Doryphoribius rosanae sp.

Daza, Anisbeth, Caicedo, Martín, Lisi, Oscar & Quiroga, Sigmer, 2017, New records of tardigrades from Colombia with the description of Paramacrobiotus sagani sp. nov. and Doryphoribius rosanae sp. nov., Zootaxa 4362 (1), pp. 29-50 : 40-46

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4362.1.2
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F260162E-CB13-4B60-BF80-032E039D782F
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6022354
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CB1733-FFF8-FFF4-B99D-32A50889024B
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Doryphoribius rosanae sp.
status	sp.

Treatment

Doryphoribius rosanae sp. nov.

( Figs. 5–8 View FIGURE 5 View FIGURE 6 View FIGURE 7 View FIGURE 8 , Table 4)

Material examined: Holotype mounted in Hoyer’s medium, 1 paratype in Hoyer’s medium, and 9 paratypes in PVA from locality Bonda, lower basin of ManZanares river. Nineteen additional specimens were also found, 10 from the Puerto Mosquito locality, lower basin of the Gaira River, and 9 from the central basin of the Garupal River. All details about specimens are given in Table 1. The microhabitat, from which they were extracted, was mixed assemblages of bryophytes ( Dicranaceae and Racopilaceae ) and lichens ( Parmeliaceae , Strigulaceae and Thelotremataceae ) growing on tree trunks. Holotype found in a mixed assemblage of Dicranaceae and Racopilaceae species growing on tree.

Type repositories: The holotype and the paratypes are deposited in the Centro de Colecciones Biológicas de la Universidad del Magdalena (CBUMAG), Santa Marta, Colombia. Holotype CBUMAG: TAR:00009-3, and 10 paratypes ( Table 1).

Species diagnosis: Colourless after mounting (not noticed before mounting). Eye-spots present. Dorso-lateral cuticle covered with a reticular design ( Fig. 5A, E–F View FIGURE 5 ) that does not form tubercles at the point where the mesh crosses. Nine transversal rows of gibbosities on the dorso-lateral surface of the body; gibbosity configuration is IX:4-6-2-6-2-6-4-2-2 ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 , Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 ). Rows II, IV and VI are aligned with legs I, II and III, respectively. Lateral gibbosities in lines I and VII misaligned, being more caudal, with respect to the dorsal gibbosities of the same row. Bucco-pharyngeal apparatus of Doryphoribius type ( Fig. 5B View FIGURE 5 ). Peribuccal lobes and papulae present. Oral armature with five to ten sparsely arranged large teeth in the region of the medio-dorsal ridge, and four to twelve sparsely arranged large teeth in the region of the medio-ventral ridge; in both cases the largest tooth is in the median position ( Fig. 7 View FIGURE 7 ). Stylet supports inserted at 67.6–72.8% of the buccal tube length. Pharynx with two elongated macroplacoids, the first longer, with slight central constriction. Microplacoids or septula absent. Claws of Isohypsibius type, big, stout ( Fig. 5C–D View FIGURE 5 , Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 ); external (I–III) and posterior (IV) claws moderately bigger and with far larger base; free accessory points on main branches absent, i.e. very thin accessory points completely attached to the main branches present ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 , arrows). Narrow, smooth lunules present ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 , arrows). Bars and other cuticular thickenings on legs absent.

Description of the holotype: Body length 303 µm, colourless after mounting. Eye-spots present. Dorso-lateral cuticle covered with a reticular design ( Fig. 5A, E–F View FIGURE 5 ), which appears quite rough and irregular with regards to the mesh shape and siZe, and the thickness of the delimiting ridges; where the mesh crosses it does not form tubercles. Nine rows of gibbosities on the dorso-lateral portion of the body ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 , Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 ). The gibbosity configuration is IX:4-6-2-6-2-6-4-2-2. Rows II, IV and VI are aligned with legs I, II and III, respectively. The gibbosity arrangement is shown in Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 . The first row shows two detached dorso-lateral gibbosities and two laterals in a more caudal position; rows from II to VII all show dorso-medial attached gibbosities plus dorso-lateral gibbosities, and lateral gibbosities in the rows II, IV and VI; the dorso-medial gibbosities tend to be flat and faint, especially those of rows III and V, and in several paratypes were difficult to observe. Lateral gibbosities in row VII misaligned, being more caudal, with respect to the dorsal gibbosities of the same row. Rows VIII and IX both have two dorso-lateral gibbosities moderately elongated and thus more protruding than the others, those of the last row almost pointed.

Bucco-pharyngeal apparatus of Doryphoribius type, with ventral lamina long more than half the buccal tube (58.0% of the tube length) ( Fig. 5B View FIGURE 5 ). Peribuccal lobes and papulae are present. Oral armature with two dorsolateral and two ventro-lateral ridges, both with sparsely arranged large teeth in the region of a median ridge: ten medio-dorsal teeth, and twelve medio-ventral teeth, with the largest tooth in the median position ( Fig. 7 View FIGURE 7 ). Buccal tube 41.2 µm long and externally 5.0 µm wide (pt = 12.1). Pharyngeal bulb with apophyses and two elongated macroplacoids; microplacoids and septula absent. First macroplacoid 7.7 µm long (pt = 18.7), with slight central constriction; second macroplacoid 4.5 µm long (pt = 10.9), with subterminal constriction; entire placoid row, 14.1 µm long (pt = 34.3). Claws of Isohypsibius type, big and stout, with relatively long branches ( Fig. 5C–D View FIGURE 5 , Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 ); the internal or anterior claws moderately smaller and with smaller bases than the external or posterior claws, which have more elongated branches and wider bases. Primary branches with thin accessory points completely attached to the main branches, so that “free” accessory points are lacking ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 , arrows). Internal claws on leg I with primary branch 11.1 µm long (pt = 27.0), secondary branch 9.5 µm long (pt = 23.1), and base 6.1 µm long (pt = 14.8). The orientation of all the other claws were unsuitable for measurement. Narrow, smooth lunules present under all claws ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 , arrows), more developed under the external (I–III) and especially the posterior (IV) claws. Bars and other cuticular thickenings on legs absent.

The measurements of selected morphological structures of the holotype and the ranges within the population, are given in Table 4.

Taxonomic remarks: The paratypes were similar to the holotype in both qualitative and metric characters, only the number of teeth in the buccal armature has shown variation, but this might also depend on the different orientation of the specimens, which could obscure some teeth; to give the range of variability, we were able to count from four to ten teeth in dorsal view, and five to twelve teeth in ventral view.

Etymology. This species is dedicated to the biologist Rosana Londoño, colleague and friend of the research group, who has worked with us for many years on tardigrade taxonomy.

Differential diagnosis. The presence of cuticular gibbosities and two macroplacoids in the pharynx places Doryphoribius rosanae sp. nov. into the evelinae group (MichalcZyk & KacZmarek 2010). The reticular design on the dorso-lateral cuticle and nine rows of gibbosities is most similar to: D. barbarae Beasley & Miller, 2012 , D. dawkinsi MichalcZyk & KacZmarek, 2010 , D. huangguoshuensis Wang, Wang & Li, 2007 , D. maasaimarensis Fontoura, Lisi & Pilato, 2013 , D. niedbalai Zawierucha, MichalcZyk & KacZmarek, 2012 , D. zyxiglobus ( Horning, Schuster & Grigarick, 1978) , and D. mcinnesae Meng, Sun & Li, 2014 . Doryphoribius rosanae sp. nov. differs from all these species in having a unique gibbosity configuration (IX:4-6-2-6-2-6-4-2-2), and in lacking cuticular tubercles at the crossing of the cuticular reticular sculpture (this character though not described for D. niedbalai was clearly visible in Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 of the species description, Zawierucha et al. 2012).

