Latrunculia (Uniannulata) oparinae, Kelly, Michelle, Sim-Smith, Carina, Stone, Robert, Reiswig, Toufiek Samaai Henry & Austin, William, 2016

Kelly, Michelle, Sim-Smith, Carina, Stone, Robert, Reiswig, Toufiek Samaai Henry & Austin, William, 2016, New taxa and arrangements within the family Latrunculiidae (Demospongiae, Poecilosclerida), Zootaxa 4121 (1), pp. 1-48 : 37-38

Neopodospongia carlinae (Boury-Esnault & van Beveren, 1982)

During the process of establishing L. (Uniannulata) subgen. nov., Latrunculia carlinae Boury-Esnault & van Beveren, 1982 was re-examined because the microscleres appeared to be reminiscent of those in L. (U.) oparinae subgen. nov., and the New Zealand fossil species L. (U.) paeonia subgen. et sp. nov., in particular. The species was first described as a species of Latrunculia by Boury-Esnault & Bevern (1982) despite the authors noting that the specimen had many non-latrunculid characters, and that the thistle-shaped ‘anisodiscorhabds’ were quite different from any other Latrunculia microscleres described thus far ( Fig. 13 A). In 2006, the species was transferred to Sigmosceptrella in the poecilosclerid family Podospongiidae , by Samaai et al. (2006), but they ceded that it was perhaps still not quite the right place. By 2011, Sim-Smith & Kelly (2011) had described a range of new genera within Podospongiidae , to which the species carlinae seems to have greater affinity. After careful reexamination of the holotype ( Fig. 15 ) we now consider L. carlinae to be better placed in podospongid genus Neopodospongia Sim-Smith & Kelly, 2011 , established for thin encrusting species with very similar characteristics. In particular, the aciculospinorhabd microscleres are in two size categories and protorhabd appears to be sigmoid, as in all Podospongiidae ( Sim-Smith & Kelly 2011) .

Latrunculia carlinae has microscleres with ragged apical spines ( Fig. 15 C–G) and are in two distinct morphological and size categories ( Fig. 15 C–E); the smaller microsclere is narrower, about 10 µm shorter, with a smaller apex. Although we did not find any specifically sigmoid protorhabds, we observed many protorhabds with the uneven lateral development ( Fig. 15 H) associated with the fusion of recurved sigmoid spines, as illustrated in Sim-Smith & Kelly (2011: Fig. 4 E, R). Neopodospongia carlinae from subantarctic waters is the sixth in this widely-spread genus, which has three species in New Zealand, one species in the Chilean fiords, and one species in the North Atlantic ( Table 9 ).

Figures

FIGURE 4. Megascleres and microscleres of Latrunculia (Latrunculia) austini Samaai et al. 2006: A – D. Anisodiscorhabds from holotype RBCM 982 - 62 - 1 showing variations, scale = 10 µm; E. Typical anisodiscorhabd from Gulf of Alaska specimen NHMUK 2008.3. 27.3, scale = 10 µm; F. Megascleres shown at full length, scale = 100 µm; G. Smooth proximal and distal tips of megasclere, scale = 10 µm; H. Protorhabd showing well-separated basal whorl progenitor above manubrium, scale = 10 µm; I – J. Malformed anisodiscorhabds with deficient or absent apical whorls and indistinguishable basal whorl and manubrium, scale = 10 µm; K – N. Anisodiscorhabds with semi-differentiated basal whorl and manubrium, scale = 10 µm; O – R. Anisodiscorhabds with manubrium completely separate from basal whorl, scale = 10 µm; Fig. 4 F – Q images taken from specimen RBCM 015 - 00478 - 001, Queen Charlotte Sound, British Columbia. Fig. 4 A – D reproduced from Samaai et al. (2006, Fig. 1 O).

FIGURE 13. Morphology, megascleres and microscleres of Latrunclava imago gen. et sp. nov.: A. Latrunclava imago gen. et sp. nov., preserved holotype RBCM 150 - 00490 - 001, central Aleutian Islands, 175 m, scale = 1 cm; B. Range of anisoconicorhabds, scale = 50 µm; C. Microfossil anisodiscorhabds of Latrunculia oamaruensis Hinde & Holmes, 1892 (from Hinde & Holmes, 1892: 218, Pl. 11, Fig. 34, 35), scale = 50 µm; D. Head of anisostyle, acanthose with retrovert spines, scale = 20 µm; E. Typical anisodiscorhabds with manubrium, scale = 20 µm; F. Anisodiscorhabd lacking a manubrium, scale = 20 µm; G. Protorhabds showing presence of budding manubrium, scale = 20 µm; H. Basal portion of anisodiscorhabd showing manubrium and basal whorl, scale = 20 µm; I. Apical whorl (apex absent), scale = 20 µm.

FIGURE 15. Megascleres and microscleres of Neopodospongia carlinae (Boury-Esnault & van Beveren, 1982): A. Megasclere and microsclere illustrated in Boury-Esnault & van Beveren (1982, Fig. 10 A, B); B. Strongyloxea, scale = 100 µm; C. Two size categories of aciculospinorhabds: the larger ectosomal form on the left has a compact crown of blade-like sculpted spines, the smaller choanosomal form on the right, scale = 20 µm; D. Ibid, scale = 20 µm; E. Group of aciculospinorhabds: small choanosomal form (left) and larger ectosomal forms to the right, scale = 20 µm; F. Apex of large ectosomal aciculospinorhabd, scale = 20 µm; G. Large ectosomal aciculospinorhabds, scale = 20 µm; H. Protorhabds showing the uneven shaft development (thicker at the base and apex than in the middle) typical of Podospongiidae, resulting from the fusion of the sigmoid progenitor rhabd (not shown), scale = 20 µm. Fig. B – H from holotype MNHN. D. NBE 1085, Kerguelen and Heard Islands continental shelf, 245 m.