Simon Carol, Kara Jyothi, du Toit Alheit, van Rensburg Hendré, Naidoo Caveshlin, Matthee Conrad A
Department of Botany and Zoology, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa.
Research and Exhibitions, Iziko Museums of South Africa, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa.
PeerJ. 2021 Aug 20;9:e11847. doi: 10.7717/peerj.11847. eCollection 2021.
Common names are frequently used inconsistently for marine annelid species used as bait in the peer-reviewed literature, field guides and legislative material. The taxonomy of many such species based on morphology only also ignores cryptic divergences not yet detected. Such inconsistencies hamper effective management of marine annelids, especially as fishing for recreation and subsistence is increasing. This study investigates the scale of the problem by studying the use and names of bait marine annelids in the Western Cape Province of South Africa.
Fifteen recreational and six subsistence fishers at 12 popular fishing sites in the Western Cape Province donated 194 worms which they identified by common name. Worms were assigned scientific names according to a standard identification key for polychaetes from South Africa, and mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I (COI) amplified and sequenced.
This study identified 11 nominal species known by 10 common names, in the families Siphonosomatidae, Arenicolidae, Sabellaridae, Lumbrineridae, Eunicidae, Onuphidae and Nereididae. Cryptic diversity was investigated through employing mitochondrial COI sequences and these data will facilitate future identifications among widely distributed species. Several species (, , species, , , , ) are reported as bait for the first time, and while the names blood- and moonshineworms were consistently applied to members of Arenicolidae and Onuphidae, respectively, coralworm was applied to members of Sabellaridae and Nereididae. Analysis of COI sequences supported morphological investigations that revealed the presence of two taxonomic units each for specimens initially identified as and according to identification keys. Similarly, sequences for species and generated in this study do not match those from specimens in China and India, respectively. Further research is required to resolve the species complexes detected and also to refine the use of names by fishermen over a wider geographic range.
在同行评审文献、野外指南和立法材料中，用作鱼饵的海洋环节动物物种的常用名称经常使用不一致。许多此类仅基于形态学的物种分类也忽略了尚未检测到的隐性差异。这种不一致阻碍了对海洋环节动物的有效管理，尤其是随着休闲和自给性捕鱼活动的增加。本研究通过研究南非西开普省用作鱼饵的海洋环节动物的使用情况和名称来调查该问题的规模。
西开普省12个热门捕鱼地点的15名休闲渔民和6名自给性渔民捐赠了194条蠕虫，他们通过常用名称对其进行了识别。根据南非多毛类动物的标准鉴定密钥为蠕虫指定科学名称，并对线粒体细胞色素氧化酶I（COI）进行扩增和测序。
本研究在管体虫科、沙蠋科、缨鳃虫科、索沙蚕科、矶沙蚕科、蛰龙介科和沙蚕科中鉴定出11个标称物种，它们有10个常用名称。通过使用线粒体COI序列研究了隐性多样性，这些数据将有助于未来对广泛分布物种的识别。首次报道了几种物种（、、物种、、、、）用作鱼饵，虽然“血虫”和“月光虫”的名称分别一直用于沙蠋科和蛰龙介科的成员，但“珊瑚虫”用于缨鳃虫科和沙蚕科的成员。COI序列分析支持形态学研究，该研究表明，根据鉴定密钥最初鉴定为和的标本分别存在两个分类单元。同样，本研究中生成的物种和的序列分别与来自中国和印度的标本序列不匹配。需要进一步研究来解决检测到的物种复合体问题，并在更广泛的地理范围内完善渔民对名称的使用。
