Neoleptastacus acanthus ( Chappuis, 1954 ), 2008

Sak, Serdar, Karaytuğ, Süphan & Huys, Rony, 2024, Review of Neoleptastacus Nicholls, 1945 (Harpacticoida, Arenopontiidae), including an updated key to species and proposal of Phreatipontia gen. nov., Zootaxa 5525 (1), pp. 1-66 : 12-20

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5525.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7F2F59B2-E0FB-4E17-BAF1-31228DB9428E
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14042361
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/627EC678-F76D-FFAC-FF4E-FC487E68FBBA
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Neoleptastacus acanthus ( Chappuis, 1954 )
status

Treatment

Neoleptastacus acanthus ( Chappuis, 1954) View in CoL

( Figs 1–5 View FIGURE 1 View FIGURE 2 View FIGURE 3 View FIGURE 4 View FIGURE 5 )

Arenopontia acantha Chappuis, 1954 View in CoL

Arenopontia (Neoleptastacus) acantha Chappuis, 1954 View in CoL : Wells (1967: 324)

Arenoponthia acantha Chappuis, 1954 : lapsus calami by Cottarelli (1969: 20)

Arenopontia (Neoleptastacus) acantha acantha Chappuis, 1954 View in CoL : Kunz (1971: 356)

Neoleptastacus acanthus ( Chappuis, 1954) Sak et al. (2008: 412) View in CoL

Neoleptastacus knidosensis —nomen nudum by Sak (2004: 230)

Original description. Chappuis (1954): 268–270; Figs 46–53.

Additional descriptions. Masry (1970 —as A. acantha ): 251–253; Fig. 13 View FIGURE 13 . Cottarelli (1973a —as A. acantha ): Fig. 22 [mandibular palp]. Martínez Arbizu & Moura (1994 —as A. acantha ): 63; Fig. 2d, g View FIGURE 2 [rostrum, anal somite and caudal rami]. Alper (2009): 45–46; Fig. 3.6 View FIGURE 3 [♀ lateral habitus, photograph].

Type locality. Western Mediterranean. Chappuis (1954) collected the species in various localities in Italy, Algeria and Tunisia (see below) but did not specify a locus typicus. Since P.-A. Chappuis habitually ignored type fixation, all the specimens on which he established A. acantha are syntypes and collectively constitute the name-bearing type ( ICZN Art. 72.1.1). According to ICZN Art. 73.2.3 the type locality encompasses all of the places where the syntypes were collected.

Material examined. One ♀ (dissected on eight slides) (reg. no NHMUK 2024.1050 About NHMUK ) and one ♂ (dissected on seven slides) (reg. no NHMUK 2024.1051 About NHMUK ) ; seven ♀♀ and three ♂♂ (in ethanol) (reg. nos NHMUK 2024.1052 About NHMUK – 1061 About NHMUK ) ; five ♀♀ and two ♂♂ (in ethanol) deposited in the collections of BUZM. All specimens collected from Hastanealtı Beach, Datça (Muğla Province), Türkiye on 24 November 2002; leg. A. Alper.

Body length. 450 μm (♀) [ Chappuis 1954]; 380–420 μm (♀), 365–390 μm (♂) [ Masry 1970]; 331 μm (♀), 325 μm (♂) [present account].

Redescription of female. Total body length from tip of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami 350 μm (mean = 331 μm; n = 10). Maximum body width 36 μm (mean = 34 μm; n = 10), measured near posterior margin of cephalothorax. Body slender and cylindrical without clear distinction between prosome and urosome. Sensillar pattern on body as figured. Hyaline frills of thoracic somites weakly developed and crenulated; those of genital double-somite and free abdominal somites strongly developed and consisting of rectangular digitate lappets ( Figs 1A, B View FIGURE 1 ; 2B View FIGURE 2 ; 5A View FIGURE 5 ). Somites connected by well-developed intersomitic membranes. Genital double-somite about 1.3 times longer than wide (measured in dorsal aspect); with two middorsal, four lateral and four ventral pores ( Figs 1A, B View FIGURE 1 ; 5A View FIGURE 5 ). Anal somite ( Figs 2B, C View FIGURE 2 ; 5A View FIGURE 5 ) with paired, dorsally recurved, spinous processes near posterior border either side of anal opening, and two lateral pores near anterior margin; with two conspicuous pores near ventral posterior margin. Anal frill triradiate, minutely incised (giving a spinulose appearance); anal operculum slightly convex, without ornamentation.

Caudal rami ( Figs 2B, C View FIGURE 2 ; 5A View FIGURE 5 ) about three times longer than wide (measured in dorsal view from anterior margin to apex of spinous process), distinctly tapering posteriorly; with a pore near ventral proximal margin ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ); outer distal corner produced into posteriorly directed, dorsally recurved spinous process; no spinular ornamentation discernible. Armature consisting of seven setae; seta I small; setae II and III (displaced to dorsal surface) long and naked; seta IV short, naked, located between seta V and posterior spinous process; seta V long, naked, with proximal fracture plane ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ); seta VI small, naked and located at inner distal corner; seta VII distinctly foliaceous and tri-articulate at base.

Rostrum ( Fig. 1C View FIGURE 1 ) small, broadly subtriangular, tapering distally; apical part lobate and demarcated by bilateral constrictions, with two delicate sensilla.

Antennule ( Fig. 3A View FIGURE 3 ) long and slender, 6-segmented. Segment 1 with small seta near anterodistal margin. Segment 2 longest, about 3.4 times longer than wide. Segment 4 with long aesthetasc (L: 45 μm) fused at base with seta. Distal segment with eight setae (two distinctly spatulate; indicated by arrows in Fig. 3A View FIGURE 3 ) and apical acrothek consisting of short aesthetasc (L: 20 μm) and two setae. All setal elements naked except for plumose seta on dorsal surface of segment 2. Armature formula: 1-[1], 2-[7 + 1 plumose], 3-[4], 4-[(1 + ae)], 5-[1], 6-[8 + acrothek].

Antenna ( Fig. 2D, E View FIGURE 2 ). Coxa small, without ornamentation (not figured). Basis and proximal endopodal segment forming incompletely fused allobasis, about 2.9 times as long as maximum width; original basis-endopod boundary marked by transverse surface suture at level of exopodal articulation; proximal part representing original basis with longitudinal row of small spinules near base of exopod. Exopod one-segmented, unornamented, and elongate, with a naked apical seta (about 1.3 times longer than exopod). Free endopodal segment with few lateral spinules proximally and transverse spinular row distally; medial armature consisting of two short spines (indicated by arrows in Fig. 2D, E View FIGURE 2 ); apical armature consisting of two naked spines and three geniculate setae, longest of which with spinules around geniculation and fused basally to naked accessory seta.

Mandible, maxillule, maxilla and maxilliped as in N. spinicaudatus (see Sak et al. 2008: Figs 16D, E View FIGURE 16 ; 17E, F View FIGURE 17 ). Mandibular gnathobase elongate, about as long as palp; with several curved, minute teeth and one tiny recurved seta at dorsal corner. Mandibular palp uniramous, consisting of elongate, unisetose basis and one-segmented endopod with one inner, two outer, and two apical setae. Maxillule comprising praecoxa, coxa, basis and vestigial rami; praecoxal arthrite with one anterior surface seta and five spines and two setae around distal margin; coxal endite cylindrical, with two recurved spines; basis elongate, with rami completely incorporated; basal armature consisting of three apical setae; exopod and endopod represented by one and three setae, respectively. Maxilla comprising syncoxa, allobasis and endopod; syncoxa with two cylindrical endites, proximal endite with three setae (one fused at base) and distal endite with two setae (one fused at base); allobasis drawn out into long claw with one accessory seta; endopod one-segmented, with three setae; all elements naked. Maxilliped comprising syncoxa, basis and endopod; syncoxa longer than wide, unarmed, with few spinules; basis elongate and unarmed; endopod with small accessory seta and slightly curved claw, bearing strong, subterminal spinule.

P1 ( Fig. 4A View FIGURE 4 ). Intercoxal sclerite wide and subrectangular. Praecoxa small, triangular and naked. Coxa wider than long, without ornamentation. Basis with spinular row near base of endopod; anterior surface with a small inner spine near medial margin. Exopod three-segmented; exp-1 and -2 with several spinules around outer margin, exp-3 with single spinule; exp-1 longest, with unipinnate outer spine; exp-2 without outer element; exp-3 with short unipinnate outer spine, a long curved unipinnate spine and two geniculate setae distally. Endopod two-segmented, not prehensile, longer than exopod; enp-1 about 1.25 times longer than enp-2, with a serrate seta arising from halfway down inner margin and three coarse spinules along outer margin; enp-2 without spinules, distal margin with naked outer spine and geniculate inner seta.

P2–P4 ( Fig. 4B–D View FIGURE 4 ). Intercoxal sclerites rectangular (P2) or squarish (P3–P4) with concave ventral margins. Praecoxae triangular, small and naked. Coxae squarish and without ornamentation. Bases smaller than coxae, with a spinular row near base of endopod (P3–P4) and a few spinules around outer corner in P2 and P4; anterior surface with a pore; outer basal seta absent in P2, long and plumose in P3–P4. Exopods three-segmented; segments with coarse spinular ornamentation, as illustrated; outer spine of exp-1 and -2 naked (except for P3 exp-2 sparsely unipinnate); exp-3 with an outer unipinnate spine, and two setae distally (one unipinnate and one bipinnate in P2–P3 or two bipinnate setae in P4); P4 exp-2 elongate, distinctly longer than exp-1; inner seta of P4 exp-3 serrate in distal half and originating near distal margin from posterior surface. Endopods two-segmented; P2–P4 enp-1 unarmed, about 1.1, 1.6, and 4.1 times longer than their respective distal segments, with few coarse spinules along outer margin as figured, but without ornamentation along inner margin (except for single minute spinule near inner distal corner of P4 enp-1); P2 enp-2 with long, apically serrate, backwardly directed seta near proximal margin and two unequal unipinnate setae around distal margin, with two spinules along outer margin subdistally and with one spinule at inner distal corner; P3 enp-2 with three coarse spinules on anterior surface, apical margin with long, unipinnate, inner seta and short, naked, outer spine; P4 enp-2 with a spinule halfway along outer margin, apical margin with long, distally serrate and basally fused, inner seta, and long, unipinnate, outer seta. Spine and seta formula as follows:

	Exopod	Endopod
P2	0.0.021	0.120
P3	0.0.021	0.020
P4	0.0.121	0.020

Fifth legs ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ) closely set together, almost touching medially. Baseoendopod and exopod fused, forming a subrectangular plate; anterior surface with two pores; inner distal corner with strong, minutely bipinnate, spinous process (homologous to inner spine); distal margin with plumose outer basal seta, one long, naked seta, and two short, equally long, bipinnate spines.

Redescription of male. Total body length from tip of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami 336 µm (mean = 325 μm; n = 6). Maximum body width 31 μm (mean = 32 μm; n = 6), measured at posterior margin of cephalothorax. Body ornamentation ( Fig. 2A View FIGURE 2 ) essentially as in female. Sexual dimorphism in antennule, genital segmentation, P5, and P6. Spermatophore length approximately 53 µm.

Antennule ( Fig. 3B View FIGURE 3 ) 8-segmented, haplocer; geniculation between segments 6 and 7. Segment 1 with a slender naked seta; segment 2 longest and about 3.6 times longer than wide, with one plumose and seven naked setae; segment 3 with four setae and a spine; segment 4 an incomplete sclerite with two spiniform elements; segment 5 with six setae and a long aesthetasc (50 µm) fused basally to a slender seta; segments 6 and 7 with a seta; distal segment with seven setae (three of which spatulate and indicated by arrows in Fig. 3B View FIGURE 3 ) and apical acrothek consisting of short aesthetasc (12 µm) fused basally to two slender setae. Armature formula: 1-[1], 2-[7 + 1 plumose], 3-[4 + 2 spines], 4-[2 spines], 5-[6 + (1 + ae)], 6-[1], 7-[1], 8-[7 + acrothek].

P5 ( Fig. 5B View FIGURE 5 ) with armature as in female but inner spinous process slightly more slender.

Sixth legs ( Fig. 5B View FIGURE 5 ) asymmetrical, with smallest P6 closing off functional gonopore; each with a long outer seta and a short inner spine, both elements naked.

