identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
0873356DDB67FFACBCA9DDE9C5B6FE63.text	0873356DDB67FFACBCA9DDE9C5B6FE63.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Microplana edwardsi Jones & Mcdonald 2021	<div><p>Microplana edwardsi sp. nov.</p><p>Etymology: the specific epithet is after the father of one of us (J. McD) who encouraged her interest in natural history.</p><p>Diagnosis. Microplana edwardsi is distinguished from its congeners by its small size, live length 6–7 mm, &lt;1 mm wide; approximately cylindrical body; creamy-white color with diffuse dark pigment anteriorly. Anatomically it has the characters of the genus, a single pair of eyes; parenchymal longitudinal muscle; a cylindrical pharynx; a pair of anterior ovaries; an unknown number of testes; conical penis papilla; genito-intestinal duct.</p><p>Description. Living worms (Fig 1 A, B) are 6–7 mm long, &lt;1 mm in width, cylindrical though slightly wider than high, and bluntly rounded anteriorly and posteriorly though the anterior end is narrower. They are creamywhite, with diffuse dark grey pigment particularly concentrated towards the anterior end. The ventral creeping sole is about half the width of the animal (based on the lateral extent of the ventral ciliated epidermis in sections of WF06, and an approximate transverse section of the posterior end of WF09). Sections of WF06 are about 2.3 mm long (Fig 1 C), the mouth (pharyngeal aperture) and gonopore are respectively about 1.1 mm and 1.6 mm from the anterior end (55% and 77% of body length). WF09 was twisted making measurements difficult, though the mouth is 1.3 mm behind the anterior end.</p><p>There are two eyes near the anterior end (Fig 2 A, C), each a shallow pigmented cup 15–20 μm in diameter and about 10 μm deep. A pair of ventral nerve cords (Figs 1 C; 2 A, B, C; 3 B; 4 E; 5 B, C, D, E, F), expanded anteriorly, run the length of the body, about 150 μm apart. There is a sub-epidermal nerve plexus above the creeping sole (Fig 3 A).</p><p>Ventral epidermis is a ciliated monolayer about 0.25 μm thick, the cilia are 5 μm long. There is a layer of subepidermal circular muscle about 2 μm thick. Parenchymal longitudinal muscle fibres are present, one layer below and one above the ventral nerve cords, respectively 30–40 μm and 90–100 μm above the ventral epidermis (Figs 1 C; 2 A, B; 3 A, B). Dorsally there is a weak single layer of parenchymal longitudinal muscle about 15 μm in from the dorsal epidermis, ental to the rhabdite-secreting layer. Dorsal epidermis is a non-ciliated monolayer, about 15 μm thick.</p><p>The retracted pharynx (Figs 1 C; 3 A, B; 5 B) is cylindrical, about 300 μm long and 275 μm in diameter, the walls about 120 μm thick. Pharyngeal musculature consists of loose longitudinal and radial fibres. The pharyngeal aperture (mouth) is 57% along the pharyngeal pouch. The gut is triclad but the lateral diverticula are indistinct and the number is uncertain.</p><p>A pair of ovaries is near the anterior end (Fig 2 A, C, D), in WF06 and WF09 they are respectively about 450 μm and 500 μm from the (contracted) anterior end. In WF06 each ovary is about 100 μm high by 80–100 μm antero-posteriorly. In WF09 the ovaries are about 150 μm high by 100 μm long antero-posteriorly (presumably distorted due to longitudinal contraction of the worm). Each ovary contains several presumed oocytes about 10 μm in diameter. An ovovitelline duct (Figs 2 D; 3 B; 4 A, C, E, F; 5 B, C, D, E, F), lumen diameter about 10 μm, external diameter about 20 μm, opens onto the ventral surface of each ovary, runs posteriorly on the outer dorsal surface of the ventral nerve cord on each side to open together into the posterior of the common female duct. Vitellaria are not distinguishable with certainty. A ciliated genito-intestinal duct (Figs 1 C; 3 A, B; 4 B, C; 5 D, E, F), internal diameter about 8 μm, joins at the junction of the ovovitelline ducts and common female duct, then runs anteriorly and dorsally, narrows to about 4 μm and opens through an indistinct opening into a digestive diverticulum on the right side. The common female duct (Figs 1 C; 3 A, B; 4 B, C) is simple, about 150 μm long. In WF09 it is surrounded by eosinophylic cells (Fig 5 F), presumed glandular and to secrete the shell of the egg cocoon. That of WF06 has no obvious glandular tissue surrounding it. In WF09, the posterior extremity of the ovovitelline ducts, and the proximal genito-intestinal duct are filled with an amorphous eosinophylic material.</p><p>In WF06, testes (Fig 2 B) are present just above the nerve cord on each side between the ovaries and the pharynx. The number is uncertain because most appear spent and some are barely distinguishable. There are perhaps four discernable on one side and two on the other. Larger ones are ovate, about 50 μm high and 20 μm long (presumably distorted due to longitudinal contraction of the worm). Only one or two possible spent testes are visible in WF09. A narrow sperm duct, &lt;10 μm wide, runs posteriorly on the inner dorsal surface of the ventral nerve cord on each side. In both specimens each sperm duct expands posterior to the pharynx to about 35 μm wide to form a false seminal vesicle containing stored sperm (cyanophylic) (Figs 3 B; 4 A, B, D, E; 5 B, C). They then turn dorsally, narrow slightly to 15 μm wide, then to less than 10 μm and open separately but close together into the anterior end of the ejaculatory duct of the penis (Figs 4 C; 5 A, C). The penis (Figs 1 C; 3 A, B; 4 A, B, C, E; 5 B, C, D, E, F) is conical, outer diameter about 220 μm at its base and narrowing towards its distal end. In WF06 the penis is partly protruded through the gonopore and is about 400 μm long (Figs 1 C; 3 A, B; 4 A, B, C, E). In WF09 the penis is inserted into the common female duct to the latter’s posterior extent (Fig 5). The musculature of the penis consists of outer longitudinal fibres, loose central tissue and a dense layer of circular muscle surrounding the ejaculatory duct. In the penis of WF06 the ejaculatory duct is centric throughout the length of the penis. In WF09 the ejaculatory duct is centric for most of the length of the penis, but is eccentric for a short distance in the mid part. The basal half of the ejaculatory duct in both specimens is lined with, and almost occluded by, eosinophylic cells, presumed to be glandular. The distal portion in both specimens contains amorphous eosinophylic material, almost plugging the duct.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0873356DDB67FFACBCA9DDE9C5B6FE63	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Jones, Hugh D.;Mcdonald, Jillian C.	Jones, Hugh D., Mcdonald, Jillian C. (2021): A new species of terrestrial planarian of the genus Microplana (Platyhelminthes Turbellaria; Tricladida: Continenticola) from Yorkshire, United Kingdom; with a discussion of Microplana humicola Vejdovsky 1890. Zootaxa 4980 (1): 174-184, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4980.1.11
0873356DDB61FFA7BCA9DD05C1D8FB87.text	0873356DDB61FFA7BCA9DD05C1D8FB87.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Microplana humicola Vejdovsky 1890	<div><p>Microplana humicola Vejdovsky, 1890 .</p><p>Vejdovsky (1890) described small white terrestrial planarians found in 1887 in a manure heap near Bechlin, Bohemia (now Czech Republic) as (translated from the original French): “shining body of snow-white”; “not flattened”; 1–2 mm long in July; 4–6 mm long in September; “and probably increased further after the genitals acquired their complete development”. Vejdovsky (1890) examined gently squashed whole live specimens by translucency and was unable to preserve or section any specimens.</p><p>A pair of eyes were present as very small black spots situated on the anterior lobe of the anterior expansion of the ventral nerve cord on each side, smaller than he has seen in any other planarian. There were two pairs of testes. Sperm ducts (his Plate II, Fig 15) are shown joining anterior to the penis to form a single seminal vesicle full of mature sperm, which opens into the base of the penis via a single opening. A blind sac (“glande accessoire”; his Plate II, Figs 12 &amp; 15) opens near the junction of the ovovitelline ducts, but the description of the female ducts in this region is vague. There was no genito-intestinal connection.</p><p>Schneider (1935) described similar specimens found in Graz, Austria and in Cologne, Germany and considered them to be the same species as those of Vejdovsky (1890). These were 2.8–3.6 mm long and pure milk white (translated from the original German). The anterior end was transparent and the two eyes visible as fine dots. There were two pairs of testes. His Fig 2 shows the sperm ducts as dashed lines approaching the base of the penis separately but that diagram has little detail. His Fig 3 shows a “vesicula seminalis” at the base of the penis. It lacks stored sperm and unfortunately the diagram does not show the entry of the sperm ducts. The text states that “On my animals (sperm ducts) were not raised to false seminal vesicles”. He continues: “The well-formed, elongated cone-shaped penis protrudes from above into the atrium masculinium. The muscular penile bulb surrounds the elongated eggshaped seminal vesicle, which gradually narrows downwards and passes into the ejaculatory duct.” Thus, what he calls the seminal vesicle is inside the muscular bulb of the penis and appears to be the proximal, wider, part of the ejaculatory duct within the penis. The lack of stored sperm in any part of the male system could be because the specimens were either not fully mature or possibly spent. A genito-intestinal duct was present opening near the junction of the ovovitelline ducts and their opening into the common female duct. The opening of this duct into the intestine is shown (his Fig 5) as an expanded, funnel-like opening.</p><p>None of Schneider’s material is known to survive.</p><p>Pantin (1953) concludes that there is a “fair probability” that Schneider’s (1935) specimens were the same as Vejdovsky’s (1890) and nominated M. humicola as the type species of the genus Microplana . This has been accepted by subsequent revisions (e.g. Ogren &amp; Kawakatsu, 1988). However: there must be considerable doubt about the similarity of the specimens of Vejdovsky (1890) to those of Schneider (1935), despite Pantin’s (1953) conclusion. The approach of the sperm ducts to the base of the penis is different, and in Vejdovsky’s (1890) specimens there was a blind “glande accessoire” (equivalent to a copulatory bursa present in some species) joining at the posterior of the female duct, whereas Schneider’s (1935) specimens had a genito-intestinal connection. These two differences alone call into question the co-specificity of the specimens. There are apparently no known specimens of M. humicola in any collection. Thus any comparison has to rely solely on the descriptions of Vejdovsky (1890) and Schneider (1935).</p><p>Our specimens are larger than those of either Vejdovsky (1890) or Schneider (1935). The eyes of our specimens are similarly small. Both Vejdovsky’s (1890) and Schneider’s (1935) specimens had two pairs of testes, stated to be dorsal in the latter. Our specimens have an uncertain number of testes but apparently more than two pairs. The sperm ducts in both our specimens are expanded and contain stored sperm (false seminal vesicles), whereas Vejdovsky’s (1890) specimens had a single seminal vesicle with stored sperm. Schneider (1935) did not note any stored sperm. The opening of the genito-intestinal duct into the intestine in our specimens is diffuse and indistinct, whereas Schneider (1935) shows the opening as a funnel-shaped opening. There was no genito-intestinal duct in Vejdovsky’s (1890) specimens, but a blind “glande accessoire” was present.</p><p>Thus our specimens have more in common with those of Schneider (1935) than with those of Vejdovsky (1890). But the number of testes and the form of the genito-intestinal opening are different. Thus we consider them not to be Microplana humicola .</p><p>Jones (2005) reported that M. humicola had been found in three localities in the U.K. This identification must be considered extremely doubtful and should be disregarded. The specimens were small and white, thus superficially similar to M. edwardsi . One of these specimens (in the collection of HDJ, collected 23 April 1983 from Noss Mayo, Devon, 50.311143, -4.045371) was sectioned. Sections are 2 mm long, the mouth and gonopore are respectively 1.25 mm and 1.6 mm from the anterior end (62.5% and 80% of body length). The pharynx is cylindrical, 180 μm long and 175 μm in diameter. The gonopore opens into an atrium but there is no development of the penis. Ovaries, ovovitelline ducts, testes and sperm ducts are not discernable. Sub-epidermal longitudinal muscle bundles are present but no parenchymal longitudinal muscle bundles, unlike M. edwardsi . The eyecups are 30 μm in diameter, larger than in M. edwardsi . Both the latter characteristics suggest that this specimen is not M. edwardsi, though what species it is remains unknown.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0873356DDB61FFA7BCA9DD05C1D8FB87	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Jones, Hugh D.;Mcdonald, Jillian C.	Jones, Hugh D., Mcdonald, Jillian C. (2021): A new species of terrestrial planarian of the genus Microplana (Platyhelminthes Turbellaria; Tricladida: Continenticola) from Yorkshire, United Kingdom; with a discussion of Microplana humicola Vejdovsky 1890. Zootaxa 4980 (1): 174-184, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4980.1.11
0873356DDB6EFFA7BCA9DA00C531F99F.text	0873356DDB6EFFA7BCA9DA00C531F99F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Microplana nana Mateos 1998	<div><p>Microplana nana Mateos et al., 1998, as amended by Vila-Farré et al., 2011.</p><p>Fully stretched living specimens were 8–10 mm long, 0.5 mm wide. Preserved specimens up to 4 mm long x 0.7 mm. The dorsal surface is greyish with darker spots all over the surface; anterior end darker; creeping sole white. The eyes are described as “small ocelli at the anterior end”. Photographs by E. Mateos (pers. comm) of live specimens show that in M. nana the pair of eyes are clearly visible and are each surrounded by a small white patch lacking the dark pigment. Our specimens are slightly smaller and the dark colouration is limited to the anterior rather than the whole length as in M. nana . We were not able to take macro pictures of the eyes of our specimens but the eyes are very small and not superficial, though the anterior end was strongly contracted. Microplana nana has approximately ten pairs of testes. The sperm ducts each expand anterior to the penis and contain stored sperm (false seminal vesicles), enter the base of the penis and discharge separately but close together to form the ejaculatory duct, similar to our specimens. The penis of M. nana is conical but the ejaculatory duct is eccentric, in the ventral half of the penis. The darker pigmentation, larger superficial eyes, and different position of the ejaculatory duct within the penis of M. nana compared to our specimens suggest that they are not of the same species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0873356DDB6EFFA7BCA9DA00C531F99F	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Jones, Hugh D.;Mcdonald, Jillian C.	Jones, Hugh D., Mcdonald, Jillian C. (2021): A new species of terrestrial planarian of the genus Microplana (Platyhelminthes Turbellaria; Tricladida: Continenticola) from Yorkshire, United Kingdom; with a discussion of Microplana humicola Vejdovsky 1890. Zootaxa 4980 (1): 174-184, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4980.1.11
0873356DDB6EFFA6BCA9D838C37FFD43.text	0873356DDB6EFFA6BCA9D838C37FFD43.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Microplana gadesensis Vila-Farre 2008	<div><p>Microplana gadesensis Vila-Farré et al., 2008 .</p><p>This species, found in south west Spain, is about 1 cm long and has a brown dorsal surface with dark dots. There are 4 to 6 pairs of testes. The sperm ducts open separately into the anterior of the penis bulb. A seminal vesicle is mentioned as part of the ejaculatory duct, but not figured. No mention is made of stored sperm. A genito-intestinal duct and a long conical penis are present, the latter projecting into the female genital atrium (similar to the WF09 specimen). The copulatory apparatus is thus broadly similar to our specimens and from the information available in Vila-Farré et al. (2008) we cannot pinpoint an anatomical character that that is definitively different. However, the colour alone is probably enough to distinguish our specimens from this species.</p><p>We are thus not able to identify the specimens with certainty as any previously described species of Microplana . Nor do they resemble any of the species listed under the collective species Statomicroplana . They are consequently described as a new species: Microplana edwardsi Jones &amp; McDonald.</p><p>Both specimens are fully mature, each with a well-developed copulatory apparatus and copious mature sperm in the sperm ducts. However, the testes in both are barely discernable and presumed to be spent. The ovaries and ovovitelline ducts, however, are well-developed. This could suggest that this species is protandrous. Vejdovsky (1890) notes that in M. humicola collected in September, the male apparatus was well developed but the female genital organs were not. Schneider (1935) comments that his specimens were protandrous.</p><p>Molecular studies of similar specimens might clarify matters as to their identity and their relationship to other species but the same specimens would have to be used for molecular analysis and anatomical description in order to be certain that the same species is being studied, similar to the protocol of Mateos et al. (2017).</p><p>The small size means that it is easily overlooked or can be confused for juvenile specimens of other species. For the same reason, its distribution is probably more widespread than the single locality known. We presume that the species is probably native to the British Isles rather than having been introduced, though there is no evidence either way. We can only speculate, again with no evidence, that it possibly feeds on small soil arthropods such as collembolans, but it could also be a scavenger, feeding on almost any dead or wounded animal. One of us (J. McD) attempted to keep specimens alive and offered them a variety of potential food items (earthworms, millipedes, slugs, slug eggs, snails, hatchling flatworms, even a fungus), but the specimens were not observed feeding on any item and dissolved soon after collection. Only chance observations in the field or further observations on captive animals, should they become available, would provide some evidence.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0873356DDB6EFFA6BCA9D838C37FFD43	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Jones, Hugh D.;Mcdonald, Jillian C.	Jones, Hugh D., Mcdonald, Jillian C. (2021): A new species of terrestrial planarian of the genus Microplana (Platyhelminthes Turbellaria; Tricladida: Continenticola) from Yorkshire, United Kingdom; with a discussion of Microplana humicola Vejdovsky 1890. Zootaxa 4980 (1): 174-184, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4980.1.11
