Invest. Mar., Valparaíso, 34(2): 143-161,
2006
Polynoids
from the Mexican Pacific and from the tropical Eastern Pacific
143
Nota Científica
Scaleworms (Polychaeta: Polynoidae) from the Mexican Pacific and
some other Eastern Pacific sites*
Patricia Salazar-Silva1,2
Ecología Acuática, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Unidad Chetumal
Apdo. Postal 424, Chetumal, Quintana Roo, México
2Departamento de Ingeniería Química y Bioquímica, Instituto Tecnológico de Chetumal
Apdo. Postal 267, Chetumal, Quintana Roo, México
1Departamento
ABSTRACT. Polynoids are a diverse group of polychaetes which, although not abundant, are almost always found in
faunistic studies. In the Mexican Pacific, 83 species have been recorded; most have not been recently reviewed. The main
problem with the recorded species is misidentification due to unclear taxonomic features. As part of a faunistic study
and a taxonomic review of polynoids from the Mexican Pacific coast (MP), polynoid types and supplementary materials
described for the MP and other Eastern Pacific (EP) sites were examined, principally for specimens from Arctonoinae,
Lepidastheniinae, Lepidonotinae, and Polynoinae. Part of the results were systematized and are presented as an annotated list of the 30 species examined and a taxonomic key for the 61 polynoid species recorded in the MP; both include
commentaries about the generic and specific status and geographic distribution of all the species. The list and key will
facilitate the knowledge and study of polynoid biodiversity in the MP as well in the EP.
Key words: Polynoids, taxonomy, biodiversity, Mexican Pacific, Eastern Pacific Ocean.
Gusanos escamosos (Polychaeta: Polynoidae) del Pacífico mexicano y
de otras localidades del Pacífico oriental*
RESUMEN. Los polinoidos forman un grupo diverso de poliquetos, aunque no son abundantes, frecuentemente se
encuentran en todos los estudios faunísticos de bentos de fondos rocosos. En el Pacífico mexicano se han registrado 83
especies pero la mayoría de ellas no ha sido recientemente revisada. El principal problema en las especies registradas es
que varias han sido confundidas debido a que sus características taxonómicas no son claras. Como parte de un estudio
faunístico y de revisión taxonómica de los polinoidos del litoral del Pacífico mexicano (MP), se examinó material tipo y
material adicional de las especies descritas en el MP y en otras localidades del Pacifico Este (EP), principalmente de las
subfamilias Arctonoinae, Lepidastheniinae, Lepidonotinae and Polynoinae. Parte de los resultados se sistematizaron en
una lista anotada con 30 especies examinadas y en una clave taxonómica para 61 especies registradas en el MP. Ambas
incluyen comentarios acerca del estado genérico y especifíco de las epecies y su distribución. Además, ambas facilitarán
el conocimiento y estudio de la diversidad de los polinoidos en el MP y EP.
Palabras clave: polinoidos, taxonomía, biodiversidad, Pacífico mexicano, Pacífico oriental.
Corresponding author: Patricia Salazar Silva (salazarsilva@ecosur-qroo.mx)
* Trabajo presentado en el XXV Congreso de Ciencias del Mar de Chile y XI Congreso Latinoamericano de Ciencias del Mar
(COLACMAR), realizados en Viña del Mar, entre el 16 y 20 de mayo de 2005.
144
Investigaciones Marinas, Vol. 34(2) 2006
Polynoidae is the most frequent family of scaleworms
in all benthic studies. The species are distinguished
by a prostomium bilobed with from one to three
antennae on ceratophores; simple notochaetae
and neurochaetae and paired elytrae or scale-like
structures dorsally, alternating with one dorsal cirri
on segments 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, …21, 23 and following
an irregular pattern afterwards. They are found on
different substrates, including some invertebrates
(Pettibone, 1993a). Their bodies are often fragile and
easily fragmented during fixation and the elytrae are
usually detached, even though they are frequent in
all faunistic studies. In the Mexican Pacific, polynoids are a diverse group. The species checklist has
recorded 11 of the 20 subfamilies now recognized
in Polynoidae (Muir, 1982; Hanley, 1989; Pettibone,
1989b; Marcus & Hourdez, 2002). This fauna includes species from abyssal and hydrothermal depths
(Pettibone, 1976, 1985a, 1985b, 1985c) but most are
from the littoral region. In this work, Polynoidae is
being considered as the family recognized by Kinberg (1856) and accepted by Fauchald (1977) and
Fauchald & Rouse (1997), not an uncertain category
(Pleijel, 2001).
During the review of the original descriptions
and posterior characterizations of the polynoid species from the Mexican Pacific (MP), the following
problems were detected: some descriptions are brief
and incomplete; extensive descriptions were not
standardized; and descriptions are missing important
features. Several species were described from Eastern
Pacific (EP) sites and other regions of the world. The
objective of this work is to clarify the generic and
specific identity of some species by reviewing the
available type and supplementary material of polynoid species recorded in the MP, principally those
belonging to the subfamilies Arctonoinae Hanley,
1989; Lepidastheniinae Pettibone, 1989; Lepidonotinae Willey, 1902; and Polynoinae Kinberg, 1856.
These species were selected because they are the
most frequently encountered and have not been
reviewed recently. This study will also contribute
information about the group’s biodiversity.
Based on the polychaete checklist from the
tropical Eastern Pacific (Salazar-Vallejo & Londoño-Mesa, 2004) and a preliminary version for the
Mexican Pacific (MP) coast (unpublished data). The
original polynoid species descriptions and associated
literature were located and examined. Type material and supplementary material from the following
institutions were examined: American Museum of
Natural History, New York (AMNH); Los Angeles
County Museum of Natural History, Allan Hancock
Foundation (LACM-AHF); Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University (MCZ); Museum
National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN);
Swedish Museum of Natural History, Department
of Invertebrate Zoology (SMNH); National Museum
of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution (USNM);
Zoologisches Museum, Museum für Naturkunde der
Humboldt Universitat, Berlin (ZMB); and Zoologisk Museum, Universitet Kopenhagen, Denmark
(ZMUC). All specimens were examined and dissected using a stereomicroscope. The parapodia and
elytra as well as the ornamentation of antennae, cirri,
and chaetae were examined with a compound microscope. Detailed characterizations and illustrations are
in process and will be published elsewere.
This work represents part of the results of a larger
project. The results are systematized in an annotated
list of the 30 polynoid species examined and taxonomic keys for the 61 polynoid species recorded in
the MP; species on the list are in alphabetical order.
The synonymy and museum catalogue number for
each species as well as commentaries about its
taxonomic status and geographic distribution are
included. For some species, a hyphen after the scientific name indicates the reference of their record
in the region or a name change. The keys include
61 species recorded in the MP; these belong to 26
genera and 11 of the currently accepted subfamilies
(Fauchald, 1977; Pettibone, 1976, 1989b; Muir,
1982; Hanley, 1989; Marcus & Hourdez, 2002) and
are presented in alphabetical order. The keys for the
subfamilies Arctonoinae, Lepidastheniinae, Lepidonotinae, and Polynoinae are based on the type and
supplementary material examined, whereas the other
subfamilies were based principally on bibliographic
descriptions. Species with commentaries about their
geographic distributions are indicated by numerical
superindices.
This work clarifies the generic and specific identity of 30 species. Some species are synonymised and
the synonymy of other species is confirmed; species
previously considered to be junior synonyms are being reestablished. The 10 species that are regarded as
undescribed were confused with species from other
regions or misidentified as other species from the
EP; the new species will be named in a forthcoming
paper.
The supposed wide distribution of the following species is discarded as all these species were
Polynoids from the Mexican Pacific and from the tropical Eastern Pacific
confused with local species: Lepidonotus humilis
Augener, 1922b; Lepidonotus hupferii Augener,
1918; Chaetacantus magnificus (Grube, 1875);
Lepidonotus caelorus Moore, 1903; and Lepidonotus
hedleyi Benham, 1915 .
