Dicranophorus (O.F. Muller, 1773) (ref. ID; 1345), Nitzsch, 1827 (ref. ID; 2019, 2276, 2715, 2978, 3514, 3688) or (Nitzsch, 1927) (ref. ID; 1923, 1931) reported year? (ref. ID; 3334)
Class Monogonontaet: Order Ploimida: Family Dicranophoridae (ref. ID; 6806)

Synonym Arthroglena Bergendal, 1892 (ref. ID; 3688); Dekinia Morren, 1830 (ref. ID; 3688); Diglena (ref. ID; 1923); Distemma Ehrenberg, 1830 (ref. ID; 2978, 3688); Kermodon Corda, 1843 (ref. ID; 3688)

[ref. ID; 1663]
Corona essentially ventral. Rostrum conspicuous. Two frontal eyespots. Retrocerebral sac present and large. Rami often with shearing teeth. Unci robust. Toes prominent not fused. Littoral species. (ref. ID; 1663)

[ref. ID; 1931]
With thin and partly loricate body. Abdomen ending in short tail; Foot short with toes of variable length. Trophi forcipate, rami with teeth on the inner margin and manubria expanded anteriorly. (ref. ID; 1931)

[ref. ID; 3334]
The members of this genus are usually partially loricated. The mastax has protrusible forcipate trophi. The manubrium is attached directly to the uncus and the uncus and rami join near their tips. The retrocerebral sac is unusually large and the sub-cerebral glands are absent. There are usually two eyes on the brain. The foot, which ends in two strong toes, is shorter than the lorica. A very active predatory group. (ref. ID; 3334)


Dicranophorus aquilus (Gosse) after Harring & Myers (ref. ID; 2596)
Comments; This species was described by Harring & Myers as Dicranophrous uncinatus (Milne). Comparing D. uncinatus and D. aquilus: D. aquilus has a slenderer body, less gibbous dorsally; the head is longer, constriction absent, and the corona more ventrally placed, almost in the body axis; the foot and tail are more pronounced than in D. uncinatus. The toes are longer, slenderer, and lack the slight S-shaped curve of D. uncinatus. The trophi of D. aquilus differ in a number of respects from those of D. uncinatus; the rami are longer and at half their length noticeably narrowed; the secondary tooth of each ramus is longer and more needlelike; the unci have a knoblike enlargement beyond half their length which is absent in D. uncinatus, the intramallei are smaller, more narrowly triangular and the supramanubria are not broad plates as in D. uncinatus; the manubria are longer and curved outward toward their tips where they end is a slight enlargement; in D. uncinatus they curve inward without the terminal enlargement. The ducts of the retrocerebral sac are rudimentary and do not contain the granules seen in D. uncinatus. Gosse's name (Diglena aquila) has appeared in several publications. Different authors have taken different features of Gosse's description as a basis for the identification of their specimens. It may be concluded that, at least in some cases, the specimens while agreeing in some respects with Gosse's description differed in others. If, therefore, all of the characters possessed by all of the specimens to which Gosse's name has been applied were combined, the resulting animal would differ markedly from the specimen described by Gosse as D. aquila. The following is Gosse's description of D. aquila. The present author's comment have been placed in parentheses. "Body fusiform (not so in his figure). Head with beak (a number of other species had a beak or rostrum); foot short, thick (in common with most Dicranophorus); toes nearly as long as trunk, thick to 1/2 the length then diminished to stiff straight rods with obtuse points (Gosse's figure shows the toes less than 1/2 the length of the body. The narrowing to obtuse points is not clearly indicated.) No eyes are present." Later, however, Gosse mentions observing "a specimen with a very large black occipital eye, if indeed, it were not an opaque chalk mass of the brain". (Eyes are frontal in Dicranophorus.) At times one finds in D. uncinatus the duct of the subcerebral glands filled with dark granules. Could the specimens found by Gosse with the "dark opaque chalk mass" be D. uncinatus, and confused by him with the one he described as D. aquila?. If one examines Harring & Myers (8, Plate 36) one finds figures of D. uncinatus (Milne), D. sp. H. & M. and on Plate 31, D. aspondus H. & M. In all of these species there is a rostrum, the toes are over one-half the length of the body and as straight as shown in Gosse's figures. The jaws differ in all of them. De Beauchamp gives a figure of jaws of what he calls Diglena aquila. This figure resembles the figure of the jaws given by Harring & Myers for D. uncinatus. It would appear, then, that de Beauchamp and Harring and Myers had the same species under observation, if we consider the jaws alone. De Beauchamp describes his animal as having eyes at the region where the ducts open from the retrocerebral sac; Harring & Myers, on the other hand, state that their specimen was eyeless, as was Gosse's and as was also Milne's. The jaws shown by Harring & Myers are not those of D. uncinatus (Milne) as figured by Milne. What can be seen of the jaws in Gosse's figure shows the manubria bowed inwards as in D. uncinatus according to Milne's figure, whereas in the figures of Harring & Myers and of de Beauchamp the manubria are turned outwards at their tips. The similarity of the jaws illustrated by Harring & Myers and by the de Beauchamp has been noted by Hauer and by Fadeew. The latter states that D. uncinatus H. & M. is equal to D. aguilus (Gosse) and this conclusion is probably based on de Beauchamp's figure of the jaws of the specimen he describes as D. aguilus (Gosse). Again, though the two specimens there is still the question of the eyes. Lack of life history studies of any member of the genus Dicranophorus prevents us stating definitely whether eyes are absent at any time during the seasonal cycle or in any members of a clone. From the above discussion it can be seen then that, of the specimens in question, D. uncinatus (Milne) is a recognizable and valid species and D. uncinatus as figured by Harring & Myers is another species confused by them with Milne's species; that the jaws of de Beauchamp's specimen and that of Harring & Myers agree in structure but the two forms differ in the presence of eyes in the one and the absence of eyes in the other; that Gosse's figure is inadequate and what can be determined of the jaws is not in agreement with the figures given by Harring & Myers and by de Beauchamp; that, further, the toes of Gosse's specimen do not agree with those figured by Harring & Myers nor does Gosse's figure agree with his description of the toes. The question now is whether the example figured by Harring & Myers as D. uncinatus (Milne) should be given a new name or considered to be D. aguilus (Gosse) and whether de Beauchamp's animal also should be considered as D. aquilus. We may concede that Gosse's animal is inadequately described and that Harring & Myers' form needs a new name. The following alternatives seem to present themselves; either we may use Harring & Myers' description and figure as a completed description and their figures as good figures of Gosse's D. aguilus or we could place aquilus in the invalid list of species and give a new name to D. uncinatus as figured by Harring & Myers. I propose to follow the first course; this would not be an unusual procedure but would follow along the lines used by Harring & Myers in designating a description to a species named by an earlier author where the description is inadequate and the figure are useless, for example D. forcipatus (Muller) as indicated by Harring & Myers on pages 696 and 697. (ref. ID; 2596)
Dicranophorus biastis Harring & Myers, 1928 (ref. ID; 1345, 2019) or 1927 (ref. ID; 2894)
Description; This characteristic species is easily recognized by the short, very strongly curved toes, the small robust trophi with the fulcrum swollen in the middle, lacking shearing teeth on the unci. The specimens had two colourless eyespots and were slightly larger then those described by Harring & Myers (1927) having no eyes. (ref. ID; 2894)
Measurements; Total length 190; toes 40 um. (ref. ID; 2894)
Dicarnophorus claviger australiensis Koste & Shiel, 1980 (ref. ID; 2758 original paper, 2963)
See; Dicranophoroides australiensis (ref. ID; 2019)
Description; Elongate spindle-shaped body. Integument rigid, longitudinal lines from neck to short horizontal line on dorsal part. Head part cylindrical with moderate concave outlines. Small prolongation of dorsal lorica over foot. Toes extremely long and slender, curve somewhat outward, end in acute pointed claws frontal eyes and paired knobbed palps. Trophi large. Rami terminate with small teeth as in the trophi of D. caudatus but have broad lamellar alula, which are apically elongated, ending in pair of double short teeth. Unci each have only a tooth. Short fulcrum has broad triangular form. Manubria slightly curved, spatulate ended. Beneath unci contact point is lamellar triangular element. Preservation in formation precludes discussion of internal organization. (ref. ID; 2758)
Comments; This species is related to D. caudatus, from Victoria, and D. claviger, from South America by virtue of its morphology. Comparative information on the related forms is given below. Affinity of this spp. with D. claviger (Hauer) 1965 is suggested by the palp number and similar trophi structure, although D. claviger (= Itura claviger Hauer, 1965) has a different shaped fulcrum, shorter toes and a significantly shorter overall length. (ref. ID; 2758)
Measurements; Measurement (in um) and comments are given in the sequence overall length, greatest width, palp number, palp length, toe length, torphi length, manubrium form, uncus, fulcrum, rami, manubrium, teeth on ramus point, supra-rami teeth, supra-rami teeth length, distribution: D. caudatus Ehrenberg, 180-310, 90, 1, 9-10, 69-77, 34-36, stick-like, 13, 6, 21, 25, -, absent, -, cosmopolitan;
D. caudatus braziliensis Koste, 1972, -330, -, ?, ?, 84-88, 48, terminally crutch-like, 32, 8, 26, 32, 4, absent, -, Amazon, S. America;
D. claviger (Hauer) 274, 100, 2, 16, 24-44, 41-46, terminally broad, 17, 11, 32, 24, 4-5, oralplate (?), -, Amazon, S. America;
D. claviger australiensis, -532, -120, 2, -21, 155-164, 50-53, terminally broad, 34, 13, 40, 39, 6, present, 18, N. Aust. (ref. ID; 2758)
Dicranophorus corystis Harring & Myers, 1922 (ref. ID; 2019) or 1928 (ref. ID; 1345, 3688) reported year? (ref. ID; 2596)
Syn; Arthroglena rostrata von Hofsten, 1909 (ref. ID; 3688); Dicranophorus corystis Harring & Myers, 1922 (ref. ID; 3688)
Comments; Hofsten figured a rotifer which he named Arthroglena rostrata (Dixon-Nuttall & Freeman). He shows jointed toes but does not thick this is sufficient for specific separation. "Joint on toes was overlooked by the English authors, or it was weakly developed in the specimens observed or it was absent entirely". He compares his animal with D. uncinatus and D. lutkeni but in both cases his comparison ends with the toes and hood; no comparison is made of the jaws, which differ markedly in all the above species. The jaws of D. corystis H. & M. are quite different from those of D. rostratus; in the former there is one uncial tooth, in the latter two uncial teeth. Fadeew in his figure of D. rostratus var. corystis shows the rostrum but no figure of the jaws. As Fadeew's animal had the jointed toes and lateral projections to the rostrum, it does not necessarily follow that Fadeew had the same species as in shown in Hofsten's paper, since Fadeew does not make any comparison of the jaws. Hofsten "refuses" Harring & Myers' statement that his specimen is a distinct species and insists his is identical with D. rostratus. This scarcely can be supported when we consider the differences - toes jointed, relatively longer, and pointed; the lateral projections on the rostrum relatively longer; but above all the jaws are distinctly different. The detail of the rami, such as lateral lamellae, may not be shown in Hofsten's figure, but there is but a single uncial tooth shown. It is seen, then, that Dicranophorus corystis H. & M. is not identical with D. rostratus and remains as a true species till relationship may be shown to one of the other jointed-toes, lateral-lobed-rostral forms. (ref. ID; 2596)
Dicranophorus difflugiarum (Penard, 1914) (ref. ID; 1345, 2019, 6939)
Syn; Dicranophorus difflugiarum Harring & Myers, 1928 (ref. ID; 2019); Diglena difflugi arum Penard, 1914 (ref. ID; 2019)
Description; [Female]: The body is stout and slightly gibbous dorsally. The animal is very transparent and illoricate. The head is large and extremely long, almost half the length of the entire body. The head is separated from the abdomen by a distinct neck. The foot is long, one fifth to one eight of the length of the body. The toes are half the foot length, lancet-shaped and acutely pointed. The trophi are simple. The rami arrow-shaped with narrow, elongate median opening. The distal ends are slender and slightly incurved. The alulae are conspicuous and pointed. The single toothed unci are short, pointed and slightly curved. This characteristic can be seen with difficulty under a light microscope. The manubria are as long as the unci, also curved. (ref. ID; 6939)
Habitats; The species has been cited as parasitic in Difflugia accuminata Ehrb. by Harring & Myers (1928). However, in the gravel stream Oberer Seebach, this species has often been found swimming freely at the sediment surface (drift samples, personal observations) as well as within the hyporheos (10-20 and 30-40 cm). (ref. ID; 6939)
Examined material; The specimens were colleced from the sediments using either stand pipe traps or surber samplers in the gravel stream Oberer Seebach. (ref. ID; 6939)
Measurements; Total length: 210 um, toes 26 um, trophi length: 18 um, fulcrum: 12 um, manubria: 13 um, rami: 11 um. (ref. ID; 6939)
Dicranophorus dolerus Harring & Myers, 1924 (ref. ID; 2281), 1927 (ref. ID; 1345, 1931) or 1928 (ref. ID; 2019)
Description; This is being reported for the first time from India. Body moderately transparent with straight ventral surface. Abdomen slightly gibbous tapering into short tail. Corona is ventral. Rostrum round and curved. Rami broad with outer parallel margins, pyriform space in between and five large teeth smaller towards the fulcrum. Alulae decurved and triangular. Unci with knob-like enlargement for ventral tooth. Manubria long and stout. Gastric glands prominent and foot glands small. Foot short and toes long with parallel sides ending in blunt points. (ref. ID; 1931)
The trophi were of normal type except that the unci were straighter than usual. (ref. ID; 2281)
Ecology; Harring & Myers (1927) stated that it was obtained from water with pH range 5.8-6.2. But Dhanapathi had collected it in alkaline water. (ref. ID; 1931)
Measurements; Total length 238; toes 56; mastax 42 um. (ref. ID; 1931)
Length 320; toes 80 um. (ref. ID; 2281)
Dicranophorus forcipatus (O.F. Muller, 1773) (ref. ID; 3508) (O.F. Muller, 1773 or 1786?) (ref. ID; 1804, 1923) or 1786 (ref. ID; 1345, 2019, 2266, 2757, 3688) reported year? (ref. ID; 1473, 2276, 2333, 2640, 2890)
Syn; Cercaria forcipata O.F. Muller, 1786 (ref. ID; 1345, 2019); Cercaria forcipatus O.F. Muller, 1786 (ref. ID; 3688); Cercaria lupus O.F. Muller, 1773 (ref. ID; 3688); Cercaria vermicularis O.F. Muller, 1886 (ref. ID; 3688); Dekinia forcipata Morren, 1830 (ref. ID; 3688); Dicranophorus forcipatus Harring, 1913 (ref. ID; 1345, 3688); Dicranophorus forcipatus Nitzsch, 1827 (ref. ID; 2019); Dicranophorus remanei Wulfert, 1936 (ref. ID; 2019, 3688); Dicranophorus vermicularis Nitzsch, 1827 (ref. ID; 3688); Diglena forcipata de Beauchamp, 1909 (ref. ID; 2019); Diglena forcipata Ehrenberg, 1832 (ref. ID; 1345, 2276, 2757); Diglena forcipatus Ehrenberg, 1832 (ref. ID; 3688); Diglena gibba Gosse, 1886 (ref. ID; 3688); Diglena vermicularis Iroso, 1913 (ref. ID; 3688); Distemma forcipatum Ehrenberg, 1830 (ref. ID; 3688); Furcocerca lupus Lamarck, 1815 (ref. ID; 3688); Furcularia forcipatus Blainville, 1830 (ref. ID; 3688); Kermodon ehrenbergii Corda, 1843 (ref. ID; 3688); Leiodina forcipata Bory de St. Vincent, 1826 (ref. ID 3688); Leiodina vermicularis Bory de St. Vincent, 1826 (ref. ID; 3688); Notommata oculifera Zavadowski, 1926 (ref. ID; 2019) or Zawadowski, 1926 (ref. ID; 3688); Trichocerca forcipatus Lamarck, 1816 (ref. ID; 3688); Vorticella vermicularis O.F. Muller, 1773 (ref. ID; 3688)
Description; Body short, moderately elongate and with straight ventral surface. Head and neck distinct. Corona ventral and nearly as long as head. Rostrum short, broad, rounded anteriorly. Abdomen relatively short, cylindrical. Foot short, very stout. Toes fairly long, slightly tapering and ending in conical tips. (ref. ID; 1804)
Measurements; Total length 315; toes 50; trophi 50 um. (ref. ID; 1804)
Dicranophorus haueri Harring & Myers, 1928 (ref. ID; 1345, 2019, 2596, 3688) reported author and year? (ref. ID; 7065)
Description; [Trophi]: SEM photograph. (ref. ID; 7065)
Comments; Fadeew gives this as a synonym for Dicranophorus rostratus var. corystis (H. & M.). The jaws of Dicranophorus haueri are quite different from those of Dicranophorus rostratus. The rami have double interlocking teeth at their tips, and the unci are single-toothed with a knoblike enlargement for articulation with the rami. The eyespots are small in contrast to the obvious ones found in Dicranophorus rostratus. Harring & Myers mention the fact that they had received a sketch of this species from Fadeew which might indicate that the animal he calls D. rostratus var. corystis could be D. haueri if one had a figure of the jaws. Fadeew, apparently, did not make any comparison of the jaws in his animal; whether he sent drawings of the jaws to Harring and Myers or not is a matter for conjecture. Harring & Myers seem to take the stand that the figure sent to them by Fadeew is identical with the species D. haueri. D. haueri therefore remains as a distinct species from D. rostratus and D. corystis. (ref. ID; 2596)
Dicranophorus hercules var. adenta Wulfert, 1961 (ref. ID; 2593, 2814 original paper)
Description; The variety shows the general shape of the species, has a rostrum with two side appendages, two black eyes and long slightly curved toes with along bending tip or claw. However the shearing teeth of the rami are missing. (ref. ID; 2593)
Measurements; Body 420-430 long, 70 wide; toes 125-130 um. (ref. ID; 2593)
Dicranophorus kostei Pourriot & Zoppi de Roa, 1981 (ref. ID; 2019, 2963 original paper, 3004)
Syn; Dicranophorus halbachi Koste, 1981 (ref. ID; 3004)
Comments; In a sample from a temporary lagoon near Boa Vista, we found several large Dicranophorus matching the description of D. kostei Pourriot and zoppi de Roa and of D. halbachi Koste. The animals are characterised by having extraordinarily long, parallel-sided toes with short basal sheaths as in D. forcipatus (O.F. Muller), and by trophi, having fused triangular or tooth-like projections on the inner margins of the rami, and epipharyngeal plates as accessorial trophi parts. When comparing the ramus of specimens from different origin, a striking variability is apparent. Remarkable differences are seen in size shape of the tip and of the inner projections of the rami. These projections were found to be symmetrical in the paratype of D. halbachi, slightly asymmetrical in our Brazilian material and slightly or strongly asymmetrical in animals from different populations in Nigeria. Koste (1986) reports that the presence or absence of epipharyngeal plates is the single diagnostic character between D. kostei and D. halbachi Koste, described from Australia (Koste, 1981) but later also recorded from Paraguay (Koste, 1986). Such plates, however, may have passed unmentioned, as by most authors (e.g., Harring and Myers, 1928), although they are present in most large dicranophorids. Examination of some photographs, kindly placed at our disposition by Prof. R. Pourriot, revealed the presence of such plates in D. kostei. Examination of the holotype and paratype incus of D. halbachi, deposited in the Museum of the University of Kiel, Germany (Rot. 76/77), and comparison with other material, revealed a synonymy between D. kostei and D. halbachi. The record of Dicranophorus cf. halbachi from Nigeria (Segers et. al., 1993) is hereby confirmed. D. kostei appears to have a pantropical distribution. As the description of D. kostei was published during the second quarter of 1981 and that of D. halbachi during July 1981, the former is the senior, valid name of the taxon. (ref. ID; 3004)
Dicranophorus lutkeni (Bergendal, 1892) (ref. ID; 1345, 1804, 1923, 2019, 2640, 2993, 3275, 3506, 3688) reported year? (ref. ID; 3297) reported author and year? (ref. ID; 3412), luetkeni Bergendal (ref. ID; 6164) or Bergendahl (ref. ID; 6843)
Syn; Arthroglena lutkeni Bergendal, 1892 (ref. ID; 1345, 2019, 3275, 3688); Dicranophorus lutkeni Harring & Myers, 1922 (ref. ID; 2019, 3688); Diglena dromius Glascott, 1893 (ref. ID; 1345, 3688); Diglena lutkeni Harring & Myers, 1928 (ref. ID; 1345); Diglena lutkeni Weber & Montet, 1918 (ref. ID; 1345, 3688)
Description; Body slender, elongate and with straight ventral surface. Corona ventral, a little shorter than head. Rostrum fairly large, rounded anteriorly and curved. Abdoman elongate, parallel for 3/4 of its length and then tapering rapidly. Foot moderately large and oblique anteriorly. Toes long, straight, broad at the base, terminating into long, slender, blunt claws. (ref. ID; 1804)
Measurements; Total length 180; toes 42; trophi 32 um. (ref. ID; 1804)
Dicranophorus nikor Pawlowski, 1938 (ref. ID; 1345, 2596, 3144 original paper)
See; Encentrum nikor (ref. ID; 2019)
Comments; Pawlowski described and named a Dicranophorus nikor. This is very similar to D. uncinatus (Milne). In the figure of the jaws (p. 126, Fig. 1) the manubria and the fulcrum are longer than in D. uncinatus figured by Hauer, Wulfert, or Milne. Further, the toes in the whole animal (Plate IX, Fig. 2) are shown shorter and decurved and not slightly S-shaped as in D. uncinatus. Donner (3, p. 637, Fig. 25) gives a figure of D. nikor Pawlowski. This has toes similar in shape to D. uncinatus (Milne), though they are slightly shorter in proportion to the length of the body. The jaws are similar with the exception that the manubria are similar to those in Milne's figure of D. uncinatus and not as long as indicated by Pawlowski for his animal. The fulcrum is intermediate in size between those indicated by Milne for D. uncinatus and by Pawlowski for D. nikor. Donner shows the intramallei and their extensions into the supermanubria; the latter are not shown by Pawlowski. The difference in shape between the supramanubria in the drawings of Donner and of Wulfert could quite easily be the result of pressure. The slight differences in the jaws do no seem to warrant specific rank for this form (D. nikor) as has been indicated in the discussion above. Donner states that two long bristles are found at the base of the toes, as mentioned previously, Milne mentions these also and shows them in his figure. Wulfert did not observe them, but did note another sense organ on the "appendix" (tail). As mentioned above, the presence or absence of these setae does not seem to warrant specific status. Donner's form seems halfway between D. uncinatus (Milne) and D. nikor Pawlowski. The differences can be stated thus: Toes: Donner's animal shows the same shape as D. uncinatus but shorter; Pawlowski's similar to Donner's but straighter. Manubria: longer in Pawlowski's animal than in D. uncinatus (Milne). Donner's D. nikor, or Wulfert's D. longidactylum. Fulcrum: longer in Pawlowski's animal. Intramallei: not clearly shown by Pawlowski, nor are their extensions into the supramanubria. These structures are shown by Donner in his figure for D. nikor. The difference in shape between these structures in Wulfert's and Donner's figures could be the result of pressure. With regard to the length of the toes, this has been considered above and the differences do not seem to make for the validity of the species D. nikor as a distinct species from D. uncinatus. The variations indicated above would seem to me to fall within the limits of natural variation and would not warrant the formation of a new species of D. nikor. (ref. ID; 2596)
Dicranophorus permollis giganthea Dartnall & Hollowday, 1985 (ref. ID; 3334 original paper)
Description; D. permollis giganthea is a large rotifer with an overall length of 446 um. The body is elongate, dorsally gibbous towards the posterior end and tapers to a single roughly conical foot segment. The head is large and, though marked by a slight constriction, it is not well defined. The rostral hood is small and the corona is ventrally orientated. The toes are of medium length (36 um) in relation to the size of the body and are comparatively straight. There are two pairs of pedal glands, one almost as long as the foot segment, the other smaller. The trophi are of special interest as our identification largely depends on this feature. The rami (23 um) are widely separated and terminate in simple incurved points that lack alulae and inner marginal teeth. Towards their base, they widen slightly and then narrow before joining the upper end of the fulcrum. The general outline tends to be somewhat square rather than lyrate. The fulcrum is long (18 um) and widens at its lower end. The unci are long (19 um), slender and bear a single tooth. They have a slight knob-like swelling half way down, which give the appearance of a joint. The unci are indirectly attached to the upper end of the manubria by the sclerified invaginations of the pharyngeal wall, known as the intra-mallei. The manubria are extremely long (38 um) and gently curving. The upper extremities are bulbous and the lower extremities are slightly widened like slender spoon handles. There is a single eyespot on the brow. (ref. ID; 3334)
Comments; We believe that out specimens are identical with the Pleurotrocha sp. described and illustrated by Murray (1910) from Blue Lake on Ross Island and that, in all probability. The Pleurotrocha sp. listed, but not described or illustrated, by Dougherty and Harris (1963) and by Spurr (1975) from the same region, is the same species. Murray (1910) declined to name his specimens but remarked that they bore some resemblance in size (520 um), activity and shape of the trophi, to Pleurotrocha grandis (now known as Encentrum grande (Western)), and in general outline, and especially in the shape of the trophi, to Diglena permollis (now known as Dicranophorus permollis). Since then (1910), several authors have discussed the affinities of Murray's Antarctic rotifer. Bryce (1922) succeeded in hatching out a species of Encentrum from dry moss collected at Spitzbergen in the Arctic. This species, which Bryce named E. murrayi, bore sufficient resemblance to Murray's Cape Royds animal (a high gibbous dorsal profile and fairly long toes) for Bryce (1922) to consider the possibility that they were one and the same, although admitting that the two species differed in a number of respects. The trophi are sufficiently different to dispel any suggestion that E. murrayi and the Cape Royds and Signy specimens are the same. Harring & Myers (1928) though that Encentrum grande was possibly the identity of the Cape Royds specimens but, as can be seen from their own figure, the rami are quite different in shape. The external outline is less angular and, as a result of their shape, they are closer together. We also considered the similarity between the Signy specimens and Encentrum orhtodactylum Wulfert. The rami are quite similar but the lower sections (of E. orthodactylum) do not possess an angular outer margin as they sweep in to meet the head of the fulcrum. Furthermore, the intramallei possess an inward pointing spur that has an intricate form (Wulfert, 1936), which is absent from the Signy species. This leaves us with Dicranophorus permollis as the identification of the Signy specimens. The trophi are virtually identical, but the fact that the Signy and Cape Royds rotifers (at 446 and 520 um, respectively) are twice the reported size of D. permollis (240 um long in Harring & Myers (1928)) has led us to erect the new subspecies giganthea. Beauchamp (1940) reported D. permollis from Iles Kerguelen. The identification was based solely on the trophi of a single contracted specimen. (ref. ID; 3334)
Type locality; This species collected several lakes at Signey Island (South Orkney Islands, Antarctica) (ref. ID; 3334)
Dicranophorus robustus Harring & Myers, 1928 (ref. ID; 1345, 2019, 2268, 2269, 2700, 2715, 3180) reported year? (ref. ID; 2933, 3572)
Syn; Dicranophorus robustus minor Berzins, 1948 (ref. ID; 2019); Diglena forcipata Zawadowski, 1926 (ref. ID; 1345, 2700)
Description; The body is long and slender. A distinct neck segment present. Foot very short and stout. Toe short and slender. Trophi is large and elongated. Fulcrum half as long as rami. Manubrium long and slender. (ref. ID; 2715)
Body elongate, spindle-shaped and rather slender, slightly convex dorsally and nearly straight ventrally. Head relatively short, about one-fourth of length of body and separated from abdomen by a distinct neck. Corona slightly oblique and its length very little in excess of the diameter of the head. Foot very short, stout, and slightly oblique anteriorly. Toes short, about one-sixth of total length, slender, tapering, bluntly pointed, usually straight but occasionally with a slight sigmoid curvature. (ref. ID; 3180)
Comments; D. robustus is a voracious predator, the stomach of the present specimen contained the trophi of six Trichocerca spp. (ref. ID; 3572)
Measurements; Total length 500; trophi 65 um. (ref. ID; 2715)
Total length of specimen in extended position 430; length of toes 64; length of trophi 50 um. (ref. ID; 3572)
Dicranophorus rostratus (Dixon-Nuttall & Freeman, 1902) (ref. ID; 1345, 2019, 2596, 3688)
Syn; Dicranophorus cernuus Harring & Myers, 1928 (ref. ID; 2019, 2596); Dicranophorus cernuus Kutikova, 1970 (ref. ID; 2019); Dicranophorus rostratus Harring, 1913 (ref. ID; 2019); Diglena rostrata Dixon-Nuttall & Freeman, 1902 (ref. ID; 2019, 3688)
Comments; Dicranophorus cernuus Harring & Myers is D. rostratus. The slight differences do not seem to me to warrant specific rank for Harring & Myers' animal. One difference given by Harring & Myers is that there are no "rostral pegs" present in D. rostratus - in Dixon-Nuttall's figure distinct lateral extensions are shown on either side of the tip of the rostrum, which I take to be the rostral pegs that are mentioned by Harring & Myers. The difference in appearance of the pegs may be one of drawing and seem too slight for specific rank. The other difference stated by Harring & Myers is that the jaws of D. rostratus have "peculiarly elongate, triangular rami". The lateral lamella of the rami, shown in Harring & Myers are indicated in Dixon-Nuttall and Freeman and need to be widened slightly to give the same appearance as in Harring & Mayers' figure. All these differences would fall within the limits of natural variations discussed above. It would seem to me, therefore, that D. cernuus H. & M. is a synonym for D. rostratus. (ref. ID; 2596)
Dicranophorus tegillus Harring & Myers, 1927 (ref. ID; 1345, 1931), 1928 (ref. ID; 3508) or 1938 (ref. ID; 2019)
Description; This is being reported for the first time from India. Body highly transparent, slender, slightly gibbous posteriorly and with straight ventral surface. Trophi prominent and large. Rami triangular ending in two incurved teeth. Harring & Myers (1927) stated that the inner margin of the ramus armed with 9-10 teeth. But in Dhanapathi specimens, only eight teeth are present. Alulae triangular and decurved, unci long with a ventral tooth each enlarged in the middle and manubria long and flattened posteriorly. Foot short; toes long and parallel sided with blunt tips. (ref. ID; 1931)
Ecology; Harring & Myers (1927) stated that it was obtained from water with pH 6.4. But Dhanapathi had collected it in alkaline water. (ref. ID; 1931)
