Ceratothoa oestroides (Risso, 1826)

Hadfield, Kerry A., Bruce, Niel L. & Smit, Nico J., 2016, Redescription of poorly known species of Ceratothoa Dana, 1852 (Crustacea, Isopoda, Cymothoidae), based on original type material, ZooKeys 592, pp. 39-91 : 60-62

Taxon classification Animalia Isopoda Cymothoidae

Ceratothoa oestroides (Risso, 1826) Figure 9

Canolira oestroides Risso, 1826: 123.

Cymothoa oestroides .- Milne Edwards 1840: 272.- White 1847: 110.- Lucas 1849: 78, pl. 8 (fig. 4).- Hope 1851: 33.- Heller 1866: 737-738.- Barcelo Combis 1875: 68.- Stalio 1877: 236.- Stossich 1880: 45.- Bonnier 1887: 133-134.- Monticelli 1890: 420-421.- Gerstaecker 1901: 181, 256-257.- Sanada 1941: 209.

Cymothoa (Meinertia) oestroides .- Taschenberg 1879: 245.- Dollfus 1922: 287.

Ceratothoa oestroides .- Schioedte and Meinert 1883: 350-356, tab. XV (Cym. XXII) figs 5-11.- Carus 1885: 442.- Barrois 1888: 12.- Gourret 1891: 14-15, pl. 4, figs 10-11.- Bolivar 1892: 133.- Koelbel 1892: 107, 115.- Norman 1905: 13.- Dudich 1931: 18.- Trilles 1979: 515, 521; 1986: 624, tab. 1; 1994: 122-124; 2008: 23.- Renaud, Romestand and Trilles 1980: 467-476.- Brusca 1981: 178.- Romestand, Thuet and Trilles 1982: 79-89.- Rokicki 1984b: 116-119, fig. 28; 1985: 95-119, tab. 1-3, fig. 7.- Radujković, Romestand and Trilles 1984: 164-166, figs 2-3; 1985: 106.- Trilles, Radujković and Romestand 1989: 289-291, fig. 9.- Šarušić 1999: 110-112.- Charfi-Cheikhrouha, Zghidi, Ould Yarba and Trilles 2000: 143-150, tab. 4.- Horton 2000: 1047-1048, fig. 7 a–b.- Horton and Okamura 2001: 181-187.- Rodríguez-Sánchez, Serna and Junoy 2001: 154.- Mladineo 2002: 97-102; 2003: 97-101; 2006: 438-442.- Mladineo and Valic 2002: 304-310.- Junoy and Castello 2003: 307.- Korun and Akayli 2004: 123-132.- Öktener and Trilles 2004: 145-154.- Ramdane, Bensouilah and Trilles 2007: 67-74.- Pérez-Del Olmo, Fernández, Gibson, Raga and Kostadinova 2007: 152, 154.- Solak, Öktener, Trilles and Solak 2007: 237-238.- Oguz and Öktener 2007: 79-83.- Matašin and Vučinić 2008: 363-367.- Ramdane and Trilles 2008: 173-178.- Kirkim, Kocataş, Katağan and Sezgin 2008: 382-385.- Gökpinar, Özgen and Yildiz 2009: 188-190.- Mladineo, Šegvić and Grubišić 2009: 160-167.- Innal and Kirkim 2012: A13-A16.

Ceratothoa sargorum Gourret, 1891: 16, pl. 1, fig. 17; pl. 5, figs 1-4.

Meinertia oestroides .-Thielemann, 1910: 36.- Nierstrasz 1915: 8.- Monod 1923a: 82-83; 1923b: 18-19; 1924a: 34; 1924b: 432.- Montalenti 1948: 47-50, figs 15-17, tab. 6, pl. 4.- Amar 1951: 530.- Balcells 1953: 548-552.- Euzet and Trilles 1961: 190-192.- Trilles 1962: 118-123; 1964b: 107; 1972a: 1201-1208, figs 90-136, pl. 1 figs 6-9, pl. 3 fig 20; 1972b: 1233-1235 (part); 1977: 8-9.- Vu–Tân–Tûe 1963: 225-232.- Berner 1969: 93-94.- Roman 1970: 163-208; 1979: 501-514.- Trilles and Raibaut 1971: 73-75, photos 2-3; 1973: 274.- Thampy and John 1974: 575, 580-582.- Romestand 1974: 571-591; 1979: 423-448, pl. 1-4.- Romestand and Trilles 1976a: 87-92, fig. 1; 1976b: 663-665; 1977a: 91-95, figs 1-2; 1977b: 47-53, figs 1-11; 1979: 195-202.- Romestand, Voss–Foucart, Jeuniaux and Trilles 1976: 981-988.- Dollfus and Trilles 1976: 822.- Chaigneau 1977: 403-418.- Romestand, Janicot and Trilles 1977: 171-172, 178-179, pl. 3, figs 10-14.- Quignard and Zaouali 1980: 357.- Thuet and Romestand 1981: 15-33.- Brusca 1981: 125.- Radujković 1982: 153-161.- Wägele 1987: 1-398.

Cymothea oestroides [sic].- Odon de Buen 1916: 363.

Ceratothoa (Meinertia) oestroides .- Brusca 1981: 123.

Ceratothoa oestroides Not Cymothoa oestroides .- Gibert i Olivé 1920: 88.

Ceratothoa oestroides Excluded (identity uncertain): Meinertia oestroides .- Trilles 1972b: 1233-1235 (part).

Ceratothoa oestroides .- Trilles 1981: 587.

Material examined.

Lectotype [here designated]. National Museum of Natural History, Paris (MNHN-IU-2014-17478) - female specimen (22 mm TL; 8 mm W), collected from the Mediterranean Sea; J.P. Trilles checked 17.12.1971, host unknown (n°6) ( Trilles 1972b). Paralectotype. Female specimen (21 mm TL; 8 mm W), same data as holotype ( Trilles 1972b) (MNHN-IU-2007-4240). Also noted: the two females were in the same bottle as a female Cymothoa parallela (19 mm TL; 6 mm W) (MNHN-IU-2014-17479).

Description.

Lectotype female. Length 22 mm, width 8 mm.

Body oval and elongate, 1.9 times as long as greatest width, dorsal surfaces smooth and polished in appearance, widest at pereonite 4 and pereonite 5, most narrow at pereonite 1, lateral margins posteriorly ovate. Cephalon 0.6 times longer than wide, visible from dorsal view, triangular. Frontal margin rounded to form blunt rostrum. Eyes oval with distinct margins, one eye 0.3 times width of cephalon; 0.4 times length of cephalon. Antennula more stout than antenna, comprised of 7 articles. Antenna comprised of 8 articles.

Pereonite 1 smooth, anterior border straight, anterolateral angle with small distinct produced point, extend to middle of the eye. Posterior margins of pereonites smooth and slightly curved laterally. Coxae 2-3 narrow, with posteroventral angles rounded; 4-7 rounded, not extending past pereonite margin. Pereonites 1-4 increasing in length and width; 5-7 decreasing in length and width; 6 and 7 narrower. Pleon with pleonite 1 most narrow and same width as other pleonites, visible in dorsal view; pleonites posterior margin smooth, mostly concave. Pleonite 2 not overlapped by pereonite 7; posterolateral angles of pleonite 2 narrowly rounded. Pleonites 3-5 similar in form to pleonite 2; pleonite 5 free, not overlapped by lateral margins of pleonite 4, posterior margin with 2 indented points or produced medially. Pleotelson 0.5 times as long as anterior width, dorsal surface with lateral indent, lateral margins weakly convex, posterior margin rounded with medial indent.

Pereopod 1 basis 1.7 times as long as greatest width; ischium 0.6 times as long as basis; merus proximal margin with large bulbous protrusion; carpus with rounded proximal margin; propodus 1.5 times as long as wide; dactylus slender, 0.9 times as long as propodus, 2.3 times as long as basal width. Pereopod 7 basis 1.1 times as long as greatest width; ischium 0.9 times as long as basis, with slight bulbous protrusion; merus proximal margin with large bulbous protrusion, merus 0.6 times as long as wide, 0.3 times as long as ischium; carpus 0.7 times as long as wide, 0.3 times as long as ischium, without bulbous protrusion; propodus 1.4 times as long as wide, 0.6 times as long as ischium; dactylus slender, 0.9 times as long as propodus, 2.4 times as long as basal width.

Uropod same length or slightly longer than the pleotelson, peduncle 0.8 times longer than rami, peduncle lateral margin without setae; rami extending to pleotelson apex, marginal setae absent, apices narrowly rounded.

Size.

Ovigerous female: 12-30 mm; non-ovigerous female: 11-24.5 mm TL; male: 3.5-13 mm TL; second stage pullus: 3.3-4 mm TL; first stage pullus: 3.1 mm TL ( Schioedte and Meinert 1883, Montalenti 1948, Trilles 1972a, 1977, 1979, Rokicki 1984b, Radujković et al. 1985).

Distribution.

Throughout the Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic: especially France and Algeria ( Risso 1826, Milne Edwards 1840, Schioedte and Meinert 1883, Thielemann 1910, Trilles 1964b); Adriatic ( Heller 1866, Stalio 1877); Aegean Sea ( Horton and Okamura 2001, Trilles 2008); Straits of Gibraltar and the Alborán Sea ( Rodríguez-Sánchez et al. 2001); Turkey ( Öktener and Trilles 2004, Solak et al. 2007, Innal and Kirkim 2012); and the eastern Atlantic islands and north-west Africa ( Barrois 1888, Koelbel 1892, Monod 1924b, Trilles 1972b, 1979, Dollfus and Trilles 1976).

Hosts.

Common in the mouth and branchial regions of the bogue, Boops boops (see Schioedte and Meinert 1883, Gourret 1891, Monod 1923b, Balcells 1953, Vu–Tân–Tûe 1963, Berner 1969, Trilles and Raibaut 1971, 1973, Romestand and Trilles 1976a, 1977a, b, 1979, Roman 1979, Taschenberg 1879, Renaud et al. 1980, Radujković 1982, Trilles et al. 1989, Charfi-Cheikhrouha et al. 2000, Pérez-Del Olmo et al. 2007, Ramdane et al. 2007, Matašin and Vučinić 2008, Ramdane and Trilles 2008, Kirkim et al. 2008); "rare parasite of wrasses (Labres)" ( Bonnier 1887); in the mouth of Diplodus sargus (see Gourret 1891); in buccal cavity of Spicara maena (see Gourret 1891, Trilles 1962, Berner 1969, Roman 1979, Radujković 1982, Charfi-Cheikhrouha et al. 2000, Kirkim et al. 2008); on the gills of two Phycis phycis (recorded as Phycis mediterraneas ) (see Koelbel 1892); from the mouth of Trachurus trachurus (see Dollfus 1922, Trilles and Raibaut 1971, 1973, Dollfus and Trilles 1976, Charfi-Cheikhrouha et al. 2000, Ramdane et al. 2007); in the mouth of Spicara and " Box " sp. (see Montalenti 1948, Amar 1951); in the buccal cavity of Diplodus vulgaris (see Monod 1923b, Amar 1951); buccal and gill cavity of Diplodus annularis (see Monod 1923b, Trilles and Raibaut 1971, 1973, Trilles 1972b, Dollfus and Trilles 1976, Radujković 1982, Trilles et al. 1989, Charfi-Cheikhrouha et al. 2000); in the mouth of red mullet, Mullus barbatus (see Trilles 1962, Roman 1970); on sardine, Sardina pilchardus (see Trilles 1962, 1979, Charfi-Cheikhrouha et al. 2000); buccal cavity of Spicara sp. and gill cavity of Uranoscopus scaber (see Trilles and Raibaut 1973); in mouth cavity of Pagellus erythrinus (see Romestand and Trilles 1979, Radujković et al. 1985, Trilles et al. 1989); in mouth of Spicara melanurus (previously Smaris melanurus ), Sargus bellottii , and Abudefduf saxatilis (see Trilles 1979); Trachurus mediterraneus (see Radujković 1982, Trilles et al. 1989); picarels, Spicara smaris (see Trilles et al. 1989, Ramdane et al. 2007, Matašin and Vučinić 2008, Ramdane and Trilles 2008); Pagellus acarne (see Ramdane et al. 2007, Ramdane and Trilles 2008); Dicentrarchus labrax (see Šarušić 1999, Horton and Okamura 2001, Mladineo 2002, 2003); Sparus aurata (see Šarušić 1999, Horton and Okamura 2001, Mladineo 2003); on the tongue of Scorpaena notata , Liza aurata and Scorpaena porcus (see Charfi-Cheikhrouha et al. 2000); in the black seabream, Spondyliosoma cantharus (see Charfi-Cheikhrouha et al. 2000, Gökpinar et al. 2009); from Rostroraja alba and Zeus faber (see Kirkim et al. 2008).

Remarks.

Ceratothoa oestroides can be distinguished by having an acute rostrum; short antennae; prominent eyes; uropods which extend to or past the posterior pleotelson margin; large protrusion on the merus of pereonite 1; and a large carina on pereopod 7 in female specimens, as well as the appendix masculina absent in male specimens.

Ceratothoa sargorum Gourret, 1891, found on Sargus rondeletii , was described from a single female with large eggs, almost a millimetre in diameter ( Gourret 1891). This species was later synonymised with Ceratothoa oestroides as seen in Radujković et al. (1984). The original drawings by Gourret (1891) resemble the syntypic material of Ceratothoa oestroides and confirm this synonymy.

There have been reported cases of Ceratothoa oestroides involved in hyperparasitism. Dollfus (1922) recorded an unusual association with Ceratothoa oestroides and a monogenean, Allodiclidophora charcoti (Dollfus, 1922) ( Diclidophoridae ) after being collected from Ceratothoa oestroides in the mouth of Trachurus trachurus from Oviedo. Similarly, Monod (1923b) stated that the ectoparasite was found on one Ceratothoa oestroides specimen from the mouth of Box vulgaris .

Ceratothoa oestroides has often been misidentified as Ceratothoa oxyrrhynchaena . Both species use similar host fish and have an overlapping distribution range, but they are distinguished by the morphology of the seventh pair of pereopods in the female. It should be noted that male Ceratothoa oestroides does not possesses an appendix masculina. We regard the records of Ceratothoa oestroides from the Caribbean ( Trilles 1972b, 1981) as unconfirmed, and are not included in the synonymy and distribution for the species.

Horton (2000) recently revised this species including full synonymy, host and distribution notes for Ceratothoa oestroides and listed the two female syntypes from MNHN (sample No. 6) as the type material. The type material had not previously been redescribed and no holotype had been designated by Risso (1826), so one female was hereby designated as a lectotype in order to provide a precise type-based description for the species.