Advertisement

Systematic Parasitology

, Volume 96, Issue 9, pp 777–788 | Cite as

Description of Echthrogaleus spinulus n. sp. (Copepoda: Pandaridae) parasitic on a torpedo ray from the central Pacific Ocean utilising a morphological and molecular approach

  • F. Neptalí Morales-SernaEmail author
  • Gerald L. Crow
  • Martin M. Montes
  • M. Teresa González
Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Arthropoda

Abstract

A new species of parasitic copepod, Echthrogaleus spinulus n. sp. (Pandaridae), is described from the torpedo ray Tetronarce tokionis (Tanaka) (Torpedinidae) captured in pelagic Hawaiian waters. The new species has pediger 4 bearing large dorsal plates with denticles on posterior margin, genital complex with posterolateral lobes widely curved medially and overlapping, leg 4 exopod incompletely 3-segmented, and the largest body size (maximum length 16 mm from anterior rim of frontal plates to tip of caudal rami, excluding setae). This morphology does not match any of the seven valid species of Echthrogaleus Steenstrup & Lütken, 1861. Analysis of 28S rDNA sequences separated the new material from the Central Pacific from samples of E. coleoptratus in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific Oceans. However, due to the lack of DNA sequences in the databases, the new 28S rDNA sequence cannot used to confirm the species identity. The unique morphological characteristics of the Central Pacific female copepods combined with 28S rDNA sequencing was used as a basis to validate the new species.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper is dedicated to George Benz, a true force in copepod discovery and friend. We thank K. Jurow of the Pacific Island Region Observer Programme of the NOAA/NMFS/PIFSC for collecting the torpedo ray and S. Arceneaux, K. Forney, J. Kelly for research assistance. The support from the FV Vui Vui longliner, Captain L. V. Pham and crew G. Villasrosa, D. Salvo, V. Quang, E. Ebiata and K. Terrera is appreciated. The NOAA/NMFS/PIFSC program for laboratory support especially J. O’Malley, Bruce Mundy, R. Humphreys, Jr and M. Lee. The Argentina copepod specimen was collected by Claudio Serrano (Museo de Historia Natural Patagonia) and processed for molecular analysis by Walter Ferrari. This research was supported by Ocean Research Explorations. The CLSM images were taken at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, PBRC, Biological Electron Microscope Facility with support from T. Carvalho and M. Dunlap and NSF grant # 1828262. We acknowledge D. Catania CAS, H. Bolick BPBM for the specimen curation and Jennifer Crites for her help with figures. This research was facilitated while (GLC) was a visiting scientist at PIFSC. This is Ocean Research Explorations Hawaiian Islands Biodiversity Project publication 01.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable institutional national and international guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

11230_2019_9885_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (134 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 133 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MP4 3665 kb)

References

  1. Bandai, A., Matsunuma, M., & Motomura, H. (2017). First records of the electric ray Tetronarce formosa (Torpediniformes: Torpedinidae) from Japan, with a revised species’ diagnosis and comparisons with congeners. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology,64, 157–170.Google Scholar
  2. Benz, G. W., & Deets, G. B. (1987). Echthrogaleus disciarai sp. nov. (Siphonostomatoida: Pandaridae), a parasitic copepod of the devil ray Mobula lucasana Beebe and Tee Van, 1938 from Sea of Cortez. Canadian Journal of Zoology,65, 685–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernot, J. P., & Boxshall, G. A. (2017). A new species of Pseudopandarus Kirtisinghe, 1950 (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida: Pandaridae) from sharks of the genus Squalus L. in New Caledonia waters. Systematic Parasitology,94, 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castresana, J. (2000). Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Molecular Biology and Evolution,17, 540–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dippenaar, S. M. (2009). Estimated molecular phylogenetic relationships of six siphonostomatoid families (Copepoda) symbiotic on elasmobranchs. Crustaceana,82, 1547–1567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dippenaar, S. M. (2018). Symbiotic Siphonostomatoida (Copepoda) collected from white sharks, Carcharodon carcharias (Lamniformes, Lamnidae), during the OCEARCH expedition along the coast of South Africa. Crustaceana,91, 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drummond, A. J., Ashton, B., Buxton, S., Cheung, M., Cooper, A., Duran, C., et al. (2010). Geneious v5.1.7. http://www.geneious.com/. Accessed 29 March 2019.
  8. González, M. T., Castro, R., Muñoz, G., & López, Z. (2016). Sea lice (Siphonostomatoida: Caligidae) diversity on littoral fishes from the south-eastern Pacific coast determined from morphology and molecular analysis, with description of a new species (Lepeophtheirus confusum). Parasitology International,65, 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haas, D. L., & Ebert, D. A. (2006). Torpedo formosa sp. nov., a new species of electric ray (Chondrichthyes: Torpediniformes: Torpedinidae) from Taiwan. Zootaxa,1320, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Henderson, A. C., Flannery, K., & Dunne, J. (2002). An investigation into the metazoan parasites of the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias L.), off the west coast of Ireland. Journal of Natural History,36, 1747–1760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ho, J.-S., & Kim, I.-L. (1996). Copepods parasitic on fishes of western North Pacific. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory,37, 275–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ho, J.-S., Liu, W.-C., & Lin, C.-L. (2012). Two species of Echthrogaleus (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida: Pandaridae) parasitic on five species of sharks off the east coast of Taiwan. Journal of the Fisheries Society of Taiwan,39, 247–255.Google Scholar
  13. Izawa, K. (2010). Redescription of eight species of parasitic copepods (Siphonostomatoida, Pandaridae) infecting Japanese elasmobranchs. Crustaceana,83, 313–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Izawa, K. (2012). Echthrogaleus mitsukurinae sp. nov. (Copepoda, Siphonostomatoida, Pandaridae) infesting the goblin shark Mitsukurina owstoni Jordan, 1898 in Japanese waters. Crustaceana,85, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katoh, K., & Standley, D. M. (2013). MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution,30, 286–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kimura, M. (1980). A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution,16, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumar, S., Stecher, G., & Tamura, K. (2016). MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Molecular Biology and Evolution,33, 1870–1874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lanfear, R., Calcott, B., Ho, S. Y., & Guindon, S. (2012). Partition finder: combined selection of partitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic analyses. Molecular Biology and Evolution,29, 1695–1701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lanfear, R., Calcott, B., Kainer, D., Mayer, C., & Stamatakis, A. (2014). Selecting optimal partitioning schemes for phylogenomic datasets. Evolutionary Biology,14, 82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Nei, M., & Kumar, S. (2000). Molecular evolution and phylogenetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ronquist, F., Teslenko, M., van der Mark, P., Ayres, D. L., Darling, A., Höhna, S., et al. (2012). MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across large model space. Systematic Biology,61, 539–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics,6, 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shiino, S. M. (1963). Parasitic copepods of the eastern Pacific fishes. 3. Echthrogaleus pellucidus sp. nov. Report of Faculty of Fisheries, Prefectural University of Mie,4, 357–368.Google Scholar
  24. Talvera, G., & Castresana, J. (2007). Improvements of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequences alignments. Systematic Biology,56, 564–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tkach, V. V., Littlewood, D. T. J., Olson, P. D., Kinsella, J. M., & Swiderski, Z. (2003). Molecular phylogenetic analysis of the Microphalloidea Ward, 1901 (Trematoda: Digenea). Systematic Parasitology,56, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Véliz, C., López, Z., González, M. T., & Acuña, E. (2018). Copepodos parásitos (Siphonostomatoida: Pandaridae) de Prionace glauca e Isurus oxyrinchus, capturados en la costa central de Chile. Revista de Biologia Marina y Oceanografia,53, 51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilson, C. B. (1907). North American parasitic copepods belonging to the family Caligidae. Part 3 and 4. A revision of the Pandarinae and Cecropinae. Proceedings of the United States National Museum,33, 326–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CONACYT, Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y DesarrolloA.C. Unidad Mazatlán en Acuicultura y Manejo AmbientalMazatlánMexico
  2. 2.Ocean Research ExplorationsHonoluluUSA
  3. 3.CEPAVE CONICET-UNLP, Centro de Estudios Parasitologicos y de VectoresBuenos AiresArgentina
  4. 4.Instituto de Ciencias Naturales Alexander von Humboldt, Facultad de Ciencias del Mar y Recuros BiológicosUniversidad de AntofagastaAntofagastaChile

Personalised recommendations