Draculoides affinis ( Framenau, Hamilton, Finston, Humphreys, Abrams, Huey and Harvey, 2018 )

Abrams, Kym M., Huey, Joel A., Hillyer, Mia J., Didham, Raphael K. & Harvey, Mark S., 2020, A systematic revision of Draculoides (Schizomida: Hubbardiidae) of the Pilbara, Western Australia, Part I: the Western Pilbara, Zootaxa 4864 (1), pp. 1-75 : 26

Draculoides affinis ( Framenau, Hamilton, Finston, Humphreys, Abrams, Huey and Harvey, 2018)

( Figs. 1–8 )

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/ A9243824-BE1B-4906-88DB-DA80434FF7EF

Paradraculoides affinis Framenau, Hamilton, Finston, Humphreys, Abrams, Huey and Harvey 2018: 514–521 , figs. 3–5. Draculoides affinis (Framenau, Hamilton, Finston, Humphreys, Abrams, Huey and Harvey) : Abrams et al. 2019 MPE 106532:

8, fig. 2.

Material examined. Holotype male. AUSTRALIA: Western Australia: Cane and Upper Cane [River], 60.6 km S. of Pannawonica , 22°11’32”S, 116°16’31”E, 25–28 November 2008, troglofauna trap, 20 m, J. Cairnes, M. Menz (Biota Environmental Sciences, UCRC040 P5 T2–3 ) ( WAM T 93211) (DNA: COI, ITS2 ).

Paratypes. AUSTRALIA: Western Australia: 1 ♀, Cardo Bore North, 55.7 km S. of Pannawonica , 22°08’24”S, 116°14’06”E, 15–21 August 2008, troglofauna trap, 15 m, J. Alexander, T. Sachse (Biota Environmental Sciences, CBRC091 P3 T1–2 ) ( WAM T 93141) ; 1 ♀, Upper Cane, 60.6 km S. of Pannawonica , 22°11’32”S, 116°16’31”E, 7–10 July 2009, troglofauna trap, 30 m, J. Cairnes, D. Keirle (Biota Environmental Sciences, UCRC040 P8 T3–5 ) ( WAM T 98702) (DNA: COI).

Other material. AUSTRALIA: Western Australia: See Framenau et al. (2018).

Diagnosis. The shape of the male flagellum of Draculoides affinis most closely resembles D. bythius , D. cochranus , D. eremius , D. gnophicola , D. kryptus , D. mckechnieorum , D. noctigrassator and D. warramboo especially in the presence of a broad base. It differs from bythius , D. cochranus , D. kryptus , D. mckechnieorum , D. noctigrassator and D. warramboo in its blunt, rounded distal end which is tapered in all of the aforementioned species. Its blunt distal end is similar to that of D. eremius and D. gnophicola but it differs from the former by the subdistal position of vl2 (vl2 at edge of flagellum in D. eremius ) and it differs from the latter in the anterior position of vm 5 in relation to vl1 (vm5 is posterior to vl 1 in D. gnophicola ). Females differ from all other species of Draculoides by the comparatively wide separation of both setae vm3. Draculoides affinis can be diagnosed from all other Draculoides species that were sequenced at COI and 12S by the 50bp mini-barcodes shown in Figs. 3 and 5 . Draculoides affinis can be diagnosed from all other Draculoides species that were sequenced at ITS2 ( Fig. 7 ) except for D. celatus , D. obrutus and Draculoides sp. SCH100, which are not distinguishable using the ITS2 minibarcode.

Description. See Framenau et al. (2018).

Remarks. Draculoides affinis is known only from subterranean habitats in a small area of the Pilbara ( Fig. 1C ).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Map of an area of the Pilbara described as “West Pilbara” for the purposes of this study, showing the distribution of the named Draculoides species. Inset maps show species distributions in finer detail encompassing areas A: Warramboo, Mesas A, B and C and “BudgieBore”; B: Bungaroo, Mesas G, H, J, K and L; C: Cochrane and Jewell, Kens Bore, Cane and Upper Cane River, Trinity Bore and Catho Well, Mt. Stuart Station; D: Middle Robe, Robe Valley; E: Bungaroo South, West Pit, Buckland Hills and Dragon deposit.

FIGURE 2. Maximum Likelihood tree, based on the reduced dataset. See Methods for details. Each terminal represents a single species or OTU, with named species in bold. Clades are identified using dashed boxes and shaded boxes encompass the species discussed in this study. Nodes with bootstrap support <80 are not shown, except for the common ancestor of the Draculoides radiation.

FIGURE 3. COI mini-barcodes for all Draculoides species including the operational taxonomic units used in Abrams et al. (2019). This barcode is the maximally diagnostic 50 bp fragment of DNA. Genetic variation within species is shown using IUPAC Ambiguity Codes. See Methods for details. The position of the mini-barcode is reported relative to a specimen of Draculoides celatus (WAM T98698, GenBank number MG913085). The blue tree on the left groups minibarcodes which are most similar to each other but does not represent an accurate phylogeny. The coloured bases in the figure are those that differ from the consensus reference sequence.

FIGURE 4. Maximum Likelihood tree based on COI mini-barcodes (Fig. 3) showing similarity of mini-barcode sequences, relative to species identity. This phylogeny does not recover an accurate tree topology, and evolutionary relationships should not be inferred from this figure.

FIGURE 5. 12S mini-barcodes for all Draculoides species including the operational taxonomic units used in Abrams et al. (2019). This barcode is the maximally diagnostic 50 bp fragment of DNA. Genetic variation within species is shown using IUPAC Ambiguity Codes. See Methods for details. The position of the mini-barcode is reported relative to a specimen of Draculoides celatus (WAM T98698, GenBank number MG913012). The blue tree on the left groups minibarcodes which are most similar to each other but does not represent an accurate phylogeny. The coloured bases in the figure are those that differ from the consensus reference sequence.

FIGURE 6. Maximum Likelihood tree based on COI mini-barcodes (Fig. 5) showing similarity of mini-barcode sequences relative to species identity. This phylogeny does not recover an accurate tree topology, and evolutionary relationships should not be inferred from this figure.

FIGURE 7. ITS2 mini-barcodes for all Draculoides species including the operational taxonomic units used in Abrams et al. (2019). This barcode is the maximally diagnostic 50 bp fragment of DNA. Genetic variation within species is shown using IUPAC Ambiguity Codes. See Methods for details. The position of the mini-barcode is reported relative to a specimen of Draculoides celatus (WAM T98698, GenBank number MG913105). The blue tree on the left groups minibarcodes which are most similar to each other but does not represent an accurate phylogeny. The coloured bases in the figure are those that differ from the consensus reference sequence.

FIGURE 8. Maximum Likelihood tree based on ITS2 mini-barcodes (Fig. 7) showing similarity of mini-barcode sequences, relative to species identity. This phylogeny does not recover an accurate tree topology, and evolutionary relationships should not be inferred from this figure.