Amage Malmgren 1866
Creators: name: Schiaparelli, Stefano
name: Jirkov, Igor A.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2021
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Annelida
Polychaeta
Terebellida
Ampharetidae
Amage

description: Genus Amage Malmgren, 1866
Paramage Caullery, 1944: 94,
type species Paramage madurensis Caullery, 1944.
Egamella Fauchald, 1972: 292,
type species Egamella quadribranchiata Fauchald, 1972.
Mexamage Fauchald, 1972: 309–310,
type species Mexamage corrugata Fauchald, 1972.
Type species (by monotypy) and type locality
Amage auricula Malmgren, 1866: 371, pl. XXV, fig. 72. Type locality: Bohuslan, Sweden, 183–220 m (“Koster Bahusiae haud rara prof. 100–120 orgyiar. fundo argill”).
Diagnosis (amended)
PROSTOMIUM. Prostomium trilobed, middle lobe anteriorly incised or with horns, without longitudinal ridges, with couple of nuchal organs at posterior margin of middle lobe. Lower lip not enlarged and longitudinally grooved.
THORAX. Dorsal ridges absent.
NOTOPODIA. Modified notopodia absent.
NEUROPODIA. Neuropodia of two types: all thoracic of tori, all abdominal pinnuli, enlarged neuropodia absent.
PALEAE. Paleae usually absent, seldom present, but poorly developed.
BRANCHIAE. 3–4 pairs, if four pairs of branchiae are present, these are arranged nearly segmentally with 2 pairs on segment 3 and 1 pair on each S4 and S5 (2+1+1). When branchiae are in three pairs only, it is the S5 lacking these.
ABDOMEN. Abdominal rudimental notopodia well developed, but not enlarged. Number of AU 7–21, usually constant for species.
Remarks
The presence of nuchal organs has been mentioned for Amage by Moore (1923), Hilbig (2000), Schüller & Jirkov (2013) and Reuschert et al. (2015). Hilbig (2000) modified the diagnosis of Amage to include NO. However, none investigated the type species of Amage, i.e., Amage auricula Malmgren, 1866. The types of A. auricula are lost (Holthe 1986), but more than 2000 specimens of this species from about 200 localities from the North Polar Basin (see map in Jirkov 2001: 451), including specimens near the type locality, have been investigated. In all these specimens there are well developed NO, well recognizable in the stained specimen reported in Fig. 1B.
Hilbig (2000) and Reuscher et al. (2015) included in generic diagnosis of Amage the presence of smooth buccal tentacles. In the case of the new species herein described, BT are obviously not smooth but, at the same time, this species is beyond any doubt an Amage. Therefore, we consider that the shape of BT cannot be included into the generic diagnosis of Amage. This consideration should also be extended to the definition of other ampharetid genera, as was already suggested by Jirkov (2011).
Jirkov (2011) proposed Egamella Fauchald, 1972, Mexamage Fauchald, 1972, Paramage Caullery, 1944 and Phyllampharete Hartman & Fauchald, 1971 as junior synonyms of Amage. Reuscher et al. (2015) accepted synonymy of the first three genera but rejected the synonymy of Phyllampharete. We agree with Reuscher et al. (2015) and hence Phyllampharete is not included in the list of Amage synonyms here either.
The taxonomic status of Amage anops perfecta Moore, 1923 is unclear. The author of the species described the status as follows: “This species, at first thought to be distinct under the name A. perfecta, is now regarded as identical with Johnson’s species [A. anops] or at most as only a subspecies” (Moore 1923: 210) and a taxon never described as new species. Since then, the type material has not been reexamined.
A list of species (23 in total) belonging to the genus Amage as above diagnosed (original names are given; the type species is marked with an asterisk):
Amage anops Johnson, 1901: 424–425, pl. 15, figs 157–161, pl. 16, figs 162–163.
Amage arieticornuta Moore, 1923: 207–210, pl. XVII, figs 14–18.
Amage asiaticus Uschakov, 1955: 378, fig. 140a–d.
* Amage auricula Malmgren, 1866: 371, pl. XXV, fig. 72.
Amage auricula sibogae Caullery, 1944: 92–94, fig. 76.
Amage benhami Reuscher, Fiege & Wehe, 2009: 21–22, fig. 1a–g.
Amage ehlersi Reuscher, Fiege & Imajima, 2015: 1107–1108, figs 2a–h, 13b.
Amage gallasi Marion, 1875: 308.
Amage imajimai Reuscher, 2015: 3–5, fig.1.
Amage longibranchiata Hartman, 1960: 153–154, pl. 17.
Amage longitorus Reuscher, Fiege & Imajima, 2015: 1108–1109, figs 3a–g, 13c.
Amage micropaleata Schüller & Jirkov, 2013: 210–213, figs 3–5.
Amage pusilla Verrill, 1873: 319.
Amage scotica Clark, 1952: 19–21, fig. 4.
Amage sculpta Ehlers, 1908: 141–143, pl. XX, figs 1–9.
Amage scutata Moore, 1923: 210–212, pl. XVII, figs 19–24.
Amage tumida Ehlers, 1887: 220–225, pl. 48, figs 10–19.
Egamella quadribranchiata Fauchald, 1972: 295–296, pl. 60, fig. a.
Mexamaqe corrugata Fauchald, 1972: 310–312, pl. 65, figs a–c.
Paramage madurensis Caullery, 1944: 94–97, fig. 76.
Paramage tasmanensis Holthe, 2000: 63–64, fig. 5.
Sabellides adspersa Grube, 1863: 57–58, pl. VI, fig. 2.
Sabellides delus Chamberlin, 1919: 455–456, pl. 77, fig. 13.
Species removed from the genus Amage as above diagnosed:
Amage septemdecima Schüller & Jirkov, 2013 (now transferred to Amythas Benham, 1921, see below).
description: Published as part of Schiaparelli, Stefano & Jirkov, Igor A., 2021, Contribution to the taxonomic knowledge of Ampharetidae (Annelida) from Antarctica with the description of Amage giacomobovei sp. nov., pp. 125-145 in European Journal of Taxonomy 733 on pages 127-129, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2021.733.1227, http://zenodo.org/record/4529795