Taxonomía y sistemática

Roberto Arce-Pérez, Andrés Ramírez-Ponce *

Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Red de Biodiversidad y Sistemática, Carretera Antigua a Coatepec Núm. 351, El Haya, 91073 Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico

*Corresponding author: andres.ramirez@inecol.mx (A. Ramírez-Ponce)

http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A0A5D659-2677-4CE4-BAA3-7162B5338BCF

Abstract

A bibliographic and museum review is carried out on the Cybistrinae species of Mexico, as well as comparative analysis with species from South America, concluding that Trifurcitus fallax (Aubé, 1838) has been wrongly cited for Mexico. Additionally, 2 new species are described as the first country-specific records, Trifurcitus mexicanus sp. nov. from the state of Chiapas, and T. maya sp. nov. from the state of Yucatán. Also, new state records are provided for Bifurcitus lherminieri (Guérin-Méneville, 1829) in Mexico. Future reviews of specimens under the names Bifurcitus, Cybister, Metaxydytes, and Trifurcitus are recommended as this could likely uncover more new species.

Keywords: Coleoptera; Dytiscidae; Cybistrinae; Trifurcitus; Bifurcitus; Mexico; New species

Notas sobre Cybistrinae de México (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae), con la descripción de 2 especies nuevas de Trifurcitus

Resumen

Se realiza una revisión bibliográfica y museística de las especies de Cybistrinae de México, así como un análisis comparativo con especies de Sudamérica, concluyendo que Trifurcitus fallax (Aubé, 1838) ha sido citada erróneamente para México. Adicionalmente, se describen 2 especies nuevas como los primeros registros específicos para el país, Trifurcitus mexicanus sp. nov. del estado de Chiapas, y T. maya sp. nov. del estado de Yucatán. También se proporcionan registros nuevos estatales para Bifurcitus lherminieri (Guérin-Méneville, 1829) para México. Se recomiendan revisiones futuras de especímenes bajo los nombres Bifurcitus, Cybister, Metaxydytes y Trifurcitus, ya que éstos, probablemente, podrían incluir más especies nuevas.

Palabras clave: Coleoptera; Dytiscidae; Cybistrinae; Trifurcitus; Bifurcitus; México; Especies nuevas

Introduction

Until recently, the subfamily Cybistrinae Sharp, 1880 included 1 tribe, 7 genera, 8 subgenera and 129 species with 10 subspecies worldwide (Nilsson & Hájek, 2023), including 2 genera from the New World: Megadytes Sharp, 1880, with 21 species in 4 subgenera, and Cybister Curtis, 1827, with 6 species in 2 subgenera and additional species without subgeneric assignment (Arce-Pérez et al., 2021; Nilsson & Hájek, 2023; Trémouilles, 1984, 1989a, b; Trémouilles & Bachmann, 1980). A phylogenetic study (Miller et al., 2024) based on morphological characters, focused on reclassifying the genera of Cybistrinae, updated the information including 1 tribe, 12 genera, 4 subgenera and 130 species with 10 subspecies (Miller et al., 2024). In this work, for the New World 7 genera were included: Bifurcitus Brinck, 1945 (3 species), Cybister Curtis, 1827 (5 species in 2 subgenera), Megadytes Sharp, 1882 (2 species), Metaxydytes Miller et al., 2024 (9 species), Nilssondytes Miller et al., 2024 (1 species), Paramegadytes Trémouilles & Bachmann, 1980 (2 species), and Trifurcitus Brinck, 1945 (6 species).

Of the 7 genera cited for the New World, 4 are reported for Mexico, Bifurcitus (2 species), Cybister (3 species), Metaxydytes (2 species), and Trifurcitus (1 species) (Arce-Pérez et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2024; Nilsson & Hájek, 2023). The only species of Trifurcitus cited for Mexico by Sharp (1882a, b), T. fallax (Aubé, 1838), was described from French Guyana. Dejean (1836: 60) lists it as Trochalus fallax from Cayenne. This name was made available by Aubé (1838: 54) as Cybister fallax. Sharp (1882a: 710 and 1882b: 47) placed the species in his new genus Megadytes, and Brinck (1945: 8) in his new subgenus Trifurcitus of Megadytes. Currently the species is classified in the genus Trifurcitus (Miller et al., 2024). Sharp (1882a, b) studied a female from the Edwin Brown collection reported it from Mexico without a precise locality. Wilke (1920: 247) cited 1 specimen from the British Museum from “Mexico” and another from “Orizaba-Mexico” (State of Veracruz). Zimmermann (1920: 256) listed Sharp’s specimen but cited it incorrectly from Central America. Trémouilles and Bachmann (1980: 125) and Trémouilles (1989b: 161) cited the species for Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil. Libonatti et al. (2013: 164) were the last to provide a new record of the species (Chaco province, Argentina). The larval stages of T. fallax were described by Ferreira (1995: 315) and Michat (2010: 381). Arce-Pérez et al. (2021: 331) provided a key for all the New World Cybistrinae species found north of Belize and Guatemala, including T. fallax.

For Mexico, there are no records later than those of Sharp (1882a, b) and Wilke (1920). Now, 104 years after, while reviewing Cybistrinae material from different Mexican collections, some specimens were found identified as T. fallax. However, while undertaking a comparative analysis with specimens from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and México housed in different museums, Sharp’s opinions stand out: “I have seen only two individuals of this species, one of them, from Dejean’s collection, was there labelled “Trochalus fallax mihi, h. in Cayenne, D. Lacordaire”: the other was in Edwin Brown’s collection and labelled in his handwriting “Cybister flavocinctus, Chev., Mexico.” The determination being wrong it is probable that the locality also of this latter specimen may be erroneous. Cayenne.; 1 Mexico. 1107” (Sharp, 1882a). “This little-known species is represented in Salle’s collection by a single female labelled “Trogus flavocinctus”, this determination, however, was erroneous and the specimen, a very fine one, agrees with the 2 other female, these being all that we know of the species” (Sharp, 1882b).

Based on the above, we consider that T. fallax is only distributed in South America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and French Guiana), and therefore, the Mexican specimens correspond to another species, whose description is the objective of the present work.

Materials and methods

Type material and other specimens of Trifurcitus fallax (Aubé, 1838) were requested in different national and foreign museums. Four male specimens from Mexico were examined (CNIN), plus another dissected one and housed at BMNH by photographic comparison. The 4 Mexican specimens were hydrated in a humid chamber for 2 days, their genitals were removed and cleaned in hot water. The median lobe and parameres were disarticulated and mounted with the specimens. Two male specimens dissected from Argentina (MACN) determined by Trémouilles and Bachmann (1980) were reviewed in photographs as well as undissected specimens from Brazil and Bolivia deposited in collections in Germany (ZSM) (MZSP) and Brazil, that were used for comparison.

The Mexican specimens were studied with a LEICA MZ8 stereomicroscope and photographed with a Zeiss Stemi SV6 stereomicroscope, stacking several photographs into a final image. The final plates were edited in Photoshop CS6. The reviewed specimens come from the following collections —specimens reviewed directly: Colección Nacional de Insectos (CNIN), Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico (S. Zaragoza); Colección de Insectos del INECOL (IEXA), Instituto de Ecología A.C., Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico (R. Arce-Pérez). Specimens reviewed by photographs: Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales (MACN), Buenos Aires, Argentina (P. Mulieri); Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN), Paris, France (website); Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo (MZSP), Sao Paulo, Brazil (S. Casari); The Natural History Museum (BMNH), London, UK (M. Geiser); and Zoologische Staatssammlung München (ZSM), Germany (M. Balke). 

Results

Historiographical analysis allowed us to trace the depository of type material from Cayenne (French Guiana). Unfortunately, the specimens are lost, as it is the material from Bolivia (MNHN) identified by Trémouilles and Bachmann (1980). Only 1 female syntype was compared from the website of MNHN, and dissected males were also used from Mexico (BMNH) and Argentina (MACN), and specimens from Brazil (MZSP) and Bolivia (ZSP) (not dissected) for comparison via photographs.

When trying to compare the diagnostic characters presented in the original description made by Aubé (1838), the diagnosis of Sharp (1882a, b), and the diagnosis of Trémouilles and Bachmann (1980), the identity of Mexican specimens of T. fallax could not be confirmed. This was also observed in studies that addressed with the larva of T. fallax; when describing the third stage (1 from Brazil and another from Argentina), they appear as different species (Fig. 1a, b) (Ferreira, 1995; Michat, 2010), probably because the associated adults were different species, but were identified with the key of Trémouilles and Bachmann (1980) arriving to M. (T.) fallax.

The larva illustrated by Michat (2010) is now recognized as T. fallax (Miller et al., 2024). Also by making the determination by photographic comparison with specimens determined by specialists (determination labels of Guignot [1955, 1958], Bachmann [1979] and Trémouilles [1985]) deposited in several museums (MZSP, ZSM, BMNH) (Fig. 2a, f), among them a syntype female (MNHN), and by morphological comparison with the specimens 7715 and 7725 of the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, where it was observed that they are generally similar to the specimens from Mexico (length, shape, color, punctures) but differ in the diameter of the dorsal puncture and of ventrites III to V, being slightly thicker and denser in the South American specimens (Fig. 3a, h).

The specimens from Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil have transverse rows on ventrites III to V, plus a slight central accumulation of points in ventrite III (Fig. 3b, d, f, h); while the Mexican specimens present finer punctuations, with a transverse row in ventrites IV and V, and few central punctuations in ventrite III (Figs. 5b, 8b). The basal impression of the prosternal process in the specimens from Argentina (MACN) is variable, being present in specimen 7715 and completely absent in specimen 7725 (Fig. 3b), while in the specimens from Mexico it is present in Trifurcitus mexicanus nov. sp. (Fig. 5b, d), and absent in T. maya nov. sp. (Fig. 8b), also visible in the Bolivian specimen (Fig. 3d) and not observable in the Brazilian specimen (Fig. 3h).

Furthermore, the shape of the median lobe of the male genital in the Argentinean specimens and in the illustrations by Trémouilles and Bachmann (1980) is narrower and sharper at the apex (Fig. 4a, b, d, e) while in Mexican specimens it is slightly to moderately wider (Figs. 6a-f; 8c-e), In addition, the distance between the apex of the ventral sclerite and the apex of the median lobe appears to be smaller in South American specimens (these measurements may vary due to dehydration) (Figs. 4b, e, 6a, e, f, 8d, e).

The distribution of the species of Trifurcitus is Neotropical (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, French Guiana, and Panama), with T. fallax being recorded from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and French Guiana (Nilsson & Hájek, 2023; Trémouilles & Bachmann, 1980), making its presence in Mexico unlikely. Historical analysis, morphological comparison and communication with specialists of the group allow us to support what was mentioned by Sharp (1882a, b), that T. fallax does not reach Mexico, and to report 2 new species of this genus for Mexico, T. mexicanus nov. sp. Arce-Pérez & Ramírez-Ponce for Chiapas, and T. maya nov. sp. Arce-Pérez & Ramírez-Ponce for Yucatán, representing the first records of the genus Trifurcitus Brinck for Mexico.

Descriptions

Trifurcitus mexicanus Arce-Pérez & Ramírez-Ponce, sp. nov.

(Figs. 5a-d, 6a-g)

http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:C402DD76-
7886-4E02-A8CD-20961D87851F

Differential diagnosis. The new Mexican species can be differentiated from the South American ones by the diameter of the dorsal punctuation, and of ventrites III to V (Fig. 5a, b), being slightly thicker and denser in the South American specimens (Fig. 3a-h). In addition, the shape of the middle lobe of the male genital in South American specimens is narrower and sharper at the apex (Fig. 4a, b, d, e), while in Mexicans it is slightly to moderately wide (Fig. 6a, b, d, e).

Description. Holotype (male, IEXA).Habitus and general surface structure: dorsal (Fig. 5a); body oval, maximum width behind of the half of the elytral length. Length 29 mm, maximum width 18 mm. Dorsal coloration dark olive green shiny, with wide reddish-yellow stripe along the lateral margins of the pronotum and elytra, near the elytral apex the olive-green coloration is interspersed with yellow punctuation of the lateral stripe; clypeus anteriorly and labrum reddish-yellow. Ventral coloration (Fig. 5b) black, with reddish-yellow palps and antennae, yellowish-reddish front and middle legs, black hind legs. Sculpture on dorsum and venter largely smooth; with punctuations of variable diameter and faint wrinkles and striae; the setation is minute, slender and sparse, present in punctuations and often almost imperceptible. Median lobe wider in its basal half (0.55 mm), narrowing apically, apex slightly rounded (Fig. 6a, e). Dorsal surface (Fig. 5a, c), head: clypeus with almost straight anterior margin, labrum with slightly sinuous anterior margin, with small central concavity. Clypeal line incomplete, widely interrupted medially. Two small, punctuate grooves transverse, immediately posterior to anterior margin. Strongly punctuate oval longitudinal depression on each side posterior to incomplete clypeal line. Short row of small punctures along the posterior half of inner margin of eyes (Fig. 5c). Antennae filiform. Both palps are slender, but slightly thicker than the reddish-yellow antennae. Setae very short, sparse in the grooves of the clypeus; thicker and denser in the concavity of the labrum; slightly longer in the longitudinal depression posterior to the interrupted clypeal line; very short and sparse on the inner margins of the eyes. Surface of the vertex with slight longitudinal wrinkles. Pronotum: anterior margin with short rows of small punctures interrupted medially; line of punctures slightly thicker, extending laterally reaching inner margin of reddish-yellow stripe; inner margin of stripe with scattered row of thicker punctures extending from base to apex. Surface with faint longitudinal striations and wrinkles, mainly in the posterior region, and a slight accumulation of punctures on each side of the disc. Lateral margin without edge, with complete yellowish-reddish band, which exceeds the yellowish-reddish border of the hypomeron. Short setae on the punctuation of the anterior edge, lateral margins and on the yellowish-reddish band. Elytra:3 longitudinal lines defined by broad and widely separated punctuations; first line with slightly elongated punctuations reaching near the apex; second and third lines with circular punctuations; third line at inner edge of reddish-yellow stripe. Elytral margins with a thick, complete border and minute, irregular punctuation; dark olive-green margins in anterior half. Reddish-yellow band along the margin of the elytra, not reaching the margin or the epipleura, more or less of equal width throughout its length, defined as a network of irregular polygonal pigments, which mixes with the dorsal olive-green colour as scattered dots. Very sparse setiferous punctuation on the yellow stripe and lateral edge; very short setae. Ventral surface (Fig. 5b, d), head:shiny black; mouthparts dark reddish; antennae and palps reddish-yellow. Prothorax:shiny black; hypomeron yellowish-reddish. Prosternal process subrectangular in anterior half, flat surface, anterior edge not notched, continuing into an oval depression with rounded apex; posterior half widened and lanceolate, pointed, reaching the deeply triangular anteromedial process of the metaventrite; lanceolate region with a lateral rim, and the apex acute with transverse striations (Fig. 5d), length 4.1 mm long by 1.3 mm wide. Pterotorax: epipleuron reddish-yellow, broad, with slight mesial narrowing. Suture between metaventrite and metacoxal plates weakly marked. Metaventrite with conspicuous curved row punctuationss in anteromedial region. Metacoxal lines strongly divergent anteriorly, not reaching anterior margin of metaventrite; with row of broad punctures extending beyond metacoxal lines to suture of metaventrite. Posterior margin of metacoxal processes with deep central triangular incision; lobes of processes broadly rounded. Abdomen: colour: shiny black, with a semicircular reddish-yellow spot on lateral margin of ventrites III to V; with a slight lateral depression in ventrites II to VI, deeper and expanded in ventrites V and VI; suture between ventrites I and II clearly marked; ventrite III with few, tiny punctures and wrinkles on middle and parallel wrinkles on distal margin; ventrites IV and V with transverse line of small punctures and superficial wrinkles (evident in ventrite V); ventrite VI with uniformly rounded apex, with a slight transverse depression, with the lateral depression deeper and more extended, with few, tiny scattered punctures. Setiferous puncture, with very short yellowish setae. Legs:front and middle legs reddish-yellow, hind legs black, with a light reddish trochanter in its apical half. Protarsomere I-III enlarged, oval-shaped; 1.3 mm long by 1.9 mm wide; protarsomere I with numerous minute sucking setae at base and a row of large sucking setae at apex, protarsomere II with only 1 row of large sucking setae, protarsomere III with 2 rows of large sucking setae, protarsomere V with a pair of long, black, curved, sharp claws; anterior claw longer and thicker. Mesotarsomeres dark; mesotarsomeres I-IV with a series of setae near apical margin (posteroventrally); mesotarsomeres I-II with abundant ventral rows of long pale-yellow setae; claws sharp and curved, the anterior one longer and thicker; both longer and thicker than the protarsal claws. Metafemur with rounded dorso-distal angle, weakly acute (almost straight), not pointed. Metatibia with 2 apical spurs, the outer one noticeably thinner than the inner one and with trifid apex. Last metatarsomere with 2 straight and sharp claws of equal length, the outer one slightly wider. Male genitalia (Fig. 6a-g). Median lobe wider in its basal half (0.55 mm), narrowing apically, apex slightly rounded (Fig. 6a, e). Median lobe in lateral view, length 4 mm (Fig. 6d, f); ventral, with maximum width 0.55 mm (Fig. 6e); ventrolateral (oblique view) 4 mm (Fig. 6f), and median sclerite 3 mm (Fig. 6e). Distance between the apex of the median sclerite and the apex of the median lobe 1 mm (Fig. 6e); Left paramere 4 mm, with row of external ridges, in oblique view, the ridges that reach the ventral margin in the apical 3/3 simulate small teeth (Fig. 6g).

Variation. A male specimen like the holotype (without genitalia) from Chiapas, Municipality of Cintapala (16°37’ N, 93°46’ W), 28.III.1985, Col. M.L. Lozano. “Small (length 27 mm, width 16.5 mm), dorsally, slightly brownish coloration; surface on the pronotum with more wrinkles on the disk; more evident stippling and wrinkles on ventricles III to V.” 

Females. Not present in the material studied. According to Trémouilles and Bachmann (1980), females present sexual sculpture formed by curved, anastomosing lines, or without sexual sculpture, and according to Aubé (1838), the females differ only by the simplicity of the front legs.

Taxonomic summary

Type locality:Mexico, Chiapas, Municipality of Concordia, km 17 carretera Jaltenango-Revolución Mexicana, 15°58’ N, 92°48’ W, elevation 575 m asl.

Type material:holotype: ♂, México: Chiapas/Municipio de Concordia, 15°58’ N, 92°48’ W/18-V-2012, Col. D. Reynoso-Velasco [typed, white label], “holotipo/Trifurcitus mexicanus nov. sp./Arce-Pérez & Ramírez-Ponce 2024” [typed, red label] (IEXA).

Habitat: Megadytes species have been reported to be associated with open, sunny environments in permanent and temporary lentic waters with dense vegetation; however, detailed habitat preferences are unknown for most species (Miller & Bergsten, 2016), except for Bifurcitus iherminieri (Hendrich et al., 2019). The specimen from Chiapas (Municipality of Concordia), was collected in a sunny and exposed area, on the banks of a permanent, slow-flowing stream, with an average depth of 80 cm, among grasses that grow on the riverbank (Fig. 7a, b) (Daniel Reynoso Velasco, personal communication).

Distribution: this species is known from Mexico, Chiapas, but being a species of a Neotropical genus, it is likely that it is also distributed in Oaxaca and Guatemala on the Pacific coast.

Etymology: because it is the first corroborate record of the genus Trifurcitus Brinck for the country, this species is named mexicanus.

Remarks

Trifurcitus mexicanus sp. nov. can be differentiated from Trifurcitus maya sp. nov. by the following characters (Trifurcitus maya nov. sp. [in brackets]). Trifurcitus mexicanus presents an oval depression with rounded apex in the anterior half of the prosternal process (Fig. 5d) [without depression (Fig. 8b)]; ventrites IV and V with a transverse line of small punctures and superficial wrinkles (Fig. 5b) [ventrite IV without apparent punctuation or wrinkles (Fig. 8b)]; Male genitalia in ventral view with broad median lobe in its basal half (0.55 mm), slightly narrowing apically and with rounded apex (Figs. 6a, e) [median lobe slender in basal half (0.53 mm), narrowing apically and with apex acute (Fig. 8d)].

Trifurcitus maya Arce-Pérez & Ramírez-Ponce, sp. nov.

(Fig. 8a-f)

http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:DEA31260-8EC4-47D7-AE64-9EA426F102BF

Differential diagnosis. In Trifurcitus mexicanus Arce-Pérez & Ramírez-Ponce.

Description. Habitus and general surface structure: dorsal (Fig. 8a): bodyoval, maximum width behind the half of the elytral length. Length 29 mm, 17 mm wide. Coloration bright dark olive green, with a broad reddish-yellowish stripe along the lateral margins of the pronotum and elytra, near the elytral apex interspersed with the yellow punctuation of the lateral band; clypeus anteriorly and labrum reddish-yellowish. Ventral (Fig. 8b): black coloration with reddish-yellow palps and antennae, dark reddish front and middle legs, black hind legs. Sculpture dorsal and ventral largely smooth, with punctuations of variable diameter and faint wrinkles and striae; the setation is minute, slender and sparse, present only at punctuations and often almost imperceptible. in ventral view, with median lobe slender in its basal half (0.53 mm), narrowing apically, with apex slightly acute (Fig. 8c-e). Dorsal surface (Fig. 8a), head: clypeus with almost straight anterior margin, labrum with slightly sinuous anterior margin, with small central concavity. Clypeal line incomplete, widely interrupted medially. Two small, punctuations grooves transverse, posterior to anterior margin. A punctuate oval depression on each side, posterior to incomplete clypeal line. A short line of small punctures along posterior half of inner margin of eyes. Antennae filiform. Both palps thin, like the antennae, reddish-yellow. Setae very short, sparse in the grooves of the clypeus; denser and thicker in the concavity of the labrum; slightly longer in the oval depression posterior to the interrupted clypeal line; very short and sparse on the inner margins of the eyes. Front surface with slight longitudinal wrinkles on the posterior half. Pronotum: anterior margin with short rows of small punctures interrupted medially; line of slightly thicker punctures extending laterally, reaching inner margin of reddish-yellowish stripe; inner margin of stripe with scattered row of thicker punctures extending from base to apex. Surface with faint dark longitudinal wrinkles, mainly in posterior region, and a slight accumulation of punctures on each side of disc. Lateral margin without border, with complete reddish-yellowish stripe, extending beyond reddish-yellowish border of hypomeron. Short setae on anterior margin puncture, lateral margins and on reddish-yellowish stripe. Elytra: 3 longitudinal lines defined by wide and widely separated punctuation; first line with slightly elongated punctuations reaching close to the apex; second and third lines with circular punctuations; third line on the inner edge of the reddish-yellowish stripe. Elytral margins with a thick complete border and tiny, irregular punctuations; dark olive-green margins in their anterior half. Reddish-yellowish stripe along the margin of the elytra that does not reach the margin or the epipleura, more or less of equal width throughout its length, defined as a network of irregular polygonal pigments, which mixes with the dorsal olive-green color as scattered dots. Very sparse setiferous punctuations on the reddish-yellowish stripe and lateral edge; very short setae. Ventral surface (Fig. 8b), head: shiny black; mouthparts dark reddish; antennae and palps dark yellowish reddish. Prothorax: shiny black; hypomeron dark reddish-yellowish. Prosternal process subrectangular in anterior half, smooth and flat surface, anterior edge not notched or depressed; posterior half widened and lanceolate, pointed, reaching the deeply triangular anteromedial process of the metaventrite; lanceolate region with a lateral rim, and the apex acute with transverse striations. Pterothorax: epipleuron dark reddish-yellow, broad, with slight mesial narrowing. Suture between metaventrite and metacoxal plates weakly impressed. Metaventrite with a curved row of small punctuations in the anteromedial region. Metacoxal lines strongly diverging anteriorly, not reaching anterior margin of metaventrite; with row of broad punctuations extending beyond metacoxal lines to suture of metaventrite. Posterior margin of metacoxal processes with deep central triangular incision; lobes of processes broadly rounded.

Abdomen: glossy black, with a slight reddish-yellow semicircular macule on the lateral margin of ventrites III to V; a slight lateral depression in ventrites II to VI, slightly deeper and expanded in ventrites V and VI; suture between ventrites I and II clearly marked; surface of ventrite II with faint parallel wrinkles on distal margin; ventrite III with few and tiny punctures in the center and parallel wrinkles in the distal region; ventrite IV without apparent puncture, but with scattered faint surface striae; ventrite V with a transverse line of few punctures and elongated wrinkles that do not reach the lateral depression; ventrite VI with uniformly rounded apex; with a slight transverse depression, and with lateral depression surrounded by slight striae, with scattered small subapical punctures. Setiferous punctuation with very short yellowish setae. Legs: fore and middle legs dark yellowish reddish, hind legs black, with pale reddish trochanter at apical half. Fore and middle legs dark yellowish reddish, hind legs black, with pale reddish trochanter at apical half. Protarsomere I with numerous tiny sucking setae at base and a row of large sucking setae at apex; protarsomere II with only 1 row of large sucking setae; protarsomere III with 2 rows of large sucking setae; protarsomere V with a pair of long, black, curved, sharp claws, the anterior 1 longer and thicker. Mesotarsomeres dark. Mesotarsomeres I-IV with a series of setae near the apical margin (posteroventrally); mesotarsomeres I-II with abundant ventral rows of long pale-yellow setae. Claws sharp and curved, the anterior 1 longer and thicker; both longer and thicker than the protarsal claws. Metafemur with rounded dorso-distal angle, weakly acute (almost straight), not pointed. Metatibiae with 2 apical spurs, the outer 1 noticeably thinner than the inner one, with trifid apex. Last metatarsomere with 2 straight and sharp claws of equal length, the outer 1 slightly wider. Male genitalia (Fig. 8c-f): parameres and median lobe; c-e) medial lobe in lateral, ventral and almost lateral (oblique) views; f) paramere in lateral view. c) Median lobe in lateral view (4.23 mm), and median sclerite (2.25 mm); d) median lobe in ventral view (maximum width 0.53 mm); e) median lobe in oblique ventrolateral view (4.26 mm), and median sclerite (3 mm); distance between median sclerite and apex of lobe 1.23 mm; f) left paramere (3.98 mm), with row of external ridges; the ridges reaching the ventral margin in the apical 3/3 (depending on the angle of inclination), simulate small teeth.

