Doropygus nasutus, Kim & Boxshall, 2020
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/megataxa.4.1.1 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6421637 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C487CB-EE35-3B5D-FCEF-FE73FB4CFE52 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Doropygus nasutus |
status |
sp. nov. |
Doropygus nasutus sp. nov.
( Figs. 236–238 View FIGURE 236 View FIGURE 237 View FIGURE 238 )
Typematerial. Holotype (intact ♀, MNHN-IU-2014- 21318 ) , paratypes (intact, 24 ♀♀, 2 ♂♂, MNHN-IU-2014-21319, and dissected paratypes (2 ♀♀, 1♂, figured) from Pyura microcosmus (Savigny, 1816) , Roscoff, France, Monniot coll., date unknown.
Additional material. All from P. microcosmus : 8 ♀♀ (MNHN-IU-2018-1863), Roscoff, France; 11 ♀♀ (MNHN-IU-2018-1864), Roscoff; 8 ♀♀, 2 ♂♂ (MNHN-IU-2018-1865), Petit Chevreuil, Dinard, France; 25 ♀♀, 1 ♂ (MNHN-IU-2018-1866) and 1 dissected ♀, Roscoff.
Etymology. The specific name is derived from the Latin nasut (=nose), alluding to the large rostrum of the new species.
Descriptionoffemale. Body ( Fig. 236A View FIGURE 236 ) slightly compressed, rather stout; bodylength 2.97 mm. Prosome 2.39 mm long, 5-segmented. Dorsalcephalic shield expanded laterally, slightly produced posterodorsally. Fourth pedigerous somite forming elliptical brood pouch, about 1.5 times longer than wide and rounded posteriorly. Freeurosome ( Fig. 236B View FIGURE 236 ) 5-segmented; genitalsomite 132×359 μm; 4 abdominalsomites 214×282, 214×245, 145×205, and 123×245 μm, respectively. Anal somite and caudal rami divergent. Caudal ramus ( Fig. 236C View FIGURE 236 ) graduallynarrowing distally, about 4.0 times longerthan wide (218×55 μm); armedwith 6 rudimentary setae; two proximal setae located at 24 and 62% of ramus length.
Rostrum ( Fig. 236D, E View FIGURE 236 ) characteristically large (more than half length of cephalic shield), highly sclerotized and about 3.6 times longerthan wide (337×93 μm), tapering peg-like in ventral view ( Fig. 236D View FIGURE 236 ), gently curved and hook-like inlateral view ( Fig. 236E View FIGURE 236 ), and clearly articulated at base. Antennule ( Fig. 236F View FIGURE 236 ) 360 μm long, 7-segmented, but terminal segment bearing traces of 2 incompletely expressed articulations; third to terminal segments much narrower than proximal 2 segments; armatureformula 3, 16+spine, 5, 5, 3, 2+aesthetasc, 11+2 aesthetascs; all setae naked. Antenna ( Fig. 236G View FIGURE 236 ) robust, 4-segmented; coxa unarmed; basis 113×73 μm, with 2 small setae; first endopodal segment 90×76 μm, with 1 small seta; compound distal endopodal segment about 2.0 timeslongerthan wide (105×54 μm); armedwith 7 setae (3 apparently located proximally on terminal claw) plus stout terminal claw 106 μm long, as long as segment, and blunt tipped.
Labrum ( Fig. 236H View FIGURE 236 ) asin D. pulex . Mandible ( Fig. 236I View FIGURE 236 ) with 5 teeth and 2 smallproximal setae on coxal gnathobase; setation of basis, exopod and first endopodal segment as in D. pulex , but first endopodal segment lacking row of spinules and second endopodal segment armed with 9 setae; 2 largest distalsetae on second endopodal segment equal in length. Paragnath ( Fig. 237A View FIGURE 237 ) ornamented only with medial margin setules. Maxillule ( Fig. 236J View FIGURE 236 ), maxilla ( Fig. 237B View FIGURE 237 ), and maxilliped ( Fig. 237C View FIGURE 237 ) asin D. pulex .
Leg 1 ( Fig. 237D View FIGURE 237 ), leg 2 ( Fig. 237E View FIGURE 237 ), leg 3, and leg 4 ( Fig. 237F View FIGURE 237 ) armed as in D. pulex . Outer seta on basis of leg 1 naked, with flagellate tip. Inner coxal seta of leg 4 sparsely pinnate.
Leg 5 ( Fig. 237G, H View FIGURE 237 ) similartothatof D. pulex : protopod bearing row of about 10 minute spinules at inner distal corner; free exopodal segment about 2.5 times longer than wide, armed with 2 setae distally (setal lengths variable, inner seta spiniform), ornamented with 2 or 3 rows of fine spinules on dorsomedial surface.
Descriptionofmale. Body ( Fig. 238A View FIGURE 238 ) narrower than that of female, 1.45 mm long. Pedigerous somites incompletely segmented. Urosome 6-segmented. Caudal ramus about 4.9 times longer than wide (132×27 μm).
Rostrum as in female. Antennule also as in female, but aesthetascs better developed and thicker than in female. Antenna robust as in female, but terminal claw pointed distally. Labrum as in female. Mandible ( Fig. 238B View FIGURE 238 ) bearing only 3 setae on first endopodal segment and 7 setaeon second. Paragnath, maxillule, maxilla, and maxilliped as in female.
Legs 1–4with 3-segmentedexopods and 2-segmented endopods ( Fig. 238 View FIGURE 238 C-E); endopods shorter than exopods. Outerand distalsetae onendopods oflegs 2–4 transformed intoshort spines. Secondendopodalsegments oflegs 2 and 3 each bearing small offset spinous process, articulated at base (not included in armature formula), on anterior surface near outer distal corner.Armature formula for legs 1–4 as follows:
Coxa Basis Exopod | Endopod | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Leg 1 | 0-1 | 1-I | I-1; I-1; III, I, 4 | 0-1; 1, 2, 4 |
Legs 2 & 30-1 | 1-0 | 1-1; 1-1; 3, 1, 5 | 0-1; I, III, 4 | |
Leg 4 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 1-1; 1-1; 2, 1, 5 | 0-1; I, III, 3 |
Leg 5 as in female; exopodal segment 2.2 times longer than wide (61×28 μm), with parallel outer and inner margins, 2 distal setae, and 3 medial rows of fine spinules. Leg 6 ( Fig. 238F View FIGURE 238 ) represented by 2 equal setae and 1 small, spiniform inner process distally on genital operculum.
Remarks. Doropygus nasutus sp. nov. can be distinguished from other members of the D. pulex complex by the large, strong rostrum which is more than half the length of the dorsal cephalic shield and clearly visible without dissection. The robust antenna is also distinctive. In addition, unlike in D. pulex s. str., the brood pouch is rounded, rather than tapering posteriorly. In the present study, this species was discovered only from Pyura microcosmus and all the specimens of Doropygus collected from this species of ascidian host are D. nasutus sp. nov. This may suggest that other species of Doropygus previously recorded from P. microcosmus might be referable to D. nasutus sp. nov.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |