Table Of ContentVllth International Colloquium on Amphipoda
Developments in Hydrobiology 70
Series editor
H. J. Dumont
Vllth International Colloquium
on Amphipoda
Proceedings of the Vllth International Colloquium on Amphipoda held in Walpole,
Maine, USA, 14-16 September 1990
Edited by
L. Watling
Reprinted (rom Hydrobiologia, voi. 223 (199 1J
Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Inurn,tion,l Colloq\llu. on .... phHlod' (7th 1990 W,lpole. MI.I
VIIth Inllrnltlon.1 COIIOQUI\I' un .... phlpOd. prOC"dlng$ of th.
VIIth Inurnltlon.l Colloqulu. un .... phlpod~. hllo In W.lpoll. 1'1' In •.
USA. Sepr8l1).r 1/1-16. 1990 I eClIUII tiV L. Watl'nl1.
p. C• . -- (Oe~elop.ent$ In hvdrotllOlO!iY , 701
Incluan 1)1t!llograph,c.l rtferences Ind indu.
ISBN 978-94-010-5568-0 ISBN 978-94-011-3542-9 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-3542-9
1. A.phlpOd.--CongrIUU. 1. W't11n!il. Les. II. Tille.
III. TI1I1: 7~h !nurnltlon.l ColloqUIUI cn A.ph'pudl. IV. SiriU.
QLII/I<:.M31I5I5a 1990
595.3·71-·dc20 91-31549
ISBN 978-94-010-5568-0
Printed OII ac/d{ree paper
An Rights Reserved
e
1991 Springer Science+Business Media DOI'drocht
Orîgîn.lIy published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1991
Softcovcr rcprint of the hardcover 1 SIe dition \99\
No pari of Ihe material protecled b)' this cop)'right notice ma)' be reproduced or utilized in an)'
form or b)' an)' means. electronic Of rnechanical. including photocop)'ing, recording, or b)' an)'
information storage and retrieval s)'stem, WÎthoul wriUen pcrmission rrom the copyright owners.
v
Contents
Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Vll
Obituary: J. Laurens Barnard (1928-1991) ............................................ viii
Comparative fore-gut morphology of Antarctic Amphipoda (Crustacea) adapted to different food
sources
by C. O. Coleman ............................................................ .
Methods for the study of amphipod swimming: behavior, morphology, and fluid dynamics
by M. A. Boudrias ............................................................ 11
Is the oostegite structure of amphipods determined by their phylogeny or is it an adaptation to
their environment?
by D. H. Steele. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
The distribution and frequency of the type II microtrichs in somen gammaridean amphipods
by V. J. Steele ................................................................ 35
What can vicariance biogeographic models tell us about the distributional history of subterranean
amphipods?
by J. Holsinger ............................................................... 43
Actual state of gammaridean taxonomy and catalogue of species from Chile
by E. Gonzalez. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47
Gammaridean and caprellidean fauna from Brazil
by Y. Wakabara. A. S. Tararam, M. T. Valerio-Berardo, W. Duleba & F. Pereira-Leite .. 69
Amphipods from hydrotechnical structures in the north-western part of the Black Sea
by R. P. Alexeev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79
Structure of a suprabenthic shelf sub-community of gammaridean Amphipoda in the Bay of Fundy
compared with similar sub-communities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence
by A. Chevrier, P. Brunel & D. J. Wildish ........................................ 81
Amphipod crustaceans as an important component of zoobenthos of the shallow Antarctic
sublittoral
by K. Jazdzewski, W. Teodorczyk, J. Sicinski & B. Kontek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 105
Patterns of abundance of exoedicerotid amphipods on sandy beaches near Sydney, Australia
by A. R. Jones, A. Murray & R. E. Marsh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 119
Local distributions of sandhoppers and landhoppers (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Talitridae) in the
coastal zone of western Tasmania
by A. M. M. Richardson, R. Swain & S. J. Smith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 127
Ingestion of live filamentous diatoms by the Great Lakes amphipod, Diporeia sp.: a case study
of the limited value of gut contents analysis
by M. A. Quigley & H. A. Vanderploeg .......................................... 141
A comparison of water loss and gill areas in two supralittoral amphipods from New Zealand
by I. D. Marsden ............................................................. 149
Lack of oxygen and low pH as limiting factors for Gammarus in Hessian brooks and rivers
