Bouncing Snail-y Clams

For the most part, bivalves are a fairly conservative bunch. They seem to have worked out what they are good at early on in their history and most of them stick to it. There are, however, notable exceptions and perhaps few groups of bivalves are as exceptional as the Galeommatidae.

Waldo paucitentaculatus, from Valentich-Scott et al. (2013).

Galeommatids are small bivalves, less than a centimetre in length, with more or less thin shells. The hinge teeth are generally weak or absent. The valves of the shell are more or less gaping and in life are at least partially covered by the large, reflected mantle. The outer surface of the mantle is warty and bears several slender tentacles, the exact arrangement of tentacles varying by species. The foot is large and extends well outwards from the central body of the animal. In the most extreme cases, you might be forgiven for thinking you were looking at some sort of snail rather than a clam.

Many galeommatids have been found living as symbionts with other invertebrates such as in the burrows of annelids and crustaceans, or crawling on the surface of echinoderms. So far as is known, these relationships are commensal only, the clams using their hosts as a source of shelter and possibly excess food scraps, but species may be very exclusive in their choice of hosts. For instance, Mikkelsen & Bieler (1989) found the species Divariscintilla yoyo and D. troglodytes only in burrows of the mantis shrimp Lysiosquilla scabricauda, never in burrows of other potential hosts in the same area. It seems likely that this commensalism has allowed galeommatids to diversify in soft-bottom habitats, their larger hosts being able to dig into sediments in which the smaller clams would be quickly smothered (Valentich-Scott et al. 2013).

Unidentified galeommatid, copyright Ria Tan.

Many galeommatids possess a distinctive 'hanging-foot' morphology with the foot divided into two sections, a muscular anterior portion adapted for snail-like crawling, and an elastic posterior section (Bieler & Mikkelsen 1992). The primary byssus gland is located in the anterior section and is connected by a ciliated ventral groove to a terminal adhesive gland in the posterior section. Mikkelsen & Bieler (1989) found that Divariscintilla individuals kept in an aquarium spent most of their time hanging suspended via the posterior part of the foot. Threads produced by the byssus gland were transferred to the terminal adhesor and used to attach to a surface such as the glass of the aquarium (presumably, the clams would normally hang in this manner on the interior wall of the host burrow). When disturbed, hanging clams would rapidly bounce themselves up and down from their attachment point (hence one species being dubbed 'Divariscintilla yoyo'). If the clams wished to change their location, they would crawl on the muscular section of the foot, breaking the byssus threads behind them. The elastic part of the foot was not functional in crawling.

The majority of galeommatid clams are hermaphrodites, either protandrous (beginning life as males before maturing into females) or simultaneous. Eggs are not released into the water column but brooded within the ctenidia until larvae are released at a relatively advanced stage of development (whether the parent is able to feed while its gills are so occupied, I don't know). In a number of species, dwarf males are also present that do not live independently but reside within the mantle cavity of a female (I have seen these males referred to as 'parasitic' but I do not know if they are directly so). In this position, they are able to fertilise the female directly. Such behaviour may be seen as a further adaptation to the clam's commensal lifestyle, contained within the burrow of its host and potentially secluded from more conventional mates. Hidden away in the darkness, they make matryoshkas of themselves.

REFERENCES

Bieler, R., & P. M. Mikkelsen. 1992. Preliminary phylogenetic analysis of the bivalve family Galeommatidae. American Malacological Bulletin 9 (2): 157–164.

Mikkelsen, P. M., & R. Bieler. 1989. Biology and comparative anatomy of Divariscintilla yoyo and D. troglodytes, two new species of Galeommatidae (Bivalvia) from stomatopod burrows in eastern Florida. Malacologia 31 (1): 175–195.

Valentich-Scott, P., D. Ó. Foighil & J. Li. 2013. Where's Waldo? A new commensal species, Waldo arthuri (Mollusca, Bivalvia, Galeommatidae) from the northeastern Pacific Ocean. ZooKeys 316: 67–80.

Glyphyalinia Snails

North America (as with pretty much everywhere in the world outside the coldest regions) is home to a wide diversity of small, terrestrial snails that tend to pass unnoticed. Among the more diverse of these is the zonitid genus Glyphyalinia.

Glyphyalinia carolinensis, copyright John Slapcinsky.

Glyphyalinia species are often found in forest leaf-litter in the eastern part of North America. They have a low, translucent shell that is often about half a centimetre in diameter. Whorls of the shell increase regularly in size and are marked by a series of strongly impressed radiating lines in addition to finer growth lines. The umbilicus of the shell varies between species from completely absent to quite wide (Burch & Pearce 1990). The soft body of the animal varies in coloration, again depending on species. That of G. roemeri is all white except for the eyes; that of G. wheatleyi is almost uniformly black. The reproductive system of Glyphyalinia (which are hermaphroditic) includes a well-developed epiphallus and a distinct, ovoid spermathecal sac (Baker 1930).

Multiple species of Glyphyalinia may be found living in a single patch of forest though, at present, we know little about how (and whether) micro-habitats are partitioned between species. Some species seem to tolerate a wide variety of soil types and are correspondingly widely distributed. Others are more selective and localised; some may be considered endangered by habitat degradation. Even supposedly widespread species may be more vulnerable than appreciated: at least some may represent clusters of closely related species rather than truly uniform populations. These tiny snails can be notoriously difficult to study, making for a risk that they might just slip away barely noticed.

REFERENCES

Baker, H. B. 1930. The North American Retinellae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 82: 193–219.

Burch, J. B., & T. A. Pearce. 1990. Terrestrial Gastropoda. In: Dindal, D. L. (ed.) Soil Biology Guide pp. 201–309. John Wiley & Sones: New York.

Anchor Sponges

Sponges are, by their very nature, a challenging group taxonomically. At the macroscopic level, they are often amorphous and indeterminate in appearance. As one taxonomist complained in 1842 (as quoted in Hooper & Van Soest 2002): "there is so much that is in common to them, and each adapts itself so readily to circumstances and assumes a new mask, that it requires a tact, to be gained only by some experience, to recognize them under their guises; while we labour, perhaps in vain, to devise phrases which shall aptly portray to others the characteristics of objects that have no fixed shape, and whose distinctive peculiarities almost cheat the eye". Reliable identification typically requires the close examination of microscopic details, in particular the conformation and arrangement of the mineralised spicules that make up the skeleton of many sponges.

Myxilla incrustans, copyright B. E. Picton.

The Myxillidae are a family of marine sponges that, so far as we currently know, are most diverse in temperate and frigid waters. Like other members of the class Demospongiae, the most diverse of the recognised sponge classes, they have a skeleton of spicules constructed from silica. Different arrangements of spicules allow the body of the sponge to be divided into two layers. In the outer ectosoma, which can be thought of as the 'skin' of the sponge, elongate spicules are vertically radiating or placed in 'bouquet' arrangements with a palisade of vertical spicules surmounted by radiating clusters. These spicules generally have each end similar and may be smooth or spiky. In the inner choanosoma, within which are placed the feeding chambers of the sponge, elongate spicules are placed in a reticulate arrangement. These spicules generally have one end pointed and the other blunt.

Skeletal arrangements and individual spicules from various Myxillidae, from Hooper & Van Soest (2002).

Mixed in amongst these larger megasclere spicules are smaller microscleres that do not form part of the main structural skeleton, though presumably they do help hold the sponge body together. In myxillids, the microscleres generally take the form of anchorate chelae, small curved structures with incurved rounded prongs at each end. Members of the boreal genus Melonanchora have a mixture of chelae and a different type of microsclere shaped like a ribbed rugby ball (Santín et al. 2021). In the Indo-West Pacific genus Psammochela, growing sponges will also incorporate sand from the surrounding environment to supplement the microscleres (de Voogd 2012).

Growth habit of Myxillidae can vary from encrusting to massive to branching. The species Stelodoryx procera, found around the Azores, has a distinctive growth habit with a flattened main body at the end of an elongate stalk. On the whole, though individual species may be distinguished by growth habit, species within a single genus may differ greatly in form. For determining genera, examination of spicules is really the only way to go.

REFERENCES

Hooper, J. N. A., & R. W. M. Van Soest. 2002. Systema Porifera: A guide to the classification of sponges vol. 1. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Santín, A., M.-J. Uriz, J. Cristobo, J. R. Xavier & P. Ríos. 2021. Unique spicules may confound species differentiation: taxonomy and biogeography of Melonanchora Carter, 1874 and two new related genera (Myxillidae: Poecilosclerida) from the Okhotsk Sea. PeerJ 9: e12515.

Voogd, N. J. de. 2012. On sand-bearing myxillid sponges, with a description of Psammochela tutiae sp. nov. (Poecilosclerida, Myxillina) from the northern Moluccas, Indonesia. Zootaxa 3155: 21–28.

The Huenellidae

Researchers who deal with the modern marine fauna are used to thinking of brachiopods as a marginal group, their diversity greatly overshadowed on a global scale by the superficially similar bivalves. However, modern brachiopods are but a shadow of their former selves; for much of the Palaeozoic era, their relationship with the bivalves was the inverse of today. Many are the brachiopod lineages that came and went over this time.

External views of ventral (left) and dorsal valves of Huenella triplicata, from Walcott (1924).

The Huenellidae were an assemblage of brachiopods that lived during the late Cambrian and early Ordovician (Amsden & Biernat 1965). They represent early representatives of the Pentamerida, a Palaeozoic order of fairly generalised-looking brachiopods. Within the Pentamerida, they fall within the suborder Syntrophiidina. Syntrophiidinans as a whole are rarely found in the fossil record and as a result remain poorly known. Members of the suborder share a distinctive shape with biconvex valves marked by a dorsal fold and ventral sulcus. That is, the midline of the shell is raised above either side with the ventral valve forming a 'valley' to match the raised 'hill' of the dorsal valve. What, if anything, was the purpose of this arrangement I wouldn't know but modern brachiopods often inhabit locations with a lot of organic silt and/or fine sediment. Perhaps the uneven level of the syntrophiidinan shell helped protect it from burial by a shifting substrate.

Interior view of ventral valve of Radkeina taylori, from Laurie (1997), with scoop-shaped spondylium at upper midline.

Families of Syntrophiidina may be distinguished based on the development of the spondylium, an internal projection at the base of the ventral valve that provided an attachment site for the shell muscles. Members of the Huenellidae possessed either a sessile spondylium or a pseudospondylium, a spondylium-type structure rising from the internal surface of the valve itself rather than from the hinge. Amsden & Biernat (1965) recognised a division of the huenellids between two subfamilies based on the development of the brachiophore plates, projections on the inside of the dorsal valve that would have supported the lophophore. Members of the Huenellinae possessed more developed brachiophores than members of the Mesonomiinae. Outer ornament of the huenellid shell varied from more or less smooth with weak concentric ridges to costate with distinct radiating ridges.

Phylogenetic relationships within the Syntrophiidina do not seem to have been established in detail but the early appearance in the fossil record of huenellids at least raises the question of whether they included the ancestors of later families. As well as other families of the Syntrophiidina, candidates for descent would include members of the suborder Pentameridina as well as of the related order Rhynchonellida. This latter order includes species which survive to the present day so the possibility exists that while the huenellids themselves may be long gone, their legacy may yet live on.

REFERENCE

Amsden, T. W., & G. Biernat. 1965. Pentamerida. In: Moore, R. C. (ed.) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology pt H. Brachiopoda vol. 2 pp. H523–H552. The Geological Society of America, Inc.: Boulder (Colorado), and The University of Kansas Press: Lawrence (Kansas).

Arranging Nautiloids

For years, the higher taxonomy of cephalopods was expressed as a division between three subclasses: the Nautiloidea, the Ammonoidea and the Coleoidea. Coleoids were the clade of cephalopods that had lost the external shell, ammonoids were a Mesozoic lineage with complex septa dividing the chambers of the shell, and nautiloids were... the rest. From the tiny, possibly benthic, curved cones of the Cambrian where the class began, to gigantic straight-shelled monsters of the later Palaeozoic, to the modern chambered nautilus, all were lumped together as 'nautiloids'. The nautiloid subclass was explicitly understood to include the ancestors of the others but recognition of more phylogenetically coherent subgroups has been hampered by poor understanding about how the various nautiloid lineages were interrelated. And part of the problem in this regard has been uncertainty about just what features of their fossils we should be paying attention to.

Diorama reconstruction of Beloitoceras oncocerids, from the Burpee Museum.

One factor that has drawn attention in recent years has been the arrangement of muscle scars on the shell. Large muscle attachment scars appear as raised annular elevations on the inside of the shell towards the rear end of the body chamber (in practice, they are more often observed in fossils as depressions on the internal mould). In the living nautilus, the muscles attached to these scars function in the retraction of the head (King & Evans 2019). Modern nautilus possess a pair of large lateral scars in an arrangement that has been labelled 'pleuromyarian'. However, many of the earliest cephalopods possessed a ring of numerous small scars, an arrangement referred to as 'oncomyarian'. Other cephalopods might have scars restricted to the dorsal ('dorsomyarian') or ventral ('ventromyarian') midline.

Primary types of muscle scar in nautiloids, from King & Evans (2019). 'D' and 'V' indicate dorsal and ventral, respectively, and arrows indicate direction of aperture.

Another feature that has been called out has been the structure of the connecting rings around the siphuncle. Shelled cephalopods, you will recall, have the shell divided into chambers separated by septa. Though the bulk of the animal is found in the final body chamber, a fleshy cord called the siphuncle runs back through the remaining chambers. In life, the siphuncle is used to control the levels of fluid in the chambers, which in turn controls the animal's buoyancy. The boundary between the siphuncle and the surrounding chamber is marked a toughened sheath, referred to as the connecting ring. In the modern nautilus, the connecting ring is comprised of two layers, an outer calcareous layer and an inner chitinous layer. In comparable fossils, the latter chitinous layer has decomposed after death so only the outer layer is preserved. However, some extinct cephalopod groups preserve evidence of calcification in the inner as well as the outer layer. Based on the distinction between these two siphuncle types, Mutvei (2015) supported dividing most of the nautiloids between two major lineages, the Nautilosiphonata (with a nautilus-type siphuncle) and the Calciosiphonata (with the internally calcified connecting rings).

A couple of years earlier, the same author (Mutvei 2013) had proposed recognition of a superorder Multiceratoidea for nautiloids that combined multiple muscle scars with a nautilus-type siphuncle. Examples of nautiloid orders with such a combination included the Ellesmeroceratida (small nautiloids with densely placed septa), the Oncoceratida (often short, squat nautiloids) and the Discosorida (similarly squat forms with complex bulging connecting rings). All of these were found in the earlier part of the Palaeozoic with the oncoceratids dieing off in the early Carboniferous. Mutvei (2013) also included the coiled Tarphyceratida and the egg-shaped Ascoceratida in this group. Later, King & Evans (2019) redefined this grouping as the Multiceratia, excluding the Tarphyceratida and Ascoceratida on the grounds that they had ventromyarian rather than oncomyarian muscle scars. Mutvei (2013) suggested that, rather than representing retractor muscles, these smaller repeated scars were associated with an outgrowth of the mantle, either as tentacles or a muscular 'skirt', that was used to capture micro-plankton.

Phylogeny of 'nautiloids' supported by King & Evans (2019). Though not shown on this diagram, the majority of authors have suggested that ammonoids and coleoids are descended from Orthoceratida.

King & Evans (2019) proposed a reclassification of the subclass Nautiloidea between five subclasses defined primarily by muscle structure. Apart from the earliest oncomyarian Plectronoceratia, most 'nautiloids' could be divided between two lineages. On one side were the dorsomyarian Orthoceratia (usually thought to include the ancestors of the ammonoids and coleoids). On the other, the oncomyarian Multiceratia would eventually give rise to the ventromyarian Tarphyceratia which in turn included the ancestors of the pleuromyarian Nautilida. Note that many of the reocognised subclasses (and orders) remain paraphyletic but we are at least approaching a more informative picture of cephalopod evolution than the earlier unceremonious dumping into 'Nautiloidea' (I should probably also remind you that, for various reasons, most invertebrate palaeontologists still don't regard strict monophyly as a taxonomic requirement in and of itself).

The usage of muscle scars and connecting rings as classificatory keys is handicapped by the difficulty of observing them. As internal structures, they each require careful preparation of a specimen to observe. And once you've gotten to a position where you can see them, it seems not to be particularly easy to tell just what you're looking at. As a result, muscle scarring and siphon structure remains undescribed for the majority of nautiloid species. Judging the structure of connecting rings seems to be particularly challenging and some have gone so far as to suggest that purported different structures may be the result of post-mortem taphonomic processes (King & Evans 2019). Nevertheless, what we do know suggests that such features remain reasonably consistent within each of the well-recognised nautiloid orders. And Mutvei's (2015) concept of Calciosiphonata vs Nautilosiphonata does largely line up with King & Evans' (2019) dorsomyarian vs oncomyarian-ventromyarian lineages. There are, of course, some notable exceptions. Whether these will cause the developing structure to collapse, or whether they indicate mistakes in interpretation, only continued research will tell.

REFERENCES

King, A. H., & D. H. Evans. 2019. High-level classification of the nautiloid cephalopods: a proposal for the revision of the Treatise Part K. Swiss Journal of Palaeontology 138: 65–85.

Mutvei, H. 2013. Characterization of nautiloid orders Ellesmerocerida, Oncocerida, Tarphycerida, Discosorida and Ascocerida: new superorder Multiceratoidea. GFF 135 (2): 171–183.

Mutvei, H. 2015. Characterization of two new superorders Nautilosiphonata and Calciosiphonata and a new order Cyrtocerinida of the subclass Nautiloidea; siphuncular structure in the Ordovician nautiloid Bathmoceras (Cephalopoda). GFF 137 (3): 164–174.

The Pelecocrinidae

The latter part of the Palaeozoic represented a peak in crinoid diversity. More families of crinoid have been recognised from the Carboniferous and Permian than any period before or since. Among the various families of the Late Palaeozoic were representatives of the Pelecocrinidae.

Pelecocrinus insignis, from Moore & Teichert (1978).

The fossil record of the pelecocrinids was long-lasting but patchy. They are known from the early Carboniferous of North America (Pelecocrinus) and Great Britain (Forthocrinus), the late Carboniferous of North America (Exoriocrinus), and the late Permian of Italy (Tetrabrachiocrinus) and Indonesia (Drepaocrinus, Malaiocrinus). These locations largely correspond to what would have been a distribution along the northern coast of the Palaeotethys Ocean, possibly becoming extinct in the west as the gap between North America and the southern continent of Gondwana closed to form the Pangean supercontinent. Pelecocrinids seem to be so far unknown from the southern continents.

In life, pelecocrinids were characterised by a high crown arising from a low, bowl-shaped cup. The stem could be round or pentagonal. The base of the cup was flattened or shallowly concave, so the infrabasals (the lowest circle of plates above the stem) were barely or not visible where the cup to be observed from the side. The articulations between the upper plates of the cup and the bases of the arms were angled downwards and outwards with the articular facets being somewhat narrower than the plates they sat on. The arms themselves had a wedge-shaped cross-section and divided into equal branches two or more times along their length. Each arm bore one or two rows of pinnules. The anal sac, as described for Pelecocrinus, was relatively short and slender and summited by heavy, spinose plates.

The structure of the arm articulations and pinnules indicates that the arms would have been subject to muscular control with individual arms being able to be moved in more than one plane. This arrangement became increasingly common among crinoids from the Carboniferous onwards, allowing them to function in more high-current habitats. The position of the arms and pinnules could be adjusted to optimise filtration from the water column, while the current provided lift to the crown so it did not need to be mechanically supported by the stem alone. The effectiveness of this arrangement is attested to by the long history of the pelecocrinids. Nevertheless, the end-Permian extinction was to end their lineage along with that of so many of their contemporaries.

REFERENCE

Moore, R. C., & C. Teichert (eds) 1978. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology pt T. Echinodermata 2. Crinoidea vol. 2. The Geological Society of America, Inc.: Boulder (Colorado), and The University of Kansas: Lawrence (Kansas).

The Cephalodiscids

Among the more obscure inhabitants of the world's oceans are the Cephalodiscidae, a family of small (only a few millimetres in length), largely sessile animals that mostly live in colonies within a shared domicile. Though rarely observed, cephalodiscids have received their fair share of attention due to being among the closest living relatives of the graptolites that once dominated the world's oceans during the early Palaeozoic era.

Preserved Cephalodiscus colony, copyright E. A. Lazo-Wasem.

Cephalodiscids are one of the two living branches of the pterobranchs (the other being the Rhabdopleuridae), which together with the acorn worms make up the phylum Hemichordata. Hemichordates are in turn one of the three living phyla of the deuterostomes, together with the echinoderms and chordates (to which, of course, we ourselves belong). Pterobranchs are filter feeders, using an arrangement of tentaculated arms arising just behind the head to collect particles from the water. In cephalodiscids, each individual usually possesses multiple pairs of arms in contrast to the single pair in rhabdopleurids (though at least one species of Cephalodiscus has small males with a single pair). The head carries a large glandular disc (hence the name of the family) that is used to secrete the horny tissue making up the external dwelling (referred to as the tubarium) in which a colony of Cephalodiscus lives. Both cephalodiscids and rhabdopleurids have a contractile stalk at the end of the body from which new individuals (zooids) are budded. However, whereas the zooids of rhabdopleurids (and presumably their extinct graptolite relatives) remain attached to each other throughout their life, cephalodiscid zooids split away from their parent by the time they mature. The majority of cephalodiscid species have distinct males and females though a small number may be hermaphrodites. Some species exhibit sexual dimorphism; males may be considerably smaller than females.

Individual zooid of Cephalodiscus dodecalophus, from Sedgwick et al. (1898).

About twenty species of living cephalodiscids are currently recognised. The majority of these have been included in a single genus Cephalodiscus, albeit divided between a number of subgenera. The single outlier, Atubaria heterolopha, was described in 1936 from a single dredge haul near Japan (Mitchell et al. 2013). No dwelling material was found in the haul so it was presumed this species does not construct a tubarium like other cephalodiscids. However, its zooids were otherwise little different from those of Cephalodiscus. The subgenera of Cephalodiscus are mostly distinguished by tubarium structure. In some species, each individual in the colony will have its own separate tube closed off at the base. In other species, tubes will open into a central chamber shared between multiple zooids (Maletz 2014). Openings of the tubarium may be surrounded by spines and the like, secreted by the zooids as they creep out from their domicile.

Recent studies have indicated that cephalodiscids represent the sister group to all other pterobranchs/graptolites, implying an history that may extend back to the Cambrian. However, the fossil record of cephalodiscids themselves is minimal. This is largely due to practical difficulties: because the soft-bodied zooids are not preserved, fossils can only be identified from the external tubarium structure alone. Unless the origin point of the tubarium is preserved and identifiable, there is little to distinguish a cephalodiscid tubarium from a benthic graptolite (graptolite colonies begin with a differentiated larval chamber called a sicula, cephalodiscids produce no such structure). A handful of fossil cephalodiscids have been identified, notably the early Devonian Eocephalodiscus, but as yet they tell us little about the evolution of this ancient lineage.

REFERENCES

Maletz, J. 2014. The classification of the Pterobranchia (Cephalodiscida and Graptolithina). Bulletin of Geosciences 89 (3): 477–540.

Mitchell, C. E., M. J. Melchin, C. B. Cameron & J. Maletz. 2013. Phylogenetic analysis reveals that Rhabdopleura is an extant graptolite. Lethaia 46: 34–56.

The Oligorhynchiidae

Dorsal view of Oligorhynchia subplana gibbosa, from Cooper (1935).

From Oligochiton, we move onto Oligorhynchia. The Oligorhynchiidae are a family of very small brachiopods known from the Middle and Late Ordovician. They were among the earliest representatives of the Rhynchonellida, a major group of brachiopods that survives to the present day. Rhynchonellidan shells are usually characterised by a strong beak associated in life with a well-developed pedicel. In oligorhynchiids, this beak is suberect and the shell as a whole is an elongate subtriangular shape. The valves of the shell are folded into coarse plicae (ridges). At least towards the base of the shells, the major folds are in what is called an inverted arrangement, with a ridge in the dorsal valve matched by a valley in the ventral valve (Schmidt & McLaren 1965). Other structural features defining the group include small plates projecting into the pedicel opening, distinct vertical dental plates and divided hinge plates in the valve articulation, and the usual absence of a median septum or cardinal process inside the shell (Savage 1996).

The oligorhynchiids first arose in the east of what was then the continent of Laurentia (corresponding to modern North America). They subsequently spread across the Iapetus Ocean to the continents of Baltica and Kazakhstan (Jin 1996). The end of the Ordovician saw their replacement by other rhynchonellid families. Nevertheless, their genetic lineage would continue for some time yet as they have been identified as ancestors of later families: the Trigonirhynchiidae and Camarotoechiidae (Jin 1989). The brief oligorhynchiid spark would blossom into later rhynchonellid success.

REFERENCES


Jin, J. 1989. Late Ordovician–Early Silurian rhynchonellid brachiopods from Anticosti Island, Quebec. Biostratigraphie du Paléozoïque 10: 1–127, 130 pls.

Jin, J. 1996. Ordovician (Llanvirn–Ashgill) rhynchonellid brachiopod biogeography. In: Copper, P., & J. Jin (eds) Brachiopods pp. 123–132. CRC Press.

Savage, N. M. 1996. Classification of Paleozoic rhynchonellid brachiopods. In: P. Copper, & J. Jin (eds) Brachiopods pp. 249–260. CRC Press.

The Fate of Oligochiton

Chitons are one of the most distinctive and evolutionarily divergent groups of molluscs alive today. But compared to other groups of molluscs, the fossil record of chitons is rather sparse—or at least sparsely studied. It's not hard to see why. The multi-plated nature of the chiton shell means that it tends to fall apart after death, and the structure of the plates is such that critical features are easily abraded.

(Clockwise from top left) head, intermediate and tail valves of Lepidochitona lioplax, from Dell'Angelo et al. (2011).

Lepidochitona lioplax is one example of a fossil chiton. It was originally described from Oligocene rocks belonging to the Sooke Formation of southern Vancouver Island in British Columbia. Only four moderate-sized valves were initially identified: one head valve, one intermediate, and two tails (so at least two individuals were involved). The valves had a smooth outer surface without a strong distinction in appearance between the central and lateral areas. The insertion plates (lateral projections of the lower surface of the valves that in life anchor them into the surrounding girdle) were very short. The sutural laminae (anterior projections of the lower surface of the intermediate and tail valves that articulate with the valve in front) were low, wide, and divided in the middle by a broad shallow surface. Slits in the lateral insertion plates were numerous, with several in the tail valves and probably two or three on each side in the intermediate valves (Smith 1960). When first described, this species was thought distinct enough to belong in its own genus Oligochiton.

Oligochiton lioplax would then go little reported on until 2011 when Dell'Angelo et al. described an assemblage of chiton fossil from the latest Eocene or early Oligocene of the Lincoln Creek Formation in Washington State. Specimens of lioplax were relatively numerous in this collection and Dell'Angelo et al. were able to examine close to a hundred valves. Their observations would lead to something of a downgrade in the species status. Rather than deserving its own extinct genus, Dell'Angelo et al. felt that lioplax could be comfortably accommodated in the living genus Lepidochitona. Its smooth valves are unusual within Lepidochitona but not unique. The supposed multiple slits in the sides of the valves did not stand up to scrutiny. Instead, intermediate valves of L. lioplax bore only a single slit on each side, in line with other Lepidochitona species. The original inference of multiple slits was an error due to the original specimen being still partially embedded in the surrounding matrix.

Lepidochitona lioplax is one of the earliest known representatives of its genus but its exact significance is obscure. It has been suggested as a direct ancestor of the modern subgenus Spongioradsia but this, again, was based on the supposed slits in the intermediate valves that Dell'Angelo et al. refuted. To know how L. lioplax connects to the big picture of Lepidochitona evolution, we would probably need a better picture of Lepidochitona evolution overall.

REFERENCES

Dell'Angelo, B., A. Bonfitto & M. Taviani. 2011. Chitons (Polyplacophora) from Paleogene strata in western Washington State, U.S.A. Journal of Paleontology 85 (5): 936–954.

Smith, A. G. 1960. Amphineura. In: Moore, R. C. (ed.) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology pt I. Mollusca 1: Mollusca—General Features, Scaphopoda, Amphineura, Monoplacophora, Gastropoda—General Features, Archaeogastropoda and some (mainly Paleozoic) Caenogastropoda and Opisthobranchia pp. I41–I76. Geological Society of America, and University of Kansas Press.

Snails of Crystal

In many parts of the world, searching under pots or among other garden rubbish may turn up minute snails with translucent shells. Among the various families which might be found in this way are representatives of the family Pristilomatidae, commonly known as crystal snails.

Common crystal snail Vitrea crystallina, copyright O. Gargominy.

All members of the Pristilomatidae* are tiny: the minute gem snail Hawaiia minuscula, one species which has become widespread, is a giant within the family at close to three millimetres in diameter. The shells have a low spire, growing in more or less a disc shape, and are generally smooth or ornamented with very fine radial lines. In life, they are transparent or a cloudy white, explaining their vernacular name. Internal organs are often visible through the shell. The Pristilomatidae are part of the broader group of mostly tiny snails known as the Gastrodontoidea (which I've covered on this site earlier, albeit in a rather inept fashion). Even among this array, however, they are notably small. Within the gastrodontoids, the pristilomatids are primarily distinguished by the structure of the male genitalia, in which the vas deferens in attached to the proximal end of the penial tunica (a sheath of muscle tissue around the penis; Hausdorf 1998). However, there is a bit of an open question about how well supported they are as a group. Their distinguishing features could all be side effects of their reduced size.

*In older texts, you may find this family referred to as the Vitreidae, after one of the larger genera included. However, the name Pristilomatidae has priority.

Minute gem snail Hawaiia minuscula, copyright Chris Mallory.

Within their native range, crystal snails may mostly be found in western North America and the western Palaearctic. Several species, however, have become further distributed in association with humans. As such, they are mostly found in damp, disturbed habitats, such as gardens, nurseries and parks. They will be found in secluded locations such as under flower pots or buried among moss or leaf litter. Some species prefer to fully bury themselves within the soil. Some other members of the gastrodontoids are known to be predatory, feeding on small arthropods or other snails and their eggs, but I haven't been able to find any direct reference to such habits among pristilomatids. It seems more likely that they prefer to feed on decaying fragments of vegetation. They do not seem to be regarded as presenting a challenge to the gardener; rather, they may provide their own small amount of assistance in keeping things tidy.

REFERENCES

Hausdorf, B. 1998. Phylogeny of the Limacoidea sensu lato (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora). Journal of Molluscan Studies 64 (1): 35-66.

Hausdorf, B. 2000. Biogeography of the Limacoidea sensu lato (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora): vicariance events and long-distance dispersal. Journal of Biogeography 27: 379–390.

The Diosaccinae: Worldwide Sediment Dwellers

The harpacticoid copepods have been featured on this site a reasonable number of times now. These tiny crustaceans are among the most numerous animals in the world, both in terms of numbers of individuals and (in certain habitats) numbers of species. And among the most widespread representatives of the harpacticoids are members of the subfamily Diosaccinae.

Diosaccus tenuicornis, from Sars (1906).

The Diosaccinae are currently recognised as members of the family Miraciidae; earlier sources will usually refer to a family Diosaccidae but the recognition of the pelagic Miraciinae as derived members of this group (Willen 2000) requires use of the older name. Distinctive features of the Miraciidae compared to other harpacticoids include the presence of a relatively large, mobile rostrum and a number of distinctive arrangements of setae, including the inner seta on the basal endopodal segment of the first peraeopod (trunk leg) arising distally (Nicholls 1941, Willen 2000). Miraciids are also unusual in that females carry paired egg-sacs laterally; most other harpacticoid families carry only a single median egg-sac. Miraciids are divided between three subfamilies of which the Diosaccinae are the most diverse. Diosaccines are most readily distinguished by their retention of a number of plesiomorphic features such as crawling legs and relatively short caudal rami (Nicholls 1941; this author divided the current diosaccines between two subfamilies, the Diosaccinae sensu stricto and Amphiascinae, based on the presence or absence, respectively, of a clear distinction in breadth between the metasome and urosome, or 'trunk' and 'abdomen', but this division does not appear to have been recognised at this level by any subsequent authors). The great majority of diosaccines are marine, free-living and benthic. A handful of species have been described as associates of lobsters, whether commensals or semi-parasites. A small radiation of species of the genus Schizopera is known from Lake Tanganyika, and Karanovic & Reddy (2004) described a species Neomiscegenus indicus from subterranean fresh water in India. Marine diosaccines are found at all depths from the intertidal zone to the deep abyss. I don't know for sure but, though they are sediment dwellers, I don't get the impression (I could be wrong) that they are strictly meiofaunal. As noted earlier, many do not have the vermiform body shape characteristic of interstitial copepods. Many species also are around the half-millimetre size range, which I think may be relatively large for meiofauna?

Four species of Schizopera collected from Korea, from Karanovic & Cho (2016). Left to right: S. yeonghaensis, S. daejinensis, S. gangneungensis, S. sindoensis.

The other two subfamilies of Miraciidae are the aforementioned Miraciinae and the Stenheliinae, which have the endopod of the first peraeopod adapted for swimming rather than grasping and longer caudal rami. Though potential synapomorphies of the Diosaccinae were identified by Willen (2000), they're a bit weaksauce. There is a distinct possibility that further studies may identify the diosaccines as paraphyletic to the other two subfamilies. In particular, some diosaccines say a very unusual form of nauplius larva with the Stenheliinae, in which the body is strongly foreshortened and crab-like (Dahms et al. 2005). These nauplii also move sideways in a crab-like fashion and do not swim in the water column like the nauplii of other species. Practical considerations have lead most investigators of crustacean phylogeny to emphasis adult over larval morphology but the larval morphology of diosaccines raises some interesting questions.

REFERENCES

Karanovic, T., & Y. R. Reddy. 2004. A new genus and species of the family Diosaccidae (Copepoda: Harpacticoida) from the groundwaters of India. Journal of Crustacean Biology 24 (2): 246–260.

Nicholls, A. G. 1941. A revision of the families Diosaccidae Sars, 1906 and Laophontidae T. Scott, 1905 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida). Records of the South Australian Museum 7 (1): 65–110.

Willen, E. 2000. Phylogeny of the Thalestridimorpha Lang, 1944 (Crustacea, Copepoda). Cuvillier Verlag: Göttingen.

In the Arms of Pseudisograptus

From the Ordovician to the early Devonian, the graptoloids were a major component of the oceanic fauna. These colonial floaters are among the characteristic fossils of the early Palaeozoic and have received a lot of attention due to their use in biostratigraphy. The evolution of graptoloids has been presented as a process of increasing simplification, of progressive reductions in colonial complexity and density. Like all illustrations of evolutionary trends, this is an overly simplistic representation of how things actually occurred but it's not entirely incorrect. The history of graptoloids was indeed marked by a number of significant transitions were particular growth forms overran their predecessors. One genus that may have played a significant role in the lead-up to one of these turnovers was Pseudisograptus.

Pseudisograptus manubriatus koi, entire fossil and close-up diagram of initial thecae, from Cooper & Ni (1986).

The graptoloid genus Pseudisograptus has been collected from rocks in Australia, North America and eastern Asia dating to the latter part of the Floian stage of the early Ordovician, a bit over 470 million years ago (Cooper & Ni 1986). It is characterised by colonies growing in two branches (stipes) with the stipes spreading outwards and upwards like a pair of wings (indeed, one species of this genus luxuriates in the name of Pseudisograptus angel). In large specimens, the stipes reach about two centimetres in length and about three millimetres wide (from inner margin to the outer apex of the individual thecae). Pseudisograptus species are very similar to, and until 1972 where classified with, species of the related genus Isograptus. They differ, however, in the arrangement and growth of the earliest thecae in the colony. Whereas Isograptus stipes grow outwards immediately from the oldest theca, Pseudisograptus have the first few thecae on each stipes elongated and growing downwards before the stipes makes a later sharp turn upwards. As a result, between the two 'wings' of the stipes there is a more or less distinct triangle (referred to as the manubrium) formed from the bases of the early thecae. At the top of the manubrium is an upright thread, the nema. In a number of graptoloid fossils, an inflated structure has been identified at the top of the nema that probably functioned as a float. I don't know if such a structure has ever been identified in a Pseudisograptus fossil but I imagine it would quite easily be lost in the course of preservation.

Basal section of Cardiograptus amplus, from Fortey et al. (2005). Not a true biserial graptoloid but illustrative of the way biserial forms may have evolved from biramous ancestors.

Pseudisograptus' disappearance from the fossil record coincides with one of the aforementioned turnovers in graptoloid diversity, the appearance of the biserial graptoloids. These forms, which had two rows of thecae arising from a single central line, rapidly replaced most of the earlier branched forms. The rapid appearance of the biserial graptoloids has made their origins difficult to work out but current thinking is that they arose from a form similar to Pseudisograptus, in which the upward growth of the stipes became steep enough that they met in the middle along the nema. One interesting detail is that two lineages appear to have achieved biseriality at about the same time from closely related but separate ancestors. In the glossograptids, the conjoined stipes met each other side-by-side; in the diplograptids, they met back to back. Pseudisograptus has, at different times, been implicated in the ancestry of both of these groups. Cooper & Ni (1986) regarded Pseudisograptus as paraphyletic and including the direct ancestors of the glossograptids. In contrast, more recent studies by Fortey et al. (2005) and Maletz et al. (2009) have placed Pseudisograptus closer to the diplograptids. These studies have been more agnostic as to whether Pseudisograptus was a direct ancestor or a close relative. If the former is the case then, while the exact Pseudisograptus morphotype would disappear at the end of the Floian, their genetic lineage would continue strong for nearly ninety million more years.

REFERENCES

Cooper, R. A., & Ni Y. 1986. Taxonomy, phylogeny, and variability of Pseudisograptus Beavis. Palaeontology 29 (2): 313–363.

Fortey, R. A., Y. Zhang & C. Mellish. 2005. The relationships of biserial graptolites. Palaeontology 48 (6): 1241–1272.

Maletz, J., J. Carlucci & C. E. Mitchell. 2009. Graptoloid cladistics, taxonomy and phylogeny. Bulletin of Geosciences 84 (1): 7–19.

The Shells of Ducks and Swans

The freshwater environment has been a challenging one for bivalves. Though there is a reasonable diversity of freshwater bivalves around the world, they tend to be dominated by members of a select few lineages. One of the most successful groups of freshwater bivalves is the family Unionidae, and among the more widespread unionids are the freshwater mussels of the genus Anodonta.

Swan mussel Anodonta cygnea, copyright Gail Hampshire.

Anodonta species are found widely across northern Eurasia and North America, commonly referred to as 'mussels' in Eurasia and 'floaters' in North America. They are relatively large bivalves (one of the largest, the swan mussel Anodonta cygnea of Eurasia, can be up to about twenty centimetres across) with an irregularly elliptical shape and a relatively thin shell. One of their distinguishing features compared to other freshwater bivalves is the teeth of the hinge connecting the shell valves have been lost. Instead, the valves are primarily held together by the dorsal ligament (Moore 1969). Freshwater mussels are most commonly found in mud at the bottom of slow-moving or still waters, such as lakes or slow rivers.

