Cryptic diversity in endoparasitic isopods (Bopyroidea: Entoniscidae) from mud crabs (Panopeidae) along the Atlantic coast of North America, with the description of a new genus and new species as revealed by molecular and larval characters: the long and the short of it
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although intertidal crabs from the western Atlantic coast are relatively well studied for some parasite fauna, their parasitic isopods are poorly known. We document two endoparasitic entoniscids (Cancrion carolinusPearse & Walker, 1939 and Cryptocancrion brevibrachiumn. gen., n. sp.) from mud (Brachyura: Panopeidae) and stone (Brachyura: Menippidae) crabs based on molecular and morphological data, including descriptions of their epicaridium larvae. Although these species cannot be distinguished based on adult female characters, molecular data and larval and male morphologies show that two species are present, sometimes sympatrically. The only other species of CancrionGiard & Bonnier, 1887 from the Atlantic coast of North America is Cancrion needleriPearse & Walker, 1939, described from adult specimens parasitizing Dyspanopeus sayi (Smith, 1869) from Prince Edward Island, Canada. Larvae of this species were never described and we consider it a species inquirenda. Cryptocancrion brevibrachiumn. gen., n. sp. is documented to have epicaridium larvae with a “short-armed” morphology (sixth pereopod subequal in length to pereopods 1–5), and the adults parasitize at least three mud crabs: D. sayi, Panopeus herbstiiH. Milne Edwards, 1834, and Rhithropanopeus harrisii (Gould, 1841). By contrast, Cancrion carolinus (originally described from P. herbstii collected in Beaufort, NC, USA) has epicaridium larvae with a “long-armed” morphology (sixth pereopod approximately twice the length of pereopods 1–5) and is found in at least four host species: Eurypanopeus depressus (Smith, 1869), P. herbstii, and R. harrisii and the stone crab Menippe mercenaria (Say, 1818). We describe C. brevibrachiumn. gen., n. sp. and redescribe C. carolinus based on type material and fresh specimens. The cryptic nature of these entoniscids indicates that examination of epicaridium larvae and/or molecular data are needed to properly identify species.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".