Local fisherman_larvae knowledge


Published on

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Local fisherman_larvae knowledge

  1. 1. Proof Delivery Form Please return this form with your proofArticle number: S0025315408003238jraDate of delivery: 15.11.08Typesetter ref number: MBI08323Volume and Issue Number: 88 and 0Number of pages (not including this page): 10Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United KingdomHere is a pdf proof of your article for publication in the Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UnitedKingdom. Please print out the file, check the proofs carefully and answer any queries.Please return your corrections via email (no later than 4 days after receipt) quoting paper number in the header of theemail message.Please also ensure you specify page and line number of each correction required in your email and send to:Executive Editor JMBAEmail: jmba@mba.eclipse.co.ukPlease return your completed and signed copyright transfer form and offprint form by post to the addresses given oneach form.Please note:. You are responsible for correcting your proofs. Errors not found may appear in the published journal.. The proof is sent to you for correction of typographical errors only. Revision of the substance of the text is not permitted, unless discussed with the editor of the journal.. Please answer carefully any queries raised from the typesetter.. A new copy of a figure must be provided if correction of anything other than a typographical error introduced by the typesetter is requiredThank you in advance.Author queries:Q1 Anuario Chileno de Pesca 2006 not cited in referencesTypesetter queries:Please provide citation for Table 2. Please return this form with your proof
  2. 2. Offprint order formPLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM. WE WILL BE UNABLE TO SENDOFFPRINTS (INCLUDING FREE OFFPRINTS) UNLESS A RETURN ADDRESS AND AbcdefghiARTICLE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED. VAT REG NO. GB 823 8476 09Journal of the Marine Biological Association (MBI) Volume: no:Offprints50 offprints of each article will be supplied free to each first named author and sent to a single address. Please complete this form and send it to thepublisher (address below). Please give the address to which your offprints should be sent. They will be despatched by surface mail within one month ofpublication. For an article by more than one author this form is sent to you as the first named. All extra offprints should be ordered by you inconsultation with your co-authors.Number of offprints required in addition to the 50 free copies:Email:Offprints to be sent to (print in BLOCK CAPITALS): Post/Zip Code:Telephone: Date (dd/mm/yy): / /Author(s):Article Title:All enquiries about offprints should be addressed to the publisher: Journals Production Department, Cambridge UniversityPress, The Edinburgh Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK.Charges for extra offprints (excluding VAT) Please circle the appropriate charge: Number of copies 25 50 100 150 200 per 50 extra 1-4 pages £68 £109 £174 £239 £309 £68 5-8 pages £109 £163 £239 £321 £399 £109 9-16 pages £120 £181 £285 £381 £494 £120 17-24 pages £131 £201 £331 £451 £599 £131 Each Additional 1-8 pages £20 £31 £50 £70 £104 £20Methods of paymentIf you live in Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain or Sweden and are not registered for VAT we are required to charge VAT at the rateapplicable in your country of residence. If you live in any other country in the EU and are not registered for VAT you will be charged VAT at the UK rate.If registered, please quote your VAT number, or the VATnumber of any agency paying on your behalf if it is registered. VAT Number:Payment must be included with your order, please tick which method you are using: Cheques should be made out to Cambridge University Press. Payment by someone else. Please enclose the official order when returning this form and ensure that when the order is sent it mentions the name of the journal and the article title. Payment may be made by any credit card bearing the Interbank Symbol. Card Number: Expiry Date (mm/yy): / Card Verification Number:The card verification number is a 3 digit number printed on the back of your Visa or Master card, it appears after and to the right of your card number. ForAmerican Express the verification number is 4 digits, and printed on the front of your card, after and to the right of your card number. AmountSignature of (Including VATcard holder: if appropriate): £Please advise if address registered with card company is different from above
  3. 3. transfer of copyrightabcdefghiPlease read the notes overleaf and then complete, sign, and return this form to The Executive Editor, Marine BiologicalAssociation of the UK, The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth PL1 2PB, UK as soon as possible.JMBA: JOURNAL OF THE MARINE BIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF THEUNITED KINGDOM In consideration of the publication in JOURNAL OF THE MARINE BIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM of the contribution entitled: .................................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. by (all authors’ names):........................................................................................................................................................ ..............................................................................................................................................................................................1 To be filled in if copyright belongs to you Transfer of copyright I/we hereby assign to Cambridge University Press, full copyright in all formats and media in the said contribution. I/we warrant that I am/we are the sole owner or co-owners of the material and have full power to make this agreement, and that the material does not contain any libellous matter or infringe any existing copyright. I/we further warrant that permission has been obtained from the copyright holder for any material not in my/our copyright including any audio and video material, that the appropriate acknowledgement has been made to the original source, and that in the case of audio or video material appropriate releases have been obtained from persons whose voices or likenesses are represented therein. I/we attach copies of all permission and release correspondence. I/we hereby assert my/our moral rights in accordance with the UK Copyrights Designs and Patents Act (1988). Signed (tick one) □ the sole author(s) □ one author authorised to execute this transfer on behalf of all the authors of the above article Name (block letters) ............................................................................................................................................................ Institution/Company............................................................................................................................................................ Signature: ............................................................. Date:................................................................................................. (Additional authors should provide this information on a separate sheet.)2 To be filled in if copyright does not belong to you a Name and address of copyright holder............................................................................................................................ ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................... b The copyright holder hereby grants to The Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom the non-exclusive right to publish the contribution in the journal and to deal with requests from third parties in the manner specified in paragraphs 4 and 5 overleaf. (Signature of copyright holder or authorised agent) ......................................................................................................3 US Government exemption I/we certify that the paper above was written in the course of employment by the United States Government so that no copyright exists. Signature: ............................................................. Name (Block letters): .......................................................................4 Requests received by Cambridge University Press for permission to reprint this article should be sent to (see para. 4 overleaf) Name and address (block letters) ......................................................................................................................................... ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
  4. 4. Notes for contributors1 The Journals policy is to acquire copyright in all contributions. There are two reasons for this: (a) ownership of copyright by one central organisation tends to ensure maximum international protection against unauthorised use; (b) it also ensures that requests by third parties to reprint or reproduce a contribution, or part of it, are handled efficiently and in accordance with a general policy that is sensitive both to any relevant changes in international copyright legislation and to the general desirability of encouraging the dissemination of knowledge.2 Two ‘moral rights’ were conferred on authors by the UK Copyright Act in 1988. In the UK an author’s ‘right of paternity’, the right to be properly credited whenever the work is published (or performed or broadcast), requires that this right is asserted in writing.3 Notwithstanding the assignment of copyright in their contribution, all contributors retain the following non-transferable rights:• The right to post either their own version of their contribution as submitted to the journal (prior to revision arising from peer review and prior to editorial input by Cambridge University Press) or their own final version of their contribution as accepted for publication (subsequent to revision arising from peer review but still prior to editorial input by Cambridge University Press) on their personal or departmental web page, or in the Institutional Repository of the institution in which they worked at the time the paper was first submitted, or (for appropriate journals) in PubMedCentral, provided the posting is accompanied by a prominent statement that the paper has been accepted for publication and will appear in a revised form, subsequent to peer review and/or editorial input by Cambridge University Press, in Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom published by Cambridge University Press, together with a copyright notice in the name of the copyright holder (Cambridge University Press or the sponsoring Society, as appropriate). On publication the full bibliographical details of the paper (volume: issue number (date), page numbers) must be inserted after the journal title, along with a link to the Cambridge website address for the journal. Inclusion of this version of the paper in Institutional Repositories outside of the institution in which the contributor worked at the time the paper was first submitted will be subject to the additional permission of Cambridge University Press (not to be unreasonably withheld).• The right to post the definitive version of the contribution as published at Cambridge Journals Online (in PDF or HTML form) on their personal or departmental web page, no sooner than upon its appearance at Cambridge Journals Online, subject to file availability and provided the posting includes a prominent statement of the full bibliographical details, a copyright notice in the name of the copyright holder (Cambridge University Press or the sponsoring Society, as appropriate), and a link to the online edition of the journal at Cambridge Journals Online.• The right to post the definitive version of the contribution as published at Cambridge Journals Online (in PDF or HTML form) in the Institutional Repository of the institution in which they worked at the time the paper was first submitted, or (for appropriate journals) in PubMedCentral, no sooner than one year after first publication of the paper in the journal, subject to file availability and provided the posting includes a prominent statement of the full bibliographical details, a copyright notice in the name of the copyright holder (Cambridge University Press or the sponsoring Society, as appropriate), and a link to the online edition of the journal at Cambridge Journals Online. Inclusion of this definitive version after one year in Institutional Repositories outside of the institution in which the contributor worked at the time the paper was first submitted will be subject to the additional permission of Cambridge University Press (not to be unreasonably withheld).• The right to make hard copies of the contribution or an adapted version for their own purposes, including the right to make multiple copies for course use by their students, provided no sale is involved.• The right to reproduce the paper or an adapted version of it in any volume of which they are editor or author. Permission will automatically be given to the publisher of such a volume, subject to normal acknowledgement.4 We shall use our best endeavours to ensure that any direct request we receive to reproduce your contribution, or a substantial part of it, in another publication (which may be an electronic publication) is approved by you before permission is given.5 Cambridge University Press co-operates in various licensing schemes that allow material to be photocopied within agreed restraints (e.g. the CCC in the USA and the CLA in the UK). Any proceeds received from such licenses, together with any proceeds from sales of subsidiary rights in the Journal, directly support its continuing publication.6 It is understood that in some cases copyright will be held by the contributor’s employer. If so, The Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom non-exclusive permission to deal with requests from third parties, on the understanding that any requests it receives from third parties will be handled in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 above (note that your approval and not that of your employer will be sought for the proposed use).7 Permission to include material not in your copyright If your contribution includes textual or illustrative material not in your copyright and not covered by fair use / fair dealing, permission must be obtained from the relevant copyright owner (usually the publisher or via the publisher) for the non-exclusive right to reproduce the material worldwide in all forms and media, including electronic publication. The relevant permission correspondence should be attached to this form. If you are in doubt about whether or not permission is required, please consult the Permissions Controller, Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK. Fax: +44 (0)1223 315052. Email: lnicol@cambridge.org.The information provided on this form will be held in perpetuity for record purposes. The name(s) and address(es) of the author(s) ofthe contribution may be reproduced in the journal and provided to print and online indexing and abstracting services andbibliographic databasesPlease make a duplicate of this form for your own records
  5. 5. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, page 1 of 10. #2008 Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom doi:10.1017/S0025315408003238 Printed in the United Kingdom 1 2 Using morphological and molecular tools to 3 4 5 identify megalopae larvae collected in the 6 7 field: the case of sympatric Cancer crabs 8 9 luis miguel pardo1, david ampuero2,3 and david v liz4 e10 1 Laboratorio Costero Calfuco, Instituto de Biologia Marina, Universidad Austral de Chile, Casilla 567, Valdivia, Chile, 2Instituto de11 Oceanologıa, Facultad de Ciencias del Mar, Universidad de Valparaıso, Casilla 13-D, Vina del Mar, Chile, 3Current address: 31469 ´ ´ ˜12 Motueka Valley Highway, Ngatimoti, Motueka, New Zealand, 4Instituto de Ecologıa y Biodiversidad (IEB), Departamento de ´13 ´ ˜ ˜ Ciencias Ecologicas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile. Casilla 653, Nunoa, Santiago, Chile141516 Studies of recruitment dynamics in meroplanktonic organisms are dependent on the correct identification of each ontogenic17 stage of each species. This is particularly difficult when studying the larval stages, which are not easy to identify due to their18 lack of resemblance to conspecific adults and their high degree of similarity with congeneric at the same stage of development.19 This is the case with the crustacean megalopae of the genera Cancer along the coast of the south-eastern Pacific. This fact20 represents a serious limitation on ecological studies of populations of these species which constitute a heavily exploited21 local resource. In this study we describe in detail field collected megalopae larvae of three sympatric crab species of the22 genera Cancer (C. edwardsii, C. setosus and C. coronatus). As a result of this analysis we were able to identify easily23 visible diagnostic characters which allow the species to be distinguished from one another. The megalopae were easily distin-24 guished by the form of the cheliped and the presence of spines on these. Cancer edwardsii has an elongated globulose cheliped,25 whereas C. coronatus has a subquadrate one. Both species possess a prominent ischial spine, which is absent in C. setosus. We26 corroborated the utility of these diagnostic characters by comparing the COI gene sequences of mitochondrial DNA of larvae27 identified by morphology with sequences taken from samples of the adults of all species of Cancer found in the region. We28 discuss the morphological variations between larvae found across the region (i.e. at sites separated by more than 800 km)29 and between megalopae obtained from the field versus those cultivated in the laboratory. We conclude that the simultaneous30 use of morphological and molecular tools for identification of decapod larvae appears useful for the study of cryptic species.313233 Keywords: Decapoda, taxonomy, recruitment, estuary, Chile3435 Submitted 30 May 2008; accepted 20 October 20083637383940 INTRODUCTION do not exhibit the specific diagnostic characteristics as evident41 in adults, but have cryptic morphologies within the related42 Studies of the early ontogenic stages in benthic marine invert- group. As a result individuals are assessed and assigned to43 ebrates are especially helpful for understanding the type of higher taxa, genera or even families. However, this generates44 population control acting upon a species in a given area ambiguities and less precision in the interpretation of ecologi-45 (Roughgarden et al., 1988). This is due to the larvae and cal data (e.g. recruitment events).46 early juvenile stages are the most important for dispersal A classic tool for helping to identify larvae collected in the47 and they have the highest level of mortality at the population field is to use complete descriptions of larvae obtained from48 level (Palmer et al., 1996; Gosselin Qian, 1997; Hunt laboratory cultures. These descriptions have proved useful49 Scheilbling, 1997). In addition, in the case of species that not only in ecological studies but also for systematic and evol-50 can be exploited commercially, these studies allow us to utionary studies (Williamson, 1982; McHugh Rouse, 1998;51 understand the fluctuations in stock and recruitment Feldmann, 2003). Despite the utility of this approach in52 (Wahle, 2003), and thus form a biological baseline useful in groups such as euphausids and decapods, the larval mor-53 the sustainable management of the fishery (e.g. Eaton et al., phology may vary depending on environmental conditions54 2003). (Anger, 2001). Thus, the controlled conditions (temperature,55 However, an important limitation for many field based salinity, density and absence of predators) of laboratory culti-56 ecological studies is the inability to correctly identify the vation may reduce the morphological plasticity of the larvae57 early stages of many species. Larval phases such as the zoea, compared with those that develop in the field. Indeed import-58 decapoditae and megalopae of decapod crustaceans frequently ant morphological differences have been observed between59 brachyuran larvae raised in the laboratory and those encoun-60 tered in the field. For example, Cuesta et al. (2002) describe61 Corresponding author: field collected megalopae of the graspid Neohelice granulata62 L.M. Pardo with morphological anomalies, in the form of additional63 Email: luispardo@uach.cl cephalothoracic spines and a reduced number of setae 1
  6. 6. 2 luis miguel pardo et al. 64 compared to megalopae raised in the laboratory. Another C. setosus and C. coronatus) have been recorded with high 65 species, Pilumnoides perlatus, differs in the pattern of setation juvenile abundances in the estuaries of the north Patagonian 66 and also demonstrates a noticeable difference in size; megalo- region (Pardo L.M., unpublished data). This increases the 67 pae larvae from the laboratory are 30% smaller than those possibility that megalopae of all three species may be 68 encountered in the field (Ampuero, 2007). present simultaneously in the same location. Without a clear 69 When larval descriptions are not available, the stage of description of these larvae taken from the natural environ- 70 interest can be cultivated up to the identifiable stage (normally ment, it is difficult to advance our understanding of the 71 early juveniles) to generate a voucher collection which permits specific population ecology of these species throughout their 72 the rapid identification of the remaining individuals. This geographical range. 73 technique has been successfully used in a number of studies Thus the objectives of this research are to: (1) describe the 74 concerning recruitment dynamics of decapods (Palma et al., megalopa larvae of the three species found in the field; 75 2006; Pardo et al., 2007; Negreiros-Fransozo et al., 2007). (2) determine the specific morphological characteristics 76 However, this form of larval identification is time consuming (SMC) which permit rapid identification; (3) determine 77 and carries with it a decided degree of uncertainty when the which of the SMC do not vary either spatially or temporally; 78 genetic diversity of the sampling area is high and/or the and (4) corroborate, using molecular markers (the COI 79 species are only differentiated by morphological details of gene), the identification of specific megalopae which were 80 appendages difficult to see without adequate dissection (i.e. identified by means of the SMC, contrasting them with 81 mandible and maxilla). adults of all the species of Cancer present in the region. 82 The use of molecular markers has been demonstrated to be 83 a powerful tool for the identification of cryptic species or 84 ontogenetic stages exhibiting little differentiation (Hebert 85 et al., 2003a; Vences et al., 2005; Rao et al., 2006). This Taxonomic status of studied species 86 applies especially to the sequencing of the COI gene of mito- According to Ng et al. (2008), some Pacific species of Cancer 87 chondrial DNA, as it has proved to be a useful character for have been reassigned to other genera: Cancer edwardsii as 88 distinguishing between malacostran crustaceans (Knowlton Metacarcinus edwardsii and Cancer setosus as Romaleon poly- 89 Weigt, 1998; Barber Boyce, 2006), but is not clear in odon. The criteria used by Ng et al. (2008) for this reassign- 90 other zoological groups (e.g. France Hoover, 2002; ment of both Metacarcinus and Romaleon were fully based 91 Shearer et al., 2002; Hebert et al., 2003b; Meier et al., 2006). on the study carried out by Schweitzer Feldmann (2000). 92 Thus the molecular markers can be a good alternative for This is a paleogeographical work, based only on the carapace 93 the identification of cryptic larval stages of decapods, morphology without including other morphological or genetic 94 especially when various species of the same genera are traits. At present molecular evidence analysed by one of our 95 collected simultaneously. collaborators in a phylogenetic study (Mantelatto F.L.M., 96 The study of the megalopae of the genera Cancer is compli- unpublished data) would not support new nominations at 97 cated by the problems outlined above, due to a high degree of this time and pending a further set of species. In this same 98 morphological similarity between the species (Iwata context, Harrison Crespi (1999) showed also some contro- 99 Konishi, 1981). Four species (Cancer edwardsii Bell, 1835, versy among morphological and genetic Cancer species status.100 C. Coronatus Molina, 1782, C. setosus Molina, 1782 and Therefore, with this non-consensual idea and possible contro-101 C. porteri Rathbun, 1930) have overlapping geographical dis- versy, we decided to keep the previous taxonomy and nomen-102 tributions along the east coast of the South Pacific (Nations, clature of this group. Additionally, we did not use Cancer103 1975) so their megalopa larvae can be encountered sympatri- plebejus (Poepping, 1836) and C. polyodon (Poepping, 1836)104 cally. The first three have a latitudinal distribution which because they are considered as junior synonyms of C. corona-105 extends from the equatorial region down to the Patagonian tus Molina, 1782 and C. setosus Molina, 1782 respectively. In106 region (Garth, 1957) and C. porteri has a discontinuous distri- this sense and considering that species studied here are com-107 bution in both hemispheres, except in the tropical region mercially important we think that this is the best way, at this108 (Nations, 1975), with a southern limit at approximately 358S time, to keep this name and avoid fisheries problems as109 (Garth, 1957). Despite their high abundances and high recently reported for shrimp species of the genus ‘Penaeus’110 levels of commercial exploitation in the region (Anuario (Flegel, 2008).111Q1 Chileno de Pesca, 2006), little is known about their population112 ecology and even less about their recruitment dynamics (but113 see Jesse Stotz, 2003; Pardo et al., 2007).114 One of the major difficulties in advancing research into this MATERIALS AND METHODS115 group of crabs is the identification of the megalopa larvae,116 a key stage during which recruitment and the moult to the117 first juvenile stage takes place. There are two descriptions Collection of the megalopae118 available of megalopae for the genera Cancer along the coast Larvae were collected in the subtidal of the San Carlos inlet in119 of the south-eastern Pacific, C. edwardsii and C. setosus ´ Bahıa Corral, located on the south side of the mouth of the Rio120 (Quintana, 1983; Quintana Saelzer, 1986), both from lab- Valdivia, Chile (39º 490 S 73º 140 W). In this area, the habitat121 oratory cultures. These larvae are extremely similar and the consists of a mixture of boulders and coarse sand. Samples122 comparison of the general morphology presented in the pub- were obtained by means of an airlift manipulated by divers123 lished figures does not allow for adequate identification of at depths of between 8 and 10 m. Because crab megalopae124 individuals taken from the field. Additionally, all four were found during spring and early autumn only, we analysed125 species can occur in the same habitat (Jesse Stotz, 2003; the morphological characteristics of larvae collected during126 ˜ Munoz et al., 2006) and three of the species (C. edwardsii, October, December and April, in order to obtain a temporally
  7. 7. identifying field collected cancer megalopae 3127 representative analysis. In addition we analysed megalopae of In order to determine the nucleotide relationship among128 C. setosus obtained from Punta Tralca located in central Chile samples (megalopae and adults crabs), a neighbour-joining129 (338 350 S 718 420 W), some 800 km north of the principal based phylogenetic (NJ) analysis was performed using Mega130 sampling sites. 4.0 software (Tamura et al., 2007). Using a bootstrap of131 10,000 replicates, the analysis tested the consistency of each132 branch in the tree, grouping sequences with similar nucleotide133 Description of the megalopae composition. Using this method, unidentified megalopae134 larvae could be grouped with conspecific adults. Finally, to Between 10 and 20 specimens of each species from Bahia135 root the tree, sequences of Homalaspis plana were used as out- Corral were dissected and examined in detail to describe136 group (Genbank Accession Number: FJ155383). larvae morphology. Additionally, 10 specimens of C. setosus137 from central Chile (Pta de Tralca) were also analysed. The138 megalopae and their appendages were dissected in glycerin139 RESULTS on microscope slides under a stereo microscope. The figures140 were made using a drawing tube mounted on a Zeiss141 To avoid long and repetitive description, the megalopa of AXIOSKOP microscope. The descriptions were made follow-142 Cancer coronatus is described completely whereas only differ- ing the scheme proposed by Clark et al. (1998). Typically the143 ences are described in detail for the rest of species. measurement of the cephalothorax length (CL) in species of144 Cancer is made from the distal end of the rostral spine to145146 the mid-posterior margin of the carapace (DeBrosse et al., Cancer coronatus Molina, 1782 1990). However, due to the damage found in the rostral147 Cephalotorax (Figure 1A): length to width ratio of 1.4, nar- spine on several individuals, in this study the crabs were148 rowing towards the anterior margin terminating in a ventrally measured from the base of the rostral spine to the mid-149 directed rostral spine. The posterior margin is smooth with a posterior margin of the cephalothorax. Cephalotorax width150 medial spine. The surface of the carapace is almost devoid of (CW) was measured on the midline of carapace.151 setae.152 Antennule (Figure 2A): penduncle 3-segmented, with 2, 3,153 0 simple setae plus 2 plumose setae in the proximal segment.154 DNA sequence based identification Unsegmented endopod with 2 subterminal and 2 terminal155 After dissection of the megalopae, tissue samples from four simple setae. Exopod 4-segmented with 0, 6, 10, 3 and 0, 0,156 individuals per species from Bahia Corral were preserved in 3, 1 simple setae; and 1 long terminal plumose seta on the157 95% ethanol for subsequent genetic analyses. Two additional distal segment.158 megalopae were also sampled from Punta de Tralca only for Antenna (Figure 2D): peduncle 3-segmented; setation 4, 2,159 C. setosus. As there is no baseline genetic information for 4. Flagellum composed of 8 segments, with a setation pattern160 the species of the genera Cancer from Chile, we obtained of 0, 0, 4, 0, 5, 0, 4, 3 simple setae, proceeding from the prox-161 adult specimens from all Cancer crabs which inhabit the imal to distal segment.162 Chilean coast to corroborate the genetic identification of the Mandible (Figure 2G): a developed cutting plate.163 larvae. Specifically adult specimens were collected from Three-segmented mandibular palp with 7 plumodenticulate164 Bahia Corral (C. coronatus, N ¼ 1; C. edwardsii, N ¼ 2 and cuspidate and 3 plumose setae on the distal segment.165 C. setosus, N ¼ 1), Caleta Lenga, Concepcion (36º 440 S 73º ´ Maxillule (Figure 2J): coxal endite with 11 simple, 13 plumo-166 110 W) (C. coronatus, N ¼ 1 and C. porterii, N ¼ 2) and denticulate cuspidate and 1 plumose seta. Basial endite with 8167 Punta de Tralca (C. setosus, N ¼ 1). Additionally, one adult plumodenticulate cuspidate and 6 marginal simple setae.168 specimen of the Platyxhantid crab Homalaspis plana Endopod 2-segmented with 2 simple setae on the proximal169 (Milne-Edwards, 1834) from Bahia Corral was also analysed. segment and 2 on the distal segment. Exopodal setae present.170 From each adult specimen was extracted a sample of muscle Maxilla (Figure 3A): coxal endite bilobed. Proximal and171 tissue from the chelipod, which was preserved in 95% distal lobe with 4 þ 0 plumodenticulate cuspidate, 2 þ 1172 ethanol for subsequent DNA extraction. plumose setae and 3 þ 0 simple setae. Basial endite173 The DNA extraction, from both adults and megalopae, was bilobed, the proximal and distal lobe with 7 þ 8 plumoden-174 conducted using the method described by Aljanabi ticulate cuspidate and 1 þ 1 simple setae. Endopod with 5175 Martinez (1997). The mitochondrial COI gene was amplified plumose setae along the external margin. Scaphognathite176 using the protocol and primers described by Folmer et al. with 86 plumose and 2 simple marginal setae, plus 6 simple177 (1994) and the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) used the fol- setae on the internal surface.178 lowing conditions: 1 Â buffer (Invitrogen), 3.2 nM MgCl2, First maxilliped (Figure 3D): triangular epipod at the prox-179 0.2 U/mL dNTP, 5 pmol forward and reverse primers and imal end narrowing rapidly towards the distal end, with 10180 0.1 U U/mL of Taq polymerase. The PCR cycle consisted of evenly distributed long simple, and 5 shorter setae close to181 3 minutes at 94ºC, 30 cycles of 30 seconds at 94ºC, the proximal end. Coxal and basial endite with 13 þ 22182 90 seconds at 42ºC and 90 seconds at 72ºC with a final simple setae. Unsegmented endopod with 4 terminal simple183 elongation of 7 minutes at 72ºC. The PCR product was setae. Exopod 2-segmented with 4, 4 plumose setae.184 cleaned using QIAQuick columns (QIAGen, Mississaga, Second maxilliped (Figure 3G): epipod elongated with 13185 Ontario, Canada) and sequencing was performed at long filiform setae. Gill present between the epipod and186 Macrogen Inc (www.macrogen.com). Later, sequences were exopod. Endopod 4-segmented, where the proximal segment187 aligned by eye using the ProSeq v.2.9 software (Filatov, has an obvious suture line. Setation pattern of 3, 1, 7 8188 2002). All haplotype was deposited in Genbank (Accession simple setae proceeding from the proximal to distal189 Numbers: FJ155371 to FJ155382). segment. Exopod 2-segmented with 1 simple seta on the
  8. 8. 4 luis miguel pardo et al.190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224 Fig. 1. Comparative illustration of megalopae. General dorsal view (A) Cancer coronatus, (B) Cancer edwardsii and (C) Cancer setosus.225226227 proximal segment and 5 terminal plumose setae on the distal segment with a pair of uniramous uropods with 1 plumose228 segment. Protopodite with 4 simple setae close to the base of seta on the external margin of the protopodite and 14 long229 the endopod. plumose setae on the exopodite (Figure 5D).230 Third maxilliped (Figure 4A): elongated epipod with 24 Telson (Figure 5D): semicircular posterior margin, with 2231 evenly spread long simple setae and 2 plumose setae located pairs of simple setae on the ventral surface and a single pair232 at the proximal end. Protopod with 13 simple and 4 on the dorsal surface.233 plumose setae. Five-segmented endopod with 23 þ 9234 simple setae in the isquium and merus; and carpus, propodus235 and dactylus with 14 þ 13 þ 9 plumose setae. Exopod 2-236 segmented with 4 simple setae on the proximal segment and Cancer edwardsii Bell, 1835237 5 terminal plumose setae on the distal segment. Cephalothorax (Figure 1B): the ratio length/width was238 Chelipeds (Figure 4D): surface covered in a large number approximately 1.3. Sixty-two surface setae and 58 ventral mar-239 of simple setae. Exhibits a prominant spine on the internal ginal setae.240 margin of the isquium. Merus with an acute projection at Antennule (Figure 2B): penduncle with 4, 9, 2 simple setae241 the distal end. Propodus subquadrate in form with a length plus 8 plumose setae. Endopod has 5 simple setae. Exopod242 to width ratio of 2.0, logitudinal grooves ill defined, internal with a setation of 0, 14, 10, 6 aesthetascs and 0, 0, 3, 1243 chela fixed with shallow denticulation. simple setae on each segment.244 Second pereiopod (Figure 4G): surface covered in setae, the Antenna (Figure 2E): peduncle setation 4, 2, 4 (the interior245 majority of which are simple in form. Coxa of second pereio- seta of the second segment is plumose); and flagellum with246 pod with a thick cuticular spine. Fifth pereiopod (Figure 1A) 0, 0, 4, 0, 5, 0, 4, 3 simple setae per segment.247 with 3 long terminal setae on the dactylus. Mandible (Figure 2H): mandibular palp with 13 plumo-248 Abdomen (Figure 1A): composed of 6 somites plus the denticulate cuspidate setae on the distal segment.249 telson, and dorsal surface with 2, 4, 6, 8, 8, 3 simple setae. Maxillule (Figure 2K): coxal and basial endite with 12250 Second and fifth segments possess biramous pleopods, fifth (7 plumodenticulate cuspidate, 5 plumose) þ19 (plumodenti-251 pleopod (Figure 5A) exopods have 21 terminal long culate cuspidate) setae and 5 þ 4 simple marginal setae.252 plumose setae, endopods with 4 terminal cincinnuli. Sixth Epipodal and exopodal setae present.
  9. 9. identifying field collected cancer megalopae 5253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289 Fig. 2. Comparative illustration of the cancridae megalopae appendages. Antennule, antenna, mandible and maxillule of Cancer coronatus (A, D, G, J); Cancer290 edwardsii (B, E, H, K); Cancer setosus (C, F, I, L).291292293294 Maxilla (Figure3B): proximal and distal lobe of the coxal 1, 4, 8, 0, 0 simple setae. Exopod with 5 simple setae on the295 endite with 7 þ 6 plumose setae. Proximal and distal lobe proximal segment, and 8 long plumose setae on the distal296 of the basial endite has 8 þ 10 plumodenticulate cuspidate segment.297 and 1 þ 1 simple setae. Scaphognathite with 77 plumose Chelipeds (Figure 4E): propodus globular in form with a298 setae. length to width ratio of 1.5 and well defined longitudinal299 First maxilliped (Figure 3E): epipod with 12 very long grooves.300 simple setae along the mid to distal exterior margin, and 2 Abdomen (Figure 1B): somites dorsal surface with 4, 16, 14,301 shorter simple setae on the proximal end. Coxal endite with 14, 14, 6 simple setae. Biramous pleopods, fifth with exopods302 14 plumose setae and the basial endite with 25 plumodenticu- having 24 terminal long plumose setae (Figure 5B). Uropod303 late cuspidate setae. Endopod with additional plumose setae. with 2 long plumose setae on the protopodite (Figure 5E).304 Exopod with 4, 5 plumose setae and 1, 1 simple seta on the Telson (Figure 5E): 2, 2 simple setae on the ventral and305 proximal and distal segment respectively. dorsal surface respectively.306 Second maxilliped (Figure 3H): epipodite with 15 long307 simple setae. Endopod with 5, 2 (1 simple, 1 plumose), 7 (2308 plumodenticulate cuspidate, 5 plumose), 4 (5 plumodenticu-309 late cuspidate, 4 plumose) setae. Exopod with 2 simple setae Cancer setosus Molina, 1782310 on proximal segment and 5 long plumose setae on the distal Cephalothorax (Figure 1C): length to width ratio of 1.4. 32311 segment. surface setae and 16 ventral marginal setae.312 Third maxilliped (Figure 4B): epipod with 20 long simple Antennule (Figure 2C): penduncle with 7 plumose setae313 setae, and 6 plumose setae located on the proximal margin. and 1 simple seta on the first segment: and 4 simple setae314 Protopod with 25 plumose setae. Endopod, 27 (plus 6 on the second one. Endopod with 6 simple setae. Exopod315 plumose), 7, 6, 12, 9 plumodenticulate cuspidate setae and with 0, 18, 12, 10 aesthetascs.
  10. 10. 6 luis miguel pardo et al.316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352 Fig. 3. Comparative illustration of the cancridae megalopae appendages. Maxille, first maxilliped and second maxilliped of Cancer coronatus (A, D, G); Cancer353 edwardsii (B, E, H); Cancer setosus (C, F, I).354355356357 Antenna (Figure 2F): peduncle with 4, 1, 5 setae (the seta 1, 7 plumose setae plus 2 simple setae. Protopod with 4358 on the second segment is plumose) and flagellum with 0, 0, simple setae and 4 plumose setae close to the base of the359 4, 1, 5, 2, 3, 2 simple setae. endopod.360 Mandible (Figure 2I): mandibular palp proximal segment Third maxilliped (Figure 4C): epipodite with 30 long361 with 1 plumose seta; distal segment with 15 plumodenticulate simple setae and 6 marginal plumose setae located near the362 cuspidate setae. proximal end. Protopod with 18 plumose setae and 2 simple363 Maxillule: (Figure 2L): coxal endite with 2 plumose, 7 plu- setae. Endopod with 37, 16, 20, 18, 9 plumodenticulate cuspi-364 modenticulate cuspidate and 7 simple setae. Basial endite with date setae. Exopod with 3 simple setae on the proximal365 24 plumodenticulate cuspidate and 5 simple setae. segment and 10 plumose setae on the distal segment.366 Maxilla (Figure 3C): coxal endite proximal and distal lobe Chelipeds (Figure 4F): without isquial spine. Tubular pro-367 with 3 þ 5 plumodenticulate cuspidate, 3 þ 0 plumose and podus with a length to width ratio of 1.8 and several well368 1 þ 1 simple seta. Basial endite proximal and distal lobe with defined longitudinal grooves.369 10 þ 12 plumodenticulate cuspidate and 1 þ 1 simple seta. Abdomen (Figure 1C): somites dorsal surface with 4, 18,370 Endopod with 7 plumose setae. Scaphognathite with 95 mar- 18, 18, 14, 6 simple setae. Biramous pleopods, fifth371 ginal plumose setae. (Figure 5C) with exopods having 24 long and 3 short terminal372 First maxilliped (Figure 3F): endopod with 22 long simple plumose setae. Uropod with 2 long plumose setae on the pro-373 setae. Coxal and basial endite with 21 þ 36 plumodenticulate topod and 16 long plumose setae on the exopod (Figure 5F).374 cuspidate plumose setae. Endopod with 3 plumose setae and 5 Telson (Figure 5F): 2, 8 simple setae on the ventral and375 simple setae. Exopod with 4, 7 plumose setae. dorsal surface respectively.376 Second maxilliped (Figure 3I): epipodite with 18 long Intraregional variation: larvae collected around 800 km377 simple setae. Endopod with 2 (plus 2 plumose), 1, 8, 9 plumo- between them did not show differences in SMC, but southern378 denticulate cuspidate, and 6, 1, 0, 0 simple setae. Exopod with were noticeably larger than northern megalopae (Table 1) .
  11. 11. identifying field collected cancer megalopae 7379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416 Fig. 4. Comparative illustration of the cancridae megalopae appendages. Third maxilleped, cheliped and second pereiopod of Cancer coronatus (A, D, G); Cancer417 edwardsii (B, E, H); Cancer setosus (C, F, I).418419420 Molecular identification the antenna and the endopod of the third maxilliped (Iwata421 Konishi, 1981). However, we found a considerable422 The sequences of 554 bp obtained from the COI gene of both amount of overlapping in these characteristics between423 megalopae and adults of the studied species of Cancer, exhib- species (Table 1).424 ited a high level of differences between species. We observed The general morphology of the megalopae studied display425 around 60 base pair differences between species and a a high degree of intra-specific similarity. However, certain426 maximum of 4 between individuals of the same species. morphological features in the chelipeds such as the presence427 These clear differences between the sequences of each or absence of the isquial spine allow for a rapid and precise428 species were the basis for grouping the megalopae with the identification of each of the three species. These diagnostic429 adults, without ambiguity, demonstrated by tree nodes with characteristics have not been commented upon previously in430 high support values between different species (Figure 6). the descriptions of C. edwardsii and C. setosus (Quintana,431 1983; Quintana Saelzer, 1986), based on laboratory reared432 larvae, and have for the first time been recorded for C. corona-433 DISCUSSION tus. In addition, these features appear to be highly conserved434 on both the spatial and temporal scales. For example, megalo-435 Several characters have been used to identify megalopae of the pae of C. setosus collected at locations separated by more than436 genera Cancer to the species level. Specific diagnostic charac- 800 km were identified to the species level and these were later437 teristics that have been considered previously include: the corroborated by the DNA analyses, despite differences in their438 number of plumose setae present on the uropods and cincin- size and date of collection.439 nuli present on the pleopods (Poole, 1966; Trask, 1970), the The scarce morphological differentiation between the440 carapace length and presence or absence of a lateral knob megalopae of the genus Cancer has been noted previously.441 (Orensanz Gallucci, 1988), and the setae and spines over DeBrosse et al. (1990) did not find invariable morphological
  12. 12. 8 luis miguel pardo et al.442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465 Fig. 5. Comparative illustration of the cancridae megalopae appendages. Second pleopod and telson of Cancer coronatus (A, D); Cancer edwardsii (B, E); Cancer466 setosus (C, F).467468469 features which allowed for the identification of three sympa- general all the megalopae analysed appear to have more470 tric species of Cancer (C. magister, C. oregonesis and C. pro- setae than their conspecifics reared in the laboratory.471 ductus) collected in the Puget Sound basin on the north-east Considerable variation has been described in the megalopae472 Pacific coast. Such as our case, the megalopae presented a of other species of the genus Cancer obtained in the field473 high degree of morphological similarity (except for the con- (Orensanz Gallucci, 1988; DeBrosse et al., 1990) and also474 siderably larger size of C. magister) and it was not possible in other brachyuran species (Cuesta et al., 2002; Ampuero,475 to easily distinguish the larvae maintained in the laboratory 2007).476 using the published descriptions. The discrepancies between larvae collected in the field and477 Another interesting finding was the differences in larval those cultivated in the laboratory could be explained by two478 morphology between field and laboratory reared megalopae non-exclusive factors. First, the descriptions based on culti-479 (Table 1). The larvae of C. edwardsii and C. setosus collected vated larvae normally utilize a single or few reproductive480 in the field are considerably larger than those raised in the lab- females to provide the individuals described, reducing the481 oratory. In the case of C. coronatus there were no available genotypic variation available for study. Second, the controlled482 descriptions for comparison. In addition to the size, the conditions under which the larvae are cultivated (temperature,483 larvae from the field exhibit a marked increase in the salinity and food availability) may restrict phenotypic484 number of setae on their cephalothoracic appendages and in expression.485486487 Table 1. Variation in biometric measures of Cancer megalopae from field and laboratory. All setal counts are listed from proximal to distal. CL is measured from base of rostral spine to middle of the posterior margin. From megalopae described in the literature (reared at the laboratory), CL and488 CW were estimated from illustrations, using the graphic scales provided by the authors (Quintana 1983; Quintana Saelzer 1986). Abbreviations:489 CL, cephalothorax length; CW, cephalothorax width; ND, no data. Ã indicate megalopae from Punta de Tralca.490491 Cancer edwardsii Cancer edwardsii Cancer setosus Cancer setosus Cancer coronatus492 Laboratory Field Laboratory Field Field493 Cephalothorax494 CL (mm) 3.1 3.3 + 0.1 2.7 3.9 + 0.2–3.1 + 0.1Ã 3.01 + 0.1495 CW (mm) 2.05 2.6 + 0.1 1.9 2.6 + 0.1–2.3 + 0.1Ã 2.01 + 0.2496 Antenna (peduncle) 2,2,3 4,1,4 3,2,4 4,1,5 4,2,4497 Antenna ( flagellum) 0,0,2,0,5,0,4,4 0,0,4,0,5,0,4,3 0,0,4,0,4,0,3,5 0,0,4,1,5,2,3,2 0,0,4,0,5,0,4,3498 Third maxilliped499 Endopodite 22,10,8,0,0 34,11,14,13,9 21,10,15,0,0 37,16,20,18,9 23,9,14,13,9500 Exopodite 5 –8.5 5.8 4.5 3.1 4.5501 Epipodite 3 þ 19 6 þ 20 4 þ 16 6 þ 30 2 þ 24 Protopodite 7 25 18 18 18502 Pleopodal cincinnuli ND 4 ND 4 4503 Cheliped isquial spine Yes Yes Not Not Yes504
  13. 13. identifying field collected cancer megalopae 9505 Table 2. Summary of base pair difference between COI sequences (554 bp) showing maximum and minimum difference within and among species.506 The mean of differences is expressed in per cent.507 Cancer porteri (0) Cancer edwarsii (0–2) (0.36%) Cancer coronatus (0–2) (0.36%) Cancer setosus (0–3) (0.54%)508509 Cancer porteri 109 –111 (19.86%) 108 (19.50%) 138–140 (25.09%)510 Cancer edwarsii 62–64 (11.37%) 96–99 (19.50%)511 Cancer coronatus 95–99 (19.50%) Cancer setosus512513514515 FONDECYT 110240071 for financial support. D.V. thanks516 the Basal Grant PFB 023, CONICYT, Chile and Iniciativa517 ´ Cientıfica Milenio Grant ICM P05-002. Thanks to two anon-518 ymous referees who have greatly helped us in improving the519 clarity of the presentation. All experimental work was con-520 ducted in Chile and complied with its existing laws.521522523 REFERENCES524525 Aljanabi S.M. and Martinez I. (1997) Universal and rapid salt-extraction526 Fig. 6. Neighbour-joining tree analysis of the COI sequences for the Cancer of high quality genomic DNA for PCR-based techniques. Nucleic Acid527 species. The number at the tree nodes indicates the bootstrap values from Research 25, 4692–2693.528 10,000 replicates. The Figure shows also the sample site and stage that illustrated these haplotypes. Me, megalopae; Ad, adult—most part of Anger K. (2001) The biology of decapod crustacean larvae. In Vonk R.529 individuals from Bahia Corral, except (Ã ) from Punta de Tralca and (ÃÃ ) (ed.) Crustacean Issues. Lisse, The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema530 ´ from Concepcion. Publishers, pp. 1 –419.531 ´ Ampuero D. (2007) Descripcion de la larva megalopae de cinco especies de532 braquiuros Chilenos colectados en ambiente natural. Thesis to Marine533 The analysis of molecular markers in larvae collected from Biologist. Universidad de Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Chile.534 the field are few, but with a high degree of certainty in terms of535 identification. For example, Webb et al. (2006) conducted Barber P. and Boyce S. (2006) Estimating diversity of Indo-Pacific coral536 genetic analyses on Antarctic marine invertebrate larvae, but reef stomatopods through DNA barcoding of stomatopod larvae. found that the high resolution of their analysis was limited Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273, 2053–2061.537538 by the general lack of genetic information for the adult organ- Burton R.S. (1996) Molecular tools in marine ecology. Journal of539 isms present in the area. In the present study, the lack of infor- Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 200, 85–101.540 mation on adults was not limiting for our analyses as they were Clark P.F., De Calazans D. and Pohle G. (1998) Accuracy and standard-541 collected and analysed at the same time as the megalopae. ization of brachyuran larval description. Invertebrate Reproduction542 Thus, we were able to assign the megalopae of the genus and Development 33, 127 –144.543 Cancer on the coast of Chile to specific species using diagnostic Cuesta J.A., Luppi T.A., Rodriguez A. and Spivak E.D. (2002)544 morphological features which were later corroborated with the Morphology of the megalopal stage of Chasmagnathus granulatus545 sequencing of the COI gene of mitochondrial DNA. Dana, 1851 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Varunidae), with com-546 This study affirms the necessity of including morphological ments on morphological anomalies. Proceedings of the Biological547 variation in the descriptions of larvae, and of analysing larvae Society of Washington 115, 391–402.548 collected in the field, along with those raised under different DeBrosse G., Sulkin S. and Jamieson G. (1990) Intraspecific morphologi-549 laboratory conditions. Furthermore, the present study pro- cal variability in megalopae of three sympatric species of the genus550 vides clear evidence of the utility of molecular markers in Cancer (Brachyura: Cancridae). Journal of Crustacean Biology 10,551 the study of larvae where previous descriptions are unavailable 315–329.552 or where there are significant morphological differences Eaton D.R., Brown J., Addison J.T., Milligan S.P. and Fernand L.J.553 between the adults and the larvae of a species. These types (2003) Edible crab (Cancer pagurus) larvae surveys off the east coast554 of techniques are also useful for identifying the different of England: implications for stock structure. Fisheries Research 65,555 stages of development of a species, and for those species 191–199.556 that exhibit little or no diagnostic characters (Burton, 1996; Neigel et al., 2007). Feldmann R.M. (2003) The Decapoda: new initiatives and novel557 approaches. Journal of Paleontology 77, 1021–1039.558559 Filatov D.A. (2002) ProSeq: a software for preparation and evolutionary560 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS analysis of DNA sequence data sets. Molecular Ecology Notes 2,561 621–624.562 We thank Elena Gessler, Constanza Ceroni, Juan Pablo Flegel T.W. (2008) Confirmation of the right to refuse revision in the563 Fuentes, Matthew Lee and Simon Cardyn for their active par- genus Penaeus. Aquaculture 280, 1–4.564 ticipation in this research, from sampling to drawing the mega- Folmer S.C., Black M., Hoek R., Lutz R.A. and Vrijenhoek R. (1994)565 lopae. Thanks to Marcela Espinoza for helping with DNA DNA primers for amplification for mitochondrial cytochrome c566 extraction. L.M.P. thanks the Direction de Investigation and oxidase subunit 1 from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Molecular567 Development (DID) of the Universidad Austral de Chile and Marine Biology and Biotechnology 3, 294–299.
  14. 14. 10 luis miguel pardo et al.568 France S.C. and Hoover I.L. (2002) DNA sequences of the mitochondrial decapods: settlement and recruitment under contrasting coastal geo-569 COI gene have low level of divergence among deep-sea octocorals metry conditions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 316, 139 –153.570 (Cnidaria: Anthozoa). Hydrobiologia 417, 149–155. Palmer M.A., Allan D. and Butman C.A. (1996) Dispersal as a regional571 Garth J.S. (1957) The Crustacea Decapoda Brachyura of Chile. Reports of process affecting the local dynamics of marine and stream benthic572 ˚ the Lund University Expedition 1948– 49. Lund UniversitetsArsskrift, invertebrates. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11, 322–326.573 (New Series, 2) 53, 1–131. ´ Pardo L.M., Palma A.T., Prieto C., Sepulveda P., Valdivia I. and Ojeda574 Gosselin L.A. and Qian P.E. (1997) Juvenile mortality in benthic marine F.P. (2007) Processes regulating early post-settlement habitat use in a575 invertebrates. Marine Ecology Progress Series 146, 265–282. subtidal assemblage of brachyuran decapods. Journal of Experimental576 Marine Biology and Ecology 344, 10–22. Harrison M.K. and Crespi B.J. (1999) Phylogenetics of Cancer crabs577 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura). Molecular Phylogenetics and Poole R.L. (1966) A description of the laboratory-reared zoea of Cancer578 Evolution 12, 186–199. magister Dana, and megalopae taken under natural conditions579 (Decapoda, Brachyura). Crustaceana 11, 83–97.580 Hebert P.D.N., Cywindka A., Ball S.L. and deWaard J.R. (2003a) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of the Quintana R. (1983) Larval development of the edible crab, Cancer581 Royal Society of London B 270, 313 –321. edwardsi Bell, 1835 under laboratory conditions (Decapoda,582 Brachyura). Reports of the USA Marine Biological Institute, Kochi583 Hebert P.D.N., Ratnasingham S. and deWaard J.R. (2003b) Barcoding University 5, 1 –19.584 animal life: cytochrome c oxidase subunit I divergences among585 closely related species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Quintana R. and Saelzer H. (1986) The complete larval development of 270, 96–99. the edible crab, Cancer setosus Molina and observations on the pre-586587 Hunt H.L. and Scheilbling R.E. (1997) Role of early post-settlement mor- zoeal and first zoeal stages of C. coronatus Molina (Decapoda: Brachyura, Cancridae). Journal of the Faculty of Science, Hokkaido588 tality in recruitment of benthic marine invertebrates. Marine Ecology Progress Series 155, 269 –301. University. Series 6, Zoology 24, 267–303.589590 Iwata F. and Konishi K. (1981) Larval development in laboratory of Rao S., Liston A., Crampton L. and Takeyasu J. (2006) Identification of591 Cancer amphioetus Rathbun, in comparison with those of seven larvae of exotic Tipula paludosa (Diptera: Tipulidae) and T. oleracea in592 other species of Cancer (Decapoda, Brachyura). Publications of the North America using mitocondrial cytB sequences. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 99, 33–40.593 Seto Marine Biological Laboratory 26, 369–391.594 Jesse S. and Stotz W. (2003) Spatio-temporal distribution patterns of crab Roughgarden J., Gaines S. and Possingham H. (1988) Recruitment595 assemblage in the shallow subtidal of the north Chilean Pacific coast. dynamics in complex life cycles. Science 241, 1460–1466.596 Crustaceana 75, 1161–1200. Schweitzer C.E. and Feldmann R.M. (2000) Re-evaluation of the597 Cancridae Latreille, 1802 (Decapoda: Brachyura) including three Knowlton N. and Weigt L.A. (1998) New dates and new rates for diver-598 gences across the Isthmus of Panama. Proceedings of the Royal Society new genera and three new species. Contributions to Zoology 69,599 of London B 265, 2257–2263. 223–250.600 Shearer T.L., Van Oppen M.J.H., Romano S.L. and Worheide G. (2002)601 McHugh D. and Rouse G.W. (1998) Life history evolution of marine invertebrates: new views from phylogenetic systematics. Trends in Slow mitochondrial DNA sequence evolution in the Anthozoa602 (Cnidaria). Molecular Ecology 11, 2475–2487. Ecology and Evolution 13, 182–186.603 Meier R., Shiyang K., Vaidya G. and Ng P.K.L. (2006) DNA barcoding Tamura K., Dudley J., Nei M. and Kumar S. (2007) Molecular evolution-604 and taxonomy in Diptera: a tale of high intraspecific variability a low ary genetics analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Molecular Biology605 and Evolution 24, 1596–1599.606 identification success. Systematic Biology 55, 715–728.607 ˜ ´ Munoz C.A., Pardo L.M., Henrıquez L.A. and Palma A.T. (2006) Trask T. (1970) A description of laboratory-reared larvae of Cancer pro-608 ´ Variaciones temporales en la composicion y abundancia de cuatro ductus Randall (Decapoda, Brachyura) and a comparison to larvae of especies de Cancer (Decapoda: Brachyura: Cancridae) capturadas Cancer magister Dana. Crustaceana 18, 133–146.609610 ´ ´ con trampas en bahıa San Vicente, Concepcion (Chile central). Vences M., Thomas M., Bonett R.M. and Vieites D.R. (2005) Investigaciones Marinas 34, 9 –21. Deciphering amphibian diversity through DNA barcoding: chances611612 Nations J.D. (1975) The genus Cancer (Crustacea: Brachyura): systema- and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B613 tics, biogeography and fossil record. Natural History Museum of Los 360, 1859–1868.614 Angeles County. Science Bulletin 23, 1 –104. Wahle R.A. (2003) Revealing stock–recruitment relationships in lobsters615 Negreiros-Fransozo M.L., Wenner E.L., Knott D.M. and Fransozo A. and crabs:is experimental ecology the key? Fisheries Research 65, 3 –32.616 (2007) The megalopa and early juvenile stages of Calappa tortugae Webb K.E., Barnes D.K.A., Clark M.S. and Bowden D.A. (2006) DNA617 Rathbun, 1933 (Crustacea, Brachyura) reared in the laboratory from barcoding: a molecular tool to identify Antarctic marine larvae.618 South Carolina neuston samples. Proceedings of the Biological Society Deep-Sea Research Part II—Topical Studies in Oceanography 53,619 of Washington 120, 469 –485. 1053–1060.620 Neigel J., Domingo A. and Stake J. (2007) DNA barcoding as a tool for and621 coral reef conservation. Coral Reefs 26, 487 –499.622 Williamson D.I. (1982) Larval morphology and diversity. In Abele L.G. Ng P.K.L., Guinot D. and Davie P.J.F. (2008) An annotated checklist of (ed.) The biology of Crustacea, Volume 2, Embryology, morphology623 extant brachyuran crabs of the world. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology624 and genetics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 43–110. 17, 1–286.625 Orensanz J.M. and Gallucci V.F. (1988) Comparative study of postlarval Correspondence should be addressed to:626 life-history schedules in four sympatric species of Cancer (Decapoda: L.M. Pardo627 Brachyura: Cancridae). Journal of Crustacean Biology 8, 187–220. Laboratorio Costero Calfuco, Instituto de Biologia Marina628629 ´ Palma A.T., Pardo L.M., Veas R., Cartes C., Silva M., Manrıquez K., Universidad Austral de Chile, Casilla 567, Valdivia, Chile630 ´ ˜ Dıaz A., Munoz C. and Ojeda F.P. (2006) Coastal brachyuran email: luispardo@uach.cl