Marine sustainability in an age of changing oceans and seas

The report is the result of fruitful collaboration between EASAC and the JRC. It has been prepared by a working group of experts drawn from the European National Science Academies, which was supported by the JRC. It is hoped that the report will prove useful in the further development and implementation of European Union marine and maritime policy as well as the organisation of supporting science needed to inform and guide these policies. The last ten years have seen a growth in marine and maritime policymaking within the European Union with a key feature being the concept of the ecosystem approach to guide sustainable use of the seas. In view of this increasing focus on coherent marine and maritime policy and governance within the EU, as well as globally, the EASAC Council decided in December 2013 to conduct a study on the issue of marine sustainability. This decision particularly acknowledged the need to provide advice from the point of view of the European science academies on this new direction of marine policy and to highlight the particular challenges that this poses to the organisation of science. The report has the aim of contributing to the governance challenge of how to integrate the various aspects of marine policy (fisheries management, biodiversity conservation and marine environmental protection) as part of a coherent ecosystem approach. It considers how current science knowledge on marine ecosystems and the organisation of science can support an integrated approach to management of the seas. The report looks at a number of key aspects for sustainable development in changing oceans and seas, and particularly highlights the key scientific challenges in addressing these issues. The report presents both recommendations from science for policy development, and recommendations on policy for science. The health of the oceans and coastal seas is vital for the future well-being of all of Europe, indeed of entire mankind, and sustainable management of this sensitive and fast changing component of the global ecosystem is essential.JRC.A.3-Inter-institutional, International Relations and Outreac

First record of Caligus dussumieri Rangnekar, 1957 (Copepoda, Siphonostomatoida, Caligidae) from Malaysia, with notes on caligids found from Malaysia and on host-specificity of caligids on lutjanid fishes

In total, 13 species of Caligus have been reported from Malaysia. Amongst them, four species are reported from lutjanid fishes.Caligus dussumieri Rangnekar, 1957 is reported from Malabar snapper, Lutjanus malabaricus, purchased from a local wet market in Terengganu, Peninsular Malaysia. This is the first record of this species in Malaysia and it is only the second species assigned to the bonito-group of the genus Caligus to be reported from Malaysia. A key to species of the bonito-group is presented herein. The list of caligids infecting lutjanid fishes and the geographical distributions plus the known hosts of members of the bonito-group of Caligus are discussed

Caligus oviceps Shiino 1952

<i>Caligus oviceps</i> Shiino, 1952 <p>(Fig. 42)</p> <p> Syn: <i>Caligus truncatogenitalis</i> Roubal, 1981</p> <p> <b>Material examined.</b> 1♀, 4 chalimus stages from <i>Meuschenia trachylepis</i> (Günther, 1870) (TC17598) 26 June 2016, QM Reg. No. W53088;1♀ from <i>Kyphosus cinerascens</i> (Forsskål, 1775) (TC17922) 5 July 2016, NHMUK 2017.295.</p> <p> <b>Site on host.</b> Chalimus attached to fins, adult unknown (in body wash).</p> <p> <b>Differential diagnosis.</b> Cephalothorax dorsoventrally flattened with well-developed marginal membranes along lateral zones of dorsal cephalothoracic shield; frontal plates with lunules. Genital complex not clearly demarcated from fourth pedigerous somite (Fig. 42A); about 1.06 times longer than wide; abdomen 1-segmented, about 1.30 times longer than wide; genital complex about 3 times longer than abdomen. Caudal rami about twice as long as wide. Antenna with blunt-tipped posterior process on proximal segment (Fig. 42B). Post-antennal process curved, associated papillae unisensillate. Posterior process of maxillule simple (Fig. 42B). Maxilla with ornamentation of denticles along distal margin (Fig. 42C). Maxilliped of female slender, with smooth myxal margin; claw on subchela short. Sternal furca with blunt-tipped, slightly incurved tines (Fig. 42D). Distal exopodal segment of leg 1 with 3 plumose setae on posterior margin; distal margin spine 1 slender, about as long as spines 2 and 3; spines 2 and 3 each with long accessory process; seta 4 longer than spines but shorter than segment (Fig. 42E). Leg 2 with marginal setules on endopodal segments 1, 2 and 3; outer spines on exopodal segments 1 and 2 aligned obliquely across surface of ramus (Fig. 42F); proximal outer spine on third segment short, naked, distal outer spine ornamented with expanded membrane on apical side only. Leg 3 without distinctive ornamentation on apron; exopod 3-segmented (Fig. 42G) first segment with short curved spine, lacking inner seta; second segment with outer spine and inner seta plus sensilla on dorsal surface; third with 3 spines and 4 plumose setae: endopod 2- segmented, with 0–1; 6 setal formula. Leg 4 uniramous, 3-segmented; exopodal segments with I, III spines; each spine with well-developed pecten (Fig. 42H). Body length of female 3.95 mm.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> <i>Caligus oviceps</i> was established by Shiino (1952) based on material taken from <i>Siganus fuscescens</i> (Houttuyn, 1782) in Japanese waters. This inadequately characterized species was fully redescribed by Lin <i>et al.</i> (1996a) and again by Ho & Lin (2004). The Moreton Bay females conform closely to these redescriptions in overall body proportions, shape of genital complex, and relative size and shape of the abdomen. Other similarities include: the relative weakly curved subchela of the antenna, the unisensillate papillae ornamenting the curved postantennal process, the ornamented distal margin of the maxilla, the shape of the sternal furca, the lengths and format of the distal setal elements on the exopod of leg 1, the relative length and position of the outer margin spines on the exopod of leg 2, and the curved outer spine of the first exopodal segment of leg 3 that does not reach the articulation with the second segment. In addition, the relative lengths of the 4 spines on leg 4 are the same. <i>Caligus oviceps</i> is a member of the <i>C. macarovi</i> -group.</p> <p> Lin <i>et al.</i> (1996a) also confirmed that <i>C. truncatogenitalis</i> Roubal, 1981 was a junior subjective synonym of <i>C. oviceps</i>. <i>Caligus truncatogenitalis</i> was originally described based on a single female taken from <i>Acanthopagrus australis</i> caught off Coffs Harbour, only about 400 km south of Moreton Bay (Roubal, 1981). The body length of female <i>C. oviceps</i> given by Shiino (1955b) was 3.41 mm and Roubal’s female (as <i>C. truncatogenitalis</i>) was 3.54 mm (Roubal, 1981). The female from <i>Kyphosus cinerascens</i> in Moreton Bay is slightly larger at 3.95 mm.</p> <p> Detailed comparison between <i>C. oviceps</i> and <i>C. latus</i> Byrnes, 1987 reveals only relatively minor differences. They share numerous character states including: the configuration of the distal elements on the tip of the exopod of leg 1, the possession of unisensillate papillae associated with the post-antennal process, the shape of the flanged tines of the sternal furca, and the relative lengths of the spines on leg 4. There are minor differences in the shape of the female genital complex but these could possibly be attributed to the reproductive status of individual females. The distal margin of the brachium of the maxilla is ornamented with denticles in <i>C. oviceps</i> (Fig. 42C) but Byrnes (1987) did not figure this limb for <i>C. latus</i> and described it as “typical”. In the same paper, Byrnes did note the denticulate margin of the maxilla in <i>C. dampieri</i> and <i>C. stokesi</i>, indicating that he was aware of the significance of this character. It seems possible that <i>C. latus</i> Byrnes, 1987 is as a synonym of <i>C. oviceps</i>, but confirming this requires examination of the type material of the former.</p> <p> In addition to the type host <i>Siganus fuscescens</i>, this copepod has been reported from <i>Parupeneus chrysopleuron</i> (Temminck & Schlegel, 1843) (as <i>Pseudupeneus chrysopleuron</i>), <i>Cheilodactylus quadricornis</i> (Günther, 1860) (as <i>Goniistius quadricornis</i>), <i>Calotomus japonicus</i> (Valenciennes, 1840) (as <i>Leptoscarus japonicus</i>), <i>Stephanolepis setifer</i> Bennett, 1831 (as <i>Monacanthus setifer</i>), <i>Lethrinus haematopterus</i> Temminck & Schlegel, 1844, <i>Girella punctata</i> Gray, 1835, <i>Istiblennius edentulus</i> (Forster & Schneider, 1801) (as <i>Salarias enosimae</i>), and <i>Entomacrodus stellifer</i> Jordan & Snyder, 1902 (as <i>Salarias stellifer</i>) in Japanese waters (Shiino, 1959), and from <i>Acanthopagrus australis</i> and <i>A. latus</i> in Australia (Roubal, 1981; Byrnes, 1987). Both <i>Kyphosus cinerascens</i> and <i>Meuschenia trachylepis</i> are new host records for <i>C. oviceps</i> and this is the first report of this widely distributed copepod from Queensland, although it was previously known from New South Wales.</p>Published as part of <i>Boxshall, Geoff, 2018, The sea lice (Copepoda: Caligidae) of Moreton Bay (Queensland, Australia), with descriptions of thirteen new species, pp. 1-172 in Zootaxa 4398 (1)</i> on pages 96-98, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4398.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/1202953">http://zenodo.org/record/1202953</a&gt

Caligus parvilatus Kim 1998

<i>Caligus parvilatus</i> Kim, 1998 <p>(Figs. 45–47)</p> <p> Syn: <i>Caligus latus</i> Kim, 1995</p> <p> Non <i>Caligus latus</i> Byrnes, 1987</p> <p> <b>Material examined.</b> 8♀♀, 3♂♂ from <i>Abudefduf bengalensis</i> (Bloch, 1787) (TC16957-61) 11 January 2016, QM Reg. No. W53092; 1 chalimus (TC17966), 4♀♀, 2♂♂ (TC 17806) 2 July 2016, NMHUK 2017.301–306; 1 immature ♀ from <i>Abudefduf whitleyi</i> Allen & Robertson, 1974 (TC16966) 11 January 2016;1♀ from <i>Kyphosus bigibbus</i> Lacepède, 1801 (TC17864) 4 July 2016, 1♀ (TC17792) 1 July 2016, NMHUK 2017.307–308.</p> <p> <b>Site on host.</b> Body surface.</p> <p> <b>Description.</b> Adult female (Fig. 45A) mean body length including caudal rami 2.18 mm (range 1.95 to 2.43 mm), (based on 11 specimens). Cephalothorax slightly longer than wide with shallow posterior sinuses; comprising about 60% of total body length. Free margin of thoracic portion of dorsal cephalothoracic shield extending posteriorly beyond rear margins of lateral portions. Lunules present ventrally on frontal plates. Genital complex subrectangular, 1.3 times wider than long; with rounded corners (Fig. 45B); fifth legs located close to posterolateral corners (Fig. 45C). Copulatory pores located near midline, oviduct openings marked by 2 swellings, 1 with finely ridged surface. Genital complex more than 4 times longer than abdomen. Abdomen 1-segmented; about 1.2 times wider than long in ventral view (Fig. 45B); carrying paired caudal rami distally; anal slit terminal. Caudal rami with parallel sides, longer than wide, measured at midpoints of margins. Each ramus armed with short hirsute seta at inner distal angle, slightly longer hirsute seta at outer distal angle, minute hirsute seta located just ventral to outer distal seta, and 3 long plumose setae on distal margin.</p> <p>Antennule (Fig. 45D) 2-segmented; large proximal segment with 25 plumose setae arrayed along anteroventral surface and 2 setae located dorsally; distal segment bearing 12 elements (10 setae plus 2 aesthetascs) around apex, plus isolated seta on posterior margin. Antenna (Fig. 45E) comprising proximal segment bearing spatulate posteriorly-directed spinous process; middle segment subrectangular, tapering distally, unarmed; terminal segment forming short, recurved claw bearing short spinous swelling proximally, and minute setal vestige near anterior margin. Post-antennal process (Fig. 45F) well-developed, curved; ornamented with 2 bisensillate papillae on basal part and single bisensillate papilla on adjacent ventral cephalothoracic surface.</p> <p>Mandible of typical stylet-like structure, with 12 marginal teeth (Fig. 45G). Maxillule (Fig. 46A) comprising anterior papilla bearing 3 unequal, naked setae and blunt posterior, tine-like process. Maxilla 2-segmented (Fig. 46B), comprising elongate syncoxa and basis: syncoxa unarmed; basis bearing membranous subapical flabellum on anterior margin, and terminating in 2 subequal claw-like elements (calamus and canna). Calamus slightly longer than canna, ornamented with strips of serrated membrane arranged obliquely around surface; canna ornamented with strips of serrated membrane. Maxilliped subchelate (Fig. 46C); slender proximal segment unarmed and without process on myxal surface; distal subchela with apical claw separated from proximal segmental part by incomplete suture; slender seta present on concave margin.</p> <p>Sternal furca (Fig. 46D) with slightly divergent tines, expanding distally and with bluntly truncated tip.</p> <p>First swimming leg pair (Fig. 46E) with joined by slender intercoxal sclerite; sympod with inner and outer plumose setae derived from basis; endopod represented by unarmed process on posterior margin of basis. Exopod 2-segmented; directed laterally and forming main axis of leg; first segment robust, about 2.8 times longer than wide and armed with small outer (anterior) spine and ornamented with row of setules along middle section of posterior margin; second segment armed with 3 long plumose setae along posterior margin and 4 distal elements along oblique distal margin. Distal elements as follows: spine 1 (anterior-most) simple, longer than spine 2; spine 2 markedly longer than spine 3, each with accessory process; seta 4 about 25% longer than spine 1, and shorter than segment.</p> <p>Second leg (Fig. 46F) biramous, with flattened protopodal segments and 3-segmented rami. Coxae of leg pair joined by intercoxal sclerite bearing marginal membrane posteriorly. Coxa with plumose seta and surface sensilla. Basis armed with outer naked seta; ornamented with surface sensilla, marginal membrane posteriorly, and flap of membrane anteriorly, reflexed back over dorsal surface of segment. Exopodal segments 1 and 2 each with large unilaterally-dentate, reflexed outer spines extending obliquely across ventral surface of ramus (Fig. 46G), plus inner plumose seta; first segment also with flap of membrane anteriorly, reflexed back over dorsal surface of segment: segment 3 with 2 outer spines (proximal spine minute; distal spine unilaterally pinnate), apical spine with marginal membrane laterally and pinnules medially, and 5 inner plumose setae. Endopodal segments 1 and 2 armed with 1 and 2 inner plumose setae respectively; segment 3 with 6 plumose setae; outer margins of second and third endopodal segments ornamented with fine setules.</p> <p>Third leg pair (Fig. 47A) forming flattened plate closing posterior part of cephalothoracic sucker as typical for genus. Protopodal part flattened, joined by plate-like, intercoxal sclerite forming apron ornamented with marginal membrane posteriorly and along lateral margin anterior to exopod; bearing inner plumose seta at junction with intercoxal plate, and outer plumose seta dorsal to base of exopod; long sensillae located adjacent to inner coxal seta and adjacent to origin of endopod. Exopod 3-segmented; first segment armed with weakly curved outer spine directed over ventral surface of ramus, spine and outer distal margin of segment ornamented with strips of membrane, lacking inner seta; second segment with slender outer spine and inner plumose seta; third with 7 setal elements (3 outer spiniform elements and 4 inner plumose setae); outer margin of segment 2 ornamented with row of slender setules. Endopod 2-segmented; first segment expanded laterally to form flap-like velum closing off space between rami; velum ornamented with row of fine setules along free margin; segment bearing inner plumose seta; second segment with 6 setal elements increasing in length from outermost to innermost.</p> <p>Fourth leg (Fig. 47B) 2-segmented, comprising slender protopodal segment and 1-segmented exopod: protopodal segment armed with plumose seta distally; exopodal segment armed with slender outer spine with pecten at base, and 1 long naked apical spine plus shorter naked subapical spine, each with pecten at base.</p> <p>Fifth legs located posterolaterally on genital complex (Fig. 45B,C); each fifth leg comprising anterior spinous process bearing short plumose seta (representing outer protopodal seta) and long exopodal process with bifid tip armed with 2 plumose setae.</p> <p>Mean body length of male including caudal rami 1.71 mm (range 1.61 to 1.75 mm) (based on 5 specimens).</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> <i>Caligus parvilatus</i> was originally described by Kim (1995) under the name <i>C. latus</i>, which was preoccupied by <i>Caligus latus</i> Byrnes, 1987. Kim (1998) proposed <i>C. parvilatus</i> as a replacement name. The adult female body form of <i>C. parvilatus</i> resembles <i>C. tylosuri</i> (Rangnekar, 1956) and <i>C. cordiventris</i> Shiino, 1952, particularly in the shared possession of a short broad genital complex which bears a distinctive fifth leg in the form of two rigid marginal processes, the anterior bearing the outer protopodal seta and the posterior representing the exopod and bearing plumose setae at its tip. It seems likely that the inadequately described <i>C. eventilis</i> Leigh- Sharpe, 1934 is also closely related to these three species.</p> <p> Rangnekar (1956) originally placed <i>C. tylosuri</i> in <i>Tuxophorus</i> Wilson, 1908 but Pillai (1961) re-assigned it to <i>Caligus</i>. Comparison with Lin & Ho’s (2007) redescription of female <i>C. tylosuri</i> reveals many differences from <i>C. parvilatus</i>: the post-antennal process is bifid in the former but simple in <i>C. parvilatus</i>; the tines of the sternal furca are strongly divergent in <i>C. tylosuri</i> but weakly divergent with expanded truncate tips in <i>C. parvilatus</i>; the outer margin spines on the first and second exopodal segments of leg 2 are ornamented with finely serrate marginal membrane and are aligned close to the longitudinal axis of the ramus in <i>C. tylosuri</i> whereas in <i>C. parvilatus</i> they both lie obliquely across the surface of the ramus and are strongly serrated; leg 4 is slender in both species but carries 3 unequal apical spines in <i>C. tylosuri</i>, the longest of which is as long as the entire exopod, whereas in <i>C. parvilatus</i> there are only 2 relatively shorter, apical spines.</p> <p> Shiino (1952) established <i>C. cordiventris</i> on the basis of five females collected from <i>Prionurus scalprum</i> (as <i>Xesurus scalprum</i>) in Japanese waters. Subsequently he described the male from the same host (Shiino, 1955a). This appears to be a rare species as it has not been reported since 1955, although it has been listed in syntheses such as the compendium of Yamaguti (1963). <i>Caligus cordiventris</i> is very similar to <i>C. parvilatus</i>: both species have serrated outer spines on the first and second exopodal segments of leg 2 and both have only 2 well developed spines on the distal margin of leg 4. These two species are best distinguished by the form of the exopod of leg 4: the spine marking the edge of the proximal exopodal segment is located about a third of the distance along the ramus in <i>C. cordiventris</i> and it extends less than half the distance to the apex of the limb, whereas in <i>C. parvilatus</i> the homologus outer margin spine is located about mid-margin along the unsegmented exopod, and it reaches nearly three quarters of the way to the tip. In addition, the sternal furca has slender tines with rounded tips in <i>C. cordiventris</i> whereas in <i>C. parvilatus</i> it has spatulate tines with broad, truncated tips.</p> <p> Leigh-Sharpe (1934) described <i>C. eventilis</i> from a “black pomacentrid fish” caught north of Damar Island in the Banda Sea (= Siboga Station 144, Anchorage. Salomakië Island). The description lacks detail but the structure and armature of leg 4 and the possession of a broad genital complex with prominent anterior and posterior processes representing the fifth legs, suggest a close relationship with <i>C. tylosuri</i>, <i>C. cordiventris</i> and <i>C. parvilatus</i>. The shape of the short abdomen, with its unusually broad base, serves to separate <i>C. eventilis</i> from these other three species.</p> <p> <i>Caligus parvilatus</i> was originally established on the basis of females found on the body surface of <i>Ditrema temmincki</i> Bleeker, 1853 (Embiotocidae) caught in the Korea Strait (Kim, 1995). Subsequently Kim (1998) reported both sexes of <i>C. parvilatus</i> from a parrotfish <i>Calotomus japonicus</i> (Scaridae) collected in Korean waters. In Moreton Bay, it was found on three different hosts, two species of the pomacentrid <i>Abudefduf</i>, <i>A</i>. <i>bengalensis</i> and <i>A. whitleyi</i>, and <i>Kyphosus bigibbus</i> (Kyphosidae).</p>Published as part of <i>Boxshall, Geoff, 2018, The sea lice (Copepoda: Caligidae) of Moreton Bay (Queensland, Australia), with descriptions of thirteen new species, pp. 1-172 in Zootaxa 4398 (1)</i> on pages 103-107, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4398.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/1202953">http://zenodo.org/record/1202953</a&gt

Caligus pelamydis Kroyer 1863

<i>Caligus pelamydis</i> Krøyer, 1863 <p>(Fig. 48)</p> <p> <b>Material examined.</b> 1♀ from <i>Pomatomus saltatrix</i> (Linnaeus, 1766) (TC17537) 24 June 2016, QM Reg. No. W53093.</p> <p> <b>Site on host.</b> Unknown (in body wash).</p> <p> <b>Differential diagnosis.</b> Cephalothorax dorsoventrally flattened with well-developed marginal membranes; frontal plates with small lunules. Genital complex about 1.1 times longer than wide (Fig. 48A); abdomen elongate, about 3.0 times longer than wide, indistinctly 2-segmented, with anterior somite about 3.1 times longer than short anal somite; genital complex shorter than abdomen, with convex lateral margins narrowing anteriorly. Antenna without posterior process on proximal segment (Fig. 48B). Post-antennal process reduced, with vestigial tine; associated papillae multisensillate. Maxilliped of female with smooth myxal margin. Sternal furca with slightly incurved blunt-tipped tines. Distal exopodal segment of leg 1 with 3 plumose setae on posterior margin; distal margin spine 1 shorter than other spines; spines 2 and 3 with tapering tips without accessory processes (Fig. 48D); seta 4 shorter than spine 3. Leg 2 with patches of fine setules extending onto ventral surface of endopodal segments 2 and 3 (Fig. 48E); outer margin of first endopodal segment unornamented; outer spines on exopodal segments 1 and 2 aligned close to longitudinal axis of ramus (Fig. 48F); proximal spine on third exopodal segment naked, about 65% length of distal spine. Leg 3 with 3-segmented exopod; first segment bearing small straight spine with cuticular flange at base (Fig. 48G); second segment with small outer spine plus long inner seta; third segment with 3 spines increasing in length distally, plus 4 plumose setae. Leg 4 uniramous, 4-segmented (Fig. 48H); exopodal segments armed with I; I; III spines; each spine with elongate strip of membrane (modified pecten) on surface of segment adjacent to base. Body length of female 3.92 mm.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> This is a distinctive species characterized by its unusually long abdomen. It is a core member of the <i>C. diaphanus</i> -group. <i>Caligus pelamydis</i> is most frequently reported from scombrid hosts and has an almost cosmopolitan distribution (Cressey & Cressey, 1980) in the North and South Atlantic, Indian, and North and South Pacific Oceans. It has been recorded in Australian waters off New South Wales, on <i>Euthynnus affinis</i>, <i>Sarda australis</i> and <i>Auxis</i> sp. (Cressey & Cressey, 1980), and on <i>Arripis trutta</i> by Hutson <i>et al.</i> (2011). In Moreton Bay it was found on <i>P. saltatrix</i>; it has been reported previously from this host taken off the African coast in the South Atlantic (Capart, 1959).</p>Published as part of <i>Boxshall, Geoff, 2018, The sea lice (Copepoda: Caligidae) of Moreton Bay (Queensland, Australia), with descriptions of thirteen new species, pp. 1-172 in Zootaxa 4398 (1)</i> on pages 107-109, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4398.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/1202953">http://zenodo.org/record/1202953</a&gt

Caligus neoaricolus Boxshall 2018, sp. nov.