Remarks. Kunz (1971) treated A. longiremis and A. accraensis as subspecies of A. acantha . Bodin (1976) adopted the division of A. acantha in three subspecies but reinstated N. longiremis in later editions of his catalogue ( Bodin 1979, 1988, 1997). Kunz’s (1971) subspecific classification was rejected by later revisers ( Itô 1978; Bodiou & Colomines 1986; Wells 2007; Sak et al. 2008) who treated all three subspecific taxa as valid species. Within the acanthus -subgroup, N. acanthus differs from N. chaufriassei primarily in the proportional lengths of the endopodal segments of P1–P3 (enp-1:enp-2 length ratio 1.25, 1.20, 1.65 vs 1.65, 0.90, 1.20, respectively), the length and appearance of the inner subdistal seta on P4 exp-3, and the morphology of the P 5 in both sexes. Neoleptastacus huysi is morphologically very close to its Mediterranean congener, N. acanthus , sharing the shape of the paired anal processes, the elongate P4 exp-2 (about 1.3 times the length of exp-1) and the morphology of P5. The only difference that distinguishes both species is the presence of only one outer spine on P1 exp- 3 in N. huysi , raising the suspicion that the holotype female (and only known specimen) of the latter species was based on an aberrant or damaged individual.

Neoleptastacus acanthus has been recorded on multiple occasions in the Indian Ocean and the North and Southern Atlantic. Unfortunately, most of these records are not accompanied by illustrations which could have confirmed their authenticity. The species is widely distributed in the Western Mediterranean basin. Chappuis (1954) and Delamare Deboutteville (1953a – c, 1960) recorded it from Italy (Lazio, Fregene), Algeria (El Kala = La Calle; Skikda = Philippeville; Jijel = Djidjelli; Beni Saf; Terga = Plage Turgot; Mers el Hadjad = Port aux Poules) and Tunisia (Gamarth-Plage, Rass Salakta). Reliable Italian records are those from near Cagliari ( Cottarelli 1975) and Isola Tavolara ( Cottarelli & Venanzetti 1989) in Sardinia, from Sperlonga in Lazio ( Cottarelli 1969; 1971; Cottarelli et al. 1994), and from two localities (Tombolo della Giannella, Marina di Alberese ) near Porto S. Stefano in Tuscany ( Cottarelli 1973b). Martínez Arbizu & Moura (1994) published the only record from Spain (Valencia, El Saler).

Records from the Eastern Mediterranean include those from Elafonisi Beach and Pahia Ammos on the island of Crete, Greece ( Sevastou 2005; Sevastou et al. 2011) and from the Datça-Bozburun peninsula (Muğla Province) ( Sak 2004; Alper 2009; Alper et al. 2010; present account) and Dilek peninsula (Aydın Province) ( Alper et al. 2015) in Türkiye. Masry’s (1970) records from Nahariyya and Akhziv in Israel are the only published outliers in the Levantine Sea but note that his setal formula of P1 endopod and P4 exopod contradicts his illustrations, and that his report of an outer basal seta on P1–P2 is most probably false. The great variability alluded to by some authors (e.g. Karanovic 2000) has not yet been established as genuine.

Božić’s (1967: 873, Fig. 3-3 View FIGURE 3 , 4 View FIGURE 4 ) record from the Indian west coast (locality unknown but possibly Kerala) conceivably refers to N. indicus or a related species (see below). His illustrations of the female P5 and the anal somite including the caudal rami in dorsal aspect are of no use in deciding the identity of his material. Božić (1967) stated that the body length is about 400 μm and that the number of eggs in the egg-sac ranges between one and four. Munro et al. (1978) also reported “ Arenopontia acantha ” as one of the most abundant harpacticoids in the sandy beach of Cherthala (formerly Shertallai) in Kerala, India.

Lindgren’s (1972, 1976) records from the beaches at Bogue Sound and Iron Steamer Pier, North Carolina ( U.S.A.) are not accompanied by illustrations and are more likely based on the geographically close N. gussoae . Various South African workers (e.g. McLachlan 1980; Fricke et al. 1981; Hennig et al. 1983) have reported “ Arenopontia acantha ” in significant numbers in several beaches from around Cape Town in the west to Port Elizabeth and Algoa Bay in the east (Western Cape Province). It is highly likely that these authors were dealing with a different member of the acanthus -group which is probably conspecific with the species recorded as Arenopontia sp. from Algoa Bay ( McLachlan & Furstenberg 1977). Wandeness (1998) recorded N. acanthus from a sandy beach in the Macaé region in Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil, but it is conceivable that this geographically disjunct record is also based on a different species.