SYSTEMATIC LIST OF SPECIES
Family Polynoidae Kinberg, 1856
Subfamily ADMETELLINAE Uschakov, 1977
Admetella McIntosh, 1885
A. dolichopus Chamberlin, 1919b
A. hastigerens Chamberlin, 1919b
A. longipedata McIntosh, 1885
Subfamily ARCTONOINAE Hanley, 1989
Arctonoe Chamberlin, 1920
A. fragilis Baird, 1863
A. pulchra Johnson, 1897
Subfamily BRANCHINOTOGLUMINAE Pettibone,
1985a
Branchinotogluma Pettibone, 1985a
B. grasslei Pettibone, 1985a
B. hesleri Pettibone, 1985a
B. sandersi Pettibone, 1985a
Opistotrochopodus Pettibone, 1985a
O. alvinus Pettibone, 1985a
Subfamily BRANCHIPLICATINAE Pettibone,
1985b
Branchiplicatus Pettibone, 1985b
B. cupreus Pettibone, 1985b
Subfamily IPHIONINAE Baird, 1865
Iphione Kinberg, 1856
I. muricata Savigny, 1822
I. ovata Kinberg, 1856
Iphionella McIntosh, 1885
I. risensis Pettibone, 1986
Subfamily LEPIDASTHENIINAE Pettibone, 1989b
Benhamipolynoe Pettibone, 1970
B. cairnsi Pettibone, 1989b
Lepidametria Webster, 1879
L. gigas Johnson, 1897
Lepidasthenia Malmgren 1867
L. curta Chamberlin, 1919b
L. digueti Gravier, 1905
L. picta Treadwell, 1928
L. ornata Treadwell, 1937
L. virens Blanchard, 1849
Subfamily LEPIDONOTINAE Willey, 1902
145
Chaetacantus Seidler, 1924
C. pilosus Treadwell, 1937
Halosydna Kinberg, 1856
H. brevisetosa Kinberg, 1856
H. fuscomarmorata Grube, 1875
H. glabra Hartman, 1939
H. hartmanae Kudenov, 1975
H. johnsoni Darboux, 1899
H. latior Chamberlin, 1919a
H. leius Chamberlin, 1919a n. comb.
H. nesiotes Chamberlin, 1919b
H. parva Kinberg, 1856
H. tuberculifer Chamberlin, 1919a
Halosydna sp. A. Hartman, 1939
Lepidonotus Leach, 1816
L. clava Montagu, 1808
L. nesophilus Chamberlin, 1919b
L. spiculus Treadwell, 1906
Thormora Baird, 1865
T. johnstoni Kinberg, 1856
T. setosior Chamberlin, 1919 n. comb.
T. versicolor Ehlers, 1901 n. comb.
Subfamily LEPIDONOTOPODINAE Pettibone,
1983
Lepidonotopodium Pettibone, 1983
L. atalantae Desbruyéres & Hourdez, 2000
L. fimbriatum Pettibone, 1983
L. riftense Pettibone, 1984
L. williamsae Pettibone, 1984
Subfamily MACELLICEPHALINAE HartmannSchröder, 1971
Bathykurila Pettibone, 1976
B. guaymensis Pettibone, 1989a
Levensteiniella Pettibone 1985c
L. kincaidi Pettibone, 1985c
Subfamily MACELLICEPHALOIDINAE Pettibone,
1976
Macellicephaloides Uschakov, 1955
M. alvini Pettibone, 1989a
Subfamily POLYNOINAE Kinberg, 1856
Bylgides Chamberlin, 1919a
B. macrolepidus Moore, 1905
Gorgoniapolynoe Pettibone, 1991
G. guadalupensis Pettibone, 1991
Harmothoe Kinberg, 1856
H. exanthema Grube, 1856
H. fragilis Moore, 1910
H. hirsuta Johnson, 1897
H. imbricata Linnaeus, 1767
H. sylliformia Treadwell, 1928
146
Investigaciones Marinas, Vol. 34(2) 2006
H. triannulata Moore, 1910
Harmothoe sp. 1
Hemilepidia Schmarda, 1861
H. erythrotaenia Schmarda, 1861
Hesperonoe Chamberlin, 1919a
H. laevis Hartman, 1961
Lagisca Malmgren, 1865
L. extenuata Grube, 1840
L. mexicana Chamberlin, 1919b
L. multisetosa Moore, 1902
L. tenebricosa Moore, 1910 n. comb.
Malmgreniella Hartman, 1967
M. crassicirrata Johnson, 1897 n. comb.
Subadyte Pettibone, 1969
S. mexicana Fauchald, 1972
ANNOTATATED LIST OF POLYNOID
SPECIES
Arctonoe pulchra (Johnson, 1897)
Polynoe pulchra Johnson, 1897: 177, pl. 7, figs, 34,
43, 43a; pl. 8, figs. 50, 50a, 50b.
Arctonoe pulchra – Ruff, 1995: 115-116, fig. 3.3
A-E.
Syntypes
LACM-AHF Poly 0045, Polynoe pulchra, Pac. Gr.
Monterey County, Pacific Grove, commensal on
Holothuria californica and Lucapina crenulata, 18
Jul 1896.
LACM-AHF Poly 0044, Polynoe pulchra, Pac. Gr.
Monterey County, Pacific Grove, commensal on
Holothuria californica and Lucapina crenulata, 18
Jul 1896
LACM-AHF Poly 1577, Polynoe pulchra, Pac. Gr.
Monterey County, Pacific Grove, commensal on
Holothuria californica and Lucapina crenulata, 18
Jul 1896.
LACM-AHF 1580, Polynoe pulchra, Pac. Gr.
Monterey County, Pacific Grove, commensal on
Holothuria californica and Lucapina crenulata, 18
Jul 1896.
LACM-AHF 1579, Polynoe pulchra, Pac. Gr.
Monterey County, Pacific Grove, commensal on
Holothuria californica and Lucapina crenulata, 18
Jul 1896.
LACM-AHF Poly 1578, Polynoe pulchra, Pac. Gr.
Monterey County, Pacific Grove, commensal on
Holothuria californica and Lucapina crenulata, 18
Jul 1896.
According to Ruff (1995) and Pettibone (1953), the
species has been recorded from the Gulf of Alaska to
Baja California, but not in other EP sites. This species
is found as commensal on holothurids (Holothuria
californica) and in the keyhole limpet (Megathura
crenulata).
Chaetacanthus pilosus (Treadwell, 1937)
reinstated
Lepidonotus pilosus Treadwell, 1937: 141-143, pl.
1, figs. 1-7.
Lepidonotus pomareae panamensis Hartman, 1939:
44, pl. 6, figs. 70-77 (partim).
Holotypes
AMNH 3531 Lepidonotus pilosus Treadwell, 1937,
Arena Bank, Gulf of California, sta. 136, D-13, 20
Apr. 1936, NYZS, origin. No. 36382.
LACM-AHF 003 Lepidonotus pomareae panamensis
Hartman, 1939, Bahía Honda, Panama, off North
Island, Velero, sta. 863-38, 30-50 fms, 1 Mar.1938.
Hartman (1939) synonymised C. pilosus with C.
magnificus (Grube, 1875) (Holotype ZMB 1059)
from the Grand Caribbean. Both type materials
were compared and their differences are sufficient to
maintain both species as valid. The holotype of L. p.
panamensis has the same features as C. pilosus and
is herein regarded as a junior synonym.
Eunoe eura Chamberlin, 1919
Eunone eura Chamberlin, 1919b: 58-60, pl. 3, figs.
2-6.
Holotype
USNM 19355, Peru, 12°54’S 78°33’W, Albatross,
sta. 4675, 3120 fms, id R. V. Chamberlin, 22 Nov.
1904.
The holotype is the only record for these species and
it was not included in the MP checklist. E. eura was
illustrated with an uncommon prostomium, which
obscured its generic identity. Although the middle
antennae ceratophore is prominent, its characteristics correspond to Eunoe and the generic identity is
confirmed.
Halosydna brevisetosa Kinberg, 1856
Halosydna brevisetosa Kinberg, 1856: 385; – Rioja,
1963: 144-45, figs. 43-45.
Polynoe reticulata Johnson, 1897: 170-172, pl. 7,
figs. 32, 41, pl. 8, fig. 47 (partim).
Lepidonotus johnsoni Darboux, 1899: 246, footnote
(replacement name) (partim).
Halosydna johnsoni – Hartman, 1939: 34-35 (partim).
Polynoids from the Mexican Pacific and from the tropical Eastern Pacific
Holotype
SMNH 400, Halosydna brevisetosa San Francisco
Bay, California, Exped. Eugenia.
Syntype
LACM-AHF 1584, Polynoe reticulata, San Pedro,
California, probably commensal with “huge amphitrite”, 06 Jan 1896, H.P. Johnson.
LACM-AHF 1583, Polynoe reticulata, San Pedro,
California, probably commensal with “huge amphitrite”, Aug. 1895. Id H.P. Johnson.
Because of its resemblance, this species has been
confused and considered to be a synonym of Halosydna johnsoni, another species also described for
Southern California. However, the present species
can be distinguished by its neurochaetae with entire
tip. Part of the type material of H. johnsoni (LACMAHF 1583, 1584) belongs to H. brevisetosa. Rioja
(1963) recorded this species from Macapule, Sinaloa,
Mexico; the characterization and drawing correspond
to characteristics observed in the specimens examined herein.
Halosydna fuscomarmorata (Grube, 1876)
Polynoe fuscomarmorata Grube, 1876: 62-63.
Halosydna fuscomarmorata – Augener, 1906: 117119, pl. 3. figs. 41-44.
Halosydna fuscomarmorata – Hartman, 1939: 32,
pl. 9, figs. 119, 120 (partim).
Syntype
ZMB 1171 Polynoe fuscomarmorata, Payta, Peru,
Grube, Jelski leg.
Material dried out, only one parapodia and some
elytra present.
Hartman (1939) recorded H. fuscomarmorata from
Utria Port, Colombia and from Piñas Bay, Panama,
but it has not been recorded in the PM. These specimens differ from the record (LACM-AHF 380-35)
for Independencia Bay, which agrees with the
characteristics observed in the available structures
of the syntype.
Halosydna glabra Hartman, 1939
Halosydna glabra Hartman, 1939: 35-36, pl. 4, figs.
43-50.
Polynoe reticulata Johnson, 1897: 170-172, pl. 7,
figs. 32, 41, pl. 8, fig. 47 (partim).
Lepidonotus johnsoni Darboux, 1899: 246, footnote
(replacement name) (partim).
Halosydna johnsoni – Hartman, 1939: 34-35.
147
Syntypes
LACM-AHF 0013, Halosydna glabra, Concepción
Bay, Baja California, 26°41’40”N 111°51’05”W, sta.
688-37, 12 fms, 16 March 1937.
LACM-AHF 0014, Halosydna glabra, Concepción
Bay, Baja California, 26°41’40”N 111°51’05”W, sta.
688-37, 12 fms, 16 March 1937.
LACM-AHF 001591, Polynoe reticulata, Monterey,
California, Pacific Grove, in tube of Amphitrite or
Thelepus spp. 11 Jul 1896.
Hartman (1939) recorded the species from Piñas
Bay, Panama (LACM-AHF 444-37); the material
was examined and did not correspond to the species. Distribution is restricted to the MP. Hartman
(1939) designed the holotype for Halosydna glabra
but, according to the vial labels, two specimens were
separated and labeled as syntypes. In the museum
catalogue, the material is labeled as a lectotype and
paralectotype, but has not been formally designated
as such.
Halosydna hartmanae (Kudenov, 1975)
Malmgrenia hartmanae Kudenov, 1975: 175-176.
Halosydna hartmanae – Hanley, 1987: 160.
Holotype
LACM-AHF 001118 Malmgrenia hartmanae, Sonora, Mexico, among lateral chaetae of Aphrodita
mexicana, 31°10’N, 113°50’W, 28 Feb. 1971, Id.
Kudenov.
I agree with Hanley (1987), considering this species
to be Halosydna because it has lateral antennae inserted terminally, the parapodia lack prechaetal and
postchaetal lobes, and the elytra posterior to pair 12
alternate with dorsal cirri, although pairs 14 and 15
are exceptions. All these characteristics correspond
with Halosydna.
Halosydna johnsoni (Darboux, 1899)
Polynoe reticulata Johnson, 1897: 170-172, pl. 7;
figs. 32, 41; pl. 8, fig. 47.
Lepidonotus johnsoni Darboux, 1899: 246 footnote
(replacement name) (partim).
Polynoe californica Johnson, 1901: 387 footnote
(replacement name).
Halosydna johnsoni – Hartman, 1939: 34-35 (partim).
Syntypes
LACM-AHF 1585, Polynoe reticulata Johnson,
1897, Monterey, California. Pacific Grove, in tube
of Amphitrite or Thelepus spp., Id. H.P. Johnson,
00747.
148
Investigaciones Marinas, Vol. 34(2) 2006
LACM-AHF 1582, Polynoe reticulata, San Pedro,
California, on rocky shore, probably commensal with
“huge Amphitrite”, 25 Jan 1895. 000708 (2).
LACM-AHF 1581, Polynoe reticulata, San Pedro,
Cal, rocky shore, probably commensal with “huge
Amphitrite”, 25 Jun 1895. Id H.P. Johnson, 000707
(1 of the 3 syntypes).
LACM-AHF No. 1588, Polynoe reticulata, Santa
Catalina Island, Avalon, Cal., 31 May 1896, id. H.P.
Johnson.
According to the museum catalogue, Johnson did not
designated type material and several syntypes are his
original material. In spite of that, some syntypes examined herein, or parts of them, do not correspond to
the species and descriptions of Johnson (1897). Some
correspond to Halosydna brevisetosa Kinberg, 1856
(LACM-AHF 1584, LACM-AHF 1583) and others
to Halosydna leius (Chamberlin, 1919b) n. comb.
(LACM-AHF 001587, LACM-AHF 00046). According to Hartman (1939), the combination Polynoe reticulata was already in use and, in a footnote, Darboux
(1899) renamed it. Johnson (1901) also changed the
name from P. reticulata to P. californica.
Halosydna latior Chamberlin, 1919
Halosydna latior Chamberlin, 1919b: 1-2.
Halosydna obtusa-cirrata Treadwell, 1937: 143-144,
pl. 1, figs. 8-11.5.
Halosydna latior – Hartman, 1939: 32.
Holotype
MCZ 2138, Halosydna latior Chamberlin 1919,
Mussel Point, Laguna Beach, California, Pacific,
Coll. Hamilton.
Paratype
AMNH 2379, Halosydna obtusa-cirrata Treadwell,
1937, East of Cedros Island, Baja California, 22 May
1936, id. as Halosydna obtusa- cirrata, dried out.
Hartman (1939) synonymised H. obtusa-cirrata
with H. latior. The paratype is dried out but it is
possible to distinguish the same characteristics as in
H. latior, mainly in the ornamentation on the middle
and posterior elytrae and the same kind of chaetae,
confirming the synonymy.
Halosydna leius (Chamberlin, 1919b) n. comb.
Lepidonotus leius Chamberlin, 1919b: 4.
Polynoe reticulata Johnson, 1897: 170-172, pl. 7,
figs. 32, 41, pl. 8, fig. 47 (partim).
Halosydna johnsoni – Hartman (1939): 34-35 (partim).
Holotype
MCZ 2142, Lepidonotus leius Chamberlin 1919,
Laguna Beach, California, Coll. W.A. Hilbaun,
dredge, Original locality: label indicates “Laguna
beach Po. 8”.
The species was described from a single specimen.
The number of elytrae or segments was not indicated
and Chamberlin assigned the species to Lepidonotus.
Herein, the species is being referred to as Halosydna
because of the number of segments, elytra insertion,
and characteristics of the parapodia and neurochaetae. Now there are new records of Halosydna leius
(Chamberlin, 1919b) n. comb. at different sites off
Baja California, Mexico. Some syntypes of Halosydna johnsoni (LACM- AHF 001587, LACM-AHF
00046, LACM-AHF 001586), or part of them, correspond to H. leius (Chamberlin, 1919b) n. comb.
Halosydna nesiotes (Chamberlin, 1919)
Polynoe nesiotes Chamberlin, 1919b: 72-74, pl. 8,
fig. 8, pl. 9, figs. 1-5.
Malmgrenia nesiotes – Hartman, 1938: 122.
Halosydna nesiotes – Hanley, 1987: 160.
Holotype
USNM 19460 Polynoe nesiotes Chamberlin, 1919,
Santa Margarita Island, Baja California, 1891, Albatross exp. 1891 Id. R.V. Chamberlin.
The holotype is dried out but its generic identity
can be distinguished. The neurochaetae, number of
elytrae and segments, and shape of neurochaetae and
parapodia correspond to Halosydna; thus, the generic
status is confirmed.
Halosydna parva Kinberg, 1856
Halosydna parva Kinberg, 1856: 385; 1910: 17-18,
pl. 5, fig. 24.
Halosydna parva – Hartman 1939, 33, pl 21, figs.
265-267 (partim).
Holotype
SMNH 402, Halosydna parva Peru, Chincha Island,
Leg Eugenie Exp. 1851, Sta. 531, Feb.-March, 1852,
ident Kinberg.
Halosydna parva was recorded by Hartman (1939)
from the MP. This material was examined and only
part of it corresponded to H. parva. The material
from Santa Rosalía, Mexico (LACM-AHF 61037) corresponded to Halosydna leius (Chamberlin,
1919a) n. com.
Halosydna sp. A. Hartman, 1939
Halosydna species A. Hartman, 1939: 37, pl. 4, figs.
51-55.
Polynoids from the Mexican Pacific and from the tropical Eastern Pacific
LACM-AHF 719-37, Consag Rock, Baja California,
Mexico, sta. 719-37, 10-25 fms, Velero, 24 March.
1937.
Although the specimen is complete and in poor
condition with most of the elytra present, its features
can be distinguished. More specimens were collected
at the same site and the species will be formally
described elsewhere.
Halosydna sp. B. Hartman, 1939
Halosydna species B. Hartman, 1939: 38, pl. 22,
figs. 273-279.
LACM-AHF 617-37, San Juanico, Bay, Baja California, Mexico, Velero, sta. 617-37, 24 fms. 7 March
1937, sand and algae.
The specimen is incomplete but its generic identity
can be determined. The elytra bear a fringe of papillae
along the border; the surface presents abundant conical microtubercles and papillae and, on the two first
pairs of elytra, prominent tubercles. These features
correspond to the description, characterization, and
drawing of Rioja (1963) of Halosydna tuberculifer
Chamberlin, 1919a and records from Island Cedros,
Baja California; the type material of H. tuberculifer
Chamberlin, 1919a needs to be examined.
Harmothoe fragilis (Moore, 1910)
Harmothoe (Evarne) fragilis Moore, 1910: 353-357,
pl. 29, figs. 29-30; pl. 30, figs. 31-33.
Harmothoe fragilis – Ruff, 1995: 128-130, figs. 3.9
A-F.
Cotype
USNM 17147, Harmothoe (Evarne) fragilis, Santa
Barbara, Cal. Albatros, sta. 4418, 238 fms, 12 Apr.
1904, Id. Percy Moore.
The species has been recorded at different sites along
the California coast (Hartman, 1968) and Colima,
Mexico. The most recent record was by Barnich &
Fiege (2000) from Banyuls, France, but their drawings do not correspond to the characteristics of the
material examined herein; thus, the distribution is
doubtful.
Harmothoe hirsuta Johnson, 1897
Harmothoe hirsuta Johnson, 1897: 182-183, pl. 6,
figs. 27-29, pl. 7, figs. 38, pl. 8 fig., 53, 53a-c.
Syntype
MCZ 1935, San Pedro, California, Coll. H.P. Johnson. 25 Jul 1895, No. 433.
149
There are two syntype lots. The syntype LACMAHF 0017 does not correspond to descriptions
and drawings of Johnson (1897), whereas syntype
MCZ1935 does. Recently, Ruff (1995) characterized
and illustrated Harmothoe hirsuta using the syntype
LACM-AHF 0017; this characterization should not
be used. The species has been recorded at different
sites from California, Mexico, and Panama, but its
distribution should be checked.
Harmothoe sylliformia Treadwell, 1928
Harmothoe sylliformia Treadwell, 1928: 452- 454,
figs. 1- 4
Holotype
AMNH 3527, Tagus Cove, Albemarle, Galapagos
Island, 00°17’S, 91°34’W, sta. 84. 9 Jun 1925.
Paratype
AMNH 3528, Tagus Cove, Albemarle, Galapagos
Island, 02°0’S, 89°30’W, sta. 84, T-3., 9 Jun. 1925.
The species is only known from its type locality.
The material consists of juvenile specimens with
13-14 pairs of elytra, but the characteristics are well
recognized.
Harmothoe triannulata Moore, 1910
Harmothoe triannulata Moore, 1910: 346-348, pl.
29, figs. 18-22.
Holotype
USNM 17154, Brockway Point, Santa Rosa, California, Albatross, sta. 4431, 41 fm, 15 Apr. 1904, id.
Percy Moore.
The specimen is incomplete and in poor condition,
but it is possible to recognize the features of Harmothoe. Pettibone (1953) synonymised H. triannulata with H. extenuata (Grube, 1840) from the
Mediterranean Sea, but the two species are distinct
and, herein, H. extenuata is referred to as Lagisca
extenuata n. comb. Both species are maintained
separate and differ as indicated in the key. The new
combination is published elsewhere.
Lagisca mexicana (Chamberlin, 1919) n. comb.
Harmothoe mexicana Chamberlin, 1919b: 54 - 58,
pl. 1, figs. 1-9; pl. 2, fig. 1.
Harmothoe mexicana – Fauchald, 1972: 24-25.
Syntypes
USNM 19370, Harmothoe mexicana Chamberlin,
1919, Mexico, 680 fms, Albatros, Sta. 3425, 21°19’N
106°24’ W, 18 Apr. 1891, id R.V. Chamberlin.
150
Investigaciones Marinas, Vol. 34(2) 2006
MCZ 222, Harmothoe mexicana Chamberlin, 1919,
Expedition USFC Albatross sta. 3425, off Cabo Corrientes, 21°19’ N 106°24’ W, depth 1244 m, Coll. A.
Agassiz 18 Apr. 1891, labels reads “posterior end
broken off a specimen, three specimens.
USNM 19737, Harmothoe mexicana Chamberlin,
1919, Off Mexico 21°N, 106°W, 680 fms, exped.
Albatross, sta. 3425, 18 Apr. 1891, id. R.V. Chamberlin, three specimens.
Some materials are labeled as types and others as
paratypes. Although Chamberlin (1919b) did not
designate a holotype, the materials are regarded as
syntypes. Because of the number of segments in the
body, number of posterior cirrigerous segments, and
shape of notochaetae, H. mexicana is referred to as
Lagisca mexicana n. comb.
Lagisca tenebricosa (Moore, 1910) n. comb.
Harmothoe tenebricosa Moore, 1910: 351, pl. 29,
figs. 23-28.
Eunoe exoculata Treadwell, 1923: 4-6, figs. 1 - 4.
Harmothoe exoculata – Hartman, 1938: 118 synonimy.
Holotype
USNM 16877, Harmothoe tenebricosa Moore, 1910,
North of San Diego, California, 32°50’N 118°03’W,
sta. 4400, 500 fms, through Santa Catalina and Santa
Barbara.
Syntype
USNM 19148, Eunoe exoculata Treadwell, 1923, off
Point Surf, Baja California, Albatross sta. 5698, 475
fms, 27 1911, id. A.L. Treadwell, 89741.
These materials share the same features, confirming
the synonymy of both species. Due to the presence
of prostomial peaks, number of posterior cirrigerous
segments, and notochaetae shape, H. tenebricosa is
referred to as Lagisca tenebricosa n. comb.
Lepidametria gigas (Johnson, 1897)
Polynoe gigas Johnson, 1897: 172-175, pl. 7, figs.
33, 42, pl. 8 figs. 48, 49.
Lepidametria gigas – Seidler, 1924: 145 -146.
Syntypes
LACM-AHF 0034, Polynoe gigas, Los Angeles
County, San Pedro, commensal on Amphitrite sp.
Coll. H.P. Johnson.
LACM-AHF 0035, Polynoe gigas, Los Angeles
County, San Pedro, commensal on Amphitrite sp.
Coll. H.P. Johnson, Jonson, Cotype.
LACM-AHF 1595, Polynoe gigas, Los Angeles
County, San Pedro, commensal on Amphitrite sp.
Coll. H.P. Johnson.
LACM-AHF 1596 Polynoe gigas, San Diego, Point
Loma. Coll. W.M. Wheeler, 20 Jan. 1897.
MCZ 335a, San Pedro California, Sta. 5, Coll. H.P.
Johnson, 27 Jun 1895.
Because of the shape of notopodia, presence of
reduced notochaetae, neuropodia with incipient
prechaetal and postchaetal lobes, and elytrae arrangement, the species belongs to Lepidametria. L. gigas
has been recorded at different California sites. It has
also been recorded at some sites off Mexico. Hartman (1939) recorded the species in the Galapagos;
this distribution should be checked.
Lepidasthenia curta Chamberlin, 1919
Lepidasthenia curta Chamberlin, 1919b: 61-63, pl.
5, figs. 4-9.
Holotype
USNM19399 (1) Mexico, 21°15’N, 106°23’W,
676 fm. Albatross, sta. 3424, 18 Apr. 1891, id. R.V.
Chamberlin (1919).
The species was described with a single specimen;
thus, it is considered to be the holotype. Because of its
characteristics, the generic identity is confirmed.
Lepidasthenia digueti Gravier, 1905
Lepidasthenia digueti Gravier, 1905: 160-173, figs.
2-9.
Lepidasthenia digueti – Fauvel, 1943: 4-5.
Syntype
MNHN-120, Lepidasthenia digueti, La Paz, Mexico,
1904, det. Ch. Gravier 1904.
The material is fragmented and incomplete but it is
possible to distinguish the features of Lepidasthenia
in the parapodia and neurochaetae. The species is
known only from the type locality.
Lepidasthenia picta Treadwell, 1928 retained
Lepidasthenia picta Treadwell, 1928: 456-457, figs.
10-13.
Holotype
AMNH 3534, Gardner Bay, Hood, Galapagos Island,
sta. 54, 25-27 Apr. 1925.
Hartman (1956) synonymised Lepidasthenia picta
with L. varia Treadwell, 1917 from the Grand Caribbean. The materials of both species were examined
and they are different species.
Polynoids from the Mexican Pacific and from the tropical Eastern Pacific
Lepidonotus nesophilus Chamberlin, 1919
Lepidonotus nesophilus Chamberlin 1919b: 75-78,
pl. 4, figs. 1-7, pl. 5, fig. 13.
Holotype
USNM 19400, Galapagos Archipelago, Chatham
Island, shore, Albatross exped. 8 Jan. 1905, Id. R.V.
Chamberlin.
Hartman (1939) recorded L. nesophilus from Galapagos Island and the Tenacatitla Bay, Mexico, but the
latter specimens do not correspond to L. nesophilus;
the specimen is an undescribed species.
Lepidonotus spiculus (Treadwell, 1906)
Polynoe spicula Treadwell, 1906: 151-1152, fig.
11.
Lepidonotus caelorus – Hartman, 1939: 44. (Non
Moore, 1903).
Lepidonotus spiculus – Ruff, 1995: figs. 3.16 A-H.
Syntypes
USNM 5203, Monterey Bay, California, Sta. 4551,
56-46 ftm, 1904 (3).
Lepidonotus spiculus was synonymised by Hartman
(1938) with L. caelorus Moore, 1903 from Japan
(USNM15733). Both type materials were examined
and they are different. According to Ruff (1995), the
species should be kept separated. Hartman (1939)
recorded L. caelorus at different sites off California
and Baja California, but these specimens correspond
to L. spiculus.
Subadyte mexicana Fauchald, 1972
Subadyte mexicana Fauchald, 1972: 27-29, pl. 1,
figs. a-e.
Subadyte mexicana – Pettibone 1993b: 685.
Subadyte mexicana – Ruff, 1995: 153-155, figs.
3.21 A-G.
Holotype
LACM-AHF 001008, Baja California, 15.5 miles
from Natividad Island, Mexico, mud and glauconit,
27°38’00”N, 115 16’16” W to 27°32’48”N, 115°16’
05“W sta. 7234-61, 461-433 m, 3 Jan 1961.
Paratype
LACM-AHF 001009, Baja California, Mexico, 15.5
miles from Natividad Island, mud and glauconitic,
27°38’00”N, 115°16’16”W to 27°32’48”N, 115°16’
05 “W, sta. 7234-61, 461-433 m. 3 Jan. 1961.
Subadyte mexicana was described with incomplete
specimens and without elytrae. Pettibone (1993b) and
Ruff (1995) characterised the elytrae from non-type
material from the MP.
151
Thormora johnstoni (Kinberg, 1856)
Lepidonotus johnstoni Kinberg, 1856: 384.
Lepidonotus johnstoni – Kinberg, 1858: 12, pl. 4,
fig. 13, pl. 10, fig. 50.
Lepidonotus (Thormora) johnstoni Seidler, 1924:
92.
Thormora johnstoni – Hartman, 1949: 25-26, pl. 3,
figs. 6-9 partim.
Syntypes
SMNH 391, Lepidonotus johnstoni Kinberg 1856,
Panama, Pearl Island, St. Joseph, 40 m, 08°N 078°W,
Leg Eugenie Exp. 1851-53 (2).
T. johnstoni has been recorded at several MP sites. The
records of Hartman (1939) for Coronado Island and
Concepcion Bay, Mexico (LACM-AHF 525-36 LACMAHF 863-37) do not correspond to the species.
Thormora setosior (Chamberlin, 1919) n. comb.
Lepidonotus setosior Chamberlin, 1919b: 3-4.
Thormora johnstoni – Hartman, 1939: 50, pl. 7, figs.
96-98 (partim, non Kinberg, 1856).
Holotype
MCZ 2141, Lepidonotus setosior Chamberlin, Laguna Beach, California, W.A. Hilton, dredged, 1919.
Paratype
MCZ 2141, Lepidonotus setosior Chamberlin, 1919,
Laguna Beach, dredged, turbin shell, Hilton.
Because of the presence of two kinds of notochaetae,
anterior eyes near the basis of the lateral ceratophores,
the species belongs toThormora. Some of the specimens recorded by Hartman (1939) as T. johnstoni in
the MP correspond to T. setosior n. comb.
Thormora versicolor (Ehlers, 1901) n. comb.
Lepidonotus versicolor Ehlers, 1901: 50-52, pl. 3,
figs. 1-9.
Lepidonotus (Thormora) versicolor – Augener,
1922a, 173-174, fig. 1.
Syntypes
ZMB 3721, Lepidonotus versicolor, Juan Fernández
Island, Chile, material dried out.
ZMB 6718, Lepidonotus versicolor, Juan Fernandez
Island, Chile, Zool. Institute Gotting. 7 specimens in
bad condition.
Although the specimens are in poor condition, it is
possible to distinguish two kinds of notochaetae,
spinous and not spinous, as in Thormora. Thus, L.
versicolor is referred to as Thormora versicolor n.
comb. The specimens recorded by Hartman (1939)
152
Investigaciones Marinas, Vol. 34(2) 2006
as L. versicolor from the Gulf of California (AHF
529-36 and AHF 728-37) do not correspond to the
species. The most recent record is by Rozbaczylo &
Castilla (1981) for the same type locality.
KEY FOR POLYNOIDAE RECORDED IN
THE MEXICAN PACIFIC
Key for the subfamilies
1 Without median antenna; when present, inserted
posterodorsally; elytral surface with polygonal or
hexagonal areas ................................IPHIONINAE
– With median antenna, inserted frontally or in
middle part of the prostomium; elytral surface without polygonal or hexagonal areas .........................2
2(1) Without lateral antennae; if present, as filaments
attached to anterior border of prostomium; without
eyes .......................................................................3
– With lateral antennae, inserted on ceratophores;
with eyes ...............................................................7
3(2) With branchial process dorsally and laterally to
notopodia...............................................................4
– Without branchial process ..................................6
4(3) Notopodia with a bractea distally rounding the
notochaetae ................ LEPIDONOTOPODINAE1
– Notopodia without a bractea ..............................5
5(4) Branchiae as folded flattened sacks .................
...................................... BRANCHIPLICATINAE1
Prostomium truncated anteriorly, tentaculophores
fused to prostomium; median antenna mediodorsal
Branchiplicatus
elytra smooth, with veins; middle and posterior elytra
with tubercles on posterior border .........B. cupreus
– Branchiae as short cylindrical filaments ..............
............................. BRANCHINOTOGLUMINAE1
6(3) Notopodia with chaetae, with a projected short
acicular lobe; ventral cirri inserted in middle part of
the neuropodia............ MACELLICEPHALINAE2
– Notopodia without chaetae, with projected long
acicular lobe; ventral cirri inserted near the distal
part of the neuropodia .............................................
............................. MACELLICEPHALOIDINAE2
Prostomium with or without prostomial filaments;
tentaculophores long, enclosing the prostomium....
................................................. Macellicephaloides
cirrophore of dorsal cirri short or extending to tip of
neuropodia................................................ M. alvini
7(2) Ceratophores of lateral antennae inserted on the
anterior border of prostomial lobes .......................8
– Ceratophores of lateral antennae inserted ventrally
to prostomial lobes ..............................................10
8(7) Median antennae inserted in central part of the
prostomium; tentacular segment not fused to the
prostomium; neuropodia with a projected acicular
lobe......................................... ADMETELLINAE2
lateral antennae with process on ceratophores ........
................................................................ Admetella
– Median antenna inserted frontally; tentacular segment fused to the prostomium; neuropodia with an
acicular lobe not projected ....................................9
9(8) Neuropodia with prechaetal and postchaetal
lobes ..................................LEPIDASTHENIINAE
– Neuropodia without prechaetal or postchaetal
lobes ........................................LEPIDONOTINAE
10(7) Neuropodial prechaetal lobe with a projected
acicular lobe tapering diagonally .. POLYNOINAE
– Neuropodial prechaetal lobe rounded, without a
projected acicular lobe ...............ARCTONOINAE
Middle elytra on segments 21, 23, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33,
posterior elytra in an irregular arrangement; antennae
and cirri short, thick ................................. Arctonoe
Key for the species of each subfamily
ADMETELLINAE
1 Notopodia with chaetae; antennal process laminar ..................................... Admetella longipedata3
– Notopodia without chaetae; antennal process otherwise ....................................................................2
2(1) Notopodia short; antennal process not fusedA .
hastigerens
– Notopodia long; antennal process fused ..............
...........................................................A. dolichopus
ARCTONOINAE
1 Elytra overlapping, covered dorsum; elytra with
brownish pigmentation; mouth without edge. .......
................................................................A. pulchra
– Elytra not overlapping; dorsum uncovered; elytra
without brownish pigmentation; mouth with thick
edge .........................................................A. fragilis
BRANCHINOTOGLUMINAE
1 Posterior parapodia not modified, lateral .............
...................................................Branchinotogluma
...............................................................................2
– Posterior parapodia modified forming a circular
organ, directed posteriorly ....... Opistotrochopodus
ventral lamellae on posterior segments .. O. alvinus
Polynoids from the Mexican Pacific and from the tropical Eastern Pacific
2(1) Branchiae with long filaments ......... B. hesleri
– Branchiae with short filaments...........................3
3(2) Branchiae on all segments ..............B. grasslei
– Branchiae only on segments 19 - 21 ..B. sandersi
IPHIONIINAE
1 With eyes; prostomial lobes not deeply separated;
lateral ceratophores with antennae ............. Iphione
...............................................................................2
– Without eyes; prostomial lobes deeply separated;
lateral ceratophores without antennae .... Iphionella
notochaetae capillary spinous ................I. risensis4
2(1) Elytral margin with fringe; notochaetae much
larger than neurochaetae ......................I. muricata5
– Elytral margin without fringe; notochaetae extending up to the neurochaeta tips .................... I. ovata
LEPIDASTHENIINAE
1 Posterior segments without elytra ........................
Benhamipolynoe
neurochaetae unidentate .......................... B. cairnsi
– Posterior segments with elytra ..........................2
2(1) Notopodia short; notochaetae only on anterior
parapodia; elytra posterior to pair 12 alternate with
one dorsal cirri; palps with papillae .. Lepidametria
...............................................................................3
– Notopodia absent; without notochaetae in all parapodia; elytra posterior to pair 12 alternate with two
dorsal cirri; palps without papillae... Lepidasthenia
...............................................................................5
3(2) Middle elytra imbricate, covering the dorsal
part; facial tubercle prominent, long . Lepidametria
........................................................................sp. 16
– Middle elytra not imbricate, dorsal part uncovered;
facial tubercle small or incipient ...........................4
4(3) Supra-acicular neurochaetae of middle parapodia much thicker and darker than the sub-acicular
neurochaetae, with entire tip ......................L. gigas
– Supra-acicular neurochaetae of middle parapodia
similar to the subacicular neurochaetae ..................
........................................................... Lepidametria
........................................................................sp. 26
5(2) Segment two with anterior border lobed .........
................................................................. L. digueti
– Segment two with anterior border not lobed......6
6(5) Neuropodia with a prechaetal lobe longer than
the postchaetal lobe .................................... L. curta
– Neuropodia with prechaetal and postchaetal lobes
with similar form...................................................7
7(6) Segment two projected on the prostomium as a
153
small lobe ................................................... L. picta
– Segment two not projected on the prostomium ...
...............................................................................8
8(7) Facial tubercle thick; neurochaetae with secondary tooth thick, surface with spines not extending to
the secondary tooth ............. Lepidasthenia virens7
– Facial tubercle incipient; neurochaetae with a
secondary tooth thin .................................L. ornata
LEPIDONOTINAE
1 Notochaetae of two kinds, spinous and smoot
lanceolate-shaped ................................... Thormora
...............................................................................2
– Notochaeta only spinous ....................................4
2(1) Elytral surface with conical tubercles, not spinous, without basal areoles ...................................3
– Elytral surface with cylindrical tubercles, spinous,
distally rounded, with wide basal areoles ...............
..............................................T. versicolor n. comb.
3(2) Lanceolate notochaetae as abundant and thick
as spinous kind; elytral tubercles long, abundant on
all elytra ................................... T. setosior n comb.
– Lanceolate notochaetae less abundant, much thinner than spinous ones; elytral tubercles long, scarce,
only on anterior elytra ..........................T. johnstoni
4(1) Branchial processes between parapodia ..........
Chaetacantus
elytral surface with abundant filiform papillae; microtubercles ovoid; macrotubercles peduncled, spread;
not in a patch ...........................................C. pilosus
– Without branchial processes ..............................5
5(4) 18 pairs of elytra, pairs 14-15 and 16-17 together; 38 segments; with upper notochaetae short,
curved, and long notochaetae tapered in a long capilar
tip .......................................................... Halosydna
...............................................................................6
– 12 pairs of elytra; 26 segments; notochaetae spinous
capillars ............................................... Lepidonotus
.............................................................................18
6(5) Neurochaetae unidentate ...............................7
– Neurochaetae bidentate ......................................9
7(6) First two pairs of elytra with short subconical
blunt tubercles, smaller than those of middle and
posterior elytra; middle elytra with some tubercles
disk-shaped ............................................... H. latior
– First two pairs of elytra with conical tubercles,
some longer than those of middle and posterior elytra;
middle and posterior elytra with tubercles of other
shapes ....................................................................8
154
Investigaciones Marinas, Vol. 34(2) 2006
8(7) All elytra with fringe of long and abundant papillae; two first pairs of elytra with prominent tubercles
smooth ............................................. H. tuberculifer
– Elytral margin on anterior elytra with fringe of short
and scarce papillae; two first pairs of elytra with thin
tubercles, surface rough ...................H. brevisetosa
9(6) Elytral margin with a fringe of papillae ......10
– Elytral margin without a fringe of papillae ......14
10(9) Elytral fringe of abundant papillae, present in
all elytra ..............................................................11
– Elytral fringe of scarce papillae, present in some
elytra ...................................................................12
11(10) Elytral surface with sclerotized tubercles and
soft vesicular tubercles............................................
............................ Halosydna sp. A. Hartman, 1939
– Elytral surface only with sclerotized tubercles ....
...................H. leius (Chamberlin, 1919b) n. comb.
12(10) Elytral tubercles sclerotized ....................13
– Elytral tubercles not sclerotized, soft, as vesicles
Halosydna sp. 18
13(12) Elytral margin with a fringe restricted in anterior elytra; middle elytra only with microtubercles
.............................................................. H. johnsoni
– Elytral margin with a fringe restricted up to middle
elytra; middle elytra with microtubercles and macrotubercles ................................................ H. parva
14(9) Elytral surface without sclerotized tubercles,
tubercles smooth as vesicles ....... Halosydna sp. 28
– Elytral surface with sclerotized tubercles, with or
without tubercles smooth as vesicles ..................15
15(14) Middle and posterior elytra with microtubercles forming a patch on the anterior part ...........
.......................................................... H. hartmanae
– Middle and posterior elytra with abundant microtubercles on its posterior part ..............................16
16(15) Anterior elyitra with tubercles thick, ovoid,
hemispherical wrinkled; middle and posterior elytra
without thick tubercles ............................ H. glabra
– Anterior elytra without prominent tubercles; middle
and posterior elytra with some thick tubercles .......
.............................................................................17
17(16) Anterior elytra with two kinds of tubercles .
............................................................... H. nesiotes
– Anterior elytra with one kind of tubercle .............
................................................. H. fuscomarmorata
18(5) Elytral margin without fringe ....................19
– Elytral margin with fringe ................................20
19(18) Elytral surfaces with subconical non-spinous
microtubercles, macrotubercles absent .... L. clava9
– Elytral surfaces with hemispherical spinous microtubercles, macrotubercles with long spines ............
L. nesophilus10
20(18) Neurochaetae unidentate .........................21
– Neurochaetae bidentates ..................................22
21(20) Palps without papillae; elytra with microtubercles and macrotubercles, without micropapillae;
macrotubercles conical, long on anterior and posterior elytra............................................... L. spiculus
– Palps with papillae; elytral surface only with
microtubercles, abundant micropapillae, without
macrotubercles ..........................Lepidonotus sp.111
22(20) Elytral surface with tubercles hemipherical
and spinous...............................Lepidonotus sp. 212
– Elytral surface with tubercles conical or subconical ........................................................................23
23(22) Neuropodia with distal papillae; elytra with
thin, conical microtubercles .....Lepidonotus sp. 313
– Neuropodia without distal papillae; elytra with
thick microtubercles ............................................24
24(23) Notochaetae capillary spinous; elytra with
rounded microtubercles, suface rough . L. hupferi14
– Notochaetae thick flattened shape, serrated; elytra
with truncated microtubercles, surface with rows of
spines........................................Lepidonotus sp. 412
LEPIDONOTOPODINAE
1 Prostomial lobes cylindrical.................................
................................ Lepidonotopodium williamsae
– Prostomial lobes subtriangular...........................2
2(1) Elytra without macrotubercles ........................
..................................... Lepidonotopodium riftense
– Elytra with macrotubercles ................................3
3(2) Macrotubercles short, scarce, scattered on posterior part of the elytra ............. Lepidonotopodium
fimbriatum
– Macrotubercles long, abundant along posterior
border of the elytra .............................. L. atalantae
MACELLICEPHALINAE
1 Prostomial lobes slightly separated; notopodia as
long or longer than neuopodia .............Bathykurila
elytral surface with conical and rounded tubercles
along the border; tentaculophores with a prominent
acicular lobe .....................................B. guaymensis
Polynoids from the Mexican Pacific and from the tropical Eastern Pacific
– Prostomial lobes deeply separated; notopodia
shorter or as long as the neuropodiaLevensteiniella
elytra only with micropapillae on margin; tentaculophores without prominent acicular lobe...............
................................................................L. kincaidi
155
margin .............................................. L. extenuata20
POLYNOINAE
9(3) Notochaetae of two kinds, thick serrated and
thin ....................................................Hesperonoe21
elytra with scarce microtubercles, margin with small
papillae ..................................................... H. laevis
– Notochaetae of a single kind ............................10
2(1) Neurochaetae with capillary tips .... Bylgides16
anterior eyes much longer than posterior eyes and
near anterior border of the prostomium ..................
....................................................B. macrolepidus16
– Neurochaetae with blunt tip or bidentate ...........3
11(10) Three first pairs of elytra with a big sclerotized
region; chaetae with small spinesGorgoniapolynoe
neurochaetae with bifid tips as a mall notch; without
prostomial peaks .........................G. guadalupensis
– Elytra without sclerotized region; chaetae with long
spines............................................... Malmgreniella
.............................................................................12
4(3) Notochaetae short, much thicker than neurochaeta, fascicle expanded; prostomial peaks conspicuous................................................... Lagisca17
...............................................................................5
– Notochaetae as thick as neurochaeta, fascicle not
expanded; prostomial peaks incipient . Hemilepidia
elytra with scarce microtubercles............................
................................................... H. erythrotaenia18
13(10) Neurochaetae bidentate; prostomium with
frontal peaks ......................................... Harmothoe
.............................................................................14
– Neurochaeta unidentate, prostomium without prostomial peaks................................................ Eunoe
prostomium spherical, prominent ............... E. eura
1 Notochaetae with thick spines; neurochaetae with
thick spines and basal a semilunar cusp ... Subadyte
facial tubercle thick; elytra with filiform paillae on
the surface and margin ......................S. mexicana15
– Notochaetae otherwise; neurochaetae without a
semilunar cusp ......................................................2
3(2) Body tapers from middle part, more than 8
posterior segments without elytra .........................4
– Body not tapering from middle part; up to 8 posterior segments without elytra...............................9
5(4) Prostomial lobes frontally elongated, deeply
separated; secondary tooth of most neurochaetae
almost perpendicular ............ L. mexicana n. comb.
– Prostomial lobes frontally not long and slightly
separated; secondary tooth of all neurochatae not
separated and straight ............................................6
6(5) Neurochaetal surface with scratches, main tooth
pointed, slightly curved..... L. tenebricosa n. comb.
– Neurochaetal surface with rows of long spines,
main tooth thick, blunt, almost straight ................7
7(6) Elytra with globular macrotubercles soft, not
sclerotized .............................................................8
– Elytra without macrotubercles not sclerotized .....
........................................................... Lagisca sp. 1
8(7) Elytra without fringe; surface with conical
pointed microtubercles and prominent tubercles not
sclerotized ..................................... L. multisetosa19
– Elytra with fringe; surface with blunt microtubercles, tubercles not sclerotized, small near posterior
10(9) Elytral surface with blunt scarce microtubercles, without macrotubercles..........................11
– Elytral surface with abundant microtubercles, with
or without macrotubercles...................................13
12(11) Notochaetae much thicker than neurochaetae,
blunt tips; neurochaetae with streaks; prostomial
lobes subconical ........... M. crassicirrata n. comb22
– Notochaetae as thick as neurochaetae; short
pointed; neurochaetae with long spines; prostomial
lobes rounded ..........................Malmgreniella sp. 1
14(13) Anterior eyes ventral to prostomium, near
prostomial peaks ............................. H. imbricata23
– Anterior eyes dorsal, in middle part of the prostomium ...................................................................15
15(14) Elytral surface without spinous microtubercles; without macrotubercles or if present sclerotized .....................................................................16
– Elytral surface with spinous microtubercles; macrotubercles sclerotized ........................................19
16(15) Without macrotubercles; microtubercles blunt
on anterior part of the elytra; eyes reddish..............
.......................................................... H. sylliformia
– Macrotubercles as vesicles; microtubercles conical
on all surface; eyes dark brown ..........................17
17(16) Elytral surface with abundant filiform papillae; macrotubercles ovoid without an apical filament.....................................................................18
– Elytral surface without filiform papillae; macrotubercles ovoid with apical filament ..........................
156
Investigaciones Marinas, Vol. 34(2) 2006
........................................................H. exanthema24
18(17) Macrotubercles ovoid, prominent, extending
up to the posterior elytral margin; prostomial lobes
rounded .................................................. H. fragilis
– Macrotubercles ovoid, thin, extending beyond the
posterior border; prostomial lobes subconical ........
..........................................................H. triannulata
19(15) Macrotubercles ovoid with small peak on top;
on middle and posterior elytra macrotubercles long,
inclined, forming a marginal row........... H. hirsuta
– Macrotubercles cylindrical with long, bifurcated
peak on top; on middle and posterior elytra the macrotubercles are scattered on posterolateral surface .
.................................................... Harmothoe sp.125
NOTES
1) Polynoids from hydrothermal rift-area off Western Mexico (20°50’N, 109°06’W), 2457-2633 m
depth.
2) Polynoids from abyssal depths.
3) Admetella longipedata McIntosh, 1885 was
described off southwestern Africa, in 1375 m. The
records from the Mexican Pacific are doubtful.
4) Iphione risensis Pettibone, 1985 was described
from the hydrothermal rift-area on the East Pacific
Rise (20°50’N, 109°06’W).
5) Iphione muricata (Savigny 1822) has been widely
recorded in tropical and subtropical regions of the
Indo-Pacific. The materials require comparison and
the specific identity must be determined. The type
locality is Mauritius, Ile de France.
6) Although distinct, the species has been confused
with Lepidasthenia digueti Gravier, 1905 and is
undescribed.
7) This species was identified by Hartman (1939) as
Lepidametria virens (Blanchard, 1849). The records
of Hartman (1939) were examined and all belong to
Lepidasthenia. Although the species was recorded
as being from Western Mexico, the records do not
include any materials from Mexico. The identity of
Lepidasthenia virens (Blanchard, 1849), described
from Chile, is confused and the type material seems
to be lost. The chacteristics pointed out in the key are
based on part of the specimens identified by Hartman
(1939), specifically from Galapagos and Panama,
which do not correspond to any known species.
8) The specimens were identified as Halosydna sp.
A. Hartman, 1939, but their characteristics differ, as
is pointed out in the key.
9) Lepidonotus clava (Montagu, 1808) was described
from England. The specimens recorded from the
MP were not available for examination. If the species were present, the characteristics should be as
indicated in the key.
10) L. nesophilus has been confused with other
species, among them L. versicolor; although undescribed, the species can be recognized as indicated
in the key.
11) The species has been confused with L. nesophilus Chamberlin, 1919 and with Lepidonotus hupferi
Augener, 1918, described from the western African
coast. The specimens recorded in the region were
compared with the type material and are distinct.
12) The specimens were recorded as L. nesophilus
in the Gulf of California, but they differ, as pointed
out in the key.
13) The species has been confused with L. humilis
(Augener, 1922b) from the Grand Caribbean Region,
but is distinct and is characterized as in the key.
14) Lepidonotus hupferi Augener, 1918 was described from the western African coast; the records
by Hartman (1939) from Mexico and Canada do
not correspond to the species. If the species were
in the region, its features should be as indicated in
the key.
15) Subadyte mexicana Fauchald, 1972 was described with incomplete specimens and without
elytra. The characteristics of the elytra present in
this key are based on the characteristics described
by Pettibone (1993b) and Ruff (1995).
16) According to Pettibone (1993c) and Ruff (1995),
Antinoella Augener, 1928 was synonymised with
Bylgides Chamberlin, 1919, and its name replaced by
Bylgia of Bylgia elegans. The species of this genera
are found in the Arctic. Only Bylgides macrolepidus
was described from Alaska and recorded off the California coast (35°14’N, 121°07’W) and in Monterrey
Bay (Pettibone, 1993c).
17) Barnich & Fiege (2000), in their work on Mediterranean Polynoinae, commented on the validity of
Lagisca. They do not consider the presence of several
posterior segments without elytra and the thickness
of the notochaetae to be of generic importance. However, I found that the characteristics are constant and
distinguish the species from Harmothoe, as pointed
out in the key.
18) Hemilepidia erythrotaenia was described from
the Cape of Good Hope, Africa. The MP record
Polynoids from the Mexican Pacific and from the tropical Eastern Pacific
is doubtful and the presence of this species in the
Eastern Pacific must be demonstrated.
19) Lagisca multisetosa Moore, 1902 was described
from Icy Cape, Alaska. The species was recorded by
Treadwell (1923) from Baja California, based on one
specimen without elytra. Ruff (1995) recorded the
species from Santa Maria Basin, but the illustrations
do not correspond to Moore’s (1902) description. The
presence of this species in the Eastern Pacific must be
demonstrated. If it is in the region, its characteristics
should be as pointed out in the key.
20) The type locality of Lagisca extenuata n. comb.
(Grube, 1840) is in the Mediterranean Sea. Additional
material was examined from there. It was recorded by
Hartman (1968) from California. If there is a similar
form in the MP, it should have the characteristics
presented herein.
21) Hesperone Chamberlin, 1919 is a confused genera; it seems to be very similar to Harmothoe.
22) Malmgreniella crassicirrata (Johnson, 1897) n.
comb. is similar to M. variegata (Treadwell, 1917)
from the Grand Caribbean Region, but they are
distinct.
23) Harmothoe imbricata (Linnaeus, 1767) was
described from the Artic Sea and recorded by Johnson (1897) and Hartman (1968) from the California
Coast. Barnich & Fiege (2000) characterized the
species with materials from the Mediterranean Sea
and they showed elytra with a fringe of papillae, a
surface with conical microtubercles and micropapillae, and some drop-shaped macrotubercles.
24) H. exanthema (Grube, 1856) was described from
Chile and recorded by Hartman (1939) from the
MP. The specimens examined have macrotubercles
like those those illustrated by Bergström (1916) for
specimens from the Falkland Islands. In spite of the
similarity, the specimens should be compared and the
supposed wide distribution demonstrated.
25) Harmothoe sp. 1 was identified as Harmothoe
hirsuta but its features do not correspond to the
description, illustrations, or features of the type
material. Its features are sufficient to maintain the
species separate.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank the following people and Institutions
for loaned materials: Angelika Brandt and Gisela
Wegener (ZMH); Ardis B. Johnston (MCZ); Emma
157
Sherlock (BMNH); Kristian Fauchald (USNM);
Lesle Harris (LACM-AHF), especially for the support received; Mark Sidall, (AMNH) for facilitating
my visit to the museum; Nancy Voss (UMML) for
support received during my visit to the museum;
Sergio I. Salazar-Vallejo (ECOSUR), who kindly
photographed some specimens and for the careful
review of the manuscript; Luis F. Carrera-Parra
(ECOSUR) for the careful review of the manuscript;
Fredrik Pleijel (MNHN); Stefan Lundberg (SMNH);
and Birger Neuhaus (ZMB). The visit to the museum
and the fellowship received by the author were supported by the project Polynoids and Serpulids from
the Mexican Pacific (Semarnat-Conacyt 2002-C010182).
REFERENCES
Augener, H. 1906. Westindische Polychaeten. In:
Reports on the results of dredging, under the
supervision of Alexander Agassiz, in the Gulf of
Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, and on the coast of
the United States, 1877-1880, by the U.S.S. Coast
Survey Steamer Blake. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool.,
Harv. Univ., 43(4): 91-197.
Augener, H. 1918. Polychaeta. Beitrage zur Kenntnis
des Meeresfauna West-Afrikas. Herausgegeben von
W. Michaelsen, Hamburg, 2: 67-625.
Augener, H. 1922a. Litorale Polychaeten von Juan Fernandez; In: C. Skottsberg (ed.).The Natural History
of Juan Fernandez and Easter Island, 3: 161-218.
Augener, H. 1922b. Ueber litorale Polychaeten von
Westindien. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin, Sitzber,
pp. 38-63.
Augener, H. 1928. Die Polychaeten von Spitzbergen.
Fauna Arctica, 5(3): 649-834.
Baird, W. 1863. Descriptions of several new species
of worms belonging to the Annelida Errantia and
Sedentaria or Tubicola of Milne Edwards. Zool.
Soc. London, Proc., 106-110.
Baird, W. 1865. Contributions towards a monograph
of the species of Annelides belonging to the Aphroditacea, containing a list of the known species, and
a description of some new species contained in the
National Collection of the British Museum. J. Linn.
Soc. London, 8: 172-202.
Barnich, R. & D. Fiege. 2000. Revision of the Mediterranean species of Harmothoe Kinberg, 1856 and
158
Investigaciones Marinas, Vol. 34(2) 2006
Lagisca Malmgren, 1865 (Polychaeta: Polynoidae:
Polynoinae) with description of a new genus and a
new species. J. Nat. Hist., 34: 1889-1938.
Benham, W. 1915. Report on the Polychaeta obtained
by the F.I.S. Endeavour on the coast on New South
Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.
Report on the Polychaeta. Part I. Biol. Rep. Fish.
Exper., 3(4): 171-237.
Bergström, E. 1916. Die Polynoiden des Schwedischen
Südpolar-Expedition 1901-1903. Zool. Bidr. Uppsala, 4: 249-304.
Blanchard, E. 1849. Anelides du Chile, In: C. Gay
(ed.). Historia Física y Política de Chile. Zoologia,
3: 9-52.
Chamberlin, R.V. 1919a. New polychaetous annelids
from Laguna Beach, California. J. Ent. Zool., 11:
1-23.
Chamberlin, R.V. 1919b. The Annelida Polychaeta.
Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., Harv. Univ., 48: 1-514.
Chamberlin, R.V. 1920. The polychaetes collected by
the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-18. Rep. Can.
Arctic Exped., 9: 1-41.
Darboux, J. 1899. Reserches sur les Aphroditiens. Inst.
Zool. Univ. Montpellier, Trav., Mem., 6: 1-276.
Desbruyeres, D. & S. Hourdez. 2000. A new species
of scale-worm (Polychaeta: Polynoidae) Lepidonotopodium atalantae sp. nov., from the East
Pacific Rise at 13ºN and 9º50’N. Cah. Biol. Mar.,
41: 47-54.
Ehlers, E. 1901. Die Polychaeten des magellanischen
und chilenischen Strandes. Fetschrift zur Feier des
Hundertfünfzigjährigen Bestehens der königlichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen,
Berlin, 232 pp.
Fauchald, K. 1972. Benthic polychaetous annelids
from deep waters off Western Mexico and adjacent
areas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Allan Hancock
Monogr. Mar. Biol., 7: 1-575.
Fauchald, K. 1977. The polychaete worms: definitions
and keys to the orders, families and genera. Nat.
Hist. Mus. La County, Sci. Ser., 28: 1-190.
Fauchald, K. & G. Rouse 1997. Polychaete systematics: Past and present. Zool. Scr., 26: 71-138.
Fauvel, P. 1943. Annélides polychètes de Californie
recueillies par L. Diguet. Mem. Mus. Natl. Hist.
Nat., Paris, N.S., 18: 1-32.
Gravier, C. 1905. Sur un polynoïden (Lepidasthenia
digueti nov. sp.) commensal d’un balanoglosse de
Basse Californie. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, Bull., 11:
177-181.
Grube. A.E. 1840. Actinien, Echinodermen und Würmen des Adriatischen und Mittelmeers. Königsberg,
J.H. Bon, pp. 61- 88.
Grube, A.E. 1856. Annulata Örstediana. Naturhist.
Foren. Vidensk. Meddel. Fören. Kjöbenhavn, pp.
44-62.
Grube, A.E. 1875. Bemerkungen über die Familie der
Aphroditen (Gruppe Hermionea und Sigalionina).
Schles. Gesells, Breslau, Jahresber, 52: 57-79.
Grube, A.E. 1876. Bemerkungen über die Familie
der Aphroditeen (Gruppe Polynoina, Acoëtea,
Polylepidea). Schles. Gesells, Breslau, Jahresber,
53: 46-72.
Hanley, J.R. 1987. Taxonomic status of some species formerly referred to Malmgrenia Macintosh
1874 (SIC), with the description of a new genus
Lobopelma (Polychaeta: Polynoidae). Beagle, Rec.
of the Northern, Terr. Mus. Gallery of Arts and Sci.,
4(1): 147-163.
Hanley, J.R. 1989. Revision of the scaleworm genera
Arctone Chamberlin and Gastrolepida Schmarda
(Polychaeta: Polynoidae) with the erection of a new
subfamily Arctonoinae. Beagle, Rec. of the Northern, Terr. Mus. Gallery of Arts and Sci., 6: 1-34.
Hartman, O. 1938. The types of polychaete worms of
the families Polynoidae and Polyodontidae in the
United States Museum and the description of a new
genus. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 86: 107-134.
Hartman, O. 1939. Polychaetous annelids, 1. Aphroditidae to Pisionidae. Allan Hancock Pacific
Expedition, 7: 1-155.
Hartman, O. 1949. The marine annelids erected by
Kinberg with notes on some other types in the
Swedish State Museum. Arkiv for Zoologi, 42A:
1-137.
Hartman, O. 1956. Polychaetous annelids erected by
Treadwell, 1891 to 1948, together with a brief chronology. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 109: 239-310.
Hartman, O. 1961. Polychaetous annelids from California. Allan Hancock Pacific Expedition, 25:
1-226.
Hartman, O. 1967. Polychaetous annelids collected by
the USNS Eltanin and Staten Island cruises, chiefly
Polynoids from the Mexican Pacific and from the tropical Eastern Pacific
from Antarctic seas. Allan Hancock Monographs in
Marine Biology, 2: 1-387.
Hartman, O. 1968. Atlas of the Errantiate Polychaetous
Annelids from California. Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California, 828 pp.
Hartmann-Schröder G. 1971. Annelida, Borstenwürmer, Polychaeta. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands un der
Angrenzenden Meeresteile, 58: 1-594.
Johnson, H.P. 1897. A preliminary account of the marine Annelids of the Pacific Coast, with descriptions
of new species. Pt. 1. The Euphrosynidae, Amphinomidae, Palmyridae, Polynoidae, and Sigalionidae.
Proc. Cal. Acad. Sci. ser. 3, Zool., pp. 153-198.
Johnson, H.P. 1901. The Polychaeta of the Puget
Sound region. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 29(18):
381-437.
Kinberg, J. 1856. Nya slägten och arter af Annelider,
Öfversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Förhandlingar, Stockholm, 12, 381-388.
Kinberg, J. 1858. Kongliga Svenska Fregatten Eugenies Resa omkring jorden under befäl af C.A.
Virgin ånen 1851-1853. Veenskaga Iakttagelser på
Konung Oscar den Forstes befallning utgifna. K.
Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademien, Zoologi, 3. Annulater, 1.Aphroditea - Amhinomacea. Almquist &
Wicksells, Uppsala & Stockholm, 32 pp.
Kudenov, J.D. 1975. Two new species of errant polychaetes from the Gulf of California, Mexico. Bull.
Sth. Calif. Acad. Sci., 74(2): 75-80.
Leach, W. E. 1816. Vermes Polychaeta. Encyclopedia
Britannica. Suppl., 6: 451-452.
Linnaeus, 1767. Systema Naturae. Salvi, Holmiae,
1(2): 533-1327.
Malmgren, A.J. 1865. Nordiska Hafs-Annulater.
Öfversigt af Konglia Vetenskaps-Akademiens
Förhandlingar, Stockholm, 21(1): 51-110.
Malmgren, A.J. 1867. Annulata Polychaeta Spetsbergiae, Groenlandiae, Islandiae et Scandinaviae
hactenus cognita, Öfversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Förhhandlingar Stockholm, 24:
127-235.
Marcus, J. & S. Hourdez. 2002. A new species of
scale-worm (Polychaeta: Polynoidae) from Axial
Volcano, Juan de Fuca Ridge, northeast Pacific.
Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 115(2): 341-349.
159
McIntosh, W.C. 1885. Annelida Polychaeta. Report
on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S.
Challenger during the years 1873-76. Zoology,
2(34): 1-554.
Montagu, G. 1808. New and rare animals found on
the south coast of Devonshire. Zool. Trans. Linn.
Soc. London, 7: 80-84.
Moore, J.P. 1902. Descriptions of some Polynoidae,
with a list of other Polychaeta from North Greenland
waters. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., 54: 258-273.
Moore, J.P. 1903. Polychaeta from the coastal slope of
Japan and from Kamchatka and Bering Sea. Proc.
Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., 55: 401-490.
Moore, J.P. 1905. New species of Polychaeta from the
North Pacific, chiefly from Alaskan waters. Proc.
Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., 57: 525-554.
Moore, J.P. 1910. The polychaetous annelids dredged
by the USS “Albatross” off the coast of southern
California in 1904, 2. Polynoidae, Aphroditidae and
Segaleonidae (sic). Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad.,
62: 328-402.
Muir, A.I. 1982. Generic characters in the Polynoinae
(Annelida, Polychaeta), with notes on the higher
classification of scale-worms (Aphroditacea). Bull.
Brit. Mus. (Nat Hist), Zool., 43: 153-177.
Pettibone, M.H. 1953. Some scale-bearing polychaetes
of Puget Sound and adjacent waters. University of
Washington Press, Seattle, 89 pp.
Pettibone, M.H. 1969. Review of some species referred
to Scalisetosus McIntosh (Polychaeta, Polynoidae).
Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 82: 1-30.
Pettibone, M.H. 1970. Polychaeta errantia of the
Siboga-Expedition. Part 4: Some additional polychaetes of the Polynoidae, Hesionidae, Nereidae,
Goniadidae, Eunicidae, and Onuphidae, selected as
new species by the late Dr. Hermann Augener with
remarks on other related species. Siboga Expeditie,
24(1d): 199-270.
Pettibone, M.H. 1976. Revision of the genus Macellicephala McIntosh and the subfamily Macellicephalinae Hartmann-Schröder (Polychaeta: Polynoidae).
Smithsonian Contr. Zool., 229: 1-75.
Pettibone, M.H. 1983. A new scale worm (Polychaeta:
Polynoidae) from the hydrothermal rift area off
Western Mexico al 21°N. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash.,
96(3): 392-399.
160
Investigaciones Marinas, Vol. 34(2) 2006
Pettibone, M.H. 1984. Two new species of Lepidonotopodium (Polychaeta: Polynoidae: Lepidonotopodinae) from hydrothermal vent off the Galapagos and
East Pacific Rise al 21°N. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash.,
97: 849-863.
Pettibone, M.H. 1985a. Additional branchiate scaleworms (Polychaeta: Polynoidae) from Galápagos
hydrothermal vent and rift-area off Western Mexico
at 21°N. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 98: 447-469.
Pettibone, M.H. 1985b. An additional new scale worm
(Polychaeta: Polynoidae) from the hydrothermal rift
area off Western Mexico at 21°N. Proc. Biol. Soc.
Wash., 98: 150-157.
Pettibone, M.H. 1985c. New genera and species of
deep-sea Macellicephalinae and Harmothoinae
(Polychaeta: Polynoidae) from the hydrothermal
rift areas off the Galapagos and Western Mexico at
21°N and from the Santa Catalina Channel. Proc.
Biol. Soc. Wash., 98: 740-757.
Pettibone, M.H. 1986. Review of the Iphioninae
(Polychaeta: Polynoidae) and revision of Iphione
cimex Quatrefages, Gatyana deludens Fauvel, and
Harmothoe iphionelloides Johnson (Harmothoinae).
Smithson. Contr. Zool., 428: 1-43.
Pettibone, M.H. 1989a. Polynoidae and Sigalionidae (Polychaeta) from the Guaymas Basin, with
descriptions of two new species and additional
records from hydrothermal vents of the Galapagos
Rift 21°N, and seep-sities in the Gulf of Mexico
(Florida and Louisiana). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash.,
102(1):154-168.
Pettibone, M.H. 1989b. A new species of Benhamipolynoe (Polychaeta: Polynoidae: Lepidastheniinae)
from Australia, associated with the unattached
stylasterid coral Conopora adeta. Proc. Biol. Soc.
Wash., 102(2): 300-304.
Pettibone, M.H. 1991. Polynoid polychaetes commensal with antipatharian corals. Proc. Biol. Soc.
Wash., 104: 714-726.
Pettibone, M.H. 1993a. Scaled polychaetes (Polynoidae) associated with ophiuroids and other invertebrates and review of species referred to Malmgrenia
McIntosh and replaced by Malmgreniella Hartman,
with descriptions of new taxa. Smithson. Contr.
Zool., 538: 1-92.
Pettibone, M.H. 1993b. Polynoid polychaetes associated with a whale skeleton in the bathyal Santa
Catalina Basin. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 106(4):
678-688.
Pettibone, M.H. 1993c. Revision of some species referred to Antinoe, Antinoella, Antinoana, Byglides,
and Harmothoe (Polychaeta: Polynoidae: Harmothoinae). Smithson. Contr. Zool., 545: 1-41.
Pleijel, F. 2001. 13 Aphroditoidea Malmgren, 1867, pp.
73-76. In: G.W. Rouse & F. Pleijel (eds.). Polychaetes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 354 pp.
Rioja, E. 1963(1962). Estudios anelidológicos, 26. Algunos anélidos poliquetos de las costas del Pacífico
de México. An. Inst. Biol. México, 33:131-229.
Rozbaczylo, N. & J.C. Castilla. 1981. Invertebrados
marinos del Archipiélago de Juan Fernández In: J.C.
Castilla (ed.). Islas oceánicas chilenas conocimiento
científico y necesidades de investigaciones. Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago,
pp. 167-189.
Ruff, R. E. 1995. Family Polynoidae Malmgren,
1867. In: J.A. Blake, B. Hilbig & P.H. Scott (eds.).
Taxonomic Atlas of the benthic Fauna of the Santa
Maria Basin and Western Santa Barbara Channel.
The Annelida Part 2. Santa Barbara Museum of
Natural History, California, 5: 105-166.
Salazar-Vallejo, S.I. & M.H. Londoño-Mesa, 2004.
Lista de especies y bibliografía de poliquetos
(Polychaeta) del Pacífico Oriental Tropical. An.
Inst. Biol., Univ. Nal. Auton. México, ser. Zool.,
75: 9-97.
Savigny, J.C. 1822. Systeme des Annelidés, principalement de celles des côtes de I’Egypte et de la Syrie,
offrant les caractères tant distinctifs que naturels
des ordres, familles et genres, avec la description
des espèces. In: Description de l’Egypte,1(3): 1128; Paris (Imprimerie Imperiale) [according to
opinion 1461, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 44(3): 219-220
(september 1987)].
Schmarda, L.K. 1861. Neue wirbellose Thiere beobachtet und gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erde 185357, Turbellarien, Rotatorien und Anneliden, Zweite
Halfte. Wilhelm Engelman, Leipzig, 165 pp.
Seidler, H. 1924. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Polynoiden,
I. Arch. Naturg., 89: 1-217.
Treadwell, A.L. 1906. Polychaetous annelids of the
Hawaiian Islands collected by the Steammer Albatross in 1902. Bulletin of the United States Fish
Commision, 23 (for 1903), pt. 3, 1145-1181.
Treadwell, A.L. 1917. Polychaetous annelids from Florida, Porto Rico, Bermuda, and the Bahamas. The
Polynoids from the Mexican Pacific and from the tropical Eastern Pacific
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Department of
Marine Biology, 11: 255-268.
Treadwell, A.L. 1923. Polychaetous annelids from
Lower California with descriptions of new species.
Amer. Mus. Novitates, 74: 1-11.
Treadwell, A.L. 1928. Polychaetous annelids from the
Arcturus Oceanographic Expedition. Zoologica, 8:
449-489.
Treadwell, A.L. 1937. The Templeton Crocker Expedition, 8. Polychaetous annelids from the west coast of
Baja California, the Gulf of California and Clarion
Island. Zoologica, 22: 139-60.
Uschakov, P.V. 1955. Polychaetous annelids of the far
eastern seas of the USRR. Akademiya Nauk SSSR,
Recibido:25 agosto 2005; Aceptado: 7 julio 2006
161
Keys to the fauna of the SSSR 56, Traslated 1965
from Russian by the Israel Program for Scientific
Translation, Jerusalem, 453 pp.
Uschakov, P.V. 1977. Phylogenetic relationship in the
family Polynoidae (Polychaeta); pp. 29-38. In: D.J.
Reish & K. Fauchald (eds.). Essays on the polychaetous annelids in memory of Dr Olga Hartman.
Allan Hancock Foundation, Los Angeles, 604 pp.
Webster, H.E. 1879. On the Annelida Chaetopoda of
the Virginian Coast. Trans. Albany Inst., 9: 202269.
Willey, A. 1902. Polychaeta. Report on the collections
of Natural History made in the Antarctic Regions
during the Voyage of the Southern Cross. London.
Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. Pub., pp. 262-283.
162
Investigaciones Marinas, Vol. 34(2) 2006
Patricia Salazar-Silva