4.1 Article

The peculiar nemertean larva pilidium recurvatum belongs to Riserius sp., a basal heteronemertean that eats Carcinonemertes errans, a hoplonemertean parasite of Dungeness crab

期刊

INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGY
卷 132, 期 3, 页码 207-225

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ivb.12023

关键词

Pilidiophora; Riserius pugetensis; Carcinonemertes errans; Cancer magister

资金

  1. NSF [1120537, 1030453]
  2. Direct For Biological Sciences
  3. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems [1120537] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Directorate For Geosciences
  5. Division Of Ocean Sciences [1030453] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A typical nemertean pilidium larva resembles a hat with ear flaps. But one type, called pilidium recurvatum, looks more like a sock, swimming heel first. This distinctive larva was discovered in 1883 off the coast of Rhode Island and subsequently found in plankton samples from other parts of the world. Despite the long time since discovery, and its significance in discussions of larval evolution, this larva remained unidentified even to the family level. We collected pilidium recurvatum larvae from plankton samples in Coos Bay, OR, and identified them as belonging to the heteronemertean genus Riserius based on juvenile morphology and DNA sequence data. Phylogenetic analysis suggests that two distinct types of pilidium recurvatum from Oregon represent two new species within this currently monotypic genus. We describe the morphology of pilidium recurvatum using confocal microscopy and compare it to that of the typical pilidium, discussing possible implications for larval feeding. We also report our surprising discovery that juveniles of Riserius sp. from Oregon prey on another nemertean, Carcinonemertes errans, an egg predator of Cancer magister (Dungeness crab), a commercially important species. We speculate that the species-level diversity and geographic distribution of Riserius may be much greater than currently appreciated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据