Measurements; Total length 252; toes 56; mastax 42 um. (ref. ID; 1931)
Dicranophorus tripleuchlanoides Sudzuki, 1989 (ref. ID; 2019, 3083)
Description; Body not so stiff, nearly square in shape. At first, this species reminds us of contracted specimens of grandis Ehrenberg, 1838 after Voigt (1957, Pl. 75, Fig. 1b), lateral features like Tripleuchanis revealed, however, to be the species new to science. Rami with 7 teeth. Fulcrum with apophysis. Vitellarium with 8 nuclei. (ref. ID; 3083)
Etymology; The name tripleuchlanoides is derived from a generic name of the Rotifera Tropleuchlanis to which the species looks like. (ref. ID; 3083)
Type locality; East coast Park pond, Singapore. (ref. ID; 3083)
Measurements; Total length 110; body length 82-90; anterior extremity 48-58 wide, 0 high; widest part 60-70; caudal extremity 40-42 wide, 38-40 high; highest part 60-61; head 29 x 45; toes 40-44; manubrium 28 um. (ref. ID; 3083)
Dicranophorus uncinatus (Milne, 1886) (ref. ID; 1345, 1473, 2198, 2269, 2596, 2993, 3154, 3688) reported year? (ref. ID; 2890, 3334)
See; Encentrum uncinatum (ref. ID; 2019)
Syn; Arthroglena uncinata von Hofsten, 1909 (ref. ID; 1345); Arthroglena uncinatus von Hofsten, 1909 (ref. ID; 3688); Cephalodella aquila Mola, 1928 (ref. ID; 3688); Dicranophorus longidactylum Fadeew, 1936 (ref. ID; 3688) reported year? (ref. ID; 2596), Hauer, 1951 (ref. ID; 3688) or Voigt, 1957 (ref. ID; 3688); Dicranophorus uncinatus Harring, 1913 (ref. ID; 1345, 3688); Diglena aquila Gosse, 1887 (ref. ID; 3688); Diglena uncinata Milne, 1885 (ref. ID; 2596) or 1886 (ref. ID; 1345); Diglena uncinatus Milne, 1886 (ref. ID; 3688); Furcularia uncinatus Hood, 1895 (ref. ID; 3688); Pleurotrocha uncinata Zawadowski, 1926 (ref. ID; 1345, 3688)
Description; The integument is quite firm and tends to hold its shape. Dorsally, the body appears somewhat cylindrical; in lateral view it is distinctly gibbous dorsally. The foot is short and broad; the tail clearly set off from the body. The toes are long, and about one-third the total length of the entire animal; they have a wide base, are slightly S-shaped, and end in sharp points. A constriction separates the head from the rest of the body. The corona is oblique, though not as ventral in position as in Harring & Myers' figures. At its anterior end the corona bears two bundles of cirri-like cilia, the rest of the corona is covered with long, strong cilia. There is a distinct rostrum which is slightly recurved. There are no eyes (?). The trophi are large and distinctive. The rami are widest just above their base and posteriorly are slightly incised just above the fulcrum. The ends of the rami are drawn out into a long, evenly-narrowed main tooth at the base of which is a strong secondary tooth. The fulcrum is short without any enlargement at its tip. The unci are thin and are drawn out into long acute points. The intramallei (Milne calls these muscle loops) are broad plates rounded laterally and attenuated medially into points (supramanubria of Wulfert). The manibria are long, bowed inwards at their tips, and broadened anteriorly at their attachment to the intramallei. There is no enlargement on the free end. The gastric glands are round spherical-shaped structures. There is a retrocerebral sac with a duct filled with dark granules (at times?). This feature of the granules in the sac and its duct is shown in Wulfert's figures. (ref. ID; 2596)
Comments; Milne described and figured as Diglena uncinata a rotifer which is the same animal figured by Wulfert as Dicranophorus longidactylum Fadeew. This is not the same animal as described and figured by Harring & Myers as Dicranophorus uncinatus (Milne). In Fadeew's paper quoted by Wulfert there is no mention of Dicranophorus longidactylum. Wulfert may have had another reference to Fadeew, if so, I have not been able to locate it. It is possible he may have given the wrong authority. In Fadeew's check list D. uncinatus is mentioned but not D. longidactylum. If Fadeew had described D. longidactylum, I feel certain it would have been mentioned, as the other species described by him in his 1927 paper are included in the check list of 1929. Myers (personal interview) admitted that the animal described by Harring and Myers is not Milne's animal but is another species. Harring & Myers' species is a true species in need of a name. (ref. ID; 2596)
Measurements; It is medium-sized rotifer with a total length of 180 um. There is a large, single foot segment (25 um) with two long, strong toe. The toes, which were 62 um long, were more than one-third of the total length. (ref. ID; 3334)