One of the main hurdles to bivalve colonisation of fresh water has been the question of dispersal. In most marine bivalves, populations mostly disperse via their planktonic larvae. But because of the directed flow of water in rivers and the like, passive plankton fare less well in freshwater environments. If you just float along a stream, eventually you'll be washed out to sea. Anodonta species, like other unionids, solve the problem of getting back upstream through parasitic larvae called glochidia. Female Anodonta have the rear part of the gills modified into a pouch (or marsupium) in which the developing larvae are initially incubated. When they are released by their mother, the glochidia already possess a bivalved, sharp-edged shell. Released glochidia swim towards a suitable host in the form of a passing fish and use the valves of the shell to clamp onto a narrow appendage of the host's body such as its fins or gills. Eventually, a cyst forms around the attached glochid within with it develops until it is ready to emerge and attain maturity.

Winged floater Anodonta nuttalliana, a North American species, copyright Eric Wagner.

Freshwater molluscs have a history of being subject to taxonomic chicanery, through the Nouvelle École of late nineteenth-century France and other excesses of typological enthusiasm. Anodonta is no exception. The shells of freshwater mussels tend to be very plastic in morphology, their size, shape and appearance being strongly affected by their developmental environment. As a result, they include what were labelled by Riccardi et al. (2020) as "some of the most over-described species on the planet". The swan mussel A. cygnea alone has had somewhere in the region of 550 different species-group names applied to it at one time or another. Modern estimates of Anodonta diversity are considerably more conservative. Just four species are currently recognised from Eurasia (Riccardi et al. 2020) with the swan mussel and the duck mussel A. anatina being the most widespread (offhand, I don't know whether the mussels get their vernacular names because they're eaten by swans and ducks or because the shape of the shell is supposed to look like a swan or duck). Considering the travails of shell-based taxonomy, it is noteworthy that these species often cannot be distinguished with certainty without checking the soft tissue. North America is home to six or seven recognised species with diversity being higher to the west of the continent.

Nevertheless, there are still grounds for questioning the current taxonomy of Anodonta. Molecular studies of the genus by Chong et al. (2008), Bolotov et al. (2020) and Riccardi et al. (2020) have all suggested that Anodonta as currently recognised may be paraphyletic to closely related genera. In particular, there may be a divide between the Eurasian and North American lineages with the North American species closer to taxa found in eastern Asia. Anodonta has been a problem genus in the past and it sees no reason why it should allow itself to be reformed.

REFERENCES

Bolotov, I. N., A. V. Kondakov, E. S. Konopleva, I. V. Vikhrev, O. V. Aksenova, A. S. Aksenov, Y. V. Bespalaya, A. V. Borovskoy, P. P. Danilov, G. A. Dvoryankin, M. Y. Gofarov, M. B. Kabakov, O. K. Klishko, Y. S. Kolosova, A. A. Lyubas, A. P. Novoselov, D. M. Palatov, G. N. Savvinov, N. M. Solomonov, V. M. Spitsyn, S. E. Sokolova, A. A. Tomilova, E. Froufe, A. E. Bogan, M. Lopes-Lima, A. A. Makhrov & M. V. Vinarski. 2020. Integrative taxonomy, biogeography and conservation of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in Russia. Scientific Reports 10: 3072.

Chong, J. P., J. C. B. Box, J. K. Howard, D. Wolf, T. L. Myers & K. E. Mock. 2008. Three deeply divided lineages of the freshwater mussel genus Anodonta in western North America. Conserv. Genet. 9: 1303–1309.

Moore, R. C. (ed.) 1969. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology pt N. Mollusca 6. Bivalvia vol. 1. The Geological Society of America, Inc. and The University of Kansas.

Riccardi, N., E. Froufe, A. E. Bogan, A. Zieritz, A. Teixeira, I. Vanetti, S. Varandas, S. Zaccara, K.-O. Nagel & M. Lopes-Lima. 2020. Phylogeny of European Anodontini (Bivalvia: Unionidae) with a redescription of Anodonta exulcerata. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 189: 745–761.

Gastrotrichs and their Tacky Little Tubes

When I was a student, I was taught that known animal diversity could be divided between somewhere in the region of a couple of dozen 'phyla'. These were the fundamental units of animal classification, the basic archetypes of animal morphology. Many of these were the major assemblages with which we all were familiar: chordates, arthropods, molluscs and the like. But many were the so-called 'lesser phyla', those taxonomic orphans that, whether small in size or small in number or both, tended to escape observation and study by the majority of people. One such 'minor phylum' was the collection of small worm-like animals known as the Gastrotricha.

Polymerurus nodicaudus, a paucitubulate gastrotrich, from Balsamo et al. (2015). Scale bar equals 100 µm.

Gastrotrichs are, in general, minute (Todaro et al. 2019). The largest reach about three-and-a-half millimetres in length, the smallest are about sixty microns, and there are probably many more at the lower range than the higher. They are dorsoventrally flattened with numerous cilia, and their cuticle may often be differentiated into a covering of scales or spines. Gastrotrichs are aquatic and are often referred to as part of the meiofauna, the assemblage of animals specialised for living within and crawling through the spaces between sand grains. That is indeed the preferred habitat for many species and gastrotrichs may be among the most abundant inhabitants of this milieu, edged out only by the nematodes and copepods. However, other species live above the sediment surface, crawling over the surface of aquatic vegetation or even floating among the plankton. Over 850 species are known to date, of which are a bit over 500 are marine (with all marine species being meiofaunal) and the remainder are found in fresh water. They feed on micro-organisms such as bacteria and algae, swallowing them by means of a muscular pharynx.

Gastrotrichs differ from other animals in a number of significant features. Among these is the differentiation of the outer cuticle into two distinct layers. The outermost of these layers, the epicuticle, covers the entire outer surface of the body, including coating the cilia. Gastrotrichs also possess characteristic tubular outgrowths ending in adhesive glands. Their relationships to other animals remain uncertain. Most authors now agree that they represent an early-diverging branch of the Lophotrochozoa, the animal superclade including such creatures as molluscs and annelids. It is possible that they are more closely related to flatworms than anything else but even then the relationship would hardly be close.

Pseudostomella etrusca, a macrodasyidan gastrotrich, from Todaro et al. (2011). Scale bar = 50 µm.

Historically, gastrotrichs have been divided between two orders, the Macrodasyida and Chaetonotida. This division was supported by structural features of the pharynx and the body wall but is also reflected in the distribution of the adhesive tubes. The Macrodasyida, which are usually vermiform, possess adhesive tubules at both the anterior and posterior ends of the body, as well as laterally. Macrodasyidans are always interstitial in habits and usually marine. The Chaetonotida, on the other hand, lack anterior tubules. Chaetonotidans were further divided between two major taxa. One of these was the isolated genus Neodasys which is vermiform and interstitial like a macrodasyidan, and possesses both lateral and posterior tubules. The remaining Chaetonotida were recognised as the suborder Paucitubulatina. As indicated by their name (meaning 'few tubules'), members of this suborder are characterised by the reduction in number of adhesive tubules, usually to a single pair at the end of the body (a few species have two pairs of tubules, others lack distinct tubules and have the adhesive glands opening directly on the main body). They are short, generally shaped more or less like a bowling pin, and are the most ecologically diverse major gastrotrich group, including both marine and freshwater forms.

A phylogenetic analysis of gastrotrichs by Kieneke et al. (2008), however, questioned the established classification of the group. Rather than affirming a basal division between Chaetonotida and Macrodasyida, their results placed Neodasys as the sister group of all other gastrotrichs. Such a division may be reflected in the nature of their adhesive tubules: Neodasys has tubules containing a single gland but Macrodasyida and Paucitubulatina have two glands per tubule (unfortunately, because of the lack of close outgroups, it's hard to know which tubule type was ancestral). Within the Macrodasyida + Paucitubulatina clade, the macrodasyidans were then paraphyletic to the paucitubulates. Interestingly, the sister group to the Paucitubulatina was a clade of the only two known freshwater macrodasyidans, Marinellina and Redudasys. The implication was that gastrotrichs may have made the move to fresh water on just one occasion (followed by a number of returns to the sea among paucitubulates). This is not an isolated case: a number of phylogenetic studies of micro-organisms have found deep divides between marine and freshwater lineages. It seems it's hard to adjust to a life less salty.

REFERENCES

Kieneke, A., O. Riemann & W. H. Ahlrichs. 2008. Novel implications for the basal internal relationships of Gastrotricha revealed by an analysis of morphological characters. Zoologica Scripta 37 (4): 429–460.

Todaro, M. A., J. A. Sibaja-Cordero, O. A. Segura-Bermúdez, G. Coto-Delgado, N. Goebel-Otárola, J. D. Barquero, M. Cullell-Delgado & M. Dal Zotto. 2019. An introduction to the study of Gastrotricha, with a taxonomic key to families and genera of the group. Diversity 11: 117.

The Glyceriforms: Stabby Worms and Grabby Worms

Historically, the annelid worms have been considered a difficult group to classify. Whereas most of the recognised families have been fairly well established, higher taxa uniting these families have tended to be a bit on the vague side. Nevertheless, there are some supra-familial groups that can be considered well established, one such group being the Glyceriformia.

Specimen of Goniadidae (head to the right), from NOAA Fisheries.

The glyceriforms are two families of marine worms, the Glyceridae and Goniadidae. More than a hundred species are known in this clade (over forty glycerids and over sixty goniadids), found in habitats ranging from the intertidal to the abyssal. They range in size from about a centimetre in length to well over half a metre. The front end of the body tapers to a narrow, elongate conical point in front of the mouth, bearing two terminal pairs of small, slender appendages that may correspond to the antennae and palps of other worms. Eyes may be present or absent. The pharynx forms a remarkably elongate, eversible proboscis. In Glyceridae, the proboscis ends in a ring of four hook-shaped jaws, all similar to each other. In Goniadidae, the arrangement of jaws is more complex with the usual arrangement being small micrognaths on one side of the ring and larger macrognaths on the other. Glycerids usually have a transparent skin and an overall red or white colour reflecting the coloration of the internal fluids (red-coloured individuals are sometimes known as 'bloodworms', as are many other similarly coloured worm-like invertebrates). Goniadids have a more opaque cuticle and often have an iridescent sheen (Rouse & Pleijel 2001).

Glycera dibranchiata with everted proboscis, from the Yale Peabody Museum.

Glyceriforms most commonly live as burrowers in muddy or sandy substrates though some live on the surface of rocks. Most are carnivores of active invertebrates such as crustaceans or other worms; some may be detritivores. They may be vagile or they may construct permanent galleries of burrows with multiple entrance and exit openings in which they wait to lunge at anything foolish enough to pass nearby. In glycerids, the stabby jaws are associated with venom glands leading to ducts opening through pores on the jaw's underside. In some species, this venom is strong enough to cause a painful reaction in humans (though I haven't come across any references to long-term consequences). Goniadids lack venom glands and seem to rely on the physical use of their jaws to capture prey. As with many other marine worms, reproduction happens via pelagic epitokes. As a suitable time approaches (Prentiss, 2020, records goniadid epitokes emerging only during a full moon), the glyceriform worm undergoes a metamorphosis involving the break-down of the digestive system and enlargement of the parapodia. The transformed epitokes swim towards the surface where they release gametes through ruptures of the body wall, ending their life in a suicidal orgasm.

Close-up on proboscis of Glycera alba, copyright Hans Hillewaert.

Because of their hardened jaws, which are mostly constructed of protein but partially mineralised, glyceriforms have quite a good fossil record compared to many other worms (Böggemann 2006). Fossilised glyceriform jaws have been found as far back as the Triassic and are little different from those of modern glyceriforms. Body fossils are, unsurprisingly, much rarer but a worm from the Carboniferous Mazon Creek fauna, Pieckonia helenae, has been identified as a stem-group goniadid. The glyceriform body plan seems to have been a very successful one, remaining essentially unchanged over hundreds of millions of years.

REFERENCES

Böggemann, M. 2006. Worms that might be 300 million years old. Marine Biology Research 2: 130–135.

Prentiss, N. K. 2020. Nocturnally swarming Caribbean polychaetes of St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, USA. Zoosymposia 19: 91–102.

Rouse, G. W., & F. Pleijel. 2001. Polychaetes. Oxford University Press.

Sea Spiders

With arthropods being such a massively diverse sector of the global biota (and even that feels like an understatement; describing arthropods as 'very diverse' seems a bit like describing the Andromeda Galaxy as 'very far away'), it is only to be expected that it contains some very weird corners. And definitely among the weirder of those corners are the Pycnogonida, commonly known as the 'sea spiders'.

Anoplodactylus evansi, copyright Mick Harris & Claudia Arango.

Pycnogonids are a group of marine arthropods found around the world (not actual spiders, of course, though honest-to-goodness marine spiders are a thing that does exist). Their relationships to other arthropods have long been in dispute but the majority view is that they are distant relatives of the terrestrial arachnids. Pycnogonids are not uncommon in both coastal and deep-sea habitats but tend to go unnoticed: they feed on rock-encrusting colonial animals such as hydrozoans and are often coloured to disguise themselves against their prey. If one ever does see a sea spider, the first thing to stand out about them is how they are made of legs. The central body is often remarkably small compared to its limbs, to the extent that the dubbing of pycnogonids as 'no-bodies' by an early 20^th Century author has become something of a cliché. Certain major organs, such as the gonads and parts of the digestive system, have even been diverted into the legs to make up for the lack of space in the body. Most pycnogonids possess four pairs of walking legs though there are species with more. At the front of the body on the underside of the head is a large proboscis that is used for sucking the juices out of prey, flanked by pairs of pincer-bearing chelifores and/or palps used for tearing it open. Near the first pair of walking legs there is often a pair of slender leg-like appendages known as the ovigers, used for carrying bundles of eggs until they hatch. The greater part of the body behind the head is taken up by the leg-bearing thorax; the legless abdomen is reduced to the merest nub like the docked tail of a dog.

Close-up on preserved male Anoplodactylus lentus, from Florida Museum of Natural History.

One of the largest recognised genera of pycnogonids is Anoplodactylus, with over 130 species worldwide and many continuing to be described (Lucena et al. 2015). This genus can be distinguished by the possession of chelifores with functional chelae (pincers) but palps are absent or reduced to buds. Both the chelifores and the proboscis are relatively short (Child 1998). Ovigers are five- or six-segmented and present in males only (male care of eggs is the standard pattern among pycnogonids). Species vary from 0.6 to 6 millimetres in body length. The majority of species of Anoplodactylus are found in shallow waters in temperate and tropical regions with a smaller number of species found in polar and deep waters. Alvarez & Ojeda (2018) record finding a single specimen of the species A. batangensis among vegetation on the surface of an anchialine pool in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. Though the surface of these pools is more or less fresh water, deeper sections are saline owing to subterranean connections to the sea. The collection of a pycnogonid near the surface of this pool suggests an ability to adjust to very low salinity though one questions whether it would be able to survive indefinitely.

Larvae of Anoplodactylus are very small compared to those of other pycnogonids and have what has been termed an 'encysting' development (Burris 2011). As bizarre as the appearance of adult pycnogonids is, their larvae are arguably even weirder, being essentially nothing more than a head bearing chelifores, proboscis, and two pairs of undifferentiated appendages. The remaining segments of the body are added over the course of development. In Anoplodactylus, the larvae develop as parasites, forming a cyst in the gastrocoel (the stomach cavity) of cnidarians (having presumably been placed there somehow by their fathers, though I haven't found if we know how). They become free-living upon reaching the first juvenile stage, emerging from their host to pursue their predatory lives.

