Diplopeltoides , Gerlach 1962
Creators: name: Holovachov, Oleksandr
name: Boström, Sven
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2017
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Nematoda
Chromadorea
Araeolaimida
Axonolaimidae
Diplopeltoides

description: Key to species of Diplopeltoides
See Table 7 for additional diagnostic characters.
1. Body shorter than 0.7 mm; testes opposed ...................................................................................... 2
– Body longer than 0.8 mm; testes outstretched ................................................................................. 4
2. Cuticularised plate present; annulation starts at the posterior ¼ th of amphid .................................. 3
– Cuticularised plate absent; annulation starts at the anterior ¼ th of amphid ........................................ ........................................................................... D. pumilus (Vincx & Gourbault, 1992) comb. nov.
3. Spicules 22 µm long; gubernaculum triangular ...................................... D. ornatus (Gerlach, 1950)
– Spicules 29–36 µm long; gubernaculum plate-like ........................................ D. linkei Jensen, 1991
4. Cuticlar annules with londitudinal striation distinctly visible under the light microscope ............. 5
– Cuticular annules visually smooth under light microscope, longitudinal striation may be visible under scanning electron microscope ................................................................................................ 9
5. Cuticularised plate present ............................................................................................................... 6
– Cuticularised plate absent ................................................................................................................ 7
6. Amphid hook-shaped .......................................................................................................................... ............. D. axayacatli Holovachov, Tandingan De Ley, Mundo-Ocampo, Gingold & De Ley, 2009
– Amphid an inverted U-shaped ............................................................................. D. grandis sp. nov.
7. Interamphideal shield crenate ............................................................................................................. ........... D. santaclarae Holovachov, Tandingan De Ley, Mundo-Ocampo, Gingold & De Ley, 2009
– Interamphideal shield smooth .......................................................................................................... 8
8. Body 1.7 mm long; spicules 17 µm long ............................. D. striatus (Gerlach, 1956) comb. nov.
– Body 1.0– 1.2 mm long; spicules 25 µm long ...................... D. pulcher (Vincx & Gourbault, 1992)
9. Amphidial fovea with fine transverse striation ................... D. bulbosus (Vitiello, 1972) comb. nov.
– Amphidial fovea without fine transverse striation ......................................................................... 10
10. Cuticular plate present .................................................................................................................... 11
– Cuticular plate absent .................................................................................................................... 12
11. Cephalic setae 4–6 µm long; amphid 14–21 µm long; precloacal ridge absent ................................. ............................................................................................................................ D. suecicus sp. nov.
– Cephalic setae 13 µm long; amphid 6 µm long; precloacal ridge present .......................................... ................................................................................................................... D. longicaudatus sp. nov.
12. Amphid with wide interamphideal area ......................................................................................... 13
– Amphid with narrow interamphideal area ..................................................................................... 16
13. Interamphideal area smooth, without ornamentation .................................................................... 14
– Interamphideal area punctated, areolated or crenated ................................................................... 15
14. Cephalic setae 17 µm long ..................................................... D. botulus (Wieser, 1959) comb. nov.
– Cephalic setae 5 µm long ...................................................................... D. sundensis (Jensen, 1978)
15. Cephalic setae 12–18 µm long; amphid 21–26 µm long .................................................................... ........ D. paramastigia Holovachov, Tandingan De Ley, Mundo-Ocampo, Gingold & De Ley, 2009
– Cephalic setae 6.5–8.5 µm long; amphid 40–45 µm long ................... D. mastigia Tchesunov, 1990
16. Cephalic setae longer than 10 µm ............... D. lucanicus (Boucher & Helléouët, 1977) comb. nov.
– Cephalic setae shorter than 10 µm ................................................................................................. 17
17. Cephalic setae 3.5–7 µm long ................................................ D. asetosus (Juario, 1974) comb. nov.
– Cephalic setae less than 1–2 µm long ............................................................................................ 18
18. Spicules with dorsally bent manubrium; amphid 17–28 µm long ...................................................... ................................................................................................................... D. nudus (Gerlach, 1956)
– Spicules with straight manubrium; amphid 26–33 µm long ............................................................... ................................................................................................................ D. anatolii (Voronov, 1982)
description: Published as part of Holovachov, Oleksandr & Boström, Sven, 2017, Three new and five known species of Diplopeltoides Gerlach, 1962 (Nematoda, Diplopeltoididae) from Sweden, and a revision of the genus, pp. 1-35 in European Journal of Taxonomy 369 on pages 29-30, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2017.369, http://zenodo.org/record/3838436