Chromaspirina Filipjev, 1918

Leduc, Daniel & Verschelde, Dominick, 2015, New Spirinia and Stygodesmodora species (Nematoda, Spiriniinae) from the Southwest Pacific, and a revision of the related genera Spirinia, Chromaspirina and Perspiria, European Journal of Taxonomy 118, pp. 1-25 : 4-7

Genus Chromaspirina Filipjev, 1918

Type species

Chromaspirina pontica Filipjev, 1918 .

Emended diagnosis (modified from Maria et al. 2009 and Muthumbi et al. 1995)

Robust body with rounded or rectangular head region and short conical tail; fine body annulations. Annulated or non-annulated head region; body annulations envelop the amphideal fovea partly, entirely, or only begin at posterior edge of amphids. Amphideal fovea uni-, crypto- or multispiral, or loopshaped. Cephalic setae at anterior edge or further posteriorly alongside amphids. Distinct buccal cavity, conspicuously cuticularised; large dorsal tooth and smaller subventral teeth; ventral field of denticles may be present. Pharynx with round or oval posterior bulb, sometimes weakly developed, and without cuticularised lumen. Precloacal supplements may be present.

Valid species

C. chabaudi Boucher, 1975 . Main diagnostic characters: ‘‘… a medium-sized dorsal tooth and two small subventral teeth. Anterior portion with twelve chelorhabdia.’’ Drawings show a distinct cuticularised dorsal tooth and subventral teeth ( Boucher 1975: fig. 2).

C. crinita Gerlach, 1952 . Main diagnostic character: ‘‘The dorsal tooth is massive and extraordinarily strong.’’

C. cylindricollis ( Cobb, 1920) . Main diagnostic characters: Only an ‘onchium’ is mentioned, without further comment, but a distinct cuticularised dorsal tooth is visible on the drawing ( Cobb 1920: 325).

C. dubia Inglis, 1968 . Drawing shows a very large dorsal tooth ( Inglis 1968: fig. 53).

C. gerlachi Blome, 1982 . Drawing shows a distinctly cuticularised dorsal tooth and subventral teeth ( Blome 1982: fig. 20).

C. indica Gerlach, 1963 . Drawing shows a very large dorsal tooth and thickly cuticularised subventral teeth ( Gerlach 1963: fig. 1).

C. inglisi Warwick, 1970 . Main diagnostic character: ‘‘... a prominent heavily cuticularized dorsal tooth...’’; also clear in drawing ( Warwick 1970: fig. 12).

C. lunatica Gerlach, 1965 . Main diagnostic character: ‘‘...a strong dorsal tooth …’’; also clear in drawing (Gerlach 1965: fig. 13).

C. madagascarensis Gerlach, 1953 . Main diagnostic characters: ‘‘...a rather large dorsal tooth …’’; drawing shows a large and thick dorsal tooth and subventral teeth ( Gerlach 1953: fig. 4).

C. modesta Bussau, 1993 . Drawing shows a large, heavily cuticularised dorsal tooth and subventral teeth ( Bussau 1993: figs 55–57).

C. multipapillata Jayasree & Warwick, 1977. Main diagnostic characters: ‘‘Buccal cavity bearing a dorsal tooth and two small subventral teeth’’; drawing unclear. It is difficult to draw a firm conclusion from the description and hence this species is left in this genus.

C. parapontica Luc & De Coninck, 1959 . Main diagnostic characters: ‘‘Large dorsal tooth...’’; drawing shows a large dagger-like dorsal tooth ( Luc & De Coninck 1959: fig. 35).

C. pellita Gerlach, 1954 (synonym: C. renaudae Boucher, 1975 ). Drawing shows a very large dorsal tooth and conspicuous subventral teeth ( Gerlach 1954: fig. 4).

C. pontica Filipjev, 1918 . Main diagnostic character: ‘‘Three teeth…: one large dorsal …, and two small subventrals.’’

C. thieryi De Coninck, 1943 . Main diagnostic character: “…with strong dorsal tooth... ”; also clear in drawing ( De Coninck 1943: fig. 5).

C. vanreuselae Verschelde & Vincx, 1996 . Main diagnostic characters: “…with huge dorsal tooth and smaller single ventral tooth”; also clear in drawing ( Verschelde & Vincx 1996: fig. 1).

Species inquirendae

C. amabilis (De Man, 1922) . Considered species inquirenda by Jensen (1978).

C. cobbi Chitwood, 1938 . Considered species inquirenda by Jensen (1978).

C. robusta Wieser, 1954 . Considered species inquirenda by Wieser & Hopper (1967).

Remarks

Chromaspirina cylindricollis ( Cobb, 1920) (synonym: Mesodorus cylindricollis Cobb, 1920 ). This species was in our opinion rightly transferred to Chromaspirina as it was described with an annulated head region. Maria et al. (2009), however, mistakenly showed a drawing of the head capsule of Pseudochromadora quadripapillata Daday, 1899 (synonym: Micromicron cephalatum Cobb, 1920 ), in their key to Chromaspirina species, instead of the non-annulated head region of C. cylindricollis ( Maria et al. 2009: fig. 26).

Chromaspirina denticulata ( Gerlach, 1953) . This species was originally described as Bolbolaimus denticulatus . Luc & De Coninck (1959) later synonymized Bolbolaimus with Chromaspirina . However, Jensen (1978) rightly re-established the genus and re-instated Bolbolaimus denticulatus Gerlach, 1953 as a valid combination. However, he gave the wrong species authority in his identification key ( Cobb, 1920 instead of Gerlach, 1953). Maria et al. (2009) included C. denticula ( Gerlach, 1953) (erratum?) in their list of invalid Chromaspirina species. In conclusion, we recognize the re-establishment of Bolbolaimus denticulatus Gerlach, 1953 as a valid combination (as suggested by Jensen 1978) with the synonyms Chromaspirina denticulata ( Gerlach, 1953) , Bolbolaimus denticulatus Cobb, 1920 syn. nov., and Chromaspirina denticula ( Gerlach, 1953) syn. nov.

Chromaspirina dimorpha (Hopper, 1961) and C. inflexa ( Wieser, 1954) were rightly transferred back to Desmodora by Wieser & Hopper (1967).

Chromaspirina longisetosa Jensen, 1985 . This species was transferred to Bolbolaimus (erratum?) by Muthumbi et al. (1995), but later transferred to Bolbonema by Verschelde et al. (1998). Because this species clearly has a head capsule and cephalic setae located posterior to the amphids, we confirm that it belongs to Bolbonema . Thus, we propose the combination Bolbonema longisetosum (Jensen, 1985) with the synonyms Chromaspirina longisetosa Jensen, 1985 and Bolbolaimus longisetosus (Jensen, 1985) .

Chromaspirina lunatica Gerlach, 1965 (synonym: C. lunata Gerlach, 1965 syn. nov.). Gerlach (1965) described C. lunatica , but the species is incorrectly labelled as C. lunata in a figure caption (p. 132).

Chromaspirina pellucida ( Cobb, 1920) and C. punctata ( Cobb, 1920) were rightly transferred back to Bolbolaimus by Jensen (1978).

Chromaspirina rabosa ( Gerlach, 1956) . This species was originally described as Desmodora rabosa and later transferred to Chromaspirina by the same author ( Gerlach 1963). Muthumbi et al. (1995) argued that the species should be left in the genus Desmodora because it has “… a well-developed head capsule with the amphids situated outside the rings.” We note, however, that the cephalic setae are situated posterior to the amphids, and this species is therefore transferred to the genus Bolbonema . Thus, we propose the combination Bolbonema rabosum ( Gerlach, 1956) comb. nov. with the synonyms Desmodora rabosa Gerlach, 1956 and Chromaspirina rabosa ( Gerlach, 1956) .

Chromaspirina spinulosa (Wieser, 1959) . This species was transferred to Metadesmodora by Gerlach (1963) and then to Echinodesmodora by Blome (1982). Thus, we propose the combination Echinodesmodora spinulosa (Wieser, 1959) with the synonyms Chromaspirina spinulosa (Wieser, 1959) and Metadesmodora spinulosa (Wieser, 1959) .