REFERENCES

Alvarez, F., & M. Ojeda. 2018. First record of a sea spider (Pycnogonida) from an anchialine habitat. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research 46 (1): 219–224.

Burris, Z. P. 2011. Larval morphologies and potential developmental modes of eight sea spider species (Arthropoda: Pycnogonida) from the southern Oregon coast. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 91 (4): 845–855.

Child, C. A. 1998. The Marine Fauna of New Zealand: Pycnogonida (Sea Spiders). National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA).

Lucena, R. A., J. F. de Araújo & M. L. Christoffersen. 2015. A new species of Anoplodactylus (Pycnogonida: Phoxichilidiidae) from Brazil, with a case of gynandromorphism in Anoplodactylus eroticus Stock, 1968. Zootaxa 4000 (4): 428–444.

The Age of Olcostephaninae

Ammonites are among the iconic fossils of the Mesozoic. These shelled cephalopods dominated the oceans during their heyday and diversified into a wide array of taxa. Many of these have become significant for recognising particular periods in the earth's history; among these are members of the Olcostephaninae of the Early Cretaceous.

Olcostephanus astierianus, copyright Hectonichus.

The Olcostephaninae, as recognised by Wright et al. (1996), are known from the Valanginian and Hauterivian epochs of the Early Cretaceous, disappearing from the fossil record some time during the earlier part of the latter. The Valanginian ran from about 140 to 133 million years ago; the Hauterivian lasted for about three and a half million years after that. A brief reminder here: the Cretaceous lasted for a bloody long time, with more time separating the beginning and end of the Cretaceous than separates the end of the Cretaceous and today. One genus described from Pakistan, Provalanginites, has been supposed to come from the latest Jurassic but, as this is at least five million years earlier than any known olcostephanine anywhere else, its age is regarded as questionable. Olcostephanines can be very abundant in formations of the right age. A mass occurrence in the latest Valanginian of northwestern Europe has long been recognised as a geological marker, dubbed the 'Astierien Schichten' (Astieria being a synonym of Olcostephanus; Lukeneder 2004).

Saynoceras verrucosum, from here.

Olcostephanines are small to moderate-sized ammonites. Lukeneder (2004) refers to macroconches* of Olcostephanus guebhardi up to about ten centimetres in diameter. The olcostephanines pictured in Wright et al. (1996) seem to indicate an average size smaller than this and the group also includes a number of dwarf genera that look to only be a bit over one centimetre in diameter. The shell of olcostephanines is usually characterised by a pattern of transverse ribs coalescing in bundles to meet tubercles on the inner margin of the whorl. One dwarf genus, Saynoceras, has a stronger ornamentation of two rows of tubercles near the midline and outer margins of the whorls.

*A common pattern in ammonoids is the co-occurrence within a formation of distinct forms, termed 'macroconches' and 'microconches', that are broadly similar except in size and the configuration of the aperture (generally simple in macroconches but with protruding lappets in microconches). The most popular interpretation of this phenomenon is that the forms represent sexual dimorphism. Obviously which sex is which can't be known at this time though comparison with living cephalopods suggests that the macroconches may be female.

Valanginites nucleus, from here.

Olcostephanines are very similar in external appearance to the earlier subfamily Spiticeratinae (known from the very earliest part of the Cretaceous) and are likely to be descended from among that group. Though the Olcostephaninae themselves as currently recognised disappeared during the Hauterivian epoch, this may not have been the actual end of the olcostephanine lineage. The slightly later Holcodiscidae are very similar to the olcostephanines and some have questioned whether they even warrant separation. There is also a strong similarity between early members of the superfamily Desmoceratoidea and species of Olcostephanus (Wright et al. 1996). If this similarity also indicates ancestry, then the family line of the olcostephanines would continue right until the final extinction of the ammonites at the end of the Cretaceous.

REFERENCES

Lukeneder, A. 2004. The Olcostephanus level: an Upper Valanginian ammonoid mass-occurrence (Lower Cretaceous, Northern Calcareous Alps, Austria). Acta Geologica Polonica 54 (1): 23–33.

Wright, C. W., J. H. Calloman & M. K. Howarth. 1996. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology pt L. Mollusca 4, revised vol. 4. Cretaceous Ammonoidea. The Geological Society of America, Inc.: Boulder (Colorado), and The University of Kansas: Lawrence (Kansas).

Tricolia: Fluorescent Seashells

Tricolia pullus, copyright Ar rouz.

Search among patches of seaweed along the shores of Africa, Australia or warmer parts of Eurasia and you may be able to find represents of the marine gastropod genus Tricolia. Tricolia are small shells, less than a centimetre in height, with shiny shells that may be smooth or spirally ribbed. Most species have a moderately high spire and an ovate shape but some are lower and more globose (Knight et al. 1960). The shell may or may not have an umbilicus, and there is a calcareous, externally convex operculum. Tricolia belongs to the Phasianellidae, commonly known as pheasant shells, presumably in reference to the bold, intricate colour patterns of many species. Species of Tricolia and the closely related genus Eulithidium, which replaces it in the Americas, have shell pigments containing porphyrin that fluoresce under ultraviolet light (Vafiadis & Burn 2020). Over forty species of Tricolia are currently recognised with the highest diversity in southern Africa (Nangammbi et al. 2016). However, the taxonomy of the genus has historically been confused due to polymorphic species being named multiple times; it is possible that at least some of the apparent African diversity is an artefact of the genus being largely unrevised in that region. An analysis of some of the southern African taxa by Nangammbi et al. (2016) found that some 'species' could not be distinguished genetically. They were, nevertheless, distinct geographically and the authors suggested that they may be variants of a single species responding to different environments.

Variants of Tricolia kochii, copyright Brian du Preez.

Like other members of the Vetigastropoda (the clade containing most of what used to be called the 'archaeogastropods'), Tricolia species have a simple life cycle without an actively feeding planktonic larva. The basic mode of reproduction is by broadcast spawning with separate males and females releasing gametes into the water column. After fertilisation, a brief non-feeding planktonic phase is nourished by yolk from the egg before the larva settles. The brevity of this phase is reflected by the resultant form of the protoconch which accounts for less than an entire whorl. In the Indo-West Pacific species T. variabilis, the male is smaller than the female and sits directly on her, waiting to fertilise her eggs as they are laid as gelatinous capsules rather than freely broadcasted. A temperate Australian species, T. rosea, takes things a step further as the female broods embryos (up to nearly fifty at a time) within the cavity of the last shell whorl (Vafiadis & Burn 2020). How the eggs are actually fertilised remains unknown but all embryos within a brood are about the samesize and stage of development, indicating a single fertilisation event; perhaps males associate with females as in T. variabilis. After the young pheasant shells hatch or settle, they initially feed on diatoms and other microalgae until they eventually grow enough to move onto the seaweed fronds that will comprise their adult diet.

REFERENCES

Knight, J. B., L. R. Cox, A. M. Keen, R. L. Batten, E. L. Yochelson & R. Robertson. 1960. Gastropoda: systematic descriptions. In: R. C. Moore (ed.) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology pt I. Mollusca 1. Mollusca—general features, Scaphopoda, Amphineura, Monoplacophora, Gastropoda—general features, Archaeogastropoda and some (mainly Paleozoic) Caenogastropoda and Opisthobranchia pp. I171–I351. Geological Society of America: Boulder (Colorado), and University of Kansas Press: Lawrence (Kansas).

Nangammbi, T. C., D. G. Herbert & P. R. Teske. 2016. Molecular insights into species recognition within southern Africa's endemic Tricolia radiation (Vetigastropoda: Phasianellidae). Journal of Molluscan Studies 82: 97–103.

Vafiadis, P., & R. Burn. 2020. Internal embryonic brooding and development in the southern Australian micro-snail Tricolia rosea (Angas, 1867) (Vetigastropoda: Phasianellidae: Tricoliinae). Molluscan Research 40 (1): 60–76.