A note on supposed homonyms of Octopus australis Hoyle, 1885, with comments on Octopus caniphelli Smith, 1902 (Cephalopoda: Octopodinae)

2 Pages·1991·0.85 MB·English

by  Ronald B Toll

THE NAUTILUS 105(3):116-117, 1991 Page 116
A Note on Supposed Homonyms of
Octopus australis Hoyle, 1885, with Comments on
Octopus caniphelli Smith, 1902 (Cephalopoda: Octopodinae)
Ronald B. Toll
Doparlment of Biology
The University of tlie South
Sewanee, TN 37375, USA
ABSTRACT appear to be separate and distinct". The available data,
however, do not support this assertion. The type of O.
"Octopusaustralis (Massy, 1916)" and "O. australis (Benham, campbelli and the specimens attributed to Ho>le's aus-
1942)'", both from New Zealand, are determined not to be tralis by Massy (1916), Benham (1942), and Dell (1952)
homonymsof O. australis Hoyle, 1885, from Australia, as pre-
viouslysuggested. Examination of new materialattributable to areall characterizedby W-shaped funnelorgans. Robson
Octopus camphclli Smith, 1902, from New Zealand, supports (1929:190) gave the value 8.5 as the ligula length index
the ta.xonomic distinction between O. camphclli and O. aus- (LLI) of the type of O. campbelli. Benham's specimens,
tralis. Massy's, Benham'sand Dell's material is probabK refer- remeasured by Tait, have a LLI of 6 to 10. Massy s
able to O. campelli. specimen has a LLI of 10.9; however, the proximal start-
Key words: Octopus australis; Octopus cainpbclli: Octopod- ing point along the hectocotylus used to obtain this mea-
surement is unclear. Dell's specimens have a LLI of 5-
7. These overlapping data sets certainly cannot be used
to distinguish among taxa. In comparison, Tait (1982)
Tait (1982) redescribed and reviewed the taxonomic po- reportedtheLLI iorO.australisas 12-18. Massy's(1916)
sition of Octopus australis Hoyle, 1885, originally de- figure of the radula showed a symmetrical, pentacuspid
scribed from Port Jackson, New South Wales, Australia. rachidian. Dell (1952) reported that the rachidian tooth
In his review of related taxa "described from New Zea- is asymmetrical (however, he gave the formula as ""A4",
land, Tait (1982:20) indicated that two nominal taxa, probably an error due to the confusing situation created
"Polypus australis Massy [not Massey], 1916" and "Rob- by Robson s original designation of the letter A for sym-
sonella australis Benham, 1942, " are junior homonyms metrical rachidian teeth, see Robson, 1925). This varia-
of Octopus australis Hoyle, following the placement of tion of the radula is within the range observed from new-
Polypus and Robsonella into the synonymy of Octopus material of O. campbelli examined here (see below).
s. s. by Robson (1929) and Pickford (1955), respectively. Therefore, based on these accounts there appears to be
Tait (1982:20) concluded that these two species require nocleartaxonomicseparationamongNewZealandspec-
renaming. Massy s (1916) account, however, clearly in- imens.
dicated that she did not describe Polypus australis as a For comparison to published accounts, I examined six
new species, but actually attributed her specimens to specimens of Octopus campbelli (4 males, ML 22-30
Hoyle s australis, and indeed cited Hoyle as the author. mm, all with spermatophores; 2 maturefemales, ML 25-
Therefore, Polypus australis is simply a new combina- 27 mm) from Portobello, New Zealand, deposited in the
tion proposed by Massy, with Hoyle retained as the au- collectionsof the InvertebrateMuseum, RosenstielSchool
thor of the species [see ICZN, 1985: Art. 50(c)(ii)]. The of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Mi-
sameistrueforRobsonellaaustralis,a new combination, ami, Florida (UMML 31.2447). The range of LLI is 6.5-
not a new species, proposed by Benham (1942) based on 11.1 (mean = 8.48). Two inconsistencies exist between
his examination of new material. the original description of the type of O. campbelli and
Tait (1982:19) suggested, and I agree, that based on the specimens I have examined. The Portobello speci-
characters of the liectocotylus, it is highly unlikely that menshavegill lamellaecountsof7-8(includingterminal
Octopusaustralis from Australia and (). campbelliSmith, lamella). Smith (1902) gave no data on the gills from the
1902, from C;am|)bell Island, New Zealand are conspe- holotype of (). campbelli. Robson (1929:190) stated that
cific, as proposed by Robson (1929:145). Tait further the gill count of the holotype is ""probably ten", based
stated (pg. 20) that ""all the New Zealand species pre- on his reexamination. Robson's 1929monographcontains
viously considered to be synonyms of O. australis Hoyle certain factual inconsistencies (Voss, 1973). Indeed, Tait
,
R. B. Toll, 1991 Page 117
(1982:20) found that Robson, despite his assertion that Michael J. Sweene\- made constructive comments on an
he had examined the radula from one of the syntypes of earlier version of the manuscript. This contribution was
O. australis, could not have done so because the buccal supported, in part, by a grant from the National Science
mass had not been removed from either specimen at the Foundation (BSR 8508439) and general support for re-
time Tait acquired them for examination. Therefore, search from The I'niversity of the South.
Robson s gill lamellae data, given with some degree of
uncertainty, should be discounted. LITERATURE CITED
Thesecond discrepancyconcerns the greatly enlarged
and elevated suckers (seventh pair only) on the lateral .Adam, VV, 19.33. Notes sur le.s Clephalopodes II. .Aiiomalie
arm pairs of the type of O. camphcUi (SnI ~ 8.5; Sel ~ de la radule chez Octopus vulgaris Lamarck et observa-
14.3). Three Portobellomalespecimens have moderately tionssur la seriatioii et I'asymetrie. Museeroyal d'Histoire
enlarged suckers (SnI 8.2-10.4; Sel 10.7-12.2) which are natWurelie de Beigit|iie 9(3), 8 p.
not distinctly elevated. In these specimens about three .\dam, 1941. NotessurlesCephalopodes. XV.Surlavaleur
pairs of suckers, beginning with the fifth pair, are en- diagnostique de la radule chez les Cephalopodes Octo-
largedonthelateralarmpairs. Speciallyenlargedsuckers podes Museerovald'HistoirenatureliedeBelgique 17(38),
are not mentioned specifically in the accounts of Massy, Benha19m,p.W. B. 1942. The octopodous Molliisca of New Zea-
Benham, or Dell. While this disparity is curious, it could land. 1. Themidgetoctopusofcoastal waters. Transactions
be the result of differences in reproductive maturity. In of the Royal Society of New Zealand 72:226-236.
light of the other numerous similarities in morpholog\ Dell, R, K. 19.52. The recent Cephalopoda of New Zealand-
dermal texture, and absolute size, I do not consider this Dominican Museum Bulletin No. 16, 1.57 p.
difference to be substantiative. ICZN. 1985. International code of zoological nomenclature,
The radulae of threeof the Portobellospecimens were 3rd ed L'niversity of California Press, 338 p.
examined and showed considerable variation. The ra- Massy, .\. L. 1916, Cephalopoda. British Antarctic ("Terra
cwheiadkiaKnatso\omtmheitsrsitcraolnginKthase\smemceotndr,icaanldivnaroineesfsrpoecmism\emn-, PickflNoerocdvt,aio"Gn).s Eox1fp9e5t5dh.ietiBoArni,rteiv1si9hs1i0Mo.nusZooefoultmho.egyOBc2utl(lo7e)pt:oi1dn4i1no-af1e75ti.hnethBreitcioslh-
metrical in one region to asymmetrical along another Museum of Natural Histor\ 3(3):151-167.
region in the third example Intraspecific (including in- Robson, G. C. 1925. Onseriationandas\mmetr\ in theceph-
tra-radular) variation is knov\n to occur in Octopoda alopod radula. Journal of the Linnean Societ\ of London,
(Robson, 1925, 1929; KAam, 1933, 1941; Voss, 1973; Toll, Zoology 36:99-108,
1981, unpublished); therefore, differences in the sym- Robson, G. C. 1929. A monograph of the Recent Cephalop-
metry of the radula can be unreliable in distinguishing oda. Part 1, Octopodinae, British Museum (Natural His-
among related species. tory), London, 236 p,, 7 pis.
thaBtasneod honomeoxnamyimnsatiofonOocftoalplupseratuisnternatliasccHoouynltse,, I1f8i8n5d Smithm,aEd.eA.dur19i0n2g.thReepvoorvtaognetohnectohlele"ctSioountshoefrnnatCurroasls,h"istVoorl\.
exist; therefore, no renaming needs to be take place. Tait,VRI,I,WM,oll1u9s8c2a,, pA, t2a01x-o2n1o3m,ic2rpeivsi,sion of Octopus australis
Octopus australis Hoyle and Octopus carnpbclli Smith,
Hoyle, 1885 (Octopodidae: Cephalopoda), with a rede-
1902 appear to be distinct allopatric taxa, most easiK scriptionofthespecies. MemoiresoftheNationalMuseum
differentiated on the basis of hectocotylus and penial Victoria, No, 43:1.5-24,
apparatus morphology, dermal textureandabsolutesize. Toll, R B 1981, Bcnthoctopus oregonae, a new species of
Furthermore, the specimens described by Mass\. Ben- octopod (Mollusca; Ophalopoda) from the southern Ca-
ham and Dell from New Zealand are consistent with the ribbean with a redescription of Bcnthoctopus januarii
characters of O. campbelli and I consider them to be (Hoyle, 1885). Bulletin of Marine Science 31(l):83-95.
referable to it. Voss,sG\.stLe.mat1i9c7s3.-SvPmrpesoesnitusmtatoufstahnetlZnooelwogtirceanldsSoicnicetevphoafloLpoond-
don No. 38:49-60.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Nancy A. Voss, University of Miami, kindly loaned the
specimens of Octopus campbelli. Clyde F. E. Roper and