In brief, Lot 1 shows an angle of divergence constant at 125° to 130°, where Lot 2 shows an angle varying from 130° to 155°, and a proportion of length to width 2.51 to 2.80 as against a proportion ranging from 2.47 to 1.93.
The noticeable differences to the eye are first, the narrow and sharply raised lateral areas, and second, the shape of the posterior edge of the median valves. In the tidepool specimens the posterior or exposed edge of each valve is a straight line, while in specimens from the pholad holes this line becomes a double convex curve, the most posterior portion of the valves being about midway between the beaks and the girdle.
These differences seem to be explained by the following facts. In collecting, the tidepool specimens are usually found on the under side of large rocks and well back from the edge. This situs protects them from the light which they evidently find objectionable, but it makes necessary a nightly journey of about two feet to the nearest growth of algae on which they feed. This activity stretches the girdle downward from the edges of the valves and permits a free play of all the valves so that the mantle deposits its shelly secretions according to the normal habit of the species. The specimens living in the pholad holes, however, apparently never leave them as they are frequently found feeding on the fucus which overhangs them. It protects them from the light, so they have no occasion to move about, and the sand which is washed down into these burrows would make re-entrance almost impossible. A series of these specimens shows a gradual change of form. The young specimens are very similar to young specimens from the tidepools, but as they increase in size they become crowded so that the valves press against each other, especially at the posterior end where the valves are bent back across the bottom of the hole. This crowding of the valves upon each other and the crowding of the girdle against the outer edges of the valves so displaces portions of the mantle as to cause the changes noted above.
Several specimens from each situs were disjointed and a study of the individual valves showed that those from pholad-hole specimens were thicker and had shorter sutural plates and a wider sinus, this last being especially noticeable in the valves from the posterior end. Apparently this change in the sinus is the result of the broadening of the connecting ligaments due to compression by the crowding valves.
A count of the insertion plates of these disjointed specimens was made and considerable variation noticed. So much, in fact, that more specimens were pulled apart for the express purpose of counting these plates. Representative counts were as follows: 9 slits on the anterior valve, 2–3 on the median valves, and 10 on the posterior. Others show 12, 2–3, 8; 11, 2–3; 14, 3–4, 11. Absolutely no difference in this character could be found between specimens from the tidepools and those from the pholad holes.
On page 64 of vol. xiv of the Manual of Conchology, Dr. Pilsbry says, “Carpenter has given a varietal name to a broad, worn specimen which he thus describes:
“Var. solidus. Very solid, wide, ashen; inside whitish, the posterior valve with 10, central valve 2–3, anterior valve 12 slits. Length 72, breadth 40, divergence 130°. Carpenteria, near Sta. Barbara, Cal. This is scarcely more than an individual variation. The mantle (girdle) is normal. The sculpture is worn away except at the edge. It has evidently lived in a very exposed situation.”
From this description and the figure which he gives of the valves it would seem that this is the same form as my specimens from the pholad holes. I fully agree with Dr. Pilsbry that it is hardly worthy of varietal rank. It is, however, too distinct in appearance to be labeled simply Ischnochiton conspicuus, Cpr., and I have therefore marked these specimens from the pholad holes I. conspicuus, Cpr., form solida, Cpr., using the term form as advocated by Dr. Cockerell, “to designate variations plainly due to environment.”[[1]]
LAMPSILIS VENTRICOSA COHONGORONTA IN THE POTOMAC RIVER.
BY WILLIAM A. MARSHALL.