Pogonophora
Southward, E.C. (1963). Pogonophora, in: Barnes, H.B. (Ed.) Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 1. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 1: pp. 405-428
In: Barnes, H.B. (Ed.) (1963). Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 1. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 1. George Allen & Unwin: London. 478 pp., more
In: Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review. Aberdeen University Press/Allen & Unwin: London. ISSN 0078-3218; e-ISSN 2154-9125, more
|  |
| Abstract |
The study of Pogonophora began as two lines of investigation which developed independently in different languages and different countries, seemingly without perception of one another. The first work published was that of Caullery (1914a, b) on a strange tubicolous invertebrate collected about 1900 in the East Indies by the Siboga Expedition. Caullery found that he could not assign it to any known group, but wrote a brief description of the animal and gave it the generic name Siboglinum. There seems to have been no comment on his paper until he himself returned to the subject in 1944, when he published a more detailed description of Siboglinum and gave it the specific name weberi in honour of the expedition's director. He was still uncertain of the status of the animal but suggested possible pterobranch affinities. In 1948 he published a short version of the 1944 description in Grassé's Traité de Zoologie and, in the same year, Dawydoff wrote a review of Caullery's work on Siboglinum and concluded that the animal was tricoelomate and of hemichordate type. In a note (1948b) Caullery agreed with this classification. The second line began with the description by Ushakov (1933) of a new sabellid polychaete from the Okhotsk Sea, named Lamellisabella zachsi. K. E. Johansson, a specialist on the Sabellidae, examined Ushakoy's specimens and re-described L. zachsi in 1937; he stated that it was definitely not an annelid, assigning it to a new group which he named Pogonofora (from the beard-like tuft of tentacles) he suggested a possible relationship with the Phoronidea. Reisinger's summary (1938) suggested placing Pogonofora between Tentaculata and Enteropneusta in the Vermes Oligomera, but when Johansson (1939) considered this he decided that his earlier tentative idea was incorrect, and there was no close relationship with the Phoronidea. He left the Pogonophora (new spelling) as a class within the Vermes Oligomera. The next publication on the subject was a note by Ushakov (1940) recording the presence of Lamellisabella in the Polar Basin of the Arctic Ocean. A textbook by Beklemishev (1944) was the first to include Pogonophora, giving the group phylum rank and placing it next to Hemichordata. The Arctic specimens of Lamellisabella reached A. V. Ivanov of Leningrad University and formed the subject of the first of his many papers on Pogonophora. This paper (Ivanov, 1949) contained a description of a new species of Lamellisabella (later assigned to the genus Polybrachia) and his next paper (1951) linked Lamellisabella and Siboglinum, thus at last joining the separate lines of investigation. Between 1951 and 1962 research has concentrated on recording distribution and describing the species discovered, but some anatomical and embryological work has been done. The questions that have aroused most interest are: the position of the group within the animal kingdom; the means of nutrition, since an alimentary canal has not been found; and the dorso-ventral orientation of the animals. The probable antiquity of the Pogonophora has appeared as an argument in the continuing controversy about the age of the abyssal fauna (for example, Bruun, 1957; Menzies and Imbrie, 1958; Zenkevich and Birshtein, 1960). |
|
