Echinoids: Regularly Irregular

In manufacturing, one of the most desired qualities is regularity. Success is achieved by ensuring that each unit matches the last, that its qualities remain predictable and reliable. In evolution, by contrast, the opposite is often true: embracing irregularity may allow a lineage to expand in directions not previously available. For evidence, just look at the success of the irregular echinoids.

Echinoneus cyclostomus, one of the few living holectypoid urchins, copyright Philippe Bourjon..

The Echinoidea, sea urchins, are commonly divided between regular and irregular forms. In regular echinoids, representing the ancestral type for the class, the mouth and anus are positioned at opposite points on the test. The mouth sits squarely in the centre of the animal's underside (the oral surface) while the anus sits at the centre of the upper (aboral) surface. The five ambulacra, the lines of small plates in the test from which the tube feet emerge, are more or less evenly arranged around the superficially radially symmetrical test. Irregular echinoids, in contrast, have the anus more or less displaced from the midpoint of the test. In the earliest irregular echinoids, this displacement might be relatively slight: the periproct (the membrane through which the anus opens, usually covered in echinoids with an array of small plates) was still found at the centre of the aboral surface but was enlarged and/or stretched towards one end of the test (Saucède et al. 2007). In more derived forms, the periproct has moved more significantly, potentially being found on the side of the test or even on the oral surface near the mouth.

Front view of heart urchin Spatangus purpureus, copyright Roberto Pillon.

This displacement of the anus indicates a directionality to the test that isn't found in regular echinoids. A number of other changes have associated it in the evolution of echinoids, such as reduction of the size of the spines covering the test and an increased directionality in their axes of movement. The mouth may also become displaced towards the front of the test, and the test as a whole may become more bilateral in its overall shape. The jaws become modified or, in a couple of groups, lost entirely. All these alterations add up to indicate a distinct change in lifestyle between regular and irregular echinoids. Whereas regular echinoids roam the surface of sea bottom, using their powerful jaws to graze directly on algae or scavenge on animal carcasses, irregular echinoids are deposit feeders that tend to live at least partially buried in the sidement. They may swallow large amounts of sediment and digest organic matter mixed therein, or gather up organic particles with their tube feet and/or by means of mucous strands transported in ciliary grooves. Burrowing is achieved by movement of the spines or by using the tube feet to pass sand grains above the aboral surface. In the shallow-burrowing heart urchin Spatangus purpureus, an array of longer spines on the aboral surface are used to keep a funnel open between the buried urchin and the surface, allowing water to carry oxygen to it. Echinocardium cordatum, which burrows as deep as 18 cm beneath the substrate surface, maintains an opening to the surface by means of elongate tube feet (Durham 1966).

One of the most irregular of irregular echinoids, the deep-sea Pourtalesia miranda, from Oliver (2016). The enlarged insert shows a symbiotic bivalve Syssitomya pourtalesiana.

The change in lifestyle was certainly a successful one: nearly 60% of living echinoids are irregular. The earliest irregular echinoids appeared in the early Jurassic, with recent analyses agreeing that they represent a monophyletic group (Saucède et al. 2007; Kroh & Smith 2010). Nevertheless, a certain degree of parallelism in adaptations appears to have been occurred. Living irregular echinoids can be divided between two clades: one is relictual, containing only two genera in the order Holectypoida, whereas the remaining species belong to the larger clade Microstomata. The earliest known members of the holectypoid lineage retained strong jaws even after they evolved the ability to burrow in sediment. In contrast, the earliest known member of the Microstomata retained large spines, indicating a non-burrowing lifestyle, but already possessed the adaptations for a particulate diet (Saucède et al. 2007). With time, both lineages developed the feature that they lacked, adding them together for a winning combination.

REFERENCES

Durham, J. W. 1966. Echinoids—ecology and paleoecology. In: Moore, R. C. (ed.) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology pt U. Echinodermata 3 vol. 2 pp. U257–U265. The Geological Society of America, Inc., and The University of Kansas Press.

Kroh, A., & A. B. Smith. 2010. The phylogeny and classification of post-Palaeozoic echinoids. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 8 (2): 147–212.

Saucède, T., R. Mooi & B. David. 2007. Phylogeny and origin of Jurassic irregular echinoids (Echinodermata: Echinoidea). Geological Magazine 144 (2): 333–359.

Hypsogastropods: Gastropods on High

Historically, the classification of molluscs has been a challenging prospect. Early researchers focused almost entirely on the shell which provided a somewhat limited range of characters with a definite possibility for convergence. Over time, more attention came to be paid to features of the soft anatomy but that required access to freshly collected material that might be difficult or impossible to obtain. As such, it has only been in the last few decades that a well-structured classification for many molluscan groups has begun to develop, and even now many significant uncertainties remain.

Common periwinkles Littorina littorea, a pretty typical hypsogastropod, copyright Fritz Geller-Grimm.

Until maybe the late 1990s, gastropods were primarily classified using a heavily grade-based system that was established in the 1930s. Gastropods were divided between three subclasses: the torted, gill-breathing prosobranchs, the untorted opisthobranchs, and the lung-breathing pulmonates. Prosobranchs were in turn divided into three main groups whose names directly reflected the 'level' of evolution at which they were supposed to sit: the archaeogastropods, the mesogastropods and the neogastropods. Many of these subdivisions were implicitly assumed to be ancestral to others. As the philosophical underpinnings of biological classification came to favour recognition of monophyletic taxa, it was obvious that such a system had to change. The prosobranchs and archaeogastropods both faded away as formal taxa. A major clade uniting the neogastropods and most of the mesogastropods came to be recognised as the caenogastropods. And while many questions still remain about relationships within the caenogastropods, most recent analyses have agreed in supporting a clade that was dubbed the Hypsogastropoda by Ponder & Lindberg (1997).

False cowrie Dentiovula dosruosa, copyright Nick Hobgood.

The prefix 'hypso-' means 'high' and was chosen because this clade corresponded to a group that had previously been known as the 'higher' caenogastropods (including the neogastropods and a fair chunk of the 'mesogastropods'). Hypsogastropods include many of the best known marine gastropods, such as whelks, periwinkles, moon snails, cones, cowries, conches and doubtless a ton of other things beginning with C (they also include freshwater and terrestrial forms but these are mostly minute and lack the public image of their marine relatives). They are ecologically diverse, including grazers, detritivores, filter feeders, predators and even parasites. The violet snails of the genus Janthina are planktonic, using a raft of bubbles to float on the water's surface so they can feed on Portuguese men-of-war. The similarly pelagic heteropods of the superfamily Pterotracheoidea have the foot extended and flattened to form a fin for active swimming.

Paraspermatozoon of violet snail Janthina, from Buckland-Nicks (1998). The arrow indicates the much smaller euspermatozoa attached to the tail.

Among the characters originally cited by Ponder & Lindberg (1997) as uniting the hypsogastropods were features of the spermatozoa. Most hypsogastropods have vermiform paraspermatozoa, sterile sperm cells that are released by the male together with the functioning euspermatozoa. The function of the paraspermatozoa seems to warrant further study. In some cases they may actively assist in the transport of the euspermatozoa; for instance, in violet snails a large number of euspermatozoa will be attached to a single super-sized paraspermatozoon able to swim harder and faster than any of the smaller cells could do on their own. In others, however, the two sperm cell types are not directly associated. It is possible that the paraspermatozoa act as a nuptial gift, providing nutrients to the female as a reward for mating, or that they somehow function to suppress sperm cells from any other males the female might made with (Buckland-Nicks 1998). Other synapomorphies of the clade include an external penis located behind the right cephalic tentacle, and statocysts (balance organs) each containing a single large statolith (Simone 2011).

Relationships within the Hypsogastropoda remain more poorly supported. Most researchers have agreed that the traditionally recognised neogastropods represent a clade united by numerous features, many of them related to the digestive system. The 'mesogastropods' included in the Hypsogastropoda mostly possess a taenioglossan radula with seven teeth in each row. In neogastropods, the number of teeth becomes more varied and the teeth themselves become modified so that the lateral teeth are strongly distinct in form from the central tooth. Some of these neogastropod modifications have been discussed in earlier posts on this site. A number of recent analyses have further associated the neogastropods with 'mesogastropod' taxa such as cowries and tun shells that they resemble in possessing an inhalent siphon forming a groove at the front of the shell (Simone 2011). A number of the remaining 'mesogastropods', such as the periwinkles of the Littorinidae and the Rissoidae, have been united by molecular analyses into a group that has been labelled the 'asiphonate clade' or the 'GC group' (the latter name chosen by Colgan et al., 2007, in reference to a particular genetic sequence motif). This clade is less universally recovered, however, and the scope for further investigation certainly remains.

REFERENCES

Buckland-Nicks, J. 1998. Prosobranch parasperm: sterile germ cells that promote paternity? Micron 29 (4): 267–280.

Colgan, D. J., W. F. Ponder, E. Beacham & J. Macaranas. 2007. Molecular phylogenetics of Caenogastropoda (Gastropoda: Mollusca). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42: 717–737.

Ponder, W. F., & D. R. Lindberg. 1997. Towards a phylogeny of gastropod molluscs: an analysis using morphological characters. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 119: 83–265.

Simone, L. R. L. 2011. Phylogeny of the Caenogastropoda (Mollusca), based on comparative morphology. Arquivos de Zoologia 42 (4): 161–323.

Leptocaris: Living on the Edge

Some of the most remarkable faunal diversity in the marine environment is to be found in the interstitial spaces between grains of sand. Grazers, predators and scavengers can be found creating entire food webs at scales of less than one millimetre. The minute crustaceans known as copepods are among the more abundant inhabitants of the interstitial, and today's subject, Leptocaris, is among those interstitial copepods.

Dorsal habitus of female (left) and male Leptocaris ryukyuensis, from Song et al. (2012).

Leptocaris contains more than twenty-five species of extremely slender, cylindrical harpacticoid copepods growing to a bit over half a millimetre in length. Characteristic features of the genus include having the maxillipeds (one of the pairs of appendages making up the mouthparts) reduced or lost, and the proximal part of the endopod of the first swimming leg bearing a special anteriorly directed seta with a terminal comb (Song et al. 2012). Representatives of this genus have been collected from localities around the world though mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. Nevertheless, one can't help wondering how much of the genus' apparent rarity in the Southern Hemisphere is an artefact of low collection effort. This possibility should also be kept in mind when considering differences in the ranges of individual species: whereas many have only been collected from single localities (Song et al. 2012), the species L. trisetosus has been found from Finland to the Bahamas to South Africa, as well as in Korea with the last population being treated as a distinct subspecies (Lee & Chang 2008).

The majority of collections of Leptocaris have been from among sand but the genus has also been found in other microhabitats. In general, they are found in sediments with a high organic content. They are found in euryhaline and eurythermal habitats: that is, locations subject to wide variations in salinity and temperature. These may include beaches and brackish pools. They have been found among decomposing leaves in mangrove swamps (offhand, I haven't found if the diet of Leptocaris has been firmly established but I suspect they are probably detritivores). One species, L. kunzi, was described from an estuarine lake in Louisiana; another, L. stromatolicolus, is known from among stromatolites in Mexico. Two species, L. brevicornis and L. sibiricus, have even been found in continental fresh waters in Europe as well as in coastal brackish waters (Song et al. 2012). Overall, Leptocaris species seem to be most abundant in marginal habitats that may be too harsh and unstable for other copepods, making them fronteir harpacticoids.

REFERENCES

Lee, J. M., & C. Y. Chang. 2008. Copepods of the genus Leptocaris (Harpacticoida: Darcythompsoniidae) from salt marshes in South Korea. Korean Journal of Systematic Zoology 24 (1): 89–98.

Song, S. J., H.-U. Dahms & J. S. Khim. 2012. A review of Leptocaris including a description of L. ryukyuensis sp. nov. (Copepoda: Harpacticoida: Darcythompsoniidae). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 92 (5): 1073–1081.

The Pisocrinidae: Babyface Crinoids

One question that I haven't yet found an answer to is why the Palaeozoic marine fauna seems to have included so many filter feeders. Cystoids, blastoids, graptoloids... so many of the distinctive taxa occupying this niche would be gone by the period's end, without leaving any clear analogues behind them. What was the cause underlying this abundance? Is it simply a misapprehension caused by the filtering effect of history, with the modern fauna containing fewer major lineages but no fewer actual species? Is it the distorting lens that causes us to tend to assign a higher 'rank' to those lineages arising earlier in time, whatever their practical levels of disparacy? Or was there actually something different about what could be found in Palaeozoic seawater?

Reconstructions of short-armed and long-armed species of Pisocrinus, from Rozhnov (2007).

The Pisocrinidae are one of those distinctive Palaeozoic marine groups, known from around the world during the Silurian and Devonian. As crinoids, they were perhaps not as immediately unfamiliar to the modern eye as some of the other taxa that could be found at that time, but they were certainly different from any modern crinoid. The majority of the crinoids that have ever lived can be assigned to one of two main clades. One, the cladid lineage, includes all the crinoids alive today. Pisocrinids belong to the other major lineage, the disparids, which were prominent for most of the Palaeozoic era but failed to make it past the end of the Permian. Disparids differed from cladids in that their calyx included a single circlet of plates (the inferradials) beneath the circlet of the radials (the large plates making up the main body of the calyx) whereas cladids (at least to begin with) had two such circlets. Many disparid sublineages showed a tendency towards reduction and/or simplification of the calyx. In pisocrinids, most of the calyx was made up of just three plates: two large radials (representing the A and D rays of the basic crinoid calyx) and a greatly enlarged B inferradial. The B, C and E radials were all reduced in size. The arms of pisocrinids mostly lacked lateral pinnules and were undivided; one genus, Cicerocrinus, had bifurcating arms bearing lateral ramules (Moore et al. 1978). The length of the arms varied considerably between species: in some they were quite short and broad, in others they were remarkably long. Because their derived morphology made it difficult to compare pisocrinids to related families, their origins have been regarded as mysterious. Rozhnov (2007) suggested a derivation from an earlier, more typical crinoid family, the Homocrinidae, via paedomorphosis, possibly as a result of the evolution of a longer larval period in the life cycle (he specifically suggested that this extended larval phase may have allowed the ancestors of pisocrinids to spread across the Iapetus Ocean between the then-existing continents of Laurentia and Baltica). A direct pisocrinid-homocrinid connection was not supported in the phylogenetic analysis of disparids by Ausich (2018) but Rozhnov's overall model of pisocrinid paedomorphosis remains a possibility.

Assemblage of Triacrinus, from here.

During the Silurian, pisocrinids were among the most abundant, if not the most abundant, groups of crinoids. They were found in a variety of habitats but were particularly abundant around reefs in deeper waters. At first glance, the non-pinnulate arms of pisocrinids appear poorly suited for filter feeding, and one might be inclined to propose a more tentacular method of obtaining food items. However, such a method would seem unlikely for the short-armed species, whose arms would have been almost entirely inflexible. Even the long-armed species sometimes had arms made up of relatively long segments whose flexibility may have been limited. An alternative possibility, I suppose, is that in life pisocrinids may have had long tube feet that took the place of the missing pinnules. Meanwhile, the absence of the pinnules meant that the arms could be lain tightly alongside each other when the crown was closed. Earlier authors presumed that, because of their preference for deeper waters, pisocrinids were rheophobic (that is, they were found in places where the water lacked a noticeable current). However, Ausich (1977) proposed that they were low-energy rheophilic, seeking locations where a moderate but steady current prevailed. The current would provide a steady supply of organic particles that could be captured by the crown, and the ability to close the arms tight would protect the oral region during occasional bouts of rougher conditions.

REFERENCES

Ausich, W. I. 1977. The functional morphology and evolution of Pisocrinus (Crinoidea: Silurian). Journal of Paleontology 51 (4): 672–686.

Ausich, W. I. (in press, 2018) Morphological paradox of disparid crinoids (Echinodermata): phylogenetic analysis of a Paleozoic clade. Swiss Journal of Palaeontology.

Moore, R. C., N. G. Lane, H. L. Strimple, J. Sprinkle & R. O. Fay. 1978. Inadunata. In: Moore, R. C., & C. Teichert (eds) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology pt T. Echinodermata 2. Crinoidea vol. 2 pp. T520–T759. The Geological Society of America, Inc.: Boulder (Colorado), and The University of Kansas: Lawrence (Kansas).

Rozhnov, S. V. 2007. Changes in the Early Palaeozoic geography as a possible factor of echinoderm higher taxa formation: delayed larval development to cross the Iapetus Ocean. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 245: 306–316.

How the Worm Turns (Into a Worm)

Those of you who have suffered through some of my posts on turrids may recall me discussing the subject of how differences in the mode of development of marine organisms relate to their classification. Features that were once considered of high significance are affected by whether the animal develops as a free-swimming larva or is nourished by a yolk supply provided in the egg, and may change more readily than previously thought. And indeed, it turns out that there are some cases where both developmental modes can be found in a single species.

Boccardia polybranchia, from here.

Boccardia is a genus of twenty-odd species of marine worm belonging to the family Spionidae. These are sedentary worms, living in tubes that they construct for themselves out of sediment bound together by mucus, or that they bore into substrates such as mollusc shells or coral. Boccardia and other spionids have a pair of long palps extending from the head that they use for feeding, sweeping them around to gather up detritus and such. Boccardia differs from other genera in the Spionidae in having branchiae (vascularised appendages that function as gills) starting on the second segment of the body, and two differentiated spine rows on the fifth segment with falcate spines in the upper row and bristle-tipped spines in the lower row (Williams 2001).

One of the best-studied Boccardia species is B. proboscidea, a species about one or two centimetres in length found around various parts of the Pacific, including along the western coast of North America. Boccardia proboscidea is very catholic in its habitat preferences: it can be found in the intertidal or shallow subtidal zones, and anywhere from mudflats to rubble to reefs to burrowed into the shells used by hermit crabs (Gibson et al. 1999). It also shows the aforementioned variation in larval development: some individuals hatch as small larvae and live and feed as plankton, others feed on the yolks from nurse eggs and don't hatch until they reach a more advanced stage of development. Whichever way the individual develops, the resulting adult seems to be more or less the same.

Nevertheless, it would be fair to wonder if this variation is as it appears. Combine the variation in development with the variation in habits, and you might wonder whether two or more morphologically similar species are being confused. However, not only are the adults of each larval type completely interfertile, but differently developing individuals may even come from a single egg case. Gibson et al. (1999) compared individuals of this species from two widely separated populations both morphologically and genetically, and found that while there were some differences between the populations, there was little or no difference between developmentally distinct individuals within each population. How and why this developmental variation is maintained seems to be an open question but there is some evidence that other spionids may show the same plasticity. After all, it doesn't matter how you get there, so long as you get there.

REFERENCES

Gibson, G., I. G. Paterson, H. Taylor & B. Woolridge. 1999. Molecular and morphological evidence of a single species, Boccardia proboscidea (Polychaeta: Spionidae), with multiple development modes. Marine Biology 134: 743–751.

Williams, J. D. 2001. Polydora and related genera associated with hermit crabs from the Indo-West Pacific (Polychaeta: Spionidae), with descriptions of two new species and a second polydorid egg predator of hermit crabs. Pacific Science 55 (4): 429-465.

With Fronds Like These

I'm sure pretty much anyone who's spent time looking into rock pools along the coast will be familiar with sea anemones. These sessile animals with their squidgy bodies and crown of tentacles can be seen almost anywhere there's a rock for them to stand on and a tide to cover them. As a kid, I used to amuse myself by poking them with a finger, noting the slight velcro-ish feel as the harassed anemone would vainly attempt to sting its attaker as it withdrew for protection. In hindsight, I was perhaps just fortunate that New Zealand anemones lacked the strength of venom to affect a human.

Waratah anemones Actinia tenebrosa, copyright John Turnbull.

