<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 color="#003366" face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#003366'>Hey! I had
troubles identifying what I thought was <i><span style='font-style:italic'>Paradoneis
lyra </span></i>from <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Tampa Bay</st1:City>,
<st1:State w:st="on">FL</st1:State>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></st1:place>.
I came across the following article, which you will want to check out. This
article follows the opinion of Strelzov (1973) which synonymizes <i><span
style='font-style:italic'>Paradoneis </span></i>and <i><span style='font-style:
italic'>Paraonides </span></i>with <i><span style='font-style:italic'>Cirrophorus</span></i>.
This synonymization appears to be controversial and I am not sure which is
commonly accepted amongst the polychaete community. Maybe others
belonging to this forum will want to comment on this. Table 1 in
McLelland and Gaston (1994) helped me sort out our local species and it may
help you as well. The local specimens that I have fit <i><span
style='font-style:italic'>Cirrophorus lyra</span></i>, but I agree with Geoff
on the fact that this species may not be as widely distributed as previously
thought. Here are those citations:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 color="#003366" face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#003366'>McLelland, J. A. &
G. R. Gaston. 1994. Two new species of Cirrophorus (Polychaeta:
Paraonidae) form the northern <st1:place w:st="on">Gulf of Mexico</st1:place>.
Proceedings of the Biological Society of <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:State>
107 (3): 524-531.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 color="#003366" face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#003366'>Strelzov, V. E.
1968. Polychaetous annelids of the family Paraonidae (Polychaeta,
Sedentaria) of the <st1:place w:st="on">Barents Sea</st1:place>. <st1:PlaceType
w:st="on">Academy</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Sciences</st1:PlaceName>
of the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">USSR</st1:place></st1:country-region>,
Kirov Kola affiliate, Murmansk Marine Biology Institute 17 (21): 74-95.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>I seem to be confused. A Paradoneis is very important to some
work in a <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>southeast <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">New
Zealand</st1:place></st1:country-region> intertidal inlet. I would
normally have called it <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Paradoneis lyra (Southern 1914). I just read a paper (citation
below) <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>with new descriptions including a new Paradoneis eliasoni. While
the <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>paper is well illustrated it seems to be missing some discussion of the
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>characters needed to resolve some splits (or I may be missing some <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>convention). Paradoneis eliasoni appears to be described from 2 <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>anterior fragments and an 'almost complete' worm. I don't have a
copy <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>of the original Paradoneis lyra description. According to Table 3
in <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>the publication, P. eliasoni has acicular neurochaetae in the far <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>posterior segments. I grabbed some of our 2000+ specimens and
they all <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>have them. The table includes a strike rather than a question
mark (no <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>mention?) of these for P. lyra (Southern 1914). Both type
localities <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>are from the other side of the planet, P. lyra capensis (Day 1955) is <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>from <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">South Africa</st1:place></st1:country-region>,
but the pre-branchial notopodial lobes are present in <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>our specimens, but Day may not have had specimens this large. Any
thoughts?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>start on chaetiger 4 and continue for 11-12 chaetigers [a little
shorter <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>than segment width), no eyes, no median antenna/scar, small notopodial <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>lobes present on pre-branchial chaetigers larger in branchial chaetiger
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>smaller in postbranchial chaetigers then very proporitionally large in <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>extreme posterior, earliest observed forked chaetae on chaetiger 3 only
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>one observed in each notopodium, posterior chaetigers with stout <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>acicular chaetae (one each neuropodium) which is weakly hooked, 3 <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>