Hi Javier & list members,
A comment on " *Palaeoaphrodite* is considered in WoRMS webpage as Polychaeta incertae sedis."
At genus and below Palaeoaphrodite Alessandrello & Teruzzi, 1986 and its five species are considered as valid in WoRMS. As are most of the other fossil-only taxa. We have an informally named higher grouping "Polychaeta fossils incertae sedis" (of uncertain taxonomic position) as an artificial holding device (but which also happens to be 'valid' in itself in WoRMS-speak) which gets around the difficulty of placing fossils into the hierarchy of extant fauna, but has no bearing on the validity of the fossil genera and species grouped here, which are valid unless otherwise stated. So don't read too much into it other than that we've put most of the fossils into one handy place.
Mostly fossils and extant taxa haven't been mixed in WoRMS as the names in use only apply to one or the other. We know a lot about the living fauna, not so much about where the fossils go. One obvious exception is in Serpulidae, and there are also some Eunicida fossils in a separate group under Eunicida 'Order'. One day we could try to shoehorn the other fossil genera into appropriate places. But it is likely there will still be some leftovers.
I had a quick look at http://paleobiodb.org. They place a swag of fossil polychaete genera directly into something called the Phyllodocemorpha, with no families at all.
Geoffrey.Read from niwa.co.nz
Chief Editor World Polychaeta Database (WPolyDb)
at WoRMS, & WoRMS Steering Committee member
From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu [mailto:annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of Javier Luque
Sent: Tuesday, 5 November 2013 10:39 a.m.
To: annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu
Subject: [Annelida] Fossil Aphroditid-like Polychaetes
Dear Annelida fellows,
A few years ago I discovered a small aphroditid-like polychaete in Late
Cretaceous rocks from Tropical America while looking for fossil
crustaceans. The polychaete preserves several chetae tufts, a scale?, an
oral opening, and the digestive tract. I am not totally sure about the
latter, but the aphroditoid-like appearance is more conspicuous (photo
attached). What do you think? How far could be possible to go on its
taxonomic rank? Poychaeta incertae sedis? Phyllodocida? Aphroditiformia?
Geoff Read made me aware of *Palaeoaphrodite* Alessandro and Teruzzi, 1986,
which includes a handful of species ranging from Triassic to Jurassic (~205
to 165 Ma). Although the authors included these taxa within Aphroditidae
with confidence, *Palaeoaphrodite* is considered in WoRMS webpage as
Polychaeta incertae sedis. Do you know about other literature items on
fossil aphroditid-like polychaetes?
Any advise or comments would be highly appreciated.
Javier Luque, Ph.D Student
Systematics and Evolution Group
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd.