DOCSLIB.ORG

Palaemonetes Kadiakensis Rathbun: Post Embryonic Growth in the Laboratory (Decapoda, Palaemonidae)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Palaemonetes Kadiakensis Rathbun: Post Embryonic Growth in the Laboratory (Decapoda, Palaemonidae) PALAEMONETES KADIAKENSIS RATHBUN: POST EMBRYONIC GROWTH IN THE LABORATORY (DECAPODA, PALAEMONIDAE) BY JERRY H. HUBSCHMAN and JO ANN ROSE Department of Biology, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio 45431, U.S.A. and Franz Theodore Stone Laboratory, Put In Bay, Ohio, U.S.A. INTRODUCTION The study of larval development in decapod Crustacea has become continually refined during the past decade. Historically, the descriptive phases of larval development of marine decapods has been based upon the study of series collected in the plankton. In time, a wide range of species representing a number of decapod orders have been reared from egg to metamorphosis in the laboratory. As a result of this work, much of the variation in size and form observed in the plankton material has also been demonstrable in the laboratory. Five species of Eastern U.S. Palaemonete.r have been reared successfully through metamorphosis in the laboratory. These represent three marine forms: Palaemonete.r vulgaris (Say) and P. pugio Holthuis by Broad (1957a, b) and P. intermedius Holthuis by Broad & Hubschman (1962); and two freshwater species: Palaemonete.r k.adiaken.ri.r Rath- bun by Broad & Hubschman (1960, 1963) and P. paludo.ru.r (Gibbes) by Dobkin (1963). Broad ( 1957b) has demonstrated variation in molting frequency and duration of larval life as a function of diet. It is apparent that the sequence of morpholo- gical and physiological changes leading to metamorphosis bears no direct relation- ship to molting history. Indeed, the control mechanisms involved in both larval processes are not known. In adult shrimp, the initiation of molting is mediated by eyestalk hormones. This is not the case in Palaemonete.r larvae. The X-organ sinus gland system important to adult physiology is not operative during larval life. Consequently, eyestalk removal had no effect on molting frequency during larval development (Hubschman, 1963). The factors influencing molting and development in larval shrimp remain to be discovered although some important information on the effects of variations in temperature and salinity on the larval development of marine crabs has been reported by Costlow, Bookhout & Monroe ( 1960, 1962). There are no such data available on shrimp. In our own work on growth and development in Palaemonete.r, it soon became clear that there was no basis for determining the norm in terms of larval growth and molting frequency in the laboratory. The descriptions of larval development mentioned above, while based upon laboratory reared stages, do not account for variations reflecting 82 fluctuations in photoperiod and temperature. The work on larval development in P. kadiaken.ri.r included data on molting frequency, but the summary of molting and development was based upon the records of sixty individuals completing metamorphosis in the laboratory (Broad & Hubschman, 1963). There are no data available on growth or molting frequency in the other freshwater species, P. paludo.ru.r. This paper presents an analysis of larval growth and molting fre- quency of the larvae of P. kadiaken.ri.r reared under regular periods of light and darkness and controlled temperature. The account is based upon the rearing, through metamorphosis, of over one thousand shrimp in the laboratory. METHODS This work was conducted at the Franz Theodore Stone Laboratory at Put In Bay, Ohio, during the summers of 1966 and 1967. The larvae of the freshwater shrimp Palaemonetes kadiaken.ri.r Rathbun were obtained by holding ovigerous female shrimp in individual aquaria until the brood hatched. The rearing proce- dure was essentially the same as that outlined in the original paper on P. kadia- ken.ri.r (cf. Broad & Hubschman, 1963). Certain conditions were changed for this work. The larvae were reared in groups of fifty in polycarbonate trays containing two liters of filtered Lake Erie water. Rearing was conducted in incubators at 25° C under incandescent illumination controlled to provide 14 hours of light in each period of 24 hours. The periods of light and dark were approximately coincident with the diurnal cycle outside the laboratory. The larvae were inspected daily. At this time, the larvae were fed newly hatched Artemia salina (L.) nauplii. The nauplii were harvested, centrifuged, and washed in fresh filtered lake water. The temperature of the culture water of the original descriptive work varied from 18.5° to 24° C over the summer (Broad & Hubschman, 1963). Measurement of the water temperature at the sites of collection in lagoons on the south shore of Sandusky Bay, indicated that 27° C was not unusual. Surface temperature of the lagoons in summer often reached 30° C. Based upon this information, 25° C was established as the basis for this work. The staging of larval Form I through VI is based upon a combination of mor- phological features. In the past, the only difficulty in staging occurred when a distinction had to be made between intergrades of Forms V and VI. These stages are distinguished by the relative degree of development of pleopods, the number of rostral teeth and the form of the telson. Analysis of the forms occurring in this work revealed that the form of the telson was a dependable diagnostic feature and could be relied upon for staging the developmental phases. We used this feature alone to characterize the larval forms discussed. Form I larvae are quite naturally the first form hatched from the egg. The telson in this stage is charact- erized by no articulation with the last abdominal segment (fig. 1 A). Form II larvae retain the general morphology of the previous zoea. Now, however, the articulation between the telson and the last abdominal segment is distinct (fig. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Decapod Crustacean Grooming: Functional Morphology, Adaptive Value, and Phylogenetic Significance
    Decapod crustacean grooming: Functional morphology, adaptive value, and phylogenetic significance N RAYMOND T.BAUER Center for Crustacean Research, University of Southwestern Louisiana, USA ABSTRACT Grooming behavior is well developed in many decapod crustaceans. Antennular grooming by the third maxillipedes is found throughout the Decapoda. Gill cleaning mechanisms are qaite variable: chelipede brushes, setiferous epipods, epipod-setobranch systems. However, microstructure of gill cleaning setae, which are equipped with digitate scale setules, is quite conservative. General body grooming, performed by serrate setal brushes on chelipedes and/or posterior pereiopods, is best developed in decapods at a natant grade of body morphology. Brachyuran crabs exhibit less body grooming and virtually no specialized body grooming structures. It is hypothesized that the fouling pressures for body grooming are more severe in natant than in replant decapods. Epizoic fouling, particularly microbial fouling, and sediment fouling have been shown r I m ans of amputation experiments to produce severe effects on olfactory hairs, gills, and i.icubated embryos within short lime periods. Grooming has been strongly suggested as an important factor in the coevolution of a rhizocephalan parasite and its anomuran host. The behavioral organization of grooming is poorly studied; the nature of stimuli promoting grooming is not understood. Grooming characters may contribute to an understanding of certain aspects of decapod phylogeny. The occurrence of specialized antennal grooming brushes in the Stenopodidea, Caridea, and Dendrobranchiata is probably not due to convergence; alternative hypotheses are proposed to explain the distribution of this grooming character. Gill cleaning and general body grooming characters support a thalassinidean origin of the Anomura; the hypothesis of brachyuran monophyly is supported by the conservative and unique gill-cleaning method of the group.
