Kinnecaris lined, Karanovic & Cooper, 2011
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3026.1.1 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03924C3A-FF8D-A63D-FF41-F913AB51FF2D |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Kinnecaris lined |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Kinnecaris lined sp. nov.
( Fig. 19 View FIGURE 19 )
Type locality. Australia, Western Australia, Yilgarn region, Yeelirrie pastoral station, bore line D, bore D-Trog, 27.2828034˚ S 120.1113122 ˚E.
Type material. Holotype male dissected on one slide ( WAM C47203); allotype female dissected on one slide ( WAM C47204); two paratype females destroyed for DNA sequences (both amplifications successful; see Fig. 23 View FIGURE 23 ); two paratype males dissected on one slide each ( WAM C47205 and C47206); two paratype females dissected on one slide each ( WAM C47207 and C47208); 30 paratypes (three males + 27 females) in alcohol ( WAM C 47209); all collected at type locality, leg. S. Callan & G. Perina, 23 September 2010, seLN100401.
Description. Male (based on holotype and several paratypes). Total body length from 355 to 395 µm (388 µm in holotype). Surface of integument of all somites with numerous shallow cuticular pits ( Fig. 19B View FIGURE 19 ). Colour, naupliar eye, rostrum, body segmentation, and pore and sensilla pattern of all somites as in Kinnecaris lakewayi (see above), except for large dorsal pore on second pedigerous somite dorsally. Habitus ( Fig. 19A View FIGURE 19 ) cylindrical and very slender, without any demarcation between prosome and urosome dorsally, but with urosome somewhat wider in lateral view; prosome/urosome ratio about 0.8; greatest width from dorsal view hard to establish. Body length/ width ratio about 8.8; cephalothorax 1.07 times as wide as genital somite. Integument relatively weakly sclerotized, smooth, without rows of minute spinules; larger spinules only present on fourth urosomite ventrally. Cephalothorax with clearly visible double dorsal cuticular window posteriorly ( Fig. 19A View FIGURE 19 ); fourth and fifth urosomites with pair of oval lateral cuticular windows each.
Cephalothorax ( Fig. 19A View FIGURE 19 ) about 1.6 times as long as wide in dorsal view; representing about 19% of total body length. Surface of cephalic shield ornamented as in K. lakewayi , as well as tergites and pleuras of free pedigerous somites, except for presence of shallow cuticular pits.
Genital somite ( Fig. 19A View FIGURE 19 ) ornamented with three pairs of sensilla on posterior margin and one pair of very small cuticular pores in anterior part ventro-laterally; spermatophore not visible inside.
Third urosomite ( Fig. 19A View FIGURE 19 ) without any spinules, ornamented only with six posterior sensilla.
Fourth urosomite ( Fig. 19A View FIGURE 19 ) ornamented with two ventral rows of four large spinules at middle, ventrally from well developed oval cuticular window, and six posterior sensilla.
Fifth (preanal) urosomite ( Fig. 19A View FIGURE 19 ) with windows similar to those on fourth urosomite but without any large spinules, sensilla or pores; only ornamentation shallow cuticular pits.
Anal somite ( Fig. 19A View FIGURE 19 ) with pair of large dorsal sensilla at base of anal operculum, pair of large lateral cuticular pores (one pore on each side) in anterior half, two lateral pairs of minute cuticular pores close to posterior margin, and ventral pair of slightly larger cuticular pores at base of caudal rami, in addition to cuticular pits; no spinules of any size. Anal operculum well developed, unornamented on outer surface, ornamented with row of slender spinules on inner surface, with convex and smooth distal margin, not reaching posterior end of anal somite, representing 67% of somite width. Anal sinus widely opened, with two diagonal rows of slender spinules on ventral side and transverse row of spinules on dorsal side (below anal operculum).
Caudal rami ( Fig. 19A, B View FIGURE 19 ) slightly divergent, with space between them about 1.5 times one ramus’ width, about 3.6 times as long as greatest width (dorsal view) and 0.7 times as long as anal somite, generally cylindrical in dorsal and ventral view (although distal part somewhat tapering), but slightly inflated at midlength in lateral view, with proximal part of inner margin slightly convex in dorsal (or ventral) view; base not much narrower than rest of ramus. Armature and ornamentation as in K. lakewayi , but lateral setae inserted slightly more posteriorly (i.e. at about 3/4 of ramus length).
Antennula, antenna, mouth appendages, and first two pairs of swimming legs very similar to those of K. lakewayi .
Third swimming leg ( Fig. 19C, D, E View FIGURE 19 ) also generally similar to K. lakewayi but apophysis much larger, not bilobate, with sharper tip (i.e. more like that in K. esbe , although more robust and without apical notch); ornamentation same as in K. lakewayi , including longitudinal row of large spinules on outer margin of first exopodal segment distally; exopodal spine about 1.2 times as long as apophysis.
Fourth swimming leg ( Fig. 19F View FIGURE 19 ) with eight very long spinules on basis at base of endopod; endopod spiniform with spinules along distal third of outer margin, not arranged in scoop-like structure, but in simple row (proximalmost largest). First exopodal segment with several very long spinules on posterior surface at about midlength. Apical seta on third exopodal segment 1.2 times as long as entire exopod and about three times as long as outer spine.
Fifth leg without any difference from that in K. lakewayi , except maybe slightly more slender in distal third; no visible outline of cuticular window.
Sixth legs as in K. lakewayi .
Female (based on allotype and several paratypes). Body length from 362 to 403 µm (392 µm in allotype). Habitus, ornamentation of prosomites ( Fig. 19G View FIGURE 19 , inset), colour, and naupliar eye similar to those in male, except genital and first abdominal somite fused into double-somite and middle part slightly less slender. Prosome/urosome ratio 0.8; greatest width from dorsal view hard to establish; body length/width ratio also 8.5; cephalothorax 1.1 times as wide as genital double-somite.
Genital double-somite ( Fig. 19G View FIGURE 19 ) about 1.1 times longer than wide in dorsal view, without any trace of subdivision except for pair of ancestral dorso-lateral sensilla in anterior half; additionally ornamented with six posterior sensilla; no dorso-lateral rows of large spinules (condition arrowed in Fig. 19G View FIGURE 19 ). Genital complex ( Fig. 19G View FIGURE 19 ) as in K. lakewayi , but sixth legs without spiniform processes.
Third urosomite ( Fig. 19G View FIGURE 19 ) similar to that in male, with two ventro-lateral rows of four large spinules and clearly visible lateral cuticular windows.
Fourth (preanal), and fifth (anal) urosomites ( Fig. 19G View FIGURE 19 ) also very similar to those in male, without any large or small spinules, except those in anal sinus.
Caudal rami ( Fig. 19G View FIGURE 19 ) also very similar to those in male, slightly inflated at middle from lateral view (arrowed in Fig. 19G View FIGURE 19 ).
Antennula ( Fig. 19H View FIGURE 19 ) very similar to that in K. lakewayi , with slightly more robust apical aesthetasc.
Antenna, mouth appendages, first swimming leg, second swimming leg ( Fig. 19I View FIGURE 19 ), and exopod of fourth swimming leg ( Fig. 19K View FIGURE 19 ) very similar to those of male and almost without any difference from those in K. lakewayi .
Endopod of second swimming leg ( Fig. 19I View FIGURE 19 ) 7.2 times as long as wide, its apical seta very slender and only half as long as segment.
Third swimming leg ( Fig. 19J View FIGURE 19 ) similar to K. lakewayi , with only slightly proportionately longer apical seta on second segment and more strongly expressed cuticular plates on praecoxa and coxa.
Endopod of fourth swimming leg ( Fig. 19K View FIGURE 19 ) about seven times as long as wide, half as long as first exopodal segment, armed with short bipinnate element apically, ornamented with six spinules along distal margin, at base of apical seta. Exopod similar to that in male, but without large spinules on posterior surface of first exopodal segment.
Fifth leg ( Fig. 19G View FIGURE 19 ) similar to that in male, but slightly more elongated, with narrower distal part.
Sixth leg ( Fig. 19G View FIGURE 19 ) vestigial, both fused into simple bilobate cuticular plate, covering gonopore, unornamented and unarmed; outer distal corners well rounded, not produced into sharp processes, slightly shorter than inner lobes.
Etymology. The species name comes from its type locality (line D; see fig. 23), but should be treated as comprising an arbitrary combination of letters that can be treated as a Latin word and may be conceived as a noun in apposition to the generic name.
Variability. Body length of males ranges from 355 to 395 µm (384 µm average; n = 6), while in females it ranges from 362 to 403 µm (388 µm average; n = 30). No other significant forms of variability or asymmetry were observed. The shape of the apohysis of the male third leg ( Fig. 19C, D, E View FIGURE 19 ) is a very good morphological character, showing very little variability in shape or size, and then mostly due to slightly different angle of observation.
Remarks. This species does not show some remarkable autapomorphic morphological features, but is distinct from all other Australian congeners in at least one or two characters, and COI data also suggest its separate specific status. Phylogenetic analyses of the COI data suggest a sister relationship of K. lined sp. nov. and K. linel sp. nov., although support for this clade is not very strong ( Fig. 23 View FIGURE 23 ). The two species, however, differ not only in the proportion of the caudal rami and ornamentation of urosomites, but also in the armature of the fourth leg basis and exopod in male, as well as in the third leg apophysis (arrowed in Fig. 19D, F, G View FIGURE 19 ). A very strong ornamentation of the fourth leg basis in male ( Fig. 19F View FIGURE 19 ) distinguishes at once K. lined from K. lakewayi sp. nov., K. barrambie sp. nov., K. esbe sp. nov., K. linel , and K. uranusi sp. nov. Similarly strong ornamentation was observed only in K. eberhardi ( Karanovic, 2005) and K. linesae sp. nov. (see below). The former species, however, has the apical part of the fourth leg endopod completely smooth ( Karanovic, 2005), while the latter has much shorter caudal rami, smooth cuticle (no pits), no large spinules on the third urosomite in female, as well as a different shape of the third leg apophysis in male. Kinnecaris solitaria ( Karanovic, 2004) is probably the most similar species to K. lined in morphology; this species was described from Depots Spring station, some 70 km south of Yeelirrie and in a different palaeochannel. Unfortunately, K. solitaria is still known only after females, so no male characters can be compared. The females differ slightly in the caudal rami shape, which are more cylindrical in dorsal (or ventral) view in K. solitaria , and the number of lateral setae on them (only two in K. solitaria ). The reduced number of lateral caudal setae is an autapomorphic feature of K. solitaria among Australian congeners, although it was reported for several species from Africa ( Karanovic, 2004). No doubt, this reduction originated convergently and does not indicate a closer phylogenetic relationship. It is also possible that the smallest lateral seta has been overlooked in some earlier descriptions, so we cannot put too much emphasis on this character. Kinnecris lined differs from K. solitaria also by the densely pitted cuticle (inset in Fig. 19G View FIGURE 19 ), more slender anal somite ( Fig. 19A View FIGURE 19 ), and stronger and ornamented endopod of the fourth leg ( Fig. 19K View FIGURE 19 ).
| WAM |
Western Australian Museum |
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.