Neoturris breviconis
Creators: name: Schuchert, Peter
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2018
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Cnidaria
Hydrozoa
Anthoathecata
Pandeidae
Neoturris
Neoturris breviconis

description: Neoturris breviconis (Murbach & Shaerer, 1902)
Fig. 10 A-E
Turris breviconis Murbach & Shearer, 1902: 73. – Murbach & Shearer, 1903: 170, pl. 18 figs 1-2. – Mayer, 1910: 127.
in part Leuckartiara brevicornis. – Hartlaub, 1914: 304, figs 254-256. [subsequent incorrect spelling]
not Leuckartiara breviconis. ‒ Kramp & Damas, 1925: 280. [= Neoturris pileata (Forsskål, 1775)]
in part or not Leuckartiara breviconis. – Kramp, 1926: 80, pl. 2 fig. 8. ‒ Russell, 1953: 198, pl. 12 fig. 2. – Kramp, 1959: 120, fig. 121. – Kramp, 1961: 103. – Kramp, 1968: 4, fig. 124. – Russell, 1970: 246.
not Perigonimus breviconis. – Naumov, 1969: 204, fig. 72. [= Catablema multicirratum]
Neoturris breviconis. – Arai & Brinckmann-Voss, 1980: 57, figs 31-33, new combination.
in part Neoturris breviconis. – Schuchert, 2007: 338, fig. 61A- B, not 61C-E.
Type locality: St. Paul Island, Pribilof Islands, Bering Sea.
Material examined: MHNG-INVE-82207, 1 mature specimen in ethanol; Canada, Vancouver Island, 49.0.467°-124.5018°, 0 m depth; collection date 21.05.2012; leg. M. Galbraith. ‒ Several specimens, not in permanent collection; USA, San Juan Island, Friday Harbor, 48.54514°-123.01206°, 0-0.5 m depth, collection date 16.05.2011; DNA isolates 949 and 882, photos Fig. 10, see also Table 1.
Presumed Atlantic material was examined for the publication Schuchert (2007).
Diagnosis: Neoturris medusa up to 45 mm high, broad, cylindrical bell, without or with shallow apical process, no exumbrellar ridges with nematocysts, manubrium voluminous, about half or less the height of subumbrella, 90-140 tentacles of similar size, interradial gonad region with 5-20 pits per quadrant, no papillae on gonads, radial canals jagged. Manubrium orange-brown sometimes with dark pigment granules at surface of gonads.
Description: Medusa up to 45 mm high and 35 mm wide, bell often rather cylindrical, top evenly rounded or with a shallow apical projection. Without exumbrellar ridges with nematocysts. Apical canal above manubrium absent or very thin. Aboral subumbrella often with distinct interradial pockets.
Manubrium broad and voluminous, about half the height of subumbrella or less; mesenteries variable in length, usually 1/3 of manubrium height; mouth margin crenulated or finely folded, perradial corners of often drawn out into long processes (Fig. 10A, D). Gonad tissue in upper two thirds of manubrium wall, this region with rows of horizontal folds along the radial canals, about 20 such folds per row, folds thick, and somewhat irregular, some also branched, most folds do not appear directed towards interradial (only those close to top, Fig. 10E), interradial region of gonads rather narrow and depressed, with 5-20 pits per quadrant. If disturbed, the animal can contract the manubrium, resulting in a temporary horizontal fold that looks like a connection of the gonadfolds as seen in the genus Leuckartiara (Fig. 10D).
Radial canals jagged and very broad. Ring canal smooth, broad. Up to 140 tentacles, densely crowded, no rudimentary tentacles but some smaller tentacles in development. Marginal tentacle bulbs elongated, laterally compressed conical and tapering rapidly, base grasping margin with or without abaxial spur (Fig. 10B), no ocelli. Tentacles without permanent row of folds.
Color of living specimens, gonads and manubrium pale orange-brown, surface of gonads sometimes with dark red to purple pigment granules (Fig. 10 D-E).
Younger animals with short gonad-zone, low number of shallow folds, few interradial pits (figures 31-32 in Arai & Brinckmann-Voss (1980).
Hydroid not known.
Remarks: When describing N. breviconis, Murbach & Shearer (1903) already noted the similarity of this species to N. pileata, but the illustration depicting the medusa seen from the side was somewhat inaccurate and they did not mention the interradial pits. In his revision of the Pandeidae, Hartlaub (1914) deplored these inaccuracies, but hesitatingly also attributed some badly preserved medusae from the northern North Sea to this species. His specimens were smaller (23 mm in height) and the gonad folds resembled more the ones in the genus Leuckartiara. Therefore, he introduced the new combination Leuckartiara breviconis (Murbach & Shaerer, 1902). There were no ocelli present, but his material had been preserved for a long time and the pigment of ocelli disappears after a few months in formalin. Later, also Kramp (1926, 1959) and Russell (1953) thought to have found Atlantic specimens of this species. Their illustrations, however, were not N. breviconis. Schuchert (2007, 2012), after re-examination of some of Hartlaub’s and Kramp’s medusae, found that they are unlikely N. breviconis, perhaps rather large Leuckartiara nobilis, other Neoturris, or Catablema species.
After examination of medusae from the NE Pacific, Arai & Brinckmann-Voss (1980) found that the species closely resembles N. pileata (gonad structure, absence of ocelli) and they transferred it from the genus Leuckartiara to the genus Neoturris.
Living Neoturris breviconis originating from the NE Pacific (Fig. 10) look quite distinct from typical N. pileata (Figs 3-6), but the diagnostic differences are much more difficult to formulate, in particular also criteria that can be used for preserved material. Neoturris breviconis can be distinguished from N. pileata by the broader shape of the exumbrella, the relatively short manubrium, the smaller number of interradial pits on the manubrium (5-20 versus> 20 per quadrant), and the higher number of tentacles (fully grown 90-140 tentacles versus 60- 80). Additionally, the apical projection if present is smaller, the adradial gonadal folds not clearly directed towards interradii (except the most aboral ones), and the tentacles bases may have short abaxial spurs. The 16S and COI sequence data clearly separate N. pileata and N. breviconis (Figs 8-9).
While it is well possible that N. breviconis is also present in the Atlantic, currently available evidence is insufficient to establish its presence in the Atlantic. New, living samples must be examined and ideally also their 16S or COI sequences compared with the data presented here.
There exist a few other, little known Pacific Neoturris species which are best distinguished using Kramp (1968).
description: Published as part of Schuchert, Peter, 2018, DNA barcoding of some Pandeidae species (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa, Anthoathecata), pp. 101-127 in Revue suisse de Zoologie 125 (1) on pages 111-116, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1196029