The Aphroditidae (Polychaeta) from Australia, Together with a Redescription of the Aphroditidae Collected During the Siboga Expedition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS Hutchings, Pat A., & McRae, Jane, 1993. The Aphroditidae (Polychaeta) from Australia, together with a redescription of the Aphroditidae collected during the Siboga Expedition. Records of the Australian Museum 45(3): 279–363. [7 October 1993]. doi:10.3853/j.0067-1975.45.1993.24 ISSN 0067-1975 Published by the Australian Museum, Sydney naturenature cultureculture discover discover AustralianAustralian Museum Museum science science is is freely freely accessible accessible online online at at www.australianmuseum.net.au/publications/www.australianmuseum.net.au/publications/ 66 CollegeCollege Street,Street, SydneySydney NSWNSW 2010,2010, AustraliaAustralia Records of the Australian Museum (1993) Vo1.45: 279-363. ISSN 0067-1975 279 The Aphroditidae (Polychaeta) from Australia, together with a Redescription of the Aphroditidae collected during the Siboga Expedition PAT HUTCHINGS & JANE McRAE Australian Museum, PO Box A285, Sydney South, NSW 2000, Australia ABSTRACT. The family Aphroditidae is represented in Australian waters and the Indonesian Archipelago by 34 species in five genera, of which seven are new species. Previously described species from Australia are redescribed. The Aphroditidae collected during the Siboga expedition and described by Horst (1916a,b, 1917) are also redescribed and the relationship of this fauna to the Australian fauna discussed. In addition, the characters used to distinguish genera and species within the family and the variations exhibited by these characters are discussed, to facilitate a subsequent phylogenetic study of the group. A key to the genera and species represented in the Indo-Pacific is given. HUTCHINGS, P.A. & J. McRAE, 1993. The Aphroditidae (Po1ychaeta) from Australia, together with a redescription of the Aphroditidae collected during the Siboga Expedition. Records of the Australian Museum 45(3): 279-363. The family Aphroditidae is poorly known from described we have provided comprehensive descriptions Australian waters. Day & Hutchings (1979) recorded 12 as the original descriptions are typically very brief. species in four genera, some of them are known only Apart from the material collected during the Siboga from their original descriptions, and for one of these Expedition few other aphroditids have been described species Aphrodita terraereginae no additional material from the Indo-Pacific. It is surprising that there is little has been found during this study. However, this family overlap between the aphroditid fauna of Australian is well represented in Museum collections in Australia, waters, and those recorded from Indonesian waters, as especially those from deeper waters. aphroditids are typically deep water species. However it We have therefore undertaken a comprehensive study should be stressed that relatively little material was of the Australian aphroditids. We have examined all the available from northern Australia, where little deep water aphroditid material available in Australian state museums collecting has been undertaken. and the extensive collections of aphroditids made during A recent revision of the genus Palmyra by Watson the Siboga Expedition and described by Horst (1916a,b, Russell (1989) has placed this genus in the family 1917). In this paper we describe 34 species in five genera, Aphroditidae. It was considered to be a member of the of which seven are new species. For species previously family Chrysopetalidae by Day (1967) and subsequently 280 Records of the Australian Museum (1993) Vol.45 Fauchald (1977) referred to it as belonging to the family USNM - National Museum of Natural History, Palmyridae. While this genus is included in the key, only Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.; WAM a brief description of this monospecific genus is given Western Australian Museum, Perth; ZMA - Zoologisch by us, as no additional material was available other Museum, Amsterdam; 2MB - Zoologisches Museum, than the material recently described by Watson Russell Museum fUr Naturkunde der Humboldt-UniversiUit, (1989). Berlin. It may seem surprising that so many new species are In each species description we give the known present in Australian waters, but this can be explained distribution of the species, localities marked * are for by the fact that although aphroditids are typically large localities which appear in the literature but we have not and highly conspicuous members of the benthic fauna, examined material from that area to confirm the they are predominantly deep water species, and the identifications. Australian deep water fauna is not well known. Although The specific names are based on Aboriginal words in many of the species have overlapping geographical several languages meaning a shield and were found by distributions, we have virtually no information on the consulting 'Australian Aboriginal Words and Place habitats in which these species occur although some Names and their Meanings' by Sydney E. Endacott species have sand or mud entangled amongst their setae (1984). indicating perhaps habitat preferences. With increasing All tables referred to throughout the text are listed collecting, this should be rectified. During this study we in the Appendix. examined large amounts of material collected in the Bass Strait by the Museum of Victoria. While we were able to identify much of this fauna to species, some of the The Systematics and Characters considered smaller individuals (2-3 mm long) could not be reliably useful in the Family Aphroditidae identified to species. This was because some of the small individuals lacked particular setal types, and no studies on setal development and other structures, such as palps The family Aphroditidae has not been subjected to a and tentacles, with increasing size and presumably age, comprehensive revision since it was erected by have been carried out on this family. It may be that Malmgren (1867). Horst (1916a,b, 1917) described one juvenile aphroditids cannot be identified to species as new genus and 21 new species, subsequently Pettibone we believe, setal structure and composition change (1966) partly revised some of the genera and recognised markedly during the initial stages of development. While an additional genus. Fauchald (1977) recognised seven some of these small individuals may represent juveniles genera, one of these Tricertia Haswell, 1883 we have of adults described from the region, others may synonymised with Pontogenia Claparecte, 1868. Of the represent undescribed species. remaining six genera recognised by Fauchald (1977) we In the literature, a considerable variety of terms have have examined representatives of all except for the been used to describe aphroditid morphology. In Figures monospecific genera Hermionopsis Seidler, 1923, and 1, 27, 32 and 52 we illustrate a typical member of each Heteraphrodita Pettibone, 1966. More recently, Watson genus considered and indicate the terminology which we Russell (1989) has placed the monospecific genus have followed. Palmyra Savigny, 1818 in the family Aphroditidae and she gives an expanded family diagnosis to include this genus. We have had the opportunity in several cases to Material and Methods examine substantial numbers of individuals of particular species within some genera which has enabled The following measurements were recorded for animals us to study the variation of a character with respect to examined: total body length, maximum body width increasing size and presumably age. Listed below are the including setae and segments, and the number of characters which we believe are useful in aphroditid parapodia. This is summarised for each species, in taxonomy both at the generic and specific level and the addition the range of total body length is given for each various character states exhibited by each character. At lot examined. this stage we have rarely attempted to polarise the The keys to the family and genera are artificial and character states. A more detailed study, including a do not imply any phylogenetic relationships. phylogenetic analysis would resolve many problems, The following abbreviations have been used in the but is clearly beyond the scope of this study. We text: LACM-AHF - Allan Hancock Foundation, Los did not attempt to consider the relationships between Angeles, California (Polychaete collections now located the genera. Fauchald (1977) placed the family within at the Los Angeles County Museum); AM - Australian the superfamily Aphroditacea, the sub order Museum, Sydney; BMNH - The Natural History Museum, Aphroditiformia all within the order Phyllodocida. London; MTQ - Museum of Tropical Queensland, Fauchald gives little explanation of the characters used Townsville; NMV - National Museum of Victoria, now to determine these orders, and certainly at this time no Museum of Victoria, Melbourne; NTM - Northern cladistic study was undertaken, although he is currently Territory Museum, Darwin; QM - Queensland Museum, undertaking such a study (Fauchald personal Brisbane; SAM - South Australian Museum, Adelaide; communication). Hutchings & McRae: Aphroditidae 281 Since many members of the family have been described 40+. Similarly in Laetmonice the number of segments from deep water in other parts of the world, one would appears to be relatively constant for a particular species. anticipate finding many new taxa from Australia, as deep Some species have a large number such as L. producta water areas off this continent are poorly known, and this Grube (41-45) whereas others have as few as 25 L.