Sarcotaces antimori, Piasecki & Boxshall, 2024
|
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/aiep.54.108526 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:3C00B024-0DA1-4226-B07F-E04D0E97652B |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/1ACD2032-14ED-42C8-AC32-1E111FD318D8 |
|
taxon LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:act:1ACD2032-14ED-42C8-AC32-1E111FD318D8 |
|
treatment provided by |
|
|
scientific name |
Sarcotaces antimori |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Sarcotaces antimori sp. nov.
Figs 1 View Figure 1 , 2 View Figure 2 , 3 View Figure 3
Locality.
Goban Spur, northwestern Atlantic (49°49.9′N, 012°10.8′W)
Host fish.
blue antimora, Antimora rostrata ( Günther, 1878)
Infection site.
lateral musculature (flank)
Type material.
NHMUK 2022.198 holotype (male) and NHMUK 2022.199 allotype (female)
Description of female.
Body highly metamorphosed, semi-pyriform/semi-quadrangular with deep transverse furrows marking apparent segmentation, and without visible appendages. Surface of cephalosome and thoracic somites covered by papilliform protrusions. Deep transverse furrows without papilliform protrusions (Fig. 1A View Figure 1 , 1B View Figure 1 ). Abdominal somites without papilliform protrusions covering surface. Total length reaching 15.1 mm; total width 8.1 mm (Table 2 View Table 2 ). Body consisting of two parts equal in length. Anterior part semi-cylindrical, blunt, with frontal margin constituting straight line perpendicular to body axis; posterior part slightly wider, semi-conical (tapering posteriorly). Anterior part divided into 5 tightly packed (short) divisions covered with papilliform protrusions and separated by surface furrows. Apparent “segmentation” on dorsal surface not consistently matching furrows on ventral surface. Posterior part of body with two prominent, well-defined somites, diminishing in diameter, and conical abdominal part comprising three somites (abd II-abd IV) tapering stepwise towards conical tip. Surface of posterior part with few papilliform protrusions on dorsal side (Figs 1B View Figure 1 , 2A View Figure 2 ). Oral lobe located anteriorly on ventral surface, doughnut-shaped, densely covered with papillae around perimeter. Two larger processes present on body surface immediately posterior to oral lobe (Figs 1A View Figure 1 , 2B View Figure 2 ).
Description of male.
Body (Fig. 3A View Figure 3 ) markedly smaller than that of female, and substantially different in structure; strongly elongate, subcylindrical, unsegmented, with smooth surface. Body consisting of two parts: anterior cephalothorax (20% of body length) and posterior “trunk” (80%). Semi-triangular cephalothorax with three very pronounced lateral indentations marking traces of body segmentation and defining cephalosome from first and second pedigerous somites, the latter bearing prominent posterolateral lobes. Cephalosome with rounded frontal margin produced anteromedially, lateral margins slightly convex; bearing four pairs of appendages. Post-cephalothoracic “trunk” cylindrical and legless, elongate with discrete traces of segmentation; becoming distinctly wider posteriorly and with prominent caudal rami on posterolateral corners. Total body length of male 2.07 mm, excluding caudal rami, and 2.90 mm with symmetrical caudal rami; caudal ramus length 0.83 mm (Table 2 View Table 2 ). Maximum cephalothorax width 0.61 mm. Trunk width ranging from 0.21 to 0.54 mm. Caudal rami constituting 28.6% of total length and 40.1% of body length. Cephalothoracic appendages well developed and consisting of antennulae, antennae, mandibles, maxillae, and 2 pairs of legs. Antennule (Fig. 3B View Figure 3 ) four-segmented with segments diminishing in length and diameter towards tip: first segment longest lacking setation; second segment slightly shorter with single seta posteriorly; third segment slightly longer than wide with one seta anteriorly and one long seta posteriorly; fourth segment short with three long setae posteriorly and three long setae terminally. Antenna (Fig. 3C View Figure 3 ) indistinctly three-segmented comprising coxobasis plus two-segmented endopod; endopodal segments each bearing single large terminal claw. Mandible (Fig. 3D View Figure 3 ) large, subchelate, wide at base; tapering towards powerful distal claw. Maxillulae not observed. Maxillae (Fig. 3E View Figure 3 ) small, uniramous, with triangular base bearing conical terminal segment armed with small seta at base. Maxillipeds absent. First legs (Fig. 3F View Figure 3 ) biramous with semi-quadrangular two-segmented protopod: exopod one-segmented and armed with four stout claws; endopod one-segmented with two stout claws. Elaborate, Y-shaped interpodal sclerite present on ventral body surface between first thoracopods. Second legs (Fig. 3G View Figure 3 ) similar to first: exopod with three stout claws (with single seta at base laterally); endopod with three stout claws. Interpodal sclerite almost completely reduced. Caudal rami very long, thick powerful gently tapering towards distal tip (Fig. 3A View Figure 3 ), armed with single minute setule near base.
Remarks.
The female of Sarcotaces antimori sp. nov. differs from that of all known species by possessing very dense coverage over the surface of the cephalosome and thoracic somites with relatively large papilliform protrusions. Another distinct feature of this species is that the surface of the oral lobe is regularly and densely covered with large papilliform protrusions, similar to those covering the rest of the body. This feature distinguishes Sarcotaces antimori sp. nov. from its congeners
The male of Sarcotaces antimori sp. nov. differs from that of all known species by the deep indentations in the lateral margins of the cephalothorax. Another distinct character is the shape of the trunk which widens substantially posteriorly. In addition, the antennule has a unique setal formula (0, 1, 2, 6) and the first legs lack the outer protopodal seta at the base of the exopod (Table 2 View Table 2 ).
Etymology.
The specific name Sarcotaces antimori is an adjective derived from the name of the host genus.
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.