Tardigrada taxon details
Halechiniscus remanei remanei Schulz, 1955
869176 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:869176)
accepted
Subspecies
marine
Schulz, E. (1955). Studien an marinen Tardigraden. <em>Kieler Meeresforschungen.</em> 11: 73-79. [details] Available for editors 
Type locality contained in Gulf of Naples (Italy)
type locality contained in Gulf of Naples (Italy) [details]
Distribution This is the most widely distributed member of the genus Halechiniscus, but known almost exclusively
from the northern...
from the northern...
Distribution This is the most widely distributed member of the genus Halechiniscus, but known almost exclusively
from the northern hemisphere. Halechiniscus r. remanei was reported from warm waters of temperate and
tropical zones (northern parts of tropical zone and southern parts of temperate zone). However, it was also
reported from cold waters of the North Sea on the coast of Sweden. Halechiniscus r. remanei is known mainly
from intertidal and shallow subtidal zones, although it was also found deeper (to 130 m bsl.). It has been
reported from 0–40 cm deep in different types of sand. Although it is a rather common species, it has never
been found in marine caves. Based on Renaud-Mornant (1984), it is cosmopolitan but in the process of
speciation (the changes are mainly visible in modifications of the caudal appendages). Speciation is less visible
in the Australian region and more advanced in the Caribbean region where a new subspecies H. r. antillensis
was described. Also specimens from California clearly
differ from typical forms (McGinty 1969, Renaud-Mornant 1984) and should probably be considered a new
subspecies or even a new species. In the light of these statements and new findings of cryptic species in marine
tardigrades (see e.g. Faurby et al. 2011), we question the cosmopolitan character of this species and consider it
as a group of species or subspecies. Thus, the geographical range of H. r. remanei and its ecological
requirements need thorough revision. It also should be noted that Chang & Rho (2002) in their relatively recent
treatment of Halechiniscus do not even mention the two subspecies of H. remanei. [details]
from the northern hemisphere. Halechiniscus r. remanei was reported from warm waters of temperate and
tropical zones (northern parts of tropical zone and southern parts of temperate zone). However, it was also
reported from cold waters of the North Sea on the coast of Sweden. Halechiniscus r. remanei is known mainly
from intertidal and shallow subtidal zones, although it was also found deeper (to 130 m bsl.). It has been
reported from 0–40 cm deep in different types of sand. Although it is a rather common species, it has never
been found in marine caves. Based on Renaud-Mornant (1984), it is cosmopolitan but in the process of
speciation (the changes are mainly visible in modifications of the caudal appendages). Speciation is less visible
in the Australian region and more advanced in the Caribbean region where a new subspecies H. r. antillensis
was described. Also specimens from California clearly
differ from typical forms (McGinty 1969, Renaud-Mornant 1984) and should probably be considered a new
subspecies or even a new species. In the light of these statements and new findings of cryptic species in marine
tardigrades (see e.g. Faurby et al. 2011), we question the cosmopolitan character of this species and consider it
as a group of species or subspecies. Thus, the geographical range of H. r. remanei and its ecological
requirements need thorough revision. It also should be noted that Chang & Rho (2002) in their relatively recent
treatment of Halechiniscus do not even mention the two subspecies of H. remanei. [details]
Guidetti, R.; McInnes, S.J.; Kristensen, R.M. (2024). World List of Tardigrada. Halechiniscus remanei remanei Schulz, 1955. Accessed at: https://www.marinespecies.org/tardigrada/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=869176 on 2024-05-08
Date
action
by
original description
Schulz, E. (1955). Studien an marinen Tardigraden. <em>Kieler Meeresforschungen.</em> 11: 73-79. [details] Available for editors
basis of record Degma, P.; Bertolani, R.; Guidetti, R. (2009-2016). Actual checklist of Tardigrada species. (Assessed 10/02/2017) pp. 46., available online at http://www.tardigrada.modena.unimo.it/miscellanea/Actual%20checklist%20of%20Tardigrada.pdf [details]
basis of record Degma, P.; Bertolani, R.; Guidetti, R. (2009-2016). Actual checklist of Tardigrada species. (Assessed 10/02/2017) pp. 46., available online at http://www.tardigrada.modena.unimo.it/miscellanea/Actual%20checklist%20of%20Tardigrada.pdf [details]
Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Distribution This is the most widely distributed member of the genus Halechiniscus, but known almost exclusivelyfrom the northern hemisphere. Halechiniscus r. remanei was reported from warm waters of temperate and
tropical zones (northern parts of tropical zone and southern parts of temperate zone). However, it was also
reported from cold waters of the North Sea on the coast of Sweden. Halechiniscus r. remanei is known mainly
from intertidal and shallow subtidal zones, although it was also found deeper (to 130 m bsl.). It has been
reported from 0–40 cm deep in different types of sand. Although it is a rather common species, it has never
been found in marine caves. Based on Renaud-Mornant (1984), it is cosmopolitan but in the process of
speciation (the changes are mainly visible in modifications of the caudal appendages). Speciation is less visible
in the Australian region and more advanced in the Caribbean region where a new subspecies H. r. antillensis
was described. Also specimens from California clearly
differ from typical forms (McGinty 1969, Renaud-Mornant 1984) and should probably be considered a new
subspecies or even a new species. In the light of these statements and new findings of cryptic species in marine
tardigrades (see e.g. Faurby et al. 2011), we question the cosmopolitan character of this species and consider it
as a group of species or subspecies. Thus, the geographical range of H. r. remanei and its ecological
requirements need thorough revision. It also should be noted that Chang & Rho (2002) in their relatively recent
treatment of Halechiniscus do not even mention the two subspecies of H. remanei. [details]
