Draculoides eremius ( Abrams and Harvey, 2015 )

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 : 45

Draculoides eremius ( Abrams and Harvey, 2015)

( Figs. 1–8 )

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/ 262FA90F-8570-45F7-9EF8-9324DEC2E22A

Paradraculoides eremius Abrams and Harvey 2015: 133–136 , figs. 1–4.

Draculoides eremius (Abrams and Harvey) : Abrams et al. 2019 MPE 106532: 8, fig. 2.

Material examined. Holotype male. AUSTRALIA: Western Australia: Bungaroo, 35.4 km SE. of Pannawonica , 21°56’37”S, 116°26’26”E, 15 April 2011, troglofauna trap, J. Alexander, S. Werner ( WAM T114968 ).

Paratypes. AUSTRALIA: Western Australia: 1 ♀, Bungaroo, 34.8 km SE. of Pannawonica , 2156’07”S, 11626’54”E, 15 April 2011, troglofauna trap, J. Alexander, and S. Werner ( WAM T114972 ) ; 1 ♂, Bungaroo, 35.3 km SE. of Pannawonica , 21°56’37”S, 116°26’39”E, 15 April 2011, troglofauna trap, J. Alexander, S. Werner ( WAM T114969 ) .

Other material. AUSTRALIA: Western Australia: See Abrams and Harvey (2015).

Diagnosis. The shape of the male flagellum of Draculoides eremius most closely resembles D. affinis and D. gnophicola , particularly in the distally rounded end of the flagellum, which is tapering in most other similar described Draculoides species ( D. anachoretus , D. cochranus , D. kryptus , D. mckechnieorum , D. noctigrassator and D. warramboo ). Draculoides eremius differs from D. bythius and D. gnophicola in the distal placement of dm4 on the margin of the flagellum (dm4 is sub-distal and anterior to dl 3 in D. affinis and slightly sub-distal in and D. gnophicola ). Females of this species differ from all other females by the rectangular-shaped backward folding genital gonopod. Draculoides eremius can be diagnosed from all other Draculoides species that were sequenced at COI by the 50bp mini-barcode shown in Figure 3 . Draculoides eremius can be diagnosed from all other Draculoides species that were sequenced at 12S ( Fig. 5 ) except for D. piscivultus . Draculoides eremius can be diagnosed from all other Draculoides species that were sequenced at ITS2 ( Fig. 7 ) except for D. anachoretus , D. bythius , D. gnophicola , D. kryptus , D. mckechnieorum , D. warramboo , D. immortalis , D. belalugosii , D. christopherleei , D. piscivultus and D. akashae , which are not distinguishable using the ITS2 mini-barcode.

Description. See Abrams and Harvey (2015).

Remarks. Draculoides eremius has only been found in the Bungaroo valley, situated south-east of Pannawonica in the Pilbara region of Western Australia ( Fig. 1E ).

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.