Macrobiotus (Eutardigrada, Macrobiotidae) from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee / North Carolina, USA (North America): two new species and six new records
Author
Bartels, Paul J.
Author
Pilato, Giovanni
Author
Lisi, Oscar
Author
Nelson, Diane R.
text
Zootaxa
2009
2022
45
57
journal article
10.5281/zenodo.186100
06b79f4e-5e07-4315-9636-eb8a036e3172
1175-5326
186100
Macrobiotus halei
sp. nov.
Figs. 4–7
Type
locality:
Brushy Mountain
ATBI
Plot (
W 83o 25.9307’
,
N 35o 40.5596’
,
1468 m
asl),
GSMNP
, Sevier County, Tennessee,
USA
. In soil and leaf litter in a heath bald community (dominant species
Rhododendron maximum
and
Kalmia latifolia
).
Material examined:
Holotype
: Brushy Mountain.
Paratypes
: Brushy Mountain:
2 adults
and
3 eggs
(2 with fully developed embryos); Cataloochee:
7 specimens
and
1 egg
(with fully-developed embryo).
Species diagnosis:
Colorless; cuticle with very small tubercles, quite difficult to see; very fine granules present on all legs, more evident on legs IV; eyes absent. Buccal armature in oral cavity of
richtersi
-
type
; buccal tube wide; stylet supports inserted on the buccal tube at 81.0–82.7% of its length; three macroplacoids and a microplacoid (far away from the third macroplacoid) present. Claws of the
hufelandi
-
type
; accessory points and lunules present. Eggs with truncated conical processes with a reticular design; egg shell areolated; areolae sculptured.
Description of the
holotype
:
Body length 504.0 µm; colorless; eyes absent; cuticle with very small circular or elongated tubercles, more visible on the dorsal and lateral body wall, but very difficult to see (
Fig. 4
A, B); smaller granules present on all legs (
Fig. 4
B), but more evident on hind legs, especially in larger animals. Mouth terminal with 10 peribuccal lamellae; buccal armature in oral cavity well-developed (
Fig. 4
C) with anterior band of small teeth, posterior band of triangular teeth (some of them fused), and three dorsal and three ventral transverse ridges. Some supplementary teeth present between the ring of triangular teeth and the transverse ridges on the ventral wall of the buccal cavity. Buccal tube 62.3 µm long and 17 µm wide (
pt
= 27.3); stylet supports inserted on the buccal tube at 81.6% of its length (
pt
= 81.6). Pharyngeal bulb with apophyses, three rod-shaped macroplacoids and a small microplacoid (with antero-lateral wings) far away from the third macroplacoid, a characteristic typical of species in the
richtersi
group. First macroplacoid 10.9 µm long (
pt
= 17.5), the second 7.8 µm (
pt
= 12.5), the third 12.1 µm (
pt
= 19.4), the microplacoid 3.9 µm (
pt
= 6.3); entire placoid row 47.9 µm (
pt
= 76.9); macroplacoid row 37.1 µm long (
pt
= 59.6).
Claws, of the
hufelandi
-
type
, well-developed (
Fig. 4
D, E), with evident accessory points on the main branches. Internal and external claws on the third pair of legs 13.5 µm long (
pt
= 21.7) and 14.7 µm long (
pt
= 23.6), respectively; anterior and posterior claws on the hind legs 16.3 µm long (
pt
= 26.2) and 17.4 µm long (
pt
= 27.9), respectively. Other claws not measurable due to their unfavorable orientation.
Eggs, laid freely, spherical with truncated conical processes (
Fig. 5
). In two measured eggs the diameter is 91.0 and 96.0 µm, excluding the processes, and 117.0 and 121.0 µm including them; 11 processes present around the circumference,
24–27 in
the hemisphere. Processes 11.0–14.0 µm high, with basal diameter 22.0–23.5 µm. Processes with dense reticular design with elongated meshes having sinuous margins on the basal portion, almost isodiametric on the distal portion (
Fig. 5
B). Egg shell areolated between processes. The large areolae, with thick margins, have a more or less evident thickened central portion with circular light spots forming an irregular reticular design (
Fig. 5
C) (similar to pits in a strawberry).
The
paratypes
are similar to the
holotype
in both qualitative and metric characters. Measurements and
pt
values of selected morphological structures for the smallest and largest examined specimens are given in
Table 2
.
TABLE 2.
Macrobiotus halei
sp. nov.
metric characters (all values in µm,
pt
ratios in brackets).
smallest specimen |
largest specimen |
Body length |
405.0 |
630.0 |
Buccal tube length |
53.5 |
66.8 |
Buccal tube width |
14.2 [26.5] |
19.1 [28.6] |
Stylet supports |
43.6 [81.5] |
54.4 [81.5] |
Placoid row |
36.9 [69.0] |
49.6 [74.3] |
Macroplacoid row |
27.8 [52.0] |
37.0 [55.4] |
First macroplacoid |
9.2 [17.2] |
12.4 [18.6] |
Second macroplacoid |
6.4 [12.0] |
8.8 [13.2] |
Third macroplacoid |
9.8 [18.3] |
12.7 [19.0] |
Microplacoid |
3.4 [6.4] |
4.0 [6.0] |
Internal claw II |
10.9 [20.4] |
14.1 [21.1] |
External claw II |
12.2 [22.8] |
15.5 [23.2] |
Internal claw III |
11.6 [21.7] |
14.6 [21.9] |
External claw III |
12.6 [23.6] |
16.3 [24.4] |
Anterior claw IV |
13.0 [24.3] |
17.5 [26.2] |
Posterior claw IV |
15.0 [28.0] |
19.1 [28.6] |
Etymology:
The name ‘
halei
”
is in honor of Mr. Gilbert Hale in appreciation of his long-time service as lab assistant for Dr. Diane Nelson. He has produced thousands of slides for the tardigrade inventory of the ATBI, and he is exceptional at finding eggs. Gilbert is a “mighty bear hunter”.
FIGURE 4.
Macrobiotus halei
sp. nov.
(holotype). A, detail of the cuticular ornamentation (arrow). B, detail of the ornamentation on a leg where small tubercles and very small dots are visible. C, buccal-pharyngeal apparatus. D, claws of the third pair of legs. E, claws of the fourth pair of legs. (Scale bars = 10.0 µm)
Type
depositories:
The
holotype
(
USNM
# 1120692) and 3
paratypes
(
USNM
# 1120693, 1120694, 1120695 (egg)) are deposited in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC,
USA
. The remaining
paratypes
are deposited in the
GSMNP
collection; the Nelson collection in the Department of Biological Sciences, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee,
USA
; and the Binda and Pilato collection in the Department of Animal Biology, University of Catania, Catania,
Italy
.
FIGURE 5.
Macrobiotus halei
sp. nov.
A, egg. B, reticular design on the egg processes. C, ornamentation of the egg areolae. (Scale bars = 10.0 µm)
Differential Diagnosis:
Macrobiotus halei
sp. nov.
is similar to
M. vanescens
Pilato, Binda & Catanzaro, 1991
,
M. priviterae
Binda, Pilato, Moncada & Napolitano, 2001
,
M. danielisae
Pilato, Binda & Lisi, 2006
,
M. lorenae
Biserov, 1996
,
M. gerlachae
Pilato, Binda & Lisi, 2004
,
M. corgatensis
Pilato, Binda & Lisi, 2002
,
M. sklodowskae
Michalczyk, Kaczmarek & Weglarska, 2006
,
M
.
alekseevi
Tumanov, 2005
,
M. garynhai
Kaczmarek, Michalczyk &
Diduszko, 2005
, and
M. magdalenae
Michalczyk & Kaczmarek,
2006
in having sculptured egg areolae, but it differs from them in some other characters.
M. halei
sp. nov.
differs from
M. vanescens
by having small cuticular tubercles (difficult to see) instead of a very fine punctation; stylet supports inserted on the buccal tube in a more caudal position (
pt
= 81.0–
82.7 in
M
.
halei
sp. nov.
,
76.5–77.5 in
M. vanescens
); a longer microplacoid (
pt
= about 6.0 in
M. halei
sp. nov.
, about 4.0 in
M. vanescens
) (
Figs. 4
C and 6A); and a different shape of the egg processes, which are slightly shorter (11.0–14.0 µm in
M. halei
, 16.0–17.0 µm in
M. vanescens
) while the basal diameter is similar (22.0–23.5 µm in
M. halei
sp. nov.
, 24.0–25.0 µm in
M. vanescens
).
M. halei
sp. nov.
differs from
M. priviterae
by lacking eyes and by having a sculptured cuticle, a different shape of the claws (
Figs. 4
C and 6B), egg processes with similar height but a larger basal diameter (22.0–23.5 µm in
M. halei
sp. nov.
, 13.0–16.3 µm in
M. priviterae
) and a more evident reticular design with more elongated meshes.
M. halei
sp. nov.
differs from
M. danielisae
by having different cuticular ornamentation (small circular or elongate tubercles in
M. halei
sp. nov.
, small polygons of variable and irregular shape in
M. danielisae
), by having shorter egg processes (11.0–14 µm in
M. halei
sp. nov.
, 17.2 µm in
M. danielisae
), of different shape (truncated cones in
M. halei
sp. nov.
, cones in
M. danielisae
(
Figs. 5
and
6
C), and with the height clearly shorter than the basal diameter while in
M. danielisae
the height is similar to the basal diameter (the basal diameter is 22.0–23.5 µm in
M. halei
sp. nov.
, 17.5–20.0 µm in
M. danielisae
).
M. halei
sp. nov.
differs from
M. lorenae
by having very small cuticular tubercles and by having a different shape of the egg processes (
Figs. 5
and
6
D): truncated cones in
M. halei
sp. nov.
, and cones terminating with a long, thin, flexible filament in
M. lorenae
.
M. halei
sp. nov.
differs from
M. gerlachae
by having a cuticle ornamented with tubercles, slightly shorter and stouter claws (
Figs. 4
D, E and 7A), and larger eggs, with processes having a larger basal diameter (22.0 – 23.5 µm in
M. halei
sp. nov.
, 11.8–14.5 µm in
M. gerlachae
) (
Figs. 5
and
7
B).
FIGURE 6.
A, buccal-pharyngeal apparatus of
Macrobiotus vanescens
. B, claws of
Macrobiotus priviterae
.
C, egg of
Macrobiotus danielisae
. D, egg of
Macrobiotus lorenae
. (Scale bars = 10.0 µm)
M. halei
sp. nov.
differs from
M. corgatensis
by lacking eyes, and by having small cuticular tubercles instead of a very fine punctation, stouter claws (
Figs. 4
D, E and 7C), and truncated, conical egg processes (
Figs. 5
and
7
D) that are shorter (11.0–14.0 µm in
M. halei
sp. nov.
, 20.0–25.0 µm in
M. corgatensis
).
M. halei
sp. nov.
differs from
M. sklodowskae
by lacking eyes, having a sculptured cuticle, a longer and wider buccal tube (the buccal tube width is 14.2–19.1 µm (
pt
= 26.5–28.6) in
M. halei
sp. nov
., 7.1–11.9 µm (
pt
= 17.0–20.5) in
M. sklodowskae
), more slender claws, and less slender egg processes with their basal diameter larger with respect to the process height (height 11.0–14.0 µm and basal diameter 22.0–23.5 µm in
M. halei
sp. nov.
; height 15.2–19.0 µm and basal diameter 29.5 µm in
M. sklodowskae
).
M. halei
sp. nov.
differs from
M. alekseevi
by having a sculptured cuticle, longer stylet supports inserted on the buccal tube in a more caudal position (
pt
= 81.0–
82.7 in
M. halei
sp. nov.
, 78.1–81.0 in
M. alekseevi
), a wider buccal tube (
pt
=
26.5–28.6 in
M. halei
sp. nov.
,
16.6–20.3 in
M. alekseevi
) and differently-shaped egg processes (in
M. halei
sp. nov.
they are truncated cones without a terminal cap-like vesicular structure).
FIGURE 7.
A, claws on the second and third pairs of legs of
Macrobiotus gerlachae
. B, egg of
Macrobiotus gerlachae
. C, claws on the first and second pairs of legs of
Macrobiotus corgatensis
. D, egg of
Macrobiotus corgatensis
. (Scale bars = 10.0 µm)
M. halei
sp. nov.
differs from
M. garynhai
by having cuticular tubercles and lacking elliptical pores, and by having egg processes that are truncated cones without a cap-like terminal portion, and by the egg shell areolae with a thickened central portion with circular light spots forming an irregular reticular design).
M. halei
sp. nov.
differs from
M. magdalenae
by lacking eyes, having a sculptured cuticle, and by the shape of the egg processes (truncated cones in
M. halei
sp. nov.
, cones with elongate terminal portion in
M. magdalenae
).
Comments:
Besides the
holotype
and
paratypes
used for the description of the species in this paper, additional specimens of
Macrobiotus halei
sp. nov.
have been identified within the park. The total is now
361 specimens
, including
13 eggs
, although we expect to find many more as we sort through additional slides of the
M. richtersi
group. So far, all
M. halei
sp. nov.
specimens have been found in mosses and lichens on trees and rocks and also frequently in soil and leaf litter. None have been found in our aquatic samples.