|Notice:||This page is derived from the original publication listed below, whose author(s) should always be credited. Further contributors may edit and improve the content of this page and, consequently, need to be credited as well (see
). Any assessment of factual correctness requires a careful review of the original article as well as of subsequent contributions.
If you are uncertain whether your planned contribution is correct or not, we suggest that you use the associated discussion page instead of editing the page directly.
This page should be cited as follows (rationale):
Citation formats to copy and paste
TY - JOUR
See also the citation download page at the journal.
- Lepidametria(incl. Nectochaeta von Marenzeller, 1892, Harmopsides Chamberlin, 1919, and Bouchiria Wesenberg-Lund, 1949).
Lepidametria commensalis Webster, 1879, by monotypy.
(modif. Webster 1879). Body long with up to 80 segments. Elytrae large, covering body or leaving a narrow dorsal surface uncovered; posterior region with elytra and cirri alternating every other segment. Tentaculophores with chaetae. Notopodia reduced, with fine notochaetae at least along anterior and median segments, rarely absent. Neuropodia projecting with several types of neurochaetae. Ventral surface often papillated.
Lepidasthenia and Lepidametria were regarded as synonyms by Gravier (1905), Potts (1910), Fauvel (1917), and Day (1962). Gravier indicated that the main difference was the presence of notochaetae in the latter but at the same time, he apparently rejected this difference by indicating that “Lepidasthenia elegans Grube a précisément une rame dorsale rudimentaire”. [Transl.: Lepidasthenia elegans precisely has a rudimentary dorsal branch]. However, the diagnostic feature of missing notochaetae does not denote the presence of a notopodial lobe, but rather a complete absence of notochaetae. Consequently, we think that this is an important difference that can be used to easily separate these two genera. This same approach has been useful for separating other genera, and has been implied by the keys by Fauvel (1923:87), or directly by Fauchald (1977:59).
The pattern of the presence of elytra on posterior segments in Lepidametria and Lepidasthenia made Uschakov (1982), and Hanley and Burke (1991) regard them as distinct genera; i.e., Lepidametria has alternating elytra and cirri, whereas Lepidasthenia has elytra on every third segment in medial and posterior regions. Barnich and Fiege (2004) indicated they were following these conclusions and regarded Lepidametria as a member of Lepidonotinae, not Lepidastheniinae. Their reason was that in Lepidametria (Barnich and Fiege 2004:864): “parapodia differ significantly in their shape from those of the members of the Lepidastheniinae. In the Lepidastheniinae neuropodia are well developed, rather elongate, and distinctly notched dorsally and ventrally, while in Lepidametria neuropodia are well developed, but shorter, and not distinctly notched, which is typical for the Lepidonotinae Willey, 1902”.
It is unfortunate that there is no redescription for the type species of Lepidametria. The only illustrations available do not show this lepidastheniin notch; however, one figure shows that their neuropodia are not short (Pettibone 1963:21, fig. 4g, k). In the original description Webster (1879:12) indicated (italics added): “Ventral ramus of foot stout, elongate, conical, widely excavated for the transmission of the setae, and obliquely truncated from above downward.” This phrase in italics could be taken as equivalent to a notched neuropodium, however. The presence of chaetae in the tentaculophore, another non-lepidastheniin feature, was overlooked by Webster, and by Pettibone (1963:20), who regarded Lepidametria as a valid genus. Gardiner (1976, fig. 1n) illustrated the presence of chaetae in the tentaculophores, but his figure was based upon non-topotype specimens. After the syntype material was examined by one of us (PSS), we concluded that in Lepidametria commensalis there are chaetae in the tentaculophore and that parapodia differ from those present in Lepidastheniinae. Consequently, Lepidametria does not belong in this subfamily but in Lepidonotinae, as previously indicated by Barnich and Fiege (2004).
- Salazar-Vallejo, S; González, N; Salazar-Silva, P; 2015: Lepidasthenia loboi sp. n. from Puerto Madryn, Argentina (Polychaeta, Polynoidae) ZooKeys, (546): 21-37. doi
- Webster H (1879) On the Annelida Chaetopoda of the Virginian Coast. Transactions of the Albany Institute 9: 202–269.
- Gravier C (1905) Sur les genres Lepidasthenia Malmgren et Lepidametria Webster. Bulletin du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris 11: 181–184.
- Potts F (1910) The Percy Sladen Trust Expedition to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner: 12. Polychaeta of the Indian Ocean, 2. The Palmyridae, Aphroditidae, Polynoidae, Acoetidae and Sigalionidae. Transactions of the Linnean Society, London, series 2, Zoology 16: 325–353. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tlb.1910.13.issue-2/issuetoc
- Fauvel P (1917) Annélides polychètes de l’Australie méridionale. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale 56: 159–277, Pls 4–8.
- Day J (1962) Polychaeta from several localities in the Western Indian Ocean. Proceedings of the Zoological Society, London 139: 627–656. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1962.tb01597.x
- Fauvel P (1923) Polychètes Errantes. Faune de France 5: 1–488.
- Fauchald K (1977) The polychaete worms: Definitions and keys to the orders, families and genera. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series 28: 1–190.
- Uschakov P (1982) [Polychaetes of the suborder Aphroditiformia of the Arctic Ocean and the northwestern part of the Pacific Ocean: Families Aphroditidae and Polynoidae]. Faunny SSSR, Mnogoschetinkovyye Chervi 2: 1–272. [Transl. 1987, Canada, Secretary of State, Multilingual Services Division 1112189, 405 pp.]
- Hanley J, Burke M (1991) Polychaeta Polynoidae: Scaleworms of the Chesterfield Islands and Fairway Reefs, Coral Sea. Mémoires du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, série A, 151: 9–82.
- Barnich R, Fiege D (2004) Revision of the genus Lepidastheniella Monro, 1924 (Polychaeta: Polynoidae: Lepidastheniinae) with notes on the subfamily Lepidastheniinae and the description of a new species. Journal of Natural History 38: 863–876. doi: 10.1080/0022293021000046432
- Pettibone M (1963) Marine polychaete worms of the New England region, 1. Families Aphroditidae through Trochochaetidae. United States National Museum Bulletin 227: 1–356. https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/3416
- Gardiner S (1976(1975)) Errant polychaete annelids from North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 91(3): 77–220.