by M. P. D. Meijering ......................................................... 159
Volumetric growth in gammaridean Amphipoda
by D. J. Wildish & B. Frost .................................................... 171
vi
Respiration of Orchomene plebs (Hurley, 1965) and Waldeckia obesa (Chevreux, 1905) from
Admiralty Bay (South Shetland Islands, Antarctic)
by S. Rakusa-Suszczewski & A. Lach ........................................... 177
Eco-physiological characteristics of some common caprellid species in the Possjet Bay (J apan Sea)
by S. V. Vassilenko ........................................................... 181
A review of the reproductive bionomics of aquatic gammaridean amphipods: variation of life
history traits with latitude, depth, aquatic salinity and superfamily
by B. Sainte-Marie .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 189
Two types of matem al care for juveniles observed in Caprella monoceros Mayer, 1890 and Caprella
decipiens Mayer, 1890 (Amphipoda: Caprellidae)
by M. Aoki & T. Kikuchi ...................................................... 229
Tube-building behavior in Grandidierella, and two species of Cerap us
by J. L. Barnard, K. Sandved & J. D. Thomas .................................... 239
Precopulatory mating behavior and sexual dimorphism in the amphipod Crustacea
by K. E. Conlan .............................................................. 255
Redescription of Caprogrammarus gurjanovae Kudrjaschov & Vassilenko, 1966 (Crustacea:
Amphipoda) from Hokkaido, Japan, with notes on the taxonomic status of Caprogammarus
by I. Takeuchi & S. Ishimaru .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 283
A new marine interstitial ingolfiellid (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Ingolfiellidea) from Tenerife and
Hierro
by R. Vonk & E. Sanchez ...................................................... 293
Hydrobiologia 223: vii, 1991.
L. Watling (ed.), VIIth International Colloquium on Amphipoda. vii
Preface
This volume contains papers given in association with the VIIth International Colloquium on Amphipoda
held at the University of Maine's Darling Center in Walpole, South Bristol, Maine, U.S.A., on 14-16
September 1990. Four additional papers by persons unable to come to Maine are also included.
The amphipod colloquia began in Verona in 1979, originally as a meeting of specialists interested in
the systematics of Gammarus and Niphargus. After a second colloquium, held in Lyon in 1973, the third
was convened in conjunction with the 1st International Symposium on Groundwater Ecology in Schlitz,
Germany, in 1975. These two groups met together in Blacksburg (1978) and Lodz, Poland (1980 and
1981). The Vlth Colloquium for the amphipod side was held in Ambleteuse, France. More complete
histories of the early meetings are given in Crustaceana, Supplement 4, pp. 1-2, and Supplement 6,
pp. 1-3, and Polskie Archiwum Hydrobiologii, volume 29, no. 2, p. 1. Since Ambleteuse, the meeting has
been more generally concerned with amphipods of all kinds.
Most of the contributions given at the colloquia have been published in the following volumes:
I. Verona, 1969. Memorie del Museo civico di Storia naturale di Verona, vol. 5 (1972).
II. Lyon, 1973. Crustacean a, vols. 27(3), 28(1), 28(2), 29(1) (1974-75).
III. Schlitz, 1975. Crustaceana, Suppl. 4 (1977).
IV. Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A., 1978. Crustaceana, Suppl. 6 (1980).
V. Lodz, Poland, 1980 and 1981. Polskie Archiwum Hydrobiologii, Vol. 29, No.2 (1982).
VI. Ambleteuse, France, 1985. Crustaceana, Suppl. 13 (1988).
VII. Walpole, Maine, U.S.A., 1990. This volume.
There were 42 attendees, from the following countries: Australia, 5; Brazil, 1; Canada, 10; Chile,1;
Germany, 3; Japan, 2; The Netherlands, 4; Poland, 2; U.S.A., 13; and U.S.S.R., 1. All functions were
held on the grounds of the Darling Marine Center, including meals, which were taken under a large
canopy-the weather still being quite pleasant. The conference ended with a trip to Camden, one of Maine's
most picturesque harbor villages, on Friday evening. On Saturday there was an excursion by boat to
Monhegan Island, located 15 km offshore, followed by an old-fashioned Maine lobster bake later that
evening. The fine food, and good conversation conducted in a variety of accents, is still very fondly
remembered by the local hosts, the Damariscotta Region Chamber of Commerce.
