Quinquelaophonte capillata ( Wilson, 1932 )

Gómez, S. & Morales-Serna, F. N., 2013, On a small collection of Laophontidae T. Scott (Copepoda: Harpacticoida) from Mexico. II. New records of Quinquelaophonte Wells, Hicks and Coull and description of Onychoquinpes permixtionis gen. nov. et sp. nov., Journal of Natural History (J. Nat. Hist.) 47 (5 - 12), pp. 381-408 : 387-395

Quinquelaophonte capillata ( Wilson, 1932)

( Figures 7 –12)

Material examined

One dissected adult female (EMUCOP-240691-02), one dissected male (EMUCOP- 010591-12), and one CIV (EMUCOP-030192-01), one CI, one CII, one CIV and one CV (EMUCOP-010591-13) preserved in alcohol. Collected from Ensenada del Pabellón , Sinaloa, Mexico (24 ◦ 19 ′ –24 ◦ 35 ′ N, 107 ◦ 28 ′ –107 ◦ 45 ′ W), 1 May, 24 June

1991, 3 January 1992, stns. 6 (0.001 µmolCg−1, 0.008 µmolNg−1, fine sand), 13 (0.834 µmolCg−1, 0.027 µmolNg−1, fine sand), and 14 (0.045 µmolCg−1, 0.014 µmolNg−1, lime) (see Gómez Noguera and Hendrickx 1997), coll S. Gómez.

Locality

Ensenada del Pabellón, Sinaloa, north-western Mexico (24 ◦ 19 ′ –24 ◦ 35 ′ N, 107 ◦ 28 ′ –107 ◦ 45 ′ W).

Remarks

Wilson (1932) described Laophonte capillata from Katama Bay (Martha’s Vineyard, MA, USA). Later, Lang (1948) noted that Wilson’s (1932) L. capillata represented in fact a complex of species, questioned the identity of the species, and reassigned it to a new species of Heterolaophonte Lang , as Heterolaophonte noncapillata Lang. He allocated Wilson’s (1932) L. capillata males as part of his discophora- species group, and created a new species of Paronychocamptus Lang , Paronychocamptus capillatus (Wilson) , a member of his curticaudatus -species group in which he allocated Wilson’s (1932) females of L. capillata ( Lang 1948) . Coull (1976) made subsequent arrangements of Wilson’s (1932) nomenclature of L. capillata and Lang’s (1948) H. noncapillata to fit the requirements set by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature prevailing in 1964. Upon the revision of Wilson’s (1932) material, Coull (1976) reinstated and partially redescribed H. capillata (Wilson) , and suggested Lang’s H. noncapillata as a junior objective synonym of Wilson’s (1932) male type of H. capillata . Also, Coull (1976) suggested Lang’s H. noncapillata as a junior synonym of H. capillata and formally designated one of Wilson’s males as the lectotype, and the remaining five males and two females as paralectotypes. Coull (1976) noted that Lang’s (1948) view was right in that he had placed Wilson’s female L. capillata in the genus Paronychocamptus Lang , but renamed and described the species as Paronychocamptus wilsoni Coull to meet the ICZN rules ( Lang 1948). On the other hand, Coull (1976) noted that Lang’s (1948) view was wrong in that H. capillata does not belong to the discophora- species group, but to the quinquespinosa -group. Later, Wells et al. (1982) moved all the species of the quinquespinosa -species group to the genus Quinquelaophonte . Coull (1976) found only two females in Wilson’s vial, and even though a full redescription of the species was fully justified, he felt that the dissection of one of the two females available was unjustified, and partially redescribed the female upon a temporary whole mount from which he was able to figure the antennule, the antenna, the P5, and the three posterior urosomites and caudal rami, and was also able to observe the armature formula for P1–P4. On the other hand, he dissected one male and described those parts that varied from Wilson’s (1932) original description. The Mexican material keys out Q. capillata using Wells’ (2007) key. In fact, the armature formula of the female P1–P4 (see Figures 9A, B , 10A, B ) fully corresponds to Coull’s (1976) observations, being the armature formula of the P3 EXP unique for the species and for Q. longifurcata ( Coull, 1976) . The female antennule ( Figure 8A ), the A2 EXP ( Figure 8B ), and the female and male P5 (Figure 12F, D, respectively) also agree well with Coull’s (1976) drawings and text descriptions. The male P2 (Figure 12A) agrees well with Wilson’s (1932) description and Coull’s (1976) observations. The male P3 EXP (Figure 12B) of the Mexican material agrees well with both Wilson’s (1932) and Coull’s (1976) observations. On the other hand, even though Wilson (1932) omitted any comment on the male P3 ENP, he showed this ramus with six seta / spines, and in his paper, Coull (1976) observed only five elements. The male P3 ENP of the Mexican material (Figure 12B) is similar to that observed by Coull (1976) except for the outer element, which has been described by Coull (1976) as a seta, but appears as an acute and short process in the Mexican specimens. Sewell (1924) and Wells and McKenzie (1973) observed homologous structures for Q. quinquespinosa . Wilson (1932) described the male P4 ENP as possessing four elements, and Coull (1976) redescribed this limb and showed the presence of

Figure 12. Quinquelaophonte capillata (Wilson) , male. (A) P2; (B) P3; (C) P4; (D) P5; (E) P6. Quinquelaophonte capillata (Wilson) , female. (F) P5. Scale bars: A–F, 100 µm.

three setae only. The male P4 ENP of the Mexican material (Figure 12C) agrees well with Coull’s (1976) observations. On the other hand, the male P4 EXP as figured by Wilson (1932) and Coull (1976) are identical, but differ from the Mexican material in that the EXP3 lacks the inner small seta in the latter (Figure 12C). Seemingly, Coull (1976) based his observations on one dissected male only. It is not clear whether he inspected the other five males contained in Wilson’s vial, and nothing was said about the intraspecific variability of the species, which, at least for Q. quinquespinosa , seems to be ample. Also, the identification of the Mexican specimens was based on one adult female and one adult male, and the variability could not be assessed. Until this is done it is suggested that the Mexican material be attributed to Q. capillata .

Figures

Figure 7. Quinquelaophonte capillata (Wilson), female. (A) Urosome, dorsal (P5-bearing somite omitted); (B) urosome, ventral (P5-bearing somite omitted). Scale bars: A, B, 100 µm.

Figure 8. Quinquelaophonte capillata (Wilson), female. (A) Antennule; (B) antenna; (C) mandible; (D) maxilliped. Quinquelaophonte capillata (Wilson), male. (E) Antennule. Scale bars: A–E, 100 µm.

Figure 9. Quinquelaophonte capillata (Wilson), female. (A) P1; (B) P2. Scale bars: A, B, 100 µm.

Figure 10. Quinquelaophonte capillata (Wilson), female. A, P3; B, P4. Scale bars: A, B, 100 µm.