21 singlv 1 ; y . c ~ of
oystm- (Irawostreo g i p s l'liinnberg. The tumour was dorsal to the
rwt,urn and had u yedicle. The tumour cvneisted of Leydig cells covered
by t t luycr of t d l colurnnur ciliatcd epithelium. The presence of blood
vcmels was n o t d and aii incrcased number of collagenous fibres were
found just beneath the epithelium. The cellular picture wus similar to
that described by Smith a d Ryctcr. There was also some evidence of
lymphocytiv infiltration. These tumours, all of which presented similar
histologicol cliitraoteristics, still present H. diagnostic problem. They
iilso servc to illustrst,e o w lack of knowledge of marine invertebrates
in their rrsponsse, if at, all tliffercnt, from that of vertebrates, tjo trauma,
infection or nwplasitt. Taylor and Smith ( 1 966) noted polypoid end
papillary lesions on the foot of the Wwhington clam Tresus (9hizothnerus) rr.utc'aZi ((loiirad, 1837).
0 1 1 microscopical exurnination 21 simplo papillary tumour was seen
assooitited with a markcd infl;rmniatory response. An inflammatory
respotis(', ;is poiiitct? out by L'aul(*y ( I 969), can indicate a reparative
procc*ss i w woll it8 an iriflammatory one. In all probability, both occur
(wncurren tly ILS often seen in the higher vertebrates. In this instance
there was a suggestion of bacterial involvement although the evidence
was far from i~ondusive as to whether it wus due to pathogens or not.
T'irnley and Sayoe ( 1 867), in an interesting paper on some non-neoplastic
(widitions in oysters, mentioned the presence of a tumour mass in an
abnormal adductor muscle. The fumour was growing from the abnormal
anterior p r t of the muscle and was thought' to be the first tumour
reportled mising from rtn adductor muscle. Katkansky ( 1968) described
titi intestitid triinour it1 the European flat oyster, O&ea eduZi.9, but the
photogrtkphs S~IOH'I~ do not indjritte miything more than some epithelial
hyprrplnsiti, possiil)ly a poI.yp, and should not be considered to represent
true ticoplusm utihbss furthcbr evidenw crtn be produced (Fig. 1 ). Pauley
trnd S;~yt.c (1968) notled ii benigrl fibrous tumour. the aetiology of which
WIM unrertaiii. ;ind suggestodeither i k myog:cnic or gonadal aetiology, thc
lilt ter bring thtb more likely of the two. 'I'here is such a paucity of informntiori on tho rcsponsr of invortehratcs to noxious agents that it is
virtually irnj)ossiblc to make a definite diagnosis. Sparks el d. (I!jti!j)
dcsvrihetl ttnot hcr mesenchymal tumour. but i t s histologid features
W(VY extt.(~ttlcd!~ cwriftlsilig and, whilc on(' ('iLri ibgrr'c' that it W R ' ~ a turnour,
t l i c w is litt 11. o t i ( 1 (*:tii ; ~ t l t l to t h c ;dwti(iy vorlf'lisirtg hi~t(rlogi~i~I patterns
piwetit ivi.
It wiis t t o t u t i t i l I!)(i8 thiit i k l i x ;Lttihi))i)t IVZIS m;itIc. t o t1.v t o c*ollt.c*t
tlicw isoli1tc.d ('~LSPS togptliw tm(l to ( * o t i v r i i ( ~
ii n1(,rtirig to clis(*lrxs the
oystm- (Irawostreo g i p s l'liinnberg. The tumour was dorsal to the
rwt,urn and had u yedicle. The tumour cvneisted of Leydig cells covered
by t t luycr of t d l colurnnur ciliatcd epithelium. The presence of blood
vcmels was n o t d and aii incrcased number of collagenous fibres were
found just beneath the epithelium. The cellular picture wus similar to
that described by Smith a d Ryctcr. There was also some evidence of
lymphocytiv infiltration. These tumours, all of which presented similar
histologicol cliitraoteristics, still present H. diagnostic problem. They
iilso servc to illustrst,e o w lack of knowledge of marine invertebrates
in their rrsponsse, if at, all tliffercnt, from that of vertebrates, tjo trauma,
infection or nwplasitt. Taylor and Smith ( 1 966) noted polypoid end
papillary lesions on the foot of the Wwhington clam Tresus (9hizothnerus) rr.utc'aZi ((loiirad, 1837).
0 1 1 microscopical exurnination 21 simplo papillary tumour was seen
assooitited with a markcd infl;rmniatory response. An inflammatory
respotis(', ;is poiiitct? out by L'aul(*y ( I 969), can indicate a reparative
procc*ss i w woll it8 an iriflammatory one. In all probability, both occur
(wncurren tly ILS often seen in the higher vertebrates. In this instance
there was a suggestion of bacterial involvement although the evidence
was far from i~ondusive as to whether it wus due to pathogens or not.
T'irnley and Sayoe ( 1 867), in an interesting paper on some non-neoplastic
(widitions in oysters, mentioned the presence of a tumour mass in an
abnormal adductor muscle. The fumour was growing from the abnormal
anterior p r t of the muscle and was thought' to be the first tumour
reportled mising from rtn adductor muscle. Katkansky ( 1968) described
titi intestitid triinour it1 the European flat oyster, O&ea eduZi.9, but the
photogrtkphs S~IOH'I~ do not indjritte miything more than some epithelial
hyprrplnsiti, possiil)ly a poI.yp, and should not be considered to represent
true ticoplusm utihbss furthcbr evidenw crtn be produced (Fig. 1 ). Pauley
trnd S;~yt.c (1968) notled ii benigrl fibrous tumour. the aetiology of which
WIM unrertaiii. ;ind suggestodeither i k myog:cnic or gonadal aetiology, thc
lilt ter bring thtb more likely of the two. 'I'here is such a paucity of informntiori on tho rcsponsr of invortehratcs to noxious agents that it is
virtually irnj)ossiblc to make a definite diagnosis. Sparks el d. (I!jti!j)
dcsvrihetl ttnot hcr mesenchymal tumour. but i t s histologid features
W(VY extt.(~ttlcd!~ cwriftlsilig and, whilc on(' ('iLri ibgrr'c' that it W R ' ~ a turnour,
t l i c w is litt 11. o t i ( 1 (*:tii ; ~ t l t l to t h c ;dwti(iy vorlf'lisirtg hi~t(rlogi~i~I patterns
piwetit ivi.
It wiis t t o t u t i t i l I!)(i8 thiit i k l i x ;Lttihi))i)t IVZIS m;itIc. t o t1.v t o c*ollt.c*t
tlicw isoli1tc.d ('~LSPS togptliw tm(l to ( * o t i v r i i ( ~
ii n1(,rtirig to clis(*lrxs the