Open Access
Translator Disclaimer
1 January 2020 Three new records of hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from southern Chile
Horia R. Galea, Dirk Schories, Jorge Holtheuer
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Three new records of hydroids from the Chilean side of the Strait of Magellan are dealt with herein: Symplectoscyphus marionesisMillard, 1971 is redescribed, the occurrence of Sertularella implexa (Allman, 1888) in Chile is confirmed, and the new species Egmundella magellanica sp. nov. is described.

INTRODUCTION

During the last two decades, the hydrozoan fauna of Chile received increasing attention, with a series of taxonomic studies having been published on the group (Galea, 2007; Galea & Schories, 2012; Galea et al., 2007, 2009, 2014). An inventory of the invertebrate fauna of the country continues.

Influenced by waters of the Strait of Magellan, the Almirantazgo Sound is a deep and narrow inlet of the sea, about 80 km long, oriented NW to SE, and ending in Caleta María and Jackson Bay. On its southern coast lie three large bays (viz. Brookes, Ainsworth and Parry) connected to the Cordillera Darwin, the southernmost tip of the Andes. Several field trips and expeditions have been undertaken in recent years in southern Patagonia, but none of them focused on Parry Bay. The Wildlife Conservation Society, Punta Arenas, Chile, organized in February 2018 a survey to study the abundance and distribution of the commercial scallops Zygochlamys patagonica and Chlamys vitrea, and their associated fauna at Parry Bay. Both scallops are only fished by the native population. Sampling started in the Strait of Magellan and then along the Almirantazgo Sound, down to Parry Bay (Fig. 1). Among other animal groups sampled, three hydroid species, representing new records for Chile, are discussed herein.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sampling was done, using SCUBA, by two of us (DS and JH). The collected specimens were fixed in 10% formalin in seawater, and observations were done on preserved material using the methods described in Galea (2007). The study material is deposited in collections of the Muséum d'histoire naturelle de Genève, Switzerland, whose catalogue numbers are indicated by MHNGINVE- followed by 6-digit numbers.

TAXONOMY AND RESULTS

Order Leptothecata Cornelius, 1992
Family Symplectoscyphidae Maronna et al., 2016
Genus Symplectoscyphus
Marktanner-Turneretscher, 1890
Symplectoscyphus marionensis Millard, 1971
Figs 23; Table 1

  • Symplectoscyphus marionensis Millard, 1971: 405, fig. 7. – Blanco, 1980: 200, figs 6-13. – Blanco, 1984: 261, figs 1, 2. – Branch & Williams, 1993: 13, unnumbered fig. – Blanco, 1994a: 154. – Blanco, 1994b: 204.

  • Material examined: MHNG-INVE-129717; Chile, Región de Magallanes y de Antártica Chilena, Strait of Magellan, Stn. 1, WGS84: -53.82408 -71.06608, 5-10 m, coll. Schories & Holtheuer, 01.02.2018; fertile colony on crab carapace.

  • Description: Colony composed of numerous erect (though unable to support themselves when out of liquid), simple, monosiphonic, up to 2.5 cm high, stems arising from tubular, irregularly-branched hydrorhiza creeping on surface of a crab carapace; perisarc rather thick, striated obliquely, and straw-colored to transparent. Stems with a number of spiral twists (1 to 4 observed) just above their origin from the stolon, then divided into regular internodes by means of deep, oblique constrictions of the perisarc slanting in alternate directions; perisarc thick, with smooth surface, brownish at nodes and straw-colored to transparent elsewhere. Internodes short, slightly geniculate, swollen proximally, then gradually yet distinctly expanding so as to accommodate laterally a hydrotheca, just below the distal node. Side branches pinnately-arranged along the stem and with similar structure, generally given off singly, every 4 stem hydrothecae, by means of short, swollen apophyses borne immediately below the hydrothecal bases. Not rarely, apophyses arise more irregularly, every 1 to 9 hydrothecae, depending on the development of the colony. Branches are generally alternate along the stem. Apophyses are given off on one side of the hydrothecae, not laterally so as to form a coplanar structure; thus, the resulting colony is three-dimensional, displaying decidedly a frontal and a dorsal side, the majority of branches being shifted on anteriorly, forming a wide angle between the two rows. Occasionally, apophyses are also, here and there, given off posteriorly, but this does not alter maintenance of the pinnate structure of the colony. In addition, couples of branches may be rarely given off from both sides of a hydrotheca, forming pairs flanking that theca. Aberrant origins for the side branches are to be found from within some incompletely-formed stem hydrothecae. Main branches rebranch again, forming up to 5th order branches. In all cases, the lower-order branches are significantly shifted with respect to their preceding counterparts, since the apertures of their hydrothecae are situated in a plane forming an almost right angle with that of the hydrothecae belonging to the immediately higher-order branch: while the stem hydrothecae are shifted on to the anterior side of the colony, those of the 1st order branches face upwards, and so on. First internode of a side branch slightly longer than the subsequent ones, with a couple of proximal twists of the perisarc; ordinary internodes of comparable length to those of the stem. Occasionally, clinging organs are given off from tips of both stem and branches, below the hydrothecae; multilobate, flattened laterally, with thick perisarc, gradually becoming thinner towards tips. Hydrothecae alternate, in two parallel rows, generally forming a right angle, occasionally more or less pronounced; tubular, 36-45% adnate to the corresponding internode, gently curving upwards and outwards; free adaxial and abaxial walls slightly convex, with smooth perisarc, comparatively thinner on the former; a perisarc plug at junction between the adnate adaxial wall and the base, occasionally with large, rounded fenestra immediately below or slightly overlapping the base; aperture distinctly thickened, provided with 3 conspicuous, pointed triangular cusps with rounded tips, one adaxial and two lateroabaxial, separated by deep, rounded embayments; adaxial cusp distinctly produced and comparatively less developed than its lateral counterparts; no internal, submarginal cusps; renovations occasional, occurring generally singly. Gonothecae borne on both stems and side branches, predominant on the latter; arising singly, immediately below the hydrothecal bases, on one side of the theca, to which one of their basal walls is apposed, being thus flattened there; sex not determinable in the present material; elongated-oval, tapering below into an indistinct pedicel, above transversely wrinkled, with 6 to 8 complete annular ridges, not forming a spiral, and gradually fading away proximally; distally a rounded, slightly depressed plateau on the top of which is inserted a short, terminal tube, imperceptibly constricted in middle, occasionally somewhat flared at aperture. Cnidome: small and large, banana-shaped microbasic mastigophores, none seen discharged.

