 |
 |
MarBEF Data System |
 |
|
|
|
WoRMS taxon details
original description
Macalister, Alexander. (1876). An introduction to animal morphology and systematic zoology. Part 1.—Invertebrata. <em>[book].</em> 462 pp. Longmans Green, London., available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/19631832
page(s): 155, 161, 162; note: two mentions of Dinophilidae, one of Dinophilus, and the group is placed as a member of Rhabdocoela in Platyhelminthes. [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]
additional source
Remane, A. (1925 (1926 volume)). Diagnosen neuer Archianneliden. <em>Zoologischer Anzeiger.</em> 65(1): 15-17. [details] Available for editors  [request]
additional source
Westheide, W.; Riser, N. W. (1983). Morphology and phylogenetic relationships of the neotenic interstitial polychaete Apodotrocha progenerans n.gen., n.sp. (Annelida). <i>Zoomorphology</i>. 103(2): 67-87., available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00312239
note: affinities to both Dorvilleidae and Dinophilidae [details] Available for editors [request]
additional source
Shearer, Cressell. (1912). The problem of sex-determination in Dinophilus gyrociliatus. The sexual cycle. <em>Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, London.</em> 57(227): 329-371, 5 figures, plates 30-34., available online at http://jcs.biologists.org/content/s2-57/227/329
page(s): 336; note: biology reviewed. Also splits Dinophilus by introducing the groups Leucodinophilidae, and Erythrodinophilidae, but these are unworkable categories below genus. [details]
additional source
Westheide, W. (1990). Polychaetes: interstitial families: keys and notes for the identification of the species. Synopses of the British fauna (New Series), 44. Universal Book Services/Universal Book Services/Backhuys/W. Backhuys: Oegstgeest. ISBN 90-73348-08-0. VII, 152 pp. (look up in IMIS) [details]
status source
Struck, Torsten H., Halanych, Kenneth M. and Purschke, Guenter 2005. Dinophilidae (Annelida) is most likely not a progenetic Eunicida: evidence from 18S and 28S rDNA. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37(2): 619-623., available online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2005.07.010 [details]
status source
Westheide, Wilfried 1985. The systematic position of the Dinophilidae and the archiannelid problem, in S. Conway Morris, J.D. George, R. Gibson and H.M. Platt eds., The origins and relationships of lower invertebrates. The Systematics Association Special Volume 28: Oxford, Clarendon Press, p. 310-326. [details]
status source
Graff, L., von. (1882). Monographie der Turbellarien 1. Rhabdocoelida. <em>[Book].</em> 1-442, Verlag Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig., available online at https://books.google.com/books/about/Monographie_der_Turbellarien.html?id=LT0hAQAAMAAJ
page(s): 1 (introduction); note: states that Dinophilus is not a turbellarien, and is probably an annelid or rotatarien [details] 
status source
Carus, J.V. (1885). Prodromus Faunae Mediterraneae sive Descriptio Animalium maris Mediterranei incolarum quam comparata silva rerum quatenus innotiut adiectis et nominibus vulgaribus eorumque auctoribus in commodum zoologorum. Vol. I. Coelenterata, Echinodermata, Vermes, Arthropoda. [Prodrome of the Mediterranean Fauna, or a Description of the Animals of the Inhabitants of the Mediterranean Sea, as compared with a forest of things as far as unknown, with additions and common names and their authors for the benefit of zoologists. Vol. I. Coelenterata, Echinodermata, Worms, Arthropoda]. <em>E. Schweizerbartsche Verlagshandlung E. Koch, Stuttgart, i-xi, 1-525. pp.</em> (Copepoda pp. 318-378), (Annelida pp. 196-281), (Kinorhyncha pp. 184-185)., available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12560479
page(s): 168; note: has Dinophilidae in nemerteans and with authorship credited to von Graff (no date). No such usages have been found in Graff articles. [details]
status source
Eibye-Jacobsen, Danny; Kristensen, Reinhardt Møbjerg. (1994). A new genus and species of Dorvilleidae (Annelida, Polychaeta) from Bermuda, with a phylogenetic analysis of Dorvilleidae, Iphitimidae and Dinophilidae. <em>Zoologica Scripta.</em> 23(3): 107-131., available online at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6409.1994.tb00379.x [details] Available for editors [request]
status source
Martín-Durán, José M.; Vellutini, Bruno C.; Marlétaz, Ferdinand; Cetrangolo, Viviana; Cvetesic, Nevena; Thiel, Daniel; Henriet, Simon; Grau-Bové, Xavier; Carrillo-Baltodano, Allan M.; Gu, Wenjia; Kerbl, Alexandra; Marquez, Yamile; Bekkouche, Nicolas; Chourrout, Daniel; Gómez-Skarmeta, Jose Luis; Irimia, Manuel; Lenhard, Boris; Worsaae, Katrine; Hejnol, Andreas. (2020). Conservative route to genome compaction in a miniature annelid. <em>Nature Ecology & Evolution.</em> , available online at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01327-6
page(s): 2; note: Place Dinophilidae in a non-Linnaean clade "we name Dinophiliformia that is sister to Errantia and Sedentaria" [details]
From editor or global species database
Authority The assignment of author for Dinophilidae has been uncertain and still is, with at least four authors used in print, namely Schultz, von Graff, Verriill, and Remane. However, relevant works for the first two suggestions (Schultz & von Graff) cannot be found, and the earliest verifiable usages of Dinophilidae for genus Dinophilus are Macalister (1876) and Carus (1885). The most modern author is Remane, in respect to his articles published in 1925 or 1932. He was regarded as the author in influential reviews (e.g., Fauchald 1977, Fauchald & Rouse 1997), but there were much earlier usages than Remane. Fauvel (1927) and Hartman (catalogue 1959) both assigned the authority to a person named only as 'Schultz', with Fauvel giving no date, and Hartman giving a date of 1852 for the authorship. However, no relevant article by a Schultz writing in 1852 can yet be found (including not in the Royal Society Catalogue of papers), although there is an article of 1902 by a Schultz on a Dinophilus. However, it does not mention Dinophilidae, and in addition Dinophilidae was used decades before that time. However, Hartmann-Schröder (1996: 287) attributed Dinophilidae to Schultz, 1902. Fifty years earlier Max Schultze (with an 'e') wrote a 1851 turbellaria article which mentions Dinophilus on three of its pages, but the mentions are incidental, and there is no mention of Dinophilidae. His other 1850's articles do not mention Dinophilidae. Verrill (1892) wrote a short article on the Dinophilidae of New England (Dinophilidae in the title), and recently he has been credited with authorship of the family in Westheide (2008: 128) and Kerbl et al (2018: 1, 2). However, there are earlier usages. Macaliister (1876) "An introduction to animal morphology and systematic zoology" includes Dinophilidae as a member of Rhabdocoela in Platyhelminthes. Carus (1885: 168) "Prodromus Faunae Mediterraneae ..." has Dinophilidae in nemerteans and with authorship credited to von Graff (no date). No such usages have been found in von Graff articles. Graff (1882), in a Turbellaria monograph, mentions Dinophilus (is not a turbellarian) but does not use Dinophilidae. Possibly the earliest user of 'Dinophilidae' is yet to be found. However, as Macalister (1876) is the earliest authenticated author/user his name is used here, and more importantly the first date for Dinophilidae is at least 1876. Macalister's contemporaries around 1876 are unaware that a family for Dinophilus exists, and were more interested in the possible relationships of the genus, so the Macalister designation appears likely original, not copied, although his stated sources in his introduction are well-known biologists of the time. Poor verification of previous author's claims, and incomplete citations, have unnecessarily confused the history of this name. The multiple phyla involved in the history also add to the difficulty of tracking usages [G. Read, June 2018] [details]
Classification The early history of Dinophilus placed the taxon in Turbellarians, then nemerteans, before consensus on their annelid nature was reached. it was von Graff (1882 introduction) who removed Dinophilus from Turbellaria. He wrote (in translation): "I have examined Dinophilus in Naples, Trieste, Ostend, and Millport, and have come to the conclusion that we are much more concerned with a rotatoria or annelid-like being than with a turbellaria. The structure of the intestinal canal and the sexual organs, but above all the pronounced formation of metamorphosis distinguish Dinophilus very clearly from the Turbellaria."
In the most recent past Dinophilidae were placed for a time into or close-to Dorvilleidae (although Dinophilidae would be the senior name), but molecular evidence subsequently could not confirm they belonged in the Eunicida group. Struck et al (2015) found they placed next to Orbiniidae in Sedentaria (quote: "Nerillidae, Dinophilidae, Diurodrilidae, and Apharyngtus are closely related (with strong nodal support) to Orbiniidae and Parergodrilidae in our analyses."). Martín-Durán et al. (2020: p.2) placed "Lobatocerebrum sp." Dinophilus gyrociliatus and Dinophilus vorticoides together with Trilobodrilus axi, "in a clade we name Dinophiliformia that is sister to Errantia and Sedentaria" No linnaean rank is given for the clade but Errantia and Sedentaria are usually Annelida subclasses, whereas a '-formia' name is usually an order. [details]
Publication date The first date for Dinophilidae is at least 1876, and it has been claimed to be 1852 by Hartman (1959: 613), but this seems unlikely. It is not as late as 1892 as when used by Verrill. [details]
Synonymy As noted by Hartman catalogue (1959:613) Shearer (1912: 336) introduced the groups Leucodinophilidae, and Erythrodinophilidae, which have the form of family names, although he intended the names for two groups within Dinophilus genus. This is bizarre, and they cannot be family names or subfamily names, or tribes, without creating an additional genus to reassign species to. Within a genus they could only be subgenera. As the genus type species was in the Erythrodinophilidae this name would be superfluous as a subgenus as Dinophilus is the nominal subgenus. The nomenclature is unresolvable and these pseudo-family-names are not given records in WoRMS. Shearer does not mention Dinophilidae itself, although he is aware of the family name as he cites Verrill (1892) which had Dinophilidae in the title. [details]
|
|
|
|
|
