Pilatobius

Gąsiorek, Piotr, Blagden, Brian, Morek, Witold & Michalczyk, Łukasz, 2024, What is a ‘ strong’ synapomorphy? Redescriptions of Murray’s type species and descriptions of new taxa challenge the systematics of Hypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 202 (1), pp. 1-63 : 53-57

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlad151
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:044A402-2A0F-4135-9410-7DE081CB11C4Corresponding
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14536977
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AF87C4-A60D-FF8A-AC62-6B39FA3C8AE9
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Pilatobius
status

Treatment

Composition of Pilatobius

The genus Pilatobius comprises species exclusively with two macroplacoids, arranged in parentheses, and a septulum in the pharynx. With the exception of the P. recamieri complex, Pilatobius members typically exhibit varying degrees of dorsal cuticular sculpturing ( Figs 33C View Figure 33 , 35C View Figure 35 , 38B View Figure 38 , 40B View Figure 40 , 42D, F, G View Figure 42 ; see below). The punctiform microplacoid mentioned in the original description of P. opisthoglyptus is most probably a mistake, because the interval between the second macroplacoid and the septulum seems too small to leave space for additional structures ( Fig. 42A View Figure 42 ). The claws of this species are stumpy, with short primary branches; those of the internal claws with a clear hump, and accessory points held tightly adjacent to the claw ( Fig. 42B View Figure 42 ).

Two general morphotypes of the pharyngeal structures can be distinguished within Pilatobius : (i) short and robust macroplacoids, partly overlapping with the septulum ( Fig. 43A, B View Figure 43 ); and (ii) long and bar-like macroplacoids, followed by a clear gap between the septulum ( Fig. 43C–F View Figure 43 ). The first macroplacoid is typically subdivided at 40–50% of its length by a deep constriction. The second has the constriction positioned (sub)terminally ( Fig. 43A–D, F View Figure 43 ). Only rarely are the constrictions poorly developed ( Fig. 43E View Figure 43 ). The morphometry of pharyngeal structures is, together with the existence of the cuticular sculpture, of crucial importance to the taxonomy of Pilatobius , thus redescriptions of ‘old’ taxa and descriptions of new species should provide extensive measurements of these structures and their relative positions.

Shortly after Pilatobius was established ( Bertolani et al. 2014), it was revealed that the genus is paraphyletic, because Notahypsibius , which exhibits only a rigid buccal tube, is embedded among the pilatobiins ( Tumanov 2020). The new phylogeny ( Fig. 2 View Figure 2 ) corroborates the previous findings, placing Notahypsibius as sister to the P. recamieri group, whereas the clade P. oculatus group + P. cf. bullatus is sister to that clade. In an attempt to make the systematics of Pilatobiinae closer to the natural state, we propose the division of the genus into four coherent morphological groups, in a similar manner to the way in which we approached the reorganization of Isohypsibius and Doryphoribius ( Gąsiorek et al. 2019) . Hence, the recamieri group comprises species with a smooth cuticle that lack dorsal gibbosities, whereas the bullatus group (= Pilatobius s.s. owing to the inclusion of P. bullatus , its type species) comprises species with a sculptured cuticle and dorsal gibbosities. Neither the oculatus group nor the rugosus group exhibit dorsolateral gibbosities; however, the cuticular sculpturing is developed differently in each of these species complexes: in the oculatus group, the cuticle is noticeably sculptured only caudally, although some small sculpturing may appear more anteriorly; whereas in the rugosus group, the cuticle is intensely sculptured over the whole dorsum. Two of these groups (the bullatus , oculatus, recamieri , and rugosus groups) are erected as new genera (see below) to reflect the phylogeny of Pilatobiinae ( Fig. 2 View Figure 2 ). Unfortunately, owing to our stringent selection criteria for the composition of the genetic dataset, we were forced to eliminate P. nodulosus ( rugosus group), P.patanei ( bullatus group), and P. ramazzottii ( rugosus group) from our analysis, because only 18S rRNA barcodes were available in GenBank.

In agreement with the doubts raised by Ramazzotti and Maucci (1983), P. elongatus ( Mihelčič, 1959) sp. dub. is designated as synonym novum of P. bullatus owing to the lack of separating characters.Given that the alleged rows of ‘minor’ gibbosities in Pilatobius bisbullatus ( Iharos, 1964) seem to be only folds of cuticle between otherwise typical gibbosities and are an artefact resulting from shrinkage of the specimens in the mounting medium, we designate the species as invalid. Other species ( P. gerdae ( Mihelčič, 1951) sp. dub., P. nonbullatus ( Mihelčič, 1951) sp. dub. (both in bullatus group), P.latipes ( Mihelčič, 1955) sp. dub. ( rugosus group)) designated as dubious by Dastych (2015) are also considered as such and rejected in this paper.