Reply to Bamber & Co: Salmacina/Filograna setosa

Helmut ZIBROWIUS Helmut.Zibrowius at com.univ-mrs.fr
Fri Apr 4 02:41:13 EST 2003


Yes, indeed, Langerhans (1884) described Salmacina setosa from 
Madeira, and Salmacina has frequently been considered as synonymous 
with Filograna, an opinion that still is debatable. In fact, the forms 
referred to these two genera are in great need of thorough revision. 
Literature is of little help to see clear. The species described by those old 
authors are not really recognizable (except for Filograna implexa). One 
would have to study populations in the respective type areas, get an 
opinion if one of more species occur there, and then compare the result 
with those from the other areas in question. The main problem is that the 
various Salmacina have no nicely differenciated tube and operculum 
structures and that they are tiny. There is no type material known to exist 
of Langerhans' S. setosa, his specimens were 4 mm long.  

Malaquin produced quite a series of papers on Salmacina (& Filograna) 
and their parasites. He also described a monstrillid copepod T. 
filogranorum (in 1896). Without checking his papers in detail, I would 
presume that all his material came from the Atlantic coast of France. He 
surely has been in contact with P. Fauvel from Angers, throughout ages 
considered as the pope of polychaetology but responsible of quite a 
mess in serpulids (at least). Maybe that identification was (partly) 
Fauvel's. Anyway, only Salmacina, at the generic level, may be 
trustworthy in this case. You can just say that the host was indicated as 
Filograna setosa by Malaquin (after having checked!). Don't try to find 
"the current name for this animal" - nobody can tell you is the host seen 
by Malaquin is the same species as Langerhans' Madeiran Salmacina 
setosa.  

----------------
G. Read 3.4.2003:
Might be a record using combination Filograna setosa for Salmacina setosa
Langerhans 1884.

M.E. Petersen:
Neither Filograna nor Filigrana have a species setosa listed in Hartman's
Catalogue 1959 or Supplement 1965 , and Malaquin 1901 is not listed in her
1951 Literature or in Ward & Fauchald 1997 Polychaete Bibliography. If one
of the specialists doesn't have an answer, it sounds like the name has been
incorrectly cited or referred. You might check Zoological Record for years
around then.
Otherwise check Malaquin 1896, C.R. Acad, Sci. Paris 123: 1316-1318. The
paper deals with monstrillid copepods in filigranes. (p. 162 in Hartman 1951).

R. Bamber 3.4.2003:
I am trying to track down the current name of a polychaete - which I need to
list as the host of a parasitic copepod. The name given was Filograna
setosa, and it was in a paper published by Malaquin in 1901. I think it was
French material - certainly European. Has anyone any idea of the current
name for this animal - it is not listed as a synonym in Faune de 
France? (I realize that Filograna is monotypic for implexa.)
---------------


-- 
Helmut ZIBROWIUS
Centre d'Oceanologie de Marseille
Station Marine d'Endoume
Rue Batterie des Lions
13007 Marseille / France
TEL:   +33  (0) 491041624
FAX:   +33  (0) 491041635
E-MAIL:  hzibrowi at com.univ-mrs.fr
http://www.com.univ-mrs.fr


-- ANNELIDA 
Discuss   = annelida at net.bio.net      = talk to all members
Server    = biosci-server at net.bio.net = un/subscribes
Archives  = http://www.bio.net/hypermail/annelida/
Resources = http://www.annelida.net/
--



More information about the Annelida mailing list