Sampling stations and substrate type of the Great Nicobar Islands.
Abstract
The present study illustrates the insufficient taxonomy records and highlights the use of microscopic diagnostic tool in polychaete taxonomy. It leads to a better understanding of coral-associated polychaete taxonomy in Great Nicobar Islands, India. A total of 24 species under 14 genera, 7 orders, and 11 families were identified, in spite of 3 species of Phyllocidae, 8 species of Nereidae, 5 species of Eunicidae, 2 species of Spionidae, and 1 species of Opheliidae, Sabellariidae, Terebellidae, Polynoidae, Amphinomidae, and Sabellidae. The current status of taxonomic information varies greatly among taxa and among geographic areas within taxa. The problems encountered included nomenclature, diagnoses, and determination of taxonomic relationships. We provide examples of a variety of these problems. Each species has distinct features of the particular families, and taxonomic section to assist the polychaete identification that is necessary to assess the biodiversity and taxonomy at any level. This chapter considers the importance of monitoring biological diversity, current morphological taxonomy of polychaetes and describes the approach developed for protected areas in Great Nicobar Islands.
Keywords
- polychaetes
- taxonomy
- Great Nicobar
- identification
- coral reef
1. Introduction
Generally, taxonomy is essential for basic identification keys for the animal kingdom to learn about the global biodiversity, and gain the knowl-edge and understanding of bio-resources and its wise use. Correct identification of organisms is necessary to analyze and assess the biological diversity of an ecosystem at all levels, namely, diversity among ecosystems, phyletic diversity or diversity of species, and their genetic diversity among species [1, 2]. Polychaetes are a large group of segmented worms that display a wide range of morphological diversity [3]. Identifying organisms precisely at spe-cies level is fundamental to any ecological research and environmental monitoring. Generally, identification of polychaetes at species rank is quite difficult without illustrated monographs which may have been hampered by their morphological similarity to their fully marine counterparts [4]. Polychaetes vary widely from generalized pattern and can display a range of different body forms. The most gen-eralized polychaetes are those that crawl along the bottom, but others have adapted many different ecological niches including burrowing, pelagic life, tube dwelling or boring, and commensalism and parasitism, requiring various modifications to their body structure.
In polychaete taxonomy, parapodia are the important organs for identification particularly segment of origin, shape, and structural composition in body regions. Special features of branchiae or occurrences of multiple cirri are also important. A key morphological feature of seta construction, notopodia for the superfamilial and ordinal levels, and development of each ramus with the various parapodial lobes and cirri are very important at the generic and species levels. The presence of branchiae may not even be considered a specific character [5]. A number of pioneering conventional taxonomic studies on polychaetes were made by Fauvel [6, 7], Day [8] and Fauchald [9]. There is yet a lag in making taxonomic information available in many ecological programs and databases for polychaetes. In early studies, all the characteristics were mainly featured by diagrammatic figures. The importance of accurate examination of the setae is still underestimated by most taxonomists; the precise observations require close microscopic analysis to make proper identification, which should be followed for all taxonomic studies as a routine [9]. Thus, the present study was focused on analysis of the taxonomical features of Great Nicobar Island polychaetes through advance magnification techniques to improve the quality and precision of identification through key characteristic features.
2. Materials and methods
2.1 Study area
Great Nicobar Islands, the southernmost land piece of India, has the greatest length of about 55 km between North Murray Point and South Indira Point. It has a width of about 30 km in the north but narrows down to about 3 km at the southern tip (Figure 1). In the present study, samples were collected from 11 different stations in the intertidal region of the Great Nicobar Islands (Tables 1 and 2).

Figure 1.
The map showing the sampling point along the Great Nicobar Islands.
Station no. | Station name | Latitude | Longitude | Coast | Substrate type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Pigeon Island | 07°05.823′ N | 93°53.010′ E | East | Small pebbles on the western side and huge rocks on the eastern side |
2. | Dongi nallah | 07°01.700′ N | 93°53.933′ E | East | On the northern side of the nallah, the coast is rocky |
3. | Campbell Bay | 06°55.962′ N | 93°55.896′ E | East | Vast dead coral patches are found on the northern side between the “B” quarry and breakwaters |
4. | Dillon nallah | 06°55.962′ N | 93°54.770′ E | East | The coast is sandy on the southern side, while vast stretches of coral rubbles are on the northern side of the seashore |
5. | Vijaynagar | 06°54.606′ N | 93°55.770′ E | East | Up to 3 km seawards during low-tide periods, vast stretches of dead corals and rocks extend both northwards and southwards being exposed |
6. | Lakshmi Nagar | 06°52.993′ N | 93°55.990′ E | East | At this station, dead coral patches observed on the landward side |
7. | Sastri Nagar | 06°48.163′ N | 93°53.304′ E | East | Rocky shore and vast stretches of coral reefs. These rocks and dead corals are exposed up to a distance of 2 km |
8. | Galathea Bay | 06°49.166′ N | 93°51.544′ E | East | This bay has a sandy coast for about 2 km along with rocky shore |
9. | Galathea estuary | 06°48.974′ N | 93°51.810′ E | East | Collection sites were mangroves surrounding the estuarine region about 1.5 km upstream |
10. | Indira Point | 06°45.293′ N | 93°49.648′ E | South | The Great Channel (international sea route) lies at a distance of 60 km south from this point in the Indian Ocean. Vast stretches of dead corals and sand substratum |
11. | Inhengloi | 06°48.185′ N | 93°47.871′ E | West | The dead coral patches are found at the northern end which are exposed to about 2.5 km during low tides |
Table 1.
Sl. no. | Scientific name | Habitat | Collected station |
---|---|---|---|
1. | Rocks and dead corals | St. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 | |
2. | Dead corals, cervices and surface of live corals | St. 1–8, 10. and 11 | |
3. | Dead corals crevices and beach rocks | St. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11. and 13 | |
4. | Crevices of dead corals and beach rocks | St.1 and 4 | |
5. | Crevices of dead corals and beach rocks | St. 2–7 and 8 | |
6. | Silty sand substratum under coral rubbles and surface of dead corals | St. 1–10 | |
7. | Found among oysters and dead coral crevices of low tide | All station except St. 9 | |
8. | Found among barnacles and oysters and in dead coral crevices at low tide | St. 2, 3, 5, 6,7. and 11 | |
9. | Boring into dead corals to live on cavity | St. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10. and 11 | |
10. | Occurs in intertidal areas of oyster- and barnacle-encrusted coral rocks | St. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7. and 11 | |
11. | Boring in dead corals and living in coral cavity | All the 11 stations | |
12. | Boring in dead corals and living under rocks | All the stations except St. 6 | |
13. | Burrowing on rocks and dead and live corals | All the 11 stations | |
14. | Boring into dead corals and beach rocks | St. 1–8 and 11 | |
15. | Boring into dead corals and living on cavity of dead corals and rocks | St. 1, 3, 5. and 9 | |
16. | Boring into beach rocks and dead corals | St. 2–8 and 10 | |
17. | Boring in dead corals and living on cervices of dead corals | St. 1–8, 10, and 11 | |
18. | Boring in dead corals and living on cavity of corals | St. 2–8 and 10 | |
19. | Occurring in silty coral line sediments with sandy shore regions | St. 3 | |
20. | Silty sediments in sandy shore areas | St. 1, 2, 3, 9, and 11 | |
21. | Silty sediments in littoral region of sandy shore | St.1–7, 9–11 | |
22. | Hard tube formed with sand particles on corals and rocks | St. 2–7 and 10 | |
23. | Soft tube forming on dead and live corals at 1 m water depth | St. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11 | |
24. | Tube forming (boring) on corals at 1 m water depth, living inside of the tubes | St. 3 and 7 |
Table 2.
Systematic account and species habitat along the Great Nicobar Islands.
2.2 Sample collection
Samples were collected from the intertidal areas, and the dead coral material were bro-ken down into smaller fragments with the help of hammer and chisel. Polychaetes picked with the help of forceps were transferred to plastic containers, before fixation, into strong alcohol to have their pharynx everted, which will aide in the identification of the group. Samples were fixed with 10% formalin diluted with seawater and were later transferred to 70% ethanol the purpose of staining with Rose Bengal.
2.3 Examination of specimens
Stained specimens were placed in petri dishes containing tap water to dissect the morphological features of parapodia and proboscis of the jaws and other features of all the family which were made into thin sections with a surgical blade (No. 2). They were then mounted on slides and examined under a compound binocular microscope (Olympus CX41). Specimens were sorted up to genus level, and later detailed exami-nation staining of specimens with Rose Bengal provided a useful diagnostic tool.
The diagnostic tool in some families had good refractive qualities even at high magnification, and thickness of the mount was easily controlled. A thicker mount was necessary when viewing larger structures such as parapodia, cross sections, and the whole animal as such. The specimen was mounted in lactophenol and then heated carefully to avoid air bubbling. This procedure clears the tissue immediately making chitinized internal structures such as jaws and acicula more visible. Compound microscope was used to elucidate the small structures of setae and the permanent mounts of the parapodia and setae with polyvinyl lactophenol. All the characteristic features of the polychaetes focused in the light microscope and labeled image were done by correct pathway. All the species were identified with the help of the standard illustrated manuals of Fauvel [7] and Day [8].
3. Results
At all stations, polychaetes were found to be the dominant group with 24 species belonging to 2 major classes, 14 genera, and 7 orders with 11 different families selected for the morphological studies. Among these Polynoidae, Amphinomidae, Sabellariidae, Terebellidae, Sabellidae, and Opheliidae accounted for 1 species in their group, and the rest comprised of 3 Phyllocidae, 8 Nereidae, 5 Eunicidae, and 2 Spionidae. Each species has distinct features, and the taxonomic section serves as a key to genera, generic diagnoses, and species identification with their physiological characteristics. Each species description comprised several sections.
3.1 Systematic account
3.1.1 Species description

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.
The acicular lobes of neuropodium are short and distally obtuse; neuroligule is short but slightly longer than neuro-acicular lobe. The dorsal segments of middle and posterior cirrus are rather long. Anterior notoseate are homogomph spinigers. Indistinct heterogomph falcigers appear from the middle parapodium, and the end of terminal piece is beaked. Some posterior setigers bear homogomph falcigers in which the end of terminal piece is bifid. Notopodial falcigers are homogomph; neuropodial falcigers are homogomph (Figure 7d).

Figure 8.
Ventral ligule elongates digitiform longer than remaining notopodial ligules, and ventral cirrus is approximately half as long as ventral ligule. Dorsal notopodial ligule increases in length and expands in posterior setigers with dorsal cirrus distally inserted. Notosetae homogomph spinigers only, with 1–3 robust heterogomph falcigers (Figure 8d). Anal cirri are narrow and elongated.

Figure 9.
The paragnaths on proboscis have the following arrangement: I = 3 cones, II = 12–15 cones in 3 oblique rows; III = 13 cones in 3 longitudinal rows; IV = a dense triangular group; V = 3 cones in a triangle; VI = a transverse row of 5–8 flattened broad paragnaths; and VII and VIII = 30–40 cones in 3 irregular rows.
Typical parapodia have all ligules conical with the dorsal longest ones (Figure 9b). Dorsal cirri are slender and extend distally somewhat beyond the tips of dorsal ligules (Figure 9c). The anterior setigers, more than 10 in a live specimen, are blue-black or green-black; the posterior region is pale-brown. Notosetae with homogomph spinigers and neurosetae with heterogomph falcigers (Figure 9d).

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.
Anterior parapodia bear rounded supra- and infra-ligules (Figure 14b). Both dorsal and ventral cirri are digitate, and middle parapodia have almost the same size as notoligule; but the end of the supra-notoligule is slender. The dorsal cirri are longer than notopodial lobes slenderized toward the end. The ventral cirrus is very short, situated at the base of infra-neuroligule (Figure 14c). Beyond the 50th setiger, supra-notoligule expands toward the posterior end in rectangular shape; it is carrying the dorsal cirrus at the end; ventral cirrus is very short. The upper margin or supra-notoligule in posterior parapodia bears a gland. Notosetae are homogomph spinigers throughout, and neurosetae in anterior and middle parapodia are homogomph spinigers and heterogomph falcigers. Posterior neurosetal lobes with heterogomph spinigers and falcigers (Figure 14d).

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Figure 18.

Figure 19.

Figure 20.

Figure 21.

Figure 22.

Figure 23.

Figure 24.

Figure 25.
4. Discussion
The present study is an attempt to understand the basic polychaete taxonomi-cal tools, diversity, and morphological identification of the common coral-reef-associated polychaetes of Great Nicobar Islands. Over 5400 species of polychaetes have been described so far worldwide. Many polychaete worms are beautiful and strikingly colored red, green, or pink or with a combination of different colors, and some are iridescent. The most common and visible polychaetes found on coral reefs are feather dust and Christmas tree worms. Hence, in the present survey, a total of 24 species belonging to 14 genera, 7 orders, and 11 families were identified Three species of Phyllocidae, 8 species of Nereidae, 5 species of Eunicidae, 2 species of Spionidae, 1 species of Opheliidae, Sabellariidae, Terebellidae, Polynoidae, Amphinomidae, and Sabellidae of coral-reef associate polychaetes are so far reported from Great Nicobar Island coastal waters. Fauvel [7] gave about 450 species from the waters in and around India and rightly stated that this was probably half of the total number occurring in these waters. A total of 30 species of polychaetes belong to 8 families and 23 genera. Each species has specific features for the representative family, and all species were recorded for the first time from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, of which 15 species are new to Indian waters. Prior to the study periods in Great Nicobar Islands, very little polychaete taxonomical study has been reported; the present study clearly highlights the polychaete taxonomical tools of Great Nicobar Island.
5. Conclusion
This chapter concludes the taxonomy status and identification tools of poly-chaete diversity in Great Nicobar Islands. Polychaeates are one of the best indicator species in marine environment. Coral associated polychaete identification is very difficult to carry out. The study of polychaete taxonomy is a better tool for under-standing the conventional taxonomy. In recent trends various molecular tools have been used for identification purpose. In spite of molecular techniques, conventional taxonomy is one of the basic important tools. Taxonomic identification is very dif-ficult in the coral-reef region. This could be solved by re-establishing species names at present regarded as subordinate synonyms; formerly the type or topotype resources were analyzed. Our hope is that the present list may prove useful for such a major reconsideration of this distinctive fauna and that it may encourage regional colleagues to expand our worldwide understanding of the polychaete diversity in Great Nicbar region, This region may very well be the Island ecosytem of the uppermost polychaete diversity in India. The results highlight the importance of the taxonomical keys and evaluate the species information in around Great Nicobar Islands. In many of the previous literature only line drawings were used, but the present study describes the clear illustration of digital snapshots of animal parts.