Calantica moskalevi Zevina and Galkin 1989

Calantica moskalevi Zevina and Galkin, 1989

Figures 2, 3, 8–10

Calantica moskalevi Zevina and Galkin, 1989: 134, Figs 1 a–h, 2 a–e.

Material examined. MBARI ROV Tiburon sample nos T1009 A2 and R3, (a clump of ten mature and one juvenile specimen, respectively) and MBARI ROV Tiburon sample no. T1010 R7, fragments of 1 specimen; Axial seamount (45º 56' N, 130º 02' W), SW and NE caldera wall. Depths of 1477 m and 1434 m, respectively:

Deposition of topotypes from sample no. T1009 A2: First topotype, USNM cat. no. 1145900; second topotype, USNM cat. no. 1145901; third topotype, SIO BIC cat. no. C-11193; topotype lot, SIO BIC cat. no. C-11194 (Figs 8, 9).

Diagnosis. With basic 13 capitular plates but unique in occasionally having second carinolatus (CL2) on one or both sides, without subrostrum (SR).

Description. Hermaphrodites with capitular armament of S-T surrounded by R-RL-L-CL-±CL2-C-SC, capitular height to 30 mm; peduncular length usually from about same as, to as much as twice, capitular height. Plates white, covered with transparent cuticle, cuticle becoming stained yellowish gold, eventually even becoming thinly encrusted with what appears to be ferromanganese oxides (Figs 8, 9).

FIGURE 8. Calantica moskalevi Zevina and Galkin, 1989; first topotype (view from right and left sides respectively): Two of the ten mature individuals in the sample had carinolaterals (CL2s) and the one with a CL2 on both sides was chosen as the first topotype. While the sides are virtually mirror images, it will be observed the left CL2 is smaller than that on the right (see Fig. 7 for other combinations).

Trophi (Fig. 10) with strong palps flanking bullate labrum, labral crest supporting row of numerous fine, sharp, contiguous teeth; mandible tridentoid, few well spaced spines between first and second teeth, comb of contiguous spines between third tooth and inferior angle; first maxilla with protuberant central portion of cutting edge supporting comb of closely-spaced spines separating upper field of short contiguous spines from lower field of long and short spines similar to those of inferior angle; second maxilla with typical notch between setose superior and inferior lobes.

Cirri uniformly deployed along thorax (no hiatus between cirrus I and II), cirrus I with rami subequal in length, setation antenniform, remaining cirri ctenopod; intermediate articles of cirrus VI twice as high as wide (Fig. 10 E), each article supporting five strong and one weak pair of setae along inner margin, clump of four or five strong setae at distal corner of outer margin. Numbers of articles per anterior and posterior rami indicated below.

FIGURE 9. Calantica moskalevi Zevina and Galkin, 1989; second and third topotypes: Of the ten mature specimens sampled two had carinolaterals (CL2s). The one having a CL2 on both sides was designated the first topotype (Fig. 8). The other (upper and lower right), having a CL2 on but one side (upper right), was designated the second topotype. The remaining eight lacked CL2s, and one (lower left, to same scale) was designated the third topotype. The remainder (not illustrated) constitute the topotype lot.

Caudal appendages, while figured for a juvenile by Zevina and Galkin (1989, Fig. 2 e), apparently absent in adult. Penis robust, short, somewhat longer than pedicle of cirrus VI (Fig. 10 F), fully equipped with annulations, sensor setae and tuft of apical setae (therefore judged functionally hermaphroditic); apertural, complemental males not evident.

Remarks. Gray (1825) proposed the genus Calantica, generalized members of which superficially resembled Scillaelepas Seguenza, 1876. They thereby fell in and out of synonymy, or were considered subgenera (Krüger 1940) until revised (Newman 1980). As noted in the above, the name of Zevina and Galkin’s form, when newly proposed, included a parenthetical question mark. This was probably because the two specimens were early juveniles and, since the juveniles of distantly related genera can be quite similar, the identification was deemed uncertain. The specimens (Fig. 7) had the usual 13 capitular plates (3 unpaired, 5 paired) which, taken alone, are diagnostic of both Scillaelepas and Calantica (Fig. 6). However, one of the two juveniles had an additional pair of lateral plates while the other had but one, supplementary lateral plates being known in Calantica but not Scillaelepas. Curiously, only one of the 10 adult specimens in the present sample (first topotype) has an additional pair of plates, while another (second topotype) has but one of the pair, and so situated in both as to be referable to as second carinolatera (CL2; Figs 8, 9). The remainder were similar to C. studeri or, ignoring the smallness of the peduncular plates and the cuticle covering them, like Scillaelepas (Fig. 7, lower left). Whatever, the adult of Zevina and Galkin’s form is clearly a Calantica as presently defined, whether CL2 is present or not.