identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03B587DBFFD6FA4BFF1056F601E044AF.text	03B587DBFFD6FA4BFF1056F601E044AF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhopalodina lageniformis Gray 1853	<div><p>Rhopalodina lageniformis Gray, 1853</p><p>Figure 1</p><p>Rhopalodina lageniformis Gray, 1853: 301 –302; Panning, 1932 (synonymy); 362–372, plates 1 &amp; 2; Panning 1935 (synonymy): 24–27; Cherbonnier, 1958: 294; 1965: 10; Heding, 1937 (passim): 36–39,</p><p>Diagnosis (amended herein). A medium-sized rhopalodinid holothuroid (holotype 42 mm in length); proboscis and sphere clearly delineated. Tentacle number approximately 20 (15 + 5). Radial plates of calcareous ring with short paired posterior prolongations and several anterior incisions. Pedicels may or may not traverse ventral pole of sphere. Body wall deposits include tables, normally restricted to sphere (absent in the holotype) and multilocular plates. Table discs with crenulated or smooth margins; spire of moderate height (± 90 µm), of four pillars, with/ without crossbars, usually terminating in a ring or cluster of few to many spines. Plates thick, delicate, smooth, with/without super-structure; non-spired cruciform plates present at pole of sphere. Pedicels with curved or elongated, plate-like rods.</p><p>Material examined. Holotype NHM, UK, 1938.8.23.67, Congo Expedition.</p><p>Remarks. Rhopalodina lageniformis was described by Gray (1853) from a single specimen collected from the Congo. Gray commented that the whole of the internal organs appeared to be destroyed, either by diluted alcohol or by evisceration, and that the animal was so compressed leaving no internal cavity. However, on careful examination Gray determined that the body form of his unique specimen was ovate with a slight keel on each side. The holotype of the species at NHM, UK is in an excellent state of preservation and the “keel” is not obvious. However, it lacks internal organs thus corroborating Gray’s observations.</p><p>Gray’s description of the species is superficial. Since then this species was described by Semper (1868), Ludwig (1877, 1889), E. Perrier (1886), Panning (1932, 1935), Heding (1937, passim) and Heding &amp; Panning (1954). It is not clear from these works whether anyone re-examined the holotype for we have failed to find any descriptions or illustrations of its calcareous deposits. In addition, the number of tentacles and the form of the calcareous ring of the type remain undetermined. Semper (1868), whose description of the species is quite detailed, illustrates just one table and one pedicel rod of his material which he identified as R. lageniformis . The only reasonable illustrations of the deposits of presumably this species are those of Panning (1935) but once again not from the type but from some materials in the Hamburg Museum. The tentacle number of this species has been worked out by Heding (1937) and the calcareous ring illustrated by both Semper (1868) and Heding (1937).</p><p>We hence provide descriptions and figures of the calcareous deposits of the type but did not dissect it to determine the tentacle number and the form of the calcareous ring. We are in no position to determine whether the identifications of materials of the above authors to R. lageniformis are correct, since several variations from the type have relatively recently been described as new species by Heding (1937), Panning (1935) and Cherbonnier (1965, 1988).</p><p>The external morphology of the type is adequately described by Gray. It is here noted that the tube feet, which are restricted to the sphere, are almost threadlike (filiform), and up to 2 mm in length, with an expanded terminal sucker. Contrary to Heding’s (1937) observations, and Thandar’s (2001) reiteration of the characteristic of Rhopalodina, the tube feet of the mid-ventral ambulacrum clearly traverse the ventral pole of the sphere as they do in both Rhopalodinopsis Heding and Rhopalodinaria Cherbonnier, the other two genera of the family. Since tube feet at the pole of the sphere are also present in other species of Rhopalodina, namely R. cabrinovici n. sp., R. pachyderma Panning and R. parvalamina Cherbonnier, Rhopalodina cannot now be characterized as lacking tube feet in the pole of the sphere. Despite this, the polytentaculate genera Rhopalodina and Rhopalodinopsis are still valid, characterised by the clear separation of the mouth and anus in the latter and their close association as to be almost indistinguishable, in the former. In addition, the numerous, non-imbricating, small knobbed, minute plates of the sphere in Rhopalodinopsis are very distinctive and there are rosette-shaped granules in the tentacles.</p><p>The proboscis also bears sparse outgrowths which may be either reduced tube feet or epizoons. The length of the proboscis is 29 mm, and the entire animal, including the sphere, is 42 mm. These measurements are slightly smaller than those recorded by Gray and can be attributed to subsequent shrinkage.</p><p>Both the proboscis and the sphere of the type are characterized by large imbricating, round to oval, multilocular, smooth plates, with those of the proboscis (Figure 1 A) being slightly smaller than those of the sphere (Figure 1 C) (proboscis plates 301–586 µm, mean 436.5 µm, ± 72.88, n = 10; sphere: 457–561 µm, mean 509.3 µm, ± 34.78, n = 10). These measurements are much smaller than those recorded by Panning (1935) who reports a maximum diameter of over 1 mm for both the proboscis and sphere plates. The holes of the plates are fairly large, measuring up to 56 µm and 70 µm in diameter in the proboscis and sphere respectively. Despite numerous attempts we found no tables in either the proboscis or the sphere and no evidence that these were dissolved in the preserving fluid. No ossicles, except some broken rods were detected in the tube feet (Figure 1 B) but no clues to betray their original structure. We also found no evidence of any end-plates. Panning (1935) report some cross-shaped, perforated, spired plates from the pole of the sphere in his material. We also find similar plates in the pole of the sphere of the type but their spires are not obvious (Figure 1 E).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B587DBFFD6FA4BFF1056F601E044AF	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	Thandar, Ahmed S.;Arumugam, Preyan	Thandar, Ahmed S., Arumugam, Preyan (2011): On some rhopalodinid sea cucumbers in the collections of the Natural History Museum, U. K. (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea: Dactylochirotida). Zootaxa 2982: 49-58, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.205052
03B587DBFFD4FA4DFF1050580698429E.text	03B587DBFFD4FA4DFF1050580698429E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rholpalodina cabrinovici	<div><p>Rholpalodina cabrinovici n. sp.</p><p>Figures 2, 4 A–C</p><p>Diagnosis. Proboscis and sphere clearly demarcated; reaching approximately 50 mm in total length. Tentacle about 20 in two circles of five large and 15 smaller ones of varying size inside these. Body wall deposits of sphere and proboscis comprise a superficial layer of tables lying outside a layer of large, smooth multilocular, imbricating plates plus other smaller, also multilocular plates interspersed amongst them. Table discs cup-shaped with the rim denticulate and turned up to give to some tables a cup and saucer appearance in lateral view; spire of moderate height, of four pillars, a single cross bar, terminating in a rather ill-defined crown.</p><p>Material examined. Holotype, NHM, 1914.12.23.4/5, Lagos, Nigeria, J. Cadman Esq., paratype, same data as holotype., 1 spec.</p><p>Etymology. This species is named after Mr. Andrew Cabrinovic of the Natural History Museum, U.K., to acknowledge his logistic support whenever the senior author visited this institution.</p><p>Description of holotype. Proboscis and sphere clearly demarcated, without one merging imperceptibly into the other. Holotype, larger of the two specimens, 49 mm in length (proboscis 27 mm, sphere 22 mm), diameter of proboscis 5 mm proximally, 3 mm distally, diameter of sphere 14 mm. Colour, in alcohol, proboscis creamish, sphere creamish-grey proximally, uniformly creamish at base. Tube feet very reduced, in two zigzag rows per ambulacrum, extending to the tip of sphere with mid-ventral ambulacrum crossing pole of the sphere. Mouth and anus set very close together, difficult to distinguish, the latter surrounded by anal papillae. Tentacles about 20, in two circles of five large elongated ones plus about 15 smaller ones of varying size; branches much reduced. Proboscis rigid, sphere not as soft as in other rhopalodinids. Both sphere and proboscis rough to the touch due to the presence of tables superficial to the large imbricating plates whose free ends are directed anterioriad with the perforations so aligned to give the impression of some sort of regular sculpturing on the surface.</p><p>Calcareous ring well calcified (Figure 4 A); radial plates broad, especially proximally with several anterior subdivisions and a slight posterior bifurcation; interradial plates smaller, triangular, broader proximally and narrower distally, with/without posterior indentation. Polian vesicle single; stone canal short, madreporite minute, beanshaped. Each respiratory tree subdivided into two well developed branches of which one is longer and attached to body wall. Gonad (ovary) much branched, full of developing or developed eggs, with the longer branch of the right respiratory tree intermingled with it.</p><p>Tables present in both proboscis and sphere lying outside a single layer of multilocular plates. Table discs of proboscis of moderate size (70–109 µm, mean 90.3 µm, ± 13.83, n = 4) (Figure 2 B), usually rounded with denticulate/spinose margins, turned up to give a saucer-like appearance, with four central holes and several smaller marginal holes in one or two series, rarely the central holes larger than the rest; spire low to moderate, terminating in a rather ill-defined crown; some tables reduced to form fenestrated spheres but these are rare. Discs of the tables of the sphere of similar size (74–119.5 µm, mean 97.5 µm, ± 14.12, n = 10) and form (Figure 2 D). Plates of the proboscis and sphere imbricating, of various form, circular, oval to elongate, of two distinct sizes, larger plates multilocular with the holes so arranged as to give the skin a characteristic sculpturing-like appearance in surface view. Larger plates of proboscis (1291–1449 µm, mean 1361.6 µm, ± 152.16, n = 10) (Figure 2 A) with several series of holes; smaller plates (142–270 µm, mean 225.4 µm, ± 43.93, n = 5). Plates of sphere also of two sizes, larger plates (670–1000 µm, mean 891.5 µm, ± 109.27, n = 10) with an irregular margin and often with an indentation for the passage of the tube foot where these are present (Figure 2 E). Small plates (217–518 µm, mean 386.6 µm, ± 101.27, n = 5) fewer, with fewer holes and uneven margins, dominant at pole of sphere (Figure 2 C). Tube feet rods of two types, those that are plate-like, multilocular with an elongated portion held at an angle to the main body of the plate and other rods typically of rhopalodinid type, that is curved with/without marginal projections but often with one or more perforations (Figure 4 B). Tentacle ossicles delicate, comprising rods of varying size and form, no two exactly identical but usually of two types, large ones sparingly perforated with spiny and/or irregular margins, the other curved with one or more marginal projections and terminal holes, resembling such rods of the tube feet.</p><p>Paratype not dissected (Figure 4 C), 45 mm in length (proboscis 21 mm, sphere 24 mm); midventral ambulacrum not clearly discernable at pole of sphere.</p><p>Remarks. It is with some hesitation that we describe the two NHM specimens as a new species as they strongly resemble R. pachyderma Panning, 1932 . However, they differ from it in their body form and the reduced denticulations of the table discs and the crowns of the spires. In Panning’s (1932, 1935) drawing of the body form of his species there is no sharp delimitation between the proboscis and the sphere, one is seen to imperceptibly merge into the other. This shape was verified in the type material of R. pachyderma received from the Hamburg Museum. According to Cherbonnier (1958, 1965) his specimens have the same body form as that described for the species by Panning. It is unfortunate that neither Cherbonnier nor Panning, who made in total four descriptions of this species, illustrate the plates of the body wall nor comment on the presence of the smaller plates interspersed between the larger ones, although such plates are present in the type of R. pachyderma we examined. We also failed to find large plates of about 2 mm long as recorded by Panning (1935). For comparative purposes we present here a table (Table 1) comparing the size of the plates of the type recorded by Panning (1935), that of the type measured by us, and those of our new species. Unfortunately, Cherbonnier does not give any measurements of the plates of his specimens.</p><p>Cherbonnier records the presence of about 20 tentacles in his 1958 material of R. pachyderma and 25 in his 1965 material. Panning (1932, 1935), on the other hand, makes no mention of the tentacle number of his species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B587DBFFD4FA4DFF1050580698429E	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	Thandar, Ahmed S.;Arumugam, Preyan	Thandar, Ahmed S., Arumugam, Preyan (2011): On some rhopalodinid sea cucumbers in the collections of the Natural History Museum, U. K. (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea: Dactylochirotida). Zootaxa 2982: 49-58, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.205052
03B587DBFFD2FA40FF10518C020B4363.text	03B587DBFFD2FA40FF10518C020B4363.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rholpalodina parvalamina Cherbonnier 1965	<div><p>Rholpalodina parvalamina Cherbonnier, 1965</p><p>Figures 3, 4 D</p><p>Rhopalodina parvalamina Cherbonnier, 1965: 665, 1 text-fig.</p><p>Diagnosis (after Cherbonnier 1965, amended herein). A rhopalodinid holothuroid with a sharp distinction between the proboscis and the sphere, 25–30 mm long. Tentacles 15. Anal papillae well developed. Tube feet often reach ventral pole of sphere. Deposits of body wall plates and tables. Plates of proboscis large, up to about 700 µm, imbricating, multilocular, often with a few tiny nodules at one end. Plates of sphere small (up to +/- 450 µm), button-like with four or more holes. Tables of proboscis small, discs up to 100 µm, with spinose margin. Tables of sphere larger, up to 165 µm, with irregular discs and denticulate crowns.</p><p>Material examined. NHM, 1957.7.2.56, off West Africa, A.R. Longhurst Coll., 2 specimens identified as Rhopalodina labeniformis (sic) Gray.</p><p>R. pachyderma (Type) R. pachyderma (Type) R. cabrinovici n. sp. ex Panning 1935 (our measurements)</p><p>Description. Of the two specimens the larger one is complete, measuring about 25 mm in length with a 13 mm proboscis (Figure 4 D); the other is only 16 mm with a 3 mm incomplete proboscis. Mouth and anus set close together; tentacles 15 (8 large + 7 small); anal papillae well developed. Tube feet minute, in two zigzag rows per ambulacrum, some reaching the ventral pole of sphere, sparsely distributed in some parts of sphere.</p><p>Plates of proboscis slightly imbricating but this is not obvious, large (558–667 µm, mean 623 µm, ± 44.4, n = 5), multilocular, round to oval with an undulating margin and without a superstructure but often with a few small nodules at one end (Figure 3 A). Plates of sphere mostly quadrilocular, much smaller than those of the proboscis (206–433 µm, mean 298.9 µm, ± 62.3, n = 10), though a few multilocular ones do occur (Figure 3 C). Tables of proboscis small, with spinose to slightly knobbed, rounded disc (82–97 µm, mean 89.9 µm, ± 5.19, n = 10) with a somewhat serrated margin, four central holes and usually four, sometimes more, peripheral holes; spire of four-pillars with distorted crowns, perhaps due to corrosion (Figure 3 B). Tables of the sphere larger, with smooth, irregular disc (118–162 µm, mean 136.4 µm, ± 14.7, n = 10) with several peripheral holes and also with a poorly developed spire (Figure 3 D). Tube feet deposits include typical curved rods of the rhopalodinid type (up to 178 µm) with spinose margins (Figure 3 F) as well as irregular, multilocular plates (289–500 µm, mean 390.7 µm, ± 69.1, n = 6) (Figure 3 E). Tentacle deposits similar to those illustrated by Cherbonnier (1965).</p><p>Remarks. This species was described by Cherbonnier (1965) from a single specimen collected from the coast of Cameroon at 17 m. As is usual of him, his description is complete. It is only with slight hesitation that we refer the two NHM, UK specimens to this species. One is the poor development of the spires of the tables and the other being the absence of an arch covering some of the holes on the proboscis plates as described for the type. The former may be due to the dissolution of the top of the spires and the latter as individual variation. Cherbonnier also does not comment on the definite size distinction between the tables of the sphere and the proboscis but his drawings allude to this difference.</p><p>Cherbonnier compares his species to R. lageniformis Gray and R. pachyderma Panning and distinguishes it from the latter on the basis of tube feet and tentacle deposits. However, this species can clearly be distinguished from other species of the genus by the differences in structure and size of both the tables and the plates of the proboscis and the sphere except for R. gracilis Panning. The latter species is, however, characterized by 20 tentacles and the equal dominance of large and small plates in the sphere, which also possesses tables with large, often cruciform discs.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B587DBFFD2FA40FF10518C020B4363	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	Thandar, Ahmed S.;Arumugam, Preyan	Thandar, Ahmed S., Arumugam, Preyan (2011): On some rhopalodinid sea cucumbers in the collections of the Natural History Museum, U. K. (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea: Dactylochirotida). Zootaxa 2982: 49-58, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.205052