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to the director of CAS in Marine Biology, Faculty of Marine Sciences, Annamalai University, for providing the necessary facilities. The first author (V. S.) thanks to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi, for financial support.
References
- 1.
Vecchione C. The central role of systematics in marine biodiversity issues. Oceanography. 1996; 9 (1):44-49 - 2.
Vecchione M, Mickevich MF, Fauchald K, Collette BB, Williams AB, Munroe TA, et al. Importance of assessing taxonomic adequacy in determining fishing effects on communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2000; 57 :677-681 - 3.
Eklof J. Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Polychaetes. Intellecta Infolog, Goteborg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg, Department of Zoology; 2010. ISBN: 978-91-628-8092-7 - 4.
Bilton DT, Paula J, Bishop JDD. Dispersal, genetic differentiation and speciation in estuarine organisms. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sciences. 2002; 55 :937-952 - 5.
Fauchald K. Polychaetous annelids of the families Eunicidae, Lumbrineridae, Iphitimidae, Arabellidae, Lysaretidae and Dorvilleidae from western Mexico. Allan Hancock Monograph Marine Biology. 1970; 5 :1-335 - 6.
Fauvel P. The littoral fauna of Krusadai Island in the Gulf of Mannar. Bulletin of the Madras Government Museum. New Series Natural History Section. 1930; I (2):1-72 - 7.
Fauvel P. Annelida Polychaeta. The Fauna of India Including Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Malaya. Allahabad: The Indian Press Ltd; 1953. 507 pp - 8.
Day JH. A monograph on the Polychaeta of Southern Africa. Pts. I and II. British Museum Natural History. 1967; 656 :1-878 - 9.
Fauchald K. The polychaete worms. definition and keys to the orders, families and genera. Natural History Museum Angeles Science Series. 1977; 28 :1-188 - 10.
Pallas PS. Miscellanea zoological, etc., pp. 72-145. Hagae Comitum. 1766; VII :224 pp - 11.
Gravier C. Contribution to the study of polychaete annilides Red Sea. Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris. 1901; 4 (3):147-268 - 12.
Parulekar AH. Polychaete from Maharashtra and Goa. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 1971; 68 (3):726-749 - 13.
Soota TD, Rao CAN. On some polychaetes from Andaman and Nicobar islands. Records of Zoological Survey of India. 1977; 73 (1-4):197-210 - 14.
Rao CAN, Soota TD. On some polychaetes from Gujarat coast. Records of Zoological Survey of India. 1981; 79 (1&2):73-82 - 15.
Soota TD, Misra A, Chakraborty RK. Polychaete fauna of Gujarat coast. Records of Zoological Survey of India. 1981; 79 (1&2):93-104 - 16.
Savigny JC. Annelides. In: Lamarck JB, editor. Histoire Naturelle des Animaux Sans Vertebras. 1818. 612 pp - 17.
Soota TD, Misra A, Chakraborty RK. Polychaete fauna of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Records of Zoological Survey of India. 1980; 77 :55-69 - 18.
Misra A, Chakraborty RK. Polychaetes from Lakshadweep. Fauna of Lakshadweep. State Fauna series. Zoological Survey of India. 1991; 2 :137-165 - 19.
Grube AE. Annulata Semperiana. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Anneliden-fauna der Philippinen nach den von Herrn Prof. Semper mitgebrachten Sammlungen. Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg. 1878; 25 :1-300 - 20.
Gravier C. Contribution to the study of polychaete annelids. I partie. Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle. 1900; 3 :137-282 - 21.
Bergstrom E. Zur Systematik der Polychaeten Familie der Phyllodociden. Zoologiska Bidrag Fran Uppsala. 1914; 3 :37-324 - 22.
Day JH. Polychaeta from several localities in the Western Indian Ocean. Proceedinds of Zoological Society Londan. 1962; 139 (4):627-656 - 23.
Tampi PRS, Rangarajan K. Some polychaetous annelids from the andaman waters. Journal of Marine Biological Association of India. 1964; 6 (1):98-123 - 24.
Marenzeller EV. Sudjapanische annelids. I. Denkschriften der Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen classe der Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien. 1879; 41 (2):109-152 - 25.
Izuka A. The errantiate polychaeta of Japan. Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University, Tokyo. 1912; 30 - 26.
Kinberg JGH. Annulata nova. Öfversigt af Königlich Vetenskapsakademiens förhandlingar. 1866; 22 :167-169 - 27.
Horst R. Contributions towards the knowledge of the Annelida Polychaeta. Notes from the Leyden Museum. 1889; 11 :38-45, 161-186 - 28.
Southern R. Polychaeta of the Chilka Lake and also of fresh and brackish waters in other parts of the India. Memoirs of the Indian Museum. 1921; 5 (8):563-659 - 29.
Fauvel P. Polychaeta of Indian Museum, Calcutta. Memory of Indian Museum. 1932; 12 :1-262 - 30.
Rao CAN. Annelida: Polychaeta. In: Ghosh AK, editor. Fauna of Chilka Lake. Calcutta: Zoological Survey of India; 1995. pp. 319-336 - 31.
Rao CAN. Polychaete fauna of Mahanadi Estuary, Orissa. Zoological Survey of India, Esturine Ecosystem Series. 1998; 3 :199-209 - 32.
Grube AE. Bemerkungen uber die Familie der Aphroditeen, (Gruppe Polynoina, Acoeta, Polylepidea). Jahresbericht der Schlesischen Gesellschaft für Vaterländische Kultur. 1876; 53 :46-72 - 33.
Augener H. Polychaeta. I. Errantia. Die fauna Südwest-Australiens. 1913; IV :63-304 - 34.
Hoagland RA. Polychaetous annelides collected by United States fisheries steamer “albatros” during the Philippines expedition of 1907-1909. Bulletin of the United States National Museum. 1920; 100 (1):603-634 - 35.
Wilson RS, Glasby CJ. A revision of the Perinereis nuntia species group (Polychaeta: Nereididae). Records of the Australian Museum. 1993;45 (3):253-277 - 36.
Rajasekaran R. Studies on coral and seagrass associated polychaete of India [Ph.D. thesis]. India: Annamalai University; 2005. 1-65 pp - 37.
Ehlers E. Die Borstenwiirmer nach systematischen und anatomischen Untersuchungen dargestellt. Leipzig. 748 pp (pp. 1-268 published in 1864; 1868; pp. 269-748) - 38.
Grube AE. Actinien Echinodermen und Wiirmen des Adriatischen und Mittlelmeeres. Konigsberg. 1840. 88 pp - 39.
Fauvel P. Polychetes errants. Fauna France. 1923; 5 :1-488 - 40.
Misra A, Chakraborty RK. Further records of polychaetes from Gujarat coast. Records of Zoological Survey of India. 1983; 81 (1&2):69-75 - 41.
Grube AE. Annulata Oerstediana. Videnskabelige Meddelelser Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening, Kobenhavn Pt. II., 1857. 158-166 pp - 42.
McIntosh WC. Marine Annelids (Polychaeta) of South Africa. Pt. 1 & 2. Marine Investment South Africa. 1904; 3 :17-56, 57-92 - 43.
Misra A, Chakraborty RK, Soota TD. Fauna of Orissa: Polychaeta. Zoological Survey of India. 1987; 1 :69-89 - 44.
Savigny JC. Systeme des annelids, principalement de celles des cotes de l’Egypte et la Syrie, etc. Paris. 1820. 128 pp - 45.
Crossland C. On the marine fauna of Zanzibar and British East Africa from collection made by Cyril Crossland in the years 1901 and 1902. Polychaeta. Pt. III. Proceedinds of Zoological Society Londan. 1903; 73 (1):169-176 - 46.
Gravely FH. The littoral fauna of Krusadai Island in the Gulf of Mannar. Chaetopoda. Bulletin of Madras Government Museum (N.S). Natural History Section. 1927; I (I):55-86 - 47.
Delle CS. Memorie sulla storia e notomia degli animali senza vertebre del regno di Napoli. Naples. 1825; 3 :1-232 - 48.
Peters WC. Uber die Gattung Bdella Savigny, (Limnatus, Moquin-Tandon) und die in Mossambique beobachteten Anneliden. Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussische Akademie des Wissenschaften zu Berlin. 1854; 1854 :610-614 - 49.
Day JH. The polychaete fauna of South Africa. Part 4: New species from Natal and Mozambique. Annals of the Natal Museum. 1957; 14 :59-129 - 50.
Grube AE. Beschreibung neuer oder wenig beakannten von Heron Ehrenberg gesammalter Anneliden aus den Rothen Meeres. Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussische Akademie des Wissenschaften zu Berlin. 1870; 1870 :484-521 - 51.
Audouin JV, Milne-Edwards H. Classification des Annelides et descriptions de celles qui habitent les cotes de la France. Annales des Sciences Naturelles. 1833; 27 :187-247 - 52.
Fauvel P. Polychaeta new Morocco. Bulletin Zoological Society France. 1928; 53 :9-13 - 53.
Blake JA, Kudenov JD. The Spionidae from South-Eastern Australia and adjacent areas with a revision of the genera. Memoirs of the National Museum of Victoria. 1978; 39 :171-280 - 54.
Imajima M. Spionidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from Japan VI. The genera Malacoceros andRhynchospio . Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Tokyo, Series A. 1991;17 (1):5-17 - 55.
Foster NM. Spionidae of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Studies of Fauna Curaçao Caribbean Island. 1971; 36 :1-183 - 56.
Muller OF. Zoologia Danica Seu Animalium Daniae et Norvegiae rariorum ac minus notorum descriptiones et Historia. Havniae; 1806. 160 pp - 57.
Fauvel P. Polychetes sendentaries.Addenda aux Errantes, Archiannelida, Myzoztomaires. Fauna France. 1927; 16 :1-494 - 58.
Day JH. The Polychaeta of South Africa. Part 3: Sedentary species from cape shores and estuaries. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology. 1955; 42 :407-452 - 59.
Rao CAN. Polychaete fauna of the godavari estuary. Zoological Survey of India, Esturine Ecosystem Series. 2001; 4 :21-32 - 60.
Fauvel P. Annelides Polychaetes de Madagascar, de Djibouti et du Golfe Persique. Archives Zoological Experimental General. 1919; 58 :315-473 - 61.
Day JH. The polychaete fauna of South Africa. Part I: The intertidal and estuarine Polychaeta of Natal and Mosambique. Annals of the Natal Museum. 1951; 12 (1):1-67 - 62.
Peters WC. Scientific trip to Mozambique ausgefürt in 1842-1848. Akademie Knowledge Berlin. 1854; 1854 :610-614 - 63.
Johansson KE. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Polychaeten-Familien Hermellidae, Sabellidae und Serpulidae. Zoologiska Bidrag Fran Uppsala. 1927; 11 :1-184 - 64.
Gravier C. Sur les annilides polychetes de la Mer Rouge (Cirratuliens (suite), Mald’aniens, Amphictenians, Terebelliens). Bulletin Museum History Natural, Paris. 1905; 11 :319-326 - 65.
Hessle C. Zur Kenntniss der terebellomorphen Polychaeten. Zoologiska Bidrag Fran Uppsala. 1917; 5 :39-258 - 66.
Willey A. Report on the Polychaeta collected by Prof. Herdmann, at Ceylon in 1902. Ceylon Pearl Oyster Fisheries Supplementary Reports. 1905; 4 (30):243-324 - 67.
Gravier C. Contribution a l’etude des annelids polychetes de la Mer Rouge (suite). Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle. Paris. 1908; 4 (10):67-168 - 68.
Rajasekaran R, Fernando OJ. Polychaetes of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. In: Venkataraman K, Raghunathan C, Sivaperuman C. editors. Ecology of Faunal Communities on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 2012:1-22. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-28335-2_1.2012