Marine Biology

, Volume 99, Issue 1, pp 111–118 | Cite as

The musselsMytilus galloprovincialis andM. trossulus on the Pacific coast of North America

  • J. H. McDonald
  • R. K. Koehn
Article

Abstract

Most recent authors have called the bay mussels of the Pacific coast of North AmericaMytilus edulis Linnaeus, 1758. Thirteen samples ofedulis-like mussels were collected from California, Oregon, and Alaska, USA, in 1985, 1986 and 1987. Electrophoretic evidence from wight loci indicates that these samples consist of two genetically distinct groups, neither of which is similar toM. edulis from the Atlantic Ocean. Mussels in southern California are very similar toM. galloprovincialis Lamarck, 1819 from the Mediterranean Sea; it is probable thatM. galloprovincialis was introduced accidentally to southern California. Mussels in Oregon and Alaska are similar to those from the Baltic Sea and parts of eastern Canada; the nameM. trossulus Gould, 1850 has priority for this taxon. In central and nothern California,M. galloprovincialis, M. trossulus and their hybrids co-occur. Despite the presence of hybrids betweenM. galloprovincialis andM. trossulus, the genetic integrity which they maintain across large areas of the world warrants their recognition as two distinct species.

Keywords

North America Atlantic Ocean Distinct Group Pacific Coast Distinct Species 
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. Ahmad, M., Beardmore, J. A. (1976). Genetic evidence that the “Padstow mussel” isMytilus galloprovincialis. Mar. Biol. 35: 139–147Google Scholar
  2. Ahmad, M., Skibinski, D. O. F., Beardmore, J. A. (1977). An estimate of the amount of genetic variation in the common musselMytilus edulis. Biochem. Genet. 15: 833–846Google Scholar
  3. Brown, T. (1827). Illustrations of the conchology of Great Britain and Ireland. W. H. Lizars, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlton, J. T. (1975). Introduced intertidal invertebrates. In: Smith, R. I., Carlton, J. T. (eds.) Light's manual: intertidal invertebrates of the central California coast. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, p. 17–25Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter, P. P. (1864). Supplementary report on the present state of our knowledge with regard to the Mollusca of the west coast of North America. Rep. Br. Ass. Advmt Sci. 33: 517–686Google Scholar
  6. Clessin, S. (1889). Mytilidae. In: Schubert, G. H., Wagner, J. A., Küster, H. C. (eds.) Systematisches Conchylien-cabinet von Martini und Chemnitz, Vol. 8 No. 3. Bauer and Raspe, Nürnberg, p. 1–170Google Scholar
  7. Coe, W. R. (1945).Mytilus edulis diegensis, new subspecies. Minut conch. Club Sth. Calif. 48: 28Google Scholar
  8. Coe, W. R. (1946). A resurgent population of the California bay mussel (Mytilus edulis diegensis). J. Morph. 78: 85–104Google Scholar
  9. Conrad, T. A. (1837). Description of new marine shells from upper California, collected by Thomas Nuttall, Esq. J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 7: 227–268Google Scholar
  10. Da Costa, E. M. (1778). Historia naturalis testaceorum Britanniae, or, the British conchology. Published by the author, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. De Kay, J. E. (1843). Natural history of New York, Part 5. Mollusca. Carroll and Cook, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  12. Gosling, E. M. (1984). The systematic status ofMytilus galloprovincialis in western Europe: a review. Malacologia 25: 551–568Google Scholar
  13. Gould, A. A. (1850). Shells from the United States Exploring Expedition. Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 3: 343–348Google Scholar
  14. Gould, A. A. (1851). Descriptions of a number of California shells, collected by Maj. William Rich and Lieut. Thomas P. Green, United States Navy. Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 4: 87–93Google Scholar
  15. Gould, A. A. (1852). Mollusca and shells. In: United States Exploring Expedition, during the years 1839–1842 under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., Vol. 12. C. Sherman, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  16. Gould, A. A. (1856). Mollusca and shells. Atlas. In: United States Exploring Expedition, during the years 1839–1842 under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., Vol. 12. C. Sherman and Sons, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  17. Gould, A. A. (1862). Otia conchologia: descriptions of shells and mollusks from 1839 to 1862. Gould and Lincoln, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Grant, W. S., Cherry, M. I. (1985).Mytilus galloprovincialis Lmk. in southern Africa. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 90: 179–191Google Scholar
  19. Holman, F. V. (1910). Oregon counties. Their creations and the origins of their names. Q. Oreg. hist. Soc., W. H. Leeds, Salem, Oregon 11: 1–81Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, R. I. (1949). Jesse Wedgwood Mighels with a bibliography and a catalogue of his species. Oec. Pap. Mollusks Harv. 1: 213–231Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, R. I. (1964). The recent Mollusca of Augustus Addison Gould. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. 239: 1–182Google Scholar
  22. Koehn, R. K., Hall, J. G., Innes, D. J., Zera, A. J. (1984). Genetic differentiation ofMytilus edulis in eastern North America. Mar. Biol. 79: 117–126Google Scholar
  23. Koehn, R. K., Milkman, R., Mitton, J. B. (1976). Population genetics of marine pelecypods. IV. Selection, migration and genetic differentiation in the blue musselMytilus edulis. Evolution 30: 2–32Google Scholar
  24. Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de (1819). Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres. Vol. 6. A. S. B. Verdiere Libraire, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. Lamy, E. (1936). Revision des Mytilidae vivants du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris. J. Conch., Paris 80: 66–102 107–198Google Scholar
  26. Lee, S. Y., Morton, B. (1985). The introduction of the Mediterranean musselMytilus galloprovincialis into Hong Kong. Malac. Rev. 18: 107–109Google Scholar
  27. Linnaeus, C. (1758). Systema naturae per regna tria naturae. 10th ed. Vol. 1. Regnum animale. Laurentii Salvii, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  28. Mighels, J. W. (1844). Some specimens of shells, with descriptions. Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 1: 187–189Google Scholar
  29. Nei, M. (1972). Genetic distance between populations. Am. Nat. 106: 283–292Google Scholar
  30. Nichols, E. A., Ruddle, F. H. (1973). A review of enzyme polymorphism, linkage and electrophoretic conditions for mouse and somatic cell hybrids in starch gels. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 21: 1066–1081Google Scholar
  31. Orbigny, A. d' (1842). Mollusques lamellibranches. In: Orbigny, A. d' (ed.) Voyage dans l'Amérique Méridionale 5(3). Bertrand and Levrault, Paris, p. 489–758Google Scholar
  32. Pennant, T. (1777). British zoology. 4th ed. Warrington, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Rohlf, F. J. (1985). NT-SYS: Numerical taxonomic system of multivariate statistical programs. Technical Report, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Scarlato, O. A. (1981). Dvustvorchatje mollyuski vanerennykh shirot zapadnoi chasti Tikhogo oceana [Bivalve mollusks of temperate latitudes of the western portion of the Pacific Ocean]. Opred. Faune SSSR 126: 1–461Google Scholar
  35. Scarlato, O. A., Starobogatov, Ya. I. (1979). Polozhenie v sisteme i rasprostranenie midii [The systematic position and distribution of mussels]. In: Scarlato, O. A. (ed.) Promyslovye dvustvorchatye mollyuski-midii i ikh rol' v ekosistemakh [Commercial bivalve molluscan mussels and their role in the ecosystem]. Zoological Institute of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, p. 106–111Google Scholar
  36. Seed, R. (1968). Factors in influencing shell shape in the musselMytilus edulis. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 48: 561–584Google Scholar
  37. Seed, R. (1972). Morphological variations inMytilus from the French coasts in relation in the occurrence and distribution ofm. galloprovincialis Lamarck. Cah. Biol. mar. 13: 357–384Google Scholar
  38. Skibinski, D. O. F. (1983). Natural selection in hybrid mussel populations. In: Oxford, G. S., Rollinson, D. (eds.) Protein polymorphism: adaptive and taxonomic significance. Academic Press, London, p. 283–298Google Scholar
  39. Skibinski, D. O. F., Ahmad, M., Beardmore, J. A. (1978). Genetic evidence for naturally occurring hybrids betweenMytilus edulis andMytilus galloprovincialis. Evolution 32: 354–364Google Scholar
  40. Skibinski, D. O. F., Beardmore, J. A., Cross, T. F. (1983). Aspects of the population genetics ofMytilus (Mytilidae; Mollusca) in the British Isles. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 19: 137–183Google Scholar
  41. Soot-Ryen, T. (1955). A report on the family Mytilidae (Pelecypoda). Allan Hancock Pacif. Exped. 20: 1–175Google Scholar
  42. Suchanek, T. H. (1978). The ecology ofMytilus edulis L. in exposed rocky intertidal communities. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 31: 105–120Google Scholar
  43. Varvio, S.-L., Koehn, R. K., Väinöla, R. (1988). Evolutionary genetics of theMytilus edulis complex in the North Atlantic region. Mar. Biol. 98: 51–60Google Scholar
  44. Wilkins, N. P., Fujino, K., Gosling, E. M. (1983). The Mediterranean musselMytilus galloprovincialis Lmk. in Japan. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 20: 365–374Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. H. McDonald
    • 1
  • R. K. Koehn
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and EvolutionState University of New York at Stony BrookStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations