identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03927F0EFFEA6041FC33FC5A6E9AD7F3.text	03927F0EFFEA6041FC33FC5A6E9AD7F3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Doris LINNAEUS 1758	<div><p>GENUS DORIS LINNAEUS, 1758</p> <p>Doris Linnaeus, 1758: 653. Type species: Doris verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, by monotypy.</p> <p>Doridigitata d’Orbigny, 1836 -42 [1839]: 39–40, suppressed by Opinion 1980 (ICZN, 2001). Type species: Doris verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation by J. E. Gray (1847).</p> <p>Doriopsis Pease, 1860: 32–33. Type species: Doriopsis granulosa Pease, 1860, by monotypy, syn. nov.</p> <p>Staurodoris Bergh, 1878a: 578–579, suppressed by Opinion 1980 (ICZN, 2001). Type species: Doris verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, by original designation.</p> <p>Archidoris Bergh, 1878b: 616–617. Type species: Doris pseudoargus Rapp, 1827, by subsequent designation by Iredale &amp; O’Donoghue (1923) syn. nov.</p> <p>Anoplodoris Fischer, 1880 -87 [1883]: 521. Type species: Doris pseudoargus Rapp, 1827, by subsequent designation by Iredale &amp; O’Donoghue (1923) syn. nov.</p> <p>Ctenodoris Eliot, 1907: 338. Type species: Staurodoris pecten Eliot, 1906, by subsequent designation by Baba (1937), syn. nov.</p> <p>Austrodoris Odhner, 1926: 67–68. Type species: Archidoris rubescens Bergh, 1898, by original designation, syn. nov.</p> <p>Guyonia Risbec, 1928: 102. Type species: Guyonia flava Risbec, 1928, here designated syn. nov.</p> <p>Neodoris Baba, 1938: 13–14. Type species: Neodoris tricolor Baba, 1938, by original designation, syn. nov.</p> <p>Siraius Marcus, 1955: 134. Type species: Siraius ilo Er. Marcus, 1955, by original designation, syn. nov.</p> <p>Doriorbis Kay &amp; Young, 1969: 177–178. Type species: Doris immonda Risbec, 1928, here designated syn. nov.</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Dorsum covered with simple rounded tubercles, stiffened by integumentary spicules, which do not protrude from the dorsal surface. Head with two lateral prolongations. Anterior border of the foot grooved but not notched. Labial cuticle lacking rodlets. Radula composed of simple, hamate teeth. Outermost teeth may be simple or denticulate. Reproductive system with a tubular, granular and simple prostate. Penis and vagina devoid of hooks. Vestibular or accessory glands absent.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Linnaeus (1758) introduced the genus Doris for Doris verrucosa, with a short and confusing Latin description. It is not clear whether Linnaeus studied specimens himself or whether his description was based on the two pre-Linnaean and nonbinomial bibliographical references cited (Rumphius, 1705; Seba, 1735). These two papers describe different animals. ‘Limax marina verrucosa’, described by Rumphius (1705: 38), could be any shell-less gastropod, but probably a species of Phyllidiidae collected from Ambon, Indonesia. Seba’s (1735: pl. 61, fig. 5) ‘Mitella verrucosa’ is a nudibranch mollusc very likely identifiable as the Indo-Pacific species Phyllidiella pustulosa (Cuvier, 1804). However, Doris verrucosa has been identified by most authors as the European species described below, characterized by having hemispherical tubercles on the dorsum and numerous unipinnate branchial leaves. The name Doris has also been applied to the relatives of this species, first to all dorid nudibranchs having a circlet of dorsal respiratory leaves, and more recently to just a few species closely related to the mentioned European species. Bouchet &amp; Valdés (2000) submitted a proposal to the ICZN in order to maintain the current usage of the generic and specific names Doris verrucosa by the designation of a neotype. This proposal was endorsed by the ruling of the Commission in Opinion 1980 (ICZN, 2001).</p> <p>D’Orbigny (1836–1842) [1839] segregated Doris into several discrete species groups, which he treated as subgenera. For the new species Doris bertheloti, from the Canary Islands, he established Doridigitata, where he also allocated Doris verrucosa (applying this name to the species mentioned above). Gray (1847) validly fixed Doris verrucosa as the type species of Doridigitata. The genus Doridigitata d’Orbigny, 1839 is an objective junior synonym of Doris because they are based on the same type species. Bergh (1878a) recognized that the original description of Doris did not fit with the usage of the name by most of the authors, and considered that Doridigitata was the valid name for this genus. At the same time, Bergh (1878a) introduced the new name Staurodoris to replace Doridigitata, which according to him was improperly formed. Therefore, Staurodoris and Doridigitata have the same type species and are objective synonyms.</p> <p>Bergh (1878b) introduced the genus Archidoris based on Cuvier’s (1804) misapplication of the name Doris tuberculata Müller, 1778 (see also remarks on Doris pseudoargus), Doris flammea Alder &amp; Hancock, 1844 and Doris montereyensis Cooper, 1862. At the same time he mentioned: ‘The spawn and a fragment of the ontogeny of the type of this form [Archidoris] is known (see Alder &amp; Hancock)’. Iredale &amp; O’Donoghue (1923) interpreted this comment to mean that Bergh (1878b) had selected a misapplication of the name Doris tuberculata by Alder &amp; Hancock to be the type species of Archidoris. Actually, Bergh’s (1878b) comment cannot be interpreted as the designation of a type species (see ICZN, 1999: Article 68.2). Therefore, Iredale &amp; O’Donoghue (1923) were the first authors to designate a type species for the genus Archidoris, by subsequent designation. It is clear from the list of species and synonyms included in Archidoris that these authors meant to select the misapplication of the name Doris tuberculata by most authors (= Doris pseudoargus Rapp, 1827; see below) as the type species. Thus, according to Article 69.2.4 (ICZN, 1999), Iredale &amp; O’Donoghue (1923) are deemed to have selected Doris pseudoargus Rapp, 1827 as the type species of Archidoris.</p> <p>Examination of the external morphology and anatomy of Doris pseudoargus shows that this species is very similar to Doris verrucosa, with the exception of the presence of large and rounded dorsal tubercles, unipinnate branchial leaves and pectinate outermost teeth in the latter. The phylogenetic analysis carried out (see below) showed that they are members of the same clade. There are no consistent differences that justify the maintenance of two different genera for these closely related taxa.</p> <p>Fischer (1880–1887) [1883] introduced the new genus Anoplodoris Fischer, 1883 to accommodate several nominal genera (and species) previously described. One of these species was cited as ‘ Doris tuberculata Linné’, which constitutes an incorrect citation rather than a misapplication. The name Doris tuberculata was never mentioned by Linnaeus in any of his works. Iredale &amp; O’Donoghue (1923) subsequently designated ‘ Doris tuberculata Linné’ as the type species of Anoplodoris. Again, it is clear that these authors were referring to the misapplication of the name Doris tuberculata by most authors (= Doris pseudoargus Rapp, 1827; see below), and by the provisions of Article 69.2.4 (ICZN, 1999), Iredale &amp; O’Donoghue (1923) are deemed to have selected Doris pseudoargus Rapp, 1827 as the type species of Anoplodoris. Because Anoplodoris and Archidoris are based on the same type species they are objective synonyms.</p> <p>Odhner (1926) described the genus Austrodoris based on Archidoris rubescens Bergh, 1898. According to this author, Austrodoris differs from Doris and Archidoris by having short, wide nonattached salivary glands. In the following years, there was a great deal of confusion between the name Archidoris and Austrodoris, but in general (with a few exceptions) the former was used for species from the northern hemisphere and the latter for species from the southern hemisphere, regardless of the anatomical features of the animals described. Wägele (1990) redescribed the genus Austrodoris and concluded that all species previously described are synonyms of Austrodoris kerguelenensis (Bergh, 1884). She also maintained the usage of the genus Austrodoris, which differs from Archidoris by having most of the deferent duct covered with a muscular sheath, lacking a glans penis and having the seminal receptacle and the bursa copulatrix inserting opposite and not serially on the vaginal duct. The examination of the type species of the genera Doris and Archidoris has revealed that they also have these features. Thus, there are no consistent differences between these taxa that justify the maintenance of different genus names.</p> <p>Baba (1938) described the genus Neodoris based on Neodoris tricolor Baba, 1938, the type species by original designation, as different from Doris, Archidoris and Anisodoris. According to Baba (1938) the main distinctive feature of this genus is the absence of a glans penis. He considered Neodoris to be closely related to Austrodoris and Archidoris, but distinguishable by having a prostate gland and band-like salivary glands. Later, Baba (1998) recognized that Neodoris is a synonym of Archidoris, and suggested that Austrodoris could be a synonym as well.</p> <p>Marcus (1955) described the genus Siraius for Siraius ilo Er. Marcus, 1955 from Brazil. He characterized this new genus by the presence of hook-shaped lateral and pectinate marginal teeth, short and grooved oral tentacles, short and wide salivary glands, tubular prostate and penis unarmed.</p> <p>Kay &amp; Young (1969) introduced the genus Doriorbis for a misidentification of Doris nucleola Pease, 1860 (see remarks on Doris immonda Risbec, 1928). They characterized this new genus as having simply pinnate branchial leaves arranged as a circlet about a posterior anus, hamate radular teeth with the outermost laterals denticulate, and a Y- or T-shaped medial streak extending from the rhinophores to the middorsum. According to Article 70.3 (ICZN, 1999) if the type species of a nominal genus is found to be misidentified an author may select and fix as the type species the species that will, in his or her judgement, best serve stability. In this case the selection of Doris immonda as the type species clearly serves stability better, as Doris nucleola in the sense of its original description (Pease, 1860) is an unidentifiable species, which has well-developed oral tentacles and probably belongs to a different genus.</p> <p>Brodie &amp; Willan (1993) redescribed Doris immonda (as Doris nucleola) and considered that it belongs to the genus Siraius Er. Marcus, 1955. Therefore Doriorbis became a synonym of Siraius. At the same time, they distinguished Siraius from other cryptobranch dorids on the basis of two synapomorphies, the presence of papillae of unequal size around the rhinophoral sheaths, and pectinate outermost lateral teeth. The first character does not have, in my opinion, much phylogenetic significance, and the second is also present in other species of Doris, such as D. pseudoargus. Brodie &amp; Willan (1993) considered Siraius to be closely related to Etidoris Ihering, 1886; which is a synonym of Thordisa Bergh, 1877 (see below). Baba (1998) regarded Siraius as a different genus on the basis of the presence of pectinate outermost teeth.</p> <p>The genus Doriopsis was introduced by Pease (1860) based on Doriopsis granulosa. Pease (1860) justified the creation of a new genus on the basis of the arrangement of the gill, which has the leaves ‘disposed in the form of a semicircle, on the posterior portion of the back, and retractile into a similarly formed slit, the convex portion posteriorly’. Four years later, Alder &amp; Hancock (1864) introduced the new genus Doridopsis, which has the same features as Dendrodoris Ehrenberg, 1831 (see Valdés et al., 1996), and only one letter difference from the name Doriopsis Pease, 1860. Later, Pease (1871a) reaffirmed his genus name Doriopsis as valid and different from Doridopsis. He also argued that Doridopsis should be considered invalid, to avoid confusion with Doriopsis, and erected the replacement name Hanstellodoris Pease, 1871 for it. However, Bergh (1876) regarded Doriopsis and Doridopsis as synonyms, not in the meaning of Pease (1860) but in the meaning of Alder &amp; Hancock (1864), and accepted Doriopsis as the valid name of the genus. This opinion was accepted by most authors in the following years, and Doriopsis was regarded as a junior synonym and a member of the Porostomata (radulaless dorids). O’Donoghue (1924) considered that Ehrenberg’s name Dendrodoris was valid, and treated Doriopsis and Doridopsis as junior synonyms of the former. Pruvot-Fol (1931) suggested for the first time since Pease (1860, 1871a) that Doriopsis is not a synonym of Dendrodoris, but a distinct genus that should be place in the family Archidorididae. On the other hand, Doridopsis is currently regarded as a synonym of Dendrodoris (Valdés et al., 1996).</p> <p>Probably unaware of Pease’s (1860) work, Eliot (1907) described the new subgenus Ctenodoris Eliot, 1907 to include Staurodoris pecten Eliot 1906 and Doris flabellifera Cheesman, 1881. Baba (1937) subsequently selected Staurodoris pecten Eliot, 1906 to be the type species. According to Eliot (1907) the main distinctive feature of Ctenodoris is the structure of the gill, which has the leaves ‘arranged in a line of crescent, and the upper lip of the pocket shuts down over them like a single valve’. This description is very similar to that of Doriopsis, and these two names are clearly synonyms. The genus Guyonia was described by Risbec (1928) on the basis of Guyonia flava Risbec, 1928, Doris pecten Collingwood, 1881 and Doriopsis viridis Pease, 1861. Guyonia flava is here designated as the type species. Risbec (1928) described Guyonia as having the general shape of a Platydoris, with small papillae on the dorsum. Radula with unicuspid teeth and penis unarmed. Gill formed of pinnate leaves inserted anteriorly to the anus and forming an convex arch that is retractile under a semicircular lamellae. This description fits with the characteristics of Doriopsis. Baba &amp; Hamatani (1961) regarded Ctenodoris and Guyonia as synonyms of Doriopsis for the first time.</p> <p>The phylogenetic analysis carried out in this paper clearly shows that Doriopsis is a derived member of the clade containing the members of the genus Doris. If Doriopsis is maintained as a separate genus, Doris becomes paraphyletic. The same would probably occur for the rest of the synonyms of Doris if more species were included in the analysis.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFEA6041FC33FC5A6E9AD7F3	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFE76042FF33FAE76BFFD0CA.text	03927F0EFFE76042FF33FAE76BFFD0CA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Doris verrucosa LINNAEUS 1758	<div><p>DORIS VERRUCOSA LINNAEUS, 1758 (FIGS 2, 3)</p> <p>Doris verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758: 653.</p> <p>Doris derelicta Fischer, 1867: 7–8.</p> <p>Doris biscayensis Fischer, 1872: 6–8.</p> <p>Staurodoris januari Bergh, 1878a: 583–585, pl. 63, fig. 24, pl. 64, figs 8-12.</p> <p>Staurodoris verrucosa var. mollis Eliot, 1906a: 338– 339.</p> <p>Staurodoris bobretzkii Gadzikiewicz, 1907: 509–510.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>Doris verrucosa Linnaeus, NEOTYPE (designated by Bouchet &amp; Valdés, 2000 and validated by Opinion 1980 - ICZN, 2001): Castropol, Asturias, Spain, leg. J. Cigarría (MNHN). Doris derelicta Fischer, NEOTYPE (designated by Bouchet &amp; Valdés, 2000): Castropol, Asturias, Spain, leg. J. Cigarría (MNHN). The type material of Staurodoris januari Bergh could not be located at ZMUC and is presumed lost; the original type locality is near Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>Naples, Italy 1898, three specimens, 28–33 mm preserved length, leg. F. M. MacFarland (CASIZ 082119).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The external morphology of this species has been described and illustrated by many authors. Three recent examples can be found in the papers by Schmekel (1968), Ortea, Pérez &amp; Llera (1982) and Thompson &amp; Brown (1984).</p> <p>The general colour of the living animals is uniformly yellow to yellowish-grey. The whole dorsum is covered with hemispherical tubercles varying in size (Fig. 2D). The largest tubercles are situated in the central region of the body. The rhinophoral sheath has one prominent, stalked tubercle on each side. The branchial sheath has 8–12 stalked tubercles all around. There are 13–18 unipinnate branchial leaves, forming a circle. The anal papilla is prominent, situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 11 lamellae in a 28-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally there are no oral tentacles, but two blunt prolongations on each side of the mouth opening (Fig. 3F). The anterior border of the foot is grooved but not notched.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 3D) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two additional muscles attached; two long salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is as long as the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is smooth. The radular formula is 38 ¥ (50.0.50) in a 33- mm long specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are narrow and elongate, having a single cusp and lacking denticles (Fig. 2A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 2B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also lack denticles (Fig. 2C). The oesophagus is short, convoluted and connects directly to the stomach (Fig. 3A). The ampulla is very large and branches into a short oviduct and the prostate (Fig. 3C). The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is tubular, folded and granular (Fig. 3B). It connects with a long duct that narrows and expands again into the long ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The muscular deferent duct opens into a common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is long and undulate. Near to its proximal end it joins the duct connecting the bursa copulatrix and the seminal receptacle. The uterine duct also leads from this duct. The bursa copulatrix is irregular in shape, about twice as large as the seminal receptacle (Fig. 3C).</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 3E) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are more or less fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are four cerebral nerves leading from the right cerebral ganglion and five from the left one, and four pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively short nerves. Gastro-oesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having three nerves leading from each one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together, and also partially enveloped with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 3A) consists of a large heart and a single large blood gland situated over the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Doris verrucosa, in the sense of the neotype proposed by Bouchet &amp; Valdés (2000) and other many authors (e.g. Schmekel, 1968; Ortea et al., 1982; Thompson &amp; Brown, 1984), is a well-known species distributed through the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts of Europe down to the Canary Islands. Records from the Atlantic coast of the Americas probably belong to this species (Marcus, 1955; Franz, 1970). Indeed, Doris januari Bergh, 1878, originally described from Brazil, is very likely a synonym (Thompson &amp; Brown, 1984). Gosliner’s (1987) reference to South Africa probably represents a distinct species.</p> <p>Fischer (1867), recognized that the specific name Doris verrucosa Linnaeus originally refers to a species from the Indian Ocean and cannot be used for a European species. For the latter he introduced the name Doris derelicta. Bouchet &amp; Valdés (2000) proposed designating the same specimen as the neotype of Doris verrucosa Linnaeus and Doris derelicta P. Fischer, so these two names would become objective synonyms. They also proposed that Doris derelicta P. Fischer should be placed in the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. These proposals were endorsed by the ruling of the ICZN in Opinion 1980 (ICZN, 2001).</p> <p>Doris biscayensis was described by Fischer (1872) with the same characteristics of Doris verrucosa. The uniform pale yellow colour, the presence of two tubercles in the rhinophoral sheath (one on each side), the presence of 13 unipinnate branchial leaves arranged in a circle, and the absence of oral tentacles, are the main diagnostic features of this species. Doris verrucosa is the only species from the Atlantic coast of Europe that has this combination of external characteristics. The variety mollis of Staurodoris verrucosa described by Eliot (1906a), is also identical to Doris verrucosa and is here regarded as a synonym. Gadzikiewicz (1907) described Staurodoris bobretzkii on the basis of several specimens collected from the Black Sea, characterized by having a bright orange body covered by large tubercles spotted in black. The eight branchial leaves have the same colour as the body and vary in size, the anterior ones being much longer than the posterior ones. The gill and rhinophoral sheaths are surrounded by tubercles similar to the dorsal tubercles. The tubercles around the gill sheath are much larger than the ones around the rhinophoral sheaths. This description fits with the characteristics of D. verrucosa described above, and both names are regarded as synonyms. The three names discussed in this paragraph have been already considered by Thompson &amp; Brown (1984) as synonyms of Doris verrucosa.</p> <p>Thompson &amp; Brown (1984) also included Doris seposita P. Fischer, 1872 and Doris eubalia P. Fischer, 1872 in the synonymy of Doris verrucosa. However, these two species are easily differentiated from D. verrucosa on the basis of their external morphology. Doris eubalia is characterized by the presence of large, dark tubercles surrounded by a purple area (Fischer, 1872). This and other features of this species are very similar to those of Doris sticta Iredale &amp; O’Donoghue, 1923, and both names are probably synonyms. Doris seposita is an uncertain species. According to Fischer (1872) it is different from Doris biscayensis (= Doris verrucosa) in having a different rhinophoral morphology, a small number of branchial leaves, the dorsal tubercles more compacted and a darker colour. It is difficult, however, a definitive identification of this species based on the original description, and anatomical studies would be necessary. Unfortunately, the type material of Doris seposita could not be located in MNHN, and is presumed lost.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFE76042FF33FAE76BFFD0CA	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFE46059FCC9FB9D6F8FD74C.text	03927F0EFFE46059FCC9FB9D6F8FD74C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Doris pseudoargus RAPP 1827	<div><p>DORIS PSEUDOARGUS RAPP, 1827 (FIGS 4A, 5, 6)</p> <p>Doris pseudoargus Rapp, 1827: 519.</p> <p>Doris flavipes Leuckart, 1828: 14.</p> <p>Doris leuckartii Delle Chiaje, 1841: 19, pl. 40, fig. 3.</p> <p>Doris schembrii Verany, 1846: 21–22.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>Doris pseudoargus Rapp, the type material, collected from Le Havre, France, is untraceable. NEOTYPE (here designated): Locmariaquer, France, 13 April 1972, one specimen, 22 mm preserved length, leg. P. Bouchet (MNHN). Doris flavipes Leuckart, the type material collected from the Mediterranean Sea is untraceable. Doris leuckartii Delle Chiaje, the type material collected from Nice, France, is untraceable. Doris schembrii Verany, SYNTYPES: Gulf of Geneva, Italy, two specimens (MNHN). The type material of Doris britannica Leach could not be located at BMNH and is probably lost.</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>Las Llanas Beach, Muros de Nalón, Asturias, Spain, 16 August 1987, one specimen, 17 mm preserved length, leg. A. Valdés (CASIZ 121105). Naples, Italy 1902–03, one specimen, 33 mm preserved length, leg. F. M. MacFarland (CASIZ 081871).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The general colour of the living animals varies from yellowish to pale brown, with pale purple, whitish, green, dark brown or reddish irregular patches on the dorsum (Fig. 4A). In some specimens there are only dark brown patches. The rhinophores and the gill are yellowish to pale brown. The whole dorsum is covered with rounded and simple tubercles, all of them similar in size (Fig. 5D). The largest tubercles are those situated in the central region of the body. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have several tubercles which are slightly stalked but otherwise similar to the rest of the dorsal tubercles. There are 8–9 tripinnate branchial leaves, forming a circle. The anal papilla is prominent, situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 14 lamellae in a 17-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally, there are no oral tentacles, but two blunt prolongations on each side of the mouth opening (Fig. 6E). The anterior border of the foot is grooved but not notched.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 6D) which attach to the body wall. Two long salivary glands connect with the buccal bulb at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is several times longer than the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is smooth. The radular formula is 41 ¥ 73.0. 73 in a 33-mm long specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are narrow and elongate, having a single cusp and lacking denticles (Fig. 5A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 5B). The outermost teeth are smaller and have a number of thin denticles (Fig. 5C). The oesophagus is short and connects directly to the stomach (Fig. 5A).</p> <p>The ampulla is convoluted and branches into a short oviduct and the prostate (Fig. 6C). The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is tubular, very long, folded and granular (Fig. 6B). It connects with a long duct that narrows and expands again into the huge ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The muscular deferent duct opens into a short common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is long and wide. Near to its proximal end it joins the duct connecting the bursa copulatrix and the seminal receptacle. The uterine duct also leads from this duct. The bursa copulatrix is irregular in shape, about 10 times larger than the seminal receptacle (Fig. 6C).</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 6F) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are four cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion, and three pleural nerves leading from the left pleural ganglion and two from the right one. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively short nerves. Gastro-oesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having five nerves leading from the left ganglion and four from the right one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 6A) consists of a large heart and a single large blood gland situated over the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Doris tuberculata Müller, 1778 was described on the basis of an undetermined number of specimens collected from Norway. Müller (1778) described the animals as golden, patelliform, with the dorsum covered with numerous hair-like yellowish tubercles. The description of the animals clearly represents a species of phanerobranch dorid, probably a member of the genera Acanthodoris J.E. Gray, 1850, Adalaria Bergh, 1878 or Onchidoris Blainville, 1816.</p> <p>Years later, Cuvier (1804) reported Doris tuberculata Müller, 1778 from the Atlantic coast of France based on two newly collected specimens, but indicating that his material was clearly different from Müller’s (1778). The animals described by Cuvier are large cryptobranch dorids with the dorsum covered with rounded tubercles. Rapp (1827) described Doris pseudoargus from Le Havre, France, with the same characteristics of the specimens studied by Cuvier (1804): ‘ash colour with dull reddish spots’, and therefore this is the first valid introduction of a name for this species.</p> <p>Johnston (1838) introduced the names D. britannica and D. montagui, without a description and in the synonymy of D. Tuberculata. Therefore they are nomina nuda and if they have not been used as valid before 1961 they are also not available (ICZN, 1999).</p> <p>In the following years most authors referred to this species as Doris tuberculata, but with authorship of Cuvier. Examples include Delle Chiaje (1841), Bergh (1878b), Eliot (1910), Vayssière (1913) O’Donoghue (1929), Pruvot-Fol (1935), Odhner (1939). The scientific influence of Cuvier’s papers probably explains why subsequently many authors applied the name Doris tuberculata to this cryptobranch dorid species.</p> <p>The usage of the name Doris tuberculata for this species was challenged by the British School. Early on, Iredale &amp; O’Donoghue (1923) for some unexplained reason decided that the animals named Doris tuberculata by Cuvier are a different species from specimens identified as such by Alder &amp; Hancock and Eliot; they used the unavailable name Doris britannica, combined with the genus name Archidoris, for the latter. On the other hand, Pruvot-Fol (1931) argued that all these animals belonged to the same species - Doris tuberculata with authorship of Cuvier the valid name. The name Doris britannica very rarely appears in the literature. Thompson (1966) reintroduced the usage of the name Doris pseudoargus, also combined with Archidoris, but without a justification.</p> <p>Both Doris pseudoargus and Doris tuberculata have been equally used in modern literature, usually combined with the genus name Archidoris. Examples of the former in taxonomic papers include Schmekel &amp; Portmann (1982), Thompson &amp; Brown (1984), Cattaneo-Vietti et al. (1990), Picton &amp; Morrow (1994); examples of the latter include Ros (1975), Barletta (1981), Swennen &amp; Dekker (1987), Sabelli, Giannuzzi-Savelli &amp; Bedulli (1990). In addition, most papers on physiology, ecology or histology of this species have used the former (Thompson, 1966; Rose, 1971; Potts, 1983; Jonas, 1986), whereas biochemistry papers have used the latter (Cimino et al. 1993). In no cases did authors specify their reasons for using one or the other name, which increased the general confusion. Because both names are currently in use, the maintenance of the usage of the valid name for this species, Doris pseudoargus, would certainly not cause a larger disruption than the validation of the name Doris tuberculata.</p> <p>Doris pseudoargus is a well-known species that ranges from Nordkapp (Norway), Iceland and the Faroes to the Mediterranean Sea (Thompson &amp; Brown, 1984). The name D. tuberculata has been used for specimens that occur beyond the geographical range of this species. Savigny (1817) reported this species from the Red Sea, Bergh (1894) from the North Pacific and Lemche (1929) from the Gulf of Mexico. These three records are probably misidentifications (see Pruvot-Fol, 1935 and Thompson &amp; Brown, 1984, who have also listed several other synonyms for this species discussed here).</p> <p>Doris schembrii Verany, 1846 was originally described with the same external features of A. pseudoargus (see Verany, 1846), and the re-examination of its type material confirmed that these names are synonyms. Also, the original descriptions of Doris flavipes (see Leuckart, 1828) and Doris leuckartii (see Delle Chiaje, 1841) clearly show that they should be regarded as junior synonyms of A. pseudoargus.</p> <p>Doris flammea Alder &amp; Hancock, 1844 and Doris mera Alder &amp; Hancock, 1844 have been regarded as synonyms of D. pseudoargus (see Thompson &amp; Brown, 1984). However, the original description of these species (Alder &amp; Hancock, 1845 -55) shows that they are externally very different from D. pseudoargus. Doris flammea is a bright orange-scarlet species, occasionally blotched with purple. The dorsum is covered with short, obtuse, spiculose tubercles. The rhinophores are large, tapering, orange with 10 or 11 scarlet lamellae. There are nine scarlet branchial leaves. This description resembles Rostanga rubra Risso, 1818, but whether these two names are synonyms requires further investigation. Doris mera was described as a white species, ‘rather broad and elevated on the back’. This is very different from D. pseudoargus, which is a brownish species. Also, the dorsal tubercles of D. mera were described as being moderately sized, unequal and round. This is very similar to Aldisa zetlandica (Alder &amp; Hancock, 1854), for which D. mera could be a synonym.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFE46059FCC9FB9D6F8FD74C	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFFF605AFF3DFB616EB1D522.text	03927F0EFFFF605AFF3DFB616EB1D522.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Doris IMMONDA RISBEC 1928	<div><p>DORIS IMMONDA RISBEC, 1928 (FIGS 4B, 7, 8)</p> <p>Platydoris immonda Risbec, 1928: 84, pl. 1, fig. 4, text fig. 12.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>SYNTYPE: New Caledonia, date unknown, one specimen, leg. J. Risbec (MNHN).</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>Tengan Pier, 14 km west of Ikei-Shima, Okinawa, Ryukyu Islands, Japan, 12 m depth, 20 March 1993, one specimen, 21 mm long, leg. T. M. Gosliner (CASIZ 089023).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The background colour of the living animals is yelloworange to pale brown. There is an opaque white or brown inverted ‘Y’ or hourglass pattern extending mid-dorsally from between the rhinophores to just in front of the gill (Fig. 4B). In some specimens this pattern can be interrupted or almost absent. Some of the dorsal tubercles, and those situated on the dorsal hourglass pattern, are dark purple-brown. The rhinophores have a purple club and a white base. The branchial leaves are yellow-orange with some of the apices dark brown. The whole dorsum is covered with rounded, slightly conical tubercles, all of them similar in size (Fig. 7D). The largest tubercles are those situated in the central region of the body. The rhinophoral sheaths have several slightly stalked tubercles, larger than those surrounding the sheath, but not larger than the largest tubercles on the dorsum. The tubercles surrounding the branchial sheath are similar to the rest of the dorsal tubercles. There are five tripinnate branchial leaves, forming a circle. The anal papilla is small, situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having eight lamellae in a 21-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally there are no oral tentacles, but two blunt prolongations on each side of the mouth opening (Fig. 8E). The anterior border of the foot is grooved but not notched.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 8C) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two additional muscles attached. Two short salivary glands connect with the buccal bulb at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is several times longer than the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is smooth. The radular formula is 34 ¥ 43.0. 43 in a 21-mm long specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are narrow and elongate, having a single cusp and lacking denticles (Fig. 7A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 7B). The mid-lateral teeth near to the outer edge bear 2–3 large and blunt denticles on the main cusp. The 2–4 outermost teeth are smaller and have a number of thin denticles (Fig. 7C). The oesophagus is short and connects directly to the stomach.</p> <p>The ampulla is long and convoluted, and branches into a short oviduct and the prostate (Fig. 8B). The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is tubular, long, folded and granular. It connects with a short duct that narrows and expands again into the ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The muscular deferent duct opens into a common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is long. Near to its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct that connects to the uterine duct and the seminal receptacle. The bursa copulatrix is oval in shape, about three times larger than the seminal receptacle.</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 8D) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are three cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and two pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively short nerves. Gastro-oesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having three nerves leading from each one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 8A) consists of a large heart and two blood glands situated in front of and behind the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Pease (1860) described Doris nucleola based on specimens collected from Hawaii as an orange species, dusky along the dorsal region and shaded with purple on each side of the branchiae. Pruvot-Fol (1947) revised the original description of this species and regarded it as nonidentifiable.</p> <p>Kay &amp; Young (1969) redescribed Doris nucleola also from Hawaiian material and introduced the new genus Doriorbis to include this species. Their animals were described as having a brown or grey-blue background colour with a T or Y shaped yellow pattern extending mid-dorsally from the rhinophores. They synonymized Doris papillosa Pease, 1860 and Doris tincta Pease, 1864 with Doris nucleola.</p> <p>Brodie &amp; Willan (1993) studied some specimens from Australia and Norfolk Island, which they assigned to Doris nucleola. At the same time they regarded Doriorbis Kay &amp; Young, 1969 as a synonym of Siraius Er. Marcus, 1955 and added Doris carinata Alder &amp; Hancock, 1864, Doris carina Abraham, 1877, Platydoris immonda Risbec, 1928 to the synonymy of this species. The Australian specimens are dull orange-yellow with a pale hourglass-shaped patch extending mid-dorsally from between the rhinophores to just in front of of the gill.</p> <p>More recently Rudman (2000) argued that Pease (1860) did not mention any dorsal markings between the rhinophores and the gill. He also posted a copy of Garret’s illustration of Pease’s (1860) original specimen published by Bergh (1881) in which there are no traces of the hourglass pattern between the gills and the rhinophores. Therefore he considered that Pease’s Doris nucleola is a different species, and that the first name available and recognizable for the species studied by Kay &amp; Young (1969) and Brodie &amp; Willan (1993) is Platydoris immonda Risbec, 1928. A close examination of the drawing by Garret reveals that Doris nucleola has well-developed oral tentacles that are absent in Doris immonda and the material examined by Kay &amp; Young (1969) and Brodie &amp; Willan (1993), and it is very likely that Doris nucleola belongs to a different genus. Rudman (2000) also commented that Doris carinata Alder &amp; Hancock, 1864 is a different species because of the higher body profile and larger number of branchial leaves compared to those of Doris immonda. A re-examination of Alder &amp; Hancock’s (1864) paper shows not only that, but the rhinophores are described as brownish, whereas they are whitish or cream with the club black or violet in Doris immonda. The identity of Doris nucleola and Doris carina remains unknown.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFFF605AFF3DFB616EB1D522	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFFC605FFF30F9B56D3AD546.text	03927F0EFFFC605FFF30F9B56D3AD546.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Doris granulosa PEASE 1860	<div><p>DORIS GRANULOSA PEASE, 1860 (FIGS 4C, 9, 10)</p> <p>Doriopsis granulosa Pease, 1860: 32–33.</p> <p>Doriopsis scabra Pease, 1871a: 300, pl. 19, fig. 2A- C.</p> <p>Doris? flabellifera Cheeseman, 1881: 222–223.</p> <p>Doris (Ctenodoris) aurantiaca Eliot, 1913: 5–7, pl. 1, fig. 1.</p> <p>Guyonia flava Risbec, 1928: 103–104, pl. 3, fig. 6, text fig. 21.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>The type specimens of Doriopsis granulosa and Doriopsis scabra are untraceable; the type material of Doris flabellifera, as well as that of other nudibranchs described by Cheeseman, is lost (Bruce Marshall, pers. comm.). SYNTYPE of Guyonia flava Pease: New Caledonia, date unknown, one specimen, leg. J. Risbec (MNHN).</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>Small island south of the strait between Île Saint Marie and Île aux Nattes, Madagascar, 5 April 1990, one specimen, 12 mm preserved length, leg. T. M. Gosliner (CASIZ 073536).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The background colour of the living animals is yelloworange. There is a number of small brown dots scattered on the surface, more densely arranged around the dorsal tubercles (Fig. 4C). The rhinophores and gill are also yellow-orange. The whole dorsum is covered with rounded, simple tubercles, all of them similar in size (Fig. 9D). The largest tubercles are those situated in the central region of the body. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have a few tubercles, similar to the rest of the dorsal tubercles. There are six tripinnate branchial leaves, arranged horizontally. The anal papilla is small, situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 12 lamellae in a 12-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally there are no oral tentacles, but two blunt prolongations on each side of the mouth opening (Fig. 10F). The anterior border of the foot is grooved but not notched.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 10D) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two additional muscles attached. Two short salivary glands connect with the buccal bulb at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is shorter than the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is smooth. The radular formula is 47 ¥ 47.0. 47 in a 12-mm long specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are narrow and elongate, having a single cusp and lacking denticles (Fig. 9A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 9B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also smooth (Fig. 9C). The oesophagus is short and connects directly to the stomach (Fig. 10A).</p> <p>The ampulla is long and convoluted, and branches into a short oviduct and the prostate (Fig. 10B). The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is tubular, short, folded and granular. It connects with a short duct that narrows and expands again into the ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The muscular deferent duct opens into a common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is long. Near to its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix and the seminal receptacle. The uterine duct also leads from the vagina. The bursa copulatrix is oval in shape, about as large as the seminal receptacle.</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 10D) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are three cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and two pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively short nerves. Gastro-oesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having three nerves leading from the left ganglion and four from the right. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 10A) consists of a large heart and a small blood gland situated in front of the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Baba &amp; Hamatani (1961) redescribed this species, under the name Doriopsis aurantiaca (Eliot, 1913), based on specimens collected from Japan. Kay &amp; Young (1969) reported this species from Hawaii, this time under the name Doriopsis granulosa Pease, 1860, and figured its reproductive system and the radula for the first time. They also suggested that Doris aurantiaca, Doriopsis scabra Pease, 1871, Guyonia flava Risbec, 1928 and Doris flabellifera Cheeseman, 1881 could be synonyms.</p> <p>Edmunds (1971) studied specimens from Tanzania which are similar to those from Hawaii, and confirmed the list of synonyms suggested by Kay &amp; Young (1969). In contrast, Willan &amp; Coleman (1984) considered that Doriopsis flabellifera is a distinct species, although they provided no anatomical evidence.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFFC605FFF30F9B56D3AD546	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFF96050FF5BF9766B8BD155.text	03927F0EFFF96050FF5BF9766B8BD155.