A new species of Marphysa (Eunicidae) from the western Cape of South Africa

Abstract

The eunicid polychaete Marphysa sanguinea was until recently believed to be a cosmopolitan species, with a distribution ranging from the south-west coast of England to the Pacific coast of America, and New Zealand and Australia in the western Pacific. However, there are many morphological and ecological inter-population differences that render the definitive identification of these numerous populations difficult. The recent designation of a neotype, together with a more detailed morphological description of specimens from the type locality in south-west England, has allowed the concept that M. sanguinea represents a series of cryptic species, to be investigated by examining populations of species previously referred to as Marphysa sanguinea. A new species Marphysa mullawa was described from Moreton Bay Queensland, Australia. In this paper we describe a new species from the western Cape of South Africa which has previously been referred to as ‘Marphysa sanguinea’, using an integrative approach combining morphological data, RAPD-PCR analysis and a study of the sperm ultra-structure. The South African species is a popular bait animal for local sea anglers and is heavily exploited throughout the western Cape. The RAPD-PCR analysis also demonstrates that populations referred to as ‘Marphysa sanguinea’ from other geographical locations studied have distinct genetic pools, providing further evidence that Marphysa sanguinea is not a cosmopolitan species and consists of a suite of cryptic species.

Fishing bait worm supplies in Japan in relation to their physiological traits

“…Recently, Hutchings and Karageorgopoulos (2003) redescribed Marphysa sanguinea using a specimen collected in England as the type locality. Subsequent taxonomic revisions of the Marphysa sanguinea group have been done from different parts of the world (Lewis and Karageorgopoulos, 2008;Glasby and Hutchings, 2010). Lewis and Karageorgopoulos (2008) reported that there is sufficient genetic differentiation between the geographically separated populations of Australia, England, Japan, Portugal, and South Africa, suggesting that Marphysa sanguinea does not occur in Japan.…”

“…Subsequent taxonomic revisions of the Marphysa sanguinea group have been done from different parts of the world (Lewis and Karageorgopoulos, 2008;Glasby and Hutchings, 2010). Lewis and Karageorgopoulos (2008) reported that there is sufficient genetic differentiation between the geographically separated populations of Australia, England, Japan, Portugal, and South Africa, suggesting that Marphysa sanguinea does not occur in Japan. More recently, Taru (2013) recognized Marphysa iwamushi as a valid species.…”

Description of a new species of Marphysa Quatrefages, 1865 (Polychaeta: Eunicidae) from the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia and comparisons with species from Marphysa Group A from the Indo-West Pacific and Indian Ocean

“…Hutchings and Karageorgopoulos (2003) suggest that the distribution of M. sanguinea is restricted to northern Europe, and that records from other parts of the world should be checked. Certainly, the records of M. sanguinea from South Africa have been found to represent another species (Lewis and Karageorgopoulos, 2008), and this has been confirmed both morphologically and molecularly. …”

“…One is M. sanguinea Montagu, 1813, which has been reported from all oceans of both northern and southern hemispheres, except for the polar regions (see Day, 1967;Miura, 1977;Gathof, 1984;Paxton and Chou, 2000;Prevedelli et al, 2007). However, Hutchings and Karageorgopoulos (2003), as well as Lewis and Karageorgopoulos (2008), have challenged the cosmopolitan status of M. sanguinea. Hutchings and Karageorgopoulos (2003) suggest that the distribution of M. sanguinea is restricted to northern Europe, and that records from other parts of the world should be checked.…”

Ultrastructural study of oogenesis in <em>Marphysa sanguinea</em> (Annelida: Polychaeta: Eunicida) from the Lagoon of Tunis

“…However, voucher specimens for many populations do not exist or were poorly identified. Taxonomists have recently reexamined many of these specimens, concluding that they may be a few to several different sibling species (Hutchings and Karageorgopoulos 2003, Prevedelli et al 2007, Lewis and Karageorgopoulos 2008. All literature referring to M. sanguinea and its biology should therefore be referred to with caution.…”