Salmacina setosa

Harry A. ten Hove hove at science.uva.nl
Sat Apr 5 00:57:00 EST 2003


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/
--



More information about the Annelida mailing list