Advertisement

The Echinoderms

  • A. O. D. Willows
  • W. C. Corning

Abstract

Superficial observation of the echinoderms might lead one to assume that these animals are not only sluggish and clumsy in their behavior, but also extremely inefficient in the execution of their life activities. Careful investigation, however, has shown that these organisms behave in a manner which is highly satisfactory for their habitat and mode of life. With their rather extraordinary equipment and their peculiar habits, speed of movement is not necessary for an effective execution of the hazardous business of living. By means of their muscular walls, their tube feet, and their pedicellariae, many groups of these creatures are able to carry out a wide range of manipulatory responses, activities which could easily be the subject of envy on the part of man. With these organs the animal keeps the integument clear of dirt and incrusting organism; also, it captures active prey, overpowers it, and transports it over any part of the body surface toward the region of the mouth. It is very much as if the entire body of a human being were bristling with hundreds of hands varying greatly in structure and complexity to meet the diverse needs of the organism (Warden et al., 1940, p. 412).

Keywords

Radial Nerve Nerve Ring Escape Time Brittle Star Sand Dollar 
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.

References

  1. Allee, W. C., 1958, “The Social Life of Animals,” Beacon Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, R. D., 1968, “Invertebrate Zoology,” W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  3. Binyon, J., 1972, “The Physiology of Echinoderms,” Vol. 49, Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Boolootian, R. A., 1966, “Physiology of Echinodermata,” Interscience Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Bullock, T. H., 1965, Comparative aspects of superficial conduction systems in echinoids and asteroids, Am. Zool., 5, 545–562.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, A. C., and Laverack, M. S., 1968, The responses of pedicellariae from Echinus esculentus, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 5, 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, A. M., 1962, “Starfishes and Their Relations,” British Museum (Natural History), London.Google Scholar
  8. Cobb, J. L. S., and Laverack, M. S., 1966, The lantern of Echinus esculentus. I. Gross anatomy and physiology, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci., 164, 624–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corson, J. A., 1974, Personal communication.Google Scholar
  10. Cowles, R. P., 1910, Stimuli produced by light and by contact with solid walls as factors in the behaviour of ophiuroids, J. Exp. Zool., 9, 387–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crozier, W. J., 1915, The sensory reactions of Holothuria surinamerisis, Zool. Jahrb. Abt. Allg. Zool. Physiol., 35, 233–297.Google Scholar
  12. Dan, J. C., and Dan, K., 1941, Early development ofComanthus japonicus, Jap. J. Zool., 9, 565–574.Google Scholar
  13. Davenport, D., 1966, “Echinoderms and the control of behavior in associations,” in “Physiology of Echinodermata” (R. A. Boolootian, ed.), pp. 145–156, Interscience Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Diebschlag, E., 1938, Ganzheitliches Verhalten und Lernen bei Echinodermen, Z. Vgl. Physiol., 25, 612–654.Google Scholar
  15. Fell, H. B., and Pawson, D. L., 1966, General biology of the echinoderms, in “Physiology of Echinodermata” (R. A. Boolootian, ed.), pp. 1–48, Interscience Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Fraenkel, G. S., and Gunn, D. L., 1961, “The Orientation of Animals,” Dover Publications, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Glaser, O. C., 1907, Movement and problem solving in Ophiura brevispina, J. Exp. Zool., 4, 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hyman, L. H., 1955, “The Invertebrates,” Vol. 4, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Jennings, H. S., 1907, Behaviour of starfish Asterias forreri, Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., 4, 53–185.Google Scholar
  20. Kjerschow-Agersborg, H. P., 1918, Bilateral tendencies and habits in the twenty-rayed starfish, Pycnopodia helianthoides. Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole), 35, 232–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Landenberger, D. E., 1966, Learning in the Pacific starfish. Pisaster giganteus, Anim. Behav., 14, 414–418.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maier, N. R. F., and Schneiria, T. C., 1935, “Principles of Animal Psychology,” McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Mauzy, K. P., Birkeland, C., and Dayton, P. K., 1968, Feeding behavior of asteroids and escape response of their prey in the Puget Sound region, Ecology, 49, 603–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moore, A. R., 1910, On the righting movements of the starfish, Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole), 19, 235–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moore, A. R., 1921, Stereotropic orientation of the tube feet of starfish (Asterias) and its inhibition by light, J. Gen. Physiol., 4, 163–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nichols, D., 1962, “Echinoderms,” Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
  27. Ohshima, H., 1940, The righting movements of the sea-star Oreaster nodosus (Linne), Jap. J. Zool., 8, 575–589.Google Scholar
  28. Olmsted, J., 1917, The comparative physiology of Synapta hydriformis (Lesueur), J. Exp. Zool, 24, 333–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pentreath, V. W., and Cobb, J. L. S., 1972, Neurobiology of echinodermata, Biol. Rev. (Camb.), 47, 363–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Preyer, W., 1887, Uber die Bewegungen der Seesterne, Mitt. Zool Stat. Neapel, 7, 27–127.Google Scholar
  31. Reese, E. S., 1966, The complex behaviour of echinoderms, in “Physiology of Echinodermata” (R. A. Boolootian, ed.), pp. 157–218, Interscience Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Rockstein, M., and Spritzer, R., 1960, Light orientation in the starfish, Asterias forbesi, Anat Ree., 108, 379 (abstract).Google Scholar
  33. Smith, J. E., 1965, Echinodermata, in “Structure and Function in the Nervous Systems of Invertebrates” (T. H. Bullock and G. A. Horridge, eds.) Vol. 2, pp. 1519–1558, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  34. Sokolov, V. A., 1961, Tactile conditioning in the starfish Asterias rubens (in Russian), Murmanskii morskoi Biologicheskii Institut. Trudy, 3, 49–54.Google Scholar
  35. Takahashi, K., 1964, Electrical responses to light stimuli in the isolated radial nerve of the sea urchin; Diadema setosum (Leske), Nature (Lond.), 201, 1343–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Uexkull, J. V., 1897, Vergleichend sinnesphysiologie Untersuchungen II. Der Schatten als Reiz fürCentrostephanus longispinus, Z. Biol., 34, 319–339.Google Scholar
  37. Ven, C. D., 1921, Sur la formation d’habitudes chez les astérias. Arch. N’eerl Physiol., 6, 163–178.Google Scholar
  38. Warden, C. J., Jenkins, T. N., and Warner, L. H., 1940, “Comparative Psychology,” Vol. 2, Ronald Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. O. D. Willows
    • 1
  • W. C. Corning
    • 2
  1. 1.Friday Harbor LaboratoriesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations