natural history of Barra, Outer Hebrides”, Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edin., 22, 240–296.Google Scholar
Hubendick, B., 1950. “The effectiveness of passive dispersal in Hydrobia jenkinsi”, Zool. Bidrag. Uppsala, 28, 493–504.Google Scholar
Hunter, W. Russell, 1952. “New records [of Mollusca]”, Glasg. Nat., 17, 48.Google Scholar
Hunter, W. Russell, 1953. “Further new and newly-confirmed records of the distribution of freshwater snails in the West of Scotland”, Glasg. Nat., 17, 84–88.Google Scholar
Hunter, W. Russell, 1957. “Studies on freshwater snails at Loch Lomond”, Glasg. Univ. Publ., Studies on Loch Lomond, I, 56–95.Google Scholar
Hunter, W. Russell, and Hunter, M. Russell, 1955. “Roebuck's papers on Scottish non-marine Mollusca”,J Conch., 24, 59–60.Google Scholar
Kevan, D. K., 1930. “New Scottish county records of land and fresh-water Mollusca”, Scot. Nat., 1930, 27–29.Google Scholar
Nicol, E. A. T., 1936 a. “The brackish-water lochs of North Uist”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., 56, 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, E. A. T., 1936 b. “The fauna of Loch Bee”, Scot. Nat., 1936, 131–134.Google Scholar
Nicol, E. A. T., 1938. “The brackish-water lochs of Orkney”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., 58, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldham, C, 1928. ” Paludestrina jenkinsi in Orkney and Caithness”,J Conch., 18, 272.Google Scholar
Robson, G. C, 1923. “Parthenogenesis in the mollusc Paludestrina jenkinsi:Part I”, Brit.J. Exp. Biol., I, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodger, , [A. M.], 1910. [Notice of exhibit on 20th January, 1910.] Proc. Perthshire Soc. Nat. Sci., 5, 69.Google Scholar
Roebuck, W. D., 1921. “Census of the distribution of British land and freshwater Mollusca”J Conch., 16, 165–212.Google Scholar
Tomlin, J. R. L E B., 1936. “Mollusca destroyed by frost”,J.Conch., 20, 273–274.Google Scholar
Warwick, T., 1944. “The inheritance of the keel in Potamopyrgus jenkinsi (Smith)”, Nature, Lond., 154, 798–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, T., 1952. “Strains in the mollusc Potamopyrgus jenkinsi (Smith)”, Nature, Lond., 169, 551–552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waterstin, , [A] R., 1934. “Occurrence of Amnicola taylori (E. A. Smith) and Bithynia leachii (Sheppard) in Scotland”, Conch., 20, 55–56.Google Scholar
Warwick, T., 1940. “Recorder's report: Non-marine Mollusca”,J.Conch., 21, 216–218 and 254.Google Scholar
Warwick, T., 1942. “Recorder's report: Non-marine Mollusca”,J.Conch. 21, 337.Google Scholar