Branchiomma lucullanum (Delle Chiaje, 1828)

Keppel, Erica, Tovar, Maria Ana & Ruiz, Gregory, 2015, First record and establishment of Branchiomma coheni (Polychaeta: Sabellidae) in the Atlantic Ocean and review of non – indigenous species of the genus, Zootaxa 4058 (4), pp. 499-518 : 509

Branchiomma lucullanum (Delle Chiaje, 1828)

This species was described and recorded in Naples ( Claparède 1868; Lo Bianco 1893; Iroso 1921) as well as in other Mediterranean localities ( Arvanitidis 2000; Çinar 2005; Castelli et al. 2008; Çinar et al. 2014; Mikac 2015): France ( Saint Joseph 1906; Fauvel 1927), Málaga, Valencia, Denia, Vinaroz and Mahón ( Rioja 1923), Porto Cesareo (Licciano & Giangrande 2008). Outside the Mediterranean, it was reported in La Coruña, Spain ( Rioja 1923) and in the English Channel ( Dauvin et al. 2003).

Licciano & Giangrande (2008) indicated that this species was very common in the past in the Mediterranean, particularly in the Gulf of Naples where it used to be very abundant. Its reduced presence could be due to the arrival of NIS species (or to our improvement in identifying the different species).

Çinar (2013) reported this species as NIS, native from the Mediterranean and introduced in the Red Sea, and he noted the work of Por (1978). In regard to Por (1978), the information is confused: a list of the Mediterranean species of Indo Pacific and Red Sea origins had reported B. cingulatum (as Dasychone cingulata ) as suspected to be pre-Lessepsian migrants ( Por 1978: pg. 31). However, Por (1978) took the original record in Fauvel (1955) from Israel, adding a comment that B. cingulatum is a very closely related species to the B. lucullanum from the Red Sea (as Dasychone lucullana ), reporting erroneously the latter as a Red Sea species but suggesting the need of a clarification. Por (1978) in the restricted list with demostrable Lessepsian migrants did not cite any sabellid species ( Por 1978: pg. 93–92, Table 2 ); but in the table titled “Low probability Lessepsian migrants” he reported all the dubious cases as true Lessepsian migrants and he listed B. cingulatum , noting that for Laubier (1966) the separation with the Mediterranean B. lucullanum was not clear ( Por 1978: pg. 109, table 3). In another table titled “Anti- Lessepsian migrants”, Por finally reported B. lucullanum , but still with many doubts, as it was (a) reported inside the Suez Canal ( Potts 1929), but even further south in the Red Sea in the locality of Dahlak ( Fishelson & Rullier 1969), and it is supposed to be a variant of B. cingulatum ( Laubier 1966) ( Por 1978: pg. 158–159, Table 10). Consequently, the presence of B. lucullanum in the Red Sea should be further investigated, but it was not reported before 1929. The species name is valid but there is the need of a neotype, redescription, and detailed comparisons with Branchiomma species described originally from the Mediterranean ( B. maerli , B. moebii , B. bombyx ). It would be also useful to corroborate identification with molecular genetic analysis.