Antarctic caprellids (Crustacea: Amphipoda) collected during the “Polarstern” cruise 42 ANT XIV/2

The recent “Polarstern” surveys, carried out within the framework of the international EASIZ (Ecology of the Antarctic Shelf Ice Zone) programme, have been representing a significant effort to improve the understanding of certain as yet poorly known animal groups in the southern ocean. A collection...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inOrganisms diversity & evolution Vol. 1; no. 4; pp. 323 - 324
Main Authors Guerra-García, Jose M., Coleman, Charles O.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Elsevier GmbH 2001
Subjects
Amphipoda
Antarctic Ocean
Caprellidea
Crustacea
taxonomy
Crustacea
Antarctic Ocean
taxonomy
Caprellidea
Amphipoda
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The recent “Polarstern” surveys, carried out within the framework of the international EASIZ (Ecology of the Antarctic Shelf Ice Zone) programme, have been representing a significant effort to improve the understanding of certain as yet poorly known animal groups in the southern ocean. A collection of caprellids from the “Polarstern” cruise 42 ANT XIV/2 contained five species in four genera: Caprellinoides mayeri (Pfeffer, 1888); C. tristanensis Stebbing 1888; Aeginoides gaussi Schellenberg, 1926; Pseudododecas bowmani McCain & Gray, 1971; and Paraproto condylata (Haswell, 1885). Although all were previously recorded from the Antarctic region, Pseudododecas bowmani and Paraproto condylata, poorly known from previous studies, are redescribed and illustrated in detail. The examined specimens of P. bowmani are in good agreement with the descriptions of McCain & Gray (1971) and Laubitz (1991), except for the outer lobe of maxilla 1, which has 5 robust setae instead of 6. McCain & Gray reported a setal formula 1-25-1 for the terminal article of the mandibular palp. However, Laubitzs specimen had a setal formula 1-11-1 as do the specimens of the present study. The pereopod 3 is only 4-articulate in the specimens examined. The fifth article is not indicated by an incomplete suture as reported by Laubitz (1991). These and other minor differences are probably due to differences of developmental stage or intraspecific variation. The illustrations of Paraproto condylata in Mayer (1903) and McCain & Gray (1971) were incomplete; detailed description and drawings of mouthparts, gnathopods, pereopods, and abdomen were lacking.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:1439-6092
1618-1077
DOI:10.1078/1439-6092-00026