The general shape of the animal is moderately elongated fusiform just like that of usual notommatid rotifers of the genera, Taphrocampa, Notommata (tithasa and ometata), Resticula, Pleurotrocha (hyalina), and four allied genera, Proales (brevipes), Cochleare, Lindia (parrotti) and Proalides. Both extremities, i.e. head and tail, are usually truncated when contracted, but actually the tail ends in a degenerated foot provided with two large, protrusile toes. Since the body is devoid of lorica and transparent, the internal structures of the animal are observed with ease from outside. But in some cases the surface of the body is partly or wholly covered with dust or debris of the soil particles, and then the internal organization is difficult to observe from outside. The most particulate characters of the present genus are: first, the papillar projections associated with the peculiar dust-coating habit; second, a prominent dorsal antenna and a peculiar caudal elevation; third, remarkably large-sized two toes. Besides these characters, the vestigeal foot, the type of egg-carrying, the form of mastax, etc. are also highly peculiar. These will be described in detail in the following lines. (ref. ID; 3535)
Papillar Projections: The present rotifer is, in the case of f. vermiformis, provided with several (15-30) remarkable projections on the epidermis; these are arranged in three longitudinal rows on the dorsal and in two rows on the ventral integument. Each dorsal row usually consists of about 3-7 projections, each ventral row of 2-4 of them. And, these projections as well as the body surface are highly viscid in nature. Such projections as seen in the form vermiformis have never been reported before in the literature on the order Monogononta. Things like these, however, are found in two species, namely, Tylotrocha monopus (Jennings, 1894) under the family Notommatidae and Proalides subtilis (Rodewald, 1940) under the family Brachionidae. In the former species, the processes are described as "knob-like". But, these processes are only two (one pair) in number and exclusively located on the lateral sides of the middle part of the trunk (Harring & Myers, 1926, p. 516). In Proalides subtilis, on the other hand, projections - "buckelartige Fortsatze" (Rodewald 1940, p. 276) - are reported to be 3-5 in number and develop merely on the dorsal side arranged in a longitudinal row. Moreover, in those two species the projections are as the body surface never papillar in nature, consequently bearing no dust. It is highly probable that these species have no organs which might serve as sticky glands. Thus, not only in the number, distribution and the structure but also in the function of the organs, the present species is wholly different from T. monopus and P. subtilis. As to the dust-coating habit, it has already been reported for four species, i.e. Proalides tentaculatus, Taphrocampa selenura, Paradicranophorus hudsoni and Lindia parrotti, that the dorsal surface of the animal is highly viscous and usually covered with particles of certain materials just as in the present genus; so the body is covered with "debris divers" in Proalides (de Beauchamp, 1907), "floccose material" in Taphrocampa (Harring & Myers, 1926), "Detritus und Schlammteilchen" in Paradicranophorous (Wulfert, 1936) and "flocculent matter" in Lindia parrotti (Russell, 1947). However, in these species the marked papillar organs as those of the present species are wholly lacking on any part of their integument. (ref. ID; 3535)
Dorsal antenna: The genus Liliferotrocha has a fairly prominent dorsal antenna with a tuft of sensory cilia at the occipital region of the animal; its shape resembles that of only three species, namely, Proalides tentaculatus, Proalinopsis caudatus and Lindia parrotti, and is different from that of all other usual notommatid genera, e.g. Notommata, Taphrocampa, Pleurotrocha, Resticula, Tylotrocha and Proales. Here, it may be worthy to mention that other Proalides-spp. and usual Lindia-spp. have no such prominent antenna. (ref. ID; 3535)
Caudal Elevation; In Liliferotrocha, there is a single, moderately large, round, lobe-like elevation on the dorsal side of the caudal region. Similar elevations have been reported in a few species, for example, Notommata (falcinella, tripus), Proales and bdelloid rotifers. However, in the structural respect, the caudal elevation of the present genus is slightly related to the so-called spur. Rodewald (1940, p. 276) mentions in his species subtilis a "vorstulpbarer Fussanhang". It is highly probable that this projection on the foot is not identical with the author's elevation. Perhaps Rodewald simply mentions the toes which are very introversible. (ref. ID; 3535)
Toes: The present genus has remarkably large, sickle-shaped toes; they are as long as or a little less than one-fourth of the entire length of the body. Their size, shape and number are somewhat similar to those of Notommata (tithasa), Aspelta, Tetrasiphon, Sphyrias, Rousseletia, Euterplea and Proales (minima), and fairly different from those of other notommatids, e.g. Taphrocampa, Pleurotrocha, Thylotrocha, Resticula and allied genera Lindia and Proalides. The present genus has no such claws as found in Brachionus diversicornis, etc. (ref. ID; 3535)
Foot: In the present genus there is no distinct boundary between the foot and the body proper, which fact does not agree with the criteria of the subfamilies Proalinae, Tetrasiphoninae, Birgeinae, Dicranophorinae and the majority of the genera under the subfamily Notommatinae. (ref. ID; 3535)
Egg-Carrying
: In Liliferotrocha all sorts of the produced eggs, namely, amictic, unfertilized mictic and fertilized mictic are carried attached to the caudal extremity of the animal by means of the sticky substance secreted from the style glands at the coxal part of the toes. The egg carried in this way is usually one in number even in the unfertilized mictic female. This type of egg-carrying has been observed only in two rarest species, Proalides tentaculatus and Lindia parrotti (De Beauchamp 1907, p. 149, Fig. A; Wulfert 1941, p. 172, Fig. B; and Russell 1947, photo.), but not found in the usual families Notommatidae and Brachionidae. In Proalides tentaculatus and Lindia parrotti, however, there are no style glands but foot glands at the coxal part of the body. On this matter, de Beauchamp assumes that in Proalides tentaculatus the foot glands play a role in the egg-carrying. (ref. ID; 3535)
Mastax: According to Harring-Myers (1926, p. 416), the types of the trophi are the most important taxonomic character of the notommatid group, these authors divided the family Notommatidae into six subfamilies by the degree of departure from the original malleate type; 1) "Malleate"-like type occurring in Proalinae, 2) "Virgate" type in Notommatinae, 3) Type with an unusually developed epipharynx in Tetrasiphoninae, 4) "Cardate" type in Lindiinae, 5) virtual atrophi type with a pair of "pseudo-unci" in Birgeinae, and 6) "Forcipate" type in Dicranophorinae. Almost similar classifications founded chiefly upon the trophi types have been accepted by Remane (1933), Pennak (1953) Donner (1956) and Voigt (1956-57) for the taxonomy of this group of rotifers into families rather than subfamilies. The trophi type of Liliferotrocha appears to be changeable with stages of development; the embryonal trophi are of the malleate type, while those of the adult are subject to great modifications as in the uncinate type of the mastax. In the young, the fulcrum is extremely short, ending in an expanded plate or basal apophysis like that in Proalinae and also Lindia parrotti; the rami are triangular in shape and without alurae such as of tentaculatus (Wulfert, 1941); the unci have only a few teeth in the adult, while, in the embryo, they have about 7-8 teeth like those in the adult of Proalides and Proales. The manubria are both long, bent inwards symmetrically, provided with a spatulate expansions; and, certain spine-like projections as found in Pleurotrocha hyalina (Wulfert, 1939) are observed at both shoulders. The epipharynx which is found in Lindiinae and Tetrasiphoninae is not recognizable in this genus. From the features of the trophi just mentioned above, the present genus seems to be hardly related to almost any of the notommatid subfamilies, e.g. Dicranophorinae, Notommatinae, Birgeinae, Lindiinae, Tetrasiponinae (Lecanidae), except only Proalinae, especially Proales. The last mentioned subfamily is now treated under the family Lecanidae for the reason that it has the malleate type of the mastax. (ref. ID; 3535)
Neck segment: In the majority of the notommatid genera, there are found some remarkable constrictions which separate the head or the neck from the abdomen in front of, or behind, the mastax. The present genus is, however, totally lacking this organ as Lindia parrotti and Proalides. In this point, Liliferotrocha lies very remote from all the notommatid subfamilies except Tetrasiphoninae and one genus Taphrocampa under Notommatinae. (ref. ID; 3535)
Auricles: In the central group (cf. Harring-Myers) of the Notommatinae, namely, Notommata, Taphrocampa, Tylotrocha, Itura and also Lindia (s. str), this organ is reported to be well developed. In the present genus, however, any trace of it is not observed. (ref. ID; 3535)
Retrocerebral Organ: In the present genus, neither retrocerebral sac nor sub-cerebral glands are found as in Birgeinae; otherwise, they are markedly developed in many genera under the subfamily Notommatinae (except Pleurotrocha and Wulfertia) and Dicranophorinae as well as in all the genera of Lindiinae and Tetrasiphoninae. (ref. ID; 3535)
Other minute character: These is a fine rostrum-like projection at the tip of the head. The palp organ which has been reported in Roussseletia is not found. The corona is an oblique disc with well developed marginal cilia. The buccal field is comparatively small and evenly ciliated. The mouth is ventrally situated at the usual site, and on each side there are found certain projected regions, which may not be observed from the dorsal side. The post-oral portion does not project as chin, contrary to the genera Notommata, Lindia (except, parrotti) and Eothinia. The brain is situated at the normal site of the head, at the posterior end of which is observed one cervical eye spot, which appears to have a lens. In this point, Liliferotrocha differs from Tylotrocha, Drilophaga, Sphyrias, Eosphora and the majority of Dicranophorinae. The oesophagus is slender (15-23 um) and ciliated as in Taphrocampa, Notommata and Proales (?), and unlike Proalides, Proalinopsis, Pleurotrocha, etc. No remarkable salivery glands are recognized in Liliferotrocha, while they are found in Drilophaga, Resticula, Sphyrias, Eosphora, Enteroplea, Paradicranophorus, and also in Lindia, Notommata, Taphrocampa. The gastric glands are present at the normal position and of normal spherical shape, usually containing 6 nuclei each, and open into the stomach through a short duct, 5 um long and 1-2 um diameter. On this structural point, the present genus is different from such genera as Birgea, Pleurotrocha, Tylotrocha, Itura, Enteroplea, Wierzejskiella, Paradicranophorus, Proales, Cephalodella and Resticula. The intestine and the stomach are well distinguished. This is not the case in the subfamily Proalinae and also in such notommatid genera as Pleurotrocha, Rousseletia, Baltro, Lindia (parrotti), etc. The lateral antennae, situated at the posterior level of the first third of the body, are usually spindle-shaped, each provided with some sensory hairs. In this point, too, Liliferotrocha is not like Drilophaga, Taphrocampa, Rousseletia, Resticula, Enteroplea, Eothinia, Proalides and also the subfamilies Tetrasiphoninae and Lindiinae. The protonephridia are recognized as two lateral canals with a few flame bulbs and opening into a large bladder at a level between about 1/5 and 1/7 of the body from the posterior end, and the excreta are discharged into the cloaca through a short duct. Proalides has been reported to have neither protonephridia nor flame bulbs (de Beauchamp). The cloacal opening is dorsally located at the base of the toes. The vitellarium is large, having usually 8 nuclei in it. It is situated at the right side of the trunk and occupies most part of the body cavity, extending from above the stomach to below the intestine. The general contour of the dormant egg, which is considered to be an important generic character of the rotifers, does not seem to resemble that of Proales-spp. Further, the three kinds of eggs of the present genus can not be compared with those of other notommatid rotifers, since the corresponding eggs of other genera have not been described nor figured to date. (ref. ID; 3535)
Notes: Liliferotrocha is sharply distinguished from P. tentaculatus in having 1) caudal elevations, 2) particular papillar projections, 3) well developed toes, 4) lateral antennae, 5) a protonepharidial system, 6) a particular musculer system, and in wholly wanting 7) annulations and 8) the peculiar pattern on 5th annulation on the trunk. Further, it shows peculiarities in the structure of such digestive organs as 9) oesophagus (without cilia in tentaculatus), 10) gastric glands (with large-size nuclei in tentaculatus) and 11) ramus and fulcrum of the mastax (mallleo-ramete in tentaculatus after de Beauchamp). Of these, 3), 4), 5), 9) and 10) seem to have been overlooked by previous researchers using only a few or fixed individuals, but 1), 2), 6), 7), 8) and 11) are of great importance and well deserve the generic distinction. In this connection, it may be worthy to mention that there exist some morphological differences between the specimens identified as tentaculatus by de Beauchamp (1907) and those by Wulfert (1941). Such differences are found in the number of annulations, the presence or absence of chin, position of the eye, structure of fulcrum with apophysis, rami with alurae, number of vitellarium nuclei, situation of cloacal pore, and so on. Probably, Wulfert's specimen is distinct on the specific level from tentaculatus s. str. Liliferotrocha is distinguishable also from another proalid species, subtilis, in the characters of 1) caudal elevation (not toes), 2) rami of mastax, 3) papillar projections (developed also on the ventral side of the integument), 4) prominent dorsal antenna, 5) dust-coating habit, 6) type of bladder, 7) shape of toes, 8) foot glands (size), 9) corona (terminal in subtilis), 10) fulcrum, intramallei, and 11) ecology. Since no description is available of retrocerebral organ, gastric glands, egg-carrying type, vitellarium, protonephridium, etc. of subtilis, we cannot compare our species with subtilis on these points. The present author nevertheless quite agrees with Rodewald in assuming that his species, beyond doubt, belongs to the genus Proalides. On the other hand, genus Liliferotrocha differs clearly from Russelletia (= Lindia) parrotti in having 1) papillar projections, 2) caudal elevations, 3) lateral antennae, 4) toes of special shape and size (like L. tecusa in parrotti) and in lacking 5) the annulations 6) the semi-circular retractile chin, again also in 7) the minute structure of the digestive organ (stomach is not separated from the intestine in parrotti), 8) the type of the trophi, besides 9) some ecological characters (habitat, occurrence, etc.) (ref. ID; 3535)
