Arenopontia? gussoae Cottarelli, 1973a sensu Mielke (1982b)

Sak, Serdar, Karaytuğ, Süphan & Huys, Rony, 2024, Review of Neoleptastacus Nicholls, 1945 (Harpacticoida, Arenopontiidae), including an updated key to species and proposal of Phreatipontia gen. nov., Zootaxa 5525 (1), pp. 1-66 : 45-46

Arenopontia? gussoae Cottarelli, 1973a sensu Mielke (1982b) [partim]

Original description. Mielke (1982b: 203; Figs 6B ; 7E ) [Playa Nueva Gorgona]. Mielke (1982b: 204) [Playa Avenida Balboa].

Body length. 360 μm (♀), 300 μm (♂) [Playa Nueva Gorgona material]; 360 μm (♀) [Playa Avenida Balboa material] ( Mielke 1982b).

Remarks. In addition to the material from Isla Melones (here treated as N. abbreviatus sp. nov. —see above), Mielke (1982b) also reported “ Arenopontia? gussoae ” from two other localities along the Pacific seaboard of Panamá. Compared to N. abbreviatus sp. nov., the specimens (3 ♀♀, 4 ♂♂) from Playa Nueva Gorgona ( PNG) display a number of differences: (1) rostrum not tapered to the same extent, (2) P4 exp-2 relatively stouter and exp- 3 shorter, (3) inner spinous process of P5 with weak contours, (4) paired lateral spinous processes on anal somite pointed, and (5) caudal rami more square than rectangular. A single female from Playa Avenida Balboa agreed with the PNG material in the morphology of the rostrum, P5 and caudal rami but exhibited a P4 exp-3 that is stouter. It is unlikely that either population belongs to N. abbreviatus sp. nov. Pending the arrival of new morphological data based on a larger set of specimens both remain as taxa of uncertain status.

Martínez Arbizu & Moura (1994) reported A.? gussoae from Isla Margarita in Venezuela (Nueva Esparta State) and from Lima (Playa S. Bartolo) in Peru but did not make any morphological comparisons.

Arenopontia? gussoae Cottarelli, 1973a sensu Mielke (1987) [2 nd form]

Original description. Mielke (1987): 330, 334; Abb. 9C.

Body length. Unknown.

Distribution. Northern Chile, (1) Las Lozas beach, a few km south of Coquimbo and (2) Playa Brava in Iquique.

Remarks. In addition to the ”normal form” (here considered as a distinct species, N. chilensis sp. nov. —see above), Mielke (1987) also distinguished a ”2nd form” in his Chilean material that he provisionally identified as Arenopontia? gussoae . According to Mielke (1987), the latter differs from N. chilensis sp. nov. in (1) rostrum somewhat wider, (2) spinular ornamentation of inner spinous process of P5 more pronounced, (3) caudal ramus without medial spur near insertion site of dorsal seta VII, and (4) position of caudal ramus seta III more distal, originating near base of caudal process. Mielke’s (1987) only illustration of the second form depicts the anal somite and caudal ramus in lateral aspect, revealing the elongate, virtually straight, spinous process (50% of caudal ramus length vs 35% and dorsally recurved) and the non-recurved anal processes as additional differences separating it from N. chilensis sp. nov. ( Table 4). Although the sympatric occurrence of both ”forms” in the same beach made Mielke (1987) speculate that they may represent different species, he preferred to consider them as morphs of the same species pending the arrival of ecological data. The second form is here treated as distinct from N. chilensis sp. nov. but assigned uncertain status due to the lack of additional morphological information.

Species incertae sedis

Figures

FIGURE 6. Neoleptastacus emendatus sp. nov. (♀): (A) habitus, dorsal; (B) habitus, lateral; (C) anal somite and caudal rami, dorsal; (D) anal somite and right caudal ramus, lateral.

FIGURE 7. Neoleptastacus emendatus sp. nov. (♀): (A) urosome, ventral; (B) antennule, dorsal; (C) antenna, outer; (D) antennary endopod, medial; (E) rostrum, dorsal; (F) midventral hook-like processes [indicated by arrows] on pedigerous somites; (G) hook-like process, lateral. [lateral endopodal spines indicated by arrows in C–D]