Experientia

, Volume 16, Issue 10, pp 433–438 | Cite as

Quelques problèmes physiologiques posés par leSalmo Salar. Intérêt de l'étude de lasmoltification type de préparation au comportement migratoire

  • M. Fontaine
Article
First Online:

Summary

The author considers some physiological problems raised by particularities of the physiological cycle ofSalmo salar L. about which he and his fellow-workers have produced new data (especially those brought out by the physiological, normal fasting so particular to the adultS: The synchonic fasting of Mislin).

He insists on the importance, for studies on the physiological mechanism of migrations and from the methodological point of view, of the following feature of the young Salmon in fresh water: a transformation which, in the population studied (S. s. of Adour waters), is so characteristic of and tightly bound to the preparation to catadromic migration that it marks the subjects ready for migration and makes it possible to particularise the new physiological conditions accompanying the phenomenon of migratory instinct (activation of thyroid and interrenal function, of some pituitary neurosecretions and secretions, metabolic changes …). By studying simultaneously: smoltified but not yet migrant fishes, smolts during migration, and a salmonid fish subjected to a current in conditions simulating those of migrating smolts, it is now possible to begin to distinguish the physiological features bound to the preparation for migration, from those resulting from migratory activity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. Fontaine etJ. Hatey, Physiol. comp. oecol.3, 37 (1953).Google Scholar
  2. 1a.
    M. Fontaine, Résultats inédits.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    H. Mislin, Revue suisse Zool.48, 1 (1941).Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    M. Fontaine etJ. Hatey, C. R. Acad. Sci.239, 319 (1954).Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    M. Fontaine etJ. Leloup, C. R. Acad. Sci.230, 775, 1216 (1950).Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    M. Fontaine etJ. Leloup, C. R. Acad. Sci.247, 767 (1958).Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    M. Fontaine, Rapports du Colloque sur l'Instinct, organisé par la Fondation Singer-Polignae (Masson, 1956), p. 151.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    G. La Roche, C. P. Leblond etG. Prefontaine, Rev. can. Biol.9, 101 (1950).Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    O. H. Robertson, Physiol. zool.21, 282 (1948).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 9.
    W. S. Hoar, J. Morphol.65, 257 (1939).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 10.
    M. Fontaine etM. Olivereau, C. R. Acad. Sci.224, 1660 (1947).Google Scholar
  12. 10a.
    M. Fontaine, J. Leloup etM. Olivereau, Arch. sci. physiol.6, 83 (1952).Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    M. Fontaine etJ. Leloup, C. R. Acad. Sci.249, 343 (1959).Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    M. Fontaine etJ. Leloup, Arch. sci. physiol.14, 15 (1960).Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    P. O. Svard, Nature182, 1448 (1958).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 14.
    M. Fontaine etJ. Hatey, J. Physiol. com. oecol.3, 37 (1953).Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    M. Fontaine etM. M. Baraduc, C. R. Soc. Biol.149, 1327 (1955).Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    M. Fontaine etM. Olivereau, C. R. Acad. Sci.228, 772 (1949).Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    M. Olivereau, Ann. Inst. Océan.29, 195 (1954).Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    N. W. Evropeizeva, Rapp. et P. V. Cons. perm. Internat. Explor. Mer148, 29 (1959).Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    W. S. Hoar etG. M. Bell, Canad. J. Res. D.28, 126 (1950).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 20.
    Communication deW. S. Hoar.Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    W. S. Hoar, O. Mac Kinnon etA. Redlich, Canad. J. Zool.30, 273 (1952).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 21a.
    W. S. Hoar, M. M. A. Keenleyside etR. G. Goodall, Canad. J. Zool.33, 428 (1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 22.
    V. N. Goncharova, Bjull. eksper. Biol. Med. S.S.S.R.48, no 9, 84 (1959).Google Scholar
  26. 23.
    M. Fontaine etM. Olivereau, J. Physiol.49, 174 (1957); Bull. Soc. zool. France84, 161 (1959).Google Scholar
  27. 24.
    M. Fontaine etJ. Hatey, C. R. Acad. Sci.239, 319 (1954).Google Scholar
  28. 25.
    R. Guillemin etW. A. Krivoy, C. r. Acad. Sci.250, 1117 (1960).Google Scholar
  29. 26.
    D. C. W. Smith, Mem. Soc. Endocrinol.5, 83 (1956).Google Scholar
  30. 27.
    M. M. Chartier-Baraduc, C. R. Soc. Biol.153, 1757 (1959).Google Scholar
  31. 28.
    M. M. Chartier-Baraduc, Bull. Centre Et. Rech. sci. Biarritz, sous presse (1960).Google Scholar
  32. 29.
    P. S. Timiras etD. M. Woodbury, Endocrinology58, 181 (1956).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 30.
    L. Arvy, M. Fontaine etM. Gabe, C. R. Ass. Anat., 42e Réunion233, 225 (1955).Google Scholar
  34. 31.
    L. Arvy, M. Fontaine etM. Gabe, Arch. Anat. micr. Morphol. exp.44, no 4 (1955).Google Scholar
  35. 32.
    L. Arvy, M. Fontaine etM. Gabe, J. Physiol.51, 1031 (1959).Google Scholar
  36. 33.
    O. Callamand etM. Fontaine, Arch. Zool. exp. gén.82, 129 (1942).Google Scholar
  37. 33a.
    C. Bernardi, Riv. Biol. Ital.40, 186 (1948).Google Scholar
  38. 34.
    M. Fontaine etM. M. Chartier-Baraduc, résultats inédits.Google Scholar
  39. 35.
    M. Fontaine, C. R. Acad. Sci.232, 2477 (1951).Google Scholar
  40. 36.
    M. Fontaine,L'Instinct (Masson éd., 1956), p. 154.Google Scholar
  41. 37.
    H. J. Koch, Nature4, 682 (1959).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1960

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Fontaine
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoires de Physiologie du Museum National d'Histoire 1bis Naturelle et de l'Institut OcéanographiqueParis

Personalised recommendations