4.5 Article

New symbiotic association in marine annelids: ectoparasites of comb jellies

期刊

ZOOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 191, 期 3, 页码 672-694

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS

关键词

Annelida; Alciopini; ctenophores; Ctenophoricola; new genus; new species; parasite; Phyllodocidae

类别

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [25304031]
  2. European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) Long Terme Fellowship [ALTF 217-2018]
  3. Museum of Comparative Zoology (Harvard University)
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25304031] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new genus of ectoparasitic marine annelids, Ctenophoricola gen. nov., living on ctenophores, has been described with unique body structures and eye features. Two new species have been identified, differing mainly in coloration, shape of parapodia, number of chaetae, and body ciliation.
A new genus of ectoparasitic marine annelids living on ctenophores, Ctenophoricola gen. nov., is described and its feeding behaviour, reproduction and developmental stages are discussed. Its unusual morphology challenged its placement within the known marine families. However, analyses of mitochondrial and nuclear sequence data showed the new genus as member of the Alciopini, a group of holopelagic annelids included within the Phyllodocidae. Ctenophoricola masanorii sp. nov. from Japan and Ctenophoricola rousei sp. nov. from the Canary Islands (Spain) are described. A third species from the Gulf of California is not formally described because the specimens are in poor condition. The new genus is characterized by having: 1) two distinctive body regions, the anterior with reduced parapodia lacking chaetae, and the posterior with long parapodia and chaetae and 2) a pair of large, elongate lensed eyes. These eyes are here described using histology and 3D reconstruction based on a Californian specimen. The two new species mainly differ in colour pattern, shape of parapodia, number of chaetae and body ciliation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据