Article: Zootaxa
Article: Zootaxa
Article: Zootaxa
https://www.mapress.com/zt/
Copyright © 2022 Magnolia Press
Article ZOOTAXA
ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition)
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5114.1.1
http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CEB1D607-7833-45EC-A99A-2731505C13A5
Abstract
A classification of the entire Phylum Nematoda is presented, based on current molecular, developmental and morphological
evidence. The classification reflects the evolutionary relationships within the phylum, as well as significant areas of
uncertainty, particularly related to the early evolution of nematodes. It includes 3 classes, 8 subclasses, 12 superorders,
32 orders, 53 suborders, 101 superfamilies, 276 families, 511 subfamilies, 3030 genera, and 28537 species. All valid
species named from the time of publication of the previous classification and census (2010) to the end of 2019 are listed,
along with the number of valid species in each genus. Taxonomic authorities are provided for taxon names of all ranks.
The habitats where the species in each genus are found are listed, and an alphabetic index of genus names is provided.
The systematics of nematodes is reviewed, along with a history of nematode classification; evolutionary affinities and
origins of nematodes; and the current diagnosis of the group. Short overviews of the general biology, ecology, scientific
and economic importance of the group are presented.
Introduction
Nematodes are important ecologically and economically (Barker et al. 1994, Hodda & Khudhir 2022, Hodda et al.
2009, Lambshead 1993, 2004, Yeates et al. 2009). They interact in many ways with many different organisms in
many food webs, influence physical processes such as decomposition, carbon and nutrient cycling, and are used for
biomonitoring or indicating broader ecosystem properties like resilience, evolutionary hotspots, energy or nutrient
transfers (Hodda 2021, 2022b). The economic value of nematode parasitism of plants and animals is large (Barker
et al. 1994, Hodda 2009a, b, Sasser & Freckman 1986, Yeates et al. 1993). Furthermore, the economic value can
be positive (when it involves control of pests or weeds) or negative (when it decreases crop or livestock production
or human health) (Hodda 2009a, b). Identifying nematode species is therefore very important.
One of the reasons for nematodes’ large range of interactions with the physical and biological worlds is that
nematodes are very diverse: there are a lot of species and they differ substantially from each other so that there
are many higher taxonomic groups as well as many species. Exactly how many nematode species there are is not
definitively known. The smallest estimate of total number of nematode species is half a million, while the largest is
20 times that—10 million species (Grassle 1989, Grassle & Maciolek 1992, Hodda 2022a, Hodda & Khudhir 2022,
Hugot et al. 2001, Lambshead 1993, Lambshead & Boucher 2003, May 1988, Stork 1993). The extreme variance
in these estimates shows how little is definitively known about nematode species.
We are not even sure of how much we know about nematode species. Estimates of the proportion of nematode
species known vary from much less than 1% to around 5%, making them among the least described taxa, and
certainly the least described of the mega-diverse animal phyla (Andrassy 1999, 2007, Hodda 2022a). Progress in
describing nematode species has been slow, but the rate of descriptions is increasing slowly to the current rate of
about 400 species per year (Hodda 2022a). This is less than 0.1% of the estimated total number of species, but
1.5% of the number of known, described species (Hodda 2022a). What it means is that around 13% or an eighth of
described species have been described in the last 10 years (Hodda 2022a).
Nominotypical subfamilies, tribes and subtribes have been inserted in the classification to facilitate electronic
indexing, so that each genus or subgenus is allocated to all taxonomic ranks above, even where not strictly
necessary.
Current names follow the Pearse (1936) system of endings for higher taxa, as advocated by several authors
(Chitwood 1958, Pearse 1936), and in wide use in nematode taxonomy. Earlier authors, and those from the former
USSR, used a different system of endings, and have been cited as authorities if clearly indicating the use of the
name at the particular rank, irrespective of the ending applied to the stem name. In many cases the lower-level taxa
included in a group now differs substantially from those when the name was proposed.
In previous versions of this classification, the authorities cited for taxa above the genus level were the first to
use a name at a particular level, irrespective of the concept represented by the name, and irrespective of uses at
other levels. This convention was followed to provide the maximum information. It allowed readers to apply
the principle of coordination to these names (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2000), while
simultaneously providing information on the use of family-group names to indicate more and less inclusive groups.
In nematodes, the concepts and taxa included within families may vary substantially; compare, for example,
Andrassy (1976), Lorenzen (1994) and Sudhaus (2011). In many cases those first using the names of higher taxa
do not clearly specify all or any of the characteristics of included taxa, and the concepts represented by some family
names have changed considerably since they were first proposed. The first user of a name may not have provided
sufficient diagnostic characteristics to ascertain how a family-group name should be used. In terms of the species
included, many of the original designations of family names include groups no longer considered monophyletic,
especially in the light of the recent molecular evidence, and so again the original user of a name may or may not
be the one defining the group as currently constituted. For these reasons, the author specifying the diagnostic
or apomorphic features, or listing a monophyletic group of species included in a family are often not the original
authorities.
The current classification has applied the principle of coordination so that the original authority for a name from
the family-group down is determined by priority and the type concept (International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature 2000). Because applying the principle of coordination provides less information than the previous
alternative, uses of names at different ranks in the family group are now indicated in parentheses to enable tracing
of use of names in the family group.
The names of species described from calendar years 2011 to 2019 (inclusive) are listed explicitly under their
genus. The names of species described prior to 2011 are not listed unless subject to some taxonomic act, such as
synonymization, reinstatement or assignment to a new combination from 2011 to 2019.
Numbers of species include all those accepted as valid and published before 2020, including fossils and species
described from 2011 to 2019 as specified in the preceding paragraph.
The habitat for each genus is listed in the alphabetic compendium below the taxonomic listing. Trophic
relationships and groups are discussed and presented in a separate paper (Hodda 2022b).
References are included for citations in the text or footnotes only. Taxonomic authorities for taxa in the
classification are listed in the references only for the Family level and above, except for recent species names listed
explicitly other than in the taxonomic section. Where there are multiple authors of names, all are listed. Compound
names are hyphenated and fully capitalized in the classification and alphabetic list, and accented characters in non-
english alphabets are anglicized.
An aim of the classification has been to minimise the changes in taxonomic rank of well-established groups (such
as Suborder Tylenchina), in keeping with a general desire to minimise instability in classifications (International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2000). In practice, names at high taxonomic ranks like Class or Order
are probably used less frequently than those at lower ranks like family or genus. Therefore, additional higher-level
names are preferred to a large number of lower-level ranks. For this reason, superorders are defined (following
Maggenti 1991) and the use of infraorders is eschewed (Blaxter et al. 2000, De Ley & Blaxter 2002, 2004). It may
be that further study will result in some of these higher categories being unambiguously placed within others, but
considerably more evidence will be required for this to occur given current, often contradictory, evidence.
Phylum Nematoda Cobb, 1932 1 (3 classes, 8 subclasses, 12 superorders, 32 orders, 53 suborders, 101 superfamilies, 275 families,
510 subfamilies, 3030 genera, 284537 species) 2 3 4
Class Enoplea Inglis, 1983 (3 subclasses, 4 superorders, 9 orders, 12 suborders, 19 superfamilies, 35 families, 63 subfamilies,
243 genera, 2297 species) 5
Subclass Enoplia Pearse, 1942 (2 superorders, 6 orders, 8 suborders, 12 superfamilies, 21 families, 39 subfamilies, 145 genera,
1268 species)
Superorder Enoplica Hodda, 2007 (5 orders, 7 suborders, 11 superfamily, 20 families, 38 subfamilies, 143 genera, 1256
species) 6
Order Enoplida Filipjev, 1929 (1 suborder, 3 superfamilies, 6 families, 10 subfamilies, 41 genera, 478 species) 7
Suborder Enoplina Chitwood & Chitwood, 1937 (3 superfamilies, 6 families, 10 subfamilies, 41 genera, 478
species)
Superfamily Enoploidea Baird, 1853 (Schuurmans-Stekhoven & De-Coninck, 1933) (3 families, 5 subfamilies,
23 genera, 286 species)
1 Rudolphi (1808) is often cited as the author of the accepted name of the phylum, which is Nematoda. The first holophyletic diag-
nosis at Phylum rank used the name "Nemates" (Cobb 1932). The latter name has never been in wide use, and the competing claims of
the two names have been discussed extensively (Chitwood 1957, 1958, Dougherty 1958a, 1958b). The International Code of Zoologi-
cal Nomenclature does not insist on citing authorities for taxa above the Family group (ICZN 2000). Following the principle outlined
in previous versions of the classification (Hodda 2007, 2011), Cobb (1932) is cited as authority because his use is the first holophyletic
use, and also the first specifically as a phylum.
The taxonomic rank of the Nematoda has been very controversial in recent times. Some have ranked the nematodes as a phylum (eg
Potts 1932, Pearse 1936, Chitwood 1940, Pearse 1942, Chitwood 1950, Inglis 1983, Maggenti 1991, Goodey 1963), and some as a class (eg
Baylis & Daubney 1926, Filipjev 1929, Rauther 1930, Chitwood & Chitwood 1933, De Coninck & Shuurmans Stekhoven 1933, Andrassy
1976, Malakhov et al. 1982, Malakhov 1986). Most recently there has been some consensus that nematodes are a sufficiently distinct and
well-defined group as to rank as Phylum Nematoda (Blaxter et al. 2000, De Ley & Blaxter 2002, 2004, Hodda 2007, 2011). There is much
closer agreement on the orders of nematodes.
2 The evolutionary affinities of Nematoda have long been controversial (see discussion in Hodda 2007). The most recent molecular evi-
dence has favoured affinities first with Nematomorpha, then with decreasing relationships to Kinorhyncha, Priapulida and Loricifera within a
superphylum Ecdysozoa (Aguinaldo et al. 1997, Dunn et al. 2008). However, significant unresolved differences between phylogenies hypoth-
esised using different taxa, assumptions, methods and lines of evidence remain.
3 The described species of Nematoda highly underestimates the estimated total number of species by a factor generally estimated at between
10 and 50, but which may be up to 3000, giving an estimated total number of species at between 500 000 and 10 000 000 (Brandt et al. 2007,
Grassle 1989, Grassle & Maciolek 1992, Hammond 1992, Hodda & Khudhir 2022, Hugot et al. 2001, Lambshead 1993, May 1988).
4 Ecologically, the phylum has species occurring in every geographic region on earth, probably has parasitic species in every other animal
phylum where the body is significantly larger than the nematodes, has species parasitizing all terrestrial or aquatic and a few marine plants
(mostly externally and below ground, but also internally and in stems and seeds), and has free-living species in every habitat on earth where
liquid water is ever present (including Antarctica and the Arctic sea ice). Trophically, free-living species consume most other types of small-
bodied organisms. Generally, only live organisms are consumed; that is, nematodes are not saprobes.
Broad trophic categories and types of hosts are defined and listed for each genus in a separate publication (Hodda 2022a). The broad
types of environments in which each genus is found are provided in the alphabetic list of genera.
5 Enoplea have unique characters of the sperm nuclear envelope being retained in mature spermatozoa (absent in all other nematodes stud-
ied), no asymmetry in the dividing germ line (present in other nematodes), and no bilateral symmetry during early embryogenesis (present in
other nematodes) (Baccetti et al. 1983, Justine 2002, Malakhov 1994, Schierenberg 2005, Voronov et al. 1998, Yushin 2003a,b). However,
these character states are common in animals outside nematodes, and so they may represent plesiomorphies uninformative for phylogenetic
analysis (Aleshin 2004). Oncholaimida have a nuclear envelope present (Yushin et al. 2002) as an apomorphy, but have affinities with Enoplia
from molecular evidence (Van Megen et al. 2009). Spermatogenesis and development also provide evidence for the separation of Enoplea
from Dorylaimea and Chromadorea (Yushin & Malakhov 2004, Schierenberg & Lahl 2004).
6 Classification generally follows Lorenzen (1994).
7 Originally created as Order Enoplata.
8 Created as "section Enopliens" by Dujardin (1845), and often cited as author (eg Gerlach & Riemann 1974), but first used explicitly as a
family by Baird (1853).
9 Species number including 8 species inquirenda, but excluding 1 nomen nudum (Jeong et al. 2019).
10 Originally created as subfamily Enoplodinae by De Coninck (1965).
11 Originally created as subfamily Oxyonchinae by De Coninck (1965).
33 Originally affinities were uncertain (Jairajpuri et al. 1976), but later proposed under order Dorylaimida (Jairajpuri 1983), but very soon
afterwards proposed independently in the order Enoplida (Siddiqi 1983). Hodda (2007) placed Campydorida as an order under Enoplica, on the
basis of molecular evidence (Mullin et al. 2003). More recent molecular analyses suggest affinities with Ironina (Van Megen et al. 2009), so the
group is now placed as a suborder within Ironida. Morphological characters can be interpreted in many ways, so do not provide unambiguous
evidence for phylogeny.
Molecular evidence suggests affinities between the genera Campydora, Rhabdolaimus and Syringolaimus (Bik et al. 2010, Leduc et al.
2018, Meldal et al. 2007, Shokoohi et al. 2013, Smythe 2015, van Megen et al. 2009). These genera all have a well-developed basal bulb, and
Syringolaimus also has a monorchic male reproductive system similar to that in Campydora and Rogerus (Hoeppli & Chu 1932, Tchesunov
2017, Winiszewska 2001), while it is diorchic in other genera of Ironina (Chen & Guo 2015, Shokoohi et al. 2013).
34 Following Holovachov (2019).
35 Placed in Leptolaimoidea (Plectida) by De Ley & Blaxter (2004). Some molecular evidence suggests affinities with some Enoplida,
Oncholaimida, and Tripylida (Holterman et al. 2006). The position of the genus Syringolaimus needs clarification, but if included in the Rhab-
dolaimidae, then the Rhabdolaimidae fits with Enoplica on molecular evidence (Meldal et al. 2007). The Rhabdolaimidae can be placed in
Enoplida on the morphological characters of non-sprial and pocket shaped amphids (Lorenzen 1994). Curiously, Lorenzen (1994) excluded
Syringolaimus from Rhabdolaimidae, placing it instead in Ironidae. Maggenti (1963) included the genus in Rhabdolaimidae. Placed as a
suborder of Ironida in the current classification on the basis of the similarity of three anteriorly-placed teeth in an elongate buccal cavity, and
an unequivocal placement within Ironida on molecular evidence (Van Megen et al. 2009).
39 A very diverse group, paraphyletic on both molecular and morphological evidence (Holterman et al. 2006, Lorenzen 1994, Rusin et al.
2001), with part in Enoplea and part in Tripylea. Placed provisionally in Enoplica because this is assumed basal. Revision required.
40 Placed in Trefusiidae by Vincx & Furstenberg (1988) on morphological evidence and Shi & Xu (2018) on molecular evidence, but in
Tripyloididae by Andrassy (2007) on morphology.
41 Unplaced in Hodda (2007). Placed as a superorder because affinities within Enoplia are still uncertain, but it falls within a broadened
definition of the subclass.
42 Placed as a separate class by Hodda (2007), on the basis of the morphological apomorphy of the spermatozoa having a nuclear envelope
present (Yushin et al. 2002). Supported as a distinct clade, but with relationships on molecular evidence either unresolved (Meldal et al. 2007)
or with affinities to Tripylida (Holterman et al. 2006) or Enoplia (Litvaitis et al. 2000, Van Megen et al. 2009), and on morphological evidence
with affinities to both Tripylida and Enoplida.
46 Subfamily Symplocostomatinae Filipjev 1918 was rejected by Lorenzen (1994) because the otherwise apomorphic features of a pharyn-
geal bulb, sexual dimorphism in the structure of the buccal cavity, and dorsally spiral amphids are shared between the subfamilies. Likewise
Belbolinae Andrassy 1976, Thoonchinae Gerlach & Riemann 1974, Pareurystomininae Andrassy 1976 and Aronematinae Fadeeva & Belogu-
rov 1988 lack diagnostic characters (Lorenzen 1994, Smol & Coomans 2006).
47 Genus dubium in Gerlach & Riemann (1974).
48 Inadequately described, genus dubium and incertae sedis: unplaced by Lorenzen (1994).
49 Placed in Pelagonematinae Oncholaimidae Oncholaimoidea Oncholaimina Oncholaimida by Andrassy (1973), but transferred to Monon-
chidae by Jensen (1976) and Lorenzen (1994).
50 Triplonchia was placed as the only subclass in Class Tripylea in previous classifications (Hodda 2007), on the basis of ambiguous mor-
phological evidence, and weak (55-66%) or low molecular support for the dichotomous division of Nematoda into Enoplea and Chromadorea
(Holterman et al. 2006, Meldal et al. 2006, Smythe et al. 2006), making a polytomy of Enoplea, Chromadorea, Tripylea, and Dorylaimea the
only justified assumption. One species—Tobrilus diversipapillatus—has a gastrulation pattern highly common in animal kingdom, but un-
common in nematodes (Schierenberg 2005). Information on the patterns of gastrulation in other Triplonchia, Enoplea and Dorylaimea could
potentially provide resolution for the early phylogeny of nematodes. In the absence of morphological or developmental evidence, recent mo-
lecular analyses show some affinities between the former Tripylea and the former Enoplea (Van Megen et al. 2009), so Tripylea is now placed
as a subclass with the sole subclass of the former Enoplea in an enlarged class Enoplea.
51 Cobb (1920) used the name Triplonchia as an order, but this pre-dates the adoption of uniform endings for the names of higher taxa, so is
credited as the authority here. Siddiqi (1983) was the first to propose the name at order level in its current form.
52 Originally proposed as subgenus of Paratrichodorus, but raised to genus by Siddiqi (1980). Synonym of Paratrichodorus by Decraemer
& de Waele (1981).
53 Originally proposed as subgenus of Paratrichodorus, but raised to genus by Siddiqi (1980). Synonym of Paratrichodorus by Decraemer
& de Waele (1981).
54 According to Decraemer et al. (2019).
55 The genus name Trichodora has page priority in Cobb 1913 (p434 vs p441), but the name Trichodorus is in wide use (by at least 10 dif-
ferent authors in the last 50 years) and Trichodora has not been used, so Trichodorus is used.
56 Synonymized by Pedram et al. (2015) on the basis of morphology and molecular (28S).
57 Division of Tripylina into two clades is supported by molecular evidence (Meldal et al. 2006).
58 Genus dubium incertae sedis.
59 The family Tobrilidae should include the genus Trischistoma (Holterman & Holovachov 2007, Zullini 2006), but more recently it was
classified as a superfamily within Tripyloidina on the basis of molecular and morphological evidence (Zhao 2011).
60 Filipjev (1918) named the subfamily Trilobini, but the genus name Trilobus on which it was based is a homonym, so changed to Tobri-
lus.
61 Subfamily created by De Coninck (1965).
62 Placed with Tobriloidea by De Ley & Blaxter (2002). Some molecular analyses place the families Prismatolaimidae and Bastianiidae in
a separate clade (Holterman et al. 2006, Van Megen et al. 2009), while others did not resolve their relationships (Meldal et al. 2006). None of
the molecular analyses resolve the relationship of the families with Tobrilidae or Tripylidae. Morphological evidence has been interpreted as
suggesting affinities with Bastianiidae, Onchulidae or Tripylidae or even Monhysteridae (Coomans & Raski 1988, De Coninck 1935, Goodey
1963, Hodda et al. 2004). Recent analyses have suggested inclusion in Tripylida on the basis of the structure of the buccal cavity and cephalic
sensillae (Hodda et al. 2004, Hodda 2007, Holovachov et al. 2008).
63 Subfamily created by Micoletzky (1922).
64 Bastianiidae was family incertae sedis in the classifications of De Ley et al. (2006) and Hodda (2007). It has been included in Enoplida:
Oxystominidae (Andrassy 1976), Tripylida:Prismatolaimidae (De Coninck 1935), Araeolaimida (Goodey 1963), and Chromadorida:Lepto-
laimina (Lorenzen 1994, Ryss 1988). The family was not included in some molecular analyses (Meldal et al. 2006, Smythe et al. 2006), but
was resolved as a clade with Prismatolaimidae when it was included (Holterman et al. 2006, Van Megen et al. 2009). There are morphological
similarities with Prismatolaimidae in the structure of the sensilla, amphid, cardia, supplements, spicules, spicular musculature, gubernaculum
and organellum ovale (Coomans & Raski 1988, Holovachov 2006, Tchesunov & Sturhan 2002). The molecular and morphological evidence
seems enough to place the family despite some evidence of other affinities.
65 There is a unique structure of the oesophagus with gland cells interspersed with muscle, which defines the superfamily. Morphological
similarities in the orifices of the oesophageal glands, cephalic sensillae, amphids and cardia support affinities with Prismatolaimidae (Hodda
et al. 2004, Hodda 2007, Holovachov et al. 2008). Other interpretations include the family being totally unrelated to, closely related to, or
a subset of, the Prismatolaimidae, and variously as belonging to the orders Trefusiida, Enoplida, Tripylida and Triplonchida (Goodey 1963,
Andrassy 1964, De Coninck 1965, Riemann 1972, Andrassy 1976, Maggenti 1982, Siddiqi 1983, Maggenti 1991, Lorenzen 1994, Andrassy
2001a,b, De Ley & Blaxter 2002). Some authors have considered the evidence for higher systematics in this group inconclusive (Coomans &
Raski 1988).
66 Hodda (2007) placed Onchulidae with Prismatolaimidae in Prismatolaimoidea, but with the inclusion of Bastianiidae with Prismato-
laimidae in Prismatolaimoidea, continued inclusion of Onchulidae is no longer justified, so Onchulidae is placed in a new superfamily but with
Prismatolaimoidea in a new suborder Prismatolaimina.
67 Regarded as a subset of Enoplia by Lorenzen (1981) on the basis of the presence of primarily non-spiral amphids, the group is unresolved
in most molecular phylogenies (Meldal et al. 2006, Litvaitis et al. 2000, Smythe et al. 2006). However, Dorylaimea is clearly a separate branch
in the latest molecular analysis (Van Megen et al. 2009). This position is compatible with morphological analysis (Lorenzen 1981) if the as-
sumed character polarity is reversed, and non-spiral amphids become plesiomorphic rather than apomorphic. All Orders within Dorylaimea
have the morphological apomorphy of oesophageal glands opening behind the nerve ring. The clade has been advanced before on other mor-
phological evidence (Maggenti 1991). Using morphological evidence requiring some assumptions regarding homology, but considering the
vertebrate-parasitic Trichocephalida, Dioctophymatida, Muspiceida and Mermithida rather than the free-living members of the groups, Spratt
(2011) regarded these groups as having shared characters of onchiostyles with Triplochida within Enoplea, and thus supporting Dorylaimia as
a subclass within an expanded Enoplea. He also pointed out the presence of a Demanian system appears limited to Muspiceidae (both species
of the genus Maseria) and 11 genera of Oncholaimida, suggesting further links between Trichocephalia and Enoplea. The clade of Dorylaimia
is also supported by other molecular evidence, although it has been equivocally included within Enoplea (De Ley & Blaxter 2004) or Chro-
madorea (Holterman et al. 2006). Spermatogenesis and development provide further evidence for the separation of Dorylaimea from Enoplea
and Chromadorea (Yushin & Malakhov 2004, Schierenberg & Lahl 2004). Herein the relation with Enoplea and Chromadorea is regarded as
a polytomy (Aleshin et al. 1998, Hodda 2007).
68 Classification generally follows Jairajpuri & Ahmad (1992). See Pena-Santiago (2014) for alternative classification.
69 Created as suborder Dorylaimata by Chitwood (1933), which pre-dates the adoption of uniform endings for higher taxa, hence the author-
ity is Chitwood 1933, although the first to use the name Dorylaimina was Pearse (1936).
70 Loof and Coomans (1986) considered Paradorylaimus a synonym of Laimydorus Siddiqi 1969. Vinciguerra (2006), Andrassy (2009)
and Orselli et al. (2012) considered the genus valid but in a subfamily Afrodorylaiminae of the family Dorylaimidae based in the arrangement
of labial papillae. Species in the genus as per Kazi et al. (2017).
71 Originally described as a species of Eudorylaimus and placed in Qudsianematinae by Loof 1975 then separated as a separate montypic
genus and placed in Qudsianematinae on morphological evidence by Andrassy (1998), but Aporcelaimidae on molecular evidence (Elshiska et
al. 2015)
72 Originally described in Dorylaiminae (Yeates 1967) on the basis of an oral aperture circular in cross section, but also regarded as
Qudsianematinae (Vinciguerra 2006), Aporcelaiminae (Jairajpuri & Ahmad 1992), and as a synonym of Aporcelaimellus in the subfamily
Aporcelaiminae on the basis of the stylet and lip characteristics (Pena Santiago & Ciobanu 2007). Vinciguerra (2006) recognized 31 valid
species.
73 Proposed as a subfamily by Andrassy (2009) and supported by Alvarez Ortega et al. (2018).
78 Following the revision and synoymies proposed by Alvarez-Ortega & Pena-Santiago (2014). Jairajpuri & Ahmad (1992) recognsed 41
species.
79 Following Pena-Santiago et al. (2015).
80 Created as a subfamily by Thorne (1939).
81 Brittonematinae Thorne 1967 has been suggested as an inappropriate subfamily name because the genus Brittonema Thorne 1967 has
been synonymised with 3 different genera: Brasilaimus Lordello & Zamith 1957 by several authors (Andrassy 2009, Vinciguerra et al. 2000,
Zullini & Vinciguerra 2000), and Actinca Andrassy 1964 by several other authors (Coomans & Loof 1986, Jairajpuri & Ahmad 1992). Both
synonymies were based on the evaluation that the diagnostic feature of a filiform extension of the male tail in Brittonema was an anomaly
rather than a sound character. If, on the other hand, the character is phylogenetically informative, the genera Brittonema and Practinocephalus
are synonymous because P. brzeskii and P. bizarrus have similar tails (Vinciguerra & Clausi 2003). Andrassy (2010) suggested the genera
should be diagnosed by Brittonema having 3 species (B. sulcatum, B. secundum and B. brzeskii) with head not greatly swollen and less than 40
longitudinal cuticular ridges, while Practinocephalus contains a single species with greatly swollen head (P. bizarrus) and around 100 cuticular
ridges). Therefore Brittonematinae is retained.
82 Placed as a subfamily of Qudsianematidae by Andrassy (1991), but separated as a family in Actinolaimoidea by Jairajpuri & Ahmad
(1992). Here placed in Actinolaimoidea because extensive sclerotization, thickening and elaboration of the cheilostome is apomorphic to the
superfamily.
83 Subfamily created by Thorne (1935). Molecular analysis by He et al. (2005).
84 Proposed as family by Coomans (1985), and as tribe by Khan et al. (1976). Composition based on molecular evidence He et al.
(2005).
85 Currently the consensus is that there are species groups within the genus based on diagnostic features of limited systematic value. The
species within each species group are mostly agreed because the groups are based in diagnostic features, although as more species are described
in this very speciose genus, the distinctions between the groups are blurring. Historically, there have been many subgenera defined on slightly
different criteria: 8 were recognized by Cohn & Sher (1972), but these were rejected by Luc & Dalmasso (1975), and 9 were recognized by
Roy & Gupta (1974). Many species—over 100—have been described since, and it would be difficult to assign many of the new species to
subgenera, so they are not recognized.
86 Originally proposed as a subgenus of Axonchium, but raised to generic rank by Andrassy (2009).
87 Originally proposed as a subgenus of Axonchium by Coomans and Nair (1975) with 7 species, but raised to generic rank by Andrassy
(2009) who added another 2, and Naz & Ahmad (2012) transferred another 3, but removed one of Andrassy’s changed combinations.
Subfamily Athernematinae Thorne, 1935 (Ahmad & Jairajpuri, 1978) (2 genera, 2 species) 96
88 A highly heterogeneous genus, with no current classification entirely satisfactory, and the distinct possibility that some of the many
proposed subgenera should be afforded generic status. Subgenera are diagnosed by body size, shape of lip region, oesophagus length, vulval
shape and orientation, number of genital branches, spicule shape, number and arrangement of ventromedian supplements and gross shape of
the tail. Originally, 9 subgenera were proposed (Jairajpuri & Ahmad 1980), 6 of which were subsequently raised to genus with the remaining
3 synonymized and 6 new genera proposed (Siddiqi 1983). Subsequent authors have followed various combinations or subsets of these two
schema, and even proposed additional genera (Ahmad & Naz 2012, Andrassy 2009, Jairajpuri & Ahmad 1992, Jordaan & Heyns 1984). A
classification including all proposed groups as subgenera is used here on the basis that there are many similarities shared by all subgenera, but
also that each subgenus is diagnosable on other, generally reliable characters such as those listed above.
89 Originally created as a genus by Siddiqi (1983).
90 Originally created as a genus by Siddiqi (1983).
91 Originally created as a genus by Siddiqi (1983).
92 Originally created as a genus by Siddiqi (1983).
93 Originally created as a genus by Siddiqi (1983).
94 Originally created as a genus by Siddiqi (1983).
95 Tylencholaiminae Filipjev 1934 has priority over Leptonchidae Thorne 1935 so is the correct name (Siddiqi 1982).
96 Wu et al. (2019) rejected Athernematinae and proposed placing the genus Athernema and Agmodorus (currently Leptonchidae Tylenchlai-
mellinae) in Mydonomidae on the basis of some genetic and morphological affinities, but based on very incomplete sampling of the respective
families and species, so it is not accepted.
97 The genus Paraqudsiella is placed in Athernamatinae rather than Belondiridae because it has no sheath around the oesophageal expan-
sion, but has an asymmetric stylet and short, non-cylindrical bulb.
98 Originally created as a genus by Siddiqi (1983).
99 Originally created as a genus by Siddiqi (1982).
100 Originally created as a genus by Siddiqi &Khan (1965).
101 Wu et al. (2019) proposed placing the genera Athernema and Agmodorus (currently Leptonchidae Tylenchlaimellinae) in Mydonomidae
on the basis of some genetic and morphological affinities, but based on very incomplete sampling of the respective families and species, so it
is not accepted.
106 Wu et al. (2019) proposed placing the genera Athernema and Agmodorus (currently Leptonchidae Tylenchlaimellinae) in Mydonomidae
on the basis of some genetic and morphological affinities, but based on very incomplete sampling of the respective families and species, so it
is not accepted.
107 Type genus is Yunqeius Thorne 1964. Diagnostic feature is a very thin mucular sheath around the oesophageal bulb (thicker in other
subfamilies). The family may be paraphyletic, and consists of genera which do not fall into the other subfamilies. Otherwise with the features
of the family.
108 Original designation of suborder Nygolaimina was in a conference proceedings (but proceedings available and more than 10 copies
printed). First published in peer-reviewed journal by Ahmad & Jairajpuri (1980).
112 The number of species in this family will vary enormously depending on the concepts of species, and standard of description required
(Curran & Hominick 1981). The figure cited here is a maximum (Rubtsov 1978). The actual number of species described may be only one
third this estimate, omitting many synonyms or descriptions that are inadequate to ever re-diagnose the species.
115 Isolaimiidae placed with Mermithida on the basis of the tubules around the head. Isolaimiidae and Aulolaimidae are here placed to-
gether on the basis of molecular evidence (Abolafia & Pena-Santiago 2018, Van Megen et al. 2009). Morphologically, Aulolaimidae has been
regarded as a separate family but with no apomorphy to justify any other placements within higher taxonomic ranks (Lorenzen 1981, 1994).
Considering all evidence the family has been placed in Plectida Haliplectoidea and Plectia (De Ley & Blaxter 2004, Hodda 2007, respec-
tively). Others considered the evidence inconclusive (Holovachov et al. 2007). With strong molecular support for affinities of Isolaimiidae
and Aulolaimidae, the similarities in the head structure of Isolaimiidae and Mermithidae have added weight and justify placing Isolaimiidae
and Aulolaimidae as a suborder within Mermithida.
116 Aulolaimidae has been placed with either Monhysterida or Plectida (Haliplectoidea) on molecular evidence (De Ley & Blaxter 2004,
Holterman et al. 2006), was unresolved in later molecular analyses (Van Megen et al. 2009), or most closely related to Cylindrolaimus (Areo-
laimina) (Abolafia & Pena-Santiago 2018a). The family was placed within Enoplida (Ironoidea) or Plectida (Leptolaimina) on morphological
grounds (Andrassy 1976, Lorenzen 1994). A polychotomy with Monhysterida and Plectida was therefore proposed, with consequent rank as a
separate Order within the subclass Plectia (Hodda 2007).
117 Created as a subfamily by Jairajpuri & Hooper (1968).
118 Molecular evidence points to unresolved similarities of Isolaimoidea to Bathyodontia, Dorylaimida and Araeolaimida (De Ley & Blaxter
2004, Meldal et al. 2007, Holterman et al. 2006). Morphological evidence has been viewed as similarly inconclusive within the same group of
phyla (Timm 1961, Theodorides 1965, De Coninck 1965). Isolaimina contains few, poorly-known species. It was regarded as a separate Order
(Cobb 1919, Hodda 2007, Timm 1961), based on the apomorphy of 6 tubules around the head. As constituted in the present classification,
Aulolaimina and Mermithida can accommodate the family on the basis of similarities in head structure and general body size. However, this
placement is provisional and more investigation will be necessary to place the family with any certainty.
119 Created as suborder Dioctophymata (Chitwood 1933), but this pre-dates adoption of current uniform endings for names of higher ranks.
First to use in current form was Clark (1961).
120 Placed in this superorder on morphological evidence (Anderson & Bain 1982, Spratt & Nicholas 2002). ). Authority often cited as
Bain & Chabaud 1959, but such a publication has been unable to be located, and Odile Bain did not join the MHN to work with Alain Chabaud
until 1964 (Martin 2012). The earliest verifiable source by these authors on the group (Bain & Chabaud 1968) refers to the group as a Family.
The affinities and taxonomic position of the group has long been uncertain (Spratt & Nicholas 2002), but the unique features generating this
uncertainty (often through reduction or loss of morphological structures) also mean that a separate order is (at least provisionally) justified
(Spratt 2014). The earliest use of the name as an order that was located in an extensive search was Spratt & Nicholas (2002), although a formal
description and diagnosis as an order was first published by Spratt (2014).
121 The authority is often cited as Roman (1965), who fully characterized the family, but the earliest use of the name and diagnosis was by
Brumpt (1930).
122 Originally described as a sub-family by Brumpt (1930).
123 Spermatogenesis and development provide evidence for the separation of Chromadorea from Dorylaimea and Enoplea (Yushin & Mal-
akhov 2004, Schierenberg & Lahl 2004).
124 Classification and number of species follows Venekey et al. (2019).
125 Genus dubium according to Venekey et al. (2019), who did not accept the differentiating feature proposed by Heyns & Furstenberg
(1987) of lateral differentiation of the cuticle. As lateral differentiation of cuticle is a commonly used differentiating feature in Chromadoroi-
dea, the genus is regarded as valid herein.
126 Including species inquirenda generally described before 1960.
127 Excluding 2 species inquirenda according to Venekey et al. (2019).
128 Excluding 5 species inquirenda according to Venekey et al. (2019).
129 Not mentioned by Venekey et al. (2019) or other recent revisers, so included until reviewed, but probably a genus dubium.
130 According to Venekey et al. (2019).
145 According to Venekey et al. (2019), but including 1 species inquirendum described in 1969.
146 According to Venekey et al. (2019), but excluding 1 nomen nudum.
147 According to Venekey et al. (2019).
148 According to Venekey et al. (2019), but including 2 species inquirenda described before 1916 and including 3 nomina nuda, which, ac-
cording to Venekey et al. (2019) are well characterized and divergent from others in the genus, but lack a valid name.
149 Mostly regarded as genus dubium, based on limited specimens and information in the description (Hope & Murphy 1972, Kulikov &
Dashchenko 1991, Lorenzen 1994, Venekey et al. 2019), but included in the subfamily by Wieser (1954).
150 Mostly regarded as genus dubium, based on limited specimens and information in the description (Smol & Decraemer 2006, Tchesunov
2014, Venekey et al. 2019), but recognized as valid by Lorenzen (1994). The genus is close to Chromadorina and Chromadorita but distin-
guished from these genera by the well-developed teeth (Kreis 1929).
151 According to Venekey et al. (2019).
152 According to Venekey et al. (2019), but including 1 species which, according to Venekey et al. (2019) is well characterized and divergent
from others in the genus, but lacks a valid name, and so is a nomen nudum.
153 According to Venekey et al. (2019), but including 2 species inquirenda described before 1951, and hence difficult to verify by modern
criteria.
154 According to Venekey et al. (2019), but including 5 species inquirenda all described by Allgen (1932, 1947) , and hence difficult to
verify by modern criteria.
155 Regarded as valid by Tchesunov (2014) and Venekey et al. (2019).
156 According to Venekey et al. (2019), but including 1 species inquirendum described in 1943, and hence difficult to verify by modern
criteria.
157 Possibly a synonym of Chromadorita (Venekey et al. 2019), but status remains uncertain.
158 According to Venekey et al. (2019).
159 According to Venekey et al. (2019), but including 1 nomen nudum described by Wieser (1959), and hence difficult to verify by modern
criteria.
160 According to Venekey et al. (2019), but including 13 species as nomina nuda which, according to Venekey et al. (2019) are well charac-
terized and divergent from others in the genus, but lack valid names because described in theses (Bussau 1993, Soetaert 1989). The nomen-
clatural availability of the nomina proposed by Bussau (1993) in a thesis have been controversial and not always accepted, but were considered
to fulfil all requirements of the ICZN by Holovachov (2020).
161 According to Venekey et al. (2019), but including 7 species inquirenda described before 1959, mostly by Allgen (1959) , and hence dif-
ficult to verify by modern criteria.
162 Considered valid by Lorenzen (1994) but genus dubium by Venekey et al. (2019).
163 Considered invalid by Venekey et al. (2019), but with affinities to the genus Acantholaimus by Gerlach & Riemann (1973) and Lorenzen
(1994). Status and affinities unclear because of limitations in specimens and description.
164 Leduc & Zhao (2018) suggest Praeacanthonchus may be better placed in Paracanthonchinae, based on molecular evidence, but the level
of support for this conclusion was low and the taxon sampling sparse. This conclusion may have support from cuticular characteristics, but is
contrary to the alternative placement of the genus in Cyatholaiminae based on gubernaculum structure.
169 Although the families Selachinematidae, Richtersiidae, Choniolaimidae and Choanolaimidae have been synonymized (Gerlach 1964,
Lorenzen 1981), there remain many significant differences (Gerlach 1964). Given the possible nature of the Selachinematida as a distinct clade,
these differences seem to justify regarding the differences as justifying family status. A revision of the entire Selachinematida is needed.
170 Originally named "Richtersiaceae". Placed in Desmodorida by Gerlach & Riemann (1973).
171 Genus and species dubia.
172 Although the families Selachinematidae, Richtersiidae, Choniolaimidae and Choanolaimidae have been synonymized (Gerlach 1964,
Lorenzen 1981), there remain many significant differences (Gerlach 1964). Given the possible nature of the Selachinematida as a distinct
clade, these differences seem to justify regarding the differences as justifying family status. A revision of the entire Selachinematida is
needed.
173 Although the families Selachinematidae, Richtersiidae, Choniolaimidae and Choanolaimidae have been synonymized (Gerlach 1964,
Lorenzen 1981), there remain many significant differences (Gerlach 1964). Given the possible nature of the Selachinematida as a distinct
clade, these differences seem to justify regarding the differences as justifying family status. A revision of the entire Selachinematida is
needed.
174 Genus and species dubia.
175 On all available evidence, regarded as a separate order (DeLey & Blaxter 2004, De Ley et al. 2006, Decraemer & Smol 2006, Hodda
2007), although molecular evidence has the group as a subset of Chromadorida (Van Megen et al. 2009) or grouped with Desmoscolecida
(Litvaitis et al. 2000) or split among other groups (Holterman et al. 2006). Morphologically, it has been classified as a subset of Chromadorida
(Lorenzen 1994), but this is compatible with the current classification if the Chromadorida of Lorenzen (1994) is here equivalent to superorder
Chromadorica.
176 Regarded as paraphyletic based on molecular analyses (Meldal et al. 2007, van Megen et al. 2009, Leduc & Zhao 2016), but holophy-
letic by Armenteros et al. (2014a). All the molecular analyses are based on a relatively few sequences, which do not cover all the proposed
clades, however.
177 Originally created as a subgenus of Desmodora.
178 Considered a synonym of Desmodora by Lorenzen (1976).
179 Considered a valid genus by Gagarin & Thanh (2015).
180 Considered valid genera by Gagarin & Thanh (2015).
189 Synonymized with the genus Microlaimus by Kovalyev & Tchesunov (2005), but considered valid in the latest revision (Tchesunov
2014).
190 Species according to Leduc (2016).
191 Molgolaimidae is a separate, valid family, based on molecular evidence, according to Leduc et al. (2018).
192 Placed in Desmodoridae by Lorenzen on the basis of reflexed ovaries and testis, but in Microlaimidae by Platt & Warwick (1988) be-
cause of great overall similarity to Microlaimidae in all other characters. Note that Lorenzen transferred some species without reflexed ovaries
and testis back to Microlaimidae to make the genus monophyletic. I have agreed with Platt & Warwick (1988). Leduc & Zhao (2016) on the
basis of molecular evidence from a single species regard it as having closes affinities with Microlaimidae. Sequences from a species found
and described subsequently confirmed the affinities with Microlaimidae (Leduc et al. 2018), but because consistent morphological differences
remain, a separate family within Microlaimoidea is justified.
193 First classified in Chromadoridae (Kreis 1929), but later moved to Monoposthiidae on the basis of cuticular pattern (Hope & Murphy
1972). Lorenzen (1994) evaluated cuticular ornamentation as not very useful as a differential character for genera and hence returned the
genus to Family Chromadoridae. Decraemer & Smol (2006) evaluated the taxonomic position of the genus as unclear because the definition
is based on a poor description of a single species, and Tchesunov (2014) omitted the genus from his review without any comment. Venekey et
al. (2019) accepted the conclusions of Hope & Murphy (1972) and considered the genus as part of Monoposthiidae.
194 Originally named order Desmoscolecata (Filipjev 1929) prior to adoption of current system of uniform endings of higher-ranked taxon
names. First used in current form by De Coninck (1965).
195 Originally named suborder Desmoscoleata (Chitwood 1933) prior to adoption of current system of uniform endings of higher-ranked
taxon names. First used in current form by De Coninck (1965).
196 Includes 4 species from the synonymised genus Southernia Allgen 1929
197 Fossil, cretaceous, Norway.
198 Classified in a separate family Captivonematidae by Poinar (2011), on the basis of available characters being inadequate to place in
either family Greeffiellinae or Epsilonematodae. The size, shape, coarseness of annulation and pattern of body hairs are sufficient to place it
within Meyliidae.
199 Plectia are separated from Chromadoria on the basis of spermatogenesis (Yushin & Malakhov 2004).
200 Filipjev (1929) used the name Monhysterata as an order, but this pre-dates the adoption of uniform endings for the names of higher taxa,
so is credited as the authority here. De Coninck (1965) was the first to propose the name at order level in its current form.
201 Monhysteridae according to Eyualem & Coomans (1995) and Jacobs (1987), but Syringolaiminae Rhabdolaimidae according to Loren-
zen (1981, 1994). The former is more parsimonious than the latter if all characters are considered; the latter is favoured by many fewer
characters, but perhaps they are more phylogenetically informative. Because the phylogenetic content of some of the characters favoured by
Lorenzen has not always been supported, the former is favoured.
203 The nomenclatural availability of the nomina proposed by Bussau (1993) in a thesis have been controversial and not always accepted,
but were considered to fulfil all requirements of the ICZN by Holovachov (2020).
204 Genus and species dubia.
206 Synonymy not accepted but also not mentioned by Holovachov (2019).
207 Lorenzen (1994) regarded all the genera described by Allgen (1930) as dubious and their placement not fully certain.
208 Synonymized with Paralinhomoeus by Hendelberg (1979), but retained as a valid, separate genus by Lorenzen (1994).
209 Not accepted by Fonseca & Bezerra (2014), but regarded as valid on the basis of a second species being found in the genus by Leduc
(2015).
210 Originally cited as Family Comesomidae (De Coninck & Schuurmans Stekhoven 1933). Placed here on the basis of molecular evidence
from 2 genes and several analyses (Holterman et al. 2006, Meldal et al. 2007, Litvaitis et al. 2000, Van Megen et al. 2009). There is morpho-
logical evidence for inclusion in Monhysterida, and monophyly of the family, but not subfamily or superfamily placement (Lorenzen 1994).
211 Species number according to (Fadeeva et al. 2016), excluding 1 nomen nudum.
212 Regarded as genus dubium by Holovachov & Bostrom (2018), with all species as species inquirenda.
213 Type genus is Stephanolaimus Ditlevsen 1919. Diagnostic feature is a transverse oval amphid (longitudinal oval or plectoid in other
subfamilies). Molecular evidence also suggests a separate subfamily (Van Megen et al. 2009). Otherwise with the features of the family.
214 Morphological affinities with Tarvaiidae and Diplopeltoididae (Tchesunov & Miljutina 2002). Created as a subfamily by Cobb
(1933).
215 Marine, microbivorous.
216 Fossil.
217 Fossil.
218 Fossil, Dominican amber.
219 Fossil, Lebanese amber.
220 Fossil, Dominican amber.
221 Fossil, Dominican amber.
222 Type species is Yeatesinia Holovachov & Bostrom 2014. Diagnostic features are: the dorsal position of the mouth opening; unequal
size and asymmetrical arrangement of anterior sensory structures (sensilla and setae) possibly related to the subterminal position of the oral
opening; the presence of large, lateral, horn-like projections at the anterior end; dorsal annules narrower than ventral annules and separated
by broad grooves rather than narrow grooves; and lateral alae appearing as a ridge, formed by extensions of annules from dorsal body surface
overlapping annules of ventral body surface and with a shingle-like appearance. In other subfamilies the mouth is terminal; the anterior sensil-
lae are similar in size and symmetrical; anterior projections are absent; annules are nearly equally spaced dorsally and ventrally; and the annules
do not overlap or form a shingle-like ridge. Otherwise with the features of the family.
223 There is ongoing controversy over the rendering of names ending in "gaster" with a suffix. See note 233: cited as either Chronogastri-
dae (Siddiqi 2003, Holovachov 2004, Mountport 2005, Holovachov & De Ley 2006), or Chronogasteridae (Ettema et al. 2000, Gagarin 1993,
Gagarin et al. 2003, Hodda 2003, 2007, Lorenzen 1981, Poinar & Sarbu 1994, Zullini et al. 2002).
224 Metateratocephalidae (including the genera Metateratocephalus and Euteratocephalus) have been included in Teratocephalidae on mor-
phological grounds (Lorenzen 1981, 1994). Other morphological evidence (Bostrom 1989) and molecular studies (Holtermann et al. 2006,
Van Megen et al. 2009) have indicated separate evolutionary paths.
225 Camacolaiminae was regarded as a subfamily of Leptolaimidae by Lorenzen (1994), but there was no morphological apomorphy to
justify this placement. Molecular evidence suggests affinities with Plectoidea, so it is placed there (Van Megen et al. 2009).
230 On morphological evidence the family has been placed as unresolved in Rhabditia (Lorenzen 1994). On molecular evidence, the family
has been unresolved within Diplogasterida (De Ley & Blaxter 2004). More research is clearly needed to place the few species in the mono-
generic family, superfamily and suborder into anything other than a separate suborder under Diplogasterida, equivalent in rank to Myolaimina
(Goodey 1963).
231 Following Abolafia & Pena-Santiago (2014).
232 Affinities with Diplogasterida were suggested by most molecular analyses (De Ley & Blaxter 2004, Holterman et al. 2006, Meldal et
al. 2007), except where Myolaimidae was unresolved in the latest molecular analysis (Baerman et al. 2009, Slos et al. 2018, Van Megen et al.
2009). Morphologically, affinities with Rhabditida have been suggested also (Goodey 1963).
233 Assigned to Myolaimidae rather than Rhabditidae following the discussion of Sudhaus (2011). Synonymized with Poikilolaimus on the
basis that monotypic genera are cladistically uninformative by Sudhaus (2011). This is rejected because of the morphological novelty of the
genus, and because other species may be found subsequently.
234 Assigned to Myolaimidae rather than Rhabditidae following the discussion of Sudhaus (2011). Synonymized with Poikilolaimus on the
basis that monotypic genera are cladistically uninformative by Sudhaus (2011). This is rejected because of the morphological novelty of the
genus, and because other species may be found subsequently.
235 Assigned to Myolaimidae rather than Rhabditidae following the discussion of Sudhaus (2011).
236 Molecular evidence of phylogeny of Carabonematidae is lacking (De Ley & Blaxter 2004, Van Megen et al. 2009). The position of
the family is either unresolved within Rhabditina on morphological evidence (Stammer & Wachek 1952) or within Myolaimina (Inglis 1983).
The family contains few, poorly-known species, and more investigation required.
237 There is controversy over the correct rendering of names based on the genus name Diplogaster, resting on formation of Latin adjectives
and the form of nouns (Sudhaus & von Lieven 2003). The original use as a suborder was the form “Diplogasterata n. subord” (Paramonov
1952). Here, the most frequently used form is adopted. The position of the (well-defined) suborder was unresolved within Rhabditica on
molecular evidence (Holterman et al. 2006, Meldal et al. 2007, Van Megen et al. 2009), but sometimes placed within Rhabditida (De Ley &
Blaxter 2004). A separate clade of equal rank to Rhabditina and Tylenchina on morphological evidence (Lorenzen 1994).
238 Fossil, Dominican amber.
239 Created as a Family by Farooqui (1967).
240 The proposed diagnostic characters of cuticular annulation, stomal tooth structure, stoma shape, lack of vaginal pouches, offset sperma-
theca, and tip of the gubernaculum are normally species-level characters and insufficient to justify a new genus.
241 Synonymized with Koerneria on morphological evidence by Sudhaus & Furst von Lieven (2003), but reinstated on molecular and mor-
phological grounds by Kanzaki Ragsdale & Giblin-Davis (2014).
242 Synonymized with Koerneria on morphological evidence by Sudhaus & Furst von Lieven (2003), but reinstated on molecular and mor-
phological grounds by Kanzaki Ragsdale & Giblin-Davis (2014).
243 Fossil, Dominican amber.
244 Fossil, Dominican amber.
245 Fossil, Dominican amber.
246 Fossil, Dominican amber.
247 Fossil, Dominican amber.
248 Fossil.
249 Fossil.
250 Fossil, Dominican amber.
267 Type genus is Rhabditoides T. Goodey 1929. Diagnostic features are: lips closed; glottis present; 3 denticles in each sector of stoma;
and GP arranged radially. Lips open; glottis absent; less than 3 denticles; and GP not arranged radially in other families. Otherwise with the
features of the superfamily.
268 A separate lineage associated with Mesorhabditis and Pelodera according to Sudhaus (2011). Type genus is Haematozoon Leisering
1865. Diagnostic features are: long narrow stoma with posterior cup-shaped; separate spicules; and radial GP. Stoma shorter with posterior
not cup-shaped; spicules partially fused; and GP arranged otherwise in other families. Otherwise with the features of the superfamily.
269 Created as a subfamily by Andrassy (1976).
270 Synonymized with Mesorhabditis on the basis that monotypic genera are uninformative by Sudhaus (2011). This is rejected because of
the morphological novelty of the genus, and because other species may be found subsequently.
271 Synonymized with Mesorhabditis on the basis that monotypic genera are uninformative by Sudhaus (2011). This is rejected because of
the morphological novelty of the genus, and because other species may be found subsequently.
272 Fossil, Baltic amber.
273 Fossil, Dominican amber.
274 Synonymized with Mesorhabditis on the basis that monotypic genera are uninformative by Sudhaus (2011). This is rejected because of
the morphological novelty of the genus, and because other species may be found subsequently.
275 Distinct from Mesorhabditis and related genera (Sudhaus 2011). Type genus is Crustorhabditis Sudhaus 1974. Diagnostic feature is:
spicules fused for at least 1/3 of their length. Spicules fused less in other subfamilies. Otherwise with the features of the family.
276 The genus Parasitorhabditis was previously placed in Rhabditidae, but it is unambiguously a separate clade associated with Peloderina
on molecular evidence (Holterman et al. 2006, Meldal et al. 2007). According to Sudhaus (2011), related to Pelodera, but more closely related
to Mesorhabditis. Hence regarded as a separate family related to both.
277 A distinct lineage arising independently of Caenorhabditis, and Heterorhabditis and Rhabditis according to Sudhaus (2011).
278 A separate clade according to the molecular analysis of Chilton et al. (2006)
279 Fossil, Baltic amber.
280 Fossil, Burmese amber.
281 A distinct lineage associated with Mesorhabditis and Pelodera according to Sudhaus (2011). Type genus is Cruznema Artigas 1927.
Diagnostic features are: glottis present; labial hooks absent; and phasmid anterior to GP7. Glottis absent; labial hooks present; and phasmid
position variable in other families. Otherwise with the features of the superfamily.
282 Diagnostic features are: phasmids at anus level and ray-like; and 8 GP.
283 Type genus is Rhabpanus Massey 1971. Diagnostic features are: phasmids inconspicuous and at base of GP7; and 8 or 9 GP. Phasmids
at anus level and ray-like; and 8 GP in the other subfamily. Otherwise with the features of the family.
284 Also proposed as a subfamily by Chitwood & Chitwood (1937), see Goodey (1963)..
285 Type genus is Sclerorhabditis Ahmad Shah & Mahamood 2007. Diagnostic feature is the structure of the cuticularized plates on the
anterior surface of the mouth (less elaborated in other tribes). This justifies a separate tribe. Otherwise with the features of the subfamily.
Shares the cuticularized plates on the anterior surface around the mouth with other members of the subfamily.
286 Originally created as a subfamily by Timm (1961).
287 Type genus is Caenorhabditis Osche 1952. Diagnostic features are: teeth absent in stoma; GP6 thickened; and GP5 & GP7 not dorsal.
Teeth absent or small; GP6 normal; and GP5 & GP7 not dorsal in other tribes. Otherwise with the features of the subfamily.
288 Excluding many species described by Felix et al. (2014).
299 Type genus is Litoditis Sudhaus 2011. Diagnostic features are: cheilostome normal; glottis present; strong median oesophageal bulb;
and weak terminal bulb. Cheilostome prominent; glottis absent; median bulb absent; and terminal bulb weak in other subfamilies. Otherwise
with the features of the family.
300 Type genus is Oryctonema Poinar 1970. Diagnostic features are: cheilostome normal; glottis absent; no median oesophageal bulb; and
weak terminal bulb. Cheilostome prominent; glottis present; median bulb present; and terminal bulb strong in other subfamilies. Otherwise
with the features of the family.
301 Type genus is Oscheius Andrassy 1976. Diagnostic feature is reflexed ovaries. Outstretched in other subfamilies. Otherwise with
the features of the family.
302 Divided into the Dolichura group and the Insectivora group (Sudhaus 2011). Species in the Dolichura group generally have a slender
body, peloderan bursa, inconspicuous posterior phasmids and spicules with straight tip (no distal hook), while species in the Insectivora group
generally have a wide body with 4 to 6 incisures in the lateral fields, pseudopeloderan/leptoderan bursa, more conspicuous phasmids posterior
to the last genital papillae and needle-like spicules with distal hooks (Kumar et al. 2019). Species identification of the genus is very challeng-
ing since morphological characters are very similar. Of the valid species, 32 belong to the Insectivora group and 15 to the Dolichura group
(Tabassum et al. 2016), plus more recently described species.
307 There is little doubt that Strongyloidea are phylogenetically derived from an ancestor classified as Rhabditina. However, there has been
extensive radiation within the group leading to a very large number of species and lineages, and hence taxa of a number of different ranks. The
result has been classifications with ranks extending as high as Order level (Strongylida) to accommodate this substantial diversity (Durette-
Desset & Chabaud 1993, Durette-Desset et al. 2017). Others have accommodated the diversity within lower taxonomic ranks, such as within
a superfamily (Gibbons 2010). Within these different classification schemes various sub-groups have been defined, and although there is some
disagreement over the ranks of these taxa, there is broad agreement among taxonomists working on the group of a considerable hierarchy of
names within a classification including a substantial number of ranks. There is, however, an issue with fitting this classification within that
of the broader scheme of Phylum Nematoda because those studying the group are, by and large, different to those studying the larger group
from which they evolved, the Rhabditina. Strongyles are internal parasites of vertebrates (“helminths”) studied by different methods and with
mostly different taxonomically-informative attributes to their presumed progentors the rhabditids, many of which are free living. The result
is a serious mis-match of ranks in the respective classifications such that the accepted evolution of the various groups is not reflected in the
taxon ranks afforded groups in the different schemes. For example, the Order Strongylida is a clade within suborder Rhabditina. As raising
the rank of Rhabditina to ensure that the classification reflects evolution would result in changes to many other accepted higher taxonomic
names in a substantial portion of the Phylum, the ranks of many helminths is lower than in many of the classifications proposed for them in
the absence of the wider context of Phylum Nematoda as a whole. There is no satisfactory resolution to this issue other than a classification
eschewing ranks altogether to accommodate the large diversity of nematodes. Although such schemes have been proposed (Sudhaus 2011),
there is still debate over their utility and how they should operate, and so a more traditional approach using taxonomic ranks to indicate the
size and inclusivity of the various clades within Nematoda has been adopted. Because other than nominotypical tribes and subtribe ranks are
used within Strongyloidea to accommodate and reflect the clades identified within the superfamily but are not so used in other superfamilies,
the counts within Strongyloidea only include the ranks of tribes and subtribes.
308 The authorities of supra-generic taxa in this group have been discussed extensively (Dougherty 1944).
309 Originally created as tribe Deletrocephalinea by Railliet & Henry (1912), and also raised to family Deletrocephalidae by M.B. Chitwood
(1969).
310 First used as a subfamily by Railliet (1885).
311 Originally created as subfamily Cyathostominae by Nicoll (1927), and explicitly used as Tribe Cyathostominea by Lichtenfels (1980).
312 Originally created as tribe Cyathostominea by Lichtenfels (1980).
313 Placed here rather than in subfamily Gyalocephalinae Dvoinos 1982 or tribe Gyanocephalini Popova 1952 following Lichtenfels (2008)
placemant in Cyathostominae.
314 Originally created as tribe Eucyathostominea by Lichtenfels (1980).
315 Originally created as tribe Kiluluminea by Lichtenfels (1980).
316 Originally created as tribe Murshidiinea by Lichtenfels (1980).
317 Originally a genus, changed in rank by Chabaud (1957).
318 Originally a genus, changed in rank by Chabaud (1957).
319 Originally created as tribe Quiloniinea by Lichtenfels (1980).
329 Originally created as subfamily Cloacininae by Stossich (1899) and as family by Lichtenfels (1980).
330 Originally created as subfamily Cloacininae by Stossich (1899), and tribe Cloacininea by Lichtenfels (1980).
331 Originally created as tribe Macropostrongylinea by Lichtenfels (1980).
332 Cited by Popova (1958) as being originally named by Popova in 1952 as Pharyngostrongylinea, but no reference cited. The citation
is to a part of Skryabin et al. (1952), but there is no clear indication of the authorship of the various groups within the publication other than
references such as this, so it is not possible to cite who prepared which sections.
333 Originally created as family Zoniolaiminidae, probably by Popova in Skryabin et al. (1952): see footnote above. The authorship of the
family is generally cited as being by Popova (Lichtenfels 1980). Tribe Zoniolaiminea by Lichtenfels (1980).
334 Originally created as subfamily Oesophagostominae by Lichtenfels (1980).
335 Originally created as tribe Bourgelatiinea by Lichtenfels (1980).
336 Originally created as tribe Bourgelatioidinea by Lichtenfels (1980).
337 Originally created as tribe Oesophagostominea by Lichtenfels (1980).
378 Created as a subfamily by Travassos (1919) and family by Baylis & Daubney (1926)
379 There is evidence for 2 clades within the tribe Amidostomatini (labelled as subfamilies Amidostomatinae and Epomidiostomatinae with-
in a family Amidostomatidae by Durette-Desset & Chabaud (1981)). These are given no formal designation in the present classification.
380 Not synonyms of Amidostomum acutum (Lundahl 1848) Lomakin,1991 on molecular evidence (Kavetska et al. 2015).
381 Created as a tribe by Skryabin & Schikhobalova (1937).
382 Raised to family by Cramm (1927).
383 Created as a family by Yamaguti (1961).
384 Placed in Camallanidae by Spencer-Jones & Gibson (1987), but as a separate family Cylicostrongylidae Yamaguti 1961 by Gibbons
(2010).
390 Created as a subfamily by Durette-Desset (1971) and as a tribe by Skryabin & Schikhobalova (1952).
391 Including 2 species regarded as of uncertain affinities according to Durette-Desset et al. (2017).
392 Including a species originally designated as Heligmosomum agoutii Neiva Cunha & Travassos 1914 and transferred to the new genus
Fullebornema by Travassos & Darriba (1929) in the sense of Travassos 1937 partim, which was formally described as Fullebornema neivai
Cassone & Durette-Desset 1991. This species was regarded as Fuelleborna sp. and the formal name was not accepted by Durette-Desset et
al. (2017).
393 Species according to Durette-Desset et al. (2017).
399 Including 2 species originally designated as Brevistriata sundasiuri Schmidt Myers & Kunz 1967, and formally described as such, but
which was changed to the combination Fissicauda sundasiuri (Schmidt Myers & Kunz 1967) Durette-Desset 1976, and part of which was then
designated as “sp. 1” and part as “sp.2” by Durette-Desset et al. (2017).
400 Species according to Durette-Desset et al. (2017).
401 Species according to Durette-Desset et al. (2017).
402 Species according to Durette-Desset et al. (2017).
403 Created as a subfamily by Durette-Desset (1971).
404 Created as a subfamily by Durette-Desset et al. (2017).
432 Spermatogenesis and development provide evidence for the separation of Spirurida, Rhabditida and Panagrolaimida (Yushin & Malak-
hov 2004, Schierenberg & Lahl 2004).
433 Originally named suborder Spirurata (Railliet & Henry 1915) prior to adoption of current system of uniform endings of higher-ranked
taxon names. First used in current form by Chitwood (1937).
434 Proposed as a genus by Khera (1956).
440 Prosungulonema not recognized by Gibbons (2010), but recognized by Moravec et al. (2016).
441 Removed from synonymy with Rhabdochona kideri by Lagunas-Calvo et al. (2019).
443 This superfamily should be designated Tetrameroidea because the family Tetrameridae Travassos 1914 has priority over Hedrurinae
Railliet 1916, and Histiocephalinae Gendre 1922, and Habronematinae Chitwood & Wehr 1932 (Chabaud 1974). However, to preserve stabil-
ity and because the other families are unusual for the group, Habronematoidea was chosen as the name for the group (Chabaud 1974).
444 Created as a subfamily by Skryabin (1946).
445 Replacement name for Dogielina Sobolev in Skryabin Schikhobalova & Sobolev 1950 non Bogdanowicz & Woloszynova 1949 [Fora-
minifera].
446 Habronematidae (originally created as a subfamily by Chitwood & Wehr (1932)) is used in preference to Histiocephalidae (derived from
a subfamily created by Gendre 1922) because the former is in wide use and the latter has not been used (Chabaud 1975).
450 Placed in Filaroidea by Anderson & Bain (1976), but placed here on the basis of multi-gene evidence presented by Lefeulon et al.
(2015).
451 Described as a subfamily by Anderson (1958).
452 Described as a subfamily by Bain & Prod'hon (1974).
453 Described as a subfamily by Sandground (1921).
454 Molecular evidence places this as a sister group to Onchocerca and related genera (Lefoulon et al. 2015), whereas morphology suggests
a subgenus of Dipetalonema (Gibbons 2010). As the molecular analysis included many genes, it has been preferred.
455 Originally created as a subfamily by Wehr (1935).
456 Originally created as a family and subfamily by Faust (1939).
457 Based on molecular evidence Lefoulon et al. (2015).
458 Raised from a subgenus of Dipetalonema on molecular evidence (Lefoulon et al. 2015).
459 Type genus is Loa Stiles 1905. Based on molecular evidence (Lefoulon et al. 2015). Otherwise with the features of the family.
460 Type genus is Breinlia Yorke & Maplestone 1926. Based on molecular evidence (Lefoulon et al. 2015). Otherwise with the features
of the family.
461 Type genus is Wuchereria Silva-Araujo 1877. Based on molecular evidence (Lefoulon et al. 2015). Otherwise with the features of
the family.
462 The sole species in the family Lucionematidae has an unusual suite of characters for Spirurida (Moravec et al. 1998), so is placed in a
separate superfamily.
463 The affinities of Dracunculoidea have long been with Spirurida on morphological grounds (Chabaud 1974), and were unresolved in early
molecular analyses (Holterman et al. 2006, De Ley & Blaxter 2004), when clear molecular evidence was presented it confirmed affinities with
Spirurida (Van Megen et al. 2009).
464 Created as a subfamily by Stiles (1907).
467 Including an unnamed species from pigs from Vietnam (Nguyen et al. 2019).
469 Longior alius Garcia & Coy 1994 was proposed as a synonym of Longior longior Morffe & Garcia, 2011, despite being the junior
name.
470 Created as a subfamily by Chitwood (1932).
471 First subfamily Gyoeryiinae Kloss 1958, but with genus synonymization of genus Gyoeryia Kloss 1958 with Pseudonymus Diesing
1857 by Adamson & Van Waerebeke (1992), the name Gyoeryiinae is retained under ICZN article 40.1 which states that a family-group name
is maintained even if the type genus is synonymized, as is the case here. The first name used as a family was Pseudonymidae Adamson & Van
Waerebeke 1992, but this is more recent than Gyoeryiinae Kloss 1958 and by the principle of coordination Gyoeryiidae Kloss 1958.
472 Noted as a junior homonym without resolution by Hornero & Roca (1992), accepted with original name by Spencer Jones & Gibson
(1987) and Gibbons (2010).
473 Following review by Velarde-Aguilar et al. (2015) and De Sousa et al. (2019), including 17 species inquirenda.
474 Species including 12 transferred from Parapharyngodon (Velade-Aguilar et al. 2015).
475 Including 12 species transferred from Parapharyngodon (Velade-Aguilar et al. 2015).
482 Phocascaris Hoest 1932 was accepted as valid most recently by Gibbons (2010), and previously by Fagerholm (1991) and Hartwich
(1974), based on morphological evidence. Soleim (1984) considered the distinguishing morphological cha racters (interlabia) inconsistent,
and so formally synonymized the Phocascaris with Contracaecum. Molecular and biochemical evidence suggests Phocascaris is within
a polyphyletic genus Contracaecum Railliet & Henry 1912 (eg Mattiucci et al. 2008, Nadler et al. 2000, 2005, Nascetti et al. 1993, 1997,
Orecchia et al. 1986), while biological evidence suggests synonymy (Berland 1964). The almost certain polyphyly of the genus Contracaecum
means that the genus Phocascaris may be a valid or invalid name, depending on the monophyletic units into which the genus is divided and
the phylogenetic position and status of the type species P. phocae Hoest 1932 within the re-organized group. For this reason, Phocascaris is
retained in the current classification pro quo.
483 Originally created as Angusticaecinea (Chabaud 1965).
484 Also Ophidascaridinea (Chabaud 1965).
485 Considered a synonym of Ophidascaris piscatori by Sprent (1988), but valid by Li Gibson & Zhang (2016).
486 Fossil, known from egg only.
487 Fossil, known from egg only.
498 Synonym of Cosmocercinae (Baker & Vaucher 1985), but mostly considered valid (Chabaud 1978, Gibbons 2010).
501 The genus Cucullanus is not monophyletic according to molecular evidence, but no taxonomic proposals regarding these conclusions
have yet been published (Choudhury & Nadler 2016).
502 The genus Dichelyne is not monophyletic according to molecular evidence, but no taxonomic proposals regarding these conclusions
have yet been published (Choudhury & Nadler 2016).
503 The genus Truttaedacnitis is not monophyletic, with T. heterodonti having other affinities which were not clear according to molecular
evidence, but no taxonomic proposals regarding these conclusions have yet been published (Choudhury & Nadler 2016).
504 Regarded as an order on the basis of conflicting morphological and molecular evidence (Kim et al., 2014), but limited molecular sam-
pling.
505 Synonymy originally proiposed by van Waerebeke (1984) confirmed by Hunt (2015).
506 Spermatogenesis and development provide evidence for the separation of Spirurida, Rhabditida and Panagrolaimida (Yushin & Malak-
hov 2004, Schierenberg & Lahl 2004).
514 Hodda (2007) considered the Superfamilies Aphelenchoioidea and Aphelenchoidea as belonging to the different suborders Panagro-
laimina and Tylenchina, respectively, because of consistent differentiation with support on molecular evidence (De Ley & Blaxter 2004, Holter-
man et al. 2006, Meldal et al. 2006, Smythe et al. 2006). The most recent molecular evidence resolved the superfamilies into different clades
with statistical support, but did not show closer affinities to either Panagrolaimina or Tylenchina (Van Megen et al. 2009). De Ley & Blaxter
(2002) and De Ley et al. (2006), despite the clear molecular evidence, as well as morphological differences, considered the morphological
similarities most important and put the two groups together (as families Aphelenchidae and Aphelenchoididae) in infraorder Tylenchomorpha
(= suborder Tylenchina in the current classification). Here the superfamilies are regarded as separate, based on both the molecular evidence
and morphology. Morphological differences include most notably the development of the posterior oesophagus, the presence or absence of
bursae and gubernacula, as well as other features. The present classification reflects the morphological differences as being apomorphies
within Aphelenchina defining the superfamilies. but the superfamilies are together regarded as a suborder on the basis of the long-noticed mor-
phological apomorphies, most prominently the form of the median oesophageal bulb and the position of the oesophageal gland orifices (Hunt
1993, Geraert 1966, Thorne 1949). The suborder reflects the differentiation of both superfamilies from Panagrolaimina and Tylenchina, which
has some molecular support (Sun et al. 2014).
515 Created as a subfamily by Fuchs (1937).
516 Fossil, Dominican amber.
521 None of the species not formally named in Davies et al. (2015, 2017a or 2017b) are in the clade that forms this genus, so none are
counted here.
522 Fossil.
523 Fossil, Baltic amber.
524 Replacement name for Megadorus Goodey 1960 which is a homonym of Megadorus Linnavuori 1959 (Insecta: Hemiptera)
525 Divided into 3 genera by Davies et al. (2015). Species indeterminata remain provisionally in Schistonchus sensu stricto.
526 Species indeterminata according to Davies et al. (2015). Here retained in original genus on the basis of morphological characters dif-
ferentiating from other species and indicating affinities with the genus Schistonchus.
527 Type genus is Albiziaphelenchus Bajaj, 2012. Differentiated from Aphelenchoidini by shape of spicule, presence of preanal genital
papillae and distinct oesophageal isthmus. Otherwise with the features of the family
528 Fossil, Dominican amber.
529 Described from material intercepted in Italy but originally from Cameroon.
530 Described from material intercepted in China but originally from Ghana.
531 Described from material intercepted in China but originally from Russia.
532 Fossil, Dominican amber associated with platypodid beetle.
533 Fossil, Tertiary, Domincan amber.
534 Hunt (1993, 2007a, b) placed Ruehmaphelenchus in Aphelenchoididae on morphological grounds, but molecular evidence clearly places
the genus with, or even within, the genus Bursaphelenchus (Kanzaki et al. 2009, 2014).
535 Created as a subfamily by Husain & Khan (1967).
538 Whether the Anguinoidea have closer affinities to Tylenchoidea or Sphaerulariodea has been discussed for some time based on mor-
phological and life history evidence (Siddiqi 1986, 2000). Molecular evidence does not resolve the issue unequivocally (Meldal et al. 2007,
Holterman et al. 2006, Van Megen et al. 2009). A polytomy is assumed here.
539 Originally constituted as Family Anguillulinidae by Baylis & Daubney (1926), with the type genus Anguillulina Gervais & Van Beneden
1859, which was regarded as a senior synonym of the genus Tylenchus Bastian 1865. Chitwood (1935) re-established Anguina Scopoli 1777
and designated Vibrio tritici Steinbuch 1799 as type species by subsequent designation (syn Rhabditis tritici (Steinbuch 1799) Dujardin 1845,
Anguillula tritici (Steinbuch 1799) Grube 1849, Anguillulina tritici (Steinbuch 1799) Gervais & Van Beneden 1859, Tylenchus tritici (Stein-
buch 1799) Bastian 1865). The genus Vibrio refers to bacteria and Protozoa. The genus Rhabditis refers to a different genus. Thus, the oldest
name is Anguillulina tritici (Steinbuch 1799) Gervais & Van Beneden 1859. This, however, was rejected as invalid by ICZN in rulings 329 &
341 (1958). After Chitwood’s (1935) publication, Nicoll (in Zoological Record) proposed the replacement names Anguinidae and Anguinoi-
dea, to replace the names Anguillulinidae and Anguillulinoidea (and, coincidentally Tylenchidae as well).
Paramonov (1962) proposed Anguininae, which was raised to Family rank by Siddiqi (1971).
540 This date (1926) refers to the date of the name rejected by ICZN (Anguillulinidae Baylis & Daubney 1926) because it is based on a junior
objective synonym (Anguillulina Gervais & Van Benedon 1859) for the genus Anguina Scopoli 1799.
541 Proposed as a subgenus, first proposed as genus by Filipjev (1936).
542 The genus Ditylenchus was divided into 2 groups (the D. triformis-group, and the D. dipsaci-group based on morphological and bio-
logical characters (Siddiqi 1980), as well as molecular evidence (Qiao et al. 2016). The former was putatively synonymous with Safianema
(Qiao et al. 2016), although no new evidence was presented, and the other source of supposed molecular evidence (Giblin Davis et al. 2010),
also having no evidence for the synonymization. Safianema differs morphologically from the D. triformis group in having a long oesophageal
gland lobe overlapping the intestine dorsally, which is normally regarded as a generic difference, so the two genera are not synonymized here.
In the absence of any molecular evidence, no particular grouping of the 2 genera is proposed. More recently described species formed a third
molecular group (Shokoohi et al.2018)
The evolutionary affinities of the genus conflict among different analyses and gene regions (Qiao et al. 2016).
558 Originally in Tylenchinae (?), but associated with beetles, and superficially similar morphologically, so transferred here pending further
inquiry.
559 Described from packing wood from Canada & USA intercepted in Chinese quarantine.
560 Also as family by Massey (1967).
574 Created as a subfamily by Siddiqi (1960). Telotylenchidae first used at family level by Loof (1987) when transferring the genus Telo-
tylenchus to the family Tylenchorhynchidae Eliava 1964.
578 Also created as a family by Allen & Sher (1967), but in September. Paramonov published the same name in June.
579 Cephalobina and Rhabditina have been traditionally placed together in an Order Rhabditida. Molecular evidence consistently places the
Cephalobina with Panagrolaimina (De Ley & Blaxter 2004, Holterman et al. 2006, Meldal et al. 2007, Van Megen et al. 2009). In addition, it
appears that the origin of nerve cells in the oesophagus may be different in Rhabditidae to that in Cephalobidae and Panagrolaimidae (Borgonie
et al. 2000). Early development is also different in Caenorhabditis elegans (Rhabditida) and Acrobeloides nanus (Cephalobina) (Schierenberg
2000). The monophyly of the Cephalobina is supported on molecular evidence (Nadler et al. 2006).
580 Created as an Infraorder by De Ley & Blaxter (2002).
581 Created as subfamily by Artigas (1929) in a thesis, and Filipjev (1934).
Endnotes
* nominotypical taxon not explicitly used by the author(s), and not used previously. I included to aid automated
indexing.
Nominotypical taxa of lower rank than the original proposal which are not explicitly named in the original
proposal of a name have only this identification. For example, a nominotypical subfamily automatically created
under Article 36 of the ICZN but not explicitly named when a new family is created is designated as having the same
author and date as that of the family, but in the text denoted by the additional mark “*”.
Nominotypical taxa of higher rank than the original proposal are explicitly identified by the additional iden-
tification “n. rank”. For example, a superfamily automatically created under Article 36 of the ICZN when a new
family is created is designated as having the same author and date as that of the family, but in the text denoted by
the addition of “n. rank” following the author name and date. When a name has been used explicitly previously at
a different rank to the original proposal (either higher or lower, and including sub- or super-taxa), the author(s) first
defining or using the name at the different taxonomic rank is cited in parentheses after the original author. Namea
with no designation are the rank of the original proposal.
References
Abolafia, J., Alizadeh, M. & Khakvar, R. (2016) Description of Panagrellus ulmi sp. n. (Rhabditida, Panagrolaimidae) from
Iran, and comments on the species of the genus and its relatives. Zootaxa, 4162 (2), 245–267.
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4162.2.3
Abolafia, J. & Pena-Santiago, R. (2009) Nematodes of the order Rhabditida from Andalucia, Spain. The family Mesorhabditidae,
with description of Mesorhabditis carmenae sp n. Journal of Nematode Morphology and Systematics, 12, 41–64.
583 See Balinski et al. (2013), and Poinar (2011). Other fossil taxa have sufficient information to place at least tentatively relative to other
nematodes. Fossils are indicated by an endnote—after the genus name where there are no known species extant, and after the species name
where there are extant species in the genus.