Sertularella patagonica

Sertularella patagonica (d’ Orbigny, 1846) Fig. 4E; Table 10 Sertularia patagonica d’ Orbigny, 1846: 25–26, pl. 11 figs 3–5. Sertularella striata – Millard 1975: 304–305, fig. 97e–f. — Gili et al. 1989: 104–105, fig. 29a. Sertularella patagonica – Galea et al. 2017: 294–295, fig. 15a–e. Material exa...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Gil, Marta, Ramil, Fran
Format: Other/Unknown Material
Language:unknown
Published: 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:https://zenodo.org/record/5095076
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5095076
Description
Summary:Sertularella patagonica (d’ Orbigny, 1846) Fig. 4E; Table 10 Sertularia patagonica d’ Orbigny, 1846: 25–26, pl. 11 figs 3–5. Sertularella striata – Millard 1975: 304–305, fig. 97e–f. — Gili et al. 1989: 104–105, fig. 29a. Sertularella patagonica – Galea et al. 2017: 294–295, fig. 15a–e. Material examined SOUTH ATLANTIC OCEAN • 11 colonies, up to 24 mm high (1 growing on antipatharian), all devoid of gonothecae; Vema Seamount, stn PT4; 31°39′43″–31°38′10″ S, 8°22′37″–8°23′42″ E; 50–108 m depth; 31 Jan. 2015; SEAFO-2015 leg.; SEAFO-2015-40003, SEAFO-2015-40033, SEAFO-2015-40077, SEAFO-2015-40093, SEAFO-2015-40107, SEAFO-2015-40183, SEAFO-2015-40213, SEAFO-2015- 40474, LZM-UV slide R. 586 • 4 colonies, without gonothecae (1 growing on algae and 1 on a bryozoan); Vema Seamount, stn BT5; 31°37′16″–31°36′58″ S, 8°22′37″–8°23′06″ E; 71–94 m depth; 31 Jan. 2015; SEAFO-2015 leg.; SEAFO-2015-40387, SEAFO-2015-40467, SEAFO-2015-40723, SEAFO-2015-40768 • 3 colonies, without gonothecae; Vema Seamount, stn Dive 4; 91–95 m depth; 1 Feb. 2015; SEAFO-2015 leg.; SEAFO-2015-40131, SEAFO-2015-40917, SEAFO-2015-40977. Remarks Our material coincides in both morphology and measurements with those given for S. patagonica by Galea et al. (2017), who synonymized Sertularella striata Stechow, 1923 with S. patagonica after a literature review. It also fits well with the colonies described by Gili et al. (1989, as S. striata) from the Namibian coast, but this record was considered as doubtful by Galea et al. (2017) due to the hydrothecal measurements being larger than those reported for S. patagonica in the literature. However, there are some contradictions between the measurements given by Gili et al. (1989) in the text and those that we have obtained from their figure 29a; indeed, the latter fall within the size range given for S. patagonica, and Namibian colonies prove identical with those collected at Vema Seamount. Consequently, we consider our Namibian material as conspecific with S. patagonica. Distribution In the Atlantic, ...