Peltodoris Bergh, 1880

Valdés, Ángel & Bertsch, Hans, 2010, Two new species of dorid nudibranchs from the Gulf of California (Mar de Cortés), Baja California, Mexico, add _ journal _ name _ here 33 (1), pp. 1-11 : 7

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.

Montereina MacFarland, 1905: 38 . Type species: Montereina nobilis MacFarland, 1905 , by original designation.

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.

Eliot (1906) pointed out that Peltodoris differs from Discodoris just 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 (e.g., Cattaneo-Vietti et al. 1990). However, most authors maintained the usage of Peltodoris as a valid genus ( Barletta 1981; Schmekel & Portmann 1982; Perrone 1992).

The phylogenetic analysis of the cryptobranch dorid nudibranchs carried out by Valdés (2002) indicated that Discodoris and Peltodoris belong in two different clades, and therefore the genus Peltodoris was retained as valid. However, a critical review of the literature based on the new available information is necessary to determine how many species assigned to Discodoris are actual members of Peltodoris .