No abstract

Background Common names are frequently used inconsistently for marine annelid species used as bait in the peer-reviewed literature, field guides and legislative material. The taxonomy of many such species based on morphology only also ignores cryptic divergences not yet detected. Such inconsistencies hamper effective management of marine annelids, especially as fishing for recreation and subsistence is increasing. This study investigates the scale of the problem by studying the use and names of bait marine annelids in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Methods Fifteen recreational and six subsistence fishers at 12 popular fishing sites in the Western Cape Province donated 194 worms which they identified by common name. Worms were assigned scientific names according to a standard identification key for polychaetes from South Africa, and mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I (COI) amplified and sequenced. Results This study identified 11 nominal species known by 10 common names, in the families Siphonosomatidae, Arenicolidae, Sabellaridae, Lumbrineridae, Eunicidae, Onuphidae and Nereididae. Cryptic diversity was investigated through employing mitochondrial COI sequences and these data will facilitate future identifications among widely distributed species. Several species (Siphonosoma dayi, Abarenicola gilchristi, Scoletoma species, Marphysa corallina, Lysidice natalensis, Heptaceras quinquedens, Perinereis latipalpa) are reported as bait for the first time, and while the names blood- and moonshineworms were consistently applied to members of Arenicolidae and Onuphidae, respectively, coralworm was applied to members of Sabellaridae and Nereididae. Analysis of COI sequences supported morphological investigations that revealed the presence of two taxonomic units each for specimens initially identified as Gunnarea gaimardi and Scoletoma tetraura according to identification keys. Similarly, sequences for Scoletoma species and Lysidice natalensis generated in this study do not match those from specimens in China and India, respectively. Further research is required to resolve the species complexes detected and also to refine the use of names by fishermen over a wider geographic range.