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Doris kerguelenensis (BERGH 1884)	<div><p>DORIS KERGUELENENSIS (BERGH, 1884)</p> <p>(FIGS 11, 12)</p> <p>Archidoris kerguelenensis Bergh, 1884b: 85–89, pl. 1, figs 1–12.</p> <p>Archidoris australis Bergh, 1884b: 89–91, pl. 1, figs 13–18, pl. 2, fig. 13.</p> <p>Archidoris rubescens Bergh 1898: 501–503, pl. 29, figs 17–20.</p> <p>Austrodoris michaelseni Odhner, 1926: 68–71, pl. 2, figs 30-32, text figs 47-50.</p> <p>Austrodoris crenulata Odhner, 1926: 75–76, pl. 2, figs 38, 39, text fig. 54.</p> <p>Austrodoris macmurdensis Odhner, 1934: 260–263, pl. 2, figs 21–23, text figs 25-27.</p> <p>Austrodoris tomentosa Odhner, 1934: 265–267, pl. 2, figs 19, 20, text fig. 32.</p> <p>Austrodoris nivium Odhner, 1934: 267–269, pl. 2 figs 21–23, text figs 33-35.</p> <p>Austrodoris mishu Marcus, 1985: 219–222, figs 1–12.</p> <p>Austrodoris vicentei Marcus, 1985: 214, 217.</p> <p>Austrodoris georgiensis García et al. 1993: 417–421, figs 1–8.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>For a list of the extant type material of the nominal species included in the genus Austrodoris see Wägele (1990).</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>North-west of Explorer’s Cove, New Harbor, west side of McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, 17 December 1985, two specimens, 54–66 mm preserved length, leg. K. A. Miller (CASIZ 087312).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The external morphology of this species has been described in detail by Wägele (1990). My specimens were preserved, so no data on the living animals are available.</p> <p>The general colour of the living animals is uniformly white (Wägele, 1990). The rhinophores and gill are also white. The whole dorsum is covered with rounded and simple tubercles varying in size and shape (Fig. 11D). The largest tubercles are situated in the central region of the body. The rhinophoral and branchial sheath are surrounded by tubercles similar to the rest of the dorsal tubercles. There are 7–9 tripinnate branchial leaves, forming a circle. The anal papilla is prominent, situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 32 lamellae in a 66-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally there are no oral tentacles, but two blunt prolongations on each side of the mouth opening (Fig. 12F). The anterior border of the foot is grooved but not notched.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 12D) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two additional muscles attached; two long and wide salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is twice as long as the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is smooth. The radular formula is 24 ¥ 37.0. 37 in a 54-mm long specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are narrow and elongate, having a single cusp and lacking denticles (Fig. 11A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 11B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also lack denticles (Fig. 11C). The oesophagus is short and connects directly to the stomach (Fig. 12A).</p> <p>The ampulla is very long and convoluted. It branches into a short oviduct and the prostate (Fig. 12B). The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is tubular, very long and folded (Fig. 12B). It connects with a long duct that narrows and expands again into the large ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The muscular deferent duct opens into a short common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is short and wide. Near to its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix and the seminal receptacle. The uterine duct also leads from this duct. The bursa copulatrix is irregular in shape, about as large as the seminal receptacle (Fig. 12C).</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 12E) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are three cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and three pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is a separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. This ganglion appears to have several distinctive portions and one of them seems to be the genital ganglion. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively short nerves. Gastrooesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having three nerves leading from the left ganglion and two from the right one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 12A) consists of a large heart and a single large blood gland situated in front of the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Wägele (1990) revised the genus Austrodoris and concluded that all the Antarctic species previously assigned to it are synonyms of Austrodoris kerguelensis (Bergh, 1884). She also described in detail the anatomy and external morphology of this species.</p> <p>More recently García et al. (1993) described the new species Austrodoris georgiensis, which is also a synonym of Austrodoris kerguelensis. García et al. (1993) based Austrodoris georgiensis on a single specimen collected from South Georgia, in the Atlantic Antarctic sector. The only difference between A. georgiensis and A. kerguelenensis is the presence of an elongate bursa copulatrix in the former. As other features of both nominal species (e.g. external morphology, radula, other reproductive organs), are identical, it is likely that the single specimen assigned to A. georgiensis is just an aberrant specimen of A. kerguelenensis. Another possibility is that the bursa copulatrix is more variable than assumed until now.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFF96050FF5BF9766B8BD155	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFF66050FC34FD7C6CA6D75D.text	03927F0EFFF66050FC34FD7C6CA6D75D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Doris ILO	<div><p>DORIS ILO (ER. MARCUS, 1955)</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>This is the type species of the genus Siraius Er. Marcus, 1955. It was originally described from near São Paulo (Southern Brazil), based on a single specimen characterized by having a greyish yellow colour with the dorsal tubercles darker. The most remarkable feature of this species is the presence of 22 branchial leaves.</p> <p>Marcus (1958) extended the range of this species to Cabo Frio and Marcus &amp; Marcus (1970b) to Curaçao Island in the Caribbean Sea. Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain specimens of this species for the present study.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFF66050FC34FD7C6CA6D75D	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFF66053FCF7FB676CBFD2D0.text	03927F0EFFF66053FCF7FB676CBFD2D0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hexabranchus Ehrenberg 1831	<div><p>GENUS HEXABRANCHUS EHRENBERG, 1831</p> <p>Hexabranchus Ehrenberg, 1828 –31 [1831]: 30. Type species: Hexabranchus praetextus Ehrenberg, 1828, by subsequent designation of J. E. Gray (1847).</p> <p>Heptabranchus A. Adams, 1848: 494–495. Type species: Heptabranchus burnettii A. Adams, 1848, by original designation.</p> <p>Rhacodoris Mörch, 1863: 34. Type species: Doris lacera Cuvier, 1804, by original designation.</p> <p>Aethedoris Abraham, 1877: 237. Type species: Aethedoris indica Abraham, 1877, by monotypy.</p> <p>Albania Collingwood, 1881: 132–133. Type species: Albania formosa Collingwood, 1881, by monotypy.</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Dorsum smooth, lacking tubercles. Head with two large, flattened and lobate oral tentacles. Anterior border of the foot simple. Gill contractile, not retractile. Radula composed of simple, hamate teeth. Labial cuticle completely covered with rodlets and having several transverse grooves. Buccal mass with numerous and strong muscles attached. Reproductive system with a tubular, non differentiated prostate. Penis and vagina devoid of hooks. Vestibular or accessory glands absent.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>The genus Hexabranchus was originally introduced by Ehrenberg (1828 –31) based on three species: Hexabranchus praetextus Ehrenberg, 1831, Doris sanguinea Rüppell &amp; Leuckart, 1830 and ‘ Doris laciniata Cuvier’ (error for Doris lacera Cuvier, 1804). Hexabranchus praetextus was subsequently selected by Gray (1847) as the type species. This species was detailed described and illustrated by Ehrenberg, (1828–31), and its features agree with the current usage of the name.</p> <p>Adams (1848) described the genus Heptabranchus, type species by original designation Heptabranchus burnettii A. Adams, 1848, as being very close to Hexabranchus, but showing several differences in the number of gills and mantle widtH. In his opinion, these differences supported the separation of two different genera. Nowadays it is known that species of Hexabranchus can contract and spread out the mantle margin (Thompson, 1972), so the same animal is able to show a narrow mantle margin with the foot extending beyond it (as described by Adams, 1848) or a wide mantle completely covering the foot. In addition, the number of branchial leaves is variable among the same species. Therefore, there is no doubt that Heptabranchus is a junior synonym of Hexabranchus.</p> <p>Mörch (1863) introduced the name Rhacodoris for Hexabranchus sensu Gray non Ehrenberg, with ‘ Doris laciniata Cuvier’ (error for Doris lacera Cuvier, 1804) as the type species by original designation. He also stated that Doris lacera was mistakenly reported as belonging to the genus Hexabranchus, from which it differs in having a special cavity for each branchial leaf and one common cavity for all the gill. The examination of the type material and original description of Doris lacera (Cuvier, 1804), show that this species clearly belongs to the genus Hexabranchus, and therefore Rhacodoris is a junior subjective synonym.</p> <p>The genus Aethedoris and the species Aethedoris indica were erected by Abraham (1877) based on a picture of Alder &amp; Hancock (1864; pl. 33, fig. 20) which represents a contracted, probably dead specimen. The two large and lobate oral tentacles shown in the picture clearly identified the specimen as belonging to the genus Hexabranchus, but they were considered by Abraham as the most striking feature of his new taxa. He interpreted them as a ‘bilobed head, each lobe being semicrescentic, with the apex curving backwards and the margin bearing 12–14 conical dentations’. The type material of Aethedoris indica could not be located in BMNH and is probably lost. However, it is very likely that the animal figured by Alder &amp; Hancock was a dead specimen of Hexabranchus.</p> <p>Collingwood (1881) introduced the new genus Albania with Albania formosa Collingwood, 1881 as the single included species (type by monotypy). The features of Albania are identical to those of the genus Hexabranchus. In this case the type material of Albania formosa is also lost but there are not doubts that this nominal species belong to the genus Hexabranchus.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFF66053FCF7FB676CBFD2D0	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFF56057FCD2FDF46D22D3C5.text	03927F0EFFF56057FCD2FDF46D22D3C5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hexabranchus sanguineus	<div><p>HEXABRANCHUS SANGUINEUS (CUVIER, 1804)</p> <p>(FIGS 13, 14)</p> <p>Doris lacera Cuvier, 1804: 452, 453–465, 473, pl. 73, figs 1–3 (nomen oblitum).</p> <p>Doris sanguinea Rüppell &amp; Leuckart, 1830: 30–31, pl. 1, fig. 1 (nomen protectum).</p> <p>Hexabranchus praetextus Ehrenberg, 1828 –31 [1831]: 30–31, pl. 1, fig. 1A–C.</p> <p>Heptabranchus burnettii A. Adams, 1848: 494.</p> <p>Aethedoris indica Abraham, 1877: 237.</p> <p>Albania formosa Collingwood, 1881: 133, pl. 10, figs 1– 5.</p> <p>Only the type species of synonyms of Hexabranchus are listed here; for a complete list of synonyms see Thompson (1972).</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>Doris lacera Cuvier, SYNTYPES: Indian Ocean (= Mer des Indes), date and exact locality unknown, two specimens, 30 and 76 mm preserved length, dissected (MNHN). Hexabranchus praetextus Ehrenberg, SYNTYPE: El Tûr (= Tor), Egypt, date unknown, one specimen, 125 mm preserved length (MNHB 566). SYNTYPE: El Tûr (= Tor), Egypt, date unknown, one specimen, 110 mm preserved length, partially dissected (MNHB 567). The holotypes of Heptabranchus burnettii (originally collected from Borneo), Aethedoris indica (originally collected from Madras, India) and Albania formosa (originally collected from Ke-lung, Formosa) could not be located at BMNH and are probably lost. The type material of other synonyms of Hexabranchus has not been traced.</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>Reef near Hotel Coelacanth, North end of Moroni, Grand Comore Island, Mozambique Channel, 6 March 1975, one specimen, 104 mm preserved length, leg. S. Earle and A. Giddings (CASIZ 068296). Tire Reef, 2 km north of Mora Mora Village, Madagascar, 9 April 1989, two specimens, 94–100 mm preserved length, leg. T. M. Gosliner (CASIZ 071897).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The external morphology and behaviour of this species have been widely described. Thompson (1972) and Gohar &amp; Soliman (1963) found wide chromatic variation.</p> <p>The general colour of the living animals is very variable. It normally varies from pale orange to bright red. In some specimens there is a number of small white or yellowish dots on some areas or on the entire dorsum. Other specimens have large bright red or pinkish spots, or a pale concentric band. Sometimes the mantle margin is surrounded by a yellow line. The rhinophores are red to yellowish, with white spots in some specimens. The gill has normally the same colour as the dorsum, with the rachises of the branchial leaves white or yellowish. The dorsum is smooth. There are 7–9 tripinnate, non-retractile branchial leaves. The anal papilla is prominent, situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 45 lamellae in a 100-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally there are two large, flattened and lobate oral tentacles (Fig. 13F). The anterior border of the foot is simple.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has 18 strong retractor muscles (Fig. 13E) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has several additional muscles attached together; two long and wide salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is three times longer than the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is completely covered with simple rodlets (Fig. 14D). The radular formula is 36 ¥ 77.0. 77 in a 100-mm long specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are narrow and elongate, having a single cusp and lacking denticles (Fig. 14A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 14B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also lack denticles (Fig. 14C).</p> <p>The ampulla is very long and convoluted. It branches into a short oviduct and the prostatic portion of the deferent duct (Fig. 13C). The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. There is no differentiated prostate, but a long, folded and tubular deferent duct (Fig. 13B). The prostatic region of the deferent duct expands into the huge ejaculatory portion, which opens into a short common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is long and wide. Near to its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct that connects to the uterine duct and the seminal receptacle. The bursa copulatrix is rounded in shape and several times larger than the elongate seminal receptacle (Fig. 13B).</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 13D) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. The cerebral and pleural ganglia are entirely covered with large ganglionic tubercles. There are three cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and two pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively short nerves. Gastro-oesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having four nerves leading from each one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 13A) consists of a large heart and a single large blood gland situated beneath the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>First Eliot (1910) and then Thompson (1972) considered that most of the nominal species assigned to the genus Hexabranchus are synonyms. Only the Atlantic Hexabranchus mormosus Marcus &amp; Marcus, 1962 was dubiously regarded as a different species for biogeographical reasons. The arguments of Eliot and Thompson are convincing, but despite the latter’s suggestion that Doris sanguinea Rüppell &amp; Leuckart, 1830 has priority over other synonyms, the name Doris lacera Cuvier, 1804 is much older and must be the valid name for the Indo-Pacific species of Hexabranchus. A re-examination of the syntypes of Doris lacera confirmed they are conspecific with Hexabranchus sanguineus. Doris lacera has been ignored by all authors dealing with Hexabranchus. According to Article 23.9.1 (ICZN, 1999), if a senior synonym has not been used as a valid name since 1899, and its junior synonym has been used for the same species in at least 25 papers, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span not less than 10 years, the usage of the junior synonym must be maintained. The name D. lacera has only been used as valid in its original description in 1804, whereas the name H. sanguineus is in constant usage in the literature. More than 30 papers, books and field guides using the name H. sanguineus as valid have been published during the last 20 years by more than 15 authors. Therefore, the name H. sanguineus is here conserved (nomen protectum) and H. lacer is regarded as invalid (nomen oblitum).</p> <p>The type species of other synonymous generic names: Hexabranchus praetextus Ehrenberg, 1828, Heptabranchus burnettii A. Adams, 1848 and Aethedoris indica Abraham, 1877, are also regarded as synonyms of Hexabranchus sanguineus.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFF56057FCD2FDF46D22D3C5	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFF16057FE87FEFA6A76D6FE.text	03927F0EFFF16057FE87FEFA6A76D6FE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Discodoris BOHOLIENSIS BERGH 1877	<div><p>GENUS DISCODORIS BERGH, 1877</p> <p>Discodoris Bergh, 1877a: 518. Type species: Discodoris boholiensis Bergh, 1877, by subsequent designation by O’Donoghue (1926).</p> <p>Fracassa Bergh, 1878a: 598. Type species: Fracassa zibethina Bergh, 1878, by monotypy, syn. nov.</p> <p>Erythrodoris Pruvot-Fol, 1933: 133. Type species: Erythrodoris dollfusi Pruvot-Fol, 1933, by monotypy, syn. nov.</p> <p>Tayuva Marcus &amp; Marcus, 1967b: 191–192. Type species: Tayuva ketos Ev. Marcus &amp; Er. Marcus, 1967, by original designation, syn. nov.</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Dorsum covered with simple tubercles, stiffened by integumentary spicules, which occasionally protrude from the dorsal surface in an irregular fashion. Head with two conical oral tentacles. Anterior border of the foot grooved and notched. Labial cuticle armature with rodlets. Radula composed of simple, hamate teeth. The outermost teeth may be simple or denticulate. Reproductive system with a flattened, granular prostate, having two well differentiated regions. Penis and vagina devoid of hooks. Vestibular or accessory glands absent.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Bergh (1877b) introduced the genus Discodoris based on Doris granulata Ehrenberg, 1831, Doris crucis Mörch, 1863, Doris pardalis Alder &amp; Hancock, 1864, Doris concinna Alder &amp; Hancock, 1864, Doris fragilis Alder &amp; Hancock, 1864, and eight hitherto undescribed species: Discodoris boholiensis, D. meta, D. cebuensis, D. notha, D. muta, D. modesta and D. schmeltziana. Bergh (1877a) described these species, and at the same time reproduced the original description of the genus Discodoris. O’Donoghue (1926) subsequently designated Discodoris boholiensis Bergh, 1877 as the type species. Bergh’s (1877a) paper was published in December 1877 (see Winckworth, 1946), whereas the date of publication of Bergh (1877b) is unspecified. According to Article 21.3 (ICZN, 1999), as the exact day of publication is not specified for any of these papers, and one of them was published in December, the date of publication of both papers is determined to be the last day of 1877. If Bergh’s (1877b) paper is selected to be the original description of the genus, D. boholiensis is not eligible to be the type species (it was undescribed). Therefore, acting as First Reviser (ICZN, 1999: Article 24), I select Bergh’s (1877a) paper as the original description of the genus; thus D. boholiensis becomes eligible to be the type species.</p> <p>Bergh (1878a) described the genus Fracassa for Fracassa zibethina Bergh, 1878, collected from the Philippines. According to Bergh (1878a) this genus is characterized by having a quite smooth dorsum, conical oral tentacles, tripinnate branchial leaves, wide foot with the anterior border grooved and notched, presence of jaws, radular teeth simple and hamate, large differentiated prostate and penis unarmed. Re-examination of the holotype of Fracassa zibethina revealed that the dorsum of this species is covered with small, rounded simple tubercles. All these characteristics are also present in the genus Discodoris, for which Fracassa is a synonym.</p> <p>Pruvot-Fol (1933) described the genus Erythrodoris based on Erythrodoris dollfusi Pruvot-Fol, 1933, characterized by having a labial cuticle with articulated plates, elongated body and unarmed penis. These features of Erythrodoris are also present in Discodoris, and these names are regarded as synonyms. It is impossible to determine the identity of Erythrodoris dollfusi Pruvot-Fol, 1933 based on the original description and the type material is probably lost.</p> <p>Marcus &amp; Marcus (1967b) introduced the new genus Tayuva for Tayuva ketos Ev. Marcus &amp; Er. Marcus, 1967. The diagnosis of Tayuva included the following characteristics: pointed tentacles, labial plates with rodlets, hook-shaped radular teeth, stout penial papilla, large vestibule (atrium) stiffened by spicules and lodging the penial papilla and the vaginal aperture, nidamental opening independent from that of the atrium. This structure of the genital opening was considered ‘aberrant’ by Marcus &amp; Marcus (1967b) and they could not find another genus that could ‘receive’ that species. In fact, this anatomical arrangement is present in all species of cryptobranch dorids. The combination of the characters described above and simple dorsal tubercles indicates that Tayuva ketos clearly belongs to the genus Discodoris; thus Tayuva is a junior synonym of Discodoris.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFF16057FE87FEFA6A76D6FE	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFF16056FCF2F9CE6A28D585.text	03927F0EFFF16056FCF2F9CE6A28D585.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Discodoris boholiensis BERGH 1877	<div><p>DISCODORIS BOHOLIENSIS BERGH, 1877</p> <p>(FIGS 4D, 15, 16)</p> <p>Discodoris boholiensis Bergh, 1877a: 519–522, pl. 60, fig. 23, pl. 61, figs 6–12.</p> <p>Discodoris meta Bergh, 1877a: 522–526, pl. 60, figs 24, 25, pl. 61, figs 25–28.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>SYNTYPES of Discodoris boholiensis: Bohol, Aibukit, Philippines, date unknown, three specimens, 45 mm (decapitated) 70 mm preserved length, leg. C. Semper (ZMUC GAS-2122). HOLOTYPE (by monotypy) of Discodoris meta: Cebu, Ubay, Philippines, leg. C. Semper (ZMUC).</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>North side of Sombrero Island, Batangas, Luzon, Philippines, 19 February 1992, three specimens, 20– 49 mm preserved length, leg. T. M. Gosliner (CASIZ 083654).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The background colour of the living animals varies from pale cream in the centre of the dorsum to pale ochre near to the mantle edge (Fig. 4D). The dorsum is covered with a number of rounded white spots situated on each dorsal tubercle. These white spots are more densely concentrated on the mantle margin, forming several radial white lines. There is an irregular pattern of dark brown patches and lines on the centre of the dorsum, from behind the rhinophores to the gill. A similar pattern also occurs near to the mantle edge. Both areas are connected by irregular, faded pale brown lines forming a broken network. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths are elevated and surrounded by a dark brown line, which in the case of the branchial sheath is interrupted by several white spots. The rhinophores are dark brown to black, with several irregular white lines. The branchial leaves are also dark brown, almost black, with dark grey rachises. The whole dorsum is covered with small, conical tubercles, which have spicules protruding on their dorsal surface (Fig. 15E). The largest tubercles are situated in the central region of the body. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have tubercles similar to those on the rest of the dorsum. There are six tripinnate branchial leaves. The anal papilla is situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 26 lamellae in a 49-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally the anterior border of the foot is grooved and notched (Fig. 16F). The oral tentacles are elongate, with a blunt apex.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 16E) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two large additional muscles attached; two long salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is shorter than the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is armed with a number of small, simple rodlets (Fig. 15D). The radular formula is 29 ¥ 35.0. 35 in a 49- mm long specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are hamate and lack denticles (Fig. 15A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 15B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also lack denticles (Fig. 15C). The oesophagus is short and connects directly to the stomach (Fig. 16A).</p> <p>The ampulla is long and simple (Fig. 16C). It branches into a short oviduct and the prostate. The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is large and flattened. It has two different portions that are clearly distinguishable in colour and texture (Fig. 16B). The prostate connects with a very long and convoluted duct that narrows and expands again into the large ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The penis is unarmed. The muscular deferent duct opens into a common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is long. At its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct connecting to the uterine duct and the seminal receptacle. The bursa copulatrix is rounded in shape, about three times as large as the seminal receptacle.</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 16D) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are three cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and two pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is a separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two long nerves. Gastro-oesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having two nerves leading from the left ganglion and three from the right one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 16A) consists of a large heart and two blood glands situated in front of and behind the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Discodoris boholiensis is a well-known Indo-Pacific species characterized by having a background brown colour with black and white spots and lines on the body, and a relatively flat dorsum with undulating margins and a prominent central hump. Examination of the type material of Discodoris meta Bergh, 1877 confirmed that it is a synonym of D. boholiensis.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFF16056FCF2F9CE6A28D585	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFF0606BFC0BF93A6A77D0E5.text	03927F0EFFF0606BFC0BF93A6A77D0E5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Discodoris zibethina (BERGH 1878)	<div><p>DISCODORIS ZIBETHINA (BERGH 1878)</p> <p>(FIGS 17, 18)</p> <p>Fracassa zibethina Bergh, 1878a: 598–601, pl. 66, figs 21–26, pl. 67, figs 1, 2.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>HOLOTYPE (by monotypy): Canal at Lapinig, Philippines, March 1865, 54 mm preserved length, leg. C. Semper (ZMUC GAS-2112).</p> <p>Description</p> <p>The colour of the living animal is unknown (Fig. 17). The body is very elongate and narrow, with a very reduced mantle margin, which is completely absent in some areas. The gill is situated on the posterior border of the body. The dorsum is covered with a number of small, rounded tubercles (Fig. 18E). The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have tubercles similar to those on the rest of the dorsum. There are six tripinnate branchial leaves. The anal papilla is situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. Ventrally the anterior border of the foot is grooved and notched.</p> <p>The labial cuticle is armed with a number of small, simple rodlets (Fig. 18D). The observed radular formula is n ¥ 83.0.83. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are hamate and lack denticles (Fig. 18A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 18B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also lack denticles (Fig. 18C).</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>The holotype of Discodoris zibethina is the only known specimen of this species. The specimen was studied and dissected by Bergh (1878a), and only the skin and some internal organs, including the radula, remain. The description of the species was based on preserved material and there is no information on the features of the living animal. With the preserved holotype it is not possible a positive identification of this species. Therefore this name is here regarded as nomen dubium.</p> <p>The shape of the animal strongly resembles the remains of some species of Discodoris or Sebadoris after the autotomization of the notum (Gohar &amp; Soliman, 1967; Soliman, 1980; pers. obs.).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFF0606BFC0BF93A6A77D0E5	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFCD606DFCBBFBDB6B9DD792.text	03927F0EFFCD606DFCBBFBDB6B9DD792.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Discodoris ketos (EV. MARCUS & ER. MARCUS 1967) FIGS 4 E, 19, 20	<div><p>DISCODORIS KETOS (EV. MARCUS &amp; ER. MARCUS, 1967) (FIGS 4E, 19, 20)</p> <p>Tayuva ketos Marcus &amp; Marcus, 1967b: 192–194, figs 52-56.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>LECTOTYPE (here designated): Playa Norse, Puerto Peñasco, Sonora, Mexico, 2 November 1963, 28 mm preserved length, leg. P. Pickens (USNM 678409).</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>North of Gauiola, Mazatlán, Sinaloa, Mexico, 1 December 1953, one specimen, 42 mm preserved length, leg. L. O. Miles (CASIZ 081808). Las Cruces, Baja California Sur, Mexico, 25 January 1984, one specimen, 30 mm preserved length, leg. T. M. Gosliner (CASIZ 072843).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The background colour of the living animals is pale grey (Fig. 4E). The dorsum is covered with numerous rounded or oval dark brown patches, which are larger in the centre of the dorsum. There are a few darker patches, almost black, situated in two rows on both sides of the visceral hump and several opaque white spots irregularly distributed. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths are low and surrounded by several white spots. The rhinophores are grey, with a number of small dark brown spots. The branchial leaves are also grey, having dark grey spots and white patches. The whole dorsum is covered with small, conical tubercles (Fig. 19D). The largest tubercles are situated in the central region of the body. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have tubercles similar to those on the rest of the dorsum. There are six tripinnate branchial leaves. The anal papilla is situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 21 lamellae in a 30-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally the anterior border of the foot is grooved and notched (Fig. 20E). The oral tentacles are short and conical.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 20C) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two large additional muscles attached; two long salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is longer than the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is armed with a number of small rodlets (Fig. 19E). The radular formula is 23 ¥ 32.0. 32 in a 42-mm long specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are hamate and lack denticles (Fig. 19A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 19B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also lack denticles (Fig. 19C). The oesophagus is short and connects directly to the stomach.</p> <p>The ampulla is very long and convoluted (Fig. 20B). It branches into a short oviduct and the prostate. The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is large and flattened. It has two different portions that are clearly distinguishable in colour and texture. The prostate connects with a long duct that narrows and expands again into the large ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The penis is unarmed. The muscular deferent duct opens into a large, common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is short. At its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct connecting to the uterine duct and the seminal receptacle. The bursa copulatrix is oval in shape, about three times as large as the elongate seminal receptacle.</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 20D) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are four cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and three pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively long nerves. Gastro-oesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having two nerves leading from the left ganglion and three from the right one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 20A) consists of a large heart and two blood glands situated in front of and behind the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Marcus &amp; Marcus (1970a) described the new subspecies Tayuva ketos juva from the tropical Indo-Pacific. The description, based on a single preserved specimen, is not complete and does not include detailed anatomical information. It is very likely that this description corresponds to a tropical species of Discodoris, rather than a subspecies of Discodoris ketos, which is probably restricted to the Panamic biogeographical region of the eastern Pacific</p> <p>Another subspecies of Discodoris ketos, Tayuva ketos gila, was described by Marcus &amp; Marcus (1970b) based on material from Curaçao, Caribbean Sea. Again, it is difficult to determine the identity of the preserved animals they saw, but it is unlikely that they belong to the same species. Marcus &amp; Marcus (1970b) mentioned the presence of denticles on the innermost teeth of the two specimens of Tayuva ketos gila; these are absent in the Panamic specimens examined here.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFCD606DFCBBFBDB6B9DD792	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFCB606EFC23FB256BA2D208.text	03927F0EFFCB606EFC23FB256BA2D208.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Thordisa Bergh 1877	<div><p>GENUS THORDISA BERGH, 1877</p> <p>Thordisa Bergh, 1877a: 540. Type species: Thordisa maculigera Bergh, 1877, by subsequent designation by Bergh (1905).</p> <p>Etidoris Ihering, 1886: 234. Type species: Etidoris ladislavii Ihering, 1886, by monotypy.</p> <p>Nuvuca Marcus &amp; Marcus, 1967a: 621. Type species: Nuvuca lurca Ev. Marcus &amp; Er. Marcus, 1967, by original designation, syn. nov.</p> <p>Pupsikus Marcus &amp; Marcus, 1970a: 167–168. Type species: Pupsikus pinguis Er. Marcus &amp; Ev. Marcus 1970, by original designation, syn. nov.</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Dorsum covered with soft, elongate tubercles. Head with two conical oral tentacles. Anterior border of the foot grooved and notched. Labial cuticle smooth, lacking rodlets. Radula composed of simple, hamate teeth. Outermost lateral teeth multidenticulate. Reproductive system with a flattened, granular prostate, having two well differentiated regions. Penis armed or not with hooks. One or more accessory glands present, having one or more associated copulatory spines.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Bergh (1877a) described the genus Thordisa based on Thordisa maculigera Bergh, 1877, but at the same time mentioned that Doris villosa Alder &amp; Hancock, 1864, also belongs to this genus. According to Bergh (1877a) the main distinctive feature of this genus is the presence of elongate tubercles on the dorsum and pectinate outermost lateral teeth. Bergh (1891) regarded Etidoris Ihering, 1886 as a synonym of Thordisa. Bergh (1905) added the new species T. carinata Bergh, 1905, T. tristis, T. hilaris and with a question mark T. maculosa to the list of species of Thordisa, and designated T. maculigera as the type species.</p> <p>The genus Nuvuca was described by Marcus &amp; Marcus (1967a) on the basis of a single specimen of the new species Nuvuca lurca Ev. Marcus &amp; Er. Marcus, 1967. According to these authors, the diagnostic features of this genus are: strongly spiculate body, unequal papillae on the dorsum, smooth labial cuticle, inner radular teeth with a short base and long cusp and pectinate outer teeth; a dart or copulatory spine joined to the male atrium; penis unarmed. Examination of the holotype of the type species revealed the presence of large dorsal papillae similar to those present in other species of Thordisa. The only remarkable difference between Nuvuca and Thoridisa is the absence of jaws in the former. This could be due to either interspecific variation or to Marcus &amp; Marcus’s (1967a) neglecting to find this structure. Unfortunately, the parts of the foregut of the holotype dissected by Marcus &amp; Marcus are not preserved with the rest of the specimen, and re-examination is not possible. Because the rest of the external and anatomical features of Nuvuca are identical to those of Thordisa, they are here regarded as synonyms.</p> <p>Marcus &amp; Marcus (1970a) described the genus Pupsikus based on the new species Pupsikus pinguis Ev. Marcus &amp; Er. Marcus, 1970. According to these authors, Pupsikus is characterized by having a ridge connecting the tentacles with the foot, labial armature with rodlets and ‘a radula containing denticulate lateral and feathered marginal teeth’. The prostate is voluminous, the penis is armed with hooks and there is an accessory gland with a copulatory spine. The ridges that connect the oral tentacles and the foot in the single preserved specimen examined by Marcus &amp; Marcus (1970a), are probably an artifact of observation. A re-examination of the holotype has revealed an oral morphology similar to that of other cryptobranch dorids. No trace of the ridge mentioned by Marcus &amp; Marcus (1970a) has been found. The specimen was dissected and no anatomical information could be extracted from it, but the drawings and descriptions of Marcus &amp; Marcus (1970a) are sufficient to identify it as a member of the genus Thordisa.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFCB606EFC23FB256BA2D208	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFC8606EFCDFFEBD6B2DD44D.text	03927F0EFFC8606EFCDFFEBD6B2DD44D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Thordisa villosa (ALDER & HANCOCK 1864)	<div><p>THORDISA VILLOSA (ALDER &amp; HANCOCK, 1864)</p> <p>Doris villosa Alder &amp; Hancock, 1864: 119–120, pl. 33, fig. 1.</p> <p>Thordisa maculigera Bergh, 1877a: 540–542, pl. 61, figs 19–24, pl. 62, figs 1, 2.</p> <p>Thordisa stellata Eliot, 1904: 368.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>Doris villosa Alder &amp; Hancock, SYNTYPES: Madras, India, two specimens, 7–13 mm preserved length, dried, leg. W. Elliot (HMNC 20, 42). Thordisa maculigera Bergh, HOLOTYPE (by monotypy): Cebu, Philippines 1864, 15 mm preserved length, leg. C. Semper (ZMUC GAS- 2102). The type material of Thordisa stellata Eliot is untraceable; it could not be located in BMNH.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Alder &amp; Hancock (1864) described Doris villosa from India, based on two specimens having the dorsum covered with processes with filaments. The living animals were ochre yellow to orange with large brown botches surrounding the mantle margin. Bergh (1877a) described Thordisa maculigera from the Philippines, but provided no information of the colour in the living animal. Years later, Bergh (1902) reported this species from the Gulf of Thailand and recognized that it is probably a synonym of Doris villosa.</p> <p>Eliot (1904) redescribed Doris villosa based on one specimen from East Africa, which clearly fits with the original description by Alder &amp; Hancock (1864). At the same time, he synonymized it with Thordisa maculigera, with some reservations due to differences in the radular morphology. Later, Eliot (1906c) reaffirmed his opinion on the synonymy of D. villosa and T. maculigera, based on the examination of more specimens. He also examined the type material of Doris villosa, but the two syntypes had the buccal mass removed, and comparison of the radular morphology was not possible. Eliot (1906c) also regarded Thordisa stellata Eliot, 1904 as a synonym of D. villosa.</p> <p>Unfortunately I was unable to find complete specimens for this study. The syntypes of Doris villosa are poorly preserved, but I found the radula, mounted on a slide, in the HMNC collections. This radula is very similar to the drawings of the radula of Thordisa maculigera by Bergh (1877a) and there is no doubt these two names are synonyms.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFC8606EFCDFFEBD6B2DD44D	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFC76061FF09FF0D6DADD1CF.text	03927F0EFFC76061FF09FF0D6DADD1CF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Thordisa LURCA	<div><p>THORDISA LURCA (EV. MARCUS &amp; ER. MARCUS, 1967)</p> <p>Nuvuca lurca Marcus &amp; Marcus, 1967a: 621–623, figs 48-50.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>HOLOTYPE (by monotypy): Off the Caribbean coast of Colombia and Panama, 67–69 m depth, 14 mm long, leg. F. M. Bayer (USNM 679055).</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>This species was described on the basis of a single specimen collected from a depth of 67-69 m, characterized by a dull orange background colour, with cream papillae and the gill and rhinophores dull brown. No more specimens have been assigned to this species since then. The holotype was dissected and no information on the internal anatomy was obtained.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFC76061FF09FF0D6DADD1CF	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFC76061FF71FCE16E6ED65D.text	03927F0EFFC76061FF71FCE16E6ED65D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Thordisa pinguis (EV. MARCUS & ER. MARCUS 1970)	<div><p>THORDISA PINGUIS (EV. MARCUS &amp; ER. MARCUS, 1970)</p> <p>Pupsikus pinguis Marcus &amp; Marcus, 1970a: 168–169, figs 33-39.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>HOLOTYPE (by monotypy): Mitirapa, Tahiti, French Polynesia 1964, 9 mm preserved length, leg. R. L. Sixberry (USNM 576010).</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Described on the basis of a single, preserved specimen, this species has not been collected since. Based on the original description (Marcus &amp; Marcus, 1970a), a positive identification of this species is not possible. The dissected holotype did not reveal additional information.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFC76061FF71FCE16E6ED65D	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFC76062FF21FA536F92D5F4.text	03927F0EFFC76062FF21FA536F92D5F4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Thordisa rubescens BEHRENS & HENDERSON 1981	<div><p>THORDISA RUBESCENS BEHRENS &amp; HENDERSON, 1981 (FIGS 4F, 21-23)</p> <p>Thordisa rubescens Behrens &amp; Henderson, 1981: 120– 124, figs 1-7, 13, 14.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>Big Kelp Reef, Paradise Cove, Los Angeles County, California, USA, 17 October 1979, 67 mm preserved length, leg. R. Henderson (CASIZ 015860).</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>Off Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California, USA., June 1989, one specimen, 47 mm preserved length, leg. R. Fay (CASIZ 068976).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The background colour of the living animals is bright red-orange (Fig. 4F). The dorsum is covered with gold flecks forming a halo around the branchial pit, a middorsal stripe and half crescents posterior to the rhinophores. The intensity of this pattern varies between individuals. In some specimens there are small black and opaque white spots. There is a black spot on top of the largest dorsal papillae. The rhinophores are orange to brown, with several irregular white spots and a white apex. The branchial leaves are the same colour as the dorsum. The whole dorsum is covered with soft and inflated papillae of various shapes and sizes (Fig. 21D). The papillae are contracted when the animal is under stress (Behrens &amp; Henderson, 1981), and are surrounded by irregularly protruding spicules. Some larger papillae are randomly distributed among the others. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have papillae similar to those on the rest of the dorsum. There are six tripinnate branchial leaves. The anal papilla is situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 20 lamellae in a 47-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally the anterior border of the foot is grooved and notched (Fig. 22F). The oral tentacles are conical.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 22D) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two large additional muscles attached. Two short salivary glands connect with the buccal bulb at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is as long as the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is smooth. The radular formula is 39 ¥ 40.0. 40 in a 47-mm long specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are hamate and lack denticles (Fig. 21A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 21B). The outermost teeth are smaller and have a number of small denticles (Fig. 21C). The oesophagus is long and connects directly to the stomach.</p> <p>The ampulla is long and folded (Fig. 22C). It branches into a short oviduct and the prostate. The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is large and flattened. It has two different portions that are clearly distinguishable in colour and texture. The prostate connects with a long duct that expands into the ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct (Fig. 22B). The penis is armed with a series of large hooks, which have a wide and flat base and a curved cusp (Fig. 23A). The muscular deferent duct opens into a common atrium with the vagina. At the vaginal connection with the atrium there are two small accessory glands attached, and two small sacs each containing a short and irregular hard structure (Fig. 23B). At its proximal end the vagina joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct connecting to the uterine duct and the seminal receptacle. The bursa copulatrix is oval in shape, about 15 times as large as the elongate seminal receptacle.</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 22E) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are three cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and three pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively long nerves. Gastro-oesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having two nerves leading from each one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 22A) consists of a large heart and two blood glands situated in front of and behind the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>This is a well-known species of Thordisa described from California by Behrens &amp; Henderson (1981). It was included in the analysis because it is the only species described so far that has penial hooks. Other features of this species agree with the original description of the genus (see Behrens &amp; Henderson, 1981).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFC76062FF21FA536F92D5F4	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFC46062FEAEF8DD6AF0D44D.text	03927F0EFFC46062FEAEF8DD6AF0D44D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aldisa Bergh 1878	<div><p>GENUS ALDISA BERGH, 1878</p> <p>Aldisa Bergh, 1878b: XXXVIII. Type species: Doris zetlandica Alder &amp; Hancock, 1854, by monotypy.</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Dorsum covered with simple tubercles, stiffened by integumentary spicules, which do not protrude from the dorsal surface. Anterior border of the foot grooved, but not notched. Head with two lateral prolongations. Labial armature lacking rodlets. Radula composed of very thin and elongate teeth, which have a triangular base and denticles on the apex and outer edge. Reproductive system with a tubular, granular and simple prostate. Penis armed with hooks. Vestibular or accessory glands absent.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Bergh (1878b) described the genus Aldisa based on Doris zetlandica Alder &amp; Hancock, 1854, and defined using radular characters. The radula of Aldisa was described as having erect teeth, staff-shaped, with a serrated external edge.</p> <p>Since the original description several species have been assigned to this genus, later reviewed by Millen &amp; Gosliner (1985). All of them share the presence of very elongate radular teeth, with a wide, triangular base, and denticles on the outer edge and the cusp.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFC46062FEAEF8DD6AF0D44D	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFC36065FF2AFF0C6B47D522.text	03927F0EFFC36065FF2AFF0C6B47D522.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aldisa zetlandica (Alder & Hancock 1854)	<div><p>ALDISA ZETLANDICA (ALDER &amp; HANCOCK, 1854)</p> <p>(FIGS 24, 25)</p> <p>Doris zetlandica Alder &amp; Hancock, 1854: 102.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>SYNTYPE: Shetland Islands, Scotland, one specimen, 11 mm preserved length, leg. J. Alder (BMNH 1858.5.28.210).</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>Sixten Bocks, Skagerakexpedition 1937, stn. 24.7B (58∞56¢N, 9∞55¢W), Norway, 50–100 m depth, one specimen, 12 mm preserved length (SMNHI 1759). North of Hassen, Trondheimsfjord, Norway, 250 m depth, 19 June 1936, two specimens, 3–10 mm preserved length (SMNHI 1691). Trondheimsfjord, Norway, date unknown, one specimen, 15 mm preserved length (SMNHI 1540). Trondheimsfjord, Norway, 4 July 1924, one specimen, 14 mm preserved length, leg. B. Hamstrom (SMNHI 1503).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The external morphology of this species has been described in detail by Thompson &amp; Brown (1984). My specimens were preserved, so no data on the living animals were available.</p> <p>The general colour of the living animals is white to grey-green. The rhinophores and gill are pale yellow. The whole dorsum is covered with conical and elongate tubercles varying in size and shape (Fig. 24C). The largest tubercles are situated in the central region of the body. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths are surrounded by tubercles similar to the rest of the dorsal tubercles. There are six bipinnate branchial leaves, forming a circle. The anal papilla is prominent, situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 11 lamellae in a 15- mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally there are two short, blunt and grooved oral tentacles on each side of the mouth opening (Fig. 25F). The anterior border of the foot is grooved but not notched.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 25E) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two additional muscles attached. Two short salivary glands connect with the buccal bulb at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is as long as the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is smooth. The radular formula is undeterminable owing to the thin, elongate and overlapping teeth. The radular teeth are very thin and long, having a wide triangular base and a rounded upper edge (Fig. 24A). The teeth have a series of 19–22 elongated denticles on their outer and upper edges (Fig. 24B).</p> <p>The ampulla is very short and convoluted, and branches into a short oviduct and the prostate (Fig. 25C). The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is tubular, short, folded and granular. It connects with a long duct that narrows and expands again into the ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The muscular deferent duct opens into a common atrium with the vagina (Fig. 25B). The vagina is long. Near to its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct that connects to the seminal receptacle and the uterine duct. The bursa copulatrix is oval in shape, about three times as large as the seminal receptacle.</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 25D) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are four cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and three pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively short nerves. Rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having three nerves leading from each one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 25A) consists of a large heart and a small blood gland situated in front of the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Aldisa zetlandica (Alder &amp; Hancock, 1854) was redescribed by Millen &amp; Gosliner (1985) in the framework of a revision of the genus Aldisa. They compared its anatomy and external morphology with that of other members of this genus and concluded that it constitutes a valid species.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFC36065FF2AFF0C6B47D522	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFC36066FC09F9956DF1D041.text	03927F0EFFC36066FC09F9956DF1D041.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aphelodoris ANTILLENSIS BERGH 1879	<div><p>GENUS APHELODORIS BERGH, 1879</p> <p>Aphelodoris Bergh, 1879: 107–108. Type species: Aphelodoris antillensis Bergh, 1879, by monotypy.</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Body soft, lacking integumentary spicules. Dorsum smooth, with no tubercles. Anterior border of the foot grooved but not notched. Head with two large and grooved lateral prolongations. Labial cuticle lacking rodlets. Radula composed of simple, hamate teeth. The innermost teeth may be simple or denticulate. Reproductive system with a tubular, granular and simple prostate. Penis and vagina unarmed. Vestibular or accessory glands absent.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>The genus Aphelodoris was introduced by Bergh (1879) for Aphelodoris antillensis Bergh, 1879, the type species by monotypy. According to Bergh (1879) Aphelodoris is very similar in body shape to the chromodorids, but it differs from this latter group in having a narrow mantle margin and a short posterior end of the foot. Other differences include the shape of the oral tentacles, which are grooved, and the presence of multipinnate branchial leaves. Internally the differences are even more obvious, with the absence of jaws and the presence of a single blood gland. Bergh (1879) regarded Aphelodoris as a member of the family Chromodorididae, but Odhner (see Franc, 1968) later transferred it to the family Asteronotidae.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFC36066FC09F9956DF1D041	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFC0607BFF65FC766E57D102.text	03927F0EFFC0607BFF65FC766E57D102.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aphelodoris antillensis BERGH 1879	<div><p>APHELODORIS ANTILLENSIS BERGH, 1879</p> <p>(FIGS 4G, 26, 27)</p> <p>Aphelodoris antillensis Bergh, 1879: 108–113.</p> <p>Doris bistellata Verrill, 1900: 548, pl. 66, fig. 2.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>The type material of Aphelodoris antillensis could not be located at ZMUC (K. Jensen, pers. comm.) and is presumed lost.</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>Off ferry dock, Puerto Morelos, South of Cancún, Quintana Roo, Mexico, 28 March 1985, one specimen, 10 mm preserved length, leg. T. M. Gosliner (CASIZ 071876). Burger King Reef, near Soto’s Reef, South of West Bay, Grand Cayman Island, Cayman Islands, 8 May 1991, one specimen, 18 mm long, leg. J. Hamann (CASIZ 077289).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The background colour is translucent pale cream, with numerous opaque white, yellow and brown spots (Fig. 4G). The arrangement, size and abundance of these spots is extremely variable. This variability has been described and illustrated in detail by Hamann (1992). The rhinophores and gill are also translucent pale cream, having brown, yellow or opaque white spots, which vary in size and arrangement. The dorsum is smooth, bearing a few low and soft tubercles. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have no tubercles. There are six bipinnate branchial leaves, forming a circle. The anal papilla is situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having nine lamellae in a 10-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally there are two large, blunt and grooved oral tentacles (Fig. 26F). The anterior border of the foot is grooved but not notched.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 26D), which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two large additional muscles attached; two long salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is as long as the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is smooth. The radular formula is 31 ¥ 43.0. 43 in a 10-mm preserved length specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The innermost lateral teeth are triangular, having a long cusp with 5–6 denticles (Fig. 27A). The following teeth are smooth. The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 27B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also lack denticles (Fig. 27C). The oesophagus is short and connects directly to the stomach.</p> <p>The ampulla is very long and convoluted (Fig. 26B). It branches into a short oviduct and the prostate. The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is short and flattened. It connects with a long duct that narrows and expands again into the large ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The muscular deferent duct opens into a common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is long. At its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct connecting to the uterine duct and the seminal receptacle (Fig. 26C). The bursa copulatrix is oval in shape, about four times as large as the seminal receptacle.</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 26E) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are four cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and two pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively short nerves. Gastrooesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having three nerves each one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 26A) consists of a large heart and a blood gland situated behind the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>This common Caribbean species was described by Bergh (1879) based on several preserved specimens from St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. Ev. Marcus &amp; Er. Marcus (1963) illustrated and described living animals for the first time. Hamann (1992) redescribed A. antillensis and synonymized it with Doris bistellata Verrill, 1900.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFC0607BFF65FC766E57D102	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFDD607BFF78FDB56BBED675.text	03927F0EFFDD607BFF78FDB56BBED675.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Peltodoris ATROMACULATA BERGH 1880	<div><p>GENUS PELTODORIS BERGH, 1880</p> <p>Peltodoris Bergh, 1880: 41. Type species: Peltodoris atromaculata Bergh, 1880, by subsequent designation by O’Donoghue (1929).</p> <p>Phialodoris Bergh, 1889: 908. Type species: Phialodoris podotria Bergh, 1889, by monotypy, syn. nov.</p> <p>Montereina MacFarland, 1905: 38. Type species: Montereina nobilis MacFarland, 1905, by original designation, syn. nov.</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Dorsum covered with simple tubercles, stiffened by integumentary spicules, which occasionally protrude from the dorsal surface in an irregular fashion. Head with two conical oral tentacles. Anterior border of the foot grooved and notched. Labial armature smooth. Radula composed of simple, hamate teeth. The outermost teeth may be simple or denticulate. Reproductive system with a flattened, granular prostate, having two well differentiated regions. Penis and vagina devoid of hooks. Vestibular or accessory glands absent.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Bergh (1880) described the genus Peltodoris based on Peltodoris atromaculata Bergh, 1880. Peltodoris is characterized by having the dorsum covered with tubercles, finger-like oral tentacles, tripinnate gill, labial armature without jaws, radula with simple, hamate teeth, large prostate and penis and vagina unarmed. Bergh (1880) distinguished Peltodoris from Discodoris on the basis of the harder body consistency and especially because of the lack of jaws.</p> <p>Bergh (1889) introduced the new genus Phialodoris based on Phialodoris potrida Bergh, 1889 from Amboine. He regarded Phialodoris as very close to Discodoris and Peltodoris, and only distinguishable from the latter by the peculiar shape of the penis. The penis of Phialodoris potrida is cylindrical with a cup-shaped apex armed with very small cones. Other characteristics of this species are similar to those of other members of Peltodoris, including the absence of jaws. There is no doubt that Phialodoris is a synonym of Peltodoris, and the peculiar penis shape is probably due to a preservation artifact or interspecific variation.</p> <p>MacFarland (1905) described the genus Montereina based on Montereina nobilis MacFarland, 1905. The diagnostic features of this genus are firm body, tuberculate dorsum, long and conical tentacles, large gill, differentiated prostate and vagina and penis unarmed. No further species have been assigned to this genus, which was later synonymized with Anisodoris Bergh, 1898 by MacFarland (1906). According to Valdés &amp; Gosliner (2001), the genus Anisodoris, which is a synonym of Diaulula Bergh, 1878, is characterized by having the dorsum covered with caryophyllidia. The anatomy of M. nobilis is similar to that of species of Peltodoris, and both names are here regarded as synonyms. Other species from the Pacific coast of South America, such as Doris variolata d’Orbigny, 1837, previously assigned to the genus Anisodoris, should also probably be transferred to Peltodoris.</p> <p>Eliot (1906b) pointed out that Peltodoris only differs from Discodoris in lacking a labial armature (jaws) and it should be regarded as a subgenus of Discodoris. Later, Thompson (1975) synonymized Peltodoris with Discodoris with no justification. In the following years a few authors followed Thompson’s authority and cited the type species of Peltodoris in the binomen Discodoris atromaculata (Cattaneo-Vietti et al., 1990). However, most authors maintained the usage of Peltodoris as a valid genus (Castiello et al., 1980; Barletta, 1981; Schmekel &amp; Portmann, 1982; Jonas, 1986; Perrone, 1992; Ávila, 1996).</p> <p>The phylogenetic analysis carried out in the present paper indicates that Discodoris and Peltodoris belong in two different clades (see below); therefore, the genus Peltodoris is retained as valid.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFDD607BFF78FDB56BBED675	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFDD607AFCE2FA4B6BBAD002.text	03927F0EFFDD607AFCE2FA4B6BBAD002.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Peltodoris atromaculata BERGH 1880	<div><p>PELTODORIS ATROMACULATA BERGH, 1880</p> <p>(FIGS 4H, 28, 29)</p> <p>Peltodoris atromaculata Bergh, 1880: 45–46.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>SYNTYPE: Naples, Italy, spring of 1880, one specimen, 34 mm preserved length (ZMUC GAS-2054)</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>Islas Medas, La Escala, west coast of Gerona, Spain, three specimens, 25–34 mm preserved length, leg. T. M. Gosliner (CASIZ 099147). Cala Salada, Ibiza, Spain, one specimen, 49 mm preserved length, leg. A. Valdés (CASIZ 119474). 1 km east of Caloura, Ilha São Miguel, Azores, Portugal, eight specimens, 44–67 mm preserved length, leg. T. M. Gosliner (CASIZ 072584).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The general colour of the living animals is whitish to pale cream (Fig. 4H). There is a number of dark brown or black large patches distributed on the dorsum, varying in shape and size. The rhinophores and gill are white or pale cream. The branchial leaves have some small dark brown or black spots. The whole dorsum is covered with small, conical tubercles, which have spicules protruding on their dorsal surface (Fig. 28D). The largest tubercles are situated in the central region of the body. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have tubercles similar to those of the rest of the dorsum. There are six tripinnate branchial leaves, forming a circle. The anal papilla is situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 22 lamellae in a 52-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally there are two short and conical oral tentacles (Fig. 29F). The anterior border of the foot is grooved and notched.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 29D) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two additional muscles attached; two long salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is longer than the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is smooth. The radular formula is 22 ¥ 48.0. 48 in a 54-mm preserved length specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The inner lateral teeth are short, having a long, curved cusp and lacking denticles (Fig. 28A). They also have a secondary, short and blunt cusp situated behind the main cusp. The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are hamate, long and larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 28B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also smooth (Fig. 28C). The oesophagus is short and connects directly to the stomach (Fig. 29A).</p> <p>The ampulla is long and thin, and branches into a short oviduct and the prostate (Fig. 29C). The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is flattened, long, folded and granular (Fig. 29B), with two differentiated portions distinguishable by their colour and texture. It connects with a long duct that narrows and expands again into the small ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The muscular deferent duct opens into a common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is long. Near to its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct that connects to the seminal receptacle and the uterine duct. The bursa copulatrix is oval in shape, about 10 times as large as the seminal receptacle.</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 29E) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are four cerebral nerves leading from the left cerebral ganglion and three from the right one, and three pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is a separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively long nerves. Gastro-oesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having four nerves leading from each one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 29A) consists of a large heart and a two blood glands situated in front of and behind the central nervous system.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFDD607AFCE2FA4B6BBAD002	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFDC6071FCE9FCB26E78D532.text	03927F0EFFDC6071FCE9FCB26E78D532.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Peltodoris nobilis	<div><p>PELTODORIS NOBILIS (MACFARLAND, 1905)</p> <p>(FIGS 4I, 30, 31)</p> <p>Montereina nobilis MacFarland, 1905: 38–39.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>HOLOTYPE (by original designation): Monterey Bay, California, leg. F. M. MacFarland (USNM 181284), not examined.</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>Pacific Grove, Monterey Bay, California, USA, July– August 1923 and May 1926, 10 specimens, 24–67 mm preserved length, leg. F. M. MacFarland (CASIZ 068237).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The general colour of the living animals varies from whitish to orange-yellow (Fig. 4I). There is a number of dark brown or black small spots distributed on the entire dorsum below the level of the tubercles. The rhinophores have a light yellow base and a orange club. The gill is pale yellow with the apices of the leaves opaque white. The whole dorsum is covered with small, rounded tubercles (Fig. 30D). The largest tubercles are situated in the central region of the body. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have tubercles no different from those on the rest of the dorsum. There are five tripinnate branchial leaves, forming a circle. The anal papilla is situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 17 lamellae in a 54-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally there are two long and conical oral tentacles (Fig. 31E). The anterior border of the foot is grooved and notched.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 31D) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two additional muscles attached; two long and wide salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is twice the length of the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is smooth. The radular formula is 27 ¥ 57.0. 57 in a 54-mm long specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are narrow and elongate, having a single cusp and lacking denticles (Fig. 30A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 30B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also lack denticles (Fig. 30C). The oesophagus is short and connects directly to the stomach (Fig. 31A).</p> <p>The ampulla is very long and convoluted (Fig. 31C). It branches into a short oviduct and the prostate. The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is flattened and has two portions distinguishable by their colour and texture (Fig. 31B). It connects with a long duct that narrows and expands again into the large ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The muscular deferent duct opens into a short common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is long and convoluted. At its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct connecting to the uterine duct and the seminal receptacle. The bursa copulatrix is oval in shape, about eight times as large as the seminal receptacle (Fig. 31B).</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 31D) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are three cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and two pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is a separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively short nerves. Gastrooesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having four nerves each one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 31A) consists of a large heart and a two blood glands situated in front of and behind the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Peltodoris nobilis is a well-known species from the Pacific Coast of North America (see McDonald, 1983). It was originally described in the genus Montereina (MacFarland, 1905) and later transferred to the genus Anisodoris.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFDC6071FCE9FCB26E78D532	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFD76070FF7BF9826E30D20B.text	03927F0EFFD76070FF7BF9826E30D20B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hoplodoris Bergh 1880	<div><p>GENUS HOPLODORIS BERGH, 1880</p> <p>Hoplodoris Bergh, 1880: 51. Type species: Hoplodoris desmoparypha Bergh, 1880, by monotypy.</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Dorsum covered with simple, large and rounded tubercles, stiffened by integumentary spicules. Head with two conical oral tentacles. Anterior border of the foot grooved and notched. Labial armature armed with jaw elements. Radula composed of simple, hamate teeth, occasionally denticulate. Reproductive system with a flattened, granular prostate, having two well differentiated regions. Penis armed with hooks. Vagina devoid of armature. One or two large and pedunculated accessory glands armed with copulatory spines.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Bergh (1880) described the genus Hoplodoris based on Hoplodoris desmoparypha Bergh, 1880, the type species by monotypy. The genus Hoplodoris is characterized by having the dorsum covered with long tubercles, the anterior border of the foot grooved and notched, presence of jaws, hamate radular teeth, large prostate, penis armed with hooks and presence of an accessory gland with a spine. The type species of Hoplodoris has not been collected since, and there is no information on its external morphology. Unfortunately, the type material of this species collected from Palau could not be located at ZMUC and is presumed lost. The information for this genus used in the phylogenetic analysis has been obtained from Hoplodoris novaezelandiae (Bergh, 1904).</p> <p>Thompson (1975) regarded Carminodoris as a junior synonym of Hoplodoris based on his description of Hoplodoris nodulosa Angas, 1864 from Australia. However, the original description of Carminodoris (Bergh, 1889), based on Carminodoris mauritiana, states that this genus is characterized by having the anterior border of the foot grooved and notched, the dorsum covered with small tubercles, presence of jaws, hamate lateral teeth, denticulate outermost lateral teeth, large prostate and penis armed with hooks. As mentioned below, it is probable that Carminodoris, which lacks accessory glands and has small dorsal tubercles, is a synonym of Discodoris, but this point needs confirmation.</p> <p>Other genera having accessory glands with spines are Asteronotus Ehrenberg, 1831; Jorunna Bergh, 1876 and Paradoris Bergh, 1884. According to the results of the phylogenetic analysis (see below), all these taxa belong to different clades, and it is very likely that they acquired the copulatory spines independently.</p> <p>Several species have been added to the genus Hoplodoris since its original description. Burn (1969) transferred Doris nodulosa Angas, 1864, Miller (1991) transferred Homoiodoris novaezelandiae Bergh, 1904 and Gosliner &amp; Behrens (1998) described the new species Hoplodoris estrelyado Gosliner &amp; Behrens, 1998. Some Indo-Pacific species previously assigned to the genus Carminodoris Bergh, 1889, should also probably be transferred to Hoplodoris (see Gosliner &amp; Behrens, 1998). Gosliner &amp; Behrens (1998) described some variation within Hoplodoris to accommodate species with one or two accessory glands armed or unarmed with spines. All the species included in Hoplodoris are characterized by having rounded dorsal tubercles, except for Hoplodoris desmoparypha, which has elongate tubercles.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFD76070FF7BF9826E30D20B	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFD66070FF43FEBD6A63D546.text	03927F0EFFD66070FF43FEBD6A63D546.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hoplodoris novaezelandiae (Bergh 1904)	<div><p>HOPLODORIS NOVAEZELANDIAE (BERGH, 1904)</p> <p>(FIGS 32, 33)</p> <p>Homoiodoris novaezelandiae Bergh, 1904: 35–37, pl. 3, figs 3–7.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>SYNTYPES: Port Chalmers, New Zealand, date unknown, four specimens, 10–12 mm preserved length, leg. H. Suter (ZMUC GAS-2105).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The animals here examined were preserved, so no information on the external coloration was available. The external morphology of this species has been described and illustrated by Miller (1991). In the examined specimens the entire dorsum is covered with large, rounded tubercles (Fig. 32F). Some larger tubercles are randomly distributed among the others. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have papillae similar to those on the rest of the dorsum. There are 10 tripinnate branchial leaves. The anal papilla is situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 14 lamellae in a 12-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally the anterior border of the foot is grooved and notched (Fig. 33F). The oral tentacles are conical.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 33D) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two large additional muscles attached; two long salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is shorter than the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is armed with thin elements (Fig. 32D). The radular formula is 40 ¥ 25.0. 25 in a 12-mm preserved length specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The innermost lateral teeth are hamate and have up to seven irregular denticles on the inner side of the cups (Fig. 32A). The next lateral teeth are hamate and lack denticles (Fig. 32B). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula. The outermost teeth are smaller and have irregular denticles (Fig. 32C). The oesophagus is long and connects directly to the stomach.</p> <p>The ampulla is short (Fig. 33C). It branches into a short oviduct and the prostate. The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is short and flattened (Fig. 33B) and has two different portions that are clearly distinguishable in colour and texture. It connects with a long duct that expands into the large ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The penis is armed with a series of small hooks (Fig. 32E). The muscular deferent duct opens into a common atrium with the vagina. There are two large and pedunculated accessory glands connected to the atrium, each one bearing a copulatory spine. At its proximal end the vagina joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct connecting to the uterine duct and the seminal receptacle. The bursa copulatrix is oval in shape, about five times as large as the elongate seminal receptacle.</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 33E) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are four cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and two pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively long nerves. Rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having two nerves leading from each one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 33A) consists of a large heart and two blood glands situated in front of and behind the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Miller (1991) redescribed this species based on newly collected specimens from New Zealand. He examined all the New Zealand species of dorids known to exist and no other species come at all close to the specimens he re-described as Hoplodoris novaezelandiae. Even though he was sure that his specimens were correctly examined he found some differences with Bergh’s (1904) description. Re-examination of the type material of this species confirms that Miller (1991) identified his specimens correctly, and that the anatomy of the syntypes of Hoplodoris novaezelandiae examined here is identical to that of his specimens.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFD66070FF43FEBD6A63D546	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFD66075FC2DF9186E6AD522.text	03927F0EFFD66075FC2DF9186E6AD522.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paradoris Bergh 1884	<div><p>GENUS PARADORIS BERGH, 1884</p> <p>Paradoris Bergh, 1884a: 686. Type species: Paradoris granulata Bergh, 1884, by monotypy.</p> <p>Percunas Marcus, 1970: 945. Type species: Percunas mulciber Ev. Marcus, 1970; by original designation.</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Dorsum covered with simple tubercles, stiffened by integumentary spicules. Head with two conical oral tentacles. Anterior border of the foot grooved and notched. Labial armature with rodlets. Radula composed of simple, hamate teeth, with a short, strong cusp. Reproductive system with a flattened, granular prostate, having two well differentiated regions. Penis and vagina devoid of hooks. Accessory glands and sacs armed with copulatory spines are normally present.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Bergh (1884a) described the genus Paradoris based on Paradoris granulata Bergh, 1884, as being a ‘typical dorid’ characterized by having the jaws divided into three portions, several accessory glands and several sacs with copulatory spines. According to Bergh (1884a) the relationships of Paradoris are uncertain, and this genus is probably close to the archidorids, from which it differs by having jaws.</p> <p>Marcus (1970) described Percunas based on Percunas mulciber Marcus, 1970 as having the labial cuticle divided into four areas with rodlets, all radular teeth hook-shaped, massive prostate, several darts in the muscular diverticula and multiple glands annexed to the penial papilla. Baba (1989), Miller (1995), and Ortea (1995) recognized that Percunas is a synonym of Paradoris.</p> <p>Perrone (1990) transferred Discodoris indecora Bergh, 1881 to the genus Paradoris, without any justification, and Ortea (1995) regarded P. indecora as a synonym of P. granulata. The type material of P. indecora is lost, but in the original description there is enough information to recognize it as a synonym of P. granulata.</p> <p>Miller (1995) and Ortea (1995) found some variability in Paradoris when describing new species, and modified the diagnosis of the genus to accommodate these new species. According to these authors some species, such as Paradoris leuca Miller, 1995 and Paradoris ceneris Ortea, 1995, lack both accessory glands and copulatory spines, whereas Paradoris mollis Ortea, 1995 has copulatory spines but lacks accessory glands.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFD66075FC2DF9186E6AD522	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFD36009FF6BF9B76DF1D155.text	03927F0EFFD36009FF6BF9B76DF1D155.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paradoris indecora	<div><p>PARADORIS INDECORA (BERGH, 1881)</p> <p>(FIGS 34A, 35, 36)</p> <p>Discodoris indecora Bergh, 1881: 108–112, pl. J, figs 26–33, pl. K, figs 11–19.</p> <p>Paradoris granulata Bergh, 1884a: 686–691, pl. 76, figs 10–24.</p> <p>Paradoris granulata var. Bergh, 1884a: 691–693, pl. 77, figs 25–32.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>Discodoris indecora Bergh. The original type material, collected from Trieste, Italy, is lost. Paradoris granulata Bergh, 1884. LECTOTYPE (here selected): Trieste, Italy, April–May 1979 – 80, 24 mm preserved length, leg. Graeffe (ZMUC GAS-2120); PARALEC TOTYPES: Trieste, Italy, April–May 1979 –80, six specimens, 8–24 mm preserved length, leg. Graeffe (ZMUC).</p> <p>Two other specimens labelled as Paradoris granulata var. belong to the same species. They were probably collected from Trieste, Italy, April–May 1979 –80, 11– 19 mm preserved length, leg. Graeffe (ZMUC GAS- 2121).</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>Cabo de Palos, Murcia, Spain, 4 August 1984, one specimen, 14 mm preserved length, leg. J. Templado (MNCN 15.05 /18231).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The general colour of the living animals is uniformly pale grey with a pale brown tinge in the centre of the dorsum (Fig. 34A). There are several dark brown spots on the tips of the larger tubercles, also associated with groups of small opaque white dots. The rhinophores are dark brown with the apex and some spots opaque white. The gill is pale grey with the apices of the leaves bright yellow and dark brown. The whole dorsum is covered with small, rounded tubercles (Fig. 35E). The largest tubercles occur in two lines running from the rhinophores to the gill. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have tubercles no different from those on the rest of the dorsum. There are eight tripinnate branchial leaves, forming a circle. The anal papilla is situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 14 lamellae in a 24-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally there are two long and conical oral tentacles (Fig. 36E). The tentacles are grooved longitudinally. The anterior border of the foot is grooved and notched.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 36C) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two additional muscles attached; two long and thin salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is half the length of the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle has two areas covered with a number of simple rodlets (Fig. 35D). The radular formula is 20 ¥ 22.0. 22 in a 24-mm long specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are narrow and elongate, having a single cusp and lacking denticles (Fig. 35A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula, and they have a short and strong cusp compared to the base (Fig. 35B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also lack denticles (Fig. 35C). Some of them completely lack a cusp. The oesophagus is long and connects directly to the stomach (Fig. 36A).</p> <p>The ampulla is very long and convoluted (Fig. 36C). It branches into a short oviduct and the prostate. The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is tubular and has two portions distinguishable by their colour and texture (Fig. 36B). It connects with a long duct that narrows and expands again into the large ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The muscular deferent duct opens into a short common atrium with the vagina. Connected to the atrium there us a large, ramified accessory gland and two muscular sacs each containing a rigid spine. The vagina is long and thin. At its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct connecting to the uterine duct and the seminal receptacle. The bursa copulatrix is oval in shape, about four times as large as the seminal receptacle (Fig. 36B).</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 36D) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are three cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and three pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is a separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively short nerves. Gastrooesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having two nerves each one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 36A) consists of a large heart and a two blood glands situated in front of and behind the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Ortea (1995) revised the Atlantic species of Paradoris and concluded that Paradoris granulata Bergh, 1884, the type species of the genus, is a junior synonym of Discodoris indecora Bergh, 1881. The material from the Mediterranean examined here is identical to Ortea’s (1995) redescription of this species. He also described more new species from the area that appear to be distinct in several anatomical details.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFD36009FF6BF9B76DF1D155	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFAF6009FF7BFD6A6CECD44D.text	03927F0EFFAF6009FF7BFD6A6CECD44D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Geitodoris Bergh 1891	<div><p>GENUS GEITODORIS BERGH, 1891</p> <p>Geitodoris Bergh, 1891: 130. Type species: Doris complanata Verrill, 1880, by monotypy.</p> <p>Carryodoris Vayssière, 1919: 67. Type species: Carryodoris joubini Vayssière, 1919, by original designation.</p> <p>Verrillia Ortea &amp; Ballesteros, 1981: 341. Type species Geitodoris bonosi Ortea &amp; Ballesteros, 1981, by monotypy.</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Dorsum covered with simple tubercles, stiffened by integumentary spicules, which occasionally protrude from the dorsal surface in an irregular fashion. Head with two conical oral tentacles. Anterior border of the foot grooved and notched. Labial armature armed with jaw elements. Radula composed of hamate teeth, occasionally denticulate. Outermost lateral teeth multidenticulate. Reproductive system with a flattened, granular prostate, having two well differentiated regions. Penis and vagina devoid of hooks. There is a peduculate accessory gland, in some species armed with several copulatory hard structures.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Bergh (1891) introduced the genus Geitodoris based on Doris complanata Verrill, 1880, type species by monotypy, with a very short Latin description. According to Bergh (1891) Geitodoris is characterized by having the labium of the anterior border of the foot notched in the middle, the inner lateral teeth strong, hamate and outermost slender, multidenticulate, and by lacking a differentiated prostate. This diagnosis was based on Verrill’s (1880) original description of Doris complanata, rather than on newly examined specimens. Bergh (1894) completed the description of Geitodoris with anatomical studies based on one of Verrill’s original specimens.</p> <p>Eliot (1906b) considered Geitodoris to be similar to Rostanga and also closely related to some archidorids, such as Archidoris stellifera Vayssière, 1904. In contrast, Odhner (1926) speculated that Geitodoris is closely related to Discodoris, and is distinguished from it by the peculiar form of the outer radular teeth. He also noted other diagnostic characteristics of Geitodoris: the unarmed penis, absence of prostate and stomach, presence of jaws, anterior border of the foot notched and finger-like oral tentacles.</p> <p>Vayssière (1919) described the genus Carryodoris for the new species Carryodoris joubini Vayssière, 1919. In his description he did not mention Geitodoris or refer to the papers by Bergh (1891), Eliot (1906b) or Odhner (1926). Carryodoris was characterized by the presence of jaws with small rodlets and a radula with spatula-shaped outermost lateral teeth. Other features of this genus are the anterior border of the foot notched, perfoliate rhinophores and tripinnate branchial leaves.</p> <p>Schmekel (1973) described a new species of Carryodoris from the Mediterranean, and considered this genus to be distinct from Geitodoris. She based her conclusion on two major differences between these two taxa, the absence of a differentiated prostate in Geitodoris, which is present in Carryodoris, and the absence of denticles on the outermost lateral teeth of Geitodoris, also present in Carryodoris. She also transferred Geitodoris ohshimai Baba, 1926 to this genus.</p> <p>Ortea &amp; Ballesteros (1981) regarded Carryodoris as a subgenus of Geitodoris. According to these authors, the name Geitodoris should be used for G. complanata and other species with smooth lateral teeth and lacking a differentiated prostate and Carryodoris for species with denticulate lateral teeth an a differentiated prostate. In addition, Ortea &amp; Ballesteros (1981) described the new subgenus Verrillia for Geitodoris bonosi, which has smooth lateral teeth and a differentiated prostate. Other authors (Perrone, 1984; Cervera, García-Gómez &amp; García, 1985; Miller, 1996) followed this classification including three different subgenera, in subsequent papers. Martínez, Ortea &amp; Ballesteros et al. (1996) considered that the presence of denticles on the lateral teeth of Geitodoris ‘should be considered as a specific character rather than a generic one’, but at the same time continued using the same classification.</p> <p>An anatomical study of G. complanata, the type species of Geitodoris, shows that this species has a well developed prostate and therefore there are virtually no differences between Geitodoris and Verrillia. I agree with most of the authors mentioned above in that the presence of denticles in some mid-lateral teeth should not on its own be used to separate the two genera, and thus I regard Carryodoris as a synonym of Geitodoris.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFAF6009FF7BFD6A6CECD44D	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFAE600DFF33FF0C6CADD041.text	03927F0EFFAE600DFF33FF0C6CADD041.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Geitodoris PLANATA	<div><p>GEITODORIS PLANATA (ALDER &amp; HANCOCK 1846)</p> <p>(FIGS 37, 38)</p> <p>? Doris testudinaria Risso, 1818: 370–371.</p> <p>Doris planata Alder &amp; Hancock, 1846: 292–293.</p> <p>Doris complanata Verrill, 1880: 399.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>The type material of Doris testudinaria Risso is untraceable (Valdés &amp; Héros, 1999). SYNTYPE of Doris planata: Cumbray Island, Scotland, one specimen, 11 mm preserved length, dried (HMNC, no registration number). SYNTYPES of Doris complanata: R / V Fish Hawk, United States Fish Commercial Steamer, Sta. 872 (40∞02¢36¢-N, 70∞22¢58¢-W), 157 m depth, South of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, USA, 4 September 1880, five specimens, 15–37 mm preserved length (YPM 10405).</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>Off Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, USA, 267 m depth, 1881, two specimens, 38–41 mm preserved length (USNM 804925). R / V Iselin, Central Atlantic Benchmark Program, Sta. A 1 (39∞14¢42¢-N, 72∞47¢18¢- W), 91 m depth, Off New Jersey, USA, one specimen, 6 mm preserved length (USNM 832719).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The colour of living animals from the North-Western Atlantic is unknown; preserved specimens are uniformly pale brown. The general colour of living animals from the North-Eastern Atlantic is reddishbrown (Cervera et al., 1985; Ortea, 1990). There is a number of dark brown patches irregularly scattered on the dorsal surface. The patches situated near to the mantle margin are smaller than those on the centre of the dorsum. The rhinophores are pale cream with some brown and opaque white spots and the apices white. The gill is dark brown with the apices of the leaves opaque white. The whole dorsum is covered with small, rounded tubercles (Fig. 37E). There are a few larger tubercles surrounded by areas with smaller tubercles. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have tubercles no different from those on the rest of the dorsum. There are nine tripinnate branchial leaves arranged in an oval pattern. The rhinophores are elongate, having 27 lamellae in a 36-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally there are two short oral tentacles (Fig. 38E). The anterior border of the foot is grooved and notched.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 38D) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two large additional muscles attached; two long salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is shorter than the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle has two areas with a number of simple rodlets (Fig. 37D). The radular formula is 13 ¥ 20.0. 20 in a 27-mm preserved length specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are narrow and elongate, having a single cusp and lacking denticles (Fig. 37A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 37B). The cusp of the inner and midlateral teeth is very short compared to the base of the teeth. The 5–7 outermost teeth are elongated, lack a cusp and have a number of thin denticles on each side (Fig. 37C). The oesophagus is long and connects directly to the stomach.</p> <p>The ampulla is long and curved (Fig. 38C). It branches into a short oviduct and the prostate. The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is long and flattened and has two portions distinguishable by their colour and texture (Fig. 38B). It connects with a very long and convoluted duct that narrows and expands again into the large ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The muscular deferent duct opens into a common atrium with the vagina. From the atrium, near to the vaginal opening leads a muscular and elongate accessory gland. The vagina is long. At its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct connecting to the uterine duct and the seminal receptacle (Fig. 38C). The bursa copulatrix is oval in shape, about 10 times as large as the seminal receptacle.</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 38F) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are three cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and four pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively short nerves. Gastrooesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having three nerves leading from the left ganglion and four from the right one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 38A) consists of a large heart and two blood glands situated in front of and behind the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Risso (1818) described Doris testudinaria from the Mediterranean coast of France. Later Risso (1826) illustrated this species, which has a dark body, brownish towards the mantle margin with yellowish lines that form small regular polyhedrons on the dorsum, and a reddish-orange underside.</p> <p>Alder &amp; Hancock (1846) described Doris planata from Scotland, as reddish brown, interspersed with dull lemon-yellow and purple-brown patches, the whole sprinkled with minute dark brown spots. A few irregular patches of dull yellow run down each side. Other distinctive features of this species are the dorsum covered with obtuse warty tubercles, mostly minute but of very unequal sizes, the anterior border of the foot grooved and notched and the seven branchial leaves small in size and strongly blotched with opaque yellowish white and dark brown. The colour of the foot was described as deep lemon.</p> <p>Alder &amp; Hancock (1862) redescribed Doris testudinaria as a different species from Doris planata, based on material from the British Isles. At the same time they recognized that Doris planata could be a juvenile form of Doris testudinaria. The only differences they found between these two species are the smaller branchial leaves, the more conspicuous dark brown markings and the presence of a central branchial leave in D. planata.</p> <p>Years later Verrill (1880) described Doris complanata from Massachusetts, based on preserved specimens, pale brown to dusky brown, more or less mottled, back nearly smooth with few minute verrucae. Bergh (1894) studied one of Verrill’s original specimens and described the anatomy in full detail. No information on the colour of the living animals of this species is available.</p> <p>Vayssière (1904) described Archidoris stellifera based on von Ihering’s manuscript notes and specimens he collected himself in the Mediterranean Sea. This species is characterized by having a reddishbrown or greyish-brown dorsum with darker spots and also several large, star-shaped, yellow patches arranged in three lines in the centre of the body. The underside is yellowish-orange. There are no jaws and the radular teeth are simple and hamate.</p> <p>Eliot (1905a) suggested that Doris planata and Doris complanata are probably synonyms. The only differences he found between specimens from both sides of the Atlantic are the smaller size, smaller radula and smaller number of branchial leaves of the European specimens. Eliot (1905b) also suggested that the Mediterranean Doris testudinaria Risso, 1818 could be a synonym of Geitodoris planata. Only one year later Eliot (1906b) described a new species of Geitodoris from Cape Verde Islands, named Geitodoris reticulata Eliot, 1906.</p> <p>Thompson &amp; Brown (1984) regarded Doris testudinaria and Archidoris stellifera as synonyms of Geitodoris planata (as Discodoris planata). They did not provide detailed explanation for these synonymies but based their conclusions on Alder’s authority.</p> <p>Cervera et al. (1985) and Ortea (1990) redescribed G. planata based on animals collected from southern Spain and the Canary Islands. According to these authors this species is reddish-brown with some dark spots in a dorsal-lateral position fading toward the cream edges. The dorsum also has several yellowish, star-shaped patches situated in two rows along the centre of the body. This coloration is also very similar to that described by Vayssière (1904) for Archidoris stellifera. Cervera et al. (1985) and Ortea (1990) considered that Archidoris stellifera is a different species from Geitodoris planata because of differences in the radular morphology. Perrone (1987) redescribed Archidoris stellifera from Italy (in the binomen Discodoris stellifera) and confirmed the absence of jaws, the presence of hamate radular teeth and also described the existence of caryophyllidia. This evidence indicates that Archidoris stellifera should be placed in a genus of caryophyllidia-bearing dorids and is different from Geitodoris planata.</p> <p>Examination of the type material of Geitodoris complanata and its comparison with anatomical studies on the European Geitodoris planata and the radula of the syntype of this species deposited at HMNC, confirms that these two names are synonyms. More problematic is the case of Doris testudinaria Risso, 1818. The external characteristics of this species, described by Risso (1826) are similar to those of Geitodoris planata and Archidoris stellifera, and it is not possible to determine its identity at this point. Also, the type material of Doris testudinaria is untraceable.</p> <p>Geitodoris reticulata, redescribed by Martínez et al. (1996) is clearly a distinct species. The reproductive system and the radula differ considerably from those of G. planata. There are several more species of Geitodoris described from the Mediterranean Sea and the Canary Islands.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFAE600DFF33FF0C6CADD041	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFAB600CFC1FFC766E07D041.text	03927F0EFFAB600CFC1FFC766E07D041.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Otinodoris White 1948	<div><p>GENUS OTINODORIS WHITE, 1948</p> <p>Otinodoris White, 1948: 203–204. Type species Otinodoris winckworthi White, 1948, by monotypy.</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Dorsum covered with ramified and elongate tubercles. Head with two flattened oral tentacles. Anterior border of the foot grooved and notched. Labial armature smooth. Radula composed of simple, hamate teeth. Reproductive system with a flattened, granular prostate, having two well differentiated regions. Penis armed with hooks. Vagina devoid of hooks and covered with a cuticular lining. Vestibular or accessory glands absent.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>White (1948) introduced the genus Otinodoris based on a single preserved specimen collected from Sri Lanka. The specimen was dissected but the reproductive system and the radula were only partially described. No more specimens of this species have been collected since the original description. Externally, Otinodoris winckworthi is characterized by ‘having branched processes on the mantle, ear-like oral tentacles and six branchiae’ (White, 1948).</p> <p>Internally, this species has an armed penis and lacks a prostate. Re-examination of the drawings by White (1948) shows that she probably misinterpreted the reproductive system and regarded the prostate as the hermaphrodite gland. The prostate of this animal seems to be large and flattened. The radula has denticulate teeth similar to those of Taringa Er. Marcus, 1955 or Alloiodoris Bergh, 1904 (see Valdés &amp; Gosliner, 2001), but other anatomical features appear to distinguish it from these two genera (presence of penial hooks in Taringa and absence of jaws in Alloiodoris).</p> <p>Unfortunately, specimens of Otinodoris winckworthi were not available for the present study.</p> <p>The examination of material belonging a new species of Otinodoris revealed that this genus shares numerous features with Peltodoris. The main differences between Peltodoris and Otinodoris are the presence or ramified tubercles and flattened oral tentacles in the later. Due to these two synapomorphies of Otinodoris, it is here maintained as a different taxon. According to the phylogenetic analysis carried out in this paper, there is insufficient resolution to determine the relationships between the genera. A more complete analysis, including all the species of both genera, is necessary to determine whether Otinodoris is a synonym of Peltodoris.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFAB600CFC1FFC766E07D041	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFAA6001FEF4FC606DD5D522.text	03927F0EFFAA6001FEF4FC606DD5D522.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Otinodoris SP.	<div><p>OTINODORIS SP.</p> <p>(FIGS 34B, 39-41)</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>Off Hotel Soanambo, Île Saint Marie, Madagascar, 5 April 1990, 155 mm preserved length, leg. H. Chaney (CASIZ 073238).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The background colour of the living animals is sandy yellow (Fig. 34B). The dorsum is covered with large, irregular brown and opaque white patches of different sizes and shapes. There is a black spot on top of the longest dorsal tubercles. The rhinophores are pale violet, with a number of irregular white spots. The branchial leaves are also pale violet with white rachises. The anal papilla is white. The whole dorsum is covered with a number of soft, elongate and ramified tubercles of various shapes and sizes (Fig. 39D). Some larger tubercles are randomly distributed among the others. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have papillae similar to those on the rest of the dorsum. There are six tripinnate branchial leaves. The anal papilla is situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 26 lamellae in a 155-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally the anterior border of the foot is grooved and notched (Fig. 40F). The oral tentacles are very large and flattened, with an irregular shape.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 40E) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two large additional muscles attached; two long salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is longer than the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is smooth. The radular formula is 41 ¥ 76.0. 76 in a 155-mm preserved length specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The inner lateral teeth are hamate and lack denticles (Fig. 39A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 39B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also lack denticles (Fig. 39C). The oesophagus is long and connects directly to the stomach.</p> <p>The ampulla is very long and folded (Fig. 40C). It branches into a short oviduct and the prostate. The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is large and flattened (Fig. 40B). It has two different portions that are clearly distinguishable in colour and texture. The prostate connects with a long duct that expands into the ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The penis is armed with large hooks (Fig. 41A) and covered by a hard cuticle. The muscular deferent duct opens into a common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is very long and convoluted, internally covered with a cuticular lining (Fig. 41B). At its proximal end it joins the large and irregular bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct connecting to the uterine duct and the seminal receptacle. The bursa copulatrix is about 10 times as large as the elongate seminal receptacle. The seminal receptacle is elongate and granular.</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 40D) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. The cerebral and pleural ganglia are entirely covered with large ganglionic tubercles. There is one cerebral nerve leading from the left cerebral ganglion and two from the right one, and three pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively long nerves. Gastrooesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having two nerves leading from each one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 40A) consists of a large heart and two blood glands situated in front of and behind the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>White’s (1948) original description of Otinodoris winckworthi includes very little information, but two features she described for this species (the presence of denticulate lateral teeth and auriculated oral tentacles), clearly distinguishes it from the species studied here, which has smooth teeth and lacks auriculated oral tentacles.</p> <p>Otinodoris sp. clearly belongs to the genus Otinodoris by having flattened oral tentacles and the dorsum covered with long and ramified tubercles.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFAA6001FEF4FC606DD5D522	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFA76000FF31F9956EFBD1BA.text	03927F0EFFA76000FF31F9956EFBD1BA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sebadoris Er. Marcus & Ev. Marcus 1960	<div><p>SEBADORIS ER. MARCUS &amp; EV. MARCUS, 1960</p> <p>Sebadoris Marcus &amp; Marcus, 1960: 904–905. Type species: Thordisa crosslandi Eliot, 1904, by original designation.</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Dorsum covered with thick and soft papillae. Anterior border of the foot grooved and notched. Labial armature with jaws. Radula composed of simple, hamate teeth. Reproductive system with a flattened, granular prostate, having two well differentiated regions. Penis and vagina devoid of hooks. Penis internally covered with irregular, soft lamellae. Vestibular or accessory glands absent.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Marcus &amp; Marcus (1960) introduced the genus Sebadoris based on Thordisa crosslandi Eliot, 1904. According to these authors, Sebadoris is a ‘ discodorididae in the sense of Odhner’, whose notum has papillae of different sizes, some of them rounded and some pointed. Other diagnostic features are: oral tentacles with finger shape, anterior border of the foot grooved and notched, branchial leaves tripinnate, jaws armed with two areas of elements, radula without rachidian teeth and with hamate lateral teeth; prostate clearly differentiated from the deferent duct; penis spiral, with two longitudinal series of spines; bursa copulatrix and seminal receptacle arranged serially. All these characteristics are also present in other species of Discodoris, with the exception of the complex dorsal morphology with soft papillae and the spiral penis with two longitudinal series of spines. A re-examination of specimens of the type species of Sebadoris, shows that the spines seen by Marcus &amp; Marcus (1960) are internal folds in the penis and not hard structures. It is not clear whether Sebadoris is a synonym of Discodoris. A more detailed phylogenetic analysis of the Discodoris clade, with all the species included would solve this problem. In the meanwhile the genus Sebadoris is maintained as valid.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFA76000FF31F9956EFBD1BA	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFA66005FF7AFD0D6F95D6DF.text	03927F0EFFA66005FF7AFD0D6F95D6DF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sebadoris nubilosa (PEASE 1871)	<div><p>SEBADORIS NUBILOSA (PEASE, 1871)</p> <p>(FIGS 34C, 42, 43)</p> <p>Doris nubilosa Pease, 1871b: 13–14, pl. 6.</p> <p>Thordisa crosslandi Eliot, 1904: 368–369, pl. 32, fig. 3, pl. 33, figs 4–8.</p> <p>Diaulula gigantea Bergh, 1905: 119–120, pl. 15, figs 11–16.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>The type material of Doris nubilosa, collected from Huaheine Island, Society Islands, French Polynesia, is untraceable. The holotype of Thordisa crosslandi, collected from Chuaka, Zanzibar, could not be located at BMNH and is probably lost. The holotype of Diaulula gigantea could not be located at ZMUC and is also presumed lost.</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>Reef flat South of Avera, Rututu Island, Austral Islands, French Polynesia, 28 January 1983, one specimen, 64 mm preserved length, leg. G. Paulay (CASIZ 071727)</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The background colour of the living animals is brownish grey (Fig. 34C). The dorsum is covered with large, dark grey, oval patches, which are larger in the centre of the dorsum. There are also numerous small opaque white spots. The rhinophores and gill are brownish grey with white apices. The dorsum is covered with soft, think and pointed papillae. Some of the papillae are larger than the rest, and have a elongate prolongation on the tip. Larger papillae are surrounded by several small ones (Fig. 42E). The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have small papillae, similar to those on the rest of the dorsum. There are five tripinnate branchial leaves. The anal papilla is situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 25 lamellae in a 64-mm preserved length specimen.</p> <p>Ventrally the anterior border of the foot is grooved and notched (Fig. 43F). The oral tentacles are conical. The colour of the underside of the mantle is yellowish cream, with a submarginal, dark brown band, surrounding the entire mantle margin and several dark brown, rounded spots irregularly arranged. There are also numerous opaque white spots. The foot sole is yellow with dark brown spots.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 43C), which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two large additional muscles attached; two long salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is as long as the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is armed with a number of small rodlets. The radular formula is 54 ¥ 124.0. 124 in a 64-mm long specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are hamate and lack denticles (Fig. 42A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 42B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also lack denticles (Fig. 42C). The oesophagus is short and connects directly to the stomach.</p> <p>The ampulla is long and convoluted (Fig. 43B). It branches into a short oviduct and the prostate. The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is elongate. It has two different portions that are clearly distinguishable in colour and texture. The prostate connects with a long duct that narrows and expands again into the large ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The penis is unarmed but internally covered with soft lamellae (Fig. 42D). The muscular deferent duct opens into a common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is wide and short. At its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct connecting to the uterine duct and the seminal receptacle (Fig. 43C). The bursa copulatrix is oval in shape, about three times as large as the elongate seminal receptacle.</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 43D) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. The cerebral and pleural ganglia are entirely covered with large ganglionic tubercles. There are five cerebral nerves leading from the left cerebral ganglion and four from the right one, and three pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively long nerves. Gastro-oesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having five nerves leading from each one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 43A) consists of a large heart and two blood glands situated in front of and behind the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Pease (1871b) described Doris nubilosa from Huaheine Island, Society Islands, as large, flaccid, the dorsum covered with soft papillae, mottled with different shades of brown and grey, and with two dorsal longitudinal rows of cloud-like brown patches. The excellent colour illustration published by Pease (1871b: pl. 6) makes this species easy to recognize.</p> <p>Eliot (1904) described Thordisa crosslandi based on several specimens collected from the East coast of Africa. The living animals were described as follows: sandy with blotches of brown irregularly bordered with black; the underside whitish with numerous brownish spots and a brownish border; the dorsal tubercles thick-set pointed papillae, some of which are developed into distinct filaments at their extremities. Eliot (1904) studied the anatomy of several specimens and found the penis to be twisted spirally and provided with two rows of tubercles. He later (Eliot, 1910) suggested that Thordisa crosslandi could be a synonym of Doris nubilosa Pease, 1871.</p> <p>Bergh (1905) described Diaulula gigantea as a brownish grey species with numerous lighter specks and large black patches; the dorsum covered with conical and rounded tubercles about 2 mm long; the underside yellowish with a dark brown band near to the border of the mantle and dark spots. All these features agree with the descriptions of Doris nubilosa and Thordisa crosslandi.</p> <p>Marcus &amp; Marcus (1960) redescribed Thordisa crosslandi from the Red Sea, and introduced the genus Sebadoris based on it, due to the particular shape of the penis. They considered the tubercles described by Eliot (1904), and also seen by themselves, to be penial spines.</p> <p>Kay &amp; Young (1969) and Edmunds (1971) regarded Thordisa crosslandi and Diaulula gigantea as synonyms of Doris nubilosa Pease, 1871. Kay &amp; Young (1969) transferred this species to the genus Archidoris, whereas Edmunds (1971) maintained the usage of the genus name Sebadoris.</p> <p>Soliman (1980) studied specimens of Sebadoris crosslandi from the Red Sea, and at the same time considered that this species differs from Thordisa crosslandi in texture and colour of the dorsum, radular teeth and reproductive system. According to Soliman (1980) these two nominal species could be different.</p> <p>The anatomy and external morphology of the specimens studied by Eliot (1904), Bergh (1905), Kay &amp; Young (1969), Edmunds (1971) and Soliman (1980) are identical to those of the material examined here, and there is no question that all of them belong to the same species.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFA66005FF7AFD0D6F95D6DF	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFA36005FF35F9D06B3AD709.text	03927F0EFFA36005FF35F9D06B3AD709.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Conualevia MARCUSI COLLIER & FARMER 1964	<div><p>GENUS CONUALEVIA COLLIER &amp; FARMER, 1964</p> <p>Conualevia Collier &amp; Farmer, 1964: 381. Type species: Conualevia marcusi Collier &amp; Farmer, 1964, by original designation.</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Dorsum covered with simple tubercles, stiffened by integumentary spicules, which do not protrude from the dorsal surface. Mantle glands present. Head with two lateral prolongations. Rhinophores almost smooth, with several irregular and inconspicuous lamellae. Anterior border of the foot grooved but not notched. Radula composed of simple, hamate teeth. Reproductive system with a tubular, granular and simple prostate. Penis and vagina devoid of hooks. Vestibular or accessory glands absent.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Collier &amp; Farmer (1964) described the genus Conualevia as being different from other dorids due to the presence of smooth rhinophores. Other distinctive characteristics are the minutely papillose notum, the short oral tentacles (lateral prolongations), the radula without rachidian teeth, the absence of jaws and the penis unarmed. Internally, Conualevia is characterized by having a semiserial seminal receptacle, described by Collier &amp; Farmer (1964) as an X pattern at the end of a long vaginal duct. Two species were originally introduced, Conualevia marcusi Collier &amp; Farmer, 1964, the type species by original designation, and C. alba Collier &amp; Farmer, 1964, both of them from the Pacific coast of North America.</p> <p>Since then, no more species have been assigned to the genus Conualevia, which remained in use for these two species. The single synapomorphy of this genus is the presence of smooth rhinophores. According to the phylogenetic analysis carried out here, this appears to be a monophyletic group.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFA36005FF35F9D06B3AD709	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFA36007FCB8FBBE6A64D585.text	03927F0EFFA36007FCB8FBBE6A64D585.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Conualevia marcusi COLLIER & FARMER 1964	<div><p>CONUALEVIA MARCUSI COLLIER &amp; FARMER, 1964</p> <p>(FIGS 34D, 44-46)</p> <p>Conualevia marcusi Collier &amp; Farmer, 1964: 381–383, fig. 1C- H, pl. 2.</p> <p>Type material</p> <p>HOLOTYPE (by original designation): 6 km south of Puertecitos, Baja California, Mexico 1963, 15 mm preserved length, leg. C. L. Collier (CASIZ 018370). PARATYPES: 6 km south of Puertecitos, Baja California, Mexico 1963, one specimen, 10 mm preserved length, leg. C. L. Collier (CASIZ 018371).</p> <p>Additional material</p> <p>Puerto Refugio, Isla Ángel de la Guarda, Baja California, Mexico 1963, one specimen, 18 mm preserved length, leg. C. L. Collier (CASIZ 018372). Centro de Aquicultura, Bahía Tortugas, Baja California Sur, 1 July 1984, one specimen, 10 mm preserved length, leg. T. M. Gosliner (CASIZ 071531). 80 km south of Puertecitos, Baja California, Mexico, 10 April 1973, two specimens, 8–9 mm preserved length, leg. G. McDonald (CASIZ 069116).</p> <p>External morphology</p> <p>The general colour of the living animals is uniformly cream or pale yellow (Fig. 34D). The rhinophores and gill are yellow or cream, somewhat darker than the dorsum. The viscera are visible through the dorsal skin. The whole dorsum is covered with small, rounded tubercles (Fig. 44D). The largest tubercles are situated in the central region of the body. The rhinophoral and branchial sheaths have tubercles similar to those on the rest of the dorsum. There are seven unipinnate branchial leaves, forming a circle. The anal papilla is situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate and almost smooth, with several irregular and inconspicuous lamellae (Fig. 45A).</p> <p>Ventrally the anterior border of the foot is grooved but not notched (Fig. 45E). There are no oral tentacles, but two blunt prolongations on both sides of the mouth area.</p> <p>Anatomy</p> <p>The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has six strong retractor muscles (Fig. 46C) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has two large additional muscles attached; two short salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is longer than the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is smooth. The radular formula is 33 ¥ 51.0. 51 in a 10-mm long specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are hamate and lack denticles (Fig. 44A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 44B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also lack denticles (Fig. 44C). The oesophagus is short and connects directly to the stomach (Fig. 46A).</p> <p>The ampulla is very long and folded (Fig. 46B). It branches into a short oviduct and the prostate. The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. The prostate is tubular and connects with a short duct that narrows and expands again into the large ejaculatory portion of the deferent duct. The penis is unarmed (Fig. 45B). The muscular deferent duct opens into a common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is long. At its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct connecting to the uterine duct and the seminal receptacle. The bursa copulatrix is oval in shape, about twice as large as the seminal receptacle.</p> <p>In the central nervous system (Fig. 46D) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. There are three cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and three pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively short nerves. Gastrooesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having two nerves leading from the left ganglion and three from the right one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.</p> <p>The circulatory system (Fig. 46A) consists of a large heart and a blood gland situated in front of the central nervous system.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Conualevia marcusi appears to be different from Conualevia alba, the other member of the genus, by its external morphology and anatomy. According to Collier &amp; Farmer (1964), C. alba is a much thinner animal than C. marcusi, and more delicate in appearance and the mantle glands of C. alba are more evident. In addition, the rhinophores of C. alba are longer relative to their width than those of C. marcusi, and C. alba has half as many branchial leaves as C. marcusi. Anatomically, the main difference between these two species is the arrangement of the bursa copulatrix and the seminal receptacle, which are on opposing sides in C. marcusi and on the same side in C. alba.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFA36007FCB8FBBE6A64D585	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFA16019FC1DF8C56FAED1DE.text	03927F0EFFA16019FC1DF8C56FAED1DE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Artachaea Bergh 1882	<div><p>GENUS ARTACHAEA BERGH, 1882</p> <p>Artachaea Bergh, 1882: 231. Type species: Artachaea rubida Bergh, 1882, by monotypy.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>The genus Artachaea was described by Bergh (1882) based on the new species Artachaea rubida Bergh, 1882. He defined this new genus as having a not too hard consistency and a coarsely granulated dorsum. The anterior border of the foot is rounded, and apparently simple, but there are oral tentacles. There are no jaws and the radular teeth are finely denticulate. The penis is armed with spines.</p> <p>Bergh (1882) recognized the similarity of Artachaea with members of the genus Cadlina Bergh, 1878, but they are clearly differentiated by the presence of jaws. Unfortunately, the type material of Artachaea rubida is lost (K. Jensen, pers. comm.), and clarification of its systematic relationships is not possible. Eliot (1908) Eales (1938) and White (1950) assigned more species to this genus, some of them armed with copulatory spines.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFA16019FC1DF8C56FAED1DE	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFBF6019FF69FCD16B1CD1BA.text	03927F0EFFBF6019FF69FCD16B1CD1BA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Carminodoris Bergh 1889	<div><p>GENUS CARMINODORIS BERGH, 1889</p> <p>Carminodoris Bergh, 1889: 818. Type species: Carminodoris mauritiana Bergh, 1889, by monotypy</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Bergh (1889) introduced the genus Carminodoris, based on Carminodoris mauritiana Bergh, 1889. The diagnostic features of this genus are as follows: anterior border of the foot grooved and notched; dorsum covered with small tubercles; presence of jaws; hamate lateral teeth, denticulate outermost lateral teeth; large prostate and penis armed with hooks. All, with the exception of the penial hooks and denticulate outermost teeth, are present in the type species of Discodoris. These differences could be due to specific variation, but further detailed study, including anatomical investigation of Carminodoris mauritiana, is necessary before a definitive synonymization can be made. Meanwhile, Carminodoris is provisionally regarded as uncertain. Several authors (Thompson, 1975; Gosliner &amp; Behrens, 1998) proposed that it could be a synonym of Hoplodoris; however, it lacks the latter’s characteristic accessory glands with spines. Most of the Indo-Pacific species assigned to Carminodoris should probably be transferred to Hoplodoris, whereas the Atlantic species Carminodoris boucheti Ortea, 1979 and Carminodoris spinobranchialis Ortea &amp; Martínez, 1992 fit the original description of the genus Carminodoris (see Ortea, 1979 and Ortea &amp; Martínez, 1992).</p> <p>The identity of the type species of Carminodoris, C. mauritiana, is the main obstacle to determining the phylogenetic relationships of this genus. Since its original description, C. mauritiana has not been collected again.</p> <p>Eliot (1910) and Edmunds (1971) assigned specimens collected from the Solomon Islands and Tanzania to the species C. mauritana, which they included in the genus Peltodoris. However, the anatomy of their animals, which lack penial hooks and jaws and have simple hamate radular teeth, is very different from the original description of C. mauritana, described as having penial hooks, jaws and denticulate radular teeth. Marshall &amp; Willan (1999) transferred C. mauritiana to the genus Discodoris, while retaining the name Carminodoris as valid for other species; however, they overlooked the fact that C. mauritiana is the type species of Carminodoris. The lack of anatomical description in their paper prevents a precise generic placement for their animals.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFBF6019FF69FCD16B1CD1BA	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFBF6019FC0BFD0D6BF4D500.text	03927F0EFFBF6019FC0BFD0D6BF4D500.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Homoiodoris Bergh 1882	<div><p>GENUS HOMOIODORIS BERGH, 1882</p> <p>Homoiodoris Bergh, 1882: 222–223. Type species: Homoiodoris japonica Bergh, 1882.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Bergh (1882) described Homoiodoris, based on Homoiodoris japonica Bergh, 1904, as very similar to Archidoris. Homoiodoris is characterized by having a depressed body with the dorsum covered with large tubercles. The tubercles around the rhinophoral and branchial sheaths are very large and apparently distinct from the rest. The oral tentacles are short and thick with a lateral groove. Internally, the labial cuticle is smooth and the radula is composed of simple hamate teeth, the prostate is large and the vagina is armed with hooks.</p> <p>Homoiodoris appears to be very similar to Doris, but in the original description (Bergh, 1882), there is not enough information about other features of this genus, such as the shape of the anterior border of the foot, to permit a definitive conclusion. Unfortunately the type material of Homoiodoris japonica could not be located at ZMUC and is presumed lost. Major differences between Homiodoris and Doris are the presence of a large prostate and vaginal hooks in Homoiodoris.</p> <p>Homoiodoris novaezelandiae (Bergh, 1904) is clearly a species of Hoplodoris (see above). There are no more species assigned to this genus.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFBF6019FC0BFD0D6BF4D500	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFBF6018FCF8F9616E33D116.text	03927F0EFFBF6018FCF8F9616E33D116.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Xenodoris Odhner in Franc 1968	<div><p>XENODORIS ODHNER IN FRANC (1968)</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Odhner in Franc (1968) introduced the name Xenodoris with no description (nomen nudum). The genus was based on Doris sordida Rüppell &amp; Leuckart, 1830 The original description of D. sordida (Rüppell &amp; Leuckart, 1828 -30) includes a short description in Latin and German, but no drawings. The dorsum of this species is dark brown in colour, vaulted, covered with large tubercles that are brighter than the rest of the body, some of them red-brown. The six ramified branchial leaves are black-brown, with brighter borders. The skin is leathery and the mantle margin projects considerably over the foot. This description fits with the characteristics of Asteronotus cespitosus (van Hasselt, 1824), which is also found in the Red Sea, and it is very likely that Xenodoris is a synonym of Asteronotus.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFBF6018FCF8F9616E33D116	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
03927F0EFFBE6018FE8AFDA96E81D76F.text	03927F0EFFBE6018FE8AFDA96E81D76F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Animalia	<div><p>CRYPTODORIS OSTERGAARD, 1950</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>The name Cryptodoris was introduced by Ostergaard (1950) based on the description of the egg-mass of an unknown animal. No species name was included in the description and no type species was designated, therefore Cryptodoris is not available (ICZN, 1999: Article 13.3). A few years later Ostergaard (1955) described the new species Doridopsis macfarlandi; at the same time he mentioned that ‘the structures of egg filament and veliger larva are figured and described in Ostergaard (1950: 108–109) under Cryptodoris sp’. According to Brodie, Willan &amp; Collins (1997) Doridopsis macfarlandi is a synonym of Dendrodoris nigra (Stimpson, 1855); thus Cryptodoris is a synonym of Dendrodoris Ehrenberg, 1831.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03927F0EFFBE6018FE8AFDA96E81D76F	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Valdés, Ángel	Valdés, Ángel (2002): A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4): 535-636, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x
