Astropecten articulatus (Say, 1825)

Gondim, Anne Isabelley, Christoffersen, Martin Lindsey & Pereira Dias, Thelma Lucia, 2014, Taxonomic guide and historical review of starfishes in northeastern Brazil (Echinodermata, Asteroidea), ZooKeys 449, pp. 1-56 : 6-7

Astropecten articulatus (Say, 1825)

Asterias articulata Say, 1825: 144.

Astropecten dubius Gray, 1840: 182.

Asterias aranciaca Gould, 1841: 349 (non Asterias aranciaca Linnaeus, 1758).

Astropecten articulates Müller & Troschel, 1842: 72. Tommasi 1970: 6, fig. 17. Tommasi et al. 1988: 5. Manso 1989: 357.

Astropecten buschi Müller & Troschel, 1843 (a variety of Astropecten articulatus (Say, 1825) according to Doderlein (1917)).

Astropecten articulatus dubius Verrill, 1915: 165.

Astropecten articulatus var. valenciennesi A.H.Clark, 1939: 442.

Astropecten articulatus duplicatus Zoppi de Roa, 1967: 277, fig. 6. (non Astropecten duplicatus Gray, 1840).

Material examined.

Caraguatatuba, São Paulo, 1 spec., MZUSP484, 16.X.2001, 19m.

Type locality.

Florida ( Clark and Downey 1992).

Description.

Body pentagonal, flattened dorso-ventrally. Five long and narrow arms (length of arm corresponds to approximately four times its width), which become gradually narrow towards tips. Abactinal surface with paxillae. Paxillae disposed regularly, carenals smaller than adradials. 1-6 short, thick and blunt paxillar spines in center, 10-16 in margins. Supermarginal figs granulose, with a large spine (~1.54 mm) positioned internally on the interbrachial figs. Some distal supermarginal figs have a short spine positioned more externally. Inferomarginal figs with two elongate, flattened and pointed marginal spines, positioned horizontally. Small oral spine. Three adambulacral spines divergent, the median one being the largest.

Colour. Dorsally dark blue or purple in paxillar region. Superomarginal figs white or orange. Oral surface white of beige ( Hendler et al. 1995; Benavides-Serrato et al. 2011).

Distribution.

North Carolina, Florida, the Bahamas, Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, and Uruguay ( Tommasi 1970, Clark and Downey 1992, Hendler et al. 1995, Alvarado 2011). In Brazil: PI, CE, RJ, SP, and RS ( Lima-Verde 1969, Netto 2006). From 0 to 550 m in depth, being most common between 5 and 20 m ( Clark and Downey 1992, Hendler et al. 1995).

Remarks.

Astropecten articulatus differs from the congeneric Astropecten cingulatus for having a spine or tubercule on the distal supermarginal figs, two flat spines on each inferomarginal fig and subambulacral spines larger that the adambulacral spines. The original description of Astropecten articulatus Say (1825) is excelent, but the emphasis given by this author on the presence of spines and tubercules resulted in some uncertainty regarding the validity of Astropecten duplicatus (Gray, 1840) ( Clark and Downey 1992). According to Clark and Courtman-Stock (1976) and Clark and Downey (1992) the confidence in the presence of spines on the superomarginal figs as a specific criterium is doubtful. As in other species of the genus, Astropecten articulatus presents a series of morphological variations. Verrill (1915) provides a good discussion of these variations, and stresses the differences found between juvenile and adult individuals. We have only been able to examine a single juvenile specimen, which nevertheless presented all the diagnostic characters of the adults.

Ecological notes.

Inhabits sandy environments. According to Benavides-Serrato et al. (2011) and Hendler et al. (1995), this species is common offshore over continental shelf, being particularly abundant in North Carolina. Astropecten articulatus is a voracious and non-selective predator ( Hendler et al. 1995). Wells et al. (1961) recorded 91 food items for 124 specimens collected in North Carolina, gastropods, bivalves, and scaphopods being the most importante items. Small crustaceans, juveniles of Mellita sp. and Astropecten articulatus itself were also recorded as food items for the species, although in a lower level of importance ( Hendler et al. 1995).