Zoologischer
Anzeiger
286
(2020)
117e134
Imprint logo Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Zoologischer Anzeiger journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcz
Journal logo Research paper An integrative description of Minibiotus ioculator sp. nov. from the Republic of South Africa with notes on Minibiotus pentannulatus Londo~ no et al., 2017 (Tardigrada: Macrobiotidae) Daniel Stec a, *, Reinhardt Mjerg Kristensen b, Łukasz Michalczyk a
a Institute of Zoology and Biomedical Research, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 9, 30-387 Krakow, Poland b Section of Biosystematics, Zoological Museum, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark article info abstract Article history: Received 12 February 2020 Received in revised form 25 March 2020 Accepted 25 March 2020 Available online 6 April 2020 Corresponding Editor: P. Michalik Keywords: Africa Biodiversity DNA barcodes New species Peribuccal structures Taxonomy The genus Minibiotus is morphologically diverse, which may suggest its polyphyletic character. However, scarce genetic data and often also the lack of detailed morphological data currently do not allow for the verification of the relationships within this genus. Here, for the very first time, we provide an integrative description of a new Minibiotus species. Minibiotus ioculator sp. nov. from the Republic of South Africa differs from other congeners mainly by egg ornamentation with processes on the egg shell that resemble the hat of a royal jester. We also provide new taxonomic data on Minibiotus pentannulatus based on a population newly found in Tanzania, which constitutes the first African record of this species originally described from South America. Our study involved both classical taxonomic methods, which include morphological and morphometric analyses conducted with the use of light and scanning electron mi-croscopy, and genetic data in the form of DNA sequences of four markers (three nuclear: 18S rRNA, 28S rRNA, ITS-2, and one mitochondrial: COI). The results of this study allow a discussion of species composition within Minibiotus and question the validity of the current diagnosis of the genus. © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier GmbH. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 1. Introduction Tardigrada are a phylum of microscopic invertebrates known also as water bears. Tardigrades are distributed globally and they inhabit various environments, from ocean depths to mountain peaks, and from polar caps to tropical forests (Nelson
et
al.
2015). Up to date, about 1300 species have been described in the phylum (Guidetti
& Bertolani
2005; Degma
& Guidetti
2007; Degma
et
al.
2009e2019). The genus Minibiotus R.O. Schuster, 1980 was erected fourty years ago by Schuster
et
al.
(1980). Almost two decades later Claxton
(1998)
published a comprehensive revision of this cosmopolitan genus, which then encompassed 22 species and currently comprises 48 species (Degma
et
al.
2009e2019). However, only nine Minibiotus species have been reported from Africa so far, out of which five were described specifically from this continent. These are: Minibiotus africanus Binda
& Pilato,
1995, * Corresponding author. E-mail address: daniel_stec@interia.eu
(D. Stec). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2020.03.007
Minibiotus allani (Murray,
1913), Minibiotus crassidens (Murray,
1907), Minibiotus granatai (Pardi,
1941), and Minibiotus harrylewisi Meyer
& Hinton,
2009. Currently, genetic data for the genus are very scarce. Specifically, there are only fourteen Minibiotus DNA sequences deposited in GenBank. Moreover, almost all of them are unidentified species or the entries are identified as “Minibiotus intermedius (Plate,
1888)” of which a certain identification is impossible due to the outdated and incomplete original description. In fact, there is only one named species, Minibiotus gumersindoi Guil
& Guidetti,
2005, which is associated with multiple (i.e. 18S rRNA, 28S rRNA and COI) se-quences (Guil
& Giribet
2012). The currently available DNA se-quences suggest that Minibiotus is most likely polyphyletic and some species are closely related to Paramacrobiotus Guidetti
et
al.,
2009, forming together one of the two major evolutionary line-ages within Macrobiotidae (Bertolani
et
al.
2014). However, the extremely limited genetic data prevent any sound conclusions on the phylogenetic character and position of the genus Minibiotus. The putative polyphyly of Minibiotus is also suggested by the morphological heterogeneity of the genus, which comprises 0044-5231/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier GmbH. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 Table 1 PCR primers for amplification of the four DNA fragments sequenced in the study. DNA fragment Primer name Primer direction Primer sequence (50-30) Primer source 18S rRNA 18S_Tar_1Ff forward AGGCGAAACCGCGAATGGCTC Stec
et
al.
(2017)
18S_Tar_1Rr reverse GCCGCAGGCTCCACTCCTGG 28S rRNA 28S_Eutar_F forward ACCCGCTGAACTTAAGCATAT Ga˛
siorek
et
al.
(2018),
Mironov
et
al.
(2012)
28SR0990 reverse CCTTGGTCCGTGTTTCAAGAC ITS-2 Eutar_Ff forward CGTAACGTGAATTGCAGGAC Stec
et
al.
(2018b)
Eutar_Rr reverse TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC COI LCO1490 forward GGTCAACAAATCATAAAGATATTGG Folmer
et
al.
(1994)
HCO2198 reverse TAAACTTCAGGGTGACCAAAAAATCA HCOoutout reverse GTAAATATATGRTGDGCTC Prendini
et
al.
(2005)
species with two and three macroplacoids in the pharynx, species with and without pores in the body cuticle, or species with egg processes enclosed within membrane and with naked processes (Stec
et
al.
2015). The broad morphological diagnosis combined with the small size of specimens which entails difficulties in the determination of some characters (e.g. peribuccal structures) sometimes result in erroneous assignments of species to the genus (e.g. see Stec
et
al.
2015
who transferred two Minibiotus species to the genus Macrobiotus). In this paper, we provide the first description of a new Mini-biotus species by means of integrative taxonomy. In addition to the description of Minibiotus ioculator sp. nov. from the Republic of South Africa, we also present integrative data and amend the description of Minibiotus pentannulatus Londono, ~Daza,
Lisi
& Quiroga,
2017
based on a newly found population from Tanzania. The detailed morphological and morphometric data were obtained using light contrast and scanning electron microscopy. These data are associated with DNA sequences of four genetic markers stan-dardly used in tardigrade taxonomy (the nuclear 18S rRNA, 28S rRNA, and ITS-2, and the mitochondrial COI). 2. Material and methods 2.1. Samples collection and processing The lichen sample containing the new species was collected by Witold Morek and Bartłomiej Surmacz on 7 September 2018 from the rock in forest in the Tradouw Pass located in Western Cape, South Africa (33 58058.4400S,20 42017.8800E; 295 m asl). The lichen sample containing M. pentannulatus was collected by Thomas Pape on 16 August 2016 from branches of a bush, near the Mwanihana Peak in the Udzungwa Mts. National Park in Tanzania (7 4902500S, 36 4903200E; 2050 m asl). The latter sample contained also a new species of the Macrobiotus hufelandi group, which has been recently described as Macrobiotus papei Stec,
Kristensen
& Michalczyk,
2018a. The samples were examined for tardigrades using the protocol by Dastych
(1980)
with modifications described in detail in Stec
et
al.
(2015). A total of 99 and 83 animals and 31 and 46 eggs of the two Minibiotus species were extracted from the South African and Tanzanian samples, respectively. In order to perform integrative taxonomic descriptions, the isolated animals and eggs were split into three groups for specific analyses: morphological analysis with phase and differential contrast light microscopy, morphological analysis with scanning electron microscopy, and DNA sequencing (for details see sections “Material examined” provided below for each description). 2.2. Microscopy and imaging Specimens for light microscopy were mounted on microscope slides in a small drop of Hoyer's medium and secured with a cover slip, following the protocol by Morek
et
al.
(2016). Slides were examined under an Olympus BX53 light microscope with phase and Nomarski contrast (PCM and NCM, respectively), collectively termed as light contrast microscopy (LCM), associated with an Olympus DP74 digital camera. Immediately after mounting, the specimens in the medium slides where also checked under PCM for the presence of males and females in the studied population as the spermatozoa in testis and spermathecae are visible for several hours after mounting (Coughlan
et
al.
2019; Coughlan
& Stec
2019). In order to obtain clean and extended specimens for SEM, tardigrades were processed according to the protocol by Stec
et
al.
(2015). Bucco-pharyngeal apparatuses were extracted following the protocol of Eibye-Jacobsen
(2001)
as modified by Ga˛ siorek
et
al.
(2016). Specimens were examined under high vacuum in a Versa 3D DualBeam Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) at the ATOMIN fa-cility of the Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland. All figures were Table 2 GenBank accession numbers sequences of the Minibiotus species analysed in this study. Bolded numbers indicate newly obtained sequences whereas underlined numbers indicate type sequences. DNA marker Species Accession number Source 18S rRNA M. ioculator sp. nov. MT023998 This study M.
pentannulatus
Londo~no
et
al.,
2017
MT023999 This study M.
gumersindoi
Guil
&
Guidetti,
2005
FJ435748 Guil
&
Giribet
(2012)
M. intermedius group HQ604979e80 Bertolani
et
al.
(2014)
Minibiotus sp. EU266932e4 Sands
et
al.
(2008)
28S rRNA M. ioculator sp. nov. MT024041 This study M.
pentannulatus
Londo~no
et
al.,
2017
MT024042 e3 This study M.
gumersindoi
Guil
&
Guidetti,
2005
FJ435761 Guil
&
Giribet
(2012)
ITS-2 M. ioculator sp. nov. MT024000 This study M.
pentannulatus
Londo~no
et
al.,
2017
MT024001 This study COI M. ioculator sp. nov. MT023412 This study M.
pentannulatus
Londo~no
et
al.,
2017
MT023413e4 This study M.
gumersindoi
Guil
&
Guidetti,
2005
FJ435803 Guil
&
Giribet
(2012)
D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 Table 3 Measurements [in mm] of selected morphological structures of individuals of Minibiotus ioculator sp. nov. mounted in Hoyer's medium (Nenumber of specimens/structures measured, RANGE refers to the smallest and the largest structure among all measured specimens; SD standard deviation). CHARACTER N RANGE MEAN SD Holotype mm pt mm pt mm pt mm pt Body length 30 197e371 891e1267 313 1121 43 85 312 1106 Buccopharyngeal tube Buccal tube length 30 21.8e30.8 e 27.8 e 2.3 e 28.2 e Stylet support insertion point 30 13.4e19.1 61.1e62.8 17.3 62.2 1.5 0.5 17.7 62.8 Buccal tube external width 30 1.8e2.4 6.4e8.6 2.1 7.7 0.2 0.5 2.1 7.4 Buccal tube internal width 30 0.7e1.6 2.8e6.0 1.0 3.8 0.2 0.6 0.8 2.8 Ventral lamina length 30 9.3e13.9 41.9e49.5 12.4 44.6 1.1 1.8 12.5 44.3 Placoid lengths Macroplacoid 1 30 2.0e3.4 8.9e12.4 2.9 10.5 0.3 0.8 3.0 10.6 Macroplacoid 2 30 1.5e2.4 6.4e8.4 2.0 7.3 0.2 0.5 2.2 7.8 Macroplacoid 3 30 1.8e3.0 7.8e10.2 2.5 8.9 0.2 0.6 2.3 8.2 Microplacoid 30 0.7e1.6 2.9e5.3 1.1 3.9 0.2 0.6 1.0 3.5 Macroplacoid row 30 6.3e10.4 27.0e35.3 8.8 31.6 0.9 1.7 8.9 31.6 Placoid row 30 7.2e12.4 32.1e41.4 10.2 36.8 1.1 2.1 10.4 36.9 Claw 1 heights External primary branch 28 5.1e8.2 23.2e29.0 7.2 26.2 0.8 1.4 7.7 27.3 External secondary branch 27 3.7e6.7 16.9e24.0 5.6 20.4 0.7 1.7 6.0 21.3 Internal primary branch 29 4.9e7.9 22.1e29.0 6.9 24.8 0.7 1.4 7.0 24.8 Internal secondary branch 28 3.5e6.4 15.4e23.7 5.4 19.3 0.7 1.6 5.6 19.9 Claw 2 heights External primary branch 27 5.3e9.1 23.9e31.3 7.9 28.3 0.7 1.5 8.2 29.1 External secondary branch 24 3.7e7.1 16.7e25.2 6.3 22.7 0.8 1.6 6.7 23.8 Internal primary branch 27 5.1e8.4 23.0e30.5 7.5 26.8 0.7 1.6 7.6 27.0 Internal secondary branch 26 3.6e6.9 16.2e24.0 5.9 21.0 0.7 1.8 6.0 21.3 Claw 3 heights External primary branch 28 5.3e9.3 23.9e32.4 7.9 28.6 0.9 1.8 8.3 29.4 External secondary branch 22 3.7e7.2 16.7e26.3 6.2 22.5 0.9 2.0 6.7 23.8 Internal primary branch 28 5.1e8.4 23.0e28.4 7.4 26.8 0.8 1.5 7.8 27.7 Internal secondary branch 23 3.6e6.8 16.2e23.6 5.8 21.1 0.8 1.9 6.2 22.0 Claw 4 heights Anterior primary branch 27 6.2e10.2 27.9e35.9 8.9 31.9 0.9 1.8 8.5 30.1 Anterior secondary branch 24 5.1e8.2 20.6e26.6 6.8 24.1 0.6 1.4 6.2 22.0 Posterior primary branch 26 7.2e11.2 30.7e40.5 9.7 35.0 1.0 2.2 9.8 34.8 Posterior secondary branch 18 5.4e8.1 23.9e28.1 7.2 25.8 0.7 1.2 7.4 26.2 pt values in tardigrade measurements are always provided with italics. assembled in Corel Photo-Paint X6, ver. 16.4.1.1281. For structures that could not be satisfactorily focused in a single light microscope photograph, a stack of 2e6 images were taken with an equidistance of ca. 0.2 mm and assembled manually into a single deep-focus image in Corel Photo-Paint X6, ver. 16.4.1.1281. 2.3. Morphometrics and morphological nomenclature All measurements are given in micrometres (mm). Sample size was adjusted following recommendations by Stec
et
al.
(2016). Structures were measured only if their orientation was suitable. Body length was measured from the anterior extremity to the end of the body, excluding the hind legs. The terminology used to describe oral cavity armature and egg shell morphology follows Michalczyk
& Kaczmarek
(2003)
and Kaczmarek
& Michalczyk
(2017). The type of buccal apparatus and claws are given according to Pilato
& Binda
(2010). Macroplacoid length sequence is given according to Kaczmarek
et
al.
(2014). Buccal tube length and the level of the stylet support insertion point were measured according to Pilato
(1981). The pt index is the ratio of the length of a given structure to the length
of
the
buccal
tube
expressed
as
a
percentage
(Pilato
1981). All other measurements and nomenclature follow Kaczmarek
& Michalczyk
(2017). Morphometric data were handled using the “Parachela” ver. 1.7 template available from the Tardigrada Register (Michalczyk
&
Kaczmarek
2013). Raw morphometric data for each analysed species are provided as supplementary materials (SM.01 and SM.02). Data underlying the description of the new species are also deposited in Tardigrada Register under www.tardigrada.net/
register/0063.htm. Tardigrade taxonomy follows Guil
et
al.
(2019). 2.4. Comparative material To identify the Tanzanian population, beside the original description by Londo~ no
et
al.
(2017), we also used microphotographs of a M. pentannulatus paratype kindly sent to us by Rosana Londo~ no and Anisbeth Daza (Universidad del Magdalena, Colombia). 2.5. Genotyping Individual DNA extractions were made from animals and/or eggs following a modified protocol by Casquet
et
al.
(2012). Each specimen was placed individually in a 1.5 ml Eppendorf micro-centrifuge tube, in 45 ml of a 3% suspension of 75e150 mm wet bead size Chelex® 100 resin (Bio-Rad) in ddH2O with addition of 3.0 ml Proteinase K (A&A Biotechnology) and incubated at 56 C for Table 4 Measurements [in mm] of selected morphological structures of the eggs of Minibiotus ioculator sp. nov. mounted in Hoyer's medium (Nenumber of eggs/structures measured, RANGE refers to the smallest and the largest structure among all measured specimens; SD standard deviation). CHARACTER N RANGE MEAN SD Egg full diameter 14 66.2e81.1 73.6 4.3 Egg bare diameter 14 54.2e70.1 61.9 4.1 Process height 42 4.5e7.9 5.6 0.9 Process base width 42 2.1e4.2 2.9 0.4 Process base/height ratio 42 41%e69% 53% 7% Inter-process distance 42 1.2e3.0 2.1 0.4 Number of processes on the 14 30e32 31.3 0.8 egg circumference D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 Table 5 Measurements [in mm] of selected morphological structures of individuals of Minibiotus pentannulatus Londo~ no,
Daza,
Lisi
& Quiroga,
2017
from Tanzania, mounted in Hoyer's medium (Nenumber of specimens/structures measured, RANGE refers to the smallest and the largest structure among all measured specimens; SD standard deviation). CHARACTER N RANGE MEAN SD mm pt mm pt mm pt Body length 30 198e279 803e1037 244 928 20 60 Buccopharyngeal tube Buccal tube length 30 24.3e27.8 e 26.3 e 1.1 e Stylet support insertion point 30 14.6e16.9 58.7e60.9 15.9 60.3 0.7 0.6 Buccal tube external width 30 1.7e2.2 6.3e9.0 2.0 7.7 0.1 0.6 Buccal tube internal width 30 0.8e1.2 2.9e4.5 1.0 3.9 0.1 0.4 Ventral lamina length 29 11.5e14.1 45.1e51.8 12.6 48.0 0.7 1.7 Placoid lengths Macroplacoid 1 30 1.6e2.6 5.8e9.8 2.1 8.0 0.2 0.9 Macroplacoid 2 30 1.3e2.0 4.7e7.4 1.7 6.3 0.2 0.7 Macroplacoid 3 30 1.3e2.1 4.7e7.9 1.7 6.4 0.2 0.8 Microplacoid 30 0.5e1.1 1.9e4.2 0.8 2.9 0.2 0.6 Macroplacoid row 30 6.1e8.1 23.9e30.5 7.1 27.1 0.5 1.6 Placoid row 30 7.4e10.1 28.8e37.1 8.4 32.1 0.6 1.9 Claw 1 lengths External primary branch 24 4.8e6.3 19.1e23.7 5.5 21.1 0.4 1.2 External secondary branch 14 3.4e5.0 14.0e18.5 4.3 16.3 0.4 1.4 Internal primary branch 23 4.7e5.7 18.1e21.2 5.2 19.9 0.3 0.8 Internal secondary branch 13 3.4e4.3 12.8e16.2 4.0 15.0 0.2 0.9 Claw 2 lengths External primary branch 24 5.1e6.2 19.8e24.3 5.7 21.6 0.3 1.1 External secondary branch 19 4.1e4.9 15.0e18.1 4.5 16.9 0.3 0.8 Internal primary branch 23 4.6e6.0 18.7e22.6 5.4 20.6 0.4 1.1 Internal secondary branch 17 3.5e4.7 14.0e17.4 4.1 15.7 0.3 0.9 Claw 3 lengths External primary branch 24 5.4e6.3 20.4e24.5 5.9 22.4 0.3 0.9 External secondary branch 17 4.1e4.9 15.9e18.5 4.5 17.2 0.2 0.9 Internal primary branch 24 5.1e6.2 19.5e22.4 5.6 21.2 0.3 0.7 Internal secondary branch 15 3.8e4.5 14.3e17.1 4.2 16.1 0.2 0.8 Claw 4 lengths Anterior primary branch 26 5.8e7.4 20.9e27.6 6.6 24.9 0.4 1.5 Anterior secondary branch 15 4.6e6.0 16.5e22.1 5.2 19.5 0.4 1.6 Posterior primary branch 26 6.1e7.7 22.7e29.2 7.0 26.4 0.4 1.4 Posterior secondary branch 17 4.6e6.1 18.1e22.1 5.4 20.4 0.4 1.1 20e30 min in thermomixer with constant 500 rpm. Then, tubes were incubated at 70 C for 10 min and after cooling to room temperature, the supernatant was transferred to new 1.5 ml tubes and stored in 20 C. Before the extraction, specimens were mounted in water slides and check under microscope to confirm their identification. We sequenced four DNA fragments: the small ribosome subunit (18S rRNA, nDNA), the large ribosome subunit (28S rRNA, nDNA), the internal transcribed spacer (ITS-2, nDNA), and the cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI, mtDNA). All fragments were amplified using the primers listed in Table
1.
For
every
PCR
reaction, the solution contained 12.25 ml ddH2O, 2 ml 10X DreamTaq Green Buffer (Thermo Scientific™), 0.8 ml 10 mM dNTPs, 0.8 ml 10 mM forward primer, 0.8 ml10 mM reverse primer, 0.15 ml Dream-Taq DNA Polymerase (5U/ml; Thermo Scientific™) and 3.2 mlof genomic DNA extract. The PCR profile for amplification of 28S rRNA, ITS-2 and COI was as follow: 5 min initial denaturation at 95 C, followed by 30 s denaturation at 95 C, 90 s annealing at 51 C, 60 s elongation at 72 C for 35 cycles and 10 min of final elongation at 72 C. For amplification of 18S rRNA the same profile was used with the exception of annealing temperature which was increased to 60 C. The PCR products were controlled by 1.5% agarose gel electrophoresis stained with Midori Green (Nippon Genetics) and purified with the Enzymatic Post-PCR immediate Clean-up (EPPiC Fast; A&A Biotechnology). Sequencing reactions were carried out in a total volume of 10.0 ml containing: 1.0 ml5 buffer, 0.5 ml BriliantDye® Terminator v3.1 (Life Technologies), 0.15 ml of a primer (10 pmol/ml), 2.0 ml of the purified PCR product, and 6.35 mlof ddH2O. Sequencing settings were: an initial denaturation at 96 C for 1 min, followed by 25 cycles of denaturation at 96 C for 10 s, annealing at 55 C for 5 s, and elongation at 60 C for 4 min. Sequencing products were then purified with the ExTerminator kit (A&A Biotechnology) and suspended in 25 ml of formamide. Sequencing products were read with the ABI 3130xl sequencer at the Molecular Ecology Lab, Institute of Environmental Sciences of the Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland. Sequences were pro-cessed in BioEdit ver. 7.2.5 (Hall
1999) and submitted to GenBank (for the accession numbers please see Table
2). 2.6. Comparative genetic analysis For molecular comparisons, all published sequences of the four abovementioned markers for species of the genus Minibiotus were downloaded from GenBank (Table
2) except single 18S rRNA and Table 6 Measurements [in mm] of selected morphological structures of the eggs of Minibiotus pentannulatus Londo~ no,
Daza,
Lisi
& Quiroga,
2017
from Tanzania, mounted in Hoyer's medium (Nenumber of eggs/structures measured, RANGE refers to the smallest and the largest structure among all measured specimens; SD standard deviation). CHARACTER N RANGE MEAN SD Diameter of egg without processes 30 50.2e65.4 58.6 3.6 Diameter of egg with processes 30 60.8e77.0 69.1 4.3 Process height 90 2.2e6.8 4.6 0.9 Process base width 90 2.6e5.4 3.8 0.5 Process base/height ratio 90 49%e214% 87% 26% Distance between processes 90 0.9e2.4 1.7 0.3 Number of processes on the egg 30 30e36 32.3 1.9 circumference D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 Image of Fig. 1 Fig. 1. Minibiotus ioculator sp. nov. e habitus. (A) Dorso-ventral projection (holotype, Hoyer's medium, PCM). Scale bars in mm. Image of Fig. 2 Fig. 2. Minibiotus ioculator sp. nov. e cuticular structures on legs. (AeB) External granulation on leg III seen in PCM (A) and SEM (B) (paratypes). (CeD) Internal granulation on leg III and a cuticular bulge resembling a pulvinus seen in PCM (C) and SEM (D) (paratypes). (EeF) Granulation on leg IV seen in PCM (E) and SEM (F) (paratypes). Filled, flat arrowheads indicate the cuticular bulge. Scale bars in mm. D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 Fig. 3. Minibiotus ioculator sp. nov. e claws (paratypes). (AeB) Claws I (A) and IV (B) seen in PCM. (CeD) Claws I (C) and IV (D) seen in SEM. Filled flat arrowheads indicate double muscle attachments under the claws. Scale bars in mm. 28S rRNA sequences (MH079468 and MH079492) published by Guil
et
al.
(2019)
as they represent a non-homologous fragment. The sequences were aligned using the default settings (in the case of ITS-2 and COI) and the QeINSeI method (in the case of ribosomal markers:
18S
rRNA,
28S
rRNA)
of
MAFFT
version
7
(Katoh
et
al.
2002; Katoh
& Toh
2008) and manually checked against non-conservative alignments in BioEdit. Then, the aligned sequences were trimmed to: 760 (18S rRNA), 687 (28S rRNA), 437 (ITS-2), 620 (COI) bp. All COI sequences were translated into protein sequences in MEGA7 version 7.0 (Kumar
et
al.
2016) to check against pseudogenes. Uncorrected pairwise distances were calculated using MEGA7 and are provided as supplementary materials (SM.03). 3. Results 3.1. Taxonomic account of the new species Phylum: Tardigrada Doyere
1840. Class: Eutardigrada Richters
1926. Order: Macrobiotoidea Guil
et
al.
2019. Family: Macrobiotidae Thulin
1928. Genus: Minibiotus R.O. Schuster, 1980 (in Schuster
et
al.
