Paleontological Journal

, Volume 51, Issue 5, pp 491–499 | Cite as

Some peculiarities in the behavioral reactions of the lophophore and the trophic structuring of the colonies of the post-Paleozoic Stenolaemata (bryozoa)



Some peculiarities in the behavioral reactions of the lophophore, a feeding apparatus of the living marine bryozoans, are discussed. In bryozoans of the class Stenolaemata the position of the lophophore is regulated by the autozooidal peristome. In post-Paleozoic Stenolaemata the individual and collective activities of the lophophores are determined by the peculiarities in the trophic structuring of colonies, which are established based on the individual or group arrangement of autozooidal apertures. Two main types of the trophic structuring are distinguished: individual and group structuring. The adaptive significance of the trophic structuring consists in the effective extracting of food particles from water currents. In combination with the peculiarities of the colonial organization of post-Paleozoic Stenolaemata, the types of trophic structuring of colonies can be used when characterizing taxa of different levels.


Bryozoa Stenolaemata lophophore aperture trophic structuring of colonies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Afanasjeva, G.A., Viskova, L.A., Morozova, I.P., and Nevesskaya, L.A., Consequences of the Permian crisis for different groups of invertebrates, in Sb. Ekosistemnye pere-stroiki i evolyutsiya biosfery. 1998. Vyp. 3 (Collection of Papers “Ecosystem Rearrangement and Evolution of the Biosphere,” 1998, Vol. 3), Rozanov, A.Yu. and M.A. Semikhatov, M., Eds., Moscow: Paleontol. Inst. Ross. Akad. Nauk, 1998, pp. 30–37.Google Scholar
  2. Borg, F., Studies on Recent cyclostomatous Bryozoa, Zool. Bidr. Uppsala, 1926, vol. 10, pp. 182–507.Google Scholar
  3. Brood, K., Cyclostomatous Bryozoa from the Upper Cretaceous and Danian in Scandinavia, Stockh. Contrib. Geol., 1972, vol. 26, pp. 1–464.Google Scholar
  4. Dick, M.H., Bryozoan behavior in relation to autocleaning in Holoporella brunnea (Hincks), Northwest Sci., 1984, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 195–207.Google Scholar
  5. Farmer, J., Morphological and behavioral adaptations for efficient feeding in some species of Cyclostomata, Abstr. Fourth Int. Conf. Int. Bryozool. Assoc., Woods Hole, Mass., 7–17 September, 1977, Woods Hole, Mass., 1977, pp. 21–22.Google Scholar
  6. Gerasimov, P.A., Rukovodyashchie iskopaemye mezozoya tsentral’nykh oblastei evropeiskoi chasti SSSR. Ch. 2. Iglokozhie, rakoobraznye, chervi, mshanki i korally yurskikh otlozhenii (Index Fossils of the Mesozoic of the Central Regions of the European Part of the USSR: Part 2. Echinodermata, Crustacea, Vermes, Bryozoa, and Anthozoa from the Jurassic Deposits), Moscow: Gosgeoltekhizdat, 1955.Google Scholar
  7. Kluge, G.A., Mshanki severnykh morei SSSR (Bryozoans of the Northern Seas of the USSR), Pavlovskii, E.N., Ed., Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, Zool. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR, vol. 76, Moscow: Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1962.Google Scholar
  8. Kluge, G.A., Bryozoa of the Northern Seas of the USSR, Keys Fauna USSR, vol. 76, New Delhi: Amerind, 1975.Google Scholar
  9. McKinney, F.K., Elevation of lophophores by exposed introverts in Bryozoa: a gymnolaemate character recorded in some stenolaemate species, Bull. Mar. Sci., 1988, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 317–322.Google Scholar
  10. McKinney, F.K., Feeding and associated colonial morphology in marine bryozoans, Rev. Aquat. Sci., 1990, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 255–280.Google Scholar
  11. McKinney, F.K., A faster-paced world?: contrasts in biovolume and life-process rates in cyclostome (class Stenolaemata) and cheilostome (class Gymnolaemata) bryozoans, Paleobiology, 1993, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nielsen, C., On metamorphosis and ancestrula formation in cyclostomatous bryozoans, Ophelia, 1970, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 217–256.Google Scholar
