266
Views
20
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Articles

Revision of Cognettia (Clitellata, Enchytraeidae): re-establishment of Chamaedrilus and description of cryptic species in the sphagnetorum complex

, &
Pages 257-277 | Received 14 Jun 2014, Accepted 04 Nov 2014, Published online: 23 Dec 2014
 

Abstract

The oligochaete worm, Cognettia sphagnetorum (Vejdovský, Citation1878), is widely used as a model organism in soil biology, and therefore it is important that its taxonomy is firmly established. A previous study based on both mitochondrial and nuclear genetic markers showed that this taxon is an assemblage of at least four species that do not form a monophyletic group. Also the validity of the genus Cognettia Nielsen and Christensen, Citation1959 is subject to debate, since the existence of two putative senior synonyms, Euenchytraeus Bretscher, Citation1906 and Chamaedrilus Friend, Citation1913 has been pointed out. Herein we revise the generic assignment of the species currently placed in Cognettia: two species, C. clarae Bauer, Citation1993 and C. piperi Christensen and Dózsa-Farkas, Citation1999, are transferred to Euenchytraeus, together with its type Eu. bisetosus Bretscher, Citation1906, whereas the remaining species, including Cognettia sphagnetorum, are being transferred to Chamaedrilus. Five species within the Chamaedrilus sphagnetorum complex are revised: the type species of Chamaedrilus, Ch. chlorophilus Friend, Citation1913, as well as the type species of Cognettia, Ch. sphagnetorum s. str. are redescribed, and a neotype is designated for the latter; and the cryptic species Ch. pseudosphagnetorum sp. nov. and Ch. chalupskyi sp. nov. are described as new to science and discussed against a paratype of Ch. valeriae (Dumnicka, Citation2010) comb. nov. DNA-barcodes are provided for all the named species in the complex except Ch. valeriae. A key to the species in the complex is given and the value of different somatic characters for separating and identifying species of Chamaedrilus is discussed. No morphological feature seems to distinguish Ch. sphagnetorum from Ch. pseudosphagnetorum. Thus, for a reliable identification of these species, molecular methods, e.g. DNA barcoding, are recommended.

http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F840CD92-F784-429E-B4BF-3E61F6632A8D

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Ainara Achurra, Anna Ansebo, Alexander Bär, Pierre De Wit, Kerryn Elliott, Daniel Gustafsson, Magnus Johansson, Emelie Lindqvist, Kennet Lundin, Lisa Matamoros and Jana Schenkova, for assistance in fieldwork, or in other ways providing specimens. Emma Sherlock and Tracey Heath (Natural History Museum, London) and Elżbieta Dumnicka (INCPAS) are thanked for loaning us material.

Additional information

Funding

Financial support to the first author was given by Paul och Marie Berghaus donationsstiftelse, Wilhelm och Martina Lundgrens Vetenskapsfond; and to the last author by the Swedish Research Council (VR) and the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Science and Spatial Planning (FORMAS), the Swedish Taxonomy Initiative (ArtDatabanken), the Norwegian Taxonomy Initiative (Artsdatabanken) and the Adlerbert Research Foundation.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 61.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 129.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.