Many of the anemones I was encountering as a child probably belong to a particular clade known as the Actinioidea. As recognised by Rodríguez et al. (2014), familiar members of this group include the beadlet anemone Actinia equina* from the Atlantic coasts of Europe and Africa, the red sea anemone Actinia tenebrosa of eastern Australia and New Zealand, and the aggregating anemone Anthopleura elegantissima and giant green anemone Anthopleura xanthogrammica of the Pacific coast of North America. Wikipedia informs me that another actinioid, the snakelocks anemone Anemonia viridis, is eaten after being marinated in vinegar and fried in parts of the Mediterranean. Rodríguez et al. recognised their Actinioidea primarily on the basis of molecular phylogenetic analysis but most members of this group had previously been recognised as relatives due to their possession of a sphincter muscle around the edge of the gastric cavity near the top of the column. This muscle allows the body cavity to be pulled tightly closed, providing protection and, for intertidal species, holding water inside the body to protect against desiccation.

*Actinia equina, offhand, was given its species name by Carl Linnaeus who described it under the name Priapus equinus. 'Equinus' means 'of a horse' whereas 'priapus' means... exactly what you think it means. Yes, the name of this species literally means 'hung like a donkey'.

Pompom anemone Liponema brevicornis, copyright Ocean Networks Australia.

Other common features of actinioids include well-developed muscles around the base of the column and an adhesive basal disc for clinging to rocks. However, both the upper sphincter muscle and the basal muscles have been lost in various subgroups of the actinioids, often at the same time. Anemones lacking these muscles, such as the ghost anemones Haloclava, are generally deeper water forms that do not cling to rocks but instead live burrowed into sand with their tentacles extended above the surface. One such anemone, the twelve-tentacled parasitic anemone Peachia qinquecapitata, develops as a larva as a parasite on the hydrozoan medusa Clytia gregaria. The larvae gain entry to their host by being eaten as food particles but proceed to themselves feed on the contents of the host's gastric cavity and eventually on the host itself. Another group of deep-sea actinioids, including such species as the deeplet anemone Bolocera tuediae and the pompom anemone Liponema brevicornis, are able to shed their tentacles as a defence thanks to small sphincter muscles at the base of each tentacle. Bolocera tuediae, found in the North Sea, is a particularly large anemone reaching up to a foot in diameter.

Aggregating anemones Anthopleura elegantissima fighting over space, copyright Brocken Inaglory. The white 'tentacles' the anemones are extending towards each other are inflated acrorhagi (see below).

Many actinioids form symbiotic associations with microscopic algae such as zooxanthellae, containing them within their body and supplementing their own nutrition through the algae's photosynthesis. A number of species reproduce by brooding larvae within the body cavity, only releasing them when they are more developed and better equipped to survive the outside world. Finally, many species of actinioid have the column ornamented by various protuberances such as vesicles or verrucae. These structures may serve environmental protective functions, such as increasing desiccation resistance or functioning in camouflage. Members of Anthopleura and related genera often have specialised bulbous protuberances called acrorhagi around the distal part of the column (Daly et al. 2017). These acrorhagi are packed with stinging cells and are used not so much to protect against predators as against other sea anemones. The acrorhagi-equipped anemone flails its column about, pressing the acrorhagi against any competitor that gets too close and stinging it until it is forced to back off. Its a tough world out there and any anemone worth its salt has got to be willing to defend its position.

REFERENCES

Daly, M., L. M. Crowley, P. Larson, E. Rodríguez, E. H. Saucier & D. G. Fautin. 2017. Anthopleura and the phylogeny of Actinioidea (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Actiniaria). Organisms, Diversity & Evolution 17: 545–564.

Rodríguez, E., M. S. Barbeitos, M. R. Brugler, L. M. Crowley, A. Grajales, L. Gusmão, V. Häussermann, A. Reft & M. Daly. 2014. Hidden among sea anemones: the first comprehensive phylogenetic reconstruction of the order Actiniaria (Cnidaria, Anthozoa, Hexacorallia) reveals a novel group of hexacorals. PLoS One 9 (5): e96998.