Revision of the genus Acryptolaria Norman, 1875 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa, Lafoeidae) Peña Cantero, Alvaro L. Marques, Antonio C. Migotto, Alvaro E. Journal of Natural History 2007 2007-03-26 41 5 - 8 229 291 9RX2 (Allman, 1888) Allman 1888 [433,889,1401,1425] Hydrozoa Lafoeidae Acryptolaria Animalia Leptothecata 22 249 Cnidaria species gracilis  ( Figures 8, 15F, 18A, 19C; Table VIII)  Cryptolaria gracilis Allman 1888, p lvii, lxv, lxviii, 42, Plate 20 Figures 2, 2a.  Material examined  ‘‘Cotype’’ (part of the holotype), ZMUCno number, H.M.S. Challenger, Sta. 169, New Zealand, off East Cape, 37 °349 S, 179 °229 E,  10 July 1874, 700 fathoms (  1260 m), three fragments 18, 13, and 12 mmlong ( 13 mmfragment in bad condition).  Table VIII. Morphometric data of the type material of  Acryptolaria gracilis(in Mm).    Mean¡SD Range  n  Hydrothecae  Length of abcauline wall 846.6¡40.5 760–920 13  Length of free adcauline wall 253.7¡37.6 176–320 13  Length of adnate adcauline wall 790.8¡31.8 720–864 13  Length of adcauline wall 1044.5¡53.8 960–1184 13  Ratio adnate/free adcauline wall 2.4–4.5  Diameter at aperture 211.9¡9.4 200–232 13  Diameter at base 88.0¡7.8 80–100 13  Nematocysts  Larger group 24.8¡1.8X9.0¡0 23.5–26X9 2  Smaller group 6.8¡0.4X2.5¡0 6.5–7X2.5 2  Description ‘‘Colony attaining a height of about two inches [ 50.8 mm]; stem slender, flaccid, much and irregularly branched, and with the distal portion for a great extent destitute of the peripheral tubes’’ ( Allman 1888, p 42). Stem fragments irregularly branched in several planes. Fragment 18 mmlong with secondary branches. Accessory tubes almost reaching the most distal parts of branches. Hydrothecae alternate, more or less one plane. Hydrotheca tubular, cylindrical at distal half, diameter approximately constant from hydrothecal aperture to the middle of hydrothecal length, then slightly decreasing up to become more or less constant, forming a kind of bottleneck at the most basal part. Hydrotheca gently curved abcaulinarly; approximately three-quarters of adcauline wall adnate to internode. Adcauline wall mostly convex, but concave at basal fourth. Abcauline wall straight or slightly convex at basal half, concave at distal half. Hydrothecal aperture circular, directed upwards, forming an angle of ca 45 °with longitudinal axis of branch. Rim even, sometimes with up to five short renovations. Coppinia not observed.  Remarks There is some confusion regarding the naming of the type material of this species. Allman (1888)did not specify holotypesin his paper and part of the material studied by him is now deposited in the collections of the ZMUC (labelled as ‘‘cotype’’) and the BMNH. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1999)considered that ‘‘cotype’’ is a term not recognized by the Code, formerly used for either syntypeor paratype, and should not be used anymore in zoological nomenclature (Recommendation 73E); in the case of colonial material, cotype was also used in the sense of ‘‘part of the holotypematerial’’. On the other hand, the BMNH material was referred as ‘‘holotype’’ by Vervoort and Watson (2003), who also referred to a ‘‘paratype’’ present in the collection of the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum (RMNH). Although it is possible to consider the existence of split holotypes(with the same collection data of the original description of the species), ‘‘paratypes’’ may not be considered as valid, as there was no such designation by Allman (1888). In the case that the original material is regarded as being ‘‘syntypes’’, a lectotypeshould be selected.  Figure 8.  Acryptolaria gracilis( Allman, 1888). (A) Branch fragment showing hydrothecal arrangement; (B–F) hydrothecae. All drawings from the ‘‘cotype’’. Scale bar: 1 mm (A); 400 Mm (B–F).  Vervoort and Watson (2003), after examining part of the supposed ‘‘holotype’’ in the Natural History Museum (88.11.13.31), found this species to be quite near to  Acryptolaria conferta, noting that it was extremely difficult to define characters by which the two could be distinguished. Finally, they pointed out that both species may well be conspecific. Actually, the association of nominal records of  A. gracilisand  A. confertais long known in the literature, such as the synonymy of the records of  A. gracilisby Billard (1906b, 1906c) and Patriti (1970)(cf. Ramil and Vervoort 1992, p 43; see above). In our opinion, however, both species are clearly distinguishable. Although the hydrothecae are of similar size (cf. Table XV), in  A. confertathe free portion of the adcauline hydrothecal wall is distinctly longer, its hydrothecae lack the basal bottleneck (the most distinctive character for  A. gracilis), and the branches form a clear zigzag. Finally,  A. gracilishas larger nematocysts (19.5–21X7.5–9 Mm in  A. conferta).  Distribution Off East Cape, New Zealand, 37 °349 S, 179 °229 E, 1260 m, mud. 1874-07-10 ZMUC H. M. S. Challenger New Zealand 1260 East Cape 22 249 1 holotype