Peltodoris Bergh 1880
Fuente:
Zenodo
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Recurso digital |
| Pubblicazione: |
Zenodo
2010
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866902060179390464 |
|---|---|
| author | Valdés, Ángel Bertsch, Hans |
| author_facet | Valdés, Ángel Bertsch, Hans |
| contents | <p><b><i>Peltodoris</i> Bergh, 1880</b></p><p><i>Peltodoris</i> Bergh, 1880:41.</p><p>Type species: <i>Peltodoris atromaculata</i> Bergh, 1880, by subsequent designation by O’ Donoghue (1929).</p><p><i>Phialodoris</i> Bergh, 1889: 908.</p><p>Type species: <i>Phialodoris podotria</i> Bergh, 1889, by monotypy.</p><p><i>Montereina</i> MacFarland, 1905: 38.</p><p>Type species: <i>Montereina nobilis</i> MacFarland, 1905, by original designation.</p><p><b>Diagnosis.</b> Dorsum covered with simple tubercles, stiffened by integumentary spicules, which occasionally protrude from the dorsal surface in an irregular fashion. Head with two conical oral tentacles. Anterior border of the foot grooved and notched. Labial armature smooth. Radula composed of simple, hamate teeth. The outermost teeth may be simple or denticulate. Reproductive system with a flattened, granular prostate, having two well differentiated regions. Penis and vagina devoid of hooks. Vestibular or accessory glands absent.</p><p><b>Remarks.</b> Bergh (1880) described the genus <i>Peltodoris</i> based on <i>Peltodoris atromaculata</i> Bergh, 1880. <i>Peltodoris</i> is characterized by having the dorsum covered with tubercles, finger-like oral tentacles, tripinnate gill, labial armature without jaws, radula with simple, hamate teeth, large prostate and penis and vagina unarmed. Bergh (1880) distinguished <i>Peltodoris</i> from <i>Discodoris</i> on the basis of the harder body consistency and especially because of the lack of jaws.</p><p>Eliot (1906) pointed out that <i>Peltodoris</i> differs from <i>Discodoris</i> just in lacking a labial armature (jaws) and it should be regarded as a subgenus of <i>Discodoris</i>. Later, Thompson (1975) synonymized <i>Peltodoris</i> with <i>Discodoris</i> with no justification. In the following years a few authors followed Thompson’ s authority and cited the type species of <i>Peltodoris</i> in the binomen <i>Discodoris atromaculata</i> (e.g., Cattaneo-Vietti et al. 1990). However, most authors maintained the usage of <i>Peltodoris</i> as a valid genus (Barletta 1981; Schmekel & Portmann 1982; Perrone 1992).</p><p>The phylogenetic analysis of the cryptobranch dorid nudibranchs carried out by Valdés (2002) indicated that <i>Discodoris</i> and <i>Peltodoris</i> belong in two different clades, and therefore the genus <i>Peltodoris</i> was retained as valid. However, a critical review of the literature based on the new available information is necessary to determine how many species assigned to <i>Discodoris</i> are actual members of <i>Peltodoris</i>.</p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_17143472 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2010 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | Peltodoris Bergh 1880 Valdés, Ángel Bertsch, Hans Biodiversity Taxonomy Animalia Mollusca Gastropoda Nudibranchia Discodorididae Peltodoris <p><b><i>Peltodoris</i> Bergh, 1880</b></p><p><i>Peltodoris</i> Bergh, 1880:41.</p><p>Type species: <i>Peltodoris atromaculata</i> Bergh, 1880, by subsequent designation by O’ Donoghue (1929).</p><p><i>Phialodoris</i> Bergh, 1889: 908.</p><p>Type species: <i>Phialodoris podotria</i> Bergh, 1889, by monotypy.</p><p><i>Montereina</i> MacFarland, 1905: 38.</p><p>Type species: <i>Montereina nobilis</i> MacFarland, 1905, by original designation.</p><p><b>Diagnosis.</b> Dorsum covered with simple tubercles, stiffened by integumentary spicules, which occasionally protrude from the dorsal surface in an irregular fashion. Head with two conical oral tentacles. Anterior border of the foot grooved and notched. Labial armature smooth. Radula composed of simple, hamate teeth. The outermost teeth may be simple or denticulate. Reproductive system with a flattened, granular prostate, having two well differentiated regions. Penis and vagina devoid of hooks. Vestibular or accessory glands absent.</p><p><b>Remarks.</b> Bergh (1880) described the genus <i>Peltodoris</i> based on <i>Peltodoris atromaculata</i> Bergh, 1880. <i>Peltodoris</i> is characterized by having the dorsum covered with tubercles, finger-like oral tentacles, tripinnate gill, labial armature without jaws, radula with simple, hamate teeth, large prostate and penis and vagina unarmed. Bergh (1880) distinguished <i>Peltodoris</i> from <i>Discodoris</i> on the basis of the harder body consistency and especially because of the lack of jaws.</p><p>Eliot (1906) pointed out that <i>Peltodoris</i> differs from <i>Discodoris</i> just in lacking a labial armature (jaws) and it should be regarded as a subgenus of <i>Discodoris</i>. Later, Thompson (1975) synonymized <i>Peltodoris</i> with <i>Discodoris</i> with no justification. In the following years a few authors followed Thompson’ s authority and cited the type species of <i>Peltodoris</i> in the binomen <i>Discodoris atromaculata</i> (e.g., Cattaneo-Vietti et al. 1990). However, most authors maintained the usage of <i>Peltodoris</i> as a valid genus (Barletta 1981; Schmekel & Portmann 1982; Perrone 1992).</p><p>The phylogenetic analysis of the cryptobranch dorid nudibranchs carried out by Valdés (2002) indicated that <i>Discodoris</i> and <i>Peltodoris</i> belong in two different clades, and therefore the genus <i>Peltodoris</i> was retained as valid. However, a critical review of the literature based on the new available information is necessary to determine how many species assigned to <i>Discodoris</i> are actual members of <i>Peltodoris</i>.</p> |
| title | Peltodoris Bergh 1880 |
| topic | Biodiversity Taxonomy Animalia Mollusca Gastropoda Nudibranchia Discodorididae Peltodoris |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17143472 |