identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
745B87E4FFD05563FF71FAD9FE20CCAF.text	745B87E4FFD05563FF71FAD9FE20CCAF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tulpa Stechow 1921	<div><p>Genus  Tulpa Stechow, 1921</p><p>Diagnosis. Colonies stolonal or forming erect, monosiphonic stems. Cauline hydrothecae alternate, with strong tendency to unilateral arrangement. Hydrothecae at end of pedicels without distal sub-hydrothecal spherule. Hydrotheca tubiform, remarkably large and deep, with more or less pronounced polygonal structure, and with a basal annular perisarcal thickening. Rim of hydrothecal aperture typically sinuous and more or less turned outwards, with or without cusps. Cnidome consisting of small microbasic mastigophores and large?atrichous isorhizas.</p><p>List of species clearly referable to  Tulpa in this study:</p><p>Tulpa tulipifera (Allman, 1888) (=  Campanularia tulipifera Allman, 1888)</p><p>Tulpa diverticulata Totton, 1930</p><p>Tulpa costata Gravier-Bonnet, 1979</p><p>Tulpa peculiaris sp. nov.</p><p>Tulpa revelata sp. nov.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/745B87E4FFD05563FF71FAD9FE20CCAF	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	Cantero, Álvaro Luis Peña	Cantero, Álvaro Luis Peña (2025): On the species of Tulpa Stechow, 1921 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) with the description of two new species from sub-Antarctic waters. Zootaxa 5633 (1): 51-78, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5633.1.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5633.1.3
745B87E4FFD15567FF71FF19FF59C8E8.text	745B87E4FFD15567FF71FF19FF59C8E8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tulpa tulipifera (Allman 1888)	<div><p>Tulpa tulipifera (Allman, 1888)</p><p>(Figs. 2a–b, 3)</p><p>Campanularia tulipifera Allman, 1888: 20, pl. 10 fig. 1.</p><p>?  Campanularia tulipifera — Jäderholm, 1905: 15; Nutting, 1915: 40–41, pl. 5 fig. 1.</p><p>Tulpa tulipifera — Stechow, 1921: 254; Peña Cantero, 2024a: 11–15, fig. 9A–C.</p><p>Not  Tulpa tulipifera — Vervoort, 1972: 90, fig. 25e; El Beshbeeshy, 2011: 85–88, fig. 25 (=  Tulpa revelata sp. nov.)</p><p>?  Tulpa tulpifera [sic]— Stepanjants, 1979: 34, pl. 6 figs 1A–D, pl. 25 fig. 3.</p><p>Tulpa diverticulata — Watson, 2003: 173–174, fig. 24A–D.</p><p>Material examined. TAN 0803 Stn 98, several hydrothecae and stems up to 20 mm high, with incomplete gonothecae (NIWA 131357).</p><p>Description. Colonies consisting of stolons growing on substrate and giving rise to either long pedicels with a single distal hydrotheca (Fig. 2a) or erect, monosiphonic, unbranched stems up to 20 mm high. Stems with up to six hydrothecae on short pedicels, arranged alternately in almost unilateral pattern; sometimes distal hydrotheca present. Some pedicels with regenerative nodes.</p><p>Hydrotheca tulip-shaped, basal fourth strongly widening from annular thickening, then constant or decreasing distally and widening distinctly at aperture (Fig. 2a), giving it a trumpet-shaped appearance (Fig. 3a–b). Hydrothecal rim uneven, with 12 little-marked cusps, strongly everted (Fig. 2b, 3a–b), and sinuous (slightly outside, markedly inside). Sinuosity creating an alternate sequence of crests and troughs inside and outside hydrotheca (Fig. 3c). Inner crests more pronounced and acute, extending downward for a great extent. Rim external troughs corresponding to cusps, external crests to embayments. Outside hydrothecal wall with longitudinal, concave facets (Fig. 2a), corresponding to external troughs, laterally delimited by well-marked ridges extending downwards to basal fourth. Opposite pattern on inner hydrothecal wall. Prominent internal ridges (Fig. 3c–g), corresponding to external troughs, frequently with strong perisarc keel (Fig. 3e) running downwards along most distal part of hydrothecal wall. Rim frequently with one to three renovations (Fig. 2a), much more everted than primeval one. Hydrothecal perisarc generally with very fine transverse striations.</p><p>Gonothecae on stolons and stems, incomplete, conical (see Fig. 9C in Peña Cantero 2024a).</p><p>Remarks. The stolons creeping on the substrate may give rise to long free stolons, which may either bear a single distal hydrotheca or form additional hydrothecae with an alternate, almost unilateral arrangement. These can therefore be considered as stems. The diameter of the hydrothecal pedicel is smaller than that of the stolons; even the distalmost part of the erect stolons, some of which develop into stems, has a thinner portion before the distal hydrotheca.</p><p>The pedicels of the stolonal hydrothecae are significantly longer (up to 2840 µm) than those of the stem hydrothecae (1200–1600 µm).</p><p>In this species, the entire rim (i.e. cusps and embayments) is strongly everted, sometimes even directed downwards (Fig. 3a–b).</p><p>From Allman’s description and figures, it is evident that the hydrotheca has a wider basal part; as he described it, ‘hydrothecae … slightly narrowed behind the orifice, and again widening towards the base’. Although Allman stated that there are eight cusps, his figures show between 10 and 12. Longitudinal crests are also present on the inner side of the hydrotheca, and the pedicels are short, often with a node.