Dear annelideans,
The reason that I did not answer the question about Salmacina setosa at
an earlier moment is that today I paid the last honours to Dr. Pieter
Wagenaar Hummelinck, who died last sunday at the respectable age of
96, still compos mentis. Some of you may have known my former
teacher, boss, colleague and most of all mentor during the start of my
scientific career. Some of you also have studied (polychaete) parts of his
Caribbean collections. There even is a polychaete named after him,
Lycastopsis hummelincki. We lost a scientist with a very wide range of
interest, but also a very nice person.
Working at home I don't have access to all my literature and notes, but I
won't be in the lab before next wednesday, hence this incomplete answer
based on two relevant recent papers, in the second of which Geoff
Boxshall maybe may find some more information on parasitic copepods
and hosts (I would be very interested indeed to see the other serpulid
names if any before publication, might prevent a mistaken name):
Matos Nogueira, J.M. de, & H.A. ten Hove, 2000.- On a new species of
Salmacina Claparède, 1870 (Polychaeta: Serpulidae) from São Paulo
State, Brazil. Beaufortia 50, 8: 151-161, 3 figs, 2 tabs. (p.158-159)
Kupriyanova, E.K. & E. Nishi & H.A. ten Hove & A.V. Rzhavsky, 2001.-
Life-history patterns in serpulimorph polychaetes: ecological and
evolutionary perspectives. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 39: 1-101, 14
figs, 2 tabs. (p.63)
In the first paper we have given an even more lengthy discussion of the
Filograna/Salmacina problem than those by Dieter and Helmut. We also
gave a list of the nominal species, with their first authors. From this it is
evident that we at least do not believe that Salmacina setosa Langerhans,
1884, of which contrary to Helmut's otherwise concise statement types do
exist (in Vienna), is occurring outside the bathyal environment. This may
have been the reason that my reference to Malaquin 1901 in
Kupriyanova et al. p. 63 is without a specific name (but at home I cannot
check), most probably Malaquin will have had material from shallow
depths, and in my experience it is not very likely that such a taxon would
occur bathyal as well. In summary, the "correct" attribution of the taxon
setosa would be to the genus Salmacina, but it is not likely that if
Malaquin used the specific name setosa that (t)his was a correct
identification. His non-operculate specimen rather will have been
Salmacina dysteri (Huxley, 1855) or incrustans Claparède, 1870. On the
other hand, Salmacina setosa as host of a copepod as mentioned by
Southward (1964) may have been the real taxon.
In the hope to have confused the matter sufficiently to arouse your
curiosity in the two papers mentioned,
wormly
dr. Harry A. ten Hove
Zoological Museum
POB 94766, 1090 GT, Amsterdam
the Netherlands
tel. +31205256906
www.bio.uva.nl/zma/
-- 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/
--