  13. Shunatova, N.N., The feeding behavior and features of the morphological and functional organization of the feeding apparatus in marine bryozoans (Bryozoa, Gymnolaemata), Extended Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Biol.) Dissertation, St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State Univ.}, 200Google Scholar
  14. Shunatova, N.N. and Ostrovsky, A.N., Individual autozooidal behaviour and feeding in marine bryozoans, Sarsia, 2001, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shunatova, N.N. and Ostrovsky, A.N., Group autozooidal behaviour and chimneys in marine bryozoans, Mar. Biol., 2002, vol. 140, no. 3, pp. 503–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Silén, L. and Harmelin, J.-G., Observations on living Diastoporidae (Bryozoa, Cyclostomata) with special regard to polymorphism, Acta Zool., 1974, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Taylor, P.D., The spiral bryozoan Terebellaria from the Jurassic of southern England and Normandy, Palaeontology, 1978, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 357–391.Google Scholar
  18. Taylor, P.D., Systematics of the melicerititid cyclostome bryozoans: introduction and the genera Elea, Semielea, and Reptomultelea, Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Lond. (Geol.), 1994, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 1–103.Google Scholar
  19. Taylor, P.D. and Larwood, G.P., Mass extinctions and the pattern of bryozoan evolution, Extinction and Survival in the Fossil Record, Larwood, G.P., Ed., Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol., no. 34, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, pp. 99–119.Google Scholar
  20. Taylor, P.D. and McKinney, F.K., An Archimedes-like cyclostome bryozoan from the Eocene of North Carolina, J. Paleontol., 1996, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 218–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Taylor, P.D. and Weedon, M.J., Skeletal ultrastructure and phylogeny of cyclostome bryozoans, Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 2000, vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 337–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taylor, P.D. and Zágorsek, K., Operculate cyclostome bryozoans (Eleidae) from the Bohemian Cretaceous, Paläontol. Z., 2011, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 407–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Viskova, L.A., Phylum Bryozoa: Moss animals, in Razvitie i smena organicheskogo mira na rubezhe mezozoya i kainozoya: Mshanki, chlenistonogie, iglokozhie (The Development and Change of the Organic World at the Mesozoic–Cenozoic Boundary: Bryozoa, Arthropoda, Echinodermata), Menner, V.V., Shimansky, V.N., and Soloviev, A.N., Eds., Moscow: Nauka, 1980, pp. 4–21.Google Scholar
  24. Viskova, L.A., Morphology and colonial organization of the genus Diplosolen Canu, 1918, Paleontol. Zh., 1989, no. 2, pp. 22–26.Google Scholar
  25. Viskova, L.A., Morskie postpaleozoiskie mshanki (Marine Post-Paleozoic Bryozoans), Tr. Paleontol. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR, vol. 250, Moscow: Nauka, 1992.Google Scholar
  26. Viskova, L.A., Dynamics of the generic diversity of bryozoans (classes Stenolaemata and Eurystomata) during the Triassic–Recent, in Sb. Ekosistemnye perestroiki i evolyutsiya biosfery. 1995. Vyp. 2 (Collection of Papers “Ecosystem Rearrangement and Evolution of the Biosphere,” 1995, Vol. 2), Rozanov, A.Yu. and M.A. Semikhatov, M., Eds., Moscow: Paleontol. Inst. Ross. Akad. Nauk, 1995, pp. 80–83.Google Scholar
  27. Viskova, L.A., Idmoneiform Tubuliporina (Bryozoa, Stenolaemata): morphological features, problems in systematics, and new taxa, Paleontol. J., 2004, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 45–59.Google Scholar
  28. Viskova, L.A., New bryozoans (Tubuliporina, Stenolaemata) from the Upper Cretaceous of the Middle Volga River Region (Russia), Paleontol. J., 2005, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 395–403.Google Scholar
