Metaphire quelparta quelparta Kobayashi, 1937
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.12651/JSR.2013.2.1.015 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13136963 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BA87B0-F64D-D611-AA7E-FD93FD74B2CC |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Metaphire quelparta quelparta Kobayashi, 1937 |
status |
|
Metaphire quelparta quelparta Kobayashi, 1937
Material examined. A possibly similar specimen is IV0 000250892 from beside Temple at Mt Sanbangsan, Jeju-do collected by RJB 17 th Feb. 2012 from near drainage ditch that provided DNA samples (WM13, WO11 and w6). Types are not known.
Remarks. Not definitely identified in current studies as the similar specimen found was damaged and thus was not fully studied. Yet Metaphire quelparta was said to be “ the most common species on this small volcanic island ” ( Kobayashi, 1937: 35, fig. 5) and it was also claimed on the Korean peninsula ( Kobayashi, 1938: 155) where it was initially mistakenly labelled as “ Pheretima keishuensis ” nom . nudum by Kobayashi (1938: 90), as noted by Song & Paik (1970: 11).
In discussing Metaphire yamadai (Hatai, 1930) neotype, Blakemore (2012b: 119) said that, apart from its nonmanicate caeca, “ M. quelparta is almost exactly the same in each described character except for its large saccuar bodies associated with the spermathecal pores. But it may belong in synonymy nevertheless, along with M. sanseiana (Hatai, 1951: 56) , and the probable syn. nov. of the latter species, M. indigo (Hatai, 1951: 58) ” and another possible synonym is M. sanseiana (Ohfuchi, 1951) from China. Blakemore (2010a: 18, 2012b: 117) reviewed M. yamadai , latterly based on Tokyo Museum neotype and noted that for M. yamadai from China, Chen (1933: 259, figs. 20, 21) shows variations with the caeca either deeply incised or manicate, but this was likely a misdescription by Chen of a composite of both Michaelsen’s Pheretima pectenifera and Ph. tschiliensis . This latter taxon may indeed have incised caeca and is currently classified as? Metaphire tschiliensis (Michaelsen, 1928) , but further research is required from China to confirm its full relationships.
Kobayashi (1938: 155, 157) had said that his Ph. aggera Kobayashi, 1938: 153 was close to and may be synonymous with some of the species above and with his Ph. quelparta . However, Easton (1981)’s inclusion of Metaphire soulensis ( Kobayashi, 1938) in synonymy of M. yamadai (Hatai, 1930) is no longer supported as there are notable differences in morphology (pers. obs.), especially of the markings around the male pores (when present). Thus, M. soulensis is thus maintained separately and has M. shinkeiensis ( Kobayashi, 1938) , M. aokii (Ishizuka, 1999) and Amynthas dageletensis Hong & Kim, 2005 included as its junior synonyms, as clearly stated previously by Blakemore (2003; 2010a; 2012a).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.