  • Dimensions: See Table 1.

  • Remarks: The characteristic, unilateral branching pattern met with in S. marionensis results in colonies whose appearance (Fig. 2) resembles that of S. allmani Hartlaub, 1901, described by Galea et al. (2017). This feature was not particularly emphasized by Millard (1971) in her original account, although it is evident from her fig. 7D. The mode of branching and the shape of its gonotheca (her figs 7C and 7B, respectively) leave little doubt that we are dealing with the same species.

  • A redescription of S. marionensis, based on material from Staten Island, Argentina, was given by Blanco (1980), who was able to compare her specimens to the holotype.

  • In her account, the unilateral position of hydrothecae and branches, as well as the thickening of the hydrothecal rim, are clearly emphasized.

  • The size of the colonies reaches as much as 5 cm (Blanco, 1980) or 6 cm (Millard, 1971) high. Millard (1971) observed terminal stolonization in her material, while clinging organs occur in ours.

  • A number of additional nominal species of Symplectoscyphus occur along the coasts of South America, namely: S. affinis (Hartlaub, 1901) (Hartlaub, 1905), S. bathyalis Vervoort, 1972 (original account), S. chubuticus El Beshbeeshy, 2011 (original account), S. filiformis (Allman, 1888) (Galea, 2007; Galea & Schories, 2012), S. flexilis (Hartlaub, 1901) (Galea & Schories, 2012; Galea et al., 2014), S. interruptus (Pfeffer, 1889) (Galea & Schories, 2012), S. leloupi El Beshbeeshy, 2011 (original account; Galea et al., 2009), S. magellanicus (Marktanner-Turneretscher, 1890) (Galea, 2007; Galea & Schories, 2012), S. milneanus (d'Orbigny, 1842) (Galea et al., 2009), S. modestus (Hartlaub, 1901) (Hartlaub, 1905), S. paraglacialis El Beshbeeshy, 2011 (original account; Galea & Schories, 2012), S. patagonicus Galea & Schories, 2012 (original account), S. salvadorensis El Beshbeeshy, 2011 (original account), S. semper Galea & Schories, 2014 (Galea et al., 2014), S. singularis El Beshbeeshy, 2011 (original account), S. subarticulatus (Coughtrey, 1875) (Galea et al., 2014), S. unilateralis (Lamouroux, 1824) (Galea et al., 2014), S. valdesicus El Beshbeeshy, 2011 (original account), and S. vervoorti El Beshbeeshy, 2011 (original account).

  • Symplectoscyphus affinis was regarded as a junior synonym of S. magellanicus by Vervoort (1972). So were S. modestus and S. interruptus by Galea & Schories (2012). These statements, however, require a reexamination of the types to be confirmed.

  • Among the nominal species listed above, S. marionensis is distinctive through its unilateral arrangement of both hydrothecae and side branches, a condition only encountered in the stems of the otherwise rarely branched S. unilateralis. However, their respective gonothecae are morphologically different, and the trophosome of the latter is comparatively smaller in all proportions.

  • It should be also noted that side branches of S. marionensis are not given laterally, but from insertion points in front or the rear side of its hydrothecae, just below their bases, and consequently do not lie in one plane with the stem (Fig. 3B). A similar branching pattern, with no true axillar hydrothecae, is also met with in some other congeners, e.g. S. flexilis (fig. 6C in Galea & Schories, 2012; fig. 4E1 in Galea et al., 2014) and S. paraglacialis (fig. 6L in Galea & Schories, 2012).

  • Distribution: South-African sub-Antarctic islands – Marion Island [Prince Edwards islands, (Millard, 1971)]. Argentina – Isla de los Estados (Blanco, 1980, 1984, 1994b). Chile – Región de Magallanes y Antártica Chilena [Strait of Magellan (present study)].

  • Fig. 1.

    Map of southern Chile and detail of the study area with the sampling stations.

    img-z2-1_235.jpg

    Table 1.

    Measurements of Symplectoscyphus marionensis Millard, 1971, in µm.

    img-z3-8_235.gif

    Fig. 2.

    Symplectoscyphus marionensis Millard, 1971. Macro-photograph of a preserved fertile stem highly invested by a colony of Campanularia lennoxensis Jäderholm, 1903. Scale bar: 0.5 cm.

    img-z4-1_235.jpg

    Fig. 3.

    Symplectoscyphus marionensis Millard, 1971. (A) Basal part of a colony. (B) Portion of stem with proximal part of three consecutive side branches arising through apophyses below the stem hydrothecae. (C) Aberrant origin of a branch from within a hydrotheca. (D) Hydrothecae from proximal part of a stem, (E) from a branch, and (F) aperture with its closing apparatus in frontal view. (G) Gonotheca and its relative position to the corresponding hydrotheca, seen laterally. (H) Clinging organ borne on middle portion of a branch. (I) Cnidome. Scale bars: 10 µm (I), 100 µm (F), 200 µm (D, E), 500 µm (A-C, G, H).

    img-z4-6_235.jpg

    Family Sertularellidae Maronna et al., 2016
    Genus Sertularella Gray, 1848
    Sertularella implexa (Allman, 1888)
    Figs 45; Table 2

  • Sertularia implexa p.p. Allman, 1888: 54, pl. 26 figs 1, 1a. – Hartlaub, 1901: 90. – Bedot, 1916: 223. – Galea et al., 2017: 282, figs 12B, 13A-D.

  • non Sertularella implexa.Galea & Schories, 2012a: 40, pl. 3 fig. 4F-J (= Sertularella recta Galea & Schories, 2017).

  • Sertularella picta.Vervoort, 1972: 113, figs 34, 35C [non Sertularella picta (Meyen, 1834) = Sertularella gaudichaudi (Lamouroux, 1824)].

  • non Sertularella picta.Vervoort, 1972: 114, fig. 35A, B (= Sertularella fuegonensis El Beshbeeshy, 2011).

  • Material examined: MHNG-INVE-129724; Chile, Región de Magallanes y de Antártica Chilena, Bahía Parry, Stn. 3, WGS84: -54.64663 -69.38810, 10-20 m, coll. Schories & Holtheuer, 05.02.2018; five sterile colonies, 3.5-5.0 cm high. – MHNG-INVE-129727; Región de Magallanes y de Antártica Chilena, Bahía Parry, Stn. 3, WGS84: -54.64663 -69.38810, 10-20 m, coll. Schories & Holtheuer, 05.02.2018; three sterile stems, 0.9-1.2 cm high. – MHNG-INVE-129721; Región de Magallanes y de Antártica Chilena, Bahía Parry, Stn. 2, WGS84: -54.66090 -69.37640, 20-30 m, coll. Schories & Holtheuer, 03.02.2018; two sterile stems, 1.7 and 2.3 cm high.

  • Dimensions: See Table 2.

  • Remarks: The colonies from sample MHNGINVE-129721 are similar to those from sample MHNGINVE-129727 (Fig. 5B) regarding their small size and the length of their internodes, compared to the larger, yet still monosiphonic colonies with longer internodes present in sample MHNG-INVE-129724 (Fig. 5A). Despite these minor differences, all materials in hand show no specific differences with the type of S. implexa that was reexamined, redescribed and illustrated by Galea et al. (2017), and reproduced here in Fig. 5C. A comparison of their measurements is given in Table 2.

  • Only branches of maximum 2nd order occur in the present material, with two consecutive branches being separated by 1-12 successive hydrothecae, the latter lying in one plane, and having the perisarc of their free adaxial wall smooth; their apertures may be renovated 1-3 times, and there are no internal, submarginal projections of the perisarc.

  • As noted by these authors, the type material, as well as the present specimens, are sterile. Gonothecae are only known from the material likely incorrectly assigned by Vervoort (1972) to S. picta (Meyen, 1834), and believed to belong, with little doubt, to the present species (Galea et al., 2017).

  • Distribution: Chile – Región de Magallanes y Antártica Chilena [off Isla Nueva (Vervoort, 1972, as S. picta), Bahía Parry (present study)]. Argentina – Provincia de Santa Cruz [off Deseado (Vervoort, 1972, as S. picta)]; Provincia de Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur [off Isla de los Estados (Vervoort, 1972, as S. picta)]. Between Cabo Virgenes and the Falkland Is. (Allman, 1888).

  • Fig. 4.

    Sertularella implexa (Allman, 1888). Preserved specimens from (A) MHNG-INVE-129724 and (B) MHNG-INVE-129727. Scale bar: 1 cm.

    img-z5-8_235.jpg

    Fig. 5.

    Sertularella implexa (Allman, 1888). Fragments of colonies from (A) MHNG-INVE-129724 and (B) MHNG-INVE-129727. (C) Comparison with the holotype, NHML 1888.11.13.42 (Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom), the latter reproduced from Galea et al. (2017). (D-F) Hydrothecae from the same sources, respectively. Scale bars: 200 µm (D-F), 1 mm (A-C).

    img-z6-1_235.jpg

    Table 2.

    Measurements of Sertularella implexa (Allman, 1888), in µm.

    img-z7-2_235.gif

    Family Campanulinidae Hincks, 1868
    Genus Egmundella Stechow, 1921
    Egmundella magellanica sp. nov.
    Fig. 6; Table 3

  • Type material: MHNG-INVE-129725; Chile, Región de Magallanes y de Antártica Chilena, Bahía Parry, Stn. 3, WGS84: -54.64663 -69.38810, 10-20 m, coll. Schories & Holtheuer, 05.02.2018; profuse colony, epizoic on Bougainvillia muscus (Allman, 1863); gonothecae rare; at least one with intact gonophore.

  • Diagnosis: Colony stolonal with simple, pedicellate hydrothecae, nematothecae and gonothecae arising from creeping, branching, anastomosing hydrorhiza. Hydrotheca almost tubular, tapering slightly below and merging gradually and imperceptibly with its pedicel; basally a thin diaphragm, distally a filmy, pleated operculum, not delimited basally by crease line. Nematothecae elongate. Gonothecae long, tubular, smooth-walled, borne on pedicels of varied length, distally with pleated operculum. Gonophore a medusa.

  • Etymology: Named after its geographical area of occurrence, the Strait of Magellan.

  • Description: Colony stolonal, arising from branching, anastomosing hydrorhiza creeping on stem and branches of a hydroid host. Hydrothecae borne singly on top of pedicels of variable length; pedicels with a varied number (generally 2-4) of twists proximally, smooth or with scattered wrinkles elsewhere, though never below the hydrotheca; the latter almost tubular, gently tapering proximally and merging gradually and imperceptibly into its pedicel; separation marked by thin, though distinct, diaphragm; operculum consisting of the filmy, distal perisarc, forming contiguous triangular pleats (not distinct flaps) that meet centrally to form a pyramidal roof; no crease line between the hydrothecal wall and operculum. Hydranths with 22-24 filiform tentacles. Nematothecae scattered on hydrorhiza, pedicellate, with single, distal, ovoid chamber filled with a cluster of banana-shaped nematocysts; perisarc distinctly thickened on pedicel, comparatively thinner around the battery of nematocysts, leaving a small apical, circular aperture. Gonothecae arising from hydrorhiza, borne on either short, spirally-twisted or long, thin, centrally smooth pedicels; tubular, much longer and wider than the hydrothecae; perisarc smooth, except distally where it forms a pleated operculum around the distal aperture, similar to that of the hydrothecae. The gonophore, rather opaque in this fixed material, is most probably a medusa bud. Cnidome of the hydranth: small microbasic mastigophores; elongated-ovoid, unipolarlycurved haplonemes; long, thin, fusiform, gently curved heteronemes; long, fusiform, comparatively stouter heteronemes.

  • Dimensions: See Table 3 for measurements of the tropho- and gonosome, and a comparison with its congeners. Cnidome: microbasic mastigophores (7.2-7.4) × (2.0-2.3) µm, haplonemes (11.6-15.7) × (2.6-3.7) µm, small heteronemes ca. 27.9 × 3.8 µm, large heteronemes (39.8-43.0) × (5.6-6.2) µm.

  • Remarks: The current distinction between Oplorhiza Allman, 1877 and Egmundella Stechow, 1921 mainly relies in the shape of their hydrothecae, supposedly ovoid in the former, and funnel-shaped in the latter (Bouillon et al., 2006). This opinion follows Stechow (1921), who regarded Egmundella as not possessing ovoid hydrothecae, the latter showing an imperceptible transition with the hydrocaulus, marked by the presence of a reduced diaphragm. No modern redescription of O. parvula Allman, 1877, the type species of Oplorhiza, is available to date, in order to check this statement, given that illustrations of many hydroid species by Allman proved partly inaccurate (e.g. Billard, 1910).

  • However, hydrothecae of O. parvula were originally described as “tubular” and “provided with a floor” (Allman, 1877), thus not essentially differing from those of Egmundella. Their supposedly ovoid shape is, in our opinion, not a reliable character supporting a generic separation. However, since hydroids belonging to these genera are not yet related to existing medusae, it is likely useless to consider assigning them a definitive taxonomic status. As most records of hydroids with Campanulinalike hydrothecae and stolonal nematothecae were assigned to Egmundella, this genus is retained to accommodate the hydroid described herein.

