Phisidia rubra Nogueira & Alves, 2006, sp. nov.

• Main Authors: Nogueira, João Miguel De Matos, Alves, Tarsila Montrezoro
• Format: Text
• Language: unknown
• Published: Zenodo 2006
• Subjects: Biodiversity; Taxonomy; Animalia; Annelida; Polychaeta; Terebellida; Terebellidae; Phisidia; Phisidia rubra; New Zealand; Stripe; Fang; Kangaroo Island; Fang The; Antarktis*
• Online Access: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6261657; https://zenodo.org/record/6261657

Phisidia rubra sp. nov. (Figs. 5–8) Material examined State of São Paulo. Caraguatatuba, intertidally, on rocky shore: Praia de Martim de Sá (23 º 37 ’S, 45 º 23 ’W): 8 spec., coll. 13 /03/ 2001; 9 spec., coll. 19 /09/ 2001. São Sebastião, intertidally, on rocky shore: Praia do Araçá (23 º 49 ’S, 45 º 24 ’W): 1 spec., coll. 24 /07/ 2002; 2 spec., coll. 20 /07/ 2005; Praia Preta (23 º 49 ’S, 45 º 25 ’W), on rocky shore: 1 spec., coll. 18 / 07/ 2003; Praia da Baleia (23 º 47 ’S, 45 º 40 ’W), on rocky shore: 1 spec., coll. 08/04/ 2001. Comparative material examined Phisidia echuca : Australia, South Australia, Kangaroo Island: holotype (AM W 200472) and specimen AM W 200473. Australia, Victoria, Westernport Beacon: specimen NMV F 52602. Phisidia sp.: New Zealand, Stewart Island, Big Glory Bay: two specimens. Type series Nine specimens, all well preserved. Holotype and paratype 3 complete specimens, remaining paratypes incomplete. Holotype and paratypes 1–2 deposited at the MZUSP (holotype: MZUSP 16927; paratypes: MZUSP 16928), paratypes 3–5 deposited at the AM (AM W 29692 –29694, respectively), paratypes 6–8 deposited at the ZMUC (ZMUC – POL – 1817). Holotype: coll. Caraguatatuba, Praia de Martim de Sá, 19 /09/2001, 47 segments, 5 mm long, 0.5 mm wide. Paratype 1: coll. Caraguatatuba, Praia de Martim de Sá, 13 /03/2001, 29 segments, 5.5 mm long, 0.4 mm wide. Paratype 2: coll. São Sebastião, Praia da Baleia, 08/04/2001, 33 segments, 7 mm long, 0.5 mm wide. Paratype 3: coll. Caraguatatuba, Praia de Martim de Sá, 19 /09/2001, 45 segments, 4 mm long, 0.4 mm wide. Paratype 4: coll. Caraguatatuba, Praia de Martim de Sá, 19 /09/2001, 38 segments, 5 mm long, 0.5 mm wide. Paratype 5: coll. São Sebastião, Praia Preta, 18 /07/2003, 24 segments, 4 mm long, 0.6 mm wide. Paratype 6: coll. Caraguatatuba, Praia de Martim de Sá, 19 /09/2001, 68 segments, 7 mm long, 0.5 mm wide. Paratype 7: coll. Caraguatatuba, Praia de Martim de Sá, 13 /03/2001, 25 segments, 3.5 mm long, 0.4 mm wide. Paratype 8: coll. Caraguatatuba, Praia de Martim de Sá, 19 /09/2001, 31 segments, 4 mm long, 0.3 mm wide. Description Body short and cylindrical, usually widest at midthorax (Fig. 6 C), reddish in life, white after fixation. Holotype complete, with 47 chaetigers, 5 mm in length by 0.5 mm in width, at widest point of thorax, but longer incomplete specimens were observed and included in type series (see above). Prostomium distally expanded, with up to 11 cylindrical tentacles (Figs. 5 A, 6 A–G), longest reaching to segment 17. Laterally, basal part of prostomium with up to 4 small and frequently nearly inconspicuous eyespots (Fig. 5 A). Lips densely ciliated around mouth, upper lip short and rounded, lower lip small, restricted to oral area and frequently swollen (Fig. 6 C–G). Peristomium continuing laterally beyond lower lip for short extension, with conspicuous ciliation at border with prostomium (Fig. 6 D–F). Segment 1 dorsally short, ventrally expanded below lower lip (Fig. 6 A–G); segment 2 ventrally protruding (Fig. 6 C–G); segments 2–4 progressively longer (Fig. 6 A–B, F). Segments 1–4 progressively more inflated dorsally (Fig. 6 A–B, D, F). Distinct ventral shields from segment 2 until end of thorax, followed by midventral stripe (Fig. 6 C, G) extending until pygidium. Notopodia from segment 4 (Figs. 5 A, 6 A–D, F–G), extending for 14 segments. On segments 4–10, chaetae on anterior row of notochaetae as thin bladed, strongly serrated capillaries (Figs. 5 C, 7 A–B) and chateae on posterior row of notochaetae as slightly geniculate, limbate capillaries, with limbation ending subdistally and hirsute alimbate tip, with one lateral row of fine hairs (Figs. 5 B, 7 A, C–D). From segment 11 until end of thorax, chaetae on anterior row of notochaetae as on anterior chaetigers, but with broader bases and stouter teeth, and chaetae on posterior row of notochaetae as medially limbate, distally finely serrated capillaries (Figs. 5 F–G, 7 E –H). Neuropodia present from segment 5, glandular and sessile, slightly elevated from body wall throughout (Figs. 5 A, 6 C–D, F–I), with internal shafts attached to uncini by ligaments on abdominal segments. Uncini avicular, with short triangular heel and developed prow, dorsal button far from anterior margin of uncini, at about midlength between base of main fang and end of prow (Fig. 5 D–E); uncini with about 5 irregular rows of secondary teeth above main fang (Figs. 5 D–E, 8 A–H). Uncini arranged in double rows from segments 11–20, three segments after cessation of notopodia (Fig. 6 C, G–H); rows well separated (Fig. 8 C), but uncini from both rows with prows aligned. Nephridial papillae ventral to notopodia, or between notopodia and neuropodia, on segments 3–8 (Fig. 6 I). Pygidium crenulated, without anal papillae. Remarks Phisidia is a conservative genus, in which most characters usually used to distinguish between species of other genera of terebellines are fixed between species. Species of Phisidia usually live among algae and similar substrata, from shallow to deep waters (Table 1). Seven species of this genus have been described so far and an eighth one, from New Zealand, will be described soon (Glasby et al. in prep.) and is treated here as Phisidia sp. The most important characters distinguishing these species are the presence and number of prostomial eyespots, the number of rows of secondary teeth above uncinial main fang, the number of segments with uncini arranged in double rows and the number of pairs of notopodia. The characteristics of each species of Phisidia are listed in Table 1. Phisidia rubra sp. nov. is similar to P. echuca , P. sagamica , P. sanctaemariae and P. sp., as all have uncini arranged in double rows for 10 segments, on segments 11–20. In contrast, the known species of Phisidia with different number of segments with uncini arranged in double rows are P. oculata , which, according to the original description, has uncini arranged in double rows on segments 11 to 34 (24 segments), P. castanea , with uncini in double rows for 9 segments, and P. rubrolineata Hartmann­Schröder and Rosenfeldt, 1989 and P. a u re a , both latter species with uncini arranged in double rows for 9­10 segments. In addition to the number of segments on which uncini are arranged in double rows, P. aurea differs from P. rubra sp. nov. in being a larger species, without eyespots, with only 13 pairs of notopodia and with uncini more heavily crested, with 7 rows of secondary teeth (Table 1). P. rubrolineata also lacks eyespots, is a larger species and has uncini more heavily crested than P. rubra sp. nov., with 6 rows of secondary teeth (Table 1). In addition, it differs from P. rubra sp. nov. in having ventral shields starting from segment 5 and body pigmentation as one reddish brown longitudinal band at each lateral of the body, starting from the penultimate thoracic chaetiger and extending through the abdomen. Similarly, P. castanea differs from P. rubra sp. nov. in being a larger species and having 16 pairs of notopodia (Table 1). In addition, uncini of P. castanea have 3 rows of secondary teeth and prow and heel both distally rounded, instead of triangular and distally sharp, as in all other species of the genus. Finally, P. castanea has reddish brown pigmentation dorsally on segment 1 and on the posterior borders of segments 2–5, and ventrally on segment 2. Among the species of Phisidia with uncini arranged in double rows on segments 11–20, P. echuca is distinguished from P. r u b r a sp. nov. for being a considerably larger species, for not having prostomial eyespots and for having uncini with four rows of secondary teeth (Table 1). Phisidia sagamica was originally described in German (Hessle 1917) and, most probably because of problems of translation, some of its characters seem to have been misinterpreted. For example, Hessle (1917) said: “… Die drei ersten Paare Hakenborstenchaetopodien hinter den Haarborsten sind zweireihig, die folgenden sind einreihig…”, meaning this species has uncini arranged in double rows for three chaetigers after the end of notochaetae, thereafter in single rows. This was interpreted by subsequent authors (e. g., Southward 1956, Hutchings and Glasby 1988) as this species only having uncini in double rows for three segments, what would be very unusual for a terebelline. In our opinion, this sentence means this species has uncini in double rows until three segments after the end of notopodia, meaning segment 20, exactly as in P. a u re a , P. echuca , P. sanctaemariae and P. r u b r a sp. nov. It is unclear, however, from which segment uncini start being arranged in double rows and so it is not possible to count the number of segments with such an arrangement of uncini. In regards to eyespots, Hessle (1917) said P. sagamica has some developed eyespots, but it is unclear how many eyespots it has and also what the author means by “developed”. Anyway, P. sagamica has 4 rows of secondary teeth above the uncinial main fang, differing from P. rubra n. sp. in this respect, and its type­locality is in Japan, far from Brazil (Table 1). Phisidia sanctaemariae differs from P. rubra sp. nov., in lacking eyespots and having 16 pairs of notopodia and 7 rows of secondary teeth above the uncinial main fang (Table 1). Finally, P. sp. from New Zealand differs from P. rubra sp. nov. in having many more eyespots, which form a continuous row across the prostomium, and in having a different number of rows of secondary teeth above the main fang of uncini, 4–5 rows on the anterior thoracic uncini, 3 rows on the midthoracic uncini and about 7 rows on the abdominal uncini. : Published as part of Nogueira, João Miguel De Matos & Alves, Tarsila Montrezoro, 2006, Two new terebellid polychaetes (Polychaeta: Terebellidae) from the state of São Paulo, southeastern Brazil, pp. 31-54 in Zootaxa 1205 on pages 44-52, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.172367 : {"references": ["Hartmann-Schroder, G. & Rosenfeldt, P. (1989) Die Polychaeten der \" Polarstern \" - Reise ANT III / 2 in die Antarktis 1984 Teil 2: Cirratulidae bis Serpulidae. Mitteilungen aus dem Hamburgischen zoologischen Museum und Institut Hamburg 86, 65 - 106.", "Hessle, C. (1917) Zur Kenntnis der terebellomorphen Polychaeten. Zoologiska bidrag fran Uppsala, 5, 39 - 258.", "Southward, E. C. (1956) On some Polychaeta of the Isle of Man. Annals of the Magazine of Natural History, IX (12), 257 - 279.", "Hutchings, P. & Glasby, C. (1988) The Amphitritinae (Polychaeta: Terebellidae) from Australia. Records of the Australian Museum, 40 (1), 1 - 60."]}