diff --git a/data/26/43/87/264387E3FFBCFF9C30C086F4FD56333A.xml b/data/26/43/87/264387E3FFBCFF9C30C086F4FD56333A.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..68f0ea0d152 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/26/43/87/264387E3FFBCFF9C30C086F4FD56333A.xml @@ -0,0 +1,1691 @@ + + + +Euchaetomera plebeja Hansen, 1912 (Mysida; Mysidae) in western Mexico + + + +Author + +Hernández-Payán, J. C. +Laboratorio de Invertebrados Bentónicos, Unidad Académica Mazatlán Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, P. O. Box 811, Mazatlán Sinaloa, 82000, Mexico. & Posgrado en Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Av. Ciudad Universitaria 3000, C. P. 04510, Coyoacán, Ciudad de México. + + + +Author + +Hendrickx, M. E. +0000-0001-9187-6080 +Laboratorio de Invertebrados Bentónicos, Unidad Académica Mazatlán Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, P. O. Box 811, Mazatlán Sinaloa, 82000, Mexico. +michel@ola.icmyl.unam.mx + +text + + +Zootaxa + + +2024 + +2024-10-08 + + +5519 + + +2 + + +279 +295 + + + + +http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5519.2.7 + +journal article +10.11646/zootaxa.5519.2.7 +1175-5326 +13915882 +621362D4-16E0-422D-8289-442BEB098ACC + + + + + + + +Euchaetomera plebeja +Hansen, 1912 + + + + + + + + + + +Euchaetomera plebeja +Hansen, 1912: 202 + + +, pl. 3, figs. 1a, b.— + +Illig 1930: 578 + +(key).— + +Tattersall 1943: 67 + +; 1951: 112.— + +Gordan 1957: 348 + +(list).— + +Murano, 1977: 142 + +(key), 145‒146.—Buji +et al +. 2010: 43 (table 2).— + + +Ortiz +et al +. 2016: 113 + + +(species attributed to G. +Sars, 1884 +by error).—Wittmann 2024: 154 (key). + + + + + +A total of +109 specimens +of + +Euchaetomera plebeja + +, +35 males +and +74 females +were collected in 20 localities during the present study. There were no ovigerous females in the samples. This represents by far the largest collection of + +E. plebeja + +ever made available. Based on this abundant material, an almost complete description of + +E. plebeja + +is provided herein (Thoracopods 4‒8 are lacking in our material), allowing for a better understanding of this species morphology. + + + + +Material examined. + + +TALUD +I. + +St. 5 ( +22°00’22’’ N +, +106°49’18’’ W +), + +December 11, 1989 + +, +1 female +(CL +1.40 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +500 m + +( +TD + +1970 m + +) + +(ICML-EMU-12636). + + + + + + +TALUD III +. + +St.19-B ( +25°18’24’’ N +, +109°18’36’’ W +), + +August 20, 1991 + +, +2 males +( +CL +1.30 and +1.98 mm +) and +1 female +( +CL +1.00 mm), +IK +between surface and + +600 m + +( +TD + +1890 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12637- +A +); + + +St. 25 A-1 ( +25°51’00” N +, +109°57’00” W +), + +August 21, 1991 + +, +9 males +( +CL +1.00‒ +2.37 mm +) and +18 females +( +CL +1.16‒2.32 mm +), + + +IK +between surface and + +200 m + +( +TD + +2000 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12637- +B +); + + +St. 25 A-2 ( +25°50’54’’ N +, +109°56’54’’ W +), + +August 21, 1991 + +, +3 males +( +CL +1.19‒1.78 mm +) and +7 females +( +CL +1.69‒2.20 mm +), + + +IK +between surface and + +230 m + +( +TD +not recorded) (ICML-EMU-12637- +C +) + +. + + + + + + +TALUD IV +. + +St. 22 ( +24°17’20’’ N +, +108°50’30’’ W +), + +August 26, 2000 + +, +3 females +(CL +1.11‒1.81 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +1325 m + +( +TD + +1500 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12638-A); St. 29 ( +24°57’48’’ N +, +109°37’00’’ W +), + +August 27, 2000 + +, +1 female +(CL +2.14 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +1280 m + +( +TD + +2080 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12638-B); St. 36 ( +25°51’59’’ N +, +110°11’00’’ W +), + +August 27, 2000 + +, +2 males +(CL 1.14 and +1.37 mm +) and +1 female +(CL +2.22 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +1000 m + +( +TD + +2100 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12638-C) + +. + + + + +TALUD +V +. + +St. 15 ( +23°21’30’’ N +, +107°48’12’’ W +), + +December 14, 2000 + +, +1 female +(CL +1.53 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +1350 m + +( +TD + +2384 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12639-A); St. 29 ( +25°14’36’’ N +, +109°24’15’’ W +), + +December 17, 2000 + +, +1 male +(CL +1.95 mm +) and +2 females +(CL 1.01 and +1.39 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +1290 m + +( +TD + +2040 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12639-B); St. 36 ( +25°54’30’’ N +, +110°11’24’’ W +), + +December 17, 2000 + +, +3 males +(CL +1.54‒1.70 mm +) and +5 females +(CL +1.39‒2.12 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +1340 m + +( +TD + +1990 