I would like to give special thanks to Madolyn Musick, Irene Leeman, and the rest of the staff and
students of the Darling Marine Center who worked very hard to make the meeting a success. Also, the
warm welcome extended by the Damariscotta Region Chamber of Commerce and the owners of the
Pemaquid Hotel to our overseas guests was greatly appreciated. The University of Maine's Center for
Marine Studies helped financially, ultimately making the attendance of some participants possible. For
this, I would like to thank Dr. Robert Wall, the Center's Director, who appreciates the value of scientific
dialogue.
L. WATLING
University of Maine
Hydrobiologia 223: viii, 1991.
Vlll L. Watling (ed.), VIIth International Colloquium on Amphipoda.
This special volume on the biology of Amphipoda is dedicated to
J. Laurens Barnard
1928-1991
who died suddenly on 16 August 1991, while working in Florida. Jerry was unquestionably the most
important contributor to our knowledge of the Amphipoda since the early years of Sars and Stebbing,
and his death leaves an enormous void. He described many hundreds of species and was responsible
for several syntheses, the most important of which were the two volumes published privately on the
freshwater Amphipoda of the world and the just published world monograph, an update of his 1969
treatment of the families and genera of marine gammaridean amphipods.
To many of us, though, Jerry was more than a source of descriptions and details. Jerry's work, and
personality, influenced the lives and careers of many people. His devotion to amphipods and birds, his
appreciation of the natural world, and his sense of humor and generosity were an inspiration to those
who knew him. He always encouraged us to continue our taxonomic studies, recognizing that for many
of us it would mean only part-time devotion to this field. He was also a sympathetic sounding board,
always willing to tryout new ideas and approaches.
We are, sadly, in a period where taxonomic studies do not seem to have the value they once had, where
new taxonomists are not being trained, or, if trained, are unemployable. Jerry lamented this decline in
systematics, but continued to advance amphipod taxonomy until the day he died. We can only hope to
have the opportunity to carryon his work, and to follow his example in stimulating a new generation
of scientists to take up the science of taxonomy.
LES WATLING & JIM THOMAS
Hydrobiologia 223: 1-9, 1991.
L. Watling (ed.), VIlth International Colloquium on Amphipoda. 1
© 1991 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Comparative fore-gut morphology of Antarctic Amphipoda (Crustacea)
adapted to different food sources
Charles Oliver Coleman
Universitiit Oldenburg, Fachbereich 7, Arbeitsgruppe Zoomorphologie, Postfach 2503, D-2900 Oldenburg,
Germany
Key words,' Antarctic, Crustacea, Amphipoda, fore-gut morphology, food preference
Abstract
The fore-gut morphology of ten species of Antarctic amphipods utilizing different food sources was
investigated. There are considerable differences in shape, relative lengths of the stomachs and their
structures. Relative lengths of the stomachs range from more than 30% to 2% compared to the total body
lengths. The relative length of the anterior rough filter corresponds in general with the relative stomach
length. Stomachs with long rough filter share in general a small fme filter area.
Interspecific differences of stomach lateralia might be used for phylogenetic analysis, but are apparently
not related to different food sources.
Different speculative selective pressures that might have had influence on the evolution offore-guts are
discussed.
Introduction fore-gut and midgut contents of Antarctic amphi
pods is that in most cases a small number of
Most Antarctic amphipods are considered to be specimens is available for dissection and thus sta
mainly omnivorous or necrophagus (Arnaud, tistics cannot be used for supporting the results.
1970, 1977). The exact food preference of more Alternatively, functional morphology of the
than 500 species from Antarctic and Subantarctic mouthparts can be used to support the results of
waters (Lowry & Bullock, 1976) is unknown. the gut content examinations. Food specialists
Very few investigations of fore-gut and mid-gut may have special adaptations to their food source.
