Trichromadora Kreis, 1929

Venekey, Virag, Gheller, Paula F., Kandratavicius, Noelia, Cunha, Beatriz Pereira, Vilas-Boas, Ana Carolina, Fonseca, Gustavo & Maria, Tatiana F., 2019, The state of the art of Chromadoridae (Nematoda, Chromadorida): a historical review, diagnoses and comments about valid and dubious genera and a list of valid species, Zootaxa 4578 (1), pp. 1-67 : 18

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4578.1.1

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CE27CD48-70BB-4979-9C67-A1A2E1BAAFFD

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/52215C67-FFE0-FF93-FF21-FB28801CF8C6

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Trichromadora Kreis, 1929
status

 

Genus Trichromadora Kreis, 1929

This genus was erected by Kreis (1929) with T. longicaudata as the type species. Later, T. arimiensis Gerlach, 1953 , T. macris and T. ophiocephala Schuurmans Stekhoven, 1950 were described. Lorenzen (1972) synonymized this genus with Prochromadorella based on tail shape and presence of lateral differentiation in three rows on the anterior part of T. longicaudata . In the same work Lorenzen (1972) transferred T. arimiensis and T. macris to Chromadorella and T. ophiocephala was synonymized with T. longicaudata . However, Muthumbi & Vincx (1998a) reinstated the genus mainly based on the differences in cuticle pattern found between Trichromadora and Prochromadorella . The former genus bears a homogenous cuticle with lateral differentiation of three longitudinal rows of dots, while the latter has a heterogenous cuticle. These authors recognized T. arimiensis , T. brachyura ( Schuurmans Stekhoven, 1950) (transferred from Prochromadorella ) and T. longicaudata as valid species in the genus. Decraemer & Smol (2006) and Tchesunov (2014) agreed with the synonymization proposed by Lorenzen (1972), but since many genera within Chromadorinae are differentiated by the cuticular pattern, this differential feature seems to be robust enough to consider Trichromadora a valid genus. Therefore, based on the cuticle pattern, we consider Trichromadora a valid genus.

Diagnosis (modified from Muthumbi & Vincx 1998a): Homogeneous cuticle with a lateral differentiation of three longitudinal rows of thicker dots. Amphideal fovea slit-like. Buccal cavity with a large dorsal hollow tooth and ventrosublateral teeth not evident. Posterior pharyngeal bulb poorly developed. Five precloacal supplements cup-shaped. Marine.

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