Paradoris Bergh 1884

GENUS PARADORIS BERGH, 1884 Paradoris Bergh, 1884a: 686. Type species: Paradoris granulata Bergh, 1884, by monotypy. Percunas Marcus, 1970: 945. Type species: Percunas mulciber Ev. Marcus, 1970; by original designation. Diagnosis Dorsum covered with simple tubercles, stiffened by integumentary spicules. Head with two conical oral tentacles. Anterior border of the foot grooved and notched. Labial armature with rodlets. Radula composed of simple, hamate teeth, with a short, strong cusp. Reproductive system with a flattened, granular prostate, having two well differentiated regions. Penis and vagina devoid of hooks. Accessory glands and sacs armed with copulatory spines are normally present. Remarks Bergh (1884a) described the genus Paradoris based on Paradoris granulata Bergh, 1884, as being a ‘typical dorid’ characterized by having the jaws divided into three portions, several accessory glands and several sacs with copulatory spines. According to Bergh (1884a) the relationships of Paradoris are uncertain, and this genus is probably close to the archidorids, from which it differs by having jaws. Marcus (1970) described Percunas based on Percunas mulciber Marcus, 1970 as having the labial cuticle divided into four areas with rodlets, all radular teeth hook-shaped, massive prostate, several darts in the muscular diverticula and multiple glands annexed to the penial papilla. Baba (1989), Miller (1995), and Ortea (1995) recognized that Percunas is a synonym of Paradoris. Perrone (1990) transferred Discodoris indecora Bergh, 1881 to the genus Paradoris, without any justification, and Ortea (1995) regarded P. indecora as a synonym of P. granulata. The type material of P. indecora is lost, but in the original description there is enough information to recognize it as a synonym of P. granulata. Miller (1995) and Ortea (1995) found some variability in Paradoris when describing new species, and modified the diagnosis of the genus to accommodate these new species. According to these authors some species, such as Paradoris leuca Miller, 1995 and Paradoris ceneris Ortea, 1995, lack both accessory glands and copulatory spines, whereas Paradoris mollis Ortea, 1995 has copulatory spines but lacks accessory glands.Published as part of Valdés, Ángel, 2002, A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia), pp. 535-636 in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4) on pages 592-595, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, http://zenodo.org/record/463420