Neogosseidae (Gastrotricha, Chaetonotida) from the iSimangaliso Wetland Park, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Author
Todaro, M. Antonio
Author
Perissinotto, Renzo
Author
Bownes, Sarah J.
text
ZooKeys
2013
315
77
94
http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.315.5593
journal article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.315.5593
1313-2970-315-77
Neogossea acanthocolla Kisielewski, 1991
Fig. 7
Material.
2 adult specimens (1 measured and documented), South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal, roadside freshwater pond near
Charter's
Creek, Lake St Lucia, Western Shores, 11 February 2013, MA Todaro legit.
Morphometry
.
TL, 122
μm
(posterior spines excluded); PhL, 34.5
μm
; PhIJ at U36; CT, 24.5
μm
; dorsal cuticular covering made up of about 16 columns of 17-24 trilobed scales bearing a short, simple spine; a group of 18 densely packed spines is present on the dorsal side of the neck; spines are 10-13
μm
in length, rather thick and with a notched tip; posterior tufts of long spines made up of 7 spines each; spines are 45-50
μm
in length and barbed, with the lateral denticle positioned at about 3/4 of the spine length.
Figure 7.
Neogossea acanthocolla
. DIC photomicrographs. A habitus B anterior region showing the group of thick spines on the neck (arrow) C close-up of the posterior region of the trunk showing a tuft of long, barbed spines (arrow).
Remarks.
Morphometry and general appearance of the specimen from the iSimangaliso Wetland Park are in general accordance with data reported for the Brazilian
Neogossea acanthocolla
, the main peculiarity of which is the presence of the brush-like group of spines on the neck. A noticeable difference between the South American and African specimens lies in the type of scales covering the body: pedunculated and rhomboidal in the former, but ordinary (trilobed) and spined in the latter. However, as similar differences have been reported among members of the Brazilian populations (cf.
Kisielewski 1991
), it may be cautious not to regard this trait alone as a discriminatory character. Future studies, accounting for morphological and/or molecular marker differences on a statistical basis could support or disprove this hypothesis (e.g.,
Todaro et al. 1996
,
Leasi and Todaro 2009
,
Kanneby
et al. 2012
,
Kieneke et al. 2012
).