Parabopyrella lata - Markhami 1985

Parabopyrella lata (Nierstrasz and Brender à Brandisı 1929)

Figure 1

Bopyrella lata Nierstrasz and Brender à Brandisı 1929: 34ı 35ı fig. 43 [type locality: between St. Thoması Virgin Islandsı and Sabaı Netherlands Antilles; infesting unidentified alpheid]; Chopra 1930: 137 (mention); Lemos de Castro 1965: 283 – 286 (key)ı figs. 6 – 13; Bourdon 1980: 187 (key)ı 199 – 201ı fig. 6.

Parabopyrella lata – Markhamı 1985: 67 (key)ı 68 – 71ı figs. 29ı 30; Markham 1988: 57 (list); Kensley and Schotte 1989: 112 (Table 2); Brasil-Lima 1998: 639 (list); Camp 1998: 133 (list); An et al. 2015; 47ı 48 (mention)ı 61 (key); Baeza et al. 2018: 1 – 11 ı figs. 1 – 4.

Material examined

Brazil: mature female (3.85 mm TL)ı Praia do Pachecoı Cearáı 15/ V / 2003ı Colls. Victor Torresı Daniel Malledo & Daniel Laovoı infesting right branchial chamber of ovigerous female Alpheus packardii Kingsleyı 1880 (5.4 mm CL) (UFRGS 6629).

Remarks

Based on the redescription by Markham (1985) and key of An et al. (2015) ı the present specimens are closest in morphology to P. lata (Nierstrasz and Brender à Brandisı 1929) (Figure 1 (aıb)). Within Parabopyrellaı P. lata is considered to be part of the ‘ C3 ’ group which has a deeply medially incised pleotelson and longı divergent posterolateral lobes (An et al. 2015). According to Markham (1988) ı P. lata has a known range in the northwest Atlantic (Florida from Cape Canaveral to Homosassa Springsı including Bahamas) and the Caribbean Sea (between St. Thoması Virgin Islands and Sabaı Lesser Antilles) where it has been reported parasitising Alpheus normanni Kingsleyı 1878 and unidentified alpheids (Markham 1985; Boyko 2006; Baeza et al. 2018). The range of hosts for P. lata has expanded to include the shrimp Lysmata boggessi Rhyne and Linı 2006 (Boyko 2006; Baeza et al. 2018). In additionı Lemos de Castro (1965) recorded the species in Brazil (Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo) infesting Alpheus sp. and the gebiid Upogebia a ffi nis (Sayı 1818). This last record was considered questionable by Markham (1985) and Boyko (2006) due to it being the only record of a Bopyrinae isopod parasitising a species outside of the infraorder Caridea. In the present studyı a female specimen found parasitising a new hostı Alpheus packardii Kingsleyı 1880 ı has been preliminarily assigned to P. lata. It is also the first record of the species for the state of Cearáı Brazil. The present material differs from Markham ’ s (1985) Florida specimens in the following: the posterior article of oostegite 1 is more elongate and broadly rounded (Figure 1 (hıi)) (versus more acute in the Florida specimens) and the inner lobes of the barbula are oriented laterally (Figure 1 (d)) (versus inner lobes of the barbula oriented medially in the Florida specimens). Boyko (2006) analysed one bopyrid female (9.6 mm TL) parasitising the left branchial chamber of a female L. boggessi (14.7 mm CL) and identified it as P. lata. The author also pointed out the differences between P. lata and P. mortenseni (Nierstrasz and Brender à Brandisı 1929). The specimen was characterised by the broad shape of the anterior body in dorsal viewı the irregular and asymmetrical development of the dorsolateral bosses and coxal plate on the first pereomereı the pleotelson medially indentedı the posterior article of oostegite 1 broadly rounded and weakly curved and the maxilliped palp as an elongated spur with few setae (Boyko 2006). Neverthelessı the pleotelson with acute projections (Figure 1 (aıb)) (versus quadrangular projections in Boyko ’ s specimen) and the presence of ten of setae in the maxilliped palp (Figure 1 (eıf)) (versus four in Boyko ’ s specimen) distinguish the present material from that identified by Boyko (2006). The absence of illustrations for other appendages make more accurate comparisons between these two specimens difficultı but these morphological differences along with the hippolytid host raise the possibility that the material analysed by Boyko (2006) could be a different species than reported by Markham (1985) and that of our study. Howeverı based on the fact that only one female was collected from Brazil and lack of a male specimen for comparisonı there is not enough data to show that the specimen analysed here constitutes a new species. Additional material is needed to elucidate this question.