Registered users receive a variety of benefits including the ability to customize email alerts, create favorite journals list, and save searches.
Please note that a BioOne web account does not automatically grant access to full-text content. An institutional or society member subscription is required to view non-Open Access content.
Contact helpdesk@bioone.org with any questions.
Although most members of the freshwater leech family Glossiphoniidae have mid-body somites divided into three annuli, the genus Torix Blanchard, 1893 is distinguished by two-annuli somites. Torix has high species richness in Far East Asia, and three nominal species have been recognised in the Japanese Archipelago and adjacent regions that can be distinguished by a combination of both internal and external morphological characteristics. However, recent studies have shown that these diagnostic features are ontogenetically variable and this has resulted in taxonomic confusion among Torix species endemic to the Japanese Archipelago. In this study, we revisit the taxonomic accounts of T. orientalis (Oka, 1925) and T. tagoi (Oka, 1925), in addition to that of the recently redescribed T. tukubana (Oka, 1935) to clarify the diagnostic characteristics for each of the three species. Our morphological and molecular phylogenetic analyses demonstrated that the three Torix species in Japan are indistinguishable. We therefore conclude that these species should be synonymised and treated as a single species. The specific names orientalis and tagoi were simultaneously established under the genus Oligobdella Moore, 1918, therefore we acted as First Reviser and gave precedence to the name O. tagoi, thus the valid name for the Far East Asian Torix species is T. tagoi unless T. orientalis and T. tagoi are treated as distinct species. There are several type localities for T. tagoi and the name-bearing types have been lost, therefore we designate a neotype for this species to obviate zoological and nomenclatural issues.
We complement and expand the existing descriptions of the Australian araneid spider Paraplectanoides crassipes Keyserling, 1886, and provide the first detailed analysis of the male palpal homologies to include examination of the expanded organ and scanning electron micrographs of the palpal sclerites. We study the placement of Paraplectanoides and the classification of the family Araneidae by combining ultraconserved elements with Sanger markers. We also added Sanger sequences of the Australian araneid genus Venomius to the molecular dataset of Scharff et al. (2020) to explore the phylogenetic placement and implications for classification of the family. We evaluate a recent proposal on the classification of the family Araneidae by Kuntner et al. (2023) in which a new family is erected for P. crassipes. Paraplectanoides is monotypic. Examination of the type material shows that Paraplectanoides kochi O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1877 is misplaced in the genus and the name is a senior synonym of the araneid Isoxya penizoides Simon, 1887 (new synonymy) that results in the new combinationIsoxya kochi (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1877). The classification of Araneidae is revised and the following nomenclatural acts are introduced: Paraplectanoididae Kuntner, Coddington, Agnarsson and Bond, 2023 is a junior synonym of Araneidae Clerck, 1757 new synonymy; phonognathines and nephilines are subfamilies of Araneidae (Subfamily Phonognathinae Simon, 1894 rank resurrected; and Subfamily Nephilinae Simon, 1894 rank resurrected). The results of our analyses corroborate the sister group relationship between Paraplectanoides and the araneid subfamily Nephilinae. Venomius is sister to the Nephilinae + Paraplectanoides clade. The placement of the oarcine araneids and Venomius renders the family Araneidae non-monophyletic if this were to be circumscribed as in Kuntner et al. (2023). In light of the paucity of data that the latter study presents, and in absence of a robust, stable and more densely sampled phylogenetic analysis of Araneidae, the changes and definitions introduced by that classification are premature and could lead to a large number of new families for what once were araneid species if the maximum-crown-clade family definitions were to be used. Consequently, we argue for restoring the familial and subfamilial classification of Araneidae of Dimitrov et al. (2017), Scharff et al. (2020) and Kallal et al. (2020).
This article is only available to subscribers. It is not available for individual sale.
Access to the requested content is limited to institutions that have
purchased or subscribe to this BioOne eBook Collection. You are receiving
this notice because your organization may not have this eBook access.*
*Shibboleth/Open Athens users-please
sign in
to access your institution's subscriptions.
Additional information about institution subscriptions can be foundhere