Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:13:14.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decoding the morphogenetic evolution of thecate hydroids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

I.A. Kosevich
I.A. Kosevich*
Affiliation:
Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Faculty of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: I.A. Kosevich, Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Faculty of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia email: ikos@mail.ru
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Modular organization of colonial hydroids is based on cyclic morphogenesis during growth of their body. In many thecate hydroids (Hydrozoa: Leptomedusae) the shoots of the colony consist of a few distinct elements and possess complex spatial organization. In most cases, the evolutionary sequence of morphogenetic modifications that led to present-day organization of shoots is obscure and not obvious. One of the approaches that allow getting insight into the morphogenetic evolution in colonial thecate hydroids is to analyse the spectrum of different minor morphotypes presented in the population of the certain species. In our opinion, some rare morphotypes allow understanding and reconstructing the scenario of morphogenetic evolution of species under consideration. We describe the application of such an approach for reconstruction of the morphogenetic evolution of Dynamena pumila (L.) (Sertulariidae) with some additional conclusions.

Keywords

thecate hydroidsevolutionmorphogenesismorphotypes
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 88 , Special Issue 8: Hydrozoans , December 2008 , pp. 1687 - 1694
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2008

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

Beloussov, L.V. (1973) Growth and morphogenesis of some marine hydrozoa according to histological data and time-lapse studies. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory 20, 315–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berking, S. (2006) Principles of branch formation and branch patterning in Hydrozoa. International Journal of Developmental Biology 50, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berking, S., Hesse, M. and Herrmann, K. (2002) A shoot meristem-like organ in animals; monopodial and sympodial growth in Hydrozoa. International Journal of Developmental Biology 46, 301–308.Google ScholarPubMed
Bouillon, J., Medel, M.D., Pages, F., Gili, J.M., Boero, F. and Gravili, C. (2004) Fauna of the Mediterranean Hydrozoa. Scientia Marina 68, Supplement 2, 5–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, L.W. (1979) Habitat selection, directional growth and spatial refuges: why colonial animals have more hiding places. In Larwood, G. and Rosen, B.R. (eds) Biology and systematics of colonial organisms, Special Volume No. 11. London and New York: Academic Press, pp. 459–497.Google Scholar
Calder, D.R. (1991) Shallow-water hydroids of Bermuda. The Thecatae, exclusive of Plumularioidea. Life Sciences Contributions: Royal Ontario Museum 154, 1–140.Google Scholar
Cornelius, P.F.S. (1979) A revision of the species of Sertulariidae (Coelenterata: Hydroida) recorded from Britain and nearby seas. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Zoology Series) 34, 243–321.Google Scholar
Frank, U., Leitz, T. and Muller, W.A. (2001) The hydroid Hydractinia: a versatile, informative cnidarian representative. BioEssays 23, 963–971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosevich, I.A. (2003) Morphology of hydrocauli in Diphasia fallax (Johnston, 1847) (Hydrozoa, Sertulariidae). In Novikov, G.G. (ed.) 7th International Conference, vol. 9. WSBS MSU: Moscow, Association of Scientific Publishers KMK, pp. 69–78.Google Scholar
Kosevich, I.A. (2005) Branching in colonial hydroids. In Davis, J. (ed.) Branching morphogenesis. New York: Eurekah.com and Springer Science + Business Media, Inc, pp. 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosevich, I.A. (2006) Changes in the patterning of a hydroid colony. Zoology 109, 244–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosevich, I.A. and Marfenin, N.N. (1986) Colonial morphology of the hydroid Obelia longissima (Pallas, 1766) (Campanulariidae). Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta Seriya VI Biologiya, 44–52.Google Scholar
Kossevitch, I.A., Herrmann, K. and Berking, S. (2001) Shaping of colony elements in Laomedea flexuosa Hinks (Hydrozoa, Thecaphora) includes a temporal and spatial control of skeleton hardening. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole 201, 417–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, A. (1914) Entwicklungsgeschichte und Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen der Hydrozoen. I.Teil: Die Hydroiden. In Spengel, J.W. (ed.) Ergebnisse und Fortschritte der Zoologie. Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer, pp. 1–284.Google Scholar
Malygin, F.G. (2001) Theory of phyllotaxis. I. A geometric model for helical forms of consecutive phyllotaxis. Ontogenez 32, 393–400.Google Scholar
Marfenin, N.N. (1973) Morfologiya rosta v kolonii gidroidnogo polipa Dynamena pumila (Hydrozoa, Leptoloda) (Growth morphology in the colony of hydroid polyp Dynamena pumila (Hydrozoa, Leptoloda)). Zhurnal Obshchei Biologii 34, 727–737.Google Scholar
Marfenin, N.N. (1975) Anomalii formy pobega kolonii Dynamena pumila (Hydrozoa, Leptolida). (Anomalies in shoot formation of colonies Dynamrna pumila (Hydrozoa, Leptolida)). Kompleksnie Issledjvaniya Prirody Okeana, 230–239.Google Scholar
Marfenin, N.N. (1988) Morphological anomalies as reserve of adaptive radiation in colonial hydroids. Signs of vital activity and environment's dynamics in the ancient biotops. In Transactions of the XXX Session of Soviet Paleontological Society, pp. 149–156.Google Scholar
Marfenin, N.N., Malutin, O.I. and Epelbaum, A.B. (2003) The system of minor morphotypes of shoot modules of colonial hydroid Diphasia fallax (Johnston, 1847). In Novikov, G.G. (ed.) 7th International Conference, vol. 9. WSBS MSU: Moscow, Association of Scientific Publishers KMK, pp. 119–126.Google Scholar
Marfenin, N.N., Margulis, R.J. and Mayer, E.M. (1995) Morphological variability of the colonial hydroid Dynamena pumila, with classification of found morphotypes. Russian Academy of Sciences: Proceedings of the Zoological Institute 261, 71–89.Google Scholar
Meinhardt, H. (1982) Models of biological pattern formation. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Meinhardt, H. and Gierer, A. (2000) Pattern formation by local self-activation and lateral inhibition. BioEssays 22, 753–760.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Migotto, A.E. (1996) Benthic shallow-water hydroids (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) of the coast of São Sebastiao, Brazil, including a checklist of Brazilian hydroids. Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden 306, 1–125.Google Scholar
Naumov, D.V. (1969) Hydroids and hydromedusae of the USSR. Jerusalem: Israel Programme for Scientific Translation.Google Scholar
Nikulina, E.A. (2000) Substrate-dependent growth and morphogenetic evolution of bryozoans of the order Cheilostomata. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal 5, 38–44.Google Scholar
Ponczek, L.M. and Blackstone, N.W. (2001) Effect of cloning rate on fitness-related traits in two marine hydroids. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole 201, 76–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pyataeva, S.V. and Kosevich, I.A. (2008) The morphological and anatomical characteristics of the colonial hydroid Sertularia mirabilis (Sertulariidae). Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 87, 3–19.Google Scholar
Rosen, B.R. (1979) Modules, members and communities: a postscript introduction to social organisms. In Larwood, G. and Rosen, B.R. (eds) Biology and systematics of colonial organisms, Special Volume Systematic Association No. 11. London and New York: Academic Press, pp. xiii–xxxv.Google Scholar
Schenck, V.D.A. (1965) Die Kormentektonik der Plumulariiden (Coelenterata, Hydrozoa). Revue Suisse de Zoologie 72, 885–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar