BAFAE + RAFRMAFTE, 315, WIA: 61-86. FMS Bull. Fuji Women’s College, No. 31, Ser. I: 61-86. 1993. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS OF THE PREVIOUS LAND PLANARIAN INDICES OF THE WORLD (TURBELLARIA, TRICLADIDA, TERRICOLA) ADDENDUM II. HALLE7’s (1890-1893, 1894) CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OF LAND PLANARIANS ADDENDUM III. WINSOR’s (1991 b) PROVISIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND CAENOPLANID LAND PLANARIANS” by ROBERT E. OGREN, MASAHARU KAWAKATSU and EUDOXIA MARIA FROEHLICH ADDENDUM II. HALLEZ’s (1890-1893, 1894) CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OF LAND PLANARIANS ‘A. INTRODUCTION A very significant classification system on Turbellarians published in early 1890 were undoubtedly HALLEz's taxonomic contributions. At first he published serial articles entitled “Cata- logue des Turbellariés (Rhabdocoelides, Triclades et Dendrocoelides) du Nord de ta France & de la Cote Boulonnaise” (1890-1893, in Revue Biologique du Nord de la France, Lille, tome II, nos. 4- January, 5-February, 6-March, &-May, and 10-July, in 1890, IV, nos. 8-May, 9-June, 11-August, and V, no, 3-December, in 1892, nos. 4-January, and 5-February, in 1893). This serial publication has 186 pages with 2 plates (pls. V in color and VI — not pls. III and IV as indicated on p. 197 of the final article published in 1893), In 5 earlier articles published in 1890, a part of the title in parentheses states “(Rhabdocoelids et Dendrocoelides)”. After completing the series of 1890-1893 articles, he published the 2nd Edition in 1894 in book form: “Catalogue des Rhabdocoelides, Triclades & Polyclades du Nord 1) This paper is affectionately dedicated to the late Dr. Diva Diniz Conkta, Professor Emeritus of Universidade de Sao Paulo, who passed away on April 28, 1993, at S40 Paulo, Brazil. She would have been 75 on her next birthday. The deceased was recognized as the authority on taxonomic studies of planarians and nemerteans in Brazil and was a respected friend of the authors. Her latest contribution was "Dr. Eveline du Bois-Reymond Marcus” published in the 1991 issue of Hydrobiologia (227: xxiii-xxvi; S.TYLER (ed), Turbellarian Biology). We will long remember the scientific life and work of the late Dr.D.D. CoRREA (May 10, 1918-April 28, 1993) —61—de la France. 2° Edition” (Imprimerie L. Danel, Lille). This book contained 239 pages with 2 plates (pls. I in color and I). The plates attached to the 1894 book are the same as those published in 1893. ‘This account recognizes the centennial of these important publications. HALLLEZ (1892, IV, no. 8, pp. 322-324) compared STIMPSON's (1857) and DIbSING’s (1862 [1861]) classification systems of triclad Turbellarians in tabular form (see also pp. 114-118 in the 1894 book). HALLEZ (1892, IV, no. 8, pp. 304-326), using concepts of his historical period relating to metazoan classification, proposed the division of order Triclada into 2 main groups on the basis of the embryonic derivation of mesenchyme and affinities with other phyla. 1. Diploblastica - Metazoans with embryos having a messenchyme which arises from the ectoderm ; 2 basic germ layers; incorporates Rhabdocoelida and Triclada. 2. Triploblastica - Metazoans with embryos having a mesoderm apart from the ectoderm ; and 3 basic germ layers; incorporates the Polyclada In his later work (HALLEZ, 1894, pp. 54-56), a broad classification of metazoans is given, indicating where he placed various large groups. Thus, diploblastic taxa included Porifera, Coelenter- ata, Platodes, Turbellaria, Nemertiens, Trematoda, and Cestoda. Triploblastic taxa included Poly- clades and the remaining invertebrate groups. HALLEz (1892, VI, no. 8, pp. 322-326) reviewed the classifications known at the time and proposed subdividing Triclada on the basis of habitat and similarity of morphology, a scheme he reiterated later (HALLEZ, 1894, p. 55): Maricola- marine habitat; Terricola - terrestrial habitat Paludicola ~ freshwater habitat. Thus, he proposed the following in outline form 1. Diploblastica -Rhabdocoelida. ~Triclada: Maricola, Paludicola, Terricola. ~ Polyclada. (Note: Today these marine species are called Polycladida.} 's classification system for Terricola is found on pages 92-107 (1892, V, no. 3) and 2. Triploblastis HALL summarized on pages 143-145 (1893, V, no.4). He listed the follow tions with discussion of each genus: a) Leimacopsidae DIESING, 1862 (genus Leimacopsis) b) Geoplanidae STIMPSON, 1857 (genus Geoplana (syn. Geobia, Coenoplana), Geodesmus, Rhynchodemus, Dolichoplana, Microplana and Sphyrocephalus (syn. Bipalium)) ©) Polycladidae STIMPSON, 1857 (for Polycladus gayi). (Note: These are not the marine Polyclada which he assigned to Triploblastica.) In his later character key summary (HALLEZ, 1893, V, no.4, p.114), the genus Bipaliian STIMPSON, 1857, appears alone without Sphyrocephalus SCHMARDA, 18 dropped the latter as a synonym, He also indicated (HALLEZ, 1894, p. 140) that if the 2 genera were joined into a single genus the name would be Bipalium and the more recently created name must disappear. However, HALLEZ (1894, pp. 134, 139-141, 151) appeared to favor Sphyrocephalus over ng families and genera by defini: , suggesting he may have Bipalivm with the following opinions, regardless of the fact that Bipalium had priority over Sphyro- cephalus: Sphyvocephatus (- Bipalium), Sphyrocephalus (= Bipalium) kewense ; and HALLBZ (1892, V, no. 3, p.105) remarks that Bipalium is joined with Sphyrocephatus. He does compare the generic diagnoses indicating that SCHAMRDA (1859, p. 36) used a very general common character, namely the head shape “Caput oblongum malleiforme”. On the other hand, the difinition given by STIMPSON (1857, p. 25; see OGREN & KAWAKATSU, 1987, p.79) and repeated by MOSELEY (1875, p.108), was quite detailed, HALLEZ (1890-1893, 1894) does not provide any further arguments to support the choice of Sphyro: cephalus over Bipalium except, that the former had a more general definition and the latter was more SHspecific. This way of settling priority is not followed in the Code of Zoological Nomenclature of today. In the final key to genera of Terricola (HALLEZ, 1894, p.151), the genus Bipalium was no longer listed as previously. It is worthy of note, that HUMBERT & CLAPEREDE (1862) had already shown that Sphyrocephalus was indeed a synonym of Bipalium. Nevertheless, it was not until the works of VON GRAFF (1896, 1899) that the priority of Bipalion was firmly established. HALLEZ (1892, V, no. 3, p.101; 1894, pp. 141-145, 151) reviewed the genera Rhynchodemus Lety, 1861, and Geodesmus METSCHNIKOFE, 1865, which have fundamentally similar definitions. It ided by MOSELEY (1877) that Rhynchodemus had priority and Geodesmus was a synonym of the former. Nevertheless, HALLEZ (1892, V, no.3, pp. 99-100; 1894, pp. 141-142, 151) retained Geodesmus as a valid genus, which was suppressed later by VON GRAFF (1896, 1899). Following HALLE?'s review (1892, V, no. 3, p.101) of Rhyychodemus, there was a useful taxonomic key for the 18 known species based on external features (including 2 erroneous names, R. Twaitesii and R. Victorioe) ; and in his 1894 book (pp. 142-145) the list was the same but the 2 names, Rhynchodemus Thuwaitesii and Rhynchodemus Victoriae, were corrected. HALLEZ (1892, V, no. 3, pp. 95-97; 1894, pp. 137-139) also combined the problematic genera Geobia DIESING, 1862, and Coenoplana [sic] MOSELEY, 1877, under the genus Geoplana STIMPSON, 1857. was already de Note: The correct scientific name of Riynclodenus thwaitesii Moseley, 1875, is Microplana theaitesi (MoseLEY, 1875) (cf. OOREN & KaWAKATSU, 1989, pp. 77-78); that of Riiynchodemus Vicloriae DENDY, 1890, is Plalydemus sictoriae (DENDY, 1890) (cf. OGREN & KAWAKATSU, 1988 b, pp.66-67). The correct spelling of Coenoplana by the original author ig Caenoplana (cf, OGREN & KWAKATSU, 1988 b, pp. 85-86). It can be seen from the above cited parts from HALLEZ's 1894 book (see pp. 57-58, 114-118, 133-151, 190-192) that they are essentially the same as his 1890-1893 articles. Some misprintings are found in the book by the use of linked types “ae” and “oe”. For example, “Planariadoe” on page 114 should read as “Planariadae” (i.¢., Planariidae). ‘The main features of the family Leimacopsidae DIBSING, 1861, were presented again by HALLEZ (1890-1893, 1894) and he recognized Leimacopsis terricola (SCHMARDA, 1859), as an exceptional form among the Terricola because of its 2 frontal tentacles with eyes at the base, ventral mouth in anterior third and the greatly rounded form of the body. He pointed out the need for more anatomical knowledge about body structure, digestive and reproductive organs in order to accurately determine the affinities of this animal, Although HALLEZ's (1894) classification of land planarians was extensively revised by VON GRAFF (1896, 1899, 1912-1917), the old family Leimacopsidae continued to be employed by VON GRAFF (op. cit). Today we consider the monotypic genus and species, Leimacopsis terricola (olim Prostheceraeus terricola; a new generic name Leimacopsis was employed by DIESING, 1861; VON GRAFF used Limacopsis after 1899), to be a species dubium (cf. OGREN & KAWAKATSU, 1991, pp. 99~ 101; OGREN, 1992a, b; see the section "What is Leimacopsis terricola (SCHMARDA, 1859)" in the present paper) and strongly support the advice of HALLEZ (op. cif.) mentioned above that the systematic affinities in only be determined when detailed anatomical knowledge is available. ADDENDUM Ill. WINSOR’s (1991 b) PROVISIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND CAENOPLANID LAND PLANARIANS A. INTRODUCTION Recently, Mr. Leigh WINSOR published two papers (1991 a, b) with new taxa. In the first —63—