Kinnecaris linel Karanovic & Cooper 2011, sp. nov.
Creators: name: Karanovic, Tomislav
name: Cooper, Steven J. B.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2011
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Hexanauplia
Harpacticoida
Parastenocarididae
Kinnecaris
Kinnecaris linel

description: Kinnecaris linel sp. nov.   
(Figs. 11–14)  
 Type locality. Australia, Western Australia, Yilgarn region, Yeelirrie pastoral station, bore line L, Snake Well, 27.3074˚ S 120.1505977 ˚E.   
 Type material. Holotype male dissected on one slide (WAM C47188); allotype female dissected on one slide (WAM C47189); one paratype male and one paratype female on one SEM stub in toto coated with carbon (WAM C47190); one paratype male dissected on one slide (WAM C47191); one paratype female dissected on one slide (WAM C47192); one paratype female destroyed for DNA sequence (amplification successful; see Fig. 23); 10 paratypes (six males + two females + two copepodids) in alcohol (WAM C47193); all collected at type locality, leg. T. Karanovic & S. Callan, 18 March 2010, seLN8310.   
 Other material examined. One female destroyed for DNA sequence (amplification unsuccessful); 10 males + 19 females + 12 copepodids in alcohol; Australia, Western Australia, Yilgarn region, Yeelirrie pastoral station, bore line L, bore L-UNK1, 27.329832˚ S 120.15059 ˚E, leg. T. Karanovic & G. Perina, 16 March 2010, seLN8533.   
Eleven males + 16 females + 12 copepodids in alcohol; Australia, Western Australia, Yilgarn region, Yeelirrie pastoral station, bore line L, bore L-UNK1, 27.329832˚ S 120.15059 ˚E, leg. T. Karanovic & S. Callan, 18 March 2010, seLN7139.  
One female destroyed for DNA sequence (amplification successful; see Fig. 23); one female in alcohol; Australia, Western Australia, Yilgarn region, Yeelirrie pastoral station, bore line L, bore L-UNK1, 27.329832˚ S 120.15059 ˚E, leg. P. Bell & G. Perina, 14 November 2009, seLN7315.  
 Description. Male (based on holotype and several paratypes). Total body length from 365 to 424 µm (424 µm in holotype). Surface of integument of all somites with dense and shallow cuticular pits, and all somites after cephalothorax with numerous short rows of minute spinules; third and fourth urosomites with some additional large spinules ventrally or laterally. Colour, nauplius eye, rostrum, body segmentation, and pore and sensilla pattern of all somites as in Kinnecaris esbe (see above), as well as many other details listed below. Habitus (Fig. 11A) cylindrical and very slender, without any demarcation between prosome and urosome dorsally, but with urosome wider in lateral view; prosome/urosome ratio about 0.6; greatest width from dorsal view hard to establish. Body length/width ratio about 9.6; cephalothorax only slightly wider than genital somite in dorsal view. Integument strongly sclerotized as in K. esbe, and more strongly than in K.lakewayi and K. barrambie, and also with deep and irregular depressions on all somites but especially on cephalothoracic shield, and pleuras and tergites of three free prosomites. Cephalothorax with clearly visible (Fig. 11A) double dorsal cuticular window posteriorly; fourth and fifth urosomites with pair of lateral circular windows each, both clearly visible and one on fifth urosomite slightly larger than that on fourth urosomite (Fig. 11A).   
 Cephalothorax (Fig. 11A) about 1.7 times as long as wide in dorsal view; representing about 18% of total body length. Surface of cephalic shield ornamented as in K. esbe, as well as tergites and pleuras of free pedigerous somites; except for additional dorsal pore on fourth and fifth pedigerous somites.   
 Genital somite (Fig. 11A) ornamented with numerous short dorsolateral rows of spinules, in addition to three pairs of sensilla on posterior margin, and one pair of very small ventro-lateral cuticular pores in anterior part; no large spinules on this somite; spermatophore visible inside some paratypes and similar size and shape to that in K. esbe.   
Third urosomite (Fig. 11A) ornamented with two dorso-lateral rows of large spinules in anterior half, six posterior sensilla, and many rows of minute spinules.  
Fourth urosomite (Fig. 11A) ornamented with two ventro-lateral short rows of large spinules ventrally of large and somewhat swollen lateral cuticular window; additionally ornamented with six posterior sensilla and numerous minute spinules.  
Fifth (preanal) urosomite (Fig. 11A) with even larger and more swollen windows than those on fourth urosomite but without any large spinules, sensilla or pores; only ornamentation shallow cuticular pits and numerous minute spinules, forming nearly continuous row along hyaline fringe.  
 Anal somite (Fig. 11A) ornamented with pair of large dorsal sensilla at base of anal operculum, pair of large cuticular pores laterally in anterior half, two pairs of minute cuticular pores laterally closer to posterior margin, and pair of slightly larger cuticular pores ventrally, at base of caudal rami, in addition to cuticular pits and rows of minute spinules. Anal operculum better developed than in K. esbe, unornamented on outer surface, ornamented with row of slender spinules on inner surface, with highly convex and smooth distal margin, not reaching posterior end of anal somite, representing 68% of somite width. Anal sinus widely opened, with two diagonal rows of slender spinules on ventral side and transverse row of spinules on dorsal side.   
 Caudal rami (Fig. 11A) about 5.5 times as long as greatest width and 1.2 times as long as anal somite, very cylindrical in all views, with only slight inflation around insertion of dorsal seta, nearly parallel, with space between them about 1.7 times one ramus width. Armature and ornamentation as in K. esbe, but because rami slightly less elongated position of dorsal and lateral setae and their relative lengths differs. Dorsal seta inserted closer to inner margin at about 3/5 of ramus length, 0.8 times as long as caudal ramus, triarticulate basally and smooth. Lateral setae also thin and smooth, inserted close to each other at 5/6 of ramus length; proximal seta which inserted closer to dorsal surface strongest and longest, about 0.2 times as long as ramus, twice as long as proximal seta which inserted closer to ventral side, and about 1.2 times as long distal lateral seta. Inner apical seta smooth and slender, inserted closer to ventral surface, about 0.32 times as long as ramus. Middle apical seta strongest, inserted distally, without breaking plane, smooth, slightly curled, about 2.1 times as long as outer apical seta and 0.2 times as long as whole body. Outer apical seta also strong and without breaking plane, but unipinnate distally and inserted closer to ventral side than middle apical seta, about 0.85 times as long as ramus.   
 Antennula (Fig. 13C), antenna, mouth appendages, and first two pairs of swimming legs as in K. esbe.   
 Third swimming leg (Fig. 13A) also very similar to that in K. esbe but apophysis proportionately larger and with much more incised apical notch; longitudinal row of large spinules on outer margin also missing as in K. esbe; exopodal spine about 1.2 times as long as apophysis.   
Fourth swimming leg (Fig. 13B) with five small spinules on basis at base of endopod (but not very close to it), and endopod with seven (on right leg) or nine (on left leg) large spinules arranged into scoop-like structure. Apical seta on third exopodal segment 1.3 times as long as entire exopod and 3.4 times as long as outer spine.  
 Fifth and sixth legs without any difference from those in K. esbe.   
Female (based on allotype and several paratypes). Body length from 369 to 418 µm (408 µm in allotype). Habitus (Fig. 14A), ornamentation of cephalothorax (Fig. 12A) and free prosomites (Fig. 14A), colour, and nauplius eye similar to those in male, except genital and first abdominal somite fused into double-somite and middle part slightly less slender. Prosome/urosome ratio 0.68; greatest width from dorsal view hard to establish; body length/width ratio 8.1; cephalothorax only slightly wider than genital double-somite.  
 Genital double-somite (Fig. 11B, C) slightly longer than wide, without any trace of subdivision except for pair of ancestral dorso-lateral sensilla at middle; additionally ornamented with six posterior sensilla (two dorsal, two ventral and two lateral), several dorso-lateral rows of minute spinules, and one lateral short row of five large spinules in posterior half (arrowed in Fig. 11B), homologous to those on third urosomite in male. Genital complex (Figs. 11C, 14D) as in K. esbe.   
Third urosomite (Figs. 11B, C, 14A) similar to that in male, with two groups of four large spinules ventro-laterally; lateral cuticular windows well developed and highly visible.  
Fourth (preanal), and fifth (anal) urosomites also very similar to those in male (Figs. 11A, B, C, 14A, B), without any large spinules except those inside anal sinus.  
Caudal rami (Figs. 11A, B, C, 14B) similar to those in male, but slightly inflated at middle in ventral view (arrowed in Fig. 11C) and more divergent; shorter than in previous species.  
 Antennula (Fig. 12B) very similar to that in K. esbe, only with somewhat more robust apical aesthetasc on seventh segment.   
 Antenna (Figs. 12C, 14C, E) very similar to that in K. esbe, exopodal seta twice as long as segment.   
 Maxilla (Fig. 12D) with three setae on distal endite of syncoxa, two smooth and with pore on tip, third with brush of spinules distally and strong; otherwise as in K. lakewayi.   
 Maxilliped (Fig. 12E) with several minute spinules at base of endopod, otherwise as in K. lakewayi.   
 Other mouth appendages (Fig. 14C), first swimming leg (Fig. 14A, C), second swimming leg (Fig. 12F, G), and exopod of fourth swimming leg (Fig. 12I) very similar to those in male and without any difference from those in K. esbe.   
Endopod of second swimming leg (Fig. 12F, G), cylindrical, six times as long as wide, its apical seta 0.67 times as long as segment; one aberrant endopod in allotype inflated (arrowed in Fig. 12F).  
 Third swimming leg (Fig. 12H) similar to that in K.esbe, but with more spinules along distal inner margin of endopod (arrowed in Fig. 12H), which also longer.   
Endopod of fourth swimming leg (Fig. 10I, J), small and slender, about seven times as long as wide, less than half as long as first exopodal segment, armed with single bipinnate seta apically; ornamented with several slender spinules along distal margin, at base of apical seta. Exopod similar to that in male.  
 Fifth leg (Figs. 11B, 14D) as in male, and without any difference from that in K. esbe; cuticular window also not observable under light microscope.   
Sixth leg (Figs. 11C, 14D) vestigial, both fused into simple bilobate cuticular plate, covering gonopore, unornamented and unarmed; outer distal corners not produced into sharp processes, but well rounded and shorter than inner lobes.  
 Etymology. The species name comes from its type locality (line L; see Fig. 24), but should be treated as comprising an arbitrary combination of letters that can be treated as a Latin word and may be conceived as a noun in apposition to the generic name.   
 Variability. Body length in males ranges from 365 to 424 µm (398 µm average; n = 30), while in females it ranges from 369 to 418 µm (395 µm average; n = 42). Endopod of the female second swimming leg is always cylindrical, except in one leg in the allotype female, which is inflated at middle (arrowed in Fig. 12F). Endopod of the female fourth leg is always small and very slender (Fig. 12I, J), and endopods of the male fourth leg always have seven spinules on the right leg (Fig. 13B) and nine on the left, which is an unusual asymmetry, but it seems to be a constant character also in K. esbe. The shape of the apophysis of the male third leg (Fig. 13A) is not variable, and is a very good morphological character, as are the groups of large spinules on the female urosome (Fig. 11B, C).   
 Remarks. Morphology of this species is such that it is very hard indeed to find enough distinguishing characters between it and K. uranusi sp. nov. (see below), yet our molecular data do not support their sister-species relationship (see further below; Fig. 23). Some of the most important differences include the length and shape of the caudal rami (slightly longer and more cylindrical in K. linel sp. nov.; arrowed in Fig. 11C), fine ornamentation of urosomites (more rows of minute spinules in K. linel, especially dorsally on anal somite; Fig. 11A), as well as the shape of the third leg apophysis in male (with deep apical notch in K. linel; Fig. 13A). As remarked above, both species are also very similar to K. esbe sp. nov., but differ in the ornamentation of the genital double-somite in female, length of the caudal rami, and some other minor details in proportion of certain armature elements and ornamentation of appendages. Molecular data suggest a sister relationship of K. linel and K. lined sp. nov., although support for this clade is not very strong (Fig. 23). The two species, however, differ not only in the proportion of the caudal rami and ornamentation of urosomites, but also in the armature of the fourth leg basis and exopod in male, as well as in the third leg apophysis (see below).
description: Published as part of Karanovic, Tomislav & Cooper, Steven J. B., 2011, Molecular and morphological evidence for short range endemism in the Kinnecaris solitaria complex (Copepoda: Parastenocarididae), with descriptions of seven new species 3026, pp. 1-64 in Zootaxa 3026 (1) on pages 29-35, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3026.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5280632