Pristina aequiseta Boume, 1891

Righi, Gilberto & Hamoui, Viviane, 2002, Oligochaeta, Naididae Of The West Indies And Adjacent Regions, Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 42 (6), pp. 119-167 : 149

Pristina aequiseta Boume, 1891

Pristina equiseta Boume, 1891: 352

Pristina aequiseta var.? Michaelsen, 1913: 204.

Pristina aequiseta, Michaelsen, 1933: 341 ; Marcus, 1943: 104, fig. 81A-D; Sperber, 1948: 230, fig. 24, pl. XXI, fig. 5; Brinkhurst, 1971a: 124, fig. 4H; Harman, 1974: 17; 1982a: 296; Pujals, 1985: 204, figs. 1-3, 7-10; Dumnicka, 1986: 278, fig. 11; Botea, 1987: 67, fig. 2A-D.

Material : Key Biscaine 694, 1 specimen . Montserrat 839, 2 specimens . Guadeloupe 729, 1 specimen . Margarita 22, 1 specimen . Curaçao 74, 16 specimens ; 76A, 3 specimens; 77a, 2 specimens; 389, 2 specimens; 914: 9 specimens. Aruba 103, 1 specimen . Surinam 566, 4 specimens . Habitat: Limnic to mesohaline; salinity 0.03-5.7%.

Distribution: Cosmopolite. Neotropical occurrences: Argentina: Prov. Buenos Ayres ( Pujals, 1985). Brazil: State São Paulo ( Marcus, 1943). Bolivia (Martinez-Ansemil & Giani, 1986). Peru: States Puno, Cusco, Madre de Dios, Loreto ( Harman et al. 1988). Colombia: Dept. Antioquia ( Michaelsen, 1913). Venezuela: States Monaguas, Sucre ( Botea, 1987). Surinam ( Harman, 1974). Costa Rica; Nicaragua ( Harman, 1982a). Bonaire; Klein Bonaire; Curaçao ( Michaelsen, 1933). Puerto Rico; Haiti ( Dumnicka, 1986). Aruba; Margarita; Guadeloupe; Montserrat (Righi & Hamoui).

Remarks: The taxonomic value of Pristina foreli ( Piguet, 1906) and P. evelinae Marcus (1943) is controversial. Some authors such as Harman (1974), Loden & Harman (1980), Harman et al. (1988) consider both species as synonymous of P. aequiseta . Other authors as Dumnicka (1986), Martinez-Ansemil & Giani (1986), Botea (1987) consider the three species as valid ones. The literature instructs us that foreli is set apart from aequiseta by the prostomium’s shape, number of dorsal setae and absence of giant setae ( Piguet, 1906; Sperber, 1948) and evelinae is distinguished from aequiseta by shape and ontogenesis of the giant setae and the holding of genital setae (Hempelmanm, 1923; Marcus, 1943). Studies on the sexual structures of foreli and aequiseta in laboratory culture are needed to make comparisons with evelinae . The characteristics of the prostomium, shape, size and number of the setae and the well-known existence of aequiseta population with and or without giant setae leave no doubt about the identification of our material.