Holotype NHMUK ANEA 2017.194, geounit Bay of Biscay
Holotype NHMUK ANEA 2017.194, geounit Bay of Biscay [details]
, Note Tributary of Cap Breton canyon, Bay of Biscay,...
From editor or global species database
Type locality Tributary of Cap Breton canyon, Bay of Biscay, Atlantic Ocean (43°31.68'N, 02°45.48'W). [details]Type material According to articles 72.4.1 and 72.4.5 of the ICZN (1999) the specimens of the type series, with the exception of the holotype, are to be considered as paratypes, in spite of not being explicitly designated as such in the original description. [details]
Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
Holotype NHMUK ANEA 2017.194, geounit Bay of Biscay [details]Paratype DBUA 0001953, geounit Gulf of Cadiz [details]Paratype DBUA 0001962, geounit Gulf of Cadiz [details]Paratype DBUA 0001963, geounit Gulf of Cadiz [details]Paratype DBUA 0001973, geounit Bay of Biscay [details]
From editor or global species database
Depth range 214-1317 m. [details] Diagnosis Differential diagnosis by Jirkov et al. (218: 90-91): "Three species of Amphitrite have cirriform branchia. The new species differs from two of them by the smaller number of nephridial papillae (8 in A. cirrata, 7 in A. kerguelensis, 4 in A. fauveli sp.n.). The third species A. oculata from Japan and Australia has also four segments with nephridial papillae but it has eyespots, absent in A. fauveli sp.n." [details] Distribution NE Atlantic Ocean: Bay of Biscay; Gulf of Cadiz. [details] Editor's comment Jirkov et al. (2018: 91) state that Amphitrite fauveli could be the same species than Amphitrite cirrata profunda Fauvel, 1909, a taxon originally collected in the same geographic area, habitat, and depths, but that according to the ICZN (1999), the latter should be interpreted as a nomen nudum, as it fails to accomplish Article 12.1: “To be available, every new name published before 1931 [...] must be accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes.” The sentence describing A. cirrata profunda in the original publication (Fauvel, 1909: 26-27) is “Ils [the specimens collected near São Jorge, Azores] sont principalment caractérisés par le petit nombre et la forme relativement trapue de leurs filets branchiaux, ressemblant un peu à des branchies d’Ampharétiens”. Jirkov et al. (2018: 91) state that such sentence cannot be interpreted as a description or definition of a taxon, as the “The number of cirri of the single branchia depends on the size of the worm, while the shape of cirri depends on degree of relaxation during fixation”. Moreover, the authors add that “Thus none of the characters mentioned by Fauvel (1909) allow us to distinguish this taxon from the ones previously known”. Finally, Jirkov et al. (2018: 91) state that “Furthermore, Solís-Weiss et al. (2004) did not list Fauvel’s material in the collection of the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris where to all alcohol-preserved specimens were transferred. So there is no other way than to describe the new species.”
However, some of the above statements and interpretations are erroneous. The original description of Amphitrite cirrata profunda by Fauvel (1909: 26-27) is short, but it is complemented by a longer description based on the same specimens and supported by drawings published in a posterior work (Fauvel, 1914: 293, 294-295, plate XXVII figs. 26-32), which was overlooked by the authors of the new species. Even if the description of the taxon was based only in the original sentence, the taxon should be considered as a nomen dubium, due to the impossibility “to distinguish this taxon from the ones previously known” (Jirkov et al., 2018: 91), never as a nomen nudum. The original sentence provided by Fauvel can be considered as a description or interpretation of the taxon, no matter how inappropriate or incomplete it can be. Finally, the authors also ignored the fact that the type material of Amphitrite cirrata profunda exists, and is deposited at the Musée Océanographique de Monaco, together with the rest of the material collected during the Campaigns of Prince Albert Ier, during which the type material of A. cirrata profunda was collected. Belloc (1953: 7-8) refers the existence of such material, even stating its physical location: “Réserve: Vitrine 5, travée I, étagère 4.”
Whether both taxa are synonymous or not, needs confirmation, but in case of synonymy Fauvel’s taxon would have priority, as it is a valid taxon.
[Editor's comment by: João Gil, 12 April 2018] [details] Etymology From Jirkov et al. (2018: 91): "The species is named after Prof. P. Fauvel who reported A. cirrata profunda, a probable synonym of the new species." [details] Habitat In the presence of the cold-water corals Lophelia pertusa (Linnaeus, 1758), Madrepora oculata (Linnaeus, 1758), and Dendrophyllia cornigera (Lamarck, 1816), and in the crater of mud volcanos, at slope to bathyal depths. [details] SynonymyAmphitrite fauveli Jirkov, Ravara & Cunha, 2018 is a probable junior synonym of Amphitrite cirrata profunda Fauvel, 1909. [details] Type locality Tributary of Cap Breton canyon, Bay of Biscay, Atlantic Ocean (43°31.68'N, 02°45.48'W). [details] Type material According to articles 72.4.1 and 72.4.5 of the ICZN (1999) the specimens of the type series, with the exception of the holotype, are to be considered as paratypes, in spite of not being explicitly designated as such in the original description. [details]
Website and databases developed and hosted by VLIZ · Page generated 2018-12-12 GMT · contact: Geoff Read