Next Article in Journal
Not the Last Piece of the Puzzle: Niphargus Phylogeny in Hungary
Next Article in Special Issue
Limno-Terrestrial Tardigrada of Sub-Antarctic Islands—An Annotated Review
Previous Article in Journal
Systematics, Ecology and Taxonomy of Collembola: Introduction to the Special Issue
Previous Article in Special Issue
New Records of Marine Tardigrades (Arthotardigrada) from the Iberian Peninsula: Biogeographical Implications
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Actual State of Knowledge of the Limno-Terrestrial Tardigrade Fauna of the Republic of Argentina and New Genus Assignment for Viridiscus rufoviridis (du Bois-Reymond Marcus, 1944)

1
Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences, National University of La Pampa, Argentina, Uruguay Avenue 151, Santa Rosa L6300DUG, Argentina
2
Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, University of Catania, Section of Animal Biology, Androne Street 81, 95124 Catania, Italy
3
National Council for Scientific and Technical Research, CONICET, Godoy Cruz Street 2290, Buenos Aires C1425FQB, Argentina
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2023, 15(2), 222; https://doi.org/10.3390/d15020222
Submission received: 26 November 2022 / Revised: 30 January 2023 / Accepted: 31 January 2023 / Published: 3 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Investigating the Biodiversity of the Tardigrada)

Abstract

:
Limno-terrestrial tardigrades of Argentina had been studied starting in 1908 and for a long time by European researchers, most frequently in the Patagonian region (incl. the Land of Fire). Starting during the 1980s, Claps, Rossi and collaborators published many surveys, studying other regions also, but with taxonomic criteria at that time. Since the 2000s, methodical and continuous studies using more modern criteria, have been carried out at the National University of La Pampa, contributing to the faunistic, taxonomic and ecological knowledge (including new species descriptions). This paper provides a comprehensive list of the limno-terrestrial tardigrade fauna reported from Argentina, with pertinent evaluations, owing to a careful study of every pertinent piece of literature since 1908, also solving some problems of discordance between the main past checklists. Summarizing, 39 genera and 119 species are present; of these, 72 represent records accepted by the literature, while 47 are records questioned in the literature but which represent distinct taxa surely present in Argentina; 14 additional taxa, instead, are clearly dubious. The authors also report the correct genus assignment to Viridiscus rufoviridis (du Bois-Reymond Marcus, 1944), which now becomes Barbaria rufoviridis comb. nov.

1. Introduction

The phylum Tardigrada consists of over 1400 species [1] that inhabit terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments throughout the world. In terrestrial habitats they live primarily in mosses, lichens, leaf litter and soil, whereas in freshwater and marine environments tardigrades are found mainly in sediments and on aquatic plants [2].
The present paper is focused on limno-terrestrial tardigrades, and it is possible to suggest how much taxonomic investigations have increased during the last decade by comparing the “Actual checklist of Tardigrada species” published in 2013 [3] with the most updated one of 2022 [1]: the number of valid limno-terrestrial species has increased from 876 to 1067 units (+191 units, i.e., +21.8%); additionally, this corresponds to increased activity of new species descriptions: taking the data from the ultimate checklist [1], in 2011, 22 new limno-terrestrial species were described, while in 2021, 39 new limno-terrestrial species were described, which results in an increase of 77.3%.
Taxonomists use species checklists as tools to communicate information on species diversity and distribution. These checklists are often a starting point for biodiversity-related analyses, from ecological studies to conservation plans. The protection of biodiversity is one of the relevant issues in global conservation. However, coherent conservation cannot take place if the species involved are unknown [4].
The Argentine limno-terrestrial tardigrade fauna was studied in the beginnings (starting in 1908) and for a long time by European researchers [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27], with the only exception of Schuster [28] (an author from California, USA). Those studies regarded most frequently the Patagonian region (incl. the Land of Fire). In the 1980s and 1990s, Argentine researchers Claps, Rossi and collaborators [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36] began to study and report findings of different species in provinces of the country such as Río Negro, Neuquén, Chubut, Tierra del Fuego, Tucumán, Salta and Corrientes. However, those studies were affected by what is now considered out-of-date taxonomy and zoogeography for tardigrades. Since the 2000s and until currently, methodical, continuous studies have been carried out in the framework of various scientific projects at the National University of La Pampa (UNLPam), with major focus on the Provinces of Salta, La Pampa, Buenos Aires, Santa Fé and Río Negro [37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. Since then, we have tried to contribute to the knowledge of the limno-terrestrial tardigrade fauna (including new species descriptions) and provide information about ecology (distribution, preference, population dynamics), using modern taxonomic and biogeographic criteria, owing to all the recent taxonomic novelties.
To date, the previous checklists of tardigrade species of Argentina are due to Rossi and Claps [34], McInnes [44], Claps et al. [35], Meyer [45] and Kaczmarek et al. [46].
This paper provides an updated comprehensive list of limno-terrestrial tardigrade fauna reported from Argentina, their distribution in the country and the references for the records. Species with locus typicus in Argentina, specifying if endemic, are also indicated separately.
The present paper also reports the correct genus assignment to Viridiscus rufoviridis (du Bois-Reymond Marcus, 1944), owing to the discovery of this species, or an extremely similar one, in Argentina [37,38,47]; the Argentine species (reported with “cf.” for caution) proved to belong not to the genus Viridiscus Gąsiorek & Michalczyk, 2019, in Gąsiorek et al. [48] but instead to Barbaria Michalczyk, Gąsiorek, Morek & Stec, 2019, in Gąsiorek et al. [48], thus becoming Barbaria cf. rufoviridis comb. nov.; as a consequence, the former V. rufoviridis is transferred to the genus Barbaria.

2. Materials and Methods

To build our checklist, we consulted all 42 papers (see Table 1) reporting species records (with or without a checklist) from Argentina, plus the past checklists by McInnes [44], Meyer [45] and Kaczmarek et al. [46]; the taxonomic nomenclature was obtained from Degma and Guidetti [1], together with the taxonomic status of currently valid species (excluding those in the situation of species dubia or inquirenda, and nomen dubium or inquirendum).
The map that provides the distribution of tardigrade species in Argentina (Figure 1) was generated through SimpleMappr [49] using the layers of “country” and “state/province”. Whenever possible, locations were extracted from the literature, which resulted in 143 records; when the original coordinates of the location were not provided, they were estimated using Google Earth Pro (ver. 7.3.4.8642 (64-bit)).
Table 1. List of valid species reported in Argentina from the literature. Status (record reliability): + = species reported with certainty; + * = species that need a diagnosis confirmation but each one representing a separate taxon from any other in Argentina; N = dubious record that cannot be taken into consideration because it may coincide with other species in the list. Province abbreviations: BA = Buenos Aires; CB = Córdoba; CH = Chaco; CR = Corrientes; CT = Chubut; ER = Entre Ríos; JY = Jujuy; LP = La Pampa; MI = Misiones; NQN = Neuquén; RN = Río Negro; SA = Salta; SC = Santa Cruz; SF = Santa Fé; SJ = San Juan; TF(IAS) = Isla de Atlántico Sur; TF(SS) = Tierra del Fuego; TU = Tucumán.
Table 1. List of valid species reported in Argentina from the literature. Status (record reliability): + = species reported with certainty; + * = species that need a diagnosis confirmation but each one representing a separate taxon from any other in Argentina; N = dubious record that cannot be taken into consideration because it may coincide with other species in the list. Province abbreviations: BA = Buenos Aires; CB = Córdoba; CH = Chaco; CR = Corrientes; CT = Chubut; ER = Entre Ríos; JY = Jujuy; LP = La Pampa; MI = Misiones; NQN = Neuquén; RN = Río Negro; SA = Salta; SC = Santa Cruz; SF = Santa Fé; SJ = San Juan; TF(IAS) = Isla de Atlántico Sur; TF(SS) = Tierra del Fuego; TU = Tucumán.
Order, FamilySpecies/SubspeciesStatus (Record Reliability)ProvinceReport for Argentina
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeAntechiniscus jermani Rossi & Claps, 1989+RN[33]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeAntechiniscus lateromamillatus (Ramazzotti, 1964)+NQN [36]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeBarbaria bigranulata (Richters, 1907)+BA; ER; CR; MI; TU; SA; NQN; RN; CT; SC; TF(SS)[8,9,13,15,29,30,31,32,33,36]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeBarbaria charrua (Claps & Rossi, 1997)+MI; TU [8]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeBarbaria jenningsi (Dastych, 1984) +TF(IAS)[35]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeBarbaria madonnae (Michalczyk & Kaczmarek, 2006) +CT[8]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeBarbaria ollantaytamboensis (Nickel, Miller & Marley, 2001)+SA [8]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeBarbaria paucigranulata Wilamowski, Vončina, Gąsiorek & Michalczyk, 2022+SA [8]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeBarbaria cf. rufoviridis comb. nov. (du Bois-Reymond Marcus, 1944)+ *BA; LP; SF[37,38,47]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeBarbaria weglarskae Gąsiorek, Wilamowski, Vončina & Michalczyk, 2022+SC[8]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeBryodelphax parvulus Thulin, 1928+ *RN[16,17]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeClaxtonia capillata (Ramazzotti, 1956)+ *TU; RN; CT[29,30,33]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeClaxtonia corrugicaudata (McInnes, 2010) +RN[27]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeClaxtonia marginopora (Grigarick, Schuster & Nelson, 1983)+SC[13]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeClaxtonia wendti (Dastych, 1984)NRN; CT; SC; TF(SS)[10,13,29]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeCornechiniscus lobatus (Ramazzotti, 1943)+SA [50]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus aonikenk Gasiorek, Bochnak, Vončina & Michalczyk, 2021+CT[51]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus arctomys Ehrenberg, 1853NRN[9]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus blumi Richters, 1903+ *RN; CT; SC[9,13,16,17,29,33]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus canadensis Murray, 1910+ *RN[16]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus columinis Murray, 1911+SC[33]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus crassispinosus Murray, 1907+ *MI[31]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus dreyfusi de Barros, 1942+MI[31]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus evelinae de Barros, 1942+TU[51]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus manuelae da Cunha & do Nascimento Ribeiro, 1962+CR; MI; SA[31,51]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus merokensis merokensis Richters, 1904+ *NQN; RN; SC; TF(SS)[6,13,36]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus pellucidus Gasiorek, Bochnak, Vončina & Michalczyk, 2021 +CT[51]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus testudo (Doyère, 1840)+RN; CT; SC[33,51]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus trisetosus Cuénot, 1932+ *CT[29]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeMopsechiniscus granulosus Mihelčič, 1967+NQN; RN; CT[5,7,16,17,29,33,36]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeMopsechiniscus imberbis (Richters, 1907)NTF(IAS)[35]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaePseudechiniscus (Meridioniscus) bartkei Węglarska, 1962+ *SA; RN TF(SS)[30,33]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaePseudechiniscus (Meridioniscus) saltensis Rocha, Doma, González-Reyes & Lisi, 2020+SA [42]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaePseudechiniscus (Pseudechiniscus) marinae Bartoš, 1934+ *RN[9]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaePseudechiniscus (Pseudechiniscus) suillus (Ehrenberg, 1853)+ *MI; RN; SC[13,16,17,31]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeTestechiniscus spitsbergensis spitsbergensis (Scourfield, 1897)+ *CT; SC[29,33]
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeViridiscus viridis (Murray, 1910)NNQN [29]
Echiniscoidea, OreellidaeOreella mollis (Murray, 1910)+CT[5]
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium argentinum Roszkowska, Ostrowska & Kaczmarek, 2015+RN[26,27]
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium beatae Roszkowska, Ostrowska & Kaczmarek, 2015+RN[26,27]
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium brachyungue Binda & Pilato, 1990+RN[26,27]
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium eurystomum Maucci, 1991+ *SC[14]
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium granulatum Ramazzotti, 1962+RN[26,27]
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium irenae Rocha, González-Reyes, Ostertag & Lisi, 2022+LP[43,52]
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium kogui Londoño, Daza, Caicedo, Quiroga & Kaczmarek, 2015+SA[41]
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium pelufforum Rocha, González-Reyes, Ostertag & Lisi, 2022+SA[43,52]
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium quiranae Rocha, González-Reyes, Ostertag & Lisi, 2022+SA[43,52]
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium tardigradum Doyère, 1840NBA; ER; CR; CH; TU; SA; JY; LP; NQN; RN; CT; SC; TF(SS); TF(IAS)[9,16,29,30,31,32,33,36]
Parachela, CalohypsibiidaeCalohypsibius ornatus (Richters, 1900)+ *RN[16,17]
Parachela, DoryphoribiidaeDoryphoribius cephalogibbosus Rocha, Doma, González-Reyes & Lisi, 2020+SA [42]
Parachela, DoryphoribiidaeDoryphoribius evelinae (Marcus, 1928)+ *CR[31]
Parachela, DoryphoribiidaeDoryphoribius zappalai Pilato, 1971+ *SA; SC[30,33,34]
Parachela, DoryphoribiidaeGrevenius asper (Murray, 1906)+ *MI; TU; JY [30,31,34]
Parachela, DoryphoribiidaeGrevenius deflexus (Mihelčič, 1960)+BA[34]
Parachela, DoryphoribiidaePseudobiotus megalonyx (Thulin, 1928)+ *BA; CR; CB [35]
Parachela, DoryphoribiidaeThulinius augusti (Murray, 1907) +BA; CR; CB [30,31,34]
Parachela, DoryphoribiidaeThulinius stephaniae (Pilato, 1974)+ *BA[34]
Parachela, HexapodibiidaeParhexapodibius castrii (Ramazzotti, 1964)+RN[34]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeNotahypsibius arcticus (Murray, 1907)+TF(IAS)[35]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeAcutuncus antarcticus (Richters, 1904)+ *NQN [35,36]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeAdropion greveni (Dastych, 1984)+TF(SS)[6]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeAdropion scoticum (Murray, 1905)+ *RN; CT; SC; TF(SS)[9,13,16,17,25,33]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeDiphascon alpinum Murray, 1906NRN[29,33]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeDiphascon chilenense Plate, 1888+RN[17,29,33]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeDiphascon mitrense Pilato, Binda & Qualtieri, 1999+RN[22]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeDiphascon ongulense Morikawa, 1962+TF(SS)[33]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeDiphascon pingue pingue (Marcus 1936)NTU; JY; RN[9,30,33]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeDiphascon stappersi Richters, 1911NRN[9]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeDiphascon tenue Thulin, 1928NNQN; RN[33,36]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeHypsibius allisoni Horning, Schuster & Grigarick, 1978+SC; TF(SS)[6,13]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeHypsibius convergens (Urbanowicz, 1925)+TU; NQN; RN; SC[10,13,17,29,30,33,36]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeHypsibius dujardini (Doyère, 1840)+ *TU; NQN; RN; CT; SC; TF(SS)[9,30,33]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeHypsibius marcelli Pilato, 1990+BA; TF(SS)[19]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeHypsibius microps Thulin, 1928NBA; ER; NQN; RN; SC[9,13,32,33,36]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeHypsibius montanus Iharos, 1940+ *CT[29]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeHypsibius pallidus Thulin, 1911NNQN [36]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeItaquascon umbellinae de Barros, 1939+SC[13]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeMixibius fueginus Pilato & Binda, 1996+TF(SS)[6,20]
Parachela, HypsibiidaeMixibius saracenus (Pilato, 1973)+TF(SS)[6]
Parachela, HypsibiidaePilatobius brevipes (Marcus, 1936)+ *RN; TF(SS)[10,29]
Parachela, HypsibiidaePilatobius bullatus (Murray, 1905)+ *RN; CT[9,17]
Parachela, HypsibiidaePilatobius recamieri (Richters, 1911)+ *RN[9,29,34]
Parachela, HypsibiidaePlaticrista angustata (Murray, 1905)+ *RN; SC[13,34]
Parachela, IsohypsibiidaeDianea papillifera (Murray, 1905)+TF(IAS)[35]
Parachela, IsohypsibiidaeDianea sattleri (Richters, 1902)+ *RN[9,17]
Parachela, IsohypsibiidaeIsohypsibius prosostomus Thulin 1928+ *CB [17]
Parachela, IsohypsibiidaeIsohypsibius sculptus (Ramazzotti, 1962)+NQN; RN[9]
Parachela, IsohypsibiidaeUrsulinius nodosus (Murray, 1907)NRN; CT[9]
Parachela, IsohypsibiidaeUrsulinius tucumanensis (Claps & Rossi, 1984)+TU [30,35]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus anderssoni Richters, 1908+RN; TF(SS)[25]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus andinus Maucci, 1988+RN; SC[13]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus echinogenitus Richters, 1903+ *SA; CT; TF(SS)[17,18,23,24,29,30]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus hufelandi C.A.S. Schultze, 1833NBA; ER; CR; MI; CB; TU; SA; JY; NQN; RN; CT; SC; TF(SS)[9,13,16,17,25,29,30,31,32,33]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus kazmierskii Kaczmarek & Michalczyk, 2009+RN[12]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus kristenseni Guidetti, Peluffo, Rocha, Cesari & Moly de Peluffo, 2013+LP[40]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus occidentalis Murray, 1910+ *RN[9]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus papillosus Iharos, 1963+RN[9]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus patagonicus Maucci, 1988+NQN; RN; SC[13,36]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus porteri Rahm, 1931+?[17]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus coronatus de Barros, 1942+BA[32]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus erminiae Binda & Pilato, 1999+ *TF(SS)[6]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus furciger (Murray, 1906)+ *RN; CT; TF(SS)[17,25,29]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus harmsworthi (Murray, 1907)NCR; RN; SC[9,13,17,31]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus montanus Murray, 1910+ *RN[10]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus neuquensis Rossi, Claps & Ardohain, 2009+NQN [36]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus nuragicus (Pilato & Sperlinga, 1975) + *RN[34]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus orcadensis (Murray, 1907)+CR; TF(SS)[31,33]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus ovostriatus (Pilato & Patanè, 1998)+TF(SS)[21]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus pseudoblocki Roszkowska, Stec, Ciobanu & Kaczmarek, 2016+RN[27]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus szeptyckii (Kaczmarek & Michalczyk, 2009)+RN[12]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus tehuelchensis (Rossi, Claps & Ardohain, 2009)+NQN [36]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMinibiotus acontistus (de Barros, 1942)+CR; MI[17,31]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMinibiotus claxtonae Rossi, Claps & Ardohain, 2009+NQN [36]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMinibiotus furcatus (Ehrenberg, 1859) +BA; TF(SS)[35]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMinibiotus intermedius (Plate, 1888)+ *ER; CR; RN; TF(SS)[9,10,16,17,31]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMinibiotus pseudostellarus Roszkowska, Stec, Ciobanu & Kaczmarek, 2016+RN[27]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMinibiotus subintermedius (Ramazzotti, 1962)+NQN; CB[29,36]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeParamacrobiotus areolatus (Murray, 1907)+ *BA; CR; SA; LP; RN; SC[13,30,31,32,33,38,39]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeParamacrobiotus richtersi (Murray, 1911)+ *BA; CR; MI; TU; SA; JY; NQN; RN; CT; TF(SS)[9,10,29,30,31,32,33]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeSchusterius tridigitus (Schuster, 1983)+TF(SS)[11,28]
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeSisubiotus spectabilis (Thulin, 1928)+ *SA [30]
Parachela, MurrayidaeDactylobiotus ambiguus (Murray, 1907)+ *BA; RN; TF(IAS)[34]
Parachela, MurrayidaeDactylobiotus dispar (Murray, 1907)+ *BA; CR; JY; RN[30,33,34]
Parachela, MurrayidaeDactylobiotus grandipes (Schuster, Toftner & Grigarick, 1978)+LP[35]
Parachela, MurrayidaeDactylobiotus lombardoi Binda & Pilato, 1999 +TF(IAS)[35]
Parachela, MurrayidaeDactylobiotus parthenogeneticus Bertolani, 1981+ *BA; SJ; NQN [34]
Parachela, MurrayidaeMurrayon pullari (Murray, 1907)+ *TF(SS)[33]
Parachela, RamazzottiidaeHebesuncus conjungens (Thulin, 1911)+ *NQN; RN; SC[13,16,17,29,33]
Parachela, RamazzottiidaeHebesuncus mollispinus Pilato, McInnes & Lisi, 2012+RN[27]
Parachela, RamazzottiidaeRamazzottius anomalus (Ramazzotti, 1962)+ *ER; SA; SJ[30,31]
Parachela, RamazzottiidaeRamazzottius baumanni (Ramazzotti, 1962)+ *ER; SA; JY; NQN; RN; CT; SC[9,13,29,30,31,33,36]
Parachela, RamazzottiidaeRamazzottius oberhaeuseri (Doyère, 1840)+ *MI; SA; LP; RN; CT; TF(SS)[16,17,25,30,31,33,38]
Parachela, RamazzottiidaeRamazzottius saltensis Claps & Rossi, 1984+SA [30]
Some methodological issues strictly correlated to the assessment of the checklist (e.g., regarding the literature or taxonomy) are, for readers’ convenience, discussed directly in the “Results” section together with the checklist presentation.
We checked the following slides of Peluffo and Moly de Peluffo, identified as Milnesium cf. tardigradum Doyère, 1840, in Peluffo et al. [38] and Moly de Peluffo et al. [39], to update the diagnosis; these slides, deposited in the Rocha–Doma collection (National University of La Pampa, Argentina), are UNLPam SR1: 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 17, 28, 31, 34, 35, 45, 50, 52, 60.
For the study of the genus assignment of Viridiscus rufoviridis, we reviewed the following slides of Argentine material (36 specimens identified as Viridiscus cf. rufoviridis) from the Rocha–Doma collection (National University of La Pampa, Argentina); UNLPam SR3: 1439 (4), 1440 (4), 1441 (1), 1443 (4), 1444 (4), 1843 (3), 1845 (2), 1846 (4), 1848 (2), 1942 (4), 1947 (4).

