Advertisement

Systematic Parasitology

, Volume 86, Issue 1, pp 77–86 | Cite as

Revisiting the octopicolid copepods (Octopicolidae: Octopicola Humes, 1957): comparative morphology and an updated key to species

  • Francisca I. CavaleiroEmail author
  • Ju-Shey Ho
  • Raúl Iglesias
  • José M. García-Estévez
  • Maria J. Santos
Article

Abstract

A review of the present state of knowledge on the octopicolid copepods (Octopicolidae: Octopicola Humes, 1957) is presented. Characteristic morphological features are illustrated with scanning electron micrographs of Octopicola superba superba Humes, 1957. Comparative morphology analysis led to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to justify raising the two subspecies of O. superba to full species rank. A new identification key for the four species of Octopicola Humes, 1957, i.e. O. superba Humes, 1957, O. antillensis Stock, Humes & Gooding, 1963, O. stocki Humes, 1963 and O. regalis Humes, 1974, is proposed after evaluation of the morphological characters which vary more markedly between them. Among other characters, these species differ in the ornamentation of the third antennal segment, maxilla and male maxilliped. They are further distinguished by a combination of several character states concerning the fifth pedigerous somite.

Keywords

Antennal Segment Mantle Cavity Seta Dorsal Full Species Smooth Seta 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Completion of this manuscript was aided by grants from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and European Social Fund (to FIC) (SFRH/BD/65258/2009) and the Paramitas Foundation (to JSH). This work was partially funded by the Project AQUAIMPROV (reference NORTE-07-0124-FEDER-000038), co-financed by the North Portugal Regional Operational Programme (ON.2–O Novo Norte), under the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF), through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF); and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the COMPETE—Operational Competitiveness Programme and national funds through FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology, under the projects PEst-C/MAR/LA0015/2013, DIRDAMyx FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-020726 (FCT—PTDC/MAR/116838/2010). We are also grateful to J. Méndez and I. Pazos (CACTI, University of Vigo) for their technical assistance in electron microscopy study.

References

  1. Bocquet, C., & Stock, J. H. (1960). Copépodes parasites d’invertébrés des cotes de la Manche. VII. Sur la présence d’Octopicola superbus Humes, lichomolgide associé a Octopus, le long des cotes de Bretagne. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale Volume 99, Notes et Revue, 1, 1–7.Google Scholar
  2. Boxshall, G. A., & Halsey, S. H. (2004). An introduction to copepod diversity, Part II. London: The Ray Society.Google Scholar
  3. Deboutteville, MM. C. D., Humes, A.-G., & Paris, J. (1957). Sur le comportement d’Octopicola superba Humes, n. g. n. sp. parasite de la Pieuvre Octopus vulgaris Lamarck. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences, 244, 504–506.Google Scholar
  4. Ho, J.-S. (1984). Accessory antennule and the origin of the Chondracanthidae (Poecilostomatoida). Crustaceana (Supplement), 7, 242–248.Google Scholar
  5. Hochberg, F. G. (1983). The parasites of cephalopods: a review. Memoirs of the National Museum of Victoria, 44, 109–145.Google Scholar
  6. Humes, A. G. (1957). Octopicola superba n. g., n. sp., copépode cyclopoide parasite d’un Octopus de la Méditerranée. Vie et Milieu, 8, 1–8.Google Scholar
  7. Humes, A. G. (1963). Octopicola stocki n sp (Copepoda, Cyclopoida), associated with an Octopus in Madagascar. Crustaceana, 5, 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Humes, A. G. (1974). Octopicola regalis, n. sp. (Copepoda, Cyclopoida, Lichomolgidae) associated with Octopus cyaneus from New Caledonia and Eniwetok Atoll. Bulletin of Marine Science, 24, 76–85.Google Scholar
  9. Humes, A. G., & Gooding, R. U. (1964). A method for studying the external anatomy of copepods. Crustaceana, 6, 238–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Humes, A. G., & Stock, J. H. (1973). A revision of the family Lichomolgidae Kossmann, 1877, cyclopoid copepods mainly associated with marine invertebrates. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  11. Humes, A. G., & Boxshall, G. A. (1996). A revision of the lichomologid complex (Copepoda: Poecilostomatoida), with the recognition of six new families. Journal of Natural History, 30, 175–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stock, J. H., Humes, A. G., & Gooding, R. U. (1963). Copepoda associated with West Indian invertebrates-IV. The genera Octopicola, Pseudanthessius and Meomicola (Cyclopoida, Lichomolgidae). Studies on the Fauna of Curaçao and other Caribbean islands, 18, 1–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisca I. Cavaleiro
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ju-Shey Ho
    • 3
  • Raúl Iglesias
    • 4
  • José M. García-Estévez
    • 4
  • Maria J. Santos
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de CiênciasUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.CIIMAR/CIMAR—Centro Interdisciplinar de Investigação Marinha e AmbientalUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesCalifornia State UniversityLong BeachUSA
  4. 4.Laboratorio de Parasitología Marina, Facultad de BiologíaUniversidad de VigoVigoSpain

Personalised recommendations