Advertisement

Experientia

, Volume 2, Issue 7, pp 233–237 | Cite as

Vues actuelles sur les migrations des Poissons

  • M. Fontaine
Article

Summary

Mr.Fontaine points to the internal physiologic conditions imposing upon certain species of migratory fishes an amphibiotic character. He mentions the facts suggesting that hyperfunction of the dynamogenic endocrine glands is doubtless one of these conditions, and this interpretation leads him to the question of the permanence of the migratory character of a given species. But according to him this latter seems to be a point in the evolution of a phylum corresponding to the apogee of an orthogenese, itself connected with the evolution of an endocrine activity reaching its culminating point in the species under view. Mr.Fontaine considers then the development of these species: return to holobiose and sedentarity or vanishment. Considering the facts actually known, the two destinies seem possible and in certain cases perhaps successive.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Fontaine etCallamand, Bull. Soc. Zool. Francé66, 68 (1941).Google Scholar
  2. 1a.
    H. J. Koch, Ann. Soc. Roy. Zool. Belgique73, 57–62 (1942).Google Scholar
  3. 1b.
    M. Fontaine, Bull. Inst. Océanog. no 848 (1943); C. r. Soc. Biogéographie21, 50 (1944).Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    H. J. Koch etM. J. Heuts, Ann. Soc. Roy. Zool. Bel, que73, 165–172 (1942).Google Scholar
  5. 1a.
    O. Callamand, Ann. Inst. Océanog.21, 361 à 440 (1943).Google Scholar
  6. 3.
    E. B. Powers, Science92, 353–354 (1940); Ecology22, 1–16 (1941).Google Scholar
  7. 3a.
    E. B. Powers etR.T. Clark, Ecology24, 109–113 (1943).Google Scholar
  8. 1.
    Menzies, The Salmon. Edinburg 1925.Google Scholar
  9. 2.
    W. S. Hoar, J. Fish. Res. Board Canada4, 442–460 (1939).Google Scholar
  10. 2a.
    J. H. Orton, Nature150, 21–22 (1942).Google Scholar
  11. 1.
    G. Arambourg, Ann. Paléontol.26, 31 (1935).Google Scholar
  12. 2.
    A. Lwof, L'évolution physiologiquedans: Actualités scientifiques, Hermann, Paris 1943.Google Scholar
  13. 3.
    M. Florkin, L'évolution biochimique, Liége 1944.Google Scholar
  14. 4.
    Brunel, Bull. Soc. Chim. biol.19, 1027–1036 (1937).Google Scholar
  15. 1.
    Signalons la publication récente deConway (Nature147, 480 [1941]) qui comporte quelques restrictions à l'égard de la théorie deMacallum.Google Scholar
  16. 2.
    Selon l'expression consacrée, mais évidemment discutable.Google Scholar
  17. 3.
    Ce serait le cas des grands Reptiles de l'ère secondaire atteints d'acromégalie et conduits par là même, à la disparition (Decugis, Le vieillissement du monde vivant, Paris 1941).Google Scholar
  18. 3a.
    Voir aussiEdinger, Quart. Rev. Biol.17, 31–45 (1944), selon qui, le gigantisme des Vertébrés fossiles semble être allé de pair avec une augmentation de volume de l'hypophyse.Google Scholar
  19. 1.
    Rapport au Ministère de la Marine du capitaine du cutter «Le Moustique», 7 février 1854.Google Scholar
  20. 2.
    NotammentB. Storrow, The Salmon and Trout Magazine, p. 1–15 (1928).Google Scholar
  21. 2a.
    Dahl Eyvind etKnut, Annales biologiques du Conseil permanent international pour l'exploration de la mer1, 183 à 186 (1939–1941).Google Scholar
  22. 1.
    Soulignons le caractère fragile, très souvent, de ces créations. C'est ainsi queJordon etFordice (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences3, 279–285 [1885]) écrivent à propos duPetromyzon marinus dorsatus du lac Cayuga: «the characters assumed to distinguish this form from the truemarinus are, however, more or less inconstant and not of specific value».Google Scholar
  23. 2.
    Chopard, Bertin, Berlioz, Laurent, Les migrations animales. —Berlioz, Les migrations d'Oiseaux, p. 162, Gallimard, 1942.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1946

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Fontaine
    • 1
  1. 1.Paris

Personalised recommendations