Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 78, Issue 2, pp 215–221 | Cite as

Ingestion of a medusa (Aegina citrea) by the nematocyst-containing ctenophore Haeckelia rubra (formerly Euchlora rubra): phylogenetic implications

  • C. E. Mills
  • R. L. Miller
Article

Abstract

The rare ctenophore Haeckelia rubra (formerly Euchlora rubra) has long been known to have nematocysts rather than colloblasts in its tentacles. Five specimens were collected in the San Juan Archipelago, Washington State, USA in 1980 and 1981, and their feeding behavior was observed in the laboratory. We found that H. rubra readily eats the tentacles of a medusa, Aegina citrea, whose nematocysts (apotrichous isorhizas) are nearly identical in morphology to the nematocysts of the ctenophore. When H. rubra was offered 16 other species of hydromedusae and 1 siphonophore in the laboratory, the ctenophores showed little or no tendency to ingest these potential prey items. In addition to its routinely positive response to A. citrea, the ctenophore could be induced by manipulation and starvation to accept and ingest bits of the bodies of 4 additional species of hydromedusae and 1 siphonophore. These results, combined with the histological and rearing experiments of other investigators, leave little doubt that the nematocysts in H. rubra are not endogenous, but are “kleptocnidae” similar to those nematocysts retained and subsequently used by some species of nudibranchs that feed on Cnidaria. A close phylogenetic link between the Cnidaria and the Ctenophora is most unlikely.

Keywords

Feeding Behavior Positive Response Prey Item Additional Species Potential Prey 
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.

Literature cited

  1. Barnes, R. D.: Invertebrate zoology, 4th ed. 1 089 pp. Philadelphia: Saunders College 1980Google Scholar
  2. Barrington, E. J. W.: Invertebrate structure and function, 2nd ed. 765 pp. New York: John Wiley & Sons 1979Google Scholar
  3. Bode, H. and K. Flick: Distribution and dynamics of nematocyte populations in Hydra attenuata. J. Cell Sci. 21, 15–34 (1976)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Borradaile, L. A. and F. A. Potts: The invertebrata, 3rd ed. 795 pp. Cambridge: University Press 1959Google Scholar
  5. Carré, C. et D. Carré: Les chidocysts du cténophore Euchlora rubra (Kölliker 1853). Cah. Biol. mar. 21, 221–226 (1980a)Google Scholar
  6. Carré, D. and C. Carré: On triggering and control of cnidocyst discharge. Mar. Behav. Physiol. 7, 109–117 (1980b)Google Scholar
  7. Chiu, S. Y. (=Qiu, S. Y.): On the nematocyst-bearing ctenophore Euchlora rubra Kölliker from Xiamen Harbour. Oceanologia Limnol. sin. 11, 255–258 (1980). [In Chinese, with English Abstract]Google Scholar
  8. Chun, C.: Die Ctenophoren des Golfes von Neapel. Fauna Flora golf Neapel. 1, 1–313 (1880)Google Scholar
  9. Conklin, E. J. and R. N. Mariscal: Feeding behavior, ceras structure, and nematocyst storage in the aerolid nudibranch, Spurilla neapolitana (Mollusca). Bull. mar. Sci. 27, 658–667 (1977)Google Scholar
  10. Dunlap, H. L.: Oogenesis in the Ctenophora, 230 pp. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 1966Google Scholar
  11. Edmunds, M.: Protective mechanisms in the Eolidacea (Mollusca Nudibranchia). J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 46, 27–71 (1966)Google Scholar
  12. Gegenbauer, C.: Studien über Organisation und Systematik der Ctenophoren. Arch. Naturgesch. 22, 163–205 (1856)Google Scholar
  13. Goy, J.: Les hydroméduses de la mer Ligure. Bull. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris. (Sect. Zool.) 62, 965–1009 (1972)Google Scholar
  14. Hadži, J.: Haben die Ktenophoren eigene Kniden? Bull. scient. Cons. Acads RPF Yougosl. 1, p. 18 (1953)Google Scholar
  15. Hand, C.: On the origin and phylogeny of the coelenterates. Syst. Zool. 8, 191–202 (1959)Google Scholar
  16. Hickman, C. P.: Biology of the invertebrates, 2nd ed. 757 pp. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Co. 1973Google Scholar
  17. Hyman, L. H.: The invertebrates. Volume V, 783 pp. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. 1959Google Scholar
  18. Jones, E. C.: Tremoctopus violaceus uses Physalia tentacles as weapons. Science, N.Y. 139, 764–766 (1963)Google Scholar
  19. Kepner, W. A. and J. F. Barker: Nematocysts of Microstoma. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 47, 239–251 (1924)Google Scholar
  20. Kölliker, A.: Über Rippenquallen. Z. wiss. Zool. 4, 299–370 (1853)Google Scholar
  21. Komai, T.: Studies on two aberrant ctenophores, Coeloplana and Gastrodes, 102 pp. Kyoto: Published by the author 1922Google Scholar
  22. Komai, T.: The nematocysts in the ctenophore Euchlora rubra. Proc. imp. Acad. Japan 18, 255–256 (1942)Google Scholar
  23. Komai, T.: The nematocysts in the ctenophore Euchlora rubra. Am. Nat. 85, 73–74 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Komai, T.: A note on the phylogeny of the Ctenophora. In: The lower metazoa: comparative biology and phylogeny, pp 181–188. Ed. by E. C. Dougherty. Berkeley: University of California Press 1963Google Scholar
  25. Komai, T. and T. Tokioka: Three remarkable ctenophores from the Japanese seas. Annotnes zool. jap. 21, 144–151 (1942)Google Scholar
  26. Mackie, G. O. and G. V. Mackie: Systematic and biological notes on living hydromedusae from Puget Sound. Bull. natn. Mus. Can. (Contr. Zool.) 199, 63–84 (1963)Google Scholar
  27. Mariscal, R. N.: Nematocysts. In: Coelenterate biology: reviews and new perspectives, pp 129–178. Ed. by L. Muscatine and H. M. Lenhoff, New York: Academic Press 1974Google Scholar
  28. Miller, R. L.: Sperm chemotaxis in the Hydromedusae. I. Speciesspecificity and sperm behavior. Mar. Biol. 53, 99–114 (1979)Google Scholar
  29. Mills, C. E.: Seasonal occurrence of planktonic medusae and ctenophores in the San Juan Archipelago (NE Pacific). Wasmann J. Biol. 39, 6–29 (1981)Google Scholar
  30. Mills, C. E.: Patterns and mechanisms of distribution of medusae and ctenophores, 384 pp. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia 1982Google Scholar
  31. Picard, J.: Les nematocystes du ctenaire Euchlora rubra (Kölliker) 1953. Recl Trav. Stn mar. Endoume 15, 99–103 (1955)Google Scholar
  32. Rees, W. J.: The evolution of the Hydrozoa. In: The Cnidaria and their evolution, pp 199–222. Ed. by W. J. Rees, London: Academic Press 1966Google Scholar
  33. Samassa, P.: Zur Histologie der Ctenophoren. Arch. mikroskop. Anat. EntwMech. 40, 157–242 (1892)Google Scholar
  34. Thompson, T. E. and I. Bennett: Physalia nematocysts: utilized by mollusks for defense. Science, N.Y. 166, 1532–1533 (1969)Google Scholar
  35. Uchida, T.: Studies on Japanese hydromedusae. 2. Trachomedusae and Narcomedusae. Jap. J. Zool. 2, 73–97 (1928)Google Scholar
  36. Weill, R.: Contribution à l'étude des cnidaires et de leurs nematocystes. Trav. Stn zool. Wimereux 10/11, 1–701 (1934)Google Scholar
  37. Werner, B.: Die Nesselkapseln der Cnidaria, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Hydroida. Helgoländer wiss. Meeresunters. 12, 1–39 (1965)Google Scholar
  38. Zhang, J. B.: Notes on the hydromedusae fauna of the China Seas areas. Acta oceanol. sin. 1, 126–135 (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. E. Mills
    • 1
  • R. L. Miller
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Friday Harbor LaboratoriesUniversity of WashingtonFriday HarborUSA
  2. 2.Friday Harbor LaboratoriesFriday HarborUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations