中国香港虫目昆虫以及管虫属的研究(目)

根据近年来在香港地区采集到的一些虫目昆虫 ,经整理鉴定及文献记录 ,记述香港虫目昆虫 3科 6属 9种 ,其中有 1新种 :树基管虫 Sipyloidea shukayi,sp.nov.。制定了分类检索表 ,结合新种的鉴别 ,整理了全国管虫属 Sipyloidea已知种 ,制定出 8个种的检索表。新种模式标本保存在中国科学院上海昆虫研究所     

中国香港Xiu目昆虫以及管Xiu属的研究（Xiu目）

根据近年来在香港地区采集到的一些Xiu目昆虫,经整理鉴定及文献记录,香港Xiu目昆虫3科6属9种,其中有1新种：树基管XiuSipyloidea shukayi,sp.nov.。制定了分类检索表,结合新种的鉴别,整理了全国管Xiu属Sipyloidea已知种,制定出8个种的检索表。新种模式标本保存在中国科学院上海昆虫研究所。     

西藏鳞(虫兆)亚属二新种记述(弹尾目,鳞(虫兆)科)

记述采自西藏地区的弹尾目Collembola鳞(虫兆)科Tomoceridae鳞(虫兆)亚属Tomocerus(Tomocerus)2新种:黑带鳞(虫兆)Tomocerus(Tomocerus)nigrofasciatus sp.nov.(西藏:洛扎生格)和背崩鳞(虫兆)Tomocerus(Tomocerus)baibungensis sp.nov.(西藏:墨脱背崩),给出鉴别特征图以及在西藏地区的种检索表.新种模式标本保存在中国科学院动物研究所.     

中国介(虫脩)属一新种(虫脩)目,(虫脩)科)

描记了中国(虫脩)目(虫脩)科介(虫脩)属Interphasma Chen et He 1新种:雷公山介(虫脩)Interphasma leigongshanense sp.nov..模式标本保存在贵州大学昆虫研究所.     

中国奇刺(虫兆)属一新种及丽江奇刺(虫兆)的新分布

记述中国奇刺(虫兆)属具有6臀刺的1新种,卜氏奇刺姚Friesea buyuni sp.nov..文中给出奇刺(虫兆)属中具有2+2小眼种类的检索表;并给出丽江奇刺(虫兆)的新发布记录.模式标本保存在上海昆虫博物馆.     

云南省(虫齿)目二新种和灰背蛇(虫齿)的记述((虫齿)目:厚(虫齿)科、叉(虫齿)科、围(虫齿)科)

本文记述了云南省(虫齿)目二新种,Tapinella bannana sp.n.和Peripsocus plurimaculatus sp.n.及一新种记录种Ophiodopelma semicets Lee and Thornton,其雄虫为首次记载。     

越南华枝(虫骨)属一新种((虫骨)目:异(虫骨)科)

记述了华枝(虫骨)属Sinophasma Gnther一新种越北华枝(虫骨)Sinophasma vietnamense新种.描述了新种的外部形态特征,并与近似种比较区别,附主要特征图.     

威(虫兆)属一新种及阔(虫兆)属在我国的发现(昆虫纲:弹尾目)

描述了采自上海地区的威(虫兆)属一新种Willemia shanghaiensis,并报道中国新纪录种厚角阔(虫兆)Oncopodura crassicornis Shoebotham,1911.新种模式标本存放于中国科学院上海昆虫研究所标本馆.     

海南(虫糸)目昆虫一新种及一新纪录((虫糸)目:等尾(虫糸)科)

本文记述采自海南省的缺肢叶(虫糸)属Aposthonia Krauss 1911一个新种:海南丝(虫糸)A. hainanensis sp. nov. 并报导在海南和广东省采到的一个中国新纪录种:桑氏丝蚁Oligotoma saundersii(Westwood)。     

中国颚毛(虫兆)属二新种(弹尾目,疣(虫兆)科)

记述了采白海南和浙江省的弹尾目疣[虫兆]科颚毛[虫兆]属Crossodonthina Yosii,2新种,海南颚毛yao C．hainana sp．nov．和天童颚毛yao C．tiantongshana sp．nov．。海南颚毛[虫兆]头部每侧有眼2个,弹器痕上有6根刚毛,非常容易与本属其它已知种类分开。天童颚毛[虫兆]与上海产的Crossodonthina tridentiens Yue＆Yin,1999相似,两者的主要区别是：新种的上颚有两条长的、羽毛状分支和具5齿的片状突起,且基部齿长而细;下颚的内颚叶端部及近基部各有1齿;新种腹部第5节有3＋3个疣状突起,而C．tridentiens有2＋2个疣状突起;新种的爪部内侧有2个小齿,1个大齿,C．tridentiens只有1大齿。模式标本保存于上海生命科学研究院,植物生理生态所昆虫标本馆。     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.