Hemipholis affinis

Hendler, Gordon, 2011, New light on the nomenclature, taxonomy, and biology of Hemipholis species (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea: Ophiactidae), Zootaxa 3048, pp. 44-52 : 46-47

Hemipholis affinis versus Hemipholis gracilis

In addition to H. cordifera , four species of Hemipholis have been named including two from the Eastern Pacific. The description of H. gracilis was based on 8 syntypes (the largest approximately 5 mm in disk diameter), which were collected from the Gulf of Panama at a depth of 7.3 m ( Verrill 1867). The description of H. affinis , was based on six syntypes (up to 11 mm disk diameter) from the Bay of Guayaquil, Ecuador, in 27–36 m depth ( Ljungman 1867). Exchange records of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University (YPM) indicate that one syntype of H. gracilis was sent by Verrill to the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University (catalog number MCZ 1117), and another to Lütken at the Zoological Museum Copenhagen (E. Lazo-Wasem, A. Baldinger, pers. comm.). The other six specimens (catalog number YPM IZ 001136) may still be at YPM, but they have not been located at the present time (E. Lazo-Wasem, pers. comm.). Photographs of the syntype of H. gracilis at the MCZ have been published ( Clark 1915: pl. 9, figs. 7, 8). Type specimens of H. affinis , which are housed in the Swedish Museum of Natural History ( Stöhr 2001), have never been illustrated.

Information provided in the original descriptions did not demonstrate that H. gracilis and H. affinis are different. Consequently, Verrill (1871:573), whose unintentionally ironical remarks constitute the epigraph of the present report, contended that “Ljungman’s species from Guayaquil appears to be identical with H. gracilis ,” and he asserted that “Judging from the date … our name has priority of actual publication.” Verrill’s claim of priority was not contested in Ljungman’s later publications, but it promptly was challenged by Lyman who, initially disputing Verrill’s claim based on the priority of publication, referred to the Eastern Pacific Hemipholis species as H. affinis (compare Lyman 1869, 1882). H.L. Clark (1910: 341, 1915, 1955) on the contrary, upheld Verrill’s contention that H. affinis is a junior synonym, and he used the name H. gracilis , noting that it “has been generally accepted.” However, the order of publication of the species’ names has remained unresolved until now.

It was evident that Verrill’s report on H. gracilis was published in March, 1867, which is the date printed on the second page of the species description ( Verrill 1867:263). Irregularities in the paper’s publication and dissemination were accounted for by Verrill in a preface to the reprints of Volume 1, Part 2 of Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, which is dated 15 November, 1869 (an example may be viewed at http:// www.archive.org/stream/notesonradiatain00verr#page/n3/mode/2up, accessed 1 June 2011). However, Ljungman’s publication on H. affinis simply was dated as the year 1867 (on page 358 in Öfversigt af Kongliga Vetenskaps- Akademiens Förhandlingar, 1866, Årgang 23). Seeking to establish the priority of H. gracilis, Verrill made a questionable claim that the date of the publication was precisely 18 May, 1867, basing it on Lovén’s inscription on the fly-leaf of an off-print of Ljungman’s (1867) paper that he sent to Verrill ( Lyman 1869, Verrill 1871). Fortunately, May 1867 can be corroborated as the actual month of publication of H. gracilis because an invoice bound in an accounting ledger of the Swedish Academy of Sciences shows that Ljungman’s contribution was delivered from the bindery and ready for distribution on May 29, 1867 (M. Asp, pers. comm.). Thus, H.L. Clark (1910:341) correctly stated that “Verrill’s name has about two months’ priority,” as is shown by the actual dates of publication.

H.L. Clark (1910, 1915, 1955) mentioned that a sizeable gap separated the only localities, Panama and Ecuador, from which at that time specimens of H. gracilis had been collected. Although H. gracilis has recently been reported from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama ( Alvarado et al. 2010), the authors’ anomalous record of H. elongata from the Pacific coast of Panama calls into question the stated distributions. However, there are collections of H. gracilis in the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County from the Pacific coast of the Panamanian provinces of Darien and Panama, the Department of La Union, El Salvador, and the Mexican states of Baja California Sur, Jalisco, Sinaloa, and Sonora, which extend the northern limit of H. gracilis to Punta Rocosa, Sonora, Mexico, at 31° 19.16' N, 113° 39.16' W (LACM 1940-044.019). In addition, there are two specimens of Hemipholis at the Smithsonian Institution (USNM E6603, E6569) from Punta Pizarro, Peru, which are indistinguishable from specimens of H. gracilis from Central America, and which extend the southern limit of its range to 3° 29' S, 80° 24' W. Propitiously, the Peruvian collecting site of H. gracilis was within the Gulf of Guayaquil, which is the type-locality of H. affinis ( Ljungman 1867) . And since the geographic range of H. gracilis encompasses the only known locality of H. affinis , and Ljungman’s (1867) description of H. affinis does not distinguish it from H. gracilis , it appears that H. affinis is indeed a junior synonym of H. gracilis . The sole congener of H. gracilis is the geminate, western Atlantic species H. cordifera , which occurs from North Carolina, USA (USNM E25362 ) to southern Brazil and northern Uruguay ( Tommasi 1970, Lucchi 1985, Martínez 2008).