Filellum annulatum Watson 1973

Abstract

<i>Filellum annulatum</i> (Watson, 1973) <p> <i>Reticularia annulata</i> Watson, 1973: 164, figs. 5–6.</p> <p> <i>Filellum annulatum</i>: El Beshbeeshy 1991: 71 –73, figs. 15a–b; Peña Cantero <i>et al.</i> 1998: 299. Non <i>Corystolona annulata</i>: Watson 2002: 334 –335, figs. 1a–e.</p> <p> <b>Type series.</b> Holotype—“ NMV G1922, microslide; G2091, preserved material, remainder of holotype colony–S [denoting the sheltered side of Pearson Island], 17 m, on a small calcareous bryozoa” (Watson 1973: 164). Type material was not examined.</p> <p> <b>Type locality.</b> From the holotype, sheltered side of Pearson Island, Great Australian Bight (Watson 1973).</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> Watson (1973) described and figured <i>Reticularia annulata</i> as a new species assigned to the family Lafoeidae. When <i>Reticularia</i> was recognized as a preoccupied name for a brachiopod, the species referred to this genus were assigned to the genus <i>Filellum</i> by Peña Cantero <i>et al.</i> (1998) (see discussion above). Watson (1973: 164) characterized her species “by the close thecal rings […] of uniform size, and the distance between them varies little along the entire length of the hydrotheca. They have developed by continuous apical reduplication during growth of the hydrotheca, the flange of each rib being a relict margin”.</p> <p> Peña Cantero <i>et al.</i> (1998: 299) considered <i>Reticularia annulata</i> Watson, 1973 actually to belong to the pterobranch hemichordate genus <i>Rhabdopleura</i>, but the authors gave no arguments supporting their conclusion. <i>Filellum annulatum</i> was subsequently recorded from Patagonia and redescribed in the dissertation of El Beshbeeshy (1991), including details and figure of the hydranth. El Beshbeeshy’s data undoubtedly refer to a hydroid and, most likely, to a species of <i>Filellum</i>. Whether the specimens assigned to <i>F. annulatum</i> by El Beshbeeshy are conspecific to the geographically distant material originally described by Watson is open to question.</p> <p> Watson (2002) proposed the new hydroid genus <i>Corystolona,</i> assigned it to the family Clavidae, and mistakenly placed it in “Leptothecatae”. The holotype of the type species of <i>Corystolona annulata</i> (Watson, 1973) is NMV G1922, as described by her in 1973. However, Watson (2002: 333) also collected “Abundant colonies of a hydroid previously described as <i>Reticularia annulata</i> Watson, 1973 ” and, based on this new material [(see Watson 2002: 334: “Description (of Tasmanian material)”], redescribed and provided illustrations (her Figure 1) of a specimen that is undoubtedly a member of “ Clavidae ” (today considered part of family Oceaniidae, see Schuchert 2009). The rationale of the redescription and new assignment was that “the small sample of <i>Reticularia annulata</i> from Pearson Island in the eastern Great Australian Bight had deeply withdrawn, partly decomposed, sterile hydranths and disposition of the specimen on the bryozoan host was such that the bases of the hydrocauli were obscured; the specimen was thus mistakenly referred to <i>Reticularia</i> Thomson, 1853 (junior synonym, <i>Filellum</i> Hincks, 1868). The smaller dimension of the type compared with those of the present specimens is almost certainly due [to] its being a young, infertile colony while the Tasmanian material ranges from young to aged” (Watson 2002: 334). The dimensions of perisarc of the two specimens are obviously different, as well as their trophosomal morphology. Watson (2002) neither remarked about the reassignment of her species made by Peña Cantero <i>et al.</i> (1998) as a hemichordate, nor its subsequent redescription by El Beshbeeshy (1991).</p> <p> We believe that the two papers by Watson describe different species; the 1973 one being a <i>Filellum</i>, and the 2002 one being a species of Anthoathecata and indeed a new species of Oceaniidae.</p> <p> However, once Watson (2002) explicitly considered <i>Corystolona annulata</i> as linked to the holotype NMV G1922, both the species and generic name shall not be considered for nomenclatural purposes, because the holotype was intended to be a <i>Filellum</i>, not an oceaniid. Therefore, we consider <i>F. annulatum</i> a valid name based on the holotype material NMV G1922 (a microslide, and the remainder preserved material of the holotype colony NMV G2091). The Tasmanian material NMV F91280 (malinol mounted microslide, female colony, Port of Launceston, Tasmania, colonies from bryozoans on wharf pilings 1–4 m, Aquenal Pty Ltd, May, 2001, see Watson 2002: 334) undoubtedly represents a species of Corydendriinae (sensu Schuchert, 2004), and perhaps even the genus <i>Corydendrium</i> van Beneden, 1844, whose description was emended as “erect, branching or stolonal hydroid colonies […]” (Schuchert, 2004: 335), therefore encompassing the diagnostic character “strictly stolonal colonies” (Watson, 2002: 334) presented by <i>Corystolona</i>.</p>Published as part of <i>Marques, Antonio C., Peña, Álvaro L., Miranda, Thaís P. & Migotto, Alvaro E., 2011, Revision of the genus Filellum Hincks, 1868 (Lafoeidae, Leptothecata, Hydrozoa), pp. 1-28 in Zootaxa 3129</i> on pages 7-8, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/206783">10.5281/zenodo.206783</a&gt