</p><p>Peña Cantero (2024a) identified the present material as  T. tulipifera based on the presence of stems, the absence of diverticula, and the shape and size of the hydrothecae. Here, I retain it under Allman’s species based on the absence of diverticula, the general shape of the hydrotheca, its strongly everted rim with little-marked cusps, and the presence of distinct ridges on the inner hydrothecal wall. The size of the hydrotheca is also consistent with Allman’s material (3810 µm in height and 1270 µm in diameter at the bulbous part).</p><p>Jäderholm (1905) attributed material from Burdwood Bank to this species, but provided no illustrations or description other than noting that the colonies were 10–12 cm high. It is therefore not possible to clarify its taxonomic position. However, Jäderholm apparently sent a fragment of this material to Nutting (cf. Nutting 1915), who pointed out that the hydrothecae were very large (3500 µm in height and 1000 µm in diameter), tubular, and with an everted rim with about 14 cusps corresponding ‘to a series of longitudinal flutings of the hydrothecal wall which extends downward almost to the base’ (Nutting 1915: 41). This author also noted that the pedicels were very short (not more than one-fourth of the hydrothecal length) and smooth, except for a constriction at each end. Although Nutting indicated that the rim is gracefully everted, the hydrotheca he illustrated (Nutting 1915: pl. 5 fig. 1) does not show this feature, at least not to the same extent as seen in  T. tulipifera . Therefore, there is some uncertainty as to whether the Burdwood Bank material actually belongs to Allman’s species.</p><p>In my opinion, the material assigned to  T. tulipifera by Vervoort (1972) does not belong to Allman’s species. The shape of the hydrotheca is clearly different, as the aperture is not markedly everted and the rim has 14 to 16 prominent cusps. Vervoort (1972) stated that ‘the hydrothecal margin is undulated, with the incisions between the teeth curving outwards and the rounded teeth curving inwards.’ In contrast, in  T. tulipifera, the entire rim (i.e. both the cusps and embayments) is strongly everted, sometimes even downwards. El Beshbeeshy’s (2011) material is clearly conspecific with Vervoort’s and is, therefore, not considered to belong to  T. tulipifera . The hydrothecal rim in El Beshbeeshy’s material is also sinuous, with 13 to 17 well-marked rounded cusps, and the longitudinal lines extend downward for about one-third of the hydrothecal length.</p><p>Stepanjants (1979) identified material from widely separated locations (i.e. Crozet, Kerguelen and the Patagonian shelf area) as  T. tulipifera . From her description and figures, it seems plausible that she was indeed studying  T. tulipifera material.According to her description, the hydrothecal rim is bent outwards, there are distinct longitudinal ribs, and deep grooves between them, extending downwards along the entire length of the hydrotheca, and, under high magnification, the perisarc of the hydrotheca is finely striate. These features, together with the shape of the hydrotheca shown in pl. 6 fig. 1B, strongly suggest that at least part of her material belongs to  T. tulipifera .</p><p>Ecology and distribution.  Tulpa tulipifera has been recorded from depths between 273 m (Allman 1888) and 1064 m (Watson 2003, as  T. diverticulata).</p><p>Tulpa tulipifera seems to be a sub-Antarctic species. It was originally described by Allman (1888) off Heard Island. More recent records also are from similar latitudes, north and south of Macquarie Island (Watson 2003; Peña Cantero 2024a). There are unconfirmed records from Crozet, Kerguelen and the Patagonian shelf area (Stepanjants 1979).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/745B87E4FFD15567FF71FF19FF59C8E8	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	Cantero, Álvaro Luis Peña	Cantero, Álvaro Luis Peña (2025): On the species of Tulpa Stechow, 1921 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) with the description of two new species from sub-Antarctic waters. Zootaxa 5633 (1): 51-78, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5633.1.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5633.1.3
745B87E4FFD45568FF71FB94FB11CC98.text	745B87E4FFD45568FF71FB94FB11CC98.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tulpa diverticulata Totton 1930	<div><p>Tulpa diverticulata Totton, 1930</p><p>(Figs 2c–d, 4)</p><p>Tulpa diverticulata Totton, 1930: 145–146, figs 5a–c; Ralph, 1957: 844, fig. 7n (only material from Menzies Bay); Peña Cantero, 2024b: fig. 3h.</p><p>Not  Tulpa diverticulata — Ralph, 1957: 844, fig. 7m (material from Bligh Sound); Millard, 1977: 20, fig. 5G–H; Vervoort &amp; Watson, 2003: 446–447, fig. 108E–G.</p><p>?  Campanularia diverticulata — Naumov &amp; Stepanjants, 1962: 72.</p><p>?  Tulpa diverticulata — Stepanjants, 1979: 35, pl. 6 fig. 2.</p><p>Not  Tulpa diverticulata — Watson, 2003: 173–174, fig. 24A–D (=  T. tulipifera)</p><p>Material examined. TAN 1802/186, several stems up to 60 mm high, without gonothecae, on axis of dead gorgonian, basibiont of  Symplectoscyphus nesioticus Blanco, 1977 (NIWA 130060).</p><p>Description. Stems up to 60 mm high, monosiphonic, unbranched or with a lateral branch, with a series of up to 14 hydrothecae in alternate, almost unilateral arrangement; sometimes with distal hydrotheca.</p><p>Hydrothecae at distal end of pedicels of variable length, usually with regenerations. Hydrotheca tubiform, flaskshaped and with marked polygonal structure (Fig. 2c). Hydrothecal diameter increasing from annular thickening to basal third, slightly decreasing to distal third and increasing again to aperture (Fig. 2c–d). Hydrothecal rim even, distinctly everted and sinuous (Fig. 4a–c, g). Sinuosity giving rise to alternate sequence of crests and troughs outside hydrotheca, with opposite sequence inside (Fig. 4a–c), extending downward for a long distance. This resulting in a series of more or less marked, straight or slightly concave facets on external hydrothecal wall (Fig. 2c), corresponding to external troughs, fading basally, and laterally delimited by longitudinal ridges coinciding with external crests; opposite situation on inner wall. Hydrothecal aperture might have few, short, everted renovations (Fig. 2c). Hydrothecal perisarc smooth or with barely noticeable transverse striation. External troughs forming distal diverticula (Figs 2d, 4a–g).</p><p>Remarks. The material examined is undoubtedly conspecific with Totton’s species, matching perfectly in every detail, except for the presence of stems. These stems are monosiphonic, although some stolons may run alongside, giving the impression of polysiphony. The stems are typically unbranched, although some have a lateral branch. The basal part of the stems is devoid of hydrothecae for a significant extent.</p><p>The hydrotheca has a polygonal structure due to the straight or slightly concave facets, which usually extend downward along the distal three-fourths. The sinuosity of the rim creates the external facets, which correspond to the troughs between the crests on the outside. There are also alternating concave internal facets, although these are barely noticeable.</p><p>In this species, there is only a barely noticeable unevenness between the distal end of the rim external troughs and crests, and consequently there are no true cusps. This unevenness is merely an optical illusion caused by the structure of the hydrothecal rim. The rim is even and clearly curved outwards, but also sinuous. As mentioned earlier, the wave formed can be divided into alternating crests and troughs on both the inner and outer surfaces of the hydrotheca. The external troughs give the false impression of “cusps,” while the external crests correspond to the perceived “embayments.” At the rim, however, both crests and troughs are at the same level (Fig. 4c, g), so that no real cusps are present. According to Stepanjants (1979), the longitudinal ridges along the hydrotheca’s wall and the deep troughs between them, extending to the edge of the aperture, create the appearance of rounded cusps, up to 12 in number.</p><p>The peculiar diverticula of  T. diverticulata are formed because the rim is strongly bent outwards over the deeply concave distal part of the external facets (Fig. 4b, e), and these often project upwards beyond the rim, forming a pouch-like structure or diverticulum (Fig. 2c–d). This was perfectly illustrated by Totton (1930: 145) ‘Distally the ends of these fluted facets appear as slight bosses that rise above the level of the entire, everted, slightly oblique margin’ and is represented in his figure 5c. Ralph (1957) also stated that the margin is entire, but everted, and that the ends of the fluted facets appear as bosses. In the present material, these protuberances are conspicuous when the hydrothecal aperture is viewed from above (Fig. 4e–g), but also on the sides in lateral view (Figs 2c–d, 4d).</p><p>Ralph (1957) noted that  T. diverticulata and  T. tulipifera differed mainly in growth habit, the latter having sparsely branched stems with hydrothecae on pedicels arranged in a pinnate and alternate disposition, whereas  T. diverticulata was considered to be stolonal. However, Ralph herself pointed out the possibility that new collections might reveal a change in habit, suggesting that  T. diverticulata might be conspecific with  T. tulipifera . As shown above, the material examined here, which is undoubtedly  T. diverticulata, has branched stems. Therefore, the presence/absence of a stem is no longer a reliable character to distinguish between the two species. However, this does not mean that  T. diverticulata and  T. tulipifera are conspecific, as Ralph suggested. In my opinion, although they are closely related, they represent two distinct, well-defined species that differ in important morphological characters.</p><p>Apart from the presence of stems, both species share the size of the nematocysts and the general shape of the hydrotheca. However,  T. tulipifera lacks the characteristic diverticula found in Totton’s species, usually has a distinct perisarc keel on the internal ridges, a much more everted rim, and a more pronounced sinuosity in the inner part of the hydrotheca. This results in more marked internal ridges on the inner hydrothecal wall. In Totton’s species, the sinuosity is similar both inside and outside the hydrotheca. Finally, whereas  T. diverticulata lacks cups,  T. tulipifera has a noticeable difference in height between the distal ends of the troughs and crests, resulting in small but conspicuous cusps, 40 µm high, visible in lateral view.</p><p>Ralph (1957) assigned specimens from two New Zealand localities (Menzies Bay in the north-east of the South Island, and Bligh Sound in the south-west) to  T. diverticulata . I believe they belong to two different species, and her description contains details of both. In my opinion, the material from Menzies Bay belongs to  T. diverticulata, and I believe Ralph’s figure 7n represents this species. The hydrotheca represented in this figure corresponds well to  T. diverticulata, resembling those depicted by Totton (1930) and found in the present material, characterised by a distinctly everted aperture. According to Ralph’s (1957: 844) description of the hydrotheca, ‘margin entire, but everted and the ends of the fluted facets appear as bosses’, which clearly indicates that she was dealing with  T. diverticulata due to the presence of diverticula and the everted, entire rim (she did not note the presence of cusps). However, her material also contains specimens with distinctly different hydrothecae, as shown in figure 7m. These hydrothecae are more robust and lack a distinctly everted rim. They certainly belong to the Bligh Sound material, as Ralph (1957: 844) stated that ‘Only the specimens from Bligh Sound, taken in May, had gonothecae’. This material undoubtedly belongs to a different species.</p><p>Gravier-Bonnet (1979) pointed out that while Totton (1930) characterised the hydrotheca of  T. diverticulata as having an even aperture, Ralph (1957) depicted a hydrothecal rim with large, rounded cusps, like those described by Vervoort (1972) for  T. tulipifera and those which she observed in her  T. costata (see below). Gravier-Bonnet (1979) questioned whether Totton’s description reflected reality or whether Ralph’s material represented a different species. I believe Ralph’s material consists of two species, one being  T. diverticulata and the other being clearly different. Gravier-Bonnet (1979) also noted that if the hydrothecal rim in  T. diverticulata is as described by Totton, this would be enough to prevent  T. diverticulata and  T. tulipifera from being considered the same species, as Ralph (1957) had thought possible when she suggested that  T. diverticulata could only represent the unbranched form of Allman’s species.</p><p>Millard (1977) assigned material to  T. diverticulata that I do not believe belongs to the species. She probably identified it as  T. diverticulata on the basis of the stolonal structure of the colony, stating that ‘there is never any question of an erect branching stem with oblique pedicels as in  T. tulipifera ’, but this is no longer a valid character for identifying Totton’s species. In addition, the shape of the hydrotheca in Millard’s material is completely different from that of  T. diverticulata, and she neither mentioned nor illustrated the characteristic diverticula of Totton’s species.</p><p>The material from the Auckland Islands assigned to  T. diverticulata by Naumov &amp; Stepanjants (1962) and Stepanjants (1979) may belong to this species, although there is some uncertainty, as they did not mention or illustrate the diverticula. However, the shape of the hydrotheca is similar to that of  T. diverticulata . Naumov &amp; Stepanjants (1962) noted that the rim of the hydrothecal aperture is distinctly everted and wavy, and Stepanjants (1979) mentioned that the hydrothecal perisarc is finely striate and that the ridges and troughs of the hydrothecal wall extending to the edge of the aperture give the impression of up to 12 rounded cusps. Naumov &amp; Stepanjants (1962) also mentioned that the gonotheca of  T. diverticulata is characterised by a dense transverse striation, a feature clearly visible in the figure provided by Stepanjants (1979: pl. VI fig. 2). If confirmed, this would be the first and only record of gonothecae in Totton’s species.</p><p>Stepanjants (1979), who also identified material as  T. tulipifera (see above), pointed out that both species are very similar in the shape and size of their hydrothecae, and that the main difference is that the colonies of  T. diverticulata are stolonal. However, as mentioned above, this character is no longer reliable. Stepanjants (1979) also pointed out that  T. diverticulata has longer pedicels and a less curved rim at the aperture.</p><p>In my opinion, the material assigned to  T. diverticulata by Vervoort &amp; Watson (2003), does not belong to this species. They did not mention or illustrate the characteristic diverticula of  T. diverticulata, and the hydrotheca is clearly smaller and of different shape, more cylindrical and not clearly widening at the aperture. Apparently, they assigned their material to  T. diverticulata on the basis of the absence of stems, a feature that is no longer valid for its identification. On the other hand, these authors noted that their material differed from that of Ralph (1957) in the lack of fine transverse striations on the neck of the gonothecae and the absence of an everted rim in the hydrothecae. However, as mentioned above, Ralph’s fertile material does not belong to  T. diverticulata either. The material examined by Vervoort &amp; Watson (2003) may represent a new, distinct species, but it would need to be re-examined to confirm this.