<i>Caligus neoaricolus</i> sp. nov. <p>(Figs. 39–41)</p> <p> <b>Type material.</b> Holotype ♀, 14 paratype ♀♀, 12 paratype ♂♂, 1 immature ♀ paratype from <i>Neoarius graeffei</i> (Kner & Steindachner, 1867) (TC17881) 4 July 2016, QM Reg. Nos Holotype ♀ W53085, 1 paratype ♀♀ and 1 immature ♀ paratype W53086, 6 paratype ♂♂ W53087; 7 paratype ♀♀ and 6 paratype ♂♂ NHMUK 2017.283– 292; 1 paratype ♂ from (TC17597) 26 June 2016, 1 paratype ♂ from (TC17624) 27 June 2016.</p> <p> <b>Additional non-type material</b>. 1♀ from <i>Netuma proxima</i> (Ogilby, 1898) (TC18830) 0 1 August 2017, NHMUK 2017.294. 1♀ (possible contaminant) from <i>Sillago maculata</i> Quoy & Gaimard, 1824 (TC17904) 5 July 2016;1♂ incomplete (possible contaminant) from <i>Gerres</i> sp, juveniles (collected 26 June 2016).</p> <p> <b>Type Host.</b> <i>Neoarius graeffei</i> (Kner & Steindachner, 1867).</p> <p> <b>Site on host.</b> Body surface.</p> <p> <b>Etymology.</b> The name of this species alludes to the genus of the type host.</p> <p> <b>Description.</b> Adult female (Fig. 39A) mean body length including caudal rami 5.91 mm (range 5.73 to 6.24 mm) (based on 10 specimens). Cephalothorax about 1.18 times longer than wide; comprising about 54% of total body length. Free margin of thoracic portion of dorsal cephalothoracic shield extending posteriorly just beyond rear margins of lateral portions. Lunules present ventrally on frontal plates. Genital complex 1.13 times longer than wide; narrowing slightly anteriorly and with linear lateral margins (Fig. 39A). Genital complex about 1.4 times longer than abdomen. Abdomen 1-segmented, about 2.0 times longer than wide; carrying paired caudal rami distally; anal slit terminal. Caudal rami longer than wide, measured at midpoints of margins. Each ramus armed with short hirsute seta at inner distal angle, slightly longer hirsute seta at outer distal angle, minute hirsute seta located just ventral to outer distal seta, and 3 plumose setae on distal margin.</p> <p>Antennule (Fig. 39B) 2-segmented; proximal segment with 25 plumose setae along anteroventral margin and 2 setae located dorsally; distal segment bearing 12 elements (10 setae plus 2 aesthetascs) around apex, plus isolated seta on posterior margin. Antenna (Fig. 39C) comprising proximal segment with small sharply-pointed, posteriorly-directed spinous process; middle segment subrectangular, unarmed; terminal segment forming strongly curved claw with proximal sclerotized swelling bearing small seta, and armed with stout distal seta. Post-antennal process (Fig. 39C) weakly curved, ornamented with 2 multisensillate papillae on basal part; plus single multisensillate papilla on adjacent ventral cephalothoracic surface.</p> <p>Mandible of typical stylet-like structure, with 12 marginal teeth (Fig. 39D). Maxillule (Fig. 39C) comprising anterior papilla bearing 3 small naked setae and slender, tapering posterior process. Maxilla comprising elongate syncoxa and basis: syncoxa unarmed but bearing opening of maxillary gland; basis bearing subapical membranous flabellum on anterior margin, and terminating in 2 subequal, claw-like elements (calamus and canna) (Fig. 39E): calamus just longer than canna, ornamented with strips of serrated membrane arranged obliquely around surface; canna with linear strips of serrated membrane. Maxilliped subchelate (Fig. 39F); slender proximal segment with fine transverse ridges on myxal surface; distal subchela with small inner seta.</p> <p>Sternal furca (Fig. 39G) with weakly divergent, tapering tines.</p> <p>First swimming leg pair (Fig. 40A) with sympods joined by slender intercoxal sclerite; sympod with inner and outer plumose setae; endopod represented by unarmed process on posterior margin of basis, bearing minute vestiges of 2 setae apically. Exopod 2-segmented; directed laterally and forming main axis of leg; first segment robust, about 2.5 times longer than wide and armed with small outer (anterior) spine and ornamented with setule row along mid-section of posterior margin; second segment armed with 3 long plumose setae along posterior margin and 4 distal elements. Distal margin elements as follows: spine 1 (anterior-most) longest and naked; spine 2 longer than spine 3, each with accessory process; seta 4 twice as long as spine 1 and longer than segment.</p> <p>Second leg biramous, with flattened protopodal segments and 3-segmented rami. Coxae of leg pair joined by plate-like intercoxal sclerite bearing marginal membrane posteriorly; armed with plumose seta and surface sensilla. Basis armed with outer naked seta; ornamented with surface sensilla, marginal membrane posteriorly, and flap of membrane anteriorly, reflexed back over dorsal surface of segment. Exopodal segments 1 and 2 each with inner plumose seta and large reflexed outer spines extending obliquely across ventral surface of ramus (Fig. 40B); outer spines ornamented with bilateral membranous strips; first exopodal segment bearing flap of membrane anteriorly, reflexed back over dorsal surface; segment 3 with 2 outer spines, proximal spine small, distal spine ornamented with membrane; apical spine with marginal membrane laterally and pinnules medially, and 5 inner plumose setae. Endopodal segments 1 and 2 armed with 1 and 2 inner plumose setae respectively; segment 3 with 6 plumose setae; outer margins of all endopodal segments ornamented with fine setules.</p> <p>Third leg pair (Fig. 40C) forming flattened plate closing posterior part of cephalothoracic sucker, as typical for genus. Protopodal part flattened joined by plate-like, intercoxal sclerite forming apron, ornamented with marginal membrane posteriorly and along lateral margin anterior to exopod; bearing inner plumose seta at junction with intercoxal plate, and outer plumose seta dorsal to base of exopod; sensillae located adjacent to inner coxal seta and adjacent to origin of endopod. Exopod indistinctly 3-segmented; first segment armed with straight outer claw directed parallel with long axis of ramus and overlying lateral margin, lacking inner seta; second and third segments incompletely separated by partial suture; armed with slender outer spine and inner plumose seta derived from second segment and 3 outer spiniform elements and 4 inner plumose setae (derived from third segment); outer margins of segments 2 and 3 ornamented with rows of slender setules. Endopod 2-segmented; first segment expanded to form flap-like velum closing off space between rami, velum ornamented with row of fine setules along free margin; segment armed with inner plumose seta; compound distal segment with expanded and setulate lateral margin; bearing with 6 setal elements increasing in length from outermost to innermost.</p> <p>Fourth leg (Fig. 40D) 3-segmented, comprising slender protopodal segment and 2-segmented exopod; exopodal segments separated by oblique articulation: protopodal segment armed with outer plumose seta; first exopodal segment armed with short outer spine; second segment armed with short lateral spine and 3 unequal spines along distal margin; all spines with pecten at base.</p> <p>Fifth leg located posterolaterally on margin of genital complex, represented by anterior plumose seta on papilla and posterior papilla bearing 2 unequal plumose setae representing exopod (Fig. 39H).</p> <p>Male (Fig. 41A) mean body length including caudal rami 5.62 mm, range 5.41 to 5.99 mm (based on 10 specimens). Cephalothorax subcircular as in female. Fourth pedigerous somite incompletely fused to genital complex. Genital complex about 1.2 times longer than wide, measured along the mid-line; with weakly convex lateral margins. Abdomen 2-segmented, separated from genital complex dorsally but fused ventrally. Caudal rami longer than wide; armed with short plumose seta at inner distal angle, 2 short plumose setae at outer distal angle, and 3 longer plumose setae on distal margin.</p> <p>Antennule, mandible, maxillule and maxilla as in female. Antenna modified (Fig. 41C); first segment elongate; second segment reflexed, swollen proximally with surface forming corrugated adhesion pads ventrally, plus corrugated distal swelling opposing tip of claw; distal segment forming short powerful apical claw armed with 2 setae proximally. Post-antennal process more robust than in female (Fig. 41D).</p> <p>Maxilliped (Fig. 41E) with weakly inflated myxal margin on proximal segment; distal subchela longer relative to syncoxa, than in female.</p> <p>Legs 5 and 6 (Fig. 41B) each forming paired flattened processes posterolaterally on genital complex. Leg 5 represented by 3 plumose setae, 1 outer seta and 2 short inner setae representing exopod. Leg 6 represented by paired opercula closing off genital apertures; each armed with 1 long and 1 short plumose seta on distal margin, plus a minute spine.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> This new species possesses a 3-segmented leg 4 bearing I and IV spines on the first and second exopodal segments, respectively. This is a common configuration shared with nearly 90 other <i>Caligus</i> species, including the 14 members of the <i>C. productus</i> -group which are characterized by loss or major reduction of the three plumose setae on the posterior margin of the distal exopodal segment of leg 1. These can be eliminated from further comparison since these posterior margin setae are normally developed in the new species. Another 12 species, members of the <i>C. bonito-</i> group, all of which share the presence of large denticles on the outer margin of the second endopodal segment of leg 2, can be excluded from detailed comparison as the new species has an ornamentation of fine setules along this margin. The remaining pool of similar species is reduced to 30 by restricting further comparisons to species that have a female genital complex that is as long as or longer than wide, and an abdomen that is longer than wide. Allowing for individual variation in genital complex shape in the order of 10%, generates a short list of 13 species that exhibit a genital complex with a L:W ratio in the range of 1.0 to 1.2:1 for comparison with the new species (Table 6).</p> <p> <i>Caligus gurnardi</i> differs from the new species in having a genital complex that is 2.3 times longer than the abdomen (Parker, 1965), compared to only 1.5 times longer in the new species. Four species, <i>C. elongatus</i>, <i>C. tripedalis</i>, <i>C. ogawai</i> and <i>C. tenuifurcatus</i>, all have a very broad abdomen (i.e. abdomen at least 50% of width of genital complex), whereas in <i>C. neoaricolus</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> the abdomen is only 38% of the width of the genital complex. Three of the remaining species, <i>C. longirostris</i>, <i>C. rapax</i>, and <i>C. rufimaculatus</i>, have a relatively short abdomen, i.e., that is only 1.4 to 1.5 times longer than wide, compared to 2.0 times longer in the new species.</p> <p> The leg 4 of <i>C. chiastos</i> (Fig. 24F) has a long outer spine on exopodal segment 1 that extends beyond the origin of the lateral spine on the distal segment. In contrast, the new species has a much shorter outer spine that does not reach halfway to the base of the lateral spine on the distal segment. Other differences include the smaller posterior process on the proximal segment of the antenna in the new species, the small size of the outer spines on the distal exopodal segment of leg 2, the shape of the sternal furca, and the relative lengths of spines 1 to 3 on the distal margin of the exopod of leg 1.</p> <p> <i>Caligus clemensi</i> exhibits a similar arrangement of outer spines on the third exopodal segment of leg 2, to that of the new species: both have a minute pointed proximal spine and a longer blunt-tipped distal spine. The configuration of spines 1 to 3 on the distal margin of the exopod of leg 1 differs: in the new species spines 1 to 3 decrease in length in order from outer to inner, whereas in <i>C. clemensi</i> spines 2 and 3, with their very long accessory processes, are both longer than spine 1 (Parker & Margolis, 1964). Another noticeable difference is the outer spines on the exopodal segments of leg 4: they are much smaller in the new species, not reaching the origin of the next most distal spine, whereas in <i>C. clemensi</i> each of the outer spines reaches the origin of the next spine.</p> <p> The redescription of <i>C. praetextus</i> by Cressey (1991) reveals that leg 1 has an unusually squat shape in this species: the first exopodal segment is only 1.7 times longer than wide compared to 2.5 times longer in the new species. Spines 2 and 3 on the distal margin of the exopod have marginal membrane extending apically from about the origin of the accessory process, producing a spatulate appearance (Cressey, 1991: Fig. 158). These spines lack marginal membrane in <i>C. neoaricolus</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> The proximal outer spine on the third exopodal segment of leg 2 is longer than the distal spine and curves across its surface, just as highlighted for <i>C. chiast</i> os by Lin & Ho (2003), whereas in <i>C. neoaricolus</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> the proximal spine is only half as long as the distal (cf. Fig. 40B).</p> <p> In terms of body proportions <i>C. lutjani</i> is the most similar to the new species (cf. Table 6). Both species also share a similar configuration of spines 1 to 3 on the distal margin of the exopod of leg 1, small outer spines on the distal exopodal segment of leg 2, multisensillate papillae associated with the post-antennal process, and tapering, pointed tines on the sternal furca. The outer spines on the exopodal segments of leg 4 are much smaller in the new species, not reaching the origin of the next most distal spine, whereas in <i>C. lutjani</i> each of the outer spines reaches at least to the origin of the next spine. Other differences include the more strongly recurved post-antennal process in <i>C. lutjani</i>, and its slender maxilliped with its smooth myxal margin, compared to the more robust and ridged myxal area in <i>C. neoaricolus</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> The males differ in the proportional lengths of the two free abdominal somites: in <i>C. lutjani</i> the first somite is 1.24 times longer than the second, whereas in <i>C. neoaricolus</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>, the first is only half the length of the second.</p> <p> The material described here differs from similar congeners and these differences justify the establishment of a new species. In the type locality, Moreton Bay, its type host <i>was Neoarius graeffei</i>. A single female was recovered from a wash of <i>Sillago maculata</i> (TC17904) but this is thought to be a contaminant. Similarly an incomplete male was recovered from a container that had been used to hold a batch of juvenile <i>Gerres</i> sp. The partly decayed state of this male suggests that it may have been left in an inadequately rinsed dish from the previous sample.</p>Published as part of <i>Boxshall, Geoff, 2018, The sea lice (Copepoda: Caligidae) of Moreton Bay (Queensland, Australia), with descriptions of thirteen new species, pp. 1-172 in Zootaxa 4398 (1)</i> on pages 89-96, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4398.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/1202953">http://zenodo.org/record/1202953</a&gt

Hermilius longicornis Bassett-Smith 1898

<i>Hermilius longicornis</i> Bassett-Smith, 1898 <p>(Fig. 65)</p> <p> <b>Material examined.</b> 3♀♀ from <i>Netuma proxima</i> (Ogilby, 1898) (TC16993) 11 January 2016, QM Reg. No. W53119; 12♀♀ (TC16997) 11 January 2016, 6♀♀ QM Reg. No. W53120, 6♀♀ NHMUK Reg. Nos 2017.334– 339.</p> <p> <b>Site on host.</b> Gill filaments.</p> <p> <b>Differential diagnosis.</b> Cephalothorax well developed with lateral zones folded ventrally (Fig. 65A, B) and supported by prominent ribs; outer margins of lateral zones provided with marginal membrane. Frontal plates with marginal membrane, lacking lunules. Fourth pedigerous somite forming narrow “waist” region; fourth legs concealed by genital complex. Genital complex large and dorsoventrally flattened, with wide wing-like lateral extensions reaching to base of free abdomen (Fig. 65A, C); genital complex about 1.76 times longer than wide, with rounded posterolateral corners. Abdomen indistinctly subdivided by constriction at mid-length (Fig. 65C); about 1.4 times longer than wide and shorter than genital complex. Caudal rami longer than wide, armed with short setae. Antenna comprising short unarmed first segment, lacking any process, slightly longer second segment and well developed subchela forming large apical hook with conspicuous accessory hook (Fig. 65D); subchela with single seta on proximal part and subapical seta on accessory hook. Tine of post-antennal process vestigial; papillae on vestigial process bisensillate; no papilla found on adjacent body surface. Maxillule with long slender posterior process. Maxilla with robust calamus and canna fused to basis. Maxilliped very slender. Sternal furca with short blunt tines, box of furca largely incorporated into ventral cephalothoracic surface. Leg 1 (Fig. 65E) with short sympod bearing enlarged outer basal seta and hirsute vestigial endopod; spines 1 to 3 on distal exopodal segment of leg 1 extremely developed, as long as (spine 3) or markedly longer than segment (spines 1 and 2); seta 4 short and naked: posterior margin with 3 short plumose setae. Leg 2 biramous, with 3-segmented rami: outer spines on exopodal segments aligned close to longitudinal axis of ramus; proximal outer spine on third segment similar in length to spine on second segment (Fig. 65F). Leg 3 with indistinctly 3-segmented exopod (Fig. 65G); first segment bearing weakly curved spine but lacking inner seta; second segment incompletely separated from third, armed with outer spine and inner seta; third segment with 3 spines and 4 setae; endopod 2-segmented; first segment forming small rounded velum and bearing inner seta; compound distal segment with 6 plumose setae. Leg 4 uniramous, indistinctly segmented (Fig. 65H); exopod with 1 lateral spine and 3 distal spines; outer and middle distal spines about equal in length. Body length of female 7.36 mm, range 7.0 to 7.36 mm (based on 10 specimens).</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> This species can be characterized by the lack of any transverse suture line located distal to the accessory hook on the subchela of the antenna, combined with the setiform state of the caudal setae. According to the most recent key to species of the genus <i>Hermilius</i> produced by Ho & Kim (2000), these two character states are shared by <i>H. longicornis</i>, <i>H. alatus</i> Hameed, 1981, <i>H. ariodi</i> Prabha & Pillai, 1986 and <i>H. youngi</i> Kabata, 1964. Two of these species have markedly reduced setation on the exopod of leg 3: <i>H. ariodi</i> has a total of only 5 setal elements on the compound distal exopodal segment while <i>H. youngi</i> has 6 elements (cf. Fig. 66G). In <i>H. longicornis</i> the second and third exopodal segments of leg 3 are incompletely separated and have a setal formula of I-I; III,4 (Fig. 65G). In contrast, the second and third segments are clearly separated in <i>H. alatus</i> and exhibit reduced armature: the second segment has a long outer spine but lacks an inner seta, while the third carries 3 long naked spines plus a single plumose seta around its distal margin (Hameed, 1981: Fig 3a).</p> <p> <i>Hermilius longicornis</i> was previously reported from Sri Lanka (Bassett-Smith, 1898b; Kirtisinghe, 1964), Trivandrum, India (Pillai, 1963), Malaysia (Leong, 1985) and Kuwait (Ho & Kim, 2000). This is the first report from Australian waters. Previously recorded hosts include the ariids <i>Arius acutirostris</i> Day, 1877, <i>Plicofollis dussumieri</i> (Valenciennes, 1840) (as <i>A. dussumieri</i>) and <i>A. thalassius</i> (Ho & Kim, 2000). The host in Moreton Bay, <i>Netuma proxima</i>, is a new host record.</p>Published as part of <i>Boxshall, Geoff, 2018, The sea lice (Copepoda: Caligidae) of Moreton Bay (Queensland, Australia), with descriptions of thirteen new species, pp. 1-172 in Zootaxa 4398 (1)</i> on page 139, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4398.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/1202953">http://zenodo.org/record/1202953</a&gt

Caligus aesopus Wilson 1921

<i>Caligus aesopus</i> Wilson, 1921 <p>(Fig. 15)</p> <p> <b>Material examined.</b> 2♀♀, 1♂ from <i>Seriola hippos</i> Günther, 1876 (TC18352) 28 March 2017, 1♀, 1♂ QM Reg.No. W53053; 1♀ NHMUK Reg. No. 2017.212.</p> <p> <b>Site on host.</b> Unknown.</p> <p> <b>Differential diagnosis.</b> Cephalothorax dorsoventrally flattened with well-developed marginal membranes along lateral zones; frontal plates with lunules; thoracic zone very small, extending posteriorly about level with posterior ends of lateral zones (Fig. 15A). Genital complex about 1.5 to 1.6 times longer than wide; abdomen indistinctly 2-segmented, with constriction at about posterior third; genital complex about 2 times longer than abdomen (Fig. 15A). Antenna with rounded posterior process on proximal segment (Fig. 15B). Post-antennal process bifid, main tine straight; associated papillae multisensillate. Posterior process of maxillule bifid; main (inner) tine much larger than outer. Maxilliped of female with rounded process proximally (Fig. 15C). Sternal furca with broad gape; tines incurved with rounded tips. Sympod of leg 1 ornamented with spinules and bearing rounded process anteriorly on ventral surface (arrowed in Fig. 15D); vestigial endopod elongate with 2 setal vestiges apically: distal exopodal segment with 3 plumose setae on posterior margin; distal spine 1 longer than other spines; spines 2 and 3 with accessory processes; seta 4 longer than spine 1 and about as long as segment. Leg 2 with marginal setules on endopodal segments 2 and 3; outer spine on exopodal segment 1 lying obliquely across segment 2, spine on segment 2 aligned close to longitudinal axis of ramus. Leg 3 (Fig. 15E) apron with raised rib, with bluntly rounded tip, plus circular array of large denticles on ventral surface and corrugated adhesion pad near outer margin on dorsal surface; exopod indistinctly 3-segmented, first segment with large recurved outer spine, lacking inner seta; second and third segments incompletely separated, outer margins hirsute, with multiple rows of long setules: endopod 2-segmented, first endopodal segment forming velum and bearing inner seta; distal segment with partial suture, armed with total of 6 plumose setae. Leg 4 uniramous, 4-segmented; exopodal segments (Fig. 15F) with I; I; III spines; innermost spine distinctly longer than middle spine. Body lengths of adult females 4.54 and 4.79 mm; length of adult male 3.46 mm.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> <i>Caligus aesopus</i> was first described from off the Juan Fernandez Islands in the East Pacific and the host was given as probably <i>Seriola peruana</i> Steindachner, 1881 (Wilson, 1921). Hewitt (1963) subsequently reported <i>C. aesopus</i> from <i>Seriola lalandi</i> Valenciennes, 1833 (as <i>Seriola grandis</i> Castelnau) caught off New Zealand. However, <i>C. aesopus</i> has been confused with a very similar species, <i>C. spinosus</i> Yamaguti (1939), which was originally described by Yamaguti (1939) based on material from <i>Seriola quinqueradiata</i> Temminck & Schlegel, 1845 caught off Japan. Unfortunately, Yamaguti did not compare his new species with <i>C. aesopus</i>. <i>Caligus spinosus</i> was recognised as a junior subjective synonym of <i>C</i>. <i>aesopus</i> by Fernandez & Villalba (1986) and this synonymy was followed by Lin & Ho (2007). However, Choe & Kim (2010) recently found two <i>Caligus</i> species on species of <i>Seriola</i> Cuvier, 1816 in Korean waters. They provided full descriptions of both sexes of both species, and they reinstated <i>C. spinosus</i> as a valid species, distinct from <i>C. aesopus</i>. <i>Caligus aesopus</i> can be distinguished by the presence of a constriction subdividing the female abdomen into a wider anterior part (two thirds) and a narrower posterior part (one third), by the large size and lower number (less than 15) denticles present in a rosette on the apron of leg 3, and by the apical spine on the distal exopodal segment of leg 4 being distinctly longer than the adjacent middle spine. Choe & Kim (2010) listed a few other minor character differences for the females, such as the presence of an anterior process on the surface of the sympod of leg1 (Fig. 15D), and documented a difference in the form of the myxal processes on the male maxilliped.</p> <p> <i>Caligus aesopus</i> was found on <i>S. lalandi</i> in Korean waters (Choe & Kim, 2010) and it can be found on the same host from South Africa (Kensley & Grindley, 1973) to New Zealand (Hewitt, 1963). In addition, it occurs on <i>S</i>. <i>dumerili</i> (Risso, 1810) in Taiwan (Lin & Ho, 2007) and on “probably <i>S</i>. <i>peruana</i> ” in the eastern Pacific (Wilson, 1921). Choe & Kim (2010) concluded that the material from <i>Sphyraena obtusata</i> caught off India and described by Pillai (1963) could be attributed to <i>C. aesopus</i>, but possible confusion with <i>C. abigailae</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> described above from this host should also be considered. Choe & Kim (2010) demonstrated that the material redescribed and illustrated by Shiino (1960) as “ <i>C</i>. <i>spinosus</i> ” should be attributed to <i>C. aesopus</i>. The host in Moreton Bay, <i>S. hippos</i>, is a new host record for <i>C. aesopus</i>.</p> <p> <i>Caligus spinosus</i> has previously been reported from Australian waters (e.g. Rohde, 1978, Byrnes, 1986, Hutson <i>et al.</i>, 2007a, b) but there is uncertainty over these identifications since during at least some of the period covered by these reports, the two species were considered to be synonyms.</p>Published as part of <i>Boxshall, Geoff, 2018, The sea lice (Copepoda: Caligidae) of Moreton Bay (Queensland, Australia), with descriptions of thirteen new species, pp. 1-172 in Zootaxa 4398 (1)</i> on page 37, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4398.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/1202953">http://zenodo.org/record/1202953</a&gt

Caligus paranengai Boxshall 2018, sp. nov.

<i>Caligus paranengai</i> sp. nov. <p>(Figs. 43–44)</p> <p> <b>Type material.</b> Holotype ♀, 8 paratype ♀♀, 2 paratype ♂♂ from <i>Neoarius graeffei</i> (Kner & Steindachner, 1867) (TC17881) 4 July 2016, QM Reg. Nos Holotype ♀ W53089, 4 paratype ♀♀ W53090, 1 paratype ♂ W53091; NHMUK Reg. Nos 4 paratype ♀♀, 1 paratype ♂ NHMUK 2017.296–300.</p> <p> <b>Type Host.</b> <i>Neoarius graeffei</i> (Kner & Steindachner, 1867).</p> <p> <b>Site on host.</b> body surface.</p> <p> <b>Etymology.</b> The name refers to the close affinity between the new species and <i>C. nengai</i> Rangnekar, Rangnekar & Murti, 1953.</p> <p> <b>Description.</b> Adult female (Fig. 43A) mean body length including caudal rami 3.78 mm (range 3.50 to 3.96 mm), (based on 7 specimens). Cephalothorax about 1.07 times longer than wide; comprising about 50% of total body length. Free margin of thoracic portion of dorsal cephalothoracic shield extending posteriorly just beyond rear margins of lateral portions; additional posterior sutures present on surface of dorsal cephalothoracic shield. Lunules present ventrally on frontal plates. Genital complex about 1.04 times longer than wide; with linear, lateral margins and rounded corners (Fig. 43A). Genital complex about 4.0 times longer than abdomen. Abdomen indistinctly 2- segmented, about 1.1 times longer than wide; carrying paired caudal rami distally; anal slit terminal. Caudal rami wider than long, measured at midpoints of margins. Each ramus armed with short hirsute seta at inner distal angle, slightly longer hirsute seta at outer distal angle, minute hirsute seta located just ventral to outer distal seta, and 3 plumose setae on distal margin.</p> <p>Antennule 2-segmented; proximal segment with 25 plumose setae along anteroventral margin and 2 setae located dorsally; distal segment bearing 12 elements (10 setae plus 2 aesthetascs) around apex, plus isolated seta on posterior margin. Antenna (Fig. 43B) comprising proximal segment with short blunt posterior process ornamented with marginal flange; middle segment subrectangular, unarmed but with dorsal adhesion pad; terminal segment forming strongly curved claw with proximal swelling bearing stout seta, and armed with slender distal seta. Postantennal process (Fig. 43B) with broad base and distal marginal membrane, tine not developed; ornamented with 2 multisensillate papillae on basal part; plus single multisensillate papilla and sclerotized irregular process on adjacent ventral cephalothoracic surface.</p> <p>Mandible of typical stylet-like structure, with 12 marginal teeth. Maxillule (Fig. 43C) comprising anterior papilla bearing 3 small naked setae and slender, tapering posterior process. Postoral process present as surface ridge (Fig. 43C). Maxilla comprising elongate syncoxa and basis: syncoxa unarmed but bearing opening of maxillary gland; basis bearing subapical membranous flabellum on anterior margin, and terminating in 2 subequal, claw-like elements (calamus and canna); calamus just longer than canna, ornamented with strips of serrated membrane arranged obliquely around surface; canna with linear strips of serrated membrane. Maxilliped subchelate (Fig. 43D); slender proximal segment with 2 transverse ridges on surface near base; distal subchela with long inner seta.</p> <p>Sternal furca (Fig. 43E) with weakly divergent, flanged tines.</p> <p>First swimming leg pair (Fig. 43F) with sympods joined by slender intercoxal sclerite; sympod with inner and outer plumose setae. Vestigial endopod large and densely ornamented with hair-like setules. Exopod 2-segmented; directed laterally and forming main axis of leg; first segment robust, about 2.8 times longer than wide and armed with small outer (anterior) spine and ornamented with setule row along mid-section of posterior margin; second segment armed with 3 long plumose setae along posterior margin and 4 distal elements. Distal margin elements as follows: spine 1 (anterior-most) strongly developed, almost as long as segment and longer than other spines, ornamented with strip of striated membrane distally; spine 2 longer than spine 3, each with long accessory process and strip of striated membrane; seta 4 naked, markedly shorter than spine 3.</p> <p>Second leg biramous: with flattened protopodal segments and 3-segmented rami. Coxae of leg pair joined by plate-like intercoxal sclerite bearing marginal membrane posteriorly; armed with plumose seta and surface sensilla. Basis armed with outer naked seta; ornamented with surface sensilla, marginal membrane posteriorly, and flap of membrane anteriorly, reflexed back over dorsal surface of segment. Exopodal segment 1 (Fig. 43G) with large outer spine lying obliquely across surface of ramus, with large pecten at base, plus inner plumose seta; also bearing flap of membrane anteriorly, reflexed back over dorsal surface; segment 2 with outer spine aligned close to longitudinal axis of ramus and inner plumose seta; segment 3 with 2 outer spines, proximal spine minute and naked, distal spine stout with marginal membrane on apical side; apical spine with marginal membrane laterally and pinnules medially, plus 5 inner plumose setae. Endopodal segments 1 and 2 (Fig. 43H) armed with 1 and 2 inner plumose setae respectively; segment 3 with 6 plumose setae; outer margins of all endopodal segments ornamented with fine setules.</p> <p>Third leg pair (Fig. 44A) forming flattened plate closing posterior part of cephalothoracic sucker, as typical for genus. Protopodal part flattened joined by plate-like intercoxal sclerite forming apron, ornamented with marginal membrane posteriorly and along lateral margin anterior to exopod; bearing inner plumose seta at junction with intercoxal plate and outer plumose seta dorsal to base of exopod; sensillae located adjacent to inner coxal seta and adjacent to origin of endopod. Both rami flattened and swollen. Exopod indistinctly 3-segmented; first segment markedly expanded laterally so wider than velum; armed with short and slightly curved outer claw almost reaching inner margin of ramus and ornamented with single lateral setule plus strip of membrane along elongate margin; second and third segments incompletely separated by partial suture; armed with short outer spine and inner plumose seta derived from second segment and 3 outer spiniform elements and 4 inner plumose setae (derived from third segment); proximal spine derived from third exopodal segment minute, middle spine short, distal spine long; outer margins of segments 2 and 3 ornamented with rows of slender setules. Endopod 2-segmented; first segment forming flap-like velum ornamented with row of fine setules along free margin, armed with inner plumose seta; second segment with expanded and setulate lateral margin, armed with 6 setal elements distally, increasing in length from outermost to innermost.</p> <p>Fourth leg (Fig. 44B) uniramous, 4-segmented, comprising slender protopodal segment and 3-segmented exopod; protopodal segment armed with outer plumose seta; first exopodal segment broader than distal segments, armed with long outer spine and ornamented with membranous pecten at base of spine; second segment armed with outer spine; third segment short, armed with 2 large spines and minute vestigial spine along oblique distal margin; pectens on exopodal segments 2 and 3 each forming tuft of long setules close to base of spine. Spines on exopodal segments 1 and 2, and 2 distal spines on segment 3 each ornamented bilaterally with membrane.</p> <p>Fifth leg located posterolaterally on ventral surface of genital complex near margin, represented by anterior plumose seta on papilla and posterior papilla bearing 2 unequal plumose setae representing exopod.</p> <p>Male. Body lengths 2.00 and 2.04 mm, including caudal rami. Cephalothorax subcircular as in female; additional posterior sutures present on surface of dorsal cephalothoracic shield (Fig. 44C) as in female. Fourth pedigerous somite incompletely fused to genital complex. Genital complex about as long as wide, measured along mid-line; with convex lateral margins in anterior part (to level of fifth legs). Abdomen 1-segmented. Caudal rami wider than long; armed with short plumose seta at inner distal angle, 2 short plumose setae at outer distal angle, and 3 longer plumose setae on distal margin.</p> <p>Antennule, mandible and maxilla as in female. Antenna modified (Fig. 44D); first segment elongate with marginal adhesion pad; second segment reflexed, wider proximally, surface ornamented with adhesion pads plus corrugated distal swelling opposing tip of claw; distal segment forming short powerful apical claw armed with 2 setae proximally plus small tooth-like accessory process. Maxillule as in female but post-oral process corrugated in male (Fig. 44E).</p> <p>Maxilliped (Fig. 44F) with proximal segment more robust than in female; ornamented with transverse cuticular ridges proximally as in female, but with rounded distal process on myxal margin of proximal segment; distal subchela robust, armed with long seta and with small area of thin cuticle on claw.</p> <p>Sternal furca (Fig. 44G) short with flattened spatulate tines, each with marginal flange.</p> <p>Legs 1 to 3 as in female. Leg 4 as for female except exopodal segments 2 and 3 with normal membranous pectens (Fig. 44H) not tufts of spinules.</p> <p>Leg 5 (Fig. 44I) forming paired processes located laterally on genital complex; each represented by exopodal process armed with 2 plumose setae, plus (protopodal) seta on adjacent surface. Leg 6 located posteriorly; represented by oblique operculum closing off genital aperture armed with 2 plumose setae around outer distal margin.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> This species is very closely related to <i>C. nengai</i> Rangnekar, Rangnekar & Murti, 1953 which was originally described on the basis of material from a marine catfish, <i>Nemapteryx nenga</i> (Hamilton, 1822) (as <i>Arius nenga</i>), caught off Bombay, India (Rangnekar <i>et al.</i>, 1953). Subsequently, a mutilated female from a specimen of <i>Tachysurus</i> sp. caught off Trivandrum, India was described as <i>Caligus distortus</i> Pillai & Natarajan, 1977 (Pillai & Natarajan, 1977). However, Ho <i>et al.</i> (2000) formally recognized <i>C. distortus</i> as a junior subjective synonym of <i>C. nengai</i> and provided a detailed redescription of the female based on Taiwanese material. The material from Moreton Bay is identical in many respects to the material redescribed by Ho & Lin (2004); both share a number of unusual characteristics, such as the pattern of sutures on the dorsal cephalothoracic shield, the flanged postantennal process, the hirsute endopod of leg 1, the laterally expanded first exopodal segment on leg 3, and the presence of tufts of setules replacing the pectens on the second and third exopodal segments of leg 4. Despite these similarities, there are a few important differences: the abdomen of the female is wider than long and 1-segmented in <i>C. nengai</i>, but longer than wide and indistinctly 2-segmented in the Australian material; there is a long slender posterior process on the antenna of female <i>C. nengai</i>, whereas in the new species there is a bluntly rounded posterior process ornamented with a membranous flange (Fig. 43B); the maxilliped of female <i>C. nengai</i> has 4 medial tooth-like protuberances on the proximal segment whereas in the new species there are paired transverse ridges in this position (Fig. 43D). These differences are sufficient to justify the establishment of a new species, <i>C. paranengai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b></p> <p> Ho & Lin (2004) mentioned and figured only 2 large spines on the distal exopodal segment of leg 4 in the Taiwanese material of <i>C. nengai</i>, but in the Moreton Bay females a minute third spine is present proximally in both sexes. This might be an additional difference between the species but the vestigial spine is partly concealed by the setular tuft representing the pecten in the female and could easily be overlooked.</p> <p> The new species and <i>C. nengai</i> appear related to <i>Caligus arii</i> Bassett-Smith, 1898 as redescribed by Pillai (1985) since both species share the unusual leg 3, with its large lamellate rami, as well as the hirsute ornamentation of the vestigial endopod of leg 1. However, this latter character state is also present in some other caligids parasitic on catfish hosts, including <i>Hermilius longicornis</i> Bassett-Smith, 1898 (cf. Ho & Kim, 2000: Fig. 3J) and <i>Lepeophtheirus longipalpus</i> Bassett-Smith, 1898 (cf. Pillai, 1985: Fig. 151D) and has been inferred as being due to convergence between parasites using closely related hosts.</p> <p> Equally intriguing are the numerous derived character states shared with <i>Parapetalus hirsutus</i> (Bassett Smith, 1898c): these include the presence of setulose tufts (rather than pectens) associated with the spines on the second and third exopodal segments of leg 4, the hirsute vestigial endopod of leg 1, the unusual pattern of sutures on the dorsal cephalothoracic shield (Fig. 43A), and the reduced post-antennal process. In addition, the first exopodal segment of leg 3 is transversely expanded and is ornamented with a conspicuous marginal sensilla, as in the new species. The expansion of the segment is not as extreme as in the new species and <i>C. nengai</i>, but this is a very unusual configuration within the Caligidae. The affinities of <i>P. hirsutus</i> appear to lie with <i>C. nengai</i> and <i>C. paranengai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>, rather than with other members of the poorly defined and heterogeneous genus <i>Parapetalus</i>. It is proposed here to return it to its original combination, <i>Caligus hirsutus</i>, as established by Bassett-Smith (1898c).</p> <p> The extent of the sexual dimorphism exhibited by <i>C. paranengai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> is unusual: the sternal furca and leg 4 both show marked sexual dimorphism, in addition to the more typically dimorphic limbs such as the antennae and maxillipeds.</p>Published as part of <i>Boxshall, Geoff, 2018, The sea lice (Copepoda: Caligidae) of Moreton Bay (Queensland, Australia), with descriptions of thirteen new species, pp. 1-172 in Zootaxa 4398 (1)</i> on pages 98-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4398.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/1202953">http://zenodo.org/record/1202953</a&gt

Caligus lagocephali Pillai 1961

<i>Caligus lagocephali</i> Pillai, 1961 <p>(Fig. 32)</p> <p> Syn. <i>Caligus fugu</i> Yamaguti & Yamasu, 1959</p> <p> <b>Material examined.</b> 1♀ from <i>Lagocephalus lunaris</i> (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) (TC17942) 6 July 2016, QM Reg. No. W53075; 1♂ (TC 17892) 5 July 2016, QM Reg. No. W53076; 1♂ (TC 17899) 5 July 2016, NHMUK 2017.274; 1♀ (TC17944) 6 July 2016, NHMUK 2017.275.</p> <p> <b>Site on host.</b> Unknown (in body wash).</p> <p> <b>Differential diagnosis.</b> Cephalothorax dorsoventrally flattened with well-developed marginal membranes along lateral zones of dorsal cephalothoracic shield; frontal plates with prominent lunules. Genital complex about 1.3 to 1.4 times longer than wide (Fig. 32A), with narrow anterior neck region; abdomen elongate, about 2.9 times longer than wide; genital complex about 1.3 times longer than abdomen. Antenna with tapering posterior process (Fig. 32B). Post-antennal process simple, tine slender, short and strongly recurved; associated papillae bisensillate. Anterior papilla of maxillule well developed with 1 large and 2 small setae; posterior process simple, tapering, without marginal flange (Fig. 32B). Maxilliped of female with robust proximal segment swollen proximally with transverse ridge and marginal fold in myxal area (Fig. 32C). Sternal furca with divergent tapering tines (Fig. 30D). Distal exopodal segment of leg 1 (Fig. 32E) lacking 3 plumose setae on posterior margin, only single naked vestigial seta present; distal margin spine 1 longer than other spines; spines 2 and 3 each with accessory process; seta 4 as along as spine 1 and ornamented with short pinnules bilaterally. Leg 2 with strong, distally tapering marginal spinules on endopodal segments 2 and 3 (as in <i>C. ariicolous</i>, cf. Fig. 18G); outer spines on exopodal segments 1 and 2 very slender, aligned obliquely across surface of ramus (Fig. 32F). Leg 3 with patch of tiny spinules located laterally on apron: first exopodal segment with short straight spine but lacking inner seta; second and third segments armed with I-1; III,4. Leg 4 uniramous, 3-segmented; first and second exopodal segments with I and IV spines, respectively (Fig. 32G). Body length of female 4.16 mm; body length of 2 males 2.65 and 2.88 mm.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> The valid name of this species has recently changed. In their revision of the <i>Caligus productus</i> species group, Boxshall & El-Rashidy (2009) recognized the conspecific status of <i>C. fugu</i> Yamaguti & Yamasu, 1959 and <i>C. lagocephali</i> Pillai, 1961, and treated the latter as a subjective synonym of the former. However, the subsequent recognition of the generic level synonymy of <i>Pseudocaligus</i> A. Scott, 1901 and <i>Caligus</i> by Dojiri & Ho (2013), resulted in the recognition of <i>Caligus fugu</i> (Yamaguti, 1936) as a senior homonym. So, <i>Caligus fugu</i> Yamaguti & Yamasu, 1959 became a junior secondary homonym. According to Özak <i>et al.</i> (2013) the oldest available valid name for this taxon is <i>Caligus lagocephali</i> Pillai, 1961.</p> <p> The original description of <i>Caligus fugu</i> of Yamaguti & Yamasu (1959) revealed several distinctive characteristics: the tine of the post-antennal process is slender and set at a right angle to the base; the maxilliped has a robust proximal segment; leg 1 has unusually slender exopodal segments and the outer spines on the exopod of leg 2 are also unusually slender. The Moreton Bay material from <i>Lagocephalus lunaris</i> shares these features. There are minor differences such as the structure of the myxal surface of the female maxilliped which is shown as having a pointed process by Yamaguti & Yamasu (1959: Fig. 141). However, this apparent process can be also interpreted as a ridge and marginal fold as figured for the Moreton Bay material (Fig. 32C). The minute vestige of a posterior margin seta on the distal exopodal segment of leg 1 was probably overlooked by Yamaguti & Yamasu (1959). The synonymy proposed by Boxshall & El-Rashidy (2009) of <i>C. fugu</i> Yamaguti & Yamasu, 1959 and <i>C. lagocephali</i> Pillai, 1961 is maintained here, although this should be verified since the female figured by Pillai (1961) was somewhat damaged, as suggested by Pillai (1985).</p> <p> The type host of <i>C. lagocephali</i> in Indian waters is <i>Lagocephalus inermis</i> and the Japanese material described by Yamaguti & Yamasu (1959) was from <i>Takifugu rubripes</i> (Temminck & Schlegel, 1850), <i>T. alboplumbeus</i> (Richardson, 1845), <i>T. niphobles</i> (Jordan & Snyder, 1901) and <i>T. pardalis</i> (Temminck & Schlegel, 1850) (as <i>Spheroides rubripes, S. alboplumbeus, S. niphobles</i> and <i>S. pardalis</i>, respectively). This species (as <i>C. fugu</i> Yamaguti & Yamasu, 1959) has also recently been reported in Mediterranean waters, off the Turkish coast, on two Red Sea invasive hosts <i>Lagocephalus spadiceus</i> (Richardson, 1845) and <i>L. suezensis</i> Clark & Gohar, 1953 (Özak <i>et al.</i>, 2012). The new material from Moreton Bay is from <i>L. lunaris</i>. It appears that this copepod utilises a range of tetraodontid fishes as hosts.</p>Published as part of <i>Boxshall, Geoff, 2018, The sea lice (Copepoda: Caligidae) of Moreton Bay (Queensland, Australia), with descriptions of thirteen new species, pp. 1-172 in Zootaxa 4398 (1)</i> on pages 75-77, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4398.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/1202953">http://zenodo.org/record/1202953</a&gt