A world checklist of Onychophora (velvet worms), with notes on nomenclature and status of names

Abstract

Currently, the number of valid species of Onychophora is uncertain. To facilitate taxonomic work on this understudied animal group, we present an updated checklist for the two extant onychophoran subgroups, Peripatidae and Peripatopsidae , along with an assessment of the status of each species. According to our study, 82 species of Peripatidae and 115 species of Peripatopsidae have been described thus far. However, among these 197 species, 20 are nomina dubia due to major taxonomic inconsistencies. Apart from nomina dubia , many of the valid species also require revision, in particular representatives of Paraperipatus within the Peripatopsidae , and nearly all species of Peripatidae . In addition to extant representatives, the record of unambiguous fossils includes three species with uncertain relationship to the extant taxa. For all species, we provide a list of synonyms, information on types and type localities, as well as remarks on taxonomic and nomenclatural problems and misspellings. According to recent evidence of high endemism and cryptic speciation among the Peripatidae and Peripatopsidae , previous synonyms are revised. Putative mutations, subspecies and variations are either raised to the species status or synonymised with corresponding taxa. In our revised checklist, we follow the rules and recommendations of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to clarify previous inconsistencies.

Forest refugia in Western and Central Africa as ‘museums’ of Mesozoic biodiversity

“…This difference has been attributed to extinctions caused by forest fragmentation and potentially even the complete disappearance of the forest during past periods of severe aridification [5]. This is exemplified by the low diversity of another ancient group of soil animals, velvet worms (Onychophora Grube, 1853), with a single species of Peripatidae Evans, 1901 in tropical Africa (Gabon and Cameroon), when compared with four species in Southeast Asia and 68 in the Neotropics [27]. The relatively low diversity of the tropical African forests is consistent with the majority of molecular evidence, which suggests that rainforest endemics are mostly recent (Late Miocene -Pleistocene) and diversified according to the refugial speciation model [4].…”

A proposed solution to the species problem in velvet worm conservation (Onychophora)

“…Any errors that may be caused by cryptic species are small in comparison with the gain of protecting these extraordinary animals. Unlike poorly elaborated formal descriptions that too frequently complicate onychophoran taxonomy (de Sena Oliveira et al, 2012), common names will not burden the scientific nomenclature with invalid scientific names because they are not scientific names themselves, and will not interfere if formal descriptions are later published.…”

“…Beyond reasons of public image, the main practical obstacle in onychophoran conservation is the tremendous worldwide lag in the identification, description and naming of species (de Sena Oliveira et al, 2012). All species need names to associate them with information that can be used in their conservation.…”

“…All species need names to associate them with information that can be used in their conservation. These names do not necessarily have to be formal Linnaean binomials, and in the case of onychophorans, each locality usually has its own species (Monge-Nájera, 1995;Monge-Nájera & Lourenco, 1995;de Sena Oliveira et al, 2012).…”

“…Frequently, only one species has a particular color pattern in a particular place, and species ranges are small (de Sena Oliveira, Read & Mayer 2012;Barquero-González, et al, 2016a;2016b): in other words, if you know the color pattern and locality, you know the species. There are exceptions: cryptic species that look similar but are genetically different taxa (Daniels, Picker, Cowlin & Hamer, 2009), but there is currently no reason to believe that this a frequent case (for a review of species and their problems see de Sena Oliveira et al, 2012), and from the point of view of conservation, which is the point of view of our proposal, having a name that allows protection is better than having no name at all, even for cryptic species.…”