From 8a719c892c07a331d41cb7343d17ab93a7a0144b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ggserver Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:33:30 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Add updates up until 2024-10-01 18:27:25 --- .../A7/308DA7ECD1505B72A3E1F9A9BDB4C05C.xml | 1673 +++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1673 insertions(+) create mode 100644 data/30/8D/A7/308DA7ECD1505B72A3E1F9A9BDB4C05C.xml diff --git a/data/30/8D/A7/308DA7ECD1505B72A3E1F9A9BDB4C05C.xml b/data/30/8D/A7/308DA7ECD1505B72A3E1F9A9BDB4C05C.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..448d0031704 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/30/8D/A7/308DA7ECD1505B72A3E1F9A9BDB4C05C.xml @@ -0,0 +1,1673 @@ + + + +Carcinoplax mistio Ng & Mitra, 2019 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Goneplacidae): additional records and genetic differentiation of allied taxa + + + +Author + +Prema, Mani +0000-0003-2694-3034 +Centre of Advanced Study in Marine Biology, Faculty of Marine Sciences, Annamalai University, Parangipettai – 608 502, India & Centre for Marine Living Resources and Ecology, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Kochi – 682508, Kerala, India + + + +Author + +Yang, Chien-Hui +0000-0002-4594-3622 +Institute of Marine Biology and Center of Excellence for the Oceans, National Taiwan Ocean University, 2 Pei-Ning Road, Keelung 202231, Taiwan + + + +Author + +Ravichandran, Samuthirapandian +0000-0002-8632-5062 +Centre of Advanced Study in Marine Biology, Faculty of Marine Sciences, Annamalai University, Parangipettai – 608 502, India & Department of Zoology, Government Arts & Science College, Nagercoil – 629 004, India + + + +Author + +Ng, Peter K. L. +0000-0001-5946-0608 +Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, 2 Conservatory Drive, Singapore 117377, Singapore + +text + + +ZooKeys + + +2024 + +2024-10-01 + + +1214 + + +91 +103 + + + +journal article +10.3897/zookeys.1214.131500 +BDDC6F20-5DD1-4201-B463-4E9A3AAA33FF + + + + + +Carcinoplax mistio +Ng & Mitra, 2019 + + + + + +Figs 1 +, +2 +, +3 + + + + + + +Carcinoplax +(purpurea) + +? – + +Stephensen 1946: 166 + +, 208, fig. 44 (not + +Carcinoplax purpurea +Rathbun, 1914 + +). + + + + + + + +Carcinoplax purpurea + + +– + +Guinot 1967: 276 + +(list); + +Titgen 1982: 252 + +(list) (not + +Carcinoplax purpurea +Rathbun, 1914 + +). + + + + + + +Carcinoplax sinica + + +– + +Guinot 1989: 285 + +, fig. 14 A, B, pl. 5 figs A, B, B 1, C, C 1, D, E, E 1; + +Apel 2001: 101 + +; + +Naderloo and Sari 2007: 449 + +; + +Naderloo 2017: 69 + +, text-fig. 11.2 d, e, fig. 12.1 (not + +Carcinoplax sinica +Chen, 1984 + +) [= + +Carcinoplax haswelli +Miers, 1884 + +)]. + + + + + + + +Carcinoplax mistio +Ng & Mitra, 2019 + + +: e 2019004, figs 1, 2, 6 A, 7 A, G, H, 8 A – G, 9 A, B. + + + + + + +Carcinoplax haswelli + +– +Sureandiran et al. 2024 + +: figs 2–7 (not + +Carcinoplax haswelli +Miers, 1884 + +). + + + + + +Material examined. + + + + + +Holotype + +. + +India +• +♂ +(29.2 × 19.0 +mm +); +northern Bay of Bengal +, +Fresargunj Fishing Harbour +; + +24 Feb. 2017 + +; +coll +. local fishermen by trawl; + +ZSIK +C 7123/2 + + +. + + +Paratypes +. + +India +• +1 ♀ +(36.4 × + +24.2 +mm + +); same collection data as for holotype; + +ZSIK +C 7124/2 + + +• + +1 ♀ +(36.7 × + +27.5 +mm + +); +northern Bay of Bengal +, +Fresargunj Fishing Harbour +; + +28 Jul. 2018 + +; + +ZSIK + + +. + + + + +Other material. + + + +India +• +4 ♂♂ +(35.1 × 30.0 +mm +, 29.2 × + +22.3 +mm + +, 25.1 × + +18.2 +mm + +, 23.2 × + +29.2 +mm + +), +5 ♀♀ +(37.1 × 31.0 +mm +, 36.2 × + +30.1 +mm + +, 32.1 × + +25.2 +mm + +, 31.0 × + +25.2 +mm + +, 26.1 × 24.0 +mm +); +southern Bay of Bengal +, eastern +Tamil Nadu +, +Pazhayar Fishing Port +; 11 ° 21 ' N, 79 ° 50 ' E; depth + +50–100 m + +; 2016–2020; +coll +. +M. Prema +& +S. Ravichandran +; + +CASAU +CR-1031 + + +• + +1 ♂ +(29.7 × + +19.6 +mm + +), +1 ♀ +(43.2 × + +29.2 +mm + +); same collection data as for preceding; 2016–2020; + +CASAU +CR-1032 + + +• + +2 ♂♂ +(37.6 × + +25.8 +mm + +, 32.0 × + +21.3 +mm + +), +7 ♀♀ +(37.9 × + +24.5 +mm + +, 37.0 × + +25.1 +mm + +, 34.0 × + +22.9 +mm + +, 32.3 × + +21.6 +mm + +, 31.2 × + +21.1 +mm + +, 29.5 × + +19.6 +mm + +, 27.6 × + +25.6 +mm + +,); same collection data as for preceding; + +18 Mar. 2018 + +; + +CASAU +CR-1033 + + +• + +1 ♂ +(26.4 × 18.0 +mm +), + +1 +juv +. + +♀ +(19.7 × + +13.4 +mm + +); same collection data as for preceding; + +Mar. 2018 + +; + +CASAU +CR-1034 + + +• + +4 ♂♂ +(36.0 × + +23.8 +mm + +, 33.0 × + +22.7 +mm + +, 32.5 × + +22.2 +mm + +, 31.5 × + +21.4 +mm + +), 1 +ovig +. +♀ +(39.0 × + +26.6 +mm + +), +1 ♀ +(36.1 × + +23.4 +mm + +); same collection data as for preceding; 2020–2021; + +CASAU +CR-1035 + + +• + +3 ♂♂ +(29.2 × + +20.8 +mm + +, 29.2 × + +20.5 +mm + +, 27.6 × + +19.4 +mm + +); same collection data as for preceding; + +12 Jan. 2022 + +; + +CASAU +CR-1036 + + +• + +1 ♂ +(33. × + +23.4 +mm + +); same collection data as for preceding; + +CASAU +CR-1037 + + +• + +2 ♀♀ +(37.3 × + +24.6 +mm + +, 35.9 × + +23.7 +mm + +); same collection data as for preceding; + +26 Mar. 2023 + +; + +CASAU +CR-1038 + + +• + +2 ♂♂ +(26.2 × + +18.1 +mm + +, 24.8 × + +16.4 +mm + +), +2 ♀♀ +(32.2 × 22.0 +mm +, 29.5 × + +19.4 +mm + +); same collection data as for preceding; + +11 Feb. 2024 + +; + +CASAU +CR-1039 + + +• + +7 ♀♀ +(37.9 × 26.0 +mm +, 36.2 × + +24.3 +mm + +, 34.7 × + +22.5 +mm + +, 33.5 × 24.0 +mm +, 30.5 × + +20.5 +mm + +, 29.2 × + +20.1 +mm + +, 25.1 × + +17.1 +mm + +); same collection data as for preceding; + +11 Feb. 2024 + +; + +CASAU +CR-1040 + + +. + + + + +Diagnosis. + + +Modified from +Ng and Mitra (2019) +. Carapace broad, dorsal surface gently convex; antero-lateral surfaces generally with small, rounded, densely packed granules, sometimes appearing almost smooth; post-orbital region with small, rounded granules; second anterolateral teeth relatively short in larger specimens, slightly sharp in smaller specimens; gastro-cardiac groove shallow but visible (Figs +1 +, +2 A, B +, +3 A +). Chelipeds unequal, male carpal spine more rounded, that on female more elongate (Figs +1 +, +2 G – I, J – L +, +3 B – D +). Ambulatory legs long, slender; articles laterally flattened, smooth; margins lined with setae (Fig. +1 +). +G 1 +relatively slender, laterally flattened, tip elongate, tapering, lined with numerous short spines (Fig. +3 G – K +). +G 2 +longer than +G 1 +, distal segment long, curved, tip weakly bifurcated ( +Ng and Mitra 2019 +: fig. 8 D). + + + + + + +Colour in life and overall dorsal view of + +Carcinoplax mistio +Ng & Mitra, 2019 + +A +male (33.3 × 23.4 +mm +) ( + +CASAU +CR-1037 + +) +B +male (29.2 × 20.5 +mm +) ( + +CASAU +CR-1036 + +) +C +female (33.5 × 24.0 +mm +) ( + +CASAU +CR-1040 + +). Scale bars: 1.0 cm ( +A – C +). + + + + + + + + +Carcinoplax mistio +Ng & Mitra, 2019 + +A, C, D, E – I +male (33.3 × 23.4 +mm +) ( + +CASAU +CR-1037 + +) +B, J – L +male (24.8 × 16.4 +mm +) ( + +CASAU +CR-1039 + +) +A, B +dorsal view of carapace +C +frontal view of cephalothorax +D +third maxillipeds +E +thoracic sternites 3–6, pleonal somites and telson +E +pleonal somites and telson +G – L +dorsal and outer views of chelae. Scale bars: 5.0 +mm +( +A – L +). + + + + + + + + +Carcinoplax mistio +Ng & Mitra, 2019 + +A – F +female (33.5 × 24.0 +mm +) ( + +CASAU +CR-1040 + +); +G – J +male (33.3 × 23.4 +mm +) ( + +CASAU +CR-1037 + +) +K +male (25.1 × 18.2 +mm +); +A +dorsal view of carapace +B – D +dorsal and outer views of chelae +E +pleon and telson +F +thoracic sternites with position of vulvae +G +dorsal view of left +G 1 +H +dorso-lateral view of left +G 1 +I +ventral view of left +G 1 +J +ventro-lateral view of left +G 1 +K +lateral view of left +G 1 +. Scale bars: 5.0 +mm +( +A – F +); 1.0 +mm +( +G – K +). + + + + + +Habitat. + + +The present specimens of + +C. mistio + +were collected from +50–100 m +depth, off the coastal waters of +Tamil Nadu state +, Bay of Bengal, +India +. The +three type +specimens were obtained from +West Bengal +, also from a fishing port but without depth data ( +Ng and Mitra 2019 +). + + + + +Coloration in life. + + +Carapace orange, cheliped fingers and upper surface of ambulatory legs white (Fig. +1 A – C +), merus of ambulatory leg generally orange (Fig. +1 +), and sternopleonal surfaces pale white. + + + + +Distribution. + + +Northern Indian Ocean: Bay of Bengal ( +West Bengal +and off +Tamil Nadu +coast, +India +; +Ng and Mitra 2019 +; present study); north-western Arabian Sea ( +Gujarat +, +India +; +Sureandiran et al. 2024 +); and Persian Gulf ( +Guinot 1989 +; +Naderloo 2017 +). + + + + +Remarks. + + +The present specimens of + +C. mistio + +agree well with the type account ( +Ng and Mitra 2019 +). The large series of specimens, however, allowed us to document size-related morphological variation. The largest specimens of + +C. mistio + +collected in this study have a carapace width of + +37.6 +mm + +(male, + + +CASAU + +CR-1033 + +) and + +43.2 +mm + +(female, + + +CASAU + +CR-1032 + +), respectively; both are larger than the type specimens and are the largest known specimens of the species. + + +In the types as well as in the smaller males (e. g., 26.4 × 18.0 +mm +, + + +CASAU + +CR-1034 + +; 24.8 × + +16.4 +mm + +, + + +CASAU + +CR-1039 + +) and most of the larger specimens of the present collection, the second anterolateral tooth of the carapace is prominent, being sharp and curved (Figs +1 B +, +2 B +). In the largest males (e. g., 35.1 × 30.0 +mm +, + + +CASAU + +CR-1031 + +; 33.3 × + +23.4 +mm + +, + + +CASAU + +CR-1037 + +), this tooth is relatively