scholarly journals Origin of the holothurians (Echinodermata) derived by constructional morphology

Fossil Record ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reimund Haude
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johnny Waters ◽  
◽  
Bonnie K. Nguyen ◽  
Lyndsie Elizabeth White

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jörg Meibauer

German adjectival and nominal compounds like ratten+scharf (‘rat sharp’) sau+schlecht, (‘sow bad’) Hammer+auftritt (‘hammer performance’), Arsch+gesicht (‘arse face’) contain meliorative or pejorative elements as part of their structure. The left-hand evaluative members of these compounds are usually considered as so-called semi-prefixes. Contrary to recent approaches within constructional morphology ( Booij 2009 , 2010 ), I will argue that these elements are still lexemes, but that they have undergone metaphorical extension. Evidence stems from the consideration of right-hand members like Kommunisten+schwein (‘communist pig’), which have never been considered as semi-suffixes in a similar way. The metaphorical meaning of these heads and non-heads is systematically connected with expressive meaning. It will be shown that the criteria for expressive meaning proposed by Potts (2007) by and large apply. Furthermore, I will argue against a possible analysis in terms of conventional implicature, as proposed by Williamson (2009 , 2010 ) with respect to the meanings of ethnical slur terms like spic.


1985 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 88-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adolf Seilacher

This part of our course builds on the assumption that evolutionary change, although being stochastic in principle, is channeled by external and internal constraints to such a degree that it becomes quasi-predictable – or at least understandable. On this basis it makes sense to use the old methods of comparative morphology in the new framework of constructional morphology (Seilacher, 1970) in order to recognize patterns and to interpret them as trends and evolutionary pathways. For such an approach, bivalves are particularly suited:1. they deviate little from a common design (for instance they never lost their shell).2. their preservable hard parts adequately reflect the developmental biography of each individual.3. their shell form expresses the compromise between developmental constraints and functional paradigm with little interference from soft part anatomy, physiology and biotic interactions.4. they are diversified enough to provide many examples of parallel adaptations for model testing, particularly if we include the fossil record.


Paleobiology ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio G. Checa ◽  
Antonio P. Jiménez-Jiménez

Gastropod opercula are classified here on a new morphogenetic basis, which distinguishes three main types: (1) flexiclaudent spiral (mostly multispiral) operculum, the shape of which does not coincide with that of the aperture, (2) rigiclaudent spiral (usually paucispiral) operculum, the shape of which fits that of the aperture, and (3) rigiclaudent concentric operculum, also aperture-fitting. The first type fits by flexing into the aperture and is secreted when the soft parts are partly or wholly extended (i.e., when the operculum is not in a closed position). The other two types do not flex upon retraction (except at the very margin) and grow when the operculum closes over the aperture, with or without rotation. A study of opercular types at the family level confirms the systematic and evolutionary significance of opercula. Types 1 and 2 are the only ones present in archaeogastropods, Type 1 being predominant. Opercula (if present) in Neritopsina are always rigiclaudent. Within Caenogastropoda, Type 2 predominates; the only flexiclaudent spiral opercula are found in certain basal cerithioidean families. Concentric opercula are predominant in higher neotaenioglossans and exclusive in neogastropods. Except for one family, opercula in Heterostropha are always rigiclaudent spiral. Morphological, systematic, and histological criteria point to the flexiclaudent spiral operculum as the ancestral form. This leads us to propose the “periostracum shaving” model in prosobranchs to account for the origin of this kind of operculum. According to this model, in the earliest trochospiral gastropods the periostracum ceased to serve a shell-formation function at the band of overlap between whorls (the parietal band). The periostracal band was then extruded from the shell to constitute an incipient operculum, taking on the appearance of a spiral strip coiling opposite to the shell. The parietal segment of the periostracal groove migrated toward the epipodium and became independent from the rest of the mantle. The concomitant development of an opercular disc allowed the successive turns of periostracal strip to seal together. In this way, a spiral operculum emerged, coiling counterclockwise without matching the aperture shape. During the course of prosobranch evolution, rigiclaudent spiral opercula emerged several times from the ancestral flexiclaudent type, although they were always restricted to apertures with a spiral-shaped outer (labral) edge. Such opercula enlarged the range of shell morphologies for which the operculum constituted an efficient protective barrier to include those of neritoidean or naticoidean type. The onset of calcification in opercula took place with the rigiclaudent type. Concentric opercula also evolved independently from rigiclaudent spiral opercula in several gastropod groups, thus further broadening the spectrum of apertures and, hence, of shell morphologies using opercula for protection. From the standpoint of adaptation, the concentric type was probably the only one available to neogastropods having long and wide siphonal canals.


2006 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
JENNY SÄLGEBACK ◽  
ENRICO SAVAZZI

Lethaia ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
ENRICO SAVAZZI

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document