Marphysa mossambica ( Peters, 1854 )

Glasby, Christopher J., Biriukova, Olga, Hutchings, Pat, Daffe, Guillemine & Lavesque, Nicolas, 2025, Redescription of the enigmatic Marphysa mossambica (Polychaeta: Eunicidae) and description of two new Marphysa species from northern Australia, Zootaxa 5717 (2), pp. 151-179 : 156-161

publication ID	https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5717.2.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A392606A-B36B-4902-9DD5-62B6F8DEDE42
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D087CB-FF96-FFF7-8AD1-5DFCFCDAFE26
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Marphysa mossambica ( Peters, 1854 )
status

Treatment

Marphysa mossambica ( Peters, 1854) View in CoL

Figures 2−4 View FIGURE 2 View FIGURE 3 View FIGURE 4 , Table 2

Eunice mossambica Peters, 1854: 612 View in CoL .

Marphysa mossambica View in CoL . — Gravier, 1900: 267, pl. 14, figs 89−90, text figs 137−139.— Crossland, 1903: 139−140, pl. 15, figs 7−10.— Day 1967, 395, fig. 17.5 i−m.— Glasby & Hutchings, 2010: 37− 38 View Cited Treatment .— Zanol et al., 2014: fig. 15h.

Nauphanta mossambica Fauchald, 1987: 376−378 View in CoL , fig. 1.

Marphysa moribidii Idris, Hutchings and Arshad, 2014 View in CoL , syn. nov.

Material examined. Lectotype and paralectotypes as examined in Idris et al. (2014), viz., lectotype, ZMB 4005— complete, female; paralectotypes (6): ZMB 47 and ZMB F2046, all specimens collected at Moçambique, coll. Peters 1854. Additional data on type locality and habitat from Peters (1854): ‘Extremely common in the sand on the coast, from Mossambique [=island of Mossambique] to Mossimboa [now Mocímboa da Praia], from 11° to 15° south’ [translated from German using Google Translate].

Other material. Marphysa mossambica MNHN-IA-2017-2208, 1 incomplete specimen, parapodia used for molecular analyses; MNHN-IA-2014-2209, 1 incomplete specimen; SMA _ NL109 ), 1 complete specimen, few parapodia used for molecular analyses; MNHN-IA-2017-2209, 1 incomplete specimen, 3( AM W.53934). All specimens sampled from Kenya, Mida Creek , 3.3261°S 39.96583°E, intertidal mud flat, coll. C. Kariuki, J. Tembo, C. Kihia, 5 Apr. 2022 GoogleMaps . AM. 53076, 1 complete specimen, Philippines, Tigbauan , Iloilo (SEAFDEC, 10.673°N 122.376°E), coll. Oct-Nov. GoogleMaps 2019.

Marphysa moribidii , holotype ( AM W.43731), Selangor, Morib , Malaysia, 3.75728°N 101.43714°E, mangrove, coll. I. Idris, 19 July 2012; AM W.52255, collection locality as for holotype, coll. 17 Jul. 2019 (sequenced) GoogleMaps .

Description. Preserved specimens mostly posteriorly incomplete (SMA_NL109, complete, in two parts, and an additional posterior end having pygidium present), total length 350 mm (n = 1), length to chaetiger 10, 11–13 mm, width at chaetiger 10 (excluding parapodia), 5.0– 7.5 mm, pale yellow to tan in colour, iridescent anterodorsally, no obvious pigmentation present but many subcutaneous white spots stand out against tan base colour anterodorsally ( Fig. 2A, B View FIGURE 2 ). Body elongate and tapered gradually at both ends anteriorly, first five chaetigerous segments rounded in cross-section, following ones becoming flattened and shorter (about 2/3 length of chaetigers 1–5) ( Fig. 2A–C View FIGURE 2 ).

Prostomium strongly bilobed anteriorly with two dorsoventrally flattened buccal lips and an anterior notch between them ( Fig. 2A, C View FIGURE 2 ). Two palps and three antennae slender and tapering, each with short palpophores ( Fig. 2A, B View FIGURE 2 ), arranged in a slightly curved arc on posterior margin of prostomium, all slightly wrinkled, palps slightly shorter than antennae, median one extending to posterior chaetiger 1; ratio c. 1.0/1.1–1.4/1.2–1.4 (n = 3, from here on unless otherwise stated) ( Fig. 2A View FIGURE 2 ). Eyes absent (or at least not observed in preserved specimen). First peristomial ring ~2.3 x longer dorsally than 2 nd one ( Fig. 2A, B View FIGURE 2 ), with a shallow notch on the anterolateral margin.

Maxillary apparatus not everted, dissected out. Maxillae with carriers, four paired elements and one single one, dark brown, formula as follows: MF=1+1, 6+6, 7+0, 4+11, 1+1 ( Fig. 2G View FIGURE 2 ). MI approximately 2.8x longer than maxillary carrier, rectangular anteriorly with a pair of oval wings situated at posterior-lateral margins. MI forceps-like, without attachment lamellae, well-developed, sub-right angle falcal arch. Closing system approximately 6x shorter than MI. Ligament between MI and MII rectangular, same colour as MI. MII without an attachment lamella, teeth triangular, distributed along half of plate length. Ligament between MII and MIII absent. MIII single, slightly shorter than right MIV, curved forming part of distal arc with recurved, equal-sized triangular teeth. Left MIV about 2/3 length of right MIV with a wide, arcuate, dark brown base. MV paired, rectangular, as long as wide, with broad cutting edge and no clearly defined teeth (but following tradition to score a 1+1). Mandibles ( Fig. 2H View FIGURE 2 ) dark brown, slightly shorter than MI plus carriers, narrow whitish fringe on anterior cutting plates, without distinct growth rings.

First few parapodia located below middle line of body wall, but gradually positioned dorsally to about midline in subsequent segments ( Fig. 2A View FIGURE 2 ). Dorsal cirri slender, tapering, anterior ones faintly annulated with base swollen ( Fig. 2A, B View FIGURE 2 ), extending laterally slightly further than post-chaetal lobe and ventral cirri; extending slightly short of chaetal lobes in midbody chaetigers onwards. Ventral cirri swollen cylindrical with rounded tips, initially slightly longer than parapodial lobes, gradually becoming shorter than lobes, and posteriorly cylindrical and glandular ( Fig. 2A–C View FIGURE 2 ). Parapodia comprising low, rounded pre- and post-chaetal lobes, which are weakly discernible, perhaps due to poor preservation ( Fig. 2E, F View FIGURE 2 ). Branchiae palmate commencing from chaetiger 34–73 (branchiate chaetigers start later in larger specimens; also, first branchiate chaetiger may initially be followed by a few abranchiate chaetigers) and continuing to posterior body (exact number of chaetigers unknown), 1st branchiate chaetigers with 1 or 2 filaments increasing to a maximum number of 6 or 7 in midbody and numbers decreasing on posterior chaetigers. Branchial filaments robust and wrinkled, longest filament exceeds length of branchial stem ( Fig. 2F View FIGURE 2 ). Dark subcutaneous mass at anterior base of branchial stem / dorsal cirrus junction of well-developed branchiae, possibly a heart body ( Fig. 2F View FIGURE 2 ).

Compound chaetae absent, limbate chaetae present throughout in both supra- and subacicular fascicles ( Fig. 3A–D View FIGURE 3 ); many broken. Subacicular bidentate hooks begin on parapodia on segment 43–50, yellow-brown translucent, one per parapodium, discontinuous (i.e., missing from several consecutive segments after they start). Acicula brown to dark brown, 4−5 per chaetiger anteriorly (between chaetigers 10–20), reducing to one per chaetiger in posterior half of body, about 2x wider than subacicular hook. Pectinate chaetae present; 3 types observed (IWSS, IWLS, AWLT) in mid-posterior parapodia ( Fig. 3A–D View FIGURE 3 ). Pectinate chaetae with the following tooth counts: IWSS with c. 41 teeth (n = 3 chaetae); IWLS with c. 19 (n = 6); AWLT with 7 teeth (n = 1) ( Table 2).

Pygidium with two pairs of anal cirri, dorsal pair as long as pygidium is deep, much longer than papilliform ventral pair (n = 2).

Distribution. The IWP distribution of M. mossambica is confirmed, including Mozambique, Kenya, the Philippines and Malaysia. Northern Australia occurrences mentioned in Glasby and Hutchings (2010) require confirmation ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 ).

Habitat. Intertidal; material from Kenya was collected in mangroves along a creek.

Remarks. The s pecimens identified as M. mossambica from northern Australia ( Glasby & Hutchings 2010) were found to be morphometrically similar to the type specimen, and these authors concluded “it is highly likely that the northern Australian forms, the lectotype of M. mossambica from Mozambique, and the holotype of M. novaehollandiae represent populations of a single species”. Nevertheless, we are reluctant to extend the distribution of this species to Australia, given the absence of molecular data and the discovery of a new species, very similar to M. mossambica , in NE Australia.

In comparison with the accounts of the lectotype and paratypes of M. mossambica , the specimens from Kenya show the following differences ( Kenya specimen first): body with many subcutaneous white spots standing out against tan base colour anterodorsally cf. no white spots visible ( Idris et al. 2014); first five chaetigerous segments rounded in cross-section compared to the first 10 segments in M. mossambica (Idris et al. 2010) ; eyes not observed in the Kenya specimens, but stated to be present in M. mossambica ( Molina-Acevedo & Idris 2021) ; median antenna extending to posterior chaetiger 1 cf. chaetiger 2 or 3 in M. mossambica ( Idris et al. 2014; Molina-Acevedo & Idris 2021); peduncle in prostomial appendages present; vs supposedly absent in M. mossambica ( Molina-Acevedo & Idris 2021) but scored as present by Idris et al. (2014); right-side Mx IV with 11 teeth vs. 8–9 in M. mossambica ( Idris et al. 2014; Molina-Acevedo & Idris 2021); branchiae beginning on chaetigers 34–73, cf. chaetigers 23–48 in M. mossambica ( Molina-Acevedo & Idris 2021) ; and WWSS and IWLS pectinates with slightly fewer teeth (19 vs 20– 28) and (41 vs 41–56) respectively, although these may not be statistically significant, especially because the values for M. mossambica were sourced from three different publications involving three different sets of researchers. In sum, the differences between the Kenyan material and the types of M. mossambica mainly relate to features that fade over time (body pigment and eyes); may have been scored in error (peduncles of the prostomial appendages); could be the result of scorer variation (pectinates teeth counts), or are highly likely to represent size-related interspecific variation (number of anterior segments rounded in cross-section; beginning of branchiae). Therefore, we consider the Kenyan specimens to be indistinguishable from M. mossambica and therefore conspecific.

Regarding our synonymy of Marphysa morbidii and Marphysa mossambica , we have re-examined the putative morphological differences between the two species below.

According to Idris et al. (2014, Table 1), the main differences between the two species are:

1. Branchiae begin on chaetiger 33–39 in the types of M. moribidii (chaetiger range for all material 4–63 based on individuals from 7–477 mm in length); the range for M. mossambica is 30–49;

2. Branchiae maximum filaments: 11 (range 6–14) in M. moribidii ; 6 in the lectotype of M. mossambica ;

3. Pectinate chaetae were stated to be first present from chaetiger 5(3) in M. moribidii , cf. from ~ chaetiger 100 in M. mossambica in Table 1, which was presumably taken from Fauchald (1987); however, the information for M. mossambica based on the author’s own observations of the lectotype was stated on p. 119 to be asymmetrical pectinates with 2–40 teeth from the early midbody (>30 segment), which is considerably more similar to M. moribidii ;

4. Pectinate chaetae 4 types ( M. moribidii ); pectinate chaetae 3 types ( M. mossambica ); however, this was updated to 4 types for M. mossambica ( Molina-Acevedo & Idris (2021); see also Table 2 herein.

The above differences are not considered to be sufficient for species-level differentiation.

Another stated difference between the two species, the colouration of M. moribidii , “Olive green with white spots on dorsal and ventral sides of the anterior section”, could not be compared with the types of M. mossambica , as they have faded; however, this general colouration pattern was seen in our freshly preserved specimens from Kenya ( Fig. 2A View FIGURE 2 ).

Therefore, based on the molecular results (above) and our morphological reinterpretation, we suggest relegating M. moribidii to a subjective junior synonym of M. mossambica . The lack of molecular data available to Idris et al. (2014) at the time made it difficult to distinguish their species, which they described as having very large intraspecific variation based on many specimens (ranging from 7–477 mm, 113–580 chaetigers) compared to M. mossambica , which was only represented by a few types.