lower (Figs +1 A +, +2 A +) and comparable to the condition in + +C. purpurea + +. In + +C. purpurea + +, however, the second anterolateral tooth is even lower and more like a rounded tubercle (cf. +Ng and Mitra 2019 +: fig. 6 C, D). As such, the form of the second anterolateral tooth is not a reliable diagnostic character for + +C. mistio + +at all body sizes, being sometimes size dependent, though it is usually sharp and longer. The cheliped of the largest males is elongate, with the merus and fingers extremely long (Fig. +1 A, B +, +2 G – I +), a condition like that of + +C. longimanus + +(see +Guinot 1989 +). In the smaller +holotype +male of + +C. mistio + +as well as in smaller males, the chelipeds are relatively shorter (Fig. +2 J – L +). Sexual dimorphism is apparent as all females have relatively shorter cheliped fingers (Figs +1 C +, +3 B – D +). + + +The cheliped carpal spine of male + +C. mistio + +specimens examined, including the +holotype +male, is relatively more rounded and relatively shorter (Figs +1 A, B +, +2 G, H, J, L +) (versus the cheliped carpal spine being relatively less rounded, more elongate and curved in most of the females; Figs +1 C +, +3 B, D +). In the +holotype +male of + +C. mistio + +, the carpal spine is relatively short and rounded ( +Ng and Mitra 2019 +: fig. 1 A, F) and as such, its length is a sexually dimorphic character ( +Ng and Mitra 2019 +: fig. 2 A, D, F) that is not size dependent. This is similar to the condition of the cheliped carpal spine that was reported for + +C. haswelli + +(as + +C. sinica + +, cf. +Ng and Mitra 2019 +: fig. 4 E). + + +The lateral margins of pleonal somite 6 of large males is gently convex, gradually converging towards the telson, which is similar to that of the +holotype +of + +C. mistio + +(Fig. +2 E, F +; see +Ng and Mitra 2019 +: fig. 7 A). In the large male of + +C. mistio + +(33.3 × + +23.4 +mm + +, + + +CASAU + +CR-1037 + +), pleonal somite 6 is proportionately broader, width-to-length ratios 2.1 (versus pleonal somite 6 width-to-length ratios in two smaller males (26.2 × + +18.1 +mm + +, 24.8 × + +16.4 +mm + +, + + +CASAU + +CR-1040 + +) being 1.96 and 1.98, respectively). The pleon of large females in the present collection is similar to that reported for the +paratype + +C. mistio + +(36.4 × + +24.2 +mm + +, + + +ZSIK + +C 7124 / 2 + +) (cf. +Ng and Mitra 2019 +: fig. 9 A), but in a smaller specimen (26.1 × 24.0 +mm +, + + +CASAU + +CR-1031 + +), the pleon is relatively wider than in the +paratype +. Among the +28 female +specimens studied, only one was ovigerous (39.0 × + +26.6 +mm + +, + + +CASAU + +CR-1035 + +). In juvenile females (e. g., 19.7 × + +13.4 +mm + +, + + +CASAU + +CR-1034 + +), the pleon is not expanded, lacking setae on pleopods, and the operculum of the vulva is poorly developed. + + +The proportions of the male telson vary regardless of size with the width-to-length ratios of +three males +(33.3 × + +23.4 +mm + +, + + +CASAU + +CR-1037 + +; 26.2 × + +18.1 +mm + +, 24.8 × + +16.4 +mm + +, + + +CASAU + +CR-1040 + +) are 0.76, 0.88 and 0.67, respectively. Overall, the male telson is slightly broader with the lateral margins being more concave (Fig. +2 E, F +) than in + +C. haswelli + +(cf. +Ng and Mitra 2019 +: fig. 7 D – F). + + +The mesial margin of the distal two-thirds of the +G 1 +is gently concave in large specimens of + +C. mistio + +(Fig. +3 G +) and almost straight in smaller ones (Fig. +3 I +), but the tip is always elongate and tapering (Fig. +3 G – J +). +Ng and Mitra (2019) +observed that the G 1 s of the +holotype +(29.2 × 19.0 +mm +, + + +ZSIK + +C 7123 / 2 + +) were distally damaged. +Sureandiran et al. (2024) +reported “ + +Carcinoplax haswelli + +” based on +one male +specimen from +Gujarat +in western +India +, but all their figures of the +G 1 +and the carapace (see +Sureandiran et al. 2024 +: figs 2–7), actually correspond to + +C. mistio + +. + + +The genetic comparisons for seven species of + +Carcinoplax + +, including + +C. mistio + +, are interesting (Fig. +4 +). The intraspecific divergences of COI (657 bp) and 16 S rRNA (552 bp) genes for four morphologically distinct species of + +Carcinoplax + +are less than 1.5 %: + +C. haswelli + +(COI 0.2 %), + +C. mistio + +(COI 0 %, 16 +S 0.2 +%), + +C. purpurea + +(COI 0.5–1.1 %, 16 S 0 %), and + +C. longimanus + +(COI 0.2–0.8 %, 16 +S 0.0 +–0.4 %) (Table +2 +). As for the interspecific divergences of the three species under study here (Table +2 +), that between + +C. haswelli + +and + +C. mistio + +is high (COI 10.3–10.5 %, 16 +S 3.5 +–3.7 %), as is that between + +C. haswelli + +and + +C. purpurea + +(COI 9.9–10.5 %, 16 +S 3.5 +%) (Table +2 +, Fig. +4 +), corroborating their status as separate species. The genetic divergence between + +C. mistio + +and + +C. purpurea + +, however, was unexpectedly low (COI 0.3–0.8 %, 16 +S 0.0 +–0.2 %) and within the range normally considered for conspecificity (Fig. +4 +) when compared with the other four species of + +Carcinoplax + +(COI 12.4–21.1 %, 16 +S 6.5 +–12.1 %) (Table +2 +, Fig. +4 +). The morphological differences between + +C. mistio + +and + +C. purpurea + +, however, are substantial. In + +C. mistio + +, the carapace is proportionally wider, appearing more rectangular in shape with the posterolateral margins distinctly converging posteriorly (Figs +1 A – C +, +2 A, B +, +3 A +; see +Ng and Mitra 2019 +: figs 1 A, 2 A, 6 A, B) (versus carapace more quadrate with the posterolateral margins subparallel in + +C. purpurea + +; see +Ng and Mitra 2019 +: figs 3 A, 6 C, D); the second (last) anterolateral tooth is usually sharp and curved (Figs +1 B, C +, +2 B +, +3 A +) (versus low and rounded in + +C. purpurea + +; see +Ng and Mitra 2019 +: figs 3 A, 6 C, D); and the ambulatory legs are long and slender (Fig. +1 A – C +; see +Ng and Mitra 2019 +: figs 1 A, 2 A, 7 G, H) (versus distinctly shorter and stouter in + +C. purpurea + +; see +Ng and Mitra 2019 +: figs 3 A, 7 I, J). Noteworthy is that the G 1 s of + +C. mistio + +and + +C. purpurea + +are similar (Fig. +3 G – J +; see +Ng and Mitra 2019 +: fig. 8 E, F, H, I). The characters of the +G 1 +are more conservative in goneplacid evolution than carapace and pereopod differences, which are more plastic. Significant morphological differentiation but with low genetic variation has previously been reported in + +Armases angustipes +(Dana, 1852) + +( + +Sesarmidae, +Marochi et al. 2017 + +), + +Carcinus maenas +(Linnaeus, 1758) + +( + +Carcinidae, +Silva et al. 2010 + +), and + +Pachygrapsus marmoratus +(Fabricius, 1787) + +( +Grapsidae +, + +Deli +et al. 2015 + +). There are many possible explanations for this observed discordance, ranging from incomplete lineage sorting to retention of ancestral genotypes, etc. (see +Meier et al. 2006 +; +Tang et al. 2012 +; +Nabholz 2023 +). + + + + + + +Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree for seven species of + +Carcinoplax + +based on the mitochondrial COI + 16 S rRNA genes dataset. + +Goneplax rhomboides +(Linnaeus, 1758) + +was chosen as outgroup. Bootstrap value is represented above the branches. Values <50 are not shown. + + + + + + + +Pairwise distance based on Kimura- 2 - parameter ( +K 2 P +) model of partial mitochondrial COI (within and under the diagonal) and 16 S rDNA (value in the brackets and above the diagonal) sequences among + +Carcinoplax +species. + + +Goneplax rhomboides +(Linnaeus, 1758) + +was treated as an outgroup. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
- +Carcinoplax haswelli + +C. ischurodous + +C. longimanus + +C. mistio + +C. nana + +C. purpurea + +C. tomentosa + +Goneplax rhomboides +
+Carcinoplax haswelli +0.0020.1020.098–0.1010.035–0.0370.1050.0350.1340.128
+ +C. ischurodous + +0.199–0.202-0.078–0.0830.095–0.0970.0800.0950.0930.071
+ +C. longimanus + +0.172–0.1780.176–0.1780.002–0.008 [0.0–0.004]0.082–0.0880.078–0.0840.082–0.0860.084–0.0870.113
+ +C. mistio + +0.103–0.1050.1900.159–0.1640.0 [0.002]0.093–0.0950.0–0.0020.118–0.1210.113–0.116
+ +C. nana + +0.165 – 0.1670.1540.124–0.1270.179-0.0930.0650.105
+ +C. purpurea + +0.099–0.1050.192–0.1950.159–0.1690.003–0.0080.181–0.1840.005–0.011 [0.0]0.1180.113
+ +C. tomentosa + +0.173–0.1750.2090.203–0.2110.2030.1600.200–0.203-0.105
+ +Goneplax rhomboides + +0.187–0.1890.1220.204–0.2050.1980.1720.195–0.2030.219-
+ + +A detailed molecular study of + +Carcinoplax + +will be necessary to appreciate the evolution of the various morphological characters in the genus as currently defined (sensu +Castro 2007 +). + +Carcinoplax + +currently contains 26 species, all from the Indo-West Pacific, with many species morphologically similar and often occurring sympatrically, although several species span both oceans (see +Castro 2007 +, +2009 +; +Ng and Castro 2020 +). As the present study indicates, genetic and morphological incongruence may be more common in + +Carcinoplax + +than expected, and wide-ranging taxa may well prove to be species-complexes (see +Ng and Castro 2020 +). Currently, + +C. mistio + +is known from the northern Indian Ocean, ranging from the Bay of Bengal to the Persian Gulf. + +Carcinoplax purpurea + +is only known for certain from the western Pacific ( +Castro 2007 +). There is also a record of + +C. purpurea + +from +Madagascar +by +Castro (2007: 639) +, but it was based on a badly preserved male specimen, and it more likely belongs to either + +C. monodi +Guinot, 1989 + +, or + +C. haswelli + +. + +Carcinoplax haswelli + +, however, occurs in the western Pacific, Southeast Asia and eastern Indian Ocean (north-western +Australia +) ( +Ng et al. 2022 +). + + + + \ No newline at end of file