Untitled

280
Conversely, Wägele & Willan (2000) found strong mor-
phological evidence for the monophyly of Nudlbranchia.
Classification based on Wägele & Willan (2000) and
Schrodl et al (2001 ). Includes Nudlbranchia Anthobran-
chia and Nudibranchia Dexiarchia.
205 Taxon Rhodopemorpha Salvini-Plawen, 1991 'of un-
certain systematic rank representing a highly special-
ized offshoot of the lower opisthobranchs". "A highly
aberrant and modified member of the Doridoidea, although
a position in the Notaspidea cannot be fully ex-
cluded" (Haszprunar& Künz, 1996).
2°ß Wägele & Willan (2000: 91 ) used the name Anthobran-
chia for the "dorids". However, Goldfuss' original concept
of Anthobranchia also included Onchidium, and
we see no advantage in resurrecting this long forgotten
name and using it with a significantly differing taxonom-
ical extension. The "dorids" were classically divided into
four suborders or superfamilies: Gnathodoridacea, Ana-
doridacea [= Phanerobranchia], Eudoridacea [= Cryp-
tobranchia], and Porostomata Recent phylogenetical
analysis by Wägele & Willan (2000) concluded that the
Gnathodoridacea [= Bathydoridoidea] and Doridacea
[= Phanerobranchia + Cryptobranchia + Porostomata]
form two monophyletic groups. Valdés (2002) concluded
that (Cryptobranchia + Porostomata [here Doridoidea
+ Phyllidioidea]) form a monophyletic clade Valdés
(2002) shifted the usage of Cryptobranchia to encompass
all that clade, and established Labiostomata for
what had earlier been called Cryptobranchia; this move
is not followed here. The Phanerobranchia were clas-
sically subdivided into "Non Suctoria" and "Suctoria",
tentatively ranked here as superfamilies Onchidoridoidea
and Polyceroidea, but this classification has
yet to be tested in a phylogenetic analysis.
2°''
Classification based on Gosliner & Johnson (1994),
Valdés & Gosliner ( 1 999b), Valdés & Gosliner (2001 ) and
Valdés (2002) We have not been able to allocate the
name Homoiodorididae Odhner, 1926 to currently recognized
families
2°^ Contents of Chromodohdidae based on Rudman (1984)
with modifications by Valdés & Gosliner (1999a) for
Miamiridae and Valdés & Angulo-Campillo (2000) for
Inudinae.
Reversal of precedence: see Nomenclátor.
20S The family Hypobranchiaeidae P. Fischer, 1 883, is sometimes
cited in the synonymy of Corambidae. However,
the description of Hypobranchiaea fusca A. Adams, 1 847,
the type species of of Hypobranchiaea, refers to a very
large dorid ("in length about six inches"), quite incom-
patible with it being a species of Corambidae (see
Martynov, 1994),
2^° The name Fucolidae has priority over Gymnodorididae,
To our knowledge, it has not been used as valid since
its establishment, but since Fucolidae was established
in 1933, Art. 23 9 cannot be applied. However, we be-
lieve that usage of Gymnodorididae should be continued
for reasons of stability, and an application will be
submitted to the ICZN to that effect
2^^ Position of Hexabranchidae after Valdés (2002).
BOUCHET&ROCROI
2^2 Classification based on Schrodl et al. (2001 ). Two clades
are recognized in Dexiarchia: Pseudoeuctenidiacea and
Cladobranchia.
2^3 Lemindidae and Charcotiidae both given family rank in
Wägele & Willan (2000).
2^" The family Dotidae is traditionally included in the
Tritonioidea or Dendronotida. However, it is consistently
excluded from the Dendronotida in all phylogenetic analyses
(Wägele & Willan, 2000).
215 Embletoniidae placed in Dendronotida by Miller & Willan
(1991).
21^ Wägele & Willan (2000) concluded that the Arminoida
as classically understood (containing Arminidae, Goni-
aeolididae, Heterodorididae, Charcotiidae, Dironidae,
Proctonotidae, Madrellidae, and Pinufiidae) are para-
phyletic. We use the name Euarminida for the basal
clade comprising Armina and Dermatobranchus in
Wägele & Willan's analysis.
217 Wägele & Willan (2000) concluded that the Dendronoti-
da are monophyletic, but Healy & Willan (1991) identi-
fied such wide variation in sperm morphology that they
questioned its monophyly. Classification based on Boss
(1982), largely inspired by Odhner (1968), with addi-
tions.
212 Contents of Flabellinidae after Miller (1971). Cumanotus
included in Eubranchidae by Wägele & Willan (2000).
Paracoryphella synonymized with Flabellina by Gosliner
&Kuzirian(1990).
219 Contents of Tergipedidae after Miller (1977).
220 Position of Protaeolidiella and Pleurolidia after Rudman
(1990).
221 Myrrhinidae in synonymy of Favorininae after Rudman
(1981).
222 Reversal of precedence: see Nomenclátor.
223 Most morphological (Haszprunar & Huber, 1990;
Nordsieck, 1993a; Salvini-Plawen & Steiner, 1995; Barker,
2001 Dayrat & Tillier, 2002) as well as a molecular (Wade
;
& Mordan, 2000) analyses supported the monophyly of
the Pulmonata. Some phylogenetic analyses of 1 8S and
28S rDNA sequences (Tillier et al., 1995; Winnepenninckx
et al., 1998; Wollscheid & Wägele, 1999; Yoon & Kim,
2000; Dayrat et al., 2001 ) did not confirm its monophyly,
but the data were insufficient to show that they are really
polyphyletic. Conversely, the molecular phylogenetic
analysis of Grande et al. (2004), based on several mito-
chondhal gene sequences, indicated with strong support
that the Pulmonata are polyphyletic. According to this
analysis the Ellobioidea have a rather basal position within
the Heterobranchia, the Systellommatophora are more
closely related to the Pyramidelloidea and the
Opisthobranchia than to the Stylommatophora and the
Siphonariidae cluster even within the otherwise monophyletic
Opisthobranchia. Several other pulmonate
groups (eg, Amphibolidae, Hygrophila, Thmusculidae,
Otinoidea) were not considered.