Current knowledge on Mexican tardigrades with a description of Milnesium cassandrae sp. nov. (Eutardigrada: Milnesiidae) and discussion on the taxonomic value of dorsal pseudoplates in the genus Milnesium Doyère, 1840
Author
Moreno, Antonio
Author
Roszkowska, Milena
Author
García, Mario Alberto
Author
Flores, José Juan
Author
Kaczmarek, Łukasz
text
Zootaxa
2019
2019-11-04
4691
5
501
524
journal article
24986
10.11646/zootaxa.4691.5.5
864e2b8d-c2da-4a20-9fbf-02bcb20be24a
1175-5326
3527562
0684AE18-0510-4F7B-B75D-AE5177FBF2A2
Milnesium cassandrae
sp. nov.
(
Table 2
,
Table 3
,
Figure 1
a–e,
Figure 2
a–e)
Type material:
Holotype
(female) and
47 paratypes
(
32 adult
females, 13 hatchlings, two juveniles of indeterminate sex),
25 eggs
and nine exuviae from piedmont of Sierra Las Mitras (
25°44′55.57′′N
,
100°24′11.19′′W
,
ca.
632 m
asl
), Monterrey,
Nuevo León
,
Mexico
. Lichen (
Physcia stellaris
) on trees (
Parkinsonia aculeta
and
Celtis pallida
), coll.
Antonio Moreno
-
Talamantes,
7 August 2014
.
Additional material:
Thirteen females from a lichen sample and five eggs in exuviae from San Agustin Park (
25°39′18.63′′N
,
100°20′34.51′′W
,
ca.
605 m
asl),
San Pedro
Garza García Municipality,
Nuevo Leon
.
Mexico
. Lichen (
Nephroma
sp.) on trees (
Fraxinus
sp. and
Quercus
sp.), coll. Antonio Moreno
-
Talamantes,
6 November 2013
. Four females from a piedmont of Sierra Las Mitras (
25°44′45.98′′N
,
100°25′27.68′′W
,
ca.
700 m
asl), Monterrey,
Nuevo Leon
,
Mexico
. Lichen (
Physcia stellaris
) on tree (
Quercus virginiana
), coll. Antonio Moreno
-
Talamantes,
8 November 2014
. Six females from piedmont of Sierra Las Mitras (
25°44′38.55′′N
,
100°25′31.65′′W
,
ca.
719 m
asl), Monterrey,
Nuevo Leon
,
Mexico
. Lichen (
Physcia stellaris
) on tree (
Quercus virginiana
), coll. Antonio Moreno
-
Talamantes,
8 November 2014
. Four females from La Posta (
26°00′46.21′′N
,
97°58′59.00′′W
,
ca.
22 m
asl),
2.2 km
N of Buenavista, Rio Bravo,
Tamaulipas
,
Mexico
. Lichen on mesquite tree (
Prosopis glandulosa
) coll. Antonio Moreno
-
Talamantes,
19 December 2016
.
Species description.
Body white or transparent with light yellow to brownish tones before fixation (
Fig. 1a
). Eyes present in all living and mounted adults. Hatchling and juveniles without eyes. Adults cuticle sculptured with pseudopores (0.6
–
1.4 μm in diameter), sparsely distributed and not forming a reticular design. Hatchling and juve- niles with reticular design (
Figs 1b
and
2b
). In adults, dorsal side with delineated geometric areas i.e. pseudoplates clearly visible only in
FM
(
Figs 3
–
4
). The row I of pseudoplates situated anteriorly to legs I with four (two small and two large) pseudoplates. The row
II
situated in line with legs I with two triangular pseudoplates connected in the middle. The row
III
situated between legs I and
II
with four connected rectangular pseudoplates forming a large rectangle in the midline of the body. The row
IV
situated in the line of legs
II
with six rectangular pseudoplates forming a large rectangle in the midline of the body and two pairs of small oval dorsolateral pseudoplates. The row V situated between legs
II
and
III
with two rectangular pseudoplates connected in the middle, and two pairs of small oval dorsolateral pseudoplates. The row
VI
situated in line with legs
III
with six rectangular pseudoplates forming a large rectangle in the midline of the body and two pairs of small oval dorsolateral pseudoplates. The rows
VII
to IX situated between legs
III
and
IV
(row
VII
just behind legs
III
, row VIII in the middle between legs
III
and
IV
, row IX just before legs
IV
). The row
VII
with a double rectangular paired pseudoplate (the caudal pair poorly developed) and two pairs of small oval dorsolateral pseudoplates. The row VIII with a complex of ten pseudoplates, eight clustered on the dorsal side and two oval placed dorso
-
laterally. The row IX with a pair of pseudoplates connected in the middle. The pseudoplates arrangements see
Remarks
below. For pseudoplates in row I and
II
poorly visible under
PCM
, but clearly visible in
FM
. (
Fig. 4
). The pseudoplates in the hatchlings and juveniles poorly developed.
Buccal apparatus of the
Milnesium
type
(
Figs 1c
and
2c
). Buccal tube in adults wide and short (standard width on average 56% of its length) and funnel
-
shaped, wider anteriorly (posterior diameter on average 89% of the anterior diameter); buccal tube in hatchling and juveniles is more slender (standard width on average 35% of its length) and funnel
-
shaped, wider anteriorly (posterior diameter on average 80% of the anterior diameter). Six peribuccal papillae and six peribuccal lamellae (of unequal size, 4+2) around the mouth opening present. Two cephalic papillae positioned laterally. The peribuccal papillae longer than the cephalic one. Pharyngeal bulb elongated and pear
-
shaped, without placoids or septulum.
FIGURE 1.
Adult of
Milnesium cassandrae
sp. nov.
[holotipe].
(a)
habitus (dorsolateral view);
(b)
details of dorsal cuticle with pseudopores;
(c)
buccal tube apparatus;
(d)
claws I;
(e)
claws IV (all PCM). Scale bar in a = 100 µm, b = 2 µm, c, d and e = 10 µm.
Claws of the
Milnesiidae
type
(
Figs 1
d–e and 2d–e). Primary branches on all claws with small accessory points. Secondary branches of all claws with rounded basal thickenings. Transverse cuticular bars present under claws I
–
III
. In adult specimens, internal secondary branches on legs I–III with three points, external with two points. Secondary branches of anterior claw on legs
IV
with three points, posterior claws with two points. In hatchling and juvenile specimens all secondary branches on all legs with two points.
Milnesium cassandrae
sp. nov.
exhibits an early positive internal
CC
(claw configuration [2
-
2/3]
-
[2/3
-
2]); in other words, changes in claw configuration (
CC
) occur between the hatchling/juvenile stages [2
-
2]
-
[2
-
2], and adults [2
-
3]
-
[3
-
2].
FIGURE 2.
Hatchling of
Milnesium cassandrae
sp. nov.
(a)
habitus (ventral view);
(b)
details of dorsal cuticle with pseudopores;
(c)
buccal apparatus;
(d)
claws I;
(e)
claws IV (all PCM). Scale bar in a = 100 µm, b = 2 µm, c, d and e = 10 µm.
Males
: not observed.
Eggs
: Oval, smooth and deposited in exuvium as in all other known
Milnesium
species.
Type depositories:
The
holotype
(slide
ELITE
-
1/053) and
11 paratypes
(slide:
ELITE
-
1/052,
ELITE
-
2/054
-
055
-
056
-
057,
ELITE
-
4/089,
ELITE
-
5/091
-
092
-
093,
ELITE
-
30/
1068
-
1069
), one exuviae with four eggs (slide
ELITE
-
30/1067) are deposited at Colección Carcinológica
-
FCB
-
UANL
at Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma de
Nuevo León
, San Nicolás de los Garza,
Nuevo León
,
Mexico
, nine
paratypes
(slides
ELITE
-
12/878,
ELITE
-
14/881,
ELITE
-
43/
1097
-
1098
-
1099,
ELITE
-
44/
1100
-
1101
-
1102,
ELITE
-
52/1115), one exuviae and eight eggs (
ELITE
-
52/1114) are preserved at the Department of Animal Taxonomy and Ecology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Uniwersytetu Poznańskiego 6, Poznań,
Poland
and
27 paratypes
(slides:
ELITE
-
3/058
-
060,
ELITE
-
13/879
-
880,
ELITE
-
28/1060,
ELITE
-
29/
1065
-
1066
,
ELITE
-
35/
1084
-
1085
,
ELITE
-
36/
1086
-
1087
,
ELITE
-
37/1089,
ELITE
-
40/1092,
ELITE
-
41/1094,
ELITE
-
42/1096.
ELITE
-
45/1103,
ELITE
-
47/1106,
ELITE
-
49/
1108
-
1109
,
ELITE
-
50/
1110
-
1111
,
ELITE
-
53/1116,
ELITE
-
54/
1119
-
1120
,
ELITE
-
58/1139,
ELITE
-
59/
1140
-
1141
), eight exuviae with
13 eggs
(slides:
ELITE
-
27/987,
ELITE
-
29/1064,
ELITE
-
36/1088,
ELITE
-
38/1090,
ELITE
-
39/1091,
ELITE
-
53/1117,
ELITE
-
54/1118) are deposited in the collection of first author.
Etymology:
The new species is dedicated to Cassandra Moreno Perales, the first author’s youngest daughter.
Remarks:
To clarify the nomenclature of the pseudoplates arrangement we propose the system which is similar to that used for the numbering of gibbosities in
Doryphoribius
and
Isohypsibius
species by
Michalczyk & Kaczmarek (2010)
. In this system all rows of pseudoplates are named and assigned to a specific place on the dorsal cuticle and the number of pseudoplates is counted:
row I of pseudoplates situated anteriorly to legs I,
row II of pseudoplates situated in line with legs I,
row III situated between legs I and II,
row IV situated in line with legs II,
row V situated between legs II and III,
row VI situated in line with legs III,
row VII situated between legs III and IV (just behind legs III),
row VIII situated between legs III and IV (in the middle between legs III and IV),
row IX situated between legs III and IV (just before legs IV).
The row numbers are always in Roman numerals and the number of pseudoplates is always listed in Arabic numerals. For example, in this system a configuration of pseudoplates (CP) in
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
will be: (CP: I:4; II:2; III:4; IV:10; V:6; VI:10; VII:8; VIII:10; IX:2,
Figs 3
–
4
).
FIGURE 3.
Milnesium cassandrae
sp. nov
.
under UV fluorescence, showing dorsal pseudoplates. Scale bar 100 µm.
FIGURE 4.
Semi
-
schematic drawing of the dorsal pseudoplates of adult
Milnesium cassandrae
sp. nov.
, based on PCM and UV fluorescence observation (pseudoplates in anterior segment of leg I and leg I are poorly visible under PCM, but clearly visible under fluorescence microscopy). Roman numbers indicate rows of pseudoplates. Contour of
Milnesium
redrawn and adapted from
Morek
et al.
2016
.
Differential diagnosis.
Based on having a sculptured dorsal cuticle,
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
belongs to the
granulatum
group (
Michalczyk
et al
. 2012a
, b). The new species with claw configuration [2
-
3]
-
[3
-
2] in adults, is most similar to
Mil. krzysztofi
Kaczmarek & Michalczyk, 2007
and
Mil. beasleyi
Kaczmarek
et al
., 2012
, but it differs from:
1.
Milnesium krzysztofi
by: different dorsal sculpture (very dense pseudopores, but not forming a reticular design in adults of
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
vs.
a fine reticular design in
Mil. krzysztofi
), presence of eyes, a higher pt of the standard buccal tube width ([
41.6–67.2
] in
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
and [
33.1–38.4
] in
Mil. krzysztofi
), and the presence of pseudoplates (but see Discussion, below).
2.
Milnesium beasleyi
by: presence of eyes, having higher
pt
buccal tube width ([
47.4–66.2
], [
41.6–67.2
], [
39.9– 61.1
] anterior, standard and posterior, respectively in
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
vs.
[
35.3–41.8
], [
31.2–39.8
], [
33.2–39.6
] anterior, standard and posterior, respectively in
Mil. beasleyi
), higher standard width/ length ratio of buccal tube (42%
–
67% in
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
vs.
31%
–
40% in
Mil. beasleyi
), smaller lateral papillae (4.0
–
6.5 in
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
vs.
7.5
–
10.3 in
Mil. beasleyi
), and presence of pseudoplates (but see Discussion, below).
In addition,
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
is similar to other species with the claw configuration [2
-
3]
-
[3
-
2] i.e.
Mil. lagniappe
Meyer
et al.,
2013
,
Mil. reductum
Tumanov, 2006
,
Mil. reticulatum
Pilato
et al.,
2002
,
Mil. tardigradum
tardigradum
Doyère, 1840
,
Mil. tetralamellatum
Pilato & Binda, 1991
and
Mil. vorax
Pilato
et al.,
2016
, but it differs from:
3.
Milnesium lagniappe
by: larger number of peribuccal lamellae (six in
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
vs.
four in
Mil. lagniappe
), different dorsal sculpture (very dense pseudopores, but not forming a reticular design adults of
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
vs.
reticulated pattern of irregular polygons in
Mil. lagniappe
), presence of eyes, stylet supports inserted in less caudal position ([
58.7–67.6
] in
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
vs.
[
69.7–73.4
] in
Mil. lagniappe
),
and lower
pt
of buccal tube width ([
47.4–66.2
], [
39.9–61.1
] anterior and posterior, respectively, in
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
vs.
[
68.0–77.5
], [
61.8–70.8
] anterior and posterior, respectively, in
Mil. lagniappe
).
4.
Milnesium reductum
by: sculptured dorsal cuticle, presence of accessory points on primary branches of claws, stylet supports inserted in more anterior position (16.5
–
26.0 in
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
vs.
29.2
–
28.1 in
Mil. reductum
), smaller claws IV (see
Table
2
in this work and Table
5 in
Tumanov (2006)
for the exact differences in dimensions of claws), and presence of pseudoplates (but see Discussion, below).
TABLE 2.
Measurements and
pt
values of selected morphological structures of 30 selected adult specimens of
Milnesium cassandrae
sp. nov.
mounted in PVA medium. Range refers to the smallest and the largest structure among all measured specimens. The
pt
values are provided in italics. N, number of specimens or structures measured; SD, standard deviation.
Character |
N |
Range |
Mean |
SD |
Holotype |
µm |
pt
|
µm |
pt
|
µm |
pt
|
µm |
pt
|
Body length |
30 |
344 |
– |
693 |
– |
560 |
97 |
550 |
Peribuccal papillae length |
25 |
5.1 |
– |
10.2 |
19.0
|
–
|
29.3
|
8.5 |
23.5
|
1.3 |
2.9
|
9.4 |
27.2
|
Lateral papillae length |
28 |
4.0 |
– |
6.5 |
9.3
|
–
|
17.2
|
5.0 |
13.9
|
0.6 |
1.7
|
4.6 |
13.2
|
Buccal tube |
Length |
30 |
26.2 |
– |
42.5 |
– |
36.0 |
–
|
4.1 |
–
|
34.6 |
–
|
Stylet support insertion point |
30 |
16.5 |
– |
26.0 |
58.7
|
–
|
67.6
|
22.8 |
63.5
|
2.4 |
2.3
|
22.5 |
64.9
|
Anterior width |
30 |
12.3 |
– |
24.8 |
47.1
|
–
|
66.2
|
21.0 |
58.4
|
2.7 |
4.9
|
20.3 |
58.5
|
Standard width |
30 |
10.9 |
– |
25.2 |
41.6
|
–
|
67.2
|
20.0 |
55.5
|
2.9 |
5.6
|
19.4 |
56.0
|
Posterior width |
30 |
10.4 |
– |
22.9 |
39.9
|
–
|
61.1
|
18.7 |
51.9
|
2.6 |
5.3
|
18.2 |
52.6 |
Standard width/length ratio |
30 |
42% |
– |
67% |
– |
55% |
–
|
6% |
–
|
56% |
–
|
Posterior/anterior width ratio |
30 |
81% |
– |
96% |
– |
89% |
–
|
4% |
–
|
90% |
–
|
Claw 1 lengths |
External primary branch |
30 |
9.3 |
– |
19.0 |
35.6
|
–
|
57.0
|
15.9 |
44.4
|
1.9 |
4.1
|
14.8 |
42.6
|
External base + secondary branch |
30 |
8.8 |
– |
15.8 |
33.6
|
–
|
52.1
|
13.9 |
38.8
|
1.5 |
3.8
|
13.3 |
38.4
|
External branches length ratio |
29 |
75% |
– |
97% |
– |
87% |
–
|
6% |
–
|
90% |
–
|
Internal primary branch |
30 |
9.1 |
– |
17.2 |
34.7
|
–
|
52.3
|
15.3 |
42.6
|
1.7 |
3.5
|
14.0 |
40.6
|
Internal base + secondary branch |
30 |
8.2 |
– |
15.4 |
31.5
|
–
|
50.8
|
13.0 |
36.5
|
1.5 |
4.1
|
13.1 |
37.8 |
Internal spur |
30 |
2.6 |
– |
5.0 |
8.6
|
–
|
15.8
|
4.0 |
11.2
|
0.6 |
1.7
|
4.0 |
11.5
|
Internal branches length ratio |
30 |
78% |
– |
97% |
– |
86% |
–
|
5% |
–
|
93% |
–
|
Claw 2 lengths |
External primary branch |
29 |
11.5 |
– |
19.0 |
40.6
|
–
|
59.0
|
16.8 |
47.1
|
1.6 |
4.0
|
16.3 |
47.2
|
External base + secondary branch |
30 |
8.8 |
– |
17.6 |
33.6
|
–
|
53.9
|
14.4 |
40.2
|
1.7 |
3.9
|
13.9 |
40.2
|
External branches length ratio |
29 |
77% |
– |
96% |
– |
85% |
–
|
5% |
–
|
85% |
–
|
Internal primary branch |
30 |
11.1 |
– |
18.8 |
37.8
|
–
|
55.6
|
15.8 |
44.0
|
1.8 |
3.9
|
14.9 |
43.2
|
Internal base + secondary branch |
30 |
8.5 |
– |
15.8 |
32.2
|
–
|
52.3
|
13.2 |
36.7
|
1.5 |
3.9
|
12.1 |
34.9 |
Internal spur |
29 |
2.2 |
– |
5.8 |
8.3
|
–
|
16.2
|
4.2 |
11.8
|
0.7 |
1.8
|
3.9 |
11.3
|
Internal branches length ratio |
30 |
76% |
– |
94% |
– |
84% |
–
|
5% |
–
|
81% |
–
|
Claw 3 lengths |
External primary branch |
30 |
10.7 |
– |
23.8 |
39.3
|
–
|
61.2
|
17.3 |
48.2
|
2.2 |
4.8
|
16.4 |
47.5
|
External base + secondary branch |
29 |
9.2 |
– |
16.4 |
33.5
|
–
|
54.3
|
14.1 |
39.3
|
1.6 |
4.2
|
13.8 |
39.9
|
External branches length ratio |
29 |
63% |
– |
98% |
– |
82% |
–
|
6% |
–
|
84% |
–
|
Internal primary branch |
30 |
10.9 |
– |
19.2 |
37.6
|
–
|
54.0
|
16.2 |
45.1
|
1.7 |
3.5
|
15.3 |
44.3
|
Internal base + secondary branch |
30 |
8.8 |
– |
15.6 |
31.9
|
–
|
51.6
|
13.1 |
36.6
|
1.4 |
3.7
|
12.4 |
35.7 |
Internal spur |
30 |
2.7 |
– |
5.6 |
7.8
|
–
|
15.0
|
4.1 |
11.5
|
0.7 |
1.5
|
3.7 |
10.7
|
Internal branches length ratio |
30 |
67% |
– |
96% |
– |
81% |
–
|
6% |
–
|
81% |
–
|
Claw 4 lengths |
Anterior primary branch |
30 |
12.6 |
– |
25.0 |
48.2
|
–
|
69.7
|
20.8 |
58.1
|
2.3 |
5.3
|
21.0 |
60.6
|
Anterior base + secondary branch |
30 |
9.1 |
– |
19.1 |
34.8
|
–
|
51.8
|
14.8 |
41.3
|
1.8 |
4.2
|
13.8 |
39.8
|
Anterior spur |
25 |
1.2 |
– |
4.6 |
3.0
|
–
|
11.7
|
2.8 |
7.6
|
0.9 |
2.5
|
2.1 |
6.0
|
Anterior branches length ratio |
30 |
64% |
– |
83% |
– |
71% |
–
|
5% |
–
|
66% |
–
|
Posterior primary branch |
30 |
15.0 |
– |
26.8 |
53.4
|
–
|
77.7
|
21.9 |
61.3
|
2.3 |
5.6
|
20.1 |
58.0 |
Posterior base + secondary branch |
30 |
9.8 |
– |
19.6 |
37.2
|
–
|
53.2
|
15.6 |
43.6
|
1.9 |
4.2
|
15.3 |
44.3
|
Posterior branches length ratio |
30 |
64% |
– |
84% |
– |
71% |
–
|
5% |
–
|
76% |
– |
5.
Milnesium reticulatum
by: larger number of peribuccal lamellae (six in
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
vs.
four in
Mil. reticulatum
), absence of cuticular gibbosities, different dorsal sculpture (very dense pseudopores, but not forming a reticular design in adults of
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
vs.
pseudopores arranged in nine sculptured bands, forming a reticular design in
Mil. reticulatum
), higher pt of the standard buccal tube width ([
45.6–67.2
] in
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
vs.
[
30.4–37.4
] in
Mil. reticulatum
), and higher
pt
of claws II, III and IV (see
Table
2
in this work and
Table
2
in
Pilato
et al
. (2002)
for the exact differences in dimensions of claws).
6.
Milnesium tardigradum tardigradum
by: having sculptured dorsal cuticle and presence of pseudoplates (but see Discussion, below).
TABLE 3.
Measurements and
pt
values of selected morphological structures of 13 hatchling and juvenile specimens (instar I and II) of
Milnesium cassandrae
sp. nov.
mounted in PVA medium. Range refers to the smallest and the largest structure among all measured specimens. The
pt
values are provided in italics; N, number of specimens or structures measured; SD, standard deviation.
Character |
N |
Range µm |
pt
|
Mean µm |
pt
|
SD µm |
pt
|
Body length |
13 |
131 |
– |
202 |
– |
179 |
20 |
Peribuccal papillae length |
3 |
3.3 |
– |
4.2 |
16.2
|
–
|
19.7
|
3.7 |
17.9
|
0.4 |
1.7
|
Lateral papillae length |
5 |
2.3 |
– |
3.4 |
11.3
|
–
|
16.5
|
3.0 |
14.6
|
0.4 |
2.1 |
Buccal tube |
Length |
13 |
18.2 |
– |
22.6 |
– |
20.7 |
–
|
1.2 |
–
|
Stylet support insertion point |
13 |
10.3 |
– |
14.8 |
56.5
|
–
|
70.5
|
13.8 |
66.3
|
1.1 |
3.4
|
Anterior width |
13 |
7.2 |
– |
9.6 |
38.1
|
–
|
47.1
|
8.8 |
42.3
|
0.7 |
3.2
|
Standard width |
13 |
6.1 |
– |
7.8 |
28.2
|
–
|
39.4
|
7.2 |
34.6
|
0.5 |
3.0
|
Posterior width |
13 |
6.3 |
– |
7.3 |
29.6
|
–
|
36.1
|
7.0 |
33.6
|
0.3 |
2.0
|
Standard width/length ratio |
13 |
28% |
– |
39% |
– |
35% |
–
|
3% |
–
|
Posterior/anterior width ratio |
13 |
74% |
– |
88% |
– |
80% |
–
|
4% |
–
|
Claw 1 lengths |
External primary branch |
13 |
7.4 |
– |
10.4 |
35.1
|
–
|
52.8
|
8.9 |
42.9
|
0.9 |
5.7 |
External base + secondary branch |
12 |
6.5 |
– |
7.9 |
30.1
|
–
|
39.7
|
7.3 |
35.1
|
0.4 |
2.6
|
External branches length ratio |
12 |
72% |
– |
96% |
– |
84% |
–
|
10% |
–
|
Internal primary branch |
13 |
7.6 |
– |
9.8 |
35.8
|
–
|
48.4
|
8.7 |
42.1
|
0.7 |
4.1
|
Internal base + secondary branch |
13 |
6.2 |
– |
8.2 |
30.2
|
–
|
39.6
|
7.1 |
34.3
|
0.5 |
2.9
|
Internal branches length ratio |
13 |
74% |
– |
94% |
– |
82% |
–
|
6% |
– |
Claw 2 lengths |
External primary branch |
13 |
7.6 |
– |
11.0 |
35.4
|
–
|
60.5
|
9.3 |
45.2
|
0.9 |
6.5
|
External base + secondary branch |
13 |
6.7 |
– |
8.1 |
30.9
|
–
|
40.9
|
7.5 |
36.3
|
0.5 |
3.5
|
External branches length ratio |
13 |
65% |
– |
94% |
– |
81% |
–
|
7% |
–
|
Internal primary branch |
12 |
7.6 |
– |
9.7 |
37.4
|
–
|
53.5
|
9.0 |
43.3
|
0.6 |
4.3
|
Internal base + secondary branch |
13 |
6.4 |
– |
8.9 |
29.9
|
–
|
40.9
|
7.2 |
34.7
|
0.7 |
3.4
|
Internal spur |
1 |
1.8 |
– |
1.8 |
10.1
|
–
|
10.1
|
1.8 |
10.1
|
? |
?
|
Internal branches length ratio |
12 |
70% |
– |
96% |
– |
80% |
–
|
9% |
–
|
Claw 3 lengths |
External primary branch |
12 |
8.5 |
– |
10.3 |
39.4
|
–
|
48.9
|
9.4 |
44.7
|
0.5 |
3.2 |
External base + secondary branch |
13 |
6.0 |
– |
8.3 |
31.3
|
–
|
38.5
|
7.3 |
35.1
|
0.6 |
2.3
|
External branches length ratio |
12 |
71% |
– |
90% |
– |
79% |
–
|
6% |
–
|
Internal primary branch |
12 |
8.6 |
– |
9.7 |
39.0
|
–
|
47.2
|
9.3 |
44.4
|
0.4 |
2.8
|
Internal base + secondary branch |
13 |
6.7 |
– |
7.6 |
30.4
|
–
|
40.0
|
7.1 |
34.2
|
0.3 |
2.7
|
Internal branches length ratio |
12 |
70% |
– |
83% |
– |
76% |
–
|
4% |
– |
Claw 4 lengths |
Anterior primary branch |
11 |
8.4 |
– |
11.2 |
41.5
|
–
|
54.9
|
10.2 |
49.7
|
0.8 |
3.6
|
Anterior base + secondary branch |
13 |
5.9 |
– |
8.1 |
26.1
|
–
|
40.7
|
7.1 |
34.4
|
0.5 |
3.7
|
Anterior branches length ratio |
11 |
61% |
– |
80% |
– |
71% |
–
|
6% |
–
|
Posterior primary branch |
11 |
9.5 |
– |
11.8 |
45.8
|
–
|
56.7
|
10.7 |
52.3
|
0.7 |
3.3
|
Posterior base + secondary branch |
13 |
6.6 |
– |
8.2 |
30.6
|
–
|
40.9
|
7.5 |
36.1
|
0.5 |
3.1
|
Posterior branches length ratio |
11 |
65% |
– |
77% |
– |
70% |
–
|
4% |
– |
7.
Milnesium tetralamellatum
by: larger number of peribuccal lamellae (six in
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
vs.
four in
Mil. tetralamellatum
), sculptured dorsal cuticle, and presence of pseudoplates (but see Discussion, below).
8.
Milnesium vorax
by: sculptured dorsal cuticle, longer % external base + secondary branch/external primary branch I to III in
Mil. cassandrae
sp. nov.
(see
Table
2
in this work and
Table
1
in Pilato
et al
. (2016) for the exact differences), and presence of pseudoplates (but see Discussion, below).