Evidence for sublethal predation and regeneration among living and fossil ascophoran bryozoans

Article (PDF Available) · January 2008with124 Reads
Abstract
Evidence for partial predation on ascophoran bryozoans was hitherto mainly found in borings of the frontal shield. However, during this and many other studies, borings are only observed rarely. Indeed, many predators (e.g. nudibranch gastropods) are known to gain access to the internal organs via the operculum while leaving no traces of frontal wall damage. This type of predation may, nevertheless, be evidenced by the presence of intramural buds underneath undamaged zooecia, indicated by the presence of one or more orificial rims within the primary one, and implies that the damage occurred during lifetime of the colony. This skeletal signature was observed to occur in Late Cretaceous Acanthostega, as well as in Miocene to Recent Lepraliomorpha, and in Recent Hippothoomorpha. Its infrequent presence may suggest that ascophorans are not important target species for many predators, that not all taxa are able to secrete intramural buds, and/or that only certain types of feeding mechanisms trigger this type of regeneration. Information on feeding habits of modern predators on ascophorans, and reactions of different ascophoran taxa to various types of predation, are needed to verify exactly when and why intramural buds are formed in preyed zooecia.

Figures

Full-text (PDF)

Available from: Björn Berning
1
Evidence For Sublethal Predation and Regeneration
Among Living and Fossil Ascophoran Bryozoans
Björn Berning
1, 2
Abstract
Evidence for partial predation on ascophoran bryozoans was hitherto mainly found in borings of the
frontal shield. However, during this and many other studies, borings are only observed rarely. Indeed, many
predators (e.g. nudibranch gastropods) are known to gain access to the internal organs via the operculum
while leaving no traces of frontal wall damage. This type of predation may, nevertheless, be evidenced by
the presence of intramural buds underneath undamaged zooecia, indicated by the presence of one or more
orificial rims within the primary one, and implies that the damage occurred during lifetime of the colony. This
skeletal signature was observed to occur in Late Cretaceous Acanthostega, as well as in Miocene to Recent
Lepraliomorpha, and in Recent Hippothoomorpha. Its infrequent presence may suggest that ascophorans
are not important target species for many predators, that not all taxa are able to secrete intramural buds,
and/or that only certain types of feeding mechanisms trigger this type of regeneration. Information on
feeding habits of modern predators on ascophorans, and reactions of different ascophoran taxa to various
types of predation, are needed to verify exactly when and why intramural buds are formed in preyed zooecia.
Introduction
The evolutionary history of predator-prey relationships is
one of the most important aspects in the history of life (e.g.
Vermeij 1987). Yet interactions are notoriously difficult to
prove in the fossil record (e.g. Bishop 1975) and even inter-
pretations based on direct evidence of predation, such as drill
holes and repair scars, are often an intricate matter (Leighton
2002). Bryozoans are potentially well-suited for the analysis of
types and relative frequencies of predation because (1) physical
defenses (such as spines, frontal walls, avicularia, and ooecia)
are usually calcified and well-preserved in the fossil record
and, (2) apart from large predators (e.g. fish, echinoids) that
accidentally or deliberately graze whole colonies, predation
by smaller, zooid-level predators (e.g. nudibranch gastropods,
pycnogonids) is generally sub-lethal, as the entire colony is not
consumed; repair of damaged auto- or heterozooids by the sur-
viving ramets thus provides evidence for the occurrence of the
damage during colony lifetime. This paper is on zooid-level or
partial predators, which feed on single or few zooids at a time
and which are the same size or slightly larger than their prey.
Whereas feeding mechanisms and potential prey of
certain groups of predators are relatively well studied (for
nudibranchs see Nybakken and McDonald 1981, Todd 1981,
Todd and Havenhand 1989, Cattaneo-Vietti and Balduzzi
1991), studies on predation from the bryozoan’s point of
view are rare (e.g. Ryland 1976). The first comprehensive
work on modern predators is only now being published
(Lidgard 2008a; see also Lidgard 2008b). The sparse fossil
history of predation on bryozoans was recently reviewed by
McKinney et al. (2003). Whereas certain taxa (e.g. naticids
and muricids) leave characteristic skeletal marks (see Taylor
1982, and references therein), the data compiled by McKin-
ney et al. (2003) also show that the same (or no) damage to
the skeleton may be induced by different predators during
predation. Lidgard (2008a) gives some 180 species of Recent
partial predators from a range of higher taxa, including
nematodes, annelids, as well as several groups of arthropods
and gastropods. Because little is known about how different
types of predation are reflected in the bryozoan skeleton,
care must be taken before a specific predator can be identi-
fied as having caused damage to zooids in fossil bryozoans.
