Epialtus parvulus, Tavares & de Mendonça, 2022
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5146.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:52C3E5E3-80B6-49DB-BC9C-194560D491F7 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7626269 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E3878A-A865-FF85-04F4-8B03FC88FDE4 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Epialtus parvulus |
status |
sp. nov. |
Epialtus parvulus View in CoL sp. nov.
( Figs. 14A–E View FIGURE 14 , 15A, C, E, G, H, J, K, M View FIGURE 15 , 16A–E View FIGURE 16 , 17A–E View FIGURE 17 )
Trindade and Martin Vaz specimens. Holotype male, cl 6.4 mm, cw 5.1 mm, ( MZUSP 40577 View Materials ), off Espírito Santo, Trindade Island, Ponta do Monumento, 20º30’10.3’’S, 29º20’36.1’’W, J.B. Mendonça coll., 13.vii.20º12, 8.1 m. GoogleMaps 1 ovigerous female paratype, cl 6.5 mm, cw 5.6 mm ( MZUSP 39678 View Materials ), ibidem, Ponta Noroeste, 20º29’46.4’’S, 29º20’46.4’’W, J.B. Mendonça coll., 28.xi.2017, 9.4 m, on foliaceous calcareous reddish algae. GoogleMaps 1 young female paratype, cl 3.8 mm, cw 2.9 mm ( MZUSP 39679 View Materials ), GoogleMaps ibidem, Enseada das Orelhas, 20º29’40.2’’S, 29º20’32.9’’W, J.B. Mendonça coll., 16.v.2014, 10.4 m. 1 male paratype, cl 4.4 mm, cw 3.2 mm ( MZUSP 40975 View Materials ), GoogleMaps ibidem, 30.vi.2012, 14.4 m. 1 juvenile female paratype ( MZUSP 40687 View Materials ), GoogleMaps ibidem, Enseada da Cachoeira , Farrilhões, 20º31’2.4’’S, 29º19’52.0’’W, J.B. Mendonça coll., 5.v.2014, 14.4 m. 1 male paratype, cl 6.4 mm, cw 5.0 mm ( MZUSP 40727 View Materials ), GoogleMaps Martin Vaz Archipelago, 20º30’45.7’’S, 29º18’21.9’’W, J.B. Mendonça coll., 23.vii.2013, washed algae, 13 m. 1 ovigerous female paratype, cl 6.4 mm, cw 5.5 mm ( MZUSP 33814 View Materials ), GoogleMaps ibidem, J.B. Mendonça coll., 24.vii.2013, 12.3 m. GoogleMaps
Comparative material examined. Epialtus bituberculatus : Brazil: Rio Grande do Norte: 1 female ( MZUSP 22570 View Materials ), Rio do Fogo, Praia de Zumbi, 05º19’908’’S, 35º21’607”W, stn 29, Tavares et al. coll., 27.xi.2009, fisherman beach pulling net. 3 males, 11 females ( MZUSP 22660 View Materials ), Praia de Genipabu , 05º41’630”S, 35º12’210’’W, stn 2, Tavares et al. coll., 16.xi.2009, 0.2 m, washed algae. Espírito Santo: 1 male, 1 ovigerous female ( MZUSP 32450 View Materials ), Aracruz, 2.xii.1987. Rio de Janeiro: 5 males, 5 females ( MZUSP 2788 View Materials ) , Ilha Grande, Praia do Funil, 24.vii.1966. São Paulo : 3 males ( MZUSP 1713 View Materials ) , São Vicente, Ilha das Vacas, Stowbunenko coll., 1962. Epialtus brasiliensis : Rio de Janeiro: 1 male, 1 ovigerous female ( MZUSP 41772 View Materials ), Cotunduba Island , 22º57’55.76’’S, 43º109’02.09” W, J.B. Mendonça coll., 14.xi.2009, 6.7 m. Epialtus elongatus : United States: Florida: holotype male, cl 12 mm, cw 8.2 mm ( USNM 47090 About USNM ), R/V “ Fish Hawk ”, stn 7429, off Duck Key, 9.ii.1899, 4 m. GoogleMaps Epialtus longirostris : Bahamas: 1 male, cl 4.5 mm, cw 3.0 mm ( USNM 88670 About USNM ), Bimini, A.S. Pearse coll., 2.xi.1948, dredge [F. Chace det.] . Cuba: 1 male, cl 7.5 mm, cw 5.5 mm ( USNM 48742 About USNM ), Co. S.R., stn 14, Tomas Barrera Expedition, Henderson and Bartsch coll., on reef Lavesos, Italianos, opposite Cayo Lavesos, 3–5 m [M. J. Rathbun det. 1925.] . Jamaica: 1 female, cl 6.5 mm, cw 4.5 mm ( USNM 43019 About USNM ), E. A. Andrews coll., 1910 [M. J. Rathbun det. 1925.] . Porto Rico: 1 juvenile male, cl 8.0 mm, cw 5.5 mm ( USNM 75097 About USNM ), W.S. Schmitt coll., 29.iii.1937 [M. J. Rathbun det. as E. longirostris forma portoricensis ]. 1 female, cl 8.1 mm, cw 6.0 mm ( USNM 1462844 About USNM ) , U.S. Fish Commission Porto Rico Expedition, R/V “ Fish Hawk ” 1898–1899, no further details. Epialtus portoricensis : Porto Rico: holotype male, cl 5.4 mm, cw 3.7 mm ( USNM 24154 About USNM ), R/V “ Fish Hawk ”, 9.ii.1899, Culebra Island, Ensenada Honda .
Type locality. Ponta do Monumento , 20º30’10.3’’S, 29º20’36.1’’W, 8.1 m, Trindade Island, off Espírito Santo, Brazil GoogleMaps .
Distribution. Currently known only from the Trindade and Martin Vaz Archipelago.
Description of the holotype. Carapace ( Figs. 14A View FIGURE 14 , 15A View FIGURE 15 ) generally smooth, little longer than wide, length 1.2 times greatest width (about 1.3 times width in the juvenile female), very slightly narrower across hepatic region than across the branchial region. Greatest width at level of branchial lobe. Hepatic and branchial lobes distinctly broad triangular, hepatic larger than branchial, margins minutely granulated. Anterior margin of hepatic lobe produced into low hump situated a little beyond halfway from eye to tip of hepatic lobe. Lateral margin between hepatic and branchial lobes deeply concave in dorsal view outline. Carapace surface with 2 low small protogastric elevations, each bearing minute granules; cardiac region delimited laterally by semicircular shallow furrow. Rostrum strongly depressed, rather short, moderately broad triangular, tip rounded; ventral surface deeply concave to receive antennule, grooved terminally ( Fig. 14B View FIGURE 14 ). Preorbital angle distinctly cut, broadly concave. Preorbital tooth prominent, blunt, minutely granulated. Eyes relatively large, visible in dorsal view. Postorbital notch deeply and roundly incised ( Figs. 14A View FIGURE 14 , 15A View FIGURE 15 ). Supraorbital margin continuing gradually into anterior margin of hepatic lobe. Subhepatic region swollen. Antennal peduncle (flagellum excluded) much shorter than rostrum.
Chelipeds ( Figs. 14A, B View FIGURE 14 , 15E View FIGURE 15 ) rather long, homochelous, homodonts. Fingers much shorter than half of maximum length of propodus (measured along dorsal margin), gapping proximally when closed, deeply spoon-shaped, each finger provided with many long stiff setae along near cutting edge intermingled with each other. Cutting edges crenulated. Dactylus rather massive, strongly curved downward and inward. Propodus progressively widening distally, slightly swollen mesially and laterally. Carpus oblong in dorsal view ( Fig. 15C View FIGURE 15 ). Merus subtriangular in crosssection distally; two joint tubercles about half length of dorsal surface.
P2 ( Fig. 14A, B View FIGURE 14 ) longer than remainder, little shorter than P1. Dactylus shorter than propodus (measured dorsally), distal 2/3 dentate ventrally, teeth small. Propodus about 3.5 times as long as high (measured dorsally), lateral surface ending in disc-like projection covering base of dactylus. Carpus slightly shorter than propodus and merus. Merus little less 3.5 times as long as high (measured dorsally).
