Diesing KM 1862 (citation)- "Proporidae without a bursa seminalis. The mouth lies near the middle of the ventral side and leads into a short pharynx. Body elongated almost tubular. The frontal glands together with their ducts form a compact mass occupying almost the entire anterior third or fourth of the body and are marked off by the ring shaped brain; they open in a sharply marked off area but do not form a frontal organ. The two ovaries in O. rubropunctata are enclosed in a tunica propria; where they join the slender nozzle of the bursa seminalis opens into the long vagina. The testes are compact in O. rubropunctata and follicular in O. maris-alba. The penis is plump and muscular, the genital opening on the ventral side not far from the posterior end. Form elongated, ventrally flattened with dorsal side markedly arched. Length to 1.5 mm. Littorals" Teirreich- Graff 1905 2 species. Lists in family Proporidae, definition in Latin. Graff L v 1904 (citation)- definition of. Bohmig L 1908 (citation)- lists in family Proporidae, p 3. Wilhelmi J 1913 (citation)- lists p 12 in Family Proporidae. Bresslau E 1933 (citation)- moves into Family Convolutidae Westblad E 1946 (citation)- gives this as Otocelis Graff. brief definition p 51, and key to species one of which is new. p 31 changes the definition of genus from 2 genital pores to feamle opening to bursa behind the male pore- leaving only 2 species in genus. Westblad E 1948 (citation)- digestive cells in endocytium?? p 46 notes presence of nozzle in bursa; p 47 only 1 nozzle on bursa; p 50 both comined and separate genital forms in female form and vagina behind the male; p 52 makes separate family of this genus; p 58 in key. Hyman LH 1951 (citation)- vol 2, p 94 notes pigment spot eyes in, p 122 diagram of reproductive organs. Marcus E 1954 (citation)- mentions p 432, 480. Beauchamp P de 1961 (citation)- makes this a separate family. Remane A 1963 (citation)- p 28 refers to Reisinger E 1959 (citation) on ontogeny. Dorjes J 1968 (citation)- p 130 on setting up of this genus. lists in literature review, p 100 lists; p 101 discussion, p 102 definition and lists species O. rubropunctata O. Schmidt 1852 type O. sacchalinensis Ivanov 1852 O. westbladi Ax 1959 O. luteola (Kozloff 1965) Henley C 1974 (citation)- p 321 on Dorjes (1965) work on culturing and periods of darkness. p 335- reports Steinbock (1967) on regeneration in. Ehlers U, Doerjes J 1979 (citation)- lists p 30 and discussion p 34 and 48.
Hooge M.D. & Rocha C.E.F. 2006 (citation) - P. 47 "Reassignment of the genera Haplocelis Dörjes, 1968 and Otocelis Diesing, 1862 (Otocelididae) to the Family Isodiametridae Members of the family Otocelididae diagnostically have their vagina positioned posterior to the male copulatory organ (Westblad 1948). Hooge and Tyler (2005) showed this to be a homoplasious character that occurs in several unrelated lineages, a conclusion supported by molecular sequence analysis (Hooge et al. 2002) and the presence of more than one type of sperm morphology in the family (Petrov et al. 2004). In fact, many of the 20 Otocelididae species have no similarity to each other apart from the relative positions of the vagina and male copulatory organ (see Tyler et al. 2006), and as such, five of the eight genera are monotypic. For many species, the diagnostic characters that would place them in a valid acoel family are not yet known. Two genera of Otocelididae, Haplocelis and Otocelis, contain well-described species with easily discerned taxonomic characters. The genus Haplocelis is monotypic (H. dichona), while Otocelis contains six species: O. erinae sp. nov., O. luteola (Kozloff, 1965), O. phycophilus Ehlers and Dörjes, 1979, O. rubropunctata (Schmidt, 1852), O. sachalinensis Ivanov, 1952, O. sandara Hooge and Tyler, 2003, and O. westbladi Ax, 1959. We have examined the type material of Otocelis westbladi, fluorescence preparations and histological sections of O. erinae and H. dichona, and reviewed the relevant literature on the other species of Otocelis, particularly for that of the type species, O. rubropunctata (see Dörjes 1968, Kozloff 1998). Our investigation reveals that species of Haplocelis and Otocelis possess the diagnostic features of the Isodiametridae—a muscular, isodiametric penis, with non-anastomosing longitudinal muscles, that is invaginated into a muscular seminal vesicle (Fig. 26B). We herein reassign the genera Haplocelis and Otocelis to the family Isodiametridae. One of these species, Otocelis sandara, remains problematic, and is likely to be unrelated to the other Otocelis species. We cannot confirm from the material available to us that O. sandara possesses an isodiametrid-type penis. In an 18S rDNA sequence analysis of acoels, the sequence of O. sandara did not group with Isodiametridae taxa (Hooge et al. 2002). Finally, while the sperm axonemes of O. sandara have the same 9 + 2 microtubule configuration found in the Isodiametridae, other microtubules in their sperm have a configuration that differs from the isodiametrids (Petrov et al. 2004). For now, we choose to leave O. sandara in the genus until more information can be gathered on its true phylogenetic position."
Notes from synonyms
Return to Otocelididae Otocelis