  • Ten nominal species have been assigned so far to Egmundella, two others to Oplorzhiza, and one to Cyclocanna Bigelow, 1918 (Table 3). Although the trophosomes of most appear morphologically uniform, differences in the condition of the stem, the size of the hydrothecae and the shape and position of the nematothecae, could be noted. Gonothecae have been rarely observed in a few species but, when known, they provide reliable characters for a specific separation. In one instance, it has been demonstrated that Cyclocanna welshi Bigelow, 1918 is the medusa stage of the hydroid Egmundella producta (G.O. Sars, 1874), providing a new nomenclatural combination for this animal, as Cyclocanna producta (G.O. Sars, 1874) (Schuchert et al., 2017).

  • In Egmundella gracilis Stechow, 1921, type species of the genus, the hydrothecal wall does not form a crease line at junction with the operculum [“Das Operculum bildet mit der Thekenwand keinen besonders scharfen Rand” (Stechow, 1921)], and this statement is also stressed in the diagnosis of the genus. Although not expressly indicated, but obvious from Stechow's (1923) fig. Q, the operculum results from a modification of the distal hydrothecal wall, the latter being filmy and pleated there, so as to form a pyramidal roof. In addition, the nematothecae were described as short pedicellate, spherical, monothalamic and immovable [“kurzgestielte, kugelige, einkammerige, unbewegliche Nematophoren mit dicker Peridermwand und einem dicken Bündel sehr großer, langer Nesselkapseln” (Stechow, 1921)].

  • Although the nematothecae of O. parvula are reportedly said to be pedicellate [“in the form of tubular receptacles with an orifice in the summit” (Allman, 1877: 14)], it is not clear whether its hydrothecae possess a pleated operculum. Indeed, the latter is said “cut into thin collapsible segments” (Allman, 1877: 14), and is depicted as such [Allman's (1877) pl. 7 fig. 2].

  • Available descriptions of a few nominal species, assigned to either Egmundella or Oplorhiza, suggest that they may possess hydrothecal opercula composed of multiple, distinct flaps, with or without a basal crease line. It is not clear whether this is a normal condition, or these flaps result from the tearing of the filmy, distal, thecal perisarc. For example, the operculum of Egmundella grimaldii Leloup, 1940 is reportedly said to be composed of many pointed, deciduous flaps [“Opercule formé de nombreuses dents pointues, caduques, prolongeant directement l'hydrothèque” (Leloup, 1940: 7)], while that of Egmundella modesta Millard & Bouillon, 1975 possesses “triangular segments clearly demarcated from thecal wall” (Millard & Bouillon, 1975: 5); in a previous description of their species, Millard & Bouillon (1973: 43, as ? Lovenella sp.) report the following: “Margin indented to take the opercular segments which are sharply demarcated from it”. The operculum of Oplorhiza diaphragmata Naumov, 1960 consists of “10-14 narrow triangular plates sometimes folded into a many-sided pyramid over the hydrotheca mouth. No sharp boundary between hydrotheca mouth and operculum” (Naumov, 1969: 337). Reexamination of fresh specimens of these species is therefore necessary to document the exact condition of their hydrothecal opercula.

  • Besides E. magellanica sp. nov., two other congeners occur in the eastern Pacific, namely E. gracilis and Egmundella polynema Fraser, 1948. The former, originally found in the Vancouver area (Stechow, 1921), was subsequently recorded from southern Chile (Galea, 2007). It is a species with comparatively smaller hydrothecae (Table 3), characterized by the occurrence of the nematothecae not only on the hydrorhiza, but also in small groups a short distance below the thecal bases. The presence of dense clusters of nematothecae on the hydrothecal pedicels of E. polynema, as well as its longitudinally striated gonothecae, make it distinct from the new species described herein.

  • Two hydroids have been described from the western Pacific, viz. O. diaphragmata and Egmundella humilis Fraser, 1936. The former apparently displays a hydrothecal operculum with a different structure (see above), and its putative gonothecae are long and conical (Naumov, 1969). The latter is a comparatively smaller species than E. magellanica sp. nov. (see Table 3), and its gonothecae are sessile and provided with wrinkled walls (Hirohito, 1995).

  • Although C. producta occurs on both sides of the North Atlantic [notably its medusa, see Schuchert (2016)], five other hydroids were recorded exclusively from the western Atlantic: Egmundella grimaldii Leloup, 1940, Egmundella fasciculata Fraser, 1940, and Egmundella grandis Fraser, 1941 occur in cold to temperate areas, while O. parvula and Egmundella superba Stechow, 1921 are tropical (see original accounts). The morphology and taxonomic position of C. producta were discussed by Schuchert (2016) and Schuchert et al. (2017), respectively. Egmundella grimaldii and E. superba have larger hydrothecae than E. magellanica sp. nov. (see Table 3), E. fasciculata builds polysiphonic colonies (Fraser, 1940), E. grandis has nematothecae on both the stolon and hydrothecal pedicels (Fraser, 1941), and O. parvula has twisted pedicels immediately below the hydrothecal bases (Allman, 1877), a condition never met with neither in the new species, nor in some of its congeners [e.g. E. modesta, see Millard & Bouillon (1975)].

