Leocrates Kinberg 1866
Creators: name: Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Annelida
Polychaeta
Phyllodocida
Hesionidae
Leocrates

description: Leocrates Kinberg, 1866 restricted
Leocrates Kinberg, 1866: 244, 1910: 57; Grube 1878: 105 (partim, Lamprophaes jun. syn.), 1880: 224 (partim, Lamprophaes, Tyrrhena jun. syn.), 228 (species list); von Marenzeller 1904: 308 (Dalhousia jun. syn.); McIntosh 1908: 130 (Tyrrhena jun. syn.); Augener 1918: 219 (Lamprophaes, Tyrrhena, Dalhousia jun. syn.); Chamberlin 1919: 185 (Lamprophaes, Tyrrhena, Dalhousia jun. syn.); Horst 1921: 80-81 (Lamprophaes, Tyrrhena, Dalhousia jun. syn.), 1924: 193; Fauvel 1923: 235 (Tyrrhena, Dalhousia jun. syn.), 1932: 61, 1947a: 31, 1953b: 105; Day 1967: 230; Pettibone 1970: 213-214 (Lamprophaes, Tyrrhena, Lamproderma Grube, 1877, and Dalhousia jun. syn.); Fauchald 1977: 76; Campoy 1982: 214; Pleijel 1998: 108-109 (Lamprophaes, Tyrrhena, Lamproderma, Dalhousia jun. syn., 159-160); Parapar et al. 2004: 218 (diagn.); Wang et al. 2018: 3 (key to species).
Tyrrhena Claparède, 1868: 537; Roule 1906:51–52 [Type species: Tyrrhena claparedii Costa in Claparède, 1868, by monotypy. Junior synonym of Leocrates fide Gravier, 1900: 174; McIntosh, 1908: 130; Chamberlin, 1919:190; Horst, 191: 80].
Lamproderma Grube, 1877: 525 [Type species: Lamproderma longicirre Grube, 1877, by monotypy. Junior homonym of Lam- proderma Rostafinski, 1873 (Protozoa) and junior synonym of Leocrates fide Pleijel, 1998:108].
Type species: Leocrates chinensis Kinberg, 1866, by monotypy.
Diagnosis (modified after Wang et al. 2018). Hesioninae with two lateral antennae, and one median antenna on dorsal prostomial surface. Palps biarticulate, palpophores large, massive, palpostyles smaller, blunt. Eyes dark, black or brown, usually anterior ones larger than posterior ones, sometimes approaching each other in lateral view. Nuchal organs lobes horizontal C-shaped, posterior ciliated bands close to each other. Pharynx with single, fang-shaped upper and lower jaws. Parapodia sesquiramous along a few anterior chaetigers, biramous thereafter. Notochaetae from chaetiger 5, subdistally denticulate, delicate, sometimes abundant, size variable, never reaching neurochaetal tips. Neurochaetae compound falcigers, blades bidentate, guards approaching subdistal tooth.
Etymology. Taxonomists of XIX and early XX centuries, as most educated citizens of those times, were well acquainted with Latin as well as with Greek history and mythology. This could explain why the etymology for new taxa was rarely explained in taxonomic publications. Inserting a section for explaining the meaning of the new names started in the late XIX and early XX centuries. Among polychaete specialists, Johnson (1897) and Chamberlin (1919) were the first to introduce explanations for names derived from Greek or Latin, but not for demonyms, or names derived after geographical locations. A few precedent authors such as Grube, Levinsen, Schmarda, and Willey used a Latin diagnosis for their new taxa, and sometimes a complete Latin description, such that these statements might be regarded as indirect etymologies. Consequently, because of this widespread lack of etymological sections, we should often guess about the meaning of the newly proposed taxa names.
In Leocrates Kinberg, 1866, we have two alternatives to assess its etymology. One deals with a soldier that had a relevant role during the fight between Athens and Aegina in 458 BC, and probably also in the First Peloponnesian War (431 BC). The other deals with a blacksmith that left Athens in 338 BC, soon after the Macedonians took the city. The blacksmith was charged on treason by Lycurgus, in a speech that was regarded as “the perfect school text” or as “one of the most idiosyncratic and non-representative texts in the classical Athenian oratorical corpus” (Allen 2000: 6). There were several editions available during Kinberg’s lifetime (some available in Google include Maetzner 1836). One can further speculate that if the holotype was alive, the name might proceed from the latter alternative if Kinberg regarded its fast movements as an escaping behavior. Ehlers (1908) introduced Leocratides to indicate its resemblance to Leocrates by adding the Greek suffix –ide, from – eidos: resembling (Jaeger 1932: 73; Brown 1956: 432). The species of Leocratides have sesquiramous parapodia, instead of biramous ones, as is the case in Leocrates.
As indicated above, there are two alternatives for the origin of the name, both based upon male Ancient Greek citizens. Because there are many Greek names used as such for genus-group names, there is no need to modify this name.
Gender. Masculine.
Remarks. Leocrates Kinberg, 1866 with Leocrates chinensis Kinberg, 1866 as its type species, and Tyrrhena Claparède, 1868, with T. claparedii Costa in Claparède, 1868, as its type species, both match the diagnosis for the restricted Leocrates as herein defined. This synonymy was proposed by Gravier (1900: 174), McIntosh (1908: 130), Chamberlin (1919: 190), and Horst (191: 80). Further, Lamproderma Grube, 1877, with L. longicirre Grube, 1877, as its type species was described based on a small specimen from New Britain Island, Papua New Guinea. The genus was diagnosed (Grube 1877: 525) as resembling Hesione -like genera but differed by having biarticulate palps, two antennae, 3 pairs of tentacular cirri, pharynx with upper and lower jaws, sesquiramous and biramous parapodia, with simple notochaetae and compound neurochaetae. Pleijel (1998: 108) studied the type specimen and correctly concluded it was a junior synonym of Leocrates; he also regarded its type species as a junior synonym of Leocrates chinensis Kinberg, 1866. The type specimen of L. longicirre (ZMB 905) is in poor condition (three parapodia in one slide are of little help, one was dried-out before mounting; the two others are mounted vertically). The holotype consists of two fragments, an anterior one 5 mm long, 1.5 mm wide, 6/7 chaetigers, and a posterior one 5 mm long, 1.5 mm wide, 6 chaetigers (middle segments are missing). The prostomium has lateral antennae as long as palps, palpophores are slightly longer than palpostyles, which is common in juvenile specimens, and prostomial surface does not show any trace of median antennae (even after Shirlastain-A staining), nor eyes, and the original description indicated anterior eyes were larger than posterior ones. Nuchal organs lobes are horizontal C-shaped lobes, matching Leocrates as herein restricted. There are four pairs of tentacular cirri, indicated by their bases, and notochaetae start in chaetiger 5 (not 4 as originally indicated). The notacicular lobe is tapered with notochaetae long, slightly shorter than neurochaetae, with fine denticulation. Neurochaetal blades are bidentate, with guards approach- ing subdistal tooth, and blades are very long to short, 2–15 times longer than wide. These features are also present in other tropical Western Pacific species which are newly described below, but the lack of details for eye size and shape, together with the relative size and position of the median antenna, missing since the original description, indicates this species should be regarded as indeterminable. In addition, Lamproderma Grube, 1877 (Annelida) is a junior homonym of Lamproderma Rostafinski, 1873 (Protozoa), and a junior synonym of Leocrates after Pleijel (1998: 108). The synonyms of Tyrrhena and Lamproderma with Leocrates are herein confirmed especially regarding the type of nuchal organs lobes, pharynx armature, parapodial features, and type of neurochaetal blades.
As indicated above, the synonymy of Lamprophaea Grube, 1867, and Dalhousia McIntosh, 1885 must be rejected based on the differences of nuchal organs lobes, and pharynx armature.
description: Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2020, Revision of Leocrates Kinberg, 1866 and Leocratides Ehlers, 1908 (Annelida, Errantia, Hesionidae), pp. 1-114 in Zootaxa 4739 (1) on pages 46-48, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4739.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3672547