Hebella furax Millard, 1957

Calder, Dale R. & Faucci, Anuschka, 2021, Shallow water hydroids (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) from the 2002 NOWRAMP cruise to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, Zootaxa 5085 (1), pp. 1-73 : 12-13

Hebella furax Millard, 1957

Fig. 4a

Hebella furax Millard, 1957: 200 , fig. 8A–C.

Anthohebella parasitica .— Coles et al., 2002a: 34, 318, 344; 2002b: 21, 25, 177 [not Lafoea parasitica Ciamician, 1880 ]. Hebella sp. — Calder, 2020: 205, fig. 1c.

Type locality. South Africa: False Bay , off Swartklip, 34°5.5ʹS, 18°39ʹE, 15–18 m ( Millard 1957) .

Voucher material. Midway Atoll, on Antennella secundaria , 23.ix.2002, one colony, 0.8 mm high, without gonothecae, coll. A. Faucci, ROMIZ B5407.—Gardner Pinnacles, on Macrorhynchia phoenicea , 14.ix.2002, one colony, 1.3 mm high, without gonothecae, coll. A. Faucci, ROMIZ B5408.— Midway Atoll, on M. phoenicea and Aglaophenia whiteleggei , 23.ix.2002, two colonies, to 1.0 mm high, without gonothecae, coll. A. Faucci, ROMIZ B5409.

Remarks. These hydroids closely resembled Lafoea parasitica Ciamician, 1880 (type locality: Adriatic Sea), Hebella dyssymetra Billard, 1933 (type locality: Gulf of Suez), and H. furax Millard, 1957 (type locality: South Africa). All three species have been reported from warm-waters of the Pacific Ocean. Vervoort & Vasseur (1977) noted that there was little to separate H. dyssymetra and H. furax , but both were upheld pending examination of additional material. With trophosomes that are all much alike, these species are most reliably distinguished by their gonosomes. Those of L. parasitica release “swimming gonophores” with gonads on the manubrium, those of H. dyssymetra liberate medusoids with gonads on radial canals, and those of H. furax release immature medusae (Boero et al. 1997). Based on the character of its gonophores, L. parasitica was referred by them to new genus, Anthohebella Boero, Bouillon & Kubota, 1997 .

During identification of material examined here, H. dyssymetra was dismissed because hydrothecae were not markedly bent ( Hirohito 1995), and hydrothecal pedicels were distinctly developed rather than being indistinct (Boero et al. 1997). Unlike H. furax , with occasional colonies said to be parasitic, all colonies in the collection were epizoites on plumularioid hydroids. Nevertheless, hydroids of the species are predominantly free-living, and Boero et al. (1997) suspected that records of Anthohebella parasitica in the Pacific were based instead on H. furax . Following their assumption, and considering the type locality and center of distribution of A. parasitica , specimens from Midway Atoll and Gardner Pinnacles have been assigned to H. furax . Hydroids identified as Hebella sp. from Hawaii by Calder (2020) are here considered conspecific.

The taxonomy of the family Hebellidae Fraser, 1912 , and current concepts of genera assigned to it, remain unsettled. For example, life cycle studies ( Migotto & de Andrade 2000) reveal that the adult medusa of H. furax shares characters with Toxorchis kellneri Mayer, 1910 [= Staurodiscus kellneri ] (formerly in family Laodiceidae L. Agassiz, 1862 ). Peña Cantero et al. (2010) pointed to an affinity between Anthohebella parasitica and Stegopoma plicatile (M. Sars, 1863) (family Tiarannidae Russell, 1940 ). Marques et al. (2006) suggested that Hebella Allman, 1888 (type species: Hebella striata Allman, 1888 ) and Anthohebella (type species: Lafoea parasitica Ciamician, 1880 ) were either sister groups or congeneric. Investigations by Moura et al. (2012) and Maronna et al. (2016) indicate that A. parasitica is close genetically to Hebella venusta ( Allman, 1877) . Their studies also establish that the family Hebellidae as presently constituted is polyphyletic and in need of revision.

DNA barcoding of H. striata will be needed to better resolve the taxonomy of the genus Hebella , the family based on it, and affinities of species assigned to it. A detailed morphological account of the species has been given by Vervoort (1972). Also called for is a molecular analysis of Campanularia mutabilis Ritchie, 1907 , type species of Scandia Fraser, 1912 , to establish its systematic relation with Hebella .

Reported Distribution. Hawaiian archipelago. Oahu: Kaneohe Bay, Moku Manu Island ( Coles et al. 2002a, as Anthohebella parasitica ; Calder 2020, as Hebella sp. ); Waikiki, Ala Wai buoy ( Coles et al. 2002b, as A. parasitica ).

Elsewhere.? Japan ( Stechow 1913b, as Hebella parasitica ; Hirohito 1995, as H. parasitica );?Indochina ( Dawydoff 1952, as H. parasitica ); South Africa ( Millard 1957, and others); Seychelles ( Millard & Bouillon 1973; Boero et al. 1997); Australia ( Watson 1975); Moorea, French Polynesia ( Vervoort & Vasseur 1977, as H. parasitica ); Mediterranean Sea ( Garcia Corrales et al. 1979, and others); Papua New Guinea (Boero et al. 1997); Indonesia ( Di Camillo et al. 2008); Brazil ( Migotto and de Andrade 2000; Oliveira et al. 2016, and others); Maldives (GravierBonnet & Bourmaud 2012); St. Helena (Galea 2015).

Figures

FIGURE 4. Hebellidae. a, Hebella furax Millard, 1957, hydrotheca, Midway Atoll, ROMIZ B5407. Scale equals 0.1 mm. b. Hebella sp., hydrotheca, pedicel, and stolon, Midway Atoll, ROMIZ B5493. Scale equals 0.2 mm. c, Hebellopsis scandens (Bale, 1888), hydrotheca and pedicel, Pearl & Hermes Atoll, ROMIZ B5413. Scale equals 0.1 mm. d, Hebellopsis sibogae Billard, 1942, hydrotheca and pedicel, Pearl & Hermes Atoll, ROMIZ B5410. Scales equal 0.1 mm. e, Hebellopsis sibogae Billard, 1942, hydrotheca and pedicel, Pearl & Hermes Atoll, ROMIZ B5411. Scale equal 0.1 mm. e,