Zancleopsis dichotoma ( Mayer, 1900 )
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.35929/RSZ.0049 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:8382D1CA-7C0E-4B1C-9591-4CEAA2F296FB |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5710598 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D0118A7C-5B28-0031-FF3A-F971FA427FB9 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Zancleopsis dichotoma ( Mayer, 1900 ) |
status |
|
Zancleopsis dichotoma ( Mayer, 1900) View in CoL View at ENA
Figs 22 View Fig A-F, 23A-F
Gemmaria dichotoma Mayer, 1900: 35 , pl. 17 fig. 40.
Zancleopsis dichotoma View in CoL . – Hartlaub, 1907: 115, fig. 105. – Mayer, 1910: 91, pl. 8 fig. 1. – Bigelow, 1938: 102, figs 1-2. – Kramp, 1959a: 95, fig. 53. – Kramp, 1961: 56. – Kramp, 1965: 25, correction of Kramp, 1959a. – Kramp, 1968: 39. – Bouillon, 1978b: 290. – Bouillon, 1985: Table 1 View Table 1. 16 .
Cnidotiara gotoi View in CoL . – Kramp, 1959a: 12, pl. 1 figs 7-8. [misidentification, not Zancleopsis gotoi ( Uchida, 1927) View in CoL ]
? Zancleopsis dichotoma View in CoL . – Xu et al., 2014: 363, fig. 228, juvenile specimen.
Examined material
Small form: BFLA4170 ; 1 specimen; 09-AUG-2019; size 3 mm; preserved in alcohol for DNA extraction; 16S sequence MW528683 View Materials . – BFLA4171 ; 1 specimen; 09- AUG-2019; size 3 mm; preserved in alcohol for DNA extraction; 16S sequence MW528684 View Materials . – BFLA4248 ; 1 specimen; 23-NOV-2019; size 2 mm; preserved in alcohol for DNA extraction; 16S sequence MW528692 View Materials . – 13-AUG- 2019, 3 mm, 1 specimen photographed, not collected. – 16-OCT-2019, no size estimate, 1 specimen photographed, not collected.
Large form: BFLA4408 ; 1 specimen; 26-MAY-2020; height 15 mm, 5 mm wide, male; preserved in alcohol for DNA extraction; 16S sequence MW528723 View Materials . – BFLA4436 ; 1 specimen; 07-JUN-2020; height 12 mm, female; preserved in formalin and deposited as UF- 014054 . – BFLA4467 ; 1 specimen; 17-JUN-2020; height 15 mm, 5 mm wide, female; preserved in formalin and deposited as UF-014072 , part of broken tentacle preserved in alcohol for DNA extraction; 16S sequence MW528732 View Materials . – 11-APR-2019; 1 specimen photographed; size 10-15 mm, with male gonads; not collected.
Observations
Small form ( Fig. 22 View Fig ): Total bell height up to 3 mm, 1/4 to 1/3 of the height taken by pointed apical process; umbrella bell-shaped to conical, relatively thick walls, with shallow interradial subumbrellar pockets, tip of apical process green ( Fig. 22A, E View Fig ). Manubrium height about half the subumbrellar height when gonads start to develop, pear-shaped, short tubular oral part, mouth rim with four perradial white regions, upper part of manubrium (stomach) ochre coloured, with about 10 longitudinal, shallow gonad folds, folds mostly adradial, irregular. Radial canals not forming mesenteries, smooth. Tentacle bulbs all equally developed, almost spherical, placed adaxial of origin of tentacles, white or faintly yellow. Two long, opposite tentacles, much extendable/ contractible, with up to 25 short, abaxial, side branches ending in nematocyst knobs, size of knobs gradually increasing towards distal ( Fig. 22F View Fig ). The other tentacle pair very short, ending in spherical nematocyst knob. In youngest animals observed these short tentacles either missing or just beginning to develop ( Fig. 22E View Fig ). All tentacle bases with a red ocellus on abaxial side.
Nematocysts (alcohol preserved tissue, BFLA4171): larger stenoteles [(24-26)x(22-23) µm], smaller stenoteles [(18+21)x(14-17) µm], desmonemes [8.5x5 µm], and macrobasic euryteles [(15-16)x(6-7) µm].
Large form ( Fig. 23 View Fig ): Much larger than small form, height 8 to 15 mm and 5 mm diameter, apical process larger reaching 1/2 of total height, tip of apical process whitish, gonads always present, more and larger vertical gonad folds, approximately up to 15, 2-3 folds adradial, brownish, oocytes yellow ( Fig. 23A View Fig ), tentacle bulbs with intense yellow colour, shorter tentacle pair longer than in small form, sometimes terminal knob missing ( Fig. 23B View Fig ).
16S Data: The haplotypes of the small form differed in 0.5-0.8% of the base pairs, in the large form 0.3%. The maximal divergence observed between the two forms was 6.2% base pair difference.
The maximum likelihood analysis ( Fig. 21 View Fig ) identified Astrocoryne cabela Maggioni et al., 2017 polyps from the Red Sea and the Maldives Islands as relatively closely related, if not conspecific.
Distribution: Florida, Bermuda Islands, mid North Atlantic, Brazil ( Kramp, 1959a; Navas-Pereira, 1980). Type locality: USA, Florida, Dry Tortugas archipelago. The record for the China Sea ( Xu et al., 2014) is based on a juvenile, indeterminable animal.
Remarks: This is a rare species of which only a few specimens have been reported. Our samples separated into two size categories which also had slight morphological differences, but explainable by different developmental stages being present. The smaller (bell size up to 3 mm) corresponded more to Mayer’s (1910) description, while the larger ones corresponds to Bigelow’s (1938) specimen. The only difference to Bigelow’s material was the length of the tentacles and the presence of terminal knobs in the shorter pair of tentacles. However, this is easily explained by damage during the collecting process of Bigelow’s material. Also Kramp (1965: 25) observed that the distal parts of the tentacles are often lost in net material. In one of our specimens, one knob was also missing ( Fig. 23B View Fig ). Mayer (1900) described Gemmaria dichotoma based on several, but apparently all immature medusa of 3 mm bell height. He characterised them as having only a single pair of branched tentacles. This is certainly attributable to the rather young stages he had. Also in some of our younger stages the short tentacles were either just developing or absent ( Fig. 22E View Fig ).
Were it not for the 16S results, we would have attributed without hesitation the two forms to two different developmental stages of the same species. The 16S barcode sequences separated the large and small forms into two distinct lineages ( Fig. 22 View Fig ) which differed maximally in 6.2% of their aligned bases. We have no reference values of what constitutes intraspecific variation for this family, but the value is quite high compared to other species (comp. Table 1 View Table 1. 16 ).
Due to the absence of any other diagnostic feature, we preferred for the moment to regard these two forms as belonging to the same species and representing younger and older stages. Many hydromedusae are known to continue their growth even when their gonads get mature. Note also that both forms were found at different times of the year (August to October versus April to June). If the two forms belong to the same species, then the differences in the 16S sequences deserves nevertheless some thoughts, beyond the possibility that they are simply stochastic variations observed in the small number of specimens. It can be argued that the larger forms are certainly also older and have thus spent more time in the current of the Gulfstream. This would then imply that the two forms come from quite different localities, the different 16S haplotypes might therefore come from separate populations.
Kramp (1968: 39) suspected that Z. dichotoma and Z. tentaculata are conspecific [for descriptions of Z. tentaculata see Kramp (1965, 1968) and Bouillon (1978b)]. Bouillon (1978b; 1985) kept them distinct, but he also had some doubts about the suitability of the distinguishing traits. Some of them are linked to the developmental stage (size and shape of bell, position and shape of the gonads, length and form of tentacles), others are clearly due to damages and losses during the collecting process (tentacle lengths and terminal knobs).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Zancleopsis dichotoma ( Mayer, 1900 )
Schuchert, Peter & Collins, Richard 2021 |
Zancleopsis dichotoma
Xu Z. Z. & Huang J. Q. & Lin M. & Guo D. H. & Wang C. G. 2014: 363 |
Cnidotiara gotoi
Kramp P. L. 1959: 12 |
Zancleopsis dichotoma
Bouillon J. 1985: 272 |
Bouillon J. 1978: 290 |
Kramp P. L. 1968: 39 |
Kramp P. L. 1965: 25 |
Kramp P. L. 1961: 56 |
Kramp P. L. 1959: 95 |
Kramp P. L. 1959: 272 |
Bigelow H. B. 1938: 102 |
Mayer A. G. 1910: 91 |
Hartlaub C. 1907: 115 |
Gemmaria dichotoma
Mayer A. G. 1900: 35 |