Symplectanea bracteata Fraser 1941

Symplectanea bracteata Fraser, 1941b

Symplectanea bracteata Fraser, 1941b: 78, pl. 13, figs. 1a, b.

Monocoryne bracteata.— Rees, 1957b: 19, unnumbered figures.

Syntypes. USNM 43450: USA, Alaska, Alexander Archipelago, Admiralty Island, Stephens Passage, Thistle Ledge, R / V Albatross Sta. 4253, 14 July 1903, Tanner beam trawl, 240–344 m, fragments of two polyps, labelled “ type ”; ethanol.

Lectotype, by present designation. USNM 43450: USA, Alaska, Alexander Archipelago, Admiralty Island, Stephens Passage, Thistle Ledge, R / V Albatross Sta. 4253, 14 July 1903, Tanner beam trawl, 240–344 m, three fragments of one polyp, in fair condition, with gonophores, labelled “ type ”; ethanol.

Paralectotype. USNM 1458906: USA, Alaska, Alexander Archipelago, Admiralty Island, Stephens Passage, Thistle Ledge, R / V Albatross Sta. 4253, 14 July 1903, Tanner beam trawl, 240–344 m, fragments of one polyp, in poor condition, with gonophores; ethanol.

Type locality. USA, Alaska: Stephens Passage, Thistle Ledge, 131 fm (240 m) (Fraser 1941b).

Current status. Valid, as Monocoryne bracteata (Fraser, 1941b).

Remarks. Fraser’s (1941b) “ type ” of Symplectanea bracteata (USNM 43450) is currently recorded in the online NMNH database as syntype material with a specimen count of “1”. No other types of the species are known to exist. Fraser (1941b) clearly examined more than one polyp because his description of the species begins with the words “Solitary zooids grow from a broad base…” According to Rees (1957b), who examined the sample from the NMNH, “torn fragments of two solitary capitate hydroids” were present. Although the same material has been referred to as the holotype by both Stepanjants et al. (2003) and Brinckmann-Voss & Lindner (2008), these two polyps are indeed syntypes. Our examination revealed that both specimens are fragmented. Three parts of the larger polyp were matched and constitute what we designate here as the lectotype (USNM 43450). This polyp corresponds with the specimen illustrated in Fraser’s original description of the species (pl. 13, fig. 1a). The second specimen, and all miscellaneous remaining fragments, are included as paralectotype material (USNM 1458906).

Rees (1957b) compared Fraser’s specimens with those of Monocoryne gigantea (Bonnevie, 1898). Specimens of M. bracteata differed in being larger and in having a greater number of capitula on the compound tentacles. Rees provisionally retained M. bracteata as valid because the condition of the specimens was too poor to determine if they were conspecific with M. gigantea. Stepanjants et al. (2003) also retained M. bracteata as valid after examining new material identified as the species from the Kuril Islands, Russia. However, the identity of that material as M. bracteata was questioned by Brinckmann-Voss & Lindner (2008), who believed it was likely identical instead with the newly-described M. colonialis Brinckmann-Voss & Lindner, 2008 from the Aleutian Islands, Alaska.

Beautiful illustrations of living specimens identified as Monocoryne bracteata appear in a paper by Schuchert et al. (2016).