No abstract

This paper addresses the phylogeny of the superfamily Paratanaidoidea using computer‐assisted parsimony methods. Our morphologically based, empirical analysis uses exemplar species from all families and most genera in the superfamily. Species of Apseudomorpha, Neotanaidomorpha and Tanaidoidea were employed as out‐groups. The analysis supports most of the older systematics, including the monophyly of Paratanaididae, Leptocheliidae (in part), Nototanaididae, Pseudotanaididae and Pseudozeuxidae (excluding Heterotanaoides ). The analysis does not support the monophyly of Typhlotanaididae and Anarthruridae and suggests that both families be split up. The core genera of Typhlotanaididae are combined with the Nototanaididae under the name Nototanaididae. Other genera of Typhlotanaididae are left without family designation. Anarthruridae is divided into five families, Agathotanaididae, Anarthruridae, Leptognathiidae, Tanaellidae fam. nov. and Colletteidae fam. nov., but a large part of the anarthrurid genera could not be designated to families. The Leptocheliidae could neither be rejected nor verified but a subfamilial division (Heterotanaidinae subfam. nov. and Leptocheliinae) seems appropriate. A new proposal for the higher‐level taxonomy of the Paratanaidoidea is presented. Many tanaidacean names have been corrected to make them agree with the presumed Latin stem ‘tanaid‐’.

No abstract

No abstract

The mobile fauna associated with two sympatric kelp species with different holdfast morphology (Saccorhiza polyschides and Laminaria hyperborea) was compared to test for differences in the assemblage structure of holdfast-associated mobile epifauna. A total of 24,140 epifaunal individuals were counted from 30 holdfasts of each kelp species. Overall epifaunal abundances exceeded faunal abundances previously reported from holdfasts of other kelps. Three taxonomic groups, Amphipoda, Mollusca, and Polychaeta, accounted for ca. 85% of all individuals. Total abundances increased with the amount of habitat available, quantified either as the volume or the area provided by the holdfasts. The multivariate structure of the epifaunal assemblage did not differ between holdfasts of the two kelp species. However, epifaunal assemblages responded differentially to the habitat attributes provided by each type of kelp holdfast: multivariate variation in the assemblage structure of epifauna was mostly explained by holdfast area and volume for L. hyperborea, and by the surface-to-volume ratio for S. polyschides holdfasts. Therefore, the physical attributes of biogenic habitats, here kelp holdfasts that better predict patterns in the assemblage structure of associated fauna can differ according to their different physical morphology, even though the overall assemblage structure of associated fauna was similar.