Pattern of growth rate around aperture and shell form in Bivalvia: A theoretical morphological study

Paleobiology

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 480-491

  Ubukata, Takao ^a  

^a SHIZUOKA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GROWTH RATE; MORPHOLOGY; SHELL;

BIVALVIA; INVERTEBRATA;

EID: 0345149772     PISSN: 00948373     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1666/0094-8373(2003)029<0480:POGRAA>2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Ackerly, S. C. 1989. Kinematics of accetionary shell growth, with examples from brachiopods and molluscs. Paleobiology 4: 374-378.
2. Bayer, U. 1978. Morphologenetic programs, instabilities, and evolution: a theoretical study. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 156:226-261.
3. Checa, A. 1991. Sectorial expansion and shell morphogenesis in Mollusca. Lethaia 24:97-114.
4. Checa, A., and R. Aguado. 1992. Sectorial-expansion analysis of irregularly coiled shells; application to the recent gastropod Distorsio. Palaeontology 35:913-925.
5. Cortie, M. B. 1989. Models for mollusk shape. South African Journal of Science 85:454-460.
6. Gould, S. J., and E. S. Vrba. 1982. Exaptation: a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8:4-15.
7. Hutchinson, J. M. C. 1990. Control of gastropod shell form via apertural growth rates. Journal of Morphology 206:259-264.
8. Løvtrup, S., and B. von Sydow. 1974. D'Arcy Thompson's theorems and the shape of the molluscan shell. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 36:567-575.
9. McGhee, G. R., Jr. 1978. Analysis of the shell torsion phenomenon on the Bivalvia. Lethaia 11:315-329.
10. McGhee, G. R., Jr. 1980. Shell form in the biconvex articulate Brachiopoda: a geometric analysis. Paleobiology 6:57-76.
11. Morita, R. 1991. Mechanical constraints on aperture form in Gastropods. Journal of Morphology 207:93-102.
12. Okamoto, T. 1988. Analysis of heteromorph ammonoids by differential geometry. Palaeontology 31:35-52.
13. Raup, D. M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. Journal of Paleontology 40:1178-1190.
14. Rice, S. H. 1998. The bio-geometry of mollusc shells. Paleobiology 24:133-149.
15. Savazzi, E. 1985. SHELLGEN, a BASIC program for the modeling of molluscan shell ontogeny and morphogenesis. Computer and Geoscience 11:521-530.
16. Savazzi, E. 1987. Geometric and functional constraints on bivalve shell morphology. Lethaia 20:293-306.
17. Seilacher, A. 1970. Arbeitskonzept zur Konstruktions-Morphologie. Lethaia 3:393-396.
18. Stanley, S. M. 1975. Why clams have the shape they have: an experimental analysis of burrowing. Paleobiology 1:48-58.
19. Stone, J. R. 1995. CerioShell: a computer program designed to simulate variation in shell form. Paleobiology 21:509-519.
20. Ubukata, T. 2000. Theoretical morphology of hinge and shell form in Bivalvia: geometric constraints derived from space conflict between umbones. Paleobiology 26:606-624.
21. Ubukata, T. 2001. Morphological significance of the orientation of shell coiling and the outline of aperture in bivalve molluscs. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 221:249-270.
22. Ubukata, T. 2002. Stacking increments: a new model and morphospace for the analysis of bivalve shell growth. Historical Biology 15:303-321.
23. Ubukata, T., and Y. Nakagawa. 2000. On the origin of peculiar sculptural pattern of the Cretaceous bivalve Inoceramus hobetsensis. Lethaia 33:313-329.