spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by GOODRICH, E. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by GOODRICH, E. S.

Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, Vol s2-75, 165-179, Copyright © 1932 by Company of Biologists

Memoirs: On the Nephridiostome of Lumbricus

EDWIN S. GOODRICH F.R.S.1

1 Linacre Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy in the University of Oxford

The structure of the nephridiostome of Lumbricus terrestris L. is described, including the anatomical relations of canal, gutter, central, and marginal cells and their cytological characters. The extent and relation of the lower lip to other parts are also described.

An account of the development of the nephridium is given from the stage when the rudiment still bears a single large ‘funnel-cell’ bulging forwards through the septum into the coelom. The whole nephridiostome (excluding the covering of coelomic epithelium and the connective tissue) is shown to arise from the nephridial rudiment, wholely or partly from that part of the funnel-rudiment which is derived from the ‘funnel-cell’. Upper, lateral, and lower lips are all developed from the funnel rudiment in which the lumen becomes pierced. There is no evidence that the coelomic epithelium contributes any part of the true nephridiostome.

The view sometimes put forward that the excretory organ of Lumbricus is a nephromixium is not founded on sound evidence, and is opposed to the simple straightforward interpretation of its morphology which follows most naturally from the facts and a comparison with lower forms.







© The Company of Biologists Ltd 1932