Eunice rubra Grube (Annelida, Polychaeta, Eunicidae), a redescription based on the holotype and Brazilian specimens

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Based on features of the holotype and seven Brazilian specimens examined under stereomicroscope,light microscope, and scanning electron microscope, Eunice rubra Grube, 1856 is redescribed, allowing for intraspecific variation and providing information on characters not included in a previous redescription. Characters important for the taxonomy of the genus varied widely, a1though in some cases because of fixation artefacts. KEY WORDS. Eunice rubra, Eunicidae, Polychaeta, taxonomy, south-eastern Brazil FAUCHALD (1992) based his revision of Eunice Cuvier, 1817 upon type material , some of which consisted of poorly preserved specimens, few or single individuaIs , or individuaIs with missing parts. Because of this, in severa! species certain characters were scored as unknown, and intraspecific variation was impossible or nearly impossible to evaluate. Eunice rubra Grube, 1856 is a good example. FAUCHALD (1992) examined only the holotype, which was incomplete, and therefore characters such as maxillary formulae, totallength, and the morphology of the posterior end were impossible to describe precisely.ln Brazil, four specimens of a species which was previously considered as new and close to E. rubra, were collected in a sandy beach and in living colonies of the coral Mussismilia hispida (Verrill, 1868). ln order to define the differences between our specimens and Eunice rubra, which has been reported several times from the Brazilian coast (NONATO & Lu NA 1970;MORGADO & AMARAL 1981 ;DUARTE & NALESSO 1996), three specimens of the latter from the collection of Dr. Edmundo FelTaz Nonato were bOlTowed, and the holotype was also examined. The analysis indicated that the seven specimens from Brazil were actually E. rubra. Moreover, this species shows variation in characters considered important by FAUCHALD (1992) for the taxonomy of the genus, such as the shape of articu lations in palps, antennae and peristomial cirri, the segment on which the branchiae first appear, and the number of branchial filaments per parapodium. ln the present paper, E. rubra is redescribed, based on a comprehensive morphological comparison of the holotype and the seven Brazilian specimens. The

Fauna living in colonies of Mussismilia hispida (Verrill) (Cnidaria: Scleractinia) in four South-eastern Brazil islands

“…In a recent study, Nogueira (2000) analysed the polychaetes living in colonies of 0 KLVSLGD in the same area as the present work and reported that these animals, especially members of the families Syllidae, Spionidae, Serpulidae, and Eunicidae, in this order, were very abundant. As a result of that study, several new taxa (genera and species) are currently being described (Nogueira andAmaral, 2000, 2001;Nogueira and ten Hove, 2000;Nogueira and Rizzo, 2001;Nogueira et al, 2001 a and b;Nogueira and KnightJones, 2002;Nogueira and San Martín, 2002;Steiner et al, 2002). According to Fauchald and Jumars (1979), the feeding guilds of the most representative families of polychaetes in the present study observed suggested that they were very important on these communities, controlling populations of microcrustaceans, feeding on suspended materials, and on detritus and bacteria entrapped in coral mucus.…”

A new species of Leodice from Korean waters (Annelida, Polychaeta, Eunicidae)

“…However, diagnostic features of many Leodice species have been well studied under the names of Eunice species by the previous works (Hartman 1944, Day 1967, Miura 1977, 1986, Fauchald 1992, Carrera-Parra and Salazar-Vallejo 1998, Zanol et al 2000, Steiner et al 2002, Zanol et al 2007, Wu et al 2013b). The new species of the present study can be discriminated from its relatives by the distinguishing morphological features provided by these previous works.…”

“…Among them, L. rubra is especially similar to L. duplexa sp. n. in the presence of paired subacicular hooks in some chaetigers (Fauchald 1992, Steiner et al 2002). However, these two species differ from each other by the number of branchial filaments and aciculae: L. duplexa sp.…”

“…However, these two species differ from each other by the number of branchial filaments and aciculae: L. duplexa sp. n. is with a maximum of eight branchial filaments and 2–4 aciculae per parapodium, whereas L. rubra displays a maximum of 21 filaments and single paired aciculae (Fauchald 1992, Steiner et al 2002). Meanwhile, L. duplexa sp.…”

“…In the present paper, detailed description and illustrations of the new species are provided with a genetic comparison between the new species and other Leodice species in the barcode region of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI). A taxonomic comparison of known Leodice species is also presented, with a revised taxonomic key based on the previous literature (Miura 1977, 1986, Fauchald 1992, Carrera-Parra and Salazar-Vallejo 1998, Zanol et al 2000, Steiner et al 2002, Zanol et al 2007, Wu et al 2013b, Zanol et al 2014, Arias et al 2015). …”