Hydroidolina

• Main Authors: Daly, Marymegan, Brugler, Mercer R., Cartwright, Paulyn, Collins, Allen G., Dawson, Michael N., Fautin, Daphne G., France, Scott C., Mcfadden, Catherine S., Opresko, Dennis M., Rodriguez, Estefania, Romano, Sandra L., Stake, Joel L.
• Format: Text
• Language: unknown
• Published: Zenodo 2007
• Subjects: Biodiversity; Taxonomy; Animalia; Cnidaria; Hydrozoa; Pacific; New Zealand; Medina; Petersen; Bismarck; Medusa; Mercer; Rodriguez; Reimer; Daly; Osborn; Moura; Cartwright; North East Atlantic
• Online Access: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6241420; https://zenodo.org/record/6241420

SUBCLASS HYDROIDOLINA Hydroidolina Collins, 2000 includes Anthoathecata, Leptothecata, and Siphonophorae (see Marques & Collins 2004; Collins et al. 2006 a). The monophyly of Hydroidolina is well supported by phylogenetic analyses of molecular (Bridge et al. 1995; Collins 2002; Collins et al. 2006 a) and morphological (Bouillon & Boero 2000 a; Marques & Collins 2004) data. The statocysts of Hydroidolina, when present, are ectodermal in origin. Hydroidolina polyps may be solitary or colonial, and the colonies may be polymorphic, a state that is only present in one genus ( Monobrachium ) of Trachylina. The relationships between major groups of Hydroidolina (Leptothecata, Anthoathecata, Siphonophorae) are uncertain (Collins 2002; Collins et al. 2006 a). Order Anthoathecata Anthoathecata Cornelius, 1992 comprises two suborders, Filifera and Capitata, and approximately 1,140 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). The polyps do not have a skeletal covering and can be solitary or colonial. The medusae do not have statocysts and the gametogenic tissue is confined to the manubrium. Molecular phylogenetic studies do not support monophyly of Anthoathecata, suggesting instead that Anthoathecata is a paraphyletic assemblage that gave rise to one or more of the other suborders of Hydroidolina (Collins et al. 2006 a). Suborder Filifera Filifera comprises 22 families (Schuchert 2007 a) and approximately 765 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). Although the suborder has the putative morphological synapomorphies of filiferan tentacles on the feeding polyps and desmoneme and eurytele nematocysts, molecular phylogenetic analyses do not support its monophyly (Collins 2002; Collins et al. 2005, 2006a). Included families Australomedusidae Russell 1971 comprises three genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and approximately five valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). No representatives have been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses and its members have never been the subject of a phylogenetic analysis. This family is distinguished by polyps with large extensible hypostomes and medusae with (usually) four radial canals and four clusters of tentacles at the perradii of the bell margin. Balellidae Stechow 1922 is a monospecific family (Bouillon et al. 2006) whose sole species has not been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses. This family is distinguished by polyps with two widely separated whorls of filiform tentacles. Bougainvilliidae Lütken, 1850 comprises 13 genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and approximately 100 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). Bougainvilliidae includes Rhizorhagium , which is not found within Schuchert's (2007 b) classification (2007 a). Molecular phylogenetic analyses that include two species from two genera were ambiguous with regard to monophyly (Collins et al. 2006 a) and the group awaits a thorough phylogenetic investigation. Bougainvilliidae lacks morphological synapomorphies and shares many features with other families (Calder 1988; Schuchert 2007 c). Some genera classified elsewhere by Schuchert (2007 a), e.g., Lizzia in Rathkeidae, have been considered part of Bougainvilliidae (Bouillon et al. 2006). Bythotiaridae Maas, 1905 comprises nine genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and approximately 25 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). No representatives have been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses and the group has not been the subject of a phylogenetic analysis. Hydroids from this family can be distinguished by their habit of living inside the prebranchial cavity of ascidians. Medusae are recognized by marginal tentacles that have tiny or absent basal bulbs and terminate in a cluster of cnidae, but these features are present in Eucodoniidae. Clathrozoellidae Peña Cantero, Vervoort & Watson, 2003 is a monogeneric family (Schuchert 2007 a) with four valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). No representatives have been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses. This family is distinguished by a pseudohydrotheca covering the polyps. Cytaeididae Agassiz, 1862 comprises three genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and approximately 20 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). No representatives have been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses and the group has not been the subject of an explicit phylogenetic analysis. There are no known morphological synapomorphies for this group and the validity of one of the genera ( Perarella ) is questionable (Bouillon et al. 2006; Schuchert 2007 c). Eucodoniidae Schuchert, 1996 is a monospecific family (Schuchert 1996) that has not been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses. This family is distinguished by four clusters of embedded nematocysts around the mouth margin of medusae (Schuchert 1996). Eudendriidae Agassiz, 1862 comprises two genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and approximately 85 valid species (Marques 1996). Only a single representative has been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses (Collins et al. 2006 a). Possible synapomorphies for this group include the absence of desmoneme nematocysts, a styloid gonophore, and trumpet-shaped hypostome (Marques 1996). Hydractiniidae Agassiz, 1862 comprises seven genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and approximately 100 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). Eleven species representing two genera have been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses, which supported monophyly of the group (Cunningham & Buss 1993). However, taxon sampling in this analysis was not broad. The hydractiniid genus Clava is sometimes classified together with genera of Oceanidae in the family Clavidae (see Bouillon et al. 2006), suggesting that its phylogenetic status is uncertain. Hydroids of the family are distinguished by stolonal, polymorphic colonies that may bear spines. Laingiidae Bouillon, 1978 comprises three genera and four valid species (Bouillon 1978; Bouillon et al. 2006). One species has been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses (Collins et al. 2006 a). This group was originally classified as its own subclass by Bouillon (1978) but molecular phylogenetic analyses have shown that at least one member of the group, Fabienna sphaerica , is nested within Hydroidolina and closely related to Proboscidactylidae (see Collins et al. 2006 a). This hypothesis is supported by morphological data, including a solid radial canal and macrobasic euryteles (Schuchert 1996). Niobiidae Peterson, 1979 is a monospecific family (Bouillon et al. 2006) whose sole species has not been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses. The hydroid stage is unknown and the medusae are distinguished by marginal tentacle bulbs that develop into medusae buds (Petersen 1979). Oceanidae Eschscholtz, 1829 comprises eight genera (Schuchert 2004) and approximately 25 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). Representatives of the family have not been included in any phylogenetic analyses. The family is distinguished by scattered filiform tentacles on the polyps, but this character is not specific to this group (Calder 1988; Schuchert 2004). Several genera of this family are sometimes classified with Clava in the family Clavidae (see Bouillon et al. 2006), suggesting that its phylogenetic status is uncertain. Pandeidae Haeckel, 1879 comprises 23 genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and approximately 75 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). One species has been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses (Collins et al. 2006 a), but no explicit analyses of its phylogeny have been attempted. There are no known synapomorphies for this group and it is probably not monophyletic, as it encompasses a diverse assemblage of genera (Calder 1988). Proboscidactylidae Hand & Hendrickson, 1950 is a monogeneric family (Schuchert 2007 a) with six valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). One species has been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses (Collins et al. 2006 a). Hydroids of this family are distinguished by polymorphic stolonal colonies bearing gastrozooid polyps with two filiform tentacles. Protiaridae Haeckel, 1879 comprises five genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and approximately eight valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). No representatives have been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses. Medusae of this family are distinguished by large, hollow tentacular bulbs and four well-developed tentacles that are often interspersed with short, solid tentacles. Ptilocodiidae Coward, 1909 comprises six genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and eight valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). The group has not been the subject of a phylogenetic analysis. Hydroids of this family are distinguished by the absence of tentacles on the feeding polyps. Rathkeidae Russell, 1954 comprises six genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and approximately 20 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). Three species representing three genera have been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses and in phylogenetic analyses, and these support familial monophyly (Schuchert 2007 a). Species of this family are distinguished by primary medusae buds arising from stolons and secondary medusae buds arising interradially from the medusa manubrium. Rhysiidae Brinckmann, 1965 is a monogeneric family (Schuchert 2007 a) with three valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). No representatives have been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses. This family is distinguished by dactylozooids covered with perisarc to the capitate apical tip and female gonozooids that transform into a sporosac-like structure. Russelliidae Kramp, 1957 is a monospecific family (Bouillon et al. 2006) whose sole species has not been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses. The hydroid stage is unknown and the medusa possesses marginal tentacles in groups of three: one large and two small hollow tentacles. The large tentacles are sunk into the umbrella margin, forming a furrow. Stylasteridae Gray, 1847 comprises 26 genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and approximately 260 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). Cairns (1984 b) published a cladistic analysis of the genera of this diverse group, but its monophyly was not tested because only one outgroup was considered. Nevertheless, species of the group are readily distinguished by a massive calcareous exoskeleton, often brightly pigmented, and they very likely form a clade. Trichydridae Hincks, 1868 is a monospecific family (Bouillon et al. 2006) whose sole species has not been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses. No putative synapomorphies are known in the hydroid stage, but medusae are distinguished by the possession of many tiny, anastomosing centripetal canals. Tubiclavoididae Moura, Cunha & Schuchert, 2007 is a monospecific family (Moura et al. 2007) whose sole species has been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses (Moura et al. 2007), the results of which have not been published. The species is characterized by elongate polyps with scattered filiform tentacles and hydrocauli covered with striated perisarc. Suborder Capitata Capitata comprises 26 families (Schuchert 2007 a) and approximately 375 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). The putative synapormorphies are stenotele nematocysts and capitate tentacles on the polyps or filiform tentacles in separated whorls (Bouillon & Boero 2000 b). Molecular phylogenetic analyses suggest that Capitata is a paraphyletic assemblage containing two clades, Aplanulata and the other capitates (Collins 2002; Collins et al. 2005, 2006a). The synapomorphy for Aplanulata is the absence of a ciliated planula larva (Petersen 1990). Four families, Tubulariidae, Corymorphidae, Candelabridae, and Hydridae have been sampled in molecular phylogenetic analyses that support monophyly of Aplanulata (Collins et al. 2005; Collins et al. 2006 a), but it is likely that other families are part of this group (Petersen 1990; Collins et al. 2006 a). Mosaics of features, very few of which appear to be unique to any particular family, distinguish the medusa stages of capitate families. Included families Acaulidae Fraser, 1924 comprises three genera and five valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). No representatives have been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses and the group has not been the subject of an explicit phylogenetic analysis. Members of this family are distinguished by scattered capitate tentacles on the distal portions of their solitary polyps. Boeromedusidae Bouillon, 1985 is a monospecific family (Bouillon et al. 2006) whose sole species has not been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses. Hydroids are unknown; medusae have an apical projection, four tentacles terminating in nematocyst clusters, and four perradial pouches bearing gametes hanging from the manubrium. Boreohydridae Wesblad, 1947 comprises two genera (Bouillon 1985) and two valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). No representatives have been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses and the group has not been the subject of an explicit phylogenetic analysis. This family is distinguished by small solitary polyps that possess a whorl of three to five diminutive tentacles (Schuchert 2006). Candelabridae Stechow, 1921 comprises three genera (Schuchert 2006) and approximately 20 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). Just a single representative has been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses (Collins et al. 2005) and no explicit tests of the group’s monophyly have been conducted. The family is distinguished by its solitary or pseudo-colonial polyps that are relatively large and bear numerous scattered capitate tentacles (Schuchert 2006). Cladocorynidae Allman, 1872 comprises two genera (Schuchert 2006) and seven valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). Only a single representative has been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses (Collins et al. 2005) and no explicit tests of the group’s monophyly have been conducted. The putative synapomorphy for the family is patches of macrobasic euryteles on the body wall of the polyp (Petersen 1990). Cladonematidae Gegenbaur, 1856 comprises four genera (Schuchert 2006) and approximately 20 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). Phylogenetic analyses including three species representing two genera support monophyly of the group (Collins et al. 2005). The family is distinguished by benthic medusae with branched tentacles and adhesive structures at the tips of the medusae tentacles (Petersen 1990). Corymorphidae Allman, 1872 comprises 10 genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and approximately 45 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). Two species from one genus were included in molecular phylogenetic analyses, the results of which contradicted monophyly (Collins et al. 2005). There are no known synapomorphies for this group (Petersen 1990). Corynidae Johnston, 1836 comprises seven genera and approximately 90 valid species (Schuchert 2001). A molecular phylogenetic analysis sampling 13 species from four genera strongly contradicted monophyly of the group, with some species being closely allied to members of Polyorchidae (Collins et al. 2005). Not surprisingly, no morphological synapomorphies have been identified for Corynidae (Schuchert 2001). Halimedusidae Arai & Brinckmann-Voss, 1980 comprises three genera (Mills 2000; Schuchert 2007 a), each with a single valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). No representatives have been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses and the group has not been the subject of an explicit phylogenetic analysis. Species of this family have small solitary polyps that give rise to medusae with distinct interradial peaks in jelly above the manubrium base, a feature also present in medusae of Boeromedusidae (Mills 2000). Hydridae Linnaeus, 1758 is a monogeneric family (Schuchert 2007 a) with approximately 30 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). A molecular phylogenetic analysis sampling three species representing both the green and brown hydra groups supported monophyly of the family (Collins et al. 2006 a). Hemmrich et al. (2007) sampled additional taxa (mainly focused on laboratory strains) and also found the group to be monophyletic, although this study aimed at elucidating relationships within the group. Hydridae is distinguished by the absence of medusae, its freshwater habitat, and lateral budding of polyps. Hydrocorynidae Rees, 1957 comprises two genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and three valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). No representatives have been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses and the group has not been the subject of an explicit phylogenetic analysis. Hydroids of the group are colonial, with hydranths arising from a chitinized hydrorhizal plate. No putative synapomorphies have been identified for the medusa stage. Margelopsidae Uchida, 1927 comprises three genera (Schuchert 2006) and six valid species. No representatives have been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses and the group has not been the subject of an explicit phylogenetic analysis. The family is distinguished by its small, pelagic, solitary polyps. Milleporidae Fleming, 1828 is a monogeneric family with approximately seven valid species (Razak & Hoeksema 2003). One species has been sampled for molecular analysis (Collins et al. 2006 a). This family is distinguished by colonies that build massive calcareous skeletons, polyps with capitate tentacles, and dimorphism with gastrozooids and dactylozooids. Moerisiidae Poche, 1914 comprises three genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and fewer than 10 valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). One representative has been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses (Collins et al. 2005), but the family has never been the subject of an explicit phylogenetic analysis. Polyp stages of this family, where known, are solitary with scattered filiform tentacles. Medusae are recognized by a manubrium with radial lobes that extend toward and connect with the radial canals. Paracorynidae Picard, 1957 is a monospecific family (Bouillon et al. 2006). No representatives have been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses. This family is distinguished by a flat, highly organized colony, with polymorphic zooids. Bouillon (1974) suggested that Paracoryne could be interpreted as an individual flattened polyp, rather than as a colony. Pennariidae McCrady, 1859 is a monogeneric family with two valid species (Schuchert 2006). A single, widespread representative has been included in molecular phylogenetic analyses and no explicit tests of the group’s monophyly have been conducted. The family is distinguished by a pinnate hydroid colony with polyps that contain an aboral whorl of filiform tentacles and capitate tentacles scattered towards the oral end. Polyorchidae Agassiz, 1862 comprises three genera (Schuchert 2007 a) and five valid species (Bouillon et al. 2006). Three species from two genera have been included in m : Published as part of Daly, Marymegan, Brugler, Mercer R., Cartwright, Paulyn, Collins, Allen G., Dawson, Michael N., Fautin, Daphne G., France, Scott C., Mcfadden, Catherine S., Opresko, Dennis M., Rodriguez, Estefania, Romano, Sandra L. & Stake, Joel L., 2007, The phylum Cnidaria: A review of phylogenetic patterns and diversity 300 years after Linnaeus *, pp. 127-182 in Zootaxa 1668 on pages 153-168, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.180149 : {"references": ["Marques, A. C. & Collins, A. G. (2004) Cladistic analysis of Medusozoa and cnidarian evolution. Invertebrate Biology, 123 (1), 23 - 42.", "Collins, A. G., Schuchert, P., Marques, A. C., Jankowski, T., Medina, M. & Schierwater, B. (2006 a) Medusozoan phylogeny and character evolution clarified by new large and small subunit rDNA data and an assessment of the utility of phylogenetic mixture models. Systematic Biology, 55 (1), 97 - 115.", "Bridge, D., Cunningham, C. W., DeSalle, R. & Buss, L. W. (1995) Class-level relationships in the phylum Cnidaria: Molecular and morphological evidence. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 12 (4), 679 - 689.", "Bouillon, J. & Boero, F. (2000 a) The Hydrozoa: a new classification in the light of old knowledge. Thalassia Salentina, 24, 1 - 45.", "Bouillon, J., Gravili, C., Pages, F., Gili, J. M. & Boero, F. (2006) An introduction to Hydrozoa. Paris: Publications Scientifiques du Museum, Paris, 591 pp.", "Schuchert, P. (2007 a) The Hydrozoa Directory, Version 15. Available from: http: // www. ville-ge. ch / musinfo / mhng / hydrozoa / hydrozoa-directory. htm. (accessed November 1, 2007).", "Collins, A. G., Winkelmann, S., Hadrys, H. & Schierwater, B. (2005) Phylogeny of Capitata and Corynidae (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) in light of mitochondrial 16 s rDNA data. Zoologica Scripta, 34 (1), 91 - 99.", "Calder, D. R. (1988) Shallow-water hydroids of Bermuda: The Athecatae. Royal Ontario Museum Life Sciences Contributions, 148, 1 - 107.", "Agassiz, L. (1862) Contributions to the Natural History of the United States of America. vol. IV. pt. III. Discophorae. pt. IV. Hydroidae. pt. V. Homologies of the Radiata. Little, Brown, Trubner, Boston, London, 380 pp.", "Schuchert, P. (1996) The Marine Fauna of New Zealand: Athecate Hydroids and their Medusae (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa). New Zealand Oceanographic Institute Memoir, 106, 5 - 159.", "Marques, A. C. (1996) A critical analysis of a cladistic study of the genus Eudendrium (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa), with some comments on the family Eudendriidae. Journal of Computational Biology, 1, 153 - 162.", "Cunningham, C. W. & Buss, L. W. (1993) Molecular evidence for multiple episodes of paedomorphosis in the family Hydractiniidae. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 21 (1), 57 - 69.", "Bouillon, J. (1978) Hydromeduses de la mer de Bismarck (Papouasie, Nouvelle-Guinee). II. Limnomedusa, Narcomedusa, Trachymedusa et Laingiomedusa (sous-classe nov.). Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 19, 473 - 483.", "Petersen, K. W. (1979) Development of coloniality in Hydrozoa. In: Larwood, G. & Rosen, B. R. (Eds), Biology and Systematics of Colonial Organisms. Academic Press, London, pp. 105 - 139.", "Schuchert, P. (2004) Revision of the European athecate hydroids and their medusae (Hydrozoa, Cnidaria): Families of Oceanidae and Pachycordylidae. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 111 (2), 315 - 369.", "Haeckel, E. (1879) Das System der Medusen. Erster Theil einer Monographie der Medusen. Gustav Fischer, Jena, 81 pp.", "Cairns, S. D. (1984 b) A generic revision of the Stylasteridae (Coelenterata: Hydrozoa), Part 2: Phylogenetic analysis. Bulletin of Marine Science, 35, 38 - 53.", "Moura, C. J., Cunha, M. R. & Schuchert, P. S. (2007) Tubiclavoides striatum gen. nov. et sp. nov. (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) a new bathyal hydroid from the Gulf of Cadiz, north-east Atlantic Ocean. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 87, 421 - 428.", "Bouillon, J. & Boero, F. (2000 b) Synopsis of the families and genera of the hydromedusae of the world, with a list of worldwide species. Thalassia Salentina, 24, 47 - 296.", "Petersen, K. W. (1990) Evolution and taxonomy in capitate hydroids and medusae (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 100, 101 - 231.", "Bouillon, J. (1985) Essai de classification des hydropolypes-hydromeduses (Hydrozoa-Cnidaria). Indo-Malayan Zoology, 2, 29 - 243.", "Gegenbaur, C. (1856) Versuch eines Systemes der Medusen, mit Beschreibung neuer oder wenig gekannter Formen; zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Fauna des Mittelmeeres. Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, Leipzig, 8, 202 - 273.", "Schuchert, P. (2001) Survey of the family Corynidae (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa). Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 108 (4), 739 - 878.", "Mills, C. E. (2000) The life cycle of Halimedusa typus, with discussion of other species closely related to the family Halimedusidae (Hydrozoa, Capitata, Anthomedusae). Scientia Marina, 64, 97 - 106.", "Linnaeus, C. (1758) Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio decima, reformata. Holmiae, Laurentii Salvii, 824 pp.", "Hemmrich, G., Anokhin, B., Zacharias, H. & Bosch, T. C. G. (2007) Molecular phylogenetics in Hydra, a classical model in evolutionary developmental biology. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 44, 281 - 290.", "Rees, W. J. & White, E. (1957) Two new records of Tetraplatia chuni Carlgren from the South Atlantic. Journal of the Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Series 6, Zoology, 13, 101 - 104.", "Razak, T. B. & Hoeksema, B. W. (2003) The hydrocoral genus Millepora (Hydrozoa: Capitata: Milleporidae) in Indonesia. Zoologische Verhandelingen Leiden, 345, 313 - 336.", "Bouillon, J. (1974) Sur la structure de Paracoryne huvei Picard, 1957 (Coelenterata, Hydrozoa, Athecata). Memoires Academie Royale de Belgique, Classes des Sciences, 18 (3), 5 - 45.", "Kirkpatrick, P. A. & Pugh, P. R. (1984) Siphonophores and Velellids: Keys and notes for the identification of the species. In: Kermack, D. M., Barnes, R. S. K. (Eds), Synopses of the British Fauna: New Series. E. J. Brill, London, pp. 1 - 154.", "Marques, A. C. & Migotto, A. E. (2001) Cladistic analysis and new classification of the family Tubulariidae (Hydrozoa, Anthomedusae). Papeis Avulsos de Zoologia, 41, 465 - 488.", "Leclere, L., Schuchert, P. & Manuel, M. (2007) Phylogeny of the Plumularioidea (Hydrozoa, Leptothecata): evolution of colonial organization and life cycle. Zoologica Scripta, 36 (4), 371 - 394.", "Gili, J. M., Bouillon, J., Pages, F., Palanques, A. & Puig, P. (1999) Submarine canyons as habitats of prolific plankton populations: three new deep-sea Hydroidomedusae in western Mediterranean. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 125, 313 - 329.", "Schuchert, P. (1997) Review of the family Halopterididae (Hydrozoa, Cnidaria). Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, 162 pp.", "Govindarajan, A. F., Boero, F., Halanych, K. M. (2006) Phylogenetic analysis with multiple markers indicates repeated loss of the adult medusa stage in Campanulariidae (Hydrozoa, Cnidaria). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 38 (3), 820 - 834.", "Dunn, C. W., Pugh, P. R. & Haddock, S. H. D. (2005) Molecular phylogenetics of Siphonophora (Cnidaria), with implications for the evolution of functional specialization. Systematic Biology, 54 (6), 916 - 935.", "Pugh, P. R. (1999) Siphonophorae. In: Boltovskoy, D. (Ed), South Atlantic Zooplankton. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp. 467 - 511.", "Pugh, P. R. (2003) A revision of the family Forskaliidae (Siphonophora, Physonectae). Journal of Natural History, 37 (11), 1281 - 1327.", "Pugh, P. R. (1983) Benthic Siphonophores: A Review of the Family Rhodaliidae (Siphonophora, Physonectae). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences, 301 (1105), 165 - 300.", "Swedmark, B. & Teissier, G. (1959) Halammohydra et Otohydra, Hydrozoaires de la microfaune des sable et l'ordre des Actinulides. Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Zoology, London 1958, 4 (15), 330 - 332.", "Swedmark, B. & Teissier, G. (1966) The Actinulida and their evolutionary significance in the Cnidaria. In: Rees, W. J. (Ed), The Cnidaria and their Evolution. Academic Press, London, pp. 119 - 133.", "Remane, A. (1927) Halamohydra, ein eigenartiges Hydrozoon der Nord- und Ostsee. Zeitschrft fur Morphologie und Okologie der Tiere, 7, 643 - 677.", "Werner, B. (1965) Halammohydra Remane, Medusennatur und Stellung im System. Zoologischer Anzeiger, suppl. 28, 163 - 177.", "Salvini-Plawen, L. v. (1987) Mesopsammic Cnidaria from Plymouth (with systematic notes). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 67, 623 - 637.", "Swedmark, B. & Teissier, G. (1958) Otohydra vagans n. g., n. sp., hydrozoaire des sables, apparante aux Halammohydridees. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des seances de l'Academie des sciences de Paris, 247, 238 - 240.", "Kramp, P. L. (1938) Die meduse von Ostroumovia inkermanica (Pal. - Ostr.) und die systematische Stellung der olindiiden. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 122, 103 - 108.", "Browne, E. T. & Kramp, P. L. (1939) Hydromedusae from the Falkland Islands. Discovery Reports, XVIII, 265 - 322.", "Naumov, D. V. (1960) Hydroids and Hydromedusae of the USSR (translated from Russian 1969). Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 660 pp.", "Rees, W. J. (1958) The relationships of Moerisia lyonsi Boulenger and the family Moerisiidae, with capitate hydroids. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 130, 537 - 545.", "Edwards, C. (1973) Contributory thoughts on form, function, habitat and classification of hydroids and hydromedusae. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, 20, 11 - 22.", "Bouillon, J. & Deroux, G. (1967) Remarques sur des Cnidaires du type de Microhydrula pontica Valkanov 1965, trouves a Roscoff. Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 8, 253 - 272.", "Collins, A. G., Bentlage, B., Matsumoto, G. I., Haddock, S. H. D., Osborn, K. & Schierwater, B. (2006 b) Solution to the phylogenetic enigma of Tetraplatia, a worm-shaped cnidarian. Biology Letters, 2, 120 - 124.", "Hand, C. (1955) A study of the structure, affinities, and distribution of Tetraplatia volitans Busch (Coelenterata: Hydrozoa: Pteromedusae). Pacific Science, 9, 332 - 348.", "Bouillon, J. (1987) Considerations sur le developpement des narcomeduses et sur leur position phylogenetique. Indo- Malayan Zoology, 4, 189 - 278.", "Haeckel, E. (1866) Generelle morphologie der Organismen, vol. 2. Verlag von Georg Reimer, Berlin.", "Mayer, A. G. (1910) Medusae of the World, Hydromedusae, vols. I & II. Scyphomedusae, vol. III. Carnegie Institution, Washington DC, 735 pp."]}