identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03EF87BEFFCFFFBF419BF944FD387433.text	03EF87BEFFCFFFBF419BF944FD387433.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Coelosphaeridae Dendy 1922	<div><p>Family Coelosphaeridae Dendy, 1922</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF87BEFFCFFFBF419BF944FD387433	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	Fernandez, Julio C. C.;Cárdenas, César A.;Bravo, Alejandro;Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele;Willenz, Philippe;Hajdu, Eduardo	Fernandez, Julio C. C., Cárdenas, César A., Bravo, Alejandro, Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele, Willenz, Philippe, Hajdu, Eduardo (2016): Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) Lundbeck, 1909 (Coelosphaeridae, Poecilosclerida, Demospongiae) from Southern Chile: new species and a discussion of morphologic characters in the subgenus. Zootaxa 4092 (1), DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.4
03EF87BEFFCFFFBF419BF839FC6574BE.text	03EF87BEFFCFFFBF419BF839FC6574BE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) Lundbeck 1909	<div><p>Subgenus Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) Lundbeck, 1909</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF87BEFFCFFFBF419BF839FC6574BE	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	Fernandez, Julio C. C.;Cárdenas, César A.;Bravo, Alejandro;Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele;Willenz, Philippe;Hajdu, Eduardo	Fernandez, Julio C. C., Cárdenas, César A., Bravo, Alejandro, Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele, Willenz, Philippe, Hajdu, Eduardo (2016): Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) Lundbeck, 1909 (Coelosphaeridae, Poecilosclerida, Demospongiae) from Southern Chile: new species and a discussion of morphologic characters in the subgenus. Zootaxa 4092 (1), DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.4
03EF87BEFFCFFFBF419BF882FD0E7479.text	03EF87BEFFCFFFBF419BF882FD0E7479.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lissodendoryx Topsent 1892	<div><p>Genus Lissodendoryx Topsent, 1892</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF87BEFFCFFFBF419BF882FD0E7479	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	Fernandez, Julio C. C.;Cárdenas, César A.;Bravo, Alejandro;Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele;Willenz, Philippe;Hajdu, Eduardo	Fernandez, Julio C. C., Cárdenas, César A., Bravo, Alejandro, Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele, Willenz, Philippe, Hajdu, Eduardo (2016): Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) Lundbeck, 1909 (Coelosphaeridae, Poecilosclerida, Demospongiae) from Southern Chile: new species and a discussion of morphologic characters in the subgenus. Zootaxa 4092 (1), DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.4
03EF87BEFFCFFFBF419BF909FD0475EE.text	03EF87BEFFCFFFBF419BF909FD0475EE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Poecilosclerida Topsent 1928	<div><p>Order Poecilosclerida Topsent, 1928</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF87BEFFCFFFBF419BF909FD0475EE	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	Fernandez, Julio C. C.;Cárdenas, César A.;Bravo, Alejandro;Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele;Willenz, Philippe;Hajdu, Eduardo	Fernandez, Julio C. C., Cárdenas, César A., Bravo, Alejandro, Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele, Willenz, Philippe, Hajdu, Eduardo (2016): Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) Lundbeck, 1909 (Coelosphaeridae, Poecilosclerida, Demospongiae) from Southern Chile: new species and a discussion of morphologic characters in the subgenus. Zootaxa 4092 (1), DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.4
03EF87BEFFCEFFBB419BFF2AFA1974B7.text	03EF87BEFFCEFFBB419BFF2AFA1974B7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) ballena	<div><p>Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) ballena sp. nov.</p><p>(Tabs 1–2; Figs 2–3)</p><p>Holotype. IZUA–POR 166, Islote Ballena, Gulf of Ancud, southern Chile (42º09’25.00”S / 72º34’46.50”W), 14 m depth, coll. E. Hajdu, Ph. Willenz &amp; G. Lôbo-Hajdu, 24 February 2005. Fragments from holotype deposited under MNRJ 8807, RBINSc–IG 32232–POR 8807 and MHNG 89960. Paratype. MNRJ 8813, same data as holotype. Fragments from paratype deposited under, RBINSc–IG 32232–POR 8813 and MHNG 89962.</p><p>Diagnosis. Thickly encrusting Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx), with numerous oscules (&lt;0.5 mm across) over all its surface, with orange colour in life, smooth tornotes (108–135/2.5–4.8), acanthostyles (I. 180–232/8–16.8, II.77 – 95/4.8–8), arcuate isochelae (I. 31–47, II. 23–29, III. 12.5–18), and sigmas (19–26).</p><p>Description. Thickly encrusting (Fig. 2A), up to 0.7 cm thick. The holotype covered an area of approximately 10 x 5 cm (in life). Surface slightly rugose, with a few grooves. Oscules spread, few, smaller than 0.5 cm in diameter. Numerous other small openings occur all over the surface of the sponge (Fig. 2B). Colour in vivo orange, turning to dark beige in ethanol. Consistency moderately compressible. Texture velvety.</p><p>Skeletal architecture. Plumoreticulate (Figs 3 A–B). Acanthostyles form echinated tracts from the substrate to near the surface (Figs 3 C–D). Acanthostyles I (larger) core the tracts, while acanthostyles II (smaller) echinate those tracts. Tornotes are spread at random or slightly obliquely at the surface. These spicules, as well as acanthostyles and every microsclere category can be seen scattered in the choanosome too. Nevertheless, isochelae occur in larger quantities closer to the surface. Subectosomal lacunae were not seen, but numerous roundish canals (up to 700 µm in largest diameter) occur in the choanosome. Both the holotype and paratypes have their choanosome traversed by polychaete tubes. Spongin will envelop some of these choanosomal cavities and support erect acanthostyles I and II (Fig. 3 G). Larvae were observed in both specimens, up to 220 µm in diameter.</p><p>Spicules. Megascleres (Tabs 1–2): Tornotes (Figs 3 H–I), straight, smooth, slightly aniso-tylote, 108– 123.5 (8.4)–135/2.5– 3.5 (0.8)–4.8. Acanthostyles I (Figs 3 J–K), straight or slightly curved; base roundish, narrow or slightly swollen; sharp apex, thinning gradually; spines in large numbers, up to 5 µm high, straight or slightly curved, distributed over the entire shaft and base, 180– 202.5 (16)–232/8– 13 (2.6)–16. Acanthostyles II (Figs 3 L– M), morphology similar to that of category I, but with smaller spines, 77– 84.2 (4.4)–95/4.8– 7 (0.9)–8. Microscleres (Tabs 1–2): Arcuate isochelae I (Figs 3 E, F, N), shaft arched, smooth and relatively stout; Alae slightly elongate and bent backwards; Young forms with markedly reduced alae, 31– 39 (4)–47. Arcuate isochelae II (Figs 3 E, F, O), morphology similar to that of category I, but smaller, 23– 25.3 (1.2)–29. Arcuate isochelae III (Fig. 3 P), more slender and smaller than both preceding categories; alae slightly elongate, but not bent backwards, 12.5– 15.3 (1.8)–18. Sigmas (Fig. 3 Q), contorted, smooth and pointy, 19– 23.3 (1.5)–26.</p><p>Observation. Acanthostyles I (main choanosomal), acanthostyles II (echinating choanosomal), acanthostyles III (echinating choanosomal).</p><p>Ecology. Grows over barnacles, bivalves and rock covered by coralline algae, in a community dominated by mytilids and Crepidula gastropods. A few bryozoans and corallimorpharians occurred over its surface.</p><p>Distribution. Provisionally endemic from its type locality in the Gulf of Ancud (Islote Ballena), Chile.</p><p>Etymology. The specific epithet ‘ballena’ is used as a noun in apposition and refers to the species’ type locality. The word means whale in Spanish.</p><p>Remarks. The Sturges algorithm (Sturges, 1926) confirmed the occurrence of two size classes of isochelae; i.e. 34–46.8 and 12.5–29.5. The smaller size class can be easily distinguished in two morphological categories, thus indisputably raising the number of categories in this proposed new species to three.</p><p>As introduced above for the genus Lissodendoryx, the subgenus Ectyodoryx currently comprises 32 species recognized as valid according to van Soest et al. (2015), ten of which occur either in Chilean waters, or in neighboring biogeographic provinces, and demand a closer comparison. None of these, nevertheless, has three categories of isochelae as observed in L. (Ectyodoryx) ballena sp. nov. (Tab. 2). Furthermore, only four of these ten species possess ectosomal tornotes; viz. L. (E.) antartica, L. (E.) collinsi, L. (E.) jasonensis and L. (E.) minuta . However, these are quite larger than the tornotes of the new species.</p><p>Even though van Soest et al. (2015) assign Lissodendoryx diversichela Lundbeck, 1905 in the N Atlantic to subgenus Ectyodoryx, we propose its transfer to subgenus Lissodendoryx on the basis of its original description with a single category of acanthostyles. To the best of our knowledge there has never been a subsequent taxonomic account of this species where a second category of acanthostyles had been found. We would like to highlight the fact that L. (L.) diversichela has three categories of isochelae, as found in the new species described above.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF87BEFFCEFFBB419BFF2AFA1974B7	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	Fernandez, Julio C. C.;Cárdenas, César A.;Bravo, Alejandro;Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele;Willenz, Philippe;Hajdu, Eduardo	Fernandez, Julio C. C., Cárdenas, César A., Bravo, Alejandro, Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele, Willenz, Philippe, Hajdu, Eduardo (2016): Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) Lundbeck, 1909 (Coelosphaeridae, Poecilosclerida, Demospongiae) from Southern Chile: new species and a discussion of morphologic characters in the subgenus. Zootaxa 4092 (1), DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.4
03EF87BEFFCAFFB7419BFF2AFEB7723D.text	03EF87BEFFCAFFB7419BFF2AFEB7723D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) corrugata	<div><p>Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) corrugata sp. nov.</p><p>(Tabs 2–3; Figs 4–7)</p><p>Holotype. IZUA–POR 167, Isla Leucayec, Guaitecas Archipelago (44º03’59.00”S / 73º41’00.38”W, Chile), 10–18 m depth, coll. E. Hajdu &amp; R. Foley, 0 7 March 2005. Fragments from holotype deposited under MNRJ 8963 and RBINSc–IG 32232–POR 8963. Paratype. MNRJ 17398, Punta Llonco, Comau Fjord, Chile (42º20’38.22”S / 72º27’25.26”W), &lt;30 m depth, coll. G. Försterra, 0 3 January 2006.</p><p>Diagnosis. Massive, ovoid Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) with numerous sinuous short anastomosing projections over the entire surface resembling a cauliflower; apically microspined tylotes (108–204/4.8–6), acanthostyles (I. 252–358/8–16.8, II. 90 –158/7.5–12.5), and arcuate isochelae (I 28–40, II 16–24).</p><p>Description. Massive oval shaped sponge (Figs 4 A–B; Figs 5 A–D), with numerous sinuous, short, anastomosing projections over the entire surface; resembling a cauliflower. The holotype is 4 cm long and 3 cm in high (in life) and the paratype is 3.8 cm and 3 cm, respectively. The paratype is relatively more compact. Simple oscula (diameter up to 0.3 cm, in vivo holotype), scattered and scarce. Colour in vivo beige, and in ethanol specimens are light beige. Their consistency is compressible, rather delicate, and the paratype is somewhat harder; texture slightly rough.</p><p>Skeleton. The choanosomal skeleton is (sub)anisotropic (Fig. 6 A) or subisodictyal reticulation (Fig. 6 D). Larger acanthostyles form pauci- to multispicular ascending tracts (up to seven spicules across), reaching the sponge surface and piercing it by up to 300 µm. These acanthostyles also constitute secondary orthogonal tracts, one spicule long, and up to four in thickness (Figs 6 B, E). Smaller acanthostyles echinate the main choanosomal tracts, and the nodes of the reticulation. Tylotes are spread in the surface, often perpendicularly or obliquely (Fig. 6 C). Tracts are partially inserted in a spongin layer of fibrous appearance (Fig. 6 F). Two categories of arcuate isochelae are scattered all around in choanosome and ectosome, the smaller of which is more frequent. Subectosomal lacunae absent, but wide choanosomal cavities occur, roundish or variably ellipsoid, up to 2 mm in maximum diameter.</p><p>Spicules. Megascleres (Tabs 2–3): (Sub)tylotes (Figs 7 A–B, I–J), straight, rather minutely microspined on both ends, which can be slightly aniso-tylote, elongated tyles only slightly swollen (elliptical), 108– 172 (25.3) – 204/4.8– 5.1 (0.3) –6. Acanthostyles I (Figs 7 C–D, K–L), straight or slightly curved, stout, somewhat fusiform, base slightly constricted, regularly round, apex sharpening gradually; spines not so abundant, straight, up to 1.5 µm high, concentrated at and near the base, a few spicules (variably thick) are very lightly spined or smooth, 252– 313.5 (29.7) –358/8– 13.5 (2.6) –16.8. Acanthostyles II (Figs 7 E–F, M–N), mostly straight, with a swollen base up to 3 µm thicker than the shaft, gradually sharpening point; abundant spines, up to 5 µm high, straight, spread over shaft and base, 90– 126 (24.3) –158/7.5– 10.3 (1.6) –12.5. Microscleres (Tabs 2–3): Arcuate isochelae I (Figs 7 G, O), smooth, relatively thick shaft, alae slightly elongated, but relatively small, young forms with markedly reduced alae: 31– 34 (3.3) –40. Arcuate isochelae II (Figs 7 H, P), same as isochelae I, but smaller, 16– 22 (2) –29. The Sturges algorithm confirmed the occurrence of two size classes of isochelae.</p><p>Specimen ectosomal tylotes (with microspined choanosomal acanthostyles: arcuate isochelae</p><p>ends) I. main, II. echinating</p><p>IZUA–POR 167 108– 162 –204/ I. 252– 300 –353/8– 14.7 –16.8 I. 31.5– 35.6 –40</p><p>holotype 4.8– 5.2 – 6 II. 90 – 128.2 –158/9– 11.2 –12.5 II. 16– 21 –24</p><p>MNRJ 17398 158– 182 –200/ I. 290– 326.6 –358/8.5– 12.3 –14.5 I. 28– 34 –40</p><p>paratype 4.8– 5 –5.2 II. 90 – 124 –145/7.5– 9.4 – 10 II. 21 – 22.8 –24 Ecology. The holotype was attached to a bunch of slender chitinous polychaete tubes (Family Spionidae), and the paratype was attached to a coral.</p><p>Distribution. So far endemic from the northern sector of Chile’s fjord region, from its type locality at the Guaitecas Archipelago (44ºS) to Comau Fjord (42ºS).</p><p>Etymology. The species is named ‘corrugata’ (Latin corrugatus = rugose) on account of its irregular, cauliflower-like surface.</p><p>Remarks. Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) corrugata sp. nov. is distinguished from Lissodendoryx (E.) spp. occurring in the SE Pacific, and in additional allied biogeographic provinces, as well as from L. (E.) ballena sp. nov. (described above) by its possession of two categories of arcuate isochelae combined with terminally microspined tylotes. The presence of little spines in the extremities of tylotes is shared with five species of Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) considered here (Tab. 2); viz. L. (E.) anacantha, L. (E.) nobilis, L. (E.) patagonica, L. (E.) plumosa, and L. (E.) ramilobosa . This character may also be present in the genus’ type species, L.</p><p>(Lissodendoryx) isodictyalis (Carter, 1882) . A phylogenetic assessment of synapomorphies is needed to verify whether the current subgeneric arrangement, and its emphasis on presence vs. absence of echinating acanthostyles (van Soest, 2002a), is more parsimonious than an alternative system with greater weighting given to the micromorphology of spicules.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF87BEFFCAFFB7419BFF2AFEB7723D	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	Fernandez, Julio C. C.;Cárdenas, César A.;Bravo, Alejandro;Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele;Willenz, Philippe;Hajdu, Eduardo	Fernandez, Julio C. C., Cárdenas, César A., Bravo, Alejandro, Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele, Willenz, Philippe, Hajdu, Eduardo (2016): Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) Lundbeck, 1909 (Coelosphaeridae, Poecilosclerida, Demospongiae) from Southern Chile: new species and a discussion of morphologic characters in the subgenus. Zootaxa 4092 (1), DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.4
03EF87BEFFC7FFB0419BF8A0FB087138.text	03EF87BEFFC7FFB0419BF8A0FB087138.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) coloanensis	<div><p>Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) coloanensis sp. nov.</p><p>(Tab. 2; Figs 8–9)</p><p>Holotype. IZUA–POR 168, Bahia Nash, Isla Santa Inés, Francisco Coloane Marine Protected Area, Magellan Strait, Chile (53°41’S / 72°20’W), 20 m depth, coll. C.A. Cárdenas, May 2007. Fragment from holotype deposited under MNRJ 17608.</p><p>Diagnosis. Globular Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) composed of a dense mass of juxtaposed slender hollow tubes (ca. 0.5 mm in diameter each), which may anastomose; terminally microspined tylotes (150–198/4–5), acanthostyles (I. 190–300/7.2–9, II. 84 –115/6–8), and arcuate isochelae (I. 26 –31.2, II. 19–22).</p><p>Description. Globular (Figs 8 A–B), 4 cm in diameter x 3 cm high; hispid surface (Fig. 8 C); body made up of a dense mass of juxtaposed small slender hollow tubes (ca. 0.5 mm in diameter each ‘fiber’), which may anastomose (Fig. 8 B); larger, simple openings (possibly oscula, up to 0.3 cm in diameter) are spread at the surface; colour in life beige, and in ethanol, lighter or darker beige; consistency rather compressible and delicate; rough texture.</p><p>Skeleton. Sub-anisotropic reticulation (Fig. 9 A) of larger acanthostyles forming ascending pauci- to multispicular tracts (up to seven spicules across) in the choanosome, reaching the surface and piercing it by up to 200 µm. These acanthostyles also constitute secondary orthogonal tracts, one spicule long, and up to three in thickness (Fig. 9 B). Spongin in fibres is not apparent. These ascending spicule tracts can inter-cross or anastomose in the inner parts of the sponge, but are free from each other near the surface. Smaller acanthostyles echinate the main choanosomal tracts and the nodes of the reticulation. Tylotes are strewn at the surface, also tangentially (Fig. 9 C). Two kinds of arcuate isochelae occur throughout the choanosome and ectosome, the smaller category being the most abundant. Large choanosomal cavities are present, round or more elongated in section, up to 2000 µm long.</p><p>Spicules. Megascleres (Tab. 2): Tylotes (Figs 9 D–E), straight, microspined at both ends, sometimes slightly aniso-tylote; tyles only slightly swollen and elongated, 150– 187. 2 (14) –198/4– 4.7 (0.5)–5. Acanthostyles I (Figs 9 F–G), straight to slightly curved, stout and somewhat fusiform; base slightly constricted, frequently bearing a subtle neck and discreet tyle, sometimes only irregularly round; apex sharpening gradually; spines (not abundant), up to 1.2 µm high, straight, concentrated on the basal portion of the spicule, a few spicules (variably thick) bear much less if any spines at all, 190– 267.5 (34.3) –300/7.2– 8 (0.6) –9. Acanthostyles II (Figs 9 H–I), frequently straight, base swollen (up to 3 µm thicker than the shaft); gradually sharpening apex; abundant spines up to 3 µm high, straight, spread all over the spicule, 84– 100 (10) –115/6– 7. 5 (0.6) –8. Microscleres (Tab. 2): Arcuate isochelae I (Fig. 9 J), shaft curved, smooth, relatively thick; alae small but slightly elongated, young forms slender with markedly reduced alae, 25– 29. 3 (2) –31. Arcuate isochelae II (Fig. 9 K), same as the preceding one, but smaller, 19– 19.7 (0.9) –22. The Sturges algorithm confirmed the occurrence of two size classes of isochelae.</p><p>Ecology. The sponge was growing on rocky substrate, over tubes of the polychaete Chaetopterus variopedatus, and next to Tedania sp. ( Tedaniidae) and another unidentified haplosclerid sponge.</p><p>Distribution. Provisionally endemic from its type locality at Isla Santa Inés (Magellan Strait, Chile).</p><p>Etymology. The specific epithet is derived from the new species’ occurrence in Chile’s Francisco Coloane Marine Protected Area.</p><p>Remarks. Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) coloanensis sp. nov. is distinguished from Lissodendoryx (E.) spp. occurring in the SE Pacific, additional allied biogeographic provinces, as well as L. (E.) ballena sp. nov., due to its two categories of arcuate isochelae combined with terminally microspined tylotes (Tab. 2). The spicule set of L. (E.) coloanensis sp. nov. is rather similar to that of L. (E.) corrugata sp. nov. (Fig. 9 and Fig. 7, respectively). Nevertheless, the former can be distinguished by its shorter and more slender acanthostyles (Tab. 2), besides a relatively distinct outer morphology and consistency (Fig. 8 e Figs 4–5, respectively).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF87BEFFC7FFB0419BF8A0FB087138	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	Fernandez, Julio C. C.;Cárdenas, César A.;Bravo, Alejandro;Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele;Willenz, Philippe;Hajdu, Eduardo	Fernandez, Julio C. C., Cárdenas, César A., Bravo, Alejandro, Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele, Willenz, Philippe, Hajdu, Eduardo (2016): Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) Lundbeck, 1909 (Coelosphaeridae, Poecilosclerida, Demospongiae) from Southern Chile: new species and a discussion of morphologic characters in the subgenus. Zootaxa 4092 (1), DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.4
03EF87BEFFC0FFB2419BFDD1FA2574CA.text	03EF87BEFFC0FFB2419BFDD1FA2574CA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) diegoramirezensis	<div><p>Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) diegoramirezensis sp. nov.</p><p>(Tab. 2; Figs 10–13)</p><p>Holotype. IZUA–POR 169, Isla Diego Ramírez, southern Chile (56ºS, off Cape Horn), ca. 2000 m depth, September 2002, bycatch from longline fisheries, Leg. A. Bravo. Fragment from holotype deposited under MNRJ 10884.</p><p>Comparative material. Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) anacantha (Hentschel, 1914) (ZMH S 2327, fragment from the holotype).</p><p>Diagnosis. Seemingly erect Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) with irregular surface, terminally microspined tylotes (223–252/7.2–9.6), acanthostyles (I. 435–602/24–31, II. 320–415/19–21, III. 220–242/14–17), arcuate isochelae with lateral alae bent towards the shaft (22–24), and sigmas (I.45 –60, II. 18.6–25).</p><p>Description. The holotype is incomplete and therefore imprecise to describe its gross morphology. It is seemingly erect, possibly stalked (Fig. 10A), ca. 2 cm high and 0.4 cm thick. Surface rather hispid, irregular, bearing short projections (Fig. 10B) and roundish openings (ca. 0.1 cm across), which are of doubtful oscular in function. A gross reticulation is apparent in the entire sponge under transmitted light in a stereo microscope (Fig. 10C). Colour in life not reported, dried holotype beige. Consistency relatively compressible and delicate, texture slightly rough.</p><p>Skeleton. Plumoreticulate with a slight degree of axial compression (Figs 11 A–B). Larger acanthostyles core main paucispicular tracts (approx. five spicules across) that are entirely echinated by another two distinct types of acanthostyles (Fig. 11 C). Some of the larger acanthostyles fan out from the main tracts, interconnecting them. Aniso-subtylotes are scattered at the surface, disposed at various angles to it (Fig. 11 D). Isochelae and sigmas are scattered in the ectosome and choanosome. There is no spongin enveloping the fibres and subectosomal lacunae are absent. Choanosomal cavities (ca. 50 µm in diameter) are uncommon, scattered and roundish.</p><p>Spicules. Megascleres (Tabs 2 –4): Aniso-subtylotes to aniso-strongyles (Figs 12 A–B), straight, microspined ends, 223– 233.5 (10.2) –252/7.2– 8.4 (1.3) –9.6. Acanthostyles I (Figs 12 C–D), straight to slightly curved, stout and somewhat fusiform; roundish base, frequently narrower than the central portion of the shaft; gradually thinning point; surface with few straight spines (up to 2.5 µm), mainly over the basal third of the spicule, 435– 536 (52.8) – 602/24– 26.6 (2.4) –31. Acanthostyles II (Figs 12 E–F), same overall morphology as the preceding category, but smaller, and bearing more spines, although the apical portion is also totally smooth, 320– 391 (29.2) –415/19– 20 (1) –21. Acanthostyles III (Fig. 12 H) straight to slightly curved; narrow roundish base; gradually thinning point; shaft completely covered with spines (moderately to abundantly), spines frequently straight and usually larger than those of the preceding categories, 220– 232.5 (10) –242/14– 15 (1.1) –17. Microscleres (Tabs 2 –4): Arcuate isochelae (Fig. 12 I), shaft gently curved, lateral alae elongated and curved towards the shaft as a claw, frontal alae simple, 22– 23.5 (1) –24. Sigmas I (Fig. 12 J), contorted, smooth, with sharp ends, 45– 55.5 (4.9) –60. Sigmas II (Fig. 12 K) same morphology as the preceding one, but smaller, 16.8– 20.8 (2.9) –25.</p><p>Ecology. Deep-water habitat (2000 m depth).</p><p>Distribution. Currently only known from the type locality.</p><p>Etymology. The species is named after its type locality.</p><p>Remarks. Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) diegoramirezensis sp. nov. is distinguished from Lissodendoryx (E.)</p><p>spp. occurring in the SE Pacific, additional allied biogeographic provinces, as well as L. (E.) ballena sp. nov., L. (E.) corrugata sp. nov., and L. (E.) coloanensis sp. nov., mainly by its possession of three categories of acanthostyles, separable by their dimensions, morphology and placement in the skeletal architecture (Tab. 2; Figs 12 C–H).</p><p>Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) diegoramirezensis sp. nov. has arcuate isochelae of uncommon morphology, with lateral alae of both extremities curved towards the shaft (Fig. 12 I). Precisely this isochelae morphotype can be found in L. (E.) anacantha (Hentschel, 1914: p.107, Taf. VII, Fig. 12), a species amply distributed around Antarctic and the Subantarctic Region, and in another Antarctic species, L. (Lissodendoryx) styloderma Hentschel, 1914 (Hentschel, 1914: p.101, Taf. VII, Fig. 7). This latter species can be readily distinguished from the new species by its lack of sigmas, possession of styles in the ectosome, and acanthostyles of a single category only. However, the similarity of the isochelae of the new species and those seen in L. (E.) anacantha might indicate a closer affinity between both species, as they further share similar habit and additional spicule characteristics. Nevertheless, both species are considered distinct on the basis of the presence of a third category of acanthostyles in the new species, while its acanthostyles, as a rule, are also more densely spined or with spines more widespread over the shaft. Furthermore, L. (E.) anacantha has ectosomal megascleres that can be perfect styles (Fig. 13 C–D), and the smaller category of acanthostyles may bear secondary microspines over the main spines seen at the base of the spicule (Fig. 13 E–F). These characteristics of the acanthostyles have not been spotted in the holotype of L. (E.) diegoramirezensis sp. nov. (Fig. 11 C–H). The re-examination of the type material of L. (E.) anacantha (Fig. 13) confirmed the spicule set originally reported by Hentschel (1914), and subsequently recognized by Koltun (1964). Nevertheless, new measurements obtained from the holotype (Tab. 2) revealed that acanthostyles can be much thicker than reported originally (Hentschel, 1914), matching more closely the measurements reported by Koltun (1964).</p><p>Given the data at hand, L. (E.) diegoramirezensis sp. nov. is considered well distinguished from allied forms, but it is suggested that study of additional samples of L. (E.) anacantha, such as those registered (but not described) by Burton (1932) from South Georgia, is important to verify if these two taxa are distinct, as hypothesised here.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF87BEFFC0FFB2419BFDD1FA2574CA	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	Fernandez, Julio C. C.;Cárdenas, César A.;Bravo, Alejandro;Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele;Willenz, Philippe;Hajdu, Eduardo	Fernandez, Julio C. C., Cárdenas, César A., Bravo, Alejandro, Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele, Willenz, Philippe, Hajdu, Eduardo (2016): Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) Lundbeck, 1909 (Coelosphaeridae, Poecilosclerida, Demospongiae) from Southern Chile: new species and a discussion of morphologic characters in the subgenus. Zootaxa 4092 (1), DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.4
03EF87BEFFDCFFAF419BFECDFEC47610.text	03EF87BEFFDCFFAF419BFECDFEC47610.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lissodendoryx Topsent 1892	<div><p>Genus Lissodendoryx Topsent, 1892</p><p>Massive, lobate, or flabelliform sponges, with irregular or clathrate surface. Ectosomal skeleton with smooth ectosomal tornotes, tylotes or strongyles forming tangential tracts and surface brushes; choanosomal skeleton an isodictyal reticulation of single spicules, an anisotropic reticulation, or a plumo-reticulation, composed of smooth or acanthose choanosomal styles, sometimes oxeas or strongyles, alone or in combination; echinating spicules may be present; microscleres are arcuate isochelae, sigmas, and raphides in trichodragmata. Cosmopolitan distribution, many species (emended from van Soest, 2002a).</p><p>In the molecular phylogeny proposed by Redmond et al. (2013), Lissodendoryx is a polyphyletic taxon. More specifically, L. ( Lissodendoryx) forms a relatively well established clade (Bootstrap = 89). Then, one only finds 80% Bootstrap again for a large clade including Chondropsis (Chondropsidae), Desmapsamma (Desmacididae), Forcepia (Coelosphaeridae), Myxilla (Myxillidae) and Tedania (Tedaniidae) . Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx), with only two species evaluated in their analysis did not cluster together. But, as Bootstrap support for the inner branches of the larger clade including both species is too weak (below or barely above 50%), nothing can be said so far about the status of the subgenus, and of its most likely phylogenetic relations to other Poecilosclerida . Species of Lissodendoryx (Acanthodoryx) clustered together with 100% Bootstrap support, but the clade might contain only a single species, if the included L. (A.) sp. ever proves to belong in L. (A.) fibrosa (100% 18S rDNA similarity). Again, Bootstrap support at more inclusive clades is less than 50%, so affinities of the subgenus must remain obscure.</p><p>A combined analysis of 18S and 28S rDNA fragments permitted Morrow et al. (2013) to recover with 100% Bootstrap support the following relationships for a polyphyletic Lissodendoryx: ( Lissodendoryx, Forcepia, Myxilla, Tedania, Trachytedania) and ( Lissodendoryx, Crella, Higginsia, Hymedesmia, Plocamionida). The first of these clades clusters Lissodendoryx with an additional taxon in the Coelosphaeridae (Forcepia), and the poeciloclerid families Myxillidae and Tedaniidae, thus including taxa bearing arcuate chelae ( Lissodendoryx and Forcepia) and taxa bearing anchorate chelae ( Myxilla). The second clade with 100% support, aside from the interordinal relationship to the Axinellida ( Higginsia), clusters Lissodendoryx together with Crellidae and Hymedesmiidae, and only includes taxa bearing arcuate chelae. But, if a more inclusive clade with 98% support is considered instead, than Myxilla, Phorbas (as Stylostichon) and Spanioplon are included too, anchorate chelae come into play again. Similar relations had already been envisaged based on morphological analysis alone by van Soest (1984) and Desqueyroux-Faúndez &amp; van Soest (1996).</p><p>In part, our taxonomic results suggest a closer relationship between Lissodendoryx and Hymedesmiidae . Lissodendoryx (E.) ballena sp. nov. has a plumo-reticulated skeleton and ectosomal tornotes, rather than a reticulate skeleton and ectosomal tylotes as observed in other species of Lissodendoryx, such as L. (E.) corrugata sp. nov. and L. (E.) coloanensis sp. nov. described here, and a few additional species reported by van Soest (2002a). In addition, the morphology of the two largest categories of arcuate isochelae in L. (E.) ballena sp. nov. is quite similar to the morphology of the isochelae in some species of Hymedesmiidae; cf. Phorbas areolatus (Thiele, 1905) in Fernandez et al. (in prep.). It is also important to mention that a plumo-reticulate architecture is typical of Phorbas (see review in van Soest, 2002b). Thus, Lissodendoryx (E.) ballena sp. nov. appears indeed closer to Hymedesmiidae rather than to the additional Lissodendoryx spp. described here. Interestingly, Lissodendoryx (E.) jenjonesae Picton &amp; Goodwin, 2007 recorded from the Northern Ireland and L. (E.) arenaria Burton, 1936 recorded from the South Africa, the two species in the subgenus analysed by Morrow et al. (2013) in their molecular phylogeny, also share features found in Hymedesmiidae . Specifically, a few images observed in Picton &amp; Goodwin (2007: 1449, Figs 6 A–E) record of L. (E.) jenjonesae acanthostyles with slightly swollen bases, as commonly observed in various species of Hymedesmia, arcuate isochelae slightly bent backwards (cf. Phorbas areolatus), and a surface with structures that resemble Hymedesmiidae pore fields (cf. van Soest, 2002b). Burton (1936) recorded a skeleton with embedded grains echinated by acanthostyles for L. (E.) arenaria, which resembles the embedded polychaete tubes echinated by acanthostyles found in L. (E.) ballena sp. nov. (Fig. 3 G). As in L. (E.) jenjonesae, L. (E.) ballena sp. nov. has small holes scattered on the surface, which are reminiscent of pore fields. In Hymedesmiidae, pore fields are shallow and have walls supported by diactines (van Soest, 2002a), while the small holes in L. (E.) ballena sp. nov. are narrow, single, deep, and their walls are surrounded/supported mainly by microscleres (Fig. 3 D). If we think of a hypothetical ancestor with holes similar to those in L. (E.) ballena sp. nov., where such structures have become shallower and their ectosomal diactines have invaded the choanosome, we would be very close to sponges currently classified in Hymedesmiidae (cf. van Soest, 2002b). In this way, the phylogenetic relations retrieved by Morrow et al. (2013) might make sense in a morphological context after all.</p><p>A reticulate choanosomal architecture and ectosomal tylotes with microspined ends are rather common characters of species of Myxilla Schmidt, 1862 (van Soest, 2002c). Based on these observations, L. (E.) corrugata sp. nov. and L. (E.) coloanensis sp. nov. seem more closely related to Myxilla, than L. (E.) ballena sp. nov., and its Hymedesmiidae characters (cf. above). Lissodendoryx (E.) diegoramirezensis sp. nov., however, has an architecture of intermediate morphology between reticulate and plumose. Additionally, the latter species’ isochelae are quite distinct from those found in the other species described, and to the best of our knowledge, rather similar only to those of L. (E.) anacantha .</p><p>The shape of tylotes and the spination pattern of the extremities of these ectosomal diactines occur in congruence in part of the new species. These characteristics are most likely reflecting phylogenetic signal in a more inclusive level within Lissodendoryx . For example, thorns arranged as a crown (L. (E.) corrugata sp. nov and L. (E.) coloanensis sp. nov.) and randomly arranged thorns (L. (E.) diegoramirezensis sp. nov. and L. (E.) anacantha) might be suggesting these may be evolutionarily species-pairs. The latter pair of species might still be closer to L. (E.) corrugata sp. nov. and L. (E.) coloanensis sp. nov., which share similar ectosomal tylotes, rather than to L. (E.) ballena sp. nov., which has tornotes. Widening the comparison, one cannot dismiss the possibility that the tylotes of L. (E.) diegoramirezensis sp. nov. and L. (E.) anacantha might be close relatives of those found in some Myxilla spp., e.g. Myxilla (Burtonanchora) araucana Hajdu, Desqueyroux-Faúndez, Carvalho, Lôbo-Hajdu &amp; Willenz, 2013. Accordingly, it appears clear to us that the set of morphologic characters commonly assessed to describe species in the Poecilosclerida, is likely to permit various phylogenetic reinterpretations of boundaries for higher taxa, among which are those building up in the form of clades in the molecular phylogenetics literature (e.g. Redmond et al. 2013). In the absence of pre-established phylogenetic frameworks, still, these characters can and should be used to propose primary hypothesis of relationships, as we have done above for L. (E.) ballena sp. nov. This species seems to share a series of characters with Hymedesmiidae sponges: small openings on the surface possibly homologous to porefields, as well as arcuate isochelae and acanthostyles with morphology commonly found in this family, thus suggesting that alternative classification scenarios at the family level might be considered for the Poecilosclerida .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF87BEFFDCFFAF419BFECDFEC47610	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	Fernandez, Julio C. C.;Cárdenas, César A.;Bravo, Alejandro;Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele;Willenz, Philippe;Hajdu, Eduardo	Fernandez, Julio C. C., Cárdenas, César A., Bravo, Alejandro, Lôbo-Hajdu, Gisele, Willenz, Philippe, Hajdu, Eduardo (2016): Lissodendoryx (Ectyodoryx) Lundbeck, 1909 (Coelosphaeridae, Poecilosclerida, Demospongiae) from Southern Chile: new species and a discussion of morphologic characters in the subgenus. Zootaxa 4092 (1), DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.4