3. Results

3.1. Actual Checklist of Limno-Terrestrial Tardigrades of Argentina

Both classes Eutardigrada Richters, 1926, and Heterotardigrada Marcus, 1927, are present. Within the class Eutardigrada, the families present are: Calohypsibiidae Pilato, 1969; Doryphoribiidae Gąsiorek, Stec, Morek & Michalczyk, 2019; Hexapodibiidae Cesari, Vecchi, Palmer, Bertolani, Pilato, Rebecchi & Guidetti, 2016; Hypsibiidae Pilato, 1969; Isohypsibiidae Sands, McInnes, Marley, Goodall-Copestake, Convey & Linse, 2008; Macrobiotidae Thulin, 1928; Murrayidae Guidetti, Rebecchi & Bertolani, 2000; Milnesiidae Ramazzotti, 1962; and Ramazzottiidae Sands, McInnes, Marley, Goodall-Copestake, Convey & Linse, 2008. Heterotardigrada are represented by the family Echiniscidae Thulin, 1928, and Oreellidae Ramazzotti, 1962. Therefore, in the country, 11 families in total are present.
At lower taxonomic level, at least 39 genera and 119 species are present. Of these 119 currently valid species, 72 represent reliable (unquestioned by the literature) records (“+” in Table 1), while 47 are records questioned in the literature but represent taxa surely present in Argentina because they cannot be confused with any others in the list (“+ *” in Table 1; e.g., single representatives of their genus or species group, see further for more details).
Concerning the reliability of the species records from the literature, we basically followed Kaczmarek et al. [46], with some adjustments/updates. In Table 2 of that paper, only two categories were present: “+” (confirmed record) and “(+)” (dubious record). We (in Table 1) kept the “+” category but split the “(+)” one of Kaczmarek et al. [46] into two categories: “+ *” (dubious record, but cannot be confused with the other species in the list) and “N” (dubious record that may correspond to other species in the list).
Regarding Table 2 in Kaczmarek et al. [46], we maintained the “+” species with the exception of five species that were moved to the “+ *” category for caution, and also thanks to the reviewers of the present paper, these species are: Claxtonia capillata (Ramazzotti, 1956), Minibiotus intermedius (Plate, 1888), Pseudechiniscus (Pseudechiniscus) marinae Bartoš, 1934, Ramazzottius anomalus (Ramazzotti, 1962) and Ramazzottius baumanni (Ramazzotti, 1962). Of course, we added to the “+” category the recent and reliable records published after Kaczmarek et al. [46].
Two species belonging to the “(+)” category of Kaczmarek et al. [46] were moved to the “+” category, owing to recent reliable records confirming their real presence in Argentina; these species are Echiniscus testudo (Doyère, 1840) and Hypsibius convergens (Urbanowicz, 1925).
Our “N” category includes additional 14 species from the literature that have not been counted because they correspond to dubious records and the species might have been misidentified with possible confusion with other species in the list (“N” in Table 1; e.g., old records of Milnesium tardigradum that may correspond to other species of the genus, reported/identified more recently, present in the list).
Indeed, we were able to verify (by examining the pertinent material indicated in the Materials and Methods section) that the records of M. cf. tardigradum reported by Peluffo et al. [38] and Moly de Peluffo et al. [39] did refer to specimens belonging to three species recently described: M. pelufforum Rocha, González-Reyes, Ostertag & Lisi, 2022 (slides UNLPam SR1: 5, 8, 12, 15, 50); M. irenae Rocha, González-Reyes, Ostertag & Lisi, 2022 (slides UNLPam SR1: 2, 7, 17, 28, 31); or M. quiranae Rocha, González-Reyes, Ostertag & Lisi, 2022 (slides UNLPam SR1: 3, 34, 35, 45, 52, 60); the other old records of M. tardigradum [9,16,29,30,31,32,33,36] remain questionable.
Generally, all 14 species with dubious records (status “N” in Table 1) are in need of revision to verify if they can or cannot be definitively included.
Our “+ *” category (47 species) requires a clearer explanation in order to justify our choices.
Eight species in this category (Acutuncus antarcticus (Richters, 1904); Bryodelphax parvulus (Richters, 1904); Testechiniscus spitsbergensis (Scourfield, 1897); Calohypsibius ornatus (Richters, 1900); Pseudobiotus megalonyx (Thulin, 1928); Platicrista angustata (Murray, 1905); Sisubiotus spectabilis (Thulin, 1928) and Murrayon pullari (Murray, 1907)) are each the only representative of its own genus in the list, although at the time of the record some might be included in another genus with other representatives in the list (e.g., Macrobiotus), it is clear that the given species was clearly distinct from the other species actually belonging to the old genus.
In the case of species described in the far past, though often affected by incomplete/unclear descriptions, they have been counted because they are clearly distinguishable (in the past also) from the congeneric species; this criterion means that either the old species was described since the beginning for very obvious/peculiar characters, or the congeneric species of the list were described subsequently as very well differentiated from the old species (in spite of its incomplete description).
Another criterion we used was to consider as reliable the records of congeneric species by the same authors and in close times (i.e., with the same eyes, knowledge and methodologies), and occasionally the records are even in the same paper.
Examples of the application of these criteria are:
(1)
For Minibiotus intermedius (Plate, 1888) (indeed, indicated as “+” in Kaczmarek et al. [46], but, to be cautious, we put it into the “+ *” category). The only other Minibiotus R.O. Schuster, 1980, species of the list of the intermedius group with smooth cuticle is M. acontistus (de Barros, 1942), but the questioned records of M. intermedius were together with records of M. acontistus [17,31], indicating that the pertinent authors were able to distinguish between them.
(2)
For Ramazzottius oberhaeuserii (Doyère, 1840), two species of the genus reported for Argentina, R. anomalus (Ramazzotti, 1962) and R. baumanni (Ramazzotti, 1962), were described with notorious characters distinguishing them from R. oberhaeuseri. All three species were recorded together in Claps and Rossi [31]; similarly, the fourth Argentine species, R. saltensis, was recorded together with R. oberhaeuseri in Claps and Rossi [30]. All this clearly indicates no confusion between R. oberhaeuseri and the other three congeneric species.
(3)
The three dubious species of the genus Dactylobiotus R.O. Schuster, 1980, and the only two species of the genus Grevenius Gąsiorek, Stec, Morek & Michalczyk, 2019, were recorded together in Rossi and Claps [34], and the only two species of the genus Paramacrobiotus Guidetti, Schill, Bertolani, Dandekar & Wolf, 2009, were recorded together in Claps and Rossi [30,31] and Rossi and Claps [32,33].
The updated checklist is given in Table 1, with the indication, for each species of status (record reliability “+”, “+ *” or “N”, as mentioned above), Argentine province, and literature source for the records.
In Figure 1, a map showing Argentina with all currently known and studied sites in the various provinces is provided.
A total of 33 species were described from samples collected in Argentina (terra typica), 28 of which are currently endemic for the country. These data are provided in Table 2, and include geographic coordinates for the loci typici.

3.2. Genus Assignment for Viridiscus rufoviridis (du Bois-Reymond Marcus, 1944): Barbaria rufoviridis comb. nov.

The species currently called Viridiscus rufoviridis (du Bois-Reymond Marcus, 1944) was first described as Echiniscus rufoviridis in 1944 from São Paulo State (Brazil). The species was also reported in various localities of Argentina by Peluffo et al. [37], Peluffo et al. [38] and Rocha et al. [47], and from Ecuador by Nelson et al. [53].
We have not had the possibility to determine, yet, if the type material of the species still exists, in order to compare it directly with the Argentine material in our possession. Thus, one might put into doubt the exact attribution of the Argentine material to V. rufoviridis sensu stricto; however, we examined the Argentine specimens (slides indicated in the Materials and Methods section) and we compared our observations plus the description and images published in the abovementioned papers, with the original description and drawing of the types from Brazil (the drawing is shown in figure 4, page 21, of du Bois-Reymond Marcus [54]), which were of good quality for that time, and we feel confident to conclude that the Argentine specimens and the Brazilian types are at least two extremely similar species (if not exactly the same species). Thus, they must surely belong to the same genus, modernly intended also. In addition, our morphotype is the same or very similar to that from Ecuador, identified as V. rufoviridis by Nelson et al. [53], and Kaczmarek et al. [46] did not put in doubt the records of this species from Argentina, as a confirmation that they can also be reliable zoogeographically. Just to be cautious, we refer to the Argentine morphotype as V. cf. rufoviridis.
Falling back to history, before the paper by Gąsiorek et al. [48], V. rufoviridis was included in the viridis group within the genus Echiniscus C.A.S. Schultze, 1840; then, in the abovementioned paper, the genus Echiniscus was split in different genera, and the old viridis group was transferred into the new genus Viridiscus Gąsiorek & Michalczyk, 2019, in Gąsiorek et al. [48], currently including V. clavispinosus (Fontoura, Pilato & Lisi, 2011), V. perviridis (Ramazzotti, 1959), V. rufoviridis (du Bois-Reymond Marcus, 1944), V. viridianus (Pilato, Fontoura & Lisi, 2007), V. viridis (Murray, 1910) and V. viridissimus (Péterfi, 1956).
Gąsiorek et al. [48] put the species under discussion into the genus Viridiscus with some perplexities, and those authors did not consider or discuss the papers by Peluffo et al. [37] and Rocha et al. [47], in which important data (including photographs) were present, allowing for realization that V. rufoviridis cannot be attributed to the genus Viridiscus, but, instead, to the genus Barbaria Michalczyk, Gąsiorek, Morek & Stec, 2019, in Gąsiorek et al. [48]. As a matter of fact, in Peluffo et al. [37] the species under discussion was partially redescribed, and, above all, there are images under PCM and SEM, and in Rocha et al. [47] the cuticle ultrastructure was examined under TEM. In both papers, all images and descriptions are not compatible with the genus Viridiscus, but they are with Barbaria instead. The images of B. cf. rufoviridis comb. nov. by Peluffo et al. [37] (cuticular ornamentation: PCM and SEM) and Rocha et al. [47] (cuticle structure: TEM) can be compared with those of Gąsiorek et al. [48] (cuticular ornamentation of Viridiscus: PCM and SEM; cuticular ornamentation of Barbaria: PCM) and of Michalczyk & Kaczmarek [15] (for Barbaria: cuticular ornamentation under PCM and SEM; cuticle structure under SEM and through drawings), clarifying any doubt. In Table 3, all possible image comparisons from the abovementioned literature reports are indicated. It is true that B. cf. rufoviridis observed by us and shown, for example, in Nelson et al. [53] (from Ecuador) shares with Viridiscus the presence of green pigments that do not dissolve in mounting media, but we do believe that this simple character in common is far less relevant in the genus definition with respect to the complexity of the cuticular structure.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The present work allowed us to update the checklist of Argentine limno-terrestrial tardigrade species and subspecies; such checklist has grown from 111 units (reliable plus dubious records from Kaczmarek et al. [46]) to 119 units in spite of the fact that 14 dubious records (included in the old checklist) have been excluded. We also provide evidence that 33 species were described from samples collected in Argentina (terra typica); of those, a good 28 are currently endemic for the country.
The Republic of Argentina occupies 2.78 million km2 and is the second largest country in South America and the eighth largest in the world. Its vast surface comprises a very high diversity of macro- and microenvironments, many still unknown or unexplored; thus, the numbers of species reported to-date are most likely highly underestimated.
This can also be noticed from Figure 1, in which it is evident that previous surveys did not take into account any attempt to have a uniform distribution in order to explore the various part of the country. There are areas with many records and others unexplored. This may be due to at least two factors: one is the vicinity to the place of Argentinean authors’ residence or work (as is the case for sampling in the province of La Pampa and Salta); the second factor is related to areas exploited touristically (as occurs for southern Patagonia and northern Argentina), analogously stated by Jörgensen [55] for Africa.
On the contrary, of the 23 provinces in which the country is divided, there are 7 in which there are no records because there have been no studies at all.
Indeed, the most studied provinces also still produce good results through investigations (e.g., Rocha et al. [42]; Rocha et al. [52]), showing that we are far from a satisfactory knowledge from the faunistic and taxonomic (and more) point of view.
These observations clearly indicate that it is necessary to continue studying the limno-terrestrial tardigrades of the regions already under study, and to complete the knowledge for the entire country by adding areas still not investigated.
The present work also provides a taxonomic adjustment (the case of Barbaria rufoviridis comb. nov.), and to correct past uncertain diagnoses (the case of the previous Milnesium cf. tardigradum, which was hiding three different species). These are examples of how working only with lists of species can produce collateral data that are useful in other fields.
Several past species records still remain dubious, and this is another task challenging future studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.L. and A.R.; methodology, D.C., B.O., I.D. and F.M.; software, D.C. and B.O.; validation, O.L.; data curation, O.L., D.C., I.D., A.R. and B.O.; writing—original draft preparation, O.L. and A.R.; writing—review and editing, O.L., D.C., A.R. and B.O.; supervision, O.L. and A.R.; project administration, A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Julio Peluffo and María C. Moly de Peluffo for having donated their slides to the Rocha–Doma collection (National University of La Pampa, Argentina), to Andrea X. González-Reyes for help with the investigation and for some consultations, and to the editor and reviewers who have improved the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Degma, P.; Guidetti, R. Actual Checklist of Tardigrada Species, 41st ed.; University of Modena and Reggio Emilia: Modena, Italy, 2022; Available online: https://iris.unimore.it/retrieve/e31e1250-6907-987f-e053-3705fe0a095a/Actual%20 (accessed on 1 November 2022).
