Helgoländer Meeresuntersuchungen

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 83–93 | Cite as

Ultrastructure of the spermatozoa ofCorystes cassivelaunus (Corystidae),Platepistoma nanum (Cancridae) andCancer pagurus (Cancridae) supports recognition of the Corystoidea (Crustacea, Brachyura, Heterotremata)

  • B. G. M. Jamieson
  • D. Guinot
  • C. C. Tudge
  • B. Richer de Forges


A combination of characters, not individually unique, possessed by the corystid,Corystes cassivelaunus, and the two cancrids,Platepistoma nanum andCancer pagurus, defines a corystoid-type of spermatozoon: the basally bulbous, anteriorly narrowing perforatorium, the extent of this almost to the plasma membrane through a widely perforate operculum, and the simple inner acrosome zone, lacking an acrosome ray zone. The sperm of the two cancrids are closely similar, that of the corystid differing, for instance, in the less pointed, and less tapered, form of the perforatorium. This relative uniformity of spermatozoal ultrastructure in the cancrid+corystid assemblage so far investigated supports inclusion of the two families in the superfamily Corystoidea by Guinot (1978). The combination of perforation of the operculum and absence of an acrosome ray zone (at least in a clearly recognizable form) are features of the Potamidae which possibly indicate that the latter family, modified for a freshwater existence, is related to the cancrid+corystid assemblage. Some elongation of the centrioles, apparent at least inCorystes, may be a further link with potamids in which they are greatly elongated. The coenospermial spermatophores of cancridoids are a notable difference from the cleistospermia of potamids; but the latter is probably an apomorphic modification for fertilization biology.


Perforation Acrosome Reaction Thickened Ring Acrosomal Membrane Recognizable Form 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Literature Cited

  1. Daddow, L., 1986. An abbreviated method of the double lead stain technique.—J. submicrosc. Cytol.18, 221–224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Davie, P., 1991. Crustacea Decapoda: the genusPlatepistoma Rathbun, 1906 (Cancridae) with the description of three new species.—Mém. Mus. natn. Hist. nat., Paris (Sér. A: Zool.)152, 493–514.Google Scholar
  3. Guinot, D., 1978. Principes d'une classification évolutive des Crustacés Décapodes Brachyoures.— Bull. biol. Fr. Belg.112, 211–292.Google Scholar
  4. Guinot, D., Jamieson, B. G. M. & Tudge, C. C., 1997. Spermatozoal ultrastructure and relationships of the freshwater crabsPotamon fluviatile andPotamon ibericum (Crustacea, Brachyura, Potamidae). —J. Zool., Lond.241(2) (in press).Google Scholar
  5. Jamieson, B. G. M., 1989. The ultrastructure of the spermatozoa of four species of xanthid crabs (Crustacea, Brachyura, Xanthidae).—J. submicrosc. Cytol. Pathol.21, 579–586.Google Scholar
  6. Jamieson, B. G. M., 1991a. Sperm and phylogeny in the Brachyura (Crustacea). In: Comparative spermatology 20 years after. Ed. by B. Baccetti. Raven Press, New York, 967–972.Google Scholar
  7. Jamieson, B. G. M., 1991b. Ultrastructure and phylogeny of crustacean spermatozoa.—Mem. Qld. Mus.31, 109–142.Google Scholar
  8. Jamieson, B. G. M., 1993. Ultrastructure of the spermatozoon ofPotamonautes perlatus sidneyi (Heterotremata, Brachyura, Crustacea).—S. Afr. J. Zool.28, 40–45.Google Scholar
  9. Jamieson, B. G. M., 1994. Phylogeny of the Brachyura with particular reference to the Podotremata: evidence from a review of spermatozoal ultrastructure.—Phil. Trans. R. Soc. (B)345, 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jamieson, B. G. M., Guinot, D. & Richer de Forges, B., 1995. Phylogeny of the Brachyura (Crustacea, Decapoda): evidence from spermatozoal ultrastructure.—Mém. Mus. natn. Hist. nat., Paris (Sér A: Zool.)166, 265–283.Google Scholar
  11. Langreth, S. G., 1965. Ultrastructural observations on the sperm of the crabCancer borealis.—J. Cell Biol.27, 56A-57A.Google Scholar
  12. Langreth, S. G., 1969. Spermiogenesis inCancer crabs.—J. Cell Biol.43, 575–603.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pochon-Masson, J., 1968. L'ultrastructure des spermatozoïdes vésiculaires chez les crustacés décapodes avant et au cours de leur dévagination expérimentale. I. Brachyoures et Anomoures.— Annls Sci. nat. (Sér. Zool.)10, 1–100.Google Scholar
  14. Spurr, A. R., 1969. A low viscosity epoxy-resin embedding medium for electron microscopy.—J. Ultrastruct. Res.26, 31–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Takeda, 1977. Two interesting crabs from Hawaii.—Pacif. Sci.31, 31–38.Google Scholar
  16. Tudge, C. C. & Justine, J.-L., 1994. The cytoskeletal proteins actin and tubulin in the spermatozoa of four decapod crabs (Crustacea, Decapoda).—Acta zool., Stockh.75, 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tudge, C. C., Grellier, P. & Justine, J.-L., 1994. Actin in the acrosome of the spermatozoa of the crab,Cancer pagurus L. (Decapoda, Crustacea).—Mol. Reprod. Dev.38, 178–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Warner, G. F., 1977. The biology of crabs. Elek Science, London, 202 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Biologische Anstalt Helgoland 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. G. M. Jamieson
    • 1
  • D. Guinot
    • 2
  • C. C. Tudge
    • 1
  • B. Richer de Forges
    • 3
  1. 1.Zoology DepartmentThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Zoologie (Arthropodes)Muséum National d'Histoire NaturelleParis, Cedex 05France
  3. 3.ORSTOMNouméa Cedex, Nouvelle-Calédonie

Personalised recommendations