P3–P5 (Figs. 14A, B, 15J) of similar shape, P5 shortest. Dactyli slightly longer than propodi (measured dorsally), distinctly more robust and curved than that of P2; ventral surface armed with two longitudinal rows of evenly spaced acute teeth. Propodi little less than 2.5 times as long as high, without tooth of setae near proximal end, lateral surface ending in disc-like projection covering base of dactyli. Carpi little shorter than propodi, meri distinctly longer than propodi. P5 merus length (measured along dorsal margin) distinctly less than two times merus width.
Male pleonal somites 4–5 fused; anterolateral angle of sixth somite produced, rounded ( Figs. 14B View FIGURE 14 , 15H, K, M View FIGURE 15 ).
G1 ( Fig. 16A–E View FIGURE 16 ) nearly straight, reaching well beyond thoracic sternal suture 4/5; distal keel membranous. G2 very short, about 1/3 of the length of G1, tapering slightly distally, ending in truncate tip.
The females ( Figs. 14C–E View FIGURE 14 , 17A–E View FIGURE 17 ) essentially differ from the males in having the carapace branchial lobe incised into two small teeth; the anterior margin of the hepatic lobe provided with a distinct blunt tubercle situated a little beyond halfway from the eye to tip of hepatic lobe; the rostrum truncate with incised tip; the preorbital angle distinctly cut, broadly V-shaped; shorter chelipeds with two small tubercles on the merus subproximal dorsal surface. The broad pleon reaches to the base of the legs and the pleonal somites 4–6 are fused with indiscernible sutures.
Etymology. The specific epithet is taken from the Latin diminutive adjective “parvulus” (little) in reference to the small size of this new species.
Ecological notes. In Trindade and Martin Vaz on foliaceous calcareous, reddish algae and washed algae, between 8– 13 m.
Remarks. Epialtus parvulus sp. nov. can be easily separated from E. bituberculatus by a combination of characters which include (characters for E. bituberculatus between brackets): 1) carapace only slightly narrower across the hepatic region than across the branchial region ( Figs. 14A, C, E View FIGURE 14 , 15A View FIGURE 15 , 17A View FIGURE 17 ) (vs carapace distinctly narrower across the hepatic region than across the branchial region, Fig. 15B View FIGURE 15 ); 2) hepatic lobe distinctly cut, broad triangular, broader than the branchial lobe ( Figs. 14A, C, E View FIGURE 14 , 15A View FIGURE 15 , 17A View FIGURE 17 ) (vs hepatic lobe remarkably less developed than the branchial lobe, Fig. 15B View FIGURE 15 ); 3) branchial lobe distinctly cut, broad triangular ( Figs. 14A, C, E View FIGURE 14 , 15A View FIGURE 15 , 17A View FIGURE 17 ) (vs branchial lobe poorly cut, rather coalescent with the margins of the carapace, Fig. 15B View FIGURE 15 ); 4) carapace lateral margin between the hepatic and branchial lobes deeply concave in dorsal view outline ( Figs. 14A, C, E View FIGURE 14 , 15A View FIGURE 15 , 17A View FIGURE 17 ) (vs margin between the hepatic and branchial lobes nearly straight or shallowly concave at most in dorsal view outline, Fig. 15B View FIGURE 15 ); 5) postorbital notch deeply and roundly incised ( Figs. 14A, C, E View FIGURE 14 , 15A View FIGURE 15 , 17A View FIGURE 17 ) (vs postorbital notch very narrow and inconspicuous, Fig. 15B View FIGURE 15 ); 6) cheliped fingers deeply spoon-shaped, each finger provided with many long stiff setae along near cutting edge intermingled with each other when closed ( Fig. 15G View FIGURE 15 ) (vs cheliped fingers spoon-shaped but each finger with only a subdistal tuft of stiff setae, Fig. 15I View FIGURE 15 ); 7) cheliped dactylus rather massive, remarkably short, strongly curved downward and inward ( Fig. 15E, G View FIGURE 15 ) (vs cheliped dactylus much less massive, gently curved downward and inward, Fig. 15F, I View FIGURE 15 ); 8) cheliped carpus devoid of dorsal tubercles with a granular bump at most ( Fig. 15C View FIGURE 15 ) (vs cheliped carpus with two granular tubercles dorsally, Fig. 15D View FIGURE 15 ); 9) cheliped merus with two small tubercles on dorsal surface ( Fig. 15E View FIGURE 15 ) (vs such tubercles absent, Fig. 15F View FIGURE 15 ); 10) P5 merus length (measured along dorsal margin) distinctly less than two times merus maximum width ( Fig. 15J View FIGURE 15 ) (vs P5 merus length much more than two times merus maximum width, Fig. 15L View FIGURE 15 ). Epialtus parvulus sp. nov. ( Fig. 16A–E View FIGURE 16 ) also strongly differs from E. bituberculatus ( Fig. 16F, G View FIGURE 16 ) and from E. brasiliensis Dana, 1852a ( Fig. 16H, I View FIGURE 16 ), in the shape of the first male gonopod.