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12640) + +. + + + + +TALUD +VI +. + +St. 7 ( +22°21’39’’ N +, +107°01’42’’ W +), + +March 14, 2001 + +, +1 male +(CL +1.14 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +1305 m + +( +TD + +2100 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12641-A); St. 22 ( +24°17’26” N +, +108°50’05” W +), + +March 15, 2001 + +, +3 females +(CL +1.63‒1.93 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +1600 m + +( +TD + +1760 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12641-B); St. 29 ( +25°16’24” N +, +109°24’54” W +), + +March 16, 2001 + +, +1 male +(CL +1.44 mm +) and +1 female +(CL +1.99 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +1440 m + +( +TD + +2080 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12641-C); St. 36 ( +25°53’15’’ N +, +110°10’08’’ W +), + +March 17, 2001 + +, +3 males +(CL +1.70‒1.80 mm +) and +9 females +(CL +1.61‒2.34 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +1360 m + +( +TD + +2000 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12642) + +. + + + + +TALUD VII +. + +St. 29 ( +25°17’31” N +, +109°24’30” W +), + +June 8, 2001 + +, +5 males +(CL +1.05‒1.70 mm +) and +7 females +(CL +1.42‒2.26 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +1500 m + +( +TD + +2080 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12643); St. 36 ( +25°42’37” N +, +110°04’35” W +), + +June 9, 2001 + +, +2 males +(CL 1.81 and +2.08 mm +) and +5 females +(CL +1.63‒2.48 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +1500 m + +( +TD + +2400 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12644) + +. + + + + +TALUD +X. + +St. 7 ( +27°53’09’’ N +, +112°16’42’’ W +), + +February 10, 2007 + +, +2 females +(CL 1.01 and +1.18 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +900 m + +( +TD + +1191 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12645-A); St. 11 ( +27°34’16’’ N +, +111°40’30’’ W +), + +February 11, 2007 + +, +2 males +(CL 1.43 and +1.96 mm +) and +4 females +(CL 1.00‒ +1.82 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and + +1220 m + +( +TD + +1800 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12645-B); St. 20 ( +27°14’41’’ N +, +111°36’15’’ W +), + +February 13, 2007 + +, +1 female +(CL +2.01 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and ca. + +1250 m + +( +TD + +1785 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12646-A); St. 23 ( +27°00’30’’ N +, +111°12’00’’ W +), + +February 14, 2007 + +, +1 male +(CL +1.07 mm +) and +2 females +(CL 1.59 and +2.03 mm +) + +, + +MN +between surface and ca. + +1250 m + +( +TD + +1770 m + +) (ICML-EMU-12646-B) + +. + + + + +Diagnosis. +Body without spines. Rostrum triangle-shaped, apically blunt. Antennal scale about 5 times as long as broad, subterminal spine not overreaching terminal lobe, distal suture present. Posterior cornea sub-rectangular, about same size or slightly larger than anterior cornea in dorsal view, long, tubular ocular papilla present ventrally. Uropodal endopod without spine on medial margin. Telson slightly shorter than broad, without spines along lateral margin, apex with 1 pair of lateral setae. + + + + +Description +. (Male except indicated) +Body +thin, elongated. +Carapace +short, produced anteriorly to form subtriangular rostrum ending in blunt point, not reaching base of eyestalks ( +Fig. 1B +). + + +Eye +( +Fig. 1A, B +) enlarged, bilobed, lobes well developed, separated, each with well developed cornea, distal margin of anterior cornea reaching to proximal margin of second antennal article; in dorsal view anterior cornea crescent-shape, extending along entire anterior margin, broader than long, posterior cornea sub-rectangular, postero-lateral, extending on about half the eye width, outer margin protruding; ocular papilla present on ventral face of the eye, long, tubular. + + +Antennular peduncle +( +Fig. 1C +) slender, first and third articles about the same length, first much slender than third, second about 1/3 length of third; first and second with one simple setae on inner distal corner, third slightly broader than other two, one subterminal simple setae on inner margin and two setae on outer distal corner. + + +Antennal peduncle +( +Fig. 1E +). Second article of antennal peduncle about 2.5 times as long as first, about 1.7 times as long as third; first and second articles naked, a simple setae on inner distal corner of third article. +Antennal scale +( +Fig. 1E +) about 5 times as long as broad, overreaching anterior margin of antennular peduncle, outer margin almost straight, distal suture present, distal lobe about as long as broad, outer subterminal spine short, located at about the length of the distal lobe beyond the antennal scale distal suture. + + +Labrum +( +Fig. 