Brachiopoda and Bivalvia

CARLETON UNIVERSITY
Brachiopods and Bivalves

A theory on the morphology
ERTH2312A
Paleontology
Presented to Professor T. Patterson
Joachim de Fourestier
Student Number: 101022736
27/03/2017
Brachiopods and Bivalves are superficially similar, but are rather distantly related. Both
are twin-valved and are filter-feeders. That said, what caused these morphological
convergences or possibly divergences? What similarities are there? What distinguishes
them from one to another?
Joachim de Fourestier Winter 2017
SN#101022736 Brachiopoda and Bivalvia ERTH2312A
Abstract
The Brachiopoda phylum is compared to the Bivalvia class. An attempt is made at
explaining what could have influenced their morphology as well as to explore what
similarities and differences these two groups exhibit. They are commonly confused due
to their similar external shells. Both of these are organisms with “valves” (somewhat
symmetrical), but many differences that exist between the two: these might not seem
quite as obvious at first sight. The most common way of differentiating them is using the
symmetry content these two groups expose and express differently. Brachiopoda have
their plane of symmetry perpendicular to the hinge of the valves. In contrast, bivalvia
(with exceptions from scallops and oysters) have a plane of symmetry parallel to this
hinge. The morphological changes are assumed to be the direct result of natural selection.
However, organisms are known to able to change morphologically during their lifespan.
It has been concluded that the superficial resemblance is from the same ancestors rather
than a result of convergent evolution. Both of them are found to occupy similar niches
but exhibit a few differences. Brachiopods mainly focus on simply keeping a single
location that is stable and have developed many different apparatus in order to achieve
this goal. Bivalves are more flexible in that are mobile. Both are able to burrow down
into the sediment, but bivalves are able to go much deeper or change their lateral location
altogether if necessary. Knowing the significant advantages that bivalves have over
brachiopods and that they can share similar lifestyles, it is somewhat surprising that both
still coexist to this day. This is most likely due to the slightly different environments that
these two can occupy.
Earth Sciences, Carleton University Page 1

Introduction
Brachiopoda and Bivalvia are often confused by their similar exterior, but have some
differences in live styles and internal anatomy. Although the two are not closely related,
their morphology of a twin-valved shell is possibly due to similarities in their ecological
niches. That being said, it is most likely that they originated in a similar niche and
became divergent more internally then externally as they evolved with time. They have
can have similar lifestyles but have come to different adaptations to arising external or
environmental pressures such as salinity, competition, temperature changes, substrate
type, etc.
Brachiopod Morphology
The term ‘Brachiopoda’ comes from Ancient Greek, the prefix brachio– meaning
something that is related to an arm and the suffix –pod meaning foot. Brachiopods,
commonly known as lampshells, are amongst the most successful invertebrate phyla.
Their first appearance datum is within the Early Cambrian which collides with the well-
known and so-called “Cambrian Life Explosion”. They have ever since evolved,
diversified and lived on throughout the Paleozoic dominating low-level benthic
suspension feeding. They are mainly composed of a pedicle (resembling an “arm” or
“lamp stand”) and a shell with two valves (resembling a “foot” or “lamp”). From the
outside, they might seem almost the same as bivalves. However, their feeding methods,
life styles and internal structures (such as soft tissues) are quite definitely different from
one another (see Figure 1).
Brachiopods are sessile (non-mobile): most remain permanently attached to the

substrate via their external stalk-like appendage known as the pedicle: it essentially
allows them to maintain or “anchor” their position in the water column. As with most
suspension feeders, they tend to remain in a local area and extract food from the water
around them. They are able to do this using a structure known as a lophophore: this organ
can be used for both feeding and respiration. These are mainly rings or crowns with fine
tentacles. These tentacles are covered with fine little “hairs” known as cilia. These are
also responsible for generating the “feeding current”: a current of water with food
particles that flows towards the mouth or the gape. That being said, there is mucus found
on these cilia which essentially enable them to create adhesion with the food particles to
filter them out from the indrawn water. The lophophore is supported by the brachium.
This can be a calcareous structure in some species, otherwise known as a brachidium.
Common types of this support structure include brachiophores (a pair of prong-like
extensions), spiralia (a pair of spiral-like or coiled structures) and “loops” (hoop-like
structures). The mentioned examples are all attached to the brachial valve (described
later).

