INTRODUCTION
The most important published works on the polychaete fauna of the Persian Gulf are those by Fauvel (Reference Fauvel1911, Reference Fauvel1919, Reference Fauvel1932), Wesenberg-Lund (Reference Wesenberg-Lund, Jessen and Spärck1949), Mohammad (Reference Mohammad1970a, Reference Mohammadb, Reference Mohammadc, Reference Mohammad1971, Reference Mohammad1972a, Reference Mohammadb, Reference Mohammad1973, Reference Mohammad1980), Bonyadi-Naeini & Rahimian (Reference Bonyadi-Naeini, Rahimian and Glasby2009) and Bonyadi-Naeini et al. (Reference Bonyadi-Naeini, Rastegar-Pouyani, Rastegar-Pouyani, Glasby and Rahimian2017).
So far, about 256 species of polychaete worms have been recorded from the Persian Gulf, which includes both intertidal and subtidal species collected from the northern and southern coasts of the Persian Gulf (Wehe & Fiege, Reference Wehe and Fiege2002; Wehe, Reference Wehe2006, Reference Audouin and Milne-Edwards2007; Bonyadi-Naeini & Rahimian, Reference Bonyadi-Naeini, Rahimian and Glasby2009; Bonyadi-Naeini et al., Reference Bonyadi-Naeini, Rastegar-Pouyani, Rastegar-Pouyani, Glasby and Rahimian2017). Literature records indicate that the most speciose genus of the Nereididae in the Persian Gulf is Perinereis with 10 species including Perinereis arabica Mohammad, Reference Mohammad1971, P. cultrifera (Grube, Reference Grube1840), P. heterodonta Gravier, Reference Gravier1901, P. horstii Gravier, Reference Gravier1901, P. kuwaitensis Mohammad, Reference Mohammad1970a, P. nigropunctata (Horst, Reference Horst1889), P. nuntia (Savigny in Lamarck, Reference Lamarck1818), P. cultrifera (Grube, Reference Grube1840) species complex, P. suluana (Horst, Reference Horst1924) and P. vancaurica (Ehlers, Reference Ehlers1868).
Perinereis cultrifera (Nereididae) was first described by Grube (Reference Grube1840) from the Adriatic Sea. Scaps et al. (Reference Scaps, Rouabah and Lepretre2000) and Rouabah & Scaps (Reference Rouabah and Scaps2003) indicated that, based on morphological and biochemical divergence, a complex of species may be referred to P. cultrifera. The spawning season, mode of reproduction, age of maturity and biometric characteristics of specimens assigned to P. cultrifera differ largely according to the geographic location of populations in question (Rouabah et al., Reference Rouabah, Rouabah, Tahar and Scaps2009).
Bonyadi-Naeini et al. (Reference Bonyadi-Naeini, Rastegar-Pouyani, Rastegar-Pouyani, Glasby and Rahimian2017) reported a specimen belonging to the P. cultrifera species complex, collected from Qeshm Island, Persian Gulf. That single specimen was very similar to the published descriptions of P. cultrifera, and its allies. However, initial observations indicated that the specimen did not agree with any other members of the species complex that have been previously reported from the region (Wehe & Fiege, Reference Wehe and Fiege2002). After further sampling in the Persian Gulf, two more specimens were collected, one of which was from Abu Musa Island. More thorough studies revealed that those specimens were certainly distinguishable from the other members of the P. cultrifera species complex, reported from the area and adjacent waters, including P. floridana (Ehlers, Reference Ehlers1868), P. striolata Grube, Reference Grube1878, P. obfuscata Grube, Reference Grube1878, P. perspicillata Grube, Reference Grube1878, P. helleri (Grube, Reference Grube1878) and P. cultrifera. The new species was distinguished from the aforementioned species by colouration, length of the longest tentacular cirri, the number, shape and arrangement of paragnaths in areas V, VI, VII–VIII, and also the shape of heterogomph falcigers blade.
In the present study we document the intertidal polychaete diversity of Abu Musa Island, Persian Gulf, identify and describe new geographic records and describe a new species for science. A taxonomic key to the P. cultrifera species complex from the Indo-West Pacific is also presented.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Abu Musa Island is located 75 km south of Bandar Lengeh and 63 km north-northwest of Sharjah. The present material was collected from April 2014 to May 2015 at five stations along the coasts of Abu Musa (Figure 1, Table 1).
Fig. 1. Map showing Abu Musa Island. Highlighted area indicates sampling localities along the coasts of the Abu Musa Island. Location numbers are described in Table 1.
Table 1. Collection data for each of the five sites in the study.
Specimens were relaxed using Dentol® (Khoraman laboratory, Iran) (Bonyadi-Naeini et al., Reference Bonyadi-Naeini and Rahimian2016), fixed in 5% formalin diluted in seawater, washed in tap water and transferred to 70% ethanol for permanent storage. Parapodia from the anterior and posterior parts of the body were removed and permanent slides prepared, particularly for Nereididae species, following Bonyadi-Naeini et al. (Reference Bonyadi-Naeini, Rastegar-Pouyani, Rastegar-Pouyani, Glasby and Rahimian2017). Specimens were studied under stereo and compound light microscopes. Digital images were taken using a camera (Dino-Lite AM423X) mounted on a compound microscope and drawings were prepared using a camera lucida. All measurements are in mm unless stated and characters are measured to the nearest tenth of a mm. All specimens and slides are deposited in the Zoological Museum, University of Tehran (ZUTC), Tehran, Iran.
RESULT
A total of 31 species of polychaetes, belonging to 17 families: Amphinomidae (1), Chrysopetalidae (1), Eunicidae (3), Glyceridae (1), Hesionidae (2), Iphionidae (1), Lumbrineridae (1), Maldanidae (1), Nereididae (7), Oenonidae (1), Phyllodocidae (1), Polynoidae (3), Sabellidae (1), Serpulidae (1), Syllidae (4), Terebellidae (1) and Trichobranchidae (1) were identified. Among them, Perinereis iranica sp. nov. is a new species from the Persian Gulf, and 15 species, belonging to 13 genera are new geographic records for the Persian Gulf (Tables 2 & 3); among these new records, nine remain to be named using Linnean binomina, which reflects the lack of regional taxonomic information for the respective genera. The list of all species is as follows:
Table 2. List of polychaetes reported in this study from the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Present (+), Absent (–), Present study (P).
Table 3. List of species and collection details of the examined specimens during this study.
Eurythoe complanata (Pallas, Reference Pallas1766)
Bhawania goodei Webster, Reference Webster1884
Eunice ‘sp_Abu Musa’
Lysidice ninetta Audouin & Milne-Edwards, Reference Audouin and Milne-Edwards1833
Marphysa ‘sp_Abu Musa'
Glycera cf. tesselata Grube, Reference Grube1840
Hesione splendida Savigny in Lamarck, Reference Lamarck1818
Leocrates claparedii (Costa in Claparède, Reference Claparède1868)
Iphione muricata (Lamarck, Reference Lamarck1818)
Lumbrineris ‘sp_Abu Musa’
Notoproctus ‘sp_Abu Musa’
Nereis coutieri Gravier, Reference Gravier1900
Nereis sp. cf. N. pelagica Linnaeus, Reference Linnaeus1758
Perinereis iranica sp. nov.
Perinereis kuwaitensis (Mohammad, Reference Mohammad1970a)
Perinereis nigropunctata (Horst, Reference Horst1889)
Pseudonereis anomala Gravier, Reference Gravier1900
Pseudonereis trimaculata (Horst, Reference Horst1924)
Arabella iricolor (Montagu, Reference Montagu1804)
Eteone ‘sp_Abu Musa’
Harmothoe liaoi Barnich, Sun & Fiege, Reference Barnich, Fiege and Sun2004
Lepidonotus tenuisetosus (Gravier, Reference Gravier1902)
Thormora jukesii Baird, Reference Baird1865b
Potamilla ‘sp_Abu Musa’
Spirobranchus kraussii (Baird, Reference Baird1865a)
Branchiosyllis cf. exilis (Gravier, Reference Gravier1900)
Trypanosyllis ‘sp.1_Abu Musa’
Trypanosyllis ‘sp.2_Abu Musa’
Trypanosyllis zebra (Grube, Reference Grube1860)
Terebella ‘sp_Abu Musa’
Terebellides cf. stroemii Sars, Reference Sars1835
Taxonomy
Perinereis iranica sp. nov. (Figures 2A–E & 3A, B)
Perinereis cultrifera species complex. – Bonyadi-Naeini et al., Reference Bonyadi-Naeini, Rastegar-Pouyani, Rastegar-Pouyani, Glasby and Rahimian2017: 104–105.
Fig. 2. Perinereis iranica sp. nov. (A) Anterior part of the body, Dorsal view; (B) View of everted proboscis; (C) Parapodium chaetiger 10, anterior view; (D) Posterior parapodium, anterior view; (E) Ventral fascicle neuropodial heterogomph falciger, chaetiger 10.
Fig. 3. Perinereis iranica sp. nov. (epitoke). (A) Parapodium chaetiger 10, posterior view; (B) Posterior parapodium, anterior view.
MATERIAL EXAMINED
Holotype, Iran, Persian Gulf, Qeshm Island – Tola village, behind military region, intertidal zone, Sandy-cobble beach, collector Bonyadi Naeini. A., 4 May 2008, one specimen (ZUTC 6142). Paratypes: Iran, Persian Gulf, Abu Musa, Park-e Qadir, rocky, in some places sandy with boulders, collector Bonyadi Naeini. A., 29 April 2014, one specimen, epitoke, male (ZUTC 6371). Hormoz Island, Center of Ecosystem Research, intertidal zone, rocky-cobble beach, collector Chitgaran M., 12 November 2016, one specimen (ZUTC 6398). See Table 1 for further collection details.
ETYMOLOGY
The species name refers to the country where the material was collected.
DESCRIPTION
Material examined about 105 chaetigers, colour of body in alcohol creamy with orange pigments in anterior part of body. Total length after fixation 49 mm long, 3.5 mm wide. Body flattened, tapering posteriorly. Prostomium slightly wider than long with two orange lines extending from base of antennae to between eyes. Palps stout, longer than wide and longer than antennae. One antenna is missing (Figure 2A). Four pairs of short tentacular cirri, longest one reaching to chaetiger 2. Pharynx not everted with brown to dark jaws with 11–12 teeth. Paragnaths on maxillary ring arranged as follows: I = 4 conical paragnaths; II = 12–13 conical paragnaths; III = group of 30–35 conical paragnaths, lateral group absent; IV = about 40 conical paragnaths arranged in wedge shape without any bars. Paragnaths on oral ring arranged as follows: V = 5 conical paragnaths in one row, median one larger than others; VI = a long arcuate bar that covers total length of area VI (Figure 2B); VII–VIII = 31 conical paragnaths in 3 rows, two distal-most rows composed of large conical paragnaths and proximal row comprising small conical paragnaths. Parapodium of chaetiger 10 with two rounded notopodial ligules; dorsal ligule slightly larger than ventral one. Notopodial prechaetal lobe present, minute, absent in posterior chaetigers (Figure 2C). Dorsal cirrus longer than dorsal ligule. Ratio of DC/DNL: 1.20. Dark pigmentation near base of dorsal cirri. Anterior neuropodia with two ligules and small prechaetal and postchaetal lobes. Neuropodial acicular ligule conical, rounded distally and smaller than dorsal neuropodial ligule (Figure 2C). Pale glands near base of dorsal cirri in anterior part of body and dorsal part of body near notopodia to mid-dorsum from chaetiger 60 to end of body. Ventral cirri smaller than neuropodial acicular ligule. Notochaetae homogomph spinigers. Neurochaetae in dorsal fascicle are homogomph spinigers and heterogomph falcigers; in ventral fascicle are heterogomph falcigers. Falcigers with short, serrated blades. Parapodium of posterior chaetigers (84th): dorsal cirrus longer than dorsal notopodial ligule; ratio of DC/DNL: 1.51. Dorsal notopodial ligule conical, about 2.5× longer than ventral notopodial ligule. Acicular neuropodial ligule conical and distinct digitiform postchaetal lobe reduced. Ventral neuropodial ligule conical and smaller than acicular neuropodial ligule (Figure 2D). Ventral cirri smaller than ventral neuropodial ligule. Neurochaetae in dorsal fascicle are homogomph spinigers and heterogomph falcigers with short blades. Neurochaetae in ventral fascicle are heterogomph falcigers (Figure 2E). Paired, cirriform long pygidial cirri present.
VARIATION IN PARATYPES
Size range from 26 to 35 mm (mean 31.5 mm) long, 3.1 to 4.5 mm (mean 3.8 mm) wide. Paragnath counts: I = 6 conical paragnaths; II = 15–16 conical paragnaths; III = group of 40–45 conical paragnaths, lateral group absent; IV = about 40–47 conical paragnaths arranged in wedge shape without any bars. Paragnaths on oral ring: V = 3 conical paragnaths in triangle; VI = a long arcuate bar covering total length of area VI, VII–VIII = 25 conical paragnaths in 3 rows, two distal-most rows composed of large conical paragnaths, proximal row comprising small conical paragnaths. Epitokal modification observed in one specimen, both females filled with eggs, parapodial modification (Figure 3A, B) from chaetiger 17 to chaetiger 83. Dorsal and ventral cirri of the first chaetigers show basal swelling up to chaetiger 9. Paddle-like (natatory) chaetae not present in this specimen.
REMARKS
Fauvel (Reference Fauvel1919, Reference Fauvel1932, Reference Fauvel and Seymour-Sewell1953) recorded and described P. cultrifera from India, and assigned several varieties to it, including P. cultrifera var. typica. Confusingly, in his 1932 paper Fauvel referred to these varieties also as subspecies, but in 1953 he reverted again to referring to them as varieties, viz. P. cultrifera var. floridana, P. cultrifera var. perspicillata, P. cultrifera var. obfuscata and P. cultrifera var. striolata. Varietal designation was continued by Rullier (Reference Rullier1972), who provides a very clear diagnosis of each. In recent decades most authors have referred to these entities either as subspecies or species, and at present they have all been given species status in WoRMS (Gil et al., Reference Gil, Read, Bellan, Read and Fauchald2016). Recently, another two species have been recognized as being morphologically similar to P. cultrifera and its allies: P. euiini Park & Kim, Reference Park and Kim2007 from East Asia and P. anderssoni Kinberg, Reference Kinberg1866 from the Americas. Perinereis euiini encompasses all specimens from East Asia formerly identified as P. cultrifera var. floridana or P. cultrifera floridana (Park & Kim, Reference Park and Kim2007).
Bonyadi-Naeini et al. (Reference Bonyadi-Naeini, Rastegar-Pouyani, Rastegar-Pouyani, Glasby and Rahimian2017) remarked that the present specimen is distinguishable from other members of the P. cultrifera species complex reported, mainly in the number and shape of paragnaths in Areas V and VI. Yousefi et al. (Reference Yousefi, Rahimian, Nabavi and Glasby2011) recorded P. cultrifera from the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, their material matches exactly with the syntypes as re-described by Hutchings et al. (Reference Hutchings, Reid and Wilson1991). Reexamination of Yousefi's material and the material obtained from Abu Musa shows that the latter differs in the number of paragnaths in areas I, III, IV with more cones than recorded by Yousefi et al. (Reference Yousefi, Rahimian, Nabavi and Glasby2011). Also they differ from the re-description of the syntypes by Hutchings et al. (Reference Hutchings, Reid and Wilson1991), in the shape of the bars in area VI (a long arcuate bar that covers the total length of area VI vs a short bar in area VI) and also in the number and the arrangement of cones in area V (1–2 in triangular shape vs 5 in a row). Specimens from Abu Musa also differ from P. cultrifera in having heterogomph falcigers with long blades when compared with the short blade ones in P. cultrifera (see Table 4).
Table 4. Comparison between selected characters in Perinereis cultrifera (Grube, Reference Grube1840), P. iranica sp. nov., P. floridana (Ehlers, Reference Ehlers1868), P. striolata Grube, Reference Grube1878, P. obfuscata Grube, Reference Grube1878, P. perspicillata Grube, Reference Grube1878, and P. helleri (Grube, Reference Grube1878) (See the last row for literature).
Monro (Reference Monro1931) distinguished Perinereis obfuscata Grube, Reference Grube1878 from P. cultrifera by the position of epitokal modification, but later (Monro, Reference Monro1939) he referred to P. obfuscata as a variety of P. cultrifera. Following a detailed analysis of geographic variation, Hutchings et al. (Reference Hutchings, Reid and Wilson1991) preferred to retain P. obfuscata as a distinct species.
The present material differs from P. obfuscata, in its body colouration (see Table 4), number of paragnaths in areas III (30–35 vs 13–32), IV (40 vs 10–31), V (5 vs 1 rarely 2) and arrangement of paragnaths in areas V, VI (a long bar vs a short bar) and VII–VIII (2 rows vs 3 rows). Furthermore, the present material lacks heterogomph spinigers in the ventral fascicle of the neuropodia.
The present material differs from Perinereis helleri in the length of the longest tentacular cirri (longest tentacular cirri extending to chaetiger 2 vs 16). Also the present material has more cones in areas I (4 vs 2 occasionally 1), III (30–35 vs 11–20), IV (40 vs 10–19) and V (5 vs 3) than P. helleri. Moreover, they differ in the arrangement of paragnaths in areas V and VII–VIII and in the shape of heterogomph falcigers (see Table 4).
Perinereis perspicillata was recorded by Fauvel (Reference Fauvel1911) from the Persian Gulf (Bushehr and Bahrain) and by Mohammad (Reference Mohammad1971) as P. cultrifera perspicillata. The present material differs from P. perspicillata in the number of paragnaths in areas I (4 cones vs 6–8) and V (5 cones vs 3). Also the present material differs from that reported by Fauvel (Reference Fauvel1911) and Mohammad (Reference Mohammad1971) in the arrangement of paragnaths in area V (5 cones in one row, median one larger than others vs 3 cones in triangle) and the shape of the bars in area VI. Perinereis striolata Grube, Reference Grube1878 has also been recorded from the Persian Gulf (Bushehr) by Fauvel (Reference Fauvel1908). The present material differs from P. striolata in the number and arrangement of paragnaths in area V (5 cones vs 1 cone) and shape of bar in area VI.
Perinereis floridana was recorded by Wesenberg-Lund (Reference Wesenberg-Lund, Jessen and Spärck1949) as Perinereis cultrifera var. floridana Fauvel Reference Fauvel1932 from the Persian Gulf (Farur Island) and also as Perinereis cultrifera floridana Ehlers, Reference Ehlers1868 by Mohammad (Reference Mohammad1971). The present material differs from those specimens in number of paragnaths in areas I (4 cones vs 1 cone) and V (5 cones vs 1 cone), arrangement of paragnaths in areas VII–VIII (cones in three rows vs cones in two rows) and in the shape of paragnaths in area VI (long arcuate bar covering the total length of area VI vs 1 single, broad, flat, triangular paragnath). We doubt whether the P. floridana of these authors is the same as that of the Ehlers (Reference Ehlers1868) species originally described from the Caribbean Sea, or indeed is the same as P. euiini Park & Kim, Reference Park and Kim2007, which appears to be restricted to East Asia, and suggest that it represents another undescribed species. Perinereis iranica sp. nov. differs from P. euiini in having a greater number of paragnaths in areas III and IV (III: 30–45 vs 10–15; IV: 40–47 vs 16–26).
