Bathyvermilia Zibrowius, 1973

Kupriyanova, Elena K. & Nishi, Eijiroh, 2010, Serpulidae (Annelida, Polychaeta) from Patton-Murray Seamounts, Gulf of Alaska, North Pacific Ocean, Zootaxa 2665, pp. 51-68 : 57-58

Genus Bathyvermilia Zibrowius, 1973

Type-species: Bathyvermilia challengeri Zibrowius, 1973

Diagnosis (from ten Hove & Kupriyanova 2009).

Tube white, opaque, circular in cross-section, longitudinal keel may be present. Collar-like rings present. Granular overlay absent. Operculum sub-globular, with simple flat to slightly conical chitinous endplate, which may be encrusted by calcareous deposit. Peduncle cylindrical, smooth or wrinkled, without distal wings; inserted as second dorsal radiole on one side, constriction present. Pseudoperculum absent. Arrangement of radioles in semi-circles, up to 35 per lobe. Inter-radiolar membrane absent. Branchial eyes not observed. Stylodes absent. Mouth palps may be present. Seven thoracic chaetigerous segments. Collar trilobed (may be non-lobed) with entire edge, tonguelets absent. Thoracic membranes variable, ending at 2nd—7th thoracic segment. Collar chaetae limbate. Apomatus chaetae present. Thoracic uncini saw-shaped, with 6 to 10 teeth. Anterior fang simple, pointed. Abdominal chaetae flat, narrow geniculate with blunt teeth; abdominal uncini saw-shaped, except in a few far posterior segments, with rasp-shaped uncini. Short achaetous anterior abdominal zone present. Posterior capillary chaetae present. Posterior glandular pad present.

Remarks. The genus currently contains 5 species from bathyal and abyssal depths (ten Hove & Kupriyanova 2009), including three species ( B. challengeri Zibrowius, 1973 , B. kupriyanovae Bastida- Zavala, 2008, and B. zibrowiusi Kupriyanova, 1993 ) known from the North Pacific Ocean. Zibrowius (1973) summarized morphological differences for Bathyvermilia Zibrowius, 1973 , Metavermilia Bush, 1905 sensu Zibrowius, 1971 , Pseudovermilia Bush, 1907 , and Vermiliopsis Saint-Joseph, 1894 , previously all united under Vermiliopsis , however it remains unclear whether any of these nominal genera constitute monophyletic groups.