The two valves of the shell are different: one ventral and one dorsal. One of the
valves is termed the pedicle valve where the stalk-like appendage is attached: this can be
the ventral or dorsal valve depending on the species. Dorsal and ventral are terms used in
relation to the internal morphological features (soft-body parts) of the organism. Bearing
this in mind, brachiopods generally have their pedicle exiting from the ventral valve. The
currently living Magellania is an example of this. The other valve is referred to as the
brachial valve where it contains supports for the lophophores. Following with our last
example, this would be the upper or dorsal valve. Evidently, the pedicle valve is larger
than the brachial valve due to the pedicle opening. Some extinct brachiopods have
evolved and lost their pedicles: a free-living mode. However, they were still benthic,
lying idle on or partially buried in the seafloor. Even though brachiopods tend to have
shells with different size valves, all of them exhibit bilateral symmetry. The plane of
symmetry is perpendicular to the hinge line. In other words, this plane cuts
perpendicularly through both valves of the shell.
The umbo or beak is the initial point where the valve starts growing (or secreting).
Valves with radial ornamentation generally point towards this origin. Opposite to the
posterior or apex (where the beak and hinge is located) is the opening of the valves: this
is the anterior. The margin or trace between this “opening” is termed the commissure. In
one species this can be a relatively straight feature whereas in another, this can be
sinuous. For example, Waconella wacoensis has a relatively linear commissure whereas
the Zygospira modesta has a zig-zag trace. Most brachiopod shells today have a mineral
composition of calcium phosphate and chitin (a complex, long-chain polymer). This is
usually easily recognisable by its enamel-like lustre. Others have calcitic or calcium
carbonate shells like many marine organisms.
Brachiopods use a system of muscles to open and close their valves. As with most
fossils, soft tissue parts such as these muscles are not commonly preserved. However, the
impressions or scars are usually still visible. The adductor scars are where the closing
muscles were attached. Its opposite, the diductor scars, is where the opening muscles
were attached.
Some brachiopods exhibit dentition and were archaically grouped under two
classes: Inacticulata (no teeth or sockets) and Articulata (those with both teeth and
sockets). These teeth are knob-like protrusion located on the hinge of the pedicle valve.
Sockets are small depressions on the hinge of the brachial valve. The teeth fit into the
sockets to assure the appropriate opening and closing of the valves. That being said,
brachiopod dentition is nowhere near as complex as bivalvian dentition (discussed later).

Brachiopoda - Life Environments and Modes

Naturally, these bottom dwellers are all exclusive to a marine environment.
However, various species can inhabit different depths and regions of the ocean.
Brachiopods are typically oriented vertically to the substrate during their life time. That
said, they can be inclined and even horizontal. Additionally, vertically oriented ones tend
to have shells with valves that are equally biconvex whereas inclined or horizontal ones
will have unequal valve shapes such as concavo-convex or plano-convex. Brachiopods
vary greatly in shapes and sizes from a few microns to tens of centimetres in length.
Considering their general morphology, they have not changed all that much compared to
other phyla such as Chordata or even Mollusca. There are only about 120 genera of them.
These bottom dwellers have always essentially been twin-valved filter-feeding shellfish,
opening and closing their shells, waving around lophophores. Despite the tough
competition from the Bivalvia, brachiopods are still around. They live in many different
conditions from near-shore or intertidal environments to very deep basins over 6
kilometres below sea level. The larger species tend to live in these deeper environments.
Note that the larger size is more likely to be the consequence rather than the cause of
living in such an environment. Possible reasons could be due rarer competition (as not
many organisms can tolerate such depths or pressures), relatively more (or rather less
divided) food supply, most particles fall and land on the seafloor.
Brachiopod life styles can be classified based on its relation with the substrate.
When the animal lives completely buried within the seafloor, it is known as Infaunal.
Those that do live this way commonly have their posterior oriented downward and can
stabilize themselves by projecting their pedicle further downwards. For those that are
only partially buried are known as Semi Infaunal and are not necessarily attached to the
substrate by their pedicle. Those that are Epifaunal essentially live on or above the
substrate rather than in it. They are generally attached to the seafloor or other objects
(such as marine plants) by their pedicle (discussed later). Reclining or free-living
brachiopods (essentially an unattached lifestyle) are those that are horizontally floating
on (or partial in) the substrate (not to be confused with epifaunal). These will generally
have a plano-convex or concavo-convex shell shape. Some of them are modified to have
spines or larger surface area to help float atop the sediment. Additionally, some of these
have no pedicle opening, but will expose attachment point for those with external spines.
Although brachiopods are sessile, they have developed many different adaptations
(see Figure 2 for following morphologies). Some cement themselves to rocks or other
hard-shell animals such as Craniops or Schuchertella. Others such as Craniids or
Disciniids live together by encrusting hard surfaces (similarly to barnacles). Some species
have clasping spines can attach and cling on to other marine lifeforms and feed from
there instead of on the substrate acting as an epibiont such as Linoproductus and

Tenaspinus. The Chonetes is example of a reclining brachiopod that essentially supports

itself on top of the substrate by having its weight divided due to its large surface area
shell. A similar case is the Waagenoconcha, which accomplishes the same task using
many external spines. However, this morphology can be more advantageous since it does
not need the surface to be flat and can adjust its anterior at different angles relative to the
substrate. Finally, the “Mobile” brachiopods subdivide into the previously discussed
Infaunal and Semi-Infaunal lifestyles. Note that “mobile” is mentioned in the sense that
can move vertically but not necessarily laterally: their movement is limited to burrowing.
The Linguloids (resembling to Lingula) are commonly infaunal. Camerisma and
Magadina are examples of the semi-faunal type.
Brachiopods seem to be able to change their shell shape and life mode during
ontogeny (from birth to maturity). A study from the San Juan Islands, show the shells to
be more lopsided and asymmetric with increasing hydroenergy. (Schumann, 1991)1 This
strongly suggests that morphologic changes not only occur as a result of evolution but
also as a result of ecology.
Bivalve Morphology
The term ‘Bivalvia’ quite evidently comes from prefix bi- meaning two and valve,
and that is quite frankly what they look like. In contrast to Brachiopoda, Bivalvia is a
class, not a phylum. From a taxonomic and ecological standpoint, they are far more
diverse: a taxonomically lower rank expressing more heterogeneity. Like brachiopods,
bivalves (with exceptions from scallops and oysters) are also bilaterally symmetrical with
a twin-valve shelly exoskeleton (see Figure 3). Bivalves first appeared in the Early
Cambrian and started out as burrowers. Their diversity was originally fairly limited. It
was not until the Mesozoic that radiated becoming very successful burrowers and the
now second largest class within the Mollusca phylum. The section is slightly briefer as
many parts found in bivalves are analogous to those of brachiopods.
In contrast to brachiopods, bivalves do not have diductor muscles to open their

shells. Instead, they have a ligament that automatically opens the valves because of its
elasticity. This ligament can be internal like in oysters or mussels, but it may also be
external in others. To close the valves or rather to hold them shut, bivalves usually have
two adductor muscles: contracting one of them accomplishes this task. Most bivalves
have mirrored valves and are referred to as left and right valves instead. When this is the
case, it is said they are equivalved. Asymmetrically valved ones are said to inequivalved.
Similar to its distant cousins (Brachipoda), these organisms also have an umbo where the
first parts of the shell are secreted. The composition of the shell is biomineralized
calcium carbonate such as calcite, aragonite (in higher temperatures) or even vaterite.
1
From Introduction to Paleobiology and the Fossil Record

However, some bivalves produce nacre (discussed later). In addition, the valves are
attached together by a toothed hinge (somewhat analogous to interlocking door hinges).
This structure ensures the valves close correctly without misalignment. There are eight
different types of teeth that can be observed with bivalves: desmodont (reduced to
absent), dysodont (small, simple teeth near the edge of the valve), taxodont (multiple
teeth, subequal, subparallel), actinodont (multiple, radially fanning out towards the
umbo), isodont (large teeth located on both side of the ligament’s depression), schizodont
(large, diverging, sometimes grooved), pachyodont (rather large, blunt) and heterodont
(cardinal, very large, lateral).
In contrast to brachipods, bivalves have a muscular foot instead of a pedicle. This

structure is use for attachment to the substrate, or to further burrow down into the
seafloor. This foot generally protrudes from the opening of the shell (anterior). Bivalves
use siphons to feed which located near the pallial sinus (similar to gape in Brachiopoda).
One of them, the inhalant siphon, is to drawn in water towards the internal cavity. The
other, known as the exhalant siphon, brings the water back out and away from the
internal cavity. When the water is drawn in, it passes through ciliated gills. These gills are
essentially able to filter out food particles and oxygen. There are four main types (not
explained here): protobranch, filibranch, eulamellibranch, septibranch.
Bivalvia - Life Environments and Modes

As with brachiopods, Bivalvia can also be classified by its relations to the
substrate (see Figure 4). The Infaunal bivalves can be subdivided into Shallow Infaunal
and Deep Infaunal. The shallow type commonly lives in the substrate of a river or sea.
Most have a height to length close to 1:1. They typically have a smooth and streamlined
shell which renders burrowing a much simpler task. They may have spines to firmly
attach themselves to the substrate so that they are not so easily removed by predators. The
deep type will live submerged with the substrate and their length is usually twice its
height. Burial is achieved by opening the valves and pushing the muscular foot
downwards into the sediment. This foot can also be used for locomotion. This is however
a relatively much younger lifestyle dating back to roughly 2 million years ago. Since
living and burrowing at such depths is difficult, it took longer to evolve fused siphons
(inhalant and exhalent) to accommodate this mode.
There are also Epifaunal bivalves. Instead of a pedicle to hold their ground, they
have the ability (that all bivalves have) to secrete byssal threads. These are sticky threads
that are typical used during infancy for when additional stabilization is needed. That
being said, there are some that use this ability during adulthood. The Mytilus is example
of this. They are known as epibyssate bivalves because they use these threads (that reach
down in the substrate) for stability and maintain this life style. This is somewhat

analogous to spider webs. Semi Infaunal or Endobyssates are similar but are partially in
the sediment: they combine the substrate and these thread for even more stability. These
typically have a pointed anterior. Given these points, bivalves that employ byssal threads
during their adulthood are typically found in high current environments. Next, cementing
and reclining bivalves are commonly inequivalved. Just like reclining brachiopods,
reclining bivalves can also have spines to help with stabilization. Unique to bivalve is
swimming. This offers a huge advantage over brachiopods. Swimming bivalves are
usually equilateral but they are inequivalved. The lower valve is usually larger. They
typically exhibit a wider umbonal angle (greater to 105°) and have a single, large,
centrally located adductor muscle.
Although most bivalves have shells that are primarily composed of calcium
carbonate, some can produce a different material known as nacre (such as Pinctada also
known as the “pearl oyster”). Calcareous shells are hard, robust and provide generally
good protection. However, it is very susceptible to chemical weathering and is relative
brittle. Chitin (complex, long-chain polymer) is quite resilient and pliable (so not very
brittle). With this in mind, nacre has the advantage of both calcium carbonate and chitin.
This biomaterial (organic-inorganic) composite consist of multilayered structures of
calcium carbonate and an elastic biopolymer such as chitin. More precisely, it is
comprised of micro aragonite tablets that usually have a rectangular, hexagonal or
rounded shape. This combination gives it a tough, hard structure that will rather deform
that shatter. Nacre has even been used in the material science industry to produce tougher
materials. It is considered to be almost as resilient as silicon. An interesting fact is that
pearls are the result of an autoimmune reaction known as “Nacrezation”: when foreign
material such as an irritant (such as sand) or a parasite, the host will secrete nacre around
it. Sometimes it is incorporated and creates bump within the animal. Otherwise, the
irritant essentially become the nucleus of a pearl. The goal of this behaviour to isolate the
irritant or to the very least creates a smoother surface. This seems to be the next big step
in their evolution to have a greater tolerance towards both mechanical and chemical
weathering.

Conclusion
To summarize, lophopores are too complex and distinctive of a structure for it to
be implicated in convergent evolution. A twin-valved exoskeleton currently seems to
primarily involve the specific lifestyle of filter feeding. Species that have this
morphology are more likely to be from one common point of origin: Lophotrochozoa.
Both Bivalvia and Brachiopoda are members of this superphylum. However, Bivalvia use
siphons for feeding whereas Brachiopoda use lophophores. This is one of the most
important distinctions between the two. Both of them have a shell that can be composed
of calcium carbonate. However, brachiopods tend to have a more phosphoritic
composition (such as chitin which is less susceptible to chemical deterioration). And
bivalve shells are primarily calcareous. That being said, the shell can provide protection
against predators and desiccation. Both have adopted similar forms of burrowing
lifestyles and tend to remain near the substrate. For filter feeding, brachiopods use
lophophores whereas bivalves use siphons. Both started to appear in the early Cambrian:
bivalves already had toothed hinges, but articulate brachiopods only started to appear in
the late Cambrian. Bivalves seem to have taken this evolution step much sooner. The
Jurassic involved losses of both brachiopods and bivalves, but free swimming animals
were not affected. This is most likely due to other lifeforms starting to also take
advantage of the substrate disturbing pre-existing life. It is possible that many of the
brachiopods were tipped over and bivalves were completely submerged by “sediment-
bulldozing” organisms, ultimately leading to the extinction of some species. Bivalves can
live in anywhere from freshwater to brackish waters. With this in mind, they are
commonly found in the shallower subtidal environments whereas brachiopods will prefer
deeper, calmer ocean waters. Both exhibit similar external morphology but their internal
anatomies are quite different. Brachiopods have developed many different complex
structures to achieve stability such as clasping spines and various shell shapes. In
contrast, bivalves have adopted different life modes such as swimming or moving to
different areas using their muscular foot. The concluded distinction is brachiopods
changed morphologically to maintain a lifestyle whereas bivalves changed
morphologically to adopt new lifestyles. That said, both are well adapted to their
environments and have been generally very successful.

References
- “Brachipoda”, Michael J. Benton and David A.T. Harper, “Introduction to
Paleobiology and the Fossil Record”, 2009, p. 298-309
- “Inarticulata: Characters and Anatomy”, University of Bristol, Earth Sciences,
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Fossilgroups/Inarticulate/Characters%20an
d%20Anatomy.html , retrieved March 2017
- “The Lophophore”, University of California - Berkeley, Earth Sciences,
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss7/lophophore.html ,
retrieved March 2017
- “Brachiopoda: Morphology and Ecology”, State University of New York,
Cortland, Paleontological Laboratory,
http://paleo.cortland.edu/tutorial/Brachiopods/brachmorph.htm ,
- “Bivalvia”, State University of New York, Cortland, Paleontological Laboratory,
http://paleo.cortland.edu/tutorial/Bivalves/bivalvia.htm , retrieved March 2017
- “Bivalvia: Morphology”, State University of New York, Cortland,
Paleontological Laboratory,
http://paleo.cortland.edu/tutorial/Bivalves/bivalvemorph.htm ,
- “Bivalvia”, Michael J. Benton and David A.T. Harper, “Introduction to
Paleobiology and the Fossil Record”, 2009, p. 326-338
 “Introduction to the Lophotrochozoa”, University of California - Berkeley, Earth
Sciences, http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/lophotrochozoa.html ,
- “Bivalvia: Modes of Life”, University of Bristol, Earth Sciences,
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Fossilgroups/Bivalvia/Modes.html ,
- “Bivalvia: Characters and Morphology”, University of Bristol, Earth Sciences,
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Fossilgroups/Bivalvia/Characters.html,
- “Mollusk shell formation: Mapping the distribution of organic matrix components
underlying a single aragonitic tablet in nacre”, Fabio Nudelman, Bat Ami Gotliv,
Lia Addadi, Steve Weiner, Journal of Structural Biology vol.153, 2006, p. 176–
187
- “Evolution of Immune Reactions”, Petr Sima, Vaclav Vetvicka, CRC Press, 1990,
p. 85

Appendix
Figure 1
Retrieved (March 2017) from: “Brachiopoda: Morphology and Ecology”, State

University of New York, Cortland, Paleontological Laboratory,
http://paleo.cortland.edu/tutorial/Brachiopods/brachmorph.htm

Figure 2
Retrieved (March 2017) from:“Brachipoda”, Michael J. Benton and David A.T. Harper,
“Introduction to Paleobiology and the Fossil Record”, 2009,
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/paleobiology/figure.asp?chap=12&fig=Fig12-
9&img=c12f009

Figure 3
Retrieved (March 2017) from: “Bivalvia”, Michael J. Benton and David A.T. Harper,
5&img=c13f005

Figure 4
Retrieved (March 2017) from: “Bivalvia”, Michael J. Benton and David A.T. Harper,
9&img=c13f009

Brachiopoda and Bivalvia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brachiopoda and Bivalvia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brachiopoda and Bivalvia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CARLETON UNIVERSITY

Brachiopods and Bivalves

Earth Sciences, Carleton University Page 1

Brachiopods are sessile (non-mobile): most remain permanently attached to the

Earth Sciences, Carleton University Page 2

Earth Sciences, Carleton University Page 3

Brachiopoda - Life Environments and Modes

Earth Sciences, Carleton University Page 4

Tenaspinus. The Chonetes is example of a reclining brachiopod that essentially supports

In contrast to brachiopods, bivalves do not have diductor muscles to open their

Earth Sciences, Carleton University Page 5

In contrast to brachipods, bivalves have a muscular foot instead of a pedicle. This

Bivalvia - Life Environments and Modes

Earth Sciences, Carleton University Page 6

Earth Sciences, Carleton University Page 7

Earth Sciences, Carleton University Page 8

Earth Sciences, Carleton University Page 9

Retrieved (March 2017) from: “Brachiopoda: Morphology and Ecology”, State

Earth Sciences, Carleton University Page 10

Earth Sciences, Carleton University Page 11

Earth Sciences, Carleton University Page 12

Earth Sciences, Carleton University Page 13

You might also like