Chaenea paucistriata, Fan & Xu & Gu & Li & Al-Farraj & Al-Rasheid & Hu, 2015

Fan, Xinpeng, Xu, Yuan, Gu, Fukang, Li, Jiqiu, Al-Farraj, Saleh A., Al-Rasheid, Khaled A. S. & Hu, Xiaozhong, 2015, Morphology of Two Novel Species of Chaenea (Ciliophora, Litostomatea): Chaenea paucistriata spec. nov. and C. sinica spec. nov., Acta Protozoologica 54 (2), pp. 97-106 : 98-102

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.4467/16890027AP.15.008.2733

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E75D87A8-6060-FFCA-2151-3A7C8112FD13

treatment provided by

Felipe

scientific name

Chaenea paucistriata
status

sp. nov.

Chaenea paucistriata spec. nov. ( Figs 1 View Figs 1 , 2 View Figs 2 ; Table 1)

Diagnosis: Extended cell size in vivo usually about 220 × 18 µm. Eight somatic kineties. Dorsal brush rows 1–4 consisting of three, five, seven and two dikinetids, respectively. About 63–94 macronuclei. Cortical granules minute and colourless.

Type locality: Coastal water of Daya Bay (22°42′N, 114°32′E), China GoogleMaps .

Type material: A protargol slide containing the holotype specimen marked with an ink circle is deposited in the Laboratory of Protozoology , Ocean University of China (Registry no. FXP2007122006) .

Etymology: The species group name is a composite of the Latin prefix pauci (“few”), and the Latin adjective striatus, -a, -um [m, f, n] (“striated”), which reflects the fact that this species possesses fewer somatic kineties than its congeners.

Gene sequence data: The small subunit rRNA gene sequence of Chaenea paucistriata spec. nov. was deposited in GenBank with accession number FJ876970 ( Zhang et al. 2012).

Description: Extended cells measuring about 180– 250 × 15–25 µm in vivo, with a length: width ratio of about 12–14:1; narrowly flask-shaped; cell very flexible and contractile; when contracted, cell measuring about 100–180 × 20–30 µm, with ratio of length to width about 4–7:1 ( Figs 1A, D View Figs 1 , 2A–C, H, I View Figs 2 ). Anterior portion of body distinctly narrowed, with an inconspicuous head; posterior part tapering to rounded ( Figs 1A, D View Figs 1 , 2A–C, H, I View Figs 2 ). Oral bulge, ca. 2 × 6 µm, on top of anterior body end, forming a short snout and usually bent ( Figs 1A, B, D View Figs 1 , 2A, D, H, I View Figs 2 ). 63–94 ellipsoid macronuclei, with size about 2–5 × 1–2 µm, scattered in the whole cell except for the anterior and posterior portion ( Figs 1G View Figs 1 , 2O View Figs 2 ). Single contractile vacuole located at the posterior end ( Figs 1A, D View Figs 1 , 2A–C, H, I View Figs 2 ). Extrusomes rod-like, about 8 µm long, usually in batches attached to oral bulge and scattered in cell ( Figs 1A, B, G View Figs 1 , 2E, F, K View Figs 2 ). Cortex flexible, and furrowed by somatic kineties ( Fig. 2G View Figs 2 ). Cell colour brownish in middle of body due to packed food vacuoles and cytoplasmic granules, while anterior portion and posterior end transparent ( Figs 2A–C View Figs 2 ). Fine cortical granules colourless, with diameter less than 0.5 µm, distributed between somatic kineties ( Fig. 2J View Figs 2 ). Cytoplasmic granules ellipsoid or round, with diameter about 2–5 µm ( Figs 2E, F, K View Figs 2 ). Movement by slowly crawling on bottom of Petri dish. Typically, whole of somatic kineties consist of monokinetids ( Figs 1E, F View Figs 1 , 2L–N, P View Figs 2 ). Cilia about 7–8 µm long and arranged in longitudinal rows, although these become spiral in form in contracted specimens ( Figs 1E, F View Figs 1 , 2P View Figs 2 ). Consistently, eight somatic kineties, each of which consists of six or seven narrowly spaced oralized somatic monokinetids and 60–89 ordinarily spaced somatic monokinetids ( Figs 1E, F View Figs 1 , 2L, P View Figs 2 ). Four dorsal brush rows consistently comprising three, five, seven and two dikinetids respectively (number of specimens = 15) ( Figs 1C, F View Figs 1 , 2M, N View Figs 2 ). Cilia of dorsal brush about 3–4 µm long.

Oral bulge inconspicuous after protargol staining ( Fig. 2L, M, P View Figs 2 ). Circumoral kinety inconspicuous and composed of dikinetids which are at the anterior end of each somatic kinety ( Figs 1C, E, F View Figs 1 , 2L, M, P View Figs 2 ).

Comparison: Considering the general morphology in terms of body length and the number of macronuclei, five species should be compared with Chaenea paucistriata spec. nov., namely C. teres , C. vorax , C. simulans , C. stricta and an unidentified Chaenea species from Petz et al. (1995) ( Figs 3A–E, G–M View Figs 3 ; Table 2).

Chaenea teres is similar to the new species in terms of body size, length of the extrusome and the presence of fine cortical granules; it can be distinguished, how- ever, in having more somatic kineties (12–14 vs. 8), and more dikinetids in dorsal brush row 3 (14–17 vs. 7) and 4 (5–7 vs. 2) ( Figs 3A–D View Figs 3 ; Table 2; Petz et al. 1995).

Chaenea vorax differs from C. paucistriata in having a smaller body length (100–180 µm vs. 180–250 µm), more somatic kineties (11 or 12 vs. constantly 8) and shorter extrusomes (5–6 µm vs. 8 µm) ( Figs 3L, M View Figs 3 ; Table 2; Song and Packroff 1997).

Chaenea simulans can be separated from the new species by having a longer body length (250–350 µm vs. 180–250 µm), more somatic kineties (12–14 vs. constantly 8) and a different habitat (brackish water with salinity 1‰ vs. marine water with salinity about 30‰) ( Fig. 3E View Figs 3 ; Table 2; Kahl 1930).

Chaenea stricta (Dujardin, 1841) Foissner et al., 1995 can be distinguished from the new organism through its smaller body length (90–130 µm vs. 180– 250 µm), greater number of somatic kineties (11 or 12 vs. constantly 8), and different habitat (freshwater vs. marine water) ( Figs 3I–K View Figs 3 ; Table 2; Foissner et al. 1995).

Although in vivo characteristics of Chaenea sp. sensu Petz et al., 1995 are not available, it differs from the new species in having more somatic kineties (16–20 vs. constantly 8), and longer extrusomes (12–15 µm vs. ca. 8 µm) ( Figs 3G, H View Figs 3 ; Table 2; Petz et al. 1995).

Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF