Just a couple of comments on Ophelia rathkei and its synonymies. Sorry, it
is a long email, don't really need to read it, if you're not interested...
There are some links to pdfs at the bottom of this message.
1) I don't have Friedrich (1938), and wasn't able to confirm this directly,
but if Tebble (1952) is correct, there was a description of Ophelia remanei
already published in 1938, in Friedrich's monograph. If this is correct, the
authorship of Ophelia remanei Augener, 1939 should be Augener in Friedrich,
1938 (or just Friedrich, 1938, in case the authorship of the species is not
referred by Friedrich as being Augener). Not very important, as the species
is presently considered as a junior synonym of Ophelia rathkei, but worth to
check and emmend it, just in case.
Could someone check this and give us the result here is the list, please?
Augener and Friedrich were colleagues at the same lab, and it is conceivable
to think that Friedrich was aware of Augener's new species and forthcoming
paper, and cited it in his monography with Augener's permission.
2) The second comment is on Ophelia rathkei and the fact that it is
apparently the single species of Ophelia that normally lacks the pair of
ventral pygidial lobes so typical of the genus, showing instead a single
one. The two other possible exceptions described as lacking this pair of
ventral pygidial lobes can be discarded as exceptions, as one seems to
belong to another genus, and the second probably does have these lobes (see
the PS below, before the bibliography).
This way, I think it is reasonable to consider that O. rathkei might also
present two ventral pygidial lobes, at least in one moment of its ontogeny.
Chassé & Picard (1968) and Wolff (1969) found forms with single and bilobed
ventral anal lobes in the same populations, and it is possible that
Hartmann-Schröder observed the same, as she studied specimens identified as
O. rathkei and O. remanei at least in one of her papers (Hartmann-Schröder,
This could give further support to the synonymies of O. rathkei, as it seems
that Ophelia rathkei McIntosh, 1908, O. cluthensis McGuire, 1935 and O.
remanei Augener, 1939 are similar in all other aspects, except in what
concerns the shape of the ventral pygidial lobes:
- O. rathkei - one single pygideal ventral lobe
- O. remanei - one single ventral lobe deeply bilobated
- O. cluthensis - two ventral pygidial lobes
The question would be if the single bilobed ventral anal lobe (or the two
lobes) appear early or late during ontogeny. Hartmann-Schröder (1956 - but I
couldn't check this one-, 1971) suggested that the single ventral anal lobe
was formed by fusion of the two lobes, explaining this way the weak median
notch in the single lobe of the adults she observed, while Chassé & Picard
(1968) observed that specimens with a single lobe had normally less
branchiate setigers than specimens with the ventral lobe strongly bilobed
(only 22% of the specimens with a single lobe had 9 or more branchiate
setigers, while 100% of the specimens with two lobes had more than 9
branchiate setigers), suggesting the appearence of that character late
I have checked some papers on the development and ontogeny of Opheliidae
(Wilson, 1948; Dales, 1952; Guérin, 1971; Riser, 1987; I'm waiting for
Hartmann-Schröder, 1956 from our Library service), but couldn't find
anything conclusive (at least I wasn't able to), except that the number of
branchiate setigers do increase with age until the definitive number of the
adults is reached (Riser, 1987, explains this quite well). In what concerns
the ventral pygidial lobes, Riser (1987) describes two tubular pygidial
lobes containing the ducts of adhesive glands, used by juveniles to attach
to the substrate, appearing quite soon during ontogeny, and which apparently
would become the two ventral lobes of the adults. On the other hand, Dales
(1952) states that the four anal papillae associated with the cement glands
typical of juveniles of Thoracophelia mucronata do not correspond to the
single large ventral cirrus of the adult, as these papillae can be clearly
seen on the tip of the adult cirrus as it grows out from the pygidium.
Any ideas? Did someone studied the development of Ophelia rathkei or made
In the keys for the European Fauna of Polychaeta of my PhD thesis, I have
followed Chassé & Picard (1968), and Ophelia rathkei is keyed as follows:
8-10 pairs of branchiae; 10-12 anterior abranchial chaetigers (4-5
postbranchial chaetigers; total number of chaetigers of about 23-24; anal
segment with 8-10 dorsal small papillae, and one big ventral papilla,
normally simple, but sometimes more or less bilobed, or divided in two
A little long for a key, but it seems to cover all the possibilities...
I hope this can help in some way. If someone has more ideas, or if I have
missed something or got it all wrong, I would love to hear about it.
And please, could someone send me a pdf of McGuire (1935)? I never was able
to find this one... Thanks!
All the best (and thanks for reading...),
Carrer d'accés a la Cala Sant Francesc, 14
E-17300 BLANES (GIRONA)
Email: gil from ceab.csic.es
Telef. (34) 972.33.61.01
Fax: (34) 972.33.78.06
All species of Ophelia, if I have checked correctly, do have two ventral
pygidial lobes, apparently with three exceptions: O. rathkei (normally
described as having only one; but see above), O. ashworthi Fauvel, 1917, and
Ophelia algida Maciolek & Blake, 2006.
Ophelia ashworthi was described as having about 20 annal subequal papillae.
In the description the pygidium (or anal cone) seems quite atypical. If it
wasn't for the fact that Fauvel had half a dozen of specimens, I would say
the pygidium is regenerating. The type material is in Paris (Solis-Weiss et
al., 2004) so it will be possible to check this. This could also explain the
apparent posterior lack of records of the species (at least I wasn't able to
find them, and the original record is also the only one cited in the
checklist of Australian Polychaeta by Day & Hutchings, 1979). Anyway, I
think we can assume that two of the about 20 annal subequal papillae present
can correspond to the two ventral pygidial lobes.
In what concerns Ophelia algida, Sene Silva (2007) considered it to be
closer to Ophelina than to Ophelia, belonging probably to that genus.
(Some references include links to papers available on internet. I also have
uploaded pdfs of some of these papers to my Mediafire account (sorry, no
OCRs); however they will be available just for a very limited period of
time, as they might be covered by copyright; so, if you really need them for
your work, grab them right now, as they will not stay there for long, nor
will be uploaded again. Thanks!)
AUGENER, H. 1939. Beitrag zur Polychaetenfauna der Ostsee. Kieler
Meeresforschungen, 3 (1): 133-147.
CHASSÉ, C. & J. PICARD. 1968. Identification, variabilité et écologie
dOphelia rathkei McIntosh, espèce nouvelle pour les côtes françaises.
Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 9: 133-142.
DALES, R.P. 1952. The larval development and ecology of Thoracophelia
mucronata (Treadwell). Biological Bulletin, Woods Hole, 102: 232-242.
DAY, J.H. & P.A. HUTCHINGS. 1979. An annotated check-list of Australian and
New Zealand Polychaeta, Archiannelida and Myzostomida. Records of the
Australian Museum, 32(3): 80-161.
FAUVEL, P. 1917. Annélides polychètes de lAustralie Méridionale. Archives
de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, 56 (3): 159-277, plates 4-8.
FRIEDRICH, H. 1938. Polychaeta. In: G. GRIMPE & E. WAGLER (Eds.). Tierwelt
der Nord- und Ostsee, 32 (VI.b): 1-201.
GUÉRIN, J.-P. 1971. Modalités délevage et description des stades larvaires
de Polyophthalmus pictus Dujardin (Annélide Polychète). Vie et Milieu, 22
HARTMANN-SCHRÖDER, G. 1956. Polychaeten -Studien II. Zur Larvalentwicklung
der Opheliiden (Polychaeta). Zoologischer Anzeiger, 157(5/6): 92-101.
HARTMANN-SCHRÖDER, G. 1958. Zur Morphologie der Opheliiden (Polychaeta
sedentaria). Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 161(1/2): 84-143
HARTMANN-SCHRÖDER, G. 1971. Annelida, Borstenwürmer, Polychaeta. Die
Tierwelt Deutschlands und der angrenzenden Meeresteile nach ihren Merkmalen
und nach ihrer Lebensweise. Begründet 1925 von Friedrich Dahl. 58 Teil,
Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena, 594 pp.
MACIOLEK, N.J. & J.A. BLAKE. 2006. Opheliidae (Polychaeta) collected by the
R/V Hero and the USNS Eltanin cruises from the Southern Ocean and South
America. Scientia Marina, 70S3: 101-113.
MCGUIRE, I.P. 1935. Note on a new species of polychaete (Ophelia
cluthensis). Scottish Naturalist, 212: 45-46.
MCINTOSH, W.C. 1908. Notes from the Gatty Marine Laboratory, St. Andrews.
No. XXIX. 1. On a tumor in a plaice. 2. On the british Opheliidae,
Scalibregmidae, and Telethusae. 3. On the same families in the Porcupine
Expeditions of 1869 and 1870. 4. On the foregoing families dredged by Dr.
Whiteaves in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. 5. On the same groups dredged
in Norwegian waters and in Finmark by Canon Norman. Annals and Magazine of
Natural History, Series 8, 1: 373-387, plate 17.
RISER, N.W. 1987. Observations on the genus Ophelia (Polychaeta: Opheliidae)
with the descriptions of a new species. Ophelia, 28(1): 11-29.
SENE SILVA, G. 2007. Filogenia de Opheliidae (Annelida: Polychaeta). PhD
Thesis. Universidade Federal do Paraná, Brazil. 95 pp.
SOLÍS-WEISS, V., Y. BERTRAND, M.-N. HELLÉOUET & F. PLEIJEL. 2004. Types of
polychaetous annelids at the Muséum National dHistoire Naturelle, Paris.
Zoosystema, 26 (3): 377-384.
TEBBLE, N. 1952. On three species of the genus Ophelia (Polychaeta) from the
British and adjacent waters. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series
12, 5: 553-571.
WILSON, D. 1948. The larval development of Ophelia bicornis Savigny. Journal
of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 27(3): 540-553.
WOLFF, W.J. 1969. A new station of Ophelia rathkei McIntosh in Northern
France. Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 10: 83-84.
De: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu
[mailto:annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] En nombre de Geoff Read
Enviado el: jueves, 23 de febrero de 2012 22:48
Para: D Hall; annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu
Asunto: RE: [Annelida] Ophelia remanei
Just to clarify on the Hartmann-Schröder (1971) book role in the evolving
status of these Ophelia names. It seems her POV then on synonymy was based
on her own observations. The section below on Ophelia rathkei was cut from
the 1996 edition, and contains a definite statement of opinion on Ophelia
remanei, and no mention of the comparatively recent work of Chassé & Picard
(1968) (her MS was finalised in 1969). So readers would be entitled to
assume the 1971 synonymies were new, although that wasn't the case.
Nevertheless, she might have covered the issue in her earlier
biology-oriented papers - I haven't checked.
Hartmann-Schröder (1971:386) "Systematische Bemerkung: Auf Grund der
Beschreibung von McGuire besteht wohl kaum ein Zweifel, daß die von ihr
beschriebene O. cluthensis identisch ist mit O. rathkei von McIntosh.
Typusmaterial ist nicht mehr vorhanden. Bei Vergleichen mit O. rathkei und
O. remanei Augener habe ich keine wirklich bedeutenden Unterschiede
feststellen können. Bei Tieren aus der Kieler Bucht habe ich zwar
gelegentlich eine etwas eingedellte Ventralpapille beobachtet, wie sie
Augener von O. remanei beschreibt; aber auch dieses Merkmal war innerhalb
derselben Population nicht konstant. Die einheitliche Ventralpapille am
Pygid geht in der Ontogenese durch Verschmelzen zweier Papillen hervor
(Hartmann-Schröder 1956), so daß die schwache mediane Einkerbung an der
einheitlichen Ventralpapille der Adulten noch die Verschmelzungszone
andeuten kann. Gewisse morphologische Unterschiede an inneren Organen
scheinen mir noch nicht klar erwiesen (Hartmann-Schröder 1958). Nach m!
einer Ansicht ist O. remanei synonym zu O. rathkei McIntosh."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu [mailto:annelida-
>bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Read
> Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 9:59 a.m.
> To: D Hall; annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu> Subject: RE: [Annelida] Ophelia remanei
>> I have a related question. Hartmann-Schröder (1971 book) apparently newly
> synonymised both O. remanei and O. cluthensis into O. rathkei. These
> synonymy assertions are not implemented in WoRMS. I would guess little or
> explanation was given in 1971 (I have only the 1996 book at hand). Are
> synonymies regarded as likely correct, or supported by other works?
>> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu [mailto:annelida-
> > bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of D Hall
> > Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 6:41 a.m.
> > To: annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu> > Subject: [Annelida] Ophelia remanei
> > Dear all,
> > I'm looking for the location of the type material for Ophelia remanei
> > Augener 1939, can anyone point me in the right direction?
> > Regards,
> > Dave.
> > David Hall BSc (Jt. Hons.) CBiol MSB
> > Senior Principal Biologist
> > Operations Manager
> > NMBAQC Scheme Administrator: Benthic Invertebrate,
> > Fish & Particle Size Analysis Components
> > Thomson Unicomarine Ltd
> > 7 Diamond Centre, Works Road
> > Letchworth, Herts, SG6 1LW, UK
> > Tel. +44 (0)1462 675559
> > Fax. +44 (0)1462 483103
> > www.thomsonunicomarine.com
> > www.nmbaqcs.org
> > http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/david-hall/35/5b7/a71
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida from net.bio.net