I.—The Œsophagus of the Stenoglossan Prosobranchs | Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Extract

The structure of the anterior part of the alimentary canal of stenoglossan prosobranchs has been previously investigated by several workers, of whom the most important are Haller (1888) and Amaudrut (1898), although Haller's account, accurate so far as it goes, was published before there was any real knowledge of the comparative morphology of that part of the prosobranch gut. This knowledge we owe to Amaudrut, but in the case of the stenoglossan œsophagus the description which he gives is wrong, the various parts being orientated upside down.

References

Amaudrut, A., 1898. “La Partie antérieure du tube digestif et la Torsion chez les Mollusques gastéropodes,” Ann.Sci. Nat. Zool., ser. 7, vol. viii,pp. 1–291.Google Scholar

Ankel, W. E., 1937. “Wie bohrt Natica?” Biol. Zbl., vol. lvii, pp. 75–82.Google Scholar

Ankel, W. W., 1938. “Erwerb und Aufnahme der Nahrung bei den Gastropoden,” Verh. Dtsch. Zool. Ges., Zool. Anz., supp. xi, pp. 223–95.Google Scholar

Bouvier, E.-L., 1887. “Système nerveux, Morphologie générale et Classi-fication des Gastéropodes prosobranches,” Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool., ser. 7, vol. iii, pp. 1–510.Google Scholar

Brock, F., 1936. “Suche, Aufnahme und enzymatische Spaltung der Nahrung durch die Wellhornschnecke Buccinum undatum L.,” Zoologica, Stuttgart, vol. xxxiv, pp. 1–136.Google Scholar

Dakin, W. J., 1912. “Buccinum, the Whelk,” L.M.B.C. Memoir, London: Williams & Norgate.Google Scholar

Forbes, E., and Hanley, S., 1853. A History of British Mollusca and their Shells, London: van Voorst.Google Scholar

Fretter, V., 1941. “The Genital Ducts of some British Stenoglossan Proso-branchs,” Journ. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K., vol. xxv. In the press.Google Scholar

Graham, A., 1932. “On the Structure and Function of the Alimentary Canal of the Limpet,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. lvii, pp. 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graham, A., 1939. “On the Structure of the Alimentary Canal of Style-bearing Proso-branchs,” Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., ser. B, vol. cix, pp. 75–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haller, B., 1888. “Die Morphologie der Prosobranchier I,” Morph. Jb., vol. xiv, pp. 54–169.Google Scholar

Hirsch, G. C, 1915. “Die Ernährungsbiologie fleischfressender Gastropoden,” Zool.Jb. (Abt. Zool. Physiol.), vol. xxxv, pp. 357–504.Google Scholar

Küttler, A., 1913. “Die Anatomie von Oliva peruviana Lamarck,” Zool.Jb., supp. xiii (Fauna chilensis, iv), pp. 477–544.Google Scholar

Mansour-Bek, J. J., 1934. “Über die proteolytischen Enzyme von Murex anguliferus Lamk.,” Zeits. Vergl. Physiol., vol. xx, pp. 343–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mendel, L. B., and Bradley, H. C, 1905. “Experimental Studies on the Physiology of the Molluscs,” Amer. Journ. Physiol., vol. xiii, p. 17.Google Scholar

Orton, J. H., 1927. “The Habits and Economic Importance of the Rough Whelk-Tingle (Murex erinaceus),” Nature, London, vol. cxx, pp. 653–4.Google Scholar

Peile, A. J., 1937. “Some Radula Problems,” Journ. Conch., vol. xx, pp. 292–304.Google Scholar

Pelseneer, P., 1935. Essai d'Ethologie zoologique d'aprés I' Etude des Mollusques.Google Scholar

Pieron, H., 1933. “Notes éthologiques sur les Gastéropodes perceurs et leur comportement avec l'utilisation de méthodes statistiques,” Arch. Zool. exp. gén., vol. lxxv, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

Poirier, J., 1885. “Sur la structure anatomique et la position systématique de l'Halia priamus (Risso),” C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, vol. c, pp. 461–4.Google Scholar

Schiemenz, P., 1891. “Wie bohrt Natica die Muscheln an?” Mitt. Zool. Stn. Neapel, vol. x, pp. 153–69.Google Scholar

Shaw, H. O. N., 1915. “On the Anatomy of Conus tulipa, Linn., and Conus textile, Linn.,” Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., vol. lx, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar

Thiele, J., 1931. Handbuch der Systematische Weichtierkunde.I. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar

Vanstone, J. H., 1894. “Some Points in the Anatomy of Melongena melongena,” Journ. Linn. Soc. (Zool.), vol. xxiv, pp. 369–73.Google Scholar

Winckworth, R., 1932. “The British Marine Mollusca,” Journ. Conch., vol. xix, pp. 211–52.Google Scholar

Woodward, M. F., 1901. “Note on the Anatomy of Voluta ancilla (Sol.), Neptuneopsis gilchristi Sby., and Volutilithes abyssicola (Ad. and Rve.),” Proc. Malacol. Soc. Lond., vol. iv, pp. 117–25.Google Scholar