Peltodoris ATROMACULATA BERGH 1880
Creators: name: Valdés, Ángel
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2002
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Nudibranchia
Discodorididae
Peltodoris

description: GENUS PELTODORIS BERGH, 1880
Peltodoris Bergh, 1880: 41. Type species: Peltodoris atromaculata Bergh, 1880, by subsequent designation by O’Donoghue (1929).
Phialodoris Bergh, 1889: 908. Type species: Phialodoris podotria Bergh, 1889, by monotypy, syn. nov.
Montereina MacFarland, 1905: 38. Type species: Montereina nobilis MacFarland, 1905, by original designation, syn. nov.
Diagnosis
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.
Remarks
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.
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.
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 & 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.
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 & Portmann, 1982; Jonas, 1986; Perrone, 1992; Ávila, 1996).
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.
description: Published as part of Valdés, Ángel, 2002, A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia), pp. 535-636 in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4) on page 585, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, http://zenodo.org/record/4634200