Pheretima fornicata Gates, 1935

Blakemore, Robert J., 2013, Megascolex (Perichaeta) diffringens Baird, 1869 and Pheretima pingi Stephenson, 1925 types compared to the Amynthas corticis (Kinberg, 1867) and A. carnosus (Goto & Hatai, 1899) species-groups (Oligochaeta: Megadrilacea: Megascolecidae), Journal of Species Research 2 (2), pp. 99-126 : 115-116

Pheretima fornicata Gates, 1935

( Figs. 12 , 13 )

Pheretima fornicata Gates, 1935: 9 figs. 5-6; Chen, 1936: 296 (re-examination of type in US National Museum); Gates, 1939: 434 (changing type locality to “Tatsienlu, Szechwan” “ From Dr Graham: 3 clitellate specimens labeled ‘Tatsienlu, 12,000 feet, July 7-9, 1923 ” and adding 1 clitellate specimen in poor condition labeled “ Between Gin Keo Ho and Dawei, 1,300 -5,000 feet, August 1-2 ”.

Amynthas fornicatus : Shen et al., 2003: 482, tab. 1; Wang & Qiu, 2005: tab. 1; Sun et al., 2012: tab. 1.

Description. The original description in full in quotes with Gates’ (1939) amendments added in square braces that yet ignore Chen’s (1936) additional and contradictory data from reinspection of Gates’ types [data from Shen et al. (2003: tab. 1) bolded and also put in square braces but presumably not from types]:-

“ PHERETIMA FORNICATA , n. sp. Length 78 to 90 mm [100 mm], diameter 4 to 6 mm. [Segments 90-105]. Setae: vi/17-24 [16-26] [43-50], vii/19-21 [19-23], viii/ 18-23 [18-27] [42-52], [xii/42-52], xvii/13-14 [13-19], xviii/9-14, xix/12-15, [x, 56,] xx/56, [xxv 45-55]; a wide dorsal gap in the setal circle of ii. First dorsal pore in 12/ 13 [with pore like marking in 11/12]. [Clitellum annular, 13/14-16/17]. Spermathecal pores minute and superficial, four pairs, in 5/6-8/9 [on tiny, grayish, transversely oval markings]. Male pores superficial, on circular to transversely oval, disk-shaped porophores [that are about 0.5 mm wide]. No genital markings. Septum 8/9 present but membranous [9/10 laking]. [Intestine from 15]. Intestinal caeca simple. [Hearts in 9-13 to ventral blood vessel, those in 10 and 11 within testis sac]. Testis sacs of x and xi unpaired and horseshoe-shaped. [Seminal vesicles are in 11 & 12, pseudovesicles in 13 and sometimes 14]. [Spermathecal duct as long as the ampulla, diverticulum longer than duct and ampulla]. Spermathecal diverticulum with a long, slender stalk and a spheroidal or asymmetrical seminal chamber. Type. - U.S. N.M no. 200099, from Tatsienlu, Tibet.

Distinguished from P. hongkongensis by the gap in the setal circle of ii, the exclusion of the seminal vesicles of xi from the posterior testis sac, and the absence of genital markings.” [None of these latter three characters seems sufficient justification for their separation in context with the current revisions of A. carnosus ].

Remarks. Chen (1936: 298) said P. fornicata “is probably identical with P. pingi Steph. ” but Gates (1939: 436) responded tersely with “ P. fornicata is, on the contrary, clearly distinguished from P. pingi by the horseshoe-shaped testis sacs of x and xi.” However, I think this is an unreliable character for separation and am obliged to combine them.

Gates (1935) had implicated his fornicata as being closest to P. hongkongensis Michaelsen, 1910: 107 based on a probable immature and abnormal type that has only a pair of small marking immediately median to male pores on 18 which is all that separates it from A. carnosus as redescribed by Blakemore (2012a) based on its neotype, and on Kobayashi’s (1936) excellent redescription in a publication that Gates (1939: 469) was clearly aware of but rejected for unsound reasons.

Thus differences of P. fornicata from A. pingi (= A. carnosus ) as reinspected here from its type, are mainly a lack of genital markings which is irrelevant for A. carnosus , and the uncertainty about spermathecal papillae. However, the name fornicata is complicit with the redescription of A. carnosus based on its neotype by Blakemore (2012d) and on subsequent records: in particular it agrees with Kobayashi’s (1936) absent GMs form types I & I. Thus fornicata should probably be included in pingi as Chen suggested and both now seemingly merit inclusion in synonymy of the prior A. carnosus ( Goto & Hatai, 1899) .

Another recently described taxon, Amynthas taiwumontis Shen et al. (2013) was compared by those authors to A. fornicatus . However its description appears to comply with A. carnosus having Kobayashi’s spermathecal pores type I or II and male pores type I, as redescribed by Blakemore (2012a) (this overlooked despite my sending a copy to Dr Huei-Ping Shen) and thus this name too is another probable inclusion in the long synonym list of A. carnosus presented in the Abstract above.

However, any of these specimens with spermathecal pores in 5/6/7/8/9 not on papillae/porophores described for A. carnosus probably equate more to A. corticis , as indeed does A. penpuensis Shen et al., 2003 as syn. nov. since all that currently separates it is its dorsal pores slightly more in advance (from 5/6 or 6/7 rather than from 11/12 abouts), this single character is doubtfully adequate for species level separation.

Figures

Fig. 12. Amynthas fornicatus showing Gates’ (1935: figs. 5-6) most uninformative and irrelevant details of spermathecae invoking adage “missing the forest for the trees”.

Fig. 13. Prior Amynthas hongkongensis after Michaelsen (1910: fig. 22), for comparison.