Dear all,
This is a late response to Sergio Salazar's posting on July 6. The original posting is at the end of this message.
If someone there finds Wu (1964) useful, please let me know. I can convert the paper into a pdf file and translate it into English.
Regards,
Jian-Wen Qiu
Department of Biology
Hong Kong Baptist University
224 Waterloo Road, Kowloon
Hong Kong
Phone: 852-34117055
Fax: 852-34115995
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergio Salazar" <savs551216 at hotmail.com>
To: <g.read at niwa.co.nz>; <g.read at niwa.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 3:54 AM
Subject: [Annelida] Capitella, finale
> Dear Geoff,
>> Hi! It seems that this last message did not reach Annelida discussion group.
> Please take a look at it and tell me if you find it relevant and if so,
> please forward it to the list.
>> Best wishes,
>> Sergio
> . . . .
>> Dear folks,
>> This is my last message on Capitella, I promise!
>> In their contribution to the Copenhagen Polychaete Conference, Wu, Qian &
> Zhang (1991 Ophelia Suppl. 5:391-400) reported their studies on the
> morphology, reproduction, ecology and allozymes of three Capitella from
> Qingdao. From their table 2 (p. 393), four features seem promising:
> prostomial surface (smooth vs papillate), number of genital spines in
> chaetiger 8, number of hooded hooks per abdominal rami, and number of
> accessory teeth in hooded hooks.
>> In their discussion (p. 399) they stated: "Wu (1964) compared 9 subspecies
> of Capitella capitata collected from different parts of the world and
> suggested that differentiation of these subspecies was not just due to the
> geographic isolation but might be the result of a complicated evolutionary
> process." The key paper to understand this perspective is:
>> Wu BL 1964 Subspecific differentiation and ecological characteristics of
> Capitella capitata (Fabricius, 1780) (Polychaeta, Capitellidae). Oceanologia
> et Limnologia Sinica 6:266-271.
>> It would be very helpful if someone could make a pdf of the original, which
> is fast, and an English translation of the text, which may not be that fast,
> so his conclusions can be understood by any non-Chinese speaking person. I
> think Baoling Wu was following Olga Hartman, but I may be wrong.
>> Olga Hartman (1947 Allan Hancock Pac. Exped. 10:391-481) made a diagram to
> capitellid genera (that Amaral, Gillet, and Piltz i.a. have followed), and
> included a key to Western species of Capitella with C. capitata, C. dizonata
> Johnson, 1901 (Washington), and described C. ovincola (California) from a
> squid egg mass.
>> For the catalogue (Hartman, 1959:439-440) besides C. capitata, she included:
> C.c. antarctica Monro, 1930
> C.c. belgica Czerniavsky, 1881 (=C. c.),
> C.c. danica Czerniavsky, 1881 (= C. c.),
> C.c. floridana Hartman, 1959,
> C.c. hebridarum Czerniavsky, 1881 (= C.c.),
> C.c. neapolitana Czerniavsky, 1881 (= C. c.),
> C.c. suchumica Czerniavsky, 1881 (Black Sea) (= C.c.)
> C.c. ovincola Hartman, 1947.
>> For the supplement (Hartman, 1965:64) she added:
>> C.c. europaea Wu, 1964 (Mediterranean Sea, perhaps = C.c. neapolitana,
> mihi).
> C.c. japonica Kitamori, 1960,
> C.c. oculata Hartman, 1961 (California), and
> C.c. tripartita Hartman, 1961 (California).
>> Linda Warren (1976:197; sorry no pdf because my photocopy is in very poor
> quality) included a comparative diagram to the two subspecies (C.c. capitata
> and C. c. floridana), and seven others were regarded as full valid species:
>> C. aberranta Hartman & Fauchald, 1971
> C. giardi (Mesnil, 1897) France
> C. hermaphrodita Boletzky & Dohle, 1967 (Mediterranean, Loligo egg mass)
> C. jonesi (Hartman, 1959) Florida.
> C. ovincola Hartman, 1947,
> C. perarmata (Gravier 1911) (not stated but it might include C.c.
> antarctica), and
> C. tripartita Hartman, 1961.
>> Linda did not recognize most subspecies because they were regarded as
> juveniles, or as morphological variants that might fall within the stem
> species. Further, she regarded several species as having a wide or very wide
> distribution.
>> This perspective was significantly modified when together with David George
> (1986 Bull. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. Zool. 50:117-125), they described C.
> caribaeorum from the Grand Caribbean region (Florida to Saint-Lucia). For
> the discussion, they relied on several morphological differences such as the
> presence of genital spines, the thorax chaetal formula, the number of hooded
> hooks per ramus, and the relative egg size. Further, they also included some
> ecological details about the type of substrate where the similar species
> were recorded from.
>> Thus, taking the latter approach, together with the ideas that Wu et al and
> Blake proposed, there is an exciting ground to study the morphological
> variation in the same region, and between different populations or species.
> Good luck everyone! Have fun,
>> Sergio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20060719/d25e5179/attachment.html