Upon damage of a zooid, anascan and ascophoran bryo-
zoans are able to produce a new zooid within the original
one, termed an intramural bud (Levinsen 1907; Buchner
1918; Taylor 1988; Wilson and Taylor 2006). In anascans, the
newly formed zooecium is evidenced by a second mural rim
located immediately inside the primary rim (e.g. McKinney et
al. 2003, figs. 2D, E), whereas ascophorans may form a new
skeleton, including a new intramural orifice rim, inside the
damaged primary zooecium (e.g. Wilson and Taylor 2006, figs.
2A, B). However, previous studies of predation on, and re-
parative buds of, ascophoran bryozoans have only considered
skeletons that were damaged, although many taxa are known
1
Institut für Erdwissenschaften, Universität Graz, Heinrichstr. 26, 8010 Graz, Austria.
2
Present address: Oberösterreichische Landesmuseen, Geowissenschaftliche Sammlungen,
Welserstr. 20, 4060 Linz-Leonding, Austria. <b.berning@landesmuseum.at>
Page 1
2
to feed on zooids without leaving a trace on the skeleton. The
goal of this paper is to demonstrate that one skeletal feature
that also occurs in damaged and repaired zooecia, namely the
inner orificial rim within that of the damaged zooecium (Wil-
son and Taylor 2006, 567, fig. 2A), may indeed indicate this
type of sublethal predation in otherwise complete zooecia.
Material
A range of cleaned and well-preserved fossil and Recent
ascophoran bryozoans were examined by scanning electron
microscopy (SEM). Recent material comprised specimens
from various eastern Atlantic locations (Arctic, UK, Spain,
Portugal, Ghana, Sierra Leone) as well as from the Mediter-
ranean Sea. Fossil material included specimens from the Late
Miocene (Tortonian) of the easternmost Atlantic (Guadalqui-
vir Basin, southwestern Spain; see Berning 2006), from the
Pliocene Coralline Crag of southeastern England, and from
the mid-Pliocene (Piacenzian) of the north-central Mediter-
ranean Sea (Castell’Arquato, northern Italy; see Pizzaferri and
Berning 2007). The specimens are housed in the Natural His-
tory Museum London (NHM), the Croatian Natural History
Museum Zagreb (CNHM), the Senckenberg Research Institute
and Natural History Museum in Frankfurt (SMF), and in the
Geological Museum “G. Cortesi” in Castell’Arquato (Italy,
Table 1. Extant and fossil species in which intramural orificial rims in undamaged zooecia were observed. Information on age, location and depth of occur-
rence (if available) is provided.
Species Age Location Depth of occurrence (m)
Haplopoma graniferum Recent Birlurbuy Bay, Ireland
Arthropoma cecilii
1
Recent Kermadec Ridge, New Zealand 55–310
Escharina johnstoni Recent Guernsey, UK
Escharina pesanseris
2
Recent Gulf of Aden, Yemen 76
Herentia majae
3
Recent Adriatic Sea, southern Croatia 30–40
Therenia peristomata
3
Recent Madeira 75–90
Buffonellaria sp.
4
Recent Sierra Leone 80
Hippaliosina clavula Pliocene Mediterranean Sea, northern Italy
Cleidochasmidra canakkalense
5
Pliocene Mediterranean Sea, northern Italy
Characodoma excubans
6
Miocene Victoria, Australia
Castanopora labiata
7
Maastrichtian Denmark
MG). In addition, a number of publications showing SEM
illustrations of modern and fossil bryozoans were screened
for skeletal marks left behind by partial predators.
Observations
Despite the wide range of localities, material and taxa
analyzed, damage to the frontal wall indicating partial predation
was extremely low. Unequivocal evidence for predation was
hardly present, e.g., symmetrical drill holes were never observed.
Instead, damages in the frontal wall usually showed irregular
fractures, which make it difficult or impossible to determine
whether these damages were predator-induced or the result of
accidental breakage. Still rare, yet found somewhat more often
than unequivocal damage of the frontal wall, were superficially
undamaged zooecia containing a secondary, intramural orifi-
cial rim in the primary orifice. This feature was observed to
occur in both Recent [Haplopoma graniferum (Johnston 1847),
Escharina johnstoni (Quelch 1884), Herentia majae Berning et
al. 2008, Therenia peristomata Berning et al. 2008, Buffonellaria
sp.] and fossil species [Cleidochasmidra canakkalense Ünsal and
d’Hondt 1979, Hippaliosina clavula (Manzoni 1869)] (Fig. 1
and Table 1). In both H. graniferum and T. peristomata, newly
formed intramural orificial rims were also observed to occur
in ovicellate zooecia (Figs. 1.1 and 1.2, and 1.5, respectively).
Sources: 1. From Gordon 1984; 2. Amui and Kaselowsky 2006; 3. Berning et al., 2008; 4. Berning and Kuklinski 2008; 5. Pizzaferri and Berning 2007; 6. Cook
and Bock 1996; 7. Gordon and Voigt 1996.
