, Volume 110, Issue 6, pp 313–316 | Cite as

Arm anomalies: cases of supernumerary development and bilateral agenesis of arm pairs in Octopoda (Mollusca, Cephalopoda)

  • Ronald B. Toll
  • Lynetta C. Binger


The first case of true hexapody among the Octopoda, resulting from bilateral agenesis of one arm pair, is described for a malePteroctopus tetracirrhus. A case of decapody, with uniform development of all arms, is also reported for the first time for a maleOctopus briareus. Both conditions apparently result from developmental anomalies of the embryonic arm anlagen. A survey of other anomalous conditions relating to arm development and regeneration within the Cephalopoda is provided. A possible relationship of polyfurcation of arm tips in the Octopoda with regenerative processes in amphibian limbs leading to similar conditions is suggested.


Developmental Biology Similar Condition Regenerative Process Developmental Anomaly Anomalous Condition 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Appellöf A (1892) Teuthologische Beiträge IV. über einem Fall von doppelseitiger Hectokotylisation beiEledone cirrosa (Lam.) d'Orb. Bergs Mus Aarsb 1892:14–15Google Scholar
  2. Arnold JM (1965) Normal embryonic stages of the squid,Loligo pealei (Lesueur). Biol Bull 128:24–32Google Scholar
  3. Arnold JM, Williams-Arnold LD (1977) Cephalopoda: Decapoda. In: Giese AC, Pearse JS (eds) Reproduction of marine invertebrates, vol IV. Molluscs: Gastropods and cephalopds. Academic Press, New York, pp 243–290Google Scholar
  4. Bryant SV, Iten LE (1976) Supernumerary limbs in amphibians: experimental prodution inNotophthalmus viridescens and a new interpretation of their formation. Dev Biol 50:212–234Google Scholar
  5. Fiorini P (1978) Cephalopoda Tintenfische. Morphogenese der Tiere. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, 181 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Gleadall IG (1989) An octopus with only seven arms: anatomical details. J Moll Stud 55:479–487Google Scholar
  7. Hanko B (1913) über den gespaltenen Arm einesOctopus vulgaris. Arch Entwickl.-Mech Org 37(3): 217–222Google Scholar
  8. Joubin L (1898) Cephalopods recueillis au cours des croisieres de S.A.S. le Prince de Monaco. 5e Note.Moschites verrucosa (Verrill). Bull Inst Monaco No. 339:1–9Google Scholar
  9. Kumph HE (1960) Arm abnormality inOctopus. Nature 185:334–335Google Scholar
  10. Lange MM (1920) On the regeneration and finer structure of the arms of the cephalopods. J Exp Zool 31(1): 1–47Google Scholar
  11. Maden M, Mustafa K (1982) The structure of 180‡ supernumerary limbs and a hypothesis of their formation. Dev Biol 93:257–265Google Scholar
  12. Naef A (1923) Die Cephalopoden (Systematik). Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte, Monograph 25, part I, vol I, fasc II. R. Friedlander, Berlin, pp 313–863Google Scholar
  13. Naef A (1928) Die Cephalopoden (Embryologie). Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte, Monograph 25, part II. R. Friedlander, Berlin, 357 PPGoogle Scholar
  14. Okada YK (1935) An octopus with branched arms and mode of branching. Annot Zool Japon 15:5–23Google Scholar
  15. Okada YK (1937) An occurrence of branched arms in the decapod cephalopod,Sepia esculenta Hoyle. Annot Zool Japon 17(1):93–94Google Scholar
  16. Okada YK (1965a) On Japanese octopuses with branched arms, with special reference to their captures from 1884 to 1964. Proc Jap Acad 41(7):618–623Google Scholar
  17. Okada YK (1965b) Rule of arm-branching in Japanese octopuses with branched arms. Proc Jap Acad 41(7):624–629Google Scholar
  18. Palacio F (1973) On the double hectocotylization of octopods. Nautilus 87(4):99–102Google Scholar
  19. Parona C (1900) Sulla dichotomia delle braccia nei Cefalopodi. Boll Mus Zool Anat Comp Univ Genova, vol 4 [= No. 96]:1–7Google Scholar
  20. Robson GC (1929a) Notes on the Cephalopoda. — IX. Remarks on Atlantic Octopoda &c. in the Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, Ann Mag Natur Hist Ser 10, 3(18):609–618Google Scholar
  21. Robson GC (1929b) On a case of bilateral hectocotylization inOctopus rugosus. Proc Zool Soc Lond (1929):95–97Google Scholar
  22. Sasaki M (1929) The Cephalopoda of Japanese and adjacent seas. J Coll Agric Hokkaido Imp Univ No. 20 (suppl No. 1), 357 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith EA (1907) Notes on an “Octopus” with branching arms. Ann Mag Natur Hist (7) 20:407–411Google Scholar
  24. Tank PW, Holder N (1981) Pattern regulation in the regenerating limbs of urodele amphibians. Quart Rev Biol 56:113–142Google Scholar
  25. Voss GL (1971) Cephalopods collected by the R/V John Elliott Pillsbury in the Gulf of Panama in 1967. Bull Mar Sci 21(1):1–34Google Scholar
  26. Wells MJ, Wells J (1977) Cephalopoda: Octopodia. In: Giese AC, Pearse JS (eds) Reproduction of marine invertebrates vol 4, Molluscs: Gastropods and cephalopods. Academic Press, New York, pp 291–336Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald B. Toll
    • 1
  • Lynetta C. Binger
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyThe University of the SouthSewaneeUSA
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations