Loimia ramzega Lavesque, Bonifácio, Londoño-Mesa, Le Garrec & Grall, 2017

Lavesque, Nicolas, Daffe, Guillemine, Londoño-Mesa, Mario H. & Hutchings, Pat, 2021, Revision of the French Terebellidae sensu stricto (Annelida, Terebelliformia), with descriptions of nine new species, Zootaxa 5038 (1), pp. 1-63 : 35-36

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5038.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:1C1E4C7A-2452-47BC-B843-2543135EF780
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5502883
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B887B1-6E15-FFEF-48F7-64B3115696BD
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Loimia ramzega Lavesque, Bonifácio, Londoño-Mesa, Le Garrec & Grall, 2017
status

Treatment

Loimia ramzega Lavesque, Bonifácio, Londoño-Mesa, Le Garrec & Grall, 2017 View in CoL

Figure 2B View FIGURE 2

Loimia ramzega Lavesque et al. 2017a: 935–942 View in CoL , figs 2–5.

Diagnosis. (for a detailed description, see Lavesque et al. 2017a). Large sized animals with live specimens up to 650 mm long. Three pairs of arborescent branchiae on SG II–IV, two pairs of lateral lobes on SG I and III; first pair more ventral, second pair more developed and lateral, but oblique, with undulating edge, sixteen ventral shields from SG II (fused on SG II–III); uncini pectinate with five or six teeth in vertical row ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2 ), pygidium with about 14 long conical papillae.

Type locality. France, English Channel, Brittany, Plouguerneau, Lilia beach ; 48°36’38”N 04°36’24”W.

Type material. Holotype MNHN-IATYPE 1788, four paratypes MNHN-IATYPE 1789 to 1992. NMW. Z.2017.002.0001, one paratype, and six individuals. CEMUA-POLY-TERE-0100, one paratype.

Distribution. Only known from the French coasts: Bay of Biscay (Bay of Brest, Grall pers. obs.), English Channel ( Lavesque et al. 2017a), southern North Sea (Dunkerque, Lavesque pers. obs.).

Habitat. Sandy beaches, intertidal ( Lavesque et al. 2017a), shallow waters, fine sands (this study).

Remarks. Lomia ramzega is very distinct from other European species of Loimia (see Lavesque et al. 2017a), but surprisingly quite similar to Terebella gigantea Montagu, 1819 . Despite the very sparse original description given by Montagu (1819) and the absence of type material, several morphological details can be found in this paper. These two species have a very large size (650 mm long for L. ramzega , 406 mm for T. gigantea ) and approximately the same type locality (Brittany, English Channel, France for L. ramzega and Devon, English Channel, UK, for T. gigantea ). Moreover, as Montagu wrote “with seventeen pairs of exserted fasciculi” in the description, this species probably does not belong to the genus Terebella genera which generally have notopodia until the end of the body, or on more than 25 segments ( Hutchings et al. 2021b).

However, Montagu’s description lacks some taxonomic details, particularly concerning uncini and shape of lateral lobes, which are very important in the genus Loimia . Montagu described the branchiae as relatively short, while they are very long on L. ramzega , and that ventral shields are brown, while they are blood red on L. ramzega . Finally, the tubes of the five Terebella species described by Montagu (1819) in his paper are “extremely delicate”, while a membrane (together with shells fragments and gravels) allows the tube of L. ramzega to “maintain a hard consistency”.

Later, McIntosh (1922) moved T. gigantea to the genus Amphitrite . Even if several taxonomic characteristics, like the shape of the branchiae, the size of the animals, or the presence of lateral lobes are similar with L. ramzega , the shape of the uncini is very different ( McIntosh 1922, plate CXXV, Fig. 10b View FIGURE 10 ). In that paper, McIntosh also suggested that A. gigantea could be the same as Terebella edwardsii Quatrefages, 1866 , but this last species is different and valid as Amphitrite edwardsii (this study).

Finally, we suggest that T. gigantea should be considered as a nomen dubium considering that the species probably does not belong to the genus Terebella and that there is no known type material. Montagu appears to have never designated and deposited type material, and the original descriptions lacks important information, so it should be a nomen dubium until a neotype is designated and described.