Lumbricidae Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1815

Plisko, Jadwiga Danuta, 2010, Megadrile earthworm taxa introduced to South African soils (Oligochaeta: Acanthodrilidae, Eudrilidae, Glossoscolecidae, Lumbricidae, Megascolecidae, Ocnerodrilidae), African Invertebrates 51 (2), pp. 289-289 : 295-296

Family Lumbricidae Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1815

The recognition of Lumbricus terrestris by Linnaeus (1758) was a first step for earthworm taxonomy; however, worldwide dispersal of lumbcicids accredited mainly to human activities for many years confused the Palaearctic origin of the Lumbricidae . In later years many of the already described species, being collected in distant parts of the world, were described as synonyms. In addition, numerous lumbricid taxa reproducing parthenogenetically in variable morphs, suggested new taxonomic accreditation and were described under various synonyms. The recently published checklist of internationally recognized lumbricid species includes nearly 1000 nominal names, of which 700 species names in 39 genera, are accepted as valid, although many of them are still awaiting a new evaluation (Blakemore 2004 a).

In RSA 18 lumbricid species occur, attributed to eight genera: Allolobophoridella (2); Aporrectodea (4); Dendrobaena (3); Dendrodrilus (2); Eisenia (2); Eiseniella (1); Lumbricus (2); and Octolasion (2). Most of the species are synantropic, known from many parts of the world. To this country they were introduced at various times in many ways ( Ljungström 1972). These species, reproducing in variable parthenogenetic or polyploid morphs, were recorded under variable synonyms, which now makes correct qualification difficult. The collection sites were often supplied incorrectly, giving misleading species distributions, as happened with Lumbricus infelix Kinberg, 1867 , described apparently from Durban. Michaelsen (1899 b) after revision of the original material identified it as L. terrestris L., however, data referring to the type locality as ‘Pt. Natal’ (what may be understood as Durban in KZN) was uncertain. Michaelsen

(1899 b: 421) expressed his doubt in the words “… Ich glaube demnach berechtigt zu sein, die Fundorts­Angabe ‘Pt. Natal’, deren Richtigkeit mehr als zweifelhaft ist, zu annulliren”, and this declaration allows us to take L. infelix = L. terrestris out of the record of the species occurring in RSA. Ljungström (1972) expressed a similar opinion. Thus the report on the occurrence of L. terrestris in South Africa given by Gates (1972: 119) is not correct. No L. terrestris were collected in South Africa during consecutive earthworm collections undertaken in the past decades by a number of researchers (Michaelsen, Pickford, Ljungström, Reinecke, Reynolds, Pajor, Zicsi, Plisko, members of Ezemvelo Wildlife KZN, members of the University of KwaZulu-Natal (Pietermaritzburg), and others). Experimental introduction of mature individuals of this species into gardens and grasslands near Durban and Pietermaritzburg did not bring the expected results. It seems that L. terrestris does not reproduce under South African ecological and climatic conditions. However, once in a while some information on its occurrence in this country has been given. Some specimens identified incorrectly as terrestris ( Mallett et al. 1987) probably belong to the Megascolecidae , giving at the time of their identification a wrong impression by some external resemblance, as specimens have similar dimensions and a violet colouring, both features characteristic of some megascolecids occurring in this country, and also known from the literature for the Lumbricus species.