Finally, Fauvel (Reference Fauvel1932) and Hutchings et al. (Reference Hutchings, Reid and Wilson1991) considered Perinereis camiguina Grube, Reference Grube1878 as a synonym of P. helleri. We disagree with this synonymy because Grube (Reference Grube1878) states that ‘The species differs from P. helleri, apart from the number of paragnaths in Area I, also by the shortness of the dorsal cirrus, which reach only to the tip of the ligule in anterior and posterior parapodia’ (this is illustrated clearly by Hutchings et al., Reference Hutchings, Reid and Wilson1991, figs 9a, b which shows the parapodia from chaetiger 33, 130 of the syntype). More importantly, the paragnaths in Area VI resemble a line of cones more than a pair of bars. Grube stated this character in Latin as ‘utrinque 1, transverse linearis’ (one transverse line on both sides), and he shows 4–5 cones in a tight line in Plate 4, Figure 8. Also, in the remarks he talks about one of the non-type specimens having, ‘In Area VI, the left is less broad than usual, and instead of the right one sees three small ones in a transverse row’. So, we understand that the total variation for Area VI for P. camiguina is 3–5 cones. Unfortunately, no mention is made of the paragnath type and arrangement in the syntype by Hutchings et al. (Reference Hutchings, Reid and Wilson1991). Since P. camiguina lacks bars in area VI it cannot be a member of Perinereis as currently conceived. Possibly it belongs to Pseudonereis based on the shape and arrangement (comb-like rows) of paragnaths in Areas II and VI. The only members of Pseudonereis known to have 3–5 cones in Area VI are P. anomala and P. multisetosa (Bakken, Reference Bakken2007), but the parapodia and chaetae of these species do not match those of the syntypes as illustrated by Hutchings et al. (Reference Hutchings, Reid and Wilson1991). Therefore, until type specimens can be re-examined, we recommend that Perinereis camiguina be regarded as Nereidinae incertae sedis.
KEY TO THE PERINEREIS CULTRIFERA SPECIES COMPLEX FROM THE INDO-WEST PACIFIC
1. Group V, a triangle of 3 paragnaths or more………2
– Group V, a single paragnath………6
2. Group V, a triangle of 3 paragnaths………3
– Group V, a line of 5 paragnaths………P. iranica sp. nov.
3. Group I, 1 to 3 paragnaths; if more than 1 arranged in a longitudinal line………4
– Group I, a small cluster of 4–8 paragnaths………P. perspicillata
4. Tentacular cirri reaching backwards to chaetiger 4–8………5
– Tentacular cirri reaching well beyond chaetiger 8………P. helleri
5. Area III paragnaths with a central and lateral patches………P. cultrifera
– Area III paragnaths without lateral patches………P. euiini
6. Group I, 1 large paragnath P. floridana (not Ehlers, Reference Ehlers1868)
– Group I, a small cluster of 2–9………7
7. Tentacular cirri reaching backwards to chaetiger 1………P. obfuscata
– Tentacular cirri reaching backwards to chaetiger 6–7………P. striolata
DISCUSSION
The polychaete species reported in this study from the Persian Gulf mark an increase in species diversity. Wesenberg-Lund (Reference Wesenberg-Lund, Jessen and Spärck1949) reported 176 species in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, of which 168 species were from the Persian Gulf. Wehe & Fiege (Reference Wehe and Fiege2002) recorded 231 species from this region. Since 2002, Wehe (Reference Wehe2006) recorded a further 11 species, Wehe (Reference Wehe2007) recorded two more species, Bonyadi-Naeini & Rahimian (Reference Bonyadi-Naeini, Rahimian and Glasby2009) recorded nine more species and Bonyadi-Naeini et al. (Reference Bonyadi-Naeini, Rastegar-Pouyani, Rastegar-Pouyani, Glasby and Rahimian2017) added 12 more species to the list. So based on those reports, and excluding the present study, about 256 polychaete species have been recorded from the Persian Gulf. The present work adds a further 15 new records and one new species to the list. Consequently, so far at least 262 polychaete species have been reported from the Persian Gulf.
According to Glasby et al. (Reference Glasby, Hutchings, Fauchald, Paxton, Rouse, Watson, Wilson, Beesley, Ross and Glasby2000), the worldwide number of accepted polychaete species is about 8500, belonging to 1100 genera. Regarding this range of species number, about 3% of the known species occur in the Persian Gulf. This estimate is based on morphological species concepts; more recent studies investigating species complexes using molecular techniques suggest that the actual number of species may be 2–4 times greater (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Chen, Fan, Yu and Hsieh2002; Virgilio et al., Reference Virgilio, Fauvelot, Costantini, Abbiati and Backeljau2009; Glasby et al., Reference Glasby, Wei, Gibb and Bakken2013); nevertheless, considering that the number of Persian Gulf species was also estimated using morphology, the figure of 3% is regarded as the current best estimate of polychaete species diversity in the Gulf.
Literature records indicate at least 40 species of Nereididae are known from the Persian Gulf. The most speciose genus in the Persian Gulf is Perinereis with 10 nominal species (Bonyadi-Naeini et al., Reference Bonyadi-Naeini, Rastegar-Pouyani, Rastegar-Pouyani, Glasby and Rahimian2017). Of the 10 Perinereis species recorded from the Persian Gulf only one, P. cultrifera (Grube, Reference Grube1840), belongs to the P. cultrifera species complex. The species has also been reported in the Red Sea, Suez Canal, Gulf of Aden, the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman (Wehe & Fiege, Reference Wehe and Fiege2002; Yousefi et al., Reference Yousefi, Rahimian, Nabavi and Glasby2011) Hong Kong (Muir & Bamber, Reference Muir and Bamber2008) and northern Bay of Bengal (Muir & Maruf Hossain, Reference Muir and Maruf Hossain2014). Perinereis cultrifera floridana was recorded by Mohammad (Reference Mohammad1971) from the Persian Gulf. Comparing the morphological characters of specimens of Perinereis cultrifera collected in this study with the other species in the complex, mostly recorded from seas surrounding Arabian peninsula and other nearby Indo-Pacific localities, demonstrates that the material from the Abu Musa Island, Persian Gulf represents a new species, Perinereis iranica sp. nov. (Table 4).
Of the 31 species recorded here from the coast of Abu Musa Island, Persian Gulf, some families are abundant including: Polynoidae collected from six locations, Eunicidae, Nereididae and Syllidae each from four locations, while others are apparently rare; each only collected from one or two locations (see Table 3). Eunice ‘sp_Abu Musa’ and Lysidice ninetta were most frequently encountered and each collected from four locations. The families Nereididae with seven species and Syllidae with four species were the most diverse taxa in our samples. The highest diversity of polychaetes found during this study was reported from the southern part of the Quay (AB4) located in the south-eastern part of the island, mostly a sandy habitat with large fragmented rocks. Three genera are newly reported for the first time from the Persian Gulf: Notoproctus Arwidsson, Reference Arwidsson1906 recorded by Moore, Reference Moore1906 from Alaska also has been recorded from northern Australia, Southern California, Norway, Northern Greenland (Hartman, Reference Hartman1959) and Gulf of Aden (Wehe & Fiege, Reference Wehe and Fiege2002); Eteone Savigny (Reference Savigny and de Lamarck1818) and Terebella Linnaeus (Reference Linnaeus1767) have been recorded from the Red Sea (Wehe & Fiege, Reference Wehe and Fiege2002).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The first author would like to thank the University of Tehran for making available laboratory space and providing their polychaete collection. This research was made possible by the help and logistical support from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the I.R. of Iran.
FINANCIAL SUPPORT
This study was also partly funded by the University of Tehran and the Iranian National Science Foundation (grant Number 92006737).
