Hebella

Galea, Horia R., 2013, New additions to the shallow-water hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) of the French Lesser Antilles: Martinique, Zootaxa 3686 (1), pp. 1-50: 15

publication ID

http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3686.1.1

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:17A93C58-F09C-484A-A26A-F4F27BC91A6C

DOI

http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5263605

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/D6410C37-BF45-FFFB-FF36-FB02FCA7F802

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Hebella
status

 

Hebella   sp. 1

( Figs 3 View FIGURE 3. A, B M, Z; 4 G)

Material examined. Stn. 1, 18.ii.2012, 13 m, M 217: several hydrothecae on three cormoids of Aglaophenia rhynchocarpa Allman, 1877   .

Description. Stolon linear, occasionally branched, creeping mostly on the posterior side of the host's stem, giving rise irregularly to rather short (210–550 µm), slightly wrinkled pedicels, carrying large (1160–1645 µm long, 560–610 µm wide), campanulate hydrothecae; walls smooth or nearly so, rounded and slightly asymmetrical basally, with thin, membranous diaphragm; margin circular, strongly everted, 770–940 µm wide at aperture, occasionally renovated once; hydranths with 18–19 tentacles. Gonothecae absent. Nematocysts: 1) egg-shaped microbasic heteronemes, ca. 5.8 × 3.4 µm, of rare occurrence in the coenosarc; 2) microbasic mastigophores, (7.8 – 9.0)×(2.6–2.9) µm, abundant in the tentacles, also present in the coenosarc; 3) ovoid microbasic heteronemes with a lateral "beak" at insertion of the shaft, (7.4 –8.0)×(2.9–3.2) µm, sparsely distributed in the coenosarc; 4) large microbasic heteronemes, ca. 22.3 × 7.2 µm, occurring rather rarely in the stolon.

Remarks. In the absence of knowledge of its gonosome, this hydroid, as well as the three following species, could not be linked to any known taxa. According to Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4. A D–J, in which the cnidomes of the seven hebellids discussed here are compared, it appears that at least some of them produce capsules with a very characteristic shape. These, together with the features of their trophosomes alone, could possibly allow a specific identification in some cases, provided that their life cycles are already known and specific names are introduced for those that appear as new. Unfortunately, the review by Boero et al. (1997) paid little attention to the cnidomes, thus preventing any reliable comparisons based on the nematocysts and trophosomes alone.

Geographical distribution. Only known from Martinique.