Variation. Paratype small. Length 27.5 mm, width 14.5 mm, dorsal and ventral punctures slightly smaller (less obvious). Median lobe in lateral view 4.15 mm; in ventral view, with maximum width 0.50 mm, and median sclerite 2 mm; ventrolateral (oblique) 4.20 mm, and median sclerite 2.95 mm; distance between the median sclerite and the apex of the lobe 1.20 mm; left paramere with row of external ridges, 3.95 mm; the ridges that reach the ventral margin in the apical 3/3 simulate small teeth. Another male from Mexico: total length 28.5 mm, width 14.5 mm. Dorsal and ventral punctuations slightly smaller (less evident). Median lobe in ventral view 4.20 mm, with maximum width 0.51 mm, and median sclerite 2.95 mm. Left paramere with row of external ridges 3.95 mm.

Taxonomic summary

Type locality: Mexico, Yucatán, km 90, ruta 295, Río Lagartos, 21°31’ N, 88°08’ W, elevation 10 m asl. 

Type material: holotype (♂, IEXA): “Mexico: Yucatán/21°31’ N, 88°08’ W, 18-vi-1985/Col.: H. Velasco” [typed, white label], “holotype/Trifurcitus maya nov. sp./Arce-Pérez & Fery 2024” [typed, red label] (CNIN). Paratypes: 1 ♂, same data as holotype (CNIN), and 1 ♂ without precise location (collected in Mexico) (BMNH). Both paratypes with the following label: “paratype/Trifurcitus maya nov. sp./Arce-Pérez & Fery 2024” [typed, yellow label].

Distribution: this species is known from northern Yucatán, but it is very likely that it is also distributed in Quintana Roo and Campeche, between the states of the Gulf of Mexico and Yucatán. 

Etymology: the specific name “maya” is assigned because it is the first record of the genus Trifurcitus for the region where the indigenous Maya people originated and developed in Mexico.

New state records:the giant diving beetle Bifurcitus lherminieri (Guérin-Méneville, 1829) is widely distributed in Mexico, recorded for the states of Campeche, Chihuahua, Jalisco, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Sinaloa, Veracruz and Yucatán, at elevations up to 1,480 m asl in cloud forests and temperate forests (Arce-Pérez & Reynoso-Velasco, 2022). It is now reported for the first time for the state of Nayarit, Tepic, 28-xi-1989, A. Cadena col. 1♂; and with reservation for the states of Guerrero, Acapulco, 5-xi-1970, J. Hendrichs col. (junto al mar) (1♀) and Tabasco, Villa Hermosa, Macultepec, 15/30-iv-1953, J. Hendrichs col. (1♀); Tonalá, Chico Zapote, 10-x-1953, J. Hendrichs col. (1♀) (CNIN).

Discussion

The fact that only 4 specimens of the genus Trifurcitus have been found in Mexico, a few others in South America and very few in the most important collections in the world, confirms what Miller (2013: 401) stated: “It is an interesting feature of dytiscid systematics that often the largest species are among the lesser-known taxa, while many of the smaller dytiscids have been revised using modern methods” (see also Short and McIntosh [2015: 671] for members of the family Hydrophilidae, and Arce-Pérez et al. [2021: 331] for other members of Cybisterinae, Dytiscidae). This also highlights the lack of collection activities (e.g. by using bottle traps as explained in Hendrich et al. [2019: 530] and faunal studies in aquatic environments in Mexico, as well as the need to restore, conserve and protect water bodies in various ecosystems in protected areas (and to the extent possible also in non-protected areas) to ensure the permanence of these beetles and other aquatic invertebrates.

Finally, it is evident that there is a need to review the material stored in collections under the generic names of Bifurcitus, Cybister, Metaxydytes (previously Megadytes and Cybister) to detect whether specimens of Trifurcitus mexicanus sp. nov., or Trifurcitus maya sp. nov. and other undescribed species may be hidden among them.

Acknowledgments

We thank the curators who kindly provided images, specially to Juan Carlos Urcola (University of Buenos Aires), and additional information: Santiago Zaragoza Caballero and Cristina Mayorga (CNIN); Pablo Mulieri and Gastón Zubarán (MACN), Sonia Casari and Gabriel Biff (MZSP), Michael Balke (ZSM) and Keita Matssumoto, Michael Geiser, and Max Barclay (BMNH). Special thanks to Daniel Reynoso-Velasco (INECOL), who donated the male from Chiapas and provided information and photos of the collecting site. Eder M. Mora (INECOL) took the photographs of the Mexican specimens. Finally, thanks to Emmanuel Arriaga Varela (INECOL) and an anonymous reviewer for their insightful comments to improve the work.

References

Arce-Pérez, R., Novelo-Gutiérrez, R., & Fery, H. (2021). Cybister (s. str.) poblanus sp. n. from Mexico and notes on other species of Cybistrinae (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Zootaxa, 5061, 323–339. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5061.2.5

Arce-Pérez, R., & Reynoso-Velasco, D. (2022). New state records for Megadytes lherminieri (Guérin-Méneville, 1829) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Cybistrinae) in Mexico. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 124, 359–361. https://doi.org/10.4289/0013-8797.124.2.359

Aubé, C. (1838). Species général des hydrocanthares et gyriniens; pour faire suite au species général des coléoptères de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. París: Méquignon Père et Fils.

Brinck, P. (1945). Nomenklatorische und systematische studien über Dytisciden, III. Die Klassifikation der Cybisterinen. Kungliga Fysiografiska Sällskapets Handlingar, 56, 1–20.

Dejean, P. F. M. A. (1836). Catalogue des coléoptères de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. Ed. 3. París: Méquignon-Marvis.

Ferreira, Jr. N. (1995). Description of the larvae of Megadytes fallax (Aubé) and M. marginithorax (Perty) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). The Coleopterists Bulletin, 49, 313–318.

Hendrich, L., Manuel, M., & Balke, M. (2019). The return of the Duke-locality data for Megadytes ducalis Sharp, 1882, the world’s largest diving beetle, with notes on related species (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Zootaxa, 4586, 517–535. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4586.3.8

Libonatti, M. L., Michat, M. C., & Torres, P. L. M. (2013). Aquatic Coleoptera from two protected areas of the humid Chaco eco-region (Chaco Province, Argentina). Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina, 72, 155–168.

Michat, M. C. (2010). Descriptions of larvae of Megadytes (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Dytiscinae): the subgenera Trifurcitus and Megadytes s. str., ground plan of chaetotaxy of the genus and phylogenetic analysis. European Journal of Entomology, 107, 377–392. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2010.047

Miller, K. B. (2013). Review of the genus Cybister Curtis, 1827 (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Dytiscinae: Cybistrini) in North America. The Coleopterists Bulletin, 67, 401–410. https://doi.org/10.1649/0010-065X-67.4.401

Miller, K. B., & Bergsten, J. (2016). Diving beetles of the World: systematics and biology of the Dytiscidae. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Miller, K. B., Michat, M. C., & Ferreira, Jr. N. (2024). Reclassification of Cybistrinae Sharp, 1880 in the Neotropical Region (Coleoptera, Adephaga, Dytiscidae), with description of new taxa. Zookeys, 1188, 125–168. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1188.110081

Nilsson, A. N., & Hájek, J. (2023). A world catalogue of the family Dytiscidae (Coleoptera, Adephaga). Internet version 1.I. 2023. Retrieved on June 20, 2024 www.waterbeetles.eu

Sharp, D. (1882a). On aquatic carnivorous Coleoptera or Dytiscidae. Scientific Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society, Series II, 2, 179–1003. 

Sharp, D. (1882b). Biologia Centrali-Americana. Zoologia. Insecta. Coleoptera. Vol. 1. Part 2. London: R. H. Porter.

Short, A. E. Z., & McIntosh, C. E. (2015). Hydrophilus harpe sp. nov., a remarkable new species of giant water scavenger beetle from Brazil (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 55, 665–671.

Trémouilles, E. R. (1984). Notas sobre Coleoptera acuáticos neotropicales. I. Cybister (Meganectes) parvus sp. nov. del Brasil (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae). Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina, 43, 187–190.

Trémouilles, E. R. (1989a). Notas sobre Coleoptera acuáticos neotropicales. II. Nuevos aportes al conocimiento del género Megadytes Sharp (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae), sobre ejemplares del British Museum (Natural History). Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina, 45, 153–157.

Trémouilles, E. R. (1989b). Notas sobre Coleoptera acuáticos neotropicales. III. Datos ampliatorios sobre distribución geográfica de especies de Megadytes Sharp (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae). Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina, 45, 159–161.

Trémouilles, E. R., & Bachmann, A. O. (1980). La tribu Cybisterini en la Argentina (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae). Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina, 39, 101–125

Wilke, S. (1920). Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Gattung Cybister Curtis. Archiv für Naturgeschichte, Abteilung, 85A,
243–276.

Zimmermann, A. (1920). Dytiscidae, Haliplidae, Hygrobiidae, Amphizoidae. In S. Schenkling (Ed.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, Volumen IV. Berlín: Junk.

Hamid Nazari ^a, Farrokh Ghahremaninejad ^b, *

^a Bu-Ali Sina University, Department of Biology, 6517838695, Hamedan, Iran

^b Kharazmi University, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Department of Plant Sciences, 4911-15719, Tehran, Iran

*Corresponding author: fgh@khu.ac.ir (F. Ghahremaninejad)

Received: 07 November 2024; accepted: 21 March 2025

Abstract

Leaf trichomes are vital for plant physiology, defense, and ecological interactions. This study utilized scanning electron microscopy to examine the leaf trichomes of 7 species in the family Cordiaceae, including 5 species from the genus Cordia and 2 from Varronia. Various types of trichomes, including glandular, non-glandular, and stellate, were observed. Our findings highlight differences in trichome types, density, and distribution both within and between genera. This research enhances the understanding of anatomical diversity and the significance of leaf trichomes in Cordiaceae, providing a foundation for future studies in plant biology. The high diversity of trichome structure in the studied species indicates their importance for their classification. Therefore, the results of this study provide a useful insight into the diversity of trichomes and their potential as a taxonomic tool.

Keywords: Indumentum; Glandular; Non-glandular; Stellate trichomes; Taxonomy 

Resumen

Los tricomas de las hojas son vitales para la fisiología, la defensa y las interacciones ecológicas de las plantas. Este estudio utilizó microscopía electrónica de barrido para examinar los tricomas de las hojas de 7 especies de la familia Cordiaceae; se incluyeron 5 de los géneros Cordia y 2 de Varronia. Se observaron varios tipos de tricomas, incluidos glandulares, no glandulares y estrellados. Nuestros hallazgos resaltan las diferencias en los tipos de tricomas, la densidad y la distribución tanto dentro como entre géneros. Esta investigación mejora la comprensión de la diversidad anatómica, resalta la importancia de los tricomas de las hojas en Cordiaceae y proporciona una base para futuros estudios en biología vegetal. La gran diversidad de la estructura de los tricomas en las especies estudiadas indica su importancia para su clasificación. Por lo tanto, los resultados de este estudio proporcionan una buena visión de la diversidad de tricomas y su potencial como herramienta taxonómica.

Palabras clave: Indumento; Glandular; No glandular; Tricomas estrellados; Taxonomía

Contribución al valor sistemático de los tricomas foliares en las Cordiaceae (Boraginales)

Introduction

The family Cordiaceae in Boraginales includes 2 large genera, Cordia L. and Varronia P. Browne with a total of 368 accepted species (POWO, 2024) or 350 (APG 4, 2016). Its members are usually shrubs or trees that are distributed in tropical and subtropical regions (Luebert et al., 2016). The classification of this family and its subfamilies has been debated by botanists for years. In most references Cordiaceae has been recognized as a family or as part of Heliotropiaceae and Boraginaceae. Finally, based on the results of Luebert et al. (2016), this family was accepted as a separate family in Boraginales. Cordiaceae is the only family in Boraginales with plicate cotyledons and generally a twice-dichotomous style with 4 stigmatic branches (Luebert et al., 2016). Johnston (1951) introduced the genus Cordia with 5-7 sections for Cordiaceae and molecular work placed Varronia as the sister genus of Cordia (Miller & Gottschling, 2007). Species of Cordia are found principally in tropical and subtropical regions of the American, Asian, and African continents. In this genus, there are many species cultivated as ornamentals, and for wood and medicinal applications, with extensive use by traditional communities (Matias et al., 2015). Varronia is a Neotropical genus with most of its species naturally distributed in Brazil (Silva & Melo, 2019).

Leaf trichomes are specialized structures that grow on the epidermis of leaves. They play an important role in how plants adapt to their environment and interact with it (Wagner, 1991); also, they are a powerful tool in solving taxonomic problems (e.g., Ghahremaninejad et al., 2012). Trichomes play a significant role in the leaf texture of Cordiaceae species, contributing to their diagnostic value within the family. Studies have shown that the family possesses both glandular and non-glandular leaf trichomes, which influence their rough texture (Amer et al., 2016). Notably, in some regions, the abrasive surface of these leaves (including those of Cordia sebestena L.) has led to their traditional use as natural sandpaper (Flowers of India, 2025). Cordiaceae exhibits a wide range of leaf trichome morphologies, yet comprehensive studies elucidating their diversity and functional significance remain limited. Trichome morphology, density, and distribution are known to vary extensively even within closely related taxa, reflecting adaptation to diverse ecological niches and selective pressures (Rodríguez & Healey, 2000). In addition to their functional roles, the structural and functional diversity of leaf indument in Cordiaceae are indispensable taxonomic tools. Trichome characteristics often serve as apomorphic characters that assist botanists in resolving complex taxonomic issues (e.g., Beilstein et al., 2006; Ghahremaninejad, 2004; Kong & Hong, 2019; Steyn & Van Wyk, 2021). However, many studies within this family have paid insufficient attention to trichome features (e.g., Amer et al., 2016; Taroda, 1984).

Trichome morphology exhibits remarkable diversity across the plant kingdom, playing a significant role in the taxonomy and ecology of various plant families, including the Boraginaceae and Cordiaceae (Selvi & Bigazzi, 2001). Limited studies on Cordiaceae trichomes reveal a high diversity of trichomes both among closely related species (Tölke et al., 2013) and at the genus level (Silva et al., 2023). This diversity in trichome morphology suggests intricate evolutionary adaptations that may serve various ecological functions.

Given the existing literature on Cordia and Varronia, trichomes have critical taxonomic features in Cordiaceae, particularly for differentiating closely related genera. This study aims to examine the trichome morphology of both genera using SEM to clarify their taxonomic relationships. Scanning electron microscopy enhances trichome trait comparison by providing greater detail (Gonçales et al., 2023). We anticipated identifying distinct trichome characteristics to resolve existing taxonomic ambiguities. By focusing on these morphological characters, we seek to enhance the understanding of Cordiaceae taxonomy.

Material and methods

Samples were obtained from Herbarium specimens of the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien (W) and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem (B), acronyms according to Thiers (2025). Trichome morphology was studied using SEM at the Natural History Museum (NHM), Vienna. Leaves were soaked in 40-degree water for 10 minutes to restore trichomes and then air-dried for 1 hour. Leaf samples were attached to SEM stubs with conductive adhesive tabs and coated with a thin layer of gold for conductivity, applied with a sputter coater. Imaging was performed with a JEOL JXA 6610LV SEM at the Vienna Museum. Digital images from various regions were captured, documenting trichome characteristics such as type, shape, size, density, and distribution for each species. Additionally, a voucher table listing the information and codes of the specimens used was prepared (Table 1).

Table 1 

The voucher table of studied specimens. 

No.	Species	Locality	Collector and number	QR code	Herbarium acronym	Type of trichome
1	Cordia africana Lam.	Ethiopia	U. i. 285	W0254121	W	Non-glandular
2	Cordia alliodora (Ruiz & Pav.) Oken	Brazil	s.c. 893	W0058028	W	Non-glandular
3	Cordia bicolor A.DC.	Brazil	Schomburgk 678	W0010617	W	Stellate
4	Cordia decandra Hook. & Arn.	Chile	K.H. & Rechinger 63378	W0254122	W	Non-glandular
5	Cordia myxa L.	Greece	Rainer KARL	W0254123	W	Non-glandular
6	Varronia bullata L.	–	–	W0254157	W	Glandular, non-glandular
7	Varronia guanacastensis (Standl.) J.S.Mill.	Costa Rica	Zamora et al. 6340	B101137807	B	Glandular, non-glandular (short pyramidal shape)

Results

Electron microscopy studies of 5 species of Cordia and 2 species of Varronia illustrate the diversity in the size, shape, and distribution of trichomes in Cordiaceae. Variation was observed both within and between genera. Two main types of trichomes were identified among the studied species, glandular and non-glandular. Glandular trichomes were observed only in Varronia species, while non-glandular were observed in species of both genera. In addition, a special type of stellate trichome, which mostly has more than 10 arms, as a first-time report, was observed in Cordia bicolor A. DC.

Among the investigated species, glandular trichomes with a size of 100 to 120 μm were observed only in Varronia bullata L. and V. guanacastensis (Standl.) J.J. Mill. (Fig. 1). A type of trichome was observed in Cordia myxa L., which is bag-like and different from non-glandular trichomes. The samples used in this research were herbarium specimens, but for accurate diagnosis of this trichome, fresh material is needed. 

In all 7 studied species, non-glandular trichomes were observed on both adaxial and abaxial leaf surfaces. In Cordia africana Lam., the upper surface of the leaf has scattered short trichomes that exist in the form of small protrusions distant from one another, while the back surface of the leaf in this species (Fig. 2A) has depressions where different trichomes are densely present in these depressions. In C. alliodora (Ruiz & Pav.) Oken., simple trichomes are observed on both surfaces. On the abaxial surface of the leaf, in addition to this type of trichome, there are smaller and curved trichomes that do not have small projections on their surface (Fig. 2B). On the abaxial surface of C. decandra Hook. & Arn. leaves, in addition to short and long simple trichomes, which are smooth and sometimes curved, horn-shaped hard trichomes are also observed (Fig. 2C). In C. myxa, in addition to the specific type of trichomes mentioned (referring to glandular trichomes), very small trichomes that include a widened base and a protrusion (Fig. 2D) are observed in nearly regular rows on the adaxial surface of the leaf. On the abaxial surface, long trichomes with small projections are observed. Varronia bullata also has simple trichomes, which are similar to the trichomes of the mentioned species, except that on the adaxial surface, trichomes are completely dormant (Fig. 3A), but on the abaxial surface, in addition to greater diversity and density, some standing or twisted trichomes are also seen (Fig. 3B). In Varronia guanacastensis, a special type of trichome was observed, which covered the adaxial surface of the leaf in addition to many glandular trichomes. These trichomes are short and have a conical end (Fig. 3C). On the abaxial surface, a type of horn-like non-glandular trichome is also seen (Fig. 3D).

Stellate trichomes are a type of branched trichome that have several arms arising from a common base (either stalked or sessile). This type of trichome was observed only in Cordia bicolor. The number of arms of these trichomes is between 10 and 17, and the length of each arm is between 50 and 100 μm. Figure 4 shows the studied specimen and the observed stellate trichome. The distribution and density of trichomes on the surface of the leaf can be seen with the naked eye most of the time. Figure 5 shows the leaves of the studied species where trichome density can be seen on their surface.

Microscopic examination of these 7 species revealed that the adaxial leaf surface generally has a lower density of trichomes compared to the abaxial surface, which has a higher density. On the adaxial surface of the leaf of Cordia africana, there are trichomes in the form of small protrusions that are sparse, while on the abaxial surface, the trichomes have a different shape and are densely placed inside the depressions, while long trichomes are rarely seen. In Cordia alliodora, C. bicolor, C. decandra, and C. myxa the type of trichome is similar on both surfaces, with the difference that they are scattered on the adaxial side and dense on the abaxial side. In the case of the 2 Varronia species, the trichomes are scattered on the adaxial surface of V. bullata and dense on the abaxial surface, but in V. guanacastensis, the trichomes are dense on both leaf surfaces, with the difference being that the type of trichome is different between the surfaces. Figure 6 shows the difference between trichome distribution on adaxial and abaxial leaf surfaces in all studied species.

Discussion

Our study on leaf trichomes within Cordiaceae highlights significant morphological diversity, underscoring the diagnostic value of trichomes in taxonomy. Trichomes were categorized as either glandular (exclusively in Varronia species) or non-glandular (present in both genera), establishing clear taxonomic distinctions between the 2 genera. The restriction of glandular trichomes to Varronia supports the value of trichomes as reliable taxonomic markers, reinforcing molecular evidence that separates Varronia from Cordia. Despite the limited number of species examined, these findings offer a foundation for further studies across Cordiaceae. A notable finding was the discovery of stellate trichomes in Cordia bicolor, a first report for this species and probably rare within Boraginales. Stellate trichomes, characterized by multiple arms emerging from a common base, were observed solely in Cordia bicolor after an examination of over 100 Boraginales species (details in preparation). Figure 5 illustrates this unique stellate trichome, underscoring its taxonomic significance and its potential adaptive function.

Previous studies align with our findings on trichome diversity. Silva et al. (2023) examined leaf anatomy in 10 Varronia species from Brazil, identifying secretory and non-secretory trichomes as key taxonomic indicators. Similarly, Tölke et al. (2013) demonstrated variation in glandular and non-glandular trichomes among V. globosa Jacq. and V. leucocephala (Moric.) J.S. Mill., with unique glandular types and micropapillae-covered trichomes distinguishing each species. Demétrio et al. (2020) reported distinctive non-glandular trichomes and a single glandular type in V. polycephala Lam., a medicinal species, which also contained cystoliths and crystal sand idioblasts. These variations highlight trichomes as valuable taxonomic features and adaptive characters. While this study suggests a difference between Varronia and Cordia, the limited scope relative to the genera’s size precludes definitive conclusions. Further sampling of more species is needed to confirm this distinction in leaf trichomes.

Moreover, the distribution of trichomes, denser on the abaxial leaf surfaces, suggests adaptations to environmental pressures and provides additional taxonomic insight. Consistent trichome types on particular leaf surfaces across species indicate conserved characters, useful for classification within the family. This diversity, particularly in non-glandular trichomes that vary in shape, size, and density, emphasizes the evolutionary lability of trichomes and their dual roles in adaptation and taxonomy.

Our use of SEM enabled detailed trichome analysis, offering precise structural insights and enhancing taxonomic resolution. Nazari and Ghahremaninejad (2024, 2025) also found that trichome examination can verify generic separations within Boraginales, as demonstrated in their study on Heliotropiaceae. Collectively, these findings underscore the morphological and taxonomic significance of trichomes, establishing them as key indicators in botanical classification.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank all the invaluable contributors to this work. Special thanks to Heimo Rainer, head of the Botany Department at the Natural History Museum of Vienna, for his extensive support. Additionally, we appreciate Astrid Hille, Andreas Berger, Tanja Schuster, and Johannes Walter from the same department for their assistance. We are also grateful to Wenke Wegner, a SEM specialist, for supervising the microscopic imaging of the fragments. Our thanks extend to W herbarium and B herbarium for sharing their extensive botanical resources.

References

Amer, W. M., Hamdy, R. S., & Mahdy, R. A. (2016). Taxonomic revision of genus Cordia L. (Boraginaceae) in Egypt. Egypt Journal of Botany, 6th International Conference, Menoufia University, 375–408.

APG IV. (2016). An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 181, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12385

Beilstein, M. A., Al-Shehbaz, I. A., & Kellogg, E. A. (2006). Brassicaceae phylogeny and trichome evolution. American Journal of Botany, 93, 607–619. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.93.4.607

Demétrio, A. M., Lusa, M. G., Lima, D. F., & Rodrigues, C. (2020). Leaf anatomy of Varronia polycephala Lam. (Cordiaceae). Flora, 271, 151677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2020.151677

Flowers of India. (2025). Scarlet Cordia (Cordia sebestena). Retrieved March 7, 2025, from https://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Scarlet%20Cordia.html

Ghahremaninejad, F. (2004). Value of trichome characteristics for separating of bifurcating Astragalus (Fabaceae) on sectional level. Turkish Journal of Botany, 28, 241–245.

Ghahremaninejad, F., Khalili, Z., Maassoum, A. A., Mirzaie-Nodoushan, H., & Riahi, M. (2012). Leaf epidermal features of Salix species (Salicaceae) and their significance. American Journal of Botany, 99, 769–777. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1100019

Gonçales, R., Do Carmo, A. A. O., dos Santos, A. F., & de Souza, L. A. (2023). Floral indumentum of Miconia: In search of diagnostic characters for the tribe Miconieae. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 94, e945272. https://doi.org/10.22201/ib.20078706e.2023.94.5272

Johnston, I. M. (1951). Studies in the Boraginaceae XX. Representatives of three subfamilies in eastern Asia. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum, 32, 99–122. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.9730

Kong, M. J., & Hong, S. P. (2019). Leaf micromorphology of the Persicaria sect. Cephalophilon (Polygonaceae) and its systematic re-evaluation. Phytotaxa, 391, 167–184. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.391.3.1

Luebert, F., Cecchi, L., Frohlich, M. W., Gottschling, M., Guilliams, C. M., Hasenstab-Lehman, K. E. et al. (2016). Familial classification of the Boraginales. Taxon, 65, 502–522. https://doi.org/10.12705/653.5

Matias, E. F. F., Alves, E. F., Silva, M. K. N., Carvalho, V. R. A., Coutinho, H. D. M., & da Costa, J. G. M. (2015). The genus Cordia: Botanists, ethno, chemical and pharmacological aspects. Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia, 25, 542–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjp.2015.05.012

Miller, J. S., & Gottschling, M. (2007). Generic classification in the Cordiaceae (Boraginales): Resurrection of the genus Varronia R.Br. Taxon, 56, 163–169. https://doi.org/10.2307/25065747

Nazari, H., & Ghahremaninejad, F. (2024). A SEM study of leaf trichomes in Heliotropiaceae. Iranian Journal of Botany, 30, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.22092/ijb.2024.366196.1475 

POWO. (2024). Plants of the World. Online. https://powo.science.kew.org/

Rodríguez, A., & Healey, P. L. (2000). Morphological diversity of trichomes in Loasaceae and its systematic significance. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 87, 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plab071

Selvi, F., & Bigazzi, M. (2001). Leaf surface and anatomy in Boraginaceae tribe Boragineae with respect to ecology and taxonomy. Flora, 196, 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0367-2530(17)30056-7 

Silva, T. S., & de Melo, J. I. M. (2019). A new species and a new record of Varronia (Cordiaceae) from Brazil. Systematic Botany, 44, 692–696. https://doi.org/10.1600/036364419×15620113920752

Silva, T. S., Tölke, E. E. D., & de Melo, J. I. M. (2023). A contribution of leaf anatomy to the taxonomy of Varronia P. Browne (Cordiaceae, Boraginales). Flora, 304, 152299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2023.152299

Steyn, H. M., & Van Wyk, A. E. (2021). Taxonomic significance of trichomes in the genus Acanthopsis Harv. (Acanthaceae, tribe Acantheae). Adansonia, 43, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.5252/adansonia2021v43a14

Taroda, N. (1984). Taxonomic studies on Brazilian species of Cordia L. (Boraginaceae) (Ph.D. Thesis). University of St. Andrews. St. Andrews, UK.

Thiers, B. M. (2025). Index Herbariorum: a global directory of public herbaria and associated staff (Continuously updated). New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium. http://sweetgum.nybg.org/ih/

Tölke, E. E. D., de Melo, J. I. M., Carmello-Guerreiro, S. M., & Lacchia, A. P. S. (2013). Leaf anatomy with emphasis on separation of two species of Varronia P.Br. (Cordiaceae) of the Brazilian semi-arid region. Brazilian Journal of Botany, 36, 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40415-013-0022-5

Wagner, G. J. (1991). Secreting glandular trichomes: more than just hairs. Plant Physiology, 96, 675–679. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.96.3.675

Eduardo Reyes-Grajales ^{a, b,} *, Christian Rico ^c, John Iverson ^d, Luis Díaz-Gamboa ^e, Marco A. López-Luna ^f, Wilfredo A. Matamoros ^g

^a El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Departamento Conservación de la Biodiversidad, Doctorado en Ciencias en Ecología y Desarrollo Sustentable, Carretera Panamericana y Periférico Sur s/n, Barrio María Auxiliadora, 29290 San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico 

^b Turtle Survival Alliance, 1030 Jenkins Road, Charleston, 29407 South Carolina, USA

^c Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas, Instituto de Ciencias Biológicas, Maestría en Ciencias en Biodiversidad y Conservación de Ecosistemas Tropicales, Libramiento Norte Poniente, 1150, Lajas Maciel, 29039 Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, Mexico

^d Earlham College, Department of Biology, 801 National Road West, 47374 Richmond, Indiana, USA 

^e Red para la Conservación de los Anfibios y Reptiles de Yucatán, Km. 5.5 Carr. Sierra Papacal-Chuburná Pto. Tablaje, 31257 Sierra Papacal, Yucatán, Mexico

^f Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, División Académica de Ciencias Biológicas, Carretera Villahermosa-Cárdenas Km 0.5, 86039 Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico 

^g Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas, Instituto de Ciencias Biológicas, Libramiento Norte Poniente, 1150, Lajas Maciel, 29039 Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, Mexico

*Corresponding author: eduardo.reyes.grajales@gmail.com (E. Reyes-Grajales)

Abstract

Mexico has the second highest species richness of turtles in the world. However, there are several research gaps within this group compared to other reptiles, especially in the southeastern region, which has been described as the area with the highest herpetofaunal diversity. These data deficiencies have led to much uncertainty regarding the identification, occurrence, and status of the area’s turtles. Given this context, we provide an update for all the native turtle taxa present in each state in southeastern Mexico. We include maps with historical and unpublished distribution records for each taxon, along with a dichotomous key based on external morphology. We discuss the native turtle taxa documented in southeastern Mexico, the possible presence of some species in certain states, the identification of the turtles in this region, and their conservation status according to national, historical and current contexts.

Keywords: Conservation priorities; Freshwater turtles; Neotropical region; Reptiles; Testudines

Tortugas continentales del sureste de México: una actualización sobre la identificación, composición, distribución y conservación

Resumen

México tiene la segunda mayor riqueza de especies de tortugas en el mundo. Sin embargo, en este país existen varios vacíos de investigación dentro de este grupo en comparación con otros reptiles, especialmente en la región sureste, que ha sido descrita como el área con mayor diversidad herpetofaunística. Esta deficiencia de datos ha generado mucha incertidumbre en cuanto a la identificación, distribución y estado de las tortugas en la región. Dado este contexto, proporcionamos una actualización de todos los taxones nativos de tortugas presentes en cada estado del sureste de México. Incluimos mapas con registros históricos y no publicados de distribución para cada taxón, junto con una clave dicotómica basada en la morfología externa. Discutimos los taxones de tortugas nativas documentados en el sureste de México, la posible presencia de algunos taxones en ciertos estados, la identificación de las tortugas en esta región y su estado de conservación según los contextos nacional, histórico y actual.

Palabras clave: Prioridades de conservación; Tortugas dulceacuícolas; Región neotropical; Reptiles; Testudines

Introduction 

The order Testudines includes 2 extant suborders, comprising 14 families, 97 genera, 7 marine turtle species, and 346 continental land and freshwater turtles (TTWG, 2021). Mexico supports the second richest turtle fauna per country in the world (after the USA) with 7 families, 13 genera, and 49 species of continental terrestrial and freshwater turtles (Hurtado-Gómez et al., 2024; Loc-Barragán et al., 2020; López-Luna et al., 2018; TTWG, 2021). When subspecies are included, a total of 63 distinct taxa are recognized in Mexico, with nearly half (49%, 31 taxa) being endemic (Hurtado-Gómez et al., 2024; Loc-Barragán et al., 2020; López-Luna et al., 2018; TTWG, 2021). Of those, 5 taxa have been described since 2010: Gopherus evgoodei, G. morafkai, Kinosternon cora, K. vogti, and Trachemys venusta iversoni (Edwards et al., 2016; Loc-Barragán et al., 2020; López-Luna et al., 2018; McCord et al., 2010; Murphy et al., 2011), and 5 taxa were taxonomically rearranged: K. cruentatum, K. mexicanum, K. stejnegeri, Terrapene mexicana, and T. yucatana (Hurtado-Gómez et al., 2024; Iverson & Berry, 2024; Martin et al., 2013; McCord, 2016;). It is noteworthy to mention that ~ 50% of Mexican continental turtles lack basic natural history data, which makes it cumbersome to comprehensively assess their actual conservation status (Flores-Villela & García-Vázquez, 2014; Macip-Ríos et al., 2015). Legler and Vogt (2013) stated that to solve “Mexican turtle conservation issues”, an integrative conservation research approach is necessary, to build knowledge about life history and ecology of these organisms. 

Within Mexico, the southeastern region (Campeche, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Veracruz, and Yucatán) is characterized by high turtle endemism, with high presence of human induced alterations at different ecosystem levels (Ennen et al., 2020). Historically, many indigenous cultures in this region incorporated turtles (e.g., Dermatemys mawii, and those in the genera Trachemys and Kinosternon) into their diets as ceremonial or complementary foods (Beauregard et al., 2010; González-Porter et al., 2011; Legler & Vogt, 2013; Velázquez-Nucamendi et al., 2021). More recently, southeastern Mexico has become one of the hotspots where turtles are extracted for illegal trade worldwide, especially from Chiapas, Tabasco, and Veracruz (Legler & Vogt, 2013; Macip-Ríos et al., 2015; TTWG, 2021). In response to these actions, standards have been established at both the national level (e.g., the list of Mexican federal government protected species of flora and fauna) and international levels (e.g., the CITES appendices) to regulate the use of turtles. However, the application of protocols for the study or protection of this group of vertebrates in southeastern Mexico has shown inconsistencies in the processes of identification and/or systematization of information on their distribution (Flores-Villela & García-Vázquez, 2014; Legler & Vogt, 2013; Macip-Ríos et al., 2015). Therefore, there is a recognized need to design tools and update information on these aspects to safeguard these turtles.

To contribute to the resolution of this situation, in this study we set 2 main goals: 1) to provide an up-to-date checklist, with general comments on the distribution of the continental turtles occurring in southeastern Mexico, and 2) to present a practical dichotomous key for their identification that encompasses the current turtle taxonomy in southeastern Mexico. Our findings can be implemented immediately in activities related to the study and protection of continental turtles in this region of Mexico.

Materials and methods

We define southeastern Mexico as the states of Campeche, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Veracruz, and Yucatán (Fig. 1). The region is delimited by the Isthmus of Tehuantepec as the initial dividing line, given its significance as a major biogeographic barrier (Huidobro et al., 2006; Quiroz-Martínez et al., 2014). However, considering that several turtle taxa extend west and north just beyond this barrier, we chose to include Mexican states that comprise part of the isthmus region. This region comprises ~ 415,000 km² originally vegetated with tropical evergreen forest and tropical deciduous forest with warm humid and warm subhumid climates (Leopold, 1950). In this region, turtles typically occur from sea level to approximately 1,200 m (Legler & Vogt, 2013). Major geographic features of the region are: the Gulf Coastal Plain, Sierra Madre de Oaxaca, Sierra Madre del Sur, Pacific Coastal Plain, Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Chiapas Highlands, Sierra Madre de Chiapas, Chiapas Coastal Plain, Central Depression of Chiapas, and the Yucatán Peninsula (Contreras-Balderas et al., 2008; Legler & Vogt, 2013). The main rivers are: Candelaria, Usumacinta, Grijalva, Tonalá, Coatzacoalcos, Papaloapan, Jamapa, Tehuantepec, and Ometepec (INEGI, 2021) (Fig. 1).

Georeferenced point locations were obtained for native continental turtles of southeastern Mexico from a combination of our own fieldwork records, the Turtle Taxonomy Working Group (TTWG, 2021, TTWG, 2025), and data repositories, including the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF, 2024), Sistema Nacional de Información sobre la Biodiversidad (SNIB-Conabio, 2024), Áreas Naturales y Vida Silvestre of the Secretaría del Medio Ambiente e Historia Natural (Semahn), iNaturalist (2024), and published scientific literature (Supplementary material: Table S1).

We used a systematic approach, establishing the TTWG shapefile (2021, 2025) as our base dataset. All newly identified occurrence points from additional sources were stored in a georeferenced database for the subsequent creation of maps using QGIS 3.34.2 (QGIS, 2024). Distribution polygons were based on TTWG (2025) and were expanded to include extralimital records verified through our compilation.

To ensure spatial accuracy, only points that provided open, non-obscured coordinates with reported location uncertainties of ≤ 10 km were incorporated. In the case of iNaturalist data, we exclusively used “research-grade” observations and excluded any records with obscured or low-precision coordinates (e.g., obscured within ~ 400 square miles). Records without supporting metadata or located significantly outside of known ranges were critically assessed, and when appropriate, excluded from analyses.

Special attention was given to isolated or potentially non-native records. For instance, we included K. flavescens from Veracruz based on the report of Auth et al. (2000) and the corroboration of voucher specimens (BCB 7489) by JBI at the Strecker Museum. We also carefully evaluated records of other species commonly subject to anthropogenic translocation, considering only those that plausibly represent native occurrences based on geographic and ecological context (see Discussion section). This rigorous validation process aimed to minimize the inclusion of records originating from village collections, pet trade, or other human-mediated movements, unless justified by the locality’s proximity to known native ranges or supporting documentation.

Our checklist includes valid names, authorities, and year of publication as in TTWG (2025). The dichotomous key we created based initially on the taxon descriptions provided in Legler and Vogt (2013). We then updated the key with the taxa recognized subsequent to Legler and Vogt (2013), and verified and added pertinent meristic and morphometric characters, and pigmentation patterns from specimens deposited in the Herpetology Section at the Zoológico Regional Miguel Álvarez del Toro (ZooMAT, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas), the Colección herpetológica of El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR, San Cristóbal, Chiapas), and our own field data. 

We refer to the plastral formula as the relative lengths of the midline sutures of each plastral scute (Supplementary material: Fig. S1). Due to inconsistencies (conventional vs. new) in the nomenclature of plastral scutes (Hutchison & Bramble, 1981; Legler & Vogt, 2013), we followed the recommendation of Legler and Vogt (2013) to use the numerical nomenclature for the plastral formula, where the counts start anteriorly (Supplementary material: Fig. S1). For the nomenclature of the head stripes, we followed Ernst (1978) for Rhinoclemmys spp., and Legler (1990) for Trachemys spp. We used the term “tomiodonts” according to Moldowan et al. (2015), and “tubercles” according to Winokur (1982).

For conservation criteria at the national level, we consulted the Mexican Government list in the NOM-059 (Semarnat, 2010, 2025), and for international criteria, we referred to the IUCN Red List of threatened species (IUCN, 2024) and the CITES appendices (CITES, 2024). Additionally, we used the EDGE metrics, as it prioritizes species based on their evolutionary distinctiveness (ED), which measures the relative contribution of a species to the total evolutionary history of their taxonomic group, and global endangerment (GE), or extinction risk (Gumbs et al., 2018). This metric has been recognized as useful to meaningful priorities for conservation. 

Results

Native continental turtles in southeastern Mexico are represented by 5 families, 8 genera and 22 species with 9 recognized subspecies, for a total of 25 extant continental taxa (Table 1). The most speciose families in southeastern Mexico are the Kinosternidae, with a total of 13 taxa and Emydidae with 6 taxa (Table 1). The states with the greatest species richness are Oaxaca (16 taxa), followed by Chiapas (15), and Veracruz (13), and those with the least species richness were Quintana Roo (11), Tabasco (9) and Yucatán (7) (Table 2). Ten continental turtles in 4 genera are endemic to the region, as follows: Kinosternon (4 taxa), Terrapene (2 taxa), Trachemys (2 taxa) and Rhinoclemmys (2 taxa) (Table 3). The states with the highest number of Mexican endemic taxa are Oaxaca (2 species and 2 subspecies), Quintana Roo (2 species and 1 subspecies), Veracruz (2 species and 1 subspecies), and Yucatán (2 species and 1 subspecies) (Tables 1, 3). 

Table 1

Diversity of continental turtles in southeastern Mexico. Ca = Campeche, Ch = Chiapas, Oa = Oaxaca, QR = Quintana Roo, Ta = Tabasco, Ve = Veracruz, Yu = Yucatán; CSP = count of states present; % S = percentage considering all the taxa distributed in southeastern Mexico; X = presence; – = undocumented.

Family

Genus

Species

Subspecies

Ca

Ch

Oa

QR

Ta

Ve

Yu

CSP

% S

Chelydridae

Chelydra

C. rossignonii

X

X

X

–

–

X

–

5

71.4

Dermatemydidae

Dermatemys

D. mawii

X

X

–

X

X

X

–

5

71.4

Emydidae

Terrapene

T. mexicana

–

–

–

–

–

X

–

1

14.3

T. yucatana

X

–

–

X

–

–

X

3

42.9

Trachemys

T. grayi

T. g. grayi

–

X

X

–

–

–

–

2

28.6

T. venusta

T. v. cataspila

–

–

–

–

–

X

–

1

14.3

T. v. iversoni

–

–

–

X

–

–

X

2

28.6

T. v. venusta

X

X

X

X

X

X

–

6

85.7

Geoemydidae

Rhinoclemmys

R. areolata

R. areolata

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

7

100

R. pulcherrima

R. p. incisa

–

X

X

–

–

–

–

2

28.6

R. p. pulcherrima

–

–

X

–

–

–

–

1

14.3

R. rubida

R. r. rubida

–

X

X

–

–

–

–

2

28.6

Kinosternidae

Claudius

C. angustatus

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

7

100

Kinosternon

K. abaxillare

–

X

–

–

–

–

–

1

14.3

K. acutum

X

X

X

X

X

X

–

6

85.7

K. creaseri

X

–

–

X

–

–

X

3

42.9

K. cruentatum

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

7

100

K. flavescens

–

–

–

–

–

X

–

1

14.3

K. herrerai

–

–

–

–

–

X

–

1

14.3

K. integrum

–

–

X

–

–

–

–

1

14.3

K. leucostomum

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

7

100

K. mexicanum

–

X

X

–

–

–

–

2

28.6

K. oaxacae

–

–

X

–

–

–

–

1

14.3

Staurotypus

S. salvinii

–

X

X

–

–

–

–

2

28.6

S. triporcatus

X

X

X

X

X

X

–

6

85.7

Totals by state

11

15

16

11

9

13

7

Table 2

Summary of taxonomic diversity of continental turtles by state in southeastern Mexico. The number of continental turtles found in Mexico was established according to TTWG (2021, 2025). Hurtado-Gómez et al. (2024), and Iverson and Berry (2024). The percentage with respect to diversity at the national level (left) and in southeastern Mexico (right) is in parentheses.

Place	Families	Genera	Species	Taxa
Mexico	7	13	50	65
Southeastern Mexico	5 (71.4)	8 (61.5)	22 (45)	25 (39.7)
Campeche	5 (71.4 / 100)	8 (61.5 / 100)	11 (22.4 / 50)	11 (17.5 / 44)
Chiapas	5 (71.4 / 100)	7 (53.8 / 87.5)	15 (30.6 / 68.2)	15 (23.8 / 60)
Oaxaca	4 (57.1 / 80)	6 (46.2 / 75)	15 (30 / 68.2)	16 (25.4 / 64)
Quintana Roo	4 (57.1 / 80)	6 (46.2 / 75)	10 (20 / 45.5)	11 (17.5 / 44)
Tabasco	5 (71.4 / 100)	7 (53.8 / 87.5)	9 (18.4 / 40.9)	9 (14.3 / 36)
Veracruz	5 (71.4 / 100)	8 (61.5 / 100)	13 (26.5 / 59.1)	14 (22.2 / 56)
Yucatán	3 (42.9 / 60)	4 (30.8 / 50)	5 (10.2 / 22.7)	5 (7.9 / 20)

Dichotomous key to the general and plastron view of each turtle (Fig. 2), the plastral nomenclature and the names of the head stripes (Supplementary material: Figs. 1S, S2). The Spanish translation is presented in Supplementary material.

1A. Posterior plastral lobe ends in a point …………………………………… 2 (Fig. 2A)

1B. Posterior plastral lobe does not end in a point …………………………………… 5 (Fig. 2B)

2A. Reduced bridge almost the same length size as plastral scute 2. Kinosternidae: Staurotypus, …………………………………… 3

2B. Extremely narrow, reduced bridge shorter than the length of plastral scute 2 …………………………………… 4

3A. Top and sides of head boldly marked with irregular dark and pale reticulations; 3 distinctive carapace keels, well developed posteriorly, especially the middle keel ……………………………………S. triporcatus (Fig. 2Y)

3B. Top of head dark, usually unicolored, lacking bold pattern; 3 distinctive carapace keels of similar size, anterior to posterior ……………………………………S. salvinii (Fig. 2X)

4A. Three pointed tomiodonts on the upper tomium; neck not ornamented with cutaneous tubercles; tail not as long as the plastron …………………………………… Kinosternidae: Claudius angustatus (Fig. 2M) 

4B. One medial pointed extension on the upper tomium; neck ornamented with long, flat, pointed cutaneous tubercles; tail about as long as the plastron …………………………………… Chelydridae: Chelydra rossignonii (Fig. 2A)

5A. Interdigital membranes not present on forefeet or hind feet …………………………………… 6

5B. Interdigital membranes present on fore and hind feet ……………………………………11

6A. One plastral hinge, allowing movement of anterior and posterior plastral lobes; the posterior end of the plastron rounded ……………………………………Emydidae: Terrapene, 7

6B. A transverse plastral hinge is absent; the posterior end of the plastron is notched …………………………………… Geoemydidae: Rhinoclemmys, 8

7A. Plastral scute 5 averaging 15% the straight-midline length of the posterior plastral lobe; plastral scute 3 averaging 23% the straight-midline length of the anterior plastral lobe ……………………………………T. mexicana (Fig. 2C)

7B. Plastral scute 5 averaging 21% the straight-midline length of the posterior plastral lobe; plastral scute 3 averaging 33% the straight-midline length of the anterior plastral lobe …………………………………… T. yucatana (Fig. 2D)

8A. Yellow markings predominate on the forefeet, hind feet, neck and/or head ……………………………………9

8B. Red markings predominate on the forefeet, hind feet, neck and/or head …………………………………… 10

9A. Red/orange dorsolateral head stripes continuous or discontinuous; each costal scute uniformly colored ……………………………………R. areolata (Fig. 2I)

9B. Red/orange dorsolateral head stripes are absent; each lateral scute with 1 pale areolar spot with a dark outline, possibly with obvious light-colored concentric rings around it ……………………………………R. rubida rubida (Fig. 2L)

10A. Carapace is elevated; inferior surface of each marginal scute with 1 transverse pale mark ……………………………………R. pulcherrima incisa (Fig. 2J)

10B. Carapace is depressed; inferior surface of each marginal scute with 2 transverse, dark-bordered pale marks ……………………………………R. p. pulcherrima (Fig. 2K)

Table 3

Conservation status of the continental turtles of southeastern Mexico. NOM-059 = List of Mexican federal government protected species of flora and fauna; P = endangered (in danger of extinction), Pr = under special protection, A = threatened; Red List = the IUCN Red list of threatened species; CITES = Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; En = national endemism; Y = endemic to Mexico; N = not endemic to Mexico; EDGE = EDGE score (Gumbs et al., 2018; higher threat = higher score).

Taxa	NOM-059	Red List	CITES	EDGE	En
Chelydra rossignonii	Pr	Vulnerable A2d	–	5.22	N
Dermatemys mawii	P	Critically endangered A2abd+4d	II	7.15	N
Terrapene mexicana	Pr	Vulnerable A2bcde+4bcde	II	4.19	Y
Terrapene yucatana	Pr	Vulnerable A2bcde+4bcde	II	4.19	Y
Trachemys grayi grayi	–	–	–	–	N
Trachemys venusta cataspila	–	–	–	–	Y
Trachemys venusta iversoni	–	–	–	–	Y
Trachemys venusta venusta	–	–	–	–	N
Rhinoclemmys areolata	A	Near threatened	II	3.77	N
Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima incisa	A	–	II	–	N
Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima pulcherrima	A	–	II	–	Y
Rhinoclemmys rubida rubida	Pr	Near threatened	II	3.87	Y
Claudius angustatus	P	Near threatened	II	4.36	N
Kinosternon abaxillare	–	Vulnerable A2cd+4cd	II	–	N
Kinosternon acutum	Pr	Near threatened	II	4.36	N
Kinosternon creaseri	–	Least concern	II	3.67	Y
Kinosternon cruentatum	–	–	II	–	N
Kinosternon flavescens	–	Least concern	II	3.67	N
Kinosternon herrerai	Pr	Near threatened	II	4.36	Y
Kinosternon integrum	Pr	Least concern	II	3.67	Y
Kinosternon leucostomum	Pr	–	II	–	N
Kinosternon mexicanum	–	–	II	–	N
Kinosternon oaxacae	Pr	–	II	4.36	Y
Staurotypus salvinii	Pr	Near threatened	II	4.69	N
Staurotypus triporcatus	A	Near threatened	II	4.69	N
Total of taxa in the categories considered	15	15	20	15

11A. There are no transversely oriented plastral hinges allowing plastral movement ……………………………………12

11B. There are 1 or 2 transversely oriented plastral hinges, allowing 1 or both plastral lobes to move around the scute 4…………………………………… Kinosternidae: Kinosternon, 16

12A. The head typically has a pale-colored patch that covers part or all of the dorsal region of the head but is never striped ……………………………………Dermatemydidae: Dermatemys mawii (Fig. 2B)

12B. The head is colored with obvious yellow stripes…………………………………… Emydidae: Trachemys, 13 

13A. Carapace ocelli centered on each costal scute and occupying most of scute…………………………………… 14

13B. Carapace ocelli not centered on costal scutes ……………………………………15 

14A. Carapace ocelli have an obvious large dark center to each ocellus ……………………………………T. venusta iversoni (Fig. 2G)

14B. Carapace ocelli lack an obvious dark center to each ocellus ……………………………………T. v. venusta (Fig. 2H)

15A. No light-colored ocelli on carapace; most of the central secondary orbitocervical stripes are narrow, of roughly equal width, and lacking black borders…………………………………… T. grayi grayi (Fig. 2E)

15B. Ocelli not centered in lateral scutes or broken; The postorbital stripe is thin where it contacts the orbit, then widens to about the diameter of the orbit; the central secondary orbitocervical stripes vary in width ……………………………………T. v. cataspila (Fig. 2F)

16A. Only the anterior plastral lobe is movable ……………………………………K. herrerai (Fig.2S)

16B. Both plastral lobes are movable relative to plastral scute 4 ……………………………………17

17A. Axillary scutes absent ……………………………………K. abaxillare (Fig. 2N)

17B. Axillary scutes present ……………………………………18 (see Fig. 2P)

18A. Moveable plastral lobes do not close the shell opening completely ……………………………………19

18B. Moveable plastral lobes close the shell opening completely ……………………………………20

19A. Plastral formula is 6 < = > 4 > 2 > 1 > 5 > 3 ……………………………………K. flavescens (Fig. 2R)

19B. Formula plastral is 4 > 6 > 1 > 5 > 2 > 3 ……………………………………K. oaxacae (Fig. 2W)

20A. Eyes with red pigment ……………………………………K. acutum (Fig. 2O)

20B. Eyes do not have red pigment…………………………………… 21

21A. Tricarinate carapace (less obvious in older individuals) ……………………………………22

21B. Unicarinate carapace ……………………………………23

22A. Plastral formula is 4 > 6 ……………………………………K. integrum (Fig. 2T)

22B. Plastral formula is 6 > 4 ……………………………………24

23A. Plastral formula is 1 > 2 ……………………………………K. creaseri (Fig. 2P)

23B. Plastral formula is 2 > 1 ……………………………………K. leucostomum (Fig. 2U)

24A. Maximum carapace width averages 77.1% (standard deviation [S.D.] 2.8%) of maximum plastron length in females and 74.6% (S.D. 2.8%) in males; the length of the plastral suture 4 averages 55.3% (S.D. 3.9%) of maximum shell height in females and 61.7% (S.D. 4.9%) in males ……………………………………K. mexicanum (Fig. 2V)

24B. Maximum carapace width averages 69.8% (S.D. 3.5%) of maximum plastron length in females and 68.9% (S.D. 2.8%) in males; the length of the plastral suture 4 averages 61.7% (S.D. 4.9%) of maximum shell height in females and 64.4% (S.D. 4.5%) in males ……………………………………K. cruentatum (Fig. 2Q)

Distributions of continental turtles of southeastern Mexico

In this section the abbreviations are: Ca = Campeche, Ch = Chiapas, Oa = Oaxaca, QR = Quintana Roo, Ta = Tabasco, Ve = Veracruz, Yu = Yucatán.

Chelydra rossignonii (Bocourt, 1868; Figs. 2A, 3A): along the Gulf of Mexico versant from the Jamapa River (Ve) to the Usumacinta River (Ta and Ch), including Laguna de Terminos (Ca). Other rivers include the Papaloapan, Coatzacoalcos (both in Oa and Ve), and lower Grijalva (Ch).

Dermatemys mawii Gray, 1847 (Figs. 2B, 3B): from the Jamapa River (Ve) to Champoton River (Ca) on the Gulf of Mexico versant, including the Usumacinta (Ca, Ch and Ta) and Lacantun Rivers (Ch). In Chetumal Bay (QR) the distribution extends to and beyond the Belize border.

Terrapene mexicana (Gray, 1849; Figs. 2C, 3C): from the Tamesi River to the Jamapa River, including the Tamiahua Lake area; on the Gulf of Mexico versant in Veracruz and northward into Tamaulipas. 

Terrapene yucatana (Boulenger, 1895; Figs. 2D, 3C): most of the western Yucatán Peninsula (primarily Yucatán and Campeche), with rare and localized occurrences in the northern region of Quintana Roo.

Trachemys grayi grayi (Bocourt, 1868; Figs. 2E, 3D): from La Arena River (Oa) to the Suchiate River on the Pacific versant (Ch), and southward to El Salvador.

Trachemys venusta cataspila (Günther, 1885; Figs. 2F, 3D): from the Jamapa River to the Panuco River (both in Ve) on the Gulf of Mexico versant, and northward in Tamaulipas.

Trachemys venusta iversoni McCord, Joseph-Ouni, Hagen, and Blanck, 2010 (Figs. 2G, 3D): most of the northern portions of Yucatán and Quintana Roo.

Trachemys venusta venusta (Gray, 1856; Figs. 2H, 3D): from the Jamapa River (Ve) to the Champoton River (Ca) on the Gulf of Mexico versant, including the Usumacinta (Ca, Ch and Ta) and Lacantun Rivers (Ch). In Chetumal Bay (QR) the distribution continues across the border into Belize and Guatemala.

Rhinoclemmys areolata (Duméril and Bibron in Duméril and Duméril, 1851; Figs. 2I, 3E): from the Jamapa River eastward (Ve) on the Gulf of Mexico versant throughout the north portions of Oaxaca and Chiapas and extended across Tabasco and the Yucatán peninsula (Ca, Yu and QR), and into Guatemala and Belize. 

Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima incisa (Bocourt, 1868; Figs. 2J, 3F): from the west portion of the Copalita River (Oa) to the Suchiate River (Ch) on the Pacific versant, and southeast to Nicaragua. 

Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima pulcherrima (Gray, 1856; Figs. 2K, 3F): from the Tehuantepec River (Oa) westward on the Pacific versant to the Balsas River, Guerrero.

Rhinoclemmys rubida rubida (Cope, 1870; Figs. 2L, 3E): from the Ometepec River (Oa) to the Suchiate River (Ch) on the Pacific versant, including the Atoyac and Tehuantepec basins (both in Oa).

Claudius angustatus Cope, 1865 (Figs. 2M, 3G): from the Jamapa River (Ve) to the western and southern Yucatán peninsula on the Gulf of Mexico versant, including the Usumacinta (Ca, Ch and Ta) and Lacantun Rivers (Ch), and southward into Guatemala and Belize.

Kinosternon abaxillare Baur in Stejneger, 1925 (Figs. 2N, 3H): restricted to the Grijalva River basin in the Central Depression and Plateau of Chiapas. 

Kinosternon acutum Gray, 1831 (Figs. 2O, 3H): from the Jamapa River (Ve) to the Champoton River (Ca) on the Gulf of Mexico versant, including the Papaloapan, Coatzacoalcos (both in Oa and Ve) and lower Grijalva Rivers (Ch), and Laguna de Terminos (Ca). Also found on the southern Yucatán peninsula (Ca and QR), northern Guatemala and Belize. 

Kinosternon creaseri Hartweg, 1934 (Figs. 2P, 3H): from the Champoton River (Ca) across the Yucatán peninsula (QR and Yu).

Kinosternon cruentatum Duméril and Bibron in Duméril and Duméril, 1851 (Figs. 2Q, 3I): from the Pánuco River (Ve) across the Tabasco lowlands to the entire Yucatán Peninsula on the Gulf of Mexico versant and into Guatemala and Belize.

Kinosternon flavescens Agassiz, 1857 (Figs. 2R, 3J): in southeastern Mexico it is restricted to the Panuco River basin (Ve) but ranges north across the Great Plains of the USA.

Kinosternon herrerai Stejneger, 1925 (Figs. 2S, 3K): from the Jamapa to the Panuco River (both in Ve) and northward on the Gulf of Mexico versant.

Kinosternon integrum Le Conte, 1854 (Figs. 2T, 3J): in southern Mexico from the Atoyac (Oa and Ve) and Tlapaneco River basins westward (Oa). 

Kinosternon leucostomum Duméril and Bibron in Duméril and Duméril, 1851 (Figs. 2U, 3K): from the Jamapa River (Ve) to the Champoton River (Ca) on the Gulf of Mexico versant, including the Usumacinta (Ca, Ch and Ta) and Lacantun rivers (Ch). Also found from Chetumal Bay through eastern Quintana Roo, and southward through Central America.

Kinosternon mexicanum Le Conte, 1854 (Figs. 2V, 3J): restricted to the Pacific versant from the Tehuantepec River (Oa) to the Suchiate River (Ch), and southeast to El Salvador.

Kinosternon oaxacae Berry and Iverson, 1980 (Figs. 2W, 3J): restricted to the Ometepec, La Arena, Colotepec and Copalita River basins on the Pacific versant in Oaxaca; also, westward into Guerrero.

Staurotypus salvinii Gray, 1864 (Figs. 2X, 3L): from the Copalita River (Oa) to the Suchiate River (Ch) on the Pacific versant, and southeast to El Salvador.

Staurotypus triporcatus (Wiegmann, 1828; Figs. 2Y, 3L): from the Jamapa River (Ve) to Campeche state on the Gulf of Mexico versant, including the Usumacinta (Ca, Ch and Ta) and Lacantun River (Ch). Also, in southern Quintana Roo to Chetumal Bay and into Guatemala, Belize and northwestern Honduras. Insertar fig 3:12cm

There was a wide range of conservation status for most of the native turtle taxa under national and international criteria. For example, the Mexican Government list (NOM-059 list; Semarnat, 2010) includes 16 species (64% of all turtle taxa found in southeastern Mexico), the IUCN Red List includes 18 (72%), and 20 are CITES listed (80%; Table 3). The turtles listed by NOM-059 and IUCN Red List as most threatened are D. mawii, C. angustatus, and those within the genus Terrapene (Table 3). However, the taxa whose conservation status is totally unknown includes all species in the genus Trachemys (Table 3). The average EDGE score for southeastern Mexican turtle taxa was 4.41 with a minimum value of 3.67 (K. creaseri, K. flavescens, and K. integrum), and a maximum of 7.15 (D. mawii) (Table 3).

Discussion

This is the first dichotomous key based on external characteristics to consider all native continental turtles that are distributed in southeastern Mexico, in accordance with advances in turtle taxonomy. Other dichotomous keys, although effective, are based on the review of internal characteristics that require the sacrifice of the organisms —e.g., for cranial measurements (Legler & Vogt, 2013). These criteria may not be useful when carrying out population ecology studies, or when required in forensic procedures, as for the identification of confiscated turtles. The inclusion of a Spanish translation may facilitate the work of early-career professionals and local authorities in the preparation of expert reports on seized specimens, contributing to a more accurate assessment of the extent of illegal trade affecting certain taxa. Generally, when there are national reports of seizures involving mud turtles, this is limited to filing a report at the genus level (Profepa, 2020).

According to our results, southeastern Mexico supports 3/4 of the families —and more than half of the genera— found nationwide in Mexico (Table 2). These findings highlight southeastern Mexico as a region of high importance for the composition of land and freshwater turtles at the national level. This fact is consistent with studies focused on analyzing the composition of the Mexican herpetofauna (Flores-Villela & García-Vazquez, 2014; Johnson et al., 2017; Ramírez-Bautista et al., 2023). In addition to this, Oaxaca, Chiapas, and Veracruz stand out as the states with the highest species richness and/or endemism, respectively. These 3 states are located within the region considered the richest in total herpetofauna, a result of complex orography, diverse habitats and environments, and the biogeographic history of Mexico (Ramírez-Bautista et al., 2023).

Previously published checklists of reptile diversity in Mexico often included taxonomic and distributional inconsistencies for turtles, possibly due to the disposition of the taxonomic status at that time (e.g., Flores-Villela & García-Vazquez, 2014; Hernández-Ordoñez et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2015; Wilson et al., 2013). For example, Johnson et al. (2015) reported the presence of T. ornata in Chiapas, but according to the TTWG (2021, 2025) this species occurs only in western Mexico, from Culiacan, Sinaloa to Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco. Likewise, R. areolata and C. serpentina have been reported from the southeastern part of the Lacandona rainforest, Chiapas (Hernández-Ordoñez et al., 2015). However, experts agree that there is no evidence for native populations of R. areolata in that region (TTWG, 2021, 2025). Velázquez-Nucamendi et al. (2021) suggested that the records might involve animals transported from Tabasco to this region of Chiapas. Furthermore, the closely related C. serpentina and C. rossignonii are commonly confused in southeastern Mexico, despite the former species being found only in the United States and Canada (TTWG, 2021, 2025). 

It is important to note that the Berlandier’s tortoise (Testudinidae: Gopherus berlandieri) has been reported from the northern portion of Veracruz in recent checklists (Torres-Hernández et al., 2021; Vásquez-Cruz et al., 2021) and in virtual repositories (GBIF, 2024; iNaturalist, 2024; SNIB-Conabio, 2024). However, the inclusion of this turtle in these reports is not confirmed by collection data, and in the case of virtual repositories, it is based on individuals in captivity near the state border with Tamaulipas, where G. berlandieri is known to occur naturally. As no wild populations have been reported, and no wild individuals have been formally collected in the northern portion of Veracruz, we do not consider this species native to Veracruz. However, this issue needs to be addressed in the future to clarify the total richness of continental turtles in southeastern Mexico.

Southeastern Mexico has been categorized globally as an area with high to moderate endemism (Ennen et al., 2020). Our data indicates that this region contains 33% of the endemic continental turtle taxa at the national level within the genera Terrapene, Trachemys, Rhinoclemmys, and Kinosternon (Table 3). However, there are suggestions that in this region the probability remains high for potential new taxonomic discoveries or upgrades from subspecies to species, especially within Trachemys and Kinosternon, 2 genera that have been poorly studied in Mexico (Flores-Villela & García-Vázquez, 2014; Legler & Vogt, 2013). The T. venusta complex has historically presented many inconsistencies in its taxonomic relationships. Despite prominent color pattern differences among species, genetic divergences within this complex are shallow, and the taxonomic diversity of each species with several currently recognized subspecies could be overestimated (Fritz et al., 2011, 2023; Parham et al., 2013; Seidel & Ernst, 2017). Another scientific priority is to clarify the genetically distinct group of D. mawii located in the Papaloapan River in Veracruz (González-Porter et al., 2011), and into the Lacandona rainforest (Martínez Gómez et al., 2017). 

Historically, turtles in southeastern Mexico have been widely exploited at unsustainable rates, resulting in negative repercussions on their populations and pushing some species to the brink of near local extinctions (Legler & Vogt, 2013). Examples include C. angustatus and D. mawii, both recognized as most threatened by national criteria (Table 3). For the first species, in a study conducted in Lerdo de Tejada, Veracruz (Mexico), Espejel-González (2004) reported a capture of 254 individuals. However, due to the high rates of extraction per year (Espejel-González, 2004), Reynoso et al. (2016) found no individuals in the same locality. For D. mawii in the Lacandona rainforest (Chiapas), a systematic evaluation that started in the 1980s and concluded 20 years later inferred a reduction of ~ 80% of the native population in the area (Guichard-Romero, 2006; Legler & Vogt, 2013). Other current events that provide a glimpse of the crisis facing Mexican turtles include 2 trade confiscations in 2020. In just 2 seizures, approximately 30,000 Mexican turtles were confiscated, mainly Trachemys, Kinosternon, Claudius, and Staurotypus (Profepa, 2020; Excelsior, 2020). 

We found that D. mawii, T. mexicana, and T. yucatana were the only species in which their risk categories were consistent under national and international criteria. For the remainder of the turtles distributed in southeastern Mexico, these categorizations were inconsistent or nonexistent (Table 3). The genus Trachemys is the one that is not under any national or international protection criteria (Table 3). The absence of protection criteria does not indicate a lesser concern for the conservation of these turtles, but rather a potential neglect of an approach to diagnose the conservation status through their distribution, even though these turtles are highly demanded for local consumption and the illegal pet trade (Beauregard-Solís et al., 2010; Profepa, 2020; Velázquez-Nucamendi et al., 2021). One main problem for the conservation of turtles in Mexico is the lack of concordance between the lists issued by the national Government and those by international organizations (Macip-Ríos et al., 2015). This leads to confusion by the Mexican public administration regarding the data available for decisions related to management and permitting, especially for species poor studied and highly demanded as Trachemys and Kinosternon (Macip-Ríos et al., 2015; Profepa, 2020).

Mexico is an active country in the trade of wild species. Just in the period 2007-2011, Mexico was the second-largest exporter worldwide, with approximately 750,000 specimens of live reptiles removed, of which continental turtles stood out (Semarnat, 2012). Therefore, agreement between national and international standards is a high priority to conserve Mexican turtle species. More research and data are needed on least Rhinoclemmys, K. cruentatum, K. herrerai, K. leucostomum, K. oaxacae, K. mexicanum, and S. salvinii. The need for updates in national and international legal regulations is recognized as essential to the protection of the different species of turtles that are distributed in southeastern Mexico. We encourage the assessment of population trends and potential threats to provide a more comprehensive conservation status for these turtles under national and international criteria. 

The information provided in this work should help to improve and focus future research and conservation in southeastern Mexico. However, we recognize that more information is required on the population status of the turtles in each state to face the new challenges that we need to consider for their conservation. Indeed, addressing the remaining gaps in the distribution and systematics of certain turtle species would be a valuable avenue for future research. Continued efforts to enhance our understanding of these aspects will contribute to more accurate assessments of conservation status. Finally, we encourage the resolution of the discrepancies between international and Mexican conservation priorities to ensure the protection of the turtles that occur in this region. Aligning priorities will help create more unified and impactful strategies, ensuring better protection for these turtles and their habitats (Macip-Ríos et al., 2015). This underscores the importance of international collaboration and coordination to address conservation challenges comprehensively.

Acknowledgments 

Fieldwork was conducted under the Mexican Federal Government permit numbers: SGPA/DGVS/01156/19 and SGPA/DGVS/06570/21 issued by Semarnat. We thank the authorities of the Áreas Naturales y Vida Silvestre from SEMAHN for providing essential information on turtle locations; Carlos A. Guichard Romero and Antonio Ramirez for providing access to the ZooMAT facilities; Antonio Muñoz Alonso for providing access to the reptile collection from ECOSUR, and Anders G. J. Rhodin for providing all Mexican turtle localities from the Turtle Taxonomy Working Group’s distributional database (TTWG 2021, 2025). For photographs in Fig. 2, we thank Ernesto Eduardo Perera Trejo (A, general view and plastron), Julio Gonzalez (C, plastron), Mike Jones (D and P, general view and plastron), Taggert Butterfield (L plastron), Alejandra Monsivais (K general view and plastron), Antonio Ramírez (M, general view), and Erasmo Cázares (S, general view and plastron). Anders G. J. Rhodin, Peter Paul van Dijk, Oscar Flores-Villela, Taggert Butterfield, Jacobo Reyes-Velasco and Donald McKnight made important comments to improve this manuscript. We thank the Turtle Survival Alliance, Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund (242536595), Turtle Conservation Fund, Chelonian Research Foundation (TCF-0790), and Turtle Taxonomy Fund for their support during field work and laboratory analysis. Finally, ERG is grateful to the scholarship “Becas de Preparación de Posgrado” from El Colegio de la Frontera Sur for support during the writing of this work.

References 

Auth, D. L., Smith, H. M., Brown, B. C., & Lintz, D. (2000). A description of the Mexican amphibian and reptile collection of the Strecker Museum. Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society, 35, 65–85.

Barão-Nóbrega, J. A. L., Nahuat-Cervera, P. E., Avella, I., Capehart, G., Garcia, B., Oakley, J. et al. (2022). Herpetological diversity in Calakmul, Campeche, Mexico: species list with new distribution notes. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 93, e933927. https://doi.org/10.22201/ib.20078706e.2022.93.3927 

Barragán-Vázquez, M. D. R., Ríos-Rodas, L., Fucsko, L. A., Mata-Silva, V., Porras, L. W., Rocha, A. et al. (2022). The herpetofauna of Tabasco, Mexico: composition, distribution, and conservation status. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, 16, 1–61.

Beauregard-Solís, G., Zenteno-Ruiz, C., Armijo-Torres, R., & Guzmán-Juárez, E. (2010). Las tortugas de agua dulce: patrimonio zoológico y cultural de Tabasco. Kuxulkab´, 17, 5–19.

Calderón, R., Cedeño-Vázquez, J. R., & Pozo, C. (2003). New distributional records for amphibians and reptiles from Campeche, Mexico. Herpetological Review, 34, 269–272.

Casas-Andreu, G., Méndez-De la Cruz, F. R., & Camarillo, J. L. (1996). Anfibios y reptiles de Oaxaca. Lista, distribución y conservación. Acta Zoológica Mexicana, 69, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.21829/azm.1996.69691928 

Cázares-Hernández, E. (2015). Guía de las tortugas dulceacuícolas de Veracruz. Zongolica, Veracruz: Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Zongolica.

Charruau, P., Morales-Garduza, M. A., López-Luna, M. A., Reyes-
Trinidad, J. G., Ramírez-Pérez, M. A., López-Hernández, J. A. et al. (2023). Herpetofauna de los humedales de la laguna de Chaschoc, Tabasco, México. Revista Latinoamericana de Herpetología, 6, 75–92. https://doi.org/10.22201/fc.25942158e.2023.2.616 

Chrapliwy, P. S. (1956). Extensions of known range of certain amphibians and reptiles of Mexico. Herpetologica, 12, 121–124.

CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). (2024). The CITES Appendices, 2024. Retrieved April 7, 2023, from: https://cites.org/eng

Conabio (Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad). (2024). Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. Retrieved April 7, 2024, from: https://www.gob.mx/conabio 

Contreras-Balderas, S., Ruiz-Campos, G., Schmitter-Soto, J. J., Díaz-Pardo, E., Contreras-Macbeath, T., Medina-Soto, M. et al. (2008). Freshwater fishes and water status in México: a country-wide appraisal. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 11, 246–256.

Díaz-Gamboa, L., May-Herrera, D., Gallardo-Torres, A., Cedeño-Vázquez, R., González-Sánchez, V., Chiappa-Carrara, X. et al. (2020). Catálogo de reptiles de la península de Yucatán. Mérida, Yucatán: Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Unidad Mérida, UNAM.

Edwards, T., Karl, A. E., Vaughn, M., Rosen, P. C., Torres, C. M., & Murphy, R.W. (2016). The Desert Tortoise trichotomy: Mexico hosts a third, new sister-species of tortoise in the Gopherus morafkai–G. agassizii group. Zookeys, 562, 131–158. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.562.6124 

Ennen, J. R., Agha, M., Sweat, S. C., Matamoros, W. A., Lovich, J. E., Rhodin, A. G. J. et al. (2020). Turtle biogeography: global regionalization and conservation priorities. Biological Conservation, 241, 108323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108323 

Ernst, C. H. (1978). A revision of the Neotropical turtle genus Callopsis (Testudines: Emydidae: Batagurinae). Herpetologica, 34, 113–134.

Espejel-González, V. E. (2004). Aspectos biológicos del manejo del chopontil, Claudius angustatus (Testudines: Staurotypinae) (M. Sc. Thesis). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Xalapa, Veracruz. 

EXCELSIOR. (2020). Estos son los animales rescatados tras decomiso histórico en Iztapalapa. Retrieved April 7, 2023, from: https://www.excelsior.com.mx/comunidad/estos-son-los-animales-rescatados-tras-decomiso-historico-en-iztapa
lapa/1419311

Ferreira-García, M. E., & Canseco-Márquez, L. (2006). Estudio de la herpetofauna del Monumento Natural Yaxchilán, Chiapas, México. In A. Ramírez-Bautista, L. Canseco-Máquez, & F. Mendoza-Quijano (Eds.), Inventarios herpetofaunísticos de México: avances en el conocimiento de su biodiversidad (pp. 293–310). México D.F.: Sociedad Herpetológica Mexicana, A.C.

Flores-Villela, O., & García-Vázquez, U. O. (2014). Biodiversidad de reptiles en México. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 85 (Suplem.), S467–S475. https://doi.org/10.7550/rmb.43236 

Fritz, U., Kehlmaier, C., Scott, R. J., Fournier, R., McCranie, J. R., & Gallego-García, N. (2023). Central American Trachemys revisited: new sampling questions current understanding of taxonomy and distribution (Testudines: Emydidae). Vertebrate Zoology, 73, 513–523. https://doi.org/10.3897/vz.73.e104438 

Fritz, U., Stuckas, H., Vargas-Ramírez, M., Hundsdöfer, A. K., Maran, J., & Päckert, M. (2011). Molecular phylogeny of Central and South American slider turtles: implications for biogeography and systematics (Testudines: Emydidae: Trachemys). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 50, 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2011.00647.x 

GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility). (2024). Retrieved April 7, 2023, from: https://www.gbif.org/

González-Porter, G. P., Hailer, F., Flores-Villela, O., García-Anleu, R., & Maldonado, J. E. (2011). Patterns of genetic diversity in the critically endangered Central American river turtle: human influence since the Mayan age? Conservation Genetics, 12, 1229–1242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-011-0225-x 

González-Sánchez, V. H., Johnson, J. D., García-Padilla, E., Mata-Silva, V., DeSantis, D. L., & Wilson. L.D. (2017). The herpetofauna of the Mexican Yucatán Peninsula: composition, distribution, and conservation. Mesoamerican Herpetology, 4, 264–380.

Guichard-Romero, C. A. (2006). Situación actual de las poblaciones de tortuga blanca (Dermatemys mawii) en el sureste de México (Informe final del Proyecto AS003-Conabio). Mexico City: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad.

Gumbs, R., Gray, C. L., Wearn, O. R., & Owen, N. R. (2018). Tetrapods on the EDGE: Overcoming data limitations to identify phylogenetic conservation priorities. Plos One, 13, e0194680. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194680 

Hernández-Ordoñez, O., Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., González-Hernández, A., Russildi, G., Luna-Reyes, R., Martínez-Ramos, M. et al. (2015). Extensión del área de distribución de anfibios y reptiles en la parte sureste de la selva Lacandona, México. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 86, 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmb.2015.04.005 

Hernández-Ordóñez, O., Martínez-Ramos, M., Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., González-Hernández, A., González-Zamora, A., Zárate, D. A. et al. (2014). Distribution and conservation status of amphibian and reptile species in the Lacandona rainforest, Mexico: an update after 20 years of research. Tropical Conservation Science, 7, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F194008291400700101 

Huidobro, L., Morrone, J. J., Villalobos, J. L., & Álvarez, F. (2006). Distributional patterns of freshwater taxa (fishes, crustaceans, and plants) from the Mexican transition zone. Journal of Biogeography, 33, 731–741. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01400.x 

Hurtado-Gómez, J. P., Vargas-Ramírez, M., Iverson, J. B., Joyce, W., Mccranie, J. R., & Fritz, U. 2024. Diversity and biogeography of South American Mud Turtles elucidated by multilocus DNA sequencing (Testudines: Kinosternidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 197, 108083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2024.108083 

Hutchison, J. H., & Bramble, D. M. (1981). Homology of the plastral scales of the Kinosternidae and related turtles. Herpetologica, 37, 73–85.

iNaturalist. (2024). iNaturalist. Retrieved June 6, 2024, from: https://www.inaturalist.org/

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 2024. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Retrieved June 6, 2024, from: http://www.iucnredlist.org

INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía). (2021). Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Retrieved March 3, 2021: https://www.inegi.org.mx/

Iverson, J. B., & Berry, J. F. (2024). Morphometric variation in the Red-cheeked Mud Turtle (Kinosternon cruentatum) and its taxonomic significance. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 23, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.2744/CCB-1589.1 

Iverson, J. B., Le, M., & Ingram, C. (2013). Molecular phylogenetics of the mud and musk turtle family Kinos-
ternidae. Mollecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 69, 929–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2013.06.011 

Johnson, J. D., Mata-Silva, V., García-Padilla, E., & Wilson, L. D. (2015). The herpetofauna of Chiapas, Mexico: compo-
sition, distribution, and conservation. Mesoamerican Herpetology, 2, 272–329. 

Johnson, J. D., Wilson, L. D., Mata-Silva, V., García-Padilla, E., & DeSantis, D. L. (2017). The endemic herpetofauna of Mexico: organisms of global significance in severe peril. Mesoamerican Herpetology, 4, 544–620.

Lee, J. C. (1996). The amphibians and reptiles of the Yucatán Peninsula. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Legler, J. M. (1990). The genus Pseudemys in Mesoamerica: taxonomy, distribution, and origins. In J. W. Gibbons (Ed.), Life history and ecology of the slider turtle (pp. 82–105). Washington D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Legler, J. M., & Vogt, R. C. (2013). The turtles of Mexico: land and freshwater forms. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Leopold, A. S. (1950). Vegetation zones of Mexico. Ecology, 31, 507–518.

Loc-Barragán, J. A., Reyes-Velasco, J., Woolrich-Piña, G. A., Grünwald, C. T., Venegas-de Anaya, M., Rangel-Mendoza, J. et al. (2020). A new species of mud turtle of genus Kinosternon (Testudines: Kinosternidae) from the Pacific coastal plain of northwestern Mexico. Zootaxa, 4885, 509–529. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4885.4.3 

López-Luna, M. A., Cupul-Magaña, F. G., Escobedo-Galván, A. H., Gonzáles-Hernández, A. J., Centenero-Alcalá, E., Rangel-Mendoza, J. A. et al. (2018). A distinctive new species of mud turtle from western Mexico. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 17, 2–13. https://doi.org/10.2744/CCB-1292.1 

Luna-Reyes, R., Canseco-Márquez, L., & Hernández-García, E. (2013). Los reptiles. In A. Cruz-Angón, E. D. Melgarejo, F. Camacho-Rico y K. C. Nájera-Cordero (Ed.), La biodiversidad en Chiapas, Estudio de Estado (pp.319–328). México D.F.: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad/ Gobierno del Estado de Chiapas.

Macip-Ríos, R., Ontiveros, R., López-Alcaide, S., & Casas-Andreu, G. (2015). The conservation status of the freshwater and terrestrial turtles of Mexico: A critical review of biodiversity conservation strategies. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 86, 1048–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmb.2015.09.013 

Martin, B. T., Bernstein, N. P., Birkhead, R. D., Koukl, J. F., Mussmann, S. M., & Placyk, J. S. (2013). Sequence-based molecular phylogenetics and phylogeography of the American box turtles (Terrapene spp.) with support from DNA barcoding. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 68, 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2013.03.006 

Martínez-Gómez, J. (2017). Sistemática molecular e historia evolutiva de la Familia Dermatemydidae en Mesoamérica (Bachelor Thesis). Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas. Chiapas, México.

Mata-Silva, V., García-Padilla, E. L., Rocha, A., Desantis, D. L., Johnson, J. D., Ramírez-Bautista, A. et al. (2021). A reexamination of the herpetofauna of Oaxaca, Mexico: composition update, physiographic distribution, and conservation commentary. Zootaxa, 4996, 201–252. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4996.2.1 

Mata-Silva, V., Johnson, J. D., Wilson, L. D., & García-Padilla, E. (2015). The herpetofauna of Oaxaca, Mexico: composition, physiographic distribution, and conservation status. Mesoamerican Herpetology, 2, 6–62.

McCord, W. P., Joseph-Ouni, M., Hagen, C., & Blanck, T. (2010). Three new subspecies of Trachemys venusta (Testudines: Emydidae) from Honduras, northern Yucatán (Mexico), and Pacific coastal Panama. Reptilia, 71, 39–49.

McCord, R. D. (2016). What is Kinosternon arizonense? Historical Biology, 28, 310–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2015.1053879 

Moldowan, P. D., Brooks, R. J., & Litzgus, J. D. (2015). Turtles with “teeth”: beak morphology of Testudines with a focus on the tomiodonts of Painted Turtles (Chrysemys spp.). Zoomorphology, 35, 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-015-0288-1 

Moreno-Avendaño, V., & Reyes-Grajales, E. (2022). Distribution. Central Chiapas Mud Turtle. Kinosternon abaxillare. Herpetological Review, 53, 261.

Murphy, R. W., Berry, K. H., Edwards, T., Leviton, A. E., Lathrop, A., & Riedle, J. D. (2011). The dazed and confused identity of Agassiz’s land tortoise, Gopherus agassizii (Testudines, Testudinidae) with the description of a new species, and its consequences for conservation. Zookeys, 113, 39–71. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.113.1353 

Muñoz-Alonso, L. A., Rodiles-Hernández, R., López-León, N. P., González-Navarro, A., Chau-Cortés, A. M., & Nieblas-Camacho, J. A. (2018). Diversidad de la herpetofauna en la cuenca del Usumacinta, México. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 89 (Suplem.), 79–99. https://doi.org/10.22201/ib.20078706e.2018.0.2447 

Ortiz-Medina, J. A., Cabrera-Cen, D. I., Nahuat-Cervera, P. E., & Chablé-Santos, J. B. (2020). New distributional records for the herpetofauna of Campeche and Yucatán, Mexico. Herpetological Review, 51, 83–87.

Parham, J. F., Papenfuss, T. J., van Dijk, P. P., Wilson, B. S., Marte, C., Rodríguez-Schettino, L. et al. (2013). Genetic introgression and hybridization in Antillean freshwater turtles (Trachemys) revealed by coalescent analyses of mitochondrial and cloned nuclear markers. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 67, 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2013.01.004 

Profepa (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente). 2020. Profepa asegura precautoriamente más de 15 mil tortugas que pretendían exportarse de manera ilegal a China. Retrieved March 3, 2021: https://www.gob.mx/profepa/prensa/profepa-asegura-precautoriamente-mas-de-15-mil-tortugas-que-pretendian-exportarse-de-manera-ilegal-a-china?idiom=es

Quiroz-Martínez, B., Álvarez, F., Espinosa, H., & Salgado-Maldonado, G. (2014). Concordant biogeographic patterns among multiple taxonomic groups in the Mexican freshwater biota. Plos one, 9, e105510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105510 

Ramírez-Bautista, A., Torres-Hernández, L. A., Cruz-Elizalde, R., Berriozábal-Islas, C., Hernández-Salinas, U., Wilson, L. D. et al. (2023). An updated list of the Mexican herpetofauna: with a summary of historical and contemporary studies. Zookeys, 1166, 287–306. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1166.86986 

Ramírez-González, C. G., & Canseco Márquez, L. (2015). Chelydra rossignonii, confirmación de su presencia en el estado de Oaxaca. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 86, 832–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmb.2015.05.007 

Reynoso-Rosales, V. H., Vázquez-Cruz, M. L., & Rivera-Arroyo, R. C. (2016). Estado de conservación, uso, gestión, comercio y cumplimiento de los criterios de inclusión a los Apéndices de la CITES para las especies Claudius
angustatus y Staurotypus triporcatus. Mexico City: Conabio-CITES. 

Ríos-Solís, J. A., Lavariega, M. C., García-Padilla, E., & Mata-Silva, V. (2021). Noteworthy records of freshwater turtles in Oaxaca, Mexico. Revista Latinoamericana de Herpetología, 4, 184–191.

Semarnat (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). (2010). Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambiental – Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres – Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio – Lista de especies en riesgo. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 30 de diciembre de 2010, Segunda Sección, México.

Semarnat (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). (2012). Informe anual PROFEPA 2012. México D.F.: Semarnat.

Semarnat (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). (2025). Proyecto de Norma Oficial Mexicana PROY-NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2025, Protección ambiental – Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres – Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio – Lista de especies en riesgo. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 14 de abril de 2025, Segunda Sección, México.

Seidel, M. E., & Ernst, C. H. (2017). A systematic review of the turtle family Emydidae. Vertebrate Zoology, 67, 1–122. https://doi.org/10.3897/vz.67.e31535 

Spencer, R. J., Van Dyke, J. U., & Thompson, M. B. (2017). Critically evaluating best management practices for preventing freshwater turtle extinctions. Conservation Biology, 6, 1340–1349. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12930 

Spinks, P. Q., Thomson, R. C., Gidiş, M., & Shaffer, H. B. (2014). Multilocus phylogeny of the New-World mud turtles (Kinosternidae) supports the traditional classification of the group. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 76, 254–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2014.03.025 

Torres-Hernández, L. A., Ramírez-Bautista, A., Cruz-Elizalde, R., Hernández-Salinas, U., Berriozábal-Islas, C., DeSantis, D. L. et al. (2021). The herpetofauna of Veracruz, Mexico: composition, distribution, and conservation status. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, 15, 72–155.

Turtle Conservation Coalition (TCC: Stanford, C. B., Rhodin, A. G. J., van Dijk, P. P., Horne, B. D., Blanck, T., Goode, E. V., Hudson, R., Mittermeier, R. A., Currylow, A., Eisemberg C. et al.). (2018). Turtles in Trouble: The World’s 25+ Most Endangered Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles—2018. Ojai, California: IUCN SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, Turtle Conservancy, Turtle Survival Alliance, Turtle Conservation Fund, Chelonian Research Foundation, Conservation International, Wildlife Conservation Society, and Global Wildlife Conservation.

Turtle Taxonomy Working Group (TTWG: Rhodin, A. G. J., Iverson, J. B., Bour, R., Fritz, U., Georges, A., Shaffer, H. B., & van Dijk, P. P.). (2021). Turtles of the World: annotated checklist and atlas of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status. 9th Edition. Chelonian Research Monographs 8. Rochester, NY.

Turtle Taxonomy Working Group (TTWG: Rhodin, A. G. J., Iverson, J. B., Fritz, U., Gallego-García, N., Georges, A., Ihlow, F., Shaffer, H. B., & van Dijk, P. P.). (2025). Turtles of the World: Annotated Checklist and Atlas of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status (10th Ed.). Chelonian Research Monographs 9.

Vásquez-Cruz, V., Cazares-Hernández, E., Reynoso-Martínez, A., Kelly-Hernández, A., Fuentes-Moreno A., & Lara-Hernández, F. A. (2021). New distributional records of freshwater turtles from west-central Veracruz, Mexico. Reptiles and Amphibians, 28, 146–151. https://doi.org/10.17161/randa.v28i1.15373 

Velázquez-Nucamendi, I. A., García-del Valle, Y., Reyes-Grajales, E., Sánchez-Cortés, M. S., & Ruan-Soto, F. (2021). Usos, prácticas y conocimiento local sobre las tortugas continentales (Testudines: Cryptodira) de la comunidad de Playón de la Gloria, Chiapas, México. Revista de Etnobiología, 19, 46–61.

Wilson, L. D., Mata-Silva, V., & Johnson, J. D. (2013). A conservation reassessment of the reptiles of Mexico based on the EVS measure. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, 7, 1–47.

Winokur, R. M. (1982). Integumentary appendages of chelonians. Journal of Morphology, 172, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1051720106

Ingrid Yutzil Ruiz-Nuñez ^a, Cristian M. Galván-Villa ^a, *, Omar Domínguez-Domínguez ^b, Rebeca Granja-Fernández ^{a, c}, Miriam Hueytletl-Pérez ^d y Francisco Alonso Solís-Marín ^e

^a Universidad de Guadalajara, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Departamento de Ecología Aplicada, Laboratorio de Ecología, Conservación y Taxonomía, Camino Ramón Padilla Sánchez Núm. 2100, 45200 Zapopan, Jalisco, México 

^b Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Facultad de Biología, Laboratorio de Biología Acuática, Av. Francisco J. Múgica s/n, Ciudad Universitaria, 58030 Morelia, Michoacán, México 

^c Universidad de Guadalajara, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Investigación posdoctoral (SECIHTI)-Programa de Maestría en Biosistemática y Manejo de Recursos Naturales y Agrícolas, Camino Ramón Padilla Sánchez Núm. 2100, 45200 Zapopan, Jalisco, México 

^d Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas, Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias Marinas, Av. Instituto Politécnico Nacional s/n, Playa Palo de Santa Rita, 23096 La Paz, Baja California Sur, México 

^e Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Laboratorio de Sistemática y Ecología de Equinodermos, Circuito Exterior s/n, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, 04510 Ciudad de México, México 

*Autor para correspondencia: cristian.galvan@academicos.udg.mx (C.M. Galván-Villa)

Resumen

Compuesto por 4 islas volcánicas tropicales, el archipiélago de Revillagigedo cuenta con ecosistemas únicos y bien preservados que lo han incluido en la lista de patrimonio mundial de la UNESCO. El objetivo de este trabajo fue dar a conocer un inventario actualizado de equinodermos del Parque Nacional Revillagigedo, incluidos registros nuevos de especies de las clases Asteroidea y Ophiuroidea, y un análisis de su composición. La diversidad de las islas se evaluó mediante análisis ecológicos (riqueza de especies, similitud y distintividad taxonómica). En total, se obtuvieron 94 especies de equinodermos de las cuales 5 son nuevos registros, 2 estrellas de mar (Heliaster kubiniji y Astrometis sertulifera) y 3 ofiuros (Ophiolepis variegata, Ophiopsila californica y Ophiothela mirabilis). La clase con mayor número de especies en todo el parque resultó ser Ophiuroidea con 31, seguida de Asteroidea, Echinoidea y Holothuroidea con 21 cada una. Las islas Clarión (60 spp.) y Socorro (58 spp.) presentaron la mayor riqueza de especies y diversidad taxonómica. Sin embargo, la riqueza de especies en San Benedicto y Roca Partida puede estar subestimada debido a un menor esfuerzo de muestreo histórico realizado en estas islas. 

Palabras clave: Área natural protegida; Pacífico oriental; Similitud; Diversidad taxonómica; Islas oceánicas

Diversity analysis and new records of echinoderms (Echinodermata) for Revillagigedo National Park, Mexico

Abstract

Consisting of 4 tropical volcanic islands, the Revillagigedo Archipelago has unique and well-preserved ecosystems that have placed it on the UNESCO World Heritage List. The objective of this work was to present the updated inventory of echinoderms of Revillagigedo National Park, including new records of species of the classes Asteroidea and Ophiuroidea, and to analyze their composition. The diversity of the islands was evaluated by ecological analysis (species richness, similarity, and taxonomic distinctiveness). A total of 94 records of echinoderm species were obtained, of which 5 are new records, 2 sea stars (Heliaster kubiniji and Astrometis sertulifera) and 3 brittle stars (Ophiolepis variegata, Ophiopsila californica, and Ophiothela mirabilis). The class with the highest number of species in the park was Ophiuroidea with 31, followed by Asteroidea, Echinoidea, and Holothuroidea with 21 each. Clarion (60 spp.) and Socorro (58 spp.) islands had the highest species richness and taxonomic diversity. However, species richness in San Benedicto and Roca Partida may be underestimated due to less historical sampling effort on these islands.

Keywords: Protected Natural Area; Eastern Pacific; Similarity; Taxonomic diversity; Oceanic islands

Introducción

El Parque Nacional Revillagigedo (PNR) es un archipiélago de 4 islas volcánicas tropicales (Clarión, San Benedicto, Socorro y Roca Partida) en el Pacífico mexicano, que están geográficamente aisladas del continente. En 1994, el archipiélago ingresó a la lista de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas de México bajo la categoría de Reserva de la Biosfera. En 2016, sus islas fueron incluidas en la lista del patrimonio mundial de la UNESCO debido a sus ecosistemas únicos y bien preservados. Para asegurar la conservación del área, el 24 de noviembre de 2017 se decretó la creación del PNR, otorgándole la mayor protección posible, y convirtiéndose en el Parque Nacional más grande de América del Norte (DOF, 2017). El aislamiento geográfico y la protección que se le ha dado a la zona la han convertido en un refugio para las distintas especies que la habitan (Becerril-García et al., 2020; Ruiz-Sakamoto et al., 2018). Asimismo, en el Parque se han desarrollado procesos evolutivos que han dado como resultado un alto grado de endemismos, tanto en la parte terrestre como en la marina, reflejando así su relevancia biológica, geológica y ecológica, así como la necesidad de su adecuada protección y manejo (Conanp-Semarnat, 2015; Semarnat-Conanp, 2019).

Los equinodermos son uno de los muchos grupos de fauna marina presentes en el PNR. El primer estudio realizado sobre los equinodermos del PNR data de 1907, cuando H. L. Clark describió al equinoideo Hesperocidaris perplexa, con material recolectado por la expedición Albatrossen isla Clarión (Clark, 1907). Resultado de la misma expedición y en la misma isla, Fisher (1911) reportó el primer registro de un asteroideo, Henricia clarki. Posteriormente, como producto de las recolectas de la expedición Zaca en isla Clarión, se generaron los primeros registros de ofiuroideos (Ophiacantha pyriformis, Ophiactis savignyi, Ophioderma variegatum, Ophiocoma aethiops, Ophionereis annulata y Ophiothrix galapagensis) (Ziesenhenne, 1937) y holoturoideos (Holothuria (Cystipus) inhabilis y Holothuria (Platyperona) difficilis) (Deichmann, 1937).

Algunos trabajos han reportado, de manera particular para cada isla, escasos equinodermos (e.g., Bautista-Romero et al., 1994; Reyes-Bonilla, 1995), y otros se han dado a la tarea de compilar listas más completas para la región del Pacífico mexicano, incluyendo en estas listas el PNR (Granja-Fernández et al., 2015, 2021; Honey-Escandón et al., 2008; Solís-Marín et al., 2013). El inventario más reciente para el PNR es el presentado por Granja-Fernández et al. (2021), quienes incluyeron un total de 85 especies presentes en el archipiélago, de las cuales 19 pertenecen a la clase Asteroidea, 25 a Ophiuroidea, 21 a Echinoidea y 20 a Holothuroidea. Sin embargo, en ninguno de estos trabajos se analiza la diversidad de especies para cada una de las islas que conforman el archipiélago. Además, recientemente y producto de la revisión de ejemplares depositados en colecciones científicas biológicas, se han encontrado nuevos registros para el área. Lo anterior hace necesario una actualización de información, por lo que este trabajo tuvo como objetivo sumar al conocimiento taxonómico de las islas Revillagigedo la incorporación de nuevos registros de especies de las clases Asteroidea y Ophiuroidea, así como realizar un análisis de la diversidad mediante índices cualitativos de similitud y de diversidad taxonómica para cada una de las islas.

Materiales y métodos

El PNR se localiza en el Pacífico mexicano, a unos 400 km de Cabo San Lucas, Baja California Sur y a 540 km del puerto de Manzanillo, Colima (fig. 1). La superficie total del archipiélago es de 14,808,780 ha, de las cuales 14,793,261 ha corresponden a la parte marina y 15,518 ha corresponden a la parte insular. El archipiélago está compuesto por 4 islas: Clarión (20 km²), San Benedicto (6 km²), Socorro (132 km²) y Roca Partida (0.014 km²) (Semarnat-Conanp, 2019). Las islas están compuestas por un conjunto de acantilados, playas rocosas y arenosas, bahías y manantiales (Conabio-Conanp-TNC-Pronatura, 2007). Su origen se asocia con la actividad de 3 placas tectónicas (Pacífico, Rivera y Cocos) y fenómenos volcánicos (Pardo y Suárez, 1995). Las islas tienen un origen volcánico común, pero, cada una de ellas presenta una morfología distinta que a su vez impacta, en mayor o menor grado, a la biodiversidad presente en ellas (Conanp-Semarnat, 2017).

El PNR converge entre 2 extensas regiones biogeográficas: la del Pacífico nororiental templado y la del Pacífico oriental tropical (Spalding et al., 2007). Algunas de las características oceanográficas que se presentan en las aguas cercanas al archipiélago son la influencia de las aguas templadas y ricas en nutrientes de la corriente de California y de las aguas cálidas de la corriente Norecuatorial y corriente costera de Costa Rica; asimismo, se tiene una marea mixta predominantemente semidiurna, un oleaje alto, un intervalo de temperatura de 20-28 °C, la presencia de surgencias estacionales, erupciones volcánicas ocasionales, eventos ENSO, tormentas tropicales y huracanes. En la zona del archipiélago se ha registrado una profundidad máxima de 4,856 m (Conanp-Semarnat, 2017). 

Con la finalidad de conocer la riqueza específica de equinodermos para cada una de las islas del PNR, se llevó a cabo la revisión de literatura histórica, abarcando registros desde 1907 hasta 2024. Posteriormente, se revisó el material depositado en la Colección Nacional de Equinodermos “Dra. Ma. Elena Caso Muñoz” (ICML-UNAM), Ciudad de México, México y Colección Biológica del Laboratorio de Ecología Molecular y Taxonomía (LEMITAX) del Departamento de Ecología Aplicada del Centro Universitario de Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias (CUCBA) de la Universidad de Guadalajara (UdeG), Jalisco, México. La determinación taxonómica de los ejemplares se llevó a cabo con las descripciones originales tomando en cuenta las características morfológicas externas diagnósticas para cada especie (Clark, 1921; Lütken, 1856; Verrill, 1867; Xantus, 1860). El material se examinó utilizando un microscopio estereoscópico Olympus ® SZX7 y revisando, tanto ejemplares preservados en seco, como en alcohol etílico al 70%. 

Con los registros obtenidos para cada una de las islas, se construyó una matriz de incidencia (binaria), ya que los datos provenían de distintas fuentes y métodos de muestreo. Se revisaron y actualizaron los nombres válidos de las especies en WoRMS (2024). La similitud de especies se estimó con el índice de Jaccard, con base en la matriz de incidencia. Se realizó un análisis de escalonamiento multidimensional no métrico (nMDS) y un análisis de clasificación (dendrograma) con la finalidad de identificar agrupaciones entre las islas con base en su riqueza. El dendrograma se construyó con el método de agrupamiento de pares con la media aritmética no ponderada (UPGMA) y la identificación de grupos se hizo con la prueba de perfiles de similitud (Simprof) basada en promedio en 10,000 permutaciones y 9,999 simulaciones con un nivel de significancia de 0.05 (Clarke et al., 2008).

Para medir el grado en el cual las especies están relacionadas taxonómicamente unas con otras y el grado por el cual los taxones están alta o pobremente representados entre las islas, se estimó la distinción taxonómica promedio (Δ⁺) y su variación (Λ⁺) (Clarke y Warwick, 1999). Se usaron 5 categorías taxonómicas jerárquicas: especie, género, familia, orden y clase, las cuales se tomaron con base en la clasificación para equinodermos propuesta en WoRMS (2024). Los niveles taxonómicos fueron ponderados de la siguiente manera: w1, especies dentro del mismo género; w2, especies dentro de la misma familia, pero en diferente género; w3, especies dentro del mismo orden, pero en diferente familia, y así sucesivamente (Warwick y Clarke, 1995). Los embudos de la Δ⁺ y Λ⁺ se crearon con un intervalo de confianza de 95%. Todos los análisis estadísticos se realizaron con el programa PRIMER v6 (Clarke y Gorley, 2006).

Las abreviaturas utilizadas fueron, para asteroideos, R: radio mayor (medida del disco al brazo), r: radio menor (medida del disco al interadio), R/r: radio mayor entre el radio menor, AD: alto del disco. Para ofiuroideos, DD: diámetro del disco, LB: largo del brazo, AB: ancho del brazo (tomando la medida siempre en la vértebra 15).

Descripciones

Nuevos registros

Phylum Echinodermata Klein, 1778

Subphylum Asterozoa Zittel, 1895

Clase Asteroidea de Blainville, 1830

Orden Forcipulatida Perrier, 1884

Familia Asteriidae Gray, 1840

Género Astrometis Fisher, 1923

Astrometis sertulifera (Xantus, 1860)

Fig. 2

Material examinado: 1 individuo. Bahía Eclipse, isla Roca Partida, islas Revillagigedo, México, 19°00’32” N, 112°04’55.9” O: 1 ind. (ICML-UNAM 2.125.5), preservado en seco.

Descripción: R = 20.11 mm; r = 15.4 mm; R/r = 1.30 mm; AD = 16.98 mm. Disco pequeño, bien definido, sobresaliente, delimitado por placas abactinales que soportan cada espina medianamente larga, cónica y lisa. Cuerpo de aspecto espinoso (fig. 2A). El surco ambulacral es amplio, los pies ambulacrales presentan ventosa terminal (fig. 2B). Por cada mandíbula se encuentran 4 espinas orales y 2 suborales (fig. 2C). Del disco salen 5 radios estrechos en su base, angulares, moderadamente cónicos y con punta roma, ornamentados con espinas (fig. 2D). Madreporita redonda, con estrías irregulares. Las espinas abactinales son grandes, con la base más ancha que la punta, de aspecto cónico con punta roma. Las espinas marginales son de menor longitud que todas las demás de la superficie abactinal. Entre las placas abactinales se encuentran las áreas papulares en forma grupal e individualmente entre las espinas ambulacrales y adambulacrales de la superficie actinal. Las espinas adambulacrales se distinguen claramente, son largas, lisas, planas, presentes en 1 sola fila y con punta roma. Las espinas ambulacrales son similares, pero de menor tamaño. Cada espina abactinal y superomarginal se encuentra rodeada en su base o en algún punto longitudinal por un collar de pedicelarios no pedunculados cruzados, de tamaño mediano, bivalbados, dentados en la punta con la base empalmada (fig. 2E, F). Los pedicelarios se encuentran también dispersos en la superficie abactinal, diferenciados por los de alrededor de las espinas principalmente por un mayor tamaño.

Familia Heliasteridae Viguier, 1879

Género Heliaster Gray, 1840

Heliaster kubiniji Xantus, 1860

Fig. 3

Material examinado: 11 individuos. Bahía Eclipse, isla Roca Partida, islas Revillagigedo, México, 19°00’32” N, 112°04’55.9” O: 7 ind. (ICML-UNAM 2.62.2); 4 ind. (ICML-UNAM 2.62.3), preservado en seco.

Descripción: R = 22.24-68.37 mm; r = 12.33-37.43 mm; R/r (x̄) = 1.83 mm; AD = 4.69-25.98 mm. Disco grande con relación a los brazos, no elevado pero abultado en el centro, ornamentado con espinas abactinales cilíndricas robustas y de punta roma, unido a varios radios (de 21 a 24) deprimidos actinalmente, con espinas gruesas, cortas y con espineletas en el extremo distal, dispuestas en 4-6 hileras (fig. 3A, B). Una madreporita pequeña y estriada irregular y onduladamente (fig. 3C). Espinas que ornamentan la placa carinal son las más cilíndricas y gruesas de todas las espinas actinales. Placas marginales soportan espinas de aspecto cilíndrico con la punta aplanada. Superficie actinal plana, con espinas aplanadas en el extremo distal. Espinas ambulacrales en 1 hilera, surco ambulacral más amplio en la base del brazo que en la punta, podios con ventosa terminal (fig. 3D). Cuatro espinas orales por mandíbula, centrales aplanadas, largas, cónicas, con punta aguda, laterales del mismo aspecto, pero de menor longitud (fig. 3E). Pedicelarios en la superficie abactinal; cruzados y rectos, bivalbados, dispersos en todo el disco y más concentrados conforme se acerca la parte distal del radio, algunos cuantos dispersos también entre las espinas orales (fig. 3F).

Clase Ophiuroidea Gray, 1840

Orden Amphilepidida O´Hara, Hugall, Thuy, Stöhr et Martynov, 2017

Familia Ophiolepididae Ljungman, 1867

Género Ophiolepis Müller et Troschel, 1840

Ophiolepis variegata Lütken, 1856

Fig. 4

Material examinado: 2 individuos. Bahía Eclipse, isla Roca Partida, islas Revillagigedo, México, 19°00’32” N, 112°04’559” O: 2 ind. (ICML-UNAM 3.26.3), preservado en seco.

Descripción: DD = 5.36-6.94 mm; LB = 12.00-20.00 mm; AB = 1.21-1.48 mm. Disco pentagonal. Disco dorsal (fig. 4A) cubierto por placas grandes rodeadas por placas más pequeñas, todas con arreglo muy definido; placa central del disco casi redonda, rodeada por 5 placas pentagonales más o menos regulares que forman una roseta; de este sistema de placas centrales irradian 5 hileras que abarcan hasta los márgenes interradiales. Gran placa cuadrangular entre la base de los radios y la parte distal de los escudos radiales. Escudos radiales grandes, en forma de gota. Interradio cubierto por placas grandes de forma y tamaño irregular (fig. 4B). Escudos orales pentagonales con el borde distal alargado, más largos que anchos, angostos en su parte media (fig. 4C). Escudos adorales pequeños, en contacto entre sí (fig. 4C). Cuatro papilas orales triangulares a cada lado de la mandíbula (fig. 4C). Cinco brazos robustos. Placas dorsales trapezoidales con bordes rectos, más anchas que largas (fig. 4D). Placas accesorias pequeñas, segmentadas en 2 piezas. Placas ventrales heptagonales, más anchas que largas (fig. 4E). Dos escamas tentaculares grandes, predominando en tamaño la adradial. De 3 a 4 espinas de los brazos, cortas y puntiagudas. Coloración del disco beige con algunas manchas gris oscuro dispersas; brazos en vista dorsal con bandas beige y gris oscuro, abarcando 1-3 segmentos (fig. 4A).

