identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03AD87EBFFB657210D0DF9503C8CF885.text	03AD87EBFFB657210D0DF9503C8CF885.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Campanulariidae Johnston 1836	<div><p>FAMILY  CAMPANULARIIDAE</p><p>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 (PC1), while the presence of cusps (NC, HCMax, HCMin) and perisarc thickness (PPMe, PHMe, PSS) explain another direction of high variation among species (PC2; Fig. 1A, 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. 1A, C). Similarly,  Rhizocaulus verticillatus (Linnaeus, 1758) can be distinguished from  Campanularia and  Orthopyxis by its larger hydrothecae and trophosome (Fig. 1D, E). Differences in size are not only informative for delimiting different genera, but are considerably variable among  Bonneviella species (Supporting Information, Table S2). 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 S2).  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 S2; Fig. 2A–C).</p><p>Perisarc thickness, as well as the number and height of hydrothecal cusps, separate several species within  Campanulariidae (Fig. 1B).  Silicularia rosea Meyen, 1834 is clearly distinct from  Bonneviella,  Campanularia,  R. verticillatus and  Tulpa due to its thicker perisarc (Figs 1C, 2D). 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. 1D). The exception is  C. hincksii Alder, 1856, slightly set apart from the remaining  Campanularia by its taller hydrothecal cusps (HCMax, HCMin; Fig. 1D), a character that shows little or no overlap among the species when intraspecific variation is considered (Fig. 3B). However, the remaining characters do not show this pattern (Fig. 3A, C, D).</p><p>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. 1E; Supporting Information, Fig. S1C). Although  O. crenata and  O. sargassicola have a thicker perisarc on average,</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AD87EBFFB657210D0DF9503C8CF885	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.		Plazi	Cunha, Amanda F;Collins, Allen G;Marques, Antonio C	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.text	03AD87EBFFB757250C84F91F3D2CF9A5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Campanularia Lamarck 1816	<div><p>TLT Total Length of Trophosome their range of variation may indeed overlap with  Campanularia (Fig. 4A). Species of  Campanularia have, on average, a thinner perisarc in comparison to most other  Orthopyxis (except for  O. mianzani Cunha et al., 2015; Fig. 4B), and when there is overlap in the range of variation of perisarc thickness, these taxa</p><p>700 70 650 60</p><p>600</p><p>50</p><p>550</p><p>40</p><p>500</p><p>30</p><p>450</p><p>400 20</p><p>350 10</p><p>15 3.0 14</p><p>2.5</p><p>13</p><p>2.0</p><p>12</p><p>1.5</p><p>11</p><p>10 1.0</p><p>9 0.5</p><p>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. 4C, D).</p><p>When considering only species of  Orthopyxis without hydrothecal cusps, the variation in size and perisarc thickness distinguish all individual lineages (Fig. 1F):  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 1E, F, 4D). 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 1F, 4). Additional comparisons with type species and descriptions from the literature (Supporting Information, Table S3) 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 S3).</p><p>Additional principal components were evaluated, but they do not show clear patterns of differentiation among species (Supporting Information, Fig. S1). 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. S1F).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AD87EBFFB757250C84F91F3D2CF9A5	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.		Plazi	Cunha, Amanda F;Collins, Allen G;Marques, Antonio C	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.text	03AD87EBFFB2572E0FD4F9283A94FA4C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Clytiidae Cockerell 1911	<div><p>FAMILY  CLYTIIDAE</p><p>When all species of  Clytia are compared, the PCA shows that most of the variation (PC1) is related to the presence of erect colonies, and the number, length, diameter and perisarc thickness of the internodes (NIS, LIS, DIS, PIS) separate  Clytia linearis (Thorneley, 1900) and some specimens of  C. elsaeoswaldae Stechow, 1914,  C. cf. gracilis (Sars, 1850) sp.1 and  C. cf. hemisphaerica (Linnaeus, 1767) sp.1 from the remaining  Clytiidae (Fig. 5A). However, when data for species of  C. cf. gracilis and measurements related to internodes are excluded from the analysis, further morphological patterns among species with erect colonies become evident (Fig. 5C, D).  