Paralaophonte pacifica Lang, 1965
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00222933.2012.757657 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5198257 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2C4C87C9-DF0D-7D1B-FE27-2596FDFDFDC5 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Paralaophonte pacifica Lang |
status |
|
( Figures 7–9 View Figure 7 View Figure 8 View Figure 9 )
Material examined
One dissected female (EMUCOP-03). Collected from off Campeche State (19 ◦ 29 ′ 52.74 ′′ N, 91 ◦ 01 ′ 50.04 ′′ W), 16.7 m depth, 55.5% sand, 4% clay, 40.4%, collected in 2002, silt GoogleMaps .
Locality
Off Campeche State, Gulf of Mexico (south-eastern Mexico) (19 ◦ 29 ′ 52.74 ′′ N, 91 ◦ 01 ′ 50.04 ′′ W) GoogleMaps .
Remarks
Lang (1965) described Paralaophonte pacifica from Monterey Bay (California). Mielke (1981) found many specimens of Paralaophonte in samples taken from various sites in the Galapagos. In a first approach, he suggested a possible close relationship of his material with P. dieuzeidei (Monard) , P. brevirostris (Claus) and P. pacifica and considered Sars’ (1908) description of P. brevirostris as the reference diagnosis noting that this nominal species might contain other species. He recognized some differences between the Galapagos material, and P. dieuzeidei and P. brevirostris , and concluded that the population from the Galapagos might well belong to a subspecies of P. pacifica , which he named P. pacifica galapagoensis Mielke. Almost three decades later, Huys and Lee (2009) suggested a closer relationship of P. pacifica galapagoensis with P. brevirostris , than to its nominotypical subspecies P. pacifica pacifica , and raised it to full species rank based on a number of differences (see Huys and Lee 2009: 22–23). The Mexican material from the Gulf of Mexico is herein attributed to P. pacifica . These two species are identical mainly in the presence of a small projection on the female second antennulary segment ( Figure 7B View Figure 7 ), length: width ratio of the caudal rami ( Figure 7A View Figure 7 ), and general shape of the female P5 ( Figure 9C View Figure 9 ). Unfortunately, only one female was found and no comments can be made about the variability of the material herein presented or about the male sexual dimorphism.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |