Review of the Dual-Clock Control of Tidal Rhythms and the Hypothesis that the Same Clock Governs Both Circatidal and Circadian Rhythms

Abstract

Discoveries first published in 1986 did not fit the de rigueur working hypothesis that the clocks governing tide-associated rhythms had a fundamental period of 12.4 h, a value equal to the average interval between successive tides on most coastlines of the world. To explain the results a dual-clock schema was fashioned that envisioned two clocks, strongly coupled together 180° antiphase, each running at a basic rate of 24.8 h (the interval of a lunar day), as the driving agents of tide-associated rhythms (details are given in the text). This elaboration has been named the circalunidian-clock hypothesis, a hypocorism used in some armchair ruminations back in 1973. In the decade since 1986, a goodly amount of evidence has been garnered that is consistent with this hypothesis—suggesting that first-call divination appears to have been visionary. Acceptance of this hypothesis leads to further cerebration that a 24.8-h clock, its circa periods in constant conditions, and other properties—which fully overlap with our perception of the circadian clock that drives daily rhythms—may indicate that circadian and circalunidan timepieces are not different entities. The known properties of both daily and lunar clock-types are compared and contrasted, and, with the exception of one feature (for which there is at least a philosophical explanation), it is concluded that the same clock that drives tidal rhythms could also motor daily rhythms, i.e., there may be no such thing as a 12.4-h horologue.