Capsaloides hoffmannae Lamothe­Argumedo, 1996

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 : 7-8

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.172308

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6255189

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FC8787-E16D-FFC3-FED3-FB689EB1FBB9

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Capsaloides hoffmannae Lamothe­Argumedo, 1996
status

 

Capsaloides hoffmannae Lamothe­Argumedo, 1996 View in CoL ( Figs 1 View FIGURE 1 C, 2C)

Type­host: Tetrapterus audax (Philippi, 1887) (Istiophoridae) .

Type­locality: Mazatlan, Sinaloa, Mexico [Pacific Ocean].

Site: Gills.

Specimens examined: One paratype (CNHE 002718).

Remarks

The key of Lamothe­Argumedo (1996) distinguishes C. hoffmannae from most other members of Capsaloides by the ratio of the haptor diameter to total body length between 1.2 to 1.3. He states that the haptor diameter/total body length ratio is similar for C. magnaspinosus . Based on this finding Lamothe­Argumedo (1996) subsequently goes on to distinguish between these 2 species to the exclusion of the other species in Capsaloides . Using ratios of soft body measurements to distinguish between species is fraught with problems since they depend of the method of fixation and subsequent preparation (i.e. flattened versus unflattened). Lamothe­Argumedo (1996) does not state how the specimens of C. hoffmannae were prepared but the paratype is not strongly flattened and as such, the sinuations are close together making the surface appear annulated ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 C). We also do not know if the haptoral diameter/total body length ratio given by Lamothe­ Argumedo (1996) for C. magnaspinosus was from type­material or from the drawing of Price (1939).

Capsaloides hoffmannae View in CoL was described from the same host species as C. sinuatus View in CoL and C. hoffmannae View in CoL is very similar to C. cristatus View in CoL and C. sinuatus View in CoL ; these latter 2 species, as we discussed above, may be synonymous. Comparison of the morphology of the haptoral accessory sclerites of C. hoffmannae View in CoL to those of other species is difficult because they are not completely flattened in a dorsoventral plane. The haptoral accessory sclerites of C. hoffmannae View in CoL ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 C) are considerably shorter than those of C. cristatus View in CoL ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 B) and C. sinuatus View in CoL ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 G). However, length of the haptoral accessory sclerites may increase as the parasite grows like other capsalids (e.g. Kearn 1990). The dorsomarginal body sclerites ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 C) have 15–20 cusps. The left isolated anterior group of dorsomarginal body sclerites could not be seen in the paratype but the illustration of Lamothe­Argumedo (1996) depicts 5 sclerites. The presence of a right anterior group of dorsomarginal body sclerites was not noted by Lamothe­Argumedo (1996) and could not be seen in the paratype examined by us. The annulated body margin of C. hoffmannae View in CoL closely resembles that of the unflattened voucher specimen of C. cristatus View in CoL adding further support to our view that C. hoffmannae View in CoL may be an invalid taxon and together with C. cristatus View in CoL , may be synonymous with C. sinuatus View in CoL . However, we refrain from making this decision until more material is available.

GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF