Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 90, Issue 3, pp 413–424 | Cite as

Not all ctenophores are hermaphrodites. Studies on the systematics, distribution, sexuality and development of two species of Ocyropsis

  • G. R. Harbison
  • R. L. Miller
Article

Abstract

The lobate ctenophores Ocyropsis maculata and O. crystallina are not simultaneous hermaphrodites, based on morphological, histological and experimental evidence. Sex ratios in populations, sex ratios of size classes within populations, and average sizes of males and females support the hypothesis that both species are dioecious, rather than sequential hermaphrodites. We have divided each species into two subspecies, based on morphology and geographic distribution. Preliminary evidence suggests that the subspecies also differ in reproductive behavior. One subspecies, O. crystallina guttata, spawns on a daily cycle in the laboratory, and spawning becomes more synchronous when males and females are placed together. Species of Ocyropsis, all of which are oceanic in distribution, are probably descended from a common ancestor that was a simultaneous hermaphrodite. That this group of oceanic ctenophores evolved dioecy directly contradicts the assertion that there is a selective advantage to hermaphroditism in environments where the probability of finding a mate is reduced.

Keywords

Experimental Evidence Geographic Distribution Size Classis Common Ancestor Preliminary Evidence 
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. Backus, R. H. and J. E. Craddock: Pelagic faunal provinces and sound-scattering levels in the Atlantic Ocean. In: Oceanic sound scattering prediction, pp 529–547. Ed. by N. Andersen and B. Zahuranec. New York: Plenum Press 1977Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, R. D.: Invertebrate zoology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Coll. 1980Google Scholar
  3. Bigelow, H. B.: Medusae from the Maldive Islands. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 39 (9), 245–269, pl. 8 (1904)Google Scholar
  4. Childress, J. J.: Oceanic biology: lost in space? In: Oceanography the present and the future, pp 127–135. Ed. by P. G. Brewer. Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag 1983Google Scholar
  5. Chiu, S.-Y.: On the metamorphosis of the ctenophore Ocyropsis crystallina (Rang) from Amoy. Acta zool. sinica 15 (1), 10–16 (1963)Google Scholar
  6. Chun, C.: Ctenophoren des Golfes von Neapel. Fauna Flora Golf Neapel 1, 313 pp., 16 pls. (1880)Google Scholar
  7. Dawydoff, C.: Les coeloplanides indochinoises. Arch. Zool. gén. 80, 125–162 (1938)Google Scholar
  8. Dawydoff, C.: Contribution a la connaissance des ctenophores pelagiques des eaux de l'Indochine. Bull. Biol. Fr. Belg. 90, 113–170 (1946)Google Scholar
  9. Dawydoff, C.: Observations sur la metamorphose d'Ocyropsis, ctenophore archilobe de la faune indochinoise. Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci., Paris. 226, 1105–1106 (1948)Google Scholar
  10. Eschscholtz, F.: System der Acalephen. Berlin: F. Dümmler 1829Google Scholar
  11. Fewkes, J. W.: XI. Report on the Acalephae. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Harvard 8 (7), 127–140, 4 pls. (1881)Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, G. R. and G. Reynolds: The development of bioluminescence in the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi. Dev. Biol. 31, 61–100 (1974)Google Scholar
  13. Gegenbaur, C.: Studien über Organisation und Systematik der Ctenophoren. Arch. Naturgesch. 22, 163–205, pls. 7–8 (1856)Google Scholar
  14. Ghiselin, M. T.: The economy of nature and the evolution of sex, pp 118–125. Berkeley: University of California Press 1974Google Scholar
  15. Gilbert, J. J. and T. L. Simpson: Sex reversal in a freshwater sponge. J. exp. Zool. 195, 145–151 (1976)Google Scholar
  16. Hamner, W. M., L. P. Madin, A. L. Alldredge, R. W. Gilmer and P. P. Hamner: Underwater observations of gelatinous zooplankton: sampling problems, feeding biology and behavior. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20, 907–917 (1975)Google Scholar
  17. Harbison, G. R.: 6. On the classification and evolution of the Ctenophora. In: The origins and relationships of lower invertebrates, pp 78–100. Ed. by S. C. Morris, J. D. George, R. Gibson and H. M. Platt. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1984Google Scholar
  18. Harbison, G. R. and L. P. Madin: Diving — a new view of plankton biology. Oceanus 22, 21–27 (1979)Google Scholar
  19. Harbison, G. R. and L. P. Madin: The Ctenophora. In: Synopsis and classification of living organisms, pp 707–715, pls. 68–69. Ed. by S. P. Parker, New York: McGraw-Hill 1982Google Scholar
  20. Harbison, G. R., L. P. Madin and N. R. Swanberg: On the natural history and distribution of oceanic ctenophores. Deep-Sea Res. 25, 233–256 (1978)Google Scholar
  21. Hardy, A.: The open sea; its natural history, 2 vols, 2nd ed. London: Collins 1970Google Scholar
  22. Heath, D. J.: Simultaneous hermaphrotidism: cost and benefit. Theor. Biol. 64, 363–373 (1977)Google Scholar
  23. Hyman, L. H.: The invertebrates: protozoa through ctenophora. New York: McGraw-Hill 1940Google Scholar
  24. Komai, T.: On ctenophores of the neighbourhood of Misaki. Annot. Zool. Japan 9, 451–474. pl. 7 (1918)Google Scholar
  25. Komai, T.: Notes on Coeloplana bocki n. sp. and its development. Annot. Zool. Japan 9, 575–584 (1920)Google Scholar
  26. Komai, T.: Studies on two aberrant Ctenophores, Coeloplana and Gastrodes, Kyoto: Published by the author 1922Google Scholar
  27. 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: Univ. of Calif. Press 1963Google Scholar
  28. Kremer, P. and S. W. Nixon: Distribution and abundance of the ctenophore, Mnemiopsis leidyi in Narragansett Bay. Estuar. cstl mar. Sci. 4, 627–639 (1976)Google Scholar
  29. Krempf, A.: Sur un cténophore planariforme nouveau Coeloplana gonoctena (nov. sp.). Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris 171, 438–440 (1920)Google Scholar
  30. Krempf, A.: Coeloplana gonoctena: biologie, organisation, développement. Bull. Biol. Fr. Belg. 54, 252–312 (1921)Google Scholar
  31. Krumbach, T.: Zweiter Unterstamm der Coelenterata Acnidaria — Collaria — Greifzellentiere. In: Handbuch der Zoologie, vol. 1, pp 902–995. Ed. by W. Kükenthal and T. Krumbach. Berlin and Leipzig: De Gruyter & Co. 1926Google Scholar
  32. Madin, L. P. and G. R. Harbison: Bathocyroe fosteri gen. nov., sp. nov.: a mesopelagic ctenophore observed and collected from a submersible. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 58, 559–564 (1978)Google Scholar
  33. Marshall, N. B.: 7. Animal ecology. In: Deep oceans, pp 205–224. Ed. by P. J. Herring and M. R. Clarke. New York: Praeger 1971Google Scholar
  34. Mayer, A. G.: Ctenophores of the Atlantic coast of North America. Washington: D. C.: Carnegie Inst. 1912Google Scholar
  35. Mertens, H.: Beobachtungen und Untersuchungen über die beroeartigen Akalephen. Mèm. Acad. imp. Sci. St.-Petersbourg. (6th ser.) 2, 479–543, pls. 1–13 (1833)Google Scholar
  36. Miller, R. L.: Sperm chemotaxis in the hydromedusae. I. Species-specificity and sperm behavior. Mar. Biol. 53, 99–114 (1979)Google Scholar
  37. Miller, R. L.: Identification of sibling species within the “Sarsia tubulosa complex” at Friday Harbor, Washington (Hydrozoa: Anthomedusae). J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 62, 153–172 (1982)Google Scholar
  38. Miller, R. L. and K. King: Sperm chemotaxis in Oikopleura dioica (Urochordata: Larvaceae). Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 183, 419–428 (1983)Google Scholar
  39. Moser, F.: Japanische Ctenophoren. Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte Ostasiens. Herausgegeben von Dr. F. Döflein. Abhandl. math.-phys. Klasse K. Bayer. Akad. Wiss., Vol. 4, Suppl. 1, 77 pp 1908Google Scholar
  40. Pianka, H. D.: 4. Ctenophora. In: Reproduction of marine invertebrates, vol. 1, pp 201–265. Ed. by A. C. Giese and J. S. Pearse. New York and London: Academic Press 1974Google Scholar
  41. Rang, P. C. A. L.: Etablissement de la famille des Beroides dans l'ordre des Acalèphes libres, et description de deux genres nouveaus qui lui appartiennent. Mèm. Soc. Hist. nat., Paris 4, 166–173 (1828)Google Scholar
  42. Reeve, M. R. and M. A. Walter: Nutritional ecology of ctenophores — a review of recent research. In: Advances in marine biology, vol. 15, pp 178–199 New York: Academic Press 1978Google Scholar
  43. Reynaud: La callianire bucephale. In: Centurie zoologique ou Choix d'Animaux rares, nouveaux ou imparfaitement connus, pp 84–85, pl. 28. Ed. by R. P. Lesson. Paris: F. G. Levrault 1830Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. R. Harbison
    • 1
  • R. L. Miller
    • 2
  1. 1.Woods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionWoods HoleUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations