Paradoneis

[Brian Paavo-2]

Aloha,

I seem to be confused.  A Paradoneis is very important to some work in a
southeast New Zealand intertidal inlet.  I would normally have called it
Paradoneis lyra (Southern 1914).  I just read a paper (citation below)
with new descriptions including a new Paradoneis eliasoni.  While the
paper is well illustrated it seems to be missing some discussion of the
characters needed to resolve some splits (or I may be missing some
convention).  Paradoneis eliasoni appears to be described from 2
anterior fragments and an 'almost complete' worm.  I don't have a copy
of the original Paradoneis lyra description.  According to Table 3 in
the publication, P. eliasoni has acicular neurochaetae in the far
posterior segments.  I grabbed some of our 2000+ specimens and they all
have them.  The table includes a strike rather than a question mark  (no
mention?) of these for P. lyra (Southern 1914).   Both type localities
are from the other side of the planet, P. lyra capensis (Day 1955) is
from South Africa, but the pre-branchial notopodial lobes are present in
our specimens, but Day may not have had specimens this large.  Any thoughts?

My diagnosis of our beast (made before seeing the paper): Conical
prostomium slightly longer than wide, slit nuchal organs, branchiae
start on chaetiger 4 and continue for 11-12 chaetigers [a little shorter
than segment width), no eyes, no median antenna/scar, small notopodial
lobes present on pre-branchial chaetigers larger in branchial chaetiger
smaller in postbranchial chaetigers then very proporitionally large in
extreme posterior, earliest observed forked chaetae on chaetiger 3 only
one observed in each notopodium, posterior chaetigers with stout
acicular chaetae (one each neuropodium) which is weakly hooked, 3
pygidial cirri.  [I didn't note the capillary numbers]

Aguirrezabalaga, F. and Gil, J.  (2009)  Paraonidae (Polychaeta) from
the Capbreton Canyon (Bay of Biscay, NE Atlantic) with the description
of eight new species.  Scientia Marina 73(4): 631-666.


Cheers,
Brian

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian Paavo, PhD
Benthic Science Limited
1 Porterfield Street
Macandrew Bay
Dunedin 9014
New Zealand

P/F [phone]
M [phone]
http://www.benthicscience.com
.................................

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net

[Geoff Read]

Hi Brian,

With 2000 specimens, some of which must be good, you should be able to make a determination, if one is indeed possible. Usually I get sent battered short ant. fragments from New Zealand harbours that I don't venture beyond placing as a Paradoneis. We also have deeper water Paradoneis - bits and pieces.

It was Andy Mackie (in Ophelia Suppl, 1991) who separated eliasoni off from lyra, and it (eliasoni) was found to be a deeper water species, with acicular posterior chaetae that are lacking in lyra. As yours are very shallow water and a different hemisphere the chances of your NZ worm (although also with acicular chaetae) being the same species is low. If that's the only known Paradoneis with acicular chaetae you probably have an unnamed taxon.

There is a published record of P. lyra for NZ - in Kirkegaard, 1996, from 610m off West Coast, South Island. P. lyra is also commonly reported from estuaries around the world, but this is likely to be only because it is the best known of the genus.

There are only 2 Paradoneis sequences in GenBank, & they not identified to a species. No help there yet. But that may be the best way these very morphologically uniform species can be worked out without agonising over natural variation, and whether my observed pointed branchiae are your blunt branchiae, etc. Words can only do so much.

Not much in the way of Paradoneis in neighbouring Antarctica is there? Not sure whether Paradoneis belgicae (Fauvel, 1936) still belongs in the genus, but haven't checked it out.

Geoff

>>> On 10/09/2009 at 2:12 p.m., Brian Paavo <paavo@...> wrote:
> Aloha,
>
> I seem to be confused.  A Paradoneis is very important to some work in a
> southeast New Zealand intertidal inlet.  I would normally have called it
> Paradoneis lyra (Southern 1914).  I just read a paper (citation below)
> with new descriptions including a new Paradoneis eliasoni.  While the
> paper is well illustrated it seems to be missing some discussion of the
> characters needed to resolve some splits (or I may be missing some
> convention).  Paradoneis eliasoni appears to be described from 2
> anterior fragments and an 'almost complete' worm.  I don't have a copy
> of the original Paradoneis lyra description.  According to Table 3 in
> the publication, P. eliasoni has acicular neurochaetae in the far
> posterior segments.  I grabbed some of our 2000+ specimens and they all
> have them.  The table includes a strike rather than a question mark  (no
> mention?) of these for P. lyra (Southern 1914).   Both type localities
> are from the other side of the planet, P. lyra capensis (Day 1955) is
> from South Africa, but the pre-branchial notopodial lobes are present in
> our specimens, but Day may not have had specimens this large.  Any thoughts?
>
> My diagnosis of our beast (made before seeing the paper): Conical
> prostomium slightly longer than wide, slit nuchal organs, branchiae
> start on chaetiger 4 and continue for 11-12 chaetigers [a little shorter
> than segment width), no eyes, no median antenna/scar, small notopodial
> lobes present on pre-branchial chaetigers larger in branchial chaetiger
> smaller in postbranchial chaetigers then very proporitionally large in
> extreme posterior, earliest observed forked chaetae on chaetiger 3 only
> one observed in each notopodium, posterior chaetigers with stout
> acicular chaetae (one each neuropodium) which is weakly hooked, 3
> pygidial cirri.  [I didn't note the capillary numbers]
>
> Aguirrezabalaga, F. and Gil, J.  (2009)  Paraonidae (Polychaeta) from
> the Capbreton Canyon (Bay of Biscay, NE Atlantic) with the description
> of eight new species.  Scientia Marina 73(4): 631-666.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Brian

NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd.

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net

[eduardo.lopez]

Hi Brian,

I'm sure your specimens don't belong to Aricidea belgicae (Fauvel,  
1936). After revising  quite a lot of Antarctic specimens none  
possessed forked notochaetae. I made a redescription of this species  
in PBSW, and the diagnostic characters dont' fit your taxon. It must  
be noted that neither the original description of Paraonis belgicae by  
Fauvel, nor the redescription provided by Hartley (1981) based on the  
type series (currently lost) mentioned any kind of furcate chaetae.

All the best


Eduardo LÓPEZ

Geoff Read <g.read@...> escribió:

> Hi Brian,
>
> With 2000 specimens, some of which must be good, you should be able  
> to make a determination, if one is indeed possible. Usually I get  
> sent battered short ant. fragments from New Zealand harbours that I  
> don't venture beyond placing as a Paradoneis. We also have deeper  
> water Paradoneis - bits and pieces.
>
> It was Andy Mackie (in Ophelia Suppl, 1991) who separated eliasoni  
> off from lyra, and it (eliasoni) was found to be a deeper water  
> species, with acicular posterior chaetae that are lacking in lyra.  
> As yours are very shallow water and a different hemisphere the  
> chances of your NZ worm (although also with acicular chaetae) being  
> the same species is low. If that's the only known Paradoneis with  
> acicular chaetae you probably have an unnamed taxon.
>
> There is a published record of P. lyra for NZ - in Kirkegaard, 1996,  
> from 610m off West Coast, South Island. P. lyra is also commonly  
> reported from estuaries around the world, but this is likely to be  
> only because it is the best known of the genus.
>
> There are only 2 Paradoneis sequences in GenBank, & they not  
> identified to a species. No help there yet. But that may be the best  
> way these very morphologically uniform species can be worked out  
> without agonising over natural variation, and whether my observed  
> pointed branchiae are your blunt branchiae, etc. Words can only do  
> so much.
>
> Not much in the way of Paradoneis in neighbouring Antarctica is  
> there? Not sure whether Paradoneis belgicae (Fauvel, 1936) still  
> belongs in the genus, but haven't checked it out.
>
> Geoff
>
>>>> On 10/09/2009 at 2:12 p.m., Brian Paavo <paavo@...> wrote:
>> Aloha,
>>
>> I seem to be confused.  A Paradoneis is very important to some work in a
>> southeast New Zealand intertidal inlet.  I would normally have called it
>> Paradoneis lyra (Southern 1914).  I just read a paper (citation below)
>> with new descriptions including a new Paradoneis eliasoni.  While the
>> paper is well illustrated it seems to be missing some discussion of the
>> characters needed to resolve some splits (or I may be missing some
>> convention).  Paradoneis eliasoni appears to be described from 2
>> anterior fragments and an 'almost complete' worm.  I don't have a copy
>> of the original Paradoneis lyra description.  According to Table 3 in
>> the publication, P. eliasoni has acicular neurochaetae in the far
>> posterior segments.  I grabbed some of our 2000+ specimens and they all
>> have them.  The table includes a strike rather than a question mark  (no
>> mention?) of these for P. lyra (Southern 1914).   Both type localities
>> are from the other side of the planet, P. lyra capensis (Day 1955) is
>> from South Africa, but the pre-branchial notopodial lobes are present in
>> our specimens, but Day may not have had specimens this large.  Any thoughts?
>>
>> My diagnosis of our beast (made before seeing the paper): Conical
>> prostomium slightly longer than wide, slit nuchal organs, branchiae
>> start on chaetiger 4 and continue for 11-12 chaetigers [a little shorter
>> than segment width), no eyes, no median antenna/scar, small notopodial
>> lobes present on pre-branchial chaetigers larger in branchial chaetiger
>> smaller in postbranchial chaetigers then very proporitionally large in
>> extreme posterior, earliest observed forked chaetae on chaetiger 3 only
>> one observed in each notopodium, posterior chaetigers with stout
>> acicular chaetae (one each neuropodium) which is weakly hooked, 3
>> pygidial cirri.  [I didn't note the capillary numbers]
>>
>> Aguirrezabalaga, F. and Gil, J.  (2009)  Paraonidae (Polychaeta) from
>> the Capbreton Canyon (Bay of Biscay, NE Atlantic) with the description
>> of eight new species.  Scientia Marina 73(4): 631-666.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brian
>
>
>
>
> NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water &  
> Atmospheric Research Ltd.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Annelida mailing list
> Post: Annelida@...
> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
> Resources: http://www.annelida.net
>

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net

[Jennifer Davenport]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Brian,

Hey!  I had troubles identifying what I thought was Paradoneis lyra from Tampa Bay, FL, USA.  I came across the following article, which you will want to check out.  This article follows the opinion of Strelzov (1973) which synonymizes Paradoneis and Paraonides with Cirrophorus.  This synonymization appears to be controversial and I am not sure which is commonly accepted amongst the polychaete community.  Maybe others belonging to this forum will want to comment on this.  Table 1 in McLelland and Gaston (1994) helped me sort out our local species and it may help you as well.  The local specimens that I have fit Cirrophorus lyra, but I agree with Geoff on the fact that this species may not be as widely distributed as previously thought.  Here are those citations:

 

McLelland, J. A. & G. R. Gaston.  1994.  Two new species of Cirrophorus (Polychaeta: Paraonidae) form the northern Gulf of Mexico.  Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 107 (3): 524-531.

 

Strelzov, V. E.  1968.  Polychaetous annelids of the family Paraonidae (Polychaeta, Sedentaria) of the Barents Sea.  Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Kirov Kola affiliate, Murmansk Marine Biology Institute 17 (21): 74-95.

 

Good luck!

 

Jennifer Davenport

Terra Environmental Services, Inc.

101 16th Avenue South, Suite 4

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

jdavenport@...

Office:  [phone]

Cell:  [phone]

Fax:  [phone]

 

-----Original Message-----
From: annelida-bounces@... [mailto:annelida-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Brian Paavo
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:13 PM
To: annelida@...
Subject: [Annelida] Paradoneis

 

Aloha,

 

I seem to be confused.  A Paradoneis is very important to some work in a

southeast New Zealand intertidal inlet.  I would normally have called it

Paradoneis lyra (Southern 1914).  I just read a paper (citation below)

with new descriptions including a new Paradoneis eliasoni.  While the

paper is well illustrated it seems to be missing some discussion of the

characters needed to resolve some splits (or I may be missing some

convention).  Paradoneis eliasoni appears to be described from 2

anterior fragments and an 'almost complete' worm.  I don't have a copy

of the original Paradoneis lyra description.  According to Table 3 in

the publication, P. eliasoni has acicular neurochaetae in the far

posterior segments.  I grabbed some of our 2000+ specimens and they all

have them.  The table includes a strike rather than a question mark  (no

mention?) of these for P. lyra (Southern 1914).   Both type localities

are from the other side of the planet, P. lyra capensis (Day 1955) is

from South Africa, but the pre-branchial notopodial lobes are present in

our specimens, but Day may not have had specimens this large.  Any thoughts?

 

My diagnosis of our beast (made before seeing the paper): Conical

prostomium slightly longer than wide, slit nuchal organs, branchiae

start on chaetiger 4 and continue for 11-12 chaetigers [a little shorter

than segment width), no eyes, no median antenna/scar, small notopodial

lobes present on pre-branchial chaetigers larger in branchial chaetiger

smaller in postbranchial chaetigers then very proporitionally large in

extreme posterior, earliest observed forked chaetae on chaetiger 3 only

one observed in each notopodium, posterior chaetigers with stout

acicular chaetae (one each neuropodium) which is weakly hooked, 3

pygidial cirri.  [I didn't note the capillary numbers]

 

Aguirrezabalaga, F. and Gil, J.  (2009)  Paraonidae (Polychaeta) from

the Capbreton Canyon (Bay of Biscay, NE Atlantic) with the description

of eight new species.  Scientia Marina 73(4): 631-666.

 

 

Cheers,

Brian

 

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brian Paavo, PhD

Benthic Science Limited

1 Porterfield Street

Macandrew Bay

Dunedin 9014

New Zealand

 

P/F [phone]

M [phone]

http://www.benthicscience.com

.................................

 

_______________________________________________

Annelida mailing list

Post: Annelida@...

Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida

Resources: http://www.annelida.net

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net

[Joao Gil]

Dear Brian and all,

Thanks for the interest in our paper. As already noted by Geoff, Paradoneis
eliasoni was described by Mackie (1991), in the Proceedings of the IPC
helded in Denmark. We just added a new record, for the Iberian coasts. In
the same paper it is possible to find a good redescription of Paradoneis
lyra, the type species of the genus. Personally, I agree with Mackie (1991)
in that P. lyra has a much more restricted distribution than the one
normally considered.

Moreover, we are checking the possibility that in the western Mediterranean
Sea there are as much as 3 different species being identified under
Paradoneis lyra (besides Paradoneis ilvana Castelli 1985, which we also
consider as a valid species). I can't imagine the number of valid species of
Paradoneis that are waiting to be described all over the world, but it
should be considerable.

In what concerns the validity of the synonymy of Cirrophorus with
Paradoneis, it depends on if you consider the presence or absence of a
median antenna as a valid character in order to separate two genera of
Paraonidae. We did, but until some solid phylogenetic study can be made on
this matter, I don't see any problem in considering the two genera as
synonymous, and describe new species without median antenna under
Cirrophorus, as long as the new species is valid, well described, and
justified.

For each genus or subgenus with a new taxon in our paper (Aguirrezabalaga &
Gil, 2009), we decided to add a table with the main morphological characters
for all the hitherto described species, as we believe that this kind of
tables are good and much needed taxonomic tools. We also thought that this
was the best way to access a close identification of the specimen you have
under your microscope, but as always in these cases, a more detailed
confirmation is always desirable and/or required. For this reason we
included one or two citations for each species, where more detailed
descriptions can be found.

We did our best in order to avoid errors in the tables, which were revised
several (many) times. However, and following the unwritten rule that there
will always remain some undetected errors, no matter how many times you
revise the manuscript or the proofs, we apologize for any possible mistakes.


Finally, the paper is open access in Scientia Marina, at the following link
(it is the first paper of the issue):

http://www.icm.csic.es/scimar/index.php/secId/6/IdNum/25/

This is all, I hope it can help in some way. I just would like to thank to
Daniel Martin for his help during the revision of the manuscript (due to one
of those mistakes I told you about, he is missing at the acknowlegments),
and to everybody at Scientia Marina, for their patience! And to you, if you
have read this until the end! ;)

Any questions, don't hesitate in writing to us. We will happy to help!

All the best,

João

João Gil
CEAB-CSIC
Carrer d'accés a la Cala Sant Francesc, 14
E-17300 BLANES (GIRONA)
SPAIN
Email: gil@...
Telef. (34) 972.33.61.01
Fax: [phone]

-----Mensaje original-----
De: annelida-bounces@...
[mailto:annelida-bounces@...] En nombre de Brian Paavo
Enviado el: jueves, 10 de septiembre de 2009 4:13
Para: annelida@...
Asunto: [Annelida] Paradoneis

Aloha,

I seem to be confused.  A Paradoneis is very important to some work in a
southeast New Zealand intertidal inlet.  I would normally have called it
Paradoneis lyra (Southern 1914).  I just read a paper (citation below)
with new descriptions including a new Paradoneis eliasoni.  While the
paper is well illustrated it seems to be missing some discussion of the
characters needed to resolve some splits (or I may be missing some
convention).  Paradoneis eliasoni appears to be described from 2
anterior fragments and an 'almost complete' worm.  I don't have a copy
of the original Paradoneis lyra description.  According to Table 3 in
the publication, P. eliasoni has acicular neurochaetae in the far
posterior segments.  I grabbed some of our 2000+ specimens and they all
have them.  The table includes a strike rather than a question mark  (no
mention?) of these for P. lyra (Southern 1914).   Both type localities
are from the other side of the planet, P. lyra capensis (Day 1955) is
from South Africa, but the pre-branchial notopodial lobes are present in
our specimens, but Day may not have had specimens this large.  Any thoughts?

My diagnosis of our beast (made before seeing the paper): Conical
prostomium slightly longer than wide, slit nuchal organs, branchiae
start on chaetiger 4 and continue for 11-12 chaetigers [a little shorter
than segment width), no eyes, no median antenna/scar, small notopodial
lobes present on pre-branchial chaetigers larger in branchial chaetiger
smaller in postbranchial chaetigers then very proporitionally large in
extreme posterior, earliest observed forked chaetae on chaetiger 3 only
one observed in each notopodium, posterior chaetigers with stout
acicular chaetae (one each neuropodium) which is weakly hooked, 3
pygidial cirri.  [I didn't note the capillary numbers]

Aguirrezabalaga, F. and Gil, J.  (2009)  Paraonidae (Polychaeta) from
the Capbreton Canyon (Bay of Biscay, NE Atlantic) with the description
of eight new species.  Scientia Marina 73(4): 631-666.


Cheers,
Brian

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian Paavo, PhD
Benthic Science Limited
1 Porterfield Street
Macandrew Bay
Dunedin 9014
New Zealand

P/F [phone]
M [phone]
http://www.benthicscience.com
.................................

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net



_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net

[Lovell, Larry]

My message with attachment did not get out through annelida, so I am resending it without the pdf.  If anyone would like to receive it, please request it directly from me.

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Lovell, Larry
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:55 PM
To: 'Joao Gil'; 'annelida@...'
Cc: 'paavo@...'
Subject: RE: [Annelida] Paradoneis


Dear João, Brian, and all,

I have been reading the discussion thread Brian started on Paradoneis with interest.  As several here have pointed out, there is disagreement on generic classification of paraonids with notopodial modified setae by authors.  In my paper (Lovell, 2002) I chose to separate Paradoneis from Cirrophorus following Hartley (1981); Castelli (1988); Mackie (1991); and Blake (1996) by considering the presence/absence of a median antenna as a character of generic level weighting, as in other families such as Spionidae.  

I agree with João that there are probably many undescribed species of Paradoneis out there.  In Southern California we report Paradoneis lyra, P. eliasoni, and a provisional species Paradoneis sp SD1 of Barwick 2000.  I have attached a pdf of the Barwick's voucher sheet for his provisional.  It does not seem to match any species in the Paradoneis table presented in Aguirrezabalaga &
Gil, 2009.  

As João states, a phylogenetic study for this family would help resolve these issues and is badly needed.  There is a benthic invertebrate DNA barcode initiative in Southern California being developed by Dr. Peter Miller at the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project.  SCAMIT taxonomists at local POTWs are involved in collection and identifications to provide well documented properly identified specimens.  Paraonids are well represented in our local POTW samples.  This project might be able to contribute genetic material and information for a phylogenetic study.  I encourage others to collect properly preserved and identified paraonids from other areas of the world that can be run for comparison.  The broad reported distributions of species such as Aricidea (Acmira) catherinae, Aricidea (Acmira) simplex and Levinsenia gracilis is another area that would benefit from the availability of such genetic information.

In a related familial comment, I have finally seen a complete specimen of Aricidea (Aedicira) pacifica and can confirm that there are no modified neurosetae present in the far posterior setigers.  

Worm regards,

Larry

Lawrence L. Lovell
Biologist II
Ocean Monitoring Research Group
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
24501 S. Figueroa St.
Carson, CA 90745
[phone]  X-5613 office
[phone] fax
llovell@... <mailto:llovell@...>

-----Original Message-----
From: annelida-bounces@...
[mailto:annelida-bounces@...]On Behalf Of Joao Gil
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 8:00 AM
To: annelida@...
Cc: paavo@...
Subject: RE: [Annelida] Paradoneis


Dear Brian and all,

Thanks for the interest in our paper. As already noted by Geoff, Paradoneis
eliasoni was described by Mackie (1991), in the Proceedings of the IPC
helded in Denmark. We just added a new record, for the Iberian coasts. In
the same paper it is possible to find a good redescription of Paradoneis
lyra, the type species of the genus. Personally, I agree with Mackie (1991)
in that P. lyra has a much more restricted distribution than the one
normally considered.

Moreover, we are checking the possibility that in the western Mediterranean
Sea there are as much as 3 different species being identified under
Paradoneis lyra (besides Paradoneis ilvana Castelli 1985, which we also
consider as a valid species). I can't imagine the number of valid species of
Paradoneis that are waiting to be described all over the world, but it
should be considerable.

In what concerns the validity of the synonymy of Cirrophorus with
Paradoneis, it depends on if you consider the presence or absence of a
median antenna as a valid character in order to separate two genera of
Paraonidae. We did, but until some solid phylogenetic study can be made on
this matter, I don't see any problem in considering the two genera as
synonymous, and describe new species without median antenna under
Cirrophorus, as long as the new species is valid, well described, and
justified.

For each genus or subgenus with a new taxon in our paper (Aguirrezabalaga &
Gil, 2009), we decided to add a table with the main morphological characters
for all the hitherto described species, as we believe that this kind of
tables are good and much needed taxonomic tools. We also thought that this
was the best way to access a close identification of the specimen you have
under your microscope, but as always in these cases, a more detailed
confirmation is always desirable and/or required. For this reason we
included one or two citations for each species, where more detailed
descriptions can be found.

We did our best in order to avoid errors in the tables, which were revised
several (many) times. However, and following the unwritten rule that there
will always remain some undetected errors, no matter how many times you
revise the manuscript or the proofs, we apologize for any possible mistakes.


Finally, the paper is open access in Scientia Marina, at the following link
(it is the first paper of the issue):

http://www.icm.csic.es/scimar/index.php/secId/6/IdNum/25/

This is all, I hope it can help in some way. I just would like to thank to
Daniel Martin for his help during the revision of the manuscript (due to one
of those mistakes I told you about, he is missing at the acknowlegments),
and to everybody at Scientia Marina, for their patience! And to you, if you
have read this until the end! ;)

Any questions, don't hesitate in writing to us. We will happy to help!

All the best,

João

João Gil
CEAB-CSIC
Carrer d'accés a la Cala Sant Francesc, 14
E-17300 BLANES (GIRONA)
SPAIN
Email: gil@...
Telef. (34) 972.33.61.01
Fax: [phone]

-----Mensaje original-----
De: annelida-bounces@...
[mailto:annelida-bounces@...] En nombre de Brian Paavo
Enviado el: jueves, 10 de septiembre de 2009 4:13
Para: annelida@...
Asunto: [Annelida] Paradoneis

Aloha,

I seem to be confused.  A Paradoneis is very important to some work in a
southeast New Zealand intertidal inlet.  I would normally have called it
Paradoneis lyra (Southern 1914).  I just read a paper (citation below)
with new descriptions including a new Paradoneis eliasoni.  While the
paper is well illustrated it seems to be missing some discussion of the
characters needed to resolve some splits (or I may be missing some
convention).  Paradoneis eliasoni appears to be described from 2
anterior fragments and an 'almost complete' worm.  I don't have a copy
of the original Paradoneis lyra description.  According to Table 3 in
the publication, P. eliasoni has acicular neurochaetae in the far
posterior segments.  I grabbed some of our 2000+ specimens and they all
have them.  The table includes a strike rather than a question mark  (no
mention?) of these for P. lyra (Southern 1914).   Both type localities
are from the other side of the planet, P. lyra capensis (Day 1955) is
from South Africa, but the pre-branchial notopodial lobes are present in
our specimens, but Day may not have had specimens this large.  Any thoughts?

My diagnosis of our beast (made before seeing the paper): Conical
prostomium slightly longer than wide, slit nuchal organs, branchiae
start on chaetiger 4 and continue for 11-12 chaetigers [a little shorter
than segment width), no eyes, no median antenna/scar, small notopodial
lobes present on pre-branchial chaetigers larger in branchial chaetiger
smaller in postbranchial chaetigers then very proporitionally large in
extreme posterior, earliest observed forked chaetae on chaetiger 3 only
one observed in each notopodium, posterior chaetigers with stout
acicular chaetae (one each neuropodium) which is weakly hooked, 3
pygidial cirri.  [I didn't note the capillary numbers]

Aguirrezabalaga, F. and Gil, J.  (2009)  Paraonidae (Polychaeta) from
the Capbreton Canyon (Bay of Biscay, NE Atlantic) with the description
of eight new species.  Scientia Marina 73(4): 631-666.


Cheers,
Brian

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian Paavo, PhD
Benthic Science Limited
1 Porterfield Street
Macandrew Bay
Dunedin 9014
New Zealand

P/F [phone]
M [phone]
http://www.benthicscience.com
.................................

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net



_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net