Home Journals Articles Updates About
CN
image
收藏切换
Re-evaluation of Rostraria bierii Tokioka, 1970 (Annelida) from Seto, Japan as a magelonid, with a review of the Magelonidae of the western Pacific
收藏切换
PDF
Mortimer Kate1, *, Mills Kimberley1, 2, Gil João3
Acta Oceanologica Sinica | 2022, 41(3) : 61 - 69
Less
收藏切换
Acta Oceanologica Sinica | 2022, 41(3): 61-69
• Marine Biology •
Re-evaluation of Rostraria bierii Tokioka, 1970 (Annelida) from Seto, Japan as a magelonid, with a review of the Magelonidae of the western Pacific
Full
Mortimer Kate1, *, Mills Kimberley1, 2, Gil João3
Affiliations
  • 1 Department of Natural Sciences, Amgueddfa Cymru-National Museum Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NP, Wales, UK
  • 2 School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, Wales, UK
  • 3 Centre of Marine Sciences (CCMAR), University of Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, Faro 8005-139, Portugal
Published: 2022-03-25 doi: 10.1007/s13131-021-1824-0
Outline
收藏切换

The identity of Rostraria bierii, originally described as a larval amphinomid from Cape Setozaki, Pacific coast of Japan, is investigated. Based on the original description and illustrations, reinterpretations conclude the “larva” to represent a partial juvenile or adult magelonid specimen, broken after the first chaetiger. The original figures are compared with several known magelonid species to justify the new placement. The authors suggest the supposed amphinomid larva is a Magelonidae taxon inquirendum. The identity of the species is discussed in line with the current knowledge of the Magelonidae in the western Pacific and a key to all known species within the region is provided to aid identifications. Current gaps in our taxonomic knowledge of the Magelonidae of the western Pacific are highlighted and discussed.

Polychaeta  /  Amphinomida  /  Magelonidae  /  Magelona  /  Octomagelona  /  western Pacific  /  identification key  /  Cape Setozaki
Mortimer Kate, Mills Kimberley, Gil João. Re-evaluation of Rostraria bierii Tokioka, 1970 (Annelida) from Seto, Japan as a magelonid, with a review of the Magelonidae of the western Pacific[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2022 , 41 (3) : 61 -69 . DOI: 10.1007/s13131-021-1824-0
Full Text
Less
1 Introduction
Less
Rostraria (Annelida) is a name originally coined by Häcker (1898) to include four planktonic larval forms collected in the Atlantic open sea. These forms were characterized by two long, folded palps or tentacles (of approximate length as the body, or greater), two anterior bundles of capillary setae (up to three or four times the length of the body), and an anterior conical region in the form of a hood, supporting the palps dorsally (Häcker, 1898; Bhaud, 1972). The forms were provisionally named as R. biremis, R. galeata, R. oxyrhina, and R. platyrhina by Häcker (1898), and whilst the provisional nature of the names was highlighted, the justification for their description was to enable future recognition and the identification of the adult counterparts.
The number of Rostraria forms was later increased by Ehlers (1913), who added R. carunculata, another Atlantic open sea form identified by the author as the larval stage of Hermodice carunculata (Pallas, 1766), and subsequently by Tokioka (1970), who described and named (albeit provisionally “for convenience sake”) R. bierii, a coastal form from Japan.
Bhaud (1972) partially added to the chronology of the group, including two additional forms described by Häcker based on larvae from two coastal locations in West Africa (Liberia and Benin). According to Bhaud (1972) these two forms were named R. irmingensis and R. filamentosa, but no further information concerning these names can be found in Häcker (1898). It is conceivable they were suggested by Bhaud (1972), although it is not stated to which of the forms each of the names should apply. It is possible that R. filamentosa was intended for the Beninese form, characterized by Häcker (1898) by the remarkably long capillary chaetae of the first chaetiger, but this is uncertain.
The suprageneric assignment of the group was discussed by Häcker (1898), who pointed at similarities between these larval forms and the Amphinomidae Lamarck, 1818 (which at that time included the Euphrosinidae Lamarck, 1818), but they were finally placed provisionally under the Trochochaetidae Pettibone, 1963 (as Disomidae Mesnil, 1897), following Saint-Joseph’s comments in litteris, who noted resemblances and a possible systematic connection between the two families.
Ehlers (1913) was the first to place Rostraria in the Amphinomidae, while identifying R. carunculata as the larval form of H. carunculata. Hannerz (1956) further supported this opinion based on his own observations, placing Rostraria larva in the Amphinomidae or Euphrosinidae, a placement additionally reinforced by Mileikovsky (1960, 1961), Sveshnikov and Wen-Jen (1963) and Bhaud (1967, 1972). While these latter authors were able to link some of their Rostraria larvae with adult species in Amphinomidae and Euphrosinidae, the specific identity of the forms previously described by Häcker (1898) and Ehlers (1913) has remained indeterminable or uncertain.
Current investigations shed doubt on the inclusion of R. bierii within either the Amphinomidae or Euphrosinidae. The form was described from a single specimen collected in 1966 south of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory from a 50 m deep sandy seabed, about 1.2 km off Cape Setozaki, Japan (around 33.67°N, 135.31°E), using a Dragonet trawl specially designed to study the meio-epibenthos (Bieri and Tokioka, 1968). The authors stipulated that the sample was contaminated with upper water during the drawing up of the trawl net and thus the exact depth at which the specimen was collected could not be determined (i.e., whether it was epibenthic or planktonic). Tokioka (1970) determined the specimen as a larval polychaete, and although suggested some similarities with the Spionidae, stated that it belonged to the amphinomid Rostraria based on “the very slow development of segments and parapodia and a strongly coiled state of contracted tentacles, caused by uneven distribution of muscles in them, together with a prominent forward stretch of the prostomium and the existence of a pair of bundles of filamentous setae on the first segment”.
Rostraria bierii has remained overlooked by most authors, with its description briefly cited only three times since the original publication (Schroeder and Hermans, 1975; Rouse, 1999; Omel’yanenko and Kulikova, 2002). During editorial work on the systematics of the Amphinomidae, the original description of R. bierii was analysed, with one of the authors of the current paper highlighting the unlikeness of the type specimen to be an amphinomid. Consequently, further investigations into the original description and drawings of R. bierii have been made, and the morphology of the form reinterpreted. The new identification is discussed in relation to known species within the same region and a complete review of the taxonomic status is made.
2 Materials and methods
Less
The Inventory of Zoological Type Specimens in the Museum of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory (Harada, 1991) was examined in order to locate possible type material of R. bierii. Unfortunately, the specimen is not present for verification; however, the photograph and images in Tokioka (1970) provide sufficient information for reinterpretation of the specimen. Plasticine models based on the original drawings were additionally produced to supplement reinterpretation (particularly in relation to palp insertion), enabling evaluation from dorsal, ventral and lateral views. Structures observed for R. bierii were compared to those known from larval and adult magelonid specimens from Amgueddfa Cymru-National Museum Wales collections and other species previously studied by the authors.
Images of fluid preserved magelonid specimens (for comparison with R. bierii) were taken using a Canon EOS 80D 24MP DSLR camera attached to a Leica Z6 macroscope with trinocular head and stacked using HeliconFocus v6.22 (HeliconSoft Ltd) extended depth of field software, with calibrated scale bars added using Adobe Photoshop v.20.0.5. An image of a live Magelona johnstoni Fiege et al. (2000) animal (relaxed, MgCl2, Andrew Mackie) was taken with a DSLR camera (Canon EOS 77D, Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x macro lens with Canon Speedlite 580EX II flash), utilising live view (EOS utility 3). Scanning Electron Microscopy images were taken using a Jeol Neoscope JCM–5000 SEM following preparation of specimens as noted in Mortimer et al. (2020).
A literature search of magelonid records from the western Pacific was made in order to assess the current state of taxonomic knowledge within the region.
3 Results
Less
Reinterpretation of R. bierii:
Rostraria bierii Tokioka, 1970: 276−278, Fig. 1, Figs 2A and B (Figs 1 and 2, Table 1).
Based on the presence of ventrally inserted paired palps, a shovel-shaped prostomium, a trilobed buccal region on the ventral side of the prostomium, and an oval to heart-shaped burrowing organ (previously termed the proboscis), it is suggested that R. bierii represents a magelonid and not an amphinomid. The evidence for its inclusion in the Magelonidae is presented below and a table comparing terminology applied by Tokioka (1970) with the corresponding structures as seen in magelonids is given (Table 1). In fact, Tokioka (1970) himself highlighted the similarities with the Spionidae, a family long considered to be related to the Magelonidae (although the latter group is presently suggested to be part of the Palaeoannelida Weigert and Bleidorn, 2016 alongside the Oweniidae).
Tokioka (1970) described the head or prostomium as “hood-shaped in outline, very flattened, faintly concave ventrally”. This shape is extremely characteristic of the shovel-shaped prostomia of magelonids, which in several species curve around the bases of the palps, as is suggested in Tokioka’s original description. The prostomium carries a distinct line around the edge (Figs 1 and 2), which is present in all magelonid species (Figs 3a–d). The “pair of retractor muscles” represent the dorsal prostomial ridges, which in magelonids are always present, either as one or two pairs depending on species, although one pair of prostomial ridges is more common in the larger, stouter “Magelona cincta” group of species (Mortimer et al., 2020). Tokioka’s Fig. 2B shows a “nototroch” at the base of the prostomium. Comparison of his Fig. 1 with images of Magelona specimens (e.g., Fig. 3b) reveals this to be the base of the prostomial ridges and not dorsal ciliary bands as suggested.
Tokioka described the tentacles as “inserted very near, slightly anterior to, the middle of the body” although did not allude to whether they are inserted dorsally, ventrally or laterally. His drawings further complicate the interpretation since they look almost dorso-laterally inserted. However, in his photograph (Fig. 1), they are shown to be ventrally inserted, behind the prostomium (more noticeable on the right-hand side). It is conceivable that his drawings of palp insertion were influenced heavily by his belief that the specimen represented an amphinomid larva, which would be expected to have dorsally inserted palps. However, they are indeed ventrally inserted on either side of the buccal region, characteristic of those seen in the Magelonidae. Although no obvious papillae can be observed on the palps (a unique characteristic of magelonids), the short stumps are representative of the non-papillated region seen in all magelonid species. This region is often wrinkled in appearance (Figs 3d–h) and is what Tokioka describes as having a “surface with clear marks of coiling”. The size of this region does vary greatly between magelonid species and can depend on the level of contraction upon preservation. However, the size of the non-papillated region for R. bierii is in-line with that observed in magelonid species (see, Figs 3f–h, and Mortimer, 2010: Figs 1A and B for example). Interestingly, Wilson (1982) noted the similarity of Magelona larval tentacles to those observed in some “rostraria” larvae, although later noting differences in mobility between the two.
The buccal region is extremely comparable to that of magelonids, being at the base, and on the ventral side of the prostomium, and comprising of a large triangular upper lip and two smaller lower lips (compare Fig. 2a with Figs 3e, h).
Although Tokioka (1970) described the specimen as having five segments, it is believed only the first chaetiger and possibly part of the second chaetiger (broken before the second set of chaetae) are present. Tokioka’s “quiver for setae”, although looks a little odd, would be comparable to the pre- and postchaetal lamellae that encircle the chaetal bundle in magelonid notopodia (Fig. 4). These appear particularly wrinkled around the chaetal bundles, as if pushed forward when the specimen was accidentally sectioned by the extreme pressures experienced during bottom trawling.
What Tokioka (1970) described as the last segment of the trunk is believed to be the burrowing organ, everted through the damaged body after the animal was broken. This is extremely likely given the trauma often experienced by animals during trawling or sieving. Magelonid burrowing organs carry longitudinal ridging as was drawn by Tokioka for R. bierii, and which he described as “furnished with a number of longitudinal muscles”. When fully everted, magelonid burrowing organs are heart-shaped, but when only partially everted they can be anything between oval to heart-shape with a characteristic circular indentation at the top, where the remaining part of the burrowing organ has yet to be everted (Figs 3f, g). This circular indentation is what Tokioka labelled as the anus, with the mid-gut coecum being the inner surface of the burrowing organ often seen in both live and preserved magelonids (Fig. 3f).
4 Discussion
Less
Although described as a larva, the current authors suggest that the specimen of R. bierii represents part of a juvenile, or possibly an adult magelonid. Images of magelonid larvae can be seen for instance in Wilson (1982), Blake (2006), or Capa et al. (2019), and are clearly distinguishable from the specimen in question here, notably in the shape of the prostomium which is much less distinct and shovel shaped in larvae. In terms of size, Tokioka (1970) stated that the specimen was 1.05 mm long. Thus, the prostomium and first chaetiger would be approximately 0.7 mm long (estimated from the figures). This would be comparable to the size of the prostomium and first chaetiger of an adult of several magelonid species, such as M. minuta Eliason, 1962 (see Mills and Mortimer, 2018) or M. falcifera Mortimer and Mackie, 2003 (Fig. 3a), and comparable to a juvenile/smaller specimen of larger species such as M. alleni Wilson, 1958 (Figs 3b, d and e) or M. equilamellae Harmelin, 1964 (Fig. 3c).
In the absence of type material of R. bierii and given the small proportion of the specimen found, it is impossible to ascertain which magelonid species it belongs to. The presence of only one pair of prostomial ridges and a prostomium which is wider than long suggests a placement in the “M. cincta” group of species, which often carry posterior pigmentation (Mortimer et al., 2020). However, the genus Octomagelona Aguirrezabalaga et al., 2001 are known also to possess only one pair of prostomial ridges, and thus cannot be ruled out either. Octomagelona, additionally possess long thoracic chaetae (see type description, and Mortimer et al., 2020) which could match that of R. bierii. However, this genus is currently known only from deeper waters (Aguirrezabalaga et al., 2001; Capa et al., 2019).
There is relatively little known about the Magelonidae in the western Pacific, with only seven species originally described from the area: M. japonica Okuda, 1937 (Korean Archipelago and Japan), M. koreana Okuda, 1937 (Korean Archipelago, originally described as a subspecies of M. japonica), M. agoensis Kitamori, 1967 (Ago Bay, Japan), M. crenulifrons Gallardo, 1968 (Viet Nam), M. lenticulata Gallardo, 1968 (Viet Nam), M. sachalinensis Buzhinskaja, 1985 (Sakhalin Island) and M. parochilis Zhou and Mortimer, 2013 (China). Kitamori (1967) published an account of the Magelonidae of Japan reporting five species: the aforementioned M. agoensis and M. japonica, alongside M. longicornis Johnson, 1901, M. pitelkai Hartman, 1944a, and M. californica Hartman, 1944b. Mortimer and Mackie (2009), following on from reviews in the region by Mackie et al. (1993), Shin (1982a, 1982b, 1990, 1998, 2003) and Shin and Thompson (1982), reviewed the Magelonidae of Hong Kong, noting the presence of three species: M. crenulifrons, M. cornuta Wesenberg-Lund, 1949 and a species approaching M. cincta Ehlers, 1908. Paxton and Chou (2000) provided a checklist of species in the South China Sea, including seven species: M. cf. cincta, M. crenulifrons, M. japonica, M. koreana, M. lenticulata, Magelona sp. and a species approaching M. pacifica Monro, 1933. Subsequently, Al-Hakim and Glasby (2004) noted three species to occur off the Natuna Islands, South China Sea: M. crenulifrons, M. cornuta and an additional new record for the region, M. gemmata Mortimer and Mackie, 2003. Additional records from the region include: M. cincta from China (Sun et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2016); M. japonica from Korea (Oh and Kim, 1976) and Japan (Lee and Paik, 1995; Nishijima et al., 2015); M. longicornis from the Sea of Japan and Sea of Okhotsk (Zachs, 1933) and finally, M. pacifica from the Sea of Japan (Annenkova, 1937; Choi and Koh, 1990) and Sea of Okhotsk (Uschakov, 1950). However, it should be noted that several of the above records are species which were originally described from outside of the region: M. californica, M. longicornis and M. pitelkai are all originally described from the west coast of America, M. pacifica from the Panama region, M. gemmata from the Seychelles, M. cornuta from the Gulf of Oman, and M. cincta from South Africa, and caution should be noted with some of these records.
Material of a species approaching M. cincta observed by Mortimer and Mackie (2009) from Hong Kong corresponded well with the type material, however, differences in the nature of the thoracic neuropodial lamellae, palps, abdominal lamellae and overall size were observed. Unfortunately, whilst the authors felt it was likely to represent a new species, it could not be separated at that time without fresh material from the type locality. It is clear that the species warrants further investigation, but should be reported as M. cf. cincta until the two populations can be clearly diagnosed and separated. Whilst M. cornuta was originally described from the Gulf of Oman, material from Hong Kong was compared directly to the type material by Mortimer and Mackie (2009) during a redescription of the species. The Hong Kong material agreed well with the type material and the authors suggested the species had an Indo-West Pacific distribution. However, it is clear for the other species noted above (M. californica, M. longicornis, M. pitelkai, M. pacifica and M. gemmata) that further investigations are needed before their presence in the region can be verified, or whether they actually represent undescribed species.
Many of the species described or reported in the western Pacific warrant re-description and this is perhaps why several species originally described outside the region have been recorded. Rouse (2001) suggested that the diversity of Magelona species world-wide has been dramatically underestimated, primarily based on several studies showing high diversities of species in relatively small geographic areas such as the Gulf of Mexico (Uebelacker and Jones, 1984) or the Andaman Sea (Nateewathana and Hylleberg, 1991), and additionally noted in several subsequent studies: Seychelles (Mortimer and Mackie, 2003, 2006), the Portuguese shelf (Mortimer et al., 2011), and the Persian Gulf (Mortimer et al., 2012, Shakouri et al., 2017). These results suggest that many other magelonid species are likely to be present in the western Pacific and that taxonomic work is urgently needed in order to identify and describe them adequately. In order to improve the recognition of the different morphotypes and to try to establish their number, a key to adult specimens of magelonid species known to occur in the region is given at the end of this work. Species recorded in the region but originally described from other marine biogeographic realms were excluded from the key, with the exception of M. cornuta for the reasons outlined above.
Whilst knowledge of the Magelonidae of the north-western Pacific is patchy, that of neighbouring west coast of Thailand is better understood. Nateewathana and Hylleberg (1991) described eight new species: M. kamala, M. methae, M. mickminni, M. noppi, M. pectinata, M. petersenae, M. pygmaea, and M. tinae, and additionally reported the presence of M. crenulifrons and M. cincta. Mortimer and Mackie (2009) stated that the drawings and description of the latter species by Nateewathana and Hylleberg (1991) corresponded well with material of M. cf. cincta from Hong Kong as noted above. Whilst the species reported by Nateewathana and Hylleberg (1991) came from the Andaman Sea, in the western Indo-Pacific, they are herein included in the identification key as they are likely to be present in the South China Sea at the least.
Of the species known to occur in the western Pacific, the following differ to R. bierii: M. cornuta, M. crenulifrons, M. japonica, M. koreana, M. lenticulata, M. methae and M. petersenae, in possessing distinct prostomial horns; M. cf. cincta, M. kamala, M. mickminni, and M. noppi, in possessing rudimentary horns; and M. parochillis, M. pectinata, M. sachalinensis and M. tinae, in possessing prostomia that are longer than wide, carrying two pairs of prostomial ridges. The two remaining species, M. agoensis and M. pygmaea cannot be ruled out based purely on the morphology of the anterior region. The main distinguishing feature of the former species is the presence of polydentate abdominal hooded hooks, and in the latter species they are tridentate. In the absence of much of the body of R. bierii, including the whole abdominal region, these features cannot be observed. Moreover, whilst M. pygmaea was re-described by Mortimer and Mackie (2006), M. agoensis is a species which requires further evaluation, with the original description lacking many details required for separation of species. Sadly, the type material is believed to be lost (Shakouri et al., 2017), and so this is not possible at the present time. While both M. agoensis and M. pygmaea are a possibility, R. bierii may also represent an undescribed magelonid species, as the taxonomy of magelonids of the region is in need of a thorough revision. Thus, the genus and species that R. bierii should be attributed to are undeterminable at this time.
The recognition of R. bierii as an anterior region of an undetermined magelonid has an interest that goes beyond the advance in taxonomic knowledge of the group. Under the light of Integrative Taxonomy (Dayrat, 2005; Will et al., 2005; Wheeler, 2008), all relevant biological data generated from many different sources of systematics and biodiversity is integrated towards making high level taxonomy, taking advantage of the expertise, passion, skills, diligence or knowledge of everybody involved in the process, without the necessity of the full range of data being generated by each taxonomist (Wheeler, 2008). In this process, larval morphology and development also play an important role in the establishment of phylogenetic relationships (Blake and Arnofsky, 1999). Aberrant forms can be interesting from a phylogenetic point of view, but only if they are clearly identified and placed in the right taxonomic group. Failure to do so could lead to conclusions which are both misleading and deceptive. In this case, a taxon or a presumed larva being erroneously classified or identified has been corrected. The specific identity of other forms of Rostraria previously described for instance by Häcker (1898) and Ehlers (1913) have remained indeterminable, but their amphinomid nature was clearly established. If the morphology of R. bierii had been analysed together with other Rostraria larvae this would have introduced errors not only due to its post-larval status, but also due to its erroneous identification. Thus, caution is required whenever considering aberrant and poorly known forms while performing phylogenetic studies.
Key to adult specimens of known Magelonidae species in the western Pacific (type localities/confirmed locations given in brackets. Full descriptions of characters can be found in Capa et al. (2019).
1. Prostomium with distinct prostomial horns…………..Go to 2
− Prostomium without prostomial horns, or with a squared an terior margin (often referred to as “rudimentary horns”)....... ......……………………………………………………...……………Go to 8
2. Anterior margin smooth………………………………………Go to 3
− Anterior margin crenulate………………………………………Go to 4
3. Deep purple pigment band between chaetigers 5 and 8. Ab dominal lamellae roughly equal in size in both rami………… ………………………… M. japonica (Korean Archipelago, Japan)
− No pigmentation of the thoracic region. Abdominal parapo dia sub-equal, those of the neuropodia being somewhat smaller………………………… M. koreana (Korean Archipelago)
4. Prostomium width approximately similar to length……Go to 5
− Prostomium wider than long……………………………Go to 6
5. Abdominal hooded hooks bidentate……………………………… ..…… M. crenulifrons (Viet Nam, Hong Kong, Natuna Islands)
− Abdominal hooded hooks tridentate……………………………… ……………………………..………………… M. cornuta (Hong Kong)
6. Dorsal superior lobes present in the thorax………………Go to 7
− No dorsal superior lobes present in thorax, anterior margin only minutely crenulate…………….… M. petersenae (Thailand)
7. Small dorsal superior lobes present on the ninth chaetiger, abdom inal hooded hooks tridentate……….. M. lenticulata (Viet Nam)
− No dorsal superior lobes present on the ninth chaetiger, abdom inal hooded hooks bidentate…………….. M. methae (Thailand)
8. Chaetiger nine with mucronate chaetae………..…………Go to 9
− Chaetiger nine bearing capillary chaetae only, as in chaeti gers 1–8……………………………..……………………………Go to 12
9. Abdominal hooded hooks tridentate………………………Go to 10
− Abdominal hooded hooks bidentate……………………………….. ………………………………….. M. sachalinensis (Sakhalin Island)
10. Thoracic notopodial lamellae with smooth upper edges……… ………………………………………………………………………Go to 11
− Thoracic notopodial lamellae with pectinate upper edges…… ………………………………………………… M. pectinata (Thailand)
11. Abdominal parapodia without dorsal and ventral medial lobes…………………………………………….. M. parochilis (China)
− Notopodial lamellae of chaetiger 8 distinctly bi-lobed, ab dominal parapodia with dorsal and ventral medial lobes……… ………………………………………………………. M. tinae (Thailand)
12. Abdominal hooded hooks polydentate……………………………… …………………………..……………………… M. agoensis (Japan)
− Abdominal hooded hooks bi- or tridentate………………Go to 13
13. Thoracic notopodia with dorsal superior lobes………Go to 14
− Thoracic notopodia without dorsal superior lobes……Go to 15
14. Neuropodia of chaetiger eight bearing a slender ventral lobe beneath the chaetal bundle……………… M. kamala (Thailand)
− Neuropodia of chaetiger eight bearing a small digitiform lobe underneath the chaetal bundle and an additional slender tri angular postchaetal lamellae……………… M. noppi (Thailand)
15. Anterior thoracic neuropodial lamellae distinctly scoop- shaped…………………………..………… M. cf. cincta (Hong Kong)
− Anterior thoracic neuropodial lamellae slender triangular…… ………………………………………………………………………Go to 16
16. Moderate to large species with rudimentary horns, broad palps with several rows of papillae… M. mickminni (Thailand)
− Prostomial margin rounded to straight, minute species with slender palps carrying two rows of papillae……………………… ………………………………………………… M. pygmaea (Thailand)
5 Conclusions
Less
(1) Rostraria bierii is not an amphinomid or euphrosinid, but actually a magelonid.
(2) Rostraria bierii represents a juvenile or adult magelonid, not a larval form.
(3) Only the prostomium, first chaetiger (possibly part of second chaetiger) and burrowing organ of the worm are present.
(4) The species of magelonid is indeterminable, and it may be attributed to either genera of extant magelonid: Magelona or Octomagelona.
(5) Rostraria bierii is transferred to Magelonidae as a taxon inquirendum.
(6) Not all forms under the name Rostraria are amphinomids.
(7) A review of the Magelonidae in the north of western Pacific is urgently needed. Records of species described from outside the region should be treated with caution.
Acknowledgements
Less
The authors would like to acknowledge Andrew Mackie (Amgueddfa Cymru-National Museum Wales) for provision of one of the images used in this paper, and two anonymous reviewers and the editors of the journal for their positive inputs during the revision and editing of the present contribution.
References
Less
Aguirrezabalaga F, Ceberio A, Fiege D. 2001. Octomagelona bizkaiensis (Polychaeta: Magelonidae) a new genus and species from the Capbreton Canyon (Bay of Biscay, north-east Atlantic). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 81(2): 221–224, doi: 10.1017/S0025315401003678
Al-Hakim I, Glasby C J. 2004. Polychaeta (Annelida) of the Natuna Islands, South China Sea. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, S11: 25–45
Annenkova N P. 1937. [Polychaete fauna of the northern part of the Japan Sea] (in Russian, with English translation of new species text only). Issledovaniya Fauny Morei, Zoologicheskii Institut Akademii Nauk USSR Explorations des Mers de l'URSS, 23: 139–216
Bhaud M. 1967. Étude du développement de quelques larves d’annélides polychètes à Banyuls-sur-Mer. Vie et Milieu, 18(3A): 531–558 (officially published in May 1968)
Bhaud M. 1972. Identification des larves d’Amphinomidae (annélides polychètes) recueillies près de Nosy-Bé (Madagascar) et problèmes biologiques connexes. Cahiers ORSTOM Série Océanographie, 10(2): 203–216
Bieri R, Tokioka T. 1968. Dragonet II, an opening-closing quantitative trawl for the study of microvertical distribution of zooplankton and the meio-epibenthos. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, 15(5): 373–390, doi: 10.5134/175482
Blake J A. 2006. Chapter 13. Spionida. In: Rouse G W, Pleijel F, eds. Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny of Annelida. Enfield, New Hampshire, USA: Science Publishers Inc., 565–638
Blake J A, Arnofsky P L. 1999. Reproduction and larval development of the spioniform Polychaeta with application to systematics and phylogeny. In: Dorresteijn A W C, Westheide W, eds. Reproductive Strategies and Developmental Patterns in Annelids. Hydrobiologia, 142: 57–106, doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-2887-4_4
Buzhinskaja G N. 1985. Polychaeta of the shelf off south Sakhalin and their ecology. Issledovaniya Fauny Morei (in Russian), 30: 72–224
Capa M, Parapar J, Hutchings P, et al. 2019. 4. Palaeoannelida. In: Purschke G, Böggemann M, Westheide W, eds. Annelida: Volume 1: Annelida Basal Groups and Pleistoannelida, Sedentaria I. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, 91–132, doi: 10.1515/9783110291582-004
Choi J W, Koh C H. 1990. Distribution pattern of polychaete worms on the continental shelf and slope of the East Sea (southwestern Sea of Japan), Korea. The Journal of the Oceanological Society of Korea, 25(1): 36–48
Dayrat B. 2005. Towards integrative taxonomy. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 85(3): 407–415, doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00503.x
Ehlers E. 1908. Die bodensässigen Anneliden aus dem Sammlungen der deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition auf dem Dampfer "Valdivia" 1898–1899, 16: 1–168
Ehlers E. 1913. Die Polychaeten-Sammlungen der deutschen Südpolar-Expedition, 1901–1903. Deutsche Südpolar-Expedition, 13(4): 397–598, doi: 10.5962/bhl.title.2166
Eliason A. 1962. Undersökningar över Öresund. XXXXI. Weitere Untersuchungen über die Polychaetenfauna des Öresunds. Lunds Universitets Årsskrift, N. F. Avd. 2, 58(9): 1–98
Fiege D, Licher F, Mackie A S Y. 2000. A partial review of the European Magelonidae (Annelida: Polychaeta): Magelona mirabilis redefined and M. johnstoni sp. nov. distinguished. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 80(2): 215–234, doi: 10.1017/S0025315499001800
Gallardo V A. 1968. Polychaeta from the Bay of Nha Trang, South Viet Nam. Naga Report, 4(3): 35–279
Häcker V. 1898. Die pelagischen Polychaeten- und Achaetenlarven der Plankton-Expedition. Ergebnisse der in dem Atlantischen Ocean von Mitte Juli bis Anfang November 1889 ausgeführten Plankton-Expedition der Humboldt-Stiftung, 2 (H. d.): 1–50, plates I–V,
Hannerz L. 1956. Larval development of the polychaete families Spionidae Sars, Disomidae Mesnil, and Poecilochaetidae n. fam. in the Gullmar Fjord (Sweden). Zoologiska Bidrag från Uppsala, 31: 1–204
Harada E. 1991. Inventory of zoological type specimens in the Museum of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, 35(1–3): 171–233,
Harmelin J G. 1964. Étude de l’endofaune des “mattes” d’herbiers de Posidonia oceanica Delile. Recueil des Travaux de la Station Marine d'Endoume, 35(51): 43–106
Hartman O. 1944a. Polychaetous annelids from California: including the descriptions of two new genera and nine new species. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions, 10(2): 239–307
Hartman O. 1944b. Polychaetous annelids. Part VI. Paraonidae, Magelonidae, Longosomidae, Ctenodrilidae, and Sabellariidae. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions, 10(3): 311–389
Johnson H P. 1901. The Polychaeta of the Puget Sound region. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, 29(18): 381–437
Johnston G. 1865. A Catalogue of the British Non–Parasitical Worms in the Collection of the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum,
Kitamori R. 1967. Magelonidae (Polychaetous annelids) from Japan, including the description of a new species. Bulletin of the Tokai Regional Fisheries Research Laboratory, 50: 49–54
Lamarck J B. 1818. Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertèbres, Présentant les Caractères Généraux et Particuliers de ces Animaux, leur Distribution, leur Classes, leurs Familles, leurs Genres, et la Citation des Principales Espèces qui s'y Rapportent; Précédée d'une Introduction Offrant la Détermination des Caractères Essentiels de l'Animal, sa Distinction du Végétal et des Autres Corps Naturels, Enfin, l'Exposition des Principes Fondamentaux de la Zoologie. Vol. 5. Paris: Deterville,
Lee S W, Paik E I. 1995. Density composition and feeding guild of the dominant polychaetous community in shallow muddy bottom in Tomioka Bay, Amakusa, Japan. Journal of the Korean Fisheries Society, 28(6): 793–804
Mackie A S Y, Oliver P G, Kingston P F. 1993. The macrobenthic infauna of Hoi Ha Wan and Tolo Channel, Hong Kong. In: Morton B, ed. The Marine Biology of the South China Sea. Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Marine Biology of Hong Kong and the South China Sea, Hong Kong 28 October–3 November 1990. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 657–674
Mesnil F. 1897. Études de morphologie externe chez les annélides. II. Remarques complémentaires sur les Spionidiens. La famille nouvelle des Disomidiens. La place des Aonides (sensu Tauber, Levinsen). Bulletin Scientifique de la France et de la Belgique, 30: 83–100, plate VI
Mileikovsky S A. 1960. Membership of a polychaete larva of the Rostraria type from the plankton of the Norwegian and Barents Seas of the species Euphrosyne borealis Oersted, 1843, and of all larvae of this type to the families Euphrosynidae and Amphinomidae (Polychaeta Errantia, Amphinomorpha). Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR (in Russian), 134(3): 731–734
Mileikovsky S A. 1961. On the belonging of two polychaete larvae of the Rostraria-type from the plankton of North-Western Atlantic to the species Amphinome pallasi Quatrefages, 1865 and Chloenea atlantica McIntosh, 1885 (Polychaeta, Errantia, Amphinomorpha). Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR (in Russian), 141(3): 754–757
Mills K, Mortimer K. 2018. Redescription of Magelona minuta Eliason, 1962 (Annelida), with discussions on the validity of Magelona filiformis minuta. Zootaxa, 4527(4): 541–559, doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4527.4.5
Monro C C A. 1933. The Polychaeta Sedentaria collected by Dr. C. Crossland at Colón, in the Panama region, and the Galapagos Islands during the expedition of the S. Y. ‘St. George’. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 103(4): 1039–1092, doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1933.tb01640.x
Mortimer K. 2010. Magelonidae (Polychaeta) from the Arabian Peninsula: a review of known species, with notes on Magelona tinae from Thailand. Zootaxa, 2628(1): 1–26, doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.2628.1.1
Mortimer K, Cassà S, Martin D, et al. 2012. New records and new species of Magelonidae (Polychaeta) from the Arabian Peninsula, with a re-description of Magelona pacifica and a discussion on the magelonid buccal region. Zootaxa, 3331(1): 1–43, doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3331.1.1
Mortimer K, Gil J, Fiege D. 2011. Portuguese Magelona (Annelida: Magelonidae) with a description of a new species, a re-description of Magelona wilsoni Glémarec, 1966 and a key to adult Magelonidae from European waters. Italian Journal of Zoology, 78(S1): 124–139, doi: 10.1080/11250003.2011.583449
Mortimer K, Mackie A S Y. 2003. The Magelonidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Seychelles, with the description of three new species. In: Sigvaldadóttir E, Mackie A S Y, Helgason G V, et al, eds. Advances in Polychaete Research. Hydrobiologia, 496: 163–173, doi: 10.1023/A:1026136613278
Mortimer K, Mackie A S Y. 2006. The Magelonidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Seychelles 2. Description of four additional species, three new to science. In: Sardá R, San Martín G, López E, et al, eds. Scientific Advances in Polychaete Research. Scientia Marina, 70(S3): 125–137, doi: 10.3989/scimar.2006.70s3125
Mortimer K, Mackie A S Y. 2009. Magelonidae (Polychaeta) from Hong Kong, China, with discussions on related species and redescriptions of three species. In: Maciolek N J, Blake J A, eds. Proceedings of the Ninth International Polychaete Conference. Zoosymposia, 2: 179−199,
Mortimer K, Mills K, Jordana E, et al. 2020. A further review of European Magelonidae (Annelida), including descriptions of Magelona equilamellae and Magelona filiformis. Zootaxa, 4767(1): 89–114, doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4767.1.4
Nateewathana A, Hylleberg J. 1991. Magelonid polychaetes from Thailand, the Andaman Sea, with descriptions of eight new species. In: Petersen M E, Kirkegaard J B, eds. Systematics, Biology and Morphology of World Polychaeta. Proceedings of the 2nd International Polychaete Conference, Copenhagen,1986. Ophelia, S5: 169–184
Nishijima W, Umehara A, Okuda T, et al. 2015. Variations in macrobenthic community structures in relation to environmental variables in the Seto Inland Sea, Japan. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 92(1–2): 90–98,
Oh I S, Kim W S. 1976. The polychaetous annelid and environment in the intertidal flat, Inchon, Korea. Journal of the Oceanological Society of Korea, 11(2): 71–76
Okuda S. 1937. Spioniform polychaetes from Japan. Journal of the Faculty of Science of Hokkaido Imperial University, Series 6, Zoology, 5(3): 217–254
Omel’yanenko V A, Kulikova V A. 2002. Composition, seasonal dynamics, and long-term fluctuations in the density of pelagic polychaetes in Amurskii Bay, Sea of Japan. Russian Journal of Marine Biology, 28(5): 308–316, doi: 10.1023/A:1020903400805
Pallas P S. 1766. Miscellanea Zoologica: Quibus Novae Imprimis Atque Obscurae Animalium Species Describuntur et Observationibus Iconibusque Illustrantur. Hague: Petrum van Cleef,
Paxton H, Chou L M. 2000. Polychaetous annelids from the South China Sea. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, S8: 209–232
Pettibone M H. 1963. Marine polychaete worms of the New England region. I. Aphroditidae through Trochochaetidae. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 227(1): 1–356, doi: 10.5479/si.03629236.227.1
Rouse G W. 1999. Trochophore concepts: ciliary bands and the evolution of larvae in spiralian Metazoa. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 66(4): 411–464, doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1999.tb01920.x
Rouse G W. 2001. Magelona Müller, 1858. In: Rouse G W, Pleijel F, eds. Polychaetes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 261–263
Schroeder P C, Hermans C O. 1975. Annelida: Polychaeta. In: Giese A C, Pearse J S, eds. Reproduction of Marine Invertebrates. Volume III. Annelids and Echiurans. New York: Academic Press, 1−213
Shakouri A, Mortimer K, Dehani E. 2017. A new species and new records of Magelona (Annelida: Magelonidae) from Chabahar Bay, Gulf of Oman, South-eastern Iran. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 97(7): 1537–1552, doi: 10.1017/S002531541600076X
Shin P K S. 1982a. The macrobenthic infauna of Tolo Harbour and Tolo Channel, Hong Kong. In: Morton B, Tseng C K, eds. Proceedings of the First International Marine Biological Workshop: The Marine Flora and Fauna of Hong Kong and Southern China, Hong Kong 1980. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 721–731
Shin P K S. 1982b. Some polychaetous annelids from Hong Kong waters. In: Morton B, Tseng C K, eds. Proceedings of the First International Marine Biological Workshop: The Marine Flora and Fauna of Hong Kong and Southern China, Hong Kong, 1980. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 161–172
Shin P K S. 1990. Benthic invertebrate communities in Tolo Harbour and Mirs Bay: a review. In: Morton B, ed. Proceedings of the Second International Marine Biological Workshop: The Marine Flora and Fauna of Hong Kong and Southern China, Hong Kong, 2–24 April 1986. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 883–898
Shin P K S. 1998. Biodiversity of subtidal benthic polychaetes in Hong Kong coastal waters. In: Morton B, ed. The Marine Biology of the South China Sea. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Marine Biology of Hong Kong and the South China Sea. Hong Kong 28 October–1 November. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 57–74
Shin P K S. 2003. Changes in benthic infaunal communities in Tolo Harbour: will the trend continue?. In: Morton B, ed. Perspectives on Marine Environment Change in Hong Kong and Southern China, 1977−2001. Proceedings of an International Workshop Reunion Conference, Hong Kong 21–26 October 2001. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 579–592
Shin P K S, Thompson G B. 1982. Spatial distribution of the infaunal benthos of Hong Kong. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 10: 37–47, doi: 10.3354/meps010037
Sun Yawei, Cao Lian, Qin Yutao, et al. 2007. Analysis of macrobenthos community structure in the adjacent sea area of Changjiang River Eastuary. Marine Science Bulletin, 26(2): 66–70
Sveshnikov V A, Wen-Jen C. 1963. A rostraria-type larva of Notopygos sp. (Amphinomidae, Polychaeta) from the South China Sea. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR (in Russian), 149(3): 738–741
Tokioka T. 1970. Droplets from the plankton net XXV. Record of a Rostraria from Seto. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, 18(4): 275–278, doi: 10.5134/175636
Uebelacker J M, Jones M L. 1984. Family Magelonidae. In: Uebelacker J M, Johnson P G, eds. Taxonomic Guide to the Polychaetes of the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Final Report to the Minerals Management Service, Contract 14–12–001–29091. Mobile, Alabama: Barry A. Vittor & Associates, 7.1-7.29
Uschakov P V. 1950. Polychaetes from the Sea of Okothsk. Issledovaniya dal'nevostochnykh Morei SSSR, 2: 140–236
Weigert A, Bleidorn C. 2016. Current status of annelid phylogeny. Organisms Diversity & Evolution, 16(2): 345–362, doi: 10.1007/s13127-016-0265-7
Wesenberg-Lund E. 1949. Polychaetes of the Iranian Gulf. Danish Scientific Investigations in Iran, 4: 247–400
Wheeler Q D. 2008. Undisciplined thinking: morphology and Hennig’s unfinished revolution. Systematic Entomology, 33(1): 2–7, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3113.2007.00411.x
Will K W, Mishler B D, Wheeler Q D. 2005. The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. Systematic Biology, 54(5): 844–851, doi: 10.1080/10635150500354878
Wilson D P. 1958. The polychaete Magelona alleni n. sp. and a re-assessment of Magelona cincta Ehlers. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 37(3): 617–626, doi: 10.1017/S002531540000566X
Wilson D P. 1982. The larval development of three species of Magelona (Polychaeta) from localities near Plymouth. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 62(2): 385–401, doi: 10.1017/S0025315400057350
Xu Yong, Li Xinzheng, Wang Hongfa, et al. 2016. Status of macrobenthic diversity and distribution in Subei Shoal, China. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 19(4): 411–419, doi: 10.1080/14634988.2016.1249257
Zachs I. 1933. Annelid worm fauna from the North-Japanese Sea (Polychaeta). Gosudarstvennyi Gidrologicheskii Institut, Issledovaniia Morei SSSR (in Russian), 14: 125–137
Zhang Junlong, Xiao Ning, Zhang Suping, et al. 2016. A comparative study on the macrobenthic community over a half century in the Yellow Sea, China. Journal of Oceanography, 72(2): 189–205, doi: 10.1007/s10872-015-0319-z
Zhou Jin, Mortimer K. 2013. A new species of Magelona (Polychaeta: Magelonidae) from Chinese coastal waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 93(6): 1503–1510, doi: 10.1017/S0025315412001816
Appendix
Less
Year 2022 volume 41 Issue 3
PDF
49
27
Cite this Article
BibTeX
Article Info
doi: 10.1007/s13131-021-1824-0
  • Receive Date：2020-11-03
  • Online Date：2025-11-21
  • Published：2022-03-25
Article Data
Affiliations
History
  • Received：2020-11-03
  • Accepted：2021-02-07
Affiliations
    1 Department of Natural Sciences, Amgueddfa Cymru-National Museum Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NP, Wales, UK
    2 School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, Wales, UK
    3 Centre of Marine Sciences (CCMAR), University of Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, Faro 8005-139, Portugal

Corresponding:

* Katie.Mortimer@museumwales.ac.uk
References
Share
https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/aos/EN/10.1007/s13131-021-1824-0
Share to
QR

Scan QR to access full text

Cite this article
BibTeX
Citations
表12种不同金属材料的力学参数
科
Family		 属数
Number of
genus		 种数
Number of
species		 占总种数比例
Percentage of
total species (%)		 属
Genus		 种数
Number of
species		 占总种数比例
Percentage of total
species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae 2 11 5.26 鹅膏菌属 Amanita 10 4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae 2 12 5.74 丝盖伞属 Inocybe 5 2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae 8 14 6.70 蜡蘑属 Laccaria 5 2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae 3 23 11.00 小皮伞属 Marasmius 6 2.87
小菇属 Mycena 11 5.26
光柄菇属 Pluteus 5 2.39
红菇属 Russula 17 8.13
栓菌属 Trametes 5 2.39
关闭全屏
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • RefWorks
  • TxT
Links
Articles
Latest Articles
Most Read
Collections
Updates
Events
News
Multimedia
About
About Us
Contact
No. 86 Xueyuan South Road, Haidian District, Beijing
100081
010-62199257
qkjq@cast.org.cn

Copyright © 2025 China Association for Science and Technology. All rights reserved. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.
Sponsored by the Office of the Leading Group for Cybersecurity and Informatization of CAST, and supported by Science and Technology Review Publishing House