Universitt Rostock, Institut fr Biowissenschaften, Allgemeine und Spezielle Zoologie, Universittsplatz 2, 18055 Rostock, Germany.
Institut fr Angewandte kosystemforschung GmbH, Alte Dorfstrae 11, 18184 Broderstorf, Germany. .
Zootaxa. 2022 Aug 11;5174(4):357-380. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.5174.4.3.
This paper aims mainly to provide clarity on the morphological characters of the type species of Ampharete, Ampharete acutifrons (Grube, 1860). Its common occurrence and wide distribution are most likely a result of misidentification of different species. Possible reasons for that are the brief original description of this species that is available solely in Latin and a series of questionable synonymizations, resulting in a confusing history of A. acutifrons. In addition to a detailed redescription of the holotype of A. acutifrons, we describe an Ampharete species from the Baltic Sea that has also been incorrectly identified as A. acutifrons for many decades. The individuals of this species agree in all diagnostic characters with those of the Northwest Atlantic species Ampharete cirrata Webster Benedict, 1887. Since no differences were found, but it is clearly distinct from A. acutifrons, A. cirrata is recognised as a valid species and consequently deleted from the synonym list of A. acutifrons. We additionally examined type material of A. grubei Malmgren, 1865 and those of A. grubei baltica Eliason, 1955, now accepted as A. baltica. According to this, both species are valid, and A. grubei must therefore also be deleted from the list of synonyms of A. acutifrons. Information on five molecular markers (Histone H3, COI, 16S, 18S, 28S) is provided for A. cirrata from the Baltic Sea. DNA sequences (H3, 16S, 28S) were identical to sequences of a specimen found in Iceland that was incorrectly determined as A. acutifrons, supporting the assumption of an amphiatlantic distribution of A. cirrata. By comparing obtained sequences to available sequences in GenBank and BOLD, we found evidence that at least four species were previously misidentified as A. acutifrons. The historical course of the taxonomy of A. acutifrons demonstrates the importance of carefully studying type material and type locality material, respectively. We believe that most previous records and synonyms of A. acutifrons have been identified incorrectly and should be re-evaluated. Additionally, an updated key to all species of Ampharete from the North Atlantic is provided.
本文旨在阐明 Ampharete 模式种 Ampharete acutifrons (Grube, 1860) 的形态特征。其广泛分布和常见出现很可能是由于对不同物种的误识别。造成这种情况的可能原因是该物种的原始描述非常简短，仅以拉丁语提供，并且存在一系列有问题的同义词化，导致 A. acutifrons 的历史非常混乱。除了详细重新描述 A. acutifrons 的模式标本外，我们还描述了一种来自波罗的海的 Ampharete 物种，该物种也被错误地鉴定为 A. acutifrons 已有几十年了。该物种的个体在所有诊断特征上都与西北大西洋的 Ampharete cirrata Webster Benedict, 1887 相符。由于没有发现差异，但它显然与 A. acutifrons 不同，因此 A. cirrata 被确认为有效种，并从 A. acutifrons 的同义词列表中删除。我们还检查了 A. grubei Malmgren, 1865 和 A. grubei baltica Eliason, 1955 的模式标本，现在被认为是 A. baltica。根据这一结果，这两个物种都是有效的，因此 A. grubei 也必须从 A. acutifrons 的同义词列表中删除。提供了来自波罗的海的 Ampharete cirrata 的五个分子标记（组蛋白 H3、COI、16S、18S、28S）的信息。DNA 序列（H3、16S、28S）与在冰岛发现的一个被错误鉴定为 A. acutifrons 的标本的序列相同，支持 Ampharete cirrata 具有泛大西洋分布的假设。通过将获得的序列与 GenBank 和 BOLD 中的可用序列进行比较，我们发现有证据表明至少有四个物种以前被错误鉴定为 A. acutifrons。A. acutifrons 分类学史表明，仔细研究模式标本和模式产地标本的重要性。我们认为，以前大多数关于 A. acutifrons 的记录和同义词都被错误识别，应该重新评估。此外，还提供了北大西洋所有 Ampharete 物种的更新钥匙。