  2. Nelson, D.R.; Bartels, P.J.; Guil, N. Tardigrade ecology. In Water Bears: The Biology of Tardigrades; Schill, R.O., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 163–210. [Google Scholar]
  3. Degma, P.; Bertolani, R.; Guidetti, R. Actual Checklist of Tardigrada Species, 22nd ed.; University of Modena and Reggio Emilia: Modena, Italy, 2013; p. 37. Available online: http://www.tardigrada.modena.unimo.it/miscellanea/Actual%20checklist%20of%20Tardigrada.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2022).
  4. De Wet, J.; Shoonbee, H. The occurrence and conservation status of Ceratogyrus bechuanicus and C. brachycephalus in the Transvaal, South Africa. Koedoe 1991, 34, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Binda, M.; Kristensen, R. Notes on the genus Oreella (Oreellidae) and the systematic position of Carphania fluviatilis Binda, 1978 (Carphanidae fam. nov., Heterotardigrada). Animalia 1986, 13, 9–20. [Google Scholar]
  6. Binda, M.; Pilato, G. Macrobiotus erminiae, new species of eutardigrade from southern Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. Entomol. Mitt. Zool. Mus. Hamb. 1999, 13, 151–158. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dastych, H. Redescription of the Neotropical tardigrade Mopsechiniscus granulosus Mihelčič, 1967 (Tardigrada). Mitt. Hamb. Zool. Mus. Inst. 2000, 97, 45–57. [Google Scholar]
  8. Gąsiorek, P.; Wilamowski, A.; Vončina, K.; Michalczyk, Ł. Neotropical jewels in the moss: Biodiversity, distribution and evolution of the genus Barbaria (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscidae). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 2022, 195, 1037–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Iharos, G. The zoological results of Gy. Topal’s collections in South Argentina, 3. Tardigrada. Ann. Hist. Nat. Mus. Nat. Hung. 1963, 55, 293–299. [Google Scholar]
  10. Iharos, G. Tardigradologische Notizen, I. Miscnea Zool. Hung. 1982, 1, 85–90. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kaczmarek, Ł.; Michalczyk, Ł. Redescription of Macrobious tridigitus Schuster, 1983 and erection of a new genus of Tardigrada (Eutardigrada, Macrobiotidae). J. Nat. Hist. 2006, 40, 1223–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kaczmarek, Ł.; Michalczyk, Ł. Two new species of Macrobiotidae, Macrobiotus szeptyckii (harmsworthi group) and Macrobiotus kazmierskii (hufelandi group) from Argentina. Acta Zool. Cracov. 2009, 52B, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Maucci, W. Tardigrada from Patagonia, Southern South America, with description of three new species. Rev. Chil. Entomol. 1988, 16, 5–13. [Google Scholar]
  14. Maucci, W. Tardigrada of the Arctic tundra with descriptions of two new species. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 1996, 116, 185–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Michalczyk, Ł.; Kaczmarek, Ł. Revision of the Echiniscus bigranulatus group with a description of a new species Echiniscus madonnae (Tardigrada: Heterotardigrada: Echiniscidae) from South America. Zootaxa 2006, 1154, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mihelčič, F. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Tardigraden Argentiniens. Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 1967, 107, 43–56. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mihelčič, F. Ein weiterer Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Tardigraden Argentiniens. Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 1972, 110/111, 47–52. [Google Scholar]
  18. Murray, J. Tardigrada. British Antarctic Expedition 1907–1909. Reports Scient. Invest. 1910, 1, 83–187. [Google Scholar]
  19. Pilato, G. Tardigradi di Tierra del Fuoco e Magallanes. II. Descrizione di Hypsibius marcelli n. sp. (Hypsibiidae). Animalia 1990, 17, 95–98. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pilato, G.; Binda, M. Mixibius fueginus, nuova specie di eutardigrado della Terra del Fuoco. Boll. Accad. Gioenia Sci. Nat. Catania 1996, 29, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
  21. Pilato, G.; Patanè, M. Macrobiotus ovostriatus, a new species of eutardigrade from Tierra del Fuego. Boll. Accad. Gioenia Sci. Nat. Catania 1998, 30, 263–268. [Google Scholar]
  22. Pilato, G.; Binda, M.G.; Qualtieri, F. Diphascon (Diphascon) mitrense, new species of eutardigrade from Tierra del Fuego. Boll. Sed. Accad. Gioenia di Sc. Nat. Catania 1999, 31, 101–105. [Google Scholar]
  23. Rahm, G. Tardigrada of the South of America (esp. Chile). Rev. Chil. de Hist. Nat. 1931, 35, 118–141. [Google Scholar]
  24. Rahm, G. Freilebende Nematoden, Rotatorien und Tardigraden aus Südamerika (besondersaus Chile). Zool. Anz. 1932, 98, 94–128. [Google Scholar]
  25. Richters, F. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Moosfauna Australiens und der Inseln des Pacifischen Oceans. Zool. J. Abt. Syst. Geog. Biol. Tiere 1908, 26, 196–213. [Google Scholar]
  26. Roszkowska, M.; Ostrowska, M.; Kaczmarek, Ł. The genus Milnesium Doyere, 1840 (Tardigrada) in South America with descriptions of two new species from Argentina and discussion of the feeding behaviour in the family Milnesiidae. Zool. Stud. 2015, 54, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Roszkowska, M.; Stec, D.; Ciobanu, D.; Kaczmarek, Ł. Tardigrades from Nahuel Huapi National Park, Argentina, South America, with descriptions of two new Macrobiotidae species. Zootaxa 2016, 4105, 243–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Schuster, R. A new species of Macrobiotus from Tierra del Fuego (Tardigrada: Macrobiotidae). Pan-Pacific Entomol. 1983, 59, 254–255. [Google Scholar]
  29. Claps, M.; Rossi, G. Contribución al conocimiento de los tardígrados de Argentina. II. Rev. Soc. Entomol. Arg. 1981, 40, 107–114. [Google Scholar]
  30. Claps, M.; Rossi, G. Contribución al conocimiento de los tardígrados de Argentina. IV. Acta Zool. Lilloana 1984, 38, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  31. Claps, M.; Rossi, G. Contribución al conocimiento de los tardígrados de Argentina. VI. Iheringia 1988, 67, 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  32. Rossi, G.; Claps, M. Contribución al conocimiento de los tardígrados de Argentina. I. Rev. Soc. Entomol. Arg. 1980, 39, 243–250. [Google Scholar]
  33. Rossi, G.; Claps, M. Tardígrados de la Argentina. V. Rev. Soc. Entomol. Arg. 1989, 47, 133–142. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rossi, G.; Claps, M. Tardígrados dulceacuícolas de la Argentina. In Fauna de Agua Duce de la República Argentina; Castellanos, Z.A., Ed.; Programa de Fauna de Agua Dulce: La Plata, Argentina, 1991; Volume 19, pp. 1–70. [Google Scholar]
  35. Claps, M.; Rossi, G.; Ardohain, D. Tardigrada. In Biodiversidad de Artrópodos Argentinos; Claps, L.E., Debandi, G., Roig-Juñent, S., Eds.; Sociedad Entomológica Argentina: Mendoza, Argentina, 2008; Volume 2, pp. 63–77. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rossi, G.; Claps, M.; Ardohain, D. Tardigrades from northwestern Patagonia, Neuquén Province, Argentina, with the description of three new species. Zootaxa 2009, 2095, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Peluffo, J.; Moly de Peluffo, M.; Rocha, A.M. Rediscovery of Echiniscus rufoviridis du Bois-Raymond Marcus 1944 (Heterotardigrada, Echiniscidae). New contributions to the knowledge of its morphology, bioecology and distribution. Gayana 2002, 66, 97–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Peluffo, J.; Rocha, A.M.; Moly de Peluffo, M. Species diversity and morphometrics of tardigrades in a medium-sized city in the Neotropical region: Santa Rosa (La Pampa, Argentina). Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 2007, 30, 43–51. [Google Scholar]
  39. Moly de Peluffo, M.C.; Peluffo, J.R.; Rocha, A.M.; Doma, I.L. Tardigrade distribution in a medium-sized city of central Argentina. Hydrobiologia 2006, 558, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Guidetti, R.; Peluffo, J.R.; Rocha, A.M.; Cesari, M.; Moly de Peluffo, M.C. The morphological and molecular analyses of a new South American urban tardigrade offer new insights on the biological meaning of the Macrobiotus hufelandi group of species (Tardigrada: Macrobiotidae). J. Nat. Hist. 2013, 47, 2409–2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. González-Reyes, A.; Rocha, A.M.; Corronca, J.; Rodríguez-Artigas, S.; Doma, I.; Ostertag, B.; Grabosky, A. Effect of urbanization on the communities of tardigrades in Argentina. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 2020, 188, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rocha, A.M.; Doma, I.L.; González-Reyes, A.; Lisi, O. Two new tardigrade species (Echiniscidae and Doryphoribiidae) from the Salta province (Argentina). Zootaxa 2020, 4878, 267–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ostertag, B.; Rocha, A.M.; González-Reyes, A.; Suárez, C.E.; Grabosky, A.; Doma, I.; Corronca, J. Effect of environmental an microhabitat variables on tardigrade communities in médium-sized city in central Argentina. Urban Ecosyst. 2022, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. McInnes, S.J. Zoogeographic distribution of terrestrial/freshwater tardigrades from current literature. J. Nat. Hist. 1994, 28, 257–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Meyer, H.A. Terrestrial and freshwater Tardigrada of the Americas. Zootaxa 2013, 3747, 1–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kaczmarek, Ł.; Michalczyk, Ł.; McInnes, S.J. Annotated zoogeography of non-marine Tardigrada. Part II: South America. Zootaxa 2015, 3923, 1–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Rocha, A.M.; Izaguirre, M.F.; de Peluffo, M.C.M.; Peluffo, J.R.; Casco, V.H. Ultrastructure of the cuticle of Echiniscus rufoviridis [du Bois-Raymond Marcus, (1944) Heterotardigrada]. Acta Microsc. 2007, 16, 16–21. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gąsiorek, P.; Morek, W.; Stec, D.; Michalczyk, Ł. Untangling the Echiniscus Gordian knot: Paraphyly of the “arctomys group” (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscidae). Cladistics 2019, 35, 633–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Shorthouse, D.P. SimpleMappr, an Online Tool to Produce Publication-Quality Point Maps. 2010. Available online: http://www.simplemappr.net (accessed on 15 November 2022).
  50. Gąsiorek, P. Water bear with barbels of a catfish: A new Asian Cornechiniscus (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscidae) illuminates evolution of the genus. Zool. Anz. 2022, 300, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gąsiorek, P.; Bochnak, M.; Vončina, K.; Michalczyk, Ł. Phenotypically exceptional Echiniscus species (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscidae) from Argentina (Neotropics). Zool. Anz. 2021, 294, 210–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rocha, A.M.; González-Reyes, A.; Ostertag, B.; Lisi, O. The genus Milnesium (Eutardigrada, Apochela, Milnesiidae) in Argentina: Description of three new species and key to the species of South America. Eur. J. Taxon. 2022, 822, 1–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Nelson, D.R.; Adkins Fletcher, R.; Guidetti, R.; Roszkowska, M.; Grobys, D.; Kaczmarek, Ł. Two new species of Tardigrada from moss cushions (Grimmia sp.) in a xerothermic habitat in northeast Tennessee (USA, North America), with the first identification of males in the genus Viridiscus. PeerJ 2020, 8, e10251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. du Bois-Reymond Marcus, E. Sobre tardígrados brasileiros. Com. Zool. Mus. Hist. Nat. Montevideo 1944, 1, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  55. Jörgensen, A. Graphical Presentation of the African Tardigrade Fauna using GIS with the Description of Isohypsibius malawiensis sp. n. (Eutardigrada: Hypsibiidae) from Lake Malawi. Zool. Anz. 2001, 240, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Map of Argentina showing the until now investigated sites.
Figure 1. Map of Argentina showing the until now investigated sites.
Diversity 15 00222 g001
Table 2. Species with locus typicus in Argentina, indicating if the species is currently endemic for the country (Y = yes; N = no).
Table 2. Species with locus typicus in Argentina, indicating if the species is currently endemic for the country (Y = yes; N = no).
Order, FamilySpeciesType LocalityEndemic (Y/N)
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeAntechiniscus jermani Rossi & Claps, 198941°11′ S, 71°49′ W, 1800 m asl: Río Negro Province, Nahuel Huapi National Park, Monte Tronador.Y
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeBarbaria bigranulata (Richters, 1907)54°48′ S, 68°18′ W, 50 m asl: Tierra del Fuego Province, Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego, Ushuaia.N
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeBarbaria paucigranulata Wilamowski, Vončina, Gąsiorek & Michalczyk, 202224°47′14″ S 65°43′30″ W, 2150 m asl: Salta Province, Rosario de Lerma Department.Y
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeBarbaria weglarskae Gąsiorek, Wilamowski, Vončina & Michalczyk, 202248°25′42″ S 71°44′48″ W, 803 m asl: Santa Cruz Province, vicinity of la Florida.Y
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus aonikenk Gasiorek, Bochnak, Vončina & Michalczyk, 202144°10′26″ S 71°33′58″ W, 716 m asl: Patagonia, Chubut Province, vicinity of Río Pico.Y
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeEchiniscus pellucidus Gasiorek, Bochnak, Vončina & Michalczyk, 202144°10′26″ S 71°33′58″ W, 716 m asl: Patagonia, Chubut Province, vicinity of Río Pico.Y
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaeMopsechiniscus granulosus Mihelčič, 196741°14′ S, 71°46′ W; 800 m asl: Río Negro Province, Pampalinda, near Cainquenes stream.
41°58′ S, 71°31′ W, 390 m asl: Río Negro Province, Bolson.
N
Echiniscoidea, EchiniscidaePseudechiniscus (Meridioniscus) saltensis Rocha, Doma, González-Reyes & Lisi, 202024°27′–25°47′ S, 64°55′–65°40′ W, 1150 m asl: Salta Province, Salta City.Y
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium argentinum Roszkowska, Ostrowska & Kaczmarek, 201541°13′ S, 71°27′ W, ca. 1200 m asl: Río Negro Province, Nahuel Huapi National Park.Y
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium beatae Roszkowska, Ostrowska & Kaczmarek, 201541°12′ S, 71°50′ W, ca. 1000 m asl: Río Negro Province, Nahuel Huapi National Park.Y
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium irenae Rocha, González-Reyes, Ostertag & Lisi, 202236°37′13″ S, 64°17′26″ W, ca 177 m asl: La Pampa Province, Santa Rosa City.Y
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium pelufforum Rocha, González-Reyes, Ostertag & Lisi, 202224°47′18″ S, 65°24′38″ W, 1150 m asl: Salta Province, Salta City.Y
Apochela, MilnesiidaeMilnesium quiranae Rocha, González-Reyes, Ostertag & Lisi, 202224°47′18″ S, 65°24′38″ W, 1150 m asl: Salta Province, Salta City.Y
Parachela, DoryphoribiidaeDoryphoribius cephalogibbosus (Rocha, Doma, González-Reyes & Lisi, 2020)24°27′–25°47′ S, 64°55′–65°40′ W, 1150 m asl: Salta Province, Salta City.Y
Parachela, HypsibiidaeDiphascon mitrense Pilato, Binda & Qualtieri, 199954°47′ S, 68°16′ W; 100 m asl: Tierra del Fuego Province, Península Mitre, Estancia Río Pipo.Y
Parachela, HypsibiidaeHypsibius marcelli Pilato, 199052°54′ S, 68°27′ W, 0 m asl: Tierra del Fuego Province, Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego, near Estancia Cullen. Y
Parachela, HypsibiidaeMixibius fueginus Pilato & Binda, 199654°47′ S, 68°24′ W, 650 m asl: Tierra del Fuego Province, San Martial Glacier.Y
Parachela, IsohypsibiidaeUrsulinius tucumanensis (Claps & Rossi, 1984)26°47′ S, 65°20′ W, 750 m asl: Tucumán Province, Horco Molle.Y
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus anderssoni Richters, 190854°48′ S, 68°18′ W, 50 m asl: Tierra del Fuego Province, Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego, Ushuaia, valley.
54°46′ S, 68°12′ W, 150 m asl: Tierra del Fuego Province, Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego, Río Olivia.
54°47′ S, 68°23′ W, 800 m asl: Tierra del Fuego Province, Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego, mountain region of Ushuaia.
54°50′ S, 68°34′ W, 0 m asl: Tierra del Fuego Province, Tierra Mayor (Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego), near Roca Lake.
Y
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus andinus Maucci, 198850°06′ S, 73°18′ W, 200 m asl: Santa Cruz Province, Los Glaciares National Park, shores of Argentino Lake, near Onelli Glacier.N
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus kazmierskii Kaczmarek & Michalczyk, 200941°11.551′ S, 71°49.908′ W/41°12′N, 71°50′ W, 1100 m asl: Río Negro Province, Nahuel Huapi National Park, Ventisquero Negro.Y
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus kristenseni Guidetti, Peluffo, Rocha, Cesari & Moly de Peluffo, 201335°40′ S, 63°44′ W; 143 m asl: La Pampa Province, General Pico (125 km northeast of Santa Rosa).
36°39′ S, 64°17′ W; 177 m asl: La Pampa Province, Santa Rosa City.
36°55′ S, 64°16′ W; 150 m asl: La Pampa Province, Reserve Provincial Parque Luro (35 km south of Santa Rosa).
Y
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus papillosus Iharos, 196341°59′ S, 71°31′ W, 360 m asl: Río Negro Province, El Bolsón, Mt. Piltriquitron.Y
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMacrobiotus patagonicus Maucci, 198850°06′ S, 73°18′ W, 200 m asl: Santa Cruz Province, Los Glaciares National Park, shores of Argentino Lake, near Onelli Glacier.N
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus neuquensis Rossi, Claps & Ardohain, 200940°07′ S, 71°39′ W, 700 m asl: Neuquén Province, Hua Hum, Junín de los Andes.Y
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus ovostriatus (Pilato & Patanè, 1998)54°17′ S, 66°42′ W, 50 m asl: Tierra del Fuego Province, Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego, Península Mitre, Cabo San Pablo.
54°47′ S, 68°16′ W, 100 m asl: Tierra del Fuego Province, Peninsula Mitre, Río Pipo.
N
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus pseudoblocki Roszkowska, Stec, Ciobanu & Kaczmarek, 201641°12′ S, 71°50′ W, ca. 1000 m asl: Río Negro, Nahuel Huapi National Park, Ventisquero Negro.Y
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus szeptyckii (Kaczmarek & Michalczyk, 2009)41°31′ S, 71°30′ W, 950 m asl: Río Negro Province, Nahuel Huapi National Park, 70 km south of San Carlos de Bariloche. Y
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMesobiotus tehuelchensis (Rossi, Claps & Ardohain, 2009)39°08′ S, 71°17′ W, 1000 m asl: Neuquén Province, Aluminé Ñorquinco Lake.Y
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMinibiotus claxtonae Rossi, Claps & Ardohain, 200939°25′ S, 71°17′ W, 1000 m asl: Neuquén Province, Aluminé, Quillén Lake. Y
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeMinibiotus pseudostellarus Roszkowska, Stec, Ciobanu & Kaczmarek, 201641°12′ S, 71°51′ W, ca. 1200 m asl: Río Negro Province, Nahuel Huapi National Park, Bariloche, at the foot of the Tronador volcano, Garganta del Diablo waterfall.Y
Parachela, MacrobiotidaeSchusterius tridigitus (Schuster, 1983)54°47′ S, 68°24′ W, 600–750 m asl: Tierra del Fuego Province, Sierra Martial. Y
Parachela, RamazzottiidaeRamazzottius saltensis Claps & Rossi, 198424°55′ S, 64°09′ W, 400 m asl: Salta Province, road from Las Lajitas to J.V. González.Y
Table 3. References for the various images from [15,37,47,48] showing the cuticle characteristics of the genera Viridiscus and Barbaria, and of B. cf. rufoviridis comb. nov.
Table 3. References for the various images from [15,37,47,48] showing the cuticle characteristics of the genera Viridiscus and Barbaria, and of B. cf. rufoviridis comb. nov.
CharactersImage TypeFigures of the Genus ViridiscusFigures of B. cf. rufoviridis comb. nov. (Argentine Material)Figures of the Genus Barbaria
Cuticular
ornamentation
PCM4e, 5e, 6f in
Gąsiorek et al. [48]
1–2 in Peluffo et al. [37] 4a, 5a, 6a in Gąsiorek et al. [48]
2, 6, 13, 15, 25 in Michalczyk & Kaczmarek [15]
SEM7d in Gąsiorek et al. [48]3–5 in Peluffo et al. [37] 3–4; 9–10; 14, 16, 23 in Michalczyk & Kaczmarek [15]
Cuticle
structure
SEM--11–12, 53–54 in Michalczyk & Kaczmarek [15]
TEM-1–2 in Rocha et al. [47] -
drawings--72–74 in Michalczyk & Kaczmarek [15]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rocha, A.; Camarda, D.; Ostertag, B.; Doma, I.; Meier, F.; Lisi, O. Actual State of Knowledge of the Limno-Terrestrial Tardigrade Fauna of the Republic of Argentina and New Genus Assignment for Viridiscus rufoviridis (du Bois-Reymond Marcus, 1944). Diversity 2023, 15, 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15020222

AMA Style

Rocha A, Camarda D, Ostertag B, Doma I, Meier F, Lisi O. Actual State of Knowledge of the Limno-Terrestrial Tardigrade Fauna of the Republic of Argentina and New Genus Assignment for Viridiscus rufoviridis (du Bois-Reymond Marcus, 1944). Diversity. 2023; 15(2):222. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15020222

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rocha, Alejandra, Daniele Camarda, Belen Ostertag, Irene Doma, Florencia Meier, and Oscar Lisi. 2023. "Actual State of Knowledge of the Limno-Terrestrial Tardigrade Fauna of the Republic of Argentina and New Genus Assignment for Viridiscus rufoviridis (du Bois-Reymond Marcus, 1944)" Diversity 15, no. 2: 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15020222

APA Style

Rocha, A., Camarda, D., Ostertag, B., Doma, I., Meier, F., & Lisi, O. (2023). Actual State of Knowledge of the Limno-Terrestrial Tardigrade Fauna of the Republic of Argentina and New Genus Assignment for Viridiscus rufoviridis (du Bois-Reymond Marcus, 1944). Diversity, 15(2), 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15020222

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop