Amynthas tokioensis oculo Blakemore

Blakemore, Robert J., Lee, Seunghan & Seo, Hong-Yul, 2015, Account of montane and insular speciation in some Korean megadriles (Annelida: Oligochaeta), Journal of Species Research 4 (1), pp. 1-22 : 7-9

9. Amynthas tokioensis oculo Blakemore sub-sp. nov.

( Fig. 4B ).

Material. IV 0000261311 (DNA sample HY8) mature from Jeombongsan Mt. (38̊01′16.39′′N 128̊25′6.36′′ E), boundaries of Inje and Yangyang in eastern South Korea, collected by Dr H.-Y. Seo, 25 th July, 2013. Found with four other specimens, two other Amynthas sp. described below and a Drawida jeombongsan Blakemore, 2014 , plus IV 0000261310 an M. hilgendorfi specimen. IV 0000261308 (P) is a superficially similar mature with same details collected 11 th July, 2013 along with Drawida sp. (IV0000261309).

Etymology. Latin oculo (m noun) for “black eye” referring to the look of the spermathecal pores.

Distribution. Widespread in Japan and Korea, A. tokioensis is an introduction to USA (also as synonym M. levis ) but, in view of many misidentifications “ Amynthas tokioensis species-group from central Thailand ” is considered doubtful.

Description (current specimens). Length 60 (P) to 85 mm with 90 segments (H). Reddish-brown dorsum. Peri-1 mm chaetine with 40-50 setae. Clitellum 14-16. Spermathecae eye-like in 6/7/ 8 in lateral dark patches also enclosing a single GM papilla below each pore. Female pore single, central on clitellum. Male pores absent. Spermathecal ampullae deflated with clavate diverticulum on muscular duct. GM glands correspond internally to the spermathecal papillae. Seminal vesicles in 11 and 12. Last hearts in 13. Caeca manicate in 27.

Remarks. These clearly parthenogenetic specimens resemble part of the Amynthas tokioensis (Beddard, 1892) species-complex as described by Blakemore (2003; 2010; 2012f). In the latest revision by Blakemore (2014) Amynthas tokioensis (Beddard, 1892) has the following synonyms:? schizopora,? irregularis, levis,? parvicystis;? verticosa all by Goto & Hatai, 1898 / 1899;? gucheonensis Song & Paik, 1970; jiriensis Song & Paik, 1971; surcata and verticosa Ishizuka, 1999;? paiki Hong in Hong, Lee & Kim, 2001;? yongshilensis,? eastoni and? boletiformis by Hong & James, 2001; A. sonjaesiki Hong & James, 2009 (these last nine synonyms as per Blakemore, 2003 b: 43; 2006; 2008; 2010; 2012f; 2012g); plus Amynthas conferticurtus Hong & James, 2009: 1241 species inquirendum and possible syn. nov.?

Amynthas conferticurtus types (IV0000120468 H & 479 P) are not traceable in NIBR (pers. obs.) but it appears to be misdescribed in several key characters: e.g., the spermathecal pores are said to be on 7 and 8 (thus allegedly qualifying for an A. pomellus species group) however, they are shown in their fig. 7 to be in 6/7/8! Moreover the supposed genital markings on 7 and 8 are not shown in their fig. 7 (?). Its description appears indistinguishable from their subsequent A. sonjaesiki Hong & James, 2009 that was placed in synonymy of A. tokioensis by Blakemore (2010). Seemingly the A. conferticurtus name also belongs there. According to the description, it also appears to be similar to A. paiki Hong, 2001 or to A. fasciiformis Hong & James, 2001 and both are probably in an A. tokioensis species-group, if not also synonyms. The types of the other synonym, A. sonjaesiki Hong & James, 2009: 1243 (types IV0000120469 H & 480 P) are also not traceable in NIBR (pers. obs.) but its markings resemble those claimed for A. conferticurtus . These authors need to fix these issues before they erect any further “new” names.

Regarding the current specimens, it is surprising that the nearest BLAST similarity is only 88% for Metaphire vesiculata ( AB542689 from Tokyo, Okutama) or 88% for the M. soulensis matches noted above. Fig. 1 shows separation from taxa under consideration here. It may seem precipitous to put a new name to these specimens despite the lack of a genetic match, however it will hopefully provide an unambiguous starting point for conscientious resolution of all the earliest taxa noted above progressively by any concerned workers.

Repeated searches by the senior author of the Tokyo environs for new topotypic material of Amynthas tokioensis have thus far been unsuccessful, although a record from nearby Hachioji is claimed in Genbank (accession AB542558 by Minamiya et al., 2010, unpublished). If their identification is correct, this may provide the closest match to a topotype’s DNA. However, the current specimen HY8 vs. AB542558 of Hachioji=523/614 (85%) which is far removed and questions the close identity of either or both with “ Amynthas tokioensis ” proper (see Fig. 1 ).

Figures

Fig. 4. 4A. Amynthas cf. chiakensis Hong & James, 2013. Boxed sketch of male pore region (spermathecae and anterior GMs lacking). 4B. Amynthas tokioensis oculo sub-sp. nov. Holotype with enlargement of spermathecal pore 7/8 rhs(male pores and posterior GMs lacking).

Fig. 1. MEGA6 Neighbour-Joining phylogram of DNA barcode results for evolutionary analyses using program defaults [see Tamura K., Stecher G., Peterson D., Filipski A., and Kumar S. (2013). MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30: 2725-2729].