Chinommatia bruuni (Serène, 1964) Serene, 1964
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4209.1.1 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:849BAB5C-464A-4B4A-A586-5742411EDC01 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5617153 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F16BFB33-FFE2-FFBE-FF6A-F8E5FF79FE3E |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Chinommatia bruuni (Serène, 1964) |
| status |
comb. nov. |
Chinommatia bruuni (Serène, 1964) View in CoL n. comb.
( Figs. 14 View FIGURE 14 G‒J; 25C, D; 32B; 43C, D; 53C; 60B; 75E‒I; 87E)
Hephthopelta bruuni Serène, 1964a: 248 View in CoL , fig. 17, pl. 22, fig. B [type localilty: Vietnam]; 1968: 92 [in list].—Ng et al. 2008: 76 [in list].
Type material (not examined). Holotype female (4.0 × 5.0 mm) (depository unknown), Vietnam, Nahtrang.
Other material examined. Malaysia. 2 males, larger (4.3 × 5.5 mm) , 5 females, largest (5.5 × 7.2 mm) ( ZRC 2013.0020 View Materials ), offshore Bintulu, northern Sarawak, stn F28 oilfield, T.S. Leong coll., 2000s.
Indonesia. 1 male (3.4 × 4.0 mm) ( ZMUC CRU- 1524 ), Java Sea south of Borneo , GALATHEA EXPEDITION, 60 m.
Papua New Guinea. 1 male (6.5 × 5.1 mm) ( USNM 1277740 About USNM ), HELIX-79, stn M-47, 06°41’54”S, 147°50’E, 5‒30 m, Alpha Helix, G. Hendler coll., 17.06.1979. GoogleMaps
? Philippines. Mindanao , Coronado Bay, 1 female (cl 3.9 mm, carapace damaged) ( WAM) , PELE EXPEDITION, 46‒128 m, 10.02.1964.
Diagnosis. Carapace ( Fig. 14 View FIGURE 14 G‒J) subtrapezoidal, convex, 1.3 wider than long; front slightly bilobed; anterolateral margins slightly arcuate, pubescent, minutely granular with pointed tubercle in males. Eye peduncle ( Fig. 25 View FIGURE 25 C, D) filling orbit, thick, long, mobile; cornea reduced, with reduced pigmentation. Epistome ( Fig. 25 View FIGURE 25 C, D) with short, semicircular median lobe with deep median fissure; short, slightly semicircular lateral margins. Third maxilliped ( Fig. 32 View FIGURE 32 B) merus ovate, anteroexternal angle rounded, ischium rectangular, about same length as merus. Proportionally long ambulatory legs ( Fig. 14 View FIGURE 14 G‒J). Chelipeds ( Figs. 14 View FIGURE 14 G‒J; 43C, D) subequal in length, slightly dissimilar in females, heteromorphic in males; fingers of minor chela ( Fig. 43 View FIGURE 43 D) subcircular in cross-section, scissor-like, cutting margins with sharp teeth; most proximal teeth on cutting margin of major chela of males ( Fig. 43 View FIGURE 43 C) with short teeth of about same size. Ventral surface of cheliped merus with row of sharp tubercles. Inner margin of cheliped carpus with short tooth ( Fig. 14 View FIGURE 14 G‒J), posterior inner margin angular ( Fig. 14 View FIGURE 14 I, J). Fused thoracic sternites 1, 2 ( Fig. 53 View FIGURE 53 C) semicircular, broad, long. Male pleon ( Figs. 53 View FIGURE 53 C; 60B) with proportionally long telson, posterior portion of somite 3–5 proportionally narrow. G1 ( Fig. 75 View FIGURE 75 E‒G, I) slender, distal segment straight, with short spinules. G2 ( Fig. 75 View FIGURE 75 H) about 3/4 G1 length, curved, slender, distal segment short. Female telson ( Fig. 87 View FIGURE 87 E) proportionally long. Vulvae wide, located relatively close together on outer margins of cavity close to suture 5/6, visible when pleon not tightly closed.
Remarks. Chinommatia bruuni is an atypical member of the genus in that the posterior inner margin of the cheliped carpus is angular ( Fig. 14 View FIGURE 14 I, J) (rounded in congeners) and the vulvae are more laterally positioned such that they are visible when the pleon is not tightly closed ( Fig. 87 View FIGURE 87 E). In all other morphological aspects, notably the form of the gonopods, however, it agrees with the current definition of the genus so it is best placed in Chinommatia .
Serène (1964a: 184) noted that the holotype female (and his only) specimen of Hephthopelta bruuni was from the Gallardo Collection and not collected by the Th. Mortensen Expedition, and therefore not part of the ZMUC material. In his description of the species ( Serène 1964a: 248–252, fig. 17, pl. 22B), he did not indicate where the specimen was from, the only data being “E. 43.764, Coll. Gallardo. St. 1542”. In his discussion of the genus, he fortunately recorded: “ H. bruuni nov. sp. (Nhatrang, Viet Nam)” ( Serène 1964a: 240) so we know it is actually from Vietnam. He did not indicate the eventual depository of the holotype. It is not in ZMUC or MNHN. It is possible the specimen and was possibly returned to Gallardo or to some institution in Vietnam. Also inexplicable is the status of the small male specimen from Java, now in ZMUC (ZMUC CRU-1524). It had been identified by Serène and is part of the Mortensen Expedition material but was not mentioned in Serène (1964a). As such it is not a paratype.
A small, badly damaged female specimen without pereiopods from the Philippines (WAM) clearly belongs to Chinommatia (mobile, long eye peduncles and similar carapace shape with a row of tubercles along the anterolateral margin) is provisionally referred to C. bruuni . It lacks the small, pointed anterolateral tubercle present in a similarly sized male specimen of C. bruuni (3.4 × 4.0 mm, ZMUC CRU-1524).
Identification of the present male specimens from Java and Sarawak, east Malaysia with C. bruuni is based entirely on the figures by Serène (1964a), which are of the female holotype . Neither are we completely certain that the ZMUC specimen (from northern Java) is conspecific with the ZRC specimens from Sarawak. The G1 of the largest of the Malaysian males (4.3 × 5.5 mm, ZRC 2013.0020 View Materials ; Fig. 75 View FIGURE 75 I) is similar to that of the Java male (3.4 × 4.0 mm, ZMUC CRU 1524 ; Fig. 75 View FIGURE 75 E) except that the apex of the latter is more flared. While this may be a consequence of size differences, more material is certainly needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.
While their gonopods are very different, C. bruuni superficially resembles Notopelta mortenseni in its general carapace and pereiopodal features, especially when females are compared. Female specimens of N. mortenseni do not possess the characteristic long spur on the basis-ischium of minor cheliped. Male and female specimens of C.
bruuni , however, can still be distinguished by their proportionately less broad carapace ( Fig. 14 View FIGURE 14 G–J) (broader in N. mortenseni ; Fig. 15 View FIGURE 15 G, I), the denticular anterolateral margin is clearly marginal ( Fig. 14 View FIGURE 14 G–J) (submarginal in N. mortenseni ; Fig. 15 View FIGURE 15 G–I); the inner subdorsal margin of the chela is entire ( Fig. 14 View FIGURE 14 G, I, J) (with several distinct granules in N. mortenseni ; Figs. 15 View FIGURE 15 G, I, 45A); and the vulvae are proportionately smaller and more rounded ( Fig. 87 View FIGURE 87 E) (larger and ovate in N. mortenseni ; Fig. 87 View FIGURE 87 G).
Distribution. Western Pacific Ocean ( Vietnam to Papua New Guinea; questionably Philippines). Depth: 5– 60 m.
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 |
Chasmocarcininae |
|
Genus |
Chinommatia bruuni (Serène, 1964)
| Ng, Peter K. L. & Castro, Peter 2016 |
Hephthopelta bruuni Serène, 1964a : 248
| Serene 1964: 248 |