WoRMS taxon details

Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorNeoamphitrite Hessle, 1917

129702 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:129702)
accepted
Genus
Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorAmphitrite affinis Malmgren, 1866 accepted as Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorNeoamphitrite affinis (Malmgren, 1866) (type by subsequent designation)
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
recent only
Hessle, C. (1917). Zur Kenntnis der terebellomorphen Polychaeten. Zoologiska bidrag från Uppsala. 5: 39-258, plates I-V., available online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/120026#page/51/mode/1up
page(s): 178-179 [details]   
Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorEtymology Not stated in the original description. The...  
Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorEtymology Not stated in the original description. The name of the genus is composed by the prefix of Greek origin neo-, meaning 'new', followed by the name of the genus Amphitrite Müller, 1771, presumably referring to the similarity between the two genera. [details]

Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorTaxonomy Neoamphitrite differs from Amphitrite in...  
Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorTaxonomy Neoamphitrite differs from Amphitrite in "dichotomous rather than filiform branchiae, the number of nephridia is higher, and the nephridial tubes are free rather than fused." (Reuscher et al. 2012).
Hutchings & Glasby (1988) discussed the difference between Neoamphitrite and Amphitrite: "The two genera can be differentiated, according to Hessle, by the form of the nephridia and the form of the branchiae, which in Neoamphitrite are richly branched with a distinct stalk and in Amphitrite, filiform with a very reduced stalk. We believe that these two types of branchiae are not sufficiently different to constitute a good generic character. For example, the length of the branchial stem is quite variable within and between specimens in our material, with the larger specimens often having a better developed stem. In addition some species such as Amphitrite robusta Johnson, 1901 have branchiae which are intermediate between those of Amphitrite sensu stricto and those of Neoamphitrite. The other distinguishing character used by Hessle is the form of the nephridia which he used as a generic character to separate terebellid genera. […]The majority of workers since Hessle (1917) have ignored the segmental affinities of the nephridia and most diagnoses of terebellids genera described since 1917 lack details of these structures.  [details]
Read, G.; Bellan, G. (2017). Neoamphitrite. In: Read, G.; Fauchald, K. (Ed.) (2017). World Polychaeta database. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=129702 on 2017-11-22

Date
action
by
2004-12-21 15:54:05Z
created
2008-03-04 06:49:09Z
changed
2008-03-26 11:36:43Z
changed
2011-09-18 23:08:58Z
changed
2017-04-24 21:46:43Z
changed

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



original description Hessle, C. (1917). Zur Kenntnis der terebellomorphen Polychaeten. Zoologiska bidrag från Uppsala. 5: 39-258, plates I-V., available online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/120026#page/51/mode/1up
page(s): 178-179 [details]   

taxonomy source Jirkov, I.A. (2001). [Polychaeta of the Arctic Ocean] (In Russian) Polikhety severnogo Ledovitogo Okeana. Yanus-K Press, Moscow, 632 pp., available online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259865957_Jirkov_2001_Polychaeta_of_the_North_Polar_Basin
page(s): 508 [Neoamphitrite regarded as synonym of Amphitrite] [details]  Available for editors  PDF available [request] 

basis of record Bellan, Gerard. (2001). Polychaeta, in: Costello, M.J. et al. (Ed.) (2001). European register of marine species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. Collection Patrimoines Naturels. 50: pp. 214-231. (look up in IMIS[details]   

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]   

additional source Hutchings, P. A.; Glasby, Christopher J. (1988). The Amphitritinae (Polychaeta: Terebellidae) from Australia. Records of the Australian Museum. 40: 1-60., available online at https://doi.org/10.3853/j.0067-1975.40.1988.150
page(s): 3; note: Include Neoamphitrite in Amphitrite [details]   

status source Holthe, T. (1986). Polychaeta Terebellomorpha. Marine Invertebrates of Scandinavia. 7: 1-192. (look up in IMIS)
page(s): 98 [details]   

status source Reuscher, Michael; Fiege, Dieter; Wehe, Thomas. 2012. Terebellomorph polychaetes from hydrothermal vents and cold seeps with the description of two new species of Terebellidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) representing the first records of the family from deep-sea vents. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 92(05): 997-1012, available online at https://doi.org/10.1017/s0025315411000658
page(s): 1 002; note: continues as valid, emends diagnosis [details]   
From editor or global species database
Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorDiagnosis (fide Reuscher et al, 2012) "3 pairs of dichotomous branchiae with pronounced stems in segments II–IV. Lateral lobes usually present. Nephridial papillae in segment III only or extending for a variable number of segments. Thorax with 15–39 pairs of notopodia starting in segment IV, and 14–38 uncinigerous neuropodia starting in segment V. Capillary chaetae distally hirsute. Uncini avicular, arranged in double rows in posterior thorax and, occasionally in anterior abdomen." [details]

Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorEtymology Not stated in the original description. The name of the genus is composed by the prefix of Greek origin neo-, meaning 'new', followed by the name of the genus Amphitrite Müller, 1771, presumably referring to the similarity between the two genera. [details]

Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorOriginal description Original description by Hessle (1917: 178-179): "Drei (selten zwei?) Paar Kiemen. Die Kiemen haben einen deutlichen Stamm und sind reich verzweigt. Die vorderen Segmente sind mit Seitenlappen versehen. Die Haarborsten beginnen am vierten Segment. Die Haarborstenspitzen sind gesägt. Die Hakenborstenchsetopodien beginnen am fünften Segment. Das Basalstück der Hakenborsten ist verhältnismässig klein, der zahntragende Teil dagegen hoch. Sowohl vordere wie hintere Nephridien sind entwickelt. Die vorderen Nephridien haben bedeutend längere Schenkel als die hinteren. Sämtliche Nephridien sind frei von einander. Auch im fünften Segment sind Nephridien entwickelt.[details]

Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorSynonymy The usage of some authors (eg Hutchings & Glasby 1988; Jirkov, 2001) is that Neoamphitrite Hessle, 1917, founded on Amphitrite affinis Malmgren, 1866 (first listed), with also N. grayi, N. groenlandica, N. ramosissima, N. figulus, and N. vigintipes, is not distinct from Amphitrite. Neoamphitrite is maintained as distinct here meantime as at least two modern reports have continued to describe new Neoamphitrite species [details]

Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorTaxonomy Neoamphitrite differs from Amphitrite in "dichotomous rather than filiform branchiae, the number of nephridia is higher, and the nephridial tubes are free rather than fused." (Reuscher et al. 2012).
Hutchings & Glasby (1988) discussed the difference between Neoamphitrite and Amphitrite: "The two genera can be differentiated, according to Hessle, by the form of the nephridia and the form of the branchiae, which in Neoamphitrite are richly branched with a distinct stalk and in Amphitrite, filiform with a very reduced stalk. We believe that these two types of branchiae are not sufficiently different to constitute a good generic character. For example, the length of the branchial stem is quite variable within and between specimens in our material, with the larger specimens often having a better developed stem. In addition some species such as Amphitrite robusta Johnson, 1901 have branchiae which are intermediate between those of Amphitrite sensu stricto and those of Neoamphitrite. The other distinguishing character used by Hessle is the form of the nephridia which he used as a generic character to separate terebellid genera. […]The majority of workers since Hessle (1917) have ignored the segmental affinities of the nephridia and most diagnoses of terebellids genera described since 1917 lack details of these structures.  [details]
 



Feeding Type
deposit feeder: surface [details]
interface feeder [details]
suspension feeder: facultative [details]