Draculoides immortalis Abrams and Harvey, 2020

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 : 47-50

Draculoides immortalis Abrams and Harvey , n. sp.

( Figs. 1–8 , 24–25 )

Zoobank Code: http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/ 4E183B9C-D352-4805-82DA-60C5B9EFA783

Paradraculoides SCH 058: Abrams et al. 2019 MPE 106532: 8, fig. 2.

Material examined. Holotype female. AUSTRALIA: Western Australia: “Budgiebore”, Robe Valley , ca. 48 km W.

of Pannawonica, 21°33’31.4”S, 115°51’54.52”E, 6 June 2015, troglofauna trap, J. Alexander, P. Brooshooft (Biota Environmental Sciences, Budgiebore-20150604-06) ( WAM T138476 ) (DNA: COI, ITS2 ) .

Diagnosis. Males are unknown. Females of this species can be distinguished from all other species of Draculoides by the distinctive form of the spermathecae in which the inner lobe is noticeably smaller and narrower than the outer lobe. In all other Draculoides , the spermathecal lobes are roughly the same size or the inner lobes are larger than the outer lobes. In D. vinei the inner lobe is slightly smaller than the outer lobe but it can be easily distinguished from D. immortalis by the absence of a gonopod and the spermathecal lobes are connected basally before connection with the bursa in the former species while the gonopod is present and the spermathecal lobes are not connected in the latter. Draculoides immortalis can be diagnosed from all other Draculoides species that were sequenced at COI by the 50bp mini-barcode shown in Figure 3 . Draculoides immortalis can be diagnosed from all other Draculoides species that were sequenced at ITS2 ( Fig. 7 ) except for D. anachoretus , D. bythius , D. eremius , D. gnophicola , D. kryptus , D. mckechnieorum , D. warramboo , D. belalugosii , D. christopherleei , D. piscivultus and D. akashae , which are not distinguishable using the ITS2 mini-barcode.

Description (adult female). Colour. Yellow-brown; propeltidium and pedipalps somewhat darker.

Cephalothorax. Propeltidium with 3 apical setae in a row on anterior process and 1 + 2 + 2 setae; eye spots absent. Mesopeltidia separated. Metapeltidium divided. Anterior sternum with 13 setae (including 2 sternapophysial setae); posterior sternum triangular with 6 setae.

Chelicera. Fixed finger with 2 large teeth plus 6 smaller teeth between these, proximal tooth with 1 small lateral tooth and distal tooth without small lateral teeth; membranous area between fixed and movable fingers with 3 large, lanceolate, terminally pilose setae (G1); G2 and G3 composed of 5 setae; internal face of chelicera with 5 short whip-like setae (G4); brush at base of fixed finger composed of 7 setae (G5A), each densely pilose in distal half and G5B composed of 10 setae; G6 with one seta; G7 composed of 4 setae. Movable finger serrula composed of 18 long lamellae, small blunt guard tooth present subdistally; 1 large accessory tooth present at two-thirds from base of serrula.

Fixed finger with 2 large teeth plus 6 smaller teeth between these; basal tooth with 1 small lateral tooth and distal tooth without small lateral teeth; brush at base of fixed finger composed of 7 setae (G5A), each densely pilose in distal half and G5B composed of 10 setae; membranous area between fixed and movable fingers with 3 large, lanceolate, terminally pilose setae (G1); internal face of chelicera with 5 short whip-like setae (G4); movable finger serrula composed of 18 long lamellae, small blunt guard tooth present subdistally; 1 large accessory tooth present at two-thirds from base of serrula. G2 and G3 composed of 5 setae; G7 composed of 4 setae.

Pedipalp. Without apophyses; trochanter with sharply produced ventro-distal extension, ventral margin with ca. 10 stout setae, without mesal spur; tarsus and tibia without spines; tarsal spur present; claw 0.5 × length of tarsus.

Legs. Tarsus I with 6 segments; baso-dorsal margin of femur IV produced at about a 90° angle.

Abdomen. Chaetotaxy of tergite I: 2 macrosetae + 4 microsetae (microsetae diagonal), tergite II: 3 macrosetae + 6 microsetae (microsetae in column), tergites III–IX: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 3.

Female genitalia. Two pairs of elongate spermathecae with outer lobe larger than inner lobe, each pair not connected basally ( Fig. 25D ), distally round and smooth; sparsely covered with small pores; gonopod short, roughly triangular-shaped.

Flagellum. 5 × longer than broad ( Figs. 24 D–F, 25A–C); seta dm1 situated close to posterior end of flagellomere II, posterior to vm2; setae dl1 situated anterior to dm4, dm4 situated midway between dl1 and dl3; dl3 situated almost at posterior margin, slightly more posterior than vl2, vm1 situated slightly posterior to vm2, vm3 situated closer to vm1 than to vm5, vm5 midway between vm3 and vl2, vl1 situated posterior to vm3 and anterior to dl1; one pair of microsetae at anterior end of flagellomere III, one pair of microsetae laterally between dl3 and vl2.

Dimensions (mm). Holotype female ( WAM T138476 ): Body length 3.99. Propeltidium 0.48/031. Chelicera 0.96. Flagellum 0.4/0.08. Pedipalp: trochanter 0.62, femur 0.71, patella 0.73, tibia 0.60, tarsus 0.31, claw 0.15, total excluding claw 2.96.

Remarks. Draculoides immortalis is known from a single location ‘Budgiebore’ north of Mesa A situated in the Robe Valley, Western Australia ( Fig.1A ).

Other names. WAM SCH058 ( Abrams et al., 2019).

Etymology. The specific epithet is an adjective referring to the immortal nature of vampires (Latin, immortal).

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.

FIGURE 24. Draculoides immortalis sp. nov., holotype female (WAM T138476): A. Body, dorsal; B. Body, ventral; C. Body, lateral; D. Flagellum, dorsal; E. Flagellum, ventral; F. Flagellum, lateral. The scale bar shown in image A is 1 mm and also applies to B and C and the scale bar shown in image D is 200 µm and also applies to E and F.

FIGURE 25. Draculoides immortalis sp. nov., holotype female (WAM T138476): A. Flagellum, dorsal; B. Flagellum, ventral; C. Flagellum, lateral; D. Spermathecae, ventral. Scale bars: A–C: 0.1 mm, D: 0.1 mm.