Anamobaea
Anamobaea orstedii
Anamobaea
Anamobaea
Anamobaea
Anamobaea
Sclerozoan and fouling sabellid worms (Annelida: Sabellidae) from Mexico with the establishment of two new species
Tovar-Hernandez, Maria Ana Ana
Garcia-Garza, Maria Elena
de Leon-Gonzalez, Jesus Angel
Biodiversity Data Journal
2020
8
57471
57471
A40F74A2-BB3E-5FDA-A62C-B7ADBFD6C333
Kroyer, 1856
Kroyer
1856
Polychaeta
Sabellidae
Anamobaea
CoL
Animalia
Anamobaea
Sabellida
0
57471
Annelida
genus
Anamobaea Anamobaea orstedii Anamobaea Anamoebaea Orstedii Anamobaea.- Fitzhugh 1989: 74; Capa et al. 2019: 191-192. Anamobaea Diagnosis (amended) Anamobaea sensu Bok et al. (2016) Fitzhugh 1989 Capa et al. 2019
Taxon discussion Anamobaeawas placed in synonymy with Hypsicomusby Augener (1925)and defended by Hartman (1959). However, Perkins (1984)recognised Anamobaea, stating that A. orstediihas dorsal and ventral basal flanges (as Notaulax), not present in Hypsicomus. Anamobaea, Hypsicomusand Notaulaxform part of a well-defined clade, being Anamobaeaplesiomorphic to Notaulaxand Hypsicomus, the latter two genera being sister taxa, based on the common occurrence of radiolar flanges ( Fitzhugh 1989). In a posterior analysis, the three genera were also nested together, but Hypsicomusresulted in being plesiomorphic to Anamobaeaand Notaulax( Nogueira et al. 2010). Anamobaeais represented by two species worldwide that have been only reported in dead coral masses (bioclaustration). Eight species of Notaulaxare known to bioclaustrate into coral masses as well ( Nishi et al. 2017, Tovar-Hernandezet al. 2020). It is unknown where the substrate of Hypsicomus stichophthalmosGrube, 1863 ( Grube 1863) was found. Major differences amongst Anamobaea, Hypsicomusand Notaulaxare the following: Hypsicomushas two pairs of accessory, auriculate lamellae, absent in Anamobaea. Anamobaeaand Hypsicomushave chaetae of collar arranged in a small bunch, whereas in Notaulax, collar chaetal arrangement may be longitudinal, oblique, L-shaped, J-shaped or C-shaped. Members of Anamobaeado not present radiolar flanges, but these structures are common in Hypsicomusand Notaulax, amongst other differences (Table 1). The present definition primarily follows Fitzhugh (1989)and Capa et al. (2019), except for the following: the specimens here examined have 12-16 vacuolated cells in cross section at the base (four or more vacuolated cells in Fitzhugh (1989)and Capa et al. (2019)); the anterior peristomial ring is high, with rounded margin (low, of even height in in Fitzhugh 1989and Capa et al. 2019); dorsal collar margins are not fused to faecal groove (fused to faecal groove in Capa et al. 2019); chaetae form a collar arranged in a small bundle (arrangement not described in Fitzhugh 1989or Capa et al. 2019); mucros of paleate chaetae in abdominal chaetigers are dentate (mucros not described in Fitzhugh 1989and Capa et al. 2019), those mucros from anterior abdominal segments are short (as long as paleae width) while those from posterior abdominal segments are long (longer than three times the width of paleae). Additional features related to radiolar ocelli were based on Bok et al. (2016).