Prorhynchella minuta Ruebush, 1939

Houben, Albrecht M., Monnens, Marlies, Proesmans, Willem & Artois, Tom J., 2022, Limnoterrestrial ‘ Typhloplanidae’ (Rhabdocoela, Platyhelminthes), with the description of four new species and a new genus, European Journal of Taxonomy 798, pp. 70-102 : 94-96

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.5852/ejt.2022.798.1671

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F136E044-62C8-4FB3-8160-7DAE663D9600

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6328794

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038A87DA-A761-FF80-0410-F9E2FBBC0B1E

treatment provided by

Felipe

scientific name

Prorhynchella minuta Ruebush, 1939
status

 

Prorhynchella minuta Ruebush, 1939 View in CoL

Fig. 10 View Fig

Material examined

USA • 9 specs, live observations, one of which sagittally sectioned and two horizontally sectioned; Alabama, Ponderosa Lake ; 32°54′53″ N, 87°19′28″ W; 27 May 2009; Niels Van Steenkiste leg.; submerged vegetation in shallow, clear water in the southeast corner of the lake; XIV.3.01–XIV.3.03; HU GoogleMaps .

Description and discussion

Specimens are about 1 mm long ( Fig. 10E View Fig ) and can be placed within ‘Protoplanellinae’ due to the ventral position of the testes relative to the vitellaria and the separate protonephridiopores (see Reisinger 1924). Additionally, sectioned specimens clearly show ciliated pits ( Fig. 10B View Fig : cp) at the anterior body end. Within ʻProtoplanellinae’, the only genus containing species with such pits is Prorhynchella ( Van Steenkiste et al. 2010). Moreover, the studied specimens also possess the typical proboscis-like organ ( Fig. 10B View Fig : plo) associated with a glandular complex ( Fig. 10B View Fig : gl) that is unique for this monospecific genus (described as ‘rüssel-like organ’ by Ruebush 1939).

The only difference between our specimens and the original description of P. minuta is the position of the protonephridiopores ( Fig. 10A View Fig : pp), which are situated somewhat more posteriorly compared to the original description ( Ruebush 1939).

The studied specimens show some intraspecific variation in the structure of the bursa ( Fig. 10A, C–F View Fig : bu). In one specimen, this is merely an evagination of the genital atrium while in another it is an oval, thin-walled structure, filled with sperm (compare Fig. 10C–D, F View Fig ). It is connected to the genital atrium ( Fig. 10A, D View Fig : ga) by a long bursal stalk ( Fig. 10C, F View Fig : bs), which is surrounded by very strong sphincters ( Fig. 10C, F View Fig : sph). Only two sphincters were visible on live specimens ( Fig. 10F View Fig ), but at least six were counted in one sectioned specimen ( Fig. 10C View Fig ). In the original description of P. minuta, Ruebush (1939) describes a bursa with a stalk, similar to the situation in most of our specimens ( Fig. 10C, F View Fig ). Whether or not the specimen drawn in Fig. 10D View Fig is an aberration is not clear: The specimen appears fully adult, hence the poorly developed bursal structure is unlikely a result of a different degree of development. With the data available to us, it is difficult to speculate on the biological significance of this reduced organ and we hence refrain from drawing conclusions on the matter.

Previously known distribution

Freshwater ponds near Pine Orchard, Connecticut, USA ( Ruebush 1939).

GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF