Pseudechiniscus (Pseudechiniscus) formosus, Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk, 2021
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.6620/ZS.2021.60-70 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/1E7887A1-0C34-D300-8253-ED03FE5AFCDC |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Pseudechiniscus (Pseudechiniscus) formosus |
status |
sp. nov. |
Pseudechiniscus (Pseudechiniscus) formosus View in CoL
sp. nov. ( Figs. 26–27 View Fig ) urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:7FDACA7F-5E5F-4220-A668-DD8179BD04A6
Tardigrada Register: http://www.tardigrada.net/ register/0113.htm
Description: Female (i.e., the third instar): Large (187 μm, sc = 24.9 μm) Pseudechiniscus with cylindrical body ( Fig. 26A View Fig ); pale yellow with black crystalline eyes, body colour disappears, but eyes persist after mounting in Hoyer’s medium. Pseudohemispherical cephalic papillae (3.9 μm) and elongated (primary) clavae (4.0 μm, Fig. 27); cirrophores of peribuccal cirri (cirrus internus 9.3 μm, cirrus externus 16.6 μm) weakly outlined, cirrophore A tubular and distinct ( Fig. 26A View Fig ). Cirrus A short (32.1 μm).
Dorsal plate sculpturing of the Pseudechiniscus type, with large and hemispherical capituli of endocuticular pillars ( Fig. 26B View Fig ) not joined by striae. Pillars heterogeneous in size, their largest capituli present in centromedian plate portions of the scapular, paired segmental and pseudosegmental IV’ plates ( Fig. 26B View Fig ). Cephalic plate pentapartite, lacking cervical plate ( Fig. 26A View Fig ). Scapular plate comprising the dominant anterior portion and four narrow posterior portions demarcated by weak sutures ( Fig. 26A–B View Fig ). All median plates large: m1–2 bipartite, with reduced posterior portions, m3 rhomboidal and unipartite. Four pairs of lateral intersegmental plates flanking boarders of m1–2. Large paired segmental plates I–II and uniform pseudosegmental plate IV’ with a sinusoidal posterior margin ( Fig. 26B View Fig ). Short and gently curved incisions on the caudal plate ( Fig. 26A View Fig ).
Ventral sculpturing faint and poorly developed ( Figs. 26C View Fig , 27), with larger accumulations of pillars only in the subcephalic and genital areas, and at the level of legs I–III. Sexpartite gonopore placed anteriorly to legs IV, and a trilobed anus between legs IV. Pedal plates formed as belts of large pillars in central portions of legs ( Fig. 26A View Fig ). Pulvini absent. Papillae or spines on legs I absent. Papilla IV present (3.8 μm). Claws minute (7.9–8.4 μm) and isonych; internal claws with robust primary spurs (2.0–2.4 μm) positioned at ca. 25% of the branch height and divergent from it.
Males, juveniles, larvae and eggs: Not found.
Molecular markers and phylogenetic position: Two gene fragments were sequenced: 28S rRNA (OK048634) and ITS-1 (OK048647). In the updated phylogeny from Gąsiorek et al. (2021c), P. formosus sp. nov. is embedded in the subgenus Pseudechiniscus and it is sister to a subclade comprising six species,
Diploechiniscus oihonnae Legend
Nebularmis indicus Afrotropical + Oriental Nebularmis burmensis
Nebularmis re ti culatus Palaearc�c
Nebularmis crebraclava Nebularmis auratus + PalaOriental earc�c
including P. (P.) asper , P. (P.) shintai , and P. (P.) totoro sp. nov. ( Fig. 30 View Fig ).
Type material: Holotype (adult female on slide TW.007.01) deposited in the Jagiellonian University. One specimen used for DNA sequencing.
Type locality: 24°23'51"N, 121°14'04"E, 3 700 m asl: Taiwan, Snow Mountain (Xueshan), North Peak. Mosses from rocks exposed to sun.
Etymology: The name has a twofold meaning, as in Latin formosus = beautiful, describing the dorsal plate sculpturing, and the former name of Taiwan, derived from Portuguese, was Formosa. Adjective in the nominative singular.
Differential diagnosis: Species representing the subgenus Pseudechiniscus are morphologically more similar to each other than species in the subgenus Meridioniscus ( Gąsiorek et al. 2021c) . There are several species lacking appendages on the posterior margin of the pseudosegmental plate IV’ (several species are considered dubious and/or indistinguishable from other congeners due to scarce descriptions and are therefore excluded from the list below, e.g., P. (P.) clavatus Mihelčič, 1955 and P. (P.) megacephalus Mihelčič, 1951 ; see Roszkowska et al. 2020, Tumanov 2020, and Gąsiorek et al. 2021c for details) that are differentiated from P. formosus sp. nov.:
P. (P.) beasleyi Li et al., 2007 View in CoL , described from the Qinling Mountains (Shaanxi, continental China), by body colour (pale yellow in P. (P.) formosus View in CoL sp. nov. vs red in P. (P.) beasleyi View in CoL ) and shorter claws (7.9–8.4 μm in P. (P.) formosus View in CoL sp. nov. vs 9.1–13.1 μm in P. (P.) beasleyi View in CoL ).
P. (P.) chengi Xue et al., 2017 View in CoL , also described from mainland China, by body colour (pale yellow in P. (P.) formosus View in CoL sp. nov. vs brown in P. (P.) chengi View in CoL ) and the epicuticular ornamentation on the dorsum (absent in P. (P.) formosus View in CoL sp. nov. vs present in P. (P.) chengi View in CoL ).
P. (P.) ehrenbergi Roszkowska et al., 2020 View in CoL , by a longer cirrus externus and cirrus A (16.6 μm, 32.1 μm in P. (P.) formosus View in CoL sp. nov. vs 9.0–11.7 μm, 21.6–26.8 μm
in P. (P.) ehrenbergi View in CoL ).
P. (P.) lacyformis Roszkowska et al., 2020 View in CoL , by the epicuticular ornamentation on the dorsum (absent in P. (P.) formosus View in CoL sp. nov. vs present in P. (P.) lacyformis View in CoL ) and shorter cirrus internus (9.3 μm in P. (P.) formosus View in CoL sp. nov. vs 10.6–14.0 μm in P. (P.) lacyformis View in CoL ).
P. (P.) shintai Vončina et al., 2020 View in CoL , by body colour (pale yellow in P. (P.) formosus View in CoL sp. nov. vs orange in P. (P.) shintai View in CoL ) and the epicuticular ornamentation on the dorsum (absent in P. (P.) formosus View in CoL sp. nov. vs present in P. (P.) shintai View in CoL ).
P. (P.) suillus ( Ehrenberg, 1853) View in CoL , by relative lengths of some cephalic appendages (cirrus internus 37.3, cephalic papilla 15.7, (primary) clava 16.1 in P. (P.) formosus View in CoL sp. nov. vs cirrus internus 44.0–49.6, cephalic papilla 19.1–24.3, (primary) clava 20.9–26.8 in P. (P.) suillus View in CoL ).
P. (P.) xiai Wang et al., 2018 View in CoL , by body colour (pale yellow in P. (P.) formosus View in CoL sp. nov. vs orange in P. (P.) xiai View in CoL ) and the epicuticular ornamentation on the dorsum (absent in P. (P.) formosus View in CoL sp. nov. vs present in P. (P.) xiai View in CoL ).
Moreover, P. (P.) formosus View in CoL sp. nov. is also distinguishable from all abovementioned species by the ventral sculpturing pattern.
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 |
Pseudechiniscus (Pseudechiniscus) formosus
Gąsiorek, Piotr, Vončina, Katarzyna, Kristensen, Reinhardt Møbjerg & Michalczyk, Łukasz 2021 |
P. (P.) formosus
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
P. (P.) formosus
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
P. (P.) formosus
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
P. (P.) formosus
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
Pseudechiniscus (Meridioniscus) dreyeri
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
P. (P.) formosus
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
P. (P.) formosus
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
P. (P.) formosus
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
Pseudechiniscus (M.) dreyeri
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
P. (P.) formosus
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
P. (P.) formosus
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
P. (P.) formosus
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
P. (P.) formosus
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
P. (P.) formosus
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
P. (P.) formosus
Gąsiorek & Vončina & Kristensen & Michalczyk 2021 |
P. (P.) ehrenbergi
Roszkowska 2020 |
P. (P.) lacyformis
Roszkowska 2020 |
P. (P.) shintai Vončina et al., 2020
Voncina 2020 |
P. (P.) xiai
Wang 2018 |
P. (P.) chengi
Xue 2017 |
P. (P.) beasleyi
Li 2007 |