contents of Antarctic amphipods have been For example the mandible of Gnathiphimedia
carried out (Bone, 1972; Rakusa-Suszczewki, mandibularis K.H. Barnard 1930 is adapted for
1972; Richardson & Whitaker, 1979; Stockton, crushing zooids of bryozoans rather than for
1982; Bregazzi, 1972, 1973; Slattery & Oliver, biting (Coleman, 1989b). The sharp dentated
1986; Coleman, 1989a; Coleman, 1990a). incisor ofthe mandible of Maxilliphimedia longipes
One might assume that Antarctic amphipods is used for cutting soft mucous cnidarian tissue
have food preferences similar to related and better (Coleman, 1989a). Through the use of its distal
investigated species from boreal regions. On the maxillipedal endites Anchiphimedia dorsalis possi
other hand, many species are endemic for the bly pushes detritus together which then might be
Antarctic (Knox & Lowry, 1974). transported to the mouth opening by the maxillae
One of the major problems in investigating (Coleman, in press).
2
In the following study this morphological rough filter unit, and move posteriorly in the
approach has been extended to the fore-gut struc channels. They unite posteriorly and then are
tures. Stomachs of species utilizing different food divided again by a second medial ventral elevation
sources have been compared to check for differ (inferomedianum posterius). This ridge-like struc
ences that might show adaptations to their food ture bears two grates comprising rows of setulated
preference. setae laterally (clatri setarum posteriores). They
The morphology and the function of the fore cover small channels which are connected with
gut is relatively well understood. For example the mid-gut gland (Fig. 10). This unit works as a
Kanneworff & Nicolaisen (1969) worked out fine filter. Only microscopic food particles can
the functional morphology of the fore-gut of pass through it and are processed in the digestive
Bathyporeia sarsi and Martin (1964) that of gland.
Marinogammarus obtusatus. Icely & Nott (1984) Dorsally, the inferomedianum posterius is
published a detailed study on the anatomy of covered by infoldings of the lateral stomach walls
Corophium volutator. The structures, muscles and (inferolateralia posteriores). These folds partly
functions of the fore-gut of the isopod Asellus overlap each other medially. They prevent pene
aquaticus were described in detail by Scheloske tration of any food particles from the dorsal
(1976). Kanneworff & Nicolaisen (1969) and storage room into the ventral filter unit.
Thiem (1942) made in vivo observations of small The food thus is filtered twice and only fluid
specimens of Bathyporeia and Synurella respec and very fine food particles enter the mid-gut
tively. They obtained data of the movement of the gland. A thin lamella (valvula postero-ventralis) is
stomach structures, which helped to understand located posteroventrally to the stomach and
the function of the stomach elements. extends into the atrium of the mid-gut gland. Its
Food is sucked through the esophagus and is function is not known.
pushed into the stomach by the lateralia, which
are lateral invaginations of the anterior stomach
region (Fig. lA, B). Food is digested in the Material and methods
storage cavity. Breakdown products of fine con
sistency pass into the mid-gut gland for ab The material was collected during the Antarctic
sorption. The remains enter the mid-gut and leave expedition ANT VI/2 (1987) of RV 'Polarstem'.
after having passed through the hind-gut and The benthic species were obtained with a com
rectum. mercial fishery bottom-trawl near Elephant Island
A cross section through the anterior stomach (South Shetland Islands), the planktonic species
region reveals three compartments: First a dorsal with a rectangular midwater trawl at station
cavity, which is never filled with food, is separated 12/208, situated in Bransfield Strait (630 05,8' S,
by rows of setae: the superolateralia (Fig. lB, C). 610 54,3' W), depth 1164-1310 m. The animals
Enzymes are probably transported in this cavity were preserved in 4% Formalin. Ten to fifteen
anteriorly and are discharged into a second com specimens of each species were dissected.
partment: the storage cavity, where the food is Stomach and midgut contents were determined
digested (Kanneworff & Nicolaisen, 1969). Ven using light microscopy.
trally, there is a third compartment separated by A stomach from each species was heated for 2
lateral invaginations (inferolateralia anteriores) hours in concentrated potassium hydroxide
with rows of setae (clatri setarum anteriores). An solution to remove tissue. The unstained sto
elevation of the ventral stomach wall (infero machs were transferred into glycerol. All struc
medianum anterius) divides this part into two tures can easily be seen through the transparent
channels (Fig. 1C ). The digested food is filtered cuticle. Small pieces of glass were used to
through these setal rows. Digestive fluids and stabilize the stomachs in the watchglass.
small particles are pressed through the anterior Drawings were made with a Wild M5 dissecting
