|
|
MarBEF Data System |
|
|
|
|
WoRMS taxon details
original description
Örsted, A.S. (1843). Annulatorum danicorum conspectus. Auctore A.S. Örsted. Fasc. I. Maricolæ. (Quæstio ab universitate Hafniensi ad solvendum proposita et proemio ornata). , available online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/11849 page(s): 25 [details]
taxonomy source
Eklof, Jenny; Pleijel, Fredrik; Sundberg, Per. (2007). Phylogeny of benthic Phyllodocidae (Polychaeta) based on morphological and molecular data. <em>Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution.</em> 45(1): 261-271., available online at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1055790307001352 note: molecular classification [details]
additional source
Fauchald, K. (1977). The polychaete worms, definitions and keys to the orders, families and genera. <em>Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County: Los Angeles, CA (USA), Science Series.</em> 28:1-188., available online at http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/123110.pdf [details]
identification resource
Pleijel, F.; Dales, R.P. (1991). Polychaetes: British Phyllodocoideans, Typhloscolecoideans and Tomopteroideans: keys and notes for the identification of the species. <i>Synopses of the British fauna (new series)</i>, 45. U.B.S.; W. Backhuys: Oegstgeest, The Netherlands. ISBN 90-73348-12-9. vii, 202 pp. (look up in IMIS) page(s): 47 [details]
Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Classification Eklof et al (2007) found that "Few of the morphological characters traditionally used in phyllodocid taxonomy agree with the molecular results, and none of the major groupings (Phyllodocinae Orsted, 1843; Eteoninae Bergstrom, 1914 and Notophyllinae Pleijel, 1991) in the reclassification by Pleijel (1991) were present in our analyses. Notably, Notophyllinae has been well supported by morphology and was one of the few major groupings in common among the studies by Eibye-Jacobsen (1993), Orrhage and Eibye-Jacobsen (1998) and Kato and Pleijel (2003). In contrast, our results clearly shows this taxon to be non-monophyletic." Also "The genera Eulalia, Eumida, Protomystides, Pseudomystides, Pterocirrus and Sige form a well-supported group, as does Mystides and Nereiphylla. Another clade with strong support includes Eteone and Paranaitis, although with Eteone nested within a paraphyletic Paranaitis." [details]
|
|
|
|
|