Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T12:29:49.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Two new species of Clausidium copepods (Crustacea, Poecilostomatoida) associated with ghost shrimps from Iran

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2017

Vahid Sepahvand*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Razi University, 6714967346 Kermanshah, Iran
Nasrullah Rastegar–Pouyani
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Razi University, 6714967346 Kermanshah, Iran
Terue C. Kihara
Affiliation:
Senckenberg am Meer, DZMB – German Centre for Marine Biodiversity Research, Südstrand 44, 26382 Wilhelmshaven, Germany
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: V. Sepahvand, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Razi University, 6714967346 Kermanshah, Iran Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Two new species of Clausidium copepods were collected on the bodies of ghost shrimps from the Iranian coast of the Gulf of Oman. Clausidium makranensis sp. nov. and Clausidium sarii sp. nov. are described from the large chelipeds of Neocallichirus natalensis and Corallianassa martensi, respectively. Clausidium makranensis sp. nov. is distinguishable from its congeners by the unique anal somite that is armed with sclerotized hooks on each side. Clausidium sarii sp. nov. can be differentiated from its congeners by the armature and shape of leg 5.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barnard, K.H. (1947) Description of new species of South African Decapod Crustacea, with notes on synonymy and new records. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 13, 361392.Google Scholar
Berkenbusch, K. and Rowden, A.A. (2003) Ecosystem engineering moving away from ‘just-so’ stories. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 27, 6773.Google Scholar
Butlin, R., Bridle, J. and Schluter, D. (2009) Speciation and patterns of diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corsetti, J.L. and Strasser, K.M. (2003) Host selection of the symbiotic copepod Clausidium dissimile in two sympatric populations of ghost shrimp. Marine Ecology Progress Series 256, 151159.Google Scholar
Dworschak, P.C., Felder, D.F. and Tudge, C.C. (2012) Infraorders Axiidea de Saint Laurent, 1979 and Gebiidea de Saint Laurent, 1979 (formerly known collectively as Thalassinidea). In Schram, F.R. and von Vaupel Klein, J.C. (eds) Treatise on zoology – anatomy, taxonomy, biology. The Crustacea. Complementary to the volumes translated from the French of the Traité de Zoologie [founded by P.-P. Grassé]. 9 Part B. Eucarida: Decapoda: Astacidea p.p. (Enoplometopoidea, Nephropoidea), Glypheidea, Axiidea, Gebiidea, and Anomura. Leiden: Brill, pp. 109219.Google Scholar
Embleton, A.L. (1901) Goidelia japonica a new entozoic copepod from Japan associated with an infusorian (Trichodina). Journal of the Linnean Society (Zoology) 28, 211229.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W.D. (1980) Sex versus non-sex versus parasite. Oikos 35, 282290.Google Scholar
Humes, A.G. (1949) A new copepod (Cyclopoida: Clausidiidae) parasitic on mud shrimps in Louisiana. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 68, 93103.Google Scholar
Huys, R. and Boxshall, G.A. (1991) Copepod evolution. London: Ray Society.Google Scholar
Huys, R., Gee, J.M., Moore, C.G. and Hamond, R. (1996) Marine and brackish water harpacticoid copepods. Part 1. In Kermack, D.M., Barnes, R.S.K. and Crothers, J.H. (eds) Synopses of the British fauna (new series) No. 51. London: The Linnean Society of London and the Estuarine and Coastal Sciences Association.Google Scholar
Jaenike, J. (1978) A hypothesis to account for the maintenance of sex within populations. Evolutionary Theory 3, 191194.Google Scholar
Kihara, T.C. and Rocha, C.E.F. (2013) First record of Clausidium (Copepoda, Clausidiidae) from Brazil: a new species associated with ghost shrimps Neocallichirus grandimana (Gibbes, 1850) (Decapoda, Callianassidae). ZooKeys 335, 4767.Google Scholar
Kossmann, R. (1874) Ueber Clausidium testudo, einen neuen Copepoden, nebst Bemerkungen uber das System der halbparasitischen Copepoden. Verhandlungen der Physikalischen Gesellschaft zu Wurzburg 7, 280294.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982) The growth of biological thought diversity, evolution and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Michels, J. and Buntzow, M. (2010) Assessment of Congo red as a fluorescence marker for the exoskeleton of small crustaceans and the cuticle of polychaetes. Journal of Microscopy 238, 95101.Google Scholar
Miers, E.J. (1884) On some crustaceans from Mauritius. Proceedings of the Zoological Society London 1884, 1017.Google Scholar
Pearse, A.S. (1947) Parasitic copepods from Beaufort, North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 63, 116.Google Scholar
Pillai, N.K. (1959) On two new species of Clausidium (Copepoda: Cyclopoida) parasitic on the shrimp Callianassa. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India 1, 5765.Google Scholar
Sepahvand, V., Sari, A., Salehi, H., Nabavi, S.M.B. and Ghorbanzadeh, S.G. (2013) Littoral mud shrimps (Decapoda: Gebiidea & Axiidea) of the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, Iran. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 93, 9991008.Google Scholar
Thorell, T. (1859) Bidrag till Kännedomen om Krustaceer, som lefva. i After af Slägtet Ascidia L.K.svenska Vetensk Alcad. Handle 3, 184.Google Scholar
Walter, T.C. and Boxshall, G. (2017) World of Copepods database. Available at http://www.marinespecies.org/copepodaGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J.J. (2007) Species delimitation: new approaches for discovering diversity. Systematic Biology 56, 875878.Google Scholar
Wilson, C.B. (1937) Two new semi-parasitic copepods from the Peruvian Coast. Parasitology 29, 206211.Google Scholar