Parabrachiella exilis (Shiino, 1956)

Lebepe, Modjadji C. & Dippenaar, Susan M., 2016, Barnard’s Brachiella sp., Parabrachiella supplicans (Barnard, 1955) and Eubrachiella sublobulata (Barnard, 1955) (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida: Lernaeopodidae) deposited in the Iziko South African Museum, Zootaxa 4061 (1), pp. 51-60 : 52

Parabrachiella exilis (Shiino, 1956)

Syn. Brachiella sp. (Barnard 1955a)

Parabrachiella mugilis (Kabata et al. 1971)

Material examined. Two females (S.A.M A8526) from the axil of the pectoral fin of the thin-lipped grey mullet Liza ramada , off Table Bay deposited in the Iziko South African Museum.

Remarks. Parabrachiella exilis was originally described as Epibrachiella exilis collected from the gills of Kyphosus vaigiensis (Quoy & Gaimard) in the Sea of Japan (Shiino 1956). The species was redescribed from the pectoral fin of Mugil cephalus Linnaeus , in Chilean waters and together with other species, transferred to Neobrachiella (Castro & Baeza 1986) where after it was reported again from the same host (Luque & Farfán 1991). All Neobrachiella species were later transferred to Parabrachiella (Piasecki et al. 2010) . Parabrachiella exilis can be distinguished from its congeners by the general habitus of the female body and the arrangement of the posterior processes, with the median pair arising from the dorsal part of the trunk being shorter than the two lateral pairs. However the females described from different localities may vary in size, with female specimens from Japanese waters appearing to be larger in size than the specimens from Chilean waters (Castro & Baeza 1986; Knoff et al. 1994). Eubrachiella mugilis (Kabata, Raibaut & Ben Hassine) was described from specimens attached to the pectoral fins of Liza aurata (Risso) and Liza saliens (Risso) from Lake Tunis (Kabata et al. 1971; Ho & Takeuch 1996). It was also transferred to Neobrachiella (Ho & Takeuch 1996) and thereafter to Parabrachiella (Piasecki et al. 2010) . A thorough examination of the morphology of P. exilis and P. mugilis , as described and illustrated by Shiino (1956); Kabata et al. (1971) Castro & Baeza (1986); Luque & Farfán (1991) and Knoff et al. (1994) reflects that the two species are similar in the structure of the armature, the attachment site (pectoral fin) with members of Mugilidae being infected, with the exception of the type species being described from the gills of a member of Kyphosidae Gill. The only difference between the specimens is the size of the posterior processes in relation to the sizes of the females (Shiino 1956; Castro & Baeza 1987; Knoff et al. 1994; Ho & Takeuch 1996). Therefore P. exilis and P. mugilis are conspecific and are synonymized.