Piromis capulata Moore 1909, n. comb.
Creators: name: Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2011
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Annelida
Polychaeta
Terebellida
Flabelligeridae
Piromis
Piromis capulata

description: Piromis capulata (Moore, 1909) n. comb.
Figure 4
Trophonia capulata Moore, 1909a:284 –286, Pl. 9, Figs. 60–61; Stasek, 1966:12; Loi, 1980:138.
Pherusa capulata: Hartman, 1969:295 –296, Figs. 1–2; Fauchald, 1972:414; Blake, 2000:1314, Fig. 1.5. Piromis roberti: Spies, 1975:188, 191, 192, Pl. 3, Fig. 5 (non Hartman, 1951).
Piromis capulata: Spies, 1975:188, 191, 192, Pl. 4, Figs. 12–13, Pl. 5, Figs. 15–16; Pl. 7, Figs. 23, 25, 26 (informal n. comb.).
Type material. Eastern Pacific Ocean. Holotype (CAS-19721) collected in San Diego Bay, San Diego, California, intertidal, Dec. 1902, E.C. Starks, coll.
Additional material. Eastern Pacific Ocean. Two anterior fragments (LACM-AHF-2510), R/V Velero III, Sta. 1030 (27°39ʹ0 5ʺ N, 114°54ʹ47ʺ W to 27°39ʹ12ʺ N, 114°54ʹ12ʺ W), off Turtle Bay, Baja California, México, 26–31 fathoms, gray sand, mud, 18 Jan. 1940 (dorsal tubercles in chaetigers 2–6). One specimen (ECOSUR-7/ 1987), complete, Punta Las Rosas, Todos Santos Bay, Ensenada, Baja California, in eelgrass (Phyllospadix scouleri Hooker) root masses, low intertidal, 30 Jul. 1987, SISV, coll. (anterior end exposed, pale). One specimen (ECO- SUR-12/1981), complete, Bahia San Quintín, Baja California, 4 Dec. 1981., L.E. Calderon, coll. Five specimens (ECOSUR-15/1985), Laguna Ojo de Liebre, Baja California Sur, in Catarina scallops (Argopecten circularis (Sowerby)) bottoms, 15 Apr. 1985, E. Baqueiro, coll. Five specimens (USNM [unnumbered]), dried out, Catalina Harbor & Monterey (sic), 26-32-45C, 1874, H.H. Dall, coll. Fifteen anterior fragments (USNM 40484), off Balboa, San Diego, California, Nov. 1932, G.E. McGinitie, coll. (paired dorsal lobes in chaetigers 2–8; size-dependent).
Description. Holotype (CAS-19721) complete, some parapodia previously removed, anterior end ventrally dissected; body cylindrical, long, tapering posteriorly (Fig. 4 A); tunic papillated, with small sediment particles adhered over most of the body, especially dorsally, posterior region without sediment. Long capitate papillae arranged in longitudinal rows, two dorsally, four ventrally, over the first 5–6 chaetigers, forming low, eroded dorsal tubercles in the holotype (Fig. 4 B, C); better preserved in other specimens (Fig. 4 D), from chaetiger 2. Holotype 111 mm long, 4.5 mm wide, cephalic cage 9 mm long, 134 chaetigers.
Anterior end not exposed, hardly seen through the dissection cut; features based on a non-type specimen (ECOSUR). Prostomium dark, elevated; eyes large, black. Caruncle well developed, separating branchial filaments into two lateral groups (Fig. 4 E); median keel pale, lateral ridges pale, with two black longitudinal bands. Palps large, corrugated; palp bases darker than surrounding areas. Dorsal and lateral lips thin, slightly darker than surrounding areas; ventral lip reduced. Branchiae cirriform, arising on a tongue-like protuberance, separated in two lateral groups, each group with filaments arranged in transversal rows, each row with 6–8 filaments, with about 50 filaments per group. Longest branchial filaments about as half as long as palps. Nephridial lobes not seen.
Cephalic cage chaetae less than 1/20 body length, or twice as long as body width. Chaetigers 1–3 involved in the cephalic cage; chaetae arranged in short rows, dorsolateral in chaetiger 1, lateral in chaetigers 2–3. Chaetiger 1 with 10 notochaetae and 8 neurochaetae, chaetigers 2–3 with 8 notochaetae and 6 neurochaetae per bundle. Anterior dorsal margin of chaetiger 1 with a median trifid lobe projected anteriorly (damaged). Anterior chaetigers with long papillae forming anteriorly directed, elongate conical lobes. Chaetigers 1–3 of similar length. Chaetal transition from cephalic cage to segmental chaetae abrupt; bidentate compound neurohooks from chaetiger 4, shorter from chaetiger 6. Gonopodial lobes present in chaetigers 5–6, larger in the former (Fig. 4 F).
Parapodia poorly developed, except for few anterior ones (1–9); chaetae emerging from body wall. Parapodia lateral, median neuropodia ventrolateral. Notopodia better developed in chaetigers 1–9, with long postchaetal papillae making elongate conical lobes, decreasing posteriorly. Median noto- and neuropodia with two short, capitate papillae and four postchaetal longer ones.
Median notochaetae arranged in short transverse row, 7–8 per bundle, 1/3 as long as body width; all notochaetae multiarticulated capillaries with articles short basally, becoming long medially, then slightly shorter distally (Fig. 4 G). Neurochaetae multiarticulated capillaries in chaetigers 1–3; long bidentate compound neurohooks in chaetigers 4–5 becoming shorter in chaetiger 6, arranged in a J-shape with eight per neuropodium (Fig. 4 H), neurochaetae becoming thinner, longer in posterior chaetigers.
Posterior region almost with few sediment particles; pygidium conical, anus dorsoterminal, without cirri.
Remarks. Piromis capulata (Moore, 1909) n. comb. resembles P. robertsi (Hartman, 1951) from the Gulf of Mexico, and P. fauchaldi n. sp. from the Gulf of California, since all have notopodial lobes. They differ because in P. capulata there are dorsal tubercles in addition to the notopodial lobes, and there are only fine sediment particles on the tunic while the other two species lack dorsal tubercles and their tunics include larger sediment grains.
Further, there might be some confused records for the Northeastern Pacific Ocean. The records of P. ro b e r t i or P. capulata by Spies (1975), and of P. eruca by Hobson & Banse (1981), are possibly conspecific and might belong to an undescribed species, which has large dorsal lappets over several anterior chaetigers. Further, the records by Hartman (1969) and Blake (2000) of Pherusa capulata suggest that their materials had four pairs of branchiae and bifid neurohooks, which would not fit the specific features of P. capulata. On the other hand, the informal new combination that was introduced by Spies (1975:189, ff) was adequate and it is herein confirmed.
Distribution. From San Diego, California to Ojo de Liebre (Scammon’s) lagoon in Baja California, in intertidal and shallow sandy bottoms. The records of Piromis eruca for the western border between the United States and Canada (Hobson & Banse 1981:59, Fig. 11 j–l) differ by having series of two foliose dorsal lobes instead of only the bare tip of larger papillae. They do not belong to the Mediterranean species, and might be an undescribed species. The same might apply to the record by Blake (2000:13), since his specimen was collected in 91 m depth, and there is no indication of the posterior neurohooks, which separate Piromis from Trophoniella.
description: Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2011, Revision of Piromis Kinberg, 1867 and Pycnoderma Grube, 1877 (Polychaeta: Flabelligeridae), pp. 1-50 in Zootaxa 2819 on pages 14-15, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.277211