Allolobophoridella

Plisko, Jadwiga D. & Nxele, Thembeka C., 2015, An annotated key separating foreign earthworm species from the indigenous South African taxa (Oligochaeta: Acanthodrilidae, Eudrilidae, Glossoscolecidae, Lumbricidae, Megascolecidae, Microchaetidae, Ocnerodrilidae and Tritogeniidae), African Invertebrates 56 (3), pp. 663-663 : 691-692

Genus Allolobophoridella MršiĆ, 1990

Only two species known from RSA: Allolobophoridella eiseni ( Levinsen, 1884) and A. parva (Eisen, 1874) , both morphologically similar, but differ in the histology of the muscles. No histological study has been done on the material collected in RSA. It is possible that after histological and molecular analysis the species may be classified with a more precise description, as pointed out by Plisko (2010). Possibly these species are parthenogenetic morphs of a species not yet identified.At present, if similar specimens are found, they should be identified using the following description of the genus.

Description: Body length 30–65 mm. Dorsally dark red to violet, ventrally yellowish grey. Setae closely paired. Prostomium epilobous ( parva ) or occasionally tanylobous ( eiseni ). Male pores with small glandular swellings, not extending to neighbouring segments. Clitellum present or absent; if present on 23, 24, 25–32. Spermathecae, spermathecal pores and tubercula pubertatis absent. Seminal vesicles in two segments, 11 and 12. Calciferous glands in 10–12, with lateral pouches. Excretory system holoic, with nephridial bladders U-shaped.

Notes: Both species are regarded as being of Atlantic origin, and have spread widely over many parts of the world. However, because of their frequent erroneous identification, their distribution has possibly been produced incorrectly. These forms are possibly parthenogenetic reproductions of the non-established original species. In RSA a collection record also can not be confirmed because both were recorded under various synonyms with a lack of complete descriptions. Both species may be found in patches of foreign plantations, under decaying bark and moist litter, in gardens, under pot plants in greenhouses, and in any other biotopes where human interaction is expected. However, it should be said that the taxonomical position of these species with their various generic accreditations, their numerous synonymic names, and the lack of a completed new study, suggest the need for a species revision on the accessible new material. Inclusion of histological and molecular studies should be considered and Genbank should be searched for molecular data.