Neogyptis Pleijel, Rouse, Sundkvist & Nygren, 2012

Rizzo, Alexandra E. & Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2014, Hesionidae Grube, 1850 (Annelida: Polychaeta) from South-Southeastern Brazil, with descriptions of four new species, Zootaxa 3856 (2), pp. 267-291 : 276-277

Neogyptis Pleijel, Rouse, Sundkvist & Nygren, 2012

Gyptis Marion & Bobretzki in Marion, 1874: 399; Pleijel, 1998: 128 (partim). Neogyptis Pleijel, Rouse, Sundkvist & Nygren, 2012 .

Type species: Ophiodromus roseus Malmgren, 1974 , by original designation.

Diagnosis (modified from Pleijel 1998; Pleijel et al. 2012): Ophiodrominae with dorsally inserted median antenna; nuchal organs dorsally separated; notochaetae usually from segment 6, include capillaries with two rows of teeth; neurochaetae usually from segment 5; proboscis with terminal ring of papillae present; lip pads usually from segment 4–5; proboscis with papillae, and transverse dorsal ridges absent or present.

Remarks. Pleijel (1993a) recognized two European Gyptis species groups in his key based upon their relative prostomial shape, presence of lip glands, and relative insertion of ventral cirri. Thus, G. propinqua , the type species for the genus, grouped with G. mackiei Pleijel, 1993 because both had prostomia as wide as long, lip glands, and ventral cirri inserted subdistally. The other group had a wider than long prostomium, lacked lip glands, and ventral cirri inserted distally; G. ro s e a (Malmgren, 1874) grouped with G. mediterranea Pleijel, 1993 , together with Amphiduros fuscescens (Marenzeller, 1875) . Pleijel (1993a:176) indicated that the only difference between Amphiduros and Gyptis was that the former did not have marginal papillae in the pharynx, although in the key (p. 179) he added that the species of Gyptis had small eyes, acicular notochaetae present and annulated dorsal cirri instead of large eyes, acicular notochaetae absent and non-annulated dorsal cirri as in Amphiduros . In a later paper, Pleijel (1993b) redescribed G. vittata Webster & Benedict, 1887 and described G. crypta . These two species belong to different groups, such that G. v i t t a t a falls within Gyptis sensu stricto, whereas G. crypta resembles the species in the second above group: Gyptis + Amphiduros .

Pleijel (1998) carefully redefined hesionid genera and their phylogenetic affinities. Despite the fact that Amphiduros and Gyptis branched out as sister groups ( Pleijel 1998:102, Fig. 2 ), his diagnoses were not antagonistic but different, and the presence of pharynx papillae or the ventral cirri insertion were not homogeneously used for diagnosing these two genera. However, for Amphiduros a pharynx without papillae was stated, and in the extended diagnosis he included ( Pleijel 1998:128) “lip glands absent; … ventral cirri distally inserted on neuropodium”. Likewise, for the description for Gyptis , a pharynx with 10 or more papillae, “lips glands absent or present,” and ventral cirri “subdistally or distally inserted on neuropodium” ( Pleijel 1998:132) was also included.

Later, Pleijel (2001) revised Amphiduros Hartman, 1959 , with Amphidromus setosus Hessle, 1925 , as type species, and proposed a new genus Amphiduropsis for Amphiduros axialensis Blake & Hilbig, 1990 . He examined living specimens together with museum materials and concluded that just one cosmopolitan species could be recognized, i.e. A. fuscescens , originally described from the Mediterranean Sea. Two Amphiduros species described from Japan: A. izukai ( Hessle, 1925:28–29) and A. setosus ( Hessle, 1925:26–28) were regarded as junior synonyms of A. pacificus Hartman, 1961 from California; the Japanese species are probably synonyms to each other with the latter as the senior one.

