Anoplodelphys incerta Lafargue and Laubier, 1978

Boxshall, Geoff A. & Marchenkov, Andrey, 2007, A revision of the Brementia - group of genera (Copepoda: Notodelphyidae), with descriptions of a new genus and four new species, Zootaxa 1459, pp. 37-68 : 47

Anoplodelphys incerta Lafargue and Laubier, 1978

Material examined: Holotype female, reg. no. ZMA CO.102.602.

Differential Diagnosis: Body elongate, with indistinct segmentation. Cephalosome with narrow frontal margin bearing rostrum. Rostrum inflated, forming large ventrally-directed lobe ( Fig. 4 C). Post-rostral median lobe present. Labrum strongly inflated at base, tending distally into tapering lobe ( Fig. 4 C). Lateral margin of cephalosome expanded ventrally to form ridge-like swelling produced into process. Antennomedial lobe lacking. Metasome elongate with about 25% of length extending posterior to level of origin of leg 4: metasomal somites bearing small legs ventrally near lateral margins. No mid-ventral processes present between legs. Urosome small, unsegmented; located terminally; with median anal incision, bearing minute paired caudal rami armed with setae distally. Surface of body, rostrum, labrum, cephalosomic processes, and legs densely ornamented with surface setules.

Antennule unsegmented, tapering lobe ( Fig. 4 D). Antenna 2-segmented, with triangular basal segment and distal subchela incorporating sclerotised distal claw, armed with 3 vestigial setal elements. Mandible to maxilliped all lacking. Legs 1–4 biramous; each with protopodal part almost completely incorporated into somite so small lobate rami appearing to originate from somite surface. Ratios of gaps between legs along metasome as in Table 2 . Leg 5 represented by tiny sclerotised points ( Fig. 4 E).

Body length of female 2.40–3.65 mm. Male unknown.

Remarks: In their paper on Anoplodelphys, Lafargue and Laubier (1978a) comment upon the very wide intraspecific variability between specimens of Anoplodelphys incerta collected from different host species. They recognised a so-called “typical” form of A. incerta from Didemnum commune (Della Valle, 1877) and an “atypical” form from Didemnum fulgens (Milne Edwards, 1841) , D. protectum (Daumézon, 1908) , D. peyrefittense (Brément, 1913) and D. maculosum (Milne Edwards, 1841) . According to Lafargue and Laubier (1978a), the main distinguishing characters between “typical” and “atypical” forms were: the form and organisation of the elements of surface ornamentation, the general body shape, and the degree of development and position along the body of legs 1–4. Lafargue and Laubier (1978a) selected a specimen of the typical form collected from D. commune as the holotype (ZMA Co. 102.602) thereby fixing the name. Re-examination of this holotype of A. incerta leads us to conclude that the typical and atypical forms are not conspecific.

We propose to restrict the concept of A. incerta to the typical form (found on D. commune ) characterised by the elongate body, the reduced size of legs 1 to 4, and the relatively wide spacing of legs 1 and 2 (18%) along the longitudinal axis of the body ( Table 2 ). We here treat the atypical form as Anoplodelphys cf. galli , since the only differences from A. galli relate to the arrangement of the spinular ornamentation, a character that is difficult to assess with our current state of knowledge.

Figures

FIGURE 4. Anoplodelphys laubieri n. sp. holotype female (MNHN-Cp 2315). A, Cephalosome and first pedigerous somite, lateral; B, urosome, lateral. Anoplodelphys incerta Lafargue & Laubier, 1977, holotype female (ZMA CO. 106.602). C, Cephalosome and first pedigerous somite, ventral, D, Antennule showing surface ornamentation; E, Leg 5. Scale bars: A = 500 μm, B = 50 μm, C – D = 200 μm, E = 25 μm.