Doryphoribius rosanae sp. nov. differs from D. barbarae by having a larger body siZe (221.1–239.6 µm in D. barbarae , 289–434 µm in D. rosanae sp. nov.), different number and arrangement of gibbosities (IX:2-4-4-4-4-6- 4-4- 2 in D. barbarae , IX:4-6-2-6-2-6-4-2- 2 in D. rosanae sp. nov.), presence of eye-spots, and lunules.

Doryphoribius rosanae sp. nov. differs from D. dawkinsi , by having a larger body siZe (165.0–266.2 µm in D. dawkinsi , 289–434 µm in D. rosanae sp. nov.), different number and arrangement of gibbosities (IX:6-6-4-6-4-6-4- 4-2+2[L IV] in D. dawkinsi , IX:4-6-2-6-2-6-4-2- 2 in D. rosanae sp. nov.), presence of eye-spots, and claws with lunules.

Doryphoribius rosanae sp. nov. differs from D. huangguoshuensis by having a different number and arrangement of gibbosities (IX:4-4-4-4-4-4-4-2- 2 in D. huangguoshuensis , IX:4-6-2-6-2-6-4-2- 2 in D. rosanae sp. nov.), and a wider buccal tube (pt 8.3–8.8 in D. huangguoshuensis , 11.1–14.5 in D. rosanae sp. nov.).

Doryphoribius rosanae sp. nov. differs from D. maasaimarensis by having a larger body siZe (175–288 µm in D. maasaimarensis , 289–434 µm in D. rosanae sp. nov.), different number and arrangement of gibbosities (IX:4-6- 4-6-4-6-4-4- 2 in D. maasaimarensis , IX:4-6-2-6-2-6-4-2- 2 in D. rosanae sp. nov.), a wider buccal tube (pt 8.7–9.4 in D. maasaimarensis , 11.1–14.5 in D. rosanae sp. nov.), and the absence of ornamentation on legs.

Doryphoribius rosanae sp. nov. differs from D. niedbalai by having a different number and arrangement of gibbosities (IX:4-6-5-6-5-6-4-2- 2 in D. niedbalai , IX:4-6-2-6-2-6-4-2- 2 in D. rosanae sp. nov.), by the presence of eye-spots, and absence of free accessory points.

Doryphoribius rosanae sp. nov. differs from D. zyxiglobus in the gibbosity configuration (IX:4-6-4-6-4-6-4-4- 2 in D. zyxiglobus , IX:4-6-2-6-2-6-4-2- 2 in D. rosanae sp. nov.), a wider buccal tube (pt 9.2–11.8 in D. zyxiglobus , 11.1–14.5 in D. rosanae sp. nov.), larger macroplacoids (pt 12.6–14.7 in first macroplacoid and 8.4–9.9 in second macroplacoid in D. zyxiglobus , 15.9–19.8 and 10.0–12.7, respectively, in D. rosanae sp. nov.), and in having more robust claws (e.g. pt claw IV anterior, base 13.0–15.9, primary branch 26.6–29.8 and secondary branch 19.4–21.9 in D. zyxiglobus , 18.0–19.4, 31.5–32.9 and 22.4–24.1, respectively, in D. rosanae sp. nov.) with smaller, attached, accessory points (larger accessory points, with free tips in D. zyxiglobus ).

According to the original description of D. mcinnesae , D. rosanae sp. nov. would differ in having a different number of rows of gibbosities, and of gibbosities themselves (X:2-3-1-3-1-3-1-2-2- 2 in D. mcinnesae , IX:4-6-2-6- 2-6-4-2- 2 in D. rosanae sp. nov.); however, we think D. mcinnesae can also be considered has having nine rows of gibbosities (see discussion), the formula for which would be IX:2-3-1-3-1-3-3-2-2, therefore still different from the new species. Additionally, D. rosanae sp. nov. has lunules, which are lacking in D. mcinnesae .