Hitherto we have dealt only with univalve shells, and it is in these that all the math­e­mat­i­cal problems connected with the spiral, or helico-spiral, are best illustrated. But the case of the bivalve shell, of Lamellibranchs or of Brachiopods, presents no essential difference, save only that we have here to do with two conjugate spirals, whose two axes have a definite relation to one another, and some freedom of rotatory movement relatively to one another.

The generating curve is particularly well seen in the bivalve, where it simply constitutes what we call “the outline of the shell.” It is for the most part a plane curve, but not always; for there are forms, such as Hippopus, Tridacna and many Cockles, or Rhynchonella and Spirifer among the Brachiopods, in which the edges of the two valves interlock, and others, such as Pholas, Mya, etc., where in part they fail to meet. In such cases as these the generating curves are conjugate, having a similar relation, but of opposite sign, to a median plane of reference. A great variety of form is exhibited by these generating curves among the bivalves. In a good many cases the curve is ap­prox­i­mate­ly circular, as in Anomia, Cyclas, Artemis, Isocardia; it is nearly semi-circular in Argiope. It is ap­prox­i­mate­ly elliptical in Orthis and in Anodon; it may be called semi-elliptical in Spirifer. It is a nearly rectilinear {562} triangle in Lithocardium, and a curvilinear triangle in Mactra. Many apparently diverse but more or less related forms may be shewn to be deformations of a common type, by a simple application of the math­e­mat­i­cal theory of “Transformations,” which we shall have to study in a later chapter. In such a series as is furnished, for instance, by Gervillea, Perna, Avicula, Modiola, Mytilus, etc., a “simple shear” accounts for most, if not all, of the apparent differences.

Upon the surface of the bivalve shell we usually see with great clearness the “lines of growth” which represent the successive margins of the shell, or in other words the successive positions assumed during growth by the growing generating curve; and we have a good illustration, accordingly, of how it is char­ac­ter­is­tic of the generating curve that it should constantly increase, while never altering its geometric similarity.

Underlying these “lines of growth,” which are so char­ac­ter­is­tic of a molluscan shell (and of not a few other organic formations), there is, then, a “law of growth” which we may attempt to enquire into and which may be illustrated in various ways. The simplest cases are those in which we can study the lines of growth on a more or less flattened shell, such as the one valve of an oyster, a Pecten or a Tellina, or some such bivalve mollusc. Here around an origin, the so-called “umbo” of the shell, we have a series of curves, sometimes nearly circular, sometimes elliptical, and often asymmetrical; and such curves are obviously not “concentric,” though we are often apt to call them so, but are always “co-axial.” This manner of arrangement may be illustrated by various analogies. We might for instance compare it to a series of waves, radiating outwards from a point, through a medium which offered a resistance increasing, with the angle of divergence, according to some simple law. We may find another, and perhaps a simpler illustration as follows:

That is to say, all the balls reach the circumference of the circle at the same moment as the ball which drops vertically from A to C.

Where, then, as often happens, the generating curve of the shell is ap­prox­i­mate­ly a circle passing through the point of origin, we may consider the acceleration of growth along various radiants to be governed by a simple math­e­mat­i­cal law, closely akin to that simple law of acceleration which governs the movements of a falling body. And, mutatis mutandis, a similar definite law underlies the cases where the generating curve is continually elliptical, or where it assumes some more complex, but still regular and constant form.

It is easy to extend the proposition to the particular case where the lines of growth may be considered elliptical. In such a case we have x² ⁄ a² + y² ⁄ b² = 1, where a and b are the major and minor axes of the ellipse.

or, eliminating the sine-function,

Obviously, in the case when a = b, this gives us the circular system which we have already considered. For other values, or ratios, of a and b, and for all values of θ, we can easily construct a table, of which the following is a sample:

The coaxial ellipses which we then draw, from the values given in the table, are such as are shewn in Fig. 288 for the ratio a ⁄ b = 3 ⁄ 1, and in Fig. 289 for the ratio a ⁄ b = 1 ⁄ 2 ; these are fair ap­prox­i­ma­tions to the actual out­lines, and to the actual ar­range­ment of the lines of growth, in such forms as Sole­cur­tus or Cul­tel­lus, and in Tel­lina or Psam­mobia. It is not dif­ficult to intro­duce a cons­tant into our equa­tion to meet the case of a shell which is somewhat unsymmetrical on either side of the median axis. It is a somewhat more troublesome matter, however, to bring these con­fi­gur­a­tions into relation with a “law of growth,” as was so easily done in the case of the circular figure: in other words, to {565} formulate a law of acceleration according to which points starting from the origin O, and moving along radial lines, would all lie, at any future epoch, on an ellipse passing through O; and this calculation we need not enter into.

All that we are immediately concerned with is the simple fact that where a velocity, such as our rate of growth, varies with its direction,—varies that is to say as a function of the angular divergence from a certain axis,—then, in a certain simple case, we get lines of growth laid down as a system of coaxial circles, and, when the function is a more complex one, as a system of ellipses or of other more complicated coaxial figures, which figures may or may not be symmetrical on either side of the axis. Among our bivalve mollusca we shall find the lines of growth to be ap­prox­i­mate­ly circular in, for instance, Anomia; in Lima (e.g. L. subauriculata) we have a system of nearly symmetrical ellipses with the vertical axis about twice the transverse; in Solen pellucidus, we have again a system of lines of growth which are not far from being symmetrical ellipses, in which however the transverse is between three and four times as great as the vertical axis. In the great majority of cases, we have a similar phenomenon with the further complication of slight, but occasionally very considerable, lateral asymmetry.

In certain little Crustacea (of the genus Estheria) the carapace takes the form of a bivalve shell, closely simulating that of a {566} lamellibranchiate mollusc, and bearing lines of growth in all respects analogous to or even identical with those of the latter. The explanation is very curious and interesting. In ordinary Crustacea the carapace, like the rest of the chitinised and calcified integument, is shed off in successive moults, and is restored again as a whole. But in Estheria (and one or two other small crustacea) the moult is incomplete: the old carapace is retained, and the new, growing up underneath it, adheres to it like a lining, and projects beyond its edge: so that in course of time the margins of successive old carapaces appear as “lines of growth” upon the surface of the shell. In this mode of formation, then (but not in the usual one), we obtain a structure which “is partly old and partly new,” and whose successive increments are all similar, similarly situated, and enlarged in a continued progression. We have, in short, all the conditions appropriate and necessary for the development of a logarithmic spiral; and this logarithmic spiral (though it is one of small angle) gives its own character to the structure, and causes the little carapace to partake of the char­ac­ter­is­tic conformation of the molluscan shell.

The essential simplicity, as well as the great regularity of the “curves of growth” which result in the familiar con­fi­gur­a­tions of our bivalve shells, sufficiently explain, in a general way, the ease with which they may be imitated, as for instance in the so-called “artificial shells” which Kappers has produced from the conchoidal form and lamination of lumps of melted and quickly cooled paraffin528.

Among the bivalves the spiral angle (α) is very small in the flattened shells, such as Orthis, Lingula or Anomia. It is larger, as a rule, in the Lamellibranchs than in the Brachiopods, but in the latter it is of considerable magnitude among the Pentameri. Among the Lamellibranchs it is largest in such forms as Isocardia and Diceras, and in the very curious genus Caprinella; in all of these last-named genera its magnitude leads to the production of a spiral shell of several whorls, precisely as in the univalves. The angle is usually equal, but of opposite sign, in the two valves of the Lamellibranch, and usually of opposite sign but unequal in the two valves of the Brachiopod. It is very unequal in many Ostreidae, and especially in such forms as Gryphaea, or in Caprinella, which is a kind of exaggerated Gryphaea. Occasionally it is of the same sign in both valves (that is to say, both valves curve the same way) as we see sometimes in Anomia, and much better in Productus or Strophomena.

Owing to the large growth-factor of the generating curve, and the comparatively small angle of the spiral, the whole shell seldom assumes a spiral form so conspicuous as to manifest in a typical way the helical twist or shear which is so conspicuous in the {568} majority of univalves, or to let us measure or estimate the magnitude of the apical angle (θ) of the enveloping cone. This however we can do in forms like Isocardia and Diceras; while in Caprinella we see that the whorls lie in a plane perpendicular to the axis, forming a discoidal spire. As in the latter shell, so also universally among the Brachiopods, there is no lateral asymmetry in the plane of the generating curve such as to lead to the development of a helix; but in the majority of the Lamellibranchiata it is obvious, from the obliquity of the lines of growth, that the angle θ is significant in amount.

The so-called “spiral arms” of Spirifer and many other Brachiopods are not difficult to explain. They begin as a single structure, in the form

of a loop of shelly substance, attached to the dorsal valve of the shell, in the neighbourhood of the hinge. This loop has a curvature of its own, similar to but not necessarily identical with that of the valve to which it is attached; and this curvature will tend to be developed, by continuous and symmetrical growth, into a fully formed logarithmic spiral, so far as it is permitted to do so under the constraint of the shell in which it is contained. In various Terebratulae we see the spiral growth of the loop, more or less flattened and distorted by the restraining pressure of the ventral valve. In a number of cases the loop remains small, but gives off two nearly parallel branches or offshoots, which continue to grow. And these, starting with just such a slight curvature as the loop itself possessed, grow on and on till they may form close-wound spirals, always provided that the “spiral angle” of the curve is such that the resulting spire can be freely contained within the cavity of the shell. Owing to the bilateral symmetry of the whole system, the case will be rare, and unlikely to occur, in which each separate arm will coil strictly in a plane, so as to constitute a discoid spiral; for the original {569} direction of each of the two branches, parallel to the valve (or nearly so) and outwards from the middle line, will tend to constitute a curve of double curvature, and so, on further growth, to develop into a helicoid. This is what actually occurs, in the great majority of cases. But the curvature may be such that the helicoid grows outwards from the middle line, or inwards towards the middle line, a very slight difference in the initial curvature being sufficient to direct the spire the one way or the other; the middle course of an undeviating discoid spire will be rare, from the usual lack of any obvious controlling force to prevent its deviation. The cases in which the helicoid spires point towards, or point away from, the middle line are ascribed, in zoological clas­si­fi­ca­tion, to particular “families” of Brachiopods, the former condition defining

(or helping to define) the Atrypidae and the latter the Spiriferidae and Athyridae. It is obvious that the incipient curvature of the arms, and consequently the form and direction of the spirals, will be influenced by the surrounding pressures, and these in turn by the general shape of the shell. We shall expect, accordingly, to find the long outwardly directed spirals associated with shells which are transversely elongated, as Spirifer is; while the more rounded Atrypas will tend to the opposite condition. In a few cases, as in Cyrtina or Reticularia, where the shell is comparatively narrow but long, and where the uncoiled basal support of the arms is long also, the spiral coils into which the latter grow are turned backwards, in the direction where there is room for them. And in the few cases where the shell is very considerably flattened, the spirals (if they find room {570} to grow at all) will be constrained to do so in a discoid or nearly discoid fashion, and this is actually the case in such flattened forms as Koninckina or Thecidium.