Skip to main content
Log in

Domes, arches and urchins: The skeletal architecture of echinoids (Echinodermata)

  • Published:
Zoomorphology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

A combination of simple membrane theory and statical analysis has been used to determine how stresses are carried in echinoid skeletons. Sutures oriented circumferentially are subject principally to compression. Those forming radial zig-zags are subject to compression near the apex and tension near the ambitus. Radial and circumferential sutures in Eucidaris are equally bound with collagen fibers but in Diadema, Tripneustes, Psammechinus, Arbacia and other regular echinoids, most radial sutures are more heavily bound, and thus stronger in tension. Psammechinus, Tripneustes and several other echinoids have radial sutures thickened by ribs which increase the area of interlocking trabeculae. Ribs also increase flexural stiffness and carry a greater proportion of the stress. Further, ribs effectively draw stress from weaker areas pierced by podial pores, and increase the total load which can be sustained.

Allometry indicates that regular echinoids become relatively higher at the apex as size increases, thus reducing ambital stresses. Some spatangoids with very high domes (eg Agassizia) maintain isometry, but others (eg Meoma) become flatter with size. Both holectypoids (Echinoneus) and cassiduloids (Apatopygus) maintain a constant height to diameter relationship. Flattening, and consequently ambital tensile stress, is greatest in the clypeasteroids. In this group the formation of internal buttresses which preferentially carry stress, reaches maximum development. A notable exception, however, is the high domed Clypeaster rosaceus.

In this analysis it was assumed that local buckling or bending does not occur. The test of some echinoids (e.g. Diadematoida) have relatively wide sutures swathed in collagen, which allows local deformation. Others (e.g. Arbacia) have rigid sutures with reduced collagen. In Psammechinus and other members of the Order Echinoida, in addition to rib formation, inner and outer surface trabeculae are thickened so that the individual plates are stiffened. Some spatangoids (Meoma, Paleopneustes) have extensive sutural collagen, but the cassiduloid Apatopygus has collagen confined to junctions of sutures, and elsewhere the joints are strengthened and stiffened by fusion of trabeculae. Fusion of surface trabeculae is almost complete in the holectypoid, Echinoneus, and the sutures are obscured.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Burkhardt A, Hansmann W, Markel K, Niemann H-J (1983) Mechanical design in spines of diadematoid echinoids (Echinodermata, Echinoidea). Zoomorphology 102:189–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Currey JD (1975) A comparison of the strength of echinoderm spines and mollusc shells. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 55:419–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Dafni J (1984) Test growth and calcification of the regular echinoid Tripneustes gratilla elatensis. International Echinoderms Conference, Galway.

  • Emlet RB (1982) Echinoderm calcite: a mechanical analysis from larval spicules. Biol Bull 163:264–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Eylers JP (1976) Aspects of skeletal mechanics of the starfish Asterias forbesii. J Morphol 149:353–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon JE (1968) The new science of strong materials. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England, pp 269

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon JE (1978) Structures: or why things don't fall down. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England, pp 395

    Google Scholar 

  • Harold AS (1985) Body wall structure of Echinarachnius parma (Echinoidea: Clypeasteroida). M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Zology, University of Toronto

  • Heyman J (1977) Equilibrium of shell structures. Oxford University Press, England, pp 137

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyman LH (1955) The Invertebrates. IV: Echinodermata. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 763

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenner H (1976) Geodesic math and how to use it. University of California Press Berkeley, Los Angeles, pp 172

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein L, Currey JD (1970) Echinoid skeleton: absence of collagenous matrix. Science 169:1209–1210

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin TY, Stotesbury SD (1981) Structural concepts and systems for architects and engineers. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 590

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss ML, Meehan MM (1967) Sutural connective tissues in the test of an echinoid Arbacia puntulata. Acta Anat 66:279–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols D, Currey JD (1968) The secretion, structure, and strength of echinoderm calcite (pp 251–261). In: Cell structure and its interpretation. SM McGee-Russell and KFA Ross, Eds., Edward Arnold Ltd., London, pp 433

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukhin NV, Pershin AN, Shishman BA (1983) Statics of structures. MIR publishers, Moscow, pp 405

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Neill PL (1981) Polycrystalline echinoderm calcite and its fracture mechanics. Science 2133:646–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelan TH (1977) Comments on the water vascular system, food grooves, and ancestry of the clypeasteroid echinoids. Bull Mar Sci 27:400–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Raup DM (1962) The phylogeny of calcite crystallography in echinoids. J Paleontol 36:793–810

    Google Scholar 

  • Seilacher A (1979) Constructional morphology of sand dollars. Paleobiology 5:191–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith AB (1980) Stereom microstructure of the echinoid test. Spec Pap Palaeontol 25:1–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith AB (1984) Echinoid palaeobiology. George Allen and Unwin, London, pp 190

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. WH Freeman and Co., San Francisco, pp 859

    Google Scholar 

  • Strathmann RR (1981) The role of spines in preventing structural damage to echinoid tests. Paleobiology 7:400–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Telford M (1985) Structural analysis of the test of Echinocyamus pusillus. Proc Int Echinoderms Conf, Galway 1984

  • Thadani BN (1964) Modern methods in structural mechanics. Asia Publishing House, Bombay, pp 619

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis DF (1970) The comparative ultrastructure and organization of five calcified tissues. In: Biological calcification. H Schraer ed. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 203–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Ugural AC (1981) Stress in plates and shells. McGraw Hill Book Co., NY, pp 317

    Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright SA, Biggs WS, Currey JD, Gosline JM (1976) Mechanical design in organisms. Edward Arnold, England, pp 423

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber J, Greer R, Voight B, White E, Roy R (1962) Unusual strength properties of echinoderm calcite related to structure. J Ultrastructure Res 26:355–366

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Telford, M. Domes, arches and urchins: The skeletal architecture of echinoids (Echinodermata). Zoomorphology 105, 114–124 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00312146

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00312146

Keywords

Navigation