Corvoheteromeyenia heterosclera (Ezcurra de Drago, 1974)

Calheira, Ludimila & Pinheiro, Ulisses, 2016, Corvoheteromeyenia Ezcurra de Drago, 1979 (Spongillidae, Porifera): Genus review with proposal of neotype of Corvoheteromeyenia heterosclera (Ezcurra de Drago, 1974), Zootaxa 4126 (3), pp. 351-374 : 360-366

Corvoheteromeyenia heterosclera (Ezcurra de Drago, 1974)

( Figs. 8 –14; Tab. 1,2)

Corvomeyenia heterosclera Ezcurra de Drago, 1974: 233 (part), Volkmer-Ribeiro 1981: 89.

Corvoheteromeyenia heterosclera: Ezcurra de Drago, 1979: 110 ,? Volkmer-Ribeiro et al. 1998: 273, Volkmer-Ribeiro et al. 1999: 644, Ezcurra de Drago 2004: 20, Manconi & Pronzato 2005: 3237, Volkmer-Ribeiro 2007: 119, Volkmer-Ribeiro & Machado 2008: 239, Nicacio & Pinheiro 2015: 222 , Pinheiro et al. 2015: 449.

Material examined. Neotype (designated herein). UFPEPOR 975 / 1349, Pirangi River, Jaqueira, Pernambuco State, Brazil, 08°44’53.0”S 35°48’51.1”W, coll. G. Nicacio, 12.xii.2010 / coll. U. Pinheiro, 23.v.2012.

Remarks. The neotype consists of two samples of the same specimen (UFPEPOR 975; 1349). The samples were collected at different dates (years 2010 and 2012) which makes possible comparison of different growth stages.

Comparative material examined. UFPEPOR 1764, 1768, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, coll. U. Pinheiro, 06.iv.2010, UFPEPOR 1102, 1104, 1108, 1109, 1119, 1138, coll. U. Pinheiro, 05.v.2010, São Francisco River, Bahia State, Brazil, 09°22’30’’S 38°13’58’W. UFPEPOR 1095, 1096 (part), Capibaribe River, Jaboatão dos Guararapes, Pernambuco State, Brazil, 08°02’47.4”S 34°59’41.9”W, coll. G. Nicacio, 24.x.2010. UFPEPOR 981, 982, 983, coll. G. Nicacio, 12.xii.2010, UFPEPOR 1347, coll. U. Pinheiro, 23.v.2012, Pirangi River, Jaqueira, Pernambuco State, Brazil, 08°44’53.0”S 35°48’51.1”W. UFPEPOR 1144, 1145, 1146, 1147, 1148, 1149, Sirinhaém River, Cortês, Pernambuco State, Brazil, 08º30’6.5”S 35º31’28.6”W, coll. G. Nicacio, 06.ii.2011. UFPEPOR 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, Pajeú River, Serra Talhada, Pernambuco State, Brazil, 07º58’7”S 38º19’23,6”W, coll. G. Nicacio, 17.vii.2011. UFPEPOR 1299, Pajeú River, Floresta, Pernambuco State, Brazil, 08º36’23.2”S 38º34’21.7”W, coll. L.R.C. Lima, 10.x.2011. UFPEPOR 1928, Jaguaribe River, Ceará State, Brazil, 05°29’51’’S 38°26’49”W, coll. R. Farias, 17.iii.2015.

Emended diagnosis. Sponge with encrusting, massive to arborescent shape, megascleres are microspined oxeas, rarely smooth; microscleres are in three categories: one acanthoxeas and two pseudobirotules; gemmuloscleres are birotules radially inserted in the theca of gemmules (modified from Ezcurra de Drago 1974 as indicated by underscore).

Remarks. In addition to the observation of massive and arborescent shape from specimens ( Fig. 8 A–I), the main change in the diagnosis is the inclusion of acanthoxeas microscleres, interpreted by Ezcurra de Drago (1974) as a variation of other microscleres.

Typo locality. Pirangi River, Jaqueira, Pernambuco State, Brazil (08°44’53.0”S 35°48’51.1”W).

Material examined. Neotype (UFPEPOR 975; UFPEPOR 1349). General morphology. Sponge thinly encrusting, 2 mm thick (UFPEPOR 975) to massive at 4 cm thick (UFPEPOR 1349). This inference was possible by monitoring the growth of a single specimen ( Fig. 8 A–C). Colour green in vivo, and grayish green after preservation in ethanol (70%). Surface hispid but can be smooth (encrusting sample) and reticulate (massive sample), with simple circular oscules. Consistency soft and compressible. Ectosomal skeleton not observed. Choanosomal skeleton with isotropic paucispicular reticulation ( Fig. 9 ).

Spicules. Megascleres as oxeas (241.5–293.3–334.9 / 8.1–12–12.9 µm; 305.9–330.2–408.9 / 12.9–14–16.1 µm) with straight to slightly curved shaft, ranging from smooth to microspined ( Fig. 10 A). Microscleres as three categories: one acanthoxea and two pseudobirotules. Acanthoxea microscleres (50–64.8–107.5 / 3.8–5.0–6.3 µm; 58–73.4–90.2 / 4.8–6.5–8.1 µm) with a variable number of spines, simple (straight or curved) and/or compound (straight) ( Fig 10 D). Curved spines occur next to the tip of the spicule, mainly towards the center of the spicule; straight ones are simple (rarely) or compound (predominantly) and occur in the center of the spicule. Pseudobirotule microscleres occur in two categories: pseudobirotules with three or more long hooks towards the other pseudorotule of the same spicule (12.9–15.9–19.3 / 1.6–2.3–3.2 µm; 12.9–15.8–19.3 / 1.6 µm), straight and smooth shaft, rarely with simple spines, can present protuberance in the median portion of the shaft ( Fig. 10 B); and pseudobirotules with short hooks curved towards the other pseudorotule of the same spicule (30–43.4–65 / 3.8– 4.0–5.0 µm; 38.6–48.6–61.2 / 3.2–4.2–4.8 µm), shaft with simple and/or compound spines located in the median portion of the shaft, straight and curved ( Fig. 10 C). Gemmuloscleres are birotules (58–68.5–74.1 / 4.8–6.0–6.4 // 19.3–23.2–25.8 /1.6–2.1–3.2 µm; 54.7–65.6–86.9 / 4.8–6.3–6.4 // 19.3–23.1–25.8 / 1.6–3.1–3.2 µm), with straight shaft with conical, straight, simple and compound spines (with secondary spines in the tip) ( Fig. 10 E,F). Rotules are flat (predominant) to convex (rare), with microspines on their margins and can have marginal slit(s) ( Fig. 10 G). Gemmules spherical, occur on the substrate or scattered throughout the sponge ( Fig. 11 A). Gemmular theca trilayered, well developed, gemmuloscleres radially inserted. Foramen simple and circular ( Fig. 11 B).

Comparative material examined. General morphology. Sponge encrusting, massive to arborescent. Colour in vivo varies according to the environment in which it occurs, green when in areas exposed to sunlight or beige in sciaphilous habitats ( Fig. 8 A–I); becomes beige after preservation in ethanol (70%). Surface hispid. Oscules simple and circular. Consistency soft and compressible.

Spicules of non-type specimens have the same morphology as described in the neotype. Oxea megascleres (199.6–313.7–450.8 / 6.4–13.0–19.3 µm) ( Fig. 12 A). Acanthoxea microscleres (45.1–72.1–112.7 / 3.2–5.6–8.1 µm) ( Fig. 12 B); pseudobirotule microscleres with pseudorotules with long hooks (12.9–17.7–35.4 / 1.6–2.6–6.4 µm) ( Fig. 12 C); pseudobirotule microscleres with pseudorotules with short hooks (28.7–49.6–70.8 / 3.2–4.1–6.4 µm) ( Fig. 12 D). Birotule gemmuloscleres (51.5–70.2–86.9 / 4.8–6.4–9.7 // 16.1–22.5–29.0 / 1.6–2.4–3.2 µm) ( Fig. 12 E–G). Gemmules spherical ( Fig. 13 A). Gemmular theca tri-layered well developed, gemmuloscleres radially inserted ( Fig. 13 B,C). Foramen simple and circular ( Fig. 13 D).

Distribution. Brazil: Eastern North Atlantic Basin: Rio Grande do Norte State ( Volkmer-Ribeiro et al. 1998), Pernambuco State ( Nicacio & Pinheiro 2015, Pinheiro et al. 2015), Western North Atlantic Basin: Maranhão State ( Volkmer-Ribeiro & Machado 2007, 2008), Pernambuco State ( Nicacio & Pinheiro 2015), Paraná Basin: Goiás ( Machado et al. 2012), Venezuela ( Volkmer-Ribeiro & Pauls 2000, Volkmer-Ribeiro & Machado 2007) ( Fig. 1 ).

Remarks. In the present work we had the opportunity to collect samples of the same sponge (neotype UFPEPOR 975; UFPEPOR 1349) from Pirangi River, Jaqueira, Pernambuco State, which makes it possible to compare the growth stages of the specimen. When the specimen was a thin crust (year 2010, Fig. 8 A,B) the pseudobirotule microscleres with pseudorotules of long hooks were predominant. Two years later the same but thicker specimen was sampled (year 2012, Fig. 8 C). The pseudobirotule microscleres with pseudorotules of short hooks were noticeably more abundant. However, in spite of differences in the proportions of the two categories of microscleres during specimen growth, there was no qualitative change in its spicular set.

Specimens with arborescent shapes also presented differences in the proportions of the microscleres (UFPEPOR 1102, 1104, 1108, 1109, 1119, 1928) ( Fig. 8 D–F,I). In this case, the acanthoxeas have become the most abundant microscleres. Despite specimens having a variation in proportion of type of microscleres in relation with the sponge’s morphology, the spicular set remained the same. Pinheiro et al. (2013) observed that Corvospongilla seckti Bonetto & Ezcurra de Drago, 1966 and Corvospongilla volkmeri De Rosa Barbosa, 1988 only differ in the proportions of microscleres and thickness of the specimens. Thus, the authors synonymized both species due to their sharing the same spicular set. In this sense, although arborescent specimens differ in morphology from the others and having acanthoxeas as the most abundant microscleres, but we don´t believe that only differences in the external morphology are enough to split encrusting and massive specimens as distinct species.

Volkmer-Ribeiro & Machado (2007) proposed C. heterosclera as indicator species of shallow ponds among dunes at the tropical area. However, Nicacio & Pinheiro (2015) indicated C. heterosclera as the most widely distributed species of Pernambuco State. Specimens have since been found in the Caatinga region (Pajeú River, Serra Talhada) to the Atlantic Forests (Capibaribe River, Recife). Here, we found specimens at impacted environments, such as in the Pirangi River, downstream of the Jaqueira City and in the Capibaribe River, that receives domestic and industrial effluents from the metropolitan region of Recife (PE). Thus, C. heterosclera can be considered a species resistant to adverse conditions.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Distribution map of species of Corvoheteromeyenia Ezcurra de Drago, 1979.

FIGURE 8. Morphological variation of the specimens of Corvoheteromeyenia heterosclera (Ezcurra de Drago, 1974). (A, B) Neotype (UFPEPOR 975) collected in year 2010. (C) Neotype (UFPEPOR 1349) collected in year 2012. (D, E, F) Specimens with arborescent shape collected in Jaguaribe river, Ceará. (G, H) Specimens from Pirangi river, Pernambuco. (I) Specimens with arborescent shape collected in São Francisco river, Bahia. Scale bars: G, H 1 cm.

FIGURE 9. Choanosomal skeleton of the neotype of Corvoheteromeyenia heterosclera (Ezcurra de Drago, 1974) (UFPEPOR 1349). Scale bars: A 500 µm.

FIGURE 10. Scanning electron microscopy images of the spicular set of the neotype of Corvoheteromeyenia heterosclera (Ezcurra de Drago, 1974) (UFPEPOR 975). (A) Oxea megasclere. (B) Pseudobirotule microscleres with pseudorotules of long hooks. (C) Pseudobirotule microscleres with pseudorotules of short hooks. (D) Acanthoxea microsclere. (E) Various shapes of birotule gemmuloscleres. (F) Detail of the shaft of gemmuloscleres. (G) Detail of the rotule of gemmuloscleres. Scale bars: A 100 µm, B, C, F, G 10 µm, D, E 20 µm.

FIGURE 11. Scanning electron microscopy images of gemmules of the Corvoheteromeyenia heterosclera (Ezcurra de Drago, 1974) (UFPEPOR 975). (A) Gemmule. (B) Vertical section of the gemmule. Scale bars: A, B 100 µm.

FIGURE 12. Scanning electron microscopy images of the spicular set of Corvoheteromeyenia heterosclera (Ezcurra de Drago, 1974) (UFPEPOR 1102). (A) Oxea megasclere. (B) Acanthoxea microscleres. (C) Pseudobirotule microscleres with pseudorotules of long hooks. (D) Pseudobirotule microscleres with pseudorotules of short hooks. (E) Various shapes of birotule gemmuloscleres. (F) Detail of the shaft of gemmuloscleres. (G) Detail of the rotule of gemmuloscleres. Scale bars: A 100 µm, B, C, F, G 10 µm, D, E 20 µm.

FIGURE 13. Scanning electron microscopy images of gemmules of the Corvoheteromeyenia heterosclera (Ezcurra de Drago, 1974) (UFPEPOR 1102). (A) Gemmule. (B) Vertical section of the gemmule. (C) Well developed, tri-layered gemmular theca. (D) Foramen of gemmule. Scale bars: A, B 200 µm, C, D 50 µm.