Page 2
3
Figure 1. Intramural buds underneath undamaged zooecia, evidenced by the presence of one or more orificial rims inside the primary one. 1, Haplopoma grani-
ferum (Johnston), Recent, Ireland (NHM 1847.9.16.21); intramural buds in an autozooecium (upper arrow) and in an ovicellate zooecium (lower arrow); scale bar
100 µm. 2, Close-up of orifice of the ovicellate zooecium in Figure 1.1; scale bar 50 µm. 3, Herentia majae Berning et al., Recent, Adriatic Sea (CNHM Inv.br.
31); intramural bud in an undamaged autozooecium; scale bar 50 µm. 4, Close-up of the orifice in Figure 1.3; scale bar 50 µm. 5, Therenia peristomata Berning
et al., Recent, Madeira (NHM 1911.10.1.1203); intramural buds in an undamaged autozooecium (left arrow) and ovicellate zooecium (right arrow), as well as in
a damaged zooecium (lower right); scale bar 100 µm. 6, Close-up of autozooecium orifice indicated in Figure 1.5; note the immersed distal shelf in the orifice
supporting the operculum. Scale bar 50 µm. 7, Buffonellaria sp., Recent, Sierra Leone (SMF 3015); autozooecia with primary orifice rim (lower right), with one
additional orificial rim (top) and with two orificial rims (lower left and bottom); scale bar 100 µm. 8, Close-up of uppermost orifice in Figure 1.7; scale bar 50
µm. 9, Cleidochasmidra canakkalense Ünsal and d’Hondt, Pliocene, N Italy (MG 0922); intramural buds in two early astogenetic autozooecia (arrows); note the
intact peristome especially in zooecium at lower left; scale bar 100 µm. 10, Close-up of orifice of the zooecium at upper right in Figure 1.9; scale bar 50 µm. 11,
Hippaliosina clavula (Manzoni), Pliocene, N Italy (MG 0727); intramural bud in an autozooecium (arrow); scale bar 100 µm. 12, Close-up of orifice indicated in
Figure 1.11; scale bar 50 µm.
Page 3
4
In the literature, similarly few records of intramural orifi-
cal rims, or any other predator-induced damages, were found.
For instance, the primary orifice in Turbicellepora torquata
Hayward 1978 from the Bay of Naples, figured by López
de la Cuadra and García-Gómez (2001, fig. 3F) is actually a
tertiary one, as a second and third intramural orifice rim are
located within the first one. Because the entire zooecium is
not figured, however, it is not possible to determine whether
or not the frontal wall was damaged. Nevertheless, such ma-
tryoshka doll-like zooecia were also observed in Buffonellaria
sp. (see Berning and Kuklinski 2008), in which the frontal
shield was intact (Fig. 1.7). Other records of Recent bryozoans
comprise an Arthropoma species from the Kermadec Ridge,
which Gordon (1984: pl. 30, fig. A, zooecium at upper right)
figured as A. cecilii (Audouin 1826), and a species from the
Gulf of Aden, which Amui and Kaselowsky (2006, fig. 22,
the figured orifice is that of the undamaged zooecium at
upper right in fig. 23) identified as Escharina pesanseris (now
considered to be Bryopesanser sp., see Tilbrook 2006). Other
fossil specimens are Characodoma excubans (Waters 1881) from
the Australian Miocene, figured by Cook and Bock (1996,
figs. 2 [middle zooecium], 8, 11), as well as Castanopora labiata
(Levinsen 1907) from the Late Cretaceous of Denmark, fig-
ured by Gordon and Voigt (1996, fig. 1B) (see Table 1).
Discussion
Considering the diversity and ubiquity of partial preda-
tors in shallow shelf environments that include bryozoans as
part of their diet or that even specialize on a certain species
(e.g. McBeth 1971; Ryland 1976; Gordon and Rudman 2006;
Lidgard 2008a, 2008b), the occurrence of systematic skeletal
damage in ascophoran zooecia is astonishingly seldom reported.
For instance, in Tilbrook’s (2006) tome on bryozoans from the
Solomon Islands, not a single figured zooid shows an unequivo-
cal boring in the frontal wall. Only two zooecia of Bryopesanser
capitaneus Tilbrook 2006 have large, irregularly fractured holes
of unknown origin that underneath show the frontal walls of
intramural buds (Tilbrook 2006, pl. 56, fig. E, upper center and
right). Thus, whether ascophorans are target species of partial
predators or mere incidental prey, the great majority of preda-
tors seem to gain access to their food without leaving a trace
on the bryozoans’ frontal wall. Although the frequencies of
borings observed in modern and fossil mollusks and echinoids
are generally high (20-80%), predation intensity is taxon-specific
and may be very low (0-5%; see, e.g., Nebelsick and Kowalewski
1999; Hoffmeister and Kowalewski 2001; Kelley and Hansen
2003). In Paleozoic and Recent brachiopods predation traces are
generally found in 0-2% of the shells (Kowalewski et al. 2005).
The low frequencies of borings and/or intramural buds ob-
served in ascophoran bryozoans may therefore not be unusual.
Due to their exposed frontal membrane and largely un-
calcified frontal surface, many partial predators of anascan
bryozoans leave the calcified mural rim intact when feeding
on single or even multiple zooids. One or more intramural
buds formed within undamaged outer rims are therefore
commonly reported in Recent and fossil anascans (e.g. Poluzzi
1980: pl. 4, fig. 6; McKinney et al. 2003: figs. 2D, E; Berning
2006: figs. 10, 13, 14, 16). If the formation of spines, which
may be induced by the presence of predators in Membrani-
pora mebranacea (Linnaeus 1767), significantly slows down
the predator’s feeding rate (Harvell 1984), the completely
calcified frontal walls in ascophorans should deter predators
from boring through the skeleton (Lidgard 2003). This may
explain the general scarcity of borings.
One possibility to circumvent boring the frontal wall
was observed in a pycnogonid arthropod, which uses its
extremely long and thin proboscis to penetrate through the
frontal pores of Antarctic Cellarinella species and sucks out
the internal organs (Fry 1965, as in Cook 1985, 17). The
next weakest spot to access the ascophoran’s soft parts is the
orifice, which could be bored by a radula and/or sucked using
a nudibranch’s buccal mass, while the external cuticle may
be removed by weak radula action (e.g. Best and Winston
1984, 399). However, these types of feeding may leave little
or no mark in the skeleton. Suction feeding was observed in
dorid nudibranchs grazing colonies of Reptadeonella violacea
(Johnston 1847) and Schizomavella linearis (Hassall 1841) in
the Adriatic Sea (McKinney et al. 2003: 244). Even at high
magnification, grazed colony surfaces revealed no visible
skeletal damage (McKinney et al. 2003: figs. 1A-E). In some
highly specific and exclusive associations between dorid
nudibranchs and eurystomellid bryozoans, Okenia rosacea
(MacFarland) feeds on Integripelta bilabiata (Hincks 1884)
using a combination of suction feeding and radular abrasion
(McBeth 1971). In turn, O. hiroi (Baba), which feeds on I.
acanthus Gordon and Rudman 2006, seems to solely use the
suction technique, as damage of the spinous, gymnocystal
frontal wall was not recorded by Gordon and Rudman (2006;
they do, however, report boreholes that were possibly caused
by a marginelliform gastropod). Moreover, two ascophorans,
identified as Trematooecia magnifica (Osburn 1914) and T.
turrita (Smitt 1873) by Cook (1985), were grazed upon by a
specific nudibranch off Ghana (Cook 1985, 18-19, pl. 3, fig.
B). A single large colony of T. magnifica was seemingly able to
sustain a population of some 30 suction-feeding nudibranchs.
Yet none of the above-mentioned authors included informa-
tion on possible repair of grazed zooids or other reactions to
this type of predation by the respective bryozoans.
That the presence of one or more orificial rims inside
the primary one in an otherwise undamaged zooecium
(Fig. 1) represents an indication of sublethal predation and
subsequent zooid regeneration is supported by several lines
of evidence. Predation does indeed trigger this very type of
repair at least in certain instances and in certain ascophoran
bryozoans, as shown by the presence of intramural buds
underneath bored zooecia of Microporella hyadesi (Jullien 1888),
which also secreted new orificial rims (see Wilson and Taylor
2006: fig. 2A). Accidental damage of the orifice and internal
Page 4
5
organs as a causal mechanism for repair seems unlikely.
Although the operculum is the weakest spot on the frontal
surface, abrasive grains or strolling organisms need to have a
sufficient size, shape and mechanical force to be able to push
in the operculum without, however, damaging the calcified
rim. As the operculum occasionally rests on an immersed
calcified shelf, which is the case in H. majae or T. peristomata
(Fig. 1.6), (see also Berning et al. 2008), greater resistance
may be provided. In performing mechanical tests on opercula
of different cheilostome species, Best and Winston (1984)
showed that, when low forces were applied to ascophoran
orifices, either the opercular hinge broke or, under increasing
loads, the orifice rim was shattered. In either case, skeletal
damage to the orifice region by the intruding object is likely
to be reflected in, e.g., broken condyles. Moreover, current-
transported grains or organisms of sufficient size should leave
marks on delicate superficial structures such as peristomes
(cf. the early astogenetic zooecium of C. canakkalense, Fig.
1.9). This was, however, not the case in most of the observed
regenerated zooecia. Another indication is that intramural
buds often occur in several adjacent zooids, implying non-
random damage via the opercula.
Alternatively, partial starvation and/or senescence of
colonies may commonly occur in oligotrophic bathyal habitats
and dark caves (J.-G. Harmelin, pers. comm., 2008). Subse-
quent re-use of the existing undamaged zooecia during phases
of enhanced food supply would also result in the presence
of a secondary orifice rim in these zooecia. However, most
colonies presented here are from relatively shallow, open water
where starvation is rather unlikely to occur.
Although not as rare as bored zooecia, intramural buds
within undamaged zooecia were seldom observed, which may
suggest that either ascophoran bryozoans are not major targets
of partial predators, that not all taxa are able to secrete intramu-
ral buds, and/or that only certain types of feeding mechanisms
trigger zooid-scale repair. It seems unlikely that the loss of a
number of tentacles would initiate zooid-scale repair, whereas
only the complete loss of internal organs and external cuticle
may induce regeneration of a zooid. Another explanation for
the infrequent observation of intramural buds may be sought
in low magnifications used in many SEM photos of ascophoran
colonies. For an unequivocal determination of a secondary
orifice rim close-ups may occasionally be indispensable. For two
interdependent reasons it is furthermore regarded unlikely that
the literature survey yielded biased results because of taxono-
mists’ preferences for illustrating undamaged colony regions:
(1) in contrast to drill holes in the frontal wall, the skeleton
may not be visibly damaged by this type of partial predation
and secondary orificial rims may thus go unnoticed; (2) most
taxonomists were not aware of this inconspicuous damage and
repair of predated zooids as the existence of secondary orificial
rims was, to my knowledge, never mentioned in any taxonomic
paper. Also, the observed predation frequencies have to be
considered with some reservations, as intramural buds cannot
be produced in colonies that did not survive the attack.
The common presence of repaired avicularia, in contrast
to the relatively few repaired zooids, may be due to their ex-
posed location and their comparatively frequent encounters
with predators and other objects. For instance, distinctly
larger predatory or other organisms that are captured by the
avicularium may severely damage or remove the mandible
and attached tissue when trying to free themselves, inducing
repair of the heterozooid.
While never observed in erect growing ascophorans,
intramural orificial rims in undamaged zooecia were present
in encrusting species from the mid-to outer shelf (Table
1), which is in contrast to most nudibranch predation
records that are from shallow subtidal depths (Lidgard,
pers. comm. 2007). Whereas this may or may not be related
to sampling bias, in favor of depths that can be reached by
scuba diving, a number of other partial predators occur in
deeper habitats, such as pycnogonids (Lidgard 2008a), the
feeding mechanisms of which may as well be able to induce
the regeneration of zooids. Clearly, studies are certainly
needed that aim at showing how modern predators gain
access to their bryozoan food, if/how this is reflected in
the ascophoran skeleton, and how different groups of
ascophorans respond to different feeding mechanisms by
repairing damaged zooids.
In this study the formation of intramural buds was
observed to occur in the families Cribrilinidae, Haplo-
pomidae, Hippaliosinidae, Microporellidae, Lacernidae,
Escharinidae, Cleidochasmatidae, and Celleporidae. At
the present state of knowledge it therefore occurs in the
Acanthostega, Hippothoomorpha, and Lepraliomorpha but
not in the Umbonulomorpha. Although not easy to spot,
especially when using light microscopy, intramural orifice
rims are readily preserved in fossil bryozoans, and their
first occurrence dates back to at least the Late Cretaceous
in ascophorans with acanthostegan frontal shields (Gordon
and Voigt 1996). The appearance and frequency of this fea-
ture in ascophoran bryozoans can therefore be tested using
the fossil record.
To conclude, the paucity of predator-induced damage
and repair could be real, reflecting low occurrence of certain
types of predators in certain habitats or time intervals, or
may reflect differential regeneration ability or frequency
among various ascophoran groups. The collection of preda-
tor-prey data with a focus on ascophoran bryozoans and the
exact type of feeding of the predator is therefore needed. Fur-
thermore, in order to determine taxon-related response to
predation, future research on living ascophorans should give
(part of) the grazed colony sufficient time for regeneration
after exposure to a predator, which may occur within a few
days after damage (Bone and Keough 2005). If the cause(s)
for the formation of intramural buds in undamaged zooecia
can be ascertained, the presence of two or more intramural
orificial rims may represent another clue with which to verify
the timing frequency and evolutionary patterns of sublethal
predation of bryozoans by partial predators.
Page 5
6
Acknowledgments
I thank S. Lidgard, J.E. Winston and M.M. Key for
helpful discussions, literature supply, and their constructive
comments on the manuscript. Most of the fossil material
was studied during a project funded by the Deutsche
three species of Pycnogonida. Bulletin of the British Museum
(Natural History), Zoology, 12:197-223.
Gordon, D.P., 1984, The marine fauna of New Zealand: Bryozoa:
Gymnolaemata from the Kermadec Ridge. New Zealand
Oceanographic Institute Memoirs, 91, 198 pp.
Gordon, D.P., and Rudman, W.B., 2006, Integripelta acanthus n. sp.
(Bryozoa: Eurystomellidae) – a tropical prey species of Okenia
hiroi (Nudibranchia). Zootaxa, 1229:41-48.
Gordon, D.P., and Voigt, E., 1996, The kenozooidal origin of the
ascophorine hypostegal coelom and associated frontal shield.
pp. 89-107, In Gordon, D.P., Smith, A.M., and Grant-Mackie,
J.A. (eds), Bryozoans in Space and Time. Proceedings of the
10
th
International Bryozoology Conference. National Institute
of Water & Atmospheric Research, Wellington.
Harvell, C.D., 1984, Predator-induced defense in a marine bryozoan.
Science, 224:1357-1359.
Hassall, A.H., 1841, Supplement to a catalogue of Irish zoophytes.
Annals and Magazine of Natural History (ser. 1), 7:363-373.
Hayward, P.J., 1978, Systematic and morphological studies on some
European species of Turbicellepora (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata).
Journal of Natural History, 12:551-590.
Hincks, T., 1884, Report on the Polyzoa of the Queen Charlotte
Islands, Part 3. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (ser.
5), 13:49-58.
Hoffmeister, A.P., and Kowalewski, M., 2001, Spatial and envi-
ronmental variation in the fossil record of drilling predation:
a case study from the Miocene of Central Europe. Palaios,
16:566-579.
Johnston, G., 1847, A history of the British zoophytes, 2nd ed. Van
Voorst, London, 488 pp.
Jullien, J., 1888, Bryozoaires. Mission Scientifique du Cap Horn
1882-1883, 6, 92 pp.
Kelley, P.H., and Hansen, T.A., 2003, The fossil record of drilling
predation on bivalves and gastropods. pp. 113-139, In Kelley,
P.H., Kowalewski, M., and Hansen, T.A. (eds), Predator-Prey
Interactions in the Fossil Record. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers, New York.
Kowalewski, M., Hoffmeister, A.P., Baumiller, T.K., and Bambach,
R.K., 2005, Secondary evolutionary escalation between brachio-
pods and enemies of other prey. Science, 308:1774-1777.
Leighton, L.R., 2002, Inferring predation intensity in the marine
fossil record. Paleobiology, 28:328-342.
Levinsen, G.M.R., 1907, Sur la régénération totale des Bryozoaires.
Oversigt over det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) at the University of
Hamburg (Be 1272/13 to C. Betzler), while most of the
Recent specimens were photographed at the NHM London
thanks to a SYNTHESYS grant (GB-TAF-1381). Present
funding by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF-project P18189
to W. Piller) is gratefully acknowledged.
References Cited
Amui, A.-M., and Kaselowsky, J., 2006, Bryozoa from the Gulf of
Aden and the Red Sea. Part I: collections from the fifth expedi-
tion of the R.V. Meteor. Fauna of Arabia, 22:7-22.
Audouin, J.V., 1826, Explication sommaire des planches de polypes
de l’Égypte, et de la Syrie, publiées par Jules-César Savigny. pp.
225-244, In Jomard, E.F. (ed.), Description de l’Égypte, ou
recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en
Égypte pendant l’Expedition de l’Armée francaise, 1. C.L.F.
Pancoucke, Paris.
Berning, B., 2006, The cheilostome bryozoan fauna from the Late
Miocene of Niebla (Guadalquivir Basin, SW Spain): environ-
mental and biogeographic implications. Mitteilungen aus
dem Geologisch-Paläontologischen Institut der Universität
Hamburg, 90:7-156.
Berning, B., and Kuklinski, P., 2008, North-east Atlantic and
Mediterranean species of the genus Buffonellaria (Bryozoa,
Cheilostomata): implications for biodiversity and biogeography.
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 152:537-566.
Berning, B., Tilbrook, K.J., and Rosso, A., 2008, Revision of the
north-eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean species of the genera
Herentia and Therenia (Bryozoa: Cheilostomata). Journal of
Natural History, 42:1509-1547.
Best, B.A., and Winston, J.E., 1984, Skeletal strength of encrusting
cheilostome bryozoans. Biological Bulletin, 167:390-409.
Bishop, G.A., 1975, Traces of predation. pp. 261-281, In Frey, R.W.
(ed.), The Study of Trace Fossils. Springer Verlag, New York.
Bone, E.K., and Keough, M.J., 2005, Responses to damage in an
arborescent bryozoan: effects of injury location. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 324:127-140.
Buchner, P., 1918, Über totale Regeneration bei chilostomen Bryo-
zoen. Biologisches Zentralblatt, 38:457-461.
Cattaneo-Vietti, R., and Balduzzi, A., 1991, Relationship between
radular morphology and food in the Doridina (Mollusca:
Nudibranchia). Malacologia, 32:211-217.
Cook, P.L., 1985, Bryozoa from Ghana. A preliminary survey.
Koninklijk Museum voor Midden-Afrika (Tervuren, België),
Zoologische Wetenschappen - Annalen, 238, 315 pp.
Cook, P.L., and Bock, P.E., 1996, Characodoma Maplestone, a senior
synonym of Cleidochasma Harmer (Cleidochasmatidae). pp.
81-88, In Gordon, D.P., Smith, A.M., and Grant-Mackie, J.A.
(eds), Bryozoans in Space and Time. Proceedings of the 10
th
International Bryozoology Conference. National Institute of
Water & Atmospheric Research, Wellington.
Fry, W.G., 1965, The feeding mechanisms and preferred foods of
Page 6
7
Forhandlinger, 1907:151-159.
Lidgard, S., 2003, Boreholes, small drilling predators, and reparative
growth in fossil cheilostome bryozoans. Boletín de la Sociedad
de Biología de Concepción, 74:79.
Lidgard, S., 2008a, Predation on bryozoan colonies: taxa, traits and
trophic groups. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 359:117-131.
Lidgard, S., 2008b, How should we consider predation risk in bryo-
zoans? In Hageman, S.J., Key, M.M., and Winston, J.E., (eds),
Bryozoan Studies 2007: Proceedings of the 14th International
Bryozoology Association Conference, Boone, North Carolina,
July 1-8, 2007. Virginia Museum of Natural History Special
Publication, 15:125-134.
Linnaeus, C., 1767, Systemae naturae per regna tria naturae, se-
cundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus,
differentiis, synonymis, locis. Regnum Animale. Laurentii
Salvii, Holmiae.
López de la Cuadra, C.M., and García-Gómez, J.C., 2001, New and
little known ascophoran bryozoans from the Western Mediter-
ranean, collected by ‘Fauna Ibérica’ expeditions. Journal of
Natural History, 35:1717-1732.
Manzoni, A., 1869, Bryozoi fossili Italiani. Terza Contribuzione. Sit-
zungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
I. Abtheilung, 60:930-944.
McBeth, J.W., 1971, Studies on the food of nudibranchs. Veliger,
14:158-161.
McKinney, F.K., Taylor, P.D., and Lidgard, S., 2003, Predation on
bryozoans and its reflection in the fossil record. pp. 239-261,
In Kelley, P.H., Kowalewski, M., and Hansen, T.A. (eds),
Predator-Prey Interactions in the Fossil Record. Kluwer Aca-
demic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Nebelsick, J.H., and Kowalewski, M., 1999, Drilling predation on
Recent clypeasteroid echinoids from the Red Sea. Palaios,
14:127-144.
Nybakken, J., and McDonald, G., 1981, Feeding mechanisms of
west American nudibranchs feeding on Bryozoa, Cnidaria
and Ascidiacea, with special respect to the radula. Malacologia,
20:439-449.
Osburn, R.C., 1914, The Bryozoa of the Tortugas Islands, Florida.
Carnegie Institute Washington Publications, 182:181-222.
Pizzaferri, C., and Berning, B., 2007, Taxonomic notes on some
cheilostome Bryozoa from the Pliocene of the Western Emilia
region (N Italy). Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia,
113:97-108.
Poluzzi, A., 1980, I Briozoi membraniporiformi del delta
settentrionale del Po. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze
Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano,
121:101-120.
Quelch, J.J., 1884, On Schizoporella ridleyi [sic], MacG., and Schizoporel-
la simplex, d’Orbigny and Johnston. Annals and Magazine of
Natural History (ser. 5), 13:215-217.
Ryland, J.S., 1976, Physiology and ecology of marine bryozoans.
Advances in Marine Biology, 14:285-443.
Smitt, F.A., 1873, Floridan Bryozoa, collected by Count L.F. de
Pourtalès, Part II. Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens
Handlingar, 11:3-83.
Taylor, P.D., 1982, Probable predatory borings in Late Cretaceous
bryozoans. Lethaia, 15:67-74
Taylor, P.D., 1988, Colony growth pattern and astogenetic gradi-
ents in the Cretaceous bryozoan Herpetopora. Palaeontology,
31:519-549.
Tilbrook, K.J., 2006, Cheilostomatous Bryozoa from the Solomon
Islands. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Mono-
graphs, 4, 385 pp.
Todd, C.D., 1981, The ecology of nudibranch molluscs. Oceanogra-
phy and Marine Biology Annual Review, 19:141-234.
Todd, C.D., and Havenhand, J.N., 1989, Nudibranch-bryozoan asso-
ciations, the quantification of ingestion and some observations
on partial predation among Doridoidea. Journal of Molluscan
Studies, 55:245-259.
Ünsal, I., and d’Hondt, J.-L., 1979, Contribution à la connaissance
des Bryozoaires marins de Turquie (Eurystomata et Cyclosto-
mata). Vie et Milieu, 29:613-634.
Vermeij, G.J., 1987, Evolution and Escalation – An Ecological His-
tory of Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 527 pp.
