DOCSLIB.ORG

ADHESIVE FORCE of a SINGLE GECKO SETA a Thesis Presented

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ADHESIVE FORCE of a SINGLE GECKO SETA a Thesis Presented ADHESIVE FORCE OF A SINGLE GECKO SETA A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Lan Yu May, 2018 ADHESIVE FORCE OF A SINGLE GECKO SETA Lan Yu Thesis Approved: Accepted: Advisor Dean of College Dr. Ali Dhinojwala Dr. Eric J. Amis Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School Dr. Hunter King Dr. Chand K. Midha Department Chair Date Dr. Coleen Pugh ii ABSTRACT The gecko’s adhesion system uses arrays of setae to achieve strong and repeatable adhesion. Observation of the toe pad structure shows that shorter setae are generally proximal while longer ones distal [39]. We hypothesized that a seta of longer length would generate higher adhesive force, as long and slender setae have lower bending modulus, and therefore making it easier to contact spatulae with the surface. By following previous single seta experiments [11], we first measured the shear force generated by an isolated gecko seta using Nano Bionix. We also tested the length hypothesis by measuring the shear adhesion ability of single seta of varying lengths ranging from 80 to 140µm, which was taken from different parts of the gecko toe pad from distal to proximal. Measurements gave the result of shear forces of a single seta in the range of 80 to 250µN and an average of 136.81µN. This number is lower than the average value 194µN in previous studies, which is tested under a preload of 15µN [11]. In addition, results from 12 individual setae suggested that shear adhesion force of a single seta is independent of setal length and dependent on setal diameter. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to profusely thank my advisor Dr. Ali Dhinojwala, for his guidance and encouragement at every step of graduate school. I would like to express my gratitude towards my committee member, Dr. Hunter King, for his valuable comments and suggestions. Besides, I want to thank Dr. Peter Niewiarowski and Dr. Todd Blackledge for allowing me to use their equipments. Also, I would like to show my gratitude to my coworkers Michael Wilson, Austin Garner, Angela Alicea and Jialu Li for giving me a lot of constructive advice and carrying out experiments together during the whole project. What is more, I would like to thank all my group members for helping me a lot during the daily experiments and also creating a harmonious atmosphere for research. At last, I feel grateful for the support of my parents, who help me a lot in my life. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………….vi LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………….vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………….1 II. BACKGROUND ………………………………………………………………….6 III. EXPERIMENTAL ………………………………………………………………22 IV. RESULTS ……………………………………………………………………….26 V. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ………………………………………...30 REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………...31 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 The adhesion system of gecko’ feet ................................................................... 8 2.2 The hierarchical structures on the adhesive toe pads of geckos......................... 9 2.3 Apparatus for single seta force measurement .................................................... 11 2.4 Adhesion force of a single seta .......................................................................... 12 2.5 Evidence for van der Waals forces as gecko adhesion mechanism ................... 17 2.6 SEM images of the proximal, intermediate and distal lamellae showing the difference in setal morphology .......................................................................... 19 2.7 Common trends in setal field configuration and dimensions across generalized proximal, intermediate and distal lamellae of Rhoptropus ................................ 19 3.1 Illustrations of shear force measurement of a single seta using Nano Bionix ... 23 3.2 Illustration of seta deformation over a small lateral displacement of the insect pin ...................................................................................................................... 23 3.3 Setal length and diameter measurement ............................................................. 25 4.1 Parallel shear force measured for one single seta as a function of time ............. 27 4.2 Maximal shear force measured for each seta as a function of (a) setal length (b) setal diameter ................................................................................................ 