Koellikerina belgicae Vanhoffen 1910

• Main Author: Peña Cantero, Álvaro L.
• Format: Other/Unknown Material
• Language: unknown
• Published: Zenodo 2015
• Subjects: Biodiversity; Taxonomy; Animalia; Cnidaria; Hydrozoa; Anthoathecata; Bougainvilliidae; Koellikerina; Koellikerina belgicae; Davis Sea; Posadowsky Bay
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5671792; http://treatment.plazi.org/id/3D10878AFF9DB44310905E7AFA883D31

? Koellikerina belgicae (Vanhöffen, 1910) (Figs 1 B, 2C–D, 3C–E) Perigonimus belgicae Vanhöffen, 1910: 283 –284, fig. 9; Stechow, 1919: 20; Stepanjants, 1972: 58, fig. 3; 1979: 12, pl. 1 fig. 4. ‘ Perigonimus belgicae ’— Peña Cantero, 2004: 768. Perigonimus sp. Hartlaub, 1904: 8, pl. 1 fig. 1. Material examined. Gauss Deutschen Südpolar-Expedition 1901–1903: Syntype (ZMBCni 15702*), 1.III.1903, off Posadowsky Bay (Davis Sea), 2450 m, a few stems, up to 6 mm high, with gonophores, on bryozoans. Description. Tortuous stems, up to 6 mm high, irregularly branched, with up to 11 polyps (Fig. 1 B). Stems covered almost completely with perisarc (only tips of tentacles visible) and forming distinct pseudohydrothecae, c. 280 µm in maximum diameter (Figs 2 C, 3C–D). Perisarc typically felted; however, felt lost in most of the stems, being only present at their distal parts and on pseudohydrothecae (Fig. 1 B). Some medusa buds (c. 210 µm in diameter) present (Figs 2 D, 3E), although in early development stage. Remarks. According to Vanhöffen (1910) the species has no more than eight tentacles. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to find any nematocysts and, consequently, the cnidome for this species remains unknown. In addition, despite the presence of medusa buds, their early development stage prevents me from characterizing the medusa of this species. Vanhöffen’s species is, therefore, insufficiently characterized and it is here considered a species inquirenda . This is a very rare species, reported on three occasions, but only known for sure from the original description. Vanhöffen (1910) considered his specimens identical with those described by Hartlaub (1904) as Perigonimus sp., although this should be confirmed by studying Hartlaub’s material. Hartlaub (1904) had previously considered his specimens related to Perigonimus cidaritis Weismann, 1883 [= Koellikerina fasciculata (Péron & Lesueur, 1810] and P. vestitus Allman, 1864 [= Leuckartiara octona (Fleming, 1823)] because of the felted perisarc envelope. ...