2C +) subcircular, semi-symmetrical, posterior margin semi-bilobed, with short and simple setae (left) and finely jagged (right). + + +Mandibles +( +Fig. 2A +, +3A‒F +). Palp long; article 1 short, without setae; article 2 little less than twice as long as article 3, wider at about mid-length, outer and inner margins with simple setae; article 3 with one long, submarginal simple setae near proximal margin, a series of 8 subdistal, short setae, and one long seta, outer margin armed with 7 serrated setae, one partly serrated curved setae, and one long seta. +Mandibles +both with well developed incisor process, lacinia mobilis, spine row, and molar process. +Right mandible +( +Fig. 2A +, +3A‒C +) incisor process well developed, robust, composed of chitinous ridge with 6 strong teeth; lacinia mobilis well developed between incisor process and pars centralis, represented by 2 rows of small spinal setae, both row almost the same size, first row ending at proximal edge with one long teeth, second row with one large, proximal bifid teeth; pars centralis formed by a series of 9 strong apical setae united at their base; molar process oval, with a series of scale-like lamellae on crushing surface. +Left mandible +( +Figs. 2A +, +3D‒F +) incisor process composed of chitinous ridge with 8 teeth; lacinia mobilis very well developed, consisting of one bifid chitinous teeth ridge; pars centralis represented by series of long lamellae with broad base, spiny on their margins; molar process similar to right mandible. + + +Maxillula +( +Fig. 2D +) external lobe (protopod) armed with 9 robust apical setae, some of them barbed, 3 long simple setae on ventral surface; inner lobe with 5 long, simple apical setae, 2 short, simple setae on the inner margin, and 2 longer, simple setae on ventral surface. + + +Maxilla +( +Fig. 2B +) exopod small, armed with 8 simple marginal setae; second article of endopod with 5 simple, long setae on outer margin, inner margin with 5 long, simple setae and 5 strong, serrated setae; 3 subrectangular endites, distal margins with simple long setae; protopod with a dense cover of long, simple setae, and one serrated seta. + + +Thoracopod 1 +( +Fig. 4A +) (female) short, robust; gnathobase (basis) of endopod with cluster of plumose setae on ventral surface, subterminal endite elongate, with distal cluster of plumose setae; ischium, merus, carpus and propodus with one or several plumose setae on inner margin, and simple setae on ventral surface; dactylus short, with setae on margins and ventral surface; nail slightly curved, stout, longer than dactylus; exopod about 2.3 times as long as endopod, 8-articulated, each article with one long plumose setae, except last article with 2 long plumose setae. + + +Thoracopod 2 +( +Fig. 4B +) endopod longer than endopod of first thoracopod, shorter than third, elongated; pre-ischium short, naked; ischium armed with one short simple setae on both margins; merus with a pair of subterminal setae; carpus and propodus of similar length, armed with a few simple setae on both margins; dactylus short, triangular, several setae on margins and ventral surface; nail slightly curved, shorter than dactylus; exopod longer than endopod, 9-articulated, each article with one long, plumose setae, except last article with 2 long plumose setae. + + +Thoracopod 3 +( +Fig. 4C +) endopod elongated, longer than exopod; pre-ischium naked; ischium with one long simple setae on inner distal margin and 2 short setae on outer margin; merus with long, simple setae on both margins; carpus twice as long as propodus, both with some long, simple setae on outer margin and 1‒2 seta on inner margin; dactylus short, with 2 setae on distal margin; exopod 9-articulated, each article with one long seta, except last article with 2 long plumose setae. + + +Thoracopods 4‒8 +missing. + + +Penis +( +Fig. 4D +) elongated, about 3 times as long as wide, distal edge with a small circular lobe, one simple setae on ventral surface. + + +Abdominal somites +1‒6 without spines ( +Fig. 1A +). + + +Male pleopods +( +Fig. 5A‒E +) biramous, well developed; exopod and endopod similar in size except in pleopod 1; exopods 7-articulated, with simple distal seta on both margins, except distal article with two simple setae; first pleopod endopod uniarticulated, about 1/3 length of corresponding exopod, proximal pseudobranchial lobe with 3 plumose setae, rest tapering distally with one short, simple setae on distal margin. Endopod of pleopods 2 to 5 7- articulate, with simple distal seta on both margins, except distal article with two simple setae, pseudobranchial lobes subrectangular, armed with 4-5 plumose setae. + + +Uropods +( +Fig. 6A +). Exopod long and slender, about 3 times telson length, about 9 times as long as wide, about 1.2 times as long as endopod; endopod about 2.5 times as long as telson, notably wider proximally near statocyst, maximum width about 0.3 times endopod length, without spines on inner margin. + + +Telson +cordiform ( +Fig. 6B +) short, slightly broader than long, distal margin truncate, about 0.27 maximum width of telson, with one short lateral seta on each side and a pair of very long, plumose, apical setae about 0.8 times telson length. + + +Female description +. Similar to male. + + +Antennular peduncle +( +Fig. 1D +). Peduncle slender than in males; first article as long as second and third combined length, with one simple setae on outer distal edge; second about 1/2 length of third; second and third with two simple setae on inner distal edge. + + + +Marsupium + +of female comprised of two pairs of oostegites. +Female pleopods +( +Fig. 5F‒J +) uniramous, well developed, increasing in size posteriorly with some long, simple setae on distal edge and on both margins (some setae missing); pleopod 5 about 3 times as long as first. + + +Size (CL). +Males, 1.00‒ +2.37 mm +; females, 1.00‒ +2.48 mm +. No ovigerous females. + + + + +Distribution +. Off +Peru +( +14°28.9’ S +, +81°24’ W +) and off the southern tip of the Baja California Peninsula ( +22°45’ N +, +110° W +) ( +Hansen 1912 +); off +Colombia +( +02°54’ N +80°02’ W +) and +Chile +( +27°04’ S +, +84°01’ W +) (W.M. +Tattersall 1943 +). Throughout the Gulf of California, +Mexico +, to about +27°53’ N +(present study). Possibly off Hawaii ( +Murano 1977 +). + + +The material of + +E. plebeja + +collected in the Gulf of +California +during this study indicates that this species is abundant and well distributed in this enclosed sea ( +Fig. 8 +). The absence of previous reports for this area is certainly linked to the fact that it lives in deep waters, not adequately sampled in the past. + + + + +Depth distribution +. Not very precise due to lack of records and discrete samples. From surface to 300 fathoms (ca. +550 m +) ( +Hansen 1912 +). At +100 m +depth (W.M. +Tattersall 1943 +). Collected with an opening-closing device from depths of +95 to 110 m +( +Murano 1977 +). Between 95 and +110 m +depth ( +Price 2004 +). In depths of +95‒100 m +(WoRMS editorial board 2024). The material examined was collected between surface and +200‒600 m +( +IK +) and between surface and +1600 m +(MN), in localities where the total depth was comprised between 1191 and +2400 m +. According to +Murano (1977) +, + +E. plebeja + +is an oceanic species. + + + + +Remarks +. As noted above, the description of + +E. plebeja + +by +Hansen (1912) +is incomplete and rather superficial. +Hansen (1912: 202 +, pl. 3, figs. 1a, b) provided a dorsal view of the forehead, including the cephalic appendages, and a dorsal view of the telson and the uropodal appendages. These illustrations were reproduced by H. Nouvel and uploaded in WoRMS (WoRMS Editorial Board 2024) by J.P. Lagardère. A better reproduction of these illustrations was obtained during our study (see +Fig. 9 +). +Hansen (1912) +considered + +E. plebeja + +to be closely allied to + +E. tenuis + +and + +E. oculata +Hansen, 1910 + +. In his description (text and figures) of + +E. plebeja + +he focused on a few characters: + + +1. Shape of the frontal plate. Broadly triangular, with sides little concave, tip moderately broadly rounded in + +E. plebeja + +vs. narrow frontal plate in + +E. oculata + +. + + +2. Size and shape of corneas. Corneas of the eyes similar in size in + +E. plebeja + +, with posterior cornea longer and broader than in + +E. tenuis + +, separated from the anterior part of cornea by a space less than half the length of the posterior cornea vs. posterior cornea smaller than anterior, space between anterior and posterior cornea as long as margin of posterior cornea in + +E. tenuis + +. + + +3. Shape of the antennal scale. Five times as long as broad in + +E. plebeja + +vs. 3.5 times as long as broad in + +E. oculata + +; outer margin almost straight in + +E. plebeja + +vs. regularly concave in + +E. tenuis + +. + + +4. Rami of the uropods. In + +E. plebeja + +broader in proportion to length than in + +E. tenuis + +. + + +5. The telson somewhat broader than long in + +E. plebeja + +compared with + +E. tenuis + +. + + +Hansen’s (1912) +illustration of the anterior part of the cephalothorax and of telson also clearly permits to note the absence of small spines. The material examined herein fits well with +Hansen’s (1912) +description and figures, except for a few details: the antennal scale does have a subdistal, small spine, and is a little more than five times as long as broad. + + +In their comparative table of characters in species of + +Euchaetomera +, Biju +et al +. (2020) + +used most of +Hansen’s (1912) +characters except for the absence of the lateral tooth on the antennal scale, which they did not consider; however, they considered a few characters illustrated by +Hansen (1912) +, but not emphasized in his text: + +1. Body. Smooth. +2. Rostrum. Blunt. +3. Antennal scale. Five times as long as broad. +4. Outer margin of antennal scale. Straight. +5. Eye postero-lateral cornea. Expanded laterally, much larger than anterior one. +6. Ocular papilla. Absent (but see text below). +7. Uropodal endopod. Without spine. +8. Telson. Shorter than broad. +9. Lateral margin of telson. Without spines. +10. Telson apex. With one pair of spines. + +In his identification key to species of + +Euchaetomera +, Wittmann (2024) + +differentiated + +E. plebeja + +from all other formally described species by the absence of lateral spine (robust setae) on the telson, the lateral cornea larger than the frontal cornea, and the rounded rostrum. + + +As expected, our material also fits well with these characters except for the length-width proportion of the antennal scale and the presence of a well developed ocular papilla (see below). Also, the rostrum in our material is rather acute vs. rounded in +Wittmann’s (2014) +key. + + +In addition to + +E. plebeja + +, two other species of + +Euchaetomera + +occur in the eastern Pacific. + +Euchaetomera typica + +, the +type +species of the genus, was described from the North Pacific, without a specific locality, and is known from +37°52’ N +, +160°17’ W +(about +3100 km +off the +USA +west coast), in the Gulf of +Panama +, and south to off the Galapagos Islands (also recorded in the tropical and temperate Atlantic and Indian Oceans); + +E. tenuis + +is known from off +Chile +( +type +locality), the Galapagos Islands, and British +Colombia +(also widely distributed in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans) (W.M. +Tattersall 1943 +, 1951; +Murano 1977 +; +Price 2004 +). Comparatively with our material of + +E. plebeja + +, + +E. typica + +is easy to distinguish for its spiny body (smooth body in + +E. plebeja + +), the uropodal endopod with one spine (no spine in + +E. plebeja + +), and for the lateral margin of the telson armed with 5‒6 spines (unarmed in + +E. plebeja + +). + + + +Euchaetomera tenuis + +was described by G.O. +Sars (1883) +without providing illustrations. The same author provided some illustrations two years later (G.O. +Sars 1885 +: pl. XXXVII, figs. 21‒24), including a dorsal view of a female entire specimen, the right antenna and scale, the endopod of “a leg”, and telson. This original description of + +E. tenuis + +, however, is unsatisfactory and causes a problem. Of particular interest is the shape of the eyes of the female +type +(G.O. +Sars 1885 +: pl. XXXVII, fig. 21). G.O. Sars’ description is rather imprecise: “The eyes are greatly expanded towards the apex, being broader than long, and originate close together, so as not to project laterally. The cornea exhibits, somewhat anterior to the middle, a transverse constriction similar to that in the preceding species [= + +E. typica + +]”. As represented, the eyes are bilobulate, with a triangular peduncle, with the “dark” area (presumably the corneas) set obliquely and extending in a continuous manner from the tip of the eye to its posterior margin, without any intermediate area devoid of facets. As noted by +Hansen (1912: 199‒200) +in his description of + +E. typica + +(a species also described by G.O. Sars in 1983, and illustrated by him in 1885), some of G.O. Sars’ illustrations based on the +type +material of + +E. typica + +are not reliable. In the case of + +E. tenuis + +, the situation appears to be similar. Nor the description in the text neither the figure (i.e., fig. 21) provided by G.O. +Sars (1885) +fit with the notes provided by +Hansen (1912) +. Indeed, while describing + +E. plebeja +, +Hansen (1912: 202) + +provided a comparative evaluation of the eyes between + +E. tenuis + +and + +E. plebeja + +: “The eyes [of + +E. plebeja + +are] about as thick as in + +E. tenuis + +, but the posterior area [cornea] with acting facets is much larger, being longer than broad and the distance between the anterior and the posterior area [cornea] at the outer margin [is] distinctly less than half as long as the outer margin of the posterior area [cornea], while in + +E. tenuis + +that distance is about as long as the whole outer margin of the posterior area [cornea] which is shorter than broad”. This precise description does not match G.O. Sars’ (1885) illustration, but fits well with illustrations of + +E. tenuis + +eyes provided by successive authors ( +Illig 1930 +; W.M. Tattersall & O.S. +Tattersall 1951 +; + +Ii 1964 + +) and with our material. + + +Based on the comments by +Hansen (1912) +and subsequent illustrations of + +E. tenuis + +, in + +E. tenuis + +the postero-lateral cornea is much smaller than the anterior cornea, triangular in shape in dorsal view vs. postero-lateral cornea slightly larger than the anterior one, oval-shape in + +E. plebeja + +( +Hansen, 1912 +: fig. 1a). The specimens collected off western +Mexico +possess an eye similar to the one of + +E. plebeja + +as illustrated by +Hansen (1912) +, and its shape remains unchanged with growth of the specimens ( +Fig. 7 +). The eye in our material, however, possesses a well developed, tubular-shaped ocular papilla, visible in ventral view near the postero-lateral margin of the anterior cornea ( +Fig. 7 +). This papilla is similar to the one observed in +E. richardi +( +Nouvel 1945 +; + +Nouvel +et al +. 1999 + +), and both appear to be located in the same position. +Hansen (1912) +did not illustrate an ocular papilla and did not signal its presence in his short description. The +type +material of + +E. plebeja + +(USNM 45372), however, was located and examined (courtesy of R. Lemaitre). According to Dr. Lemaitre comments, the specimen is small and in bad shape, but there is an ocular papilla on the eye, visible only ventrally, which explains why it was overlooked by +Hansen (1912) +. This ocular papilla is similar in all respects to the one illustrated herein (see +Figs. 7A‒D +) for the Mexican material of + +E. plebeja + +(R. Lemaitre, pers. comm. +Nov 2023 +). + + +It is worth noting that, according to + +Biju +et al +. (2010) + +, + +E. tenuis + +lacks an ocular papilla, but a papilla is clearly present according to +Illig (1930 +: figs. 93, 94), W.M. Tattersall & O.S. +Tattersall (1951 +: fig. 66C), and +Ii (1964 +: fig. 94D). + + +Another character differentiating + +E. plebeja + +from + +E. tenuis + +is the presence of a single pair of short setae at the telson apex in + +E. plebeja + +vs. two pairs of setae in + +E. tenuis + +; these short setae, however, are sometimes lost during sampling operations. All specimens collected during this survey possess a single, slender seta on each postero-lateral corner of telson apex ( +Figs. 6B +, +7A‒D +), similar among specimens of different size. + + +In our material of + +E. plebeja + +, uropodal appendages are similar in specimens of different size, but there is a slight variation in the exopod-endopod length ratio ( +Fig. 7 +), which could be attributed to intra-specific variations. + + +As stated earlier, + +E. plebeja + +is a rare species, with material reported only three times: +two specimens +in the original description by +Hansen (1912) +, two by +Tattersall (1943) +, and presumably six by +Murano (1977) +. As stated above, the +type +specimen examined by +Hansen (1912) +is deposited at the Smithsonian Institution (USNM 45372); the second (immature) specimen reported by +Hansen (1912) +is deposited in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard (MCZ CRU-7478). One of the +two specimens +reported by W.M. +Tattersall (1943) +from off +Chile +(adult male) and deposited at the Smithsonian Institution (USNM 86035) could not be located; the whereabouts of the other specimen from off +Colombia +(immature female) remains unknown. Review of databases and inquiries made with staff of the +United States +National Museum in +New York +, the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, the London Museum of Natural History, and the Natural Museum +Cardiff +, +Wales +were unsuccessful. + + +Material of + +E. plebeja + +from near +Hawaii +reported by +Murano (1977 +; +six specimens +, including adult males and females) was partly illustrated. +Murano (1977) +observed a couple of differences between his material and the original description by +Hansen (1912) +: 1. In the material from off +Hawaii +, the antennal scale features an external tooth in the mature male ( +Murano 1977 +: fig. 2a), tooth absent in Hansen’s description (but present in our material). 2. In the material from +Hawaii +, the eye is proportionally broader than in Hansen’s description when compared to the breadth of the anterior margin of the carapace. This Hawaiian material, if still available, probably needs further study to confirm its identity. + + +In addition to the three species occurring in the eastern Pacific, the genus + +Euchaetomera + +comprises of another six formally described species. + +Biju +et al +. (2010) + +described one of these species, +E. spinosa +, from the southern Indian Ocean, and provided a comparative table for the nine species known at that time. Two of these, +E. spinosa +and +E. zurstrasseni +feature a spiny body, a character not found in + +E. plebeja + +. As in + +E. tenuis + +, +E. richardi +has the postero-lateral cornea much smaller than the anterior one vs. being larger than the anterior one in + +E. plebeja + +. + +Euchaetomera oculata + +is distinguished from + +E. plebeja + +by a much less slender antennal scale, only 3.5 x as long as wide vs. about 5 x in + +E. plebeja + +. The eye of + +E. oculata + +, as illustrated by +Hansen (1910) +, features a semi-circular anterior cornea and a triangle-shaped postero-lateral cornea, of about the same size, with no trace of an ocular papilla; in subsequent contributions, however, the postero-lateral cornea of + +E. oculata + +is oval ( +Coifmann 1937 +: fig. 25b) or angular ( +Illig 1930 +), in both cases larger than the anterior cornea and without an ocular papilla. It is not clear why + +Biju +et al +. (2010) + +included the presence of an ocular papilla in + +E. oculata + +in their comparative table. The last two species are +E. glyphidophthalmica +and +E. intermedia +. In both species, the rostrum is acute vs. obtusely triangular in + +E. plebeja + +, the antennal scale is less slender than in + +E. plebeja + +, and there is no ocular papilla vs. present in + +E. plebeja +( + +Biju +et al. +2010 + +) + +. + + + +FIGURE 1. + +Euchaetomera plebeja +Hansen, 1912 + +. A‒C, E, male (CL 2.07 mm; TL 5.67 mm) (ICML-EMU-12643), D, female (CL 1.57 mm; TL 4.39 mm) (ICML-EMU-12638-A). A, lateral view; B, anterior part of cephalothorax with appendages, dorsal view, and magnification of left eye enlarged; C, antennula of male, dorsal view with distal portion of appendix masculina (setae omitted) (arrow); D, antennula of female, dorsal view; E, antennal peduncle with scale, dorsal view. + + + + +FIGURE 2. + +Euchaetomera plebeja +Hansen, 1912 + +. Male (CL 2.07 mm; TL 5.67 mm) (ICML-EMU-12643). A, Left and right mandibles with mandibular palp, enlarged distal article of left palp (arrow); B, maxilla, with enlarged distal seta of endopodite distal article; C, labrum, with magnification of posterior margin (arrow); D, maxillula, with enlarged distal seta of distal article (arrow). + + + + +FIGURE 3. + +Euchaetomera plebeja +Hansen, 1912 + +. Male (CL 2.07 mm; TL 5.67 mm) (ICML-EMU-12643). SEM images of mandibles. A‒C, left mandible; D‒F, right mandible + + + + +FIGURE 4. + +Euchaetomera plebeja +Hansen, 1912 + +. A, female (CL 2.40 mm; TL, 6.83 mm) (ICML-EMU-12637). B, C, D, male (CL 2.07 mm; TL 5.67 mm) (ICML-EMU-12643). A, thoracopod 1, with endite (arrow); B, thoracopod 2, with enlarged endopodal dactylus and claw (arrow); C, thoracopod 3, with enlarged endopodal distal articles (arrow); D, penis. + + + + +FIGURE 5. + +Euchaetomera plebeja +Hansen, 1912 + +. A‒E, male (CL 2.07 mm; TL 5.67 mm) (ICML-EMU-12643), F‒J, female (CL 1.57 mm; TL 4.39 mm) (ICML-EMU-12638-A). A‒E, pleopods 1 to 5; F‒J, pleopods 1 to 5. + + + + +FIGURE 6. + +Euchaetomera plebeja +Hansen, 1912 + +. Male (CL 2.07 mm; TL 5.67 mm) (ICML-EMU-12643). A, uropodal exopod and endopod, dorsal vie; B, telson, dorsal view, with magnification of distal part (arrow). + + + + +FIGURE 7. + +Euchaetomera plebeja +Hansen, 1912 + +. A‒D, eyes in dorsal view, sketch of left eye in ventral view showing ocular papilla, uropodal appendages, telson, and tip of same in four specimens of different size. A, male (CL 1.04 mm) (ICML-EMU-12643); B, male (CL 1.29 mm) (ICML-EMU-12643); C, male (CL 1.39 mm) (ICML-EMU-12640). D, male (CL 1.74 mm) (ICML-EMU-12640). + + + + +FIGURE 8. +Distribution of sampling localities in western Mexico, where + +Euchaetomera plebeja +Hansen, 1912 + +was collected during this study. + + + + +FIGURE 9. + +Euchaetomera plebeja +Hansen, 1912 + +. Type (USNM 45372). A, anterior part of cephalothorax with appendages, dorsal view; B, telson and left uropodal appendages, dorsal view (from +Hansen, 1912 +); C, telson and left uropodal appendages, dorsal view (redraw from +Hansen, 1912 +). + + + +Shape of the eye, particularly form and extension of corneas, appears to be a critical, distinctive character for separating species of + +Euchaetomera + +. Ideally, precise dorsal and lateral views of the eye should be provided. In some cases, the presence or absence of an ocular papilla appears to be another character that has not been adequately described and that should be checked carefully. + + + + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/61/2A/1B/612A1B232868057438B7485AFA4BFD3F.xml b/data/61/2A/1B/612A1B232868057438B7485AFA4BFD3F.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..17b1119cc90 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/61/2A/1B/612A1B232868057438B7485AFA4BFD3F.xml @@ -0,0 +1,230 @@ + + + +A new species of the genus Notodoma Lacordaire, 1854 (Coleoptera, Histeridae, Exosternini) from Korea, with a revised key to species of the genus + + + +Author + +Seung, Jinbae + + + +Author + +Lee, Seunghyun + + + +Author + +Lee, Minhyeuk + + + +Author + +Lee, Seunghwan + +text + + +Zootaxa + + +2024 + +2024-10-07 + + +5519 + + +1 + + +143 +150 + + + + +http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5519.1.8 + +journal article +10.11646/zootaxa.5519.1.8 +1175-5326 +13915646 +7C323D7D-B7DE-4ED2-8D08-723E0D5D47A1 + + + + + + +Genus + +Notodoma +Lacordaire, 1854 + + + + + + + + + + +Notodoma +Lacordaire, 1854: 266 + + +. + +Type +species + +: + +Notodoma globatum +Marseul, 1855 + + + + + + +Diagnosis. +Body globose, strongly convex; mostly reddish to blackish brown with yellow maculae on elytral base; head long; mandible slender; frontal stria well-developed; pronotum with complete marginal stria; elytral dorsal striae 1, 2, 4, and sutural stria usually crenulate, complete; propygidium almost hexagonal, strongly convex; prosternal keel with carinal striae, emarginated at apex; mesoventrite bi-emarginate at anterior margin, with a distinct projection at middle; intercoxal disc of metaventrite with a pair of oblique striae, converging at median longitudinal groove; legs slender, with 7–12 denticles on outer margin; tarsal groove of protibia deep, straight ( +Lacordaire, 1854 +; +Marseul, 1855 +; +Ôhara & Nakane, 1989 +; +Yélamos & Tishechkin, 1996 +). + + + + +A key to species of the genus + +Notodoma + +(revised based on +Yélamos & Tishechkin, 1996 +) + + + + + + + + + +1. Mesoventrite without secondary marginal stria between mesoventral marginal stria and antero-lateral angles of mesoventrite on each side............................................................................................ +2 + + + + +- Mesoventrite with secondary marginal stria between mesoventral marginal stria and antero-lateral angles of mesoventrite on each side............................................................................................ +3 + + + + + + +2. Meso-metaventral suture not impressed, with crenulate stria; intercoxal disc of metaventrite with a pair of oblique striae, extending from each anterior angle of metacoxae, converging at basal eight-tenths of median longitudinal suture + +N. rufulum + + + + + +- Meso-metaventral suture impressed, without crenulate stria; intercoxal disc of metaventrite with a pair of oblique striae, extending from each anterior angle of metacoxae, converging at basal seven-tenths of median longitudinal suture.................................................................................................... + +N. solstitiale + + + + + + + +3. Intercoxal disc of metaventrite without oblique striae, only with several aligned punctures with a fine and short stria opposite to metacoxae, not converging on the median longitudinal suture.......................................... + +N. lewisi + + + + + +- Intercoxal disc of metaventrite with oblique striae, complete and crenulate, converging on the median longitudinal suture... +4 + + + + + + +4. Mesoventrite with medially interrupted secondary marginal stria; mesoventral marginal stria complete; elytral dorsal stria 3 composed by several distinct crenulate impressions................................................. + +N. globatum + + + + + +- Mesoventrite with complete secondary marginal stria; mesoventral marginal stria interrupted at middle; elytral dorsal stria 3 absent or composed by shallow impressions................................................................ +5 + + + + + + +5. Elytral surface deeply and densely punctate, abruptly rugose and strigate near apex; two epipleural striae complete................................................................................................. + +N. strigosulum + + + + + +- Elytral surface finely and sparsely punctate, neither rugose nor strigate near apex; only one epipleural stria complete...... +6 + + + + + + +6. Frontal stria parallel-sided, broadly interrupted anteriorly; meso-metaventral suture not impressed, with crenulate stria; intercoxal disc of metaventrite with a pair of oblique striae, extending from each anterior angle of metacoxae, converging at basal three-fifths of median longitudinal suture.................................................... + +N. fungorum + + + + + +- Frontal stria W-shaped, narrowly interrupted anteriorly at middle; meso-metaventral suture impressed, without crenulate stria; intercoxal disc of metaventrite with a pair of oblique striae, extending from each anterior angle of metacoxae, converging at basal four-fifths of median longitudinal suture............................................... + + +N. koreanum + +sp. n. + + + + + + + + \ No newline at end of file