</p><p>Peña Cantero (2024a) considered that Watson’s (2003) material of  T. diverticulata from the Macquarie Island area actually belongs to  T. tulipifera, an opinion shared here.</p><p>Ralph’s (1957) material from Menzies Bay was collected from an intertidal rock pool creeping over other hydroid stems. This clearly contrasts with the depths at which Totton’s and the present material were collected (546 m and 652–654 m, respectively). Consequently, either the species is eurybathic, ranging from intertidal to bathyal depths, or Ralph’s material was stranded and came from deeper waters. Although Ralph mentioned that her material was growing over other hydroid stems, she did not specify whether these other hydroids were attached to the substrate. It is worth noting that Stepanjants’ (1979) material came from shallower continental shelf waters (125 m).</p><p>Ecology and distribution.  Tulpa diverticulata has been reported from the intertidal zone (Ralph 1957) to depths of 654 m (Peña Cantero, 2024b).</p><p>Tulpa diverticulata is mainly known from New Zealand waters: Three Kings Islands (Totton, 1930), Menzies Bay, NE South Island (Ralph 1957) and probably the Auckland Islands area (Naumov &amp; Stepanjants 1962; Stepanjants 1979). Peña Cantero (2024b) reported it from the Long Ridge area of Antarctica.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/745B87E4FFD45568FF71FB94FB11CC98	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	Cantero, Álvaro Luis Peña	Cantero, Álvaro Luis Peña (2025): On the species of Tulpa Stechow, 1921 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) with the description of two new species from sub-Antarctic waters. Zootaxa 5633 (1): 51-78, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5633.1.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5633.1.3
745B87E4FFD8556AFF71FF19FAD4CC0C.text	745B87E4FFD8556AFF71FF19FAD4CC0C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tulpa costata Gravier-Bonnet 1979	<div><p>Tulpa costata Gravier-Bonnet, 1979</p><p>Tulpa costata Gravier-Bonnet, 1979: 31, fig. 6A–F.</p><p>Description [elaborated from Gravier-Bonnet’s (1979) description and figures]. Stolonal colony. Stolons giving rise to long pedicels with distal hydrotheca; pedicel length twice or equal to hydrothecal height; pedicel diameter constant, with one to three randomly arranged regeneration nodes. No distinct articulation between pedicel and hydrotheca.</p><p>Hydrotheca tubular, with distinct bulbous basal part, diameter strongly increasing at annular thickening, reaching its maximum by the middle, then decreasing to minimum at distal fifth and increasing again at aperture. Distal third of hydrothecal wall sinuous. Rim of hydrothecal aperture with eight to 11 large, rounded cusps, corresponding to external troughs. Hydrothecal perisarc totally or partially finely transversally striated. Hydrothecae without longitudinal ridges. Hydrothecal rim may have numerous renovations.</p><p>Gonothecae oval-shaped, with a narrow basal part, and distally projecting into a long neck bearing a circular, distal aperture. Swollen part with eight distinct longitudinal ridges. Gonothecal perisarc totally finely transversally striated.</p><p>Cnidome including very large, bean-shaped nematocysts.</p><p>Remarks. Gravier-Bonnet (1979) indicated that she was unable to observe longitudinal ridges as those described in  T. diverticulata and  T. tulipifera . According to her, the presence and prominence of longitudinal ridges depends on the degree of undulation of the hydrothecal wall: when the ridges are acute, the longitudinal lines are present (e.g., in  T. tulipifera or  T. diverticulata), but when the ridges are less pronounced, the lines are absent (as in  T. costata).</p><p>The most striking feature of  T. costata is the relatively large size of its nematocysts (67 × 20 µm), especially in comparison with other known  Tulpa species (see Table 2), or even with species from other hydrozoan genera that are typically known to have large nematocysts. For example, in  Eudendrium megaloarmatus Peña Cantero, 2023, a species characterised by having unusually large nematocysts within the genus  Eudendrium Ehrenberg, 1834, they are 41.5–46 × 19–21 µm (Peña Cantero 2023). This initially led me to believe that the author may have made an error in measurement. However, Gravier-Bonnet (1979) also provided measurements for three other species in her study, and these were within the expected range for these genera. They are  Synthecium megathecum Billard, 1925 (33–35 × 10–11 µm),  Synthecium sp. (38–44 × 8–9 µm), and  Thecocarpus flexuosus (Lamouroux, 1816) (36–38 × 4 µm). This led me to conclude that her measurements were correct, and that  T. costata is indeed characterised by exceptionally large nematocysts.</p>3.92.52.6–3.02.82.73.5<p>......continued on the next page</p><p>As mentioned above, I believe that the material assigned to  T. diverticulata by Vervoort &amp; Watson (2003) actually belongs to a different species. While it shares with  T. costata the relatively small size of the hydrothecae, their shapes are different. In addition, the two species differ in the gonothecae, as those studied by Vervoort &amp; Watson have a smooth perisarc and lack the longitudinal ridges characteristic of  T. costata .</p><p>Ecology and distribution.  Tulpa costata is known only east of <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=47.368332&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-25.150555" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 47.368332/lat -25.150555)">Cape Sainte Marie</a>, south of Madagascar (25°09'2"S – 47°22'6"E), where it was collected at a depth of 460–465 m. Gonothecae were observed in March.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/745B87E4FFD8556AFF71FF19FAD4CC0C	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	Cantero, Álvaro Luis Peña	Cantero, Álvaro Luis Peña (2025): On the species of Tulpa Stechow, 1921 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) with the description of two new species from sub-Antarctic waters. Zootaxa 5633 (1): 51-78, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5633.1.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5633.1.3
745B87E4FFDE556EFF71FF19FD44C9D0.text	745B87E4FFDE556EFF71FF19FD44C9D0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tulpa peculiaris Cantero 2025	<div><p>Tulpa peculiaris sp. nov.</p><p>(Figs 5–6)</p><p>Material examined.   ACE 14, several colonies with stolonal hydrothecae and male and female gonothecae, on bryozoans,  Grammaria sp. and  Symplectoscyphus sp. (Holotype, MNCN 2.03/690, colony 40 mm long, with several hydrothecae and female gonothecae, partially growing on bryozoan;   Paratype, MNCN 2.03/691, colony with several hydrothecae and male gonothecae, growing on  Symplectoscyphus sp.)  .</p><p>Description. Stolonal colony. Stolons on substrate giving rise to long pedicels with single distal hydrotheca. Pedicel perisarc smooth, typically without regenerations.</p><p>Hydrotheca tubiform (Fig. 5a–b), almost cylindrical, its diameter distinctly increasing at basal part, then either more or less constant with slight increase at aperture, or smoothly increasing to aperture (Fig. 5a–b); in either case maximum diameter at aperture. Rim of hydrothecal aperture strongly sinuous (Fig. 6b, e) and uneven, with 12 to 16 blunt cusps (Figs 5a–c, 6a–b). Sinuosity creating an alternate sequence of crests and troughs outside and inside hydrotheca (Fig. 6b–g). This resulting in a series of little-marked, barely concave facets on external hydrothecal wall, corresponding to external troughs, strongly fading basally, and laterally delimited by very faint longitudinal ridges coinciding with external crests. Opposite pattern on inner wall. At rim, outside troughs corresponding to cusps and external crests to embayments (Fig. 6b). Distal part of external crests strongly bent outwards (Fig. 6b– g); distinctly lower than non-everted distal part of external troughs (Fig. 6b–g), and thus giving rise to cusps. Hydrothecal perisarc smooth. Rim with up to five renovations (cusps fading on renovations).</p><p>Gonothecae arising from stolons, oval-shaped, with a narrow basal part, and distally projecting into a long neck with a circular distal aperture. Female gonothecae (Fig. 5d) distinctly larger than male ones (Fig. 5e), and with much longer neck. Female gonothecae containing many ova (Fig. 5d). Gonothecal perisarc partially finely striated transversally. In male gonothecae, striation typically occurring on their distal half, whereas in female gonothecae, it may extend from one-third (basically over the neck) to two-thirds of their distal length.</p><p>Larger nematocysts banana-like (Fig. 6h).</p><p>Remarks. The size of the hydrotheca in  Tulpa pecularis sp. nov. varies significantly (Fig. 5a–b). Some hydrothecae growing on  Symplectoscyphus sp. reach the smallest size.</p><p>The rim of the hydrothecal aperture is not completely everted, only the most distal part of the external crests is sharply everted outwards (Fig. 6e, g). At the rim, the external troughs create the cusps, which are straight or even slightly inwardly directed, while the crests form the embayments, which are everted and strongly outwardly directed. In addition, the rim may have a short, thin perisarc projection, also curved outwards in the external crests, but kept upright in the external troughs (Fig. 6f), making the cusps and embayments even more prominent in the side view.</p><p>The perisarc of the hydrothecal wall is typically smooth, although barely noticeable striations can occasionally be observed in stained hydrothecae (Fig. 6a).</p><p>In  Tulpa pecularis sp. nov., the most distal part of the hydrotheca is strongly sinuous (Fig. 6b, e), but the sinuosity decreases rapidly downwards, resulting in a roughly cylindrical hydrotheca, in contrast to  T. diverticulata or  T. tulipifera, in which the hydrotheca has a distinct polygonal structure. It should be noted, however, that a very faint polygonal structure can be seen in some stained hydrothecae of the material studied herein.</p><p>Tulpa peculiaris sp. nov. is easily recognised by the shape of its larger nematocysts, hydrothecae and gonothecae. It is clearly distinguished from the other species of the genus by the absence of a bulbous basal part in the hydrotheca. The diameter increases strongly at the annular perisarc thickening and then smoothly to the aperture, where it reaches its maximum diameter (Fig. 5a–b).</p><p>The colony of this species is exclusively stolonal, a feature that at present distinguishes it from  T. diverticulata and  T. tulipifera, but which it shares with  T. costata . However,  Tulpa peculiaris sp. nov. differs from Gravier-Bonnet’s species in many characters. The hydrotheca of  T. costata has a bulbous basal part and a narrower part below the aperture. They also differ in the size of the hydrothecae (up to 2390 µm in  T. costata, but up to 3400 µm in  Tulpa peculiaris sp. nov.), and nematocysts (67 × 20 µm in  T. costata, 17.5–20.5 × 4.0–4.5 µm in  Tulpa peculiaris sp. nov.). According to Gravier-Bonnet, in  T. costata, the hydrothecal perisarc is entirely or partially finely striate transversally, whereas in  Tulpa peculiaris sp. nov. it is typically smooth. The two species also differ in the gonothecae. Although Gravier-Bonnet was not able to determine the sex, the size and shape of the gonothecae she described coincide with those of the male gonothecae of  Tulpa peculiaris sp. nov. However, she characterised the gonothecae of  T. costata as having eight distinct longitudinal ridges, which are not present in either the male or female gonothecae of  Tulpa pecularis sp. nov.</p><p>The gonotheca illustrated by Ralph (1957) from material collected in Bligh Sound, which she identified as  T. diverticulata but which clearly does not belong to that species, is similar in shape and size to the female gonotheca of  Tulpa peculiaris sp. nov. However, according to Ralph (1957: 844), the neck is provided with ‘about 25 fairly prominent but fine closely spaced annulations’ and the margin of the aperture is everted. In  Tulpa peculiaris sp. nov. the rim is not everted and there is only a very fine striation. The shape of the hydrotheca is also different, as in  Tulpa peculiaris sp. nov. the diameter increases smoothly distally, whereas in Ralph’s material there is a bulbous basal part, where the diameter is maximum.</p><p>The material assigned to  T. diverticulata by Vervoort &amp; Watson (2003), which in my opinion clearly belongs to another species, shares the relatively small size of the hydrotheca with  Tulpa pecularis sp. nov. However, its shape is clearly different, ‘with a slightly swollen basal part, narrowing somewhat apically and widening again towards hydrothecal rim’ (Vervoort &amp; Watson 2003: 446). The gonotheca they illustrated resembles the male gonothecae of  Tulpa pecularis sp. nov. but lacks striations in the perisarc.</p><p>Ecology and distribution.  Tulpa peculiaris sp. nov. was collected at a depth of 270 m in the Marion/Prince Edward area, epibiotic on bryozoans,  Grammaria sp. and  Symplectoscyphus sp. Gonothecae were found in December.</p><p>Etymology. The specific name  “peculiaris ” refers to the peculiar shape of the larger nematocysts when compared to the nematocysts present in the other species studied.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/745B87E4FFDE556EFF71FF19FD44C9D0	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	Cantero, Álvaro Luis Peña	Cantero, Álvaro Luis Peña (2025): On the species of Tulpa Stechow, 1921 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) with the description of two new species from sub-Antarctic waters. Zootaxa 5633 (1): 51-78, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5633.1.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5633.1.3
745B87E4FFDD5572FF71FCCCFC5FC9A4.text	745B87E4FFDD5572FF71FCCCFC5FC9A4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tulpa revelata Cantero 2025	<div><p>Tulpa revelata sp. nov.</p><p>(Figs 7–8)</p><p>Tulpa tulipifera — Vervoort, 1972: 90, fig. 25e; El Beshbeeshy, 2011: 85–88, fig. 25; Soto Àngel &amp; Peña Cantero, 2015: 1000, fig. 9i–j.</p><p>Tulpa diverticulata — Millard, 1977: 20, fig. 5G–H.</p><p>Material examined.   ATLANTIS 2008 Stn LO 01, several interwoven colonies with stolonal hydrothecae and stems up to 50 mm high, also growing on and surrounding stems of  Symplectoscyphus sp., with male and female gonothecae (Holotype, MNCN 2.03/692, colony fragment 40 mm long, with three complete hydrothecae and five female gonothecae;  Paratype, MNCN 2.03/693, colony fragment 14 mm long, with two hydrothecae and one male gonotheca);  ANTARKTIS XIX/5 Stn 153, four stem fragments up to 40 mm long, with one complete hydrotheca and the basal part of another, with male and female gonothecae (DZUV)  .</p><p>Description. Colonies consisting of stolonal hydrothecae and erect, monosiphonic, occasionally branched stems up to 50 mm high. Stems with up to 12 hydrothecae on very short pedicels, alternately arranged in two planes forming an acute angle. Strong tendency to unilateral arrangement. No distal hydrotheca observed. Branching irregular. Branches with hydrothecae arranged as in stems.</p><p>Hydrothecae tubular, almost cylindrical, with slightly bulbous basal part (Fig. 7a–b): diameter markedly increasing at annular thickening, then slightly decreasing distally, and finally widening slightly at most distal part, reaching maximum diameter at aperture. Rim of hydrothecal aperture uneven (with 12 to 16 well-marked blunt cusps) (Figs 7a–c, 8a–b), slightly everted (Fig. 8f–g), and markedly sinuous (Fig. 8e–g). Sinuosity creating alternate sequence of crests and troughs outside and inside hydrotheca (Fig. 8e–g); inside crests more acute (Fig. 8f). Sinuosity fading downwards. Rim external troughs corresponding to cusps; outside crests to embayments (Fig. 8e–g). Cusps directed upwards, embayments outwards (Figs 7c, 8a–d), resulting in a series of longitudinal, little-marked ridges running downwards and delimiting barely concave external facets. Rim of cusps and embayments markedly bent outwards for a short extent (Fig. 8f–g). Hydrothecal perisarc smooth.</p><p>Gonothecae arising from hydrorhizal stolons, or from stems between hydrothecae, on very short pedicels. Putative female gonothecae (Fig. 7d) oval-shaped, distally projecting into a long neck bearing a circular distal aperture. Putative male gonothecae (Fig. 7e) oval-shaped, distally projecting into a very short neck with distal circular aperture. Gonothecal perisarc smooth or partially striated.</p><p>Remarks. Stems might have up to 21 hydrothecae when adding those on their branches.</p><p>The sinuosity is well defined at the hydrothecal rim, but rapidly fades towards the base. As a result, the facets become almost indistinguishable in the basal part of the hydrotheca, although a polygonal structure remains noticeable (Fig. 8e).</p><p>In this species, the presence of cusps is a real feature and not an optical illusion as in  T. diverticulata . The cusps are also visible from above, with the cusps and embayments clearly situated at different levels (Fig. 8f). The rim of the embayments, corresponding to the external crests, is clearly lower than the rim of the cusps, corresponding to the external troughs (Figs 7c, 8c–g).</p><p>The sex assignation of the gonothecae is based on the fact that, in the case of  Tulpa peculiaris sp. nov., the undoubtedly female gonothecae have significantly longer necks.</p><p>The revision of the material from ANTARKTIS XIX/5, previously studied by Soto Àngel &amp; Peña Cantero (2015, as  T. tulipifera), who illustrated a hydrotheca and a female gonotheca, has shown that it is conspecific with the holotype of  Tulpa revelata sp. nov. They share both the shape and size of the hydrothecae and gonothecae (see Fig. 9I–J in Soto Àngel &amp; Peña Cantero 2015), as well as the size of the nematocysts. The study of their material also revealed the presence of previously overlooked male gonothecae, which are similar to those present in the holotype.</p><p>As mentioned above, the specimens assigned to  T. tulipifera by Vervoort (1972) and El Beshbeeshy (2011) do not belong to Allman’s species. Instead, I believe they are conspecific with  Tulpa revelata sp. nov. The shape of the hydrotheca is remarkably similar, barely widening at the aperture and with well-marked cusps. According to Vervoort (1972) the incisions between the cusps are curved outwards, while the rounded cusps are bent inwards, which is also present in  Tulpa revelata sp. nov. In addition, the gonothecae illustrated by El Beshbeeshy are similar in both shape and size to those of  Tulpa revelata sp. nov.</p><p>As noted previously, Millard’s (1977) material of  T. diverticulata does not belong to Totton’s species (see discussion of that species). In my opinion, it is conspecific with  Tulpa revelata sp. nov., as they agree perfectly in both the shape and size of the hydrothecae and gonothecae.</p><p>Jäderholm’s (1905) material of  T. tulipifera from Burdwood Bank, re-examined and described by Nutting (1915), probably does not belong to Allman’s species. Instead, it may be conspecific with  Tulpa revelata sp. nov.</p><p>Finally, as noted above, part of the material assigned to  T. diverticulata by Ralph (1959), particularly that from Bligh Sound, appears to belong to a different species. It has more robust hydrothecae without a distinctly everted rim, similar to those of  Tulpa revelata sp. nov. However, the gonothecae are clearly different.</p><p>Ecology and distribution.  Tulpa revelata sp. nov. seems to be distributed from the deep waters of the continental shelf to the upper slope. It has been recorded from 80 to 1200 m (El Beshbeeshy 2011). The holotype was collected at a depth of 126– 129 m. Colonies with gonothecae have been collected in March (present material) and April (Millard 1977; Soto Àngel &amp; Peña Cantero 2015).</p><p>Tulpa revelata sp. nov. seems to be a sub-Antarctic species. Millard’s (1977) material comes from the Kerguelen and Crozet islands, but most records are from the Patagonian region (Vervoort 1972; El Beshbeeshy 2011; Soto Àngel &amp; Peña Cantero 2015; present material).</p><p>Etymology. The specific name  revelata derives from the Latin adjective revelatus, meaning revealed, unveiled and conveys the idea that the true nature of the species has been uncovered.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/745B87E4FFDD5572FF71FCCCFC5FC9A4	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	Cantero, Álvaro Luis Peña	Cantero, Álvaro Luis Peña (2025): On the species of Tulpa Stechow, 1921 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) with the description of two new species from sub-Antarctic waters. Zootaxa 5633 (1): 51-78, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5633.1.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5633.1.3
