Polyeunoa McIntosh 1885
Polyeunoa McIntosh, 1885 Type species. Polyeunoa laevis McIntosh, 1885. Diagnosis. Body long, with about 70 segments or more. Elytra at least 15 pairs, on segments 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 29, 32, with or without additional, sporadically and irregularly arranged pairs of elytra...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Other/Unknown Material |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://zenodo.org/record/5680905 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5680905 |
| Summary: | Polyeunoa McIntosh, 1885 Type species. Polyeunoa laevis McIntosh, 1885. Diagnosis. Body long, with about 70 segments or more. Elytra at least 15 pairs, on segments 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 29, 32, with or without additional, sporadically and irregularly arranged pairs of elytra. Elytra nearly covering dorsum or leaving middorsum uncovered; most of posterior region of body uncovered. Prostomium bilobed with cephalic peaks poorly developed or absent; with three antennae; lateral antennae inserted ventrally to median antenna. Notopodia with prominent, digitiform acicular lobe; neuropodia with prominent, subtriangular acicular lobe, tip not extended to supra-acicular process; tips of noto- and neuroacicula penetrating epidermis. Notochaetae few, about as stout as neurochaetae, with blunt tip; neurochaetae numerous, with uni- or bidentate tip. Remarks. Pettibone (1969) discussed the differences of Polyeunoa McIntosh, 1885 and Hololepidella Willey, 1905 and other related genera in detail. Therefore, we will focus here on the distinction from other relevant genera in this context, i.e. Polynoe Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (with regard to Polynoe thouarellicola Hartmann-Schröder, 1989, junior synonym of Polyeunoa laevis), Enipo Malmgren, 1866 (with regard to Enipo rhombigera Ehlers, 1908, junior synonym of P. laevis), Neopolynoe Loshamn, 1981 (genus attributed to Polynoe antarctica Kinberg, 1858 herein), and Parapolyeunoa n. gen. (new genus established herein for Hololepidella flynni Benham, 1921). The variability in the number of pairs of elytra (15 or more), as described for Polyeunoa laevis below, might be problematic when specimens of P. laevis show exactly 15 pairs, like in specimens originally described as Polynoe thouarellicola. But, due to its prominent notopodium, Polyeunoa is easily distinguished from Polynoe which has a rather short, conical notopodium. Differentiation of Polyeunoa and Enipo is also rather easy due to the absence of notochaetae tapering to a capillary tip in Polyeunoa, which ... |
|---|