Monocoryne antarctica CANTERO, 2017, sp. nov.
Monocoryne antarctica sp. nov. (Figs 3 A, 4; Table 2) Material examined. Stn 126, one polyp, c. 13 mm long (holotype, NIWA 115613). Description. 13-mm-long polyp (Fig. 3 A). Basal 9 mm devoid of tentacles, enveloped by thin perisarc. Basal 3 mm provided with anchoring filaments. Capitate tentacles,...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Other/Unknown Material |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4386742 http://treatment.plazi.org/id/C84B87CACC1FFFB9E8DD064F0A51F758 |
| Summary: | Monocoryne antarctica sp. nov. (Figs 3 A, 4; Table 2) Material examined. Stn 126, one polyp, c. 13 mm long (holotype, NIWA 115613). Description. 13-mm-long polyp (Fig. 3 A). Basal 9 mm devoid of tentacles, enveloped by thin perisarc. Basal 3 mm provided with anchoring filaments. Capitate tentacles, usually in groups of three, one of them usually more developed. Gonophores absent. Cnidome consisting of stenoteles in two size groups (Fig. 4 A–B), desmonemes (Fig. 4 A, D), fusiform microbasic mastigophores? (Fig. 4 B, D) and an unidentified, relatively large, tear-shaped type (Fig. 4 C). Measurements (in µm). Cnidome : larger stenoteles [range 33– 36 x 30 –33, mean 34.8±1.0 x 31.6±0.8 (n=10); ratio, range 1.0–1.2, mean 1.1±0.1 (n=10)], smaller stenoteles [range 19– 21 x 15–16, mean 19.9±0.7 x 15.6±0.4 (n=10); ratio, range 1.2–1.4, mean 1.3±0.1 (n=10)], desmonemes [range 20–22 x 13.5–17, mean 20.8±0.7 x 14.6±0.9 (n=10); ratio, range 1.3–1.5, mean 1.4±0.1 (n=10)], microbasic mastigophores? [range 27– 30 x 13–15, mean 28.6±1.0 x 13.6±0.7 (n=10); ratio, range 1.9–2.3, mean 2.1±0.1 (n=10)], unidentified type [range 43– 48 x 20–25, mean 45.6±1.7 x 22.4±1.6 (n=12); ratio, range 1.9–2.2, mean 2.0±0.1 (n=12)]. Remarks. Notwithstanding the absence of gonophores, Monocoryne antarctica sp. nov. is recognizable by the cnidome (cf. Table 2). Only Monocoryne bracteata (Fraser, 1943) also has two size categories of stenoteles (Schuchert et al. 2016), although in Fraser’s species they are smaller, particularly the larger ones. The unidentified type of nematocysts in M. antarctica sp. nov. could correspond to the microbasic euryteles observed in Monocoryne gigantea (Bonnevie, 1899) and Monocoryne colonialis Brinckmann-Voss & Lindner, 2008, but if so they are larger in M. antarctica sp. nov. (cf. Table 2). Monocoryne minor (4) Monocoryne sp.(3) Monocoryne antarcticum sp. nov. Apart from the differences in the cnidome, there are geographical reasons to consider M. antarctica sp. nov. a different species. Monocoryne colonialis and ... |
|---|