Gitanopsis pusilla K.H. Barnard, 1916
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.335.5567 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9062FDC5-D079-838D-8F32-52095A52AA90 |
treatment provided by |
|
scientific name |
Gitanopsis pusilla K.H. Barnard, 1916 |
status |
|
Gitanopsis pusilla K.H. Barnard, 1916 Figure 3
Gitanopsis pusilla Synonymy: K.H. Barnard, 1916: 144, pl. 26 (11-12); Griffiths 1973a: 277; Griffiths 1974a: 178; Griffiths 1974b: 224; Griffiths 1974c: 273; Griffiths 1975: 105; Ledoyer 1979a: 17, fig. 3; Ledoyer 1982b: 104-105, fig. 33; Ortiz and Lalana 1997: 106.
Material.
5 specimens, TIO-12, Kampung Tekek, Pulau Tioman, 2 2°49'11"N, 104°9'32"E, macroalgae, Azman, B.A.R., Josim, J.J., 11 November 1997; 5 specimens, TIO-15, Renggis, Pulau Tioman, 2°48'35"N, 104°8'6"E, seagrass, Azman, B.A.R., Rayida, J., 15 July 1999.
Remarks.
The specimens seem referable to the Gitanopsis pusilla without much doubt. In amphilochid amphipods, most species descriptions are based only on females, since the collection of males is rare. The female gnathopods are typical among amphilochids in having a distally dilated propodus, an evenly convex palm and an elongate carpus. The specimens at hand are clearly related to the eastern Pacific species ( K.H. Barnard 1916) in bearing the accessory flagellum of antenna 1. Ortiz and Lalana (1997) have reported Gitanopsis pusilla and Gitanopsis antipai from the neighbouring waters of Bunaken, Indonesia. In their illustration of Gitanopsis antipai , the species is set apart from Gitanopsis pusilla by the lack of an accessory flagellum, the relatively slender basis of pereopod 7 and the less spinose uropods 1-2.
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 |