Homeopronematus staercki, De VisK & VervaetK & ReybroeckK & VanlommelK & HavermaetK & Foqué & MarcossiK & PalliniK & AssisK & LeeuwenK & UeckermannK, 2024

cf. staercki sp.nov., Kazmierski” is H. anconai

As stated in the introduction, the literature is ambiguous in the description of the two species, H. anconai and H. staercki . The description of H. staercki ( Schruft 1972) is so poor that the species could be synonymized with any species of the genus and no redescription has ever been proposed to clear out eventual differences with H. anconai . Schruft (1972) does not mention the shape of seta ag 3 in his description of H. staercki while it is forked in H. anconai ( Baker 1968 ; Kuznetsov 1972 ; Knop and Hoy 1983a ; this study). As the material used for the description H. staercki is lost, we cannot check this.

The specimens previously identified as H. staercki we could study are not different from H. anconai : they have identical body and leg chaetotaxy, no differences in the form of the setae could be distinguished, ag3 is forked, the length of the eupathidia coincide with those H of. anconai , the striae are lobed. In the PCA they fall within the ‘cloud’ of H. anconai ( Figure 14A View Figure 14 ). No differences could be detected in the shape of the setae, or the striation density. The dimensions of the Hungarian male we measured fall within the range of the Belgian males. Despite the large number of specimens from different origins we studied, we could not find one specimen that can be clearly distinguished from H. anconai . According to Knop and Hoy (1983a), the variability within the species is high which is confirmed in this study.

The differences as discussed by other authors are very small and are not sufficiently supported by descriptions with (range of) measurements and/or drawings: André (1980)

studied the types of H. staercki and found for this species a shorter c2, a higher striation density and further different “shape and length of idiosomal setae” (sic). We found that the variability in the length of c2 of H. anconai is indeed very high, varying between 15 and 21 µm. The striation leaves us with some doubt but also variability of this characteristic can be observed. Moreover, the density might be influenced by mounting or the state of the specimens at mounting. Finally, the shape and length of the setae are not described in detail.

Ripka et al. (2022) stated that the tectal and proral eupathidia on tarsus I of H. anconai are all four equal in length, while in H. staercki the tectals are nearly twice as long as the prorals.

Our data show that in H. anconai tectals are nearly twice as long as the prorals, confirming descriptions of other authors ( Baker 1968 ; Kuznetsov 1972 ; André 1980).

So based on our data and the previous arguments, we synonymise H. staercki with H. anconai as previously suggested by other authors ( Knop and Hoy 1983a ; Ueckermann et al.

2019).

Similarly, the specimens identified as Homeopronematus “ cf. staercki sp.nov., Kazmierski”

(see Stojnić et al. 2002) are H. anconai . The measurements of these specimens fall in the range of the European H. anconai specimens ( Table 2 and Figure 14 View Figure 14 ).

Unguinals and seta. s As for P. ubiquitus , we found two forked unguinals and a seta homologous to s. We confirm that this seta s is erroneously named u′ in Figure 1a & 1b View Figure 1 in Knop and Hoy (1983a), as the position of u′ is ventral and proximal to p′ζ and the depicted u′ in Knop and Hoy (1983a) is in between the two prorals, which is the positions of seta homologous to s. Additionally, it is not forked, while both u)(are forked ( Figures 3 View Figure 3 & 6c, d View Figure 6 ). As in H. anconai ,

seta homologous to s is also present in all stages of Q. nordestinus n. gen. n. sp., except in the larval stage, as well as that both unguinals are forked.