  • Finally, three additional species occur in the Indian Ocean, viz. E. modesta, Egmundella valdiviae Stechow, 1925, and Egmundella sibogae Billard, 1940. As noted above, the closing apparatus of E. modesta may be different from that met with in E. magellanica sp. nov., its hydrothecae are comparatively shorter (see Table 3), and its nematothecae are spherical and sessile (Millard & Bouillon, 1975). Although similar in shape, the gonothecae of E. sibogae are of smaller proportions (see Table 3), and this species is kept separate mainly on biogeographical grounds. Similarly, based on its geographical origin, the new species is considered as distinct from E. valdiviae occurring off West Sumatra.

  • Linking hydroids and medusae under a unified classification and nomenclature can be challenging. However, even though the life cycle of the present hydroid remains to be studied, it has been decided to create a new species for it, mainly because its morphology is different from that of its two other congeners from the eastern Pacific, E. gracilis and E. polynema. In addition, based on biogeographical grounds, it is assumed that the tropical O. parvula, E. superba, E. modesta, E. valdiviae, and E. sibogae, the northwestern Atlantic E. grimaldii, E. fasciculata and E. grandis, as well as the northwestern Pacific O. diaphragmata and E. humilis could reasonably be excluded from the comparison, besides a series of morphological differences displayed by some of them (Table 3). Moreover, Patagonian medusae are poorly known, and the dispersive stage of E. magellanica sp. nov. may well be undescribed.

  • Sampling new material of hydroids and medusae for molecular studies is required to allow sequence comparisons for matching their life cycles (e.g. Schuchert et al., 2017).

  • Distribution: Chile – Región de Magallanes y Antártica Chilena [Bahía Parry (present study)].

  • Table 3 (part).

    Morphological differences between the nominal species with Campanulina-like hydroids and stolonal nematothecae. Measurements in µm. C stands for Cyclocanna Bigelow, 1918, E for Egmundella Stechow, 1921, and O for Oplorhiza Allman, 1877.

    img-z8-3_235.gif

    (continued).

    Morphological differences between the nominal species with Campanulina-like hydroids and stolonal nematothecae. Measurements in µm. C stands for Cyclocanna Bigelow, 1918, E for Egmundella Stechow, 1921, and O for Oplorhiza Allman, 1877.

    img-z9-3_235.gif

    Fig. 6.

    Egmundella magellanica sp. nov. (A) Portion of hydrorhiza with two erect shoots and nematothecae. (B) Detail of a hydrotheca. (C) Gonothecae on short and (D) long pedicels. (E) Stolonal nematothecae, to show variation in shape and size. (F) Cnidome of the hydranth. Scale bars: 10 µm (F), 100 µm (E), 200 µm (B), 500 µm (A, C, D).

    img-z10-1_235.jpg

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    DS and JH are grateful to the scientific divers Mateo Caceres and Hans Bartsch for participation and assistance in the field expeditions. Sampling and sorting the material onboard were inconceivable without the help of Belen Guarda and her team. The field work was supported by the Wildlife Conservation Society. Sincere thanks are due to Drs Dale Calder (Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada) and Peter Schuchert (MHNG, Switzerland) for their thorough reading of the manuscript and their helpful suggestions.

    REFERENCES

    1.

    Allman G.J. 1863. Notes on the Hydroida. I. On the structure of Corymorpha nutans. II. Diagnoses of new species of Tubularidae obtained, during the autumn of 1862, on the coasts of Shetland and Devonshire. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (3)11(61): 1–12. Google Scholar

    2.

    Allman G.J. 1877. Report on the Hydroida collected during the exploration of the Gulf Stream by L. F. de Pourtalès, Assistant United States Coast Survey. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy at Harvard College 5(2): 1–66. Google Scholar

    3.

    Allman G.J. 1888. Report on the Hydroida dredged by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-76. Part II. – The Tubularinae, Corymorphinae, Campanularinae, Sertularinae and Thalamophora. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger during the year 1873-76 , Zoology 23(70): 1–90. Google Scholar

    4.

    Bedot M. 1916. Matériaux pour servir à l'Histoire des Hydroïdes. 5e période (1881-1890). Revue suisse de Zoologie 24(1): 1–394. Google Scholar

    5.

    Bigelow H.B. 1918. Some medusae and siphonophorae from the western Atlantic. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy 62(8): 363–442. Google Scholar

    6.

    Billard A. 1910. Révision d'une partie de la collection des hydroïdes du British Museum. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie (9)11: 1–67. Google Scholar

    7.

    Billard A. 1940. Note sur une espèce nouvelle d'hydroïde: Egmundella sibogae (Campanulinidae). Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France 65: 135–137. Google Scholar

    8.

    Blanco O.M. 1980. Acerca de dos especies del género Symplectoscyphus Stechow, 1924. Neotrópica 26(76): 197–203. Google Scholar

    9.

    Blanco O.M. 1984. Symplectoscyphus marionensis Millard, 1971 (Hydroida Thecata) y sus epizoicos. Revista del Museo de La Plata 13(146): 261–267. Google Scholar

    10.

    Blanco O. 1994a. Claves de familias y géneros para facilitar el reconocimiento de los Hydroida (Leptolina) Athecata, Thecata y Limnomedusae Argentinos (generación polipoide exclusivamente). Revista del Museo de La Plata (Zoología) 14 (160): 147–179. Google Scholar

    11.

    Blanco O. 1994b. Enumeración sistemática y distribución geográfica preliminar de los Hydroida de la República Argentina. Suborden Athecata (Gymnoblastea, Anthomedusae),Thecata(Calyptoblastea,Leptomedusae)yLimnomedusae. Revista del Museo La Plata (Zoología) 14(161): 181–216. Google Scholar

    12.

    Bouillon J., Gravili C., Pagès F., Gili J.M., Boero F. 2006. An introduction to Hydrozoa. Mémoires du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris 194: 1–591. Google Scholar

    13.

    Branch M.L., Williams G.C. 1993. The Hydrozoa, Octocorallia and Scleractinia of subantarctic Marion and Prince Edwards Islands: illustrated keys to the species and results of the 1982-1989 University of Cape Town surveys. South African Journal of Antarctic Research 23(1–2): 3–24. Google Scholar

    14.

    Cornelius P.F.S. 1992. The Azores hydroid fauna and its origin, with discussion of rafting and medusa suppression. Arquipélago 10: 75–99. Google Scholar

    15.

    Coughtrey M. 1875. Notes on the New Zealand Hydroideae. Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand 7: 281–293. Google Scholar

    16.

    D'Orbigny A. 1842 & 1847. Zoophytes. In : Bertrand P. (ed). Voyage dans l'Amérique Méridionale (Le Brésil, La République Orientale de l'Uruguay, La République Argentine, La Patagonie, La République du Chili, La République de Bolivia, La République du Pérou), exécuté pendant les années 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1832 et 1833. Tome V, 4e Partie. M. le Ministre de l'Instruction Publique , Paris , 28 pp. Google Scholar

    17.

    El Beshbeeshy M. 2011. Thekate Hydroiden vom Patagonischen Schelf (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa, Thecata). G. Jarms (ed.). Verhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg 46: 19–233. Google Scholar

    18.

    Fraser C.M. 1936. Some Japanese hydroids, mostly new. II. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, series 3, section V, 30: 49–54. Google Scholar

    19.

    Fraser C.M. 1940. Some hydroids from the California coast, collected in 1939. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada series 3, section 5, 34: 39–44. Google Scholar

    20.

    Fraser C.M. 1941. New species of hydroids, mostly from the Atlantic Ocean, in the United States National Museum. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 91: 77–89. Google Scholar

    21.

    Fraser C.M. 1948. Hydroids of the Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions since March, 1938. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions 4(5): 179–343. Google Scholar

    22.

    Galea H.R. 2007. Hydroids and hydromedusae (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from the fjords region of southern Chile. Zootaxa 1597: 1–116. Google Scholar

    23.

    Galea H.R., Schories D. 2012. Some hydrozoans (Cnidaria) from Central Chile and the Strait of Magellan. Zootaxa 3296: 19–67. Google Scholar

    24.

    Galea H.R., Försterra G., Häussermann V. 2007. Additions to the hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from the fjords region of southern Chile. Zootaxa 1650: 55–68. Google Scholar

    25.

    Galea H.R., Häussermann V., Försterra G. 2009. New additions to the hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from the fjords region of southern Chile. Zootaxa 2019: 1–28. Google Scholar

    26.

    Galea H.R., Schories D., Försterra G., Häussermann V. 2014. New species and new records of hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from Chile. Zootaxa 3852(1): 1–50. Google Scholar

    27.

    Galea H.R., Schories D., Häussermann V., Försterra G. 2017. Taxonomic revision of the genus Sertularella (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from southern South America and the subantarctic, with descriptions of five new species. Revue suisse de Zoologie 124(2): 255–321. Google Scholar

    28.

    Gray J.E. 1848. List of the specimens of British animals in the collection of the British Museum. Part 1. Centroniae or radiated animals. Trustees of the British Museum , London , 173 pp. Google Scholar

    29.

    Hartlaub C. 1901. Revision der Sertularella-Arten. Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der Naturwissenschaften, Hamburg 16(2)(1): 1–143. Google Scholar

    30.

    Hartlaub C. 1905. Die Hydroiden der Magalhaensischen Region und chilenischen Küste. In : Fauna chilensis. Zoologische Jahrbücher , Suppl . 6(3): 497–714. Google Scholar

    31.

    Hincks T. 1868. A history of British hydroid zoophytes. John van Voorst , London , 338 pp. Google Scholar

    32.

    Hirohito, Emperor of Japan. 1995. The hydroids of Sagami Bay. II. Thecata. Publications of the Biological Laboratory, Imperial Household , Tokyo , VII + 244 pp (English text). Google Scholar

    33.

    Jäderholm E. 1903. Aussereuropäische Hydroiden im schwedischen Reichsmuseum. Arkiv för Zoologi 1: 259–312. Google Scholar

    34.

    Lamouroux J.V.F. 1824. Description des polypiers flexibles (pp. 603–643). In : Quoy J.R.C., Gaimard J.P. (eds). Voyage autour du monde, entrepris par ordre du Roi, sous le Ministère et conformément aux instructions de S. Exc. le Vicomte de Bouchage, Secrétaire d'Etat au Département de la Marine, exécuté sur les corvettes de S.M. l'Uranie et la Physicienne, pendant les années 1817, 1818, 1819 et 1820. Zoologie (2e partie). Pillet Aîné , Paris , 712 pp. Google Scholar

    35.

    Leloup E. 1940. Hydropolypes provenant des croisières du Prince Albert Ier de Monaco. Résultats des campagnes scientifiques accomplis sur son yacht par Albert Ier Prince souverain de Monaco 104: 1–39. Google Scholar

    36.

    Marktanner-Turneretscher G. 1890. Die Hydroiden des k. k. naturhistorischen Hofmuseums. Annalen des k. k. Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums 5: 195–286. Google Scholar

    37.

    Maronna M.M., Miranda T.P., Peña Cantero A.L., Barbeitos M.S., Marques A.C. 2016. Towards a phylogenetic classification of Leptothecata (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa). Nature, Scientific Reports 6, 18075. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep18075 Google Scholar

    38.

    Meyen F.J.F. 1834. Über das Leuchten des Meeres und Beschreibung einiger Polypen und anderer niederer Thiere. In : Beiträge zur Zoologie, gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erde. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlichen Leopoldinisch-Carolinischen Akademie der Naturforscher 16 (Suppl.): 125–216. Google Scholar

    39.

    Millard N.A.H. 1971. Hydrozoa (pp. 396–408). In : van Zinderen Bakker E.M., Winterbottom J.M., Dyer R.A. (eds). Marion and Prince Edwards Islands: report on the South African biological and geological expedition, 1965-1966. A.A. Balkema , Cape Town , XI+427 pp. Google Scholar

    40.

    Millard N.A.H., Bouillon J. 1973. Hydroids from the Seychelles (Coelenterata). Annales du Muséum Royal de l'Afrique Centrale 206: 1–105. Google Scholar

    41.

    Millard N.A.H., Bouillon J. 1975. Additional hydroids from the Seychelles. Annals of the South African Museum 69(1): 1–15. Google Scholar

    42.

    Naumov D.V. 1960. Gidroidi i gidromedusy morskikh, solonovatovodnykh i presnovodnykh basseinov SSSR. Opredeleteli po faune SSSR, Izdavaemye Zoologicheskim Institutom Akademii Nauk SSSR 70: 1–626. Google Scholar

    43.

    Naumov D.V. 1969. Hydroids and hydromedusae of the USSR. Israel program for scientific translation , Jerusalem , VI + 631 pp. Google Scholar

    44.

    Pfeffer G. 1889. Zur Fauna von Süd-Georgien. Jahrbuch der Hamburgischen Wissenschaftlichen Anstalten 6(2): 37–55. Google Scholar

    45.

    Sars G.O. 1874. Bidrag til Kundskaben om Norges Hydroider. Forhandlinger i Videnskabs-Selskabet i Kristiania 1873: 91–150. Google Scholar

    46.

    Schuchert P. 2016. On the gonotheca of Egmundella producta (G.O. Sars, 1874) n. comb. (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa). Revue suisse de Zoologie 123(2): 219–225. Google Scholar

    47.

    Schuchert P., Hosia A., Leclère L. 2017. Identification of the polyp stage of three leptomedusa species using DNA barcoding. Revue suisse de Zoologie 124(1): 167–182. Google Scholar

    48.

    Stechow E. 1921. Über Hydroiden der Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition, nebst Bemerkungen über einige andre Formen. Zoologischer Anzeiger 53: 223–236. Google Scholar

    49.

    Stechow E. 1923. Zur Kenntnis des Hydroidenfauna des Mittelmeeres, Amerikas und anderer Gebiete. II. Teil. Zoologische Jahrbücher 47(1): 29–270. Google Scholar

    50.

    Stechow E. 1925. Hydroiden der Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition auf dem Dampfer „Valdivia“1898-1899 27: 383–546. Google Scholar

    51.

    Vervoort W. 1972. Hydroids from the Theta, Vema and Yelcho cruises of the Lamont-Doherty geological observatory. Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden 120: 1–247. Google Scholar
    Horia R. Galea, Dirk Schories, and Jorge Holtheuer "Three new records of hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from southern Chile," Revue suisse de Zoologie 126(2), 235-247, (1 January 2020). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3463457
    Accepted: 11 July 2019; Published: 1 January 2020
    JOURNAL ARTICLE
    13 PAGES


    Share
    SHARE
    KEYWORDS
    Chilean Patagonia
    fjords
    Southeast Pacific
    taxonomy
    RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
    Get copyright permission
    Back to Top