 |
 |
MarBEF Data System |
 |
|
|
|
WoRMS taxon details
original description
Hessle, Christian. (1917). Zur Kenntnis der terebellomorphen Polychaeten. <em>Zoologiska bidrag från Uppsala.</em> 5: 39-258, plates I-V., available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/38891407
page(s): 178-179 [details] 
taxonomy source
Jirkov, I.A. (2001). [Polychaeta of the Arctic Ocean] (In Russian) Polikhety severnogo Ledovitogo Okeana. Yanus-K Press, Moscow, 632 pp., available online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259865957_Jirkov_2001_Polychaeta_of_the_North_Polar_Basin
page(s): 508 [Neoamphitrite regarded as synonym of Amphitrite] [details] Available for editors  [request]
additional source
Hutchings, Patricia A.; Glasby, Christopher J. (1988). The Amphitritinae (Polychaeta: Terebellidae) from Australia. <em>Records of the Australian Museum.</em> 40(1): 1-60., available online at http://doi.org/10.3853/j.0067-1975.40.1988.150
page(s): 3; note: Include Neoamphitrite in Amphitrite [details] Available for editors [request]
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
page(s): 131; note: has Amphitrite affinis as type species [details]
additional source
Bellan, G. (2001). Polychaeta, <i>in</i>: Costello, M.J. <i>et al.</i> (Ed.) (2001). European register of marine species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. <em>Collection Patrimoines Naturels.</em> 50: 214-231. (look up in IMIS) [details]
status source
Holthe, T. (1986). Polychaeta Terebellomorpha. <em>Marine Invertebrates of Scandinavia.</em> 7: 1-192. (look up in IMIS)
page(s): 98 [details] Available for editors [request]
status source
Reuscher, Michael; Fiege, Dieter; Wehe, Thomas. (2011). Terebellomorph polychaetes from hydrothermal vents and cold seeps with the description of two new species of Terebellidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) representing the first records of the family from deep-sea vents. <em>Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom.</em> 92(5): 997-1012., available online at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315411000658
page(s): 1002; note: continues as valid, emends diagnosis [details] Available for editors [request]
status source
Stiller, Josefin; Tilic, Ekin; Rousset, Vincent; Pleijel, Fredrick; Rouse, Greg W. (2020). Spaghetti to a tree: A robust phylogeny for Terebelliformia (Annelida) based on transcriptomes, molecular and morphological Data. <em>Biology.</em> 9(4): 73 [29 pp. + supplementary material]., available online at https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9040073
note: molecular data on two Neoamphitrite species, but apparently without including molecular data on Amphitrite [details] Available for editors [request]
status source
Choi, Hyun Ki; Kim, Hana; Yoon, Seong Myeong. (2020). <em>Neoamphitrite undevigintipes</em>, a new terebellid species from South Korea (Annelida, Terebellida, Terebellidae). <em>ZooKeys.</em> 943: 41-51., available online at https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/48760/list/6/
note: Molecular data to validate Neoamphitrite as a clade separate from Amphitrite [details] Available for editors [request]
status source
Jirkov, Igor A. (2020). Review of the European Amphitrite (Polychaeta: Terebellidae) with description of two new species. <em>Invertebrate Zoology.</em> 17(4): 311-360., available online at https://kmkjournals.com/journals/Inv_Zool/IZ_Index_Volumes/IZ_17/IZ_17_4_311_360
page(s): 346; note: discussion on the status of Neoamphitrite [details]
 Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Classification Neoamphitrite was included in tribe Terebellini by Stiller et al (2020). Previously Holthe (1986) had placed it in tribe Amphitritini. At the time its parent subfamily was Amphitritinae, the name incorrectly used for what is now Terebellinae. [details]
Diagnosis (fide Reuscher et al, 2012) "3 pairs of dichotomous branchiae with pronounced stems in segments II–IV. Lateral lobes usually present. Nephridial papillae in segment III only or extending for a variable number of segments. Thorax with 15–39 pairs of notopodia starting in segment IV, and 14–38 uncinigerous neuropodia starting in segment V. Capillary chaetae distally hirsute. Uncini avicular, arranged in double rows in posterior thorax and, occasionally in anterior abdomen." [details]
Etymology Not stated in the original description. The name of the genus is composed by the prefix of Greek origin neo-, meaning 'new', followed by the name of the genus Amphitrite Müller, 1771, presumably referring to the similarity between the two genera. [details]
Original description Original description by Hessle (1917: 178-179): "Drei (selten zwei?) Paar Kiemen. Die Kiemen haben einen deutlichen Stamm und sind reich verzweigt. Die vorderen Segmente sind mit Seitenlappen versehen. Die Haarborsten beginnen am vierten Segment. Die Haarborstenspitzen sind gesägt. Die Hakenborstenchsetopodien beginnen am fünften Segment. Das Basalstück der Hakenborsten ist verhältnismässig klein, der zahntragende Teil dagegen hoch. Sowohl vordere wie hintere Nephridien sind entwickelt. Die vorderen Nephridien haben bedeutend längere Schenkel als die hinteren. Sämtliche Nephridien sind frei von einander. Auch im fünften Segment sind Nephridien entwickelt." [details]
Synonymy The usage of some authors (eg Hutchings & Glasby 1988; Jirkov, 2001, Jirkov, 2020) is that Neoamphitrite Hessle, 1917, founded chiefly on Amphitrite affinis Malmgren, 1866 (first listed), and also five other species, N. grayi, N. groenlandica, N. ramosissima, N. figulus, and N. vigintipes, is not distinct from Amphitrite. According to Jirkov (2020: 347) the following authors regard Neoamphitrite as a junior synonym: Fauvel, 1927; Pettibone, 1954; Imajima & Hartman, 1964; Day, 1967; Hutchings & Glasby, 1988; Hutchings et al., 2017 Handbook Zoology). However, Neoamphitrite is maintained as distinct here as modern reports have continued to describe new Neoamphitrite species. Authors supporting Neoamphitrite as valid include Hilbig 2000; Londoño-Mesa and Carrera-Parra 2005; Reuscher et al. 2012; Stiller et al 2020. Choi et al 2020. In particular Choi et al. (2020) present molecular data showing three Neoamphitrite species are in a separate clade from several similar molecular records for Amphitrite cirrata. Stiller et al (2020) used Neoamphitrite, but the two species included were not monophyletic together. Molecular testing of more species of Neoamphitrite and Amphitrite is needed to determine the relationship of the two genera. Subsequently Bick & Zettler (2024: 44), without presenting any molecular data or other justification, in an article making only passing reference to Neoamphitrite, state that they follow "the views of Hutchings et al. (2021b) and Lavesque et al. (2021) who proposed [...] a synonymisation of Neoamphitrite with Amphitrite." [details]
Taxonomy Neoamphitrite differs from Amphitrite in "dichotomous rather than filiform branchiae, the number of nephridia is higher, and the nephridial tubes are free rather than fused." (Reuscher et al. 2012).
Hutchings & Glasby (1988) discussed the difference between Neoamphitrite and Amphitrite: "The two genera can be differentiated, according to Hessle, by the form of the nephridia and the form of the branchiae, which in Neoamphitrite are richly branched with a distinct stalk and in Amphitrite, filiform with a very reduced stalk. We believe that these two types of branchiae are not sufficiently different to constitute a good generic character. For example, the length of the branchial stem is quite variable within and between specimens in our material, with the larger specimens often having a better developed stem. In addition some species such as Amphitrite robusta Johnson, 1901 have branchiae which are intermediate between those of Amphitrite sensu stricto and those of Neoamphitrite. The other distinguishing character used by Hessle is the form of the nephridia which he used as a generic character to separate terebellid genera. […]The majority of workers since Hessle (1917) have ignored the segmental affinities of the nephridia and most diagnoses of terebellids genera described since 1917 lack details of these structures." [details]
Type designation The modern consensus appears to be that Amphitrite affinis Malmgren, 1866 is the type species, although other species have been (subsequently) designated over the years. Hessle (1917: 179) recombined six terebellid species into his new genus Neoamphitrite, giving descriptions of them, then he listed a further 12 species names which he thought probably ("wahrscheinlich") belonged in Neoamphitrite, although he did not give recombined names for the further 12. He did not state a type species, but he listed Amphitrite affinis first. Uschakov (1955: 392) gives the type species as ‘Neoamphitrite variabilis' (Risso, 1826) [original name Terebella variabilis, and one of the 12 extra names listed by Hessle as probable Neoamphitrite]. This may be the first subsequent designation, but the species is currently in Amphitrite. This does not rule it out as type species, but in practice enforcing the designation by Uschakov may be destabilising or counterproductive. Next, for reasons unknown (possibly because it was a N. American species), the Hartman catalogue (1959: 511) listed Amphitrite robusta Johnson as the type species. However, this is also one of the species names only mentioned in passing as probable Neoamphitrite members by Hessle. Fauchald (1977: 131) has Amphitrite affinis as type. Holthe (1986) in a work on the Terebellomorpha of Scandinavia also gives Amphitrite robusta as type, citing designation by the Hartman catalogue. However, Holthe in his own catalogue (1986: 136) listed Amphitrite affinis as type species. Hilbig (2000: 260, Santa Barbara Atlas) and Nogueira et al (2013) used Neoamphitrite affinis [originally in Amphitrite] as the type. Finally Choi et al (2020) state that the type of N. affinis was "subsequently designated by Hessle (1917)" but this is clearly an error, as that article is the original description.
Support for Amphitrite affinis as type comes from an interpretation of the Code that the "probable" Neoamphitrite species listed by Hessle (1917) cannot qualify as eligible candidates for the type as strictly they were not originally included in his new genus, whereas the six described were included (only species included when the genus is named are eligible), . Article 67.2.5 states "A nominal species is deemed not to be originally included if it was doubtfully or conditionally included." Hessle's "probably" in his heading, and his different treatment of the names, clearly indicated uncertainty (likely membership, but a less than 100% probability) about the generic assignment of the 12. Thus Amphitrite robusta and Terebella variabilis are ruled out for type eligibility. [details]
Type species Amphitrite affinis. The modern consensus appears to be that Amphitrite affinis Malmgren, 1866 is the type species, and this is supported by Code article 67.2.5 which rules out as candidates a group of species only mentioned with lesser status as probable Neoamphitrite by Hessle in 1917. See the note on type designation. [details]
|
|
|
|
|