  29. Viskova, L.A., Diversification of the Jurassic bryozoans (Stenolaemata) of the Russian platform, in Evolyutsiya biosfery i bioraznoobraziya: K 70-letiyu A. Yu. Rozanova (Evolution of the Biosphere and Biodiversity: Contribution to the 70th Birthday of A.Yu. Rozanov), Rozhnov, S.V., Ed., Moscow: KMK, 2006, pp. 168–176.Google Scholar
  30. Viskova, L.A., New bryozoans (Stenolaemata) from the Middle Jurassic of Moscow City and the Moscow Region, Paleontol. J., 2007, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Viskova, L.A., New stenolaematous bryozoans from the Jurassic of Central European Russia (Moscow City and the Moscow and Kostroma Regions), Paleontol. J., 2008, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 149–158.Google Scholar
  32. Viskova, L.A., New data on the colonial morphology of the Jurassic bryozoans of the class Stenolaemata, Paleontol. J., 2009, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Viskova, L.A., Rare bryozoans (Stenolaemata) with bilateral colonies from the Jurassic and Cretaceous of the East European Platform, Paleontol. J., 2011, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Viskova, L.A., Phenomenon of enantiomorphism in marine bryozoans, Morfogenez v individual’nom i istoricheskom razvitii: simmetriya i asimmetriya. Seriya “Geo-biologicheskie sistemy v proshlom” (Morphogenesis in Individual and Historical Development: Symmetry and Asymmetry: Series “Geobiological Systems in the Past”), Rozhnov S.V., Ed., tMoscow: Paleontol. Inst. Ross. Akad. Nauk, 2013, pp. 145–164.Google Scholar
  35. Viskova, L.A., Bryozoans of the order Melicerititida: Morphological features and position of the order in the taxonomic structure of the class Stenolaemata, Paleontol. J., 2016a, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Viskova, L.A., Morphogenesis in the individual and historical development of marine Post-Paleozoic Tubuliporida (Bryozoa, Stenolaemata), Paleontol. J., 2016b, vol. 50, no. 14, pp. 1569–1578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Voigt, E., Die Bryozoengattung Diplosolen in der Schreibkreide von Rügen, Mitt. Naturwiss.-Ver. aus Neuvorpommern und Rügen in Greifswald, 1929, vols. 52–56, pp. 2–6.Google Scholar
  38. Voigt, E., Das Maastricht-Vorkommen von Ilten bei Hannover und seine Fauna mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Groß-Foraminiferen und Bryozoen, Mitt. Geol. Staatsinst. Hamburg, 1951, no. 20, pp. 15–109.Google Scholar
  39. Voigt, E., Verkhnemelovye mshanki evropeiskoi chasti SSSR i nekotorykh sopredel’nykh oblastei, (Upper Cretaceous Bryozoans of the European USSR and Some Adjacent Regions), Naidin, D.P., Ed., Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 1962.Google Scholar
  40. Voigt, E., Oberkreide-Bryozoen aus den asiatischen Gebieten der UdSSR, Mitt. Geol. Staatsinst. Hamburg, 1967, no. 36, pp. 5–95.Google Scholar
  41. Voigt, E., The Bryozoa of the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary, Bryozoa: Ordovician to Recent, Nielsen, C., and Larwood, G.P., Eds., Fredenborg: Olsen and Olsen, 1985, pp. 329–342.Google Scholar
  42. Voigt, E., Neue cyclostome Bryozoen aus der Maastrichter Tuffkreide (Ob. Maastrichtium), Paläontol. Z., 1987, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 41–56.Google Scholar
  43. Winston, J.E., Relationships between behaviour and morphology in marine ectoprocts, Abstr. Fourth Int. Conf. Int. Bryozool. Assoc., Woods Hole, Mass., 7–17 September, 1977, Woods Hole, Mass., 1977, pp. 48–49.Google Scholar
  44. Winston, J.E., Polypide morphology and feeding behaviour in marine ectoprocts, Bull. Mar. Sci., 1978, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
  45. Winston, J.E., Current-related morphology and behavior in some Pacific coast bryozoans, Advances in Bryozoology: Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Bryozoa, Larwood, G.P. and Abbott, M.B., Eds., Syst. Assoc. Spec., Vol., no. 13, London: Acad. Press, 1979, pp. 247–268.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Borissiak Paleontological InstituteRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations