Zoomorphology

, Volume 105, Issue 2, pp 114–124 | Cite as

Domes, arches and urchins: The skeletal architecture of echinoids (Echinodermata)

  • Malcolm Telford
Article

Summary

A combination of simple membrane theory and statical analysis has been used to determine how stresses are carried in echinoid skeletons. Sutures oriented circumferentially are subject principally to compression. Those forming radial zig-zags are subject to compression near the apex and tension near the ambitus. Radial and circumferential sutures in Eucidaris are equally bound with collagen fibers but in Diadema, Tripneustes, Psammechinus, Arbacia and other regular echinoids, most radial sutures are more heavily bound, and thus stronger in tension. Psammechinus, Tripneustes and several other echinoids have radial sutures thickened by ribs which increase the area of interlocking trabeculae. Ribs also increase flexural stiffness and carry a greater proportion of the stress. Further, ribs effectively draw stress from weaker areas pierced by podial pores, and increase the total load which can be sustained.

Allometry indicates that regular echinoids become relatively higher at the apex as size increases, thus reducing ambital stresses. Some spatangoids with very high domes (eg Agassizia) maintain isometry, but others (eg Meoma) become flatter with size. Both holectypoids (Echinoneus) and cassiduloids (Apatopygus) maintain a constant height to diameter relationship. Flattening, and consequently ambital tensile stress, is greatest in the clypeasteroids. In this group the formation of internal buttresses which preferentially carry stress, reaches maximum development. A notable exception, however, is the high domed Clypeaster rosaceus.

In this analysis it was assumed that local buckling or bending does not occur. The test of some echinoids (e.g. Diadematoida) have relatively wide sutures swathed in collagen, which allows local deformation. Others (e.g. Arbacia) have rigid sutures with reduced collagen. In Psammechinus and other members of the Order Echinoida, in addition to rib formation, inner and outer surface trabeculae are thickened so that the individual plates are stiffened. Some spatangoids (Meoma, Paleopneustes) have extensive sutural collagen, but the cassiduloid Apatopygus has collagen confined to junctions of sutures, and elsewhere the joints are strengthened and stiffened by fusion of trabeculae. Fusion of surface trabeculae is almost complete in the holectypoid, Echinoneus, and the sutures are obscured.

Keywords

Total Load Flexural Stiffness Maximum Development Constant Height Weak Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burkhardt A, Hansmann W, Markel K, Niemann H-J (1983) Mechanical design in spines of diadematoid echinoids (Echinodermata, Echinoidea). Zoomorphology 102:189–203Google Scholar
  2. Currey JD (1975) A comparison of the strength of echinoderm spines and mollusc shells. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 55:419–424Google Scholar
  3. Dafni J (1984) Test growth and calcification of the regular echinoid Tripneustes gratilla elatensis. International Echinoderms Conference, Galway.Google Scholar
  4. Emlet RB (1982) Echinoderm calcite: a mechanical analysis from larval spicules. Biol Bull 163:264–275Google Scholar
  5. Eylers JP (1976) Aspects of skeletal mechanics of the starfish Asterias forbesii. J Morphol 149:353–367Google Scholar
  6. Gordon JE (1968) The new science of strong materials. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England, pp 269Google Scholar
  7. Gordon JE (1978) Structures: or why things don't fall down. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England, pp 395Google Scholar
  8. Harold AS (1985) Body wall structure of Echinarachnius parma (Echinoidea: Clypeasteroida). M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Zology, University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  9. Heyman J (1977) Equilibrium of shell structures. Oxford University Press, England, pp 137Google Scholar
  10. Hyman LH (1955) The Invertebrates. IV: Echinodermata. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 763Google Scholar
  11. Kenner H (1976) Geodesic math and how to use it. University of California Press Berkeley, Los Angeles, pp 172Google Scholar
  12. Klein L, Currey JD (1970) Echinoid skeleton: absence of collagenous matrix. Science 169:1209–1210Google Scholar
  13. Lin TY, Stotesbury SD (1981) Structural concepts and systems for architects and engineers. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 590Google Scholar
  14. Moss ML, Meehan MM (1967) Sutural connective tissues in the test of an echinoid Arbacia puntulata. Acta Anat 66:279–304Google Scholar
  15. Nichols D, Currey JD (1968) The secretion, structure, and strength of echinoderm calcite (pp 251–261). In: Cell structure and its interpretation. SM McGee-Russell and KFA Ross, Eds., Edward Arnold Ltd., London, pp 433Google Scholar
  16. Mukhin NV, Pershin AN, Shishman BA (1983) Statics of structures. MIR publishers, Moscow, pp 405Google Scholar
  17. O'Neill PL (1981) Polycrystalline echinoderm calcite and its fracture mechanics. Science 2133:646–648Google Scholar
  18. Phelan TH (1977) Comments on the water vascular system, food grooves, and ancestry of the clypeasteroid echinoids. Bull Mar Sci 27:400–422Google Scholar
  19. Raup DM (1962) The phylogeny of calcite crystallography in echinoids. J Paleontol 36:793–810Google Scholar
  20. Seilacher A (1979) Constructional morphology of sand dollars. Paleobiology 5:191–221Google Scholar
  21. Smith AB (1980) Stereom microstructure of the echinoid test. Spec Pap Palaeontol 25:1–81Google Scholar
  22. Smith AB (1984) Echinoid palaeobiology. George Allen and Unwin, London, pp 190Google Scholar
  23. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. WH Freeman and Co., San Francisco, pp 859Google Scholar
  24. Strathmann RR (1981) The role of spines in preventing structural damage to echinoid tests. Paleobiology 7:400–406Google Scholar
  25. Telford M (1985) Structural analysis of the test of Echinocyamus pusillus. Proc Int Echinoderms Conf, Galway 1984Google Scholar
  26. Thadani BN (1964) Modern methods in structural mechanics. Asia Publishing House, Bombay, pp 619Google Scholar
  27. Travis DF (1970) The comparative ultrastructure and organization of five calcified tissues. In: Biological calcification. H Schraer ed. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 203–311Google Scholar
  28. Ugural AC (1981) Stress in plates and shells. McGraw Hill Book Co., NY, pp 317Google Scholar
  29. Wainwright SA, Biggs WS, Currey JD, Gosline JM (1976) Mechanical design in organisms. Edward Arnold, England, pp 423Google Scholar
  30. Weber J, Greer R, Voight B, White E, Roy R (1962) Unusual strength properties of echinoderm calcite related to structure. J Ultrastructure Res 26:355–366Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malcolm Telford
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations