taxonID	type	description	language	source
03AD87EBFFB657210D0DF9503C8CF885.taxon	materials_examined	T h e P CA w i t h a l l s p e c i e s s h o w s t h a t s e v e r a l measurements of length and diameter (LH, DHMa, DHMe, DHB, LP, TLT; for all abbreviations, see Table 1) are responsible for the largest amount of variation in the data (PC 1), while the presence of cusps (NC, HCMax, HCMin) and perisarc thickness (PPMe, PHMe, PSS) explain another direction of high variation among species (PC 2; Fig. 1 A, B; Table 1). Differences in size separate Bonneviella ingens Nutting, 1915, B. regia (Nutting, 1901), B. superba Nutting, 1915 and Tulpa tulipifera (Allman, 1888) from other Campanulariidae, based on their larger hydrothecae and pedicels (Fig. 1 A, C). Similarly, Rhizocaulus verticillatus (Linnaeus, 1758) can be distinguished from Campanularia and Orthopyxis by its larger hydrothecae and trophosome (Fig. 1 D, E). Differences in size are not only informative for delimiting different genera, but are considerably variable among Bonneviella species (Supporting Information, Table S 2). The dimensions of the specimens of B. regia (USNM 1106181; Govindarajan et al., 2006) are congruent with the type material of this species, while measurements of the unidentified specimens (Bonneviella sp. 2 and sp. 4; Govindarajan et al., 2006) are closer to type material of the other species examined (Supporting Information, Table S 2). Bonneviella sp. 2 (USNM 1106182), here re-identified as B. superba, and B. grandis (Allman, 1876) are among the species with larger hydrothecae and trophosome, while Bonneviella sp. 4 (USNM 1106187), here re-identified as B. ingens, have hydrothecae and trophosome almost half the size of the three previous species (Supporting Information, Table S 2; Fig. 2 A – C). Perisarc thickness, as well as the number and height of hydrothecal cusps, separate several species within Campanulariidae (Fig. 1 B). Silicularia rosea Meyen, 1834 is clearly distinct from Bonneviella, Campanularia, R. verticillatus and Tulpa due to its thicker perisarc (Figs 1 C, 2 D). In contrast, species of Campanularia can hardly be differentiated by any of the characters included in the analysis, because they have similar morphological patterns (Fig. 1 D). The exception is C. hincksii Alder, 1856, slightly set apart from the remaining Campanularia by its taller hydrothecal cusps (HCMax, HCMin; Fig. 1 D), a character that shows little or no overlap among the species when intraspecific variation is considered (Fig. 3 B). However, the remaining characters do not show this pattern (Fig. 3 A, C, D). Perisarc thickness is also informative for separating Orthopyxis from species of Campanularia, although morphological variation may attenuate this difference. Several specimens of O. sargassicola and O. crenata (Hartlaub, 1901) group together with Campanularia, because of their thinner perisarc and presence of hydrothecal cusps, compared to the remaining species of Orthopyxis (Fig. 1 E; Supporting Information, Fig. S 1 C). Although O. crenata and O. sargassicola have a thicker perisarc on average,	en	Cunha, Amanda F, Collins, Allen G, Marques, Antonio C (2020): When morphometry meets taxonomy: morphological variation and species boundaries in Proboscoida (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 190 (2): 417-447, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlz166, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/190/2/417/5698679
03AD87EBFFB757250C84F91F3D2CF9A5.taxon	description	700 70 650 60 600 50 550 40 500 30 450 400 20 350 10 15 3.0 14 2.5 13 2.0 12 1.5 11 10 1.0 9 0.5 Campanularia volubilis I [3] Campanularia volubilis P [9] Campanularia sp. [5] Campanularia subantarctica [2] Campanularia hincksii [4] can be distinguished by the hydrothecal length and length: diameter ratio (Fig. 4 C, D). When considering only species of Orthopyxis without hydrothecal cusps, the variation in size and perisarc thickness distinguish all individual lineages (Fig. 1 F): Orthopyxis mianzani has larger polyps with larger hydrothecae and a thinner perisarc; O. asymmetrica (Stechow, 1919) (see re-identified materials in Table 2) have shorter polyps and hydrothecae, with thinner perisarcs; O. caliculata (Hincks, 1853) has shorter polyps and hydrothecae, but a thicker perisarc; and O. integra (MacGillivray, 1842) (see re-identified material inTable 2) have larger polyps and hydrothecae, with thicker perisarcs. The specimen from the Aleutian Islands (USNM 1106184, Govindarajan et al., 2006; Cunha et al., 2017, as Orthopyxis integra _ 1 _ USA) is distinguished by its larger hydrothecae and pedicels (Figs 1 E, F, 4 D). However, variation occurs in all species, and some may overlap in their ranges, sometimes contradicting the separation of the lineages (e. g. O. asymmetrica and O. caliculata, O. caliculata and O. integra; see Figs 1 F, 4). Additional comparisons with type species and descriptions from the literature (Supporting Information, Table S 3) show that the morphological patterns of the specimens identified as Orthopyxis sp. 1, O. everta (Clark, 1876) and O. integra _ IT by Govindarajan et al. (2006) and Cunha et al. (2017) are congruent with that of O. asymmetrica. Differences in hydrothecal length, perisarc thickness and length: diameter ratio of the basal chamber confirm their distinction from O. angulata Bale, 1914, O. compressa (Stechow, 1919) and O. caliculata (Supporting Information, Table S 3). Additional principal components were evaluated, but they do not show clear patterns of differentiation among species (Supporting Information, Fig. S 1). A PCA including only data from specimens with gonothecae separated S. rosea because of its longer gonothecae, and Orthopyxis and Bonneviella because of their broader gonothecae (see Supporting Information, Fig. S 1 F).	en	Cunha, Amanda F, Collins, Allen G, Marques, Antonio C (2020): When morphometry meets taxonomy: morphological variation and species boundaries in Proboscoida (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 190 (2): 417-447, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlz166, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/190/2/417/5698679
03AD87EBFFB2572E0FD4F9283A94FA4C.taxon	description	The second direction accounting for most variation (PC 2; Fig. 5 A, B) is related to perisarc thickness (PHMa, PHMe, PHB, PPMe) and length: diameter ratio of the hydrotheca (HRatio). It sets apart Clytia sp. 2 and Clytia noliformis (McCrady, 1859) because of their thicker perisarc, and Clytia sp. 1, C. cf. gracilis sp. 5 and C. paulensis because of their more cylindrical hydrothecae (Figs 5 A, 6 E, F). Although evident when directly compared among these species, differences in HRatio are not evident in all PCAs, probably because of the slight variation shown by the remaining species of Clytia (Fig. 6 F). Specimens of C. cf. gracilis, although not clearly individualized, can be set apart from each other when compared as a group: C. cf. gracilis sp. B, C. cf. gracilis sp. 1 and sp. 2 have larger hydrothecae and pedicels (LH, DHMa, DHMe, DHB, DP) with higher and more numerous cusps (NC, HCMax, HCMin), while C. cf. gracilis sp. 3 and sp. 4 have, in general, lower values for those characters (Fig. 5 E, F). If measurements 1 Specimens identified as Clytia sp. from He et al. (2015) clustered with specimens of Clytia cf. gracilis sp. 3 in the phylogeny of Cunha et al. (2017), and should be referred to that species. However, since we were not able to study the morphology of these specimens, they were not considered in the proposed re-identifications. 2 Specimens identified as Clytia gulangensis from He et al. (2015) clustered with specimens of Clytia cf. gracilis sp. 5 in the phylogeny of Cunha et al. (2017) (see discussion). Since we were not able to study the morphology of these specimens, they were not considered in the proposed re-identifications. 3 Specimens identified as Clytia gracilis sp. A from Lindner et al. (2011) clustered with specimens of Clytia cf. hemisphaerica sp. 1 in the phylogeny of Cunha et al. (2017), and should be referred to that species. Specimens identified as Clytia xiamenensis from Zhou et al. (2013) also clustered with Clytia cf. hemisphaerica sp. 1, but these results are only based on 16 S sequences (see Cunha et al., 2017), and should be confirmed. Since we were not able to study the morphology of these specimens, they were not considered in the proposed re-identifications. related to erect colonies are excluded from the analysis (LIS, PIS, NIS, DIS), C. cf. gracilis sp. 1 and C. cf. gracilis sp. B can be further separated from C. cf. gracilis sp. 2 by the length (LH) and length: diameter ratio of the hydrotheca (HRatio; Fig. 5 F), although these differences are too small to be informative and delimit lineages. Specimens of C. cf. gracilis sp. 5 spread along the four quadrants of the graph because of their high variation in the characters examined (Fig. 5 E, F). Additional comparisons with literature descriptions show that morphological variation is pronounced in the presumably typical C. gracilis, and the lineages analysed here could fit one or more descriptions (Supporting Information, Table S 4). Specimens of C. cf. hemisphaerica are not separated by any of the morphological measurements, showing intermediate values for most of the characters evaluated (Fig. 5 A – D; Supporting Information, Fig. S 2). Characters that are important to differentiate other species of Clytia are uninformative for lineages of C. cf. hemisphaerica, especially because of their wide range of variation and extensive overlap. This variability is also seen when descriptions from the literature are compared (Supporting Information, Table S 5; Supporting Information, Fig. S 3). Additional PCAs, including characters from the gonotheca, show less conspicuous patterns of differentiation among species (Supporting Information, Fig. S 2). Clytia hummelincki (Leloup, 1935) has been shown to not be part of Clytiidae in previous phylogenetic analysis (Cunha et al., 2017) and, therefore, was not included in the PCAs with this family.	en	Cunha, Amanda F, Collins, Allen G, Marques, Antonio C (2020): When morphometry meets taxonomy: morphological variation and species boundaries in Proboscoida (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 190 (2): 417-447, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlz166, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/190/2/417/5698679
03AD87EBFFB957330824FA523899FD10.taxon	description	Obelia longissima (Pallas, 1766) is distinguished from the remaining Obeliidae by its larger measurements of first- and second-order branches (LIS, DIS, NIS, LIB, DIB, NIB; Fig. 7 A – C). It also has a wider range of variation in the hydrothecal length compared to the remaining species, and it cannot be distinguished based on this character because of the extensive overlap with other species (Fig. 8 D). Erect and branched colonies also differentiate Gonothyraea loveni (Allman, 1859) and Hartlaubella gelatinosa (Pallas, 1766), although to a lesser extent; this pattern is clearly observed when Obelia is excluded from the analysis (Fig. 7 D). These species, together with O. bidentata Clark, 1875 and Obelia sp. 1, also differ from the remaining Obeliidae in their more cylindrical hydrothecae (higher values of HRatio) and taller hydrothecal cusps (Figs 7 B – D, 8 E, F). The exception is Obeliida indet., which has the tallest hydrothecal cusps compared to all other species (Fig. 8 F). In general, Obeliida indet. has similar morphometric patterns to O. longissima, mostly related to the presence of erect colonies and hydrothecal length (Fig. 7 B, D). The hydrotheca is typically longer in Obeliida indet., but morphological variation attenuates this difference (Fig. 8 D). It is evident from most of the analyses that lineages of Obelia cf. dichotoma (Linnaeus, 1758) are not distinguished from each other by any of the measurements, showing intermediate values for all characters evaluated (Fig. 7 A – C, E). Many specimens of O. longissima cannot be distinguished from the lineages of O. cf. dichotoma, and although some are differentiated by their larger erect and branched colonies, variations in these characters prevent a clear separation of these species (Fig. 9 A). Obelia longissima also has longer hydrothecae and taller hydrothecal cusps on average, but their range of variation overlap among species (Fig. 9 B, D). Obelia cf. dichotoma sp. 3 and O. cf. dichotoma sp. 4 are grouped together and slightly separated from the remaining species of Obelia, probably because of their smaller and less branched colonies, but no further patterns of differentiation are seen among these lineages (Fig. 7 E). Indeed, when compared to literature descriptions, the size and branching of colonies seem to be among the few characters that could fairly differentiate some of the lineages of O. cf. dichotoma, which are similar to the descriptions of other nominal species (Supporting Information, Table S 6). Characters related to the gonothecae do not differentiate the species of Obelia, but species of Laomedea can be distinguished by their larger gonothecae (LG, DGD, DGMe, DGB, DGP; Fig. 7 F). Additional PCAs do not show further patterns of differentiation among Obeliidae (Supporting Information, Fig. S 4).	en	Cunha, Amanda F, Collins, Allen G, Marques, Antonio C (2020): When morphometry meets taxonomy: morphological variation and species boundaries in Proboscoida (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 190 (2): 417-447, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlz166, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/190/2/417/5698679