1980). 3.2. Minibiotus ioculator sp. nov. (Tables
3
and
4, Figs.
1e8). 3.2.1. Material examined 99 animals (including 4 simplex), and 31 eggs. Specimens mounted on microscope slides in Hoyer's medium (84 animals þ 21 eggs), fixed on SEM stubs (10 þ 10 þ 2 buccal apparatuses), and processed for DNA sequencing (3 þ 0). 3.2.2. Type locality 33 58058.4400S,20 42017.8800E; 295 m asl: Republic of South Africa: Tradouw Pass located in Western Cape; lichen on rock in the forest; coll. 7 September 2018 by Witold Morek and Bartłomiej Surmacz. 3.2.3. Type depositories Holotype (slide ZA.274.23 with 10 paratypes) and 68 paratypes (slides: ZA.274.*, where the asterisk can be substituted by any of the following numbers 19, 22, 25e26; SEM stub: 18.14) and 23 eggs (slides: ZA.274.*:20e21; SEM stub: 18.14) are deposited at the Institute of Zoology and Biomedical Research, Jagiellonian Univer-sity, Gronostajowa 9, 30-387, Krakow, Poland and 14 paratypes (slide: ZA.274.*: 24) and 8 eggs (slides: ZA.274.*: 18) are deposited in the Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. 3.2.4. Etymology The name refers to morphology of processes on the egg shell which resembles a hat of a royal jester. From Latin “jester” ¼ “ioculator”. 3.2.5. Description of the new species 3.2.5.1. Animals (measurements and statistics in Table
3). Body whitish but transparent after fixation in Hoyer's medium (Fig.
1A). Eyes present in live animals as well as in specimens mounted in Hoyer's medium. Body cuticle smooth without pores and granula-tion, however clearly visible patches of big and dense granulation on all legs present (Fig.
2AeF). The granulation on legs IeIII consists of two wide patches on the external and internal leg surface which are joined by narrow band of granulation situated on the anterior leg surface (Fig.
2AeD
and
3A, C). The granulation on legs IV consists of a D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 Fig. 4. Minibiotus ioculator sp. nov. e buccal apparatus and the oral cavity armature. (A) Dorsal view of the entire buccal apparatus (PCM), lower and upper inserts show ventral views of the oral cavity armature (PCM) and macroplacoids (NCM), respectively (all holotype). (B) Lateral view of the entire buccal apparatus (PCM) with the anterior and the posterior bend of the buccal tube. (CeD) The oral cavity armature of a single paratype seen in SEM from different angles showing dorsal (B) and ventral (C) views. Filled indented arrowheads indicate teeth of the first band, empty flat arrowheads indicate teeth of the second band whereas filled flat arrowheads indicate the third band of teeth, arrows indicate the anterior and the posterior bend of the buccal tube. Scale bars in mm. continuous and uniform patch which covers lateral and dorsal leg surfaces (Fig.
2E
and
F
and
3B, D). A cuticular bulge/fold (pulvinus) is present on the internal surface of legs IeIII (Fig.
2C and D ). Claws slender, of the hufelandi type (Fig.
3AeD). Primary branches with distinct accessory points, a common tract, and with an evident stalk connecting the claw to the lunula (Fig.
3AeD). Lunulae smooth on all legs (Fig.
3AeD). Cuticular bars under claws absent. Double muscle attachments faintly marked under LCM but clearly visible under SEM (Fig.
3A, C ). Mouth antero-ventral followed by ten peribuccal papulae (Fig.
4AeC; but see also Discussion). Bucco-pharyngeal apparatus of the Minibiotus type (Figs.
4A
and
5AeC) with an anterior and a D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 posterior bend clearly visible in laterally positioned specimens under LCM (Fig.
4B). Under LCM, only the third band of teeth is faintly visible (Fig.
4A). However, in SEM all three bands of teeth are visible, with the first band being situated at the base of peribuccal papulae and composed of a single row of small cone-shaped teeth fused to form a continuous, slightly serrated ring ridge around the oral cavity (Fig.
4C and D). The second band of teeth is situated between the ring fold and the third band of teeth and comprises one row of globular-shaped teeth, with occasional additional smaller teeth placed closer to the ring fold (Fig.
4C and D). The teeth of the third band are located in the posterior portion of the oral cavity, between the second band of teeth and the buccal tube opening (Fig.
4A, CeD). The third band of teeth is discontinuous and divided into the dorsal and the ventral portions. Under LCM, the teeth of both portions form a single, faintly visible transverse ridge, with dorsal ridge being continuous and ventral slightly indented (Fig.
4A). In SEM, both dorsal and ventral teeth are also clearly distinct and each is fused into a single ridge (Fig.
4C and D). Under SEM, both dorsal and ventral ridges have two clearly visible peaks with sharpened and flattened ends, respectively (Fig.
4C and D). Pharyngeal bulb spherical, with large triangular apophyses, three granular macroplacoids and a triangular small microplacoid placed very
close
to
the
third
macroplacoid
(Figs.
4A
and
5C). The mac-roplacoid length sequence 2 < 3<1. The first macroplacoid nar-rowed anteriorly (Figs.
4A
and
5C). All macroplacoids without constrictions (Figs.
4A
and
5C). 3.2.5.2. Eggs (measurements and statistics in Table
4). Laid freely, white, spherical or slightly ovoid (Fig.
6A
and
B
and
7A). The surface between processes smooth with depressions between processes faintly visible in LCM and clearly visible in SEM (Fig.
6BeF
and
7AeF). In SEM, these depressions are perforated by micropores (Fig.
7B and C). However, depressions with micropores can sometimes be not visible due to particles of dirt/mucus which sometimes accumulate within the depressions (Fig.
7DeF). Processes are conical with a slender trunk and with apex often split into a few apices (Fig.
6CeF
and
7DeF). The most common and characteristic appearance is a bifurcated process which resembles a hat of a medieval European royal jester (Fig.
6CeF
and
7D). Process apices are covered by granules which are faintly visible in LCM but are clearly identifiable in SEM (Fig.
6CeF
and
7DeF). Only occasionally, singular bubble-like structures can be seen inside the terminal portion of the processes (Fig.
6CeF). Sometimes, under LCM, the margins of processes bases seem to be serrated and surrounded by a crown of small thickenings (Fig.
6CeF) which are most probably internal strengthening structures stabilising the processes within the chorion as in other Macrobiotidae species (e.g. see Michalczyk
& Kaczmarek
2003). In SEM, these structures are not visible in intact eggs (Fig.
7DeF). 3.2.5.3. Reproduction. The new species is dioecious. Although no spermathecae filled with sperm have been found in gravid females on the freshly prepared slides, the testis in males, filled with spermatozoa, was clearly visible under LCM up to 24 h after mounting in Hoyer's medium (Fig.
8A). The new species does not exhibit sexual dimorphism such as lateral gibbosities on legs IV in males. 3.2.5.4. Phenotypic differential diagnosis. By smooth body cuticle without granulation and pores as well as by eggs with conical processes, the new species is similar to the following six Minibiotus species: M. allani (Murray,
1913), M. crassidens (Murray,
1907), Minibiotus aquatilis Claxton,1998, Minibiotus hispidus Claxton,
1998, Minibiotus maculartus Pilato
& Claxton,
1988, Minibiotus milleri Claxton,
1998. However, it differs specifically from: M. allani, reported only from the type locality in Kenya (Murray
1913), by: the presence of eyes (eyes absent in M. allani), the presence of granulation on all legs (granulation absent or not visible under light microscope in M. allani) and a different egg processes morphology (egg processes with slender trunks and endings split into stout arms with the most common and characteristic being division into two often curved arms which resemble a hat of a royal jester in the new species vs. egg pro-cesses with stouter trunks and endings split into several thin, flexible filaments in M. allani). M. crassidens, reported from five African countries: Angola (da
Cunha
& do
Nascimento
1964), Democratic Republic of Congo (Teunissen
1938), Kenya (Murray
1913), Republic of South Africa (Murray
1907,
1913), and Uganda (Murray
1913), by: the presence of eyes (eyes absent in M. crassidens) and a different egg processes morphology (egg processes with slender trunks and endings split into stout arms with the most common and D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 Fig. 6. Minibiotus ioculator sp. nov. e eggs seen in PCM. (A) Midsection under a 400 magnification. (B) Surface under a 400 magnification. (CeE) Details of egg under a 1000 magnification. Filled flat arrowheads indicate faintly visible depressions on the egg surface between the processes, empty flat arrowheads indicate singular bubble-like structures, filled indented arrowheads indicate faintly visible granules on the processes whereas empty indented arrowheads indicate internal thickenings (attachments/su tures) at the process bases. Scale bars in mm. characteristic being division into two often curved arms which resemble a hat of a royal jester in the new species vs. egg pro-cesses with undivided ending which is elongated into flexible one long flexible filament in M. crassidens) and a less denser distribution of process on the egg surface (the processes densely distributed, almost in contact with each other so that the egg surface between processes is hardly visible in M. crassidens); M. aquatilis, reported from several localities in Australia and Tasmania (Claxton
1998), by: the presence of smooth lunules IV (lunules IV dentate in M. aquatilis), a different morphology of egg processes (egg processes with slender trunks and endings split into stout arms with the most common and characteristic being division into two often curved arms which resemble a hat of a royal jester in the new species vs. egg processes long with slender trunks elongated usually into one and only sometimes several flexible, hair-like filaments often with one line of small bauble-like structures visible inside in M. aquatilis), a different morphology of egg surface between processes (smooth surface with depressions faintly visible under LCM vs. the surface be-tween processes covered by large dark dots arrange with single line around processes in M. aquatilis), and by shorter egg pro-cesses (4.5e7.9 mm in the new species vs. 11.0e12.5 mmin M. aquatilis). M. hispidus, reported only from Australia and New Zealand (Claxton
1998), by: a different morphology of egg processes (egg processes with slender trunks and endings split into stout arms with the most common and characteristic being division into two often curved arms which resemble a hat of a royal jester in the new species vs. egg processes in shape of small cones with greatly elongated, undivided endings in M. hispidus), a different morphology of egg surface between processes (smooth surface with depressions faintly visible un-der LCM vs. the surface between processes covered by small pores uniform in size with a distinct ring of pores surrounding each process in M. hispidus), and by a smaller number of pro-cess on the egg circumference (30e32 in the new species vs. 48 in M. hispidus). M. maculartus, reported from several localities in Australia and one in New Zealand (Pilato
&
Claxton
1988; Claxton
1998), by: the presence of smooth lunules IV (lunules IV dentate in D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 Fig. 7. Minibiotus ioculator sp. nov. e egg chorion seen in SEM. (A) Entire egg. (B) Details of the egg surface. (C) Magnification of a depression on the egg surface between the processes. (DeF) details of the processes. Filled flat arrowheads indicate depressions present on the egg surface between the processes. Please note that on A and DeF the de-pressions are covered by dirt. Scale bars in mm. Fig. 8. Minibiotus ioculator sp. nov. e reproduction. (A) Male testis (indicated by the arrow) seen in PCM, with visible spermatozoa in a male freshly mounted in Hoyer's medium. Scale bars in mm. D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 ~ Fig. 9. M. pentannulatus Londono
et
al.,
2017
from Tanzania e cuticular pores seen in SEM. (AeB) Cuticular pores on the dorsal cuticle at the level of leg I (A) and leg III (B). (CeD) Magnification of star-shaped (C) and circular (D) pores. Scale bars in mm. M. maculartus), a different morphology of egg processes (egg processes with slender trunks and endings split into stout arms with the most common and characteristic being division into two often curved arms which resemble a hat of a royal jester in the new species vs. wide conical processes with pointed apices with 8e9 longitudinal ridges extending from the processes base and joying the processes to the egg surface in M. maculartus), a different morphology of egg surface between processes (smooth surface with depressions faintly visible under LCM vs. the sur-face covered by irregularly distributed dark dots irregular in size and shape in M. maculartus), a shorter egg processes (4.5e7.9 mm in the new species vs. all processes about 11 mmin M. maculartus), a narrower processes bases (2.1e4.2 mm in the new species vs. all processes bases about 11 mmin M. maculartus), and by a higher number of process on the egg circumference (30e32 in the new species vs. 16 in M. maculartus). M. milleri, reported only from two localities in Australia (Claxton
1998), by: a different macroplacoid length sequence (2 < 3<1in the new species vs. 1< 2<3in M. milleri), a different morphology of egg processes (egg processes with slender trunks and endings split into stout arms with the most common and characteristic being division into two often curved arms which resemble a hat of a royal jester in the new species vs. processes in shape of long cones, tapering to blunt tip, rarely bifurcated with rough surface of tapering portion appearing as transverse lines and with indented bases enclosed within in membrane in M. milleri), a different morphology of egg surface between processes (smooth surface with depressions faintly visible under LCM vs. the sur-face slightly striated in M. milleri), a shorter egg full diameter (66.2e81.1 mm in the new species vs. 90.0e98.0 mmin M. milleri), a shorter egg processes (4.5e7.9 mm in the new species vs. 10.0e14.0 mmin M. aquatilis), and by a slightly smaller number of process on the egg circumference (30e32 in the new species vs. 20e30 in M. milleri). 3.2.5.5. Genetic differential diagnosis. The ranges of uncorrected genetic p-distances between the new species and the few Mini-biotus species, for which sequences are available from GenBank, are as follows: 18S rRNA: 2.0e4.5% (3.7% on average), with the most similar being M. pentannulatus from Tanzania (MT023999) and the least similar being unidentified Minibiotus species from England (EU266934); 28 rRNA: comparison with only two species: 7.2 and 7.3% difference with M. pentannulatus from Tanzania (MT024042 and MT024043, respectively) and 10.1% difference with M. gumersindoi from Spain (FJ435761); ITS-2: comparison with only one species: 19.2% difference with M. pentannulatus from Tanzania (MT024001); COI: comparison with only two species: 21.1% difference with M. pentannulatus from Tanzania (MT023413 and MT023414) and 23.9% difference with M. gumersindoi from Spain (FJ435803); 3.3. Minibiotus pentannulatus Londo~no,
Daza,
Lisi
& Quiroga,
2017
The population of Minibiotus species found in Tanzania and examined in this study was identified as M. pentannulatus based on the original description and new LCM microphotographs of type material. Data collected for this population allowed to amend the species description by providing more accurate morphological details from LCM and SEM as well as DNA barcodes for molecular species identification. D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 ~ (C) of the same animal from the Tanzanian population. (DeF) External surface of leg I (A), II (B) and III (C) of the same animal from the Colombian population (a paratype). Empty arrowheads indicate the patch of leg granulation with a cuticular pore in the centre whereas filled arrowheads indicate the big star-shaped cuticular pore always present above the granulation. Scale bars in mm. 3.3.1. Material examined 83 animals (including 6 simplex), and 46 eggs. Specimens mounted on microscope slides in Hoyer's medium (60 animals þ 34 eggs), fixed on SEM stubs (20 þ 9), and processed for DNA sequencing (3 þ 3). 3.3.2. Locality 7 4902500S, 36 4903200E, 2050 m asl: Tanzania: Udzungwa Mts. National Park near the Mwanihana Peak; lichen from branches of a bush; coll. on 16 August 2016 by Thomas Pape. 3.3.3. Material depositories 69 animals (slides: TZ.027.*, where the asterisk can be substituted by any of the following numbers 23e25, 28e31; SEM stubs: 14.02, 19.20) and 36 eggs (slides: TZ.027.*:32e35; SEM stub: 14.02) are deposited at the Institute of Zoology and Biomedical Research, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 9, 30-387, Krakow, Poland and 11 animals (slides: TZ.027.*:26e27) and 7 eggs (slide: TZ.027.*: 36) are deposited in the Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. 3.3.4. Amended description 3.3.4.1. Animals (measurements and statistics in Table
5). Both types of cuticular pores (star-shaped and circular) reported in the original description are also obvious in SEM (Fig.
9AeD). The granulation on legs IeIII was overlooked in the original description. In both populations the granulation is present on the external surface of legs IeIII as a single small patch well visible in LCM (Fig.
10AeF) and in SEM (Fig.
11A, C). Moreover, a clear pattern of pore arrangement on legs IeIII is also always present with one smaller star-shaped pore present in the centre of granulation patch and bigger star-shaped pore present above (Fig.
10AeF). The SEM analysis additionally confirmed this pattern revealing at the same time also a pulvinus on the internal surface of legs IeIII (Fig.
11AeD). Under SEM, the granulation on all legs consist of microgranule aggregations being the most obvious on legs IV (Fig.
11
A, C, EeF). The SEM analysis also confirmed that lunules on all legs are smooth (Fig.
11Eand F). Bucco-pharyngeal apparatus of the Minibiotus type with the anterior and the posterior bend clearly visible in laterally positioned specimens under LCM (Fig.
12A). A cuticular fold with a pore in the centre is present just above the mouth opening and visible well under LCM (only in laterally positioned specimens) and under SEM (Fig.
12A and B). Mouth antero-ventral followed by ten short peribuccal papulae (Fig.
12BeD; but see also Dis-cussion). As stated in the original description, the oral cavity armature is invisible under LCM. However, the SEM analysis confirmed the presence of teeth in the oral cavity. The oral cavity armature comprises three bands of teeth, with the first band being situated at the base of peribuccal lamellae and composed of a single row of small cone-shaped teeth fused to form a continuous, slightly serrated ring ridge around the oral cavity (Fig.
12C). The second band of teeth comprises one row of globular-shaped teeth with some smaller cone-shaped teeth distributed unevenly on the ring fold (Fig.
12C and D). The teeth of the third band are located within the posterior portion of the oral cavity, between the second band of teeth and the buccal tube D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 ~ respectively. (C) Magnification of granulation on leg III. (D) Magnification of the pulvinus on leg II. (EeF) Claws II (E) and IV (F). The empty flat arrowhead indicates the patch of leg granulation with a cuticular pore in the centre, the filled flat arrowhead indicates the big star-shaped cuticular pore always present above the granulation, the filled indented arrowhead indicates the pulvinus whereas the empty indented arrowhead indicates granulation on leg IV. Scale bars in mm. opening (Fig.
12C), but only the dorsal portion of the third band of teeth is present (Fig.
12C and D). This portion is composed of three evidently separated, sharp cone-shaped teeth (Fig.
12C). 3.3.4.2. Eggs (measurements and statistics in Table
6). In the original description, the morphology of the egg ornamentation was reported based on a single egg. The egg shell ornamentation in the Tanzanian population conforms to that in the original description (Fig.
13AeF). The low sample size in the original description led Londo~ no
et
al.
(2017)
to assume that egg processes always exhibit 5 latitudinal annulations, but the analysis of a larger number of eggs showed that number of annulation on egg process varies from 4 to 6 (Fig.
13AeF
and
14AeF). Under SEM, the annulations are seen as a laminal rings with serrated/granulated margins surrounding the processes (Fig.
14AeF). Both LCM and SEM analysis confirmed that the chorion surface between the process is smooth, however we noted also the presence of internal strengthening thickenings at the processes bases which stabilise them within the chorion layers as in other Macrobiotidae species (Fig.
13CeF
and
14CeD). The microgranulation is present on the egg chorion surface under the processes, however it is visible only in SEM and only when processes are broken or detached from the chorion surface Fig.
14C and D). 3.3.4.3. Reproduction. Neither testis in males nor spermathecae filled with sperm in gravid females have been found on the freshly prepared slides. Also, specimens of the Tanzanian population did not exhibit sexual dimorphism such as lateral gibbosities on legs IV. Thus, most likely the species is parthenogenetic. 3.3.4.4. Genetic comparisons. The 18S rRNA and ITS-2 exhibited single haplotypes, but in 28S rRNA and COI, two haplotypes were found (Table
2), with p-distances of 0.1% and 2.1%, respectively. The ranges of uncorrected genetic p-distances between the Tanzanian D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 ~ anterior and the posterior bend of the buccal tube. (B) Mouth opening visible in SEM. (CeD) The oral cavity armature of a single specimen seen in SEM from different angles showing dorsal (C) and ventral (D) views. Filled arrows indicate the anterior and the posterior bend of the buccal tube, empty arrows indicate the cuticular fold above the mouth opening with a central pore, filled indented arrowheads indicate teeth of the first band, empty flat arrowheads indicate teeth of the second band whereas filled flat arrowheads indicate the third band of teeth. Scale bars in mm. M. pentannulatus and other Minibiotus species, for which sequences are available from GenBank, are as follow s: 18S rRNA: 2.0e4.0% (3.3% on average), with the most similar being M. ioculator sp. nov. from the Republic of South Africa (MT023998) and the least similar being unidentified species of the M. intermedius group from Italy (HQ604980); 28S rRNA: comparison with only two species: 7.2 and 7.3% difference with M. ioculator sp. nov. from the Republic of South Africa (MT024041) and 12.2 and 12.3% difference with M. gumersindoi from Spain (FJ435761); ITS-2: comparison with only one species: 19.2% difference with M. ioculator sp. nov. from the Republic of South Africa (MT024000); COI: comparison with only two species: 21.1% difference with M. ioculator sp. nov. from the Republic of South Africa (MT023412) and 23.9e24.4% difference with M. gumersindoi from Spain (FJ435803). 4. Discussion Minibiotus was established 40 years ago by Schuster
et
al.
(1980)
who extracted several species from the genus Macrobiotus that were characterised by uniform morphology. Initially, however, the erection of Minibiotus was not commonly accepted and it was met with criticism by Pilato
(1982)
and Ramazzotti
&
Maucci
(1983)
who treated this genus invalid because they considered its diagnosis vague. Nevertheless, with time, the genus was eventually accepted and it currently comprises nearly fifty species. The first and so far the only revision of the genus by Claxton
(1998)
included descriptions of numerous new species, aiding species identification and further descriptions. Although the taxonomic status of Mini-biotus is no longer challenged, the extreme morphological diversity within the genus presented by Claxton
(1998)
and later species descriptions clearly indicate that Minibiotus is likely to hold at least several distinct evolutionary lineages that could potentially be described as separate genera (Stec
et
al.
2015). Specifically, Mini-biotus comprises species with two and three macroplacoids in the pharynx or species without and with pores and the latter can be further divided into species with solely circular pores and species with a mixture of circular and star-shaped pores. Recent phylogenetic works show that morphological traits such as the number of macroplacoids and even their shape and spatial arrangement or the presence of cuticular pores are stable at the genus level (e.g. see the following genera that were established with integrative data in which the macroplacoid number and morphology were used as major diagnostic characters: Paramacrobiotus, Mesobiotus or Pila-tobius). Apart from Minibiotus, there are also other tardigrade genera that were erected before the molecular phylogenetics era, solely with morphological data and that comprise species with varying numbers of macroplacoids (e.g. Doryphoribius and Adro-pion). Importantly, however, their phylogenies have not been thoroughly studied, thus it is likely that these genera are not monophyletic either (see Ga˛ siorek
et
al.
2019). Moreover, some of the Minibiotus species originally described with two macroplacoids have recently been transferred to the Macrobiotus hufelandi group after a careful PCM analysis (i.e. M. acadianus and M. julianae in Stec
et
al.,
2015). Similarly, in all tardigrade genera that were verified by methods of molecular phylogenetics, cuticle is either porous or poreless, suggesting that this trait is typically conserved at a genus D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 level (e.g. Paramacrobiotus and Mesobiotus; Guidetti
et
al.,
2009; Vecchi
et
al.,
2016; Kaczmarek
et
al.,
2018; Guidetti
et
al.,
2019; Guil
et
al.,
2019; Stec
et
al.,
2020). Importantly, the morphological hypothesis that Minibiotus is not monophyletic is also supported by the limited available genetic data (Guil
& Giribet
2012; Bertolani
et
al.
2014). For example, Bertolani
et
al.
(2014)
showed that Min-ibiotus furcatus is not directly related to the few other sequenced Minibiotus species, but it clusters with the genus Paramacrobiotus. Moreover, the species exhibits spermatozoa similar to those observed in some Paramacrobiotus spp. and its mouth is sur-rounded by a ring of ten short peribuccal lamellae (instead of papulae that are supposed to be present in Minibiotus; but see the paragraph below). Thus, Bertolani
et
al.
(2014)
provisionally moved M. furcatus back to a ‘basket genus’ Macrobiotus. However, the miniaturised lamellae in Macrobiotus furcatus have a clearly different morphology compared to lamellae in Macrobiotus, Para-macrobiotus or Mesobiotus. Thus, taking into consideration both molecular phylogeny and morphology, it is likely that M. furcatus represents a separate genus that is yet to be described when more data are available. The original general diagnosis of the genus has been refined in later studies (Binda
& Pilato
1992; Claxton
1998; Guil
& Guidetti
2005; Guidetti
et
al.
2007; Stec
et
al.
2015)and currently a spe-cies is considered as representing Minibiotus if its buccal apparatus conforms to the list of ten characters (see Stec
et
al.
2015
for the latest version of the list). The two species analysed in this study meet all these ten criteria and thus can be considered as Minibiotus species according to current standards. However, our study signals a potential problem with one of the key traits defining the genus, namely the peribuccal papulae. These structures are hardly visible under LCM, and SEM data for Minibiotus species are still extremely scarce and of varying quality (only three works comprise such SEM photographs: Schuster
et
al.
