Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T09:18:08.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on the ultrastructure of the spermatozoon of two mytilids from the south-west coast of England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

A. N. Hodgson  and
R. T. F. Bernard
A. N. Hodgson
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Entomology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa
R. T. F. Bernard
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Entomology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Introduction

Two forms of the genus Mytilus, M. edulis L. and M. galloprovincialis Lmk inhabit the rocky shores of Devon and Cornwall (Hepper, 1957). According to Gosling (1984), controversy has existed since 1860 as to whether M. galloprovincialis is a separate species or a subspecies of M. edulis. In a review of the systematic status of M. galloprovincialis, Gosling (1984) analysed the criteria used to identify and classify this form of Mytilus. Gosling did not reach any firm conclusion on the systematic status of these mytilids, but did suggest that the evidence favoured placing M. galloprovincialis as a variety, ecotype or even subspecies of M. edulis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , May 1986 , pp. 385 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1986

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

Bernard, R. T. F. & Hodgson, A. N., 1985. Fine structure of the sperm and spermatid differentiation in the brown mussel Perna perna. South African Journal of Zoology, 20, 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzen, A., 1970. Phylogenetic aspects of the morphology of spermatozoa and spermiogenesis. In Comparative Spermatology (ed. B., Bacetti), pp. 29–46. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Franzen, A., 1977. Sperm structure with regard to fertilization biology and phylogenetics. Verhandlungen der Deutschen zoologischen Gesellschaft, 70, 123–138.Google Scholar
Franzen, A., 1983. Ultrastructural studies of spermatozoa in three bivalve species with notes on evolution of elongated sperm nucleus in primative spermatozoa. Gamete Research, 7, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosling, E. M., 1984. The systematic status of Mytilus galloprovincialis in western Europe: a review. Malacologia, 25, 551–568.Google Scholar
Hepper, B. T., 1957. Notes on Mytilus galloprovincialis Lamarck in Great Britain. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 36, 33—40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longo, F. J. & Dornfeld, E. J., 1967. The fine structure of spermatid differentiation in the mussel Mytilus edulis. Journal of Ultrastructure Research, 20, 462—480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lubet, P., Prunus, G., Masson, M. & Bucaille, D., 1984. Etude experimental du croisement Mytilus edulis L. X. Mytilus galloprovincialis. Bulletin de la Sociétée zoologique de France, 109, 87–98.Google Scholar
Niijima, L. & Dan, J., 1965. The acrosome reaction in Mytilus edulis. I. Fine structure of the intact acrosome. Journal of Cell Biology, 25, 243–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popham, J. D., 1979. Comparative spermatozoon morphology and bivalve phylogeny. Malacological Review, 12, 1–20.Google Scholar
Seed, R., 1976. Ecology. In Marine Mussels: Their Ecology and Physiology (ed. Bayne, B. L.), pp. 13–65. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar