On some Prosobranchia from the coast of São Paulo

Marcus, Eveline du Bois‐Reymond

doi:10.1590/s0373-55241956000100001

Cited by 10 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…En conséquence, il est recommandé de tenir compte de cette incertitude, pour certains cas, si l'on désire aborder des considérations zoogéogra-phiques ou systématiques à partir des résultats présentés ici. Dans les cas où cela était possible, j'ai adopté les dénominations proposées par Marcus & Marcus (1956;1963), Marcus (1955;1957), en particulier pour les opisthobranches, les Columbellidae et les Caecidae. En ce qui concerne les Columbellidae, une révision en cours, par l'équipe de malacologistes du Musée National de Rio de Janeiro (cf.…”

Section: Les Mollusquesunclassified

“…Lopes et al, 1971) permettra dans un avenir prochain de réorganiser certains groupes qui sont les mieux représentés dans les algues du littoral brésilien. Pour le Phasianellidae Tricolia affinis (C. B. Adams, 1850), je n'ai pas retenu la sous-espèce T. affinis cruenta Robertson, 1958, malgré le travail de Marcus (1960), parce que plusieurs des sous-espèces proposées par Robertson (1958) se trouvent ensemble dans mes échantillons, ce qui remet en cause leur validité et leur distribution géographique. J'ai inclus les Pyramidellidae dans les opisthobranches, en accord avec les opinions de Taylor & Sohl (1962), Fretter & Graham (1962) et Keen (1971 Tegula viridula (GmeWn, 1791) Duncker, 1975 72,9 743,8 - - …”

Section: Les Mollusquesunclassified

“…Les travaux de Marcus & Marcus (1955;1956;1957;1963) restent fondamentaux en ce qui concerne les opisthobranches et quelques prosobranches communément rencontrés dans les algues. Mais ces travaux ont trait à des espèces déterminées dont l'étude est faite indépen-damment de la connaissance de la communauté à laquelle elles appartiennent.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sur la communauté des animaux vagiles associés àSargassum cymosumC. Agardh, à Ubatuba, Etat de São Paulo, Brésil∗

Montouchet

1979

Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the community of motile animals inhabiting the seaweed Sargassum cymosum C. Agardh, at Ubatuba, SP, Brazil.Twenty-nine samples of marine animals, mainly invertebrates, inhabiting the seaweed Sargassum cymosum were collected in 1967 and 1968, at Ubatuba, Enseada do Flamengo (23° 30' S and 45°' 4' 20" W). They have been studied qualitatively and quantitatively. The main conclusions are: (1) Out of 19,193 animals, 50.2% were Mollusca, 18.8% Polychaeta, 18.7% Crustacea, 10.6% Echinodermata, and 1.7% various other groups. As most of the Foraminifera, Copepoda, Ostracoda, Nematoda, and Acarina were less than 0.2 mm, none were counted in the total or percentages. This is especially important for the percentage given here for Crustacea.(2) The distribution of frequencies of animals as a function of the hour of sampling shows that there is a strong diurnal migration of the fauna as a whole. Between 6 and 10 h there is a migration down from the seaweed to the rocky substrate, and between 18 and 22 h, the seaweed is again invaded by animals which stay through the night. (3) It is suggested that the animals respond to changes in the concentration of free O 2 and CO 2 in the seawater, factors which vary according to the photosynthetic activity of the plants. The descent out of the seaweeds by day, which in certain animals occurs against a positive phototaxy, is considered as a search for food on the surface of the rocks on which S. cymosum grows, and this movement is only possible during the day when seaweeds are producing oxygen by photosynthesis. S. cymosum by itself is not used as food, except in a few cases by young Lytechinus variegatus, and never significantly. The invasion of seaweeds by night is necessary for reaching water with more oxygen and less carbon dioxide brought to the upper surfaces of the plant layer by waves. (4) Despite considerable variability, periods of high seasonal densities could be noted for some of the dominant animal species represented in the samples. Most of the populations increased in the spring and continued high during the summer, then began to diminish in autumn to reach their lowest densities in early winter. (5) Mollusca were studied in more detail: Prosobranchia represented 92.8% of the individuals, Opisthobranchia 6.0% and Pelecypoda 1.2% (6) The dominant species was Tricolia affinis (C. B. Adams, 1850), a prosobranch representing 18.1% of the whole community. The diurnal migrations of this species were peculiar in showing late ascent onto the seaweeds in the evening. Perhaps T. affinis is more resistant than other organisms to an increase of CO 2 or a decrease of O 2 , and thus can stay on the rocks longer and compete better for food with the rest of the community. * Contribution no. 23 du Programme d

show abstract

Section: Les Mollusquesunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sur la communauté des animaux vagiles associés àSargassum cymosumC. Agardh, à Ubatuba, Etat de São Paulo, Brésil∗

Montouchet

1979

Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Burn (1967) separated the species formerly attributed to Nembrotha into three different genera (Nembrotha Bergh, 1877, roboastra Bergh, 1877 and tambja Burn, 1962) based on radular and genital differences and assigned them to a new subfamily, Nembrothinae, family Polyceridae. Prior to this, the three genera were included in the family Gymnodorididae (Odhner, 1941;Marcus, 1958;Marcus and Marcus, 1964), or the subfamily Gymnodoridinae (Macnae, 1958). The phylogenetic analysis performed by Pola et al (2007) supports the separation made by Burn (1967) of Nembrotha from roboastra and tambja, based on morphological characters.…”

Section: Systematicsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…However, O'Donoghue (1924) could not confirm this possibility until he obtained further specimens for closer examination. Some years later, Marcus (1958) in his discussion of tambja divae [Nembrotha], thought that the genus angasiella must not be substituted for Nembrotha because the species angasiella edwardsi Angas, 1864 was described as spinous while the species of Nembrotha were smooth. Burn (1967) separated the species formerly attributed to Nembrotha into three different genera (Nembrotha Bergh, 1877, roboastra Bergh, 1877 and tambja Burn, 1962) based on radular and genital differences and assigned them to a new subfamily, Nembrothinae, family Polyceridae.…”

Section: Systematicsmentioning

confidence: 99%