Lysmata vittata (Stimpson, 1860)

Guéron, Rodrigo, Almeida, Alexandre Oliveira, Aguilar, Robert, Ogburn, Matthew B., Prakash, Sanjeevi & Baeza, J. Antonio, 2022, Delimiting species within the Lysmata vittata (Stimpson, 1860) (Decapoda: Lysmatidae) species complex in a world full of invaders, Zootaxa 5150 (2), pp. 189-216 : 207

Overview of Lysmata vittata ’s global records

Reports of “ L. vittata ” from the eastern Mediterranean and the extreme western Indo-Pacific should be treated with caution and warrant further investigation. For example, L. vittata from Mediterranean Sea ( Egypt; Abdelsalam 2018), Djibouti ( Nobili 1906), Persian Gulf ( Kemp 1914; Ashrafi et al. 2020), and Gulf of Oman ( Naderloo et al. 2015; Ashrafi et al. 2020), likely reflect L. rauli or different taxonomic entities, as the environmental conditions are far more tropical than currently noted for L. vittata . It is noteworthy that the coloration pattern and morphology of the individual reported from Egypt appear similar to both L. rauli and L. sp. AUS2: 1) one-segmented accessory branch; 2) 17–19 carpal segments of second pereopod; 3) 7–9 meral segments of the second pereopod; and dark transvers bands on the pleon (which we presume for L. sp. AUS2) ( Abdelsalam 2018). Individuals from the Persian Gulf reported by Kemp (1914) possessed a longer rostrum, which exceeded the antennular peduncle, which suggests they may not reflect L. vittata or L. rauli . Similar to L. durbanensis , reports of L. vittata around southern Africa, including Saint Brandon ( Mauritius) and the Seychelles ( Borradaile 1917) may not reflect L. vittata . There is scant data for L. vittata from these regions and a directed collection effort and rigorous examinations are needed to establish the true identity of these shrimps.

Kemp (1914) reported “ L. vittata ” from southeastern India and an unnamed variety of L. vittata based on two specimens collected from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. The major difference between these forms was in the structure of the second pereopod, with one specimen of the unnamed variety with 28 carpal segments in both the left and right second pereopod and the other with 31 carpal segments in the left second pereopod (the right appendage was missing). Additionally, Kemp (1914) noted “ L. vittata ” from southeastern India possessed transverse bands on the pleon. Thus, Kemp’s (1914) “ L. vittata ” is likely L. rauli , while the unnamed variety is neither L. vittata nor L. rauli .

Purported L. vittata with relatively high numbers of second pereopod segments have also been reported from the southern and central Indo-Pacific. Hale (1929) noted “ L. vittata ” from Dirk Hartog Island in western Australia possessed 23–24 meral segments of the second pereopod, which is considerably higher than reported in L. vittata , L. rauli or L. sp. AUS2 (8–13; table 2), and likely reflects another taxonomic entity. Similarly, Holthuis (1947) reported the number of second pereopod carpal segments of “ L. vittata ” collected from across Indonesia, as well as New Guinea varied from 15–31. While some individuals in these collections may be L. rauli or L. sp. AUS2, shrimp which possessed exceedingly high carpal segment counts (e.g.,> 26) should be treated with caution, as they may be a different taxonomic entity.

Interestingly, Kubo (1951) reported “ L. vittata ” from Japan that were similar in most respects to the L. vittata examined in the present study, including in coloration pattern, except that individuals possessed a two-segmented accessory branch located at the forty-second segment of the dorsal antennule, a feature not reported by any member of the wider L. vittata complex. Although we presume L. vittata occurs in Japan, as indicated by Hayashi & Miyake (1968), the “ L. vittata ” of Kubo (1951) is likely a different taxonomic entity or the description resulted from an error.