Epialtus parvulus sp. nov. ( Figs. 14A–E View FIGURE 14 , 15A, C, E, G, H, J, K View FIGURE 15 ) is superficially similar to E. longirostris , in that the hepatic and branchial lobes are distinctly cut and broad triangular, the carapace is usually slightly narrower across the hepatic region than across the branchial region, and the supraorbital notch is deeply and roundly incised. However, in the new species the rostrum is remarkably shorter and broad triangular, whereas E. longirostris has remarkably longer and slender rostrum with subparallel sides and slightly arcuate tip in dorsal view ( Figs. 18A–F View FIGURE 18 ).
Rathbun (1923) established E. portoricensis Rathbun, 1923 (as E. longirostris forma portoricensis ), which differed from E. longirostris Stimpson, 1860 only in having a slightly wider and thick rostrum, with arcuate tip in dorsal view ( Fig. 18D View FIGURE 18 ). Carmona-Suárez & Poupin (2016) examined 2 specimens from Guadeloupe, one of which was assigned to E. longirostris while the other provisionally referred to E. portoricensis . However, they cautioned that the differences between E. longirostris and E. portoricensis being very subtle, the latter seems to fall into the variation of the former. We have reexamined all the specimens assigned by Rathbun (1923, 1925) to E. longirostris (2 specimens) and E. portoricensis (1 specimen), as well as 6 additional specimens previously referred to E. longirostris (see above under comparative material). The criteria used by Rathbun (1923, 1925) to distinguish between the two species are no greater than the variations between the 3 specimens from Puerto Rico, nor are they greater than the variations between the specimens of E. longirostris from different localities. In the male holotype of E. portoricensis ( Fig. 18D View FIGURE 18 ), for instance, the rostrum has subparallel sides and the tip is slightly arcuate and inconspicuously bifid in dorsal view, whereas in the female USNM 1462844 also from Puerto Rico ( Fig. 18F View FIGURE 18 ), the sides of the rostrum are distinctly concave and the tip markedly arcuate, but not bifid. The juvenile USNM 75097 from Puerto Rico ( Fig. 18E View FIGURE 18 ), has a slightly thicker rostrum with subparallel sides and truncate tip. In E. longirostris , the male USNM 88670 from the Bahamas ( Fig. 18A View FIGURE 18 ), and the female USNM 43019 from Jamaica (previously assigned to E. longirostris by Rathbun 1925) ( Fig. 18C View FIGURE 18 ), both have the rostrum with subparallel sides with very slightly arcuate tip in dorsal view, but in the specimen from the Bahamas the rostrum is distinctly wider. In view of the variations encountered, even in specimens from the same locality and in the absence of distinguishing characters other than those subtle ones submitted by Rathbun (1923; 1925), and considering that the type localities of E. longirostris (St. Thomas) and E. portoricensis ( Puerto Rico) are very close to each other with some islands in between, we regard both species as synonymous, E. longirostris having the priority.
MZUSP |
Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo |
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 |