Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T07:39:00.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XXIV.—Egg Attachment in Crangon vulgaris and other Caridea*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

C. M. Yonge
C. M. Yonge
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Glasgow.
Get access

Synopsis

In the Caridea, unlike the allied Euphausiacea and Penæidea, developing eggs are attached by means of a “cement” to specialized non-pinnate ovigerous setæ on pleopods 1–4; in Crangon also to periopods 4 and 5. The presence of these eggs does not prevent flexure of the abdomen and execution of backward escape movements. The form of the abdomen differs in relation to habit, and this, together with the disposition of the ovigerous setæ, which varies greatly in different genera and in different pleopods of the same species, conditions the arrangement of the egg-mass. Ovigerous setæ increase both in numbers and in length with age; so do the number of eggs which have to be attached. There is concentration in the pleopods of “cement” glands identical with the tegumental glands which secrete the epicuticle which the “cement” resembles in all respects. Ducts run into the ovigerous setæ but it remains obscure where the “cement” emerges; possibly it dissolves its way through the integument of the setæ to emerge at many places simultaneously. Attachment of eggs in the Caridea may be associated with the many different habits exhibited; the developing eggs are protected and hatch out in the often restricted environment of the parent.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , 1955 , pp. 369 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1955

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

Balss, H., 1927. “Decapoda”, in Kükenthal, and Krumbach, , Handbuch der Zoologie, Bd. 3, 1. Berlin und Leipzig, 840–1038.Google Scholar
Bargmann, H. E., 1937. “The reproductive system of Euphausia superba”, “Discovery” Rpts., 14, 325–350.Google Scholar
Bassindale, R., 1941. “Studies on the biology of the Bristol Channel. IV. The invertebrate fauna of the southern shores of the Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary”, Proc. Bristol Nat. Soc., (4), 9, 143–201.Google Scholar
Callan, H. G., 1940. “The effects of castration by parasites and X-rays on the secondary sex characters of prawns (Leander spp.), J. Exp. Biol., 17, 168–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennell, R., 1947. “The occurrence and significance of phenolic hardening in the newly formed cuticle of Crustacea Decapoda”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., B, 134, 485–503.Google ScholarPubMed
Doflein, F., 1910. “Lebensgewohnheiten und Anpassung bei dekapoden Krebsen”, Festschriften zum sechzigsten Geburtstag Richard Hertwigs, 3, 215–292.Google Scholar
Drach, P., 1939. “Mue et cycle d'intermue chez les Crustacés Décapodes”, Ann. Inst. océanogr. Paris, 19, 103–391.Google Scholar
Ehrenbaum, E., 1890. “Zur Naturgeschichte von Crangon vulgaris Fabr.”, Mitt. Sekt. f. Küsten- u. Hochseefischerei, Jahrg. 1890, 1–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gravier, C., 1931. “La ponte de l'incubation chez les Crustacés”, Ann. Sci. nat. Zool., (10), 14, 303–418.Google Scholar
Gurney, R., 1923. “Some notes on Leander longirostris M. Edwards, and other British prawns”, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1923, 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havinga, B., 1930. “Der Granat (Crangon vulgaris Fabr.) in den Holländischen Gewässern”, J. Con. int. Expl. Mer., 5, 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heldt, J. H., 1938. “La reproduction chez les Crustacés Décapodes de la famille des Pénéides”, Ann. Inst. océangr. Paris, 18, 31–206.Google Scholar
Höglund, H., 1943. “On the biology and larval development of Leander squilla (L.) forma typica de Man”, Svenska Hydrog.-Biol. Kom. Skr., Ny Ser., 2, 1–44.Google Scholar
Holt, E. W. L., and Tattersall, W. M., 1905. “Schizopodous Crustacea from the North-Atlantic slope”, Fisheries, Ireland, Sci. Invest., 1902–1903, App. No. IV.Google Scholar
Kemp, S., 1910. “The Decapoda Natantia of the coasts of Ireland”, Fisheries, Ireland, Sci. Invest., 1908, App. No. I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, S., 1916. “Notes on Crustacea Decapoda in the Indian Museum”, Rec. Ind. Mus., 12, 355–384.Google Scholar
Knowles, F. G. W., and Callan, H. G., 1940. “A change in the chromatophore pattern of Crustacea at sexual maturity”, J. Exp. Biol., 17, 262–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebour, M. V., 1936. “Notes on the Plymouth Processa (Crustacea)”, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1936, 609–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebour, M. V., 1954. “The position of Pontophilus echinulatus (M. Sars) in the Crangonidæ”, J. Mar. Biol. Ass., 33, 587–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, A. J., and Yonge, C. M., 1940. “Correlation between egg-carrying setæ and cement glands in Decapod Crustacea”, Nature, 146, 334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, A. J., and Yonge, C. M., 1947. “The biology of Crangon vulgaris in the Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary”, J. Mar. Biol. Ass., 26, 626–661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mawson, M. L., and Yonge, C. M., 1938. “The origin and nature of the egg membranes in Chirocephalus diaphanus”, Quart. J. Micr. Sci., 80, 553–565.Google Scholar
Meyer, P.-F., 1934. “Ein Beitrag zur Eiablage der Nordseekrabbe (Granat) Crangon vulgaris Fabr.”, Zool. Anz., 106, 1–4.Google Scholar
Nouvel, L., 1932. “Les charactères sexuels secondaires de l'abdomen des Crustacés Natantia”, Bull. Muséum, 4, 407–410.Google Scholar
Pike, R. B., 1947. “Galathea”, L.M.B.C. Mem., No. XXXIV.Google Scholar
Sollaud, E., 1923. “Recherches sur l'embryogénie des Crustacés Décapodes de la sous-famille des ‘Palemoninæ’”, Bull. biol. Fr. Belg., Suppl. 5, 1–234.Google Scholar
Stephens, G. C., 1952. “The control of cement gland development in the crayfish, Cambarus”, Biol. Bull., 103, 242–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1932. “On the nature and permeability of chitin. I. The chitin lining the foregut of Decapod Crustacea and the function of the tegumental glands”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., B, 111, 298–329.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1936. “On the nature and permeability of chitin. II. The permeability of the uncalcified chitin lining the foregut of Homarus”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., B, 120, 15–41.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1937. “The nature and significance of the membranes surrounding the developing eggs of Homarus vulgaris and other Decapoda”, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., A, 107, 499–517.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1946. “Permeability and properties of the membranes surrounding the developing egg of Homarus vulgaris”, J. Mar. Biol. Ass., 26, 432–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed