identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03CB87C3B460A069FF243C04FBAE8A72.text	03CB87C3B460A069FF243C04FBAE8A72.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudechiniscus pulcher Murray 1910	<div><p>Pseudechiniscus pulcher Murray (1910)</p><p>This species was described by Murray (1910) from Australia. It is the only  Pseudechiniscus species with long setiform appendages E. Claxton (2004) investigated newly found specimens attributed to this species and suggested that it should be transferred to the genus  Antechiniscus (publication in preparation, S. Claxton, pers. comm.).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CB87C3B460A069FF243C04FBAE8A72	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	Tumanov, DV	Tumanov, DV (2020): Analysis of non-morphometric morphological characters used in the taxonomy of the genus Pseudechiniscus (Tardigrada: Echiniscidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 188: 753-775
03CB87C3B460A077FCBC3D81FD4888FF.text	03CB87C3B460A077FCBC3D81FD4888FF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudechiniscus novaezeelandiae (Richters 1908)	<div><p>Pseudechiniscus novaezeelandiae (Richters, 1908) s.l.</p><p>The problematic status of this species is recognized (Fontoura et al., 2010; Kaczmarek et al., 2015). Currently it includes several forms with an unclear status described from different zoogeographic regions and attributed to  P. novaezeelandiae s.l. by different authors (Ramazzotti &amp; Maucci, 1983; Degma et al., 2009 –18).</p><p>Pseudechiniscus novaezeelandiae s.s. was described by Richters (1908) from the North Island, New Zealand. The description is short, but clear, and is accompanied by a photograph of a specimen in toto and a drawing of the pseudosegmental plate (Richters, 1908). To note, Richters did not mention any lateral papillae in the species description. On the contrary, he stated that ‘ Ausser den üblichen Borsten neben der Sinnespapille an der Schnauze und dem Borstenpaar vor II keine Anhänge ’ [‘Apart from the usual bristles next to the sensory papilla on the snout and the bristle pair before II no attachments’] (Richters, 1908: 205). It seems unlikely that Richters could have missed these structures considering that several years earlier he described lateral papillae in  P. conifer (Richters, 1904a, b).</p><p>Two years later, Murray (1910) attributed to this species specimens found in New Zealand, Australia and Hawaii. He tried to emend Richters’ diagnosis, but his additions were mainly based on the Australian material and he presented drawings of the Australian and Hawaiian specimens only. Murray (1910) noted lateral papillae in  P. novaezeelandiae, but commented that these structures were not seen in the New Zealand material. He also reported a spine on legs I, which had not been mentioned in Richters’ description. The dorsal plate pattern in his drawings is different from that described by Richters (1908). At that time, a high variability of species with a world-wide distribution was a dominant concept in the tardigrade taxonomy, while nowadays such differences are considered as species-specific (Faurby et al., 2011; Guidetti et al., 2016, 2019; Stec et al., 2018). Later, Richters (1911) reported a single specimen of  P. novae-zeelandiae (sic!) from South America (Colombia), but did not provide any detailed description or drawing noting only ‘ Von Murray auf Hawai beobachtet ’ [‘Seen by Murray on Hawaii’] (Richters, 1911: 276). We may assume that this specimen was similar to Murray’s material from Hawaii but Murray’s specimens, given their morphological distinctiveness, would currently be attributed to a different species than  P. novaezeelandiae (see above).</p><p>Marcus also adhered to the idea of a great intraspecific variability in tardigrades in his influential monographs (Marcus, 1929, 1936). His diagnosis for  P. novaezeelandiae was based on Murray’s description and drawings, and so the presence of lateral papillae was accepted as typical of the species. Marcus (1936) synonymized  P. marinae BartoŠ, 1934, a species described from a very distant zoogeographic region (Europe, Moravia), with  P. novaezeelandiae, accepting it as  P. novaezeelandiae forma  marinae . According to the description of BartoŠ,  P. marinae is characterized by the presence of lateral papillae and a spine on legs I, and an extremely developed relief on the caudal plate and lateral teeth of the pseudosegmental plate, which is a unique feature within  Pseudechiniscus .