Drawida anchingiana anchingiana Chen, 1933

Blakemore, Robert J., 2013, Jeju-do earthworms (Oligochaeta: Megadrilacea) - Quelpart Island revisited, Journal of Species Research 2 (1), pp. 15-54 : 16

Drawida anchingiana anchingiana Chen, 1933

Material examined. None. Types not known.

Remarks. Drawida gisti anchingiana Chen, 1933: 202 was elevated to specific rank (in part?) by Gates (1935: 3) and Kobayashi (1937: 333, fig. 1). It is comparable to Drawida gisti Michaelsen, 1931 as redescribed by Gates (1936: 406-407) that differed from Chen’s (1933) version. Both Gates (1935: 2) and Kobayashi (1937: 336; 1938: 35, fig. 2) noted that Chen’s description of D. gisti f. typica also differed in some important characters from Michaelsen’s original and from his types as later redescrib- ed by Gates (1937). Gates (1935: 3) had earlier noted:

“ D. gisti var. anchingiana Chen, 1933 , is not adequately described but differs from the [ gisti ] types as follows: limitation of the penis pouches (?) to the body wall, small size and smooth surface of the prostates, and the presence of the spermathecal atria in vii rather than viii. These differences are important enough to distinguish the worms specifically from D. gisti . The specimens may not be sexually mature - vide absence of granulations on the prostates, the empty ovisacs, and the small size of the spermathecal ampullae, as well as the indistinctness of the clitellum.”

Kobayashi (1937: 337) concluded that the penial apertures were situated “ nearer to b ” in D. gisti Michalsen, 1931 , but “ much nearer to c ” in D. anchiangiana and that the spermathecal duct “ opens into the broad distal end of a large long sac-like spermathecal atrium ” in D. gisti , but “ enters into posterior ectal third of the atrium ” in D. anchingiana . Kobayashi had as its characteristic feature the spermathecal atrium in segment 7 that was “ often ” accompanied by an accessory gland ( Kobayashi, 1937: 337, fig. 1B). However, it is not clear that what Kobayashi claimed from Jeju was the same as the Chinese taxon due partly to uncertainty of Chen’s taxon obtained from “ Anching, Anhwei and Pukow, Kiangsu ”, and due partly to Kobayashi’s specimens that, as well as being mostly immature, also tending to vary and perhaps representing a species-complex. Types unknown, this taxon has not been confirmed in China nor Korea - and neither has its sibling species Drawida gisti nanchingiana Chen, 1933: 200 . Kobayashi obtained specimens from Jeju town, from Mt Halla and from Seogwipo, some of which probably come close to the following sub-species newly found on Jeju that themselves vary somewhat but which provide objective DNA data for comparison.