1980; Claxton
1998; the present study). As a result, the morphology of D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 ~ flat arrowheads indicate undeveloped annulations, filled flat arrowheads indicate microgranulation under egg processes whereas filled indented arrowheads indicate internal thickenings (attachmants/sutures) at the processes bases. Scale bars in mm. peribuccal papulae in Minibiotus has never been described in detail. With currently existing data, it is hard to determine whether peribuccal structures in Minibiotus should be considered as true papule (as it has been shown in Fig.
5
by Schuster
et
al.
1980) or rather as shortened and thickened lamellae packed closely to each other (as it has been shown in Fig.
1
by Claxton
(1998)
and in this study in Fig.
4C
and
D
and
12CeD). Our photographs, being of the highest resolution among the published images, indicate that the latter scenario is more likely. However, much more effort should be made towards increasing the species sample size regarding SEM documentation of peribuccal structures in various Minibiotus to allow a formulation of a confident conclusion on their morphology. Our conclusions are in line with previous studies on Minibiotus (Guidetti
et
al.,
2007; Bertolani
et
al.,
2014; Stec
et
al.,
2015) and indicate that the genus should be considered polyphyletic. It is also obvious that this tardigrade group requires a through revision with an integrative taxonomy approach to solve the highlighted problem with the genus diagnosis as well as to test the hypothesis on putative new genera potentially hidden within the genus Minibiotus. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Acknowledgments We are especially grateful to our colleagues Bartłomiej Surmacz, Witold Morek (both of Jagiellonian University, Poland) and Thomas Pape (Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen) for collecting the samples which allowed us to conduct this study and to Piotr Ga˛ siorek who kindly extracted for us the buccal apparatuses for SEM imaging. The lichen sample containing D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 M. ioculator sp. nov. was collected from the Tradouw Pass located in Western Cape, Republic of South Africa under the permit no. CN3528-5316 issued by CapeNature (Western Cape Province) to Witold Morek. The lichen sample containing M. pentannulatus was collected from the Udzungwa Mts. National Park, Tanzania under COSTECH permit No. 2015-170-ER-2012-147 to Thomas Pape and the associated TANAPA and TAWIRI permits. We also thank Rosana Londono ~and Anisbeth Daza (Universidad del Magdalena, Colombia) for sending us the microphotographs of type specimens of M. pentannulatus. We are also grateful to two anonymous re-viewers whose comments helped to improve the manuscript. The study was supported by the Preludium programme of the Polish National Science Centre (grant no. 2018/31/N/NZ8/03096 to DS supervised by ŁM) and by the grant from the European Commission’s programme “Transnational Access to Major Research In-frastructures” to SYNTHESYS (grant no. DK-TAF-2693 to DS). Some of the analyses were carried out with the equipment purchased from the Sonata Bis programme of the Polish National Science Centre (grant no. 2016/22/E/NZ8/00417 to ŁM). Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2020.03.007.
References Bertolani, R., Guidetti, R., Marchioro, T., Altiero, T., Rebecchi, L., Cesari, M., 2014. Phylogeny of Eutardigrada: new molecular data and their morphological support lead to the identification of new evolutionary lineages. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 76, 110e126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2014.03.006. Binda,
M.G.,
Pilato,
G.,
1992.
Minibiotus
furcatus,
nuova
posizione
sistematica
per
Macrobiotus
furcatus
Ehrenberg,
1859,
e
descrizione
di
due
nuove
specie.
Ani-malia
19,
111e120. Binda, M.G., Pilato, G., 1995. Some notes on African tardigrades with description of two new species. Trop. Zool. 8, 367e372. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03946975.1995.10539294. Casquet, J.T., Thebaud, C., Gillespie, R.G., 2012. Chelex without boiling, a rapid and easy technique to obtain stable amplifiable DNA from small amounts of ethanol-stored spiders. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 12, 136e141. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1755-0998.2011.03073.x. Claxton, S.K., 1998. A revision of the genus Minibiotus (Tardigrada: Macrobiotidae) with descriptions of eleven new species from Australia. Record Aust. Mus. 50, 125e160. https://doi.org/10.3853/j.0067-1975.50.1998.1276. Coughlan, K., Michalczyk, Ł., Stec, D., 2019. Macrobiotus caelestis sp. nov., a new tardigrade species (Macrobiotidae: hufelandi group) from the Tien Shan Mountains (Kyrgyzstan). Annal. Zool. 69, 499e513. https://doi.org/10.3161/
00034541ANZ2019.69.3.002. Coughlan, K., Stec, D., 2019. Two new species of the Macrobiotus hufelandi complex (Tardigrada: Eutardigrada: Macrobiotidae) from Australia and India, with notes on their phylogenetic position. Eur. J. Taxon. 573, 1e38. https://doi.org/10.5852/
ejt.2019.573. Da
Cunha,
A.X.,
Nascimento-Ribeiro,
F.,
1964.
Tardigrados
de
Angola.
Garcia
Orta
12,
397e406. Dastych,
H.,
1980.
Niesporczaki
(Tardigrada)
Tatrzanskiego
Parku
Narodowego.
Monogr.
Fauny
Pol.
9,
1e232. Degma, P., Bertolani, R., Guidetti, R., 2009e2019. Actual Checklist of Tardigrada Species. https://doi.org/10.25431/11380_1178608. Degma, P., Guidetti, R., 2007. Notes to the current checklist of Tardigrada. Zootaxa 1579, 41e53. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1579.1.2. Doyere,
P.L.N.,
1840.
Memoire
sur
les
Tardigrades.
Annales
des
Sciences
Naturelles,
Series
2
(Zoologie)
14,
269e362. Eibye-Jacobsen, J., 2001. Are the supportive structures of the tardigrade pharynx homologous throughout the entire group? J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 39, 1e11. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0469.2001.00140.x. Folmer,
O.,
Black,
M.,
Hoeh,
W.,
Lutz,
R.,
Vrijenhoek,
R.,
1994.
DNA
primers
for
amplification
of
mitochondrial
cytochrome
c
oxidase
subunit
I
from
diverse
metazoan
invertebrates.
Mol.
Mar.
Biol.
Biotechnol.
3,
294e299. Ga˛ siorek, G., Stec, D., Morek, W., Michalczyk, Ł., 2019. Deceptive conservatism of claws: distinct phyletic lineages concealed within Isohypsibioidea (Eutardi-grada) revealed by molecular and morphological evidence. Contrib. Zool. 88, 78e132. https://doi.org/10.1163/18759866-20191350. Ga˛ siorek, P., Stec, D., Morek, W., Zawierucha, K., Kaczmarek, Ł., Lachowska-Cierlik, D., Michalczyk, Ł., 2016. An integrative revision of Mesocrista Pilato, 1987 (Tardigrada: Eutardigrada: Hypsibiidae). J. Nat. Hist. 50, 2803e2828. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2016.1234654. Ga˛ siorek, P., Stec, D., Zawierucha, Z., Kristensen, R.M., Michalczyk, Ł., 2018. Revision of Testechiniscus Kristensen, 1987 (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscidae) refutes the polar-temperate distribution of the genus. Zootaxa 4472, 261e297. https://
doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4472.2.3. Guidetti, R., Bertolani, R., 2005. Tardigrade taxonomy: an updated check list of the taxa and a list of characters for their identification. Zootaxa 845, 1e46. https://
doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.845.1.1.
Guidetti, R., Bertolani, R., Degma, P., 2007. New taxonomic position of several Macrobiotus species (Eutardigrada: Macrobiotidae). Zootaxa 1471, 61e68. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1471.1.6. Guidetti, R., Cesari, M., Bertolani, R., Altiero, T., Rebecchi, L., 2019. High diversity in species, reproductive modes and distribution within the Paramacrobiotus richtersi complex (Eutardigrada, Macrobiotidae). Zool. Lett. 5, 1. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s40851-018-0113-z. Guidetti, R., Schill, R.O., Bertolani, R., Dandekar, T., Wolf, M., 2009. New molecular data for tardigrade phylogeny, with the erection of Paramacrobiotus gen. nov. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 47, 315e321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439
0469.2009.00526.x.
Guil, N., Giribet, G., 2012. A comprehensive molecular phylogeny of tardigrades e adding genes and taxa to a poorly resolved phylum-level phylogeny. Cladistics 28, 21e49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00364.x. Guil, N., Guidetti, R., 2005. A new species of Tardigrada (Eutardigrada: Macrobiotidae) from Iberian Peninsula and canary Islands (Spain). Zootaxa 889, 1e11. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.889.1.1.
Guil, N., Jgensen, A., Kristensen, R., 2019. An upgraded comprehensive multilocus phylogeny of the Tardigrada tree of life. Zool. Scripta 48, 120e137. https://
doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12321.
Hall,
T.A.,
1999.
BioEdit:
a
user-friendly
biological
sequence
alignment
editor
and
analysis
program
for
Windows
95/98/NT.
Nucleic
Acids
Symp.
Ser.
41,
95e98. Kaczmarek, Ł., Cytan, J., Zawierucha, K., Diduszko, D., Michalczyk, Ł., 2014. Tardigrades from Peru (South America), with descriptions of three new species of Parachela. Zootaxa 3790, 357e379. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3790.2.5. Kaczmarek, Ł., Michalczyk, Ł., 2017. The Macrobiotus hufelandi (Tardigrada) group revisited. Zootaxa 4363, 101e123. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4363.1.4. Kaczmarek, Ł., Zawierucha, K., Buda, J., Stec, D., Gawlak, M., Michalczyk, Ł., Roszkowska, M., 2018. An integrative redescription of the nominal taxon for the Mesobiotus harmsworthi group (Tardigrada: Macrobiotidae) leads to de-scriptions of two new Mesobiotus species from Arctic. PloS One 13 (10), e0204756. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204756. Katoh, K., Misawa, K., Kuma, K., Miyata, T., 2002. MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 3059e3066. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkf436. Katoh, K., Toh, H., 2008. Recent developments in the MAFFT multiple sequence alignment program. Briefings Bioinf. 9, 286e298. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/
bbn013. Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Tamura, K., 2016. MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 33, 1870e1874. https://
doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw054. Londo~no, R., Daza, A., Lisi, O., Quiroga, S., 2017. New species of water bear Minibiotus pentannulatus (Tardigrada: Macrobiotidae) from Colombia. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 88, 807e814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmb.2017.10.040. Meyer, H.A., Hinton, J.G., 2009. The Tardigrada of southern Africa, with the description of Minibiotus harrylewisi, a new species from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (Eutardigrada: Macrobiotidae). Afr. Invertebr. 50, 255e268. https://
doi.org/10.5733/afin.050.0203. Michalczyk, Ł., Kaczmarek, Ł., 2003. A description of the new tardigrade Macrobiotus reinhardti (Eutardigrada, Macrobiotidae, harmsworthi group) with some remarks on the oral cavity armature within the genus Macrobiotus Schultze. Zootaxa 331, 1e24. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.331.1.1.
Michalczyk, Ł., Kaczmarek, Ł., 2013. The Tardigrada Register: a comprehensive online data repository for tardigrade taxonomy. J. Limnol. 72, 175e181. https://
doi.org/10.4081/jlimnol.2013.s1.e22. Mironov, S.V., Dabert, J., Dabert, M., 2012. A new feather mite species of the genus Proctophyllodes Robin, 1877 (Astigmata: Proctophyllodidae) from the Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus (Passeriformes: Aegithalidae): morphological description with DNA barcode data. Zootaxa 3253, 54e61. https://doi.org/
10.11646/zootaxa.3253.1.2. Morek, W., Stec, D., Ga˛ siorek, P., Schill, R.O., Kaczmarek, Ł., Michalczyk, Ł., 2016. An experimental test of eutardigrade preparation methods for light microscopy. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 178, 785e793. https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12457.
Murray, J., 1907. Some South African Tardigrada. J. R. Micr. Soc. London. 5, 515e524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2818.1907.tb01665.x. Murray, J., 1913. African Tardigrada. J. R. Micr. Soc. London. 2, 136e144. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2818.1913.tb01014.x. Nelson, D.R., Guidetti, R., Rebecchi, L., 2015. Phylum Tardgrada. Thorp and Covich's Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, pp. 347e380. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-385026-3.00017-6. Pardi,
L.,
1941.
Tardigrada.
Miss.
Biol.
Sagan-Omo
Roma
Zool.
6,
221e232. Pilato,
G.,
1981.
Analisi
di
nuovi
caratteri
nello
studio
degli
Eutardigradi.
Animalia
8,
51e57.
Pilato, G., 1982. The systematics of Eutardigrada. A comment. Z. f. zool. Syst und Evo-lutionsforsch. 20, 271e284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.1983.tb00553.x. Pilato, G., Binda, M.G., 2010. Definition of families, subfamilies, genera and sub-genera of the Eutardigrada, and keys to their identification. Zootaxa 2404, 1e52. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2404.1.1.
D. Stec et al. / Zoologischer Anzeiger 286 (2020) 117e134 Pilato,
G.,
Claxton,
S.K.,
1988.
Tardigrades
from
Australia.
1.
Macrobiotus
hieronimi
and
Minibiotus
maculartus,
two
new
species
of
eutardigrades.
Animalia
15,
83e89. Plate, L., 1888. Beitr€ age zur Naturgeschichte der Tardigraden. Zool. Jahrb. (Anat.). 3, 487e550. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.1265. Prendini, L., Weygoldt, P., Wheeler, W.C., 2005. Systematics of the Damon variegatus group of African whip spiders (Chelicerata: Amblypygi): evidence from behaviour, morphology and DNA. Org. Divers. Evol. 5, 203e236. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ode.2004.12.004. Ramazzotti,
G.,
Maucci,
W.,
1983.
Il
phylum
Tardigrada.
Mem.
Ist.
Ital.
Idrobiol.
41,
1e1012. Richters,
F.,
1926.
Tardigrada.
In:
Kenthal,
W.,
Krumbach,
T.
(Eds.),
Handbuch
der
Zoologie,
vol.
3.
Walter
de
Gruyter
& Co.,
Berlin
& Leipzig,
pp.
58e61.
Sands, C.J., McInnes, S.J., Marley, N.J., Goodall-Copestake, W., Convey, P., Linse, K., 2008. Phylum Tardigarda: an "individual" approach. Cladistics 24, 1e18. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2008.00219.x. Schuster, R.O., Nelson, D.R., Grigarick, A.A., Christenberry, D., 1980. Systematic criteria of Eutardigrada. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 99, 284e303. https://doi.org/
10.2307/3226004. Stec, D., Ga˛ siorek, P., Morek, W., Kosztyła, P., Zawierucha, K., Michno, K., Kaczmarek, Ł., Prokop, Z.M., Michalczyk, Ł., 2016. Estimating optimal sample size for tardigrade morphometry. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 178, 776e784. https://
doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12404. Stec, D., Kristensen, R.M., Michalczyk, Ł., 2018a. Integrative taxonomy identifies Macrobiotus papei, a new tardigrade species of the Macrobiotus hufelandi complex (Eutardigrada: Macrobiotidae) from the Udzungwa mountains National Park (Tanzania). Zootaxa 4446, 273e291. https://doi.org/10.11646/
zootaxa.4446.2.7.
Stec, D., Krzywanski Ł., Zawierucha, K., Michalczyk, Ł., 2020. Untangling systematics of the Paramacrobiotus areolatus species complex by an integrative redescription of the nominal species for the group, with multilocus phylogeny and species delineation within the genus Paramacrobiotus. Zool. J. Linn. Soc 188, 694e716. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlz163. Stec, D., Morek, W., Ga˛ siorek, P., Michalczyk, Ł., 2018b. Unmasking hidden species diversity within the Ramazzottius oberhaeuseri complex, with an integrative redescription of the nominal species for the family Ramazzottiidae (Tardigrada: Eutardigrada: Parachela). System. Biodiversity 16, 357e376. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14772000.2018.1424267.
Stec, D., Smolak, R., Kaczmarek, Ł., Michalczyk, Ł., 2015. An integrative description of Macrobiotus paulinae sp. nov. (Tardigrada: Eutardigrada: Macrobiotidae: hufelandi group) from Kenya. Zootaxa 4052, 501e526. https://doi.org/10.11646/
zootaxa.4052.5.1.
Stec, D., Zawierucha, K., Michalczyk, Ł., 2017. An integrative description of Ram-azzottius subanomalus (Biserov, 1985) (Tardigrada) from Poland. Zootaxa 4300, 403e420. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4300.3.4. Teunissen,
R.J.H.,
1938.
Tardigraden.
Exploration
du
Parc
National
Albert.
Mission
de
Witte
16,
1e21.
Thulin, G., 1928. Über die Phylogenie und das System der Tardigraden. Hereditas 11, 207e266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1928.tb02488.x. Vecchi, M., Cesari, M., Bertolani, R., J€ onsson, K.I., Rebecchi, L., Guidetti, R., 2016. Integrative systematic studies on tardigrades from Antarctica identify new genera and new species within Macrobiotoidea and Echiniscoidea. Invertebr. Systemat. 30, 303e322. https://doi.org/10.1071/IS15033.