Draculoides gnophicola ( Harvey, Berry, Edward and Humphreys, 2008 )

Abrams, Kym M., Huey, Joel A., Hillyer, Mia J., Didham, Raphael K. & Harvey, Mark S., 2020, A systematic revision of Draculoides (Schizomida: Hubbardiidae) of the Pilbara, Western Australia, Part I: the Western Pilbara, Zootaxa 4864 (1), pp. 1-75 : 45-47

Draculoides gnophicola ( Harvey, Berry, Edward and Humphreys, 2008)

( Figs. 1–8 , 22–23 )

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/ C8597E44-F7BC-43AA-9DA1-F2D7B9B423DF

Paradraculoides gnophicola Harvey, Berry, Edward and Humphreys 2008:188–190 , figs. 43–46.

Draculoides gnophicola (Harvey, Berry, Edward and Humphreys) : Abrams et al. 2019 MPE 106532: 8, fig. 2.

Material examined. Holotype female. AUSTRALIA: Western Australia: Mesa G (Borehole 0159A), 22.4 km SW. of Pannawonica , 21°44’20”S, 116°08’06”E, March–April 2008, M. Greenham, D. Kamien and L. Mould ( WAM T 65763).

Paratypes. AUSTRALIA: Western Australia: 1 ♀, Mesa G (Borehole 0014A), 22.4 km SW. of Pannawonica , 21°43’57”S, 116°07’01”E, 21 December 2004, G. Humphreys, M. Greenham ( WAM T 63312) ; 1 ♀, Mesa G (Bore- hole 0057A), 21 December 2004, G. Humphreys, M. Greenham ( WAM T 63316) .

Other material. AUSTRALIA: Western Australia: 1 ♂, Mesa G, 23.9 km SW. of Pannawonica , 21°43’57”S, 116°07’00”E, 21 October 2009, troglofauna trap, J. Alexander, E. Harris (Biota Environmental Sciences, MEG- DC014AP1 T3-4 ) ( WAM T 99563) (DNA: COI); see Abrams et al. (2019) .

Diagnosis. The shape of the male flagellum of Draculoides gnophicola most closely resembles D. affinis , D. anachoretus , D. bythius , D. cochranus , D. eremius and D. kryptus , especially in the presence of a broad base. It differs from D. affinis by the position of dm4 level with dl3 (dm4 is slightly anterior to dl 3 in D. affinis ) and vm1 which is slightly posterior to vm2 (vm1 more posterior to vm 2 in D. affinis ), from D. anachoretus and D. cochranus by the posterior position of dm4 (anterior in D. anachoretus and D. cochranus ), level with dl3; from D. bythius in the close proximity of dl1 and vl1 (far apart in D. bythius ); from D. kryptus by the sub-distal position of vl2 (on distal margin in D. kryptus ), and from D. eremius by the raised antero-dorsal region of the flagellum, which is flat in D. eremius . Females of this species differ from all others in the position of flagellar seta dm4, which is much closer to dl1 than any other Draculoides . Draculoides gnophicola can be diagnosed from all other Draculoides species that were sequenced at COI and 12S by the 50bp mini-barcodes shown in Figures 3 and 5 . Draculoides gnophicola can be diagnosed from all other Draculoides species that were sequenced at ITS2 ( Fig. 7 ) except for D. anachoretus , D. bythius , D. eremius , D. kryptus , D. mckechnieorum , D. warramboo , D. immortalis , D. belalugosii , D. christopherleei , D. piscivultus and D. akashae , which are not distinguishable using the ITS2 mini-barcode.

Description. Adult male (WAM T99563)

Colour. Yellow-brown; propeltidium and pedipalps somewhat darker.

Cephalothorax. Propeltidium with 2+1 apical setae in a triangular formation on anterior process and 2 + 2 + 1 + 2 setae; eye spots absent. Mesopeltidia separated. Metapeltidium divided. Anterior sternum with 14 setae (including 2 sternapophysial setae); posterior sternum triangular with 6 setae.

Chelicera. Fixed finger with 2 large teeth plus 5 smaller teeth between these including 1 tiny lateral tooth on proximal tooth; membranous area between fixed and movable fingers with 3 large, lanceolate, terminally pilose setae (G1);. G2 composed of 7 setae; G3 composed of 3 setae; internal face of chelicera with 3 short whip-like setae (G4); brush at base of fixed finger composed of 8 setae (G5A), each densely pilose in distal half and G5B composed of 11 setae; G6 and G7 composed of one seta. Movable finger serrula composed of ~18 long lamellae, blunt guard tooth present subdistally; 1 large accessory tooth present.

Pedipalp. Without apophyses; trochanter with sharply produced ventro-distal extension, ventral margin with ca. 8 stout setae, without mesal spur; tarsus and tibia without spines; tarsal spur present; claw 0.33 × length of tarsus.

Legs. Tarsus I with 6 segments; baso-dorsal margin of femur IV produced at about a 90° angle.

Abdomen. Chaetotaxy of tergite I: 2 macrosetae + 4 microsetae (microsetae diagonal), tergite II: 3 macrosetae + 6 microsetae (microsetae in column), tergites III–IX: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2; segment XII with small dorsal process (♂ only).

Flagellum. Male: Dorsoventrally compressed ( Figs. 22 D–F, 23A–C); 1.9 × longer than broad; seta dm1 situated dorso-medially, closer to anterior margin; seta dm4 close to posterior margin, level with dl3; dl1posterior to vl1; dl3 on posterior margin; vm2 situated slightly anterior to vm1; vm5 situated midway between vl2 and vm3; left vm3 slightly posterior to right vm3; one pair of microsetae dorsally, slightly posterior to dm1, six pairs of microsetae between vl1 and dl3.

Dimensions (mm). Male (WAM T99563): Body length 3.17. Propeltidium 1.15/0.62. Chelicera 0.73. Flagellum 0.37/0.19. Pedipalp: trochanter 0.50, femur 0.48, patella 0.60, tibia 0.58, tarsus 0.29, claw 0.10.

Remarks. Harvey et al. (2008) named this species from several females and juveniles collected from Mesa G ( Fig. 1B ). Additional specimens, including a male that is described here, have since been collected from the same mesa.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Map of an area of the Pilbara described as “West Pilbara” for the purposes of this study, showing the distribution of the named Draculoides species. Inset maps show species distributions in finer detail encompassing areas A: Warramboo, Mesas A, B and C and “BudgieBore”; B: Bungaroo, Mesas G, H, J, K and L; C: Cochrane and Jewell, Kens Bore, Cane and Upper Cane River, Trinity Bore and Catho Well, Mt. Stuart Station; D: Middle Robe, Robe Valley; E: Bungaroo South, West Pit, Buckland Hills and Dragon deposit.

FIGURE 2. Maximum Likelihood tree, based on the reduced dataset. See Methods for details. Each terminal represents a single species or OTU, with named species in bold. Clades are identified using dashed boxes and shaded boxes encompass the species discussed in this study. Nodes with bootstrap support <80 are not shown, except for the common ancestor of the Draculoides radiation.

FIGURE 3. COI mini-barcodes for all Draculoides species including the operational taxonomic units used in Abrams et al. (2019). This barcode is the maximally diagnostic 50 bp fragment of DNA. Genetic variation within species is shown using IUPAC Ambiguity Codes. See Methods for details. The position of the mini-barcode is reported relative to a specimen of Draculoides celatus (WAM T98698, GenBank number MG913085). The blue tree on the left groups minibarcodes which are most similar to each other but does not represent an accurate phylogeny. The coloured bases in the figure are those that differ from the consensus reference sequence.

FIGURE 4. Maximum Likelihood tree based on COI mini-barcodes (Fig. 3) showing similarity of mini-barcode sequences, relative to species identity. This phylogeny does not recover an accurate tree topology, and evolutionary relationships should not be inferred from this figure.

FIGURE 5. 12S mini-barcodes for all Draculoides species including the operational taxonomic units used in Abrams et al. (2019). This barcode is the maximally diagnostic 50 bp fragment of DNA. Genetic variation within species is shown using IUPAC Ambiguity Codes. See Methods for details. The position of the mini-barcode is reported relative to a specimen of Draculoides celatus (WAM T98698, GenBank number MG913012). The blue tree on the left groups minibarcodes which are most similar to each other but does not represent an accurate phylogeny. The coloured bases in the figure are those that differ from the consensus reference sequence.

FIGURE 6. Maximum Likelihood tree based on COI mini-barcodes (Fig. 5) showing similarity of mini-barcode sequences relative to species identity. This phylogeny does not recover an accurate tree topology, and evolutionary relationships should not be inferred from this figure.

FIGURE 7. ITS2 mini-barcodes for all Draculoides species including the operational taxonomic units used in Abrams et al. (2019). This barcode is the maximally diagnostic 50 bp fragment of DNA. Genetic variation within species is shown using IUPAC Ambiguity Codes. See Methods for details. The position of the mini-barcode is reported relative to a specimen of Draculoides celatus (WAM T98698, GenBank number MG913105). The blue tree on the left groups minibarcodes which are most similar to each other but does not represent an accurate phylogeny. The coloured bases in the figure are those that differ from the consensus reference sequence.

FIGURE 8. Maximum Likelihood tree based on ITS2 mini-barcodes (Fig. 7) showing similarity of mini-barcode sequences, relative to species identity. This phylogeny does not recover an accurate tree topology, and evolutionary relationships should not be inferred from this figure.

FIGURE 22. Draculoides gnophicola male (WAM T99563): A. Body, dorsal; B. Body, ventral; C. Body, lateral; D. Flagellum, dorsal; E. Flagellum, ventral; F. Flagellum, lateral. The scale bar shown in image A is 2 mm and also applies to B and C and the scale bar shown in image D is 200 µm and also applies to E and F.

FIGURE 23. Draculoides gnophicola male (WAM T99563):A. Flagellum, dorsal; B. Flagellum, ventral; C. Flagellum, lateral. The scale bar is 0.1 mm and applies to A–C.