WoRMS

WoRMS taxon details

Amphinomidae Lamarck, 1818

AphiaID

960 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:960)

Classification

Status

accepted

Rank

Family

Typetaxon

Amphinome Bruguière, 1789

Parent

Amphinomida

Original name

Amphinomidae Lamarck, 1818

Direct children (49)

Ordering

Alphabetically
By status

Children Display

direct main ranks all

Subfamily Amphinominae Lamarck, 1818
1. Genus Alleurythoe Sun & Li, 2017
2. Genus Amphinome Bruguière, 1789
3. Genus Benthoscolex Horst, 1912
4. Genus Cryptonome Borda, Kudenov, Bienhold & Rouse, 2012
5. Genus Eurythoe Kinberg, 1857
6. Genus Hermodice Kinberg, 1857
7. Genus Hipponoe Audouin & Milne Edwards, 1830
8. Genus Linopherus Quatrefages, 1866
9. Genus Paramphinome M. Sars in G. Sars, 1872
10. Genus Pareurythoe Gustafson, 1930
11. Genus Pherecardia Horst, 1886
12. Genus Blenda Kinberg, 1867 accepted as Eurythoe Kinberg, 1857 (subjective synonym)
13. Genus Branchamphinome Hartman, 1967 accepted as Pherecardites Horst, 1912 (unaccepted > junior subjective synonym, subjective synonym)
14. Genus Colonianella Kinberg, 1867 accepted as Amphinome Bruguière, 1789 (subjective synonym)
15. Genus Eucarunculata Malaquin & Dehorne, 1907 accepted as Pherecardia Horst, 1886 (type a subjective synonym in Pherecardia)
16. Genus Eucarunculatus [auct. lapsus] accepted as Pherecardia Horst, 1886 (misspelling of 'Eucarunculata')
17. Genus Paramphinome Sars, 1969 accepted as Paramphinome M. Sars in G. Sars, 1872 (Nomen nudum listing only)
18. Genus Pleione Lamarck, 1818 accepted as Amphinome Bruguière, 1789 (subjective synonym)
19. Genus Lenora Grube, 1878 (uncertain > nomen dubium, type species is incertae sedis? )
Subfamily Archinominae Kudenov, 1991
1. Genus Archinome Kudenov, 1991
2. Genus Bathychloeia Horst, 1910
3. Genus Chloeia Lamarck, 1818
4. Genus Chloenopsis Fauchald, 1977
5. Genus Notopygos Grube, 1855
6. Genus Parachloeia Horst, 1912
7. Genus Chloecia [auct. misspelling] accepted as Chloeia Lamarck, 1818 (genus misspelling by Rioja of Chloeia)
8. Genus Chloenea Kinberg, 1867 accepted as Chloeia Lamarck, 1818 (subjective synonym)
9. Genus Chloochaeta Kinberg, 1867 accepted as Chloeia Lamarck, 1818 (subjective synonym)
10. Genus Lirione Kinberg, 1857 accepted as Notopygos Grube, 1855 (all original species transferred to Notopygos)
Genus Bathynotopygos Kucheruk, 1981
Genus Pherecardites Horst, 1912
Genus Sangiria Horst, 1911
Genus Zothea Risso, 1826
Genus Amphibranchus Kinberg, 1867 accepted as Hermodice Kinberg, 1857 (subjective synonym)
Genus Asloegia Kinberg, 1867 accepted as Amphinome Bruguière, 1789 (subjective synonym)
Genus Hipponoa Audouin & Milne Edwards, 1833 accepted as Hipponoe Audouin & Milne Edwards, 1830 (subsequent misspelling of Hipponoe)
Genus Lycaretus Kinberg, 1867 accepted as Eurythoe Kinberg, 1857 (subjective synonym)
Genus Metamphinome Treadwell, 1940 accepted as Hipponoe Audouin & Milne Edwards, 1830 (subjective synonym)
Genus Notopygus [auctt.] accepted as Notopygos Grube, 1855 (misspelling, homonym)
Genus Pseudeurythoe Fauvel, 1932 accepted as Linopherus Quatrefages, 1866 (synonym)
Genus Pseudoeurythoe [auctt. misspelling] accepted as Pseudeurythoe Fauvel, 1932 accepted as Linopherus Quatrefages, 1866 (lapsus)
Genus Strategis Kinberg, 1867 accepted as Chloeia Lamarck, 1818 (subjective synonym)
Genus Thesmia Kinberg, 1867 accepted as Chloeia Lamarck, 1818 (subjective synonym)
Genus Amphinomides Nolte, 1936 (uncertain > nomen dubium, based on planktonic larvae)
Genus Didymobranchus Schmarda, 1861 (uncertain > nomen dubium, species indeterminable from description)
Genus Rostraria Häcker, 1898 (uncertain > nomen dubium, based on indeterminable larval Amphinomidae)
Genus Thetisella Baird, 1868 (uncertain > taxon inquirendum, larval forms)

Environment

marine, ~~brackish~~, ~~fresh~~, ~~terrestrial~~

Fossil range

recent only

Original description

Lamarck, [J.-B. M.] de. (1818). Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres. Tome cinquième, 612 pp. Paris, Deterville/Verdière. , available online at http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12886879
page(s): 327 [as 'Amphinomae'] [details]

Taxonomic citation

Read, G.; Fauchald, K. (Ed.) (2025). World Polychaeta Database. Amphinomidae Lamarck, 1818. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=960 on 2025-03-28

Taxonomic edit history

Date

action

2004-12-21 15:54:05Z

created

db_admin

2008-03-26 11:36:43Z

changed

Fauchald, Kristian

2014-08-21 02:51:29Z

changed

Read, Geoffrey

2025-02-27 01:50:53Z

changed

Read, Geoffrey

Licensing

The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

[taxonomic tree] [list species]

Nomenclature

original description Lamarck, [J.-B. M.] de. (1818). Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres. Tome cinquième, 612 pp. Paris, Deterville/Verdière. , available online at http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12886879
page(s): 327 [as 'Amphinomae'] [details]

Taxonomy

taxonomy source Gathof, Jerry M. (1984). Family Amphinomidae Savigny, 1818. In: Uebelacker, J.M.; Johnson, P.G. (eds). Taxonomic guide to the polychaetes of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Volume 5. Chapter Pagination: 37.1-37.12, Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., Mobile, Alabama.
page(s): 37.1 [details]

Identification resource

identification resource Kudenov, Jerry D. (1993). Amphinomidae and Euphrosinidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) principally from Antarctica, the Southern Ocean, and Subantarctic regions. Antarctic Research Series, Ser. Biology of the Antarctic Seas XXII. 58: 93-150., available online at https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/AR058p0093 [details] Available for editors

[request]

Other

additional source Fauchald, K. (1977). The polychaete worms, definitions and keys to the orders, families and genera. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County: Los Angeles, CA (USA), Science Series. 28:1-188., available online at http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/123110.pdf [details]

biology source Fauvel, Pierre. (1953). Annélides polychètes non pélagiques. Expédition Océanographique Belge dans les eaux côtières africaines de l'Atlantique Sud (1948-1949). Résultats Scientifiques, Institut Royale des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique. 4(4): 1-56., available online at https://biblio.naturalsciences.be/rbins-publications/scientific-results-of-the-belgian-oceanographic-expedition-in-african-coastal-waters-of-the-south-atlantic-1948-1949/vol-4-4-1953, https://bit.ly/2kMi712
page(s): 16-17; note: See Note on biology for a translation of Fauvel's information on epitokous chaetae in Amphinomidae [details] Available for editors

[request]

Present

Inaccurate

Introduced: alien

Containing type locality

From editor or global species database

Authority As with many other instances in Polychaeta nomenclature there appears to be no objective reason for crediting Savigny with the Amphinomidae authorship (in the form Savigny in Lamarck, 1818). Savigny gets no mention in Lamarck's text in this context. Please read Art. 50.1.1 of the ICZN code. [details]

Biology (continued) Fauvel (1953) swimming chaetae in Amphinomidae.

In the atoque E. parvecarunculata, we find on the dorsal ramus: 1° acicular setae; 2° large glochidiate setae; 3° large smooth or serrated setae; 4° capillary setae with a rudimentary spur. On the ventral ramus: 1° acicular setae; 2° large forked bristles; 3° rare capillary bristles with a rudimentary spur. On an epitoque female, the dorsal bristles are numerous and long, and mixed with a few capillary bristles, and the ventral ramus bears numerous and very fine bristles. But, no more than in the preceding species, the large ventral forked bristles do not disappear. On the contrary, on an E. dubia Horst, from California, I find, on the dorsal ramus: harpoon bristles, large smooth bristles and very fine smooth capillary bristles, and, on the ventral ramus, a few large straight, smooth bristles, and a large bundle of long epitoque bristles; the large forked bristles have disappeared.
In Horst's specimen, the ventral oar bore a bundle of numerous fine capillary setae without spurs, and only a few rare large forked setae with a very short branch. We therefore have in this species, as in E. rullieri, an epitoky with disappearance, at the ventral oar, of the atoky setae and appearance of a large bundle of swimming setae, while in the other species, studied from this point of view, it is mainly at the dorsal oar that the swimming setae appear, without disappearance of the atoky setae, both dorsal and ventral. In other genera of the same family, individuals with long setae have often been reported, but it does not seem that epitoky has been studied specifically there.
[details]

Biology Fauvel (1953) has a long note on swimming chaetae in Amphinomidae. Here it is in translation to English:

Remarks On The Epitoky Of The Amphinomians. The epitoky of the Nereidians, which has already given rise to so much work, is not peculiar to them. Without being pushed to as high a degree as in this family, it is no less frequent among the Syllidians and the Eunicians, who also swarm to the surface at the time of sexual maturity. Contrary to what one might believe, it is not peculiar to the Errantia alone, and is found, to varying degrees, among a certain number of Sedentaria. This phenomenon does not seem to have attracted much attention so far among the Amphinomians. However, de Saint-Joseph (1888, p. 191, pl. VIII, fig. 56) had described a Euphrosyne intermedia: "Similar in all to Euphrosyne foliosa, but having, between the dorsal setae and the ordinary ventral setae, a bundle of 20 to 30 setae as prominent as the setae are in mature Syllidians, three times finer and twice as long as the ventral setae..." According to the author's figure 56, these setae were clearly bifurcated. McIntosh (1900, p. 238) thought that this was only a simple long-set variety of E. foliosa Audouin and M. Edwards. But in 1897, Fage and Legendre found, in their pelagic fishing by light, two individuals similar to that of Saint-Joseph, also provided with a bundle of long and fine bristles. In addition, in the collection of the Baron de Saint-Joseph, they found an E. foliosa swollen with eggs in which these swimming bristles were in the process of developing. "The E. intermedia of Saint-Joseph," they added, "is therefore not a variety of foliosa, but its epitoque form." From Alexandria (1937, p. 12), I also had in my hands an epitoque E. foliosa with long ventral bristles corresponding to the E. intermedia. Fage and Legendre, after having provided proof of the epitoqueness of the E. foliosa, have pointed out that other species of the same genus, from the "Siboga" Expedition, characterized by their large eyes and long setae, "are very probably epitoque forms". I found these same fine swimming setae on E. pilosa Horst and E. myrtosa Savigny collected by Dantan during light fishing in the Gulf of Tadjourah (Fauvel, 1951, p. 290). As for the Eurythoë, all those who have handled numerous specimens of E. complanata, so common in all coral reefs, have noticed large differences in the length of the setae depending on the specimens. These differences have sometimes been attributed to sexual dimorphism. Augener (1916, pp. 90-93) noted, on E. parvecarunculata Horst, the presence of numerous and very fine simple setae with the ventral oar, and attributes them to the epitoquia. On specimens of the same species, also from Cameroon (1927, p. 526), I made the same observation. To elucidate this question, I re-examined my numerous preparations of parapodia of Eurythoë from various sources. On E. complanata I normally find, on the dorsal ramus: 1° large harpoon-shaped setae (glochidial setae); 2° large straight setae, smooth or denticulate; 3° capillary setae, few in number, with a fairly marked spur; 4° acicular setae. On the ventral ramus: 1° large forked setae with unequal branches; 2° acicular setae, no capillary setae. But, in some specimens, the dorsal capillary setae are longer and more numerous, and capillary setae similar to those of the dorsal ramus begin to mix with the ventral forked setae. At a more advanced stage, the dorsal capillary setae are very long and much more numerous than on the ventral ramus, but they differ from the atoque setae only by their length and the reduction of the small lateral spur. In this species, it is therefore rather on the dorsal ramus that epitoque setae abound, which are lacking, or remain relatively rare, on the ventral ramus. (continued next note)
[details]

Definitions