28 4.3 Maximal shear force measured for each seta as a function of setal aspect ratio 29 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Surface characteristics of Tokay gecko feet 9 2.2. Mechanisms of adhesion rejected by studies 14 2.3 Adhesion force measured for spatula on different environments 18 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Geckos are lizards of the taxonomic family Gekkonidae that can be found in warm climates throughout the world. Geckos are well known for their dynamic attachment ability to climb on different smooth or rough surfaces and detach at will. This ability was referred to by Bhushan as reversible adhesion or smart adhesion [1]. Among over 1000 gecko species that involve an enormous range of morphological variation of the body sizes and toe pad morphology [2,3,4], Tokay geckos has been the one used for most researches because of its availability and large size [5][6][7]. Although the remarkable performance of gecko adhesion has been realized since the time of Aristotle, it was not until the late 19th century did people first recognize the microscopic hair-like structures covering their toe pads [8]. With the development of experimental equipment, scientists have discovered many of the secrets of gecko adhesion, exploring aspects that enable the gecko to adhere to and detach from surfaces, such as the mechanisms of adhesion, surface properties and adhesion strength [4, 9-23], yet the complex hierarchical structure on their toes is still generating puzzling new questions and valuable answers. The secret of the gecko’s adhesive properties lies in the surface morphology on their toe pads. Each gecko toe consists of several layers of hierarchical structure called lamellae [4]. Approximately half a million bristles called setae are coated on each gecko toe, and the ends of setae split into even-smaller hair-like structures called spatulae [23]. Measurements of adhesion have been accessible to all these length scales due to the advancement in experimental tools. 8 Although the structure of the gecko’ s adhesive system is well observed, the understanding of their function is full of trouble. The molecular mechanism underlying adhesion in setae has still remained unclear. Adhesion can be caused by at least 11 different types of intermolecular surface forces at the interface between solids and cannot always be distinguished from friction [28, 29]. Difficulties of these studies result from determining what material is interacting at the micro level. Three possible mechanisms, suction, electrostatics, and micro-interlocking were first proposed in the literature and later got ruled out by studies. Blackwall and Hepworth first brought up the idea that the setae act like miniature suction cups [30, 31]. However, no data can be used to support suction as an adhesive mechanism, and Dellit refuted this theory by carrying out the adhesion experiments in a vacuum [13]. In addition, Autumn’s measurements of single seta adhesion of greater than one atmosphere of adhesion pressure supported Dellit’s results and further proved the suction hypothesis wrong [11]. Dellit’s study in 1934 also eliminated another possible mechanism- electrostatic attraction, as a mechanism for setal adhesion, for the geckos could still adhere in ionized air. Nevertheless, it was found out that electrostatic effects can still be utilized to enhance adhesion even if other mechanisms are operating dominantly [20]. Dellit noted the fact that setae are recurved in a way that their tips point proximally, he then postulated a micro-interlocking hypothesis that these setae act like hooks, catching on surface irregularities [13]. Later in 1965, Ruibal and Ernst suggested that the spatulae lie flat against the surface when they are in contact with the substrate, and frictional force increases through the increasing number of spatulae making contact with the surface [4]. Ruibal and Ernst’s study was an important step in understanding the gecko’s adhesion mechanism, but it was still restricted by the micro-interlocking theory. It was Hiller that 9 first proposed that the material properties of the substrate but not its texture, determine the gecko adhesion abilities [5]. Hiller’s study rejected the micro-interlocking and friction hypotheses by proving that the gecko’s adhesion behavior is not mechanical but a molecular phenomenon. Furthermore, the fact that geckos can stick to polished glass up-side-down and that they are able to generate large adhesive forces on a molecularly smooth SiO2 surface indicated that surface irregularities are not necessary, but on the contrary, can impede adhesion [11]. In 1900, Haase first proposed that adhesion depends on the load, and it only occurs in the proximal direction along the axis of the toe [28]. Discovering that adhesive force was correlated with the water droplet contact angle of the surface, he also suggested that the gecko adhesion happens through intermolecular forces [5, 17]. Since then, following researches have been going in the direction of understanding the nature of these intermolecular forces. Thin film capillary adhesion was suggested
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effects of Temperature on Seta Elongation in Atrichum Undulatum^ 2- 3
    EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE ON SETA ELONGATION IN ATRICHUM UNDULATUM^ 2- 3 DENNIS WM. STEVENSON4, JAMES R. RASTORFER, AND RAY E. SHOWMAN Department of Botany, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 ABSTRACT Field-collected gametophytes of Atrichum undulatum were placed in two growth chambers which were maintained at the same light intensity and light period, but at two different temperature regimes. After sporophyte development, differences in seta lengths were observed. Measurements of cell lengths revealed that attached setae grown in the high-temperature regime (12°-22°C) were longer than those grown in a low-temperature regime (3°-12°C), as a result of both more cell divisions and a larger average cell length. Thus, temperature appeared to influence both cell division and cell elongation in the setae of Atrichum undulatum. INTRODUCTION Sporophytes of most liverworts and mosses (Bryophyta) consist of a basal foot attached to the gametophyte and a seta or stalk, which supports a spore-bearing capsule at its apex. Lengths of setae at sporophyte maturity differ among species, varying from a minute structure to a conspicuous organ which may exceed 5 cm (Watson, 1964). Setae of the Common Hair-Cap Moss (Polytrichum commune) are reported to vary from 6 to 12 cm in length (Welch, 1957), but unfortunately it is not clearly understood whether these differences are caused by genetic factors or environmental factors or both. A few studies have suggested that seta elonga- tion can apparently be influenced by environmental factors (e.g. temperature; light intensity; day length), and that there may be interactions of internal plant factors (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Honors Thesis
    Surface Construction and Mechanisms of Adhesion in Tokay Gecko Feet and Characterization of a Bio-Inspired Reversible Adhesive Tape Honors Undergraduate Thesis Submitted to: The College of Engineering Honors Committee College of Engineering 122 Hitchcock Hall The Ohio State University By: Robert A. Sayer Department of Mechanical Engineering Spring 2006 Approved by: Professor Bharat Bhushan, Advisor Department of Mechanical Engineering Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor Bharat Bhushan for providing me the opportunity to work in the NLIM and the many hours that he spent helping revise the literature review. I also greatly appreciate the help that I received from Dr. Zhenhua Tao with the AFM and from Yong Chae Jung with the optical profiler and the contact angle measurements and Dr. Manuel Palacio for obtaining the SEM images. Without the aforementioned people, this project would not have been possible. i Abstract Several creatures including insects, spiders, and lizards, have developed a unique clinging ability that utilizes dry adhesion. Geckos, in particular, have developed the most complex adhesive structures capable of smart adhesion—the ability to cling on different smooth and rough surfaces and detach at will. These animals make use of on the order of a million microscale hairs (setae) (about 14000/mm2) that branch off into hundreds of nanoscale spatulae. This hierarchical surface construction gives the gecko the adaptability to create a large real area of contact with surfaces. van der Waals forces are the primary mechanism utilized to adhere to surfaces and capillary forces are a secondary effect that can further increase adhesive force. Although a gecko is capable of producing on the order of 20 N of adhesive force, it retains the ability to remove its feet from an attachment surface at will.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Wettability Plays a Significant Role in Gecko Adhesion Underwater
    Surface wettability plays a significant role in gecko adhesion underwater Alyssa Y. Starka,1, Ila Badgeb, Nicholas A. Wucinicha, Timothy W. Sullivana, Peter H. Niewiarowskia, and Ali Dhinojwalab aIntegrated Bioscience Program, and bDepartment of Polymer Science, The University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325 Edited by David B. Wake, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved February 13, 2013 (received for review November 8, 2012) Although we now have thousands of studies focused on the nano-, in water (33). At face value, this is perplexing: many geckos live in micro-, and whole-animal mechanics of gecko adhesion on clean, dry tropical habitats where surface wetting from rain and humidity is substrates, we know relatively little about the effects of water on expected to be common. However, arboreal geckos likely use plant gecko adhesion. For many gecko species, however, rainfall fre- surfaces more than other substrates, such as dirt, sand, or man- quently wets the natural surfaces they navigate. In an effort to begin made glass and plastics, and many plant surfaces are hydrophobic closing this gap, we tested the adhesion of geckos on submerged (24). This begs the obvious question: Can geckos stick to wet substrates that vary in their wettability. When tested on a wet hydrophobic surfaces? Unfortunately, data necessary to answer hydrophilic surface, geckos produced a significantly lower shear this question are very limited. Early experiments by Hiller (35) adhesive force (5.4 ± 1.33 N) compared with a dry hydrophilic sur- tested for the effect of surface wettability on adhesion using sur- face (17.1 ± 3.93 N).