Clytia linearis is distinguished by its longer hydrothecae and cusps (LH, HCMax, HCmin; Fig. 5C, D), although the range of variation of cusp height overlaps with those of other species (Fig. 6A, B). Likewise,  C. elsaeoswaldae is separated by the larger hydrothecal diameter (DHMa, DHMe, DHB, DBC; Fig. 5A, C, D), but this character is more informative when compared to species of  C. cf. gracilis and  C. cf. hemisphaerica, with which it shows less overlap (Fig. 6C). Further comparisons show that  C. elsaeoswaldae has a thicker diaphragm on average than  C. linearis, as well as specimens of  C. cf. gracilis and  C. cf. hemisphaerica (Fig. 6D). However, morphological variation is high and certainly attenuates these differences, leading to large overlaps among species.</p><p>The second direction accounting for most variation (PC2; Fig. 5A, 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 5A, 6E, 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. 6F).</p><p>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. 5E, F). If measurements</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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 16S 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.</p><p>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. 5F), 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. 5E, 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 S4).</p><p>Specimens of  C. cf. hemisphaerica are not separated by any of the morphological measurements, showing intermediate values for most of the characters evaluated (Fig. 5A–D; Supporting Information, Fig. S2). 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 S5; Supporting Information, Fig. S3).</p><p>Additional PCAs, including characters from the gonotheca, show less conspicuous patterns of differentiation among species (Supporting Information, Fig. S2).  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.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AD87EBFFB2572E0FD4F9283A94FA4C	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.		Plazi	Cunha, Amanda F;Collins, Allen G;Marques, Antonio C	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.text	03AD87EBFFB957330824FA523899FD10.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Obeliidae Haeckel 1879	<div><p>FAMILY  OBELIIDAE</p><p>Patterns of morphological variation in  Obeliidae are mostly congruent among the different datasets examined (Fig. 7). Considering all species, perisarc thickness (PHMA, PHMe, PHB, PPMe, TD) explains most of the data variation, separating  Obelia geniculata (Linnaeus, 1758) by its thicker perisarc (Fig. 7A, B). This character also set apart  O. geniculata from the remaining species when only the genus  Obelia is considered (Fig. 7C). In addition,  Obelia geniculata has the widest range of variation of perisarc thickness, when  Laomedea and  Obelia are compared (Fig. 8A). For the remaining genera, perisarc thickness does not notably contribute to the differentiation of the species, because of its extensive overlap (Fig. 8A). Measurements of diameter (DHMa, DHMe, DHB, DBC, DP) explain another direction of variation of the data, and mainly differentiate  L. flexuosa Alder, 1857 from the remaining  Obeliidae by its broader hydrothecae (Figs 7A, B, D, 8B). Species of  Laomedea also show a wide range of variation and overlap in pedicel length (LP; Fig. 8C), but their pedicels are on average longer than in  Obelia .</p><p>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. 7A–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. 8D). 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. 7D). 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 7B–D, 8E, F). The exception is  Obeliida indet., which has the tallest hydrothecal cusps compared to all other species (Fig. 8F). In general,  Obeliida indet. has similar morphometric patterns to  O. longissima, mostly related to the presence of erect colonies and hydrothecal length (Fig. 7B, D). The hydrotheca is typically longer in  Obeliida indet., but morphological variation attenuates this difference (Fig. 8D).</p><p>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. 7A–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. 9A).  Obelia longissima also has longer hydrothecae and taller hydrothecal cusps on average, but their range of variation overlap among species (Fig. 9B, 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. 7E). 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 S6).</p><p>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. 7F). Additional PCAs do not show further patterns of differentiation among  Obeliidae (Supporting Information, Fig. S4).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AD87EBFFB957330824FA523899FD10	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.		Plazi	Cunha, Amanda F;Collins, Allen G;Marques, Antonio C	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
