The state-of-art on alien species in the Mediterranean Sea is presented, making distinctions among the four subregions defined in the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive: (i) the Western Mediterranean Sea (WMED); (ii) the Central Mediterranean Sea (CMED); (iii) the Adriatic Sea (ADRIA); and (iv) the Eastern Mediterranean Sea (EMED). The updated checklist (December 2010) of marine alien species within each subregion, along with their acclimatization status and origin, is provided. A total of 955 alien species is known in the Mediterranean, the vast majority of them having being introduced in the EMED (718), less in the WMED (328) and CMED (267) and least in the Adriatic (171). Of these, 535 species (56%) are established in at least one area.Despite the collective effort of experts who attempted in this work, the number of introduced species remains probably underestimated. Excluding microalgae, for which knowledge is still insufficient, aliens have increased the total species richness of the Mediterranean Sea by 5.9%. This figure should not be directly read as an indication of higher biodiversity, as spreading of so many aliens within the basin is possibly causing biotic homogenization. Thermophilic species, i.e. Indo-Pacific, Indian Ocean, Red Sea, Tropical Atlantic, Tropical Pacific, and circum(sub)tropical, account for 88.4% of the introduced species in the EMED, 72.8% in the CMED, 59.3% in the WMED and 56.1% in the Adriatic. Cold water species, i.e. circumboreal, N Atlantic, and N Pacific, make up a small percentage of the introduced species, ranging between 4.2% and 21.6% and being more numerous in the Adriatic and less so in the EMED.Species that are classified as invasive or potentially invasive are 134 in the whole of the Mediterranean: 108 are present in the EMED, 76 in the CMED, 53 in the Adriatic and 64 in the WMED. The WMED hosts most invasive macrophytes, whereas the EMED has the lion’s share in polychaetes, crustaceans, molluscs and fish.

More than 60 marine non-indigenous species (NIS) have been removed from previous lists and 84 species have been added, bringing the total to 986 alien species in the Mediterranean [775 in the eastern Mediterranean (EMED), 249 in the central Mediterranean (CMED), 190 in the Adriatic Sea (ADRIA) and 308 in the western Mediterranean (WMED)]. There were 48 new entries since 2011 which can be interpreted as approximately one new entry every two weeks. The number of alien species continues to increase, by 2-3 species per year for macrophytes, molluscs and polychaetes, 3-4 species per year for crustaceans, and 6 species per year for fish. The dominant group among alien species is molluscs (with 215 species), followed by crustaceans (159) and polychaetes (132). Macrophytes are the leading group of NIS in the ADRIA and the WMED, reaching 26-30% of all aliens, whereas in the EMED they barely constitute 10% of the introductions. In the EMED, molluscs are the most species-rich group, followed by crustaceans, fish and polychaetes. More than half (54%) of the marine alien species in the Mediterranean were probably introduced by corridors (mainly Suez). Shipping is blamed directly for the introduction of only 12 species, whereas it is assumed to be the most likely pathway of introduction (via ballasts or fouling) of another 300 species. For approximately 100 species shipping is a probable pathway along with the Suez Canal and/or aquaculture. Approximately 20 species have been introduced with certainty via aquaculture, while >50 species (mostly macroalgae), occurring in the vicinity of oyster farms, are assumed to be introduced accidentally as contaminants of imported species. A total of 18 species are assumed to have been introduced by the aquarium trade. Lessepsian species decline westwards, while the reverse pattern is evident for ship-mediated species and for those introduced with aquaculture. There is an increasing trend in new introductions via the Suez Canal and via shipping.

The brackish Baltic Sea hosts species of various origins and environmental tolerances. These immigrated to the sea 10,000 to 15,000 years ago or have been introduced to the area over the relatively recent history of the system. The Baltic Sea has only one known endemic species. While information on some abiotic parameters extends back as long as five centuries and first quantitative snapshot data on biota (on exploited fish populations) originate generally from the same time, international coordination of research began in the early twentieth century. Continuous, annual Baltic Sea-wide long-term datasets on several organism groups (plankton, benthos, fish) are generally available since the mid-1950s. Based on a variety of available data sources (published papers, reports, grey literature, unpublished data), the Baltic Sea, incl. Kattegat, hosts altogether at least 6,065 species, including at least 1,700 phytoplankton, 442 phytobenthos, at least 1,199 zooplankton, at least 569 meiozoobenthos, 1,476 macrozoobenthos, at least 380 vertebrate parasites, about 200 fish, 3 seal, and 83 bird species. In general, but not in all organism groups, high sub-regional total species richness is associated with elevated salinity. Although in comparison with fully marine areas the Baltic Sea supports fewer species, several facets of the system's diversity remain underexplored to this day, such as micro-organisms, foraminiferans, meiobenthos and parasites. In the future, climate change and its interactions with multiple anthropogenic forcings are likely to have major impacts on the Baltic biodiversity.

No abstract

A large, combined phylogenetic analysis (including morphological and molecular data from 18S rDNA, 16S rDNA and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I), with the highest number of species and genera of Syllidae studied to date (213 terminals), is examined. The data were explored with different parameters and optimality criteria (parsimony, likelihood, and bayesian inference). The monophyly of Syllidae and most of the traditional subfamilies is supported. The subfamily Eusyllinae is polyphyletic, as currently delineated, but it is herein reorganized and its diagnosis modified to be a valid group. Additional well supported clades arise. The phylogenetic relationships of the well known and established genera, as well as several enigmatic genera (e.g. Anguillosyllis, Paraopisthosyllis and Parahaplosyllis), the position of which in syllid taxonomy was uncertain or dubious to date, are clarified. The results corroborate previous hypotheses about the evolution of the reproductive and brooding modes. Within Syllinae, the nature of the stolon is phylogenetically informative. The classification of the whole family is revised and discussed on the basis of this phylogenetic hypothesis. © The Willi Hennig Society 2011.

Large collections of Syllidae (Polychaeta) from around Australia, which were deposited at the Australian Museum (Sydney), and at Museum Victoria as well as some specimens from Tasmania, have been examined and identified. Additionally material from the Hamburgische Zoologische Museum der Universität, Hamburg, Germany was examined. All known Australian species of the subfamily Exogoninae (Syllidae) are described and figured. Some were examined using the Scanning Electron Microscope to illustrate some characters and methods of reproduction in this subfamily. Keys to genera and species are given. A total of 74 species are reported from Australia belonging to 8 genera: Nooralia

The phylogeny of Syllidae is assessed in two parsimony analyses of 107 morphological characters. The first analysis included one species of each of the 71 genera of the Syllidae, as well as members of other close families. In the second analysis, 23 poorly known genera were excluded. Character information is based on the examination of available types, additional non‐types and newly collected material. Syllidae, except Bollandia Glasby, 1994 is monophyletic. Both analyses supported three of the four traditional subfamilies (Exogoninae, Syllinae and Autolytinae) as monophyletic, whereas Eusyllinae was clearly a polyphyletic group. The genera Anoplosyllis Claparède, 1868, Astreptosyllis Kudenov & Dorsey, 1982, Streptosyllis Webster & Benedict, 1884, Streptospinigera Kudenov, 1983 and SyllidesÖrsted, 1845 comprise a well‐supported monophyletic group, which we classified as a new subfamily: Anoplosyllinae n. subfam. Our results indicated high levels of homoplasy in the morphological characteristics that traditionally used to differentiate groups, such as the fusion of palps and the presence of nuchal epaulettes. Considering the reproductive modes, schizogamy has appeared twice in the family as the derived condition evolving from epigamy, and Exogoninae may be divided into two monophyletic groups based on the brood system.

No abstract