Epimeria (Subepimeria) geodesiae Bellan-Santini, 1972
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2017.359 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3857568 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4A5A879B-FF08-68EF-FE3B-FEE3CE0EF851 |
treatment provided by |
Carolina (2020-05-26 13:47:48, last updated by Juliana 2025-01-14 17:34:16) |
scientific name |
Epimeria (Subepimeria) geodesiae Bellan-Santini, 1972 |
status |
|
Epimeria (Subepimeria) geodesiae Bellan-Santini, 1972 View in CoL
Subepimeria geodesiae Bellan-Santini, 1972: 225 View in CoL , pls 33–34.
Epimeria puncticulata View in CoL – Watling & Holman 1981: 213–215 (discussion, in part), not fig. 21 (= E. (Subepimeria) iota View in CoL sp. nov.); Coleman 1998b: 223–224 (in part).
Subepimeria geodesiae View in CoL – De Broyer 1983: 305 (discussion).
Description
Description based on the illustrations of Bellan-Santini (1972).
ROSTRUM. Reaching tip of article 1 of peduncle of antenna 1, broad in lateral view.
EYES. Large, rounded.
PEREION–PLEOSOME TOOTH PATTERN. Pereionites 1–7 totally smooth; pleonite 1 toothless; pleonite 2 with small, posterodorsal tooth; pleonite 3 with posterodorsal tip forming a small, distinct rounded (very broadly triangular) lobe projecting backwards.
COXAE 1–3. Tip subacute in coxae 1–2, blunt in coxa 3.
COXA 4. Very narrow; anterodorsal border weakly convex, directly followed by very broadly rounded ventral lobe (anteroventral border absent); posteroventral border nearly straight (weakly concave); ratio length of posterodorsal border / length of posteroventral border: 0.5.
COXA 5. Very broad, posteroventral corner with broadly rounded angular discontinuity.
COXA 6. Posterior border regularly rounded.
COXA 7. Posterior border nearly straight (very weakly convex); posteroventral corner broadly rounded.
EPIMERAL PLATES 1–3. Posteroventral angle angulate in plate 1, produced into a small tooth in plate 2; produced into a medium-sized tooth in plate 3.
UROSOME TOOTH PATTERN. Urosomite 1 with narrow triangular dorsal process; urosomite 3 with dorsolateral borders straight, with tip produced into a long tooth pointing obliquely.
TELSON. Cleft on 0.25.
GNATHOPODS 1–2. Carpus and propodus of normal slenderness; propodus not narrowing distally, and palm distinct.
PEREIOPOD 5. Basis of normal width, with posteroproximal process indistinct (reduced to very low proximal dilatation in continuity with the more distal part of the posterior border), with posterodistal corner forming a blunt-tipped broadly triangular process (acute angle) projecting backwards; merus, carpus and propodus stout.
PEREIOPOD 6. Basis of normal width, with posteroproximal process indistinct (reduced to very low proximal dilatation in continuity with the more distal part of the posterior border), with posterior border nearly straight and parallel to anterior border, with posterodistal corner forming a blunt-tipped broadly triangular process (acute but nearly squared angle) scarcely projecting backwards; merus, carpus and propodus stout.
PEREIOPOD 7. Basis broad; posterior border weakly convex, with shallow concavity in distal 0.8, terminated into a sharp triangular tooth (forming a squared angle).
Body length
15 mm.
Distribution
Adélie Coast: Cape Géodésie, 115–135 m, on coarse sand with abundant epifauna: hydroids, bryozoans and sponges ( Bellan-Santini 1972).
Remarks
Watling & Holman (1981) synonymised Subepimeria geodesiae with Epimeria puncticulata , which they considered as a widely distributed variable species. Molecular data (COI, 28S) revealed different species within E. puncticulata s. lat. ( Verheye et al. 2016a; this paper Fig. 342 View Fig ), leading to the resurrection of Subepimeria , as a subgenus. The shape of coxa 4 of E. geodesiae as illustrated by Bellan-Santini (1972) is unique and does not fit with the descriptions of the holotype of E. puncticulata (K.H. Barnard 1930; Coleman 1994) or any other Subepimeria species. Epimeria geodesiae is considered here to be a valid species.
Barnard K. H. 1930. Crustacea. Part XI. Amphipoda. British Antarctic ( Terra Nova ) Expedition, 1910. Natural History Report, Zoology 8 (4): 307 - 454. Available from http: // www. biodiversitylibrary. org / item / 195187 # page / 7 / mode / 1 up [accessed 12 Sep. 2017].
Bellan-Santini D. 1972. Invertebres marins des XIIeme et XVeme Expeditions Antarctiques Francaises en Terre Adelie. 10. Amphipodes Gammariens. Tethys, Supplement 4: 157 - 238.
Coleman C. O. 1994. A new Epimeria species (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Epimeriidae) and redescriptions of three other species in the genus from the Antarctic Ocean. Journal of Natural History 28 (3): 555 - 576. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222939400770251
Coleman C. O. 1998 b. Epimeria vaderi, a new species (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Epimeriidae) from the Antarctic Ocean. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin 74 (2): 215 - 224. https: // doi. org / 10.1002 / mmnz. 19980740205
De Broyer C. 1983. Recherches sur la systematique et l'evolution des crustaces amphipodes gammarides antarctiques et subantarctiques. Phd thesis: 1 - 468, pls 1 - 123. Universite Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Verheye M., Backeljau T. & d'Udekem d'Acoz C. 2016 a. Looking beneath the tip of the iceberg: diversification of the genus Epimeria on the Antarctic shelf (Crustacea, Amphipoda). In: Gutt J., David B. & Isla E. (eds) High environmental variability and steep biological gradients in the waters off the northern Antarctic Peninsula. Polar Biology 39 (5): 925 - 945, online supplementary material https: // doi. org / 10.1007 / s 00300 - 016 - 1910 - 5
Watling L. & Holman H. 1981. Additional acanthonotozomatid, paramphitoid and stegocephalid Amphipoda from the Southern Ocean. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 94 (1): 181 - 227. Available from http: // biodiversitylibrary. org / page / 34608032 [accessed 27 Sep. 2016].
Fig. 342. Phylogenetic tree obtained by Bayesian analysis of the concatenated COI and 28S sequences, updated from Verheye et al. (2016). Bayesian posterior probabilities and bootstrap values (from the Maximum Likelihood analysis) are indicated above the nodes of interest. Bootstrap values inferior to 50 are not indicated. Besides the species names are indicated the MOTUs codes used in Verheye et al. (2016). The Genbank accession number of the outgroup species: Gnathiphimedia sexdentata (Schellenberg, 1926) are KU870835 (COI) and KU759609 (28S).
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 |
|
SubPhylum |
Crustacea |
Class |
|
Order |
|
SuperFamily |
Eusiroidea |
Family |
|
Genus |
|
SubGenus |
Subepimeria |
Epimeria (Subepimeria) geodesiae Bellan-Santini, 1972
d’Acoz, Cédric d’Udekem & Verheye, Marie L. 2017 |
E. (Subepimeria) iota
Coleman C. O. 1998: 223 |
Subepimeria geodesiae
De Broyer C. 1983: 305 |
Epimeria puncticulata
Watling L. & Holman H. 1981: 213 |
Subepimeria geodesiae
Bellan-Santini D. 1972: 225 |
1 (by carolina, 2020-05-26 13:47:48)
2 (by ExternalLinkService, 2020-05-26 14:02:42)
3 (by ExternalLinkService, 2020-05-26 14:40:57)
4 (by ExternalLinkService, 2020-05-26 15:04:25)
5 (by ExternalLinkService, 2020-05-26 18:12:45)
6 (by ExternalLinkService, 2021-08-18 03:01:34)
7 (by ExternalLinkService, 2021-10-29 00:22:53)
8 (by ExternalLinkService, 2021-10-29 03:01:44)
9 (by ExternalLinkService, 2023-10-31 16:31:47)
10 (by ExternalLinkService, 2023-11-01 12:24:18)
11 (by ExternalLinkService, 2024-11-25 23:00:23)
12 (by juliana, 2025-01-13 18:34:56)