Tedania (Tedaniopsis) tantula Kirkpatrick 1907

Tedania (Tedaniopsis) tantula (Kirkpatrick, 1907) (Fig. 11, Tab. 7) Tedania tantula (Kirkpatrick, 1907): Koltun 1964: 61–62, text-fig. 13, pl. 10, fig. 20 –25, 1976: 183. Van Soest 2002 a: 631–632. Synonymy: Oceanapia tantula Kirkpatrick, 1907: 289, 1908: 50, pl. 18, fig. 5, pl. 24, fig. 8. Parateda...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Göcke, Christian, Janussen, Dorte
Format: Text
Language:unknown
Published: Zenodo 2013
Subjects:
Online Access:https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145257
https://zenodo.org/record/6145257
id ftdatacite:10.5281/zenodo.6145257
record_format openpolar
institution Open Polar
collection DataCite Metadata Store (German National Library of Science and Technology)
op_collection_id ftdatacite
language unknown
topic Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Porifera
Demospongiae
Poecilosclerida
Tedaniidae
Tedania
Tedania tantula
spellingShingle Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Porifera
Demospongiae
Poecilosclerida
Tedaniidae
Tedania
Tedania tantula
Göcke, Christian
Janussen, Dorte
Tedania (Tedaniopsis) tantula Kirkpatrick 1907
topic_facet Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Porifera
Demospongiae
Poecilosclerida
Tedaniidae
Tedania
Tedania tantula
description Tedania (Tedaniopsis) tantula (Kirkpatrick, 1907) (Fig. 11, Tab. 7) Tedania tantula (Kirkpatrick, 1907): Koltun 1964: 61–62, text-fig. 13, pl. 10, fig. 20 –25, 1976: 183. Van Soest 2002 a: 631–632. Synonymy: Oceanapia tantula Kirkpatrick, 1907: 289, 1908: 50, pl. 18, fig. 5, pl. 24, fig. 8. Paratedania tarantula (Kirkpatrick, 1907): Burton 1929: 441. Not Tedania massa Ridley & Dendy, 1886: 335, 1887: 53, pl. 11, fig. 4, pl. 23, fig. 2. Tedania massa Ridley & Dendy, 1886: Burton 1932: 303–306, fig. 25 (partly). Material. 2 sponges from station 048- 1 (SMF 11853, 11854), 602.1 m, 70 ° 23.94 ' S, 8 ° 19.14 ' W, 12.01. 2008. Description. Observed samples rather fragmentary, one (SMF 11853, Fig. 11 A) a part from the middle of a sponge, about 20 mm long and 7 mm in diameter, the other (SMF 11854), about 30 mm long and up to 5 mm in diameter, representing the whole lower part of a sponge including plate-like attachment structure of about 3 mm in diameter. Fragments of tubular shape, growing erectly on hard substrate. Tubes conical, widening towards the top, internally hollow. Skeleton (Fig. 11 B): Epidermis tough, made up of mainly strongyles and additionally tornotes. Spicules relatively tight packed with no distinct orientation, although in parts a weak pattern seems to be implied. On the inside of the sponge epidermis overlain by thick tracts of onychaetes. Spiculation (Tab. 7): Main spicules strongyles (Fig. 11 C–D), 440 x 28 µm; relatively thick, of usual shape, slightly bowed, often with a slight kink in the outer third. Tornotes (Fig. 11 F), 396 x 10 µm straight, with distinct swellings on each end, bearing a spine on the distal side. Two kinds of onychaetes present (Fig. 11 E), distinguished by their length. These are very thin monaxonal spicules, covered by thin spines, which all point in the same direction. Larger ones 705 x 3 µm, smaller ones 110 x 2 µm. Remarks. At present, T. (T.) tantula is not accepted as a valid species (van Soest et al. , 2012 a), but considered to be a junior synonym of Tedania (Tedaniopsis) massa Ridley & Dendy, 1886. This synonymy was established by Burton (1932), because he discovered some specimens of T. (T.) massa which had a very strong, chitinous epidermal layer, similar to that of T. (T.) tantula . We here now advocate the re-establishment of the species T. (T.) tantula , as it has several differences from T. (T.) massa , as originally described by Ridley and Dendy (1887). Tedania (T.) massa was described as a massive sponge with three different parts of skeleton, differing by spicules and structure. The main spicules in this sponge are styles of ca 700 µm. Strongyles do not occur. The species T. (T.) tantula , as described by Kirkpatrick (1907; 1908), is a mostly hollow tube with a chitinous epidermis incorporating a dense, poorly organized layer of strongyles and tornotes; this description fits well with our new specimens from SYSTCO-expedition. The inner tissue contains tracts of onychaetes, which run parallel to the surface, but do not run vertically to the epidermis as it is usually found in Tedania (compare van Soest, 2002 a). Also, the main spicules are reported by Kirkpatrick (1908) as strongyles of 437 µm, much smaller than the styles of T. (T.) massa . Styles are said to occur occasionally as modified, reduced strongyles. In our specimens, no styles were found. Therefore we find the arguments strong enough to consider T. (T.) tantula a valid species after all, as the distinction between the two species is usually very clear. The two above reported specimens are not complete, even the relatively well preserved specimen SMF 11854 lacks the top. The holotype as figured by Kirkpatrick (1908) also lacks the top. Still, complete specimens were described and pictured by Burton (1932) and Koltun (1964). These sponges have distinct cap-structures, which close the tubes completely. In some cases, small oscules with chimneys can be seen on top of these caps (in Burton, 1932). This sponge has to be discussed in comparison with the very similar new species C. antarcticum sp. nov. (see above). The new species has the same outer appearance and also some astonishing similarities in spiculation. Both species share a tough, chitinous outer membrane with dense spicules (only those in C. antarcticum sp. nov. are more dense and of clearer pattern-like arrangement) and strongyles of similar sizes as main spicules. Also, the tornotes of T. (T.) tantula and the tylotes of C. antarcticum sp. nov. are quite similar. The main difference is the occurrence of palmate isochelae in the latter species, which do not simply differentiate between the species, but also show, that they even belong to different suborders. Onychaetes occur only in T. (T.) tantula . Both species cooccur on the lower Antarctic shelf and cannot be differentiated by their outer appearance, therefore it seems probable that both species have been confused in some studies, especially when working with ROV observations only, without the possibility of skeletal studies. : Published as part of Göcke, Christian & Janussen, Dorte, 2013, Demospongiae of ANT XXIV / 2 (SYSTCO I) Expedition — Antarctic Eastern Weddell Sea, pp. 28-101 in Zootaxa 3692 (1) on pages 59-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3692.1.5, http://zenodo.org/record/249019
format Text
author Göcke, Christian
Janussen, Dorte
author_facet Göcke, Christian
Janussen, Dorte
author_sort Göcke, Christian
title Tedania (Tedaniopsis) tantula Kirkpatrick 1907
title_short Tedania (Tedaniopsis) tantula Kirkpatrick 1907
title_full Tedania (Tedaniopsis) tantula Kirkpatrick 1907
title_fullStr Tedania (Tedaniopsis) tantula Kirkpatrick 1907
title_full_unstemmed Tedania (Tedaniopsis) tantula Kirkpatrick 1907
title_sort tedania (tedaniopsis) tantula kirkpatrick 1907
publisher Zenodo
publishDate 2013
url https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145257
https://zenodo.org/record/6145257
long_lat ENVELOPE(166.733,166.733,-72.550,-72.550)
ENVELOPE(-58.017,-58.017,-61.850,-61.850)
geographic Antarctic
Weddell Sea
Weddell
Burton
Ridley
geographic_facet Antarctic
Weddell Sea
Weddell
Burton
Ridley
genre Antarc*
Antarctic
Weddell Sea
genre_facet Antarc*
Antarctic
Weddell Sea
op_relation http://zenodo.org/record/249019
http://publication.plazi.org/id/FFD6FFA8CD3388028029FF93FFE4FFE9
http://table.plazi.org/id/DF39664ECD11882080BEFEF8FDFEFE2A
http://zoobank.org/136660B8-7DCC-490E-AB79-46546CC18E40
https://zenodo.org/communities/biosyslit
https://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3692.1.5
http://zenodo.org/record/249019
http://publication.plazi.org/id/FFD6FFA8CD3388028029FF93FFE4FFE9
https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.249030
http://table.plazi.org/id/DF39664ECD11882080BEFEF8FDFEFE2A
http://zoobank.org/136660B8-7DCC-490E-AB79-46546CC18E40
https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145256
https://zenodo.org/communities/biosyslit
op_rights Open Access
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
cc0-1.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
op_rightsnorm CC0
op_doi https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145257
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3692.1.5
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.249030
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145256
_version_ 1766098952635023360
spelling ftdatacite:10.5281/zenodo.6145257 2023-05-15T13:37:53+02:00 Tedania (Tedaniopsis) tantula Kirkpatrick 1907 Göcke, Christian Janussen, Dorte 2013 https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145257 https://zenodo.org/record/6145257 unknown Zenodo http://zenodo.org/record/249019 http://publication.plazi.org/id/FFD6FFA8CD3388028029FF93FFE4FFE9 http://table.plazi.org/id/DF39664ECD11882080BEFEF8FDFEFE2A http://zoobank.org/136660B8-7DCC-490E-AB79-46546CC18E40 https://zenodo.org/communities/biosyslit https://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3692.1.5 http://zenodo.org/record/249019 http://publication.plazi.org/id/FFD6FFA8CD3388028029FF93FFE4FFE9 https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.249030 http://table.plazi.org/id/DF39664ECD11882080BEFEF8FDFEFE2A http://zoobank.org/136660B8-7DCC-490E-AB79-46546CC18E40 https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145256 https://zenodo.org/communities/biosyslit Open Access Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode cc0-1.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC0 Biodiversity Taxonomy Animalia Porifera Demospongiae Poecilosclerida Tedaniidae Tedania Tedania tantula article-journal ScholarlyArticle Taxonomic treatment Text 2013 ftdatacite https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145257 https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3692.1.5 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.249030 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145256 2022-04-01T11:00:22Z Tedania (Tedaniopsis) tantula (Kirkpatrick, 1907) (Fig. 11, Tab. 7) Tedania tantula (Kirkpatrick, 1907): Koltun 1964: 61–62, text-fig. 13, pl. 10, fig. 20 –25, 1976: 183. Van Soest 2002 a: 631–632. Synonymy: Oceanapia tantula Kirkpatrick, 1907: 289, 1908: 50, pl. 18, fig. 5, pl. 24, fig. 8. Paratedania tarantula (Kirkpatrick, 1907): Burton 1929: 441. Not Tedania massa Ridley & Dendy, 1886: 335, 1887: 53, pl. 11, fig. 4, pl. 23, fig. 2. Tedania massa Ridley & Dendy, 1886: Burton 1932: 303–306, fig. 25 (partly). Material. 2 sponges from station 048- 1 (SMF 11853, 11854), 602.1 m, 70 ° 23.94 ' S, 8 ° 19.14 ' W, 12.01. 2008. Description. Observed samples rather fragmentary, one (SMF 11853, Fig. 11 A) a part from the middle of a sponge, about 20 mm long and 7 mm in diameter, the other (SMF 11854), about 30 mm long and up to 5 mm in diameter, representing the whole lower part of a sponge including plate-like attachment structure of about 3 mm in diameter. Fragments of tubular shape, growing erectly on hard substrate. Tubes conical, widening towards the top, internally hollow. Skeleton (Fig. 11 B): Epidermis tough, made up of mainly strongyles and additionally tornotes. Spicules relatively tight packed with no distinct orientation, although in parts a weak pattern seems to be implied. On the inside of the sponge epidermis overlain by thick tracts of onychaetes. Spiculation (Tab. 7): Main spicules strongyles (Fig. 11 C–D), 440 x 28 µm; relatively thick, of usual shape, slightly bowed, often with a slight kink in the outer third. Tornotes (Fig. 11 F), 396 x 10 µm straight, with distinct swellings on each end, bearing a spine on the distal side. Two kinds of onychaetes present (Fig. 11 E), distinguished by their length. These are very thin monaxonal spicules, covered by thin spines, which all point in the same direction. Larger ones 705 x 3 µm, smaller ones 110 x 2 µm. Remarks. At present, T. (T.) tantula is not accepted as a valid species (van Soest et al. , 2012 a), but considered to be a junior synonym of Tedania (Tedaniopsis) massa Ridley & Dendy, 1886. This synonymy was established by Burton (1932), because he discovered some specimens of T. (T.) massa which had a very strong, chitinous epidermal layer, similar to that of T. (T.) tantula . We here now advocate the re-establishment of the species T. (T.) tantula , as it has several differences from T. (T.) massa , as originally described by Ridley and Dendy (1887). Tedania (T.) massa was described as a massive sponge with three different parts of skeleton, differing by spicules and structure. The main spicules in this sponge are styles of ca 700 µm. Strongyles do not occur. The species T. (T.) tantula , as described by Kirkpatrick (1907; 1908), is a mostly hollow tube with a chitinous epidermis incorporating a dense, poorly organized layer of strongyles and tornotes; this description fits well with our new specimens from SYSTCO-expedition. The inner tissue contains tracts of onychaetes, which run parallel to the surface, but do not run vertically to the epidermis as it is usually found in Tedania (compare van Soest, 2002 a). Also, the main spicules are reported by Kirkpatrick (1908) as strongyles of 437 µm, much smaller than the styles of T. (T.) massa . Styles are said to occur occasionally as modified, reduced strongyles. In our specimens, no styles were found. Therefore we find the arguments strong enough to consider T. (T.) tantula a valid species after all, as the distinction between the two species is usually very clear. The two above reported specimens are not complete, even the relatively well preserved specimen SMF 11854 lacks the top. The holotype as figured by Kirkpatrick (1908) also lacks the top. Still, complete specimens were described and pictured by Burton (1932) and Koltun (1964). These sponges have distinct cap-structures, which close the tubes completely. In some cases, small oscules with chimneys can be seen on top of these caps (in Burton, 1932). This sponge has to be discussed in comparison with the very similar new species C. antarcticum sp. nov. (see above). The new species has the same outer appearance and also some astonishing similarities in spiculation. Both species share a tough, chitinous outer membrane with dense spicules (only those in C. antarcticum sp. nov. are more dense and of clearer pattern-like arrangement) and strongyles of similar sizes as main spicules. Also, the tornotes of T. (T.) tantula and the tylotes of C. antarcticum sp. nov. are quite similar. The main difference is the occurrence of palmate isochelae in the latter species, which do not simply differentiate between the species, but also show, that they even belong to different suborders. Onychaetes occur only in T. (T.) tantula . Both species cooccur on the lower Antarctic shelf and cannot be differentiated by their outer appearance, therefore it seems probable that both species have been confused in some studies, especially when working with ROV observations only, without the possibility of skeletal studies. : Published as part of Göcke, Christian & Janussen, Dorte, 2013, Demospongiae of ANT XXIV / 2 (SYSTCO I) Expedition — Antarctic Eastern Weddell Sea, pp. 28-101 in Zootaxa 3692 (1) on pages 59-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3692.1.5, http://zenodo.org/record/249019 Text Antarc* Antarctic Weddell Sea DataCite Metadata Store (German National Library of Science and Technology) Antarctic Weddell Sea Weddell Burton ENVELOPE(166.733,166.733,-72.550,-72.550) Ridley ENVELOPE(-58.017,-58.017,-61.850,-61.850)