identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03FA87C19368FFC38641F94D5455F9D6.text	03FA87C19368FFC38641F94D5455F9D6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Richtersius nicolai Vecchi & Godziek & Kristensen & Piemontese & Calhim & Stec 2025	<div><p>Richtersius nicolai sp. nov.</p><p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 1BC3E5B8-7DB4-4BC0-BBD9-820FD28BFECD</p><p>Figs 2–7; Tables 3–5</p><p>Richtersius coronifer – Guidetti et al. 2005.</p><p>Richtersius Northern Italy 1 – Guidetti et al. 2016: fig. 1.</p><p>Richtersius sp. 5 – Stec et al. 2020b.</p><p>Richtersius aff. coronifer – Zawierucha et al. 2023.</p><p>Etymology</p><p>This species is named after Nicola Piemontese, a naturalist and expert of the flora and fauna of the Gargano Peninsula.</p><p>Type material</p><p>Holotype</p><p>ITALY • <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=15.958194&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=41.705418" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 15.958194/lat 41.705418)">Monte Sant’Angelo</a>; 41°42′19.5″ N, 15°57′29.5″ E; 790 m a.s.l.; Jul. 2023; M. Vecchi and L. Piemontese leg.; moss on rock; ISEA-PAS, slide IT.137.4.</p><p>Paratypes</p><p>ITALY • 60 specs; same data as for holotype; ISEA PAS, slides IT.137.1 to IT.137.6 and slides IT.137.10 to IT.137.13, SEM stubs TAR.2.03, TAR.2.04 • 12 eggs; same data as for holotype; ISEA PAS, slide IT.137.8, SEM stub TAR.2.05 • 5 specs; same data as for holotype; MUC, slide NHMD-1732285 • 6 eggs; same data as for holotype; MUC, slide NHMD-1732286 .</p><p>Description</p><p>Animals (measurements in Tables 3–4; Supp. files 1, 2) Body is bright yellow; all specimens became transparent after the fixation in Hoyers’s medium (Fig. 2). Eyes were visible in 64% of animals (excluding hatchlings) mounted in Hoyers’s medium. Body and leg cuticle is without granulation in all life stages and with pores present only in hatchlings (Fig. 3). Hatchlings are similar in appearance to adults, except for a smaller body size and roundish pores (Fig. 3) (1.14–2.10 µm in diameter) with sometimes jagged edges, faintly visible under PCM, scattered randomly throughout the body cuticle, with a mean pore density of 10 (range 9–11) per 2500 µm 2 of the dorsal cuticle.</p><p>Claws are slender, primary branches with distinct accessory points (Fig. 4) and an internal system of septa as described for Richtersius coronifer s. lat. by Lisi et al. (2020). The claw common tract index has an average value between 56% and 58% across all four leg pairs, meaning that the basal portion of the claw is usually longer than half the total length of the primary branch. Lunulae are large, with a crown of long, numerous and densely arranged spikes (Fig. 4). All the lunulae are trapezoidal (Fig. 4). Double muscle attachments in legs I–III and horseshoe structures in legs IV are visible in PCM, whereas cuticular bars are absent (Fig. 4).</p><p>Mouth is antero-ventral. The buccal apparatus is of the Richtersius type (Fig. 5). The oral cavity is followed by a system of large apophyses that form a buccal crown (Fig. 5A–B). Anteriorly, the system consists of dorso-lateral and ventro-lateral triangular apophyses (Fig. 5A). The dorsal and ventral apophyses are composed of anteriorly positioned large cuticular hooks, followed by longitudinal crests (Fig. 5B). The hook in the ventral apophyses is smaller than the dorsal hook (Fig. 5B). The wall of the buccal tube exhibits a variable thickness (Fig. 5A), but the internal diameter of the buccal tube is almost uniformly narrow (Fig. 5A). From the mouth opening to the stylet support insertion point, the thickness of the buccal tube wall increases only slightly, while below this point the evident posterior thickness is clearly visible (Fig. 5A). The pharynx is spherical, with bilobed apophyses, three anterior cuticular spikes (typically only two are visible in any given plane) and two granular macroplacoids (2&lt;1). The first and second macroplacoids have a faint constriction positioned centrally and subterminally, respectively (Fig. 5C). The oral cavity armature is faintly visible under PCM, with only the second band of teeth visible mainly in the larger specimens (Fig. 5B). Under PCM, the second band of teeth is visible as several irregular rows of densely packed and faint dark dots (Fig. 5B). The discontinuous third band of teeth is situated between the second band of teeth and the opening of the buccal tube and is divided into a dorsal and a ventral portion, both in the form of a single large tooth resembling a beak.</p><p>Eggs (measurements in Table 5; Supp. file 1)</p><p>Large, roundish, yellow, laid freely. The surface between processes is smooth but with refracting dots faintly visible only under PCM, but difficult to observe because of the amount of debris that is typically attached to the egg surface (Figs 6–7). Processes in the shape of elongated, thin cones with a ragged surface caused by small granules visible both in LM and SEM (Figs 6, 7B–E). Terminal discs or other structures absent.</p><p>Reproduction</p><p>The species is gonochoric-amphimictic (Guidetti et al. 2016).</p><p>DNA sequences</p><p>– 18S: HQ604987 –8 (Bertolani et al. 2014), PP989298 (this study)</p><p>– 28S: KT778695 –6 (Guidetti et al. 2016), PP989299 (this study)</p><p>– COI: AY598780 –1 (Guidetti et al. 2005), PP986909-11 (this study)</p><p>– ITS2: PP989300 (this study)</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Locus typicus: Monte Sant’Angelo, Puglia, Italy (41°42′19.5″ N, 15°57′29.5″ E; 790 m above sea level (a.s.l.)). Moss on rock (sample IT. 137 in this study).</p><p>Monte Sant’Angelo, Puglia, Italy (41°43′29.4″ N, 15°56′40.7″ E; 800 m a.s.l.). Lichen on tree (sample JYU.S 606 in this study).</p><p>Pratignano, Emilia Romagna, Italy (4°09′11.8″ N, 10°48′24.9″ E; 1500 m a.s.l.). Moss on rock ( Richtersius Northern Italy 1 in Guidetti et al. 2016).</p><p>Differential diagnosis</p><p>Richtersius nicolai sp. nov. differs from:</p><p>Richtersius coronifer by having smaller eggs (bare diameter 118–134 µm in R. nicolai sp. nov. vs 173– 233 µm in R. coronifer) and by having a lower pores density in the newborns (PD 9–11 in R. nicolai vs 60–88 in R. coronifer).</p><p>Richtersius ziemowiti by having a lower pores density in the newborns (PD 9–11 in R. nicolai sp. nov. vs 20–24 in R. ziemowiti).</p><p>Richtersius mazepi by having bigger eggs (bare diameter 118–137 µm in R. nicolai sp. nov. vs 77–91 µm in R. mazepi), by the absence of a crown of thickenings distributed around the bases of the egg processes (present in R. mazepi), by the different shape of the egg processes (conical spikes in R. nicolai vs wide dome-shaped proximal portion and an elongated slender distal portion in R. mazepi), by having a lower pore density in the newborns (PD 9–11 in R. nicolai vs 26–36 in R. mazepi), and by having a higher claw IV anterior cct (49–63 % in R. nicolai vs 32–44 % in R. mazepi).</p><p>Richtersius tertius by having a higher pore density in the newborns (PD 9–11 in R. nicolai sp. nov. vs 3–6 in R. tertius), and by having a smaller first macroplacoid (pt = 10–14 in R. nicolai vs pt = 14–20 in R. tertius).</p><p>Richtersius ingemari sp. nov. by having a higher pore density in the newborns (PD 9–11in R.nicolai sp.nov. vs 4–7 in R. ingemari), and by the reproductive mode (gonochorism in R. nicolai vs parthenogenesis in R. ingemari).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FA87C19368FFC38641F94D5455F9D6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Vecchi, Matteo;Godziek, Jakub;Kristensen, Reinhardt M.;Piemontese, Lucia;Calhim, Sara;Stec, Daniel	Vecchi, Matteo, Godziek, Jakub, Kristensen, Reinhardt M., Piemontese, Lucia, Calhim, Sara, Stec, Daniel (2025): Taxonomic reanalysis of the genus Richtersius (Tardigrada; Eutardigrada), with description of two new species from Italy and Sweden. European Journal of Taxonomy 981: 155-188, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.981.2823, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2823/12879
03FA87C19362FFD6865CF94554F2FEF5.text	03FA87C19362FFD6865CF94554F2FEF5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Richtersius ingemari Vecchi & Godziek & Kristensen & Piemontese & Calhim & Stec 2025	<div><p>Richtersius ingemari sp. nov.</p><p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 8D3E6F1C-BCFA-46A6-9F5C-173C0EB70EF2</p><p>Figs 8–13; Tables 6–8</p><p>Adorybiotus coronifer – Westh &amp; Ramløv 1991. — Ramløv &amp; Westh 1992. — Westh &amp; Kristensen 1992.</p><p>Adorybiotus (Richtersius) coronifer – Ramløv &amp; Westh 2001.</p><p>Richtersius coronifer – Jönsson &amp; Guidetti 2001. — Jönsson &amp; Rebecchi 2002. — Ivarsson &amp; Jönsson 2004. — Jönsson et al. 2005. — Jönsson 2007. — Jönsson &amp; Schill 2007. — Dunn et al. 2008. — Faurby et al. 2008. — Hindborg Mortensen et al. 2010. — Nilsson et al. 2010. — Persson et al. 2011. — Halberg et al. 2012; 2013. — Czernekova &amp; Jönsson 2016. — Czerneková et al. 2017; 2018. — Vecchi et al. 2018. — Guidetti et al. 2019. — Kamilari et al. 2019. — Pedersen et al. 2020; 2021.</p><p>Richtersius coronifer P3 – Rebecchi et al. 2003.</p><p>Richtersius coronifer P4 – Rebecchi et al. 2003.</p><p>Richtersius Sweden – Guidetti et al. 2016: figs 1–2.</p><p>Richtersius Northern Italy 2 – Guidetti et al. 2016.</p><p>Richtersius sp. 4 – Stec et al. 2020b.</p><p>Richtersius cf. coronifer – Hagelbäck &amp; Jönsson 2023.</p><p>Etymology</p><p>This species is named after Prof. Ingemar Jönsson of Kristianstad University, Sweden, in recognition of his efforts in studying the physiological adaptations of tardigrades to extreme conditions, utilizing this species as a model organism.</p><p>Type material</p><p>Holotype</p><p>SWEDEN • <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=16.462584&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=56.538387" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 16.462584/lat 56.538387)">Öland Island</a>; 56°32′18.2″ N, 16°27′45.3″ E; 46 m a.s.l.; Oct. 2006; R.M. Kristensen leg.; moss on rock; ISEA-PAS, slide SE.002.5.</p><p>Paratypes</p><p>SWEDEN • 69 specs; same data as for holotype; ISEA PAS, slides SE.002.1 to SE.002.7, SEM stubs TAR.2.01, TAR.2.02 • 44 eggs; same data as for holotype; ISEA PAS, slides SE.002.13, SE.002.14, SEM stubs TAR.2.01, TAR.2.02 • 22 specs; same data as for holotype; MUC, slides NHMD-1732287, NHMD-1732288 • 41 eggs; same data as for holotype; MUC, slides NHMD-1732289 to NHMD-1732291 .</p><p>Description</p><p>Animals (measurements in Tables 6–7; Supp. files 3, 4)</p><p>Body is bright yellow; all specimens became transparent after the fixation in Hoyer’s medium (Fig. 8). Eyes were visible in all of the animals (excluding hatchlings) mounted in Hoyer’s medium. Body and leg cuticle is without granulation in all life stages and with pores present only in hatchlings (Figs 8B, 9). Hatchlings are similar in appearance to adults, except for a smaller body size and roundish pores (1.5–3.1 µm in diameter) with usually jagged edges, visible under PCM, scattered randomly throughout the body cuticle, with a mean pore density of 5 (range 4–7) per 2500 µm 2 of the dorsal cuticle (Fig. 9).</p><p>Claws are slender, primary branches with distinct accessory points (Fig.10) and an internal system of septa as described for Richtersius coronifer s. lat. by Lisi et al. (2020). The claw common tract index has an average value between 57% and 61% across all four leg pairs, meaning that the basal portion of the claw is usually longer than half the total length of the primary branch. Lunulae are large, with a crown of long, numerous and densely arranged spikes (Fig. 10). All the lunulae are trapezoidal (Fig. 10). Double muscle attachments in legs I–III and horseshoe structures in legs IV are visible in PCM, whereas cuticular bars are absent (Fig. 10).</p><p>Mouth is antero-ventral. The buccal apparatus is of the Richtersius type (Fig. 11). The oral cavity is followed by a system of large apophyses that form a buccal crown (Fig. 11A–B). Anteriorly, the system consists of dorso-lateral and ventro-lateral triangular apophyses (Fig. 11A). The dorsal and ventral apophyses are composed of anteriorly positioned large cuticular hooks, followed by longitudinal crests (Fig. 11B). The hook in the ventral apophyses is smaller than the dorsal hook (Fig. 11B). The wall of the buccal tube exhibits a variable thickness (Fig. 11A), but the internal diameter of the buccal tube is almost uniformly narrow (Fig. 11A). From the mouth opening to the stylet support insertion point, the thickness of the buccal tube wall increases only slightly, while below this point the evident posterior thickness is clearly visible (Fig. 11A). The pharynx is spherical, with bilobed apophyses, three anterior cuticular spikes (typically only two are visible in any given plane, Fig. 11A) and two granular macroplacoids (2&lt;1). The first and second macroplacoids have a faint constriction positioned centrally and subterminally, respectively (Fig. 11C). The oral cavity armature is faintly visible under PCM, with only the second band of teeth visible mainly in the larger specimens (Fig. 11B). Under PCM, the second band of teeth is visible as several irregular rows of densely packed and faint dark dots (Fig. 11B). The discontinuous third band of teeth is situated between the second band of teeth and the opening of the buccal tube and is divided into a dorsal and a ventral portion, both in the form of a single large tooth resembling a beak.</p><p>Eggs (measurements in Table 8; Supp. file 3)</p><p>Large, roundish, yellow, laid freely. The surface between processes is smooth but with refracting dots faintly visible only under PCM, but difficult to observe because of the amount of debris that is typically attached to the egg surface (Figs 12–13). Processes in the shape of elongated, thin, cones with a ragged surface caused by small granules visible both in LM and SEM (Figs 12, 13B). The processes are sometimes bifurcated (Figs 12E–F, 13B). A ring of small pores visible only with SEM is present around each process (Fig. 13C). The processes are hollow inside (Fig. 13D). Terminal discs or other structures absent.</p><p>Reproduction</p><p>Thelytokous parthenogenesis, chromosome number 2n = 12 (Rebecchi et al. 2003; Stec et al. 2020b). Automictic parthenogenesis has been suggested for this species by Rebecchi et al. (2003) based on the presence of chiasmata in the oocytes.</p><p>DNA sequences</p><p>– 18S: AY582121, KT778706 -7 (Guidetti et al. 2016), MH681761 -2 (Stec et al. 2020b)</p><p>– 28S: GQ849048, KT778697 -8 (Guidetti et al. 2016), MH681758 -9 (Stec et al. 2020b)</p><p>– COI: EU251385, EU244606, EU251383 -4, MH676054 -5 (Stec et al. 2020b), PP986907-8 (this study)</p><p>– ITS2: MH681764 -5 (Stec et al. 2020b)</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Locus typicus: Möckelmossen, Öland Island, Sweden (56°32′18.2″ N, 16°27′45.3″ E). Moss on tock (sample SE.002 in this study).</p><p>Möckelmossen, Öland Island, Sweden (56°31.732′ N, 16°29.474′ E). Moss on rock(sample C 2353 in Guidetti et al. 2016; sample P 4 in Rebecchi et al. 2003; sample C3585-S 6 in Vecchi et al. 2018). This population has been extensively used in studies on cytology, physiology, and ecology under the name of Richtersius coronifer .</p><p>Lago di Teleccio, Torino, Italy (45°28′55″ N, 7°22′22″ E; 1830 m a.s.l.). Moss (sample IT. 120 in Stec et al. 2020b).</p><p>Sasso del Corvo, Modena, Italy (44°12.774′ N, 10°31.974′ E, 1280 m a.s.l.). Moss on rock (sample C 3226 in Guidetti et al. 2016; sample P 3 in Rebecchi et al. 2003).</p><p>Kościeliska Valley, Tatrzański National Park, Poland (49°14′22″ N, 19°51′46″ E; 1083 m a.s.l.). Moss (sample PL. 246 in Stec et al. 2020b).</p><p>Differential diagnosis</p><p>Richtersius ingemari sp. nov. differs from:</p><p>Richtersius coronifer by having smaller eggs (bare diameter 114–137 µm in R. ingemari sp. nov. vs 173– 233 µm in R. coronifer) and by having a lower pore density in the newborns (PD 4–7 in R. ingemari vs 60–88 in R. coronifer).</p><p>Richtersius ziemowiti by having a lower pore density in the newborns (PD 4–7 in R. ingemari sp. nov. vs 20–24 in R. ziemowiti).</p><p>Richtersius mazepi by having bigger eggs (bare diameter 114–137 µm in R. ingemari sp. nov. vs 77– 91 µm in R. mazepi), by the absence of a crown of thickenings distributed around the bases of the egg processes (present in R. mazepi), by the different shape of the egg processes (conical spikes in R. ingemari vs wide dome-shaped proximal portion and an elongated slender distal portion in R. mazepi), by having a lower pore density in the newborns (PD 4–7 in R. ingemari vs 26–36 in R. mazepi), and by having a higher claw IV anterior cct (51–69 % in R ingemari vs 32–44 % in R. mazepi).</p><p>Richtersius tertius by having a smaller first macroplacoid (pt 9–13 in R. ingemari sp. nov. vs 14–20 in R. tertius).</p><p>Richtersius nicolai sp. nov. by having a higher pore density in the newborns (PD 4–7 in R. ingemari sp. nov. vs 9–11 in R. nicolai), and by the reproductive mode (parthenogenesis in R. ingemari vs gonochorism in R. nicolai).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FA87C19362FFD6865CF94554F2FEF5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Vecchi, Matteo;Godziek, Jakub;Kristensen, Reinhardt M.;Piemontese, Lucia;Calhim, Sara;Stec, Daniel	Vecchi, Matteo, Godziek, Jakub, Kristensen, Reinhardt M., Piemontese, Lucia, Calhim, Sara, Stec, Daniel (2025): Taxonomic reanalysis of the genus Richtersius (Tardigrada; Eutardigrada), with description of two new species from Italy and Sweden. European Journal of Taxonomy 981: 155-188, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.981.2823, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2823/12879
03FA87C19377FFD78663FE4B507AFABA.text	03FA87C19377FFD78663FE4B507AFABA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Richtersius sp.	<div><p>Richtersius sp. [Ca1 MK214326]</p><p>Richtersius sp. 6 – Stec et al. 2020b.</p><p>Description</p><p>No information on this species morphology is available.</p><p>Reproductive mode</p><p>Gonochoric (Stec et al. 2020b).</p><p>DNA sequences</p><p>– 18S: MK211387 (Stec et al. 2020b)</p><p>– 28S: MK211385 (Stec et al. 2020b)</p><p>– COI: MK214326 -8 (Stec et al. 2020b)</p><p>– ITS2: MK211382 -3 (Stec et al. 2020b)</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Genna Silana, Sardegna, Italy (40°09′04″ N, 9°30′23″ E; 1047 m a.s.l.). Moss (sample IT. 317 in Stec et al. 2020b).</p><p>Richtersius sp. [Ca2 KT778685]</p><p>Richtersius Mongolia – Guidetti et al. 2016.</p><p>Richtersius sp. 2 – Stec et al. 2020b.</p><p>Description</p><p>In the newborns, many small cuticular pores (diameter 1–2 µm) with regular margins are present. Claw common tract shorter than half of the total claw length. The buccal tube walls are extremely enlarged after the stylet support insertions (Guidetti et al. 2016). Additional morphometric data for this species are presented in Guidetti et al. (2016).</p><p>Reproductive mode</p><p>Gonochoric (Guidetti et al. 2016).</p><p>DNA sequences</p><p>– 18S: KT778708 -10 (Guidetti et al. 2016)</p><p>– 28S: KT778699 -701 (Guidetti et al. 2016)</p><p>– COI: KT778683 -9 (Guidetti et al. 2016)</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Mongolia (46°47.311′ N, 101°57.848′ E; 1790 m a.s.l.). Moss (samples C2592 and C 2595 in Guidetti et al. 2016).</p><p>Richtersius sp. [Ca3 GU237485]</p><p>Description</p><p>No information on this species morphology is available.</p><p>Reproductive mode</p><p>Unknown.</p><p>DNA sequences</p><p>– COI: GU237485, GU339056 (unpublished).</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Unpublished, probably Asia.</p><p>Dichotomous key of the genus Richtersius</p><p>Here we provide a taxonomic key which include six nominal species that are currently recognized within the genus.</p><p>1. Egg with processes having proximal portion in shape of wide domes while distal portion elongated and slender; crown of thickenings distributed around the bases of the egg processes ....................... ........................................................................................... Richtersius mazepi Kiosya &amp; Stec, 2022</p><p>– Egg different ..................................................................................................................................... 2</p><p>2. Egg bare diameter ≥170 µm; in newborns, pore density ≥ 60 pores/ 2500 µm 2 ................................ ............................................................................................... Richtersius coronifer (Richters, 1903)</p><p>– Egg bare diameter &lt;170 µm; in newborns, pore density &lt;60 pores/ 2500 µm 2 .............................. 3</p><p>3. In newborns, pore density ≥ 20 pore /2500 µm 2 ........... Richtersius ziemowiti Kayastha et al., 2020</p><p>– In newborns, pore density &lt;20 pore / 2500 µm 2 ............................................................................... 4</p><p>4. In newborns, pore density ≥ 9 pore / 2500 µm 2 ........................................ Richtersius nicolai sp. nov.</p><p>– In newborns, pore density ≤ 7 pore / 2500 µm 2 ................................................................................. 5</p><p>5. Macroplacoid 1 pt&gt; 13 .................................................... Richtersius tertius Pogwizd &amp; Stec, 2022</p><p>– Macroplacoid 1 pt &lt;13 ......................................................................... Richtersius ingemari sp. nov.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FA87C19377FFD78663FE4B507AFABA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Vecchi, Matteo;Godziek, Jakub;Kristensen, Reinhardt M.;Piemontese, Lucia;Calhim, Sara;Stec, Daniel	Vecchi, Matteo, Godziek, Jakub, Kristensen, Reinhardt M., Piemontese, Lucia, Calhim, Sara, Stec, Daniel (2025): Taxonomic reanalysis of the genus Richtersius (Tardigrada; Eutardigrada), with description of two new species from Italy and Sweden. European Journal of Taxonomy 981: 155-188, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.981.2823, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2823/12879
