Sertularella conica S. conica Allman, 1877 Sertulariella gayi S. gayi (Lamouroux, 1821) Sertularella gayi S. gayi (Lamouroux, 1821) Sertularella tenella Bennitt, 1922 : 250 S. tenella Alder, 1857 Sertularella inconstans Calder & Hester, 1978 : 91 S. inconstans Billard, 1919 Sertularella calderi S. africana Stechow, 1919 S. ellisii (Deshayes & Milne-Edwards, 1836) S. fusiformis (Hincks, 1861) S. mixta Galea & Schories, 2012 S. lagenoides Stechow, 1919 S. mediterranea Hartlaub, 1901 S. simplex (Hutton, 1873) S. uruguayensis S. calderi New additions to the shallow-water hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) of the French Lesser Antilles: Martinique Galea, Horia R. Zootaxa 2013 3686 1 1 50 36FLC Busk, 1852 Busk 1852 [151,526,786,812] Hydrozoa Sertulariidae Diphasia Animalia Leptothecata 20 21 Cnidaria species digitalis   Material examined. Stn. 8, 25.i.2012, 12– 15 m, M058: numerous sterile stems on sponge (MHNG-INVE-82973). Remarks. For a recent redescription of this species, refer to Schuchert (2003).  Geographical distribution. Circumglobal in tropical and subtropical waters ( Schuchert 2003). In the Caribbean, it was found in Puerto Rico( Fraser 1944), St. Thomas ( Vervoort 1968), and Martinique(present study).   Sertularella calderi  sp. nov.( Fig. 6C–G, J–M; Table 3)    Sertularella conica― Calder, 1983: 11, fig. 4; 1991: 99, fig. 52; 2013: 29, fig. 8I(not  S. conica Allman, 1877).  Sertulariella gayi― Verrill, 1900: 571 [not  S. gayi(Lamouroux, 1821); incorrect subsequent spelling].  Sertularella gayi― Verrill, 1907: 319, fig. 170 [not  S. gayi(Lamouroux, 1821)].    Sertularella tenella―  Bennitt, 1922: 250(not  S. tenellaAlder, 1857).    Sertularella inconstans―  Calder & Hester, 1978: 91(not  S. inconstansBillard, 1919).   Material examined. Stn. 2, 22.ii.2012, 1 m, M244: fertile stems on sponge and limestone ( syntype: MHNG- INVE-82937).   Description. Colony comprising both stolonal hydrothecae and erect stems, up to 1.15 cmhigh, arising from creeping hydrorhiza. Stems monosiphonic, almost straight, unbranched or with an occasional, short side branch; stem composed of a basal part (210–570 µm long) devoid of hydrothecae, and a much longer, distal part, carrying up to 24 successive thecae. Perisarc moderately thick, nodes unnoticeable; equivalents of internodes of uniform length, rather short, bearing a single hydrotheca distally; aperture of a hydrotheca surpassing base of the following one ( Fig. 6C, D). Side branches, when present, given off from below the base of a stem hydrotheca ( Fig. 6C); structure similar to stem. Hydrothecae alternate, flask-shaped, adnate for half or slightly less their total length, widest at level where the adaxial wall becomes free; narrowing distally, and provided with a short neck region below the aperture. Abaxial wall provided with 3–4 undulations, free adaxial wall with only 2–3 of these ( Fig. 6E). Aperture rhomboidal in frontal view ( Fig. 6F), margin with four triangular cusps separated by shallow embayments; operculum of four triangular valves. Five internal, submarginal teeth (a prominent abaxial one, two smaller latero-abaxial, and two latero adaxial) projecting for 1/3 inside the lumen of hydrotheca. Hydranths greenish, more markedly in their distal halves; 28–30 filiform tentacles. Gonothecae, one per stem, arising from below the base of a hydrotheca through a short pedicel ( Fig. 6J); male similar to female, elongate-oval, nearly radially symmetrical, though slightly smaller and with fewer transverse annulations (8–9 vs. 8–12); aperture distal, borne on short neck region, surrounded by 2–5 blunt spines. Female gonotheca carrying 20–30 spherical oocytes with large nuclei ( Fig. 6K); male gonotheca producing a homogenous mass of milky-white sperm cells around the blastostyle ( Fig. 6J). Aperture of female gonotheca obstructed by thin perisarc in younger stages, changing to an internally-projected, funnel-shaped structure, with simple or fronded margin, in ripe gonothecae ( Fig. 6M); young male gonothecae closed apically, and provided with a rounded aperture when ripe ( Fig. 6L).   Remarks. Two Caribbean congeners,  S. peculiarisLeloup, 1974and  S. fraseri Galea, 2010a, superficially resemble the present species, and material belonging to them was reexamined in the course of this study. They are immediately distinguished from  S. calderithrough the more delicate appearance of their colonies, covered by much thinner perisarc, and their slightly smaller hydrothecae, less adnate in the former ( Fig. 6I) and with many corrugated walls in the latter species ( Fig. 6H). Asto the gonothecae, those of  S. peculiarisbear 7–8 more or less distinct, incomplete transverse ridges ( Galea 2008), while those of  S. fraseriare comparatively smaller and provided with sharper corrugations ( Galea 2010a). For a morphometrical comparison, see Table 3.  TABLE 3. Comparative measurements of  Sertularella calderi  sp. nov.,  S. fraseri Galea, 2010a, and  S. peculiarisLeloup, 1974. *The gonotheca figured by Migotto (1996, fig. 12K)was probably injured, thus explaining its smaller size compared to that of the Caribbean  S. peculiaris.   Sertularella calderi  sp. nov.  S. fraseriGalea,  Sertularella peculiarisLeloup, 2010a 1974    Reference Present study Calder (1983), as  S. conicaAllman, 1877 Calder (1991), as  S. conicaAllman, 1877 Galea (2010a) & present study Galea (2008) & present study Migotto (1996), as  S. conicaAllman, 1877  Internodes  - length 155–325 – 362–851 425–850 205–820  - diameter 170–220 135–181 138–255 80–105 105–120  Hydrotheca  - abcauline 495–525 398–562 404–638 375–415 445–525 400–448  - free adcauline 275–300 293–445 319–553 250–280 335–380 272–352  - adnate adcauline 290–340 211–257 181–340 190–220 150–170 136–152  - maximum width 265–275 – 230–250 205–240 240–256  - diameter at neck region 205–215 – 125–145 150–170  - diameter at aperture 245–260 187–211 181–213 160–170 170–190 184–228  Gonotheca  - length 3 - length Ƥ 1245–1410 1455–1525 – –  ca. 1250 830–890 1270–1385  ca. 720*  - max. width 3 - max. width Ƥ 660–770 740–840 – –  ca. 660 535–605 760–860  ca. 600* Earlier records of  S. calderiappear to be present in the literature. According to the description and illustrations given by Verrill (1907), his Bermudan hydroid assigned to  S. gayi(Lamouroux, 1921)corresponds in every respect to the present material. In the absence of formal description and illustrations, I assume that his earlier record ( Verrill 1900) belongs to the present species as well. The same applies also to the hydroid identified as  S. tenellaAlder, 1857by Bennitt (1922). In an earlier paper ( Galea 2008), I considered that the hydroids assigned to  S. conica Allman, 1877by both Calder (1983, 1991) and Migotto (1996)belonged to  S. peculiarisLeloup, 1974. In light of the present material from Martinique, and after comparison with Leloup's species, I now conclude that Migotto's hydroid belongs instead to the latter, given the size of its hydrothecae (see Table 3) and the low degree of fusion (one third) of the adcauline wall with the internode. In contrast, Calder's specimens belong to the new species under discussion here, based on the fact that their hydrothecae are adnate for half their length.   FIGURE 6. A, B:  Diphasia digitalis(Busk, 1852)―stem internode in frontal (left) and lateral (right) views (A); optical cross section through internode at level of hydrothecal apertures (B). C–G, J–M:  Sertularella calderi  sp. nov.―fragments of stem (C, D); hydrothecae (E) and aperture viewed from above (F); comparison of the hydrotheca (G) with those of  S. fraseriGalea, 2010a (H) and  S. peculiarisLeloup, 1974(I); male (J) and female (K) gonothecae; apertures of male (L) and female (M) gonothecae viewed laterally (below) and apically (above). N–P:  Sertularelloides cylindritheca(Allman, 1888)―internodes (N); lateral view of hydrotheca (O) with thickened internal ring of perisarc at base of apophysis (right), and frontal view of the latter (left); apical view of hydrotheca (P). Q–T:  Thyroscyphus longicaulisSplettstösser, 1929―fragment of stem (Q); internode and hydrotheca (R); aperture (S); male (left) and female (right) gonothecae (T). U–Z:  Hincksella formosa(Fewkes, 1881)―hydrotheca (U); gonotheca seen laterally (V), and in optical cross section (X); aperture (Y). Scale bars: 10 µm (Z), 200 µm (F, L, M), 300 µm (P), 500 µm (A, B, E, G–I, O, S, U, Y), 1 mm (C, D, J, K, N, R, T, V, X), 4 mm (Q).  Asstated by Calder (1991), the specimens from shallower waters have "smaller and more strongly annulated hydrothecae and shorter internodes", thus perfectly fitting my material. In addition, the dimensions given for his gonothecae fit better those of the males in the specimens in hand. There is much confusion over the identity of  Sertularella conica Allman, 1877, with almost all the subsequent records apparently belonging to other species, as noted earlier by Calder (1991). According to him, typematerial of  S. conica Allman, 1877could not be located for reexamination. However, Allman described and figured the internodes of his species as long6, thus appearing radically different from those of  S. calderi. The second known record of  S. conicais, in my opinion, that by Calder (1991), who identified his material as  S. gayi unituba, a new variety of Lamouroux' (1821) species. He stated that the "hydroids of  S. gayi unitubaresemble those of  S. conica Allman, 1877, in colony form and size, and the hydrothecae of both species bear transverse wrinkles", but I think that he was mislead by the discovery of the gonothecae in what he called  S. conica(=  S. calderi  sp. nov.). According to him, the gonothecae of  S. gayi unituba(=  S. conica Allman, 1877) are "less strongly ridged, especially towards the base" and have "a more slender neck distally with fewer spines around the margin". I suspect that Calder's (1991) account on  S. gayi unitubais actually the first redescription of Allman's (1877) species, which further contributes with the discovery of its gonotheca. The Cape Verdespecimens assigned by Medel & Vervoort (1998) to Calder's subspecies, eventually raised to species as  S. unituba, is reported to be extremely varied morphologically, and it may or many not, partly or all, belong to  S. conica.    Sertularella calderi  sp. nov.appears to be related to a group of species including  S. africana Stechow, 1919,  S. ellisii(Deshayes & Milne-Edwards, 1836),  S. fusiformis(Hincks, 1861),  S. mixta Galea & Schories, 2012,  S. lagenoides Stechow, 1919,  S. mediterraneaHartlaub, 1901,  S. simplex(Hutton, 1873), and  S. uruguayensisMañé- Garzón & Milstein, 1973, whose common features were summarized by Galea & Schories (2012). Unlike them,  S. calderihas equally developed hydrothecal cusps (the abcauline one is not conspicuously tilted outwards), five (instead of only three) submarginal perisarc projections, and its female gonotheca is provided with a peculiar, funnel-shaped, interal structure with simple or fronded margin. In addition, its geographical distribution sets it apart from its congeners listed above.   Etymology. It is my pleasure to dedicate this species to my colleague Dale R. Calder of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada, for his valuable contribution to the sudy of hydroids during more than four decades.  Geographical distribution. South Carolina ( Calder 1983, as  S. conica), Bermuda( Verrill 1907, as  S. gayi; Calder 1991, as  S. conica), Florida ( Calder 2013, as  S. conica), Martinique(present study).