4.4 Article

Redescription of Emplectonema viride ? a ubiquitous intertidal hoplonemertean found along the West Coast of North America

期刊

ZOOKEYS
卷 -, 期 1031, 页码 1-17

出版社

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1031.59361

关键词

Cryptic species; marine diversity; Nemertea; species delimitation

类别

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2019/10375-8]
  2. NSF [OCE-1030453]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides evidence that Emplectonema viride is distinct from Emplectonema gracile and re-describes E. viride to improve nomenclatural stability. The resurrection of E. viride as the type species of the genus Emplectonema is proposed following Corr?a's designation.
Emplectonema viride Stimpson, 1857, a barnacle predator, is one of the most common and conspicuous intertidal nemerteans found along the West Coast of North America from Alaska to California, but it is currently referred to by the wrong name. Briefly described without designation of type material or illustrations, the species was synonymized with the Atlantic look-alike, Emplectonema gracile (Johnston, 1837) by Coe. Here we present morphological and molecular evidence that E. viride is distinct from E. gracile. The two species exhibit differences in color of live specimens and egg size and are clearly differentiated with species delimitation analyses based on sequences of the partial regions of the 16S rRNA and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I genes. In order to improve nomenclatural stability, we re-describe E. viride based on specimens from the southern coast of Oregon and discuss which species should be the type species of the genus. Emplectonema viride was one of the two species originally included in the genus Emplectonema Stimpson, 1857, but subsequent synonymization of E. viride with E. gracile resulted in acceptance of the Atlantic species, E. gracile, as the type species of the genus. We resurrect E. viride Stimpson, 1857 and following Corr?a?s designation, this should be the type species of the genus Emplectonema.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据