Grania cryptica, Prantoni & Wit & Erséus, 2016

Prantoni, Alessandro Lívio, Wit, Pierre De & Erséus, Christer, 2016, First reports of Grania (Clitellata: Enchytraeidae) from Africa and South America: molecular phylogeny and descriptions of nine new species, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 176 (3), pp. 485-510 : 492-493

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.1111/zoj.12333
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7526465
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/7B5287F0-DE43-E46A-E09B-3ACB043ECD9A
treatment provided by	Carolina
scientific name	Grania cryptica
status	sp. nov.

Treatment

GRANIA CRYPTICA View in CoL View at ENA SP. NOV.

FIGURE 3 View Figure 3

Holotype

SAMC A82473, CE14031 View Materials , whole-mounted, sexually mature specimen, with 11 midbody segments amputated, from Glencairn Heights , False Bay , City of Cape Town, Province of the Western Cape, South Africa, 34°09′29″S, 18°26′01″E, lower intertidal rocky pool, 15 December 2011. Collected by N. Bekkouche, 15 December 2011. COI barcode sequence, GenBank acc. No. KT428109 View Materials ; for other sequence data, see Table 1 View Table 1 . GoogleMaps

Etymology

Named cryptica because it is morphologically ‘hidden’ (cryptic) vis-à-vis G. bekkouchei sp. nov.

Description

Body> 11.6 mm long, 64 segments (including 11 segments used for DNA analysis), 0.17 mm wide at segment III, and 0.18 mm wide at segment XII. Prostomium rounded, 72 μm long, 62 μm wide, epidermis 15 μm thick, reduced to 10 μm at front tip. Ventral chaetae from segment IV, lateral chaetae in preclitellar segments in segments VI–IX; in postclitellar segments from segment XVIII. Chaetae ( Fig. 3A View Figure 3 ) 66– 75 μm long, shaft straight, 5–6 μm thick at midpoint, entally hook-shaped. Free chaetae (partly resorbed?) scattered in the coelomic cavity, present in both preclitellar and postclitellar segments. Epidermal gland cells inconspicuous. Clitellum 10 μm thick, extending from segment XII to middle of segment XIII, formed by more or less regular transverse rows of granular cells, absent between male pores, hyaline cells not observed. Spermathecal pores in lateral lines, located at short distance from 4/5. Male pores ventrolateral in mid segment XII. Female pores not observed.

Brain posteriorly indented. Head organ (sensu Rota & Erséus, 1996) absent. Pharyngeal glands in segments IV–VI; dorsal lobes present in segment IV (one pair), in segment V (one pair), and in segment VI (one pair), ventral lobes present in segment IV (one pair), in segment V (two pairs), and in segment VI (two pairs); glands not connected dorsally. Nephridia not observed. Chloragogen cells inconspicuous. Dorsal blood vessel commencing in segment XVIII. Coelomocytes not observed. Sperm sac reaching segment XVII. Egg sac not developed. Sperm funnels about 2.5 times longer than wide ( Fig. 3D View Figure 3 ). Vasa deferentia 10 μm wide, internally ciliated, coiled, extending into segments XII– XVI. Penial apparatus type 1 (sensu Coates, 1984), with round bulb, 88 μm long, 88 μm wide; bulb glandular, surrounding a simple invaginated male pore; stylet absent ( Fig. 3C View Figure 3 ). Midventral copulatory gland (in segment XIV) present. Spermathecae communicating with oesophagus at posterior end of segment V. Ectal duct of spermatheca 94 μm long, 40 μm wide, muscular, curved, and slightly narrowing at distal end, devoid of glands at pore. Spermathecal ampulla 77 μm long, 80 μm wide, dome-shaped with granular walls, enclosing sperm rings, each maximally 16 μm wide ( Fig. 3B View Figure 3 ).

Remarks

The only distinguishing morphological feature observed between G. cryptica sp. nov. and G. bekkouchei sp. nov. is the shape of the chaetae. The latter has L-shaped chaetae with a broad instep ( Fig. 4A, B, C View Figure 4 ), whereas in G. cryptica sp. nov. the chaetae are hook-shaped ( Fig. 4D, E, F View Figure 4 ). The shape of the spermatheca is virtually identical in G. bekkouchei sp. nov. and G. cryptica sp. nov., with a possible difference, suggested by the single specimen of G. cryptica sp. nov., that the ectal duct gently narrows to its junction with the ampulla in the latter species. This, however, may be an artifact from slide mounting.

Although G. bekkouchei sp. nov. and G. cryptica sp. nov. are difficult to distinguish morphologically, they genetically differ from each other in all loci investigat- ed, clearly indicating that they are separately evolving lineages. This, in combination with their sympatric distribution, strongly supports them to be two different species.