</p><p>Marcus’s monograph was the basis of the tardigrade taxonomy for a long time. His diagnoses were accepted mostly uncritically and so Murray’s description of the Australian specimens was treated as representing the species described by Richters from New Zealand. The situation became more complicated when Iharos (1963) published the descriptions of two new forms of  P. novaezeelandiae, forma aspinosa and forma laterospina, from Argentina. Both these new forms have no lateral papillae and no spines, only blunt lobes on the pseudosegmental plate. Iharos included Murray’s drawing of  P. novaezeelandiae designating it as ‘forma typica ’. He also presented a drawing of a form, named in the legend as ‘f. dorsospinosa Richt.’ (Iharos, 1963; Fig. 2B), without giving any diagnosis or description. This name probably refers to the form described by Richters. The source of the depicted specimen is unclear, but in comments to table 1 (Iharos, 1963: 295), Iharos stated that  P. novaezeelandiae was represented in his material by three forms and that the typical form was absent. So, it may be assumed that specimens attributed to P. f. dorsospinosa were also found in the material from Argentina except the two new forms described in the paper. The drawing by Iharos is different from the description of Richters: there are no spines, but lobes are present on the pseudosegmental plate, and the shape of the third median plate is different and could not belong to the species described by Richters.</p><p>Horning et al. (1978) reported specimens of  P. novaezeelandiae from New Zealand that corresponded perfectly to the description of Richters. A reinvestigation of this material (Pilato et al., 2005) revealed striations between the dots of the cuticular sculpture, but other characters, such as the absence of lateral papillae or spines on legs I, matched the original description.</p><p>Jørgensen et al. (2011) sequenced COI, 18S rRNA and 28S rRNA markers from specimens from Chile and attributed these specimens to  P. novaezelandiae (sic!). However, the presence of this species in South America is doubtful (see above) and most published findings of  P. novaezeelandiae in this region are poorly documented (Heinis, 1914; du Bois-Reymond Marcus, 1944; Séméria, 1993; Garitano-Zavala, 1995; Jerez Jaimes &amp; Narváez Parra, 2001; Nickel et al., 2001). The only record of a South American  Pseudechiniscus similar to the original description is found in the publication of Grigarick et al. (1983) and derives from Venezuela. The authors compared their material with New Zealand specimens and reported that, in general, they were similar, but also noted the presence of the basal spurs on the inner claws, which are absent in  P. novaezeelandiae (Horning et al., 1978; Pilato et al., 2005). It is likely that they compared their Venezuelan material with New Zealand specimens representing a yet undescribed species of the genus  Pseudechiniscus . This assumption is supported by the presence of the specimen from New Zealand exhibiting basal spurs on the claws and attributed to  P. novaezeelandiae in the collection of Maucci (slide 6859). This means that the sequences published by Jørgensen et al. (2011) cannot be attributed to  P. novaezeelandiae until this material is reinvestigated and its identity to the original description is confirmed. Specimens of  Pseudechiniscus found in Australia by Sandra Claxton and attributed to  P. novaezeelandiae also have some differences compared to the original description (S. Claxton, pers. comm.).</p><p>Summarizing, only New Zealand specimens conforming to the original description by Richters (1908) with corrections by Pilato et al. (2005) should be considered as nominal  P. novaezeelandiae . The presence of this species in other regions should be confirmed by new findings or a reinvestigation of the material in collections. Specimens described by Murray (1910) from Australia and Hawaii should be considered as belonging to a new, yet undescribed species. The taxa described as  P. novaezeelandiae forma aspinosa Iharos, 1963,  P. novaezeelandiae forma laterospina Iharos, 1963 and  P. novaezeelandiae forma dorsospinosa Iharos, 1963 are, in my opinion, yet undescribed species of the genus  Pseudechiniscus and should be considered as nomina dubia until the investigation of the type material of these forms is performed.  Pseudechiniscus novaezeelandiae forma  marinae BartoŠ, 1934 should be re-evaluated as a bona species  Pseudechiniscus marinae BartoŠ, 1934.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CB87C3B460A077FCBC3D81FD4888FF	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	Tumanov, DV	Tumanov, DV (2020): Analysis of non-morphometric morphological characters used in the taxonomy of the genus Pseudechiniscus (Tardigrada: Echiniscidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 188: 753-775
03CB87C3B47EA077FCBC3953FC138800.text	03CB87C3B47EA077FCBC3953FC138800.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudechiniscus bartkei Weglarska 1962	<div><p>Pseudechiniscus bartkei Węglarska, 1962</p><p>This species was described by Węglarska (1962) from Vietnam. The presence of a trilobed median plate 1 is sometimes considered to be a distinctive character for this species (e.g. in Kendall-Fite &amp; Nelson, 1996). This seems to be the result of an erroneous attribution ofWęglarska’s drawings in the authoritative 20 th- century monographs on tardigrade taxonomy (Ramazzotti, 1972; Ramazzotti &amp; Maucci, 1983). In fact, a trilobed first median plate is characteristic of  P. bartkei forma unilobata described in the same publication. This form may actually belong to another, undescribed species because of its differences from the nominative form of  P. bartkei (a single median process of the pseudosegmental plate instead of two, and longer cirrus A).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CB87C3B47EA077FCBC3953FC138800	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	Tumanov, DV	Tumanov, DV (2020): Analysis of non-morphometric morphological characters used in the taxonomy of the genus Pseudechiniscus (Tardigrada: Echiniscidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 188: 753-775
03CB87C3B47EA077FF243E33FA7E8E1F.text	03CB87C3B47EA077FF243E33FA7E8E1F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudechiniscus jiroveci Bartos 1963	<div><p>Pseudechiniscus jiroveci Bartoš, 1963</p><p>This species was described by BartoŠ (1963) from China based on five specimens at the larval stage (a two-clawed larva = first instar). Later, specimens attributed to this species were reported from Africa (Binda, 1984; Pilato et al., 1991), Hawaii (Binda &amp; Pilato, 1994), Mongolia (Kaczmarek &amp; Michalczyk, 2006) and China (Kaczmarek &amp; Beasley, 2002; Beasley et al., 2006). The only character on which the attribution of these specimens to  P. jiroveci was based, was a clearly divided posterior part of the scapular plate. However, this character is common in the genus  Pseudechiniscus, and in the absence of other characters, cannot be used for the species determination. Unfortunately, postembryonic development of the taxonomically significant traits is completely unknown in  Pseudechiniscus, and recent studies on other tardigrade groups show clearly that ontogenetic variability may lead to significant errors in species identification (Morek et al., 2016), thus the attribution of any adult specimens to the species described by BartoŠ should be considered as doubtful. An investigation of the specimens from Mongolia (Kaczmarek collection) and Africa (Pilato and Binda collection) suggests that they represent two different undescribed species. Taking into account that the original description of  P. jiroveci is incomplete and the type material is lost (P. Gąsiorek, pers. comm.), I suggest designating  P. jiroveci as nomen dubium in order to avoid erroneous identification of new taxa.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CB87C3B47EA077FF243E33FA7E8E1F	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	Tumanov, DV	Tumanov, DV (2020): Analysis of non-morphometric morphological characters used in the taxonomy of the genus Pseudechiniscus (Tardigrada: Echiniscidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 188: 753-775
03CB87C3B47EA077FCBC3F5EFA5A896D.text	03CB87C3B47EA077FCBC3F5EFA5A896D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudechiniscus suillus (Ehrenberg 1853)	<div><p>Pseudechiniscus suillus (Ehrenberg, 1853)</p><p>This species is the type species of the genus and at the same time the most problematic taxon in  Pseudechiniscus . Its original description is short and incomplete, and the original drawing by Ehrenberg (1854) lacks taxonomically important details. As a result, none of the existing records of  P. suillus can be considered valid. Until this species is redescribed, based on new material from the locus typicus, no specimens can be attributed to  P. suillus with certainty.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CB87C3B47EA077FCBC3F5EFA5A896D	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	Tumanov, DV	Tumanov, DV (2020): Analysis of non-morphometric morphological characters used in the taxonomy of the genus Pseudechiniscus (Tardigrada: Echiniscidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 188: 753-775