    [Show full text]
  • Crayfishes and Shrimps) of Arkansas with a Discussion of Their Ah Bitats Raymond W
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 34 Article 9 1980 Inventory of the Decapod Crustaceans (Crayfishes and Shrimps) of Arkansas with a Discussion of Their aH bitats Raymond W. Bouchard Southern Arkansas University Henry W. Robison Southern Arkansas University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Bouchard, Raymond W. and Robison, Henry W. (1980) "Inventory of the Decapod Crustaceans (Crayfishes and Shrimps) of Arkansas with a Discussion of Their aH bitats," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 34 , Article 9. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol34/iss1/9 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 34 [1980], Art. 9 AN INVENTORY OF THE DECAPOD CRUSTACEANS (CRAYFISHES AND SHRIMPS) OF ARKANSAS WITH A DISCUSSION OF THEIR HABITATS i RAYMOND W. BOUCHARD 7500 Seaview Avenue, Wildwood Crest, New Jersey 08260 HENRY W. ROBISON Department of Biological Sciences Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, Arkansas 71753 ABSTRACT The freshwater decapod crustaceans of Arkansas presently consist of two species of shrimps and 51 taxa of crayfishes divided into 47 species and four subspecies.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S
    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
    FOREWORD Abundant fish and wildlife, unbroken coastal vistas, miles of scenic rivers, swamps and mountains open to exploration, and well-tended forests and fields…these resources enhance the quality of life that makes South Carolina a place people want to call home. We know our state’s natural resources are a primary reason that individuals and businesses choose to locate here. They are drawn to the high quality natural resources that South Carolinians love and appreciate. The quality of our state’s natural resources is no accident. It is the result of hard work and sound stewardship on the part of many citizens and agencies. The 20th century brought many changes to South Carolina; some of these changes had devastating results to the land. However, people rose to the challenge of restoring our resources. Over the past several decades, deer, wood duck and wild turkey populations have been restored, striped bass populations have recovered, the bald eagle has returned and more than half a million acres of wildlife habitat has been conserved. We in South Carolina are particularly proud of our accomplishments as we prepare to celebrate, in 2006, the 100th anniversary of game and fish law enforcement and management by the state of South Carolina. Since its inception, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) has undergone several reorganizations and name changes; however, more has changed in this state than the department’s name. According to the US Census Bureau, the South Carolina’s population has almost doubled since 1950 and the majority of our citizens now live in urban areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Crayfish and Freshwater Shrimp (Decapoda) of Indiana
    2001. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 110:104-110 CHECKLIST OF THE CRAYFISH AND FRESHWATER SHRIMP (DECAPODA) OF INDIANA Thomas P. Simon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 620 South Walker Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47401 ABSTRACT. Crayfish and freshwater shrimp are members of the order Decapoda. All crayfish in In- diana are members of the family Cambaridae, while the freshwater shrimp belong to Palaemonidae. Two genera of freshwater shrimps, each represented by a single species, occur in Indiana. Palaemonetes ka- diakensis and Macrobrachium ohione are lowland forms. Macrobrachium ohione occurs in the Ohio River drainage, while P. kadiakensis occurs statewide in wetlands and lowland areas including inland lakes. Currently, 21 crayfish taxa, including an undescribed form of Cambarus diogenes, are found in Indiana. Another two species are considered hypothetical in occurrence. Conservation status is recommended for the Ohio shrimp Macrobrachium ohione, Indiana crayfish Orconectes indianensis, and both forms of the cave crayfish Orconectes biennis inennis and O. i. testii. Keywords: Cambaridae, Palaemonidae, conservation, ecology The crayfish and freshwater shrimp belong- fish is based on collections between 1990 and ing to the order Decapoda are among the larg- 2000. Collections were made at over 3000 lo- est of Indiana's aquatic invertebrates. Crayfish calities statewide, made in every county of the possess five pair of periopods, the first is mod- state, but most heavily concentrated in south- ified into a large chela and dactyl (Pennak ern Indiana, where the greatest diversity of 1978; Hobbs 1989). The North American species occurs. families, crayfish belong to two Astacidae and The current list of species is intended to Cambaridae with all members east of the Mis- provide a record of the extant and those ex- sissippi River belong to the family Cambari- tirpated from the fauna of Indiana over the last dae (Hobbs 1974a).
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Toxicity Index for Freshwater Aquatic Organisms, 2Nd Edition
    Pesticide Toxicity Index for Freshwater Aquatic Organisms, 2nd Edition By Mark D. Munn, Robert J. Gilliom, Patrick W. Moran, and Lisa H. Nowell National Water-Quality Assessment Program Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5148 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006 Revised and reprinted: 2006 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested reference: Munn, M.D., Gilliom, R.J., Moran, P.W., and Nowell, L.H., 2006, Pesticide toxicity index for freshwater aquatic organisms, 2nd Edition: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5148, 81 p. iii FOREWORD The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is committed to providing the Nation with accurate and timely scien- tific information that helps enhance and protect the overall quality of life and that facilitates effective management of water, biological, energy, and mineral resources (http://www.usgs.gov/). Information on the quality of the Nation’s water resources is critical to assuring the long-term availability of water that is safe for drinking and recreation and suitable for industry, irrigation, and habitat for fish and wildlife.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods for Rearing Larval Decapod Crustacea
    Helgol~nder wiss. Meeresunters. 20, 417-434 (1970) Methods for rearing larval decapod Crustacea A. L. •ICE 1 and D. I. YflLLIAMSON2 1 British Museum (Natural History); London, Great Britain, and 2 Marine Biological Station; Port Erin, Isle of Man, Great Britain KURZFASSUNG: Methoden zur Zucht larvaler decapoder Crustaceen. Es werden Methoden zur Gewinnung und Zucht yon Larven decapoder Crustaceen beschrieben. Die mit Erfoig ein- gesetzten Zuchteinrichtungen reichen yon einfachen Glasschalen bis zu Ger~iten mit Wasser- zirkulation, Bel~ifiung, Ultraviolettbestrahlung und Temperaturkontrolle. Wert und Verffig- barkeit verschiedener Nahrungsobjekte sowle die Bedeutung yon Temperatur, Salzgehalt, Licht und Wasserqualit~it werden er~Jrtert. Methoden fiir die Massenzucht decapoder Crustacea wet- den kurz beschrieben und allgemeine Richtlinien in bezug auf die Wahl der Kultivierungs- methode und die Zielsetzung der Untersuchungen diskutiert. INTRODUCTION The metamorphosis of decapod crustaceans was first demonstrated by THOMVSON in 1828 but was not accepted by the scientific community as the usual mode of devel- opment in the group until many years later. Thereaflcer, however, developmental studies progressed steadily, but during the 19th century and well into the 20th century, larvae were still described mostly from preserved material taken from field plankton. Identification of the species to which these larvae belonged was difficult, and many larvae, particularly those from poorly known deep waters, were described as distinct genera. With the development of marine biological laboratories and better facilities for maintaining living animals, zoologists began to hatch the early stages from ovigerous females and to maintain plankton-caught larvae until they moulted into the next stage, with the eventual aim of linking a series of such moults with an identifiable form.
    [Show full text]
  • The Herpetological Journal
    Volume 2, Number 3 July 1992 ISSN 0268-0130 THE HERPETOLOGICAL JOURNAL Published by Indexed in THE BRITISH HERPETOLOGICAL SOCIETY Current Contents The Herpetological Journal is published quarterly by the British Herpetological Society and is issued free to members. Applications to purchase copies and/or for details of membership should be made to the Hon. Secretary, British Herpetological Society, The Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London NWl 4RY, U.K. Instructions to authors are printed inside the back cover. All contributions should be addressed to the Editor (address below), Editor: Richard A. Griffiths, The Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, The University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NX, U.K. Assistant Editor: Margret M. Bray, Department of Biochemistry and Biological Sciences, Wye College (University of London), Nr. Ashford, Kent, TN25 5AH, UK. Editorial Board: Pim Arntzen (Leicester) Donald Broadley (Zimbabwe) John Cooper (Tanzania) John Davenport (Millport) Tim Halliday (Milton Keynes) Michael Klemens (New York) Colin McCarthy (London) Andrew Milner (London) Henk Strijbosch (Nijmegen) Richard Tinsley (London) BRITISH HERPETOLOGICAL SOCIETY Copyright It is a fundamental condition that submitted manuscripts have not been published and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. By submitting a manuscript, the authors agree that the copyright for their article is transferred to the publisher if and when the article is accepted for publication. The copyright covers the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints and photographic reproductions. Permission for any such activities must be sought in advance from the Editor. ADVERTISEMENTS The Herpetological Journal accepts advertisements subject to approval of contents by the Editor, to whom enquiries should be addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Crustacean Phylogeny…? Nauplius • First Larva Stage of Most “It Can Be Concluded That Crustacean Crustaceans
    Bio 370 Crustacea Main arthropod clades (Regier et al 2010) Phylum Arthropoda http://blogs.discoverm • Trilobita agazine.com/loom/201 0/02/10/blind-cousins- Subphylum (or Class) Crustacea to-the-arthropod- • Chelicerata superstars/ Mostly aquatic, with calcified exoskeleton. • Mandibulata – Myriapoda (Chilopoda, Diplopoda) Head derived from acron plus next five segments- so primitively has 5 pairs of appendages: – Pancrustacea • Oligostraca (Ostracoda, Branchiura) -2 pair antennae • Altocrustacea - 1 pair of jaws – Vericrustacea - 2 pair of maxillae » (Branchiopoda, Decapoda) - usually a median (cyclopean) eye and – Miracrustacea one pair of compound eyes » Xenocarida (Remipedia, Cephalocarida) » Hexapoda Tagmosis of trunk varies in different taxa Crustacean phylogeny…? Nauplius • first larva stage of most “It can be concluded that crustacean crustaceans. phylogeny remains essentially unresolved. • three pairs of appendages • single median (naupliar) eye Conflict is rife, irrespective of whether one compares different morphological studies, molecular studies, or both.” Appendages: Jenner, 2010: Arthropod Structure & Development 39:143– -1st antennae 153 -2nd antennae - mandibles 1 Bio 370 Crustacea Crustacean taxa you should know Remipede habitat: a sea cave “blue hole” on Andros Island. Seven species are found in the Bahamas. Class Remipedia Class Malacostraca Class Branchiopoda “Peracarida”-marsupial crustacea Notostraca –tadpole shrimp Isopoda- isopods Anostraca-fairy shrimp Amphipoda- amphipods Cladocera- water fleas Mysidacea- mysids Conchostraca- clam shrimp “Eucarida” Class Maxillopoda Euphausiacea- krill Ostracoda- ostracods Decapoda- decapods- ten leggers Copepoda- copepods Branchiura- fish lice Penaeoidea- penaeid shrimp Cirripedia- barnacles Caridea- carid shrimp Astacidea- crayfish & lobsters Brachyura- true crabs Anomura- false crabs “Stomatopoda”– mantis shrimps Class Remipedia Remipides found only in sea caves in the Caribbean, the Canary Islands, and Western Australia (see pink below).
    [Show full text]
  • Web-ICE Aquatic Database Documentation
    OP-GED/BPRB/MB/2016-03-001 February 24, 2016 ICE Aquatic Toxicity Database Version 3.3 Documentation Prepared by: Sandy Raimondo, Crystal R. Lilavois, Morgan M. Willming and Mace G. Barron U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Gulf Ecology Division Gulf Breeze, Fl 32561 1 OP-GED/BPRB/MB/2016-03-001 February 24, 2016 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 2 Data Sources ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 ECOTOX ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) ......................................................................... 4 2.3 Office of Pesticide Program (OPP) Ecotoxicity Database ................................................. 4 2.4 OPPT Premanufacture Notification (PMN) ...................................................................... 5 2.5 High Production Volume (HPV) ........................................................................................ 5 2.6 Mayer and Ellersieck 1986 ............................................................................................... 5 2.7 ORD ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Ecological Approach to the Taxonomy of the Genus Alloglossidium (Trematoda: Macroderoididae)
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1975 An Ecological Approach to the Taxonomy of the Genus Alloglossidium (Trematoda: Macroderoididae). William Francis Font Jr Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Font, William Francis Jr, "An Ecological Approach to the Taxonomy of the Genus Alloglossidium (Trematoda: Macroderoididae)." (1975). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 2787. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/2787 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image.
    [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]