Glyphanostomum Levinsen 1884

• Main Authors: Reuscher, Michael, Fiege, Dieter, Wehe, Thomas
• Format: Other/Unknown Material
• Language: unknown
• Published: 2009
• Subjects: Biodiversity; Taxonomy; Animalia; Annelida; Polychaeta; Terebellida; Ampharetidae; Glyphanostomum; Malmgren; Antarc*; antarcticus
• Online Access: https://zenodo.org/record/6219220; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6219220

Glyphanostomum Levinsen, 1884 Type species: Samythella pallescens Théel, 1879 Generic diagnosis. Prostomium without glandular ridges. Buccal tentacles smooth. Three pairs of cirriform branchiae on one segment. Segment II without chaetae. Thorax with 14 chaetigers and 11 uncinigers. No modified segment. No abdominal rudimentary notopodia present. Table 5: Synoptic table of characters of all species of the genus Anobothrus (Data taken from original descriptions, Jirkov (in press), and own observations. Abbreviations: C: chaetae, E: elevated notopodia, R: glandular ridge between notopodia, S: prolonged segments, TU: thoracic unciniger) A. antarcticus A. apaleatus A. bimaculatus A. glandularis A. gracilis A. laubieri A. nasuta Monro, sp. nov. Fauchald, ( Hartmann- (Malmgren, (Desbruyères, (Ehlers, 1939 1972 Schröder, 1965) 1866) 1978) 1887) Buccal papillose papillose smooth smooth smooth smooth smooth tentacles Table 5: Synoptic table of characters of all species of the genus Anobothrus (continued) Table 6: Diagnostic characters of all genera with dorsal thoracic modifications (Abbrevations: AS: abdominal segments, NTP: notopodia, TC: thoracic chaetiger, TU: thoracic unciniger) Table 6: Diagnostic characters of all genera with dorsal thoracic modifications (continued) Remarks to Table 6: The Table lists all genera with dorsal modifications of certain segments. Besides information concerning modifications and their position, the most important diagnostic characters are given. Some misinterpretations that have accumulated in literature are noted here. The erroneous data is due to non-uniform or incorrect terminology. Thus, there are confusions between segments, chaetigers, and uncinigers. Another problem lies in the fact whether segment II with chaetae formed as paleae are counted as chaetigers or not. In the section "Problems in the systematics of Ampharetidae ", suggestions are given to improve this situation. 1: Inconsistent data is given by Hartman (1965) in the original description of the monotypic genus ...