Pristina rosea ( Piguet, 1906 )

Righi, Gilberto & Hamoui, Viviane, 2002, Oligochaeta, Naididae Of The West Indies And Adjacent Regions, Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 42 (6), pp. 119-167 : 144-145

Pristina rosea ( Piguet, 1906)

Naidium roseum Piguet, 1906: 223 , pl. IX, fig. 22-23; Marcus, 1943: 130, pl. XXV, fig. 105A-D, pl. XXVI, fig. 106A-C.

Naidium roseum f. jenkinae, Marcus, 1943: 127 .

Pristina rosea Michaelsen, 1909: 28 , fig. 47; Sperber, 1948: 209, fig. 22A; Brinkhurst, 1971b: 382, fig. 7.22L-M; Rodriguez, 1986: 78, fig. 2C.

Pristina jenkinae Stephenson, 1931b: 39 , fig. 1; 1932: 327; Sperber. 1948: 224; Brinkhurst, 1971b: 396, fig. 7.23A-B; Botea, 1983: 26, fig. 7E-G; Rodriguez, 1986: 77, fig. 2A.

Pristina idrensis Sperber, 1948: 220 , fig. 23d-e, pls. XX, XXIU, fig. 1; Brinkhurst, 1971b: 394, fig. 7.22I-K; Rodriguez, 1986: 77, fig. 2B; Dumnicka, 1986: 274, fig. 7a-c; Botea, 1987: 70, fig. 7A-C.

Pristina taita Stout, 1956: 99 , figs. 2-5.

Pristina notonhagi Stout, 1957: 289 , figs. 1-6. Pristina sabanillica Botea, 1983: 22 , fig. 3D-G.

Pristinella jenkinae, Kathman, 1985: 1022 , fig. 1a-j; Harman et al. 1988: 2233; Coates & Stacey, 1994: 82.

Material: Jamaica 025: 3 specimens. St. Martin 538a: 1 specimen. St. Vincent 858: 2 specimens. Trinidad 366: 3 specimens. Surinam 370: 4 specimens. Habitat : Limnetic to oligohaline; salinity 0.05-1.1%; on decayed palm leaf in the soil in Surinam 370.

Distribution: Cosmopolite. Neotropical occurrences: Argentina: Prov. San Juan, Chaco, Santa Fe, Entre Rios, Corrientes ( Di Persia, 1980a; Marchese, 1986; Harman et al. 1988). Brazil: States São Paulo, Pernambuco ( Marcus, 1943; 1944). Peru: Dept. Cuzco, Loreto ( Harman et al. 1988; Coates & Stacey, 1994). Venezuela: State Aragua ( Botea, 1987). Costa Rica ( Harman, 1982a). Guatemala ( Howmiller, 1974). Surinam; Trinidad; St. Vincent; St. Martin; Jamaica; Cuba ( Botea, 1983; Dumnicka, 1986; Righi & Hamoui).

Remarks: The confusion between Pristina rosea and P. jenkinae began a little after jenkinae’s description leading Marcus (1943) to consider jenkinae just as a form of rosea . The confusion was increased by re-interpreting jenkinae as a valid species ( Sperber, 1948; Brinkhurst, 1971b) and descriptions of four “new species”: idrensis , taita , nothofagi and sabanillica . The distinction among these “species” has been based on the relation between the lengths of the needle teeth. Kathman (1985) demonstrated that this relation presents a big inter- and intra-populational variability and also in the same specimen. In this way she put idrensis , taita and notophagi in the synonymy of jenkinae ; but rosea was maintained as a valid species without any justification. Rodriguez (1986), studying Iberian specimens of rosea jenkinae and idrensis , considers valid species all of the three. However reorienting Rodriguez’s figures we can see they exibit recoverings and gradual passage from one species to another, making the distinction impossible. We can confirm the variability in the length of the teeth in the needles and ventral setae of the same individual so that our material can be named rosea or jenkinae . Kathman (1985) and Dumnicka (1986) suggest the possibly synonymy of Pristina amphibiotica Lastockin (1927) . However, the much greater angle between the needle teeth does not authorize this interpretation. P. sabanillica has no differences from P. rosea as it is now understand.

Naidium luteum Schmidt (1847) has received several interpretations: a) valid species ( Vejdovsky, 1884; Michaelsen, 1909 a; 1927; Ude, 1929); b) synonymous to P. rosea ( Piguet, 1906) ; c) Polychaeta species ( Sperber, 1948); d) Tubificidae species ( Brinkhurst, 1971b). According to Schmidt’s description (in Sperber, 1948) we are favourable to Piguet’s interpretation so the species must be named P. lutea but the type- material is lost and it will be better to wait for a study of topotypes.