Capsaloides perugiai ( Setti, 1898 ) Price, 1938

Chisholm, Leslie A. & Whittington, Ian D., 2006, Revision of Capsaloides (Monogenea: Capsalidae) with a redescription of C. magnaspinosus Price, 1939 from the nasal tissue of Tetrapterus audax (Istiophoridae) collected off Nelson Bay, New South Wales, Australia, Zootaxa 1160, pp. 1-20 : 15-16

Capsaloides perugiai ( Setti, 1898) Price, 1938 ( Figs 1 F, 2F, 3C, 4D)

Synonyms: Tristoma perugiai Setti, 1898 ; Capsala perugiai ( Setti, 1898) Johnston, 1929 ; Capsaloides istiophori ( Yamaguti, 1968) n. syn.; Capsaloides marielenae ( Lamothe­Argumedo, 1968) n. syn.; Caballerocotyla marielenae Lamothe­Argumedo, 1968 ; Capsaloides mariaelenae ( Lamothe­Argumedo, 1968) Lamothe­Argumedo, 1996 ; Capsaloides tetrapteri ( Yamaguti, 1968) n. syn.

Type­host: Tetrapterus belone Rafinesque, 1810 (Istiophoridae) .

Type­locality: Spezia, Italy [Mediterranean Sea].

Additional Records: Tetrapterus audax (Philippi, 1997) , Hawaii, USA [Pacific Ocean] (see Yamaguti 1968); Istiophorus platypterus (Shaw, 1792) from Puerto Angel, Oaxaca, Mexico, [Pacific Ocean] (see Lamothe­Argumedo 1968); T. angustirostris Tanaka, 1915 , from Hawaii, USA [Pacific Ocean] (see Yamaguti 1968); I. platypterus and Makaira indica from Cape Bowling Green, off Townsville and Cape Moreton, off Brisbane, Queensland, Australia [Pacific Ocean] (see Speare 1994, 1999); M. nigricans Lacépède, 1802 , Cape Moreton off Brisbane, Queensland, Australia [Pacific Ocean] (see Speare 1999).

Site: Gills.

Specimens examined: No specimens lodged in museums and identified as C. perugiai were studied.

Remarks

Yamaguti (1968) stated that C. perugiai closely resembled C. tetrapteri and C. istiophori but that the “inadequate” description of Setti (1898) made detailed comparisons “impossible”. Unfortunately, no type specimens could be located to verify the original description of C. perugiai . However, we feel that the description by Setti (1898) is comprehensive and that the whole body illustration and figures of the haptoral accessory sclerites ( Figs 1 F, 4D) and dorsomarginal body sclerites ( Figs 2 F, 3C) provide sufficient detail for comparison with other Capsaloides species. The body is distinctly tear­drop shaped as is the case for C. istiophori , C. marielenae and C. tetrapteri . The haptoral accessory sclerites ( Figs 1 F, 4D) have a broad shaft and a distinct knob at the proximal end and is largely indistinguishable in shape from those of C. marielenae ( Fig. 4 C) and C. tetrapteri ( Fig. 4 E). The shaft of the haptoral accessory sclerites of C. istiophori are slightly longer in the type specimen we examined but as discussed under the Remarks section for C. istiophori , this is likely developmental variation related to the larger size of the parasite. They are almost identical to the haptoral accessory sclerites drawn for C. istiophori by Yamaguti (1968) who based his description on 28 whole mounts. The dorsomarginal body sclerites form a single row and are crown­shaped; they end in the posterior third of the body. The number of cusps associated with each dorsomarginal body sclerite decreases from anterior to posterior ( Fig. 3 C) as is the case for C. istiophori ( Fig. 3 A), C. marielenae ( Fig. 3 B) and C. tetrapteri ( Fig. 3 D). The isolated group of anterior body sclerites on the left and right side of the body were not described or illustrated by Setti (1898). We can find no definitive characters to separate the aforementioned species and therefore consider C. istiophori , C. marielenae and C. tetrapteri to be synonymous with C. perugiai .

Figures

FIGURE 1. Haptoral accessory sclerites of Capsaloides species. A. C. cornutus, drawn from USNPC 35136. B. C. cristatus, drawn from USNPC 63597. C. C. hoffmannae, drawn from CNHE 0 0 2718. D. C. magnaspinosus, drawn from USNPC 35648. E. C. nairagi, drawn from USNPC 63599. F. C. perugiai, redrawn from Setti (1898). G. C. sinuatus, redrawn from Goto (1894). Scale bar: 100 m.

FIGURE 2. Nomarksi photomicrographs of the dorsomarginal body sclerites of Capsaloides species. For consistent comparison, the sclerites were photographed at the level of the anterior border of the ovary. A. C. cornutus, from USNPC 35136. B. C. cristatus, from USNPC 63597. C. C. hoffmannae, from CNHE 002718; note that the cusps of the sclerites cannot be seen well in this unflattened specimen and the body margin appears annulated. D. C. magnaspinosus, from USNPC 35648. E. C. nairagi, from USNPC 63599; note that the sclerites are distributed in a slightly zigzagged pattern. F. C. perugiai, from USNPC 63600 (specimen originally identified as C. tetrapteri). Scale bars: 20 m.

FIGURE 3. Variation in the morphology of the dorsomarginal body sclerites of Capsaloides perugiai and those species (C. istiophori, C. marielenae and C. tetrapteri) newly synonymised with C. perugiai (present study). Note that the number of cusps associated with the crown­shaped sclerite decrease towards the posterior body region. A. C. istiophori, drawn from USNPC 63598. B. C. marielenae, drawn from CNHE 0 0 0 133. C. C. perugiai, redrawn from Setti (1898). D. C. tetrapteri, drawn from USNPC 63600. Scale bar: 10 m.

FIGURE 4. Haptoral accessory sclerites of Capsaloides perugiai and those species newly synonymised with C. perugiai. A. C. istiophori, redrawn from Yamaguti (1968). B. C. istiophori, drawn from USNPC 63598. C. C. marielenae, drawn from CNHE 0 0 0 133. D. C. perugiai, redrawn from Setti (1898). D. C. tetrapteri, drawn from USNPC 63600. Note that the only specimen of C. istiophori deposited is large and the morphology of the accessory sclerites are slightly different (B) to that drawn by Yamaguti (1968) (see A) who based his description on 28 specimens. Scale bar: 50 m.