    [Show full text]
  • Faunistic and Biological Notes on Marine Invertebrates Iii
    Biologiske Meddelelser udgivet af Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Bind 23, no. 1 Biol. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. 23, no. 1 (1956) FAUNISTIC AND BIOLOGICAL NOTES ON MARINE INVERTEBRATES III. • The Reproduction and Larval Development of some Polychaetes from the Isefjord, with some Faunistic Notes. B Y • ERIK RASMUSSEN (Report from the Isefjord Laboratory No. 3) København 1956 i kommission hos Ejnar Munksgaard D et Kongelige Danske V idenskabernes Selskab udgiver følgende publikationsrækker : L'Académie Royale des Sciences et des Lettres de Danemark publie les séries suivantes: Bibliograûsk forkortelse Ahréi/iation bibliographique Oversigt over selskabets virksomhed (8°) Overs. Dan. Vid. Selsk. (Annuaire) Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser (8°) Hist. Filol. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. -Historisk-filologiske Skrifter (4°) Hist. Filol. Skr. Dan. Vid. Selsk. (Histoire et Philologie) Arkæologisk-kunsthistoriske Meddelelser (8°) Arkæol. Kunsthist. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. Arkæologisk-kunsthistoriske Skrifter (4°) Arkæol. Kunsthist. Skr. Dan. Vid. (Archéologie et Histoire de I’Art} Selsk. Filosofiske Meddelelser (8°) Filos. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. (Philosophie) Matematisk-fysiske Meddelelser (8°) Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. (Mathémaliqnes et Physique) Biologiske Meddelelser (8°) Biol. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. Biologiske Skrifter (4®) Biol. Skr. Dan. Vid. Selsk. (Biologie) Selskabets sekretariat og postadresse: Dantes plads 5, København V. L'adresse poslale du secrétariat de VAcadémie est: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Dantes plads 5, København V, Danmark. Selskabets kommissionær: Ejnar Munksgaard’s forlag, Nørregade 6, København K. Les publications sont en vente chez le commissionnaire: Ejnar Münksgaard, éditeur. Nørregade 6, København K, Danmark. Biologiske Meddelelser udgivet af Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Bind 23, no. 1 Biol. Medd. Dan.
    [Show full text]
  • OREGON ESTUARINE INVERTEBRATES an Illustrated Guide to the Common and Important Invertebrate Animals
    OREGON ESTUARINE INVERTEBRATES An Illustrated Guide to the Common and Important Invertebrate Animals By Paul Rudy, Jr. Lynn Hay Rudy Oregon Institute of Marine Biology University of Oregon Charleston, Oregon 97420 Contract No. 79-111 Project Officer Jay F. Watson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 500 N.E. Multnomah Street Portland, Oregon 97232 Performed for National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 Table of Contents Introduction CNIDARIA Hydrozoa Aequorea aequorea ................................................................ 6 Obelia longissima .................................................................. 8 Polyorchis penicillatus 10 Tubularia crocea ................................................................. 12 Anthozoa Anthopleura artemisia ................................. 14 Anthopleura elegantissima .................................................. 16 Haliplanella luciae .................................................................. 18 Nematostella vectensis ......................................................... 20 Metridium senile .................................................................... 22 NEMERTEA Amphiporus imparispinosus ................................................ 24 Carinoma mutabilis ................................................................ 26 Cerebratulus californiensis .................................................. 28 Lineus ruber .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Reproduction
    AccessScience from McGraw-Hill Education Page 1 of 10 www.accessscience.com Plant reproduction Contributed by: Scott D. Russell Publication year: 2014 The formation of a new plant that is either an exact copy or recombination of the genetic makeup of its parents. There are three types of plant reproduction considered here: (1) vegetative reproduction, in which a vegetative organ forms a clone of the parent; (2) asexual reproduction, in which reproductive components undergo a nonsexual form of production of offspring without genetic rearrangement, also known as apomixis; and (3) sexual reproduction, in which meiosis (reduction division) leads to formation of male and female gametes that combine through syngamy (union of gametes) to produce offspring. See also: PLANT; PLANT PHYSIOLOGY. Vegetative reproduction Unlike animals, plants may be readily stimulated to produce identical copies of themselves through cloning. In animals, only a few cells, which are regarded as stem cells, are capable of generating cell lineages, organs, or new organisms. In contrast, plants generate or produce stem cells from many plant cells of the root, stem, or leaf that are not part of an obvious generative lineage—a characteristic that has been known as totipotency, or the general ability of a single cell to regenerate a whole new plant. This ability to establish new plants from one or more cells is the foundation of plant biotechnology. In biotechnology, a single cell may be used to regenerate new organisms that may or may not genetically differ from the original organism. If it is identical to the parent, it is a clone; however, if this plant has been altered through molecular biology, it is known as a genetically modified organism (GMO).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 the Design and Fabrication
    Abstract There has been significant interest in developing dry adhesives mimicking the gecko adhesive system, which offers several advantages compared to conventional pressure sensitive adhesives. Specifically, gecko adhesive pads have anisotropic adhesion properties: the adhesive pads (spatulae) stick strongly when sheared in one direction but are non-adherent when sheared in the opposite direction. This anisotropy property is attributed to the complex topography of the array of fine tilted and curved columnar structures (setae) that bear the spatulae. In this thesis, easy, scalable methods, relying on conventional and unconventional techniques are presented to incorporate tilt in the fabrication of synthetic polymer-based dry adhesives mimicking the gecko adhesive system, which provide anisotropic adhesion properties. In the first part of the study, the anisotropic adhesion and friction properties of samples with various tilt angles to test the validity of a nanoscale tape-peeling model of spatular function are measured. Consistent with the Peel Zone model, samples with lower tilt angles yielded larger adhesion forces. Contact mechanics of the synthetic array were highly anisotropic, consistent with the frictional adhesion model and gecko-like. Based on the original design, a new design of gecko-like dry adhesives was developed which showed superior tribological properties and furthermore showed anisotropic adhesive properties without the need for tilt in the structures. These adhesives can be used to reversibly suspend weights from vertical surfaces (e.g., walls) and, for the first time to our knowledge, horizontal surfaces (e.g., ceilings) by simultaneously and judiciously activating anisotropic friction and adhesion forces. Furthermore, adhesion properties between artificial gecko-inspired dry adhesives and rough substrates with varying roughness are studied.
    [Show full text]
  • Check List of the Marine Invertebrates of Virginia
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 1965 Check list of the marine invertebrates of Virginia Marvin L. Wass Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Marine Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Wass, M. L. (1965) Check list of the marine invertebrates of Virginia. Special scientific eporr t (Virginia Institute of Marine Science); no. 24, 3rd revision. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V5Q30X This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VIRGINlA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE GLOUCESTER POINT, VIRGINIA CHECK LIST OF THE MARINE INVERTEBRATES OF VIRGINIA SPECIAL SCIEN'l�FIC REPORT NO. 24 (Third Revision) August 1965 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE GLOUCESTER POINT, VIRGINIA CHECK LIST OF THE MARINE INVERTEBRATES OF VIRGINIA Compiled by Iviarvin L. Wass SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT NO. 24 (Third Revision) w. J. Hargis, Jr. August 1965 Director CONTENTS Page Porifera. • • • • • • . • • . • . • • • • • • • • 3 Coelenterata. • • • . • • • . • • • • • • • . • 4 Ctenophora. • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • 7 Platyhelminthes • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • . 8 Rhynchocoela. • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • 11 Entoprocta. • • • • • • • • •
    [Show full text]
  • GENERAL BOTANY Lecture 32 - Bryophytes
    Jim Bidlack - BIO 1304 GENERAL BOTANY Lecture 32 - Bryophytes COMMENT: WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF PLANTS!! (WE'RE NOW IN KINGDOM PLANTAE) I. General characteristics of the Bryophyte Phyla A. Similarities to algae 1. Produce free-swimmin' sperm that travel through water to reach the eggs 2. No vascular system 3. No lignified tissue 4. Lack roots and true leaves B. What makes Bryophytes members of the Kingdom Plantae? 1. Eucaryotic 2. Lack chitinous walls (cellulose instead) & photosynthesis 3. Embryos have a jacket of sterile cells encasing reproductive cells C. Special characteristics of Bryophytes 1. Eggs formed in archegonia; sperm produced in antheridia 2. Chief photosynthetic body is the gametophyte (haploid) - note that Bryophytes demonstrate the sporic life cycle (sporophyte & gametophyte) 3. Structure is usually thallus 4. Uses: ecological importance, aesthetic value, absorbing ability, food, and medicine 5. May be the evolutionary link between algae and higher plants II. Characteristics of Bryophyte Phyla A. Phylum Hepaticophyta (liverworts - "HHHHEEEEPPPPPTTTTT!!!! [liver]") - small, green, ribbon-shaped plants 1. Two generations: gametophyte (predominant) and sporophyte 2. Ribbon-shaped thallus can often form a rosette 3. Female part (archegonia) has a head that looks like a palm tree (archegoniophore); male part (antheridia) has a head that looks like an umbrella (antheridiophore) 4. Collective term for archegonia and antheridia is gametangia B. Phylum Antherocerotophyta (hornworts - "antlers [horns]"): looks like liverwort except that the sporophyte has a much longer structure 1. Two generations: gametophyte is a ribbon-shaped thallus and sporophyte towers over the gametophyte 2. Hornworts are unique because they only have one large chloroplast per cell and those chloroplasts have pyrenoids (mosses and liverworts have many chloroplasts and lack pyrenoids) C.
    [Show full text]
  • Revising the Definition of the Crustacean Seta and Setal
    Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKZOJZoological Journal of the Linnean Society0024-4082The Lin- nean Society of London, 2004? 2004 142? 233252 Original Article DEFINITION OF CRUSTACEAN SETAE AND SETAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMA. GARM Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2004, 142, 233–252. With 11 figures Revising the definition of the crustacean seta and setal classification systems based on examinations of the mouthpart setae of seven species of decapods A. GARM* Biological Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Received July 2003; accepted for publication June 2004 The crustacean cuticle has numerous projections and some of these projections, the setae, have important mechan- ical as well as sensory functions. The setae display a wide diversity in their external morphology, which has led to great problems separating setae from other projections in the cuticle and problems in making a consistent classifi- cation system. Here, the cuticular projections on the mouthparts of seven species of decapods are examined by scan- ning and transmission electron microscopy. A new definition is given: a seta is an elongate projection with a more or less circular base and a continuous lumen; the lumen has a semicircular arrangement of sheath cells basally. From the details of the external morphology the mouthpart setae are divided into seven types: pappose, plumose, serrulate, serrate, papposerrate, simple and cuspidate setae, which are suggested to reflect mechanical functions and not evolutionary history. This classification system is compared with earlier systems. © 2004 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2004, 142, 233–252. ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: functional morphology – mechanical function – setal types. INTRODUCTION paper, the most often used term is setae and it will therefore be used here.
    [Show full text]
  • Hermit Crabs - Paguridae and Diogenidae
    Identification Guide to Marine Invertebrates of Texas by Brenda Bowling Texas Parks and Wildlife Department April 12, 2019 Version 4 Page 1 Marine Crabs of Texas Mole crab Yellow box crab Giant hermit Surf hermit Lepidopa benedicti Calappa sulcata Petrochirus diogenes Isocheles wurdemanni Family Albuneidae Family Calappidae Family Diogenidae Family Diogenidae Blue-spot hermit Thinstripe hermit Blue land crab Flecked box crab Paguristes hummi Clibanarius vittatus Cardisoma guanhumi Hepatus pudibundus Family Diogenidae Family Diogenidae Family Gecarcinidae Family Hepatidae Calico box crab Puerto Rican sand crab False arrow crab Pink purse crab Hepatus epheliticus Emerita portoricensis Metoporhaphis calcarata Persephona crinita Family Hepatidae Family Hippidae Family Inachidae Family Leucosiidae Mottled purse crab Stone crab Red-jointed fiddler crab Atlantic ghost crab Persephona mediterranea Menippe adina Uca minax Ocypode quadrata Family Leucosiidae Family Menippidae Family Ocypodidae Family Ocypodidae Mudflat fiddler crab Spined fiddler crab Longwrist hermit Flatclaw hermit Uca rapax Uca spinicarpa Pagurus longicarpus Pagurus pollicaris Family Ocypodidae Family Ocypodidae Family Paguridae Family Paguridae Dimpled hermit Brown banded hermit Flatback mud crab Estuarine mud crab Pagurus impressus Pagurus annulipes Eurypanopeus depressus Rithropanopeus harrisii Family Paguridae Family Paguridae Family Panopeidae Family Panopeidae Page 2 Smooth mud crab Gulf grassflat crab Oystershell mud crab Saltmarsh mud crab Hexapanopeus angustifrons Dyspanopeus
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Common Tidal Marsh Invertebrates of the Northeastern
    - J Mississippi Alabama Sea Grant Consortium MASGP - 79 - 004 Guide to Common Tidal Marsh Invertebrates of the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico by Richard W. Heard University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688 and Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Ocean Springs, MS 39564* Illustrations by Linda B. Lutz This work is a result of research sponsored in part by the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Sea Grant, under Grant Nos. 04-S-MOl-92, NA79AA-D-00049, and NASIAA-D-00050, by the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Gram Consortium, by the University of South Alabama, by the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, and by the Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium. The U.S. Government is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for govern­ mental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation that may appear hereon. • Present address. This Handbook is dedicated to WILL HOLMES friend and gentleman Copyright© 1982 by Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium and R. W. Heard All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without permission from the author. CONTENTS PREFACE . ....... .... ......... .... Family Mysidae. .. .. .. .. .. 27 Order Tanaidacea (Tanaids) . ..... .. 28 INTRODUCTION ........................ Family Paratanaidae.. .. .. .. 29 SALTMARSH INVERTEBRATES. .. .. .. 3 Family Apseudidae . .. .. .. .. 30 Order Cumacea. .. .. .. .. 30 Phylum Cnidaria (=Coelenterata) .. .. .. .. 3 Family Nannasticidae. .. .. 31 Class Anthozoa. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 Order Isopoda (Isopods) . .. .. .. 32 Family Edwardsiidae . .. .. .. .. 3 Family Anthuridae (Anthurids) . .. 32 Phylum Annelida (Annelids) . .. .. .. .. .. 3 Family Sphaeromidae (Sphaeromids) 32 Class Oligochaeta (Oligochaetes). .. .. .. 3 Family Munnidae . .. .. .. .. 34 Class Hirudinea (Leeches) . .. .. .. 4 Family Asellidae . .. .. .. .. 34 Class Polychaeta (polychaetes).. .. .. .. .. 4 Family Bopyridae . .. .. .. .. 35 Family Nereidae (Nereids). .. .. .. .. 4 Order Amphipoda (Amphipods) . ... 36 Family Pilargiidae (pilargiids). .. .. .. .. 6 Family Hyalidae .
    [Show full text]