1932
DOI: 10.1002/jez.1400620109
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

External features of regeneration in Clymenella torquata

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1946
1946
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As regards the posterior regeneration in annelids, Hyman (1916) reported that the head of oligochaetes would not regenerate a tail unless a certain number of trunk segments were associated with it. In Clymenella torquata, Sayles (1932Sayles ( , 1934Sayles ( and 1936 found that the power of posterior regeneration , dropped progressively as the cutting was made at more and more anterior levels. All these references indicate the presence of gradations in the rate of posterior regeneration in annelids.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As regards the posterior regeneration in annelids, Hyman (1916) reported that the head of oligochaetes would not regenerate a tail unless a certain number of trunk segments were associated with it. In Clymenella torquata, Sayles (1932Sayles ( , 1934Sayles ( and 1936 found that the power of posterior regeneration , dropped progressively as the cutting was made at more and more anterior levels. All these references indicate the presence of gradations in the rate of posterior regeneration in annelids.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some authors, describing Clymenella, (Leidy, 1855, as Clymene torquatus, Vemll, 1873, Lewis, 1897, as Axiothea torquata, Sayles, 1932, Ullman and Bookhout, 1949, Mangum, 1962 have numbered the first chaetiger as "2", in which case they have either assumed that the head contains only one unit of the metameric series, or they have used the word "segment" loosely to describe an externally recognizable portion of the body, irrespective of its constitution. Other authors have remained non-committal and have referred only to the number of chaetigers (Monro, 1937;Newell, 1949).…”
Section: The Head Segmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Behind these achaetous segments is a ring-shaped thickening which is a second cause of the discrepancies in the literature. Several authors count this ring (named the callus ring by Arwidsson, 191 1) as a 3rd achaetous segment (Verrill, 1873;Lewis, 1897;Sayles, 1932;Hartman, 1945;Wesenberg-Lund, 1948;Newell, 1949). Mangum (1962) describes Clymenella as having three achaetous segments, but says (personal communication) that she is not referring to the callus ring.…”
Section: The Pygidiummentioning
confidence: 99%