 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
Porifera taxon detailsArmodendrilla bergquistae Van Soest & Hooper, 2020
1423736 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:1423736)
accepted
Species
Dendrilla cactus (Selenka, 1867) sensu Bergquist, 1961 · unaccepted (genus transfer and preoccupied)
marine,
recent only
Van Soest, R.W.M.; Hooper, J.N.A.; Butler, P.J. (2020). Every sponge its own name: removing Porifera homonyms. <em>Zootaxa.</em> 4745(1): 1-93., available online at https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4745.1.1
page(s): 14 [details] Available for editors  [request]
Nomenclature Here we cite Van Soest et al.'s (2020: 13–15) explanation for the proposal for a new genus and new species.
Removal of...
Nomenclature Here we cite Van Soest et al.'s (2020: 13–15) explanation for the proposal for a new genus and new species. Removal of homonymy between Dendrilla cactos (Selenka, 1867) and Dendrilla cactus sensu Bergquist, 1961. 1. Spongelia cactos Selenka, 1867: 566 (type locality Bass Strait, Australia). Originally described as Spongelia cactos Selenka, 1867 it was transferred to Dendrilla by De Laubenfels (1948: 152), misspelled as Dendrilla cactus, and erroneously nominated as the type species of Dendrilla. Vacelet (1958: 144) declared it unrecognisable. Bergquist (1961) reported the species, again misspelled, as D. cactus, but this identification was retracted by Bergquist (1996: 21). In the meantime, the species was comprehensively redescribed and an extensive species synonymy revised by Wiedenmayer (1989: 152) based on specimens from the type locality of Bass Strait. Dendrilla cactos (Selenka, 1867) is to be maintained as a valid species (ICZN Art. 57.3). 2. Dendrilla cactus sensu Bergquist, 1961: 215 (‘type locality’ Chatham Rise, New Zealand). This combination of Dendrilla cactus sensu Bergquist (1961: 215) is a misspelling of Dendrilla cactos (Selenka, 1867) and needs to be recognized as a record of Dendrilla cactos (Selenka, 1867). However, Bergquist (1996: 19) admits that the 1961 specimen was misidentified and represents a new genus of Dendroceratida, because of its armoured surface. This announcement was not given substance in later publications. We conclude that even though it is a different species, we have only the name Dendrilla cactus sensu Bergquist (1961) available for it. This name is an incorrect subsequent spelling (ICZN Art. 33.3) which does not enter in homonymy. We take this opportunity to follow up on Bergquist’s (1996) suggestion, that her 1961 specimen from deep water off the Chatham Islands belongs to a genus and species new to science, by naming and diagnosing these below. 3. Summary: Dendrilla cactos (Selenka, 1867) is the senior secondary homonym of Dendrilla cactus sensu Bergquist, 1961 (ICZN Art. 57.3) and the name is maintained. Dendrilla cactus sensu Bergquist (1961) is an incorrect subsequent spelling and not a junior homonym of Dendrilla cactos (Selenka, 1897) (ICZN Art. 33.3), but is also a new genus and species of Dendroceratida: Darwinellidae. 4. Erection and diagnosis of a new genus and species misidentified as Dendrilla cactus sensu Berquist (1961). Armodendrilla gen. nov. Definition. Darwinellidae with surface armour of broken spicules; skeleton of uncored dendritic fibres rising up from the basal spongin plate. Type species: Armodendrilla bergquistae gen. nov., sp. nov. Holotype CMNZAQ1082(1), specimen photographed in Bergquist (1961: Fig. 5a), New Zealand, Chatham Rise, off Chatham Islands, 43.6667°S 179.9167°E, depth 396–725 m, coll. Chatham Islands 1954 Expedition station 6 (station data cf. Knox (1957). Paratype CMNZAQ1082(2), 2nd specimen not shown in Bergquist, 1961; same data as holotype. Description (from Bergquist 1961). (Fig. 1) Similar in shape and general consistency to Dendrilla cactos (see for an extensive description of that species Wiedenmayer (1989: 152). The surface is conulose, externally very like a Dysidea, conuli are 3–5 mm high and irregularly spaced. A distinctive feature of the specimens is the presence of an armoured dermal region constructed entirely of spicule fragments. Fibres taper somewhat as they branch upwards but there is no clear distinction between primaries and secondaries. Range in fibre diameter is 4.8–4.9 μm. None of the fibres contain any debris and the skeleton appears dendritic; occasional anastomoses are discernible. Flagellate chambers are oval, 52–80 μm long. [details]
de Voogd, N.J.; Alvarez, B.; Boury-Esnault, N.; Cárdenas, P.; Díaz, M.-C.; Dohrmann, M.; Downey, R.; Goodwin, C.; Hajdu, E.; Hooper, J.N.A.; Kelly, M.; Klautau, M.; Lim, S.C.; Manconi, R.; Morrow, C.; Pinheiro, U.; Pisera, A.B.; Ríos, P.; Rützler, K.; Schönberg, C.; Turner, T.; Vacelet, J.; van Soest, R.W.M.; Xavier, J. (2024). World Porifera Database. Armodendrilla bergquistae Van Soest & Hooper, 2020. Accessed at: https://www.marinespecies.org/porifera/porifera.php?p=taxdetails&id=1423736 on 2024-04-19
Date action by
original description
Van Soest, R.W.M.; Hooper, J.N.A.; Butler, P.J. (2020). Every sponge its own name: removing Porifera homonyms. <em>Zootaxa.</em> 4745(1): 1-93., available online at https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4745.1.1
page(s): 14 [details] Available for editors [request] original description (of Dendrilla cactus (Selenka, 1867) sensu Bergquist, 1961) Bergquist, P.R. (1961). The Keratosa (Porifera) collected by the Chatham Islands 1954 Expedition. <em>New Zealand Oceanographic Institute Memoir.</em> 13 (139): 207-219. page(s): 215-216 [details]  source of synonymy (of Dendrilla cactus (Selenka, 1867) sensu Bergquist, 1961) Laubenfels, M.W. de. (1948). The order Keratosa of the phylum Porifera. A monographic study. <em>Occasional Papers of the Allan Hancock Foundation.</em> 3: 1-217. page(s): 152-153 [details] Available for editors [request]  Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Additional information Etymology. The genus name is a composite of armo- (verb (L.) meaning providing ‘resistance’ or ‘defense’) and –dendrilla referring to the Dendrilla-like properties in combination with an armoured surface. The species name is in honour of the late Dame Patricia Bergquist.Comment. The holotype and paratype are registered in the collections of the Canterbury Museum, New Zealand, in a single lot under the lot number CMNZAQ1082, but the holotype is recognizable from the photo. These conditions satisfy ICZN Art. 16.4, and 72.3. Bergquist (1961: 215) described this species under the name ‘Dendrilla cactus (Selenka, 1867)’, but recognized later (Bergquist, 1996) that that species has no armoured surface. She suggested that a new genus should be erected, but this was not followed through. Chelonaplysilla De Laubenfels, 1948 is a second darwinellid genus possessing a surface armour, but its species have small sand grains arranged in a reticulate pattern, unlike the continuous armour in the present new genus. All other genera of Darwinellidae have an unarmoured surface. [details] Nomenclature Here we cite Van Soest et al.'s (2020: 13–15) explanation for the proposal for a new genus and new species. Removal of homonymy between Dendrilla cactos (Selenka, 1867) and Dendrilla cactus sensu Bergquist, 1961. 1. Spongelia cactos Selenka, 1867: 566 (type locality Bass Strait, Australia). Originally described as Spongelia cactos Selenka, 1867 it was transferred to Dendrilla by De Laubenfels (1948: 152), misspelled as Dendrilla cactus, and erroneously nominated as the type species of Dendrilla. Vacelet (1958: 144) declared it unrecognisable. Bergquist (1961) reported the species, again misspelled, as D. cactus, but this identification was retracted by Bergquist (1996: 21). In the meantime, the species was comprehensively redescribed and an extensive species synonymy revised by Wiedenmayer (1989: 152) based on specimens from the type locality of Bass Strait. Dendrilla cactos (Selenka, 1867) is to be maintained as a valid species (ICZN Art. 57.3). 2. Dendrilla cactus sensu Bergquist, 1961: 215 (‘type locality’ Chatham Rise, New Zealand). This combination of Dendrilla cactus sensu Bergquist (1961: 215) is a misspelling of Dendrilla cactos (Selenka, 1867) and needs to be recognized as a record of Dendrilla cactos (Selenka, 1867). However, Bergquist (1996: 19) admits that the 1961 specimen was misidentified and represents a new genus of Dendroceratida, because of its armoured surface. This announcement was not given substance in later publications. We conclude that even though it is a different species, we have only the name Dendrilla cactus sensu Bergquist (1961) available for it. This name is an incorrect subsequent spelling (ICZN Art. 33.3) which does not enter in homonymy. We take this opportunity to follow up on Bergquist’s (1996) suggestion, that her 1961 specimen from deep water off the Chatham Islands belongs to a genus and species new to science, by naming and diagnosing these below. 3. Summary: Dendrilla cactos (Selenka, 1867) is the senior secondary homonym of Dendrilla cactus sensu Bergquist, 1961 (ICZN Art. 57.3) and the name is maintained. Dendrilla cactus sensu Bergquist (1961) is an incorrect subsequent spelling and not a junior homonym of Dendrilla cactos (Selenka, 1897) (ICZN Art. 33.3), but is also a new genus and species of Dendroceratida: Darwinellidae. 4. Erection and diagnosis of a new genus and species misidentified as Dendrilla cactus sensu Berquist (1961). Armodendrilla gen. nov. Definition. Darwinellidae with surface armour of broken spicules; skeleton of uncored dendritic fibres rising up from the basal spongin plate. Type species: Armodendrilla bergquistae gen. nov., sp. nov. Holotype CMNZAQ1082(1), specimen photographed in Bergquist (1961: Fig. 5a), New Zealand, Chatham Rise, off Chatham Islands, 43.6667°S 179.9167°E, depth 396–725 m, coll. Chatham Islands 1954 Expedition station 6 (station data cf. Knox (1957). Paratype CMNZAQ1082(2), 2nd specimen not shown in Bergquist, 1961; same data as holotype. Description (from Bergquist 1961). (Fig. 1) Similar in shape and general consistency to Dendrilla cactos (see for an extensive description of that species Wiedenmayer (1989: 152). The surface is conulose, externally very like a Dysidea, conuli are 3–5 mm high and irregularly spaced. A distinctive feature of the specimens is the presence of an armoured dermal region constructed entirely of spicule fragments. Fibres taper somewhat as they branch upwards but there is no clear distinction between primaries and secondaries. Range in fibre diameter is 4.8–4.9 μm. None of the fibres contain any debris and the skeleton appears dendritic; occasional anastomoses are discernible. Flagellate chambers are oval, 52–80 μm long. [details]
|