Waters, A.W., 1881, On fossil cheilostomatous Bryozoa from south-
west Victoria, Australia. Quarterly Journal of the Geological
Society of London, 37:309-347.
Wilson, M.A, and Taylor, P.D., 2006, Predatory drill holes and
partial mortality in Devonian colonial metazoans. Geology,
34:565-568.
Page 7
    • "The idea of somewhat perennial colonies is supported by the common occurrence of regenerated zooids and nonfunctional zooids with orifices occluded by mineralised closures (Fig. 3e). These features may also reflect the presence and pressure of predators (Berning, 2008), as shown by numerous predation attempts that are visible in the lectotype by means of damaged orifices, and by the presence of a secondary or even tertiary orifice rim Fig. 6 -Cleidochasmidra portisi n. comb. from the Gulf of Noto (Catalogue number PMC R.I.H. B-25b). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The discovery of living and dead specimens of bryozoan colonies currently assigned to Cleidochasmidra canakkalense Ünsal & d’Hondt, 1979 and concomitant examination of Neviani’s type material in the collections of the University of Rome “La Sapienza” allowed the conspecificity between this taxon and Smittia (Phylactella) portisi Neviani, 1895 to be explored. Neviani’s name has priority and the new combination Cleidochasmidra portisi (Neviani, 1895) is here proposed. First SEM photos of C. portisi support this proposal and contribute to illustrate the intraspecific variability of this species relating to the development of ovicells and frontal avicularia, the morphology of the orifice and the peristome, as well as the size of the orifice and the ovicell. The ability of C. portisi to grow beyond its substratum, and to colonise gravel-sized clasts on soft sediments of the intermediate to outer shelf settings occupied by different biocoenoses is described. This extant species, recorded as early as the Early Pliocene, is possibly endemic to the Mediterranean.
    Full-text· Article · Sep 2015 · Bollettino della Societa Paleontologica Italiana
    0Comment0Citation
    • "oral umbos may be produced by the distal part of the frontal shield during ontogeny (e.g. Hippomenella), the surface of which may partly or entirely be composed of skeleton with a cryptocystal fabric. As to their function, some orificial structures may protect the bryozoan from predators that wish to gain access to the polypide via the orifice (cf. Berning 2008); in the case of robust and heavily calcified structures (Fig. 3) this may often be a major function. However, as most lyrulae and denticles are relatively gracile, their function of partitioning the orifice for unobstructed waterflow seems to be more important. This hypothesis is corroborated by the presence of lyrulae even in species "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Although the lyrula is a character trait that is often used in taxonomic descriptions of certain ascophoran bryozoan taxa, its function as well as its position relative to the operculum remained ill-defined ever since the term was introduced in the late 19th century. The presence of a variety of other orificial and peristomial structures of different shape and position has added to the terminological confusion. Here we show that, in contrast to the condyles that are positioned at the (disto)lateral orifice margins below the level of the operculum, all structures at the proximal margin are situated above the operculum, and that they all serve the same ultimate function: to partition the orifice and peristome into a distal part that is occupied by the tentacles, and a proximal part through which water can freely flow into and out of the ascus during tentacle protrusion and retraction, respectively. Finally, we provide amended definitions of the terms lyrula, central and lateral denticle, as well as peristomial groove and ridge.
    Full-text· Article · Jul 2014
    0Comment2Citations
    • "Remains of fenestrate bryozoans have been reported from coprolites of the Permian fish Janassa (Malzahn 1972; Schaumberg 1979). However, many predators do not leave visible damage in the bryozoan skeleton (Berning 2008; McKinney et al. 2003). Indirect evidence of predation can be obtained from adaptations which seemingly serve a protective function. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Bryozoan diversity during the Devonian period displays a persistent rise from the Pragian to the early Givetian, significantly dropping in the late Givetian in the wake of the Taghanic Event. In contrast, two other important events during the Devonian, the Frasne/Famenne Event and the Hangenberg Event at the Devonian/Carboniferous boundary, were less significant and resulted mainly in shifts in faunal composition. Diversity dynamics of Devonian Bryozoa was apparently controlled by extrinsic and intrinsic factors. Global palaeogeographic settings influenced faunal provincialism to which bryozoans seem to be sensitive. Sea-level fluctuations and subsequent changes in suitability of habitats influenced biodiversification processes in bryozoans. Intrinsically, bryozoans show some patterns consistent with diffuse co-evolution with potential predators and, possibly, prey. Observed trends in the morphological evolution of Devonian bryozoans include some obvious anti-predator adaptations (protective structures, strengthened skeletal walls). Moreover, Devonian bryozoans often developed various internal modifications, which apparently influenced the activity of polypides. This pattern is regarded here as apparent improvement of feeding, possibly as a response to diminishing food in the course of the mid-Palaeozoic Phytoplankton Blackout.
    Full-text· Article · May 2012
    0Comment4Citations
Show more