Fennera chacei Holthuis, 1951
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.201482 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6185784 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C56B87D1-FF82-FFB5-7CA5-F881FEFAAAB3 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Fennera chacei Holthuis, 1951 |
status |
|
Fennera chacei Holthuis, 1951 View in CoL
( Figs. 1–4 View FIGURE 1 View FIGURE 2 View FIGURE 3 View FIGURE 4 , 8 View FIGURE 8 d–f)
Fennera chacei Holthuis, 1951: 171 View in CoL , pl. 54 (type locality: Secas Island, Pacific coast of Panama).
Type material. Holotype: ovigerous female (pcl. 3.1 mm, tl. 7.5 mm) ( USNM 88888), Pacific coast of Panama, Secas Island, Bay of South Island, Allan Hancock Expedition 252-34, from Porites , 22 February 1934.
Paratypes: 4 ovig. females, 3 males and 3 or 4 damaged specimens (dissected) ( USNM 90279), Pacific coast of Panama, Bahia Honda, shallow waters, about 2 fm, coral, 10 March 1933, Allan Hancock Expedition 114-33; 1 ovigerous female and 3 males ( USNM 90282), Pacific coast of Colombia, Gorgona Island, from Pocillopora sp., coll. W. Schmitt, 22 January 1935.
Other material examined. 58 females and 34 males (UM 32.9592), Pacific coast of Panama, Uva Island, 07˚49’N, 81˚46W, 3–7 m, “live 26“, coll. G. Hockensmith, March 2005; 1 male ( RMNH D 51389), Pacific coast of Colombia, Gorgona Island, on Pocillopora damicornis , coll. H. Prahl, 20 August 1983.
Diagnosis. Small-sized pontoniine shrimp species with subcylindrical body. Carapace swollen, smooth, with armed lower orbital margin ( Figs. 1 View FIGURE 1 a–c, 4). Rostrum short, pointing distally, compressed, turned forward; dorsal rostral carina well developed extending onto carapace, with 3–5 small dorsal teeth, with 1 or 2 teeth situated posterior to level of orbit ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 c); ventral rostral carina and proximal lateral rostral lamina feebly developed ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 a, c). Orbit well developed, deep, lower orbital margin armed with several, usually 3 or 4, sharp turned forward small teeth; inferior orbital angle bluntly produced forward. Abdominal somites smooth; pleura of abdominal somites I– V rounded ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 ). Telson ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 d) about 2.5 times as long as proximal width, narrowing distally, with 2 pairs of small dorsal submarginal spines at 0.25 and 0.65 of telson length; distal margin of telson armed with 3 pairs of spines, with intermediate spines large, hook-shaped ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 e). Eyes well developed, large, with swollen eyestalk and with ovate cornea ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 a). Antennula ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 f) well developed; basal segment about twice longer than wide, with distolateral angle bearing large acute tooth, without medial convex projection (lobe); without ventral tooth. Antenna ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 g) well developed, basicerite large, about twice as long as wide, without distolateral tooth; scaphocerite wide, about 1.5 times longer than maximal width, with well developed acute distolateral tooth not reaching to level of distal margin of blade. Pereiopod I with relatively stout segments; carpus about 3.5 times as long as wide, equal to length of chela and slightly shorter than merus; propodus (palm) about 3 times longer than wide, about 2.5 times longer than fingers, slightly tapering distally; fingers slender, with straight, smooth cutting margins. Pereiopods II dissimilar in shape and unequal size ( Figs. 1 View FIGURE 1 , 3 View FIGURE 3 a, g, 8d, e); major pereiopod II ( Figs. 3 View FIGURE 3 a–d, 8e) with relatively robust and smooth segments; carpus triangular, flaring distally, overlapping carpo-propodal articulation, with smooth distal margin ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 b–d); palm cylindrical, about 2.5 times as long as wide, slightly swollen in medial part, expanded ventrally in its distoventral part; fingers robust, about 1/3 of the length of palm; fixed finger (pollex) slender, pointed distally, about twice longer than wide, with smooth entire cutting margin and simple sharp curved tip; movable finger (dactylus) relatively stout, flattened, with feebly developed dorsal carina, with entire smooth cutting margin and simple curved tip ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 e, f); minor pereiopod II ( Figs. 3 View FIGURE 3 g, 8d) with relatively slender proximal segments; carpus about 2.5 times longer than wide, equal to length of merus, shorter than propodus, smooth, unarmed; propodus slightly flattened, about 3 times as long as wide, with straight and smooth lateral margins, distodorsal margin with rounded depression covered with numerous minute teeth and simple setae; pollex well developed, flattened, bluntly rounded distally ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 k); dactylus well developed, robust, flattened, about as long as wide, bluntly rounded distally, with dorsal margin covered with minute teeth and simple setae ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 h, i). Pereiopod III ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 f) with smooth unarmed segments ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 j); carpus about 2.5 times longer than wide, about half of length of propodus and slightly shorter than merus; propodus slender, pointed distally, about 5.5 times as long as proximal its width, with smooth unarmed margins; dactylus simple, with proximal rounded ventral protuberance and simple slender and curved unguis. Pereiopods III–V similar.
Uropods slender, slightly exceeding telson; distolateral margin of uropodal exopod rectangular with well developed slender distolateral spine ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 j).
Males are morphologically similar to female, but smaller in size. No significant sexual dimorphism in pereiopod II was observed ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 ).
Remarks. The described specimens agree well with the original description of Fennera chacei given by Holthuis (1951). For morphological differences from the second species of the genus, see below.
Distribution. This work confirms the presence of the species along the Pacific coasts of Panama and Columbia. Previously published records of Fennera chacei from the Indo-West Pacific including Kenya, Seychelles Islands, Réunion, Maldive Islands, Sri Lanka, Japan, Papua New Guinea, Queensland, Marshall Islands, Hawaiian Islands, Clipperton Island and Galapagos Islands) need to be verified because they could belong to the newly described species.
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 |
|
SubFamily |
Pontoniinae |
Genus |
Fennera chacei Holthuis, 1951
Marin, Ivan 2011 |
Fennera chacei
Holthuis 1951: 171 |