Checklist of the Nemertean Fauna of Japan and Northeastern Asia Excerpted from NEMERTES (the nemertean digital knowledge-base system) Frank B. Crandall Jon L. Norenburg Alexei V. Chernyshev Svetlana Maslakova Megan Schwartz Hiroshi Kajihara September 2002 DEPARTMENT OF SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY WASHINGTON, DC 20560-0163 Preface This Checklist was prepared from data excerpted from NEMERTES, the nemertean digital knowledge base system. The NEMERTES system is accessible through the NEMERTES website (http://nemertes.si.edu) hosted by the Smithsonian Institution. Making this checklist available through the website will permit it to be updated on a frequent basis as new taxa are added and new distribution and habitat information becomes available. The authors will appreciate communications of new taxonomic and distribution information and any corrections by e-mail to: [email protected]. This work has been supported by a National Science Foundation grant (DEB9712463) under the Partnerships for Enhancement of Expertise in Taxonomy (P.E.E.T.) program. September 2002 Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC. Frank B. Crandall Jon L. Norenburg Svetlana Maslakova Megan Schwartz Institute of Marine Biology, RAS and Far Eastern State University Vladivostok, Russia Alexei V. Chemyshev National Institute for Environmental Studies Ibaraki, Japan Hiroshi Kajihara Copyright Notice NEMERTES, the nemertean digital knowledge-base system, and the NEMERTES website (http://nemertes.si.edu/) copyright © 2001 by the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Checklist of the Nemertean Fauna of Japan and Northeastern Asia, copyright © 2002, by the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Individuals are permitted to download a single copy for personal use. Reproduction for sale or any commercial purpose is strictly prohibited. CONTENTS Introduction 1 Notes in status column 3 Map of regions and key to locations in Japan and Northeastern Asia 6 Alphabetical listing 9 Listing by taxonomic group 16 Anopla, Paleonemertea 16 Anopla, Heteronemertea 16 Enopla, Hoplonemertea, Monostilifera 19 Enopla, Hoplonemertea, Polystilifera, Reptantia 22 Enopla, Hoplonemertea, Polystilifera, Pelagica 22 Enopla, Bdellonemertea 23 Occurrence by geographic region 24 Northern region 24 Central region 25 Southern region 30 Northern Pacific Ocean region 31 Distribution by habitat 33 Littoral 33 Benthic 37 Pelagic 42 Interstitial 43 Brackish water 43 Freshwater 43 Supralittoral/Terrestrial 43 Commensal 43 Parasitic 44 Introduction 1 Checklist of the Nemertean fauna of Japan and Northeastern Asia (Excerpted from NEMERTES, the nemertean digital knowledge base) The 255 taxa listed in this report comprise the nemertean fauna of Japan and the coasts of northeastern Asia from the eastern side of the Bering Strait southward to the southern-most extent of coastal China (including Hainan Island). Most of the species are marine littoral or near-shore benthic; however there are a few pelagic, fresh water, and terrestrial species, which are so noted. Only pelagic forms occurring in waters reasonably near coastal shores are included. The habitat and geographic distribution herein reflect the present limited collection data. Thus, the actual geographic distribution and habitat range of listed taxa may be wider than given here. The lower case letter suffix on publication dates refers to a particular piece of literature where the author had more than one publication in that year and represent the corresponding entry in the NEMERTES literature database. Although recent studies (notably those of Gibson, Sundberg, and Crandall) have proposed other schemes, the higher taxonomic categories used here are those of longest standing and widest use and reflect the work of Hubrecht, Verrill, Coe, Brinkmann, and Stiasny-Wijnhoff. Over time, many of the species in this checklist have been transferred to genera with a different gender ending than that of their original genus. In a number of these cases the gender ending of the specific epithet was not changed to conform to the gender of the new genus name. In some instances, the gender ending of the specific epithet, as originally published, was incorrectly formed in that it was not in agreement with the gender of the generic name. In all such situations, the gender endings of specific epithets have been changed herein to conform with the gender of the generic name in accordance with Articles 31.2 and 34.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th Ed., 1999). In the tables below, taxa may appear in more than one category. Thus, marginal totals may be less than the sum of the row or column entries. TOTAL ORDER AND SUBORDER BY REGION TAXA Northern Central Southern No. Pacific Ocean lonemertea 27 4 14 11 jronemerte a 83 8 57 27 lostilifera 132 38 97 13 tantia 3 - 3 igica 22 19 3 llonemerte a 2 . 2 TOTAL 269 69 176 51 10 Introduction TOTAL HABITAT BY REGION TAXA Northern Central Southern No. Pacific Ocean Littoral 182 41 123 35 1 Benthic 159 31 129 36 - Bathypelagic 22 19 3 - 8 Interstitial 2 - 2 - - Brackish 5 - 4 1 - Fresh water 6 - 5 1 - Supralitt/Terr 5 - - 5 - Commensal 4 1 3 - - Parasitic 3 . 2 1 1 TOTAL 269 92 271 79 10 TOTAL HABITAT BY TAXONOMIC GROUP TAXA Paleo Hetero Mono Rept Pelag Bdello Littoral 186 22 59 100 Benthic 179 22 67 85 Bathypelagic 14 - - - 22 Interstitial 2 - - 2 Brackish 5 - 2 3 Fresh water 6 - 1 5 SupLitt/Terr 5 - 1 4 Commensal 4 - - 2 Parasitic 3 - 1 2 TOTAL 256 27 83 132 3 22 NOTES IN STATUS COLUMN The following notes appear in the 'status' column. + Indicates a taxon regarded as fully valid at the present time. ? Indicates a taxon name that has been reported from the area in the past but is now regarded as being of questionable validity. * 1 This taxon is regarded as a nomen dubium, because the description contains no information on internal morphology or characters in life. *2 Korotkevich (1977) collected four species (Amphiporus bicoloreus, A. dorsolineatus, A. obtusorostris, and Tetrastemma tridentatum) from a littoral "puddle" with salinity of 17.94%o. However, these species are not brackish forms, since they do not occur in the brackish lagoons and estuaries of Shiashkotan Island. *3 Gibson & Crandall (1989) regarded this taxon as a nomen dubium. *4 Although referred to this name by Iwata, this form cannot be confirmed as identical with Stimpson's taxon. *5 This record is of questionable validity, because Kulikova did not supply details on internal and external morphology. *6 In his later works Coe regarded Amphiporus similis as synonymous with or as a varierty of Amphiporus imparispinosus, but they are now known to constitute valid separate species. *7 This record may not be correct. Takakura identified as Amphiporus nebulosus forms that Korotkevich (1977) described as A. fuscosparus and A matuanus. *8 Chernyshev (1999) listed this species as a junior synonym of A. papilliformes. *9 Gibson (1995) regarded this species name as synonymous with Baseodiscus delineata, but such an identity has not yet been confirmed by definitive study of actual specimens from this area.. *10 This taxon is regarded as a nomen dubium, since Korotkevich's description was based on only a single preserved specimen which was not sectioned for study of internal morphology. *11 The record for Sakhalin is dubious, because Korotkevich did not examine the internal morphology. Cephalothrix linearis sensu Yamaoka was synonymized with Procephalothrix simulus (see Iwata, 1954). *12 Chernyshev's (1993) description, which cited Amphiporus bimaculatus Coe, 1901, as the type species, does not conform to Coe's type specimens, and the principal defining character appears to be a preservation artifact commonly found in many cratenemertid species. Other characters, taken at the time to be unique, are, in fact, common to most cratenemertids. Most workers now regard the name Collarenemertes bimaculatus as a junior synonym of Nipponnemertes bimaculata or as a species inquirenda. *13 Kulikova & Kutischev (1984) listed this species from Peter the Great Bay. Later, Kulikova (1988) listed this form as Lineus bicolor Verrill, 1892. *14 Lineus longifissus has been used by several different authors to refer to at least three different forms. The form thus identifed by Takakura (1898) and Iwata (1952) requires a new name. *15 Six different names have been used to designate forms with strikingly distinctive color patterns of remarkable similarity. Micrura bella andM. impressa were noted originally by Stimpson (1857) from the western Pacific rim, M. festiva by Takakura (1898), plus Lineus striatus by Griffin (1898) and Micrura verrilli by Coe (1901) from the eastern Pacific rim. The color pattern of all five is an off- white body with a deep vermilion,orange, or brownish tip to the head and a broad longitudinal band of purple, brownish, or grayish rectangles separated by hairline spaces down the dorsal surface. The only significant difference appears to be whether the marking of the head is on the dorsal half only or completely encircles the tip. When reported at all, the extent of the head marking seems to be dorsal in the eastern Pacific and complete in the western Pacific. In his later works, Coe regarded L. striatus as synonymous with M. verrilli and various authors have treated M. festiva and M. impressa as synonyms of M. bella. Kulikova & Kutishchev (1984) referred a form to M. bella with the color of the dorsal band more a dark burnt orange than a deep purple. Chernyshev (1992) regarded this form as distinct and renamed it Micrura kulikovae Chernyshev, 1992. Sun (1994) identified a form from Qingdao as Micrura verrilli; however, it is not certain that it was not Micrura bella. Unfortunately, very little is known of the comparative internal morphology of these various forms; therefore, it is not presently possible to determine whether they represent truly separate species or merely pattern variants as is found, for example, in Tetrastemma nigrifrons. *16 Kulikova & Kutischev (1984) listed this species from Peter the Great Bay.