Draculoides cochranus ( 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 : 43-44

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

( Figs. 1–8 )

http://zoobank.org/EditNomenclaturalAct/ 84EEEA24-AAD9-402E-B153-6836FBBCF59A

Paradraculoides cochranus Framenau, Hamilton, Finston, Humphreys, Abrams, Huey and Harvey 2018: 523–528 , figs. 10– 12.

Draculoides cochranus (Framenau, Hamilton, Finston, Humphreys, Abrams, Huey and Harvey) : Abrams et al. 2019 MPE 106532: 8, fig. 2.

Material examined. Holotype male. AUSTRALIA: Western Australia: Cochrane and Jewell, 37.7 km S. of Pannawonica , 21°55’55”S, 116°07’43”E, 25–28 November 2008, troglofauna trap, 15 m, J. Cairnes, M. Menz (Biota Environmental Sciences, RNRC083 P5 T1–3 ) ( WAM T 93229) (DNA: COI, ITS2 ).

Paratypes. AUSTRALIA: Western Australia: 1 ♀, Cochrane and Jewell, 37.7 km S. of Pannawonica , 21°55’55”S, 116°07’43”E, 13–16 October 2008, troglofauna trap, 15 m, G. Humphreys, M. Menz (Biota Environmental Sciences, RNRC083 P4 T1–3 ) ( WAM T 93197) (DNA: COI, ITS2 ) ; 1 ♀, Jewell and Cochrane Bore , site RNRC162 , 21°56’02.88”S, 116°08’15.54”E, 17 January 2008, troglofauna trap, J. Alexander, T. Sachse (Biota Environmental Sciences, RNRC162 P2 T2–1 ) ( WAM T 54136) .

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

Diagnosis. The shape of the male flagellum of Draculoides cochranus most closely resembles D. affinis , D. anachoretus , D. bythius , D. eremius , D. gnophicola , D. kryptus , D. mckechnieorum , D. noctigrassator and D. warramboo , especially in the presence of a broad base. It differs from D. affinis , D. eremius and D. gnophicola in the presence of a distally tapered tip (blunt tip in the aforementioned species). It differs from D. kryptus and D. bythius in the anterior position of dm 4 in relation to dl3 (dm4 posterior to dl 3 in D. kryptus and in line with dl 3 in D. bythius ). It differs from D. anachoretus , D. mckechnieorum , D. noctigrassator and D. warramboo in the placement of dm4, which is roughly in line with dl1 (dm4 is posterior to dl 1 in D. anachoretus ). The female flagellum of D. cochranus differs from all other Draculoides in the short gap between dm4 to dl1 (by the relatively anterior position of dm4). Draculoides cochranus can be diagnosed from all other Draculoides species that were sequenced at COI and ITS2 by the 50bp mini-barcodes shown in Figures 3 and 7 .

Description. See Framenau et al. (2018).

Remarks. Draculoides cochranus is known from the Cochrane and Jewell Bores complex, located in the western Hamersley Range, Western Australia ( 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.