 |
 |
MarBEF Data System |
 |
|
|
|
WoRMS taxon details
original description
Maas, O. (1903). Die scyphomedusen der Siboga-expedition. <em>Sigoga-Expeditie, 11: 1-91.</em> , available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2050838
page(s): 6-7 [details]
basis of record
Cornelius, P.F.S. (2001). Cubozoa, <B><I>in</I></B>: Costello, M.J. <i>et al.</i> (Ed.) (2001). <i>European register of marine species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. Collection Patrimoines Naturels,</i> 50: pp. 111 (look up in IMIS) [details]
additional source
Neave, Sheffield Airey. (1939-1996). Nomenclator Zoologicus vol. 1-10 Online. <em>[Online Nomenclator Zoologicus at Checklistbank. Ubio link has gone].</em> , available online at https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/126539/about [details]
 Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Translation Paraphyllinidae nov. fam.
Paraphyllina nov. gen.
Coronate medusa with 12 tentacles and 4 rhopalia between 16 marginal lobes. The rhopalia are perradial corresponding to the stomach corners, the 4, 3 tentacles inter-resp. adradial, corresponding to the stomach surfaces and filaments. With 8 ovoid gonads lying interradially in pairs. The rhopalia show, apart from the otolith sac and the ventral bulb on the latter, an ectodermal eye with crystalline lens and ectodermal pigment.
The general habitus of the medusa is more reminiscent of Nausithioe due to the flat curved umbrella, the short stomach tube, the colourlessness of the umbrella etc.: nevertheless, the form would be counted as Periphylla due to the characteristic division of the edge of the umbrella by 12 tentacles and 4 rhopalia, if a more precise examination did not reveal that these edge formations are just the opposite of the main radii of the body, as in Periphylla. Since this is not merely a question of the position of the gonads, which in coronates (see below p. 21) can be approached perradially or interradially, but really of two different "construction plans", which at least here justify the establishment of a new genus, a more precise examination of the earlier forms in this respect must first be carried out. It is hardly to be supposed that the earlier observers, Haeckel, Vanhöffen, Maas, would have been so consistently mistaken, and would have drawn not only one, but several organ systems lying in false radii; but as in former investigations there were often only very badly preserved specimens, especially with lacerated stomach, and as furthermore the position of the gonadal legs in relation to the rhopalia is not always given in agreement, it was dear to me to have new well-preserved material of the Siboga (s. p. 6) and the Siboga (s. p. 6). o. p. 6) and the Prince of Monaco to investigate the radius relationships.
In different species of Periphylla there was a complete agreement with each other as well as with the earlier data: the rhopalia and two gonads each lie interradially corresponding to the stomach surfaces and the tentacles perradially in the radius of the stomach edges and the supporting gelatinous pillars still evident in the subumbrella. In the differently oriented form presented here, a growth shift or a strain is ruled out, since we are dealing with two, completely regular specimens, which also belong to the best-conserved of the entire collection. So there are in fact two different possibilities of the distribution of the radii, both of which can be derived from Nausithoe, which has 8 tentacles and 8 rhopalia; in Periphylla the 4 perradial rhopalia have been replaced by tentacles, the interradial rhopalia have remained, in Paraphyllina it is the other way round. Paraphyllina also shows a greater resemblance to Nausithoe in the structure of the sensory body, especially in the presence of an ectodermal pigment eye with lens, as well as in the above-mentioned proportions of the umbrella and stomach, and is different from Periphylla.
The establishment of a special family "Paraphyllinidae", equivalent to the other families delimited by Vanhöffen among the Coronates (1902, p. 51) might be justified. However, one may not go further in the separation, despite the distribution of radii, which agrees with the Charybdeidae; the common derivation of nausithoids, and the typical coronate structure of the umbrella would speak against it. For the general relations of the acraspedes among each other, especially for the question of the octahedron or quadripartite of the umbrella, which according to Claus is important for the relations of the discomedusae to the ephyropsids and which have recently also been discussed by Kassianow (1901, p. 66), the present form appears to be of great importance and will be discussed elsewhere.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) [details]
|
|
|
|
|
