Draculoides obrutus ( 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 : 65

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

( Figs. 1–8 )

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/ 388D323E-E217-4DDC-81C6-6D4B0DCA6B08

Paradraculoides obrutus Framenau, Hamilton, Finston, Humphreys, Abrams, Huey and Harvey 2018: 530–532 , figs. 15–16. Draculoides obrutus ( Framenau, Hamilton, Finston, Humphreys, Abrams, Huey and Harvey 2018) : Abrams et al. 2019 MPE

106532: 8, fig. 2.

Material examined. Holotype female. AUSTRALIA: Western Australia: Kens Bore , site KBRC023 , 22°03’42.7”S, 116°11’44.29”E, 17 January 2008, troglofauna trap, J. Alexander, T. Sachse (Biota Environmental Sciences, KBRC023 P2 T2–1 ) ( WAM T 54175) (DNA: COI, ITS2 ).

Paratype. AUSTRALIA: Western Australia: 1 ♀, Kens Bore, 47.2 km S. of Pannawonica , 22°02’43”S, 116°11’03”E, 12–15 September 2009, troglofauna trap, 20 m, D. Kamien (Biota Environmental Sciences, KBRC096 P7 T2–1 ) ( WAM T 98320) (DNA: COI, ITS2 ) .

Diagnosis. Males are unknown, and females cannot be differentiated from other species of Draculoides using morphological criteria. Draculoides obrutus can be diagnosed from all other Draculoides species that were sequenced at COI by the 50bp mini-barcode shown in Figure 3 . Draculoides obrutus can be diagnosed from all other Draculoides species that were sequenced at ITS2 ( Fig. 7 ) except for D. affinis , D. celatus , and Draculoides sp. SCH100, which are not distinguishable using the ITS2 mini-barcode.

Description. See Framenau et al. (2018).

Remarks. This species is only known from two localities at Kens Bore, 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.