identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
396387E75F4BE01BFF50FE53FC62F9C6.text	396387E75F4BE01BFF50FE53FC62F9C6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ficopomatus enigmaticus (Fauvel 1923)	<div><p>Ficopomatus enigmaticus (Fauvel, 1923)</p> <p>Mercierella enigmatica Fauvel, 1923: 424, fig. 1 [Type locality: France, Canal de Caen]; Fauvel 1927: 360–361, figs 123a–o [France, estuarine].</p> <p>Ficopomatus enigmaticus: ten Hove &amp; Weerdenburg 1978: 114–116, figs 2e–i; 3d–e, l–q; 4a–d, s, aa–bb, nn–vv, zz; 5c; synonymy [Uruguay, Argentina, South Africa, the Netherlands, France, Tunisia, Hawaii, western Australia, New South Wales, California, Texas]; Zenetos et al. 2005: 73 [classified as an “established cryptogenic alien invasive species” in the Mediterranean].</p> <p>Eastern Mediterranean</p> <p>Mercierella enigmatica: Fauvel 1937: 45 [Egypt, Lake Mareotis, first Levant record]; Fauvel 1955a: 11 [first Israeli sample, from the Nur pool, an artificially maintained estuarine pool S.E. of Akko (Acre), legit B. Wahrmann IV.1954, det. P. Fauvel, HUJ-Poly-1582)]; Saad 1974: 53 [Egypt, 6 lakes, 5 from the Lower Delta and one from Upper Egypt]; Ghobashy 1984: 39, 44 [Egypt, Damietta estuary]; Ghobashy &amp; Hamada 1984: 53–63 [Egypt, Damietta estuary]; El-Komi 1997: 109 [Egypt, Lake Manzalah]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 91 [presence in Damietta estuary citing Hamada (1980) and Abd-Elnaby (2005, for both references see App. Table 4) records from Lake Manzalah and in the area of Abu Qir Bay (eastern Alexandria), all brackish-water areas].</p> <p>Ficopomatus enigmaticus: Ben-Eliahu &amp; Dafni 1979: 207 [Israel, Alexander River]; Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 518 [Israel].</p> <p>Material examined. Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Mediterranean side: Israel: 10 samples, HUJ, depth ca. 0.3 m.</p> <p>Suez Canal material reported herein: 2 samples, 3 specs. Hebrew University-Smithsonian Expedition, Lake Timsah: SBE 7, 2 specs— Little Bitter Lake: SBE 1, 1 spec.</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal: Landlocked, Egypt: Lake Qârün, legit G.N. El Shabrawy, det. H.A. ten Hove 2000, ZMA V.Pol. 4981, 10 specs.</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Red Sea side: None.</p> <p>Suez Canal depth and substrates: 0.3 m, shallow; under rocks; encrustation on tin can.</p> <p>Colouration. Specimens from Lake Timsah with dark brown body; branchia of specimen from Bitter Lake with 6 rows of dark pigment.</p> <p>Distribution. Worldwide in subtropical to temperate regions, northern and southern hemisphere; brackish. Mediterranean: Israel, Egypt.</p> <p>Remarks. A new record for the Suez Canal dating from II.1973. A mixo-hyperhaline brackish species (ten Hove &amp; Weerdenburg 1978, ten Hove &amp; van den Hurk 1993).</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F4BE01BFF50FE53FC62F9C6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F4BE01BFF50F9E6FB48F93B.text	396387E75F4BE01BFF50F9E6FB48F93B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Filograna implexa Berkeley 1835	<div><p>Filograna implexa Berkeley, 1835</p> <p>Type locality. England, Weymouth. Not present in the Suez Canal, but see Salmacina.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F4BE01BFF50F9E6FB48F93B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F4BE019FF50F883FE3EFB2C.text	396387E75F4BE019FF50F883FE3EFB2C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hydroides dianthus (Verrill 1873)	<div><p>Hydroides dianthus (Verrill, 1873)</p> <p>Serpula dianthus Verrill, 1873: 620–621 [Type locality: U.S.A., New England, Vineyard Sound (see “ Material examined”, below)].</p> <p>Hydroides dianthus: Zibrowius 1971: 697–707, figs 1–5 [redescription, synonymy; U.S. eastern Atlantic from New England to Gulf of Mexico; Mediterranean: France, Spain, Tunisia, Italy, Turkey (Aegean); in estuaries and lagoons. In the eastern Atlantic, also on the coast between intertidal to 20 m or more—a distribution that suggests it is indigenous to that area; Zibrowius 1973a: 683–686 [see above distribution]; Bianchi 1981: 59–62, figs 20a–d [Italy, particularly in ports and coastal lagoons]; Bastida-Zavala &amp; ten Hove 2003a: 143–146, figs 23–24 [eastern U.S.A., N. Gulf of Mexico and Netherlands Antilles, Curaçao, 0.6– 28 m]; Zenetos et al. 2005: 73 [classified it as an “established cryptogenic alien invasive species” in the Mediterranean; as concerns the "cryptogenic" characterization, see remarks below].</p> <p>Eastern Mediterranean</p> <p>Hydroides uncinata (Philippi, 1844): Ghobashy 1977: 214–215, table 1 [Alexandria, under rocks; det. S.A. Selim 1973– 4 (?), possible first record from Levant coast— Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy (2005: 90) retroactively synonymised this material with H. dianthus].</p> <p>not Hydroides cf. dianthus sensu Ben-Eliahu 1976: 106–107, fig. 1 [Israel, Shavé Ziyyon]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Safriel 1982: 387 [same], corrected herein to H. operculatus (Treadwell, 1929), see remarks below.</p> <p>? not Hydroides dianthus sensu Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 1981: 159–160 [Lebanon, see remarks below].</p> <p>Hydroides dianthus: Ergen 1979: 79 [Aegean, Bay of Izmir]; Ghobashy 1984: table 1 [Egypt, Alexandria, Eastern Harbour, based on S.A. Selim (1978, see App. Table 4), 1978 is the first record from Egyptian coast; Selim 1997b: 87– 90, figs 2a–f [Egypt, Port Said]; El-Komi 1991a: table 3 [Alexandria]; Knight-Jones et al. 1991: 841 [Aegean, near Izmir, Güzelbahca Harbour]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Payiatas 1999: 101–119 [Cyprus, Limassol harbour, on ship propeller]; Koçak et al. 1999: 6 [Aegean, Bay of Izmir, 3 m, panels]; Selim 2009: 73 [Egypt, Alexandria; Eastern Harbour, Port Said harbour fouling].</p> <p>Suez Canal</p> <p>Hydroides dianthus: Selim 2009: 73, [table 1, Lake Timsah. This appears to be the first record of H. dianthus from within the Suez Canal].</p> <p>Material examined. More than 16 samples at the AMNH, USNM and YPM, with&gt; 150 specimens, e.g., the following six samples:</p> <p>U. S. A., Connecticut, off New Haven, 11–15 m, syntypes YPM 2698, 2699, 8 specs— Massachusetts, New Bedford, from piles under wharf, legit R. Hall &amp; A. Elwyn 2.VIII.1909, det. W.G. van Name, redet. H.A. ten Hove; this H. dianthus is a “reef” (a solid aggregation of cemented tubes), AMNH 1122 (not counted, but at least 11 specimens).— New Jersey, Greater Egg Harbour, legit, det. H.E. Webster (1880: 128, 159), transferred by M. Pettibone to H. uncinata, redet. H. Zibrowius 1970 H. dianthus, USNM 381, 1 spec. — Florida, Alligator Harbour, Wilson’s Beach, Stn 22, Tall Timbers, legit J. Rudloe 25.III.1966, det. H.A. ten Hove 1971 (unpubl.), USNM 51862, 2 specs.</p> <p>Mediterranean, Naples, Gulf, Zoological Station 1888, separated from Hydroides diramphus, RMNH 392, ZMA V.Pol. 3206, 1 spec. —without further data, det. K.J. Bush (1910: 498) Eupomatus uncinatus, redet. H.A. ten Hove 1985, YPM 2839, 10 dried specs.</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Mediterranean side: Cyprus, Limassol Harbour entrance, Cy- AI, ca. 0.3 m depth, scuba, from a ship propeller, legit G. Payiatas &amp; P. Orfanou 27.X.1997, det. M.N. Ben- Eliahu, HUJ-Poly-80, 2 specs.</p> <p>Suez Canal proper: No previous records from the Suez Canal.</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Red Sea side: No records</p> <p>Distribution. Temperate to subtropical coasts of northeast America and western Europe (not north of the English Channel). Atlantic Africa. Mediterranean: Italy, Naples; Cyprus (on ship propeller); Turkey, Aegean; Egypt, Alexandria, eastern harbour, Port Said, Suez Canal (Lake Timsah). Japan, Tokyo Bay.</p> <p>Remarks. Hydroides dianthus apparently originates from the Atlantic coast of North America and is common in biofouling along the U.S. western Atlantic seaboard (Zibrowius 1971: 704, 1973a: 684). Contrary to the situation in the western Atlantic, there seemed to be no extensive populations in the eastern Atlantic and in the Mediterranean, except those in some Mediterranean lagoons (e.g., Thau lagoon). In the Mediterranean, Hydroides dianthus also occasionally occurs in harbours (H. Zibrowius, pers. comm.). The distribution pattern, conjunct in the western Atlantic and disjunct elsewhere, and the larger reservoir along the U.S. coast, supports the diagnosis of the western Atlantic as the provenance of this species (H. Zibrowius, pers. comm.). Zibrowius (1971) characterized it as tolerating a wide range of salinities and temperatures, between 28–50 ‰ and 5–30 °C. Its first record in the eastern Mediterranean (Aegean, near Izmir) was in 1865 (Zibrowius 1973a). Knight-Jones et al. (1991: 841) reported it from the only station in the Bay of Izmir with eutrophic conditions (turbid waters and rocks covered with Ulva and Mytilus). A first record from Cyprus (X.1997) was that of two decaying individuals removed from a propeller of a ship in Limassol Harbour (Ben-Eliahu &amp; Payiatas 1999), one an operculum without a body; this record does not provide a definitive proof of settlement in Cyprian waters. Hydroides dianthus has not been reported along the Mediterranean coast of Israel (M.N. Ben- Eliahu, unpubl. data); the specimen erroneously published long ago as H. cf. dianthus (Ben-Eliahu 1976: 106– 107, fig. 1, and Ben-Eliahu &amp; Safriel 1982: 387) is corrected herein to Hydroides operculatus, a Lessepsian migrant (see also Çinar 2006: 229–230, fig. 6). Moreover, Zibrowius &amp; Bitar’s (1981) report of Hydroides dianthus from Lebanon was regarded as questionable (Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992: 37); the two small Lebanese specimens, when re-examined by one of us (H.A. ten Hove) in 1998 appeared rather to belong to Hydroides cf. brachyacanthus Rioja, 1941, a Lessepsian migrant present on the coasts of Israel and Lebanon as well as the Levant coast of Turkey (Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992: 43, Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 2003, Çinar 2006: 225– 226, fig. 2, respectively).</p> <p>Selim's (1988) first record of Hydroides dianthus from the southern Levant coast (Eastern Harbour, Alexandria), and a later record from Port Said, not within the canal proper, were documented by a well-illustrated operculum (Selim 1997b fig. 2a). However, Selim’s recent record (2009: 78) of Hydroides dianthus from within the canal, ca. 37 km from its northern mouth, from El Cap, referred to Ben-Eliahu's erroneous record of Hydroides cf. dianthus illustrated with a figure of the H. operculatus operculum (Ben-Eliahu 1976: 106, fig. 1), and the other references cited (Fauvel 1927: 357–358, Bellan 1964: 174–175 and Zibrowius 1968: 109– 112) referred not to Hydroides dianthus, but rather to H. uncinatus, confused for it (reviewed in Zibrowius 1971). The verticil spines of Hydroides operculatus, a well known Lessepsian migrant, all point inwards (Çinar 2006: 229–230, fig. 6), whereas the spines in H. dianthus all point in the same (ventral) direction (Zibrowius, 1973a: 683). Despite the uncertainty created by Selim’s use of these citations and our inability to review a voucher specimen, given Selim’s (1997) illustration, we tend to hypothesize that the identification is correct. If that is true, the record is also presumed to be a first record of Hydroides dianthus from within the Suez Canal. This could be indicative of a recent Atlantic-Mediterranean incursion into the canal, a finding with biogeographic significance. However, its disjunctive distribution—it is lacking along the northward Israeli coast but present in the Egyptian ports of Alexandria and Port Said—suggests it could rather be indicative of ship-transport as has been observed in Hydroides elegans and Hydroides diramphus. This is supported by a recent article by Link et al. (2009) that reported its first occurrence in East Asia, Tokyo Bay on artificial hard substrates, presumably due to ship transport, and a subsequent report from Osaka Bay by Otani &amp; Yamanishi (2010). In the Discussion section below, we have enumerated Hydroides dianthus as a member of the Suez Canal serpulid fauna.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F4BE019FF50F883FE3EFB2C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F49E006FF50FA95FDE1FE58.text	396387E75F49E006FF50FA95FDE1FE58.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hydroides dipoma (Schmarda 1861)	<div><p>Hydroides dipoma (Schmarda, 1861)</p> <p>Not present in the Suez Canal, but in nearby Suez harbour fouling.</p> <p>Eupomatus dipoma Schmarda, 1861: 29, pl. 61, fig. 177 [Type locality: South Africa, Cape of Good Hope].</p> <p>Eupomatus spinosus Pixell 1913: 78, pl. 8, fig. 5 [Type locality: Suez].</p> <p>Hydroides uncinata var. macronyx Ehlers, 1913: 582–583, pl. 46, figs 1–2 [South east Atlantic: South Africa, Simonstown].</p> <p>Hydroides dipoma: Zibrowius 1973b: 33–35, figs 4 f, g [redescription, synonymy; from Río de Oro, Morocco to Cape of Good Hope, intertidal and subtidal; Suez].</p> <p>Gulf of Suez</p> <p>Eupomatus spinosus Pixell, 1913: 78, pl. 8, fig. 5 [Suez, see “Material examined”].</p> <p>Material examined. Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Mediterranean side: None.</p> <p>Suez Canal proper: No records.</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Red Sea side: Egypt: 2 lots. Gulf of Suez, Suez, C. Crossland, details concerning substrate or habitat not available, det. H.L.M. Pixell Eupomatus spinosus, BM(NH) 1924:6:13:135, 2 specs; syntypes of Eupomatus spinosus Pixell, 1913, donated J.S. Gardiner, BM (NH) 1938:7:25:9–12, 4 specs.</p> <p>South Africa, legit W. Stephensen 11.VI.1932, det. H. Zibrowius 1972, Hydroides spinosus, BM(NH) 1932.12.23.20, 1 spec.; Cape Peninsula, shore, Stn CP 138, legit, presented and det. J.H. Day H. dipoma, BM(NH) 1963.1.175, 1 spec.</p> <p>Distribution. Atlantic Africa: Río de Oro, Morocco to the Cape of Good Hope; Suez.</p> <p>Remarks. Pixell (1913: 78) reported Hydroides dipoma (as Eupomatus spinosus) from Suez. Zibrowius (1973b: 36) commented on the species’ disjunctive distribution, from the length of the south east Atlantic coast, without additional records from the Mediterranean or from the Indian Ocean or Red Sea; and with a single Indo-West-Pacific location, Suez. We agree with him that it is likely that the record at Suez is due to a ship-borne introduction. We have not enumerated Hydroides dipoma among the species reported from the Canal. However, due to the proximity of Suez to the southern opening of the canal, we would not be surprised if it were to be found in the canal.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F49E006FF50FA95FDE1FE58	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F56E004FF50FE61FC24FD1E.text	396387E75F56E004FF50FE61FC24FD1E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hydroides diramphus Morch 1863	<div><p>Hydroides diramphus Mörch, 1863</p> <p>Figs 4, 5A–C</p> <p>Hydroides (Eucarphus) dirampha Mörch, 1863: 379, pl. 11 fig. 10 [Type locality: Antilles, St. Thomas].</p> <p>Eupomatus lunulifer Claparède, 1870: 181–182, pl. 31 fig. 3 [Italy, Naples, on ship’s hull].</p> <p>Hydroides lunulifera: Fauvel 1927: 358–359, figs 122 p–s [Spain, Valencia; Italy, Naples; ship fouling]; Day 1967: 807, figs 38.4j–k [South Africa, Natal].</p> <p>Hydroides dirampha: Zibrowius 1971: 706, figs 6–9 [synonymy; Mexico, Vera Cruz; Panama, Colon; Venezuela; Brazil; Bermudas; Grenadines; Antigua; Florida; South Africa; Italy, Naples; Indonesia, Java; Hawaii; New Zealand]; Zibrowius 1979b: 133–134 [France, Toulon Port, biofouling removed from the aircraft carrier “Foch”]; Bianchi 1981: 63–64, figs 21a–e [Italy; Port Said]; Zenetos et al. 2005: 73 [classified as an “established cryptogenic alien invasive species” in the Mediterranean].</p> <p>Eastern Mediterranean</p> <p>Hydroides lunulifera: Potts 1928: 701 [Egypt, Port Said (see “Material examined”), 1924 was first record from Levant Basin; Ghobashy 1977: 214–215, table 1 [Alexandria, under rocks; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 90 retroactively synonymised this taxon with H. dirampha; see below].</p> <p>Hydroides dirampha: Ben-Eliahu 1972a: 77 [Egypt, Port Said, after Potts (1928)]; Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 1981: 159–160 [Lebanon, Beirut, Zaitouné, 5 m, 23.IX.1978, from bivalve]; Ghobashy 1984, table 1 [Alexandria, harbour, citing Selim (1978, see App. Table 4)]; Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 518 [Israel]; El-Komi 1991a, b: table 3 [Alexandria, harbour]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992: 40 [Israel, entire coast from north to south, 0–24 m]; El-Komi 1992a, table 4 [Alexandria, harbour]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege 1996: 33, 38 [Levant coast]; Selim 1997b: 90–91, figs 3a–f [Port Said, collected in 1988]; Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 2003: 71 [Lebanon]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 90 [Alexandria, Eastern Harbour; a review article]; Çinar 2006: 226, fig. 3a–c [Levant coast of Turkey, Iskenderun Bay, Yumurtalık Harbour, Mersin Bay, IX.2005, 0.1– 3 m, on Pomatoleios kraussii tubes].</p> <p>Suez Canal</p> <p>Hydroides dirampha: Ben-Eliahu 1972a: 77 [misinterpretation of Potts (1928) who had in fact not reported this species from within the Suez Canal but only from Port Said and claimed it had not entered the canal (see below); Ghobashy 1984: 43, 45 [Lake Timsah]; Ghobashy et al. 1986: 319–326, fig. 2 [Lake Timsah]; Ghobashy et al. 1990: 677–685 [Lake Timsah]; Mona 1992: 244–261 [Lake Timsah]; Selim 1997b: 90–91, figs 3a–f [collected in 1988, El-Kab, Lake Timsah, Deversoir; for Lake Timsah citing Shalla (1985) and Mostafa (1992) see App. Table 4 for both references)]; Wehe &amp; Fiege 2002: 126 [Suez Canal; list of references]; Emara &amp; Belal 2004: 192–199 [pooled Lake Timsah and Bitter Lakes data]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 90 [syn. H. lunulifera, Suez Canal record from Lake Timsah also citing Barbary (1992, see App. Table 4)]; Selim 2009: 73 [northern part of the canal, in El Cap].</p> <p>Hydroides lunulifera: Emara &amp; Belal 2004: 192–199 [synonym of H. dirampha (cited just above); authors kept separate abundance data for these synonyms].</p> <p>Gulf of Suez</p> <p>Hydroides dirampha: Selim 1997b: 90–91, figs 3a–f [collected in 1988, Port Taufiq].</p> <p>Material examined. Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Mediterranean side: Israel: 35 samples; one of these is the first sample from Israel, Haifa harbour, legit G. Haas, 22.III.1937, det. M.N. Ben-Eliahu, HUJ- Poly-867 (previously AN-II-84) — Egypt, Sinai: 4 samples, 0.3– 4–15 –[57–62] m, HUJ.— Egypt, Port Said, on buoy no. 723, Cambridge Expedition 13.XII.1924, det. F.A. Potts Hydroides lunulifera, redet. H. Zibrowius (1971: 706), confirmed M.N. Ben-Eliahu 1986, CUZM-AN. I.1930, 1 spec.</p> <p>Suez Canal material reported herein: 13 samples, 100 specs, Cambridge Expedition 6.X–29.XII.1924, 1 “new” BM (NH) sample: Toussoum: 1 spec. (see App. Table 2A, and see just below).— Beets’ Great Bitter Lake samples: ca. 6 samples with empty tubes tentatively attributed to Hydroides diramphus (not enumerated, see App. Table 2B).—Hebrew University-Smithsonian Expeditions, 1967–1973: 6 samples, 81 specs. Lake Timsah: SBE 7, 30 specs; SBE 8, 44 specs; Great Bitter Lake: SLC 67, 1 spec.; SLC 71, 1 spec.; SLC 3, 2 specs; SLC 117, 3 specs.— Great Bitter Lake “Yellow Fleet” Biofouling Samples, January 13–20, 1975: 3 subsamples, 3 specs; Bremerhaven dry dock, 18.VI. 1975, 7 m, 1 spec. with operculum still connected to partially decayed body— Lake Timsah, 1984, legit S.H. Shalla, det. H.A. ten Hove, ZMA V.Pol. 5001, 8 specs, tubes— El Tawan Beach, 10 / 19.XI.1988, legit S.B. Shazly, det. H.A. ten Hove, ZMA V.Pol. 3818, 3 specs.</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Red Sea side, reported herein: Cambridge Expedition 6.X– 29.XII.1924, 1 “new” BM (NH) sample from barge: Presumed Port Taufiq, 1 spec. (see App. Table 2A).</p> <p>Suez Canal depth and substrates: 0.3– 10 m; on algae, e.g., Digenea; on sponge, on molluscs; on a mollusc from a barge; on bivalves, Brachidontes pharaoni s, Crenatula picta, Pinctada radiata; on rocks; on artificial substrates: Encrusted tin can submerged in mud, rubber fenders and iron frames; ship fouling.</p> <p>Colouration. Radioles of specimens from Lake Timsah with alternating white and brown banding, widest bands in middle of radiole.</p> <p>Distribution. Circum(sub) tropical; port fouling species. E. Mediterranean. Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt.</p> <p>Remarks. Origin apparently tropical western Atlantic Coast; Zibrowius (1973a) noted a first record of Hydroides diramphus from Naples in 1870 as its synonym, H. lunulifer (Claparède, 1870: 181–182 pl. 31, fig. 3). Its first record from the Levant Basin, from 1924, was from the sample collected by the Cambridge Expedition from a buoy in Port Said (Potts 1928: 701). Potts considered that Hydroides diramphus had not entered the Canal. However, in actuality, two additional samples of Hydroides diramphus had been collected, unknown to Potts, encrusted on the Cambridge Expedition molluscs that had been taken to the Natural History Museum in London and deposited in the Mollusc Section of the museum; they were found 62 years later during a visit to the Museum (by NBE) and are referred to above in the “Material examined” section as “new” Cambridge Expedition samples. One was from Toussoum (km 87) within the canal and the other from “Barge 568”, presumably from Port Taufiq. [Potts referred only to “barges” without specifying their number but specifically mentioned only Port Taufiq as a location for them; the precise date of collection is unknown (J. Pickering, pers. comm., see App. Table 2A)]. The first record of H. diramphus from within the Suez Canal is herein brought forward to 1924. It is likely that it was present among the dry Great Bitter Lake tubes collected later by C. Beets (1950); see Discussion and App. Table 2B, but taphonomic residues, enabling confirmation of our tentative identification of tubes, were not found. In 1973, H. diramphus appeared to be present in larger numbers in Lake Timsah than in the Great Bitter Lake, and there have been consistent records of it there in subsequent Egyptian fouling research (e.g., Ghobashy 1984, Shalla 1985, Ghobashy et al. 1986, Ghobashy et al. 1990 and Mona 1992). Selim (1997b) reported it in the five sites studied along the canal, i.e., in Port Said, El-Kab, Lake Timsah, Deversoir and Port Taufiq. Most of the present specimens had expanded T- or anchorshaped tips of the verticil spines and pointed chitinised tips of the funnel radii (Fig. 4).</p> <p>Bastida-Zavala &amp; ten Hove (2003b: 84) described tubes of Hydroides diramphus from California and Hawaii as variable in form “having transversal ridges also with longitudinal ridges”… and sometimes with peristomes. Variability in form is also confirmed for the present material; tubes with three ridges appeared to be rarer than those with two, although the median ridge may be very difficult to see. Fig. 5A–C illustrates some variation in tube ornamentation in Hydroides diramphus. The tube in Fig. 5A is less rugose than the one in Fig. 5B that appears to be covered with a granular layer that could obscure surface sculpturing (i.e., could obscure a low median longitudinal ridge). Several tubes from the Mediterranean coast of Israel had three ridges so low that they could barely be seen with the water surface breaking at the level of the tube surface (these ridges were even lower than the median ridge figured in Fig. 5A).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F56E004FF50FE61FC24FD1E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F54E001FF50FCBBFD50F837.text	396387E75F54E001FF50FCBBFD50F837.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hydroides elegans (Haswell 1883)	<div><p>Hydroides elegans (Haswell, 1883)</p> <p>Figs 5D, E, 6, 7</p> <p>Eupomatus elegans Haswell, 1883: 633, pl. 12 fig. 1 [Type locality: Australia, Port Jackson].</p> <p>Hydroides elegans: Zibrowius 1971: 721–727, figs 56–64 [synonymy of various older material determined as H. norvegica; distribution: Florida; Senegal; Ghana; Angola; South Africa; France; Italy; Tunisia; Alexandria; Suez Canal, Isma’iliya; Suez; Mozambique; Indonesia, Java; western Australia; New South Wales; Queensland; Hawaii; California]; ten Hove 1974: 46–47, figs 1–3 [Netherlands, U.K., France, Ghana, Tunisia, Malta, Italy, Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Argentina, the Netherlands Antilles]; Zibrowius 1979b: 133–134 [France, Toulon Port, biofouling removed from the aircraft carrier “Foch” that had travelled in the Indo-West-Pacific, going and returning via the Suez Canal]; Bianchi 1981: 56–58, figs 18a–f [Italy]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege 1996: 29–30, 33, 38, fig. 10b [Turkey, Cyprus, Israel, Egypt]; Zenetos et al. 2005: 73 [classified as an “established cryptogenic alien invasive species” in the Mediterranean].</p> <p>Eastern Mediterranean</p> <p>Hydroides norvegica not Gunnerus, sensu Potts 1928: 700 [Egypt, Port Said from Buoy no. 723, collected in 1924, first record from the Levant Basin]; Fauvel 1937: 44 (synonymised in Zibrowius 1971: 722) [Egypt, Alexandria, 4–10 m, on Caulerpa]; Tebble 1959: 29 [Israel, off Atlit, Stn 507, 16 m, legit A. Yashouv (= A. Wirszubski), Teb507, BM(NH) 1955.10.12.74, 8 specs (7 of them juveniles with primary opercula, material examined by us);? Banoub 1961: 8, fig. 4 Alexandria, material not examined by us, but in view of remark of Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005 below most probably H. elegans]; Laubier 1966: 9, synonymised in Zibrowius 1971: 722 [Lebanon]; Ben-Eliahu 1970: fig. 2a [Israel]; Ghobashy 1977: 214–218, tables 1–3, figs 3–5 [Alexandria (Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 90 implicitly synonymised this with H. elegans by naming H. elegans as the principle fouling organism in the harbour since 1976)]; Ghobashy &amp; Selim 1976a: 287–295, figs 1–5 [Alexandria, eastern harbour (see note above)]; Ghobashy &amp; Selim 1976b: 303–313 [Alexandria, harbour, (see note just above)]; Goren 1980: 278 [Israel, Ashdod Port, panels, 0.2 m (synonymised in Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege 1996: 7)].</p> <p>Hydroides elegans: Ben-Eliahu 1976: 107 [Israel, intertidal cryptofauna]; Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 1981: 159–160 [Lebanon, Beirut, Zaitouné, 5 m, 23.IX.1978, on bivalve]; Ghobashy 1984: 41 [Egypt, Alexandria, harbour]; Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 518 [Cyprus, Israel]; El-Komi 1991a: 6, 7, tables 1–4, fig. 2 [Alexandria]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992: 40 [Israel, entire coast from north to south, 0–24 m]; El-Komi 1992a: 123, 130, 133, tables 2, 4, 5, fig. 3, pls. 1, 2 [Alexandria harbour]; El-Komi &amp; El-Sherif 1992: 259–260, 263, tables 3, 4, fig. 4 [Alexandria, Eastern Harbour]; Ben- Eliahu &amp; Fiege 1996: 29–30, 33, 38 [Cyprus, Levant coast of Turkey, Israel, Egypt]; Ergen &amp; Çinar 1997: 237 [Turkey, Antalya Bay]; Selim 1997b: 91–92, figs 4a–f [Alexandria, Eastern Harbour (citing Selim 1978, see App. Table 4)]; El-Komi 1998: 259, 262, 263 [buoys in Alexandria harbour]; Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 2003: 71 [Lebanon, Beirut]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 90 [Alexandria, Eastern Harbour: Review, refers to Ghobashy &amp; Selim 1976 a, b, Ghobashy 1977, Mona 1978, Selim 1978, 1996, El-Komi 1991, 1992a, b and 1998; the western harbour review quotes Ramadan (1986, see App. Table 4) on settlement]; Çinar 2006: 226, fig. 3 d, e [Levant coast of Turkey, Iskenderun Harbour, Yumurtalık Harbour, Mersin Bay, 0.1– 5 m, on rope and tyre, IX.2005]; Ramadan et al. 2006: 26, table 1 [Alexandria, Eastern Harbour; also reviewing Banoub 1961, Megally 1970, Ghobashy 1977, El-Komi 1991a, b, 1992a, 1998]; Abd-Elnaby 2009: 10 [Alexandria]; Selim 2009: 76 [Egyptian waters].</p> <p>Hydroides sp.: Fishelson &amp; Haran 1987: 122 [Israel, Mikhmoret; specimens examined in 1999 by Ben-Eliahu all proved to be Hydroides elegans].</p> <p>Serpula concharum not Langerhans, sensu Fishelson &amp; Haran 1987: 122 [Israel, Mikhmoret; redet. Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove in 1999 as Hydroides elegans specimens with primary opercular stages (see “Remarks”, below)].</p> <p>? Serpula vermicularis not Linnaeus, sensu El-Komi 1991a: 7, table 2 [Egypt, Alexandria, fouling study, presumably specimens with primary opercula]; El-Komi 1991b: 290–291, table 1, [Egypt, Alexandria (see preceding remarks)].</p> <p>Hydriodes [sic] elegans: El-Komi 1991b: 290–291, tables 1, 3 [Egypt, Alexandria].</p> <p>? Hydroides sp.: El-Komi 1997: 109 [Egypt, Lake Manzalah, with Ficopomatus enigmaticus].</p> <p>Surpula [sic] sp.: El-Komi 1998: 262–263 [Egypt, Alexandria, buoys in harbour; presumably specimens with primary opercula (see “Remarks”, below)].</p> <p>Suez Canal</p> <p>Hydroides elegans: Zibrowius 1971: 721–727, figs 56–64 [synonymy of H. norvegica from “Pola” Expedition 1895, Isma’iliya, first record from the Suez Canal (see “Material examined”, below, and Fig. 6) and synonymy of various older specimens determined as H. norvegica; Ben-Eliahu 1972a: 77 [El Qantara, Kabrit, Tis’a]; Ghobashy et al. 1980: 84, 86–91, table 2, figs 4, 5 [major fouling component throughout the canal]; Ghobashy &amp; El-Komi 1981a: 170–177 [Lake Timsah, 4.5– 10 m], 1981b: 180–183 [Toussoum, Deversoir, Kabrit, Geneva, el Shalloufa]; Ghobashy 1984: 39, 45–47 [throughout Suez Canal]; Ghobashy et al. 1986: 319–326, fig. 3 [Lake Timsah], 1990: 677– 686 [Lake Timsah]; Selim 1997b: 91–92, figs 4a–f [El-Kab, Lake Timsah, Deversoir, ranked “first serpulid” in canal by abundance of individuals]; Wehe &amp; Fiege 2002: 126 [Suez Canal; list of references)]; Emara &amp; Belal 2004: 192– 204 [pooled Lake Timsah and Bitter Lakes]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 90 [a review of the Suez Canal fouling research showed dominance of H. elegans on fouling panels throughout the canal—all authors quoted by them are referred to above, with exception of Barbary (1992, see App. Table 4)]; Selim 2009: 73 [northern part of the canal to Toussoum]; Abd-Elnaby 2009: 10 [southern part of the canal].</p> <p>Hydroides norvegica not Gunnerus, sensu Potts 1928: 700 [collected in 1924, “the most common serpulid throughout the canal”; redet. Zibrowius 1971, see “Material examined”, below]; Fauvel 1933a: 76 [R.Ph. Dollfus Expedition, 7.I.1928, Isma’iliya, on boat hull (synonymised Zibrowius 1971)].</p> <p>? Serpula vermicularis not Linnaeus, sensu Ghobashy et al. 1980: 84; Ghobashy 1984: 45 [Lake Timsah)]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 93 [found in Suez Canal on fouling plates in few numbers, and referring to Ghobashy et al. 1980]; Emara &amp; Belal 2004: 192–199 [pooled Lake Timsah and Bitter Lakes data]; Selim 2009: 73 [Ras el Esh]; all these records presumably specimens with primary opercular stages of H. elegans (or other Hydroides taxa, see Remarks below).</p> <p>? Serpula concharum not (Langerhans), sensu Selim 2009: 73 [northern part of canal, Ras el Esh]; Abd-Elnaby 2009: 10 [southern part of the canal], presumably specimens with primary opercula (see “Remarks”, below).</p> <p>? Serpula sp.: Ghobashy et al. 1980: 84, 87, table 2; Ghobashy &amp; El-Komi 1981a: 172 [Lake Timsah, 4.5– 10 m], presumably specimens with primary opercula (see “Remarks”, below).</p> <p>Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba Hydroides norwegica [sic] not Gunnerus, sensu Pixell 1913: 74 [Gulf of Suez, Suez, dry dock, bottoms of S.S. “Thira ”</p> <p>and S.S. “Slide ” that had come from Alexandria, BM(NH) 1924.6.13.148 (synonymised by Zibrowius 1971: 722)]. Hydroides norvegica not Gunnerus, sensu Potts 1928: 700 [Port Taufiq, on barges]; Amoureux et al. 1978: 144–145</p> <p>[Gulf of Aqaba, Elat, Venezia lagoon, biofouling on floats].? Serpula concharum not Langerhans, sensu Amoureux et al. 1978: 143 [Gulf of Aqaba, Elat, Venezia lagoon, biofouling on same floats as those referred to just above, presumably specimens with primary opercular stages of H. elegans</p> <p>(abundant in the lagoon [1999, M.N. Ben-Eliahu &amp; H.A. ten Hove, unpubl. data]); also pro parte S. hartmanae (see</p> <p>“Remarks”, below)]; El-Komi, et al. 1998: 16–24 [Suez Bay]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 93 [same].? Serpula vermicularis not Linnaeus, sensu Amoureux et al. 1978: 143 [Gulf of Aqaba, Elat, Venezia lagoon, presumably specimens with primary opercular stages of H. elegans [part], see above, and “Remarks”, below]; El-Komi et al. 1998: 16, 17, 20 [Suez Bay]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 93 [same].</p> <p>Hydroides elegans: Ghobashy &amp; El-Komi 1981b: 180–183 [Gulf of Suez, Suez]; Amoureux 1983: 369 [Gulf of Aqaba, sand]; Selim 1997b: 91–92, figs 4a–f [Gulf of Suez, collected in 1988, Port Taufiq]; El-Komi et al. 1998: 11–20 [Suez Bay, collected 1992–1993 on polystyrene fouling panels and buoys]; Abd-Elnaby 2009: 10 [Gulf of Suez].</p> <p>Hydroides sp.: El-Komi 1996: 7 [Suez Bay, presumably H. elegans].</p> <p>Red Sea proper-Indo-West-Pacific (excluding citations from Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba already given above)</p> <p>Hydroides norvegica not Gunnerus, sensu Dew 1959: 24–25, figs a–i [various locations in western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, New Zealand, New Britain].</p> <p>Hydroides elegans: Mohammad 1976: 133 [Persian (Arabian) Gulf, Kuwait]; Vine &amp; Bailey-Brock 1984: 139–140, fig. 2a [Red Sea, Sudan, Port Sudan, settlement panels at 20 m, coral slabs 30–35 m, undersides of ships (part; probably only ship-fouling material, deep material probably different species)]; Bailey-Brock 1985: 209–210, figs 11a–d [“common fouling species with a cosmopolitan distribution in warm waters of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans (see Zibrowius 1971)]; Ishaq &amp; Mustaquim 1996: 170, figs 5a–h [Pakistan, intertidal rocks, boat hull]; Wehe &amp; Fiege 2002: 126 [Red Sea, Persian (Arabian) Gulf; list of references]; Abd-Elnaby 2009: 10 [Red Sea].</p> <p>Hydriodes [sic] sp.: El-Komi 1992b: 638 [fouling plates, Egypt, Red Sea, Ghardaqa].</p> <p>? Serpula concharum not Langerhans, sensu El-Komi 1992b: 638 [fouling plates, Red Sea, Ghardaqa, Egypt]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 93 [citing El-Komi 1992b: 638)]; Abd-Elnaby 2009: 10 [Red Sea]. All presumably specimens with primary opercular stages of H. elegans (see Remarks below).</p> <p>Material examined. Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Mediterranean side: Turkey: 4 samples, intertidal— Cyprus: 14 samples, &lt;0.5 –[0–8]–[10–18]– 26 m — Israel: 106 samples, [intertidal–0.3]– [2–3]– 37 m; one of these is the first sample from Israel, Haifa Port, 27.V.1934, leg. G. Haas, det. M.N. Ben-Eliahu, HUJ- Poly-722 — Egypt, Sinai, 11 samples, shallow–[10–15] – 46 m.</p> <p>Suez Canal proper: 13 samples, no. specs not enumerated for each sample, including dry tubes: “Pola” Expedition 1895–1898, Isma’iliya, 17.X.1895 (fide Sturany 1899), on two Potamides conicus gastropods, det. E. von Marenzeller H. norvegicus (fide Stagl et al. 1996), redet. H. Zibrowius 1971 (NHMW, Evert. Varia 2034, alte invert. no. 17199), 2 specs (Fig. 6).—Cambridge Expedition: Ras-el-Esh, Km 14, 20.XII.1924 (Fox 1926: 50); Ferry Post, Isma’iliya, 27–28.II.1924: 3 specs, 1 with long central spine (as in Fig. 6B) and juveniles with only primary operculum (collar chaetae checked); km 72, north of Isma’iliya, 4.XII.1924, Little Bitter Lake, K2, (Kabrit), 17.X.1924, with long central spine; K9, (Kabrit), 25.X.1924, on “Bollard” and on houseboats, various dates, 1 spec. with 2 opercula, with central spine well-developed; and 1 sample, Gulf of Suez, Port Taufiq, “Barge 678,” 10.X.1924, mass of empty Hydroides tubes, det. F.A. Potts (1928: 700) H. norvegicus, redet. H. Zibrowius (1971: 722) H. elegans, confirmed M.N. Ben-Eliahu 1986; several specs; samples catalogued together as CUZM-AN.1.1930.</p> <p>Suez Canal material reported herein: 60 +?1 samples, 565 +?1 specs (of which 145 were juveniles) plus some additional non-enumerated Lake Timsah juveniles, as well as three of Beets dry samples with 14 determinable taphonomic specs (Appendix Table 2): 4 “new” Cambridge Expedition samples (samples separated from BM (NH) molluscs [see App. Table 2A]), 3 specs: Lake Timsah-Km 78, Isma’iliya: 1 spec.; T9: 1spec.; Toussoum-Km 87: 1 spec. — Beets’ Great Bitter Lake samples, VIII / IX 1950, taphonomic material found in 3 samples, Stns 1, 4 and 21, RMNH 18528–18535, 18538, 18546–18549, 14 specs, plus 24 samples with empty tubes (not enumerated) tentatively attributed to Hydroides elegans (see App. Table 2B, Fig. 7).— Hebrew University-Smithsonian Expeditions, 1967–1973, 27 samples, 493 specs including 131 juveniles (see App. Table 2C): Port Fouad-Km 12: SLC 45, 1 spec.; el Qantara-Km 45: SLC 6, 197 specs (1 juvenile); SLC 20, 5 specs; SLC 31, 9 specs (3 of them juveniles); SLC 32, 1 spec.; SLC 38, 1 spec.; Lake Timsah, Km 78, opposite Isma’iliya: SLC 4, 2 specs (juveniles); SBE 5, 2 specs; SBE 7, 1 spec.; SBE 8, 39 specs; Great Bitter Lake, east of Deversoir-Km 97: SLC 50, 18 specs (3 of them juveniles); SLC 52, 1 spec. (juvenile); SLC 55, 2 specs (juveniles); SLC 60, 6 specs; SLC 61, 6 specs (5 juvenile); SLC 64, 4 specs; SLC 67, 1 spec. (juvenile); SLC 71, 4 specs; SLC 74, 2 specs (1 of them juvenile); SLC 76, 1 spec.; Km 98: SLC 3; 6 specs; SLC 117, 175 specs (109 juveniles, spot-checked); SLC 123, 2 specs (juveniles); Little Bitter Lake opp. Kabrit-Km 120: SLC 77, 1 spec.; SLC 85, 4 specs (1 juvenile); eastern shore rocky promontory: SBE 1, 1 spec.; Tis’a-Km 149: SLC 2, 1 spec. — Great Bitter Lake “Yellow Fleet” Biofouling Samples, January 13–20, 1975: 24 +?1 subsamples, 33 +?1 specs (13 of them juveniles, see App. Table 2D).— Lake Timsah, legit S.H. Shalla ca. 1984, det. H.A. ten Hove, ZMA V.Pol. 4997 (juveniles), 5000, 5001, 5002, altogether 17 specs, and juveniles (not enumerated).— El Tawan Beach, legit S.B. Shazly 10 / 19.XI.1988, det. H.A. ten Hove, ZMA V.Pol. 3817, 4 specs (App. Table 2E).</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Red Sea side: Gulf of Suez, Suez, in crevice of stone on shore, legit C. Crossland 1904–1905, det. H. Zibrowius, confirmed H.A. ten Hove, BM (NH) ZB 1972: 22, 1 spec. — Cambridge Expedition 6.X–29.XII.1924, 1 “new” BM (NH) sample from barge: Presumed Port Taufiq, 1 spec. (see App. Table 2A). — Gulf of Aqaba: Israel, Elat, 13 samples, 0.5– [6–8]–[40–46]– [81–90] m, HUJ.</p> <p>Suez Canal Depth and Substrates: 0.2– 10 m; on algae: Cystoseira myrica, Digenea, Laurencia, Sargassum; on sponge; on the gastropod, Murex forskoehli; on bivalves: Brachidontes pharaonis, Chama gryphoides, Chicoreus erythraeus, Crenatula picta, Fulvia fragilis, Fusinus verrucosus, Malvufundus normalis, M. regulus, Pinctada radiata, Spondylus spinosus, Pectinidae (not designated); on bryozoans; barnacles; crabs; tunicates; under rocks; on canal walls; on artificial substrates, e.g., on tin can submerged in mud, rubber fenders and iron frames.</p> <p>Colouration. Lake Timsah field notes describe radioles with 5 red-orange stripes.</p> <p>Distribution. Worldwide in (sub)tropical to temperate regions; port fouling species. Mediterranean: Israel, Egypt.</p> <p>Remarks. Hydroides elegans ’ area of origin is believed to be Australia, its type locality (Zibrowius 1994). It was present in an 1888 harbour-fouling sample from Naples (RMNH 932; ZMA V.Pol. 3205). Its first published Mediterranean record, also from Naples, was by LoBianco (1892: 85) under the synonymous name H. pectinatus (Philippi, 1844). The first Levant Basin reference for Hydroides elegans (as H. norvegica), from 1924, was the specimen collected by the Cambridge Expedition from a buoy in Port Said (Potts 1928). All publications from the Suez Canal report it as the dominant fouling serpulid (see synonymy section, above). Hydroides elegans occurs worldwide in subtropical to temperate regions (northern and southern hemisphere), as opposed to the superficially similar congener, H. norvegicus Gunnerus, 1768 that has a mainly boreal and deeper Mediterranean distribution (see Zibrowius 1971: 717–721, 1973a: 683; ten Hove 1974: 46).</p> <p>As apparent from the above list of regional synonyms, in recent years, the citations in the fouling literature of this area show increasing awareness that the principle fouling species is Hydroides elegans rather than H. norvegicus and many of the erroneous citations of H. “ norvegicus ” have been corrected retroactively. However, the references to Serpula sp. from these same fouling samples / same habitat (or of “ S. concharum ”, or “ S. vermicularis, mainly boreal species) suggest that individuals with primary (immature) opercula have been and are probably still being confused for species of the genus Serpula rather than being recognized as immature ontogenetic stages of Hydroides, presumably of H. elegans (see Moran 1984; ten Hove &amp; Ben-Eliahu 2005 for a review of the relevant ontogenetic history). Fortunately, H. elegans has rather distinctive collar chaetae (Figs 6C, 7C), and by spot-checking the collar chaetae, e.g., in sample SLC 117 and in the biofouling samples, it was possible to confirm that most of the juveniles in the present samples belonged to this species (H. elegans specimens listed as juvenile in App. Table 2A, C–E lack the upper verticil, but the characteristic collar chaetae showed them to belong to this species). The tube of H. elegans is characteristically smooth, without peristomes; flanges or prominent transversal ridges, usually with a narrow flattened area on the dorsal (upper) surface bordered by low smooth, not pronounced longitudinal ridges with a rounded transition to the sides of the tube (see Figs 5E, 6D, E; 7J–K). However, individuals with two prominent longitudinal ridges may also found (e.g., Fig. 5D), with the part of the tube between them appearing to be sunken. This generally confirms the finding of Bastida-Zavala &amp; ten Hove (2003b: 86). In minute tubes, a barely perceptible median “line” can be distinguished. Many tubes are sufficiently characteristic as to enable confident attribution to this species (e.g., Figs 7J, K; see App. Table 2).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F54E001FF50FCBBFD50F837	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F5FE00BFF50FF1BFB64FD0A.text	396387E75F5FE00BFF50FF1BFB64FD0A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hydroides heterocerus (Grube 1868)	<div><p>Hydroides heterocerus (Grube, 1868)</p> <p>Figs 5F, G, 8–10, presumably also Fig. 11</p> <p>Serpula (Eupomatus) heterocerus Grube, 1868: 639, pl. 7, figs 8a–c [Type locality: Red Sea].</p> <p>Hydroides heterocera [sic]: Zibrowius 1971: 715, figs 38–39, synonymy and redescription [Beirut; Gulf of Suez; southern Red Sea; Gulf of Aden, Djibouti; Mozambique; Persian (Arabian) Gulf]; Zibrowius 1979b: 133–134 [France, Toulon Port, biofouling removed from the aircraft carrier “Foch”].</p> <p>Hydroides heterocerus: Zenetos et al. 2005: 73 [classified as an “established alien invasive species” in the Mediterranean].</p> <p>Eastern Mediterranean</p> <p>Hydroides heterocerus: Laubier 1966: 17 [Lebanon, first Mediterranean record of this Lessepsian migrant; 25–30 m, 1.IX.1965]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992: 35–53 [Israel, entire coast from north to south, 1–24 m]; Ilan et al. 1994: 45, 51–52 [Israel, 830 m]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege 1996: 33–34, 38 [Israel]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Payiatas 1999: 101, 117 [Cyprus, Famagusta Harbour (empty tube), legit, det. H. Zibrowius 1998, first sample from Cyprus; Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 2003: 71 [Lebanon]; Çinar 2006: 227, fig. 4a–c [Levant coast of Turkey, Iskenderun Bay, 1–3 m, 11 m, on rocks, X.2005].</p> <p>Hydroides heterocera: Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 1981: 159–160 [Lebanon, Beirut, Zaitouné, 5 m, on bivalve, 23.IX.1978]; Ben- Eliahu 1991b: 518, 520–522 [Lebanon, Israel].</p> <p>Suez Canal</p> <p>Hydroides heteroceros [sic]: Potts 1928: 700 [from El Qantara, Km 46 and Km 152, collected in 1924 (see “Material examined”, below]; Ben-Eliahu 1972c: 232, Table 2 [citing Potts 1928, Laubier 1966].</p> <p>Hydroides heterocerus: Ben-Eliahu 1972a: 77 [citing Potts 1928]; Wehe &amp; Fiege 2002: 126 [Suez Canal; list of references].</p> <p>Hydroides heterocera: Selim 1997b: 92–93, fig. 5a–f [from Deversoir; Lake Timsah, collected in 1988, citing Mostafa 1992, see App. Table 4].</p> <p>Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba</p> <p>Hydroides heteroceros [sic]: Pixell 1913: 75, pl. 8 figs 2a–c [Gulf of Suez, wall of Suez quay, collected in 1905; Red Sea, Sudan; Suakin Harbour (see “Material examined”, below); Zanzibar]; Fauvel 1933a: 77 [Gulf of Suez, St. 17 bis, 33º23'E, 28º14' N; and ter, 33º23'– 33º24'E, 28º12– 28º14' N]; Fishelson 1971: 126, table 4 [Gulf of Aqaba, infratidal rocks]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 94, Suez Bay, buoys, misquote of El-Komi et al. 1998.</p> <p>Hydroides heterocera: El-Komi et al. 1998: 16 [Suez Bay, 1992–1993, buoys].</p> <p>Red Sea proper-Indo-West-Pacific (excluding citations from Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba already given above)</p> <p>Serpula (Eupomatus) heterocerus Grube 1868: 639, pl. 7 figs 8 a–c [Type locality: Red Sea].</p> <p>Serpula (Hydroides) uncinata not (Philippi), sensu Gravier 1906b: 110 [South Red Sea]; Gravier 1908: 114–115, figs 463–466, pl. 8, figs 286–287, both citations synonymised by Zibrowius 1971: 715 [South Red Sea].</p> <p>Hydroides heteroceros [sic]: Wesenberg-Lund 1949: 357–358, fig. 46b [Persian (Arabian) Gulf]; Day 1967: 807–808, figs 38.4.l [Red Sea, Indian Ocean, Madagascar]; Fishelson 1971: 126, table 4 [Red Sea]; Mohammad 1971: 301 [Persian (Arabian) Gulf: Kuwait]; Hartman 1974: 200 [Arabian Sea].</p> <p>Hydroides heterocerus: Fishelson &amp; Rullier 1969: 101–102 [S. Red Sea, Musseri Isl. (see “Material examined”, below]; Ishaq &amp; Mustaquim 1996: 168, figs 4a–i [Arabian Sea, Pakistan]; Wehe &amp; Fiege 2002: 126–127 [Red Sea, Persian (Arabian) Gulf, Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea; list of references].</p> <p>Hydroides heterocera: Vine &amp; Bailey-Brock 1984: 141.</p> <p>Material examined (Figs 8–10, presumably also Fig. 11): Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Mediterranean side: Israel: 20 samples, [1]– [8–10]–[18–22] – 33 m (830 m outlier record); INCNH unpublished data, first Israeli sample, Haifa Port, legit G. Haas, 22.III.1937, det. M.N. Ben-Eliahu, HUJ-Poly-878 (previously AN-II-05).</p> <p>Suez Canal proper: Cambridge Expedition, El Qantara, det. F.A. Potts, CUZM-AN. I.1930, 1 spec., verticil with taller dorsal spine + 6 spines with lateral spinules, processes with lateral spinules positioned rather high (subdistally); 32 radii in funnel, 21 radioles, ca. 22 mm.</p> <p>Suez Canal material reported herein: 35 samples with 106+?4 specs of which 4 belong to juvenile forms 1 and 2: One “new” Cambridge Expedition sample separated from a mollusc deposited at BM (NH); this single juvenile specimen preliminary named “form no. 1” (Fig. 9) proved to be a Hydroides heterocerus juvenile (precise location in the canal not known [see App. Table 2A]).—Hebrew University-Smithsonian Expeditions, 1967–1973: 4 samples, 4 specs of which two were the juvenile forms named nos. 1 and 2. Great Bitter Lake, east of Deversoir-Km 97: SLC 72, 1 spec.; SLC 74, 1 spec., juvenile form no. 1. Great Bitter Lake: SLC 117, 1 spec., juvenile form no. 2 (Fig. 10). SLC 123, 1 spec. — Great Bitter Lake “Yellow Fleet” Biofouling Samples, January 13–20, 1975: 25 +? 1 subsamples, 90 (1 juvenile) +?4 specs.— Bremerhaven dry dock, 18.VI.1975, 3 subsamples, 11 specs, all decaying; one notably large tube, ca. 4 mm outer diameter; worm without operculum 4.7 cm (branchia 6 mm) / 3 mm width.— Lake Timsah, El Tawan Beach, legit S.B. Shazly 10 / 19.XI.1988, ZMA V.Pol. 3819, 1 spec.</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Red Sea side: Gulf of Suez, J.K. Lord Expedition of 1870, det. H.A. ten Hove 1969 (separated from a mixed sample BM (NH) 1870:12:23:31 by HAtH 1969, see Material Examined S. tetraceros), BM (NH) 1870:12:23:61, specimen bioperculate, body rotted with epidermis abraded.—Gulf of Suez, Suez Quay, 3.7–18.3 m, legit J.S. Gardiner 1905 (the Percy Sladen Trust Expedition), det. H.L.M. Pixell (1913, Pl. 8, figs 2a–c), confirmed M.N. Ben-Eliahu, several specs.—?Gulf of Suez, Suez, Stn R5, Cambridge Expedition, 1924, CUZM AN. I.1930, empty coiled tube, present in test-tube with Serpula vermicularis not Linnaeus, sensu Potts (1928: 700), presumably tube of Hydroides heterocerus (Fig. 11).</p> <p>Gulf of Aqaba: No records.</p> <p>Red Sea: Sudan, Suakin Harbour, legit C. Crossland 1904–1905, det. H.L.M. Pixell, H. Zibrowius, BM (NH) 1972.23, tube lacking, permanent mount dated 20.VII.1904.— Eritrea, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=40.716667&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=15.616667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 40.716667/lat 15.616667)">Dahlak Archipelago</a>, Musseri Island, 15°37’N, 40°43’ E, 27.5 m, Israel South Red Sea Expedition 1965, Stn 10, legit Ch. Lewinsohn 23.X.1965, det. F. Rullier, TAU-NS-1873, 1 spec.</p> <p>Gulf of Aden: Somalia, Ras Katib, outside harbour on a block of dead coral, legit, det. T.G. Pillai 29.III.1982, ZMA V.Pol. 3851, 2 specs.</p> <p>Suez Canal depth and substrates: Shallow, 1–2.5 m, 10 m; on sponges; on bivalves, Brachidontes pharaonis and Spondylus spinosus; on barnacles, bryozoans, tunicates; on sandstone; on artificial substrates: Rubber fenders and iron frames.</p> <p>Distribution. Indo-West Pacific: Red Sea, Zanzibar, Madagascar, Persian (Arabian) Gulf, Sri Lanka,? New Caledonia. Lessepsian migrant to the Mediterranean: Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, Turkey.</p> <p>Remarks. Potts (1928: 700–701) noted: “In one specimen, lateral processes of spines were 1/3 length from the apical process, in the other, just under the apical process. Other authors have shown that there is a great deal of variation in their position.” A non-quantitative survey of the present material showed that most of the lateral spinules were positioned close to the apical process (e.g., Fig. 8A) and there appeared to be some variability in height of the spines in different individuals (a more thorough analysis of these characters is intended). Much more pronounced is the variability in the form of the marginal radii of the opercular funnel, ranging from “bowling-pin-shaped” radii with blunt or even stubby tips (Wesenberg-Lund 1949 and Ishaq &amp; Mustaquim 1996, respectively; Fig. 8E) to those with more developed side spinules as in Fig. 8D, “T” or “anchor-shape” tips (Pixell 1913, Zibrowius 1971; Fig. 8F), with intermediate forms between them. Specimens from the Sudanese Red Sea (Fig. 8F) had much more developed side spinules than those in the Suez Canal population where the most developed of the side spinules were like those of Fig. 8D; and less like Fig. 8E. The number of verticil spines with lateral spinules in the both the Suez Canal population and the Lessepsian migrant population ranged from 5–7, 5.59 ± 0.53 spines, N = 59, Suez Canal and 5.78 ± 0.64, N = 27, the Lessepsian migrant population, respectively, the differences between them were not significant (T-test, p = 0.198). Çinar (2006 fig. 4a, b) shows the tips of the marginal radii of the Lessepsian migrant from the Levant coast of Turkey to be like those of the Suez Canal population (Fig. 8E).</p> <p>Specimens removed from the “Münsterland” in the Great Bitter Lake in January 1975 were large: The largest, 63 mm; verticil with 1+6 spines; funnel with anchor-tip to rounded marginal radii. However, the material sampled from the “Münsterland” in the Bremerhaven dry dock (in June 1975, 6 months later) gave the impression of even larger size (one tube had an outer diameter of 4 mm; the tubes were the largest of any taxon present in the assemblage) and many tubes were coiled. Most of the Hydroides heterocerus tubes from the Suez Canal were rounded (anterior end not attached to substrate) with marked transversal ridges; only 3 showed three longitudinal ridges, most marked in a small specimen (Fig. 5G), less marked in the two others. We believe that the large coiled tube found in Potts’ (1928) nominal Serpula “ vermicularis ” sample from the Gulf of Suez rather belongs to H. heterocerus (Fig. 11). Lessepsian migrant H. heterocerus specimens had marginal teeth like Figs 8D or E, or forms ranging between them.</p> <p>Juvenile specimens: The operculum of the juvenile form from the Cambridge Expedition (form we named, “no. 1”, App. Table 2A), had sharply pointed radii tips in the funnel (Figs 9B, C), a marked deviation from the species description. A second specimen was obtained when searching through Brattström and Taasen’s biofouling material from the Great Bitter Lake. We attribute form “no. 1” to Hydroides heterocerus, taking note of the variability in form that can prevail during Hydroides ontogeny (see ten Hove &amp; Ben-Eliahu 2005). A single juvenile specimen, “form no. 2”, was similarly found in the biofouling samples. In contrast, the funnel of this specimen had expanded T- or anchor-shaped marginal teeth; some of its verticil spines were characteristic for Hydroides heterocerus, while others appeared to be deviant, malformed (Figs 10A, B). We attribute this specimen to Hydroides heterocerus as well. In studying the Hydroides heterocerus population from the Great Bitter Lake, we encountered additional specimens with malformations such as a lateral spinule on the dorsal verticil spine, or a stub of a verticil spine rather than a fully developed one.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F5FE00BFF50FF1BFB64FD0A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F59E034FF50FF1BFAC7FC80.text	396387E75F59E034FF50FF1BFAC7FC80.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hydroides homoceros Pixell 1913	<div><p>Hydroides homoceros Pixell, 1913</p> <p>Figs 5H, I, 12</p> <p>Hydroides homoceros Pixell, 1913: 74–75, pl. 8 fig. 1 [Type localities: Red Sea, Sudan, Suakin; Indian Ocean, Zanzibar, Maldives (9 syntypes, see “Material examined”, below)]; Zibrowius 1979b: 133–134 [France, Toulon Port, biofouling removed from the aircraft carrier “Foch”; marginal radii of specimens with 2 pairs of lateral processes (H. Zibrowius, pers. comm.)]; Zenetos et al. 2005: 73 [classified as an “established alien invasive species” in the Mediterranean].</p> <p>Eastern Mediterranean</p> <p>Hydroides homocera: Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1989: 393; Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 515–528, fig. 3 [Israel]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992: 35–53 [Israel]. All three records with single-anchor-shaped marginal radii of funnel (see Fig. 12E).</p> <p>Hydroides homoceros: Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege 1996: 33–34, 38 [Israel]; ten Hove &amp; Ben-Eliahu 2005: 127–145, figs 2a, a’, a” [Israel, 18–24 m]; Çinar 2006: 228, figs 4 d–f [Levant coast of Turkey, Iskenderun Bay, 1–3 m, X.2005, population with “spur-tipped-anchor-shaped” marginal radii (Fig. 12B, also depicted by ten Hove 1970a figs 1a–c in specimens from the Persian (Arabian) Gulf), differing from the Israeli population that lacks the spur (Fig. 12E)].</p> <p>Suez Canal</p> <p>Hydroides homocera: Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 526, fig. 5 [Great Bitter Lake, collected on 13.I.1969, marginal radii of funnel single-anchor-shaped (see Figs 12A, D)].</p> <p>Gulf of Suez</p> <p>(1968) Hydroides homocera: Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 526, fig. 5 [Gulf of Suez, El Bilayim lagoon, first record from Gulf of Suez, collected 10.VI.1968, sample SLR1753 (Por et al. 1972); on Pectinidae. Marginal radii of funnel single anchor-shaped]; Selim 1997b: 93–94, figs 6a–e [Gulf of Suez, Port Taufiq, collected in 1988].</p> <p>Red Sea, proper-Indo-West-Pacific (excluding citations from Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba already given above)</p> <p>Hydroides homoceros Pixell, 1913: 74–75, pl. 8 fig. 1 [Red Sea spec. with “double-T” (“double-anchor”) marginal radii; Indian Ocean (see “Material examined”, below)]; Monro 1937: 316 [Indian Ocean: Zanzibar, Arabian coast, Maldives, 2 specs. First “resembling Pixell’s descriptions and figure,” thus, with “double-anchor” marginal radii]; Wesenberg-Lund 1949: 356–357, fig. 46a [Persian (Arabian) Gulf; marginal radii of funnel single-anchor-shaped, see Figs 12A, D, E]; ten Hove 1970a: 55, figs 1a–c [Persian (Arabian) Gulf (see “Material examined”, below); marginal teeth with “more or less blunt” spur surmounting single anchor-shaped form, see Fig. 12B]; Mohammad 1971: 301 [Persian (Arabian) Gulf, Kuwait; the marginal teeth show a range from Figs. 12B to C as in the Pixell syntypes (present paper)]; Mohammad 1976: 133 [Persian (Arabian) Gulf: Kuwait, the marginal teeth show a range from Figs 12B to C (present paper)]; Mohammad 1981: 131 [Persian (Arabian) Gulf, Kuwait; marginal teeth as above)]; Ben- Eliahu 1991b: 526, fig. 5 [south Red Sea: Dahlak Archipelago, marginal radii double-anchor-shapes, as in Fig. 12C; ten Hove 1994: 107–114 [Indian Ocean, Seychelles Islands; opercula with marginal radii in-between form of Figs 12B and C, thus, with 2 pairs of lateral processes “double-anchor”, with the tip not rounded but flat, almost indented), present paper]; Wehe &amp; Fiege 2002: 127 [Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea; list of references].</p> <p>Material examined. Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Mediterranean side: Israel: 14 samples, 22 specs. First Mediterranean record of this Lessepsian migrant, INCNH data unpublished, Haifa Bay, 32 m, on Mimachlamys varia, legit E. Gilat (Gilat91) 21.X.1955, det. M.N. Ben-Eliahu ca. 1969, marginal radii singleanchor-shaped as figured by Wesenberg-Lund (1949, fig. 46a), see Fig. 12E, TAU-NS (no number), 1 spec. — Egypt, Sinai: 2 samples. Depth: 9– [22–32]– 55 m.</p> <p>Suez Canal material reported herein: 8 samples with 38 specs. Beets’ Great Bitter Lake samples, no taphonomic residues found, tubes provisionally identified as those of H. homoceros in at least 4 samples— Hebrew University-Smithsonian Expeditions, 1967–1973, 3 samples, 33 specs: Great Bitter Lake, SLC 117, 31 specs; east of Deversoir, Km 97, SLC 50, 1 spec.; SLC 52, 1 spec., marginal radii of funnel single-anchorshaped, see Figs 12A, D.— Great Bitter Lake “Yellow Fleet” Biofouling Samples, January 13–20, 1975: 4 subsamples, 4 specs. Bremerhaven dry dock, 1 spec.</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Red Sea side: Gulf of Suez, 1 sample.— Gulf of Aqaba: No records.</p> <p>Red Sea: South Red Sea: 2 samples (? m, 36.6 m).</p> <p>Sudan, Suakin Harbour, legit C. Crossland 7.II.1905, BM (NH) 1924.6.13.145, 1 spec., syntype, marginal radii with 2 pairs of recurved lateral processes, i.e., “double-anchor-shaped” (Pixell, 1913, pl. 8 fig. 1a as in Fig. 12C).— Eritrea, Dahlak Archipelago, 15°35’N, 40°44’, 36.6 m, on Malleidae, legit Ch. Lewinsohn, 23.X.1965, Israel South Red Sea Expedition, 19085 Stn 12, det. M.N. Ben-Eliahu ca. 1985, marginal radii of funnel double-anchor-shaped, as in Fig. 12C.</p> <p>Indian Ocean, Tanzania, off Zanzibar, scraped from the bottom of the “Juba,” legit C. Crossland, 1901– 1902, 4 syntypes and slide of collar chaetae and uncini, BM (NH) 1924.6.13.147; although Pixell did not refer to variation in the form of the opercular spines, marginal radii of syntypes range from spur-tipped singleanchor to a more developed spur approaching double-anchor form (Pixell, 1913, pl. 8 fig. 1a), i.e., a range in form between Figs 12B to C (present paper).</p> <p>Arabian Sea: South Arabian Coast, 13.5 m, John Murray stn 53, 2.XI.1933, det. C.C.A. Monro, BM (NH) 1937.9.2.540–1, 2 specs, marginal radii as in Pixell (1913), and as in Figs 12B to C.— Oman, Gulf of Masirah, Masirah Island, Ras Al Ya; low tide, under stones, Stn 91 / 105, legit R.G. Moolenbeek &amp; H. Dekker, 23.XI.1991, ZMA V.Pol. 3838, marginal radii with spur-tipped single-anchor, see Fig. 12B.</p> <p>Gulf of Oman, N. Oman, Khor al Quway, north-south running strait, gentle current, from east side of strait, 18.3–36.6 m, Royal Geographical Society (of Great Britain) Musandam Expedition, 1971–72, legit P.E.S. Cornelius; extracted and det. by H. Zibrowius 1972 from dead coral fragments from sandy bottom and limestone area, on coelenterates, BM (NH) 1972:217, marginal radii double-anchor-shaped, as in Fig. 12C.</p> <p><a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=55.366665&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=26.2" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 55.366665/lat 26.2)">Strait</a> of Hormuz, 5 miles S.E. of the Tunb light, 26°12' N, 55°22'E, 38–60 m, Petersen-grab, 7.IV.1938, gravel and shells, Danish Expedition Stn 118, legit B. Løppenthin, det. E. Wesenberg-Lund (1949: 380–381), redet. H.A. ten Hove II.2000, ZMUC, marginal radii of funnel single-anchor-shaped, see Figs 12A, D, E.</p> <p>Persian (Arabian) Gulf. Sample details unknown, legit Ø. Støckland ca. 2004, det. M.N. Ben-Eliahu XI.2004, marginal radii with single pair of lateral processes topped by a more or less expanded tip (cf., ten Hove 1970a, figs 1a–c), similarly from the Persian (Arabian) Gulf, Fig. 12B.— Bahrain, 4 miles E.N.E. of Bahrain light-ship, Stn 87, m?, legit B. Løppenthin 20.III.1928, ZMA V.Pol. 3002, marginal radii with one pair of recurved lateral pinnules, surmounted by spur (as in ten Hove 1970a, figs 1a–c), more recurved, i.e., more anchor-shaped than those in Fig. 12B.</p> <p>Suez Canal depth and substrates: Shallow– 10 m, on algae: Digenea; sponges; on bivalve, Spondylus spinosus; on tunicate.</p> <p>Distribution. Lessepsian migrant to the Mediterranean: Israel, Turkey; Suez Canal; Red Sea: Gulf of Suez, Dahlak Archipelago; Indian Ocean: Zanzibar, Seychelles, South Arabian coast, Persian (Arabian) Gulf, Maldives. May occur in living corals (Millepora, Porites).</p> <p>Remarks. Tube with 3 prominent longitudinal ridges of equal height; transversal ridges not prominent, giving the tube relatively smooth sides (ten Hove 1970a: 55, figs 1–8; Figs 5H–I). Very slight pink cast in some tubes. Of ca. 20 inhabited tubes, the longitudinal ridges were prominent in nearly all the tubes (although not equally prominent throughout the length of the tube, e.g., one of four fragments of the single tube in Fig. 5H appears covered with a granular layer). Some of the three-ridged tubes on Beets’ shells were provisionally identified as Hydroides homoceros (see App. Table 2B), however, due to the lack of taphonomic residues, presence in the Canal in 1950 is considered as likely but not conclusive. The first complete specimens (inhabited tubes), were collected in the Great Bitter Lake (east of Deversoir-Km 97 [SLC50] in 1969, see App. Table 2C).</p> <p>The operculum of Hydroides homoceros, and specifically the tips of the marginal radii of the funnels, shows an interesting variability in form (Figs 12A–E) and all of the forms are present in the Persian Gulf. The “double-anchor” (Pixell 1913) and “single-anchor” (Wesenberg-Lund 1949) forms can be considered as the most extreme of these forms. The proximal paired lateral spinules may range in form from anchor-shaped to a more pointed “T-shaped” as in Figs 12D–B. A distal pair of lateral spinules may be developed similar to the proximal pair (= “double-anchor”, Fig. 12C), or the distal lateral spinules may be reduced to a more or less rounded spur, “spur-tipped-T-shaped” (Fig. 12B); alternatively, distal lateral spinules may be lacking entirely (Fig. 12D).</p> <p>The “double-anchor-shape” (Fig. 12C) is similar to that figured in Pixell (1913, pl. 8 fig. 1a) and in Mohammad (1981 fig. 2c), but, in re-examining their material, we also found specimens with marginal radii ranging in form between Figs 12B and C. This “double-anchor” form has been reported from the Indian Ocean, Zanzibar, Maldives (Pixell 1913), the Arabian coast, Oman (Monro 1937), from the Persian Gulf, Kuwait (Mohammad 1981, see references above), from the Seychelles (present paper), and the southern Red Sea - Dahlak Archipelago (Ben-Eliahu 1991b, Fig. 12C). Specimens from Oman showed some additional variation (present paper). It follows that in these populations there is more variability in the form of the marginal radii than given in their formal descriptions.</p> <p>The “spur-tipped-anchor-shaped” form is shown in Fig. 12B; ten Hove (1970a, figs 1a–c) illustrated some of the variability in the tip of the spur; the population was from the Persian Gulf. The single-anchor form (Figs 12D, E) reported from the Persian (Arabian) Gulf by Wesenberg-Lund (1949), has been found in the Gulf of Suez (present paper and Selim 1997b: 87, 93–94, figs 6a–e). It also characterizes both the Suez Canal population (Figs 12A, D), and the Lessepsian migrant populations on the Levant coast of Egypt and Israel (ca. 80 individuals) (Figs 12D, E). That only one of several forms present in the Persian (Arabian) Gulf has been found in the Gulf of Suez, colonized the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean coast of Israel, is an illustration of “a founder effect” (Mayr 1966, Ben-Eliahu 1991b). Interestingly, the H. homoceros specimens removed from the aircraft carrier “Foch” in Toulon Port (Zibrowius 1979b) belonged to the “double-anchor” Pixell type (H. Zibrowius, pers. comm.), thus, settlement on the “Foch” presumably occurred in the Indian Ocean or the Red Sea proper (Ben-Eliahu 1991b). A single specimen recently collected from the Levant coast of Turkey (Iskenderun) by Çinar (2006, fig. 4d–e), belongs to the “spur-tipped-T-shaped” form (in Figs 12B, C, closer to B than to C). The distribution of the form (Persian (Arabian) Gulf, ten Hove 1970a, and Turkey, Çinar 2006) provides a convincing illustration of a disjunctive population founded through ship-transport.</p> <p>Hydroides homoceros has a juvenile 2-tier opercular ontogenetic stage belonging to the H. “ priscus ” type, one of several species in which this stage has been found (ten Hove &amp; Ben-Eliahu 2005, fig. 2a).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F59E034FF50FF1BFAC7FC80	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F64E034FF50FC55FC3AFBC3.text	396387E75F64E034FF50FC55FC3AFBC3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hydroides norvegicus Gunnerus 1768	<div><p>Hydroides norvegicus Gunnerus, 1768</p> <p>Type locality. Norway. Not present in the Suez Canal, but see H. elegans.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F64E034FF50FC55FC3AFBC3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F64E033FF50FBF8FAFBF91A.text	396387E75F64E033FF50FBF8FAFBF91A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hydroides steinitzi Ben-Eliahu 1972	<div><p>Hydroides steinitzi Ben-Eliahu, 1972</p> <p>Figs 13–15</p> <p>Hydroides steinitzi Ben-Eliahu, 1972a: 77, figs 1 1–4; figs 2 1–6 [Type locality: Suez Canal, Little Bitter Lake]; Zibrowius 1979b: 133–134 [France, Toulon Port, biofouling removed from the aircraft carrier “Foch”]; Zenetos et al. 2005: 73 [classified as a “casual” alien, i.e., as a non-established alien species in the Mediterranean. Having been recorded only from ship biofouling (Zibrowius 1979b), rather than from an actual Mediterranean habitat, "ship-transported" seems a more appropriate designation than "casual"].</p> <p>Suez Canal</p> <p>Hydroides steinitzi Ben-Eliahu, 1972a: 77 [SLC 85, 14.I.1969, on sandstone rock]; Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 524–525, fig. 4 [Suez Canal].</p> <p>Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba</p> <p>Hydroides steinitzi Ben-Eliahu, 1972a: 77 [Gulf of Suez; collected in 1870; BM(NH) 1870.12.23.62 (H. Zibrowius, pers. comm.), see “Material examined”, below]; ten Hove 1990: 119, figs 16–18 [confirmed]; Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 524– 525, fig. 4 [first sample from the Gulf of Aqaba, 6.X.1969 (see “Material examined”, below)].</p> <p>Red Sea proper-Indo-West-Pacific (excluding citations from Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba already given above)</p> <p>Hydroides steinitzi: ten Hove 1990: 119 [Philippines, see “Material examined”, below]; Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 524–525, fig. 4 [south Red Sea, Dahlak Archipelago [see “Material examined”, below]; Wehe &amp; Fiege 2002: 128 [Red Sea; list of references].</p> <p>Material examined. Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Mediterranean side: None.</p> <p>Suez Canal proper: 1 sample, Hebrew University-Smithsonian Expeditions, 1967–1973, Little Bitter Lake opp. opp. Kabrit-Km 120, SLC 85, 14.I.1969, holotype and 2 paratypes.</p> <p>Suez Canal material reported herein: 17 samples, 28 specimens. Beets’ Great Bitter Lake samples, VIII / IX 1950, Stn 15, 10.4 m, from inside an empty Chama asperella shell, single tube with taphonomic residue of verticil, RMNH 18545 (Fig. 14).— Hebrew University-Smithsonian Expeditions, 1967–1973, 2 samples, 4 specs: Lake Timsah opp. Isma’iliya, Km 78: SBE 8, 3 specs; Great Bitter Lake: SLC 117, 1 spec. — Great Bitter Lake “Yellow Fleet” Biofouling Samples (January 13–20, 1975): 14 subsamples, 23 specs. Material deposited in HUJ; BM (NH) ZB.1985.209, 1 spec.; Universidad del Mar UMAR-Poly 118, 3 specs; ZMA V.Pol. 3513, 1 spec.; SMF, 2 specs.</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Red Sea side: Gulf of Suez, legit J.K. Lord ca. 1870, det. H. Zibrowius 1969, Ben-Eliahu (1972a), H.A. ten Hove (1990: 119, figs 16–18), 1 spec., BM (NH) 1870.12.23.62.</p> <p>Gulf of Aqaba: Egypt, Marsa Abu Samra, 68 m, dredge, on Malleidae TAU-MO-19788, legit Ch. Lewinsohn 6.X.1969, det. M.N. Ben-Eliahu ca. 1985 (Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 525, fig. 4).</p> <p>Red Sea: Sudan, Sanganeb Atoll, 9 m, near Stn TQ 2, SAN 46, coral rubble with Serpula jukesii, legit D. Fiege</p> <p>25.III.1991, det. H.A. ten Hove 1999; 10–15 m, near Stn TQ22b, TQ2, coral rubble with Vermiliopsis infundibulum / glandigera- complex, Protula spec., legit D. Fiege 19.IX.1992, det. H.A. ten Hove 1992.— Eritrea: 6 samples (TAU-NS [no numbers], 4 samples, SMF 2 samples), depth range: 9– [9–12] –36.6 m). Dahlak Archipelago, 14°58’N, 40°19’E, 9–12 m, on Plicatulidae, Israel South Red Sea Expedition, ISRSE / 65, Stn 4, legit Ch. Lewinsohn 17.X.1965, det. M.N. Ben-Eliahu ca. 1985 (Ben-Eliahu 1991: 525, fig. 4), TAU-MO- 1454, TAU-MO-2186; Stn 12, 15°35’N, 40°44’N, 36.6 m, on Malleidae, legit Ch. Lewinsohn 17.X.1965, TAU-MO-1814; with H. homoceros, S. latiscapus, S. tetraceros, det. M.N. Ben-Eliahu ca. 1985 (Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 525, fig. 4).</p> <p>Indo-West-Pacific: Philippines, Banacon Island, Danajon Bank, N.W. Bohol Island, reef and sand, on clams, legit C. Short, II–III.1976; det. H.A. ten Hove 1986 (ten Hove 1990: 119), Australian Museum, 2 specs.</p> <p>Suez Canal depth and substrates: 0.4–10.4 m; on sponges, on molluscs: Brachidontes pharaonis, Chama asperella, Pinctada radiata and Spondylus spinosus; on bryozoans, tunicates, sandstone rock, and on a muddy tin can.</p> <p>Colouration. Lake Timsah field notes describe bodies with red-orange pigmentation.</p> <p>Distribution. Suez Canal: Lake Timsah, Great Bitter Lake, Little Bitter Lake; Red Sea: Gulfs of Suez and Aqaba, South Red Sea—Dahlak Archipelago; Philippines.</p> <p>Remarks. There have not been many records of this species. Hydroides steinitzi was described from 3 specimens collected from the Little Bitter Lake in 1969 (Ben-Eliahu 1972a). Its verticil is unusual in being comprised of a single element with out-pocketing, somewhat resembling a peeled orange when seen in apical view. The verticil of the holotype had 6 out-pockets (bulges), and the funnel 12 pointed radii (Ben-Eliahu 1972a). Note variability in the shape as well as in the number and the degree of chitinisation of the funnel radii (Figs 13A–G).</p> <p>Hydroides steinitzi was first collected from the Gulf of Suez by the J.K. Lord Expedition in 1870 (specimen BM(NH) 1870:12:23:62), presumably from a coral reef habitat (the sample largely consisted of Spirobranchus species that inhabit living coral [ten Hove 1970b: 49–50]). The original sample, BM(NH) 1870:12:23:31, was subdivided into 5 different taxa in 1969, during a visit by one of us (HAtH) to the Natural History Museum, London; two of the taxa were Spirobranchus spp., three taxa, Hydroides spp. In 1971, H. Zibrowius re-identified the provisionally identified specimens of Hydroides, giving them temporary BM(NH) codes. On receiving the Ben-Eliahu manuscript describing Hydroides steinitzi, H. Zibrowius identified one of these Gulf of Suez specimens (BM(NH) 1971: 21), as H. steinitzi, and the newly identified specimen was then assigned a permanent code by the museum, BM(NH) 1870.12.23.62. Unfortunately, Zibrowius’ reply to Ben- Eliahu (letter, 26.XI.1971) reporting the existence of the Gulf of Suez specimen came when the issue with the description was already in production, but a “note added in press” was permitted, mentioning the record (Ben- Eliahu 1972a). The Gulf of Suez specimen measured ca. 11 mm in length, body 65 chaetigers, with ca. 10 radioles per lobe; the operculum had 6 out-pockets in the verticil and 10 radii in the funnel (H. Zibrowius, pers. comm.; ten Hove 1990: figs 16–18). The operculum resembled Figs 13C 1 and C 2 in form.</p> <p>The first record of Hydroides steinitzi from within the Suez Canal, from 1950, is from the Great Bitter Lake, from a tube within a shell collected by Beets that contained a taphonomic residue of a verticil (RMNH 18545 [Fig. 14]).</p> <p>We have no way of knowing the date when the species settled in the canal. Altogether, it has been collected on four separate occasions (see above). Presently, the total number of H. steinitzi specimens from the Suez Canal comes to 30, with most of the specimens obtained from the Great Bitter Lake “Yellow Fleet” biofouling aggregation. These later specimens enabled providing a first description of the tube (the tubes of the type specimens were unwittingly damaged). Hydroides steinitzi was considered to be a potential Lessepsian migrant as it had been found both in the Bitter Lake and in Lake Timsah (Ben-Eliahu 1991b). Subsequent reports from the Suez Canal or from the Mediterranean areas adjacent to it (e.g., Alexandria) have not included it, but this may be due to not sampling in its preferred microhabitats or on preferred substrate taxa (e.g., molluscs, bryozoans, etc.). H. Zibrowius (1979b) reported it among ship-transported biofouling taxa removed from the aircraft carrier “Foch” that arrived in Toulon Port (via the Suez Canal) after voyaging for 7 months in the western Indian Ocean.</p> <p>A first description of the Hydroides steinitzi tube (Figs 14, 15): The tube has three longitudinal ridges close together on the upper surface and transversal ridges, which give it a generally rugose (not delicate) appearance. The median longitudinal ridge may be as prominent as the lateral longitudinal ridges as seen in three of the four tubes figured from above (Figs 15A, B and E) and in some cross-sections (Figs 15D, E); in Figs 14F 1 and F 2, the median ridge is lower, but it can be discerned. Note that in Figs 14A, B, a median longitudinal ridge cannot be perceived; the tube surface appears to be covered by a granular overlay—as in many of the H. steinitzi specimens—obscuring the surface sculpturing (Fig. 15B); it is not clear whether the overlay is made by the worm. In some cross-sections (Figs 15C, D), the tube appears generally rounded, with a flattened upper surface, but in others (e.g., Figs 15E, F) the tube is sub-trapezoidal, expanded basally; the upper surface may appear flattened. The tube may be somewhat coiled or looped (Figs 14A, B, 15B).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F64E033FF50FBF8FAFBF91A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F61E03EFF50FF1BFD22FE4B.text	396387E75F61E03EFF50FF1BFD22FE4B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hydroides	<div><p>Non-identified Hydroides juveniles</p> <p>(1) Non - Hydroides elegans juveniles (i.e., juveniles with primary opercula with collar chaetae that differ from those of H. elegans [ten Hove &amp; Ben-Eliahu 2005]).</p> <p>Material examined. Suez Canal material reported herein: Hebrew University-Smithsonian Expeditions, 1967–1973: Little Bitter Lake: SBE 1, juvenile, tube rather square in cross-section with lateral ridges, 1 spec.; SLC 117, some of the 109 juveniles with collar chaetae spot-checked for presence of characteristic Hydroides elegans chaetae belonged to a different taxon or taxa. — Great Bitter Lake “Yellow Fleet” Biofouling Samples, January 13–20.1975: 6 subsamples, 7 specs.</p> <p>Suez Canal depth and substrates: On bivalves, Brachidontes pharaonis and Spondylus spinosus; on tunicate; under rock.</p> <p>(2) Hydroides cf. “ priscus ” (Pillai, 1971)- type juveniles with a secondary opercular form found in several Hydroides taxa (ten Hove &amp; Ben-Eliahu 2005), see Fig. 16.</p> <p>Hydroides grubei not Pillai, 1965, sensu Zibrowius 1979b: 133–134 [France, Toulon Port, biofouling removed from the aircraft carrier “Foch”].</p> <p>Hydroides “ priscus ”: ten Hove &amp; Ben-Eliahu 2005, figs 4 c, d [Mediterranean Levant coast: Lebanon, Israel: Haifa; Suez Canal; Red Sea, Gulf of Aqaba, Elat; Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka; Indonesia; Australia].</p> <p>Eastern Mediterranean</p> <p>Hydroides grubei not Pillai, sensu Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 1981: 159–160 [Lebanon, Beirut, Zaitouné].</p> <p>Hydroides cf. priscus- type: Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1989: 393 [Israel].</p> <p>Hydroides novaepommeraniae not Augener, 1925, sensu Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 527 [on Mimachlamys varia TAU-MO- 12644 with Serpula concharum, H. elegans, H. diramphus; spring 1956; det. M.N. Ben-Eliahu.</p> <p>Indian Ocean</p> <p>Hydroides “ priscus ”: ten Hove 1994: 108 [Indian Ocean: Seychelles, Sri Lanka].</p> <p>Material examined. Hydroides grubei not Pillai, sensu Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 1981: 159–160 [Lebanon, Beirut, Zaitouné, 5 m, on bivalve, 23.IX.1978].</p> <p>Suez Canal material reported herein: 2 samples, 3 specimens. Cambridge Expedition “new” sample, from BM (NH) mollusc sample, Lake Timsah, Km 78, Isma’iliya, 1 spec. (App. Table 2A; ten Hove &amp; Ben- Eliahu 2005, fig. 4c).— Hebrew University-Smithsonian Expeditions, 1967–1973: Great Bitter Lake: SLC 117 (Fig. 16B), 2 specs (ten Hove &amp; Ben-Eliahu 2005, fig. 4d).</p> <p>Suez Canal depth and substrates: 10 m, on bivalve, Pinctada radiata; on barnacle.</p> <p>Remarks. The “ Hydroides priscus ” ontogenetic stage with a juvenile secondary operculum containing a funnel and verticil was mentioned in Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove (1989: 393), and again as “ Hydroides novaepommeraniae in Ben-Eliahu (1991b: 527) and Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove (1992: 42, syn. H. grubei). It is a juvenile ontogenetic stage, and has been documented in several individuals with different mature opercula on the opposite lobe, e.g., in Hydroides homoceros, H. cf. brachyacanthus (Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 527), as well as in H. minax, H. cf. albiceps and H. trivesiculosus (ten Hove &amp; Ben-Eliahu 2005). The first three are Lessepsian migrants (Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992: 42). Hydroides grubei not Pillai sensu Zibrowius (1979b) could be a juvenile stage of these or other taxa, and thus we excluded it from Zibrowius (1979b) ’s list of species present in biofouling scraped from the aircraft carrier “Foch” (see Discussion Section below). The Great Bitter Lake SLC 117 “ H. priscus ” specimen had sharp pointed teeth in the funnel radii (ten Hove &amp; Ben-Eliahu 2005, fig. 4d) and its bayonet collar chaetae had sharp teeth.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F61E03EFF50FF1BFD22FE4B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F6EE03FFF50FD81FDFBFE00.text	396387E75F6EE03FFF50FD81FDFBFE00.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Josephella marenzelleri Caullery & Mesnil 1896	<div><p>Josephella marenzelleri Caullery &amp; Mesnil, 1896</p> <p>Fig. 3C</p> <p>Josephella marenzelleri Caullery &amp; Mesnil 1896: 482–486, figs 1–6 [Type locality: English Channel, France, Cap de la Hague]; Fauvel 1955a: 3–4 [including J. humilis Bush, 1905; eastern Atlantic, English Channel; France, Cherbourg, Roscoff, Wimereux; Mediterranean, Corsica, Lebanon, Beirut]; Zibrowius 1968: 172–174, pl. 9, figs 14–22 [France: Atlantic; Mediterranean]; Bianchi 1981: 133–135, figs 50a, b [Italy]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1989: 394.</p> <p>Eastern Mediterranean</p> <p>Josephella humilis Bush 1905: 291 [Lebanon: Beirut, first Levant record], synonymised by Fauvel (1927, 1955a).</p> <p>Josephella marenzelleri: Fauvel 1955a: 3–4 [Lebanon, Beirut; for distribution, see above citation]; Ben-Eliahu 1976: 109 [Israel, intertidal cryptofauna]; Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 518 [Cyprus, Israel]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992: 40 [Israel, entire coast from north to south, 1–24 m]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege 1996: 33–38 [western Levant Basin, Turkey, Cyprus, Levant coast]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Payiatas 1999: 108–113, figs 3a–d, 4a–d [Cyprus, Israel, J. marenzelleri, s. str., and the first description of the thick-rimmed form].</p> <p>Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba</p> <p>Josephella marenzelleri: Ben-Eliahu 1976: 113 [Gulf of Aqaba, Sinai Peninsula, intertidal cryptofauna]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Dafni 1979: 207 [Gulf of Aqaba, Israel]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Safriel 1982: 389 [Gulf of Aqaba, Sinai Peninsula: Israel, Egypt, intertidal cryptofauna].</p> <p>Red Sea proper-Indo-West-Pacific (excluding citations from Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba already given above) Josephella marenzelleri: Dew 1959: 52, fig. 21 [Australia, New South Wales]; Wehe &amp; Fiege 2002: 128 [Red Sea; list of references].</p> <p>Material examined. Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Mediterranean side: Crete: 1 sample (intertidal).— Turkey: 3 samples (intertidal). Cyprus: 24 samples (6 samples included the “thick-rim” form described in Ben-Eliahu &amp; Payiatas (1999) along with the typical form; 2 samples comprised only the thickrim form, [0–0.5]–[0–8]–[10–18] – 92 m]).— Lebanon, Beirut, 1 spec., permanent mount, det. K.J. Bush 1905 Josephella humilis, and several tubes on a bivalve, collectively catalogued as YPM 2969 though not specified as a type, synonymised with J. marenzelleri by Fauvel (1927: 380–381, fig. 129 m –t), confirmed M.N. Ben- Eliahu 1998.— Israel: 7 samples (3 samples with both thick-rim and typical forms, 1 with only thick-rim form, [intertidal –[4–6]–[8–10] – 18 m]).</p> <p>Suez Canal material reported herein (Fig. 3C): Beets’ Great Bitter Lake samples, VIII / IX 1950, residues of minute tubes on shells, 2 subsamples, presumed to be Josephella.— Great Bitter Lake “Yellow Fleet” Biofouling Samples, January 13–20 1975, 18 subsamples, ca. 119 specimens.</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Red Sea side: Gulf of Suez: None.—Gulf of Aqaba: Egypt, Israel, typical form, but population from North Beach, Elat included individuals lacking opercula: 6 samples, intertidal– 3–8 m, HUJ.</p> <p>Suez Canal depth and substrates: On sponges; on the bivalves, Brachidontes pharaoni s and Spondylus spinosus; on tube of Spirobranchus tetraceros, on barnacles; in crevices of bryozoans; on tunicates; in crevices of biofouling conglomerate.</p> <p>Distribution. Worldwide in (sub) tropical to temperate regions. Mediterranean: Israel; Gulf of Aqaba: Israel, Egypt.</p> <p>Remarks. A cryptofaunal species frequently found in calcareous concretions, e.g., coralligène, calcareous algae. The new record is most likely due to the stable reef-like substrate provided by the biofouling aggregation on the “Yellow Fleet” ships. Erect tubes were also found on Spondylus spinosus between the spines (Fig. 3C) and on tunicates in folds near the siphons. Some tubes were coiled. The Great Bitter Lake individuals seemed typical. A thick-rimmed opercular form, described in Ben-Eliahu &amp; Payiatas (1999), is present along with the typical form in populations from both Cyprus and Israel. The Red Sea population from the Gulf of Aqaba (Sinai Peninsula) only had typical opercula, suggesting that the Suez Canal population originated from the that population.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F6EE03FFF50FD81FDFBFE00	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F6FE03FFF50FDDEFF26FD20.text	396387E75F6FE03FFF50FDDEFF26FD20.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Placostegus tridentatus (Fabricius 1780)	<div><p>Placostegus tridentatus (Fabricius, 1780)</p> <p>Type locality. Arctic Ocean, Greenland. Presumed not present in the Suez Canal, but see Placostegus sp., below.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F6FE03FFF50FDDEFF26FD20	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F6CE03CFF50FD7EFF13FC16.text	396387E75F6CE03CFF50FD7EFF13FC16.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pomatoceros	<div><p>The genera Pomatoceros, Pomatoleios and Spirobranchus</p> <p>Pillai (2009: 146–148) makes a good case for synonymising these three genera on morphological criteria, uniting about 30 taxa that have been kept apart for almost a century in a single genus. A full discussion of this synonymy is not within the province of the present paper. Given the genetic tools available today, however, this synonymy should be backed by genetic data. For the time being, we prefer to use the traditional taxonomy.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F6CE03CFF50FD7EFF13FC16	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F6CE03CFF50FBB3FE05FAE8.text	396387E75F6CE03CFF50FBB3FE05FAE8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pomatoceros caeruleus (Schmarda 1861)	<div><p>Pomatoceros caeruleus (Schmarda, 1861), variant spelling coeruleus</p> <p>Type localities: Cape of Good Hope and New Zealand. This nominal taxon is a species inquirendam, already evident from the two “ type localities”, the material of which refers to two different taxa, Pomatoleios kraussii and Spirobranchus carinifer. For records under the name Pomatoceros caeruleus from the Suez Canal, see Spirobranchus tetraceros.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F6CE03CFF50FBB3FE05FAE8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F6CE03CFF50FAFDFCD1F990.text	396387E75F6CE03CFF50FAFDFCD1F990.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pomatoceros triqueter (Linnaeus 1758)	<div><p>Pomatoceros triqueter (Linnaeus, 1758)</p> <p>Type locality. Not precisely known, but North Atlantic. Not present in the Suez Canal, but see Spirobranchus tetraceros, below. On ecological grounds, it is inconceivable that Pomatoceros triqueter has replaced Spirobranchus tetraceros in the intertidal and splash zone around Alexandria, Egypt as recently reported by El-Rashidy et al. (2009), a finding that contradicts Abd-Elnaby (2005) [quoted by Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy (2005: 90–93); see Spirobranchus tetraceros, below]).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F6CE03CFF50FAFDFCD1F990	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F6CE03AFF50F945FBBDFF2A.text	396387E75F6CE03AFF50F945FBBDFF2A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pomatoleios kraussii (Baird 1865)	<div><p>Pomatoleios kraussii (Baird, 1865)</p> <p>Placostegus cariniferus var. Kraussii Baird, 1865: 14 [Type locality: South Africa, Cape of Good Hope].</p> <p>Pomatoleios kraussii: Zibrowius 1979: 133–134 [France, Toulon Port, biofouling removed from the aircraft carrier “Foch”]; Zenetos et al. 2005: 73, 93 [classified as an “established and invasive alien species” in the Mediterranean].</p> <p>Eastern Mediterranean</p> <p>Pomatoleios kraussii: Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992: 35–44 [Israel, 0–1 m; Lessepsian migrant, first Levant sample; 27.X.1958, Tel Aviv, on gastropod, Stramonita haemastoma]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege 1996: 33–38 [Israel, Suez Canal]; Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 2003: 71 [Lebanon, noted “crusts”]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 90 [citing Belal (2001) that taxon is encrusted on rocks, concrete and metal surfaces in Eastern Harbour Alexandria]; Çinar 2006: 231, fig. 8a–d [first record from Levant coast of Turkey, Iskenderun Harbour, IX.2005, 0.1– 3 m, on mytilid Brachiodontes pharaonis, very abundant]; Bitar et al. 2007: 437 [Lebanon, 0–10 m, fouling communities].</p> <p>Suez Canal</p> <p>Pomatoleios kraussii: Ghobashy et al. 1986: 322, fig. 5 [Lake Timsah, first report from the Suez Canal]; Ghobashy et al. (1990: 677–686)]; Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 525; Selim 1997b: 88 [for western Lake Timsah, citing Shalla (1985) and Mostafa (1992) (see App. Table 4)]; Shalla &amp; Holt 1999: 133–137 [western Lake Timsah, western Great Bitter Lake, forming aggregations]; Wehe &amp; Fiege 2002: 129 [Suez Canal; list of references]; Emara &amp; Belal 2004: 192–199 [pooled Lake Timsah and Bitter Lakes data]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 93 [Lake Timsah; referring to Ghobashy et al. (1986) and noting its absence in the late 1970s, Barbary (1992, see App. Table 4) and Shalla &amp; Holt (1999)]; Abd-Elnaby 2009: 10, 17 [at southern part of Lake Timsah]; Selim 2009: 73 [from literature—no new records].</p> <p>Gulf of Suez</p> <p>Pomatoleios kraussii: Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 93 [first report from Suez Bay, citing Belal (2001: 90, see App. Table 4) of encrustation on rocks, concrete and metal surfaces]; Abd-Elnaby 2009: 10.</p> <p>Red Sea proper-Indo-West-Pacific (excluding citations from Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba already given above)</p> <p>Pomatoleios crosslandi Pixell, 1913: 85, pl. 9 figs 10a–d [lacking collar chaetae; Zanzibar, Ras Shangani, Ghwaka; Pillai 1960: 15–17, text-figs 6a–d [western Sri Lanka, intertidal at Beruwala, Hikaduwa, Mount Lavinia, Chilaw and from the Negombo Lagoon].</p> <p>Spirobranchus maldivensis not Pixell, sensu Wesenberg-Lund 1949: 358 [part] [Gulf of Oman, South Arabian coast, Maldives, Burma (= Myanmar)].</p> <p>Pomatoleios kraussii: Day 1955: 449 [synonymising P. crosslandi; Zanzibar, Ras Shangani, Ghwaka; Natal, Cape]; Day 1967: 801, figs 38.3.a–f [for distribution, see Day, 1955]; Mohammad 1971: 309 [Persian (Arabian) Gulf, Kuwait]; ten Hove 1973: 5–6, fig. 34 [Indian Ocean, Madagascar]; Fiege 1992: 1–23 [Saudi Arabia, Persian (Arabian) Gulf, “even found on heavily oiled rocks / beaches”]; Wehe &amp; Fiege 2002: 129 [Persian (Arabian) Gulf, list of references].</p> <p>Spirobranchus kraussii: Pillai 2009: 168, figs 49e–g [no distribution data].</p> <p>Material examined. Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Mediterranean side: Israel: 11 samples, with one, at the most, two, individuals [0–0.3]– [0.1–1]–[0.5-0.75] –[4–6] m. Substrates along Israeli coast: On gastropod Stramonita haemastoma (TAU-MO-16366), legit J. Krystal 27.X.1958, det. M.N. Ben-Eliahu, 4 specs, first record from Israeli coast; on asbestos plates at Electric Corporation, Haifa; on tide-pool snails; under stones; on Stramonita haemastoma gastropods (TAU-MO –16356; 16370, 16371, 20717), on muricid gastropod; on breakwater, 0.5–0.75 m, and 4–6 m; Tel Aviv, Reading power plant, presumed 0– 2 m.</p> <p>Suez Canal proper: Lake Timsah, legit, det. S.H. Shalla ca. 1984 Pomatoceros triqueter, redet. H.A. ten Hove Pomatoleios kraussii, ZMA V.Pol. 4999, 5 specs.</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Red Sea side: 0 samples.</p> <p>Distribution. Widely distributed in the Indo-West-Pacific, from the Cape Province in S. Africa to Hawaii. Lessepsian migrant to the Mediterranean: Suez Canal, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey.</p> <p>Remarks. The species forms mid-littoral “belts” or “zones” in the Pacific parts of its range [e.g., northern Australia, Straughan (1967a: 224)]. According to Miura &amp; Kajihara (1984), Pomatoleios kraussii prefers sheltered areas. Pillai (1960: 17) reported that the larvae prefer aerated and well-lit water. In the Suez Canal, isolated individuals were reported by S.H. Shalla (1985) and by Ghobashy et al. (1986, 1990) only from the western side of Lake Timsah (most abundant in their “clear-water station”, no. I). By April 1997, Shalla &amp; Holt (1999) reported well-formed intertidal reefs on the western shores of both Lake Timsah and the Great Bitter Lake. As predicted by Shalla &amp; Holt (1999: 135), this same pattern of pioneer settlement of individuals eventually promoting gregarious settlement and developing into reefs has been repeated in the Lessepsian migrant population along the Lebanese coast (Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 2003). The species is common along the Lebanese coast, locally in large aggregations (H. Zibrowius, pers. comm.). Within the past two years, aggregations have similarly developed in Haifa Bay, Israel, near the Kishon Port (G. Rilov, pers. comm.; Rilov et al., in prep.). Various aspects relating to gregarious settlement are discussed in ten Hove &amp; van den Hurk (1993: 35). Characters distinguishing this species (the solitary form) from two other shallow-water serpulids with triangular tubes are discussed in the section on Spirobranchus tetraceros, below.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F6CE03AFF50F945FBBDFF2A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F6AE026FF50FE8BFC5EFBF0.text	396387E75F6AE026FF50FE8BFC5EFBF0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Protula Risso 1826	<div><p>Genus Protula Risso, 1826</p> <p>Table 1</p> <p>For a generic diagnosis, see ten Hove &amp; Kupriyanova (2009: 81–83).</p> <p>Preliminary remarks. In their recent review of the taxonomy of serpulid genera, ten Hove &amp; Kupriyanova (2009: 81) classified Protula as the most problematic serpulid taxon. That is because the phylogenetic basis for this genus is ill-defined and based on negative characters, such as lack of an operculum, lack of special collar chaetae and lack of any characteristic ornamentation of the tubes (mostly). Furthermore, characters for species distinction are scarce and poorly understood (ten Hove 1984: 187; 1994: 109). Not only were the initial descriptions scanty (Table 1), but nearly all were based on only one or, at the most, a few specimens (ten Hove &amp; Pantus 1985: 421), so that variability in taxonomic characters could not be taken into consideration. Many taxa have been described on at least partly-presumed differences in chaetation (ten Hove 1994: 109), such as, the characters, presence and location of Apomatus chaetae, that figure so importantly throughout the Protula literature, e.g., Uchida (1978) and in Table 1.</p> <p>To evaluate the extent of variability of diagnostic characters in Protula, ten Hove &amp; Pantus (1985) carried out a study of live Mediterranean individuals considered to be Protula tubularia (Montagu, 1803). Within the same population, they found individuals that possessed Apomatus chaetae and others that lacked them (ten Hove &amp; Pantus 1985: 425; ten Hove &amp; Kupriyanova 2009: 81). Apomatus -chaetae, extremely transparent, are very difficult to discern within the thick bundles of limbate chaetae, so that while presence data can be accepted as valid, absence data might be evaluated as provisional, particularly when the data derive from examination of whole animals under the compound microscope. On the other hand, examining dissected parapodia under high magnification should enable observing Apomatus chaetae if present (Fig. 22F), as well as examining whole specimens with the SEM, where transparency has no relevance. In the studied Mediterranean Protula tubularia population, the location of rows of thoracic uncini also showed variability, with uncinigerous tori typically present from chaetigers 2–7. However, uncini might also be completely lacking, and, particularly in larger specimens, there was an impression that uncini might disappear secondarily (ten Hove &amp; Pantus 1985: 429). The variability in both these characters illustrates why inferences based on few specimens should be viewed with the greatest caution, including inferences from literature. The urgently needed revision of this genus must therefore be based both on a comparison of all available types, and of sufficient topotypical material assembled for each taxon to produce statistically evaluated morphological criteria. The proposed review should include modern molecular techniques, providing supplementary evidence as to whether morphologically similar (allopatric) populations belong to one or more taxa (e.g., Golani &amp; Ritte 1999, Bucciarelli et al. 2002 and Bonhomme et al. 2003).</p> <p>In our objective of dealing with the Suez Canal as a pathway and / or as a habitat, our first priority is elucidation of the source of the population inhabiting it. A first step entails assembling information on the taxa of the biogeographic regions adjoining the canal, and then excluding those taxa that do not correspond with the present material. (This approach should be carried out with other problematic taxa, as well, e.g., with Vermiliopsis sp. / spp. [see below]). Two Protula taxa from the Mediterranean must be taken into account: A larger taxon, Protula intestinum (Lamarck, 1818), type locality, “European seas”, 8–12 cm in length / 8–12 mm in width, and a smaller one, Protula tubularia (Montagu, 1803), type locality, England, 2–5 cm in length, 3–8 mm in width (Fauvel 1927: 382–384). In surveying the tropical Indo-West-Pacific Protula literature, the records can roughly be brought together into two taxa: (a) a larger taxon with branchial radioles arranged in a spire of 3–8 whorls, with a tube-diameter of up to 2 cm (ten Hove 1994: 109; Smith 1985: 92–97, 433, fig. 9e), named Protula bispiralis (Savigny, 1822), type locality, “les mers des Indes” (it was collected by F. Péron, thus, probably Australia [ten Hove 1994: 109; Weinberg 1996]) and, (b) a smaller one, Protula palliata, type locality Sri Lanka, described from a single specimen and characterised by a semicircular arrangement of the branchial radioles, at most in a 3/4 whorl, with a tube diameter of a few millimetres (Table 1). In Willey’s type specimen, the body measured 19 mm in length (without branchial lobes), 3 mm in width; 30–40 radioles per lobe. Willey named it for its most exceptional character, the collar, with very long lateral lobes “rolled on themselves” and “probably able to follow the branchial spire to its termination. …” and “ventral border was slightly concave” (Willey 1905: 316; Table 1). Other characters: Thorax with 7 chaetigers with limbate chaetae, and with Apomatus chaetae and uncini from the 4 th chaetiger; thoracic uncini, P+~20 teeth; Willey only illustrated an Apomatus chaeta, a sickle-shaped abdominal chaeta, and a profile view of the peg of a thoracic uncinus (Willey 1905, pl. 7, figs 183–185). The taxon, Protula palliata, as recorded in the literature, is possibly a complex of species (ten Hove 1994: 109).</p> <p>Twenty years before Protula palliata was described, McIntosh (1885: 511) published an Indo-West- Pacific Protula taxon, P. arafurensis, collected in the Arafura Sea by the Challenger Expedition. Unfortunately, the description was based on a single specimen lacking its branchial crown. As the species cannot be identified with certainty (ten Hove 1994; Table 1), P. arafurensis can only be regarded as a " species inquirendam ", one that cannot even be taken into consideration for species identification (Table 1). The single later record, Treadwell’s (1906) Protula ? arafurensis, is erroneous, the material was re-examined by one of us (HAtH) and belongs to the Vermiliopsis infundibulum / glandigera –complex. Protula procera Ehlers, 1918, type locality Aru Islands, Indonesia, differs from P. palliata in its short collar, larger size, larger number of radioles in a single lobe (56), and in a pectinate (rather than circular) arrangement of the radioles; the abdominal chaetae appear sickle-shaped (Ehlers 1918 pl. 17, fig. 9). Protula anomala Day, 1955, type locality South Africa, and also reported from E. Australia (Smith 1985: 87–92), also can be excluded since it is clearly differentiated by its compound radiolar eyes and retrogeniculate abdominal chaetae (for a definition of retrogeniculate, see ten Hove &amp; Kupriyanova 2009: 26).</p> <p>The present Suez Canal specimens from the Bitter Lakes are small, with a tube diameter of &lt;4 mm (Figs 21A, D), see below, and the branchiae are arranged in two semi-circles (Figs 17A, B and 19A–C). Thus, we can confidently exclude the Indo-Pacific taxon, Protula bispiralis, based on its spiralled branchial structure and large size, as well as the Mediterranean taxon, Protula intestinum, on account of its large size. (We have studied material of both nominal taxa from areas more or less adjacent to the Suez Canal). With much greater caution, we need to approach the identification of the smaller taxa from the Indo-Pacific and the Mediterranean that appear to be rather similar morphologically, as the mixed synonymies below suggest. Here the problem of allocation to species is exacerbated by Fauvel’s having included the Persian (Arabian) Gulf and the Indian Ocean as part of the range of the Mediterranean species, Protula tubularia, in his “Faune de France,” with a citation of the Indo-Pacific taxon, P. palliata, as a questionable synonym of P. tubularia (Fauvel 1927: 382–383). In his earlier Persian Gulf paper, Fauvel (1911: 433), the Protula included was P. palliata, and there Fauvel questioned whether P. tubularia was its synonym. However, in the report of the “ Siboga” Expedition to the Malay Archipelago, Mesnil &amp; Fauvel (1939: 35) listed a Protula species as P. tubularia, with P. palliata as its synonym, and in that paper the authors noted that, “as concerns P. tubularia and P. palliata, neither the tubes, nor the worms showed differences sufficient to distinguish between them.” Fauvel’s (1953) “Fauna of India ” again referred to the nominal species, Protula tubularia, and cited Protula palliata as its synonym. The illustrations were copied from the “Faune de France ” (1927 fig. 257). We will never know whether, in arriving at this synonymy, Fauvel took into consideration the collar structure described by Willey, or whether he assumed the character to be of no particular importance, aberrant, or just described in an exaggerated way. In the later Indo-Pacific literature, Wesenberg-Lund (1949) listed Protula palliata and remarked on its very large thoracic membranes; Dew (1959) also listed P. palliata (citing Fauvel’s 1911 publication); as did Pillai (1960: 5–7).</p> <p>Fauvel’s taxonomic (biogeographic) philosophy, especially on the occurrence of wide-spread “cosmopolitan” species, impacted not only on his own work but on an entire generation of polychaete researchers as well as on the present generation of non-specialists. In the following section on the genus Salmacina, we quote from Fauvel’s remarks on his predisposition to regard similar taxa from different biogeographic regions as belonging to the same taxon (Fauvel 1933b: 144). In mitigation, Fauvel, who died in 1958 (age 92), seven years before the Scanning Electron Microscope became commercially available (Breton 2006), may have been unaware that he lacked an adequate tool for comparison of minute morphological structures. Moreover, in 1933, when he published the report on the Dollfus Expedition polychaetes, he would have been unfamiliar with the concepts of invertebrate sibling species, first introduced by E. Mayr in 1942 (see also Mayr 1963; Grassle &amp; Grassle 1976), and of cryptic species (e.g., Bucciarelli et al. 2002; Agapow et al. 2004).</p> <p>1)</p> <p>It is not possible to be absolutely certain that the 5 records of Protula palliata all refer to the same taxon. — 2) McIntosh’s description of “ Protula arafurensis ” is too incomplete to use for identification; P. arafurensis should be regarded as a “ species inquirendam” (see p. 46, above).— 3) Although the details of McIntosh’s (1885, fig. 18) thoracic uncinus are not clear, the number of horizontal rows of teeth above the peg may come to 23/24 rows.</p> <p>In order to minimize the potential for error due to synonymising similar taxa from different biogeographical provinces, we propose, in contradiction to the philosophy expressed in Fauvel (1933b), to adopt the most conservative biogeographical approach possible, treating Protula taxa from the Atlantic- Mediterranean and from the Indo-West-Pacific biogeographical provinces as separate species unless / until synonymy can be proved for them. It then follows that the name, Protula tubularia, should be reserved for the Atlantic-Mediterranean forms—as noted, the type locality is England (Montagu 1803)—and P. tubularia -like taxa occurring in the Indo-West-Pacific region should provisionally be assigned to P. palliata or to P. cf. palliata including the two unidentified Protula taxa with un-spiralled branchiae from the Seychelles and Amirantes Islands (ten Hove 1994: 109). We intend to continue looking for robust characters to distinguish between these taxa, particularly as the Suez Canal joins both the Atlantic-Mediterranean and Indo-West- Pacific regions, in order to establish the provenance of the Suez Canal Protula species that colonized it.</p> <p>Molecular techniques are not presently applicable to denatured formaldehyde-fixed specimens; thus for comparing the older specimens found in most museum collections, we can still only employ morphological techniques. We consider that some characters used in the past to distinguish between species of the genus Protula are not sufficiently robust to sufficiently discriminate between similar species. For example, the question of type of abdominal chaetae, whether sickle-shaped or geniculate, that Fauvel (1927: 382) used to discriminate between the two Protula species from the Mediterranean, may exist in reality, and may prove to be a workable character to differentiate between taxa. However, ten Hove &amp; Pantus (1985, fig. 2i–k) showed that the differences between the character states “sickle” and “geniculate” are not absolute but gradual, e.g., form of the abdominal chaetae varied within a single bundle from straight to geniculate, also with more or less sickle-shaped ones, and suggested that this character should be reserved for populations rather than for single specimens. In this regard, note the variability of shapes in abdominal chaetae of Protula specimens collected from underneath the same small rock in the Little Bitter Lake that ranged from sickle-shaped to geniculate (Figs 18G–J). We have even observed these different forms in a single individual from the Little Bitter Lake. Fauvel himself noted a reversal of the contour of abdominal chaetae produced by exposure to different chemicals (Fauvel 1927: 384, legend of fig. 130h, i), putting in question the differences in contour of abdominal chaetae as a robust taxonomic criterion. Differences in the collar structure also may not be a reliable criterion (ten Hove &amp; Pantus 1985: 427). A character that may prove useful in fresh Protula material (ten Hove &amp; Pantus 1985: 429–430), but not in preserved specimens, is the presence / absence of radiolar and prostomial eyespots, because eyespots observed in freshly described specimens may fade in preservative (Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege 1996; Table 2), and their durability in preservative is insufficiently well known (e.g., paired crimson eyespots densely positioned on the rachides of Spirobranchus tetraceros radioles faded within three years of formalin-fixation and preservation in alcohol [Ben-Eliahu et al. 2003]).</p> <p>Presently, the best and most reliable morphological comparisons appear to be of the ultrastructure of the thoracic and abdominal uncini, using SEM micrography as a standard tool to determine, in frontal view, the number of rows of teeth and the number of teeth in the horizontal rows, the shape of the anterior tooth (in Protula, the “peg”), whether pointed, rounded, more or less swollen, truncated, “square-ended” or bilobed (e.g., Figs 18C, D, K, L; Fig. 20A, P:?4:4:4:3:3:1:1:1:1:etc.; Table 3), while the light microscope should be used as well for squash preparations to provide a profile view (Fig. 20B).</p> <p>Mediterranean material of the nominal Protula tubularia has been studied with SEM by ten Hove &amp; Kupriyanova (2009) and again by the present authors. However, even with the SEM, due to the very close packing of the uncini in the torus, adjacent structures may be difficult to distinguish clearly. Thus, to better visualise the structure, uncini of Protula tubularia have been “cut” out of the photograph of the torus (Fig. 18K [thoracic uncinus, cut from ten Hove &amp; Kupriyanova (2009 fig. 39c), see detailed description in the legend]; and Fig. 18L —abdominal uncinus of specimen from the same sample) to compare with the abdominal uncini from specimens from the Little Bitter Lake (Figs 18C, D).</p> <p>The following key presents some differences noted between these uncini:</p> <p>1a. In the Suez Canal Protula taxon, both thoracic and abdominal uncini are of “saw-to-rasp-shaped” type, i.e., the teeth in the posterior apical (saw”)-part are in single file (Figs 18C, D); the peg tip is bilobed, with rounded lobes (Figs 20D–G); the thoracic uncini have ca. P+19 rows with ca. 3–?4 multiple rows, grading to?4 minute teeth in the row proximal to the peg (Fig. 20A).</p> <p>1b. In the Mediterranean Protula tubularia (Figs 18K, L), in both the thoracic and abdominal uncini, the teeth in the apical part form an angled double row, the uncini are thus “rasp”-shaped type in both apical (posterior) and proximal (anterior) parts and the tip of the peg appears more blunt (possibly abraded); moreover, the number of teeth is much greater; the thoracic uncini have ca. 21 apical angled double rows and ca. 17 multiple anterior rows grading to ca. 5–7 minute teeth in the rows proximal to the peg, with ca. 7 teeth in the proximal row, ca. 38 rows of minute teeth (counted from enlarged figs 39a, c in ten Hove &amp; Kupriyanova (2009) and Fig. 18K).</p> <p>These differences in ultrastructure of the uncini point to the Mediterranean and Suez Canal Protula taxa as being different. Although recognizing that the ultrastructure may be variable and that the small number of specimens examined lacks a statistical basis of confidence, these differences presumably justify excluding the Mediterranean taxon, P. tubularia, as a founder population for the Bitter Lake specimens and support a Red Sea derivation for the population. That inference is bolstered by the fact that Beets’ Protula tubes were found on molluscs dredged from the floor of the Great Bitter Lake, thus, not connected directly to ship fouling, more so, as foulers of this genus have not yet been recorded from the Indo-Pacific (ten Hove 1994: 109). Another factor supporting the inference of a Red Sea derivation is the lecithotrophic nature of the Protula larva that dictates a short-term larval life and rapid settlement (Kupriyanova et al. 2001; See Discussion, Section 6a). Taking these factors and the taxonomic approach discussed above into consideration, we designate the Protula species from the Suez Canal as P. cf. palliata, subject to confirmation by comparison with topotypical P. palliata material. (Meanwhile, efforts to obtain topotypical specimens have not yet proved successful. Moreover, the National Museum Colombo, where A. Willey had been a director, does not have any specimens [M. Goonatilake, NMC and Dr. T.G. Pillai, NHM, pers. comms.]).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F6AE026FF50FE8BFC5EFBF0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F76E026FF50FBEEFA5EF8BB.text	396387E75F76E026FF50FBEEFA5EF8BB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Protula palliata (Willey 1905)	<div><p>Protula cf. palliata (Willey, 1905)</p> <p>Figs 17–22, Table 2</p> <p>Records from the Red Sea proper-Indo-West-Pacific that (most probably) can be attributed to the nominal taxon Protula palliata are:</p> <p>Protulopsis palliata Willey, 1905: 316, pl. 7, figs 183–185 [Type locality: Indian Ocean, Sri-Lanka, Galle, 29–55 m depth].</p> <p>Protula palliata: Fauvel 1911: 433–434 [Persian (Arabian) Gulf, Sri Lanka]; Wesenberg-Lund 1949: 361 [specimen without tube; northern Persian (Arabian) Gulf; Sri Lanka, Australia]; Dew 1959: 50–52 [Western Australia: Shark Bay, Rottnest Island, Ceylon, Persian Gulf]; Pillai 1960: 5–7, text-fig. 2 a, b [Sri Lanka, ~ 18–22 m)].</p> <p>? Protula palliata: Fauvel 1918: 342 [specimen lacking branchial crown and tube, det. by chaetae; Persian Gulf]; Fauvel 1919: 465–466 [lacking branchial crown and tube; Persian Gulf, Sri Lanka, Australia]. Question mark for both these identifications is that of Fauvel.</p> <p>Protula (Protula) palliata: Uchida 1978: 37 [no distribution data].</p> <p>Protula tubularia most probably not (Montagu, 1803) but sensu auct.: Fauvel 1927: 382–383 [Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean]; Mesnil &amp; Fauvel 1939: 35 [Indonesia, Ternate; Atlantic, Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, Malaysia, Japan, Australia]; Fauvel 1953: 472 [Ceylon, Japan, Australia, Malay Archipelago, Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea]; Day 1967: 820 [unlikely distribution: Atlantic from Greenland, Scotland, south to English Channel, the Gulf of Mexico, Morocco, Senegal, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, New Caledonia, Japan]; Amoureux et al. 1978: 151 [Red Sea, Gulf of Aqaba, 70–80 m (in 2005, specimen not located)]; Uchida 1978: 37–39 [unlikely designation as cosmopolitan and see below]; Vine &amp; Bailey-Brock 1984: 147 [unlikely distribution from Amoureux et al. 1978: Europe, Red Sea, Australia]; Smith 1985: 83–87 [Australia]; Wehe &amp; Fiege 2002: 130 [compiled list of references, considered as questionable in Red Sea, quoting H.A. ten Hove, pers. comm.].</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F76E026FF50FBEEFA5EF8BB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F7BE056FF50FE4EFEDAF873.text	396387E75F7BE056FF50FE4EFEDAF873.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Salmacina Claparede 1870	<div><p>Genus Salmacina Claparède, 1870</p> <p>Preliminary remarks. Except for the presence / absence of an operculum on the first dorsal pair of radii in Filograna, the nominal genera Filograna and Salmacina are so similar that they have been classified together as indistinguishable by various authors. Moreover, different authors have dealt with the relationship of the operculate Filograna implexa to the non-operculate Salmacina dysteri (Huxley, 1855) in different ways (e.g., Gee 1963; Day 1967). Until it is proven that both the operculate and non-operculate forms are the same genus and that the generic synonymy is warranted, valuable information may be lost by not separating these forms. The nominal taxa F. implexa, S. dysteri, S. incrustans, and even S. amphidentata have all been attributed a “world-wide” distribution. This of course may have been the result of ongoing ship-transport, but, in the past, several “world-wide” distributions have been split into more regionally distributed “sibling” taxa. In addition, errors in identification have also impacted on distributions cited in some of the literature (discussed below).</p> <p>Most of the regional records are presumed to be a melange of the names, Filograna or Salmacina, with some later records cited more cautiously as Filograna / Salmacina – complex. Therefore we have refrained from giving lists of synonyms (including those from samples collected from Cyprus, Israel and Gulf of Suez in different Israeli collections that will eventually be dealt with separately). The Levant, Suez Canal and Red Sea specimens listed in the “Material examined” section below were all non-operculate; thus, we would now attribute them all to Salmacina sp. / spp., and not to Filograna. An updated generic description of both nominal genera is given in ten Hove &amp; Kupriyanova (2009).</p> <p>The genus Salmacina comprises very minute taxa requiring use of the SEM in order to elucidate the dentition of the collar chaetae and to count the number of teeth in the transverse rows of the uncini in frontal view (i.e., to determine the dental formula). Re-examination by SEM of some pre-SEM (i.e., pre-1965) voucher specimens showed that some of the regionally pertinent determinations were erroneous (e.g., pp. Pixell 1913, Fauvel 1933a, b, see “Material examined” below). To stabilize the taxa, the descriptions of published type material should be updated, and, when unavailable (as in Salmacina dysteri), material from the type localities and habitats of the described taxa should be examined with the SEM and redescribed, e.g., Nogueira &amp; ten Hove (2000). Similarly, voucher specimens of regional records published prior to the sixties should be verified and compared with this redescribed type or neotype material. To overcome the morphological variability found in these clonal species (Nishi &amp; Nishihara 1997), new efforts at redescription should include comparative genetic analysis carried out on in conjunction with the morphological work. Unfortunately most museum specimens have been denatured due to fixation in formaldehyde, necessitating collection of fresh specimens from the type localities and making the revision of the Salmacina taxa a truly Sisyphean project. Although we were warned not to attempt to deal with this intractable genus (by H. Zibrowius, pers. comm.), we were determined to look for clues to the provenance of the “Yellow Fleet” Salmacina species from the Bitter Lake. We examined specimens from different biogeographical regions and sought to find robust characters to distinguish between the taxa. This effort resulted in the present identification of the “Yellow Fleet” taxon as Salmacina incrustans, provenance, Mediterranean Sea. We also succeeded in obtaining a more precise characterization of some Salmacina taxa in regions impacting the Suez Canal.</p> <p>We introduce the term, “paucidentate-rasp-shaped” uncini (pru - type), to refer to thoracic uncini with few (2–3) teeth in the transverse row proximal to the fang (termed the “(F+1)” row), the number of teeth not increasing greatly in the transverse rows towards the apex, long and thin (rectangular) in frontal view (extreme form exemplified by the nominal Salmacina dysteri sensu Fauvel (1927; see Fig. 23A). A contrasting term, “multidentate rasp-shaped” uncini (mru - type) refers to thoracic uncini that have the transverse row proximal to the fang, the (F+1) row, numbering 3 or more teeth, increasing greatly in the number of teeth (and in width of the uncinus) towards the apex, ovoid or wedge-shaped in frontal view (extreme form exemplified by Salmacina amphidentata not Jones, 1962 sensu Fiege &amp; Sun, 1999; see Fig. 23B). Frontal SEM views of uncini of these two forms are given in Figs 23A and B; see also Figs 27B and E). Data on thoracic uncini-type have been added to verified citations and the “Material examined” section, below.</p> <p>References for the Filograna / Salmacina- complex names used for material from the Suez Canal or its vicinity.</p> <p>Protula dysteri Huxley, 1855: 113, figs 1–11 [Type locality: Wales, Caermarthen Bay, Tenby]; referred to Salmacina dysteri by Claparède (1870: 176).</p> <p>Salmacina incrustans Claparède, 1870: 519 [Type locality: Italy, Naples]; Fauvel 1927: 378–380, fig. 129l [Atlantic: Madeira, Cape Verde, Mediterranean: Malaga, Valencia, Marseilles, Naples].</p> <p>Salmacina aedificatrix Claparède, 1870: 519 [Mediterranean, Tyrrhenian Sea, Naples; “Usually synonymised with S. dysteri ” (Nogueira &amp; ten Hove 2000: 158)].</p> <p>Filograna / Salmacina species complex: Wehe &amp; Fiege 2002: 124 [Suez Canal].</p> <p>Material examined for comparison. The number of teeth in the horizontal rows of the rasp-shaped uncini is a comparatively easy morphological character to quantify and to use as a parameter of variability. In the SEM micrographs, we have been able to observe variability between uncini of the same torus; even in the number of teeth in the proximal row to the fang—in the (F+1) rows of adjacent uncini. In Fig. 26A, for example, the teeth in the (F+1) row proximal to the fang of the seven adjacent uncini counted from right to left numbered 3,3,2,3,3,2,2 teeth (the remaining uncini in the torus were not distinct). Regretfully, the number of individuals available from different locations or that we could SEM was in most cases very small, thus the observations given below are carried out without performing statistical comparisons. Nonetheless, some differences found between uncini of specimens from different locations were clearly distinct. The abbreviation, “tu” refers to which torus was examined, e.g., “tu1” or “tu2” refer to the first or the second thoracic torus.</p> <p>Presumed Salmacina dysteri s. str. based on North Atlantic location and description. North Sea, Scotland: Orkney Islands, Mainland, Sound, Point of Hellia, Stn 20, 15.5 m, legit M.H. de Kluyver 1990, det. H.A. ten Hove 1990 Salmacina sp., ZMA V.Pol. 3768. SEM ZMA11 -tu1: (F+1) = 3,2,3,3,3 (five adjacent uncini counted in SEM micrograph of first thoracic torus). ZMA11 -tu2: (F+1) = 3,2,4 s,2,3,4 s (six adjacent uncini counted from second torus; s denotes an apparently aberrant splitting of the apical end observed in several of these uncini, never remarked until now). ZMA11 -tu2: (F+1) = 2,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,2. ZMA-11 -tu3: (F+1) = 2,?,2,3,3,2,2,2,2.— Hebrides, Isle of Muck, Ruadh leam laranche, possibly legit Mrs. E.A.T. MacEwen 30.VII.1938, Salmacina dysteri, determinator unknown, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; interlacing tube aggregate, ca. 20 specs with (F+1) = 2 or 3. SEM S-14-1-tu2: (F+1) = 2,3,2,2,3,2. S-14-1-tu3: (F+1) = 3,3,3,2,2,2,2. All thoracic uncini of pru - type.</p> <p>Irish Sea, Wales: Holyhead, Anglesey, Menai Bridge Marine Biological Station, 11.XI.1957, Salmacina dysteri, determinator unknown, NMWZ 1985.042.1957. SEM ATW1-200-w2-007: (F+1) = 3,2,2,3,2,3,2,2,3 (sequence of nine uncini). SEM ATW2-1-209-w1-tu: (F+1) = 3,3,3,3,2,3,3,3,2,2,2,3,2; thoracic uncini of pru - type).— Menai Bridge, Menai Bridge Marine Biological Station, VIII.1953, Salmacina dysteri, det. unknown, NMWZ 1985.042.672, tube aggregations, several small, presumably net-like, clusters. SEM ATW1-219-w3- tu: (F+1) = 4,3,3,3,3,2,3,2,3,3,2 (thoracic uncini of pru - type).</p> <p>English Channel, coast of France, Saint-Vaast-La Hougue, legit, det. J.L.A. de Quatrefages Filograna; redet. P. Fauvel S. dysteri, MNHN; subsamples deposited in BM (NH): BM (NH) 1928.4.26.106 and 1928.4.26.886, agglomerated tubes. SEM Paris-Vaast-1-3-016-tu2: (F+1) = 2,2,3,2,3,3,3. SEM Paris-Vaast-1- 3-018-tu4: (F+1) = 3,3,3,3,3,3,2,2,3,3,2 (thoracic uncini of pru- type).</p> <p>Salmacina dysteri confirmed based on comparison of specimens with above North Atlantic material. Central Atlantic Ocean, Cape Verde Islands, São Vicente, legit C. Crossland 11.IX.1904, presented by J.S. Gardiner, det. H.L.M. Pixell Salmacina dysteri, BM(NH) 1924.6.13.131. SEM 131-017, left part of torus: (F+1) =?,?,3,3,2,3,3,2,2,3 (counted eight of the ten uncini in the micrograph). SEM 131-018, central part (F+1) = 2,3,2,3,2,3,2 (maximum no. of teeth in widest horizontal row 4; thoracic uncini of pru - type).— Additional sample from same locality, det. H.L.M. Pixell 25.IX.1912, BM (NH) 1938.7.25.61–75 including permanent mount. SEM 61-72-2-tu5: (F+1) = 2,2,3,3,3,3,2. 61-72-2-tu6: (F+1) = 3,3,3,3,2,3,3; thoracic uncini of pru - type).</p> <p>Questionable nominal Salmacina dysteri records of which voucher specimens are missing, determination generalised to Salmacina sp.</p> <p>Suez Canal proper: Potts (1928: 701–702) reported Salmacina sp. as S. dysteri from two sites in the southern part of the canal, Stn K2 at km 124 in the Little Bitter Lake from buoys between 0–4 m, and from km 152, presumably scraped from the pier or from bivalves encrusted on the pier.</p> <p>Gulf of Suez: Two samples from the entrance to the Suez Canal: (1) The Percy Sladen Trust Indian Ocean Expedition of 1905, sample from a small buoy, det. H.L.M. Pixell (1913: 87) Salmacina dysteri. —(2) The Cambridge Expedition, two sites at Port Taufiq: Stn PT 0, scraped from piers along the avenue; Stn PT 3, scraped from a wooden fence along the bathing place, det. F.A. Potts (1928: 701–702) Salmacina dysteri (sample details from Fox 1926).</p> <p>Nominal Salmacina dysteri records that proved to belong to taxa with multidentate rasp-shaped uncini (i.e., erroneous determinations) generalised to Salmacina sp. / spp.</p> <p>Gulf of Suez: R. Ph. Dollfus Expedition. stn XI, 32º44'– 32º47'E, 28º49– 28º54' N, 25–30 m, coralligenous sand, det. P. Fauvel (1933a: 80) Salmacina dysteri, MNHN. SEMs: Paris-GS-1933-004-tu1: (F+1) = 5,5,5,4,4,?,4,5 (counted seven of eight uncini in first torus). Paris-GS-1933-003-tu2: (F+1) = 4,5,?,4,4,4,4. Paris-GS-1933-002-tu3: (F+1) = 4,5,5,?,4,4,4,4,?,4,4 (see Fig. 27B, second thoracic uncinus).</p> <p>Red Sea proper-Indo-West-Pacific (excluding citations from Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba already given above) Indian Ocean, Tanzania, Zanzibar, Wasin Harbour, legit C. Crossland, 1902, presented by J.S. Gardiner, det. H.L.M. Pixell (1913: 38) Salmacina dysteri, BM(NH) 1924.6.13.152 [SEM not permitted]. In Pixell’s permanent mount, studied with oil immersion, the single uncinus in focus showed (F+1) = 4 teeth; the uncini are F+8, i.e., with eight horizontal rows of teeth “above” the fang (see Fig. 23), and with a maximum number of six teeth in the widest row (formula F=8/6).— Zanzibar area, legit C. Crossland, 22.VIII.1901, presented by J.S. Gardiner, det. H.L.M. Pixell (1913: 38) Salmacina dysteri, BM(NH) 1938.7.25.13–25 (material previously dried up, specimen extracted from tubes by HAtH). SEM 13-25-09-tu1: (F+1) = 3,3,3,3,3,3 (counted sequence of six uncini in first torus); the maximum number of teeth in the transverse rows of both the 1 st and 2 nd uncini was 7). SEM 13-25-tu3: (F+1) = 3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3 (in the eight uncini in third torus, only the three anterior horizontal rows exposed, others covered); presumed to be a Salmacina sp. of mrutype.—From Zanzibar area, from bottom of S.S. “Juba”, legit C. Crossland 29.VII.1901, presented by J.S. Gardiner, det. H.L.M. Pixell (1913: 38) Salmacina dysteri, BM(NH) 1938.7.25, 26–40. SEM 26-40-023-tu: (F+1) =?,?,4,4,? (counted only two uncini in torus, other uncini not in focus or covered over). The glycerine mounts of wet material studied with oil immersion showed (F+1) = 4 teeth in proximal row to fang, thus, uncini of mru - type. Pixell’s slide A, seen with oil immersion, seems to show (F+1) = 3 or 4 teeth (none of the details were seen clearly).—Off coast of Zanzibar, Jembani, 22.VIII.1901, legit C. Crossland, presented by J.S. Gardiner, det. H.L.M. Pixell (1913: 38) Salmacina dysteri, BM(NH) 1938.7.25.41–52. SEMs (HAtH) show truncated tips of fang, frontal view of these thoracic uncini more rectangular than others: First torus, tu1: (F+1) = 3,3,3,?4,?,?,?. Second torus, tu2: (F+1) =?, 4, 3, 3,4,5; redetermined herein as Salmacina sp. of mru - type). — Hawaii: Biofouling, legit J.H. Bailey-Brock. tu2: (F+1) = 5,5,4,4,4,5,4,4 (counting the last uncinus showed that the number of horizontal rows was 9 and its detailed formula was F: 4:5:6:7:8:10:?9:9:?6 (formula F+9 / 10), thus it is characterised as a Salmacina sp. of mru - type).</p> <p>Salmacina sp. of multidentate rasp-shaped uncini - type. Gulf of Aqaba, Elat, North Beach, 5–10 m, legit N. Shashar 24.06.2002, det. M.N. Ben-Eliahu Salmacina sp., on / in crevices of red Bryozoa on rope from fish cages, few; live material with red clusters of prostomial ocelli (Fig. 27E). SEM-A-Elat-003-tu1: (F+1) = 5,4,5,5,4,5,4,?,4,4 (counted nine of 10 uncini of first torus). SEM-B-Elat-tu1: (F+1) =?,5,5,4,4,5,?. SEM-D- Elat-009-tu1: (F+1) = 4,4,3,3,3,3,5,3,4,3,4,4. Identified as Salmacina sp. of mru – type (Fig. 27E).</p> <p>Comparative specimens identified as Salmacina incrustans Claparède, 1870 from Atlantic, Mediterranean (consistent with the Fauvel, 1927 description). Spain, Costa Brava near Playa de Aro, Playa de San Pol, S, stones and debris in rock-crevices, 0.5– 1 m, legit, det. H.A. ten Hove 11.VI.1971, S. incrustans, ZMA V.Pol. 3814, ZMA-SEM 0032 (number on the ZMA micrograph H 46), uncini with 7 horizontal rows of teeth, proximal row to fang (F+1) = 3,3,3,3,2 or 3,3,3 (counted seven uncini in sequence); the only uncinus positioned in full frontal view that could be counted showed maximum no. of teeth, 5–?6, in fifth horizontal row.—Ligurian Sea, Monaco, coll. Prince of Monaco 22.XII.1910, on hull of “Eider”, det. P. Fauvel S. incrustans, MNHN, tubes only.— Monaco harbour, det. P. Fauvel S. incrustans, BM(NH) 1928.4.26.144 / 154 (SEM not allowed).—Tyrrhenian Sea, Naples, det. P. Fauvel S. incrustans, BM(NH) 1928.4.26.954.— Croatia, Istria, S. Pomer, outside harbour pier next to Pomer camping ground, boulders, legit, det. H.A. ten Hove VII.2003 S. incrustans, HUJ-SEM (only one uncinus in focus, F:2:3:3:3:3:3:4:4:?2 [covered]).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F7BE056FF50FE4EFEDAF873	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F07E050FF50FF1BFD7EF849.text	396387E75F07E050FF50FF1BFD7EF849.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Salmacina incrustans Claparede 1870	<div><p>Salmacina incrustans Claparède, 1870</p> <p>Figs 3B, 24–26, 27A</p> <p>Salmacina incrustans Claparède, 1870: 519 [Type locality: Italy, Naples].</p> <p>Suez Canal material reported herein: 37 samples, total number estimated as between ca. 200–500 individuals. Beets’ Great Bitter Lake samples, VIII / IX 1950, Stns 8–10, 33,?42, B3, 5 +? 1 samples with tentatively identified (empty) tube residues (see Appendix Table 2B).—Great Bitter Lake “Yellow Fleet” Ship Biofouling Samples (January 13–20, 1975), 37 subsamples, 200–500 specs (Appendix Table 2D).</p> <p>Suez Canal depth and substrates: Beets’ samples: Residues of empty tubes on shells between 2.5–10.6 m, on Chicoreus erythraeus [as Murex anguliferus], * Murex forskoehlii; * Brachidontes pharaonis and * Gastrochaena cymbium.—Brattström &amp; Taasen Great Bitter Lake “Yellow Fleet” ship-biofouling; on sponges; bivalves, * Brachidontes pharaonis (Figs 3B, 24), * Malvufundus regulus, * Pinctada radiata and * Spondylus spinosus; as well as on barnacles, crabs, bryozoans, and tunicates. (*Denotes an Indo-Pacific mollusc taxon that has migrated and established populations in the Levant Basin of the Mediterranean, i.e., a Lessepsian migrant mollusc [H.K. Mienis, pers. comm.]).</p> <p>Remarks. Salmacina dysteri, originally described from boreal temperate waters (South Wales), was listed in the Cambridge Expedition Report on the Polychaeta Sedentaria (Potts 1928) as present in the southern part of the Suez Canal and reported by Pixell (1913) and Potts (1928) from the Gulf of Suez end of the canal. Regrettably, Potts (1928) provided no details concerning his nominal S. dysteri material other than that there were especially large aggregations at the bathing place at the sites Port Taufiq 3, and Port Taufiq outside the Canal. That description is insufficient even to conjecture whether the Beets’ and “Yellow Fleet” Salmacina specimens sampled ca. 50 years later belong to the same taxon as that of Pixell (1913) or Potts (1928).</p> <p>Fauvel (1933b: 144) reported Salmacina dysteri from the Gulf of Suez, citing Pixell’s (1913) and Potts’ (1928) reports, and discussed the philosophical basis for his taxonomic work: “Many species considered for a long time as endemic to the Indo-Pacific region appear absolutely identical with European species... One risks, therefore, considering as an important new species a taxon simply designated by a different name although in reality it is synonymous.” Fauvel was, very likely, the most redoubtable polychaetologist of his day, and this biogeographical philosophy presumably influenced H.L.M. Pixell (1913) and F.A. Potts (1928) as seen in their “cosmopolitan attribution” of S. dysteri (or they may all have influenced each other). Together, these authors provided an unlikely mix of distributions including those of nominal S. dysteri: The Atlantic, North Sea, English Channel, Cape Verde, Mediterranean, Red Sea, Suez Canal, Gulf of Suez, Zanzibar and Australia (Fauvel 1927).</p> <p>Regrettably, Pixell’s (1913) and Potts’s (1928) important voucher specimens from the Suez Canal could not be found, however, we were able to obtain for SEM examination Pixell’s nominal Salmacina dysteri specimens from Zanzibar and Wasin Island; one of Fauvel’s (1933a, b) samples from the Gulf of Suez; a nominal specimen of S. dysteri from Hawaii; as well as live Salmacina specimens from the Gulf of Aqaba (from Elat). Our findings did not support the determination of S. dysteri for these specimens or the ascription of S. dysteri as a “cosmopolitan species” (see “Material examined for comparison”, above). (Interestingly, Fauvel himself had some doubts as to the identification of the Gulf of Suez specimen as he put [three!] question marks after the “ Salmacina dysteri ” in his handwritten label of the voucher sample although the question marks were not cited in his two Gulf of Suez publications [Fauvel 1933a: 80, 1933b: 1431]). On the contrary, the new findings support our cautious approach of generalising unverified determinations of Salmacina when the identifications cannot be validated by re-examining the specimens (see also Noguiera &amp; ten Hove 2000).</p> <p>Here it is important to stress that generalising the species determination applies only to the specific sample examined, as in none of the given areas was the density of sampling sufficiently great as to definitively exclude the possibility of more than one Salmacina taxon being present, particularly in the port areas, such as Port Taufiq, and even in the Suez Canal itself. As the late Prof. Heinz Steinitz noted (pers. comm.), finding a taxon in a given area is meaningful, but not having found it may not be indicative of its true absence unless high density and thorough sampling is carried out. This truism is particularly relevant concerning Salmacina and other taxa that can be transported by ship.</p> <p>The type locality of Salmacina dysteri is Tenby, Carmarthen Bay, South Wales. Scanning electron microscope examination of nominal S. dysteri specimens from nearby biogeographic locations, i.e., the North Sea, the Irish Sea, as well voucher specimens from the English Channel identified by P. Fauvel (see Material examined for comparison, above), establishes that Fauvel’s particulars of the thoracic uncini of S. dysteri from its biogeographic home region—“7 rows with 2–3 teeth in a row”—were accurate (Fauvel 1927; see also Rioja 1931 and Nogueira &amp; ten Hove 2000), although in his figure, 129i on p. 379, Fauvel showed only a lateral view of the uncinus. Precise detail was naturally missing in his lateral illustration of the collar chaetae reported as having numerous fine teeth on the fin. Fauvel’s illustration of the S. dysteri aggregate (Fauvel 1927, fig. 129k, a copy of Huxley 1855, fig. 1) is variously described as “a bundle of intertwining networks of tubes” (Fauvel 1927), a “rope-like twisted mesh” (Knight-Jones et al. 1996: 256) or an “arborescent” aggregate (Nishi &amp; Nishihira 1997). Examination of the nominal S. dysteri tube aggregations from the Hebrides, from Menai Bridge and Fauvel-identified Saint Vaast-la-Hougue (La Manche) material bears that out.</p> <p>The contrasting description of Salmacina incrustans referred to collar chaetae with 4–6 large teeth on the fin (Fauvel 1927: 377–380, fig.129 a–l). Other than “rectangular with several rows of teeth above a larger tooth at the base,” Fauvel (1927: 378) did not provide any details of the thoracic uncini of S. incrustans. Although we were not able to obtain specimens of published S. incrustans for SEMming, we SEMmed material from traditional locations of S. incrustans from Spain and Croatia. The micrograph of the collar chaetae showed there was a prominent gap between the fin and the blade, as well as a perceptible difference in size between the prominent teeth of the fin and the other more lateral and proximal teeth. Distinct frontal views of a few thoracic uncini in a SEM micrograph of the 4 th torus of the S. incrustans from the Costa Brava specimen (SEM no. 0016), show three teeth in the F+1 row, with the number of teeth increasing to ca. 5 in the horizontal rows towards the apex. A nominal S. incrustans ’ uncinus from the Adriatic had F+1 with two teeth. For the tube aggregate of S. incrustans (type locality, Italy), Fauvel (1927: 378–379) reported two forms, either, “Tubes more or less aggregated in colonies encrusting algae, shells and stones,” or, “More rarely, forming structures analogous to those of Salmacina dysteri. ”</p> <p>Fauvel reported prostomial ocelli as present in both Salmacina dysteri and S. incrustans (Fauvel, 1927: 377, 378, respectively). However, in their study of taxonomic characters in Salmacina sp. / spp., ten Hove &amp; Pantus (1985) found that newly-collected Mediterranean specimens (not determined to species) lacked prostomial ocelli altogether. In live or freshly collected Salmacina specimens from the Gulf of Aqaba, the character, brilliant crimson prostomial ocelli was very distinctive, but we noted that the ocelli faded shortly after alcohol-preservation (Ben-Eliahu et al. 2007). Our conclusion was that the lack of prostomial or branchial ocelli is a robust character only in live or fresh material, not to be taken into consideration when studying preserved museum specimens (Ben-Eliahu et al. 2007). We can provide no explanation for the discrepancy between Fauvel’s finding and that of ten Hove &amp; Pantus (1985). Nonetheless, we have confidence that the chaetal structures described above and the form of the tube aggregate are robust and durable characters despite some variability in structure.</p> <p>Both of our present Salmacina samples come from the Great Bitter Lake (Appendix Table 2B, D). The empty tube residues on C. Beets’ shells, collected in 1950, can be identified as Salmacina sp. due to their size and aggregate form, similar to those in Figs 3B, 24A, B, thus, presumably, belonging to the same taxon as the Salmacina specimens collected by Brattström &amp; Taasen in 1975 from the “Yellow Fleet” ships. The flat- encrusting form of the tube aggregation corresponds to Fauvel’s (1927) description of Salmacina incrustans and excludes a determination of S. dysteri. The collar chaetae and uncini also conform to Fauvel’s characterisation of S. incrustans, taking into account his presumed magnification limitations. Fig. 25 shows the collar chaetae of seven SEM “Yellow Fleet” specimens. Although there was considerable variability in their structure, even within a single fascicle (e.g., Figs 25D 1–3, F 1–2), there were nonetheless consistent characteristics: (1) the chaeta has a distinct non-denticulate gap separating the basal fin from the blade; (2) ca. 4 particularly large teeth on the fin, the distal-most tooth being the largest, the other three teeth grading in size proximally in the midline; the teeth grading laterally and proximally into smaller teeth, and then even smaller teeth laterally and more proximally reaching their smallest size in the most lateral and most proximal parts of the fin. Tori of thoracic uncini of two specimens are shown in Figs 26A, C; two uncini were counted in each torus (see legend, Fig. 26A, uncini designated 1 and 2, and in Fig. 26 C, designated 5 and 6, respectively). The number of teeth in the proximal row to the fang (F+1) position was 2–3, with the number increasing to 6 and 5 teeth and 4 and 5 teeth in the widest rows, respectively, altogether 6–7 rows of teeth above the fang (for counts of the abdominal uncini, see Figs 26B and E). There was considerable variability in structure between the uncini even within the same torus. Both the uncini and the flat-encrusting tube structure of our Salmacina from the Bitter Lake differ from Fauvel’s specimen from the Gulf of Suez (Fauvel 1933 a, b) and from that in the Gulf of Aqaba (Figs 27B, E, respectively), as well as from a nominal S. dysteri from Hawaii. With less trepidation than before attempting this comparative study, we feel able to identify our Bitter Lake specimens as S. incrustans sensu Fauvel (1927). Salmacina incrustans had been recorded from Alexandria (101 m), ca. 225 km west of the Mediterranean opening of the Suez Canal (Fauvel 1937: 47 [again, voucher specimens not available]). Presuming that our determination as S. incrustans from the “Yellow Fleet” population in the Bitter Lake was correct, it is a reasonable inference that this taxon was transported by the ships from the Atlantic and Mediterranean into the Suez Canal, and eventually “infected” the Great Bitter Lake, as most probably did two other biofouling taxa, Hydroides elegans and H. diramphus (see above).</p> <p>As regards the Salmacina dysteri sample misidentified by Fauvel from the Gulf of Suez (1933a, b; Figs 27B–D), it is worth mentioning that the tube aggregation resembled that of the S. dysteri, e.g., from the English Channel (Manche, St. Vaast-la-Hougue (see Comparative material studied). Fauvel’s sample contained only a single worm, the one we SEMmed, however, the micrograph clearly showed thoracic uncini of the multidentate-rasp-shaped type, with four teeth in the row proximal to the fang (F+1) = 4 (Fig. 27B), rather than the 2–3 teeth characteristic of S. dysteri; thus, it is certain that this Gulf of Suez specimen was not S. dysteri s. str. despite the similar tube aggregation structure. An important implication of this finding is that the presence of an aggregation of netlike intertwining tubes (presumably the basis for Fauvel’s identification), is not exclusively diagnostic for S. dysteri. Our results indicate that the character is present in additional Salmacina taxa.</p> <p>In the Salmacina populations from the Gulf of Aqaba, the thoracic uncini similarly have multidentate rasp-like uncini with 4–5 teeth above the fang: (F+1) = 4–5, Fig. 27E, and net-like aggregations. This was also true for nominal Salmacina dysteri specimens from Hawaii (Bailey-Brock 1976). Pixell’s Salmacina dysteri from Zanzibar, Tanzania, Wasin Harbour (BM(NH) 1924.6.13.152); from the bottom of S.S. “Juba” (BM(NH) 1938.7.25, 26–40); off the coast of Zanzibar, Jembani (BM(NH) 1938.7.25.41–52), and presumably also Zanzibar 1938.7.25.13–25, uncini partly covered (Pixell 1913). In the present paper, we are not attempting to deal in detail with all these taxa, except for generalising them to Salmacina sp. —there may be more than one taxon involved. Multidentate rasp-like uncini are also present in Salmacina amphidentata not Jones, 1962 sensu Fiege &amp; Sun (1999) from Hainan Island as well as in the Caribbean species, S. amphidentata Jones, 1962.</p> <p>Finally, as concerns tube-aggregate form, if both flat-encrusting and net-like forms of aggregate are characteristic of Salmacina incrustans as Fauvel (1927: 379) suggested, this raises the question whether the form of the aggregation can be related to ecological adaptation, for example, to hydrographic factors, i.e., to a less rather than a more protected environment?</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F07E050FF50FF1BFD7EF849	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F01E051FF50FF1BFEACFC33.text	396387E75F01E051FF50FF1BFEACFC33.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Serpula concharum Langerhans 1880	<div><p>Serpula concharum Langerhans, 1880</p> <p>Type locality. Atlantic Ocean, Madeira. Not present in the Suez Canal; however, for literature records under this name from the Suez Canal, see Hydroides elegans, Hydroides spp. and Serpula hartmanae.</p> <p>Remarks. The name has frequently been used for the juvenile stage of Hydroides that lacks an upper verticil (ten Hove &amp; Ben-Eliahu 2005).</p> <p>As concerns Serpula concharum s. str., with its more than 150 literature records, this Atlantic- Mediterranean species should be a well-known taxon. Its tube is rounded trapezoidal in cross-section, with five more or less similar longitudinal ridges (e.g., Langerhans 1880: 118–119; Bianchi 1981: 47–49, fig. 14). However, according to Zibrowius (1968: 98–100), the tube may have 3–5 ridges, and intermediate forms exist. Fauvel (1927: 352–353, fig. 121) and Rioja (1931: 404–406, pl. 128) explicitly mention 5 ridges in the text, but figure only three. Material collected by us along the Israeli coast up to depths of 20 meters only showed 3-ridge tubes, with a rather square trapezoidal cross-section, as opposed to the material from deeper localities with 5 ridges and more circular cross-sections. Therefore, Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove (1992: 41) attributed the shallow water population from Israel to Serpula cf. concharum; subsequently Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege (1996: 6) used S. concharum “ type B” to indicate this form with 3 longitudinal ridges while Bianchi &amp; Morri (2000: 260, fig. 2) used Serpula sp. Probably S. concharum sensu auct. from the Atlantic- Mediterranean is a complex of a complex of—at least—two species and much work remains to be done on the variability of taxonomic characters, particularly in the shallow water material. The revision of the taxon should be based both on the available morphological specimens and on genetic studies. Records under this name from outside the Atlantic-Mediterranean probably belong to other taxa (see Remarks in section of Serpula hartmanae, below). A recent report of Serpula concharum from shallow water off Alexandria in Egypt by El-Rashidy et al. (2009) may well be the same taxon as the material present in shallow depth from the coast of Israel.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F01E051FF50FF1BFEACFC33	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F01E044FF50FB91FBB2FBCB.text	396387E75F01E044FF50FB91FBB2FBCB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Serpula hartmanae Reish 1968	<div><p>Serpula hartmanae Reish, 1968</p> <p>Figs 28–32, Table 4</p> <p>Serpula hartmanae Reish, 1968: 228–229, figs 5, 11–16 [Type locality: Marshall Islands (Fig. 28), Bikini Atoll, Enyu Island]; Imajima &amp; ten Hove 1984: 36–38, figs 1a–d [Marshall Islands]; Imajima &amp; ten Hove 1986: 2 [Solomon Islands, Gilbert Islands].</p> <p>Serpula sp.: Hartman 1954: 641 [northern Marshall Islands, Eniwetok Atoll].</p> <p>Eastern Mediterranean</p> <p>No previous records, but see Remarks.</p> <p>Suez Canal</p> <p>No previous records.</p> <p>Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba</p> <p>Serpula concharum not Langerhans, sensu Amoureux et al. 1978: 143, fig. 11, as S. c. [part; Gulf of Aqaba, Elat, Stn 6846, underside of a buoy, legit L. Fishelson, 18.IX.1970, on dead corals, 2 specs, synonymised herein (Fig. 29).</p> <p>Red Sea proper–Indo-West-Pacific (excluding citations from Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba already given above) Serpula concharum not Langerhans, sensu Imajima 1982: 38–39, figs 1a–i [fide Imajima &amp; ten Hove (1984),</p> <p>Micronesia, Palau and Yap Islands].</p> <p>Material examined. Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Mediterranean side: Questionable (somewhat similar) material examined (see below).</p> <p>Suez Canal material reported herein: Great Bitter Lake “Yellow Fleet” Biofouling Samples, January 13– 20, 1975: 4 subsamples, 4 specs, two specimens with normally developed opercula (larger, B&amp;T-02, HUJ- Poly-4388 (Figs 30, 31); smaller, B&amp;T-01, HUJ-Poly-4387 (Fig. 32); and two with small, regenerating opercula, B&amp;T-03, HUJ-Poly-4390, respectively B&amp;T-04, HUJ-Poly-4389).</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Red Sea side: Gulf of Suez: None.—Gulf of Aqaba: Israel, Elat, Serpula concharum not Langerhans, sensu Amoureux et al.: 1978: 143, fig. 11, as S. c. [part; Gulf of Aqaba, Elat, Stn 6846, underside of a buoy, legit L. Fishelson, 18.IX.1970, on dead corals, 2 specs (Fig. 29)— Egypt, Taba Beach, under rock, 11.V.1988, 3 questionable specs, see remarks below.</p> <p>Indo-West-Pacific: Marshall Islands, Bikini Atoll, Ocean Side of Enyu Island, legit, det. D. Reish 6.IX.1956, holotype USNM 38400, paratype 38401 (Fig. 28).— Solomon Islands, Mamara Point and Komimbo Bay, British Royal Society Expedition to the Solomon Islands, 1965, attached to coral on reef platform, legit, det. P.E. Gibbs, BM (NH) 1970.833–835, 3 specs.— Palau &amp; Yap Islands, off Arumonogui, Japanese Expedition to the Palau and Yap Islands, VII.1980, M. Imajima (1982) det. S. concharum, redet. Imajima &amp; ten Hove (1984) S. hartmanae, ZMA V.Pol. 3452, 1 spec. (of the 15 specs collected), tube.</p> <p>Suez Canal depth and substrates: On Brachidontes pharaonis bivalves; on a barnacle; on a bryozoan.</p> <p>Distribution. Red Sea: Gulf of Aqaba; Indo-West Pacific:? Seychelles;? India, Micronesia.</p> <p>Description, based on the largest individual from the Great Bitter Lake with the most differentiated operculum, B&amp;T-02 (Figs 30, 31, Table 3). Length, 26.5 mm plus (some posterior chaetigers lacking); ca. 120 chaetigers (7 thoracic); operculum with 15 blunt radii without tubercles, apical grooves nearly reaching the centre, surface, concave, cup-like, depth ca. ½ the length of the vesicle. Profile bell-shaped with a waist, basal bulb slightly expanded, distal diameter 3.5 times diameter of waist which is positioned 41 % from the base (Fig. 30D); length of external grooves 42.5 %. Peduncle with a slight but distinct ventral asymmetrical boss proximal to the marked constriction (more marked in glycerine mount than in alcohol, Figs 30D, F, respectively). Number of branchial radioles per lobe, ca. 11.</p> <p>Hyaline bodies in the branchial radioles present in all four Suez Canal specimens (Figs 31F, G and 32E) and in a Palau Island individual as well. Apron present.</p> <p>Meristic characters are detailed for each of the four Suez Canal specimens in Table 3: Length, 12.7–26.5 + mm; width, 0.8–1.2 mm; number of chaetigers, 80–121+ (7 thoracic), with opercula radii numbering 12–16 (mature opercula with 12 and 15 radii and the regenerating opercula with 15 and 16 radii). The number of radii in Amoureux et al. ’s (1978) synonymised nominal Serpula concharum specimen was also 12; the paratype has 18 radii (Fig. 28A). The number of branchial radioles in the lobe ~8–11 (~8, 10, 10, 11), respectively (largest individual underlined). Length of external grooves, ~37–44 %; the maximum opercular diameter 1.8–3.5 times that of waist; waist positioned 28.9–50 % from the base. Contour bell-shaped, with waist less developed in small regenerating opercula. Characteristic asymmetrical peduncular boss present in B&amp;T-02, much less distinct in B&amp;T-01, not present in the two regenerating opercula.</p> <p>Collar chaetae: Bayonet chaetae with 2 conical teeth; in some of the chaetae, a small (fine), very easily overlooked tooth, positioned behind and between the two large teeth and the blade (Figs 28 E 1, 29I, J; 31A, second chaeta from left; see also Fig. 32F). Collar capillary chaetae present. Other thoracic chaetae “limbate” and capillary chaetae (Fig. 31B). Thoracic uncini saw-shaped, F+5 (Figs 29M, 31D), (F+4, three smaller individuals). Anterior abdominal uncini saw-shaped, F+4, two individuals; both F+4 and F+3 uncini in one individual; F+ 3 in one individual (Figs 28G, 31E). Abdominal uncini becoming rasp-shaped posteriorly and increasing both in numbers of teeth in vertical row and in numbers of teeth in transversal row (e.g., F:2:3:4:4: plus several rows of smaller teeth towards apex, e.g., Fig. 29L). Abdominal chaetae asymmetric flat-trumpet chaetae with ca. 25 teeth (Figs 28F, 29K; 31C, 32I replaced by capillary chaetae posteriorly (B&amp;T-02- capillary chaetae in last 17 abdominal chaetigers + a few missing chaetigers. Hyaline bodies were present in the branchial radioles; becoming infrequent towards the proximal part of the radiole, noted in all four individuals from the Suez Canal (Figs 31F, G, 32E).</p> <p>Tube: White with 3 rounded longitudinal ridges on flat upper surface, trapezoidal in cross-section, with transversal ridges; in more anterior parts of the tube the 3 longitudinal ridges are less pronounced, tube appears less rugose (Figs 28C, D; 29A–C; 30A, B; 32A, B). Thin granular hyaline surface overlay present.</p> <p>continued next page</p> <p>1) For characterizing the opercula, the following contour types are given: A–Funnel shaped (rather straight walls), B–Bell-shaped without flare or waist, C–Bell-(trumpet)- shaped with flare, without waist, D–Bell-shaped with flare and waist, without markedly expanded basal “bulb”, E–Bell-shaped with flare and waist, with markedly expanded basal “bulb”,— 2) Constriction of peduncle at the base of the opercular vesicle,— 3) The asymmetric boss at the distal end of the opercular peduncle, characteristic for Serpula hartmanae Reish: +++ = very prominent asymmetric boss; ++ prominent (see Fig. 29F); + visible; – lacking,— 4) Dentition of the collar chaetae, designated as follows: 2L = 2 large conical teeth; 2L, 1m = 2 large conical teeth with 1 smaller median tooth positioned between the teeth and the blade (Fig. 29J); 2L, 1M denotes 3 large conical teeth positioned as above; note that Serpula hartmanae bayonet chaetae lack proximal rasps or additional dentition,— 5) For radiolar hyaline bodies see Figs 31F, G, 32E. Brattström &amp; Taasen specimen no. 2 (removed from Bryozoa [Figs 30–31]),— 6) Missing several pygidial segments (Fig. 30E),— 7) Figs 30D, F,— 8) Fig. 30C,— 9) Figs 30D– G,— 10) Fig. 30G,— 11) 1–2 collar chaetae with small median tooth (Fig. 31A, 2 nd chaeta from left),— 12) Fig. 31D, F denotes the sharply pointed anterior tooth in Serpula uncini, here seen in profile view,— 13) Fig. 31E,— 14) see Figs 31F, G; thinning out of radiolar hyaline bodies towards proximal part (base of radiole).— 15) Fig. 30B,— 16) Abbreviations, “tu/t”, thoracic uncini in torus; “ac”, abdominal chaetae; “au/t” abdominal uncini per torus; “caps”, capillary chaetae in abdomen; number of uncini in thoracic torus, 49; number of abdominal chaetae in fascicle, 13; number of abdominal uncini in torus, 74; last 17 chaetigers with capillary chaetae. Brattström &amp; Taasen specimen no. 1 (removed from Mollusca [Fig. 32]),— 17) Specimen lost after photographing,— 18) Counted on digital photo,— 19) Small operculum, not fully developed and not fully chitinised, without waist (Fig. 32D),— 20) Fig. 32C,— 21) Peduncular boss barely developed (Fig. 32D),— 22) Fig. 32F, frontal view, left chaeta, shows 2 teeth (intermediate area is not in focus), right chaeta clearly shows 2 large teeth and small median tooth between the large teeth and the blade,— 23) Fig. 32 G,— 24) Fig. 32H,— 25) Hyaline bodies present,— 26) Fig. 32A, B. Brattström &amp; Taasen specimen no. 4 (removed from Mollusca; specimen with regenerating branchial crown and operculum): 27) Branchial crown of small size,— 28) Constriction present, not marked, not chitinised,— 29) Basal boss not developed,— 30) Most of the bayonet chaetae with 2 pointed teeth, somewhat abraded; the most basal chaeta appears to have an intermediate tooth between these teeth and the blade,— 31) In one torus, dorsal uncini F+5, ventral uncini F+4. Brattström &amp; Taasen specimen no. 3, removed from Cirripedia, specimen with regenerating branchial crown and operculum,— 32) Minute intermediate tooth present.— 33) The number of transverse rows increases posteriorly; frontally, the uncini are rounded, thus; only some of the teeth were in focus; mau F+5, seemingly saw-shaped; more posterior uncini F+7/3–4 sawto-rasp-shaped (compiled from two foci). Red Sea specimen TAU-NS-6188 (Amoureux et al. 1978: 143) (Fig. 29): 34) Posterior abdominal part missing,— 35) Fig. 29E — 36) Fig. 29D,— 37) Single unbroken chaeta, dissected from base of fascicle (Figs 29I, J)— 38) Fig. 29M lateral view, 39) Fig. 29L, — 40) Lateral longitudinal ridges higher than median ridge (Figs 29A–C). Paratype from Marshall Islands, USNM 38401: 41) Returned to USNM before the difficult-to-observe minute middle posterior tooth was noted in other specimens (the chaetae are abraded but the left-most chaeta seems to show middle posterior tooth).— 42) Thoracic uncini from enlarged fig. 15 of Reish (1968),— 43) Returned to USNM prior to studying character,— 44) Tube with granular layer, covering ridges. IWP Palau, ZMA V.Pol. 3452 (Imajima &amp; ten Hove 1984: 36–38, figs 1a–d). IWP Seychelles, ZMA V.Pol. 4353, S. cf. hartmanae: 45) Very abraded chaetae with 2-teeth; figure of basal chaeta seems to show tip of small medial-tooth.</p> <p>Remarks. Narrowing down the identification of our Suez Canal material of the genus Serpula, we considered the species neighbouring the Canal at both sides (and further away as well); see extensive discussion of this approach under Protula. The name Serpula concharum has erroneously been given to Indo- West-Pacific taxa, e.g., Amoureux et al. (1978, see above). Identifying “ Serpula concharum ”- like taxa with a similar opercular contour and a low number of blunt marginal radii from the Suez Canal area, we can discount both Mediterranean taxa of this nominal species (see remarks on S. concharum, above) by the fact that they lack the main diagnostic characters for S. hartmanae: The asymmetric ventral peduncular boss (swelling) proximal to the constriction of the operculum, termed by Reish (1968) “2 knobs”, and a granular surface overlay on the white tube (ten Hove 1994). However, in the Solomon Island specimens of P.E. Gibbs (1971), a sketch of spec. no. 833 showed a prominent asymmetric boss just below the opercular constriction while that of no. 835 was not prominent (notes, Ben-Eliahu, 1986), an indication as to the variability of this character.</p> <p>Considering Serpula taxa distributed in the Mediterranean, we excluded S. cavernicola Fassari &amp; Mòllica, 1991, S. israelitica Amoureux, 1976 and S. vermicularis, all with more (40+) radii than our present material. It should be noted that we consider S. vermicularis strictly as an Atlantic / Mediterranean taxon, not cosmopolitan, cf. ten Hove &amp; Jansen-Jacobs (1984). Serpula lobiancoi Rioja, 1917 has a pronouncedly zygomorphic operculum.</p> <p>In considering described Indo-West-Pacific (IWP) taxa, we excluded several IWP taxa with more radii such as Serpula indica Parab &amp; Gaikwad, 1989 (maybe including the very similar S. nudiradiata Pillai, 2009, see further down), or S. jukesii, and taxa with a similar number of radii but with more teeth on the collar chaetae such as S. oshimae Imajima &amp; ten Hove, 1984 that also has a predominantly orange tube and 7–9 thoracic chaetigers (Imajima 1978, as S. cf. kaempferi) or S. vittata Augener, 1914 (syn. S. palauensis Imajima, 1982) that has Hydroides elegans -like collar chaetae and a tube dotted with brownish speckles. Another Indo-West-Pacific species, S. rubens Straughan, 1967b (p. 209–211, fig. 4a–i), with a similar opercular contour and number of radii (16–18), and collar chaetae with a large and several small teeth, is a much smaller species (to 8 mm in length), with fewer pairs of radioles (a maximum of 7 pairs), and with a variable number of thoracic segments, 8–11 (Imajima &amp; ten Hove 1984: 38).</p> <p>The Suez Canal material comprised only 4 individuals and, regrettably, two of them, B&amp;T-03 and -04, had regenerating opercula. Revising Serpula hartmanae parameters from Imajima (1982, as S. concharum) and Imajima &amp; ten Hove (1984) provides a reported length of up to 24 mm, with up to 105 chaetigers; thorax with typical constant seven chaetigers; 15–16 radioles, and 11–25 blunt opercular radii. Meristic differences between their S. hartmanae material and that of Reish (1968) appeared to these authors insufficient for taxonomic distinction (Imajima &amp; ten Hove 1984: 38). Ten Hove (1994) reported Seychelles material with an even greater number of opercular radii (24–35) as Serpula cf. hartmanae due to the presence of an asymmetric peduncular boss (“peculiar swelling”) and a granular tube surface. Moreover, some of the Seychelles specimens’ opercular grooves were wavy, not smooth, thus it might well be a separate species. The Red Sea S. hartmanae individual had 12 opercular radii (Fig. 29D).</p> <p>As Table 3 shows, the largest individual from the Suez Canal (B&amp;T-02) slightly exceeds the compiled length described for Serpula hartmanae. Its operculum shows an asymmetric peduncular boss (Figs 30D–F), though less prominent than that of the Red Sea specimen (Fig. 29E, F) which is similar in size to that of the paratype (Fig. 28B)—it is smaller than that figured for the holotype by Reish (1968, fig. 11). A Palau Island individual had an even larger boss than the paratype or the Red Sea individual (Imajima &amp; ten Hove 1984: 37, fig. 1a).</p> <p>The number of chaetigers in these Suez Canal specimens is also slightly greater than that described for Serpula hartmanae, but that is also true for other S. hartmanae individuals, e.g., from Palau Island (material of Imajima &amp; ten Hove 1984); that of the Red Sea specimen with a missing posterior abdomen was 67+. The number of radioles in the Suez Canal material was less than that described for Serpula hartmanae, while the Red Sea individual had 15 radioles in the non-opercular lobe, which conforms to the description.</p> <p>In the several descriptions, differences in the chaetal dentition of the bayonet collar chaetae also emerge. Reish (1968) figured them with 2 teeth, rather abraded in the paratype (see Figs 28E 1, E 2); ten Hove &amp; Jansen- Jacobs (1984: 149, fig. 2q) similarly noted 2 teeth without accessory teeth, however, Imajima (1982) and Imajima &amp; ten Hove (1984: 36) referred to “2–3 heavy conical teeth and a variable number of small accessory teeth at base.” The collar chaetae of one of their Palau specimens (Imajima &amp; ten Hove 1984) were abraded, except for a basal chaeta with 2 large conical teeth; whether or not there is an intermediate tooth positioned between these teeth and the blade could not be seen; there were no accessory teeth at the base. The Red Sea specimen had only one unbroken bayonet chaeta at the base of the fascicle; it had a distinct small median tooth positioned between the conical teeth and the blade (Figs 29I, J) similar to some of the Suez Canal bayonet chaetae, described above (Figs 31A, 32F)—the remaining collar chaetae were broken. In a Seychelles specimen (of Serpula cf. hartmanae), the median tooth was larger than that in the Red Sea and Suez Canal chaetae (Table 3).</p> <p>Thoracic uncini: An enlargement of Reish’s (1968) figure of the thoracic uncini (fig. 15) shows a dentition of F+6. The thoracic uncinus given by Imajima (1982: 39, fig. 1f) was F+7 teeth, and Imajima &amp; ten Hove (1984) reported F+7 thoracic uncini. However, a single torus from a Palau Island individual, showed several uncini of F+6 dentition, while most were F+5. The Red Sea specimen showed F+5 dentition (Fig. 29M). As noted, the largest Suez Canal individual had F+5 uncini (Fig. 31D), while the thoracic uncini of the three others was F+4, a lower number than previously described for Serpula hartmanae.</p> <p>Abdominal uncini: Reish (1968) did not specify dentition of the saw-shaped anterior abdominal uncini; however that of the paratype was F+4 (Fig. 28G). The abdominal uncini described by Imajima (1982), and Imajima &amp; ten Hove (1984: 36) are F+7 anterior and posterior uncini, with up to 4 horizontal rows of teeth in the transversal rows of the rasp-shaped posterior uncini. The Red Sea specimen’s anterior abdominal uncini were F+4 while the not quite posterior-most uncini were F+7/4.</p> <p>All Suez Canal individuals show a trend of increasing the number of teeth in the vertical rows posteriorly, and the increase in number of teeth in the horizontal rows continued, detailed for some individuals in Table 3, which also shows the variability of dentition within a single torus (most individuals have a posterior dentition of F+7/4 [see “Treatment of the specimens in “Material and Methods” section]). For example, dentition of a posterior abdominal uncinus of specimen B&amp;T–2 was F+7/4 (or 5) (detailed F:1:2:3:3:2:[4 or 5]:4), while in specimen B&amp;T–4, in the same torus, the number of teeth were: F+8/4 (detailed F:1:1:1:2:3:4:4:2) in one uncinus, and F+7/4 (= F:1:1:2:2:3:4:3) in another (seen under compound microscope).</p> <p>Abdominal chaetae: Abdominal chaetae cannot be properly described without SEM due to their transparent nature (ten Hove &amp; Jansen-Jacobs 1984: 145); photographs (Figs 28F, 29K, 31C and 32I) show mostly the fibrils and not the transparent distal teeth; thus, counts of the teeth done under the compound microscope are not reliable.</p> <p>Tube: The Micronesian material from Palau Island (Imajima &amp; ten Hove 1984: 36–38, figs 1c, d) appears more granular than that of the paratype, the Red Sea or the Suez Canal individuals, but all of the tubes appeared to have a thin granular layer. In the Gulf of Aqaba specimens from Taba Beach, the seeming lack of a granular surface on the tubes, despite a three-ridged cross-section, raises a question regarding the identification of the three specimens taken from under a rock (11.V.1988 [cited above]); the identification as Serpula hartmanae is supported by the low number of opercular radii, 17, 16 opercular radii, 11 radii in a juvenile with marked constriction present at the base of the operculum.</p> <p>Meristic differences found by Imajima &amp; ten Hove (1984) did not seem to them sufficient for taxonomic distinction. Similarly, the Suez Canal material, though showing some variation, should be attributed to Serpula hartmanae. Our results suggest that the degree of waistline in the profile of the operculum is a function of the opercular development (size) and this appears to be true also for the development of the characteristic asymmetric peduncular boss. It is not known whether the closely packed hyaline bodies observed in the branchial radioles have disappeared in some preserved specimens. What is clear is that variability in various characters in the taxon S. hartmanae needs still to be further explored, and particularly, variability in development of the peduncular boss (bosses), in structure of bayonet collar chaetae, dentition of the uncini as well as the effect of different environmental conditions on the formation and degree of tube granulation, and the thickness of the lateral keels. In this exploration, S. amplilobata Pillai, 2009 (pp.134– 135, figs 27a–k, 18A–E), recently described upon a single specimen only, should be taken into account as well. Apparently Pillai was not aware of the existence of S. hartmanae, since not referring at all to this taxon in his paper, while it is at least very similar—if not synonymous—with his newly described taxon regarding operculum, granular tube, collar chaetae, etc.</p> <p>On reviewing the present paper, H. Zibrowius contacted H.A. ten Hove concerning a new finding by Zibrowius &amp; Bitar that Serpula hartmanae is abundant on the Lebanese coast (Zibrowius &amp; Bitar, in prep.). This finding should cause it to be classified as a Lessepsian migrant proper, sensu Por (see Introduction). The report galvanized us to examine Serpula material encrusted on recently obtained molluscs (samples of the Tel Aviv University mollusc collection), as well as our own collections from 1990, diagnosed as S. cf. concharum (by Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992: 41). The specimens are clearly different from Serpula concharum Langerhans, 1880 s. str., from deeper waters. All 22 specimens surveyed have a three-keeled tube. However, in some tubes, the two dorso-lateral keels are much more prominent, more rounded, and more blunt than the thinner medial one (as in Serpula hartmanae [Fig. 29B]), but in others (perhaps half of the tubes), the keels are all narrow and rather similar—very likely this is related to size / age, but that still needs verification. Tubes are mostly covered by a thin granular layer. Some of the opercula show a small but distinct ventral peduncular boss proximal to the marked constriction (n=3) as in Serpula hartmanae (Figs. 29E, F, 30D, F, and 31D), but, in most specimens, the boss is not pronounced. The number of radii range between 10– 13.3 – 19 (n=22, SD 2.3). Perhaps the variability observed in the tube structure and the peduncular boss falls within the range of a single taxon, but we cannot presently be sufficiently certain to make a conclusive determination of that. We assume that Zibrowius &amp; Bitar’s Lebanese record belongs to the same taxon, which, in the past, we had identified as S. cf. concharum. This raises the question whether this material belongs to a taxon indigenous to the Mediterranean, as forms with a 3-keeled tube have been mentioned under various names, the oldest probably being Serpula sulfurata Milne Edwards, 1836. Alternatively, there is a reasonable similarity with our specimen from the Gulf of Aqaba (Fig. 29), presumably identical with S. hartmanae, which indeed might make the taxon yet another Lessepsian migrant. In view of the fact that the taxonomy of the genus Serpula is exceedingly problematic (see Remarks under Serpula jukesii, this paper), we have refrained from reaching a decision at the present time. A revision of S. concharum sensu lato, and all material of Indo-West-Pacific records of similar taxa, including S. hartmanae, is necessary (see remark on variability of this nominal taxon one paragraph above as well), but falls outside the scope of the present paper. Serpula cf. concharum, recently reported in shallow Egyptian waters (Alexandria) by El-Rashidy et al. (2009), is very possibly the same taxon as that found along the Israeli coast (see remarks under Serpula concharum, above).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F01E044FF50FB91FBB2FBCB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F14E040FF50FB03FB94FAEE.text	396387E75F14E040FF50FB03FB94FAEE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Serpula jukesii Baird 1865	<div><p>Serpula jukesii Baird, 1865</p> <p>Table 4</p> <p>Type locality. East coast of Australia. Most probably not present in the Suez Canal proper, see Remarks, below.</p> <p>Preliminary remarks. Since the presence of Serpula jukesii Baird (1865: 20, pl. 2 fig. 6) in the Suez Canal has not (yet?) been authoritatively demonstrated, we have refrained from a full treatment of the taxon here. For comparison, however, we reviewed the literature of larger Serpula taxa from Indo-West-Pacific origin and studied dozens of samples, as S. jukesii (including its holotype BM (NH) ZB 1982: 84), vermicularis sensu auct., vermicularis granulosa, magna, vasifera, originating from Kuwait to Japan, from India to Australia. Some of this has been summarized in Table 4. Below we also comment upon relevant records from the nearby Gulfs of Suez and Aqaba.</p> <p>Material examined. Gulf of Suez: Cambridge Expedition, stn R5, 5.XI.1924, det. F.A. Potts (1928: 700) Serpula vermicularis, fragments of a specimen discussed in detail below.— 33° 23’ E., 28°14’ N, 22 m, muddy sand, St. 17 bis, R.Ph. Dollfus Exp., 25.XII.1928, det. P. Fauvel (1933a: 76) S. vermicularis, redet. S. jukesii herein, CUZM, 1 spec. Operculum of specimen symmetrical with blunt teeth, its “waist” at mid-point; expanded basal bulb; constriction, deep funnel, 54 marginal radii (teeth); 40 radioles per lobe; tube white, pink inside, tubes without ridges; collar trilobed; apron; collar chaetae with 2 teeth; thoracic uncini F+4; anterior abdominal uncini F+5 and F+6.</p> <p>Red Sea, legit G. von Frauenfeld, det. Grube (1868: 640) Serpula gervaisii, redet. H.A. ten Hove 1982 S. jukesii (Table 4), Muzeum Przyrodnicze Wroclaw, 1 spec. Operculum showing tubercles on inner radii as opposed to type of S. jukesii.</p> <p>(*) Revised numbers of opercular radii and number of radioles per branchial lobe by H.A. ten Hove following his observation of specimen.— 1) The number of opercular radii in Atlantic-Mediterranean Serpula vermicularis counted from different illustrations.— 2) It cannot be excluded that Mediterranean records earlier than 1991 included measurements of S. cavernicola, with 45–80 radii (Fassari &amp; Mòllica 1991).— 3) ten Hove &amp; Jansen-Jacobs (1984: 150).— 4) Marenzeller (1885: 216) compared Serpula princeps Grube, 1877 described from N. Japan with his Serpula granulosa. However, Grube (1877) as referred to by Marenzeller [Naturh. Ber. d. Schles. Ges. f. vaterl. Cultur, 1877: 62] cannot be traced in the Dutch libraries, neither in the available bibliographies, nor is the name used again by Grube (1878 a: 104–105), where the same diagnosis as cited by Marenzeller (1885: 216) has been attributed to Serpula ? jukesii by Grube. Serpula princeps should be regarded to be a nomen nudum.— 5) Correction of observations of Straughan (1967a) in ten Hove &amp; Jansen-Jacobs (1984), taxon synonymised with S. jukesii.— 6) Not given in Marenzeller, 1885.</p> <p>Remarks. The taxonomy of the genus Serpula is exceedingly problematic. Without comparison of specimens to be identified with type specimens, or at least with topotypical material, identification is difficult under the best of circumstances. This is exacerbated when a specimen collected from within a transoceanic canal is unavailable for direct examination. The only record under the name Serpula jukesii was listed in a table (Abd- Elnaby 2009: 10), without any additional details. Regretfully, it was not possible to forward the material to Amsterdam for direct examination, however, the author generously responded to ten Hove’s request to count the number of opercular radii. On the basis of its having too few opercular radii (19 radii after damage, F.A. Abd-Elnaby, pers. comm. to H.A. ten Hove), we excluded the identification as Serpula jukesii for this Suez Canal specimen. In contrast, the taxon is excluded from an identification as Serpula hartmanae due to its having too great a number of radii (see Table 4), bayonet chaetae with 2 teeth, and by lacking an asymmetric boss on the peduncle, proximal to the constriction separating the peduncle from the operculum (F.A. Abd-Elnaby, pers. comm. to H.A. ten Hove). Given the present constraints, the most plausible conclusion is that the specimen is a juvenile Hydroides with a primary operculum (for a discussion of opercular ontogeny in Hydroides, see ten Hove &amp; Ben-Eliahu 2005). As it lacks the characteristic collar chaetae of Hydroides elegans, we are provisionally identifying it as Hydroides sp. (not enumerated among the verified taxa of the canal, and listing it among the non-determined species below).</p> <p>A nominal Serpula vermicularis sensu auct. had been collected in the Gulf of Suez and was included in Potts’ 1928 article on the Cambridge Expedition Sedentaria although not having been collected from within the Suez Canal proper. Potts (1928) referred to Pixell’s (1913) report of S. vermicularis in the Red Sea, which included citations from Antarctica, Patagonia and the Mediterranean Sea, “clearly a very unlikely distribution” (ten Hove &amp; Jansen-Jacobs 1984). Potts’ (1928) Serpula was presumably of Indo-West-Pacific or / and Red Sea affinity, whereas the type locality of Serpula vermicularis is Sussex, England (Heppell 1963: 445). By comparison with the distributions of other boreal-temperate taxa such as Pomatoceros triqueter, it may be safely assumed that Serpula vermicularis also occurs throughout the Atlantic-Mediterranean region. However, even this Atlantic-Mediterranean taxon might not be a single species. Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove (1992) and Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege (1996) mentioned differences in tube structure and colour, which may have taxonomic importance. Preliminary work done by us (in 1990–unpublished) indicates that there may be statistical differences in number of opercular radii, length of interradial grooves between opercula of the “echinate” form and Serpula vermicularis “ s. str. ”. Earlier Mediterranean records too may have included material of S. cavernicola. The cosmopolitan status of Serpula vermicularis has been questioned by ten Hove &amp; Jansen-Jacobs (1984); as a consequence Kupriyanova &amp; Rzhavsky (1993) and Kupriyanova (1999) separated 2 valid North Pacific taxa, S. columbiana Johnson, 1901 and S. uschakovi Kupriyanova, 1999, from the previously “cosmopolitan” S. vermicularis.</p> <p>Potts (1928: 700) nominal Serpula vermicularis reported an operculum with 70 opercular radii (“radiating ridges”), radially symmetrical (“insertion not as in S. lobiancoi ”), borne on a lobe with 22 branchial radioles. Potts gave no details on body structure or chaetae. Regretfully, the vial with Potts’ nominal S. vermicularis specimen, comprised only a tube and a posterior fragment when reviewed in 1986 at the CUZM by M.N. Ben- Eliahu; the branchial crown and anterior were already missing. However, when rechecked in IX.2002, only the tube was present, along with some abdominal epidermal tissue adhering to it (Fig. 11).</p> <p>As Fig. 11A–C shows, Potts’ description of the tube was both Painstaking and accurate: A massive tube, “coiled in a plane spiral” and “the tube is not free anteriorly over a great part of its length”, as Fauvel states is the case in Serpula vermicularis (Fauvel 1927: 352). The number of longitudinal ridges on the tube was difficult to make out” (Potts 1928). The tube resembles an enormous Spirorbis, and has a rather flattened upper surface with two blunt longitudinal ridges. Although the mouth of the tube appears rounded in cross-section, there are pronounced transversal ridges (i.e., former peristomes), and it has a thick granular overlay (Fig. 11C, see discussion below).</p> <p>Other Indo-West-Pacific records of nominal Serpula vermicularis should be checked individually against the voucher specimens. For example, Serpula jukesii sensu Grube (1878), from Japan should be referred to S. uschakovi (fide Kupriyanova 1999). Potts’ (1928) questionable Gulf of Suez specimen would fit into the biogeographical pattern of Serpula jukesii.</p> <p>Dealing with possible synonymies of nominal Serpula taxa, ten Hove &amp; Jansen-Jacobs (1984) wrote: Of the small number of useful taxonomic characters in Serpula, the “most important is the number of opercular radii”. According to these authors, Serpula vermicularis from Australian waters generally should be named S. jukesii (including S. magna).</p> <p>Serpula vermicularis granulosa sensu Mohammad (1971, Kuwait, 2 specs) and S. gervaisii not Quatrefages, 1866, sensu Grube (1868), Red Sea, 1 spec., were considered to be possible synonyms of S. jukesii. They are characterised by similar form in tubes, thoracic membranes not forming an apron on the ventrum, 3- toothed collar chaetae, and a very large number of opercular radii (i.e., marginal teeth) with and sometimes without distinct surface tubercles. Data on the collar chaetae and the thoracic membranes of Potts’ Serpula would have provided important support for identifying the specimen. Nonetheless, the described operculum falls within the Serpula jukesii / S. granulosa complex (sensu ten Hove &amp; Jansen-Jacobs 1984: 143–152). In a later paper, ten Hove (1994: 111) suggested that both taxa might be valid; ten Hove &amp; Kupriyanova (2009: 94) treated both as separate taxa. The number of opercular radii of these nominal taxa ranges from 40–100 (Table 4). For perspective, Table 4 also gives the range of number of marginal radii for Atlantic-Mediterranean Serpula vermicularis s. str., ranging from 25–61, with an illustration of local differences in this taxon in numbers of radii, as opercula from a purely Norwegian population were of larger size than those compiled from various areas including the Mediterranean. Size differences for warmer and colder-water populations of invertebrate species are a phenomenon described by Gunter (1957: 174) and Mayr (1966: 327) and might be found in S. vermicularis as well. Alternatively, the Atlantic-Mediterranean S. vermicularis sensu auct. might prove to be a complex of two (cryptic) species.</p> <p>Attributing the operculum described by Potts (1928) to the Serpula jukesii / granulosa- complex creates a dilemma, as the tube, with its regular flat tight spiral coiling, is not characteristic for Serpula. It appears certain that the tube and operculum are “mismatched”. Flat coiled spiralling is, however, known for an occasional Hydroides (H. Zibrowius, pers. comm. and our own unpublished observations and illustrated by Kupriyanova &amp; Jirkov 1997), for Spiraserpula (Pillai &amp; ten Hove, 1994), as well as for the bathyal Nogrobs (cf. ten Hove &amp; Kupriyanova 2009: 68). A Hydroides identification for the tube is not contraindicated by the abdominal chaetae from the epidermis removed from the tube lumen (Fig. 11D–F). The most plausible solution to this dilemma is that the opercular crown and the tube were fragments of two taxa collected together and placed in the same vial (H. Zibrowius, pers. comm.), so that Potts’ record of this sample should be revised to Serpula ? jukesii and to Hydroides sp. Moreover, once the possibility of Hydroides sp. is accepted, we suggest the tube could belong to H. heterocerus, the largest of the Hydroides species known from this area, and one with several records from the Gulf of Suez, indeed from the same general location, e.g., Suez quay (Pixell 1913: 75), Gulf of Suez (Fauvel 1933a, b) [see above section dealing with Hydroides heterocerus]). Potts (1928) did not indicate whether he had examined a “loose” branchial crown—one separated from a worm body floating in the sample material—or seen the body belonging to the operculum.</p> <p>Serpula ? jukesii as understood by ten Hove &amp; Jansen-Jacobs (1984: 149) shows considerable intraspecific variability in the collar chaetae: One heavy tooth and two accessory ones or three heavy teeth and two accessory ones, or four nearly equal teeth. However, Serpula nudiradiata Pillai 2009 (pp. 136–139) may have been included in S. jukesii by ten Hove &amp; Jansen-Jacobs, possibly throwing a different light upon this variation, their material should be restudied. It should be noted that Pillai apparently did not see the holotype of Serpula jukesii in the BM(NH), at least it was not mentioned by him, and he might have observed that the holotype of S. jukesii does not show tubercles, as opposed to Pillai’s material of this nominal taxon (and that of S. gervaisii sensu Grube (1868)) which both do show tubercles. A further difference between the holotype and Pillai’s specimens is the presence of an apron, as the ample thoracic membranes are not joined to form an apron in the holotype of S. jukesii. In fact, this was one of the characters upon which ten Hove &amp; Jansen-Jacobs (1984) determined synonymy of their S. jukesii and of S. magna (by comparison of types); however, this characterstate easily may be overlooked if not specifically studied and in some specimens it may be damaged (e.g., in S. gervaisii sensu Grube (1868)). In conclusion, Serpula jukesii too should be revised. Other Indo-West- Pacific Serpula taxa listed in ten Hove (1994) or described subsequently have fewer radii or opercula of different shapes than in the S. jukesii / granulosa- complex (the following list mentions only opercula for comparison with the Potts (1928) description, without taking into consideration tube, collar chaetae and other Serpula pacifica (Uchida, 1978), a juvenile specimen, lacks an operculum (and was regarded as of uncertain identity by Pillai &amp; ten Hove (1994: 103); Serpula japonica Imajima, 1979, 21–24 radii, operculum zygomorphic; Serpula rubens has a bell-shaped operculum with or without a waist, with greater or lesser flare, with only 15– 18 radii (types restudied by us). Two taxa with opercula with very long external grooves; with hardly any distal flair; elongate, with rather straight sides (basal bulb not expanded, waist not well-defined: Serpula watsoni Willey, 1905, ampulla deeply elongated; 33–55 radii, and Serpula sp. of Ishaq &amp; Mustaquim (1996) 16–33 radii, ampulla shorter, profile rather squat; 9–31 radioles. Two taxa with opercula with very long external grooves, but distally flared, tapering to the constriction, basal bulb not expanded: Serpula vittata 18–23 radii and S. vasifera, 31 radii, respectively (according to their written descriptions, the illustrations are contradictory; other material identified by ten Hove had 25–34 radii). Three opercula with short external grooves, distally flared, tapering to the constriction, basal bulb not expanded: Serpula tetratropia Imajima &amp; ten Hove, 1984 with 18–20 radii, raised central disc, somewhat pointed radii; S. zelandica Baird, 1865, 13–21 radii (incompletely described) and S. longituba (Imajima, 1979), 31 radii, short external grooves, with a markedly tapered elongated ampulla. Four taxa with distally flared, bell-shaped opercula with rather short external grooves, and with a well-defined waist, basal bulb more or less expanded: Serpula willeyi Pillai, 1971, 10 radii; S. hartmanae, 16–25 radii, with an asymmetric boss proximal to the constriction; S. oshimae 19–26 radii, lacking the boss, differs from S. hartmanae in collar chaetae. Similar, but larger, greatly flaring distally, Serpula indica 48–56 radii. Two taxa with hexagonal tusk-like tubes, Serpula crenata (Ehlers, 1908) and S. sinica Wu, Sun &amp; Chen, 1979 with 17–22 radii and 23 radii, respectively. Three gregarious Indo-West Pacific and Mediterranean taxa were transferred to the genus Spiraserpula because they have internal tube structures (ITS) by Pillai &amp; ten Hove, (1994): Spiraserpula minuta (Straughan, 1967b: 216, fig. 6 h–m) with only filiform pseudopercula (Australia); Spiraserpula lineatuba Straughan, 1967b: 216, fig. 6 h–m) (Australia, Queensland and New South Wales), operculum slightly zygomorphic with 22–25 radii; outer grooves ca. midway and Spiraserpula massiliensis (Zibrowius, 1968: 102–105, pl.1 figs 24–37, pl. 14 fig.), operculum with elongate funnel and rather flat distal cup with 10–23 radii and short outer grooves. The nominal Indo-West- Pacific Serpula philippensis McIntosh, 1885, from abyssal depths, is poorly described (questionable, fide ten Hove &amp; Kupriyanova 2009: 95), lacking a description for an operculum and the collar chaetae appear to be atypical.</p> <p>The present, redetermined Serpula jukesii records of Potts (1928) and Fauvel (1933) from the Gulf of Suez are not enumerated among the ca. 16 species reported from within the canal.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F14E040FF50FB03FB94FAEE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F10E040FF50FAEBFAD9F856.text	396387E75F10E040FF50FAEBFAD9F856.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Serpula vermicularis Linnaeus 1767	<div><p>Serpula vermicularis Linnaeus, 1767</p> <p>Table 4</p> <p>Type locality. European Seas. Not present in the Suez Canal, but see Hydroides elegans, Hydroides spp., Serpula hartmanae and S. jukesii sections, above.</p> <p>Remarks. As discussed above, the taxon Serpula is difficult to classify. The record of S. vermicularis by Selim (2009: 73) from the Suez Canal is unlikely to belong to this boreal-temperate taxon. Given as a listing in a table only, not even with the number of opercular radii, presumably it should be attributed to an unidentified Hydroides species juvenile stage with a primary operculum, or possibly even to Serpula hartmanae. Without verification from direct examination of the specimen, it is presently only possible to regard this record from the northern canal as questionable.</p> <p>Comparative material examined. Atlantic: North Atlantic: Lervik, Stordoe, Hardanger Fjord, Norway, 183–238 m, VI.1892, det. S.F. Harmer Serpula vermicularis, CUZM, 5 specs. Largest, length 58 mm; opercular diameter, 3 mm; 60 radii (36– 46 –60, s.d. = 9.08, N = 5, radii).—Mediterranean: Much Levant Mediterranean material in the National Natural History Collections of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem presently determined as Serpula vermicularis (see Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege 1996).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F10E040FF50FAEBFAD9F856	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F11E041FF50FF1BFB12FF0F.text	396387E75F11E041FF50FF1BFB12FF0F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spirobranchus giganteus (Pallas 1776)	<div><p>Spirobranchus giganteus (Pallas, 1776)</p> <p>Type locality. West Indies. Not present in the Suez Canal, but see Spirobranchus tetraceros.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F11E041FF50FF1BFB12FF0F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F11E041FF50FECEFAA5FE62.text	396387E75F11E041FF50FECEFAA5FE62.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spirobranchus polytrema (Philippi 1844)	<div><p>Spirobranchus polytrema (Philippi, 1844)</p> <p>Type locality. Mediterranean Sea, Italy. Not present in the Suez Canal, but see Spirobranchus tetraceros.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F11E041FF50FECEFAA5FE62	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F11E048FF50FE61FC63FBF0.text	396387E75F11E048FF50FE61FC63FBF0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spirobranchus tetraceros (Schmarda 1861)	<div><p>Spirobranchus tetraceros (Schmarda, 1861)</p> <p>Fig. 33, Table 5</p> <p>Preliminary remarks. The nominal taxon, “ Pomatoceros triqueter ”, was reported from shallow fouling panels from Alexandria harbour and from various locations within the Suez Canal (see Mediterranean and Suez Canal Synonymy Sections below). That contradicts what is known of the ecology and depth preferences of Pomatoceros triqueter, a boreal-temperate taxon with an Atlantic-Mediterranean distribution in sublittoral depths (e.g., in the Levant Basin, samples from 38–67 m from Israel (N = 3), and from 119 m from Cyprus (N = 1) (authors’ unpubl. database). Along the coast of Israel and presumably also along the Mediterranean coast of Egypt, there are three rather similar species found in shallow habitats. Like Pomatoceros triqueter, all three have triangular tubes and calcareous opercular plates borne on winged opercular peduncles: Pomatoceros lamarckii (Quatrefages, 1866), an Atlantic-Mediterranean species (Bianchi 1981), Spirobranchus tetraceros and Pomatoleios kraussii, Lessepsian migrant species (Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992) that may occur on biofouling panels, both of them present in the Suez Canal. Spirobranchus tetraceros is distinguished from the others by its more elaborate opercular spines and its fringed opercular wings (in most specimens) and special collar chaetae (Figs 33A, D and E). The opercular peduncles of both Pomatoceros lamarckii and Pomatoleios have wings with smooth margins. Pomatoleios kraussii has a somewhat concave opercular plate, frequently with a diagnostic sunken (internal) talon (ten Hove 1973 fig. 43); best seen when cleared in glycerine, and it lacks collar chaetae. Pomatoceros lamarckii has fine small limbate collar chaetae (Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992). Ghobashy et al. (1990) retroactively corrected citations of “ Pomatoceros triqueter ” for the Suez Canal to Spirobranchus tetraceros. However, given the presence of the similar taxon, Pomatoleios kraussii, we have placed question marks before the problematic citations.</p> <p>Pomatoceros tetraceros Schmarda, 1861: 30, pl. 21, fig. 129 [Type locality: New South Wales].</p> <p>Spirobranchus tetraceros: ten Hove 1970b: 3–14, figs 1–34 [redescription and synonymy; Red Sea, Indian Ocean: Natal; Persian Gulf; Malaysian Archipelago, Japan, Australia: Sydney, California:?Gulf of Catalina; tropical Pacific coast of America; Caribbean Sea; considered as absent thus far on the west coast of Africa (not found in two locations in Dakar, Senegal, by H.A. ten Hove in 1982); however, collected in 2007 in Dakar (H. Zibrowius, pers. comm.); Imajima 1979: 177–178, fig. 8 [Japan]; Zibrowius 1979b: 133–134 [France, Toulon Port, biofouling removed from the aircraft carrier “Foch”]; Imajima &amp; ten Hove 1984: 51–52 [Japan to Australia]; Wehe &amp; Fiege 2002: 133–134 [Suez Canal, Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf; list of references]; Zenetos et al. 2005: 73 [classified as an “established alien species” in the Mediterranean].</p> <p>Eastern Mediterranean</p> <p>Spirobranchus giganteus coutierei: Laubier 1966: 18–19 (fide ten Hove 1970b: 41–49) [Lebanon: Beirut, 25–30 m, IX.65, on bryozoans and madreporarians; first Mediterranean record of this Lessepsian migrant].</p> <p>Spirobranchus coutieri [sic]: Amoureux 1976: 1054 [Israel, Haifa Bay, 18 m, rocky substrates].</p> <p>Spirobranchus tetraceros: Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 1981: 159–160 [Lebanon, Beirut, Zaitouné, 5 m, on bivalve, 23.IX.1978]; Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 518–524, fig. 2 [Israel, Lebanon; Rhodes, Kallithea, 12.X.1970, HUJ-Poly-585—the earliest record indicating north-westward expansion to the Aegean Sea]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992: 40–48 [Israel, entire coast from north to south, 1–24 m]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege 1996: 33–38 [western Levant Basin, Israel]; Selim 1997b: 94–96, figs 7a–c, 8a–e [Egypt, Port Said, collected in 1988]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Payiatas 1999: 101, 119 [Cyprus, Larnaca jetty, empty tubes, legit H. Zibrowius 1996; Famagusta harbour, Aya Napa, empty tube, legit M.N. Ben-Eliahu and G. Payiatas 1998, det. H. Zibrowius]; Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 2003: 71 [Lebanon]; Bitar 2005: 427 [Lebanon, fouling communities, 5–20 m]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 90–93 [Alexandria, Eastern Harbour on solid surfaces, citing Abd-Elnaby (2005) that S. tetraceros had become very common and was the most abundant serpulid in the harbour on rocks, concrete and metal surfaces, though H. elegans was still dominant on the fouling plates.]; Selim et al. 2005: 89–97 [reports replacement of Hydroides elegans as the dominant fouling serpulid species in Abu Kir Bay (Alexandria)]; Çinar 2006: 232, fig. 9 a–d, [Levant coast of Turkey, Iskenderun Bay, 0.1– 25 m on stones, IX.2005]; Abd-Elnaby 2009: 10 [Alexandria]; Selim 2009: 74 [Port Said].</p> <p>? Pomatoceros triqueter not (Linnaeus), sensu Ghobashy &amp; Selim 1976b: 303, 304 [Alexandria, Eastern Harbour, see preliminary remarks, above]; Ghobashy et al. 1980: 84, table 2 [Port Said]; El-Komi 1991a: 8, 12, tables 3, 4 [Alexandria, harbour]; El-Komi 1991b: 290–291, table 3 [Alexandria, harbour]; El-Komi 1992: 124, 128, tables 2, 4 [Alexandria, harbour]; El-Rashidy et al. 2009, 1 p. [Alexandria].</p> <p>Suez Canal Spirobranchus tetraceros: Ben-Eliahu 1972a: 77 [eastern bank, several locations; 21.VI.1967, first reference from within the Suez Canal]; 1972c: 232, table 2; Ghobashy et al. 1986: 319–326, fig. 4 [Lake Timsah]; Ghobashy et al. 1990:</p> <p>677–685 [Lake Timsah]; Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 519, fig. 2 [el Qantara-Km 45, Lake Timsah, Bitter Lakes]; Selim</p> <p>1997b: 94–96, figs 7a–c, 8a–e [Suez Canal, “very abundant in all sites investigated”, i.e., El-Kab, Lake Timsah,</p> <p>Deversoir, collected in 1988; for Lake Timsah, also citing Shalla (1985) and Mostafa (1992) (see App. Table 4)];</p> <p>Emara &amp; Belal 2004: 192–199 [pooled Lake Timsah and Bitter Lakes data]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 91, 93</p> <p>[referring to Ghobashy et al. (1986) and to Barbary (1992, see App. Table 4); Selim 2009: 74 [northern part of the canal]; Abd-Elnaby 2009: 10 [southern part of the canal].? Pomatoceros triqueter not (Linnaeus), sensu Ghobashy et al. 1980: 84, table 2 [El Tina, Isma’iliya]; Ghobashy &amp; El-</p> <p>Komi 1981a: 170 [Lake Timsah]; Ghobashy &amp; El-Komi 1981b: 181 [southern canal]; Ghobashy 1984: 45 [Lake</p> <p>Timsah]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 91; 93 and referring to Ghobashy et al., 1980. In 1986, Spirobranchus tetraceros was first cited by this research group and all previous records of P. triqueter presumably refer to S. tetraceros. Spirobranchus sp.: Ghobashy 1984: 45 [Lake Timsah]; presumably S. tetraceros.? Spirobranchus giganteus not Pallas, sensu Selim 2009: 73 [Selim cited Fauvel (1933a, b) that referred to S. coutieri</p> <p>(Gravier, 1908) and S. multicornis (Grube, 1862), both taxa synonymised with S. tetraceros, and thus Selim’s record is attributable to what we presently regard to be the S. tetraceros -complex].</p> <p>Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba</p> <p>Spirobranchus contieri [sic]: Pixell 1913: 83–84, pl. 9, fig. 8 [Gulf of Suez: Suez; Red Sea: Suakin harbour; Indian Ocean: Zanzibar].</p> <p>Spirobranchus jousseaumi [sic]: Potts 1928: 701 [Suez, Gulf of Suez] (synonymised with S. tetraceros by ten Hove 1970b: 4).</p> <p>Pomatoceros coeruleus not (Schmarda), sensu Fauvel 1933a: 77 [Gulf of Suez St 24 ter, 60–80 m, 33º41'– 33º45'E, 27º48– 27º55' N, see Spirobranchus tetraceros sensu ten Hove 1970b, fide H. Zibrowius, pers. comm. (18.III.1971)]; Fauvel 1957: 10 [Gulf of Aqaba, Elat (see “Material examined”, below)].</p> <p>Pomatoceros triqueter not (Linnaeus), sensu Fauvel 1933a: 78 [Gulf Suez (see Spirobranchus tetraceros sensu ten Hove 1970b, fide H. Zibrowius, pers. comm. 18.III.1971]; El-Komi et al. 1998: 16, 17 [Suez Bay, 1992–1993, on polystyrene fouling panels and buoys, previously examined Egyptian-identified material showed this name to have been used for S. tetraceros]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 91; 93 [citations from Suez Bay referring to El-Komi et al. 1998].</p> <p>Spirobranchus giganteus not (Pallas), sensu Fauvel 1933a: 78–79 [Gulf of Suez: 7 stns, 35–[36–80] m; Gulf of Aqaba, 1 stn, 25 m, fide ten Hove (1970b: 4)]; Monro 1937: 317 [Arabian Sea]; Amoureux 1983: 369 [(part) Gulf of Aqaba, on algae, presumably S. tetraceros by habitat].</p> <p>Spirobranchus jousseaumei: Fishelson &amp; Rullier 1969: 102 [Musseri; redet. H.A. ten Hove 1990 S. tetraceros]; Fishelson 1971: 122, table 3 [Gulf of Aqaba]; Amoureux et al. 1978: 151, fig. 16 S.j. [Gulf of Aqaba, Elat, Venezia lagoon, redet. herein due to the figure as S. coronatus, a member of the S. tetracero s–complex; both of these taxa appear to be present in the lagoon].</p> <p>Spirobranchus polytrema not (Philippi), sensu Amoureux et al. 1978: 150–151, fig. 16 “ S.p.” [Gulf of Suez, Ras Kanisa; corrected to S. tetraceros herein, see remarks below].</p> <p>Spirobranchus tetraceros: Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 519, fig. 2 [Gulf of Suez, Gulf of Aqaba]; Selim 1997b: 94–96, figs 7a–c, 8a–e [Gulf of Suez, Port Taufiq, collected in 1988]; El-Komi et al. 1998: 16, 17 [Suez Bay, 1992–1993]; Hassan 1998: fig. p. 53 [Aqaba]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 91, 93 [citations from Suez Bay referring to El-Komi et al. 1998].</p> <p>Spirobranchus elatensis Pillai, 2009: 165–168, figs 50a–f [Gulf of Aqaba; Elat; see Table 5, herein].</p> <p>Red Sea proper-Indo-West-Pacific (excluding citations from Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba already given above) Serpula (Pomatoceros) multicornis Grube 1862: 67, fig. 3; 1868: 639–640; 1870: 519 [all three records from Red Sea]. Pomatoceropsis coutierei Gravier 1905: 445–448 [Gulf of Aden: Djibouti and E. Aden; extensive description]; 1906a: pl. 8 figs 294–299 [Gulf of Aden]; 1906b: 114 [Gulf of Aden, Djibouti]; 1908: 125–130, pl. 8 figs 294–299, text-figs 482–487 [Red Sea, Musha Island].</p> <p>Pomatoceropsis jousseaumei Gravier 1906b: 114, pl. 8 figs 292–293 [South Red Sea, Bab el Mandeb, Périm Island; Gulf of Aden, Djibouti];? Gravier 1908: 130–132, pl. 8 figs 292–293, text-figs 488–491 [South Red Sea, Périm Island; Gulf of Aden; queried because figures of aberrant specimens cannot be identified with confidence].</p> <p>Spirobranchus contieri [sic]: Pixell 1913: 83 [Indian Ocean, Zanzibar].</p> <p>Spirobranchus semperi: Pixell 1913: 82 [Red Sea; Indian Ocean, Zanzibar]; Wesenberg-Lund 1949: 359, fig. 47. [Persian Gulf].</p> <p>Spirobranchus semperi var. aceros: Pixell 1913: 82–83 [Red Sea, Suakin, Agig Bay; Indian Ocean, Zanzibar, Maldives, Amirante Islands].</p> <p>Spirobranchus giganteus not (Pallas), sensu Monro 1937: 317 [Arabian Sea]; Fishelson &amp; Rullier 1969: 102 [part] [Red Sea, Eritrea, Entedebir, Umm Aabak, 3–4 m; on living or dead coral, 14 specs].</p> <p>Spirobranchus giganteus var. arabica Monro, 1937: 317, fig. 28 [Arabian Sea, South Arabian coast].</p> <p>Pomatoceros caeruleus not (Schmarda), sensu Fauvel 1955b: 119 [Red Sea, Abulat Island].</p> <p>Spirobranchus tetraceros: Day 1967: 802, figs 38.3 l–n [Indian Ocean, Zanzibar]; Vine &amp; Bailey-Brock 1984: 145–146, figs 6a–b [fig. 1c presumably also belongs to S. tetraceros; Red Sea, Suakin harbour, Sanganeb Lagoon, Dunganab Bay]; Vine 1986: 91 and figure [Red Sea]; Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 519, fig. 2 [South Red Sea, Eritrea, Dahlak Archipelago]; Ishaq &amp; Mustaquim 1996: 180–182, figs 10a–i [Arabian Sea, Pakistan, Karachi]; Abd-Elnaby 2009: 10 [Red Sea].</p> <p>Spirobranchus jousseaumei: Fishelson &amp; Rullier 1969: 102 [part] [Red Sea, Eritrea, on sponge; Bay of Melita, on coral (p.p. redet. herein as S. coronatus)].</p> <p>Spirobranchus tetraceros complex: ten Hove 1994: 113–114 [Indian Ocean, Seychelles, Amirante Islands].</p> <p>Material examined. Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Mediterranean side: Rhodes: 1 sample, littoral.— Cyprus: 1 empty tube, [3–5] m (H. Zibrowius, pers. comm.).— Lebanon: common (H. Zibrowius, pers. comm.).— Israel: 37 samples, 0.2–[3–18]– 31 m; first Israeli sample from Haifa Bay, 5.XI.1967, SLM 272, 27 m, det. M.N. Ben-Eliahu, INCNH unpublished data.</p> <p>Suez Canal material reported herein: 57 samples, 137 specimens. Beets’ Great Bitter Lake samples: No triangular Spirobranchus tetraceros tubes appeared to be present on any of the shells.—Hebrew University- Smithsonian Expeditions, 1967–1973, 8 samples, 12 specs: el Qantara, Km 45: SLC 6, 1 spec.; SLC 31, 1 spec.; Lake Timsah, Km 78, opposite Isma’iliya: SBE 7, 1 spec.; SBE 8, 3 specs; Great Bitter Lake, east of Deversoir, Km 97, SLC 50, 1 spec.; SLC 61, 1 spec.; SLC 71, 1 spec.; Great Bitter Lake, SLC 123, 3 specs— Great Bitter Lake “Yellow Fleet” Biofouling Samples, January 13–20, 1975: 45 subsamples, 115 specs; Bremerhaven dry dock, 18.VI.1975, 2 subsamples, 2 specs, both individuals large, decayed.—Lake Timsah, legit, det. S.H. Shalla ca. 1984 Spirobranchus sp., Conopomatus sp., redet. H.A. ten Hove, ZMA V.Pol. 4997, 4998, 6 specs—El Tawan Beach, 10 / 19.XI.1988, legit S.B. Shazly, det. H.A. ten Hove, ZMA V.Pol. 3820, 2 specs.</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Red Sea side: 7 samples, shallow. Gulf of Suez, J.K. Lord Expedition 1870, det. H.A. ten Hove 1969 S. tetraceros (3 specs left under the original BM (NH) number by HAtH, from a mixed sample of tubes, one Spirobranchus corniculatus (now BM (NH) 1870.12.23.60), three S. tetraceros and 3 epibiontic species of Hydroides (now BM (NH) 1870.12.23.61, 62, 63), first listed together under an unpublished ms. name by W. Baird), BM (NH) 1870.12.23.31. Since both Spirobranchus taxa inhabit living coral, the sample was presumably from a coralligenous habitat; same, redet. H.A. ten Hove 1969 S. tetraceros, BM(NH) 1870.12.23.30, 2 specs—Gulf of Suez, legit R. MacAndrew, listed under an unpublished ms. name by W. Baird, redet. H.A. ten Hove 1969 S. tetraceros, BM(NH) 1869.7.8.42.—Gulf of Suez, Cambridge Expedition, R6, 6.XI.1924, det. F.A. Potts (1928: 701) Spirobranchus jousseaumi; in 1986, Ben- Eliahu noted opercular wings reduced without crenellations, interradiolar membranes with unilobed processes, characteristic antler-like opercular spines; subsequent re-examination (in 2002) showed the operculum had been cut off at the base of the peduncle, and was missing, 1 spec., CUZM AN. I.1930.</p> <p>Gulf of Aqaba: 10 samples, [0.2–1]– [6–8]–[20–25] –25. Elat, shallow up to 2 m, 1955, E55 / 441, legit H. Steinitz, det. P. Fauvel Pomatoceros coeruleus [sic], specimen lacked tube, operculum and collar chaetae; “branchia and collar characterized by dark indigo blue colour” (Fauvel 1957: 10); redet. herein due to presence of interradiolar processes].</p> <p>Red Sea: South Red Sea, 8 samples, 1– 27.4 –36.6 m, HUJ.</p> <p>Indian Ocean: Seychelles, 11 samples, [1–7]– [4–8]–[12–15]– 45 m, ZMA, RMNH.</p> <p>Suez Canal depth and substrates: shallow, 0.4–[3–4] m, on alga: Laurencia; on sponge; on bivalves: Brachidontes pharaonis, Malvufundus regulus, Pinctada radiata and Spondylus spinosus; barnacles; bryozoans; tunicates; rocks; artificial substrates: Canal walls, tin can submerged in mud; rubber fenders and iron frames.</p> <p>Distribution. Circumtropical, but see Remarks. Red Sea: Gulfs of Suez and Aqaba. Lessepsian migrant to the Mediterranean: Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, Turkey and Rhodes.</p> <p>Colouration (Field notes for Lake Timsah specimen): Ventral side of operculum pink, dorsal side bluebrown. Radioles, from distal to proximal part, with white band, short blue band, white band, brown band, white band at base. Thorax dark red-brown. Noted very pink tube (Great Bitter Lake subsample Biv 11 [App. Table 2D]). One of us (HAtH) has the impression that individuals with bluish tubes that are buried in living corals and attached to dead Pocillopora damicornis (Linnaeus) skeletons may belong to a different taxon than the pink tube specimens found on various hard substrates, which might lend some support to Pillai’s (2009) distinction between S. tetraceros and S. semperi.</p> <p>Remarks. The taxon Spirobranchus tetraceros as redefined by ten Hove (1970b) is presently considered to be a complex of species, with some taxa in the Indo-West-Pacific and another in the Caribbean (Smith 1985; ten Hove &amp; Kupriyanova 2009). Some of the Indo-West-Pacific species have been defined as “ S. tetraceros s. str., S. coronatus and S. decoratus ”, but, according to Smith (1985) there may be further subdivision that should be done within the taxon S. tetraceros “ s. str. ” based on characters such as the number of the main spines, colouration of the tube and the tube lumen, the extent of serration of filiform processes on the peduncular wings, and the presence and number of pairs of radiolar ocelli on the radioles.</p> <p>When we were finalizing the present paper, Pillai (2009) published his discussion on Spirobranchus. As he did with other taxa, Pillai split S. tetraceros sensu ten Hove (1970) (i.e., the S. tetraceros- complex) into about 8 different taxa, based on different character combinations (Pillai 2009: 158, notably the discussion on p. 162). In order to evaluate this attempt to clarify the Spirobranchus tetraceros -complex, we compared the main characters used by Pillai with our material from the Suez Canal (see Table 5). By Pillai’s standards, the Suez Canal material is characterized by a unique combination of characters meriting the description of yet another species, intermediate between his definition of Spirobranchus tetraceros and S. semperi. Using Pillai’s criteria, ten Hove's (1970) figures, from a single Bahrain sample, should be named S. tetraceros (figs 23–24), S. semperi (figs 25–26, 28–29) and S. arabicus (figs 1–2, 15–16). We are not prepared to accept this approach since most of Pillai’s taxa are based upon single samples with 1– 6 specimens only and variability of various character states has not been studied by Pillai. For instance, Pillai’s (2009) description of S. elatensis, from the Gulf of Aqaba, was distinguished from S. tetraceros mainly by it’s conical operculum, based only on a single specimen. Our work is based on hundreds of samples, with several hundreds of specimens (admittedly not consistently enumerating all character states dealt with recently by Pillai). As regards S. tetraceros, we have found both conical and fully branched opercula and intermediate forms in the same Suez Canal samples, and consider them to belong to a single species (see Figs 33C–E; see also ten Hove 1970, figs 6, 30 for a Caribbean population of what we nowadays would identify as the Caribbean S. dendropoma Mörch, 1863; cf. Smith 1985:66). We have noted that the presence / absence of papillae, and the shape of these papillae / fringes, seems to be dependent on their position, dorsal or more ventrally, in the radiolar circles. Without population studies, and without genetic support, we find Pillai’s splitting difficult to accept. Thus, we prefer not to adopt the classification given by Pillai (2009), but to retain the more “traditional” concept of this taxon as both in the present paper and Selim (1997b), thus synonymising S. elatensis with S. tetraceros s. str. A review of all the literature citations, taking into consideration Smith’s (1985) and Pillai’s (2009) hypotheses is not within the province of the present paper. However, when the review of this taxon will finally be carried out, it should comprise both morphological and genetic evidence from populations.</p> <p>continued next page</p> <p>1) No. of spines sensu ten Hove 1970; in ten Hove &amp; Kupriyanova (2009) these structures were referred to as horns,— 2) See Bailey-Brock (1985, fig.8e) or Pillai (2009, fig. 37c) and Fig. 33D. The character was never looked for consistently, but ten Hove’s unpublished notes mention it was present in material from New South Wales to Northern Territory, Australia,— 3) Information missing in Pillai (2009), but present in Bailey-Brock (1985: 204–207, fig. 8),— 4) Data from ten Hove's sketches of the types of S. coronatus,— 5) From ten Hove's notes on the type material; the 4 th specimen from Heron Island, Queensland, Australia, det. S. coronatus by D. Straughan is a specimen exactly like S. " baileybrockae ”,— 6) Pillai (2009, figs 48b, c) suggest 1 medioventral (split in two) and two laterodorsal split in two; thus 6 horn tips,— 7) A double fringe was only figured before by Selim (1997b, fig. 7b); see Fig. 33D,— 8) According to Pillai (2009: 178) four spines: 2 ventral spines and 2 dorsal ones with short mediodorsal tine. We interpret his figures 57c, d slightly otherwise,— 9) One also might argue that there are 4 opercular spines: 2 ventral ones split twice and two laterodorsal ones split twice of which the 1st branch is a short mediodorsal tine.</p> <p>Regional citations given above are for the species complex as known subsequent to ten Hove (1970b). We should note, however, that fig. 16 S.j. of Amoureux et al. (1978: 150) from the Gulf of Aqaba, Elat, Venezia lagoon appears to be that of Spirobranchus coronatus; thus, both S. tetraceros and S. coronatus are present in the northern Gulf of Aqaba. Spirobranchus polytrema not Philippi, sensu Amoureux et al. (1978: 150) is corrected to S. tetraceros based on the illustration marked S.p. in his fig. 16; thus the nominal taxon S. polytrema, was not a Mediterranean migrant to the Red Sea via the Suez Canal as stated by these authors.</p> <p>The Suez Canal population appears to belong to a single taxon (Figs 27A–E), a fouling species characterised by small peduncular wings with a pointed tip, generally fringed (Figs 27A, D, E), sometimes with a double fringe (clearly visible in Fig. 33D, right wing; see note Table 5); interbranchial membranes usually with unilobed processes and the specimens examined from the Levant Basin of the Mediterranean appear to belong to the same taxon, known also from the Gulf of Aqaba and the Gulf of Suez (Ben-Eliahu 1991, fig. 2). Examination of live material from Elat showed two dense rows of bright crimson ocelli with minute lenses on each side of the rachis of the radioles (base of prostomium not looked for in this live specimen), suggesting the Elat population might be the same as Smith’s “ Spirobranchus tetraceros species C” (Smith 1985, Table 5). Selim (1997b fig. 7) remarked and illustrated the polymorphism of the operculum of S. tetraceros, and we have also included examples in Figs 33A–E. Ten Hove (1970b: 4, 48) noted that Pixell (1913) had dealt with the variability of Spirobranchus tetraceros opercula of the C. Crossland collection in the Natural History Museum, London by giving them a variety of names (see synonymy above).</p> <p>In their ranking of the Lessepsian migrants within the category, “Worst Invasive Species”, Zenetos et al. (2005) appear to underestimate the importance of Spirobranchus tetraceros, known from Beirut from 1965 (Laubier 1966, as Spirobranchus giganteus coutierei), and as far as Rhodes already in 1970 (Ben-Eliahu 1991, collected by the “Biota” project). Selim et al. (2005) reported that S. tetraceros had replaced Hydroides elegans as the dominant fouling species in Alexandria Mediterranean waters, such that it amply fulfils the criterion “having an serious impact on diversity” (Zenetos et al. 2005).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F11E048FF50FE61FC63FBF0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F18E049FF50FBEEFE02FE20.text	396387E75F18E049FF50FBEEFE02FE20.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Vermiliopsis Saint Joseph 1894	<div><p>Genus Vermiliopsis Saint Joseph, 1894, s. str.</p> <p>The genus Vermiliopsis is in urgent need of revision. For the time being, the taxa Vermiliopsis infundibulum sensu (Philippi, 1844), V. glandigera Gravier, 1906 and V. pygidialis (Willey, 1905) are considered to belong to a complex of morphologically indistinguishable species (or taxa which at least have been confused in the literature) and it is not known whether they represent one or more species (cf. Zibrowius 1968: 123, ten Hove 1975: 55–59, Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege 1996: 8, ten Hove &amp; Kupriyanova 2009: 100–102). Since 1976, many authors just refer to Vermiliopsis infundibulum / glandigera -complex (e.g., Imajima 1976: 139, 1978: 57, 1979: 169, ten Hove 1994: 113, Fiege &amp; Sun 1999: 133), although recently “similar” species with more restricted distributions have been named (e.g. Vermiliopsis zibrowii Nogueira &amp; Abbud, 2009, South Brazil; V. cylindrica Pillai, 2009, western Australia). Vermiliopsis infundibulum was considered to be present throughout the Mediterranean (Bianchi 1981), while V. glandigera and V. pygidialis were usually regarded as Red Sea and Indo-West Pacific taxa (see Systematic Section below).</p> <p>In view of these taxonomical problems, morphology cannot be used to determine the provenance of Vermiliopsis infundibulum / glandigera / pygidialis in the Suez Canal [contrary to the somewhat formalistic distinction by Pillai (2009: 108, fig. 8), made on literature comparison only]. In contrast, the Mediterranean / Atlantic species, Vermilopsis striaticeps (Grube, 1862), can be distinguished from V. infundibulum (e.g., Zibrowius 1979a) by marked taxonomic characters, although it has been confused with this taxon in the past. For example, Monro (1930: 209–211, fig. 88), figured four opercula in describing his “ Vermiliopsis glandigerus ” from the Atlantic Gulf of Guinea, two of them with clear longitudinal striations belonging to Vermiliopsis striaticeps, the other two belonging to the Vermiliopsis infundibulum / glandigera complex (material studied by HAtH). It appears that the Vermiliopsis infundibulum / V. glandigera -complex and V. striaticeps are both present in the Mediterranean and also in the Suez Canal. Vermilopsis striaticeps was reported from Deversoir [as V.infundibulum in Selim (1997b), citing Ghobashy et al. (1980) and Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy (2005), who referred to the same single specimen]. The excellent illustration in Selim (1997b, fig. 9a) enables confirming this specimen confidently as Vermiliopsis striaticeps. However, that finding called into question other citations based on Selim’s identifications, e.g., those of Vermiliopsis infundibulum from the Mediterranean. For example, Selim (1997b: 97) cited a record of Ghobashy et al. (1980) from the Suez Canal for Vermiliopsis infundibulum without providing morphological detail. Similarly, it is not possible to know whether the record from Alexandria harbour (Ghobashy 1984) belongs to the Mediterranean Vermiliopsis infundibulum or V. striaticeps. Determinations of Vermiliopsis infundibulum based on empty tubes must also be considered as questionable and are therefore cited with a question mark before the date of publication in the synonymy section below.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F18E049FF50FBEEFE02FE20	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F19E076FF50FDD9FAECFAEB.text	396387E75F19E076FF50FDD9FAECFAEB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Vermiliopsis infundibulum sensu (Philippi 1844	<div><p>Vermiliopsis infundibulum s. auct.</p> <p>Vermilia infundibulum Philippi 1844: 193, pl. 6, fig. g [Type locality: Mediterranean Sea]. Vermiliopsis infundibulum: Zibrowius 1968: 121–124, pl. 2 figs 30–33; pl. 3 figs 1–15; pl. 14 fig. b [part]; ten Hove</p> <p>1975: 57 [included V. pygidialis within Vermiliopsis infundibulum / glandigera- complex]; Bianchi 1981: 71–73,</p> <p>figs 25a–h. Vermiliopsis infundibulum glandigera -group: Imajima 1976: 139–141, fig. 11.</p> <p>Eastern Mediterranean</p> <p>? Vermiliopsis infundibulum: Fauvel 1937: 47 [Egypt, Alexandria, 46 m; empty tube, indeterminable]; Ben-Eliahu 1972b: 90 [Cyprus, littoral]; Ghobashy 1984: 43, table 1 [Alexandria harbour]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 94 [Alexandria, Eastern Harbour, 1.5 m; citing Ghobashy &amp; Selim (1976a, b), Ghobashy (1977), Selim (1978), as discussed under V. striaticeps, below]; all these records might (partly) be misidentified V. striaticeps as well.</p> <p>Vermiliopsis infundibulum: Amoureux 1976: 1054 [Israel, Haifa Bay [part, 1 spec., the other specimen V. striaticeps, redet. M.N. Ben-Eliahu 1985]; Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 518 [Cyprus, Israel]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992: 40 [Israel]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege 1996: 7–8, 33, 38 [western Levant Basin, Turkey, Cyprus, Levant coast]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Payiatas 1999: 110–111 [Cyprus]; Çinar 2006: 233 [Levant coast of Turkey, Bogsak, Anamur, [0.1–5], 200 m].</p> <p>Suez Canal</p> <p>? Vermi[o]liopsis infundibulum: Emara &amp; Belal 2004: 196, 199 [pooled Lake Timsah and Bitter Lakes data]. Vermiliopsis glandigera: Abd-Elnaby 2009: 10 [reported from southern part of the canal and Red Sea].</p> <p>Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba</p> <p>Vermiliopsis pygidialis: Pixell 1913: 86–87, pl. 9, figs 11a, b [Gulf of Suez, Suez; Red Sea, Suakin; Indian Ocean, Zanzibar, Maldives; Pacific Ocean, Tuvalu Islands, Funafuti]; Por &amp; Dor 1975: 39, figs 1, 8b, c, 10, 12 [Gulf of Aqaba, Sinai Peninsula, El Kura hypersaline lagoon near Dahab, salinity 40–60 ‰]; Ben-Eliahu 1976: 111–112, fig. 3a, b [Gulf of Suez, Gulf of Aqaba: Sinai Peninsula, intertidal Dendropoma cryptofauna; Indian Ocean, Zanzibar, Sri Lanka; Pacific Ocean; Australia]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Dafni 1979: 207 [Gulf of Aqaba, Sinai Peninsula, el Kura hypersaline lagoon, near Dahab]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Safriel 1982: 389 [Gulf of Aqaba, Sinai Peninsula, intertidal cryptofauna].</p> <p>Vermiliopsis glandigera: Fauvel 1933a: 77 [Gulf of Suez, st. 17 ter, 33º23'– 33º24' E, 28º12'– 28º14' N; 27–29 m, 25.XII.1928, on madreporarians, 2 specs; Gulf of Suez; Red Sea; western Indian Ocean, Madagascar; Gulf of Manaar; eastern Atlantic Ocean, western coast of Africa; Fauvel 1957: 10 [E55 / 349 f, g and j, tubes with 5 longitudinal ridges. Gulf of Aqaba: Elat, 0–2 m; Red Sea proper; Indian Ocean, Madagascar; Atlantic Ocean, Congo, Gulf of Guinea].</p> <p>Vermiliopsis glandigerus: Amoureux et al. 1978: 149 [Gulf of Aqaba, Elat, on float, coral rubble, 3 m; Red Sea; Indian Ocean; Persian Gulf; tropical zone of west Africa]; Goren 1979: 24 [det. F. Rullier, Gulf of Aqaba, Elat, Venezia lagoon, asbestos panel 0.20 m, XI.1971].</p> <p>? Vermiliopsis infundibulum: Amoureux et al. 1978: 149 [Gulf of Aqaba, coral rubble, 0–30 m; Red Sea; Atlantic, Mediterranean]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 94 [these records probably do not belong to the Mediterranean Vermiliopsis infundibulum, but to an Indo-West Pacific representative of the species complex].</p> <p>Red Sea proper-Indo-West-Pacific (excluding citations from Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba already given above) Vermilia pygidialis Willey 1905: 318–319, pl. 7 figs 194–196 [Type locality: Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka, South west</p> <p>Cheval Paar].</p> <p>Vermiliopsis pygidialis: Pillai 1960: 26, figs 10a–g [Sri Lanka, Pearl Banks]; Vine &amp; Bailey-Brock 1984: 142–143, fig. 3a–c [Suez; Red Sea, Suakin, Port Sudan, ship fouling, Sanganeb lagoon under coral rock from 12–75 m; on dead coral at 4 m; Indian Ocean, Zanzibar; Pacific, Australia].</p> <p>Vermiliopsis glandigerus Gravier 1906b: 112–113, pl. 8 figs 290–291 [Type locality: Red Sea, Météore Reef, Pingouin, Marabout, Pascal, Mission, Héron, Bounhoure, Ormiers reefs; Gulf of Aden, Djibouti, on branching corals Pocillopora, Stylophora, Madrepora to 20 m]; Gravier 1908: 121–124, text-figs 476–481; pl. 8 figs 290, 291 [locations as in 1906b]; Day 1967: 813–814, fig. 38.6.g–i [Red Sea, Djibouti; Gulf of Aden, Aden]; ten Hove 1970a: 59–60, figs 17–25 [Red Sea; tropical Indian Ocean; Persian (Arabian) Gulf; Tasmania; W. Africa, Annobon Isl.]; Mohammad 1971: 301 [Red Sea; Indian Ocean, Madagascar; Persian Gulf, Kuwait; India; Tasmania; tropical Atlantic Ocean, Panama; West Africa, Gulf of Guinea]; Mohammad 1976: 133 [Persian Gulf, Kuwait].</p> <p>Vermiliopsis acanthophora not Augener, 1914, sensu Monro 1937: 318 [south Arabian coast, north Arabian Sea, Gulf of Oman, 38–609 m]; Mohammad 1971: 301 [Persian Gulf, Kuwait]; both records fide ten Hove (1975: 59).</p> <p>Vermiliopsis glandigera: Monro 1937: 318 [in part, Red Sea, Arabian coast; for records from Panama and western Africa, part, see above].</p> <p>Vermiliopsis infundibulum: Rosenfeldt 1989: 238–239 [Red Sea depths, 757–1554 m; this record probably does not belong to the Mediterranean Vermiliopsis infundibulum, but to an Indo-West Pacific representative of the speciescomplex.</p> <p>Vermiliopsis pygidialis / glandigera- complex: ten Hove 1994: 113; [circum-sub-tropical]; Fiege &amp; Sun 1999: 133–135, figs 21a–e [S. China Sea; Australia; Atlantic, Mediterranean; circum-sub-tropical]; Wehe &amp; Fiege 2001: 134–135 [list of references].</p> <p>Material examined. Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Mediterranean side: Vermiliopsis infundibulum: Rhodes 1 sample, shallow— Turkey 2 samples, [108–135] m— Cyprus 59 samples, [3–5]– [18– 78] – 2432 m — Israel 30 samples, 1– [18–66] – 1435 m — Egypt (incl. Sinai) 6 samples, 18– [137–198]–[1993– 2025] m, HUJ and SMF.</p> <p>Suez Canal material reported herein: 2 samples, 2 specimens. Hebrew University-Smithsonian Expeditions, 1967–1973: Exp. 11.VII.1968: SLC 45, 1 spec. — East of Deversoir–Km 97: SLC 71, 1 spec.</p> <p>Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Red Sea side: As Vermiliopsis infundibulum / glandigera (see introductory note): Gulf of Suez, Suez, det. H.L.M. Pixell (1913: 86–87) V. pygidialis, redet. ten Hove (1975: 68) Vermiliopsis infundibulum / glandigera, BM(NH) 1924.6.13.140, 2 specs—Gulf of Aqaba: 14 samples, [intertidal–3]– [6–9] –[22–25] m. Red Sea proper 9 samples, 1– [5–15] – 50 m, HUJ.</p> <p>Indian Ocean, Seychelles 18 samples, [1–7]– [4–11]–[30] –[45–55] m, ZMA.</p> <p>Suez Canal depth and substrates:?from pool and “sublittoral”, on alga; on Pectinidae.</p> <p>Remarks. Particularly the non-Atlantic-Mediterranean Vermiliopsis taxa are in need of revision.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F19E076FF50FDD9FAECFAEB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
396387E75F26E077FF50FAE1FB55FD9E.text	396387E75F26E077FF50FAE1FB55FD9E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Vermiliopsis striaticeps (Grube 1862)	<div><p>Vermiliopsis striaticeps (Grube, 1862)</p> <p>Vermilia striaticeps Grube 1862: 65 [Type locality: Mediterranean Sea].</p> <p>Vermiliopsis striaticeps: ten Hove 1975: 57–58 [Atlantic-Mediterranean]; Zibrowius 1979a: 216–217 [notes distinguishing V. striaticeps from Vermiliopsis infundibulum; Tunisia, from infralittoral to 50 m]; Bianchi 1981: 74–75, figs. 26a–f.</p> <p>Eastern Mediterranean</p> <p>? Vermiliopsis infundibulum: Fauvel 1937: 47 [Alexandria, 46 m, empty tube, indeterminable].</p> <p>Vermiliopsis infundibulum not (Philippi), sensu Ben-Eliahu 1972b: 90 [Cyprus, littoral]; Amoureux 1976: 1054 [Israel, Haifa Bay, part, 1 spec., re-examined M.N. Ben-Eliahu 1985, redet. herein].</p> <p>Vermiliopsis ? striaticeps: Ben-Eliahu 1976: 107 [Israel, intertidal cryptofauna, herein confirmed as present in this habitat].</p> <p>Vermiliopsis striaticeps: Zibrowius &amp; Bitar 1981: 159–160 [Lebanon, Beirut, Zaitouné, 5 m, on bivalve, 23.IX.1978]; Ben-Eliahu 1991b: 518 [Cyprus, Israel]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; ten Hove 1992: 40 [Israel, along entire coast from north to south, 0–24 m]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Fiege 1996: 8, 33, 38 [western Levant Basin, Turkey, Cyprus, Levant coast]; Ergen &amp; Çinar 1997: 237 [Antalya Bay, Turkey]; Ben-Eliahu &amp; Payiatas 1999: 110–111 [Cyprus]; Çinar 2006: 233 [Levant coast of Turkey, Iskenderun Bay, Bogsak, 0.5– 60 m, on bivalve, IX.2005].</p> <p>? Vermiliopsis infundibulum: Selim 1997b: 96–97, fig. 9a–f [? Alexandria, harbour, citing Selim (1987, see App. Table 4)]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 94 [as discussed above].</p> <p>Suez Canal</p> <p>? Vermiliopsis infundibulum: Ghobashy et al. 1980: 75–92 [Suez Canal, location not known; citing Selim (1997b), see introductory note above].</p> <p>Vermiliopsis infundibulum: Selim 1997b: 96–97, fig. 9a–f [Deversoir, northern tip of Great Bitter Lake; Selim’s excellent figure of the operculum enables correcting the particular determination herein to V. striaticeps]; Emara &amp; Belal 2004: 192–199 [pooled Lake Timsah and Bitter Lakes data]; Ghobashy &amp; Ghobashy 2005: 94 [in part, the single record from the Suez Canal (Ghobashy et al. 1980, Selim 1997b) is referred by us to V. striaticeps].</p> <p>Material examined. Locations adjacent to the Suez Canal, Mediterranean side: Turkey, 2 samples, 0.5 m—Rhodes, 1 sample— Cyprus, 26 samples [0.5–0.8]– [3–5]– 46 m — Israel, 36 samples, intertidal– 10 –67 m.</p> <p>No additional specimens from the Suez Canal in addition to those reported by Selim (1997b) as Vermiliopsis infundibulum.</p> <p>Distribution. Mediterranean, Atlantic (from the Gulf of Guinea to Cornwall, U.K.)</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/396387E75F26E077FF50FAE1FB55FD9E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama;Ten Hove, Harry A.	Ben-Eliahu, M. Nechama, Ten Hove, Harry A. (2011): Serpulidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Suez Canal- From a Lessepsian Migration Perspective (a Monograph) 2848. Zootaxa 2848 (1): 1-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2848.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2848.1.1
