Zootaxa,Annotated checklist of the rotifers (Phylum Rotifera...

The goal of the databasing exercise was not to introduce taxonomic or nomenclature novelties. However,
a number of instances was found in which a change in taxonomy appeared warranted. In addition, some actual
or potential homonyms were found. Many of the latter concern cases of congeneric, but not conspecific, subspecies
with identical subspecies names. Because of the principle of coordination in zoological nomenclature,
such cases are better avoided, or at least monitored. Especially, the subspecies rank of many rotifer subspecies
is exclusively based on the consideration that there is a morphological resemblance between taxa. We now
know that cryptic speciation occurs, and may be common, in Rotifera; hence such arguments for attributing
subspecific rank are losing what little ground they ever had. Moreover, there are indications that what were
once thought to be mere infrasubspecific variants could be taxonomically relevant entities (e.g., Giri & José
de Paggi, 2006). Here, replacement names are only suggested for those junior homonyms that denote valid
taxa. Other cases are listed as caution against potential future confusion.
The following are some suggestions on taxonomy and nomenclature:
Anchitestudinella mekongensis B‘rziÃÓ, 1973
B‘rziÃÓ (1973) contains two alternative spellings for the single species of Anchitestudinella: mekogensis
and mekongensis. Subsequent authors have used either spelling, but none has ever clarified which of the
two should be considered the correct spelling. Considering the etymology of the name, which is derived
from River Mekong, I suggest treating the latter, with -n-, as correct original spelling under Art. 24.2.3 of
the ICZN.
Brachionus inermispinosus De Smet, 1989 = Epiphanes brachionus spinosa Rousselet, 1901 (new synonym).
The detailed description and, especially, figures of the habitus and trophi of B. inermispinosus by De Smet
(1989) reveal that the animal does not belong in Brachionus; rather, it is an Epiphanes and, most likely,
synonymous with E. brachionus spinosa.
Brachionus anchorporus Xu, Chen & Rao, 1997 = B. durgae Dhanapathi, 1974 (new synonym).
The description by Xu et al. (1997) undoubtedly depicts B. durgae, a taxon of which these authors were
apparently unaware.
Brachionus angularis orientalis Sudzuki, 1989 = B. angularis Gosse, 1851
The name B. angularis orientalis is a potential junior homonym of B. orientalis Rodewald, 1937, if the
name would ever be used at the species level. Sudzuki’s (1989) species, however, is based on a relatively
common variant of B. angularis and is treated as a synonym rather than a different subspecies. This is in
agreement with Sudzuki’s (1998) treatment of the taxon as of infrasubspecific rank, although he reverts to
listing it as a subspecies in Sudzuki (1999).
Brachionus angularis pseudokeikoa Sudzuki, 1992; B. angularis pyriformis Sudzuki & Huang, 1997; B.
angularis donghuensis Sudzuki & Huang, 1997; B. morondavaensis Sudzuki, 1998 = B. angularis Gosse,
1851 (new synonyms)
Sudzuki (1999) cites the three subspecies listed above as species, in which case Sudzuki & Huang’s
(1997) B. pyriformis would have to be treated as a junior homonym of B. pyriformis Barrois & Daday,
1894, an established junior synonym of B. angularis. All four fall within the range of variability of B.
angularis; B. angularis donghuensis is a poorly contracted specimen of B. angularis bidens, according to
a photograph in Sudzuki (1999). A fifth taxon, B. angularis daitojimensis Sudzuki, 1992 is listed as an
infrasubspecific variant, hence a synonym, of B. angularis by Sudzuki (1999) himself.
6 · Zootaxa 1564 © 2007 Magnolia Press
SEGERS