Famlia Ophiopsilidae Matsumoto, 1915

Género Ophiopsila Forbes, 1843

Ophiopsila californica A. H. Clark, 1921 

Fig. 5

Material examinado: 1 individuo. Isla Roca Partida, islas Revillagigedo, México, 19°00’32” N, 112°04’55” O: 1 ind. (ICML-UNAM 3.102.2), preservado en alcohol al 70%.

Descripción: DD = 6.08 mm; LB = 48.48 mm; AB = 1.48 mm. Disco cubierto dorsal y ventralmente por numerosas escamas pequeñas, redondeadas e imbricadas, con apariencia de piel (fig. 5A, B). Escudos radiales largos y delgados, con aspecto triangular. Escudos orales casi tan largos como anchos, triangulares, ángulos laterales redondeados, ligeramente cóncavos. Escudos adorales pequeños, difíciles de distinguir (fig. 5C). Dos papilas orales puntiagudas a cada lado de la mandíbula, la más distal de mayor tamaño (fig. 5C). Cinco brazos delgados. Placas dorsales de los brazos casi tan largas como anchas, ovaladas, en contacto unas con otras (fig. 5D). Placas ventrales de los brazos más largas que anchas, cuadrangulares (fig. 5E). Dos escamas tentaculares, la adradial con forma de hoja, muy larga, llegándose a cruzar distalmente con la adradial contigua, la abradial de menor tamaño. Cinco espinas de los brazos no tan largas, con punta roma, la de en medio la más larga y robusta. Coloración del disco amarillenta con puntos negros tanto dorsal como ventralmente (fig. 5B). Brazos dorsalmente amarillos con bandas transversales marrón (usualmente compuesto por 3 placas), placas claras; brazo con una línea clara que lo recorre longitudinalmente desde la base hasta la punta (fig. 5B). Algunas placas dorsales y espinas de los brazos presentan puntos.

Familia Ophiotrichidae Ljungman, 1867

Género Ophiothela Verrill, 1867

Ophiothela mirabilis (Verrill, 1867)

Fig. 6

Material examinado: 4 individuos. Caleta Norte, isla Clarión, islas Revillagigedo, México, 19°22’14.3” N, 114°41’40.7” O: 1 ind. (LEMA-EQ 829), 23/abril/2023, 20 m, preservado en alcohol al 96%; 3 ind. (LEMA-EQ 831), Punta Tosca, isla Socorro, islas Revillagigedo, México, 18°46’47.8” N, 111°02’49.7” O, 25/abril/2023, 20 m, preservado en alcohol al 96%.

Descripción: DD = 1.45 mm; LB = 4.54-6.04 mm; AB = 0.20-0.24 mm. Disco rosetado, dorsalmente cubierto con piel y gránulos (fig. 6A). Escudos radiales en contacto, cubriendo casi todo el disco, parcialmente cubiertos por gránulos. Interradio cubierto con piel (fig. 6B). Escudos orales y adorales unidos formando un anillo continuo alrededor de la boca, cubiertos totalmente por piel (fig. 6C). Sin papilas orales (fig. 6C). Cerca de 10 papilas dentales. Seis brazos prensiles. Placas dorsales de los brazos cubiertas por pocos gránulos de tamaño irregular, espacio de piel entre las placas (fig. 6D). Placas ventrales de los brazos cubiertas por piel (fig. 6E). De 5 a 6 espinas de los brazos, aserradas en la punta y en forma de gancho, la más dorsal es la de menor tamaño. Sin escamas tentaculares. Coloración dorsal del disco y brazos morado-rosáceo (fig. 6A).

Riqueza de especies 

Como resultado de la revisión histórica y los nuevos registros previamente mencionados, en total se registraron 94 especies de equinodermos (tabla 1), de las cuales 21 corresponden a la clase Asteroidea, 31 a Ophiuroidea, 21 a Echinoidea y 21 a Holothuroidea (tabla 2). La mayor riqueza de equinodermos se encontró en las islas Clarión (60 spp.) y Socorro (58 spp.), mientras que la menor en Roca Partida (20 spp.) y San Benedicto (10 spp.). El mayor número de especies de crinoideos, asteroideos, ofiuroideos y equinoideos se tuvo en la isla Clarión, y para holoturoideos se presentó en la isla Socorro (tabla 2). 

El 4% de las especies (Asteroidea: Acanthaster planci, Mithrodia bradleyi; Echinoidea: Echinometra vanbrunti y Eucidaris thouarsii) han sido registradas en todas las islas. En contraste, el 51% (49 spp.) habitan en solo 1 de las 4 islas. El 7% (7 spp.) (Asteroidea: Mediaster transfuga;Ophiuroidea: Ophiacantha moniliformis, Ophiopholis bakeri, Ophiothrix (Ophiothrix) rudis y Ophiothrix (Ophiothrix) spiculata;Holothuroidea: Euthyonidiella zacae y Holothuria (Mertensiothuria) hilla)han sido reportadas para el archipiélago, pero no se especifica en qué isla fueron encontradas (Granja-Fernández et al., 2015, 2021; Honey-Escandón et al., 2008; Solís-Marín et al., 2013).

Tabla 1

Lista de especies de equinodermos del Parque Nacional Revillagigedo. IS = Isla Socorro, IC = isla Clarión, IB = isla San Benedicto, IR = isla Roca Partida, NE = isla no especificada. *Nuevos registros para cada isla. Especies en negritas corresponden a registros nuevos para el Parque Nacional Revillagigedo.

Clase	Especie
Asteroidea	Acanthaster planci (Linnaeus, 1758) IS, IC, IB, IR*
	Asteropsis carinifera (Lamarck, 1816) IS, IC
	Astrometis sertulifera(Xantus, 1860) IR*
	Astropecten armatus Gray, 1840 IC
	Heliaster kubinijiXantus, 1860 IR*
	Henricia clarki Fisher, 1910 IC
	Henricia seminudus (A.H. Clark, 1916) IC
	Linckia columbiae Gray, 1840 IS, IC
	Luidia bellonae Lütken, 1864 IC
	Luidia columbia (Gray, 1840) IC
	Mediaster transfuga Ludwig, 1905 NE
	Meridiastra modesta (Verrill, 1867) IS
	Mithrodia bradleyi Verrill, 1867 IS, IC, IB, IR*
	Nearchaster (Nearchaster) aciculosus (Fisher, 1910) IC
	Nidorellia armata (Gray, 1840) IB
	Patiria miniata (Brandt, 1835) IS
	Pauliastra aenigma (Ludwig, 1905) IC
	Pentaceraster cumingi (Gray, 1840) IS, IC, IR*
Tabla 1. Continúa
Clase	Especie
	Pharia pyramidata (Gray, 1840) IS
	Phataria unifascialis (Gray, 1840) IS
	Sclerasterias heteropaes Fisher, 1924 IC
Ophiuroidea	Amphipholis pugetana (Lyman, 1860) IC
	Amphiura seminuda Lütken et Mortensen, 1899 IC
	Astrodictyum panamense (Verrill, 1867) IR
	Ophiacantha diplasia H.L. Clark, 1911 IC
	Ophiacantha moniliformis Lütken et Mortensen, 1899 NE
	Ophiacantha pyriformis Ziesenhenne, 1937 IC
	Ophiactis savignyi (Müller et Troschel, 1842) IS*, IC, IR*
	Ophiactis simplex (Le Conte, 1851) IS*
	Ophiocoma aethiops Lütken, 1859 IS, IC
	Ophiocomella alexandri (Lyman, 1860) IS, IC, IR*
	Ophiocomella schmitti A.H. Clark, 1939 IS, IC
	Ophiocomella sexradia (Duncan, 1887) IC
	Ophioderma aija Humara-Gil, Granja-Fernández, Bautista-Guerrero, Solís-Marín et Rodríguez-Troncoso, 2024 IS Ophioderma bichi Humara-Gil, Granja-Fernández, Bautista-Guerrero, Solís-Marín et Rodríguez-Troncoso, 2024 IR Ophioderma hendleri Granja-Fernández, Pineda-Enríquez, Solís-Marín et Laguarda-Figueras, 2020 IS
	Ophioderma occultum Humara-Gil, Granja-Fernández, Bautista-Guerrero et Rodríguez-Troncoso, 2022 IS*, IR
	Ophioderma panamense Lütken, 1859 IS, IC
	Ophioderma variegatum Lütken, 1856 IS, IC
	Ophiolepis pacifica Lütken, 1856 IS
	Ophiolepis variegataLütken, 1856 IR*
	Ophiomyxa panamensis Lütken et Mortensen, 1899 IS
	Ophionereis annulata (Le Conte, 1851) IS, IC, IR*
	Ophiopholis bakeri McClendon, 1909 NE
	Ophiophragmus papillatus Ziesenhenne, 1940 IS
	Ophiopsila californicaA.H. Clark, 1921 IR*
	Ophiosphalma variabile (Lütken et Mortensen, 1899) IC
	Ophiothela mirabilis(Verrill, 1867) IS*, IC*
	Ophiothrix galapagensis Lütken et Mortensen, 1899 IC
	Ophiothrix (Ophiothrix) rudis Lyman, 1874 NE
	Ophiothrix (Ophiothrix) spiculata Le Conte, 1851 NE
	Ophiuroconis bispinosa Ziesenhenne, 1937 IS
Echinoidea	Astropyga pulvinata (Lamarck, 1816) IS
	Brissopsis pacifica (A. Agassiz, 1898) IS, IC
	Clypeaster europacificus H.L. Clark, 1914 IC
Tabla 1. Continúa
Clase	Especie
	Clypeaster ochrus H.L. Clark, 1914 IC
	Clypeaster rotundus (A. Agassiz, 1863) IC
	Clypeaster speciosus Verrill, 1870 IS, IC
	Diadema mexicanum A. Agassiz, 1863 IS, IC, IB
	Echinometra insularis H. L. Clark, 1912 IS
	Echinometra oblonga (Blainville, 1825) IS, IC
	Echinometra vanbrunti A. Agassiz, 1863 IS, IC, IB, IR*
	Encope micropora insularis H.L. Clark, 1948 IS, IC
	Eucidaris thouarsii (L. Agassiz et Desor, 1846) IS, IC, IB, IR*
	Heterocentrotus mamillatus (Linnaeus, 1758) IS, IC, IB
	Hesperocidaris asteriscus H.L. Clark, 1948 IS
	Hesperocidaris perplexa (H.L. Clark, 1907) IC
	Lovenia cordiformis A. Agassiz, 1872 IS, IC
	Meoma ventricosa grandis Gray, 1851 IS, IC
	Rhyncholampas pacificus (A. Agassiz, 1863) IS, IC
	Toxopneustes roseus (A. Agassiz, 1863) IS, IC
	Tripneustes depressus A. Agassiz, 1863 IS, IC, IB
	Tripneustes gratilla (Linnaeus, 1758) IC
Holothuroidea	Euapta godeffroyi (Semper, 1868) IS, IR*
	Euthyonidiella zacae (Deichmann, 1938) NE
	Holothuria (Cystipus) inhabilis Selenka, 1867 IC
	Holothuria (Halodeima) inornata Semper, 1868 IS, IC
	Holothuria (Halodeima) kefersteinii (Selenka, 1867) IS, IC
	Holothuria (Lessenothuria) coronata Yánez Villanueva, Solís-Marín et Laguarda-Figueras, 2022 IS
	Holothuria (Mertensiothuria) hilla Lesson, 1830 NE
	Holothuria (Mertensiothuria) leucospilota (Brandt, 1835) IS, IC
	Holothuria (Platyperona) difficilis Semper, 1868 IS, IC
	Holothuria (Selenkothuria) lubrica Selenka, 1867 IS, IC, IR*
	Holothuria (Selenkothuria) portovallartensis Caso, 1954 IS, IC
	Holothuria (Semperothuria) imitans Ludwig, 1875 IS, IC, IR*
	Holothuria (Stauropora) fuscocinerea Jaeger, 1833 IS*, IC, IB*
	Holothuria (Theelothuria) paraprinceps Deichmann, 1937 IC
	Holothuria (Thymiosycia) arenicola Semper, 1868 IS, IC
	Holothuria (Thymiosycia) impatiens (Forsskål, 1775) IS, IR*
	Isostichopus fuscus (Ludwig, 1875) IS, IB*, IR*
	Labidodemas americanum Deichmann, 1938 IS*
	Leptosynapta albicans (Selenka, 1867) IS
	Lisacucumis gibber (Selenka, 1867) IS
	Pentamera chierchiae (Ludwig, 1886) IS

Tabla 2

Riqueza de especies para cada clase de equinodermos del Parque Nacional Revillagigedo y para cada una de sus islas. * Registros que no tienen una isla especificada.

Clase	Total	Isla Socorro	Isla Clarión	Isla San Benedicto	Isla Roca Partida	*No especificado
Asteroidea	21	9	13	3	5	1
Ophiuroidea	31	16	18	0	8	4
Echinoidea	21	16	18	5	2	0
Holothuroidea	21	17	11	2	5	3
Total	94	58	60	10	20	8

Similitud entre islas

La comparación de riqueza con los análisis de clasificación y nMDS entre las islas del PNR mostró 2 grupos bien definidos, un primer grupo formado por las islas Socorro y Clarión con 40% de similitud (Simprof, π = 0, p > 0.05) y el segundo formado por San Benedicto y Roca Partida con 20% de similitud (Simprof, π = 0, p > 0.05) (fig. 7A).

Diversidad taxonómica de las islas 

El modelo global de Δ⁺ y Λ⁺ entre las islas del archipiélago mostró que todas las islas poseen una diversidad taxonómica y variación dentro del intervalo de confianza del 95% esperado (p > 0.05) (fig. 7B). Roca Partida tuvo la mayor Δ⁺, a pesar de que Socorro y Clarión son las islas con una mayor riqueza de especies. San Benedicto presentó la menor Δ⁺. Las estimaciones de Λ⁺ para cada una de las islas estuvieron dentro de las estimaciones de probabilidad (fig. 7C).

Discusión 

La revisión taxonómica de los especímenes depositados en colecciones científicas del presente trabajo permitió encontrar 2 nuevos registros de asteroideos (Astrometis sertulifera y Heliaster kubiniji) y 3 de ofiuroideos (Ophiolepis variegata, Ophiopsila californica y Ophiothela mirabilis) para el PNR. Con lo anterior se actualiza el inventario a 94 especies y con los nuevos registros se incrementa la riqueza de especies a 21 para la clase Asteroidea y 31 para Ophiuroidea. Anteriormente, el ofiuroideo Ophioderma teres se reportó para el PNR (Granja-Fernández et al., 2021); sin embargo, la reciente revisión taxonómica de la especie permitió determinar que su identidad corresponde a Ophioderma aija (Humara-Gil et al., 2024), por lo tanto, el registro de O. teres para el PNR se invalida. Al igual que lo reportado por Granja-Fernández et al. (2021), no se encontraron registros verificados de ejemplares de la clase Crinoidea para Revillagigedo. El único registro que se tenía de un crinoideo es el descrito por Roux y Pawson (1999), que corresponde a la especie Hyocrinus foelli, una especie encontrada entre Clarión y la zona de fractura de Clipperton a una profundidad de entre 4,300 y 4,700 m; sin embargo, este no se considera válido, ya que al verificar las coordenadas geográficas del ejemplar recolectado, se encontró distante del límite del parque (Granja-Fernández et al., 2021). La diferencia en riqueza de especies entre trabajos se debe a la actualización del inventario mediante la consulta de literatura, nuevas descripciones y la revisión taxonómica de material depositado en colecciones científicas.

El registro del asteroideo Astrometis sertulifera para Roca Partida corresponde a un nuevo registro para el PNR, así como para el Pacífico central mexicano, ya que la especie solo había sido reportada en México para la costa oeste de Baja California y el golfo de California (Honey-Escandón et al., 2008; Solís-Marín et al., 2005). Por otro lado, Heliaster kubiniji fue reportada por Bautista-Romero et al. (1994) para isla Clarión, sin embargo, al no poder ser confirmado por la falta de un ejemplar que permitiera la validación, no fue incluida en el recuento de Granja-Fernández et al. (2021). La revisión de material depositado en la colección del ICML-UNAM permitió corroborar su presencia en el PNR, específicamente en isla Roca Partida. La distribución de esta estrella es muy amplia, abarcando México, las islas Galápagos y Perú (Solís-Marín et al., 2013). La especie es más común en el golfo de California en México, sin embargo, se ha reportado que se presentan registros ocasionales dispersos hacia el noroeste de Baja California y el sur de California (EUA), los cuales probablemente están asociados a eventos de El Niño (Kerstitch y Bertsch, 2007). 

Tres nuevos registros de ofiuros se lograron identificar con base en ejemplares de las colecciones ICML-UNAM y LEMITAX. Ophiolepis variegata ha sido previamente registrada a lo largo de la costa del Pacífico mexicano (Granja-Fernández et al., 2015) y específicamente en el Pacífico central mexicano, en Nayarit, Jalisco, Colima e islas Marías (Granja-Fernández et al., 2021); sin embargo, su hallazgo en el PNR (isla Roca Partida) corresponde a un registro nuevo para el archipiélago. El caso de Ophiopsila californica es de particular importancia ya que su distribución comprende desde California hasta el norte del Pacífico mexicano (Granja-Fernández et al., 2015). Su recolecta en isla Roca Partida no solo corresponde a un registro nuevo para el Pacífico central mexicano, sino también a una ampliación de su rango de distribución al sur. Finalmente, a pesar de que Ophiothela mirabilis se encuentra ampliamente distribuida en el Pacífico mexicano (Granja-Fernández et al., 2015), esta es la primera vez que se registra en el PNR, específicamente para las islas Clarión y Socorro.

Cabe destacar que el presente trabajo analiza por primera vez la riqueza de equinodermos para cada una de las islas del PNR. Las islas Clarión (61) y Socorro (58), además de poseer la mayor riqueza de equinodermos total y por clases, se agruparon dentro de los análisis nMDS y dendrograma, compartiendo 35 especies. San Benedicto y Roca Partida formaron otro grupo, con una baja similitud, donde comparten solamente 5 especies. Los valores de riqueza de especies pueden estar relacionados con el tamaño de las islas. En este caso, las islas más grandes (Socorro y Clarión) presentan el mayor número de especies y, por el contrario, las islas más pequeñas (San Benedicto y Roca Partida) tienen la menor riqueza de especies. Este patrón puede no estar asociado solamente con el tamaño de las islas, sino también con los hábitats que proporcionan y con la intensidad de muestreo en cada una de ellas. Clarión y Socorro se caracterizan por playas de material calcáreo biogénico asociado con corales, así como con sedimentos (arenas y limos) conformados por moluscos y corales, crecimientos algales, entre otros (Semarnat-Conanp, 2019). Todos estos hábitats son propicios para el establecimiento de larvas (Doll et al., 2022), protección/desarrollo (Hermosillo-Núñez et al., 2015; Herrero-Pérezrul et al., 2015) y alimentación de equinodermos (Siburian et al., 2023). Esta heterogeneidad en la estructura de los hábitats no se presenta en San Benedicto y Roca Partida, ya que la primera está compuesta, principalmente, de rocas volcánicas y la segunda es la cima de un volcán submarino (Semarnat-Conanp, 2019). 

Respecto de la intensidad de muestreo, la exploración de Clarión y Socorro ha llamado la atención de científicos desde 1930 y han sido visitadas desde entonces por expediciones tan importantes como Albatross, Velero y Zaca (Caso, 1962; Deichmann, 1941; Ziesenhenne, 1937). Resultado de lo anterior es que Clarión y Socorro poseen el mayor número de estudios publicados (41 y 47 trabajos, respectivamente) con registros de equinodermos de zonas someras y profundas. En cambio, para San Benedicto solo existen 2 trabajos (Bautista-Romero et al., 1994; Reyes-Bonilla, 1995) en los que se reportan 8 especies de las clases Asteroidea y Echinoidea; con la presente revisión de colecciones científicas, se añaden 2 nuevos registros de holoturoideos para San Benedicto (Holothuria (Stauropora) fuscocinerea e Isostichopus fuscus). Previo a este estudio, el único equinodermo que había sido reportado para la isla Roca Partida era el ofiuro Astrodictyum panamense (Ayala-Bocos et al., 2011), por lo que se aportan 17 nuevos registros para esta isla (5 de la clase Asteroidea, 5 de Ophiuroidea, 2 de Echinoidea y 5 Holothuroidea). A pesar de que San Benedicto y Roca Partida tienen la menor riqueza de equinodermos, no se descarta que con mayor esfuerzo de muestreo se encuentre una mayor riqueza de equinodermos en estas islas. 

A pesar de las diferencias en riqueza entre islas, existen 4 especies que han sido registradas en todas ellas: 2 asteroideos (Acanthaster planci y Mithrodia bradleyi)y 2 equinoideos (Echinometra vanbrunti y Eucidaris thouarsii). Sin embargo, especies como la estrella de mar Pentaceraster cumingi, el ofiuro Ophiocomella alexandri, el erizo Toxopneustes roseus y el pepino I. fuscus, se espera que habiten en todas las islas y sus alrededores, ya que tienen una amplia distribución a lo largo del Pacífico mexicano y americano (Granja-Fernández et al., 2015, 2021; Honey-Escandón et al., 2008; Solís-Marín et al., 2013). También cabe resaltar que, a pesar de las diferencias en riqueza, el análisis de diversidad taxonómica sugiere que la composición de cada isla es un subconjunto al azar del conjunto regional de especies, ya que los valores se encontraron dentro del intervalo de confianza de 95%, es decir, todas las islas son representativas de la diversidad taxonómica del PNR, inclusive San Benedicto y Roca Partida, que tienen la menor riqueza de especies.

La riqueza de especies de equinodermos del PNR representa cerca de 15% de la riqueza registrada en todo México (Solís-Marín et al., 2013, 2014). Si se compara la riqueza de manera particular con las diferentes regiones del Pacífico mexicano como el golfo de California y el Pacífico mexicano, encontramos que el PNR presenta 40.5% y 43.5% de especies, respectivamente. Comparando con la región del Pacífico central mexicano, en el parque se encuentra 50% de estas especies (Granja-Fernández et al., 2021). Esto respalda la importancia de Revillagigedo en términos de conservación, ya que resguarda cerca de la mitad de especies de equinodermos que se pueden encontrar en el Pacífico mexicano.

Para generar un inventario más completo de las especies de equinodermos presentes en el PNR se requiere una búsqueda dirigida al grupo y a los distintos sustratos en los que habitan (e.g., arena, rocas, corales). Se recomienda incrementar el esfuerzo de muestreo principalmente en San Benedicto y Roca Partida. Asimismo, si bien la mayor parte de registros pertenecen a especies someras (< 30 m de profundidad), es necesaria la exploración de aguas profundas del PNR y sus alrededores, ya que poseen un alto potencial de albergar equinodermos por su amplia batimetría que puede alcanzar hasta 5,000 m de profundidad y a la presencia de ventilas hidrotermales (Semarnat-Conanp, 2019). También es necesario dirigir esfuerzos sobre especies crípticas, las cuales regularmente están ocultas y cuya percepción no es tan sencilla en su hábitat (principalmente especies de las clases Ophiuroidea y Holothuroidea), ya que suelen encontrarse bajo rocas o enterradas en el sedimento.

Agradecimientos

Al personal de Conanp del Parque Nacional Revillagigedo por la invitación a CMGV y ODD para participar en la expedición científica 2023. Al personal del Instituto de Biología de la UNAM, Susana Guzmán Gómez y María B. Mendoza Garfias; al personal del ICML de la UNAM, Laura E. Gómez Lizárraga, Alicia Durán González y Carlos A. Conejeros Vargas, por su disposición y colaboración para la realización de este estudio. A Brenda Maya Alvarado por la consulta de referencias bibliográficas que nutren este artículo y a Karla Humara Gil por la corroboración de registros por isla para el género Ophioderma. Agradecemos el apoyo técnico para la captura de imágenes de Alicia Durán González, María B. Mendoza Garfias, Susana Guzmán Gómez y Laura E. Gómez Lizárraga de la UNAM. Al editor y revisores anónimos por sus comentarios invaluables al manuscrito.

Referencias

Ayala-Bocos, A., Reyes-Bonilla, H., Herrero-Perezrul M. D., Walther-Mendoza, M. y Castañeda-Fernández de Lara, V. (2011). New records and range extensions of Astrodictyum panamense (Ophiuroidea: Gorgonocephalidae) in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Marine Biodiversity Records. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 4, e46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175526721100032 

Bautista-Romero, J. J., Reyes-Bonilla, H., Lluch-Cota, D. y Lluch-Cota, S. (1994). Aspectos generales de la fauna marina. En A. Ortega-Rubio y A. Castellanos-Vera (Eds.), La isla Socorro, Reserva de la Biosfera Archipiélago de Revillagigedo (pp. 247–275). La Paz: CIBNOR. 

Becerril-García, E. E., Hoyos-Padilla, E. M., Henning, B. y León, P. S. (2020). Sharks, rays, and chimaeras of the Revillagigedo National Park: An update of new and confirmed records. Journal of Fish Biology, 97, 1228–1232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14457 

Caso, M. E. (1962). Estudios sobre equinodermos de México. Contribución al conocimiento de los equinodermos de las islas Revillagigedo. Anales del Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 33, 293–330.

Clark, A. H. (1921). A new ophiuran of the genus Ophiopsila from Southern California. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 34, 109–110.

Clark, H. L. (1907). The Cidaridae. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 7, 165–230.

Clarke, K. R. y Gorley, R. N. (2006). Primer v6: user manual and tutorial. Plymouth, UK: Primer-E.

Clarke, K. R., Somerfield, P. J. y Gorley, R. N. (2008). Testing of null hypotheses in exploratory community analyses: similarity profiles and biota-environment linkage. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 366, 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2008.07.009 

Clarke, K. R. y Warwick, R. M. (1999). The taxonomic distinctness measure of biodiversity: weighting of step lengths between hierarchical levels. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 184, 21–29.

Conabio (Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad)-Conanp (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas) -TNC-Pronatura. (2007). Sitios marinos prioritarios para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Escala 1: 1000 000. México: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas/ The Nature Conservancy – Programa México, Pronatura, A.C.

Conanp (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas)-Semarnat (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). (2015). Formulario de Nominación del Bien Natural Archipiélago de Revillagigedo para su Inscripción en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial. México D.F.: Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.

Conanp (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas)-Semarnat (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). (2017). Estudio Previo Justificativo para la declaratoria del Parque Nacional Revillagigedo. México: Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.

Deichmann, E. (1937). The Templeton Crocker Expedition. IX. Holothurians from the Gulf of California, the West Coast of Lower California and Clarion Island. Zoologica, 22, 161–176.

Deichmann, E. (1941). The Holothuroidea collected by the “Velero III” during the years 1932-1938. Part I. Dendrochirotida. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions, 8, 61–195.

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). (2017). Decreto por el que se declara como Área Natural Protegida, con el carácter de Parque Nacional, la región conocida como Revillagigedo, localizada en el Pacífico Mexicano. Publicada en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 27 de noviembre de 2017. México. Recuperado el 21 de enero, 2024 de: https://www.gob.mx/epn/prensa/comunicado-136165 

Doll, P. C., Caballes, C. F., Hoey, A. S., Uthicke, S., Ling, S. D. y Pratchett, M. S. (2022). Larval settlement in echinoderms: a review of processes and patterns. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 60, 433–494. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003288602-9 

Fisher, W. K. (1911). Asteroidea of the North Pacific and adjacent waters, Part I: Phanerozonia and Spinulosa. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 76, 1–419.

Granja-Fernández, M. R., Herrero-Pérezrul, M. D., López-Pérez, R. A., Hernández-Morales, A. y Rangel-Solís, P. D. (2015). A literature review of the Ophiuroidea (Echinodermata) from the Pacific coast of Mexico. Revista de Biología Tropical, 63, 37–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v63i2.23127 

Granja-Fernández, M. R., Maya-Alvarado, B., Cupul-Magaña, A. L., Rodríguez-Troncoso, A. P., Solís-Marín, F. A. y Sotelo-Casas, R. C. (2021). Echinoderms (Echinodermata) from the Central Mexican Pacific. Revista de Biología Tropical, 69, 219–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v69isuppl.1.46356 

Hermosillo-Núñez, B. B., Rodríguez-Zaragoza, F. A., Ortiz, M., Galván-Villa, C., Cupul-Magaña A. y Ríos-Jara, E. (2015). Effect of habitat structure on the most frequent echinoderm species inhabiting coral reef communities at Isla Isabel National Park (Mexico). Community Ecology, 16, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2015.16.1.14 

Herrero-Pérezrul, M. D., Ramírez-Ortíz, G., Rosales-Estrada, M. y Reyes-Bonilla, H. (2015). Densidad poblacional y distribución espacial de erizos de mar (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) en la isla Socorro, Archipiélago de Revillagigedo, México. Revista de Biología Tropical, 63, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v63i2.23156 

Honey-Escandón, M., Solís-Marín, F. A. y Laguarda-Figueras, A. (2008). Equinodermos (Echinodermata) del Pacífico Mexicano. Revista de Biología Tropical, 56, 57–73. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v56i3.27079 

Humara-Gil, K. J., Granja-Fernández, R., Bautista-Guerrero, E., Solís-Marín, F. A. y Rodríguez-Troncoso, A. P. (2024). Delimitation of Ophioderma teres (Lyman, 1860) and Ophioderma unicolor H.L. Clark, 1940 stat. nov. (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea), including the description of two new species. European Journal of Taxonomy, 947, 130–174. https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2024.947.2625 

Kerstitch, A. y Bertsch, H. (2007). Sea of Cortez marine invertebrates. 2^nd Edition. Monterey, CA: Sea Challengers. 

Lütken, C. F. (1856). Bidrag til kundskab om Slangestjernerne. II. Oversigt over de vestindiske Ophiurer. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Förening i Kjøbenhavn 1856, 7, 1–26.

Pardo, M. y Suárez, G. (1995). Shape of the subducted Rivera and Cocos plates in southern Mexico: seismic and tectonic implications. Journal of Geophysical Research, 100, 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1029/95JB00919 

Reyes-Bonilla, H. (1995). Asteroidea and Echinoidea (Echinodermata) of Isla San Benedicto, Revillagigedo Archipiélago, México. Revista de Investigación Científica UABCS, 6, 29–38.

Roux, M. y Pawson, D. L. (1999). Two new Pacific Ocean species of hyocrinid crinoids (Echinodermata), with comments on presumed giant-dwarf gradients related to seamounts and abyssal plains. Pacific Science, 53, 289–298.

Ruiz-Sakamoto, A., Sánchez-Ortiz, C., Stewart, J. D. y Aburto-Oropeza, O. (2018). La Manta Gigante el diamante de Revillagigedo. Biodiversitas, 136, 1–7.

Semarnat (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales)-Conanp (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas). (2019). Programa de Manejo Parque Nacional Revillagigedo. México: Semarnat, Conanp.

Siburian, R. H. S., Tapilatu, J. R. y Tapilatu, M. E. (2023). Discovery of habitat preferences and community structure of echinoderms in Kri, Raja Ampat, Indonesia. Biodiversitas, 24, 3968–3976. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d240735 

Solís-Marín, F. A., Honey-Escandón, M. B. I., Herrero- Pérezrul, M. D., Benítez-Villalobos, F., Díaz-Martínez, J. P., Buitrón-Sánchez, B. E. et al. (2013). The echinoderms of Mexico: biodiversity, distribution and current state of knowledge. En J. J. Alvarado y F. A. Solís-Marín (Eds.), Echinoderm research and diversity in Latin America. Berlín: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20051-9_2 

Solís-Marín, F. A., Laguarda-Figueras, A., Durán-González, A., Gust, C. y Torres, J. (2005). Equinodermos (Echinodermata) del Golfo de California, México. Revista de Biología Tropical, 53, 123–137. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v53i3

Solís-Marín, F. A., Laguarda-Figueras, A. y Honey-Escandón, M. (2014). Biodiversidad de equinodermos (Echinodermata) en México. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 85 (Suplem.),S441–S449. https://doi.org/10.7550/rmb.31805 

Spalding, M. D., Fox, H. E., Allen, G. R., Davidson, N., Ferdaña, Z. A., Finlayson, M. et al. (2007). Marine ecoregions of the world: a bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. BioScience, 57, 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570707 

Verrill, A. E. (1867). Notes on Radiata in the museum of Yale College with descriptions of new genera and species. No. 2. Notes on the echinoderms of Panama and the west coast of America, with descriptions of a new genus. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1, 251–322.

Warwick, R. M. y Clarke, K. R. (1995). New biodiversity measures reveal a decrease in taxonomic distinctness with increasing stress. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 129, 301–305.

WoRMS. (2024). World Register of Marine Species. Recuperado el 01 abril, 2024 de: https://www.marinespecies.org 

Xantus, J. (1860). Descriptions of three new species of starfishes from Cape St. Lucas. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 12, 568.

Ziesenhenne, F. C. (1937). The Templeton Crocker Expedition. X. Echinoderms from the West Coast of Lower California, the Gulf of California and Clarion Island. Zoology, 22, 209–239. https://doi.org/10.5962/p.184686

Sergio I. Salazar-Vallejo ^a, *, Patricia Salazar-Silva ^b

^a El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Depto. Sistemática y Ecología Acuática, Unidad Chetumal, Ave. Centenario Km 5.5, 77014 Chetumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico 

^b Tecnológico Nacional de México, Instituto Tecnológico de Bahía de Banderas, Crucero a Punta de Mita, 63734 Bahía de Banderas, Nayarit, Mexico 

*Corresponding author: ssalazar@ecosur.mx (S.I. Salazar-Vallejo)

Abstract 

To clarify the differences between Lepidasthenia Malmgren, 1867 and Lepidametria Webster, 1879, specimens of their type species are redescribed and illustrated. Diagnoses for both genera, a key to species of Lepidasthenia with giant neurochaetae, and a key to species of Lepidametria are included. Lepidasthenia elegans (Grube, 1840), described from the Gulf of Naples, has blocks of black segments alternating with a pale segment, posterior elytrigerous segments blackish; median and posterior segments with elytra every third segment; parapodia without notochaetae; neuropodia with neuropodial pre- and postchaetal lobes with margin entire; median segments with upper single neurochaetae thin, 1-2 giant neurochaetae barely denticulate, and medium-width neurochaetae with tips unidentate (accessory denticle minute). Lepidasthenia digueti Gravier, 1905, described from the Gulf of California living with balanoglossid hemichordates, is redescribed and reinstated. Lepidametria commensalis Webster, 1879, described living with terebellid polychaetes in Virginia, USA, has a brownish transverse segmental band along body; median segments with elytra alternating with dorsal cirri, posterior segments with series of 3-4 elytrigerous interrupted by 1 cirrigerous segment; parapodia with notochaetae; neuropodia elongate with neuropodial prechaetal lobe with upper area lobate, lower one entire, post-chaetal lobe entire; neurochaetae bidentate, median segments with giant neurochaetae barely denticulate.

Keywords: Type-species; Variation; Giant neurochaetae; Prechaetal lobes

Redescripciones de Lepidasthenia elegans, L. digueti y Lepidametria commensalis (Polychaeta: Polynoidae)

Resumen 

Para aclarar las diferencias entre Lepidasthenia Malmgren, 1867 y Lepidametria Webster, 1879, ejemplares de sus especies tipo fueron descritas e ilustradas. Se incluyen diagnosis para ambos géneros, una clave para especies de Lepidasthenia con neurosetas gigantes y una clave para especies de Lepidametria. Lepidasthenia elegans (Grube, 1840), descrita del golfo de Nápoles, tiene bloques negros alternantes con un segmento pálido, elitrígeros posteriores negros; segmentos medios y posteriores con élitros cada tercer segmento; parápodos sin notosetas; neurópodos con lóbulos pre- y postsetales enteros; segmentos medios con neurosetas superiores delgadas, 1-2 neurosetas gigantes apenas denticuladas y neurosetas de grosor medio unidentadas (dentículo accesorio diminuto). Lepidasthenia digueti Gravier, 1905, descrita del golfo de California asociada con balanoglósidos, es redescrita y restablecida. Lepidametria commensalis Webster, 1879, descrita asociada con poliquetos terebélidos en Virginia, EUA, tiene una banda parduzca transversa segmentaria a lo largo del cuerpo; segmentos medios con élitros y cirros alternantes, segmentos posteriores con series de 3-4 elitrígeros y 1 cirrígero; parápodos con notosetas; neurópodos alargados con lógulo presetal con área superior lobulada, inferior entera, lóbulo postsetal entero; neurosetas bidentadas, segmentos medios con neurosetas gigantes apenas denticuladas.

Palabras clave: Especie-tipo; Variación; Neurosetas gigantes; Lóbulos presetales

Introduction

Lepidasthenia Malmgren, 1867, and Lepidametria Webster, 1879 are 2 genera of long-bodied polynoids whose species are commonly found living with other marine invertebrates. Malmgren (1867: 15) added the Greek suffix asthenia which comes from asthenes, meaning “without strength, weak” (Brown, 1954: 348) to emphasize the reduction of elytral size along body. Malmgren (1867: 16) only included Polynoe elegans Grube, 1840, described from the Adriatic Sea, such that it became the type by monotypy. From the original description (Grube, 1840: 85), this species had 2 patterns of sequences for the presence of cirri and elytra: they alternate along anterior and median chaetigers, and from segment 22 or 24, elytra are present singly, and 2 successive segments carry cirri. Malmgren (1867: 15) included the lack of notochaetae, the presence of minute elytra along median and posterior chatigers, and the pattern 2 segments with cirri, one with elytra in median and posterior chaetigers.

Webster (1879: 209-210) proposed Lepidametria, with Lepidametria commensalis from Virginia, USA, as its only species, and diagnosed it by including the presence of notochaetae, elytra not large enough as to cover dorsum, and elytra irregularly arranged in posterior segments. He gave no etymology, but the suffix ametria could be formed by uniting the Greek word metrios, meaning “within measure” (Brown, 521), with the Greek prefix a– meaning “not, without, negative, privative” (Brown, 1954: 62) for indicating the lack of regularity in the elytral pattern along posterior segments. Webster (1879: 210) also noted that Lepidametria differs from Lepidasthenia “by having setae in the dorsal rami”.

Chamberlin (1919: 38) separated the above genera by regarding Lepidasthenia as having elytra in pairs throughout the body, and Lepidametria with some segments having elytra on one side and a cirrus on the other, and he did not include the different sequence of cirri-elytra, or the presence of notochaetae. Seidler (1924: 16) keyed them out after the presence of notochaetae in Lepidametria, and the lack of them in Lepidasthenia (Gardiner, 1976: 85). 

Day (1967: 88) regarded Lepidametria as a junior synonym of Lepidasthenia, but later he changed his mind (Day, 1973: 6). The synonymy, however, had been proposed by Gravier (1905b), Potts (1910), Fauvel (1917), and Hartman (1959: 85) but not by Pettibone (1963: 19).

Pettibone (1989) used the above features, together with the type of parapodia, and elytra for proposing a new subfamily, Lepidastheniinae, and did not include Lepidametria. Consequently, Lepidasthenia and Lepidametria are currently regarded as distinct and different enough, such that they belong to different subfamilies, and there are keys to genera available (Barnich & Fiege, 2004; Salazar-Vallejo et al., 2015). However, the type species of these 2 genera have not been redescribed, and by clarifying their morphological features the affinities of the species in each genus can be clarified, especially because different authors followed the synonymy, whereas others rejected it. These genera differ in the number of species they include; there are 4 species in Lepidametria (Read & Fauchald, 2024a), and over 40 in Lepidasthenia (Read & Fauchald, 2024b).

Materials and methods

During a research visit to the National Museum of Natural History (USNM), Smithsonian Institution, we had the opportunity to study the type material of L. commensalis Webster, 1879, and topotype specimens of L. elegans (Grube, 1840). This completed the previous study of other type specimens in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France (MNHN), such that now we can provide their redescriptions. 

The material is deposited in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France (MNHN), and in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA (USNM). Specimens were observed with standard stereo —and compound microscopes; sometimes, some body parts were immersed in Methyl green or Shirlastain-A for increasing the visibility of some morphological features, and this explains their greenish or orange to reddish color in some photos. A series of digital photos in successive focal plains were made for every object; the series of photos were optimized with HeliconFocus and plates were prepared with PaintShop Pro.

Results

Polynoidae Kinberg, 1856

Lepidastheniinae Pettibone, 1989

Lepidasthenia Malmgren, 1867

Type species. Polynoe elegans Grube, 1840, by monotypy.

Diagnosis (after Salazar-Vallejo et al., 2015). Lepidastheniinae with a long body of up to 150 segments. Elytra small, not covering each other, leaving dorsal region mostly uncovered; posterior region with one pair of elytra every 3 segments. Each elytron rounded, margins entire, without tubercles, pale or pigmented. Tentaculophores without chaetae. Notopodia reduced, without notochaetae. Neuropodia projecting with several types of neurochaetae. Ventral surface usually smooth.

Remarks

A key to genera of Lepidastheniinae is available elsewhere (Salazar-Vallejo et al., 2015). Lepidasthenia Malmgren, 1867 resembles Alentiana Hartman, 1942 and Telolepidasthenia Augener & Pettibone in Petibone, 1970 because they have short elytrophores, not transformed into peduncles. However, Lepidasthenia differs by having tiny, non-overlapping elytra in median segments, whereas the 2 other genera have large overlapping elytra in the same body region. Within Lepidasthenia, the presence of giant neurochaetae can separate species into 2 groups; the first group includes those species having giant neurochaetae, including L. elegans, and the larger group includes those species deprived of giant neurochaetae.

Key to species of Lepidasthenia Malmgren, 1867 with giant neurochaetae

(modified after Salazar-Vallejo et al., 2015)

1 Anterior eyes larger than posterior ones …………………………………………………… 2

– Anterior eyes smaller or subequal to posterior ones …………………………………………………… 4

2(1) Dorsal cirri subdistally swollen; ventral cirri digitate …………………………………………………… 3

– Dorsal cirri tapered; ventral cirri basally swollen, tapered …………………………………………………… L. ornata Treadwell, 1937, Western Mexico

3(2) First elytra with innervation …………………………………………………… L. elegans (Grube, 1840), Mediterranean Sea

– First elytra without innervation…………………………………………………… L. izukai Imajima & Hartman, 1964 Japan

4(1) Dorsal cirri subdistally swollen; ventral cirri tapered, surpassing neurochaetal lobe tip; neuraciculae falcate…………………………………………………… L. esbelta Amaral & Nonato, 1982, Brazil

– Dorsal and ventral cirri tapered, ventral cirri short, not reaching neurochaetal lobe tip…………………………………………………… 5

5(4) Palps 2 times as long as lateral antennae; giant neurochaetae unidentate…………………………………………………… L. loboi Salazar-Vallejo, González & Salazar-Silva, 2015 Patagonia

– Palps slightly longer than lateral antennae; giant neurochaetae uni- and bidentate ……………………………………………………L. nuda (Grube, 1870) Red Sea 

Lepidasthenia elegans (Grube, 1840)

Fig. 1

Polynoe elegans Grube, 1840: 85.

Polynoe lamprophthalma von Marenzeller, 1874: 408, Pl. 1, Fig. 1.

Lepidasthenia elegans: von Marenzeller, 1876: 139-141 (syn.); Benham, 1901: 293 (pigm. pattern); Fauvel, 1923: 88, Fig. 33a-g (syn.); Seidler, 1924: 161-162; Barnich & Fiege, 2003: 88-90, Fig. 46; Núñez et al., 2015: 169-170, Fig. 69.

Diagnosis. Lepidasthenia with nuchal lappet smooth; anterior elytra with branching venation, median and posterior elytra minute, transparent; neurochaetae bidentate, including giant barely denticulate, and smaller clearly denticulate ones in median chaetigers; ventral surface of neuropodia smooth. 

Description. Largest non-type specimen (USNM 47901) with body depressed, twisted; dorsum with 3 black longitudinal wide bands progressively paler, forming distinct blocks separated by a white segment, median band narrowest, often discontinuous (Fig. 1A); first block along chaetigers 2-7, then one segment pale, continued with blocks made of 3-4 segments, interrupted by a single pale segment, such that there are 4 blocks of 3 pigmented segments, followed by one with 4 segments, and then median and posterior regions with elytrigerous segments darker, followed by 2 paler cirrigerous segments. Venter pale, blackish along base of parapodia. Cephalic appendages and dorsal cirri white; elytra transparent. Pharynx fully exposed, brownish, 11 pairs of terminal papillae, transparent, some with a blackish core; 2 midlateral round papillae, behind terminal ones. Second largest specimen with pharynx not exposed; anterior elytra, and left parapodia of chaetigers 10 and 40 removed for observation (kept in container).

Prostomium bilobed, sub-hexagonal, slightly wider than long, facial tubercle not visible dorsally, globose. Eyes black, anterior eyes about 2 times as large as posterior ones, in widest prostomial area, directed laterally; posterior eyes close to posterior margin (Fig. 1B); in 3 specimens eyes enlarged, almost fused laterally. Median antenna slightly longer than right lateral one (left one in regeneration), ceratophore slightly wider than laterals; lateral antennae on prostomial anterior extensions; all ceratostyles cylindrical, mucronate. Palps massive, non-papillate, almost as long as median antenna, mucronate. 

Tentacular segment not visible dorsally: tentaculophores long, cirrostyles wide, 3-4 times as long as prostomium; without chaetae. Segment 2 without nuchal lappet; first pair of parapodia and elytrophores directed anteriorly; ventral cirri 5-6 times as long as following ones (3-4 times in smallest specimen); elytrophores short anteriorly, minute along median and posterior rergions.

Elytra 30 pairs (22 in smallest specimen), smooth, without fimbriae, progressively smaller in median and posterior chaetigers; first 13(11) pairs alternating with cirrigerous segments, then present every third segment. First elytra with distinct branching venation from insertion area (Fig. 1C), posterior elytra minute slightly larger than elytrophore (Fig. 1D).

Parapodia sequiramous. Dorsal cirri with cirrophore short, cylindrical along anterior chaetigers, inserted basally (Fig. 1E), truncate conical in posterior chaetigers (Fig. 1F), terete, mucronate, surpassing neurochaetal tips. Notopodium short, round, without chaetae. Neuropodium with pre- and postchaetal lobes of similar size, both with margins smooth, without acicular lobes. Ventral cirri tapered, short, inserted basally. Nephridial lobes from segment 12, digitate.

Anterior chaetigers with neurochaetae barely swollen subdistally (Fig. 1E), pectinate area with petaloid spines, tips bidentate, accessory tooth almost as large as main one (Fig. 1E, inset). Posterior chaetigers with neurochaetae less spinous, of 3 types, superior neurochaetae thin, spinous superior giant neurochaetae darker with tips bidentate or unidentate, and thinner bidentate neurochaetae (Fig. 1F, inset).

Posterior region tapered; pygidium with anus terminal, with 2 small, lateral anal cirri (Fig. 1D.

Variation. Pigmentation pattern fades off in older specimens. Anterior eyes are usually 2 times as large as posterior ones, but they are laterally nearly fused in some specimens, but not in all. The sequence of elytrigerous and cirrigerous segments is constant; first 11-13 elytra alternate with cirri, following ones are in a sequence with one elytron and 2 dorsal cirri, to end of body.

Taxonomic summary

Type material. Polynoe elegans Grube, 1840; 2 syntypes (ZMB 17) from Sicily, 4 syntypes (ZMB 1176) from Palermo, and 2 syntypes (ZMB 1177) from unspecified Mediterranean localities, plus several other specimens in the same museum (Lesina: ZMB 1172; Luisin piccolo: 1173; and Cherso: 1174, 1175); pigmentation faded off. 

Additional material. Three specimens (USNM 5144), Bay of Naples, Italy, 1893, purchased from Stazione Zoologica, Napoli (complete, barely pigmented, better defined in smallest specimen; some parapodia and elytra previously removed (kept in container); eyes better defined in one specimen, anterior eyes about 2 times as large as posterior ones; body 37-80 mm long, 4.5-8.5 mm wide, 65-82 chaetigers). Five specimens (USNM 47900), The Maire, Marseille, France, rocky bottom, 9 Apr. 1971, H. Zibrowius, coll. (3 complete; dorsal pigmentation pattern blackish to brownish, one with pharynx partially exposed, with 4 additional papillae, 2 basal to terminal ones, 2 others irregular; chaetigers 2-7 forming a continuous block, then blocks of mostly 3 segments interrupted by a pale segment anteriorly; one with diffuse pigmentation along medial and posterior regions, 2 others with elytrigerous segments darker than paler cirrigerous ones; anterior eyes 2 times as large as posterior ones, not fused laterally; posterior segments of larger specimens with a white mass inside basal dorsal cirri; body 50-70 mm long, 7.0-7.5 mm wide, 85-94 chaetigers). Four specimens (USNM 47901), Cap l’Abeille. 2 km south of Banyuls, France, corals, 30 m, 6 May 1967, M.H. Pettibone and L. Laubier, coll. (3 complete; body 27.5-50.5 mm long, 4.5-6.5 mm wide, 57-72 chaetigers; used for redescription).

Distribution. Mediterranean Sea, in shallow water coralligenous or rocky bottoms.

Remarks

Hartwich (1993: 96) listed several lots in Berlin and regarded them almost all as syntypes. After the study of many types of species described by Grube, we anticipate his type and non-type specimens should be colorless by now, and this explains why we selected one specimen with bright pigmentation for redescribing the species. The pigmentation pattern was clearly illustrated by Benham (1901: 293), and this is rather consistent in specimens from the Mediterranean Sea. Lepidasthenia elegans (Grube, 1840) has been reported from the Indian Ocean (Day, 1967; Potts, 1910), but those specimens differ in several features from the Mediterranean ones, such as the position of the anterior eyes, the type of dorsal and ventral cirri, and the shape of the giant neurochaetae. These records might belong in L. nuda (Grube, 1870), redescribed by Wehe (2006: 73), which could include L. affinis Horst, 1917.

Hartman (1959: 99) regarded Polynoe blainvillii Audouin & Milne Edwards, 1834 as a synonym of L. elegans (Grube, 1840). However, this publication is the compilation of some earlier publications, and the original proposal was P. blainvillii Audouin & Milne Edwards, 1832. Audouin and Milne-Edwards (1832: 430-431; 1834: 94-95) proposed the new name for a specimen briefly described and illustrated by de Blainville (1828: 459, Pl. 10, Fig. 2), but without locality, and identified as Eumolpe scolopendrina Savigny, 1822. The French specialists noted the differences with P. scolopendrina Savigny, 1822 such as having reduced elytra to the posterior end (larger, but missing in posterior region in P. scolopendrina). Regretfully, probably because it was identified as an already known species, de Blainville provided no morphological details in the description but in his illustrations (2: whole body, dorsal view; 2a: parapodium) the parapodium was depicted with notochaetae. As indicated above, notochaetae are missing in Lepidasthenia species, and if P. blainvillii is a Lepidasthenia, this could be an erroneous observation. The de Blainville specimen was not deposited, such that there is no means to clarify this potential synonymy.

Nevertheless, if P. scolopendrina sensu de Blainville, or P. blainvilli are ever recorded, they should not be retained as senior synonyms of P. elegans Grube, 1840. If they are found, it might be better to regard P. blainvilli as a nomen oblitum, and P. elegans would be a nomen protectum (ICZN 1999, Art. 23.9).

Lepidasthenia digueti Gravier, 1905, reinstated

Lepidasthenia digueti Gravier, 1905a: 177-181; 1905c: 160-173, Textfigs 1-9; Fauvel, 1943: 4-5; Salazar-Silva, 2006: 150.

Diagnosis. Lepidasthenia with nuchal lappet crenate: median and posterior elytra slightly smaller than anterior ones, brown to blackish, non-transparent; neurochaetae unidentate, without giant chaetae.

Description. Syntypes (MNHN POLY TYPE 119, 120; USNM 51613) in poor condition, fragmented, with grayish pigmentation on ceratophores, tentaculophores and on elytral surface (Fig. 2A, C, E), anterior pigmentation faded off in another syntype (USNM 51613) (Fig. 3A); body with small blackish spots dorsally on anterior segments, darker along posterior segments.

Prostomium bilobed, wider than long; facial tubercle reduced. Two pairs of eyes, dark, rounded, of similar size, anterior eyes on widest prostomial area, dorsolateral, posterior eyes dorsal, near posterior prostomial margin (Figs. 2B, D, 3B). Median antenna with ceratophore thin, short, grayish, inserted frontally between prostomial lobes, ceratostyle thick, long, tapering in filiform tip, slightly longer than lateral ceratostyles. Lateral antennae with ceratophores thick, short, grayish, inserted terminally, ceratostyles thinner, long, taper in filiform tip. Palps thin, pale, long, tapered, tip filiform, surface smooth, non-papillate. Pharynx fully exposed in one syntype (MNHN POLY TYPE 119) (Fig. 2A), brownish, with 14 pairs of terminal papillae, and 2 subdistal lateral low tubercles.

Tentacular segment not visible dorsally. Tentaculophores, thick, short, without chaetae, not covered by elytrophores, tentacular cirri long, as long as antennae but thinner. Second segment projected on prostomium as a short nuchal lobe, margin crenate. First pair of elytrophores not expanded dorsally, with some scattered papillae.

Numerous elytra (number indeterminate due to condition of specimens); first elytra present in one syntype (Fig. 2E), slightly larger than following ones, apparently not completely covering anterior end; after pair 12 alternate with 2 dorsal cirri, on the posterior segments elytra alternate with 2 or 3 dorsal cirri. Elytra small, not overlapped middorsal, covering 2 adjacent segments. Elytral margins smooth, without fimbriae; anterior elytra surface with brown area diffuse mainly toward mid-dorsal line, posterior elytra with homogeneous pigmentation.

Parapodia biramous. Notopodia reduced to small lobes. Neuropodia long, thin, with prechaetal and postchaetal lobes rounded, of similar size. Dorsal tubercles absent, elytrophores small, rounded, not directed dorally. Dorsal cirri pale, smooth, cirrophores short, slightly swollen. Ventral cirri long, thick, tapered in filiform tip, cirrophore short, thick. Anterior segments with neuropodia with 3-4 fungiform ventral papilla (Fig. 3D); median and posterior chaetigers with neuropodia ventrally smooth (Fig. 3E). Nephridial papillae from segment 10.

Notochaetae absent. Neurochaetae with pectinate area variably modified along bundle; anterior chaetigers with lower neurochaetae with longer pectinate area (Fig. 3D, inset); median and posterior chaetigers with neurochaetal pectinate area decreasing in size ventrally (Fig. 3E, inset); pectinate area with series of long, petaloid spines; tips bidentate, main tooth short, accessory denticle shorter, almost completely fused to main tooth. No giant neurochaetae present.

Posterior region tapered (Figs 2F, 3F); pygidium with anus terminal, anal cirri short, ventral. 

Taxonomic summary

Type material. Syntypes of Lepidasthenia digueti Gravier, 1905 (MNHN POLY TYPE 119, 120; USNM 51613), La Paz, Baja California, Gulf of California, México, 1904, L. Diguet, coll.

Distribution. Only known from the Gulf of California, associated with an unidentified, intertidal balanoglossid hemichordate.

Remarks

Lepidasthenia digueti Gravier, 1905 is easily recognized as belonging to Lepidasthenia since the original description after the sequence of elytra in posterior segments being present every third segment, the lack of notochaetae, and the elongate neuropodial lobes. This is confirmed despite the fragmented condition of the type specimens. The crenate nuchal hood is very distinctive, although this was not included in the original description, together with the sequence of elytra and cirri along median segments.

The syntype specimens are all fragments, as originally indicated by Gravier (1905a: 179, 1905c: 163), but they include both body ends, and their features correspond to Lepidasthenia. After the type of sequence of elytra-dorsal cirri along median and posterior regions, and after the presence of apparently unidentate neurochaetae (accessory denticle minute), we confirm it belonging in Lepidasthenia. Lepidasthenia digueti belongs in the group of species having apparently unidentate neurochaetae, without giant chaetae, and without ventral papillae along neuropodial surface.

Solís-Weiss et al. (2004: S14) hesitated about the type status of the Paris Museum specimens, probably because they were fragments; we confirm the 2 Paris specimens and the one in Washington are all syntypes. It is enigmatic, however, how a syntype was sent to Washington; there are no indications in the catalogue card for the specimen about how it reached Washington, and it is likely that Dr. Marian Pettibone, after her long-time involvement with polynoid polychaetes, received it as a donation from the Paris museum. 

Read and Fauchald (2024a) have listed L. digueti in Lepidametria after Seidler (1923). This confusion has 2 explanations. First, Gravier (1905a: 180; 1905b: 166) indicated there was a non-exposed notopodial compact bundle of chaetae, but after the study of type specimens, Fauvel (1943: 4) explained they were fibers inserted close to acicular tips, and confirmed L. digueti was a true Lepidasthenia after the lack of notochaetae, but this conclusion was overlooked. Second, Seidler (1923: 258) studied one specimen from Charlestown, and he indicated the locality was in the Pacific coast of Central America. This is wrong. Charlestown is the capital of Nevis Island, in the archipelago of Saint-Kitts and Nevis, in the Caribbean Sea. His specimen might belong to a likely undescribed, western Atlantic species of Lepidametria.We think it is incorrect to incorporate an eastern Pacific species from one genus, into any other on the basis of specimens from a very different ocean basin, or without the study of type material.

The hemichordate was not described soon, as indicated by Gravier (1905a, c), and its identity remains unknown. The hemichordate could be Ptychodera flava Eschscholtz, 1825, a widely distributed species in the Indian and Pacific oceans (Uribe & Larrain, 1992).

Lepidonotinae Willey, 1902

Lepidametria Webster, 1879

Type species. Lepidametria commensalis Webster, 1879, by monotypy.

Diagnosis (after Salazar-Vallejo et al., 2015). Lepidonotinae with a long body with up to 80 segments. Elytrae large, covering body or leaving a narrow dorsal surface uncovered; posterior region with elytra and cirri alternating every other segment. Tentaculophores with chaetae. Notopodia reduced, with fine notochaetae at least along anterior and median segments, rarely absent. Neuropodia projecting with several types of neurochaetae. Ventral surface often papillated.

Remarks

As indicated by Pettibone (1953) and Salazar-Vallejo et al. (2015), Lepidametria differs from Lepidasthenia because it has notochaetae, and alternating elytra and cirri along median and posterior segments, whereas in Lepidasthenia there are no notochaetae, and elytra occur every third segment. The need for a redescription of the type material was indicated elsewhere (Salazar-Vallejo et al. 2015: 26). In a recent contribution (Salazar-Vallejo et al. 2015) we regarded Bouchiria Wesenberg-Lund, 1949, as a junior synonym of Lepidametria; it is a junior synonym but of Lepidasthenia, as indicated by Wehe (2006).

Read and Fauchald (2024) list 4 species in Lepidametria: L. brunnea Knox, 1960; L. commensalis, L. digueti (Gravier, 1905); and L. lactea (Treadwell, 1939). We have shown above that L. digueti belongs in Lepidasthenia, we regard L. brunnea as belonging in Lepidasthenia because it lacks notochaetae, and has elytra every 3 segments along posterior region, and we confirm Hartman (1951) synonymy of L. lactea with L. commensalis. Consequently, there would only be one species in Lepidametria (L. commensalis); however, we think that L. virens (Blanchard in Gay, 1849), and L. gigas (Johnson, 1897) also belong in this genus. A key to species is included below.

Lepidametria commensalis Webster, 1879

Figs. 4, 5

Lepidametria commensalis Webster, 1879: 209-212, Pl. 3, Figs. 23-31; Hartman, 1951: 17 (syn.); Pettibone, 1963: 19-20, Fig. 4k; Day, 1973: 6; Gardiner, 1976: 86-87, Fig. 1k-n.

Lepidasthenia lactea Treadwell, 1939: 3-5, Figs. 13-15. 

Diagnosis. Lepidametria with nuchal lappet smooth: median and posterior elytra slightly smaller than anterior ones, with dark spots, non-transparent; neurochaetae uni- and bidentate, with giant chaetae in median chaetigers.

Description. Syntypes of Lepidametria comensalis (USNM 527) include one beheaded specimen, better preserved (probably used for original description), and a complete specimen; description based on the complete soft syntype. Some parapodia and elytra already dissected (kept in container); no further dissections to avoid additional damage.

Body long, depressed, variably damaged, 70 mm long, 6 mm wide, 71 segments, dorsum with diffuse brownish intersegmental bands (Fig. 4A) [paratype of L. lactea (USNM 20420) 20 mm long, 64 segments; holotype of L. lactea (AMNH 2565) with 50 mm long, 2 mm wide, 62 segments, 34 pairs of elytra]. 

Prostomium bilobed, longer than wide, without facial tubercle (Fig. 4B). Eyes blackish, visible dorsally, small; anterior eyes in widest prostomial area. Median antenna lost, ceratophore cylindrical, long. Lateral antennae lost, on prostomial anterior extensions, ceratophores as long as median one. Palps massive, long, with papillae, tapered into fine tips.

Tentacular segment not visible dorsally; tentaculophores long, cirrostyles wide, 2 times as long as prostomium. Segment 2 with nuchal lappet; first pairs of parapodia and elytrophores perpendicular, not directed anteriorly; ventral cirri about 2 times as long as following ones. Without dorsal tubercles; elytrophores short. 

Elytra 44 pairs, subcircular, thin, transparent, smooth, without fimbriae (Fig. 4C), non-overlapping mid-dorsally, except posterior pair; after pair 12, most alternating with dorsal cirri; elytra pairs 12 and 13, and 14 and 15 contiguous (no dorsal cirri between them). Posterior region with elytra paired along 3-4 segments, then one elytrigerous, followed by one or 2-3 pairs of elytra.

Parapodia biramous, short, about as long as half body width (Fig. 4D). Dorsal cirri thick, short, not surpassing neuropodial tips, subdistally swollen, with long tips, with a brown band in widened area; cirrophore thick, short, swollen basally, inserted basally. Notopodia with notochaetae present along body, missing in far posterior chaetigers. Neuropodia with pre- and postchaetal lobes of similar size, prechaetal lobe lobulate along superior part, continuous along lower part, postchaetal lobe continuous, without acicular lobes. Ventral cirri short, thin, inserted medially in neuropodium. Nephridial lobes cylindrical, long, from segment 8.

Notochaetae scarce, smooth capillaries, not reaching neuropodial tips (Fig. 4D, inset). Neurochaetae most bidentate, a few unidentate, pectinate area slightly wider, rows of spines restricted to wider basal area. Median segments with a single giant unidentate neurochaeta, denticles minute (Fig. 4E, inset).

Posterior end tapered; anus terminal, anal cirri thin.

Variation. A smaller specimen (USNM 52842), mature female, has elytra overlapping completely along middorsum (Fig. 5A), transverse intersegmental bands visible. Prostomium pale, with ceratophores brownish (Fig. 5B); median antenna about 2 times as long as both prostomium and lateral antennae (left one in regeneration), ceratostyles barely swollen, darker than adjacent areas; palps thick, papillate, about 2 times as long as median antenna. Tentaculophores with cirrostyles slightly shorter than median antenna, right one with a single chaeta. Second segment with nuchal lappet.

Elytra oval, wider than long, with brown spots, including insertion areas (Fig. 5C). In posterior chaetigers, elytral sequence is 3 elytrigerous followed by one cirrigerous and then 3 other elytrigerous (Fig. 5D). Dorsal tubercles distinct in cirrigerous segments, at least along posterior region.

Cirrigerous parapodia with dorsal cirri barely swollen subdistally, with brown band, with more abundant notochaetae along anterior region (Fig. 5E), neurochaetae of similar width; posterior parapodia with less notochaetae, and upper giant spine; neurochaetae mostly bidentate, progressively unidentate dorsally (Fig. 5F, inset). Oocytes about 100 µm in diameter.

Two other specimens, complete (USNM 52840, 52841) have elytra overlapping laterally, but leaving a narrow middorsal area uncovered; dorsum with complex pigmentation pattern: the transverse bands are clearly on the posterior part of each segment, not intersegmental, and there is a wide, oval brownish spot along most dorsal surface of each segment, although it can be interrupted medially by a paler area. One specimen (USNM 52841) with pharynx partially exposed, jaws are brownish, and there are 10 upper and 11 lower terminal papillae. Giant neurochaetae from second third of body (chaetigers 23 of 71; 25 of 70 in USNM 52840). One specimen (USNM 52840) with nephridial lobes globose, truncate, from chaetiger 8. Posterior region tapered, anus terminal, anal cirri resembling dorsal cirri.

Another specimen (USNM 56533) rolled ventrally, elytra almost completely brownish, with pale spots in insertion area; posterior segments have 3 elytra in sequence.

Taxonomic summary

Type material. Two syntypes of Lepidametria commensalis (USNM 527), Virginia, USA, Sta. H458, H. E. Webster, coll. Holotype of Lepidasthenia lactea (AMNH 2565), Galveston, Texas, USA Paratype of L. lactea (USNM 20420), Galveston, Texas, USA, O. Sanders, coll. 

Additional material. One specimen (USNM 52840), Banks Channel, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, intertidal, in Amphitrite ornata tube, Mar. 1973, S.L. Gardiner, coll. (complete, bent laterally, pharynx partially exposed; body 70 mm long, 5 mm wide, chaetigers). One specimen (USNM 52841), Banks Channel, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, intertidal, in Amphitrite ornata tube, 8 Mar. 1974, S.L. Gardiner, coll. (pigmentation pattern indicated in variation; body 50 mm long, 4.5 mm wide, 71 chaetigers). One specimen (USNM 52842), mature female, without posterior end, intracoastal waterway, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, intertidal, in Amphitrite ornata tube, 5 Apr. 1974, T. Fox, coll. (pale, with elytra mottled; right elytra 1 and 3, and right parapodia of chaetigers 10 and 45 removed for observation (kept in container); body 66 mm long, 5 mm wide, 66 chaetigers). One specimen (USNM 56533), York River, Virginia, 29 Jul. 1977 (markedly bent ventrally, 2 posterior parapodia and many elytra detached (30 elytra and 2 parapodia in container); not measured for avoiding further damage).

Distribution. Virginia to Texas, USA, in shallow waters, associated with terebellid polychaetes, and with sponges (Dauer 1973).

Remarks

Webster (1879: 211) indicated that the sequence of elytra and cirri was asymmetrical in posterior chaetigers, such that one elytron could be on side, and one dorsal cirri on the other side. This was confirmed in the beheaded syntype, but this is not present in the other non-type specimens. Bergström (1916) noted this same anomaly in other long-bodied polynoids, and it has been recently reported for another species (Salazar-Vallejo, 2024).

Hartman (1951) regarded Lepidasthenia lactea Treadwell, 1939 as a junior synonym of L. commensalis Webster, 1879. The type specimens of L. lactea have a similar shape of prostomium, and share the same type of elytra, noto- and neurochaetae, but they are smaller, such that the specimens might be juveniles.

Webster (1879) found L. commensalis living in tubes of the terebellid Amphitrite ornata (Leidy, 1855), and Hartman (1951) found it living with Thelepus setosus (de Quatrefages, 1866), whereas L. lactea was found in different, unidentified terebellid tubes.

Key to species of Lepidametria Webster, 1879

1 Median and posterior elytra regularly alternating with dorsal cirri …………………… 2

– Median and posterior elytra not regularly alternating …………………… L. virens (Blanchard in Gay, 1849) Chile

2(1) Elytra present along body …………………… L. commensalis Webster, 1879 Northwestern Atlantic

– Elytra not reaching posterior end …………………… L. gigas (Johnson, 1897) California

Acknowledgments

The generous support by curators and collection managers is deeply acknowledged. Karen Osborn and Karen Reed currently, Linda Ward, the late Kristian Fauchald, formerly (USNM), Fredrik Pleijel and Tarik Meziane (MNHN). They all were and have been very supportive of our research activities and provided lab space and facilities for this study. Anabel León-Hernández and Daniel Pech provided some publications. The careful reading by two anonymous referees helped us to improve this final contribution. In her usual high standards, María Antonieta Arizmendi kindly took care of all the formatting issues for this publication. 

References

Amaral, A. C., & Nonato, E. F. (1982). Anelideos poliquetos da costa brasileira. Aphroditidae e Polynoidae. Brasilia: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico.

Audouin, J. V., & Milne-Edwards, H. (1832). Classification des annélides, et description de celles qui habitent les côtes de la France. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 27, 337–447. 

Audouin, J. V., & Milne-Edwards, H. (1834). Recherches pour servir à l’histoire naturelle du littoral de la France, ou recueil de mémoires sur l’anatomie, la physiologie, la classification et les mœurs des animaux de nos côtes (Vol. 2, Pt. 1). Paris: Crochard.

Barnich, R., & Fiege, D. (2003). The Aphroditoidea (Annelida: Polychaeta) of the Mediterranean Sea. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 559, 1–170.

Barnich, R., & Fiege, D. (2004). Revision of the genus Lepidastheniella Monro, 1924 (Polychaeta: Polynoidae: Lepidastheniinae) with notes on the subfamily Lepidastheniinae and the description of a new species. Journal of Natural History, 38, 863–876. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022293021000046432

Benham, W. B. (1901). Polychaet worms. In S. F. Harmer & A. E. Shipley (Eds.), The Cambridge natural history (Vol. 2). London: Macmillan. 

Bergström, E. (1916). Die Polynoiden der schwedischen Sudpolarexpedition 1901-1903. Zoologiska Bidrag från Uppsala, 4, 269–304. 

Brown, R. W. (1954). Scientific words: a manual of methods and a lexicon of materials for the practice of logotechnics. Baltimore: George W. King.

Chamberlin, R. V. (1919). The Annelida Polychaeta [Albatross Expeditions]. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 48, 1–514. 

Dauer, D. M. (1973). Polychaete fauna associated with Gulf of Mexico sponges. Florida Scientist, 36, 193–196. 

Day, J. H. (1967). A monograph on the Polychaeta of South Africa. Part 1. Errantia (Vol. 656). London: British Museum (Natural History). 

Day, J. H. (1973). New Polychaeta from Beaufort, with a key to all species recorded from North Carolina. NOAA Technical Report, National Marine Fisheries Services Circular, 375, 1–153. 

De Blainville, H. M. D. (1828). Vers. Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, 57, 365–625. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/25316888 [Atlas: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/24394694]

De Quatrefages, A. (1866). Histoire naturelle des Annelés marins et d‘eau douce. Annélides et Géphyriens (Vol. 2). Paris: Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret. 

Eschscholtz, F. (1825). Berich über die zoologisch Ausbeute der Reise von Kronstadt bis St. Peter und Paul. Isis von Oken, 1825.

Fauvel, P. (1917). Annélides polychètes de l’Australie méridionale. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, 56, 159–277. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/6322379

Fauvel, P. (1923). Polychètes errantes. Paris: Fédération Française des Sociétés de Sciences Naturelles. 

Fauvel, P. (1943). Annélides polychètes de Californie. Mémoires du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, nouvelle série, 18, 1–32. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/59784292

Gardiner, S. L. (1976). Errant polychaete annelids from North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society, 91, 78–220. 

Gay, C. (1849). Historia física y política de Chile, según documentos adquiridos en esta república durante doce años de residencia en ella. Zoología, Tomo 3, 9–52; Atlas 2, Pls. 1-3. Santiago: Museo de Historia Natural. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/16438163 [Atlas: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/55213605]

Gravier, C. (1905a). Sur un Polynoidien (Lepidasthenia digueti nov. sp.) commensal d’un Balanoglosse de Basse-Californie. Bulletin du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 11, 177–184. 

Gravier, C. (1905b). Sur les genres Lepidasthenia Malmgren et Lepidametria Webster. Bulletin du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 11, 181–184. 

Gravier, C. (1905c). Sur un polynoïden (Lepidasthenia digueti nov. sp.), commensal d’un balanoglosse de Basse-Californie. Bulletin de la Société Philomatique de Paris, neuvième série, 7, 160–173. 

Grube, A. E. (1840). Actinien, Echinodermen und Würmer des Adriatischen- und Mittelmeers nach eigenen Sammlungen beschrieben. J.H. Bon, Königsberg. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/10662919

Grube, E. (1870). Bemerkungen über anneliden des Pariser Museums. Archiv für Naturgeschichte, Berlin, 36, 281–352. 

Hartman, O. (1942). A review of the types of polychaetous annelids at the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University. Bulletin of the Bingham Oceanographic Collection, Yale University, 8, 1–98. 

Hartman, O. (1951). The littoral marine annelids of the Gulf of Mexico. Publications of the Institute of Marine Science, Port Aransas, Texas, 2, 7–124.

Hartman, O. (1959). Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the world (Occasional paper No. 23). Los Angeles: Allan Hancock Foundation Publications.

Hartwich, G. (1993). Die Polychaeten-Typen des Zoologischen Museums in Berlin. Mitteilungen aus der Zoologischen Sammlung des Museums für Naturkunde in Berlin, 69, 73–154.

Horst, R. R. (1917). Polychaeta Errantia of the Siboga Expedition. Part Ii Aphroditidae and Chrysopetalidae. Siboga Expeditie, 24, 46–143. 

Imajima, M., & Hartman, O. (1964). The polychaetous annelids of Japan (Occasional paper No. 26). Los Angeles: Allan Hancock Foundation. 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). (1999). International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Natural History Museum. https://code.iczn.org

Johnson, H. P. (1897). A preliminary account of the marine annelids of the Pacific Coast, with descriptions of new species. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 1, 153–194. 

Kinberg, J. G. H. (1856). Nya slägten och arter af Annelider. Öfversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Förhandlingar Stockholm, 12, 381–388. 

Knox, G. A. (1960). Biological results of the Chatham Islands 1954 Expedition. Part 3. Polychaeta errantia. New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Bulletin, 139, 77–143. 

Leidy, J. (1855). Contributions towards a knowledge of the marine invertebrate fauna of the coasts of Rhode Island and New Jersey. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 3, 135–152. 

Malmgren, A. J. (1867). Annulata Polychaeta Spetsbergiæ, Grœnlandiæ, Islandiæ et Scandinaviæ. Hactenus cognita. Helsingforsiae, Ex Officina Frenckelliana. 

Núñez, J., Barnich, R., Brito, M. C., & Fiege, D. (2015). Familias Aphroditidae, Polynoidae, Aceotidae, Sigalionidae y Pholoidae. Fauna Ibérica, 41, 89–257.

Núñez, J., Brito, M. C., & Ocaña, O. (1992). A new species of Lepidasthenia (Polychaeta: Polynoidae) from Canary Islands. Zoologica Scripta, 21, 347–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6409.1992.tb00336.x

Pettibone, M. H. (1953). Some scale-bearing polychaetes of Puget Sound and adjacent waters. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Pettibone, M. H. (1963). Marine polychaete worms of the New England region, 1. Families Aphroditidae through Trochochaetidae. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 227, 1–356. 

Pettibone, M. H. (1970). Polychaeta Errantia of the Siboga Expedition. Part IV. Some additional polychaetes of the Polynoidae, Hesionidae, Nereidae, Goniadidae, Eunicidae, and Onuphidae, selected as new species by the late Dr. Hermann Augener with remarks on other related species. Siboga-Expeditie Uitkomsten op Zoologisch, Botanisch, Oceanographisch en Geologisch Gebied verzameld in Nederlandsch Oost-Indië 1899–1900. Siboga – Expedition, 24, 199–270.

Pettibone, M. H. (1989). A new species of Benhamipolynoe (Polychaeta: Polynoidae: Lepidastheniinae) from Australia, associated with the unattached stylasterid coral Conopora adeta. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 102, 300–304. 

Potts, F. A. (1910). The Percy Sladen Trust Expedition to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner: 12. Polychaeta of the Indian Ocean, 2. The Palmyridae, Aphroditidae, Polynoidae, Acoetidae and Sigalionidae. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Series 2, Zoology, 16, 325–353. 

Read, G., & Fauchald, K. (Eds.). (2024a). World polychaeta database. Lepidametria Webster, 1879. https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=236705 (Retrieved on August 20^th, 2024).

Read, G., & Fauchald, K. (Eds.). (2024b). World polychaeta database. Lepidasthenia Malmgren, 1867. https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=129495 (Retrieved on August 20^th, 2024).

Salazar-Silva, P. (2006). Scaleworms (Polychaeta: Polynoidae) from the Mexican Pacific and some other Eastern Pacific sites. Investigaciones Marinas, Valparaíso, 34, 143–161. 

Salazar-Vallejo, S. I. (2024). Barnichia crialesae gen. nov., sp. nov., from the western Atlantic (Annelida, Polychaeta, Polynoidae, Polynoinae). Bulletin of Marine Science, 100, 439–449. https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2023.0103

Salazar-Vallejo, S. I., González, N. E., & Salazar-Silva, P. (2015). Lepidasthenia loboi sp. n. from Puerto Madryn, Argentina (Polychaeta, Polynoidae). Zookeys, 546, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.546.6175

Savigny, J. C. (1822). Système des annélides, principalement de celles des côtes de l’Égypte, et de la Sirie, offrant les caractères tant distinctifs que naturels des Ordres, Familles et Genres, avec la description des Espèces. Description de l’Égypte, Tome 1. Paris.

Seidler, H. J. (1923). Über neue und wenig bekannte Polychäten. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 61, 254–264. 

Seidler, H. J. (1924). Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Polynoiden 1. Archiv für Naturgeschichte, 89, 1–217. 

Solís-Weiss, V., Bertrand, Y., Helléouet, M. N., & Pleijel, F. (2004). Types of polychaetous annelids at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. Zoosystema, 26, 377–384. 

Treadwell, A. L. (1937). The Templeton Crocker Expedition. 8. Polychaetous annelids from the west coast of Lower California, the Gulf of California and Clarion Island. Zoologica, Scientific Contributions of the New York Zoological Society, 22, 139–160. 

Treadwell, A. L. (1939). New polychaetous annelids from New England, Texas and Puerto Rico. American Museum Novitates, 1023, 1–7. 

Uribe, M. E., & Larraín, A. P. (1992). Estudios biológicos en el enteropneusto Ptychodera flava Eschscholtz, 1825 de Bahía Concepción, Chile. 1. Aspectos morfológicos y ecológicos. Gayana Zoología, 56, 141–180. 

Von Marenzeller, E. (1874). Zur Kenntnis der adriatischen Anneliden. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, 69, 407–482. 

Von Marenzeller, E. (1876). Zur Kenntniss der adriatischen Anneliden. Zweiter Beitrag. (Polynoinen, Hesioneen, Syllideen). Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, 72, 129–171.

Webster, H. E. (1879). The Annelida Chaetopoda of the Virginian coast. Transactions of the Albany Institute, 9, 202–269. 

Wehe, T. (2006). Revision of the scale worms (Polychaeta: Aphroditoidea) occurring in the seas surrounding the Arabian Peninsula. 1. Polynoidae. Fauna of Arabia, 22, 23–197.

Wesenberg-Lund, E. (1949). Polychaetes of the Iranian Gulf. Danish Scientific Investigations in Iran, 4, 247–400.

Willey, A. (1902). Polychaeta. In B. Sharpe, & J. Bell (Eds.), Report on the Collections of Natural History made in the Antarctic Regions during the Voyage of the “Southern Cross (pp. 262–283). London: British Museum.