Carcinoplax sinica Chen, 1984
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.4525564 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4525401 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/102B87CB-FF9D-257D-FF6C-FE9FFC63FD12 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Carcinoplax sinica Chen, 1984 |
status |
|
Carcinoplax sinica Chen, 1984 View in CoL
Carcinoplax sinica Chen, 1984: 189 View in CoL [in key], 190, 197, 200, fig. 2, pl. 1, figs 6, 10; 1998: 266 [in key], 270, 310 [in list], fig. 3 [South China Sea]. — Dai et al. 1986: 366 [in key], 366, figs 190-2 to 190-4, pl. 53, fig. 5 [ China]. — Guinot 1989: 285 [discussion], figs 12-14, pl. 5 [Philippine Is]. — Dai & Yang 1991: 394 [in key], 395, figs 190-2 to 190-4, pl. 53, fig. 5 [ China]. — Hsueh & Huang 2002: 119 [in key], 126, figs 8D, 11 [ Taiwan].
Carcinoplax View in CoL ( purpurea View in CoL ?) – Stephensen 1946: 166, 208, fig. 44 (pl. 5, figs A-C 1 in Guinot [1989]) [Persian Gulf].
Carcinoplax purpurea View in CoL – Serène & Lohavanijaya 1973: 62 [in list], 63 [in key], 66, figs 148-155, pl. 14, figs B, C, pl. 15, fig. B [ Hong Kong, Vietnam, Gulf of Thailand]. — Serène & Vadon 1981: 118, 123 (part) [Philippine Is] (not Carcinoplax purpurea Rathbun, 1914 View in CoL ).
TYPE MATERIAL. — ♂ holotype ( IOAS K248 B-23) ; ♀ allotype ( IOAS X50 B-37) ; 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀ paratypes ( IOAS K234 B-44) ; 1 ♂, 1 ♀ paratypes ( IOAS Q129 B-39) .
TYPE LOCALITY. — South China Sea, 19°50’N, 109°00’W, 25 m.
MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Taiwan. Kaohsiung, Tungkang fishing port, L. S. Huang coll., 4.VIII.1996, 1 ♀ ( ZRC 2001.0136).
South China Sea. Stn 6269, 31 m, 13.V.1960, H. Chen leg., 1 ♀ ( MNHN-B 16939).
MUSORSTOM 1, stn 1, 14°28’N, 120°42’E, 36-37 m, 18.III.1976, 10 ♂♂, 1 pre-adult ♀, 14 ♀♀ ( MNHN-B 10142).
Indonesia. Tanimbar Is, KARUBAR, stn CP 63, 08°00’S, 132°58’E, 215- 214 m, 1.XI.1991, 1 ♂ ( MNHN-B 29307).
DISTRIBUTION. — Persian Gulf ( Stephensen 1946, as C. purpurea ) and western Pacific Ocean from Taiwan to Indonesia. Depth: 25- 215 m.
REMARKS
Carcinoplax sinica has often been confused with C. purpurea . Differences were outlined by Guinot (1989: 287). The most marked difference is in the morphology of the second anterolateral tooth: hook-like and more salient in C. sinica ( Guinot 1989: fig. 12) than in C. purpurea ( Guinot 1989: fig. 11). There are also differences in the colour patterns, a reddish carapace in C. sinica (see Hsueh & Huang 2002: fig. 8D) that is unfortunately readily lost in preservation and a purple-red band along the medial axis of the carapace in C. purpurea (see Hsueh & Huang 2002: fig. 8C).
Photographs of specimens identified as C. purpurea by Serène & Lohavanijaya (1973: pl. 14, figs B, C, pl. 15, fig. B) shows that the material belongs to C. sinica . It can also be confirmed that part of the MUSORSTOM 1 material originally identified as C. purpurea by Serène & Vadon (1981) actually belonged to C. sinica as previously reported by Guinot (1989: 287).
ZRC |
Zoological Reference Collection, National University of Singapore |
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 |
Carcinoplax sinica Chen, 1984
Castro, Peter 2007 |
Carcinoplax sinica
HSUEH P. - W. & HUANG J. - F. 2002: 119 |
DAI A. & YANG S. 1991: 394 |
GUINOT D. 1989: 285 |
DAI A. & YANG S. & SONG Y. & CHEN G. 1986: 366 |
CHEN H. 1984: 189 |
Carcinoplax
STEPHENSEN K. 1946: 166 |