He regarded as junior synonyms two species described from Japan: A. izukai ( Hessle, 1925: 28–29) and A. setosus ( Hessle, 1925: 26–26) which are probably synonyms to each other with the latter as the senior one, and Amphiduros pacificus Hartman, 1961 from California. This conclusion is remarkable because of some critical factors; for example, Pleijel (2001:18, Fig. 2 ) provided some color photographs which show interesting and probably diagnostic differences in several features such as relative pigmentation, prostomial and eyes relative size, dorsal cirri size and shape, pharynx relative length, and stomach wall definition. He also provided SEM plates, and despite the fact that the illustrated objects are not standardized in perspective or relative size, there are other interesting differences. For example, the Australian specimen (p. 22, Fig. 4 ) has blunt, medially swollen dorsal cirri and subdistally constricted ventral cirri, while the specimen from Los Angeles (p. 23, Fig. 5 ) has cirriform dorsal cirri and tapered ventral cirri, and the specimen from Banyuls (p. 24, Fig. 6 ) has slightly swollen dorsal cirri and cirriform or distally constricted ventral cirri.

In a more recent contribution, Pleijel et al. (2012) proposed a new genus, Neogyptis , for some species that were formerly included in Gyptis , but lacked lip glands. Their analyses showed that Amphiduros was the sister group to Neogyptis , and that these were far from Gyptis , which grouped with Ophiodromus and Podarkeopsis . It is noteworthy that they found that A. fuscescens and A. pacificus were distinct (contrary to what had been proposed by Pleijel (2001: 25) “I currently cannot provide decisive evidence for more than a single lineage for the nominal taxa A. fuscensces , A. izukai , A. pacificus , and A. setosus ”), and that they found no “morphological apomorphies for Neogyptis at the exclusion of Amphiduros . However, the molecular data provide strong support for a sister group relationship between the two taxa” ( Pleijel et al. 2012:476). Another interesting fact is that they had no material of N. hongkongensis for molecular studies but retained it in the new genus because ventral cirri are inserted distally despite the fact it has lip glands, which are restricted to Gyptis . We think N. hongkongensis should be transferred to Gyptis . However, a formal new combination must rest on the study of type materials and this should be done in the future.

Figures

FIGURE 2. Syllidia amaralae new species. A. Holotype MZUSP 506 with pharynx everted, dorsal view; B. Same, ventral view; C. Same, jaws; D. Position of jaws and stylet on proboscis; E. Paratype MZUSP 505, parapodium 4, posterior view; F. Same, parapodium 12, anterior view; G. Supra-acicular heterogomph falciger neurochaetae; H. Sub-acicular heterogomph falciger neurochaetae.

FIGURE 4. Neogyptis nonatoi new species. A. Paratype MZUSP 385, anterior region in dorsal view, pharynx everted, lateral antennae and tentacular cirri lost; B. Holotype MZUSP 386, anterior region, median antenna lost; C. Same, parapodium 6; D. Same, acicular notochaeta, striated, distally blunt; E. Capillary notochaeta, long, striated, marginally serrated; F. Median capillary notochaeta, with spirally arranged denticles; G. Notochaeta short, curved distally and with serrated coarsely face; H. Simple neurochaeta, distally blunt, marginally serrulated from basal to median portion; I. Heterogomph falciger with long blade, marginally serrulated and distally bidentate; J. Heterogomph falciger with short to median blade, marginally smooth and distally bidentate; K. Geniculate neurochaetae, distally pointed.

FIGURE 5. Oxydromus lanai new species. A. Holotype MZUSP 491, anterior region, dorsal view; B. Anterior region from an epitokous paratype MZUSP 439, dorsolateral view; C. Paratype MZUSP 436, posterior region, dorsal view; D. Furcate notochaetae, basally serrated near of shorter tine; E. Falciger bidentate with short and narrow blade; F. Falciger bidentate with short to long blade.

FIGURE 6. Oxydromus lanai new species. A. Paratype juvenile MZUSP 439 with 8 chaetigers, dorsal view; B. Paratype MZUSP 481, parapodium 1, posterior view; C. Same, parapodium 3, posterior view; D. Paratype MZUSP 493, parapodium 4, posterior view; E. Same, parapodium 9, anterior view.