Lyphira ngankee, Rahayu & Ng, 2024

Rahayu, Dwi Listyo & Ng, Peter K. L., 2024, On the genus Lyphira Galil, 2009 (Crustacea: Brachyura: Leucosiidae), with descriptions of four new species from the West Pacific, Zootaxa 5476 (1), pp. 358-392 : 376-377

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5476.1.29
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:DD4EA1FE-A0BE-4BA4-9AD3-E460B131C518
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12746336
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DD87DA-FFAC-1257-28EE-FCB187691921
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Lyphira ngankee
status	sp. nov.

Treatment

Lyphira ngankee n. sp.

( Figs. 1E–J View FIGURE 1 , 5A, B View FIGURE 5 , 6D View FIGURE 6 , 8A View FIGURE 8 , 9D View FIGURE 9 , 10E View FIGURE 10 , 11E View FIGURE 11 , 13F, G View FIGURE 13 , 14D View FIGURE 14 , 15F View FIGURE 15 , 16E View FIGURE 16 , 18A‒E View FIGURE 18 , 20A‒D View FIGURE 20 , 21D View FIGURE 21 )

Philyra tuberculosa View in CoL .— Shen 1931: 185, text figs. 1, 2, 4; Shen 1932: text fig. 11e, f. (not Philyra tuberculosa Stimpson, 1858 View in CoL = Philyra carinata Bell, 1855 View in CoL ).

Philyra globosa .— Shen 1940: 216 (not Cancer globosus Fabricius, 1793 = Cancer globus Fabricius, 1775 ).

Philyra cf. laminata View in CoL . — Hill 1982: 199, pl. 3C. (not Philyra laminata Doflein, 1904 View in CoL = Heteronucia laminata ( Doflein, 1904)) View in CoL .

Philyra heterograna View in CoL .— Blackmore & Rainbow 2000: appendix 1. (not Philyra heterograna Ortmann, 1892 View in CoL ).

Lyphira heterograna View in CoL .— Wong et al. 2021: 20, fig. 30a–c, pl. 6C. (not Philyra heterograna Ortmann, 1892 View in CoL ).

Type material. Holotype: male (20.8 × 21.8 mm), ZRC 1999.0456 View Materials , Nanao Island , Gianjing fish port, Guangdong, coll. N.K. Ng & Y. Cai, 12 November 1998 . Paratypes: 5 males (largest 20.7 × 21.3 mm) , 2 females (larger 18.8 × 18.8 mm), ZRC 2022.0628 View Materials , station W2, southeast of Lantau Island , Hong Kong, 22°11.264'N 113°51.358'E – 22°12.926'N 113°54.570'E, 10.0–11.6 m, coll. Hong Kong University Trawl, 27 August 2012 GoogleMaps .

Diagnosis. Carapace approximately as broad as long, rounded ( Figs. 1E View FIGURE 1 , 5A, B View FIGURE 5 , 6D View FIGURE 6 ); dorsal surface of carapace covered with closely spaced minute granules, hepatic, branchial and intestinal regions with slightly larger, more prominent granules;. Frontal margin granulated; postfrontal lobe slightly convex with slight concave medially ( Figs. 11E View FIGURE 11 ). Endostomial spine strong, produced, visible from dorsal view ( Figs. 1F View FIGURE 1 , 13F, G View FIGURE 13 , 14D View FIGURE 14 ). Lateral margin of carapace with row of small granules interspersed by larger granule; posterior margin gently convex ( Figs. 5A, B View FIGURE 5 , 6D View FIGURE 6 ). Posterior carapace margin with row of granules, slightly larger granule medially and on each posterolateral corner, with margin between them gently convex ( Figs. 10E View FIGURE 10 ). Third maxilliped exopod 2 times as long as broad, wider than basal part of endopod, forming petaliform structure with strongly convex outer margin, with submarginal row of low to very low granules along inner margin; endopod with completely fused basis-ischium, distinctly longer than merus, with shallow submarginal sulcus near inner margin ( Figs. 1G View FIGURE 1 , 11E View FIGURE 11 , 18A View FIGURE 18 ). Chelipeds subequal; merus, carpus and chela surfaces smooth or covered with low, small rounded granules ( Figs. 5A, B View FIGURE 5 , 6D View FIGURE 6 ); merus subcylindrical, symmetrical along entire length, surface granulated, large granules on proximal area and along margins, minutes granules distally; carpus smooth, unarmed; chela stout, palm surface smooth, upper and lower margins with row of granules, longitudinal row of relatively large granules on lower outer surface of palm; pollex slightly bent, cutting edge lined with denticles; dactylus 1.4 times as long as palm along upper margin, row of small granules on upper margin, cutting edge with median large tooth lined with denticles, remaining of edge with small denticles ( Fig. 15F View FIGURE 15 ). P2–P5 slender, short; merus distinctly longer than carpus and propodus, dactylus longer than propodus, lanceolate, terminating in corneous tips ( Figs. 5A, B View FIGURE 5 , 6D View FIGURE 6 ); fourth leg shortest with merus 3.8 times as long as broad, margin lined with small granules, more prominent on ventral margin ( Fig. 16E View FIGURE 16 ). Thoracic sternites transversely narrow, surface finely granulated, larger granules laterally ( Fig. 8A View FIGURE 8 ). Male sternopleonal cavity deep, reaching to proximal distance between fused thoracic sternites 1–3. Male pleon narrow, slender, long; somite 1 longitudinally narrow, wide; somites 2–6 fused, forming elongate trapezoidal plate, shallow suture just visible between somites 5 and 6, surface smooth; somite 6 longitudinally subrectangular, surface with one granule submedially, lateral margins gently convex; telson triangular, longer than wide ( Figs. 1H View FIGURE 1 , 8A View FIGURE 8 , 18B View FIGURE 18 ). G1 elongate, slender, slightly dilated distally; apical process short, bent at an angle of 60º along the longitudinal axis, with blunt tip ( Figs. 1J View FIGURE 1 , 18C‒E View FIGURE 18 , 20A‒D View FIGURE 20 ). Female sternopleonal cavity reaches distal part of sternite 1; female pleon broad, convex, smooth, somites 2‒6 fused, suture between somites 2 and 3; telson shorter than its basal width ( Figs. 1I View FIGURE 1 , 9D View FIGURE 9 ); vulvae spaced apart on sternite 6, each opening weakly crescent-shaped, relatively short, without opercular cover ( Fig. 21D View FIGURE 21 ).

Colour. Light grey on dorsal surfaces.

Etymology. The species is named after the late Ng Ngan Kee, an esteemed colleague and very good friend, departed all too soon in 2022. She was a leader in varunid systematics and also an avid educator and field scientist; the holotype specimen was actually collected by her during one of her many forays throughout Asia. The name is used as a noun in apposition.

Remarks. The difference in the shape of carapace, the P5 merus and the G1 between L. ngankee n. sp. and L. heterograna are well defined. In L. ngankee n. sp., the carapace is relatively more rounded and more convex, the endostomial spine is strongly produced, clearly visible from dorsal view, the P5 merus leg is short, only 3.8 times as long as broad, the exopod of the third maxilliped is broad, strongly convex, and the apical process of G1 short, broad and bent at an angle of 60° along the longitudinal axis ( Figs. 1E–G, J View FIGURE 1 , 5A, B View FIGURE 5 , 6D View FIGURE 6 , 13 F, G View FIGURE 13 , 14D View FIGURE 14 , 16E View FIGURE 16 , 18A, C‒E View FIGURE 18 ). Lyphira heterograna s. str. has the carapace usually slightly longer than broad, the endostomial spines are short, the P5 merus is relatively longer 4.3 times as long as broad, the exopod of the third maxilliped is narrower, not as convex, and the G1 with apical process long, very slightly bent ( Figs. 1A–C View FIGURE 1 , 2A, B View FIGURE 2 , 3A, B View FIGURE 3 , 13A View FIGURE 13 , 16A, B View FIGURE 16 , 17A, C‒F View FIGURE 17 ).

Lyphira ngankee n. sp. is perhaps most similar to L. linda n. sp., sharing the characters of a strong endostomial spine and a wide exopod of the third maxilliped. The differences between the two are discussed under the remarks for the latter species.

Lyphira ngankee n. sp. and L. linda n. sp. are superficially similar to L. ovata , described from one male specimen from Sri Lanka. Lyphira ovata , however, can easily be separated from these two species in having the dorsal carapace surface more densely covered with granules and the anterolateral margin is almost straight in dorsal view (cf. Galil 2009: fig. 16A). In L. ngankee n. sp. and L. linda n. sp., there are distinctly fewer granules on the dorsal carapace surface and the anterolateral margin is distinctly convex in dorsal view ( Figs. 4 View FIGURE 4 , 5A, B View FIGURE 5 ). Galil (2009: 303) did not figure the G1, only describing it as “with apical process digitate, squat”, suggesting it is similar to the condition observed for L. ngankee n. sp. and L. linda n. sp., in which the distal process is short and not prominently elongate ( Figs.18D, E, O, P View FIGURE 18 , 20A‒D, E‒M View FIGURE 20 ).

The wide exopod of the third maxilliped of L. ngankee n. sp. similar to those of L. georgei and L. perplexa , but differences can be seen in the more rounded carapace in L. ngankee n. sp. ( Figs. 1E View FIGURE 1 , 5A, B View FIGURE 5 , 6D View FIGURE 6 ) (longer than broad in L. georgei and L. perplexa ), the presence of strong endostomial spines in L. ngankee ( Figs. 13F, G View FIGURE 13 , 14D View FIGURE 14 ) (absent in L. georgei and L. perplexa ), and the P5 merus is proportionately shorter in L. ngankee , 3.8 times as long as broad ( Fig. 16E View FIGURE 16 ) (proportionately longer, being 4 times in L. perplexa but much shorter in L. georgei , 3.2 times as long as broad) (cf. Galil 2009: fig. 17A, B; Trivedi et al. 2016: figs. 1a, b). Their colours in life are also different, with L. ngankee n. sp. being greyish white overall while the carapace of L. georgei and L. perplexa are orange to purple (cf. Trivedi et al. 2016; unpublished data).