Flabelligera Sars, 1829

Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2012, Revision of Flabelligera Sars, 1829 (Polychaeta: Flabelligeridae) 3203, Zootaxa 3203 (1), pp. 1-64 : 7-8

Flabelligera Sars, 1829 , restricted, nomen protectum

Flabelligera Sars 1829:31 ; Støp-Bowitz 1948a:8 (syn.), Day 1967:655, Fauchald 1977:117, Light 1978:682 (partim). Siphonostoma Otto 1821:628 ; Newbigin 1900:190 (nomen oblitum).

Type species. Flabelligera affinis Sars, 1829 , by original designation.

Diagnosis (emended). Body blunt anteriorly, tapered posteriorly. Tunic thick, soft, including most individual papillae; papillae not forming groups. Cephalic cage chaetae long, mostly exposed. Notopodia lateral or dorsolateral; neuropodia ventrolateral. Notochaetae long, almost completely covered by the tunic; neurohooks multiarticulate throughout the body, rarely anchylosed, crest entire. Free living.

Remarks. Flabelligera Sars, 1829 resembles Flabehlersia n. g. because both have body papillae completely covered by the tunic, notochaetae shorter or as long as body width, and neurohooks crests thick and entire. They differ in the general body shape, the relative development of the anterior end, and parapodial position. Thus, in Flabelligera the body is truncate anteriorly, tapered posteriorly, with all parapodia lateral, whereas in Flabehlersia the body is fusiform, the anterior end tapers to a long, sharp cone, and parapodia are displaced ventrally.

Otto (1820) introduced the name Siphostoma by fusing the Greek words for pipe (siphon, masculine) and mouth (stoma, neuter). One year later, probably after noticing that the name was already used in sygnathid fishes ( Siphostoma Rafinesque, 1810 ), he proposed Siphonostoma . Thus, Siphonostoma Otto, 1821 was regarded as a replacement name for Siphostoma by Sherborn (1930:5993), and by Neave (1939, 4:206) and, regretfully, there were two other cases for the same name: one in rotifers ( Siphonostoma Zenker, 1832 ), and another in mollusks ( Siphonostoma Guilding, 1840 ). Thus, although the flabelligerid name would be the older one, Grube (1840:68) introduced Siphonostomum which is an orthographic emendation of the gender. Nevertheless, Siphonostoma Otto, 1821 , would have priority over Flabelligera Sars, 1829 . Agassiz (1846) proposed Siphonostoma as a replacement name to solve the homonymy between Siphostoma Rafinesque, 1810 and Siphostoma Otto, 1820 . Thus, this replacement name, Siphonostoma Agassiz, 1846 , would replace the junior homonym, Siphostoma Otto, 1820 . Consequently and strictly speaking, Siphonostoma Agassiz, 1846 became a secondary homonym to Siphostoma Zenker, 1832 , and to Siphostoma Guilding, 1840 , and it was no solution at all. Again, Siphonostoma Otto, 1821 would be the older name and should have priority.

Støp-Bowitz (1948a:8) correctly indicated that Siphostoma Otto, 1820 was preoccupied, and recognized Flabelligera as the valid name for the group, but he overlooked the emended name ( Siphonostoma Otto, 1821 ). Further, Hartman (1959:420) and Fauchald (1977:117) listed Siphostoma Otto, 1821 , combining the name introduced in 1820 for the thesis with the date for the later publication. It seems that because Hartman considered it as a secondary homonym to Siphostoma Rafinesque, 1810 , she regarded it as an invalid name, indicating it was equivalent to Flabelligera . However, as stated above, the name had been changed by Otto (1821:628). Therefore, it seems that although there were several uses for either Siphonostoma or Siphonostomum after 1899, and that Siphonostoma Otto, 1821 , was never regarded as a “disused senior synonym” because its seniority was not acknowledged, this name has factually became a nomen oblitum, and Flabelligera Sars, 1829 became a nomen protectum ( ICZN 1999, Art. 23.9). It should be noted that although the senior synonym was infrequently employed after 1899 (Art. 23.9.1.1), the prevalent name for the group is the junior synonym (Art. 23.9.1.2). Further, reversing the common usage would threaten stability and cause confusion, and consequently the widespread use of Flabelligera should be preserved (Art. 23.9.3), as has been done since the Støp-Bowitz (1948) revision.

According to Fauchald (1977:117) there are other invalid generic names proposed for species resembling Flabelligera : Chloraema Dujardin, 1839 , Siphonostoma Rathke, 1843 , and Tecturella Stimpson, 1854 . Chloraema edwardsi Dujardin, 1839 was described from Mediterranean and English Channel localities and has been regarded as a junior synonym of F. affinis since de Saint-Joseph (1894:96). Siphonostoma vaginiferum Rathke, 1843 , which belongs in Flabelligera , has been regarded as a junior synonym of F. affinis , but is reinstated below. Tecturella flaccida Stimpson, 1854 was briefly described from Eastern Canada and was regarded as very closely allied to F. vaginifera by Stimpson himself, and this status is confirmed.

Flabelligera affinis lives in rocky or muddy bottoms ( Sars 1829:34); however, specimens from rocky environments have a typically transparent tunic whereas those coming from muddy bottoms have opaque tunics. However, no type material was deposited and there may be more than one species involved; the best approach would be to recognize the rocky bottom, transparent tunic form as the typical one, which would include F. pellucida Sars, 1872 , and reestablish the name F. vaginifera ( Rathke, 1843:213, 215), for those species with an opaque tunic and living in muddy bottoms, precisely the characters that were originally employed for its description.

Günther (1912:8–16) made a brief catalogue and recognized only 12 species. Uschakov (1955:306, 1965:283, Fig. 113A–D), stated that Siphostoma diplochaitos Otto, 1820 was the type species for the genus, which was wrong, and he also stated that the entire genus required revision, which was correct. The revision is presented herein.