Lyell Collection

Geological Society, London, Special Publications

Lyell Centre  |   Lyell Collection  |   Subscriptions   |   Geological Society  |   Email alerts  |   Online bookshop  |   Help


Keywords:
Author:
Advanced search>>
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Savazzi, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Geological Society, London, Special Publications; 2000; v. 177; p. 313-327;
DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.2000.177.01.20
© 2000 Geological Society of London

Morphodynamics of Bryopa and the evolution of clavagellids

Enrico Savazzi

, Hagelgränd 8, 75646 Uppsala, Sweden enrico.savazzi{at}usa.net

Typical clavagellids are either tube dwellers in soft sediments or facultative semiendolithic borers. Bryopa deviates from this pattern by being fully and obligatorily endolithic. The left valve in Bryopa is permanently attached to the wall of the borehole. In spite of this, the bivalve migrates forwards within the substrate throughout growth. These seemingly incompatible feats are achieved by continuously elongating the shell in the anterior direction and sliding forwards the soft parts, hinge and right valve within the shell. While the left valve becomes elongated, the posterior region of the right valve is continuously destroyed by resorption. The resulting strongly inequivalve condition is unique among clavagellids, as well as endolithic bivalves.

In the lack of direct evidence, the evolution of clavagellids from less specialized stocks remains open to alternative hypotheses. Probable parallel evolution within the clavagellid stock further complicates the problem. Evolution of tube-dwelling clavagellids directly from burrowing ancestors is as likely as their evolution from a hypothetical, endolithic protoclavagellid. In the latter case, however, B. lata is probably too specialized to reflect the adaptations of such an ancestor.