Paramunida poorei, Cabezas, 2010
treatment provided by
( Figs. 9, 14G)
Material examined. Holotype: French Polynesia. BENTHAUS, Stn DW 1999, 22°24.81'S, 151°22.17'W, 23 November 2002, 270– 500 m: M 9.3 mm (MNHN-Ga7490). GoogleMaps
Paratypes: French Polynesia. BENTHAUS. Stn DW 1973, 23°23.49'S, 150°43.87'W, 21 November 2002, 200– 350 m: 1 M 7.4 mm (MNHN-Ga7491). — Stn DW 1995, 22°28.96'S, 151°21,85'W, 23 November 2002, 212– 450 m: 1 ov. F 8.8 mm, 1 F 4.0 mm (MNHN-Ga7492) GoogleMaps .
Etymology. This species name is dedicated to Gary Poore, for his contributions to crustacean taxonomy.
Description. Carapace: As long as broad. Spinules on gastric and hepatic regions usually not forming groups, lacking scaly striae and with few short uniramous setae. Epigastric region with 2 spines, each behind supraocular spine; with median row of small spines behind rostral spine. Mesogastric region with median row of 3 spines, first thicker than others. Cervical groove distinct. Cardiac and anterior branchial regions slightly circumscribed. Cardiac region with a median row of 3 well-developed spines, first thicker than others. Each branchial region with row of spines near cardiac region. Frontal margin slightly concave. Lateral margins convex, with some spines and iridescent setae on anterior half. Anterolateral spine well developed, nearly reaching sinus between rostral and supraocular spines. Rostrum triangular, larger than supraocular spines, with thin dorsal longitudinal carina; margin between rostral and supraocular spines straight or slightly concave ( Figs. 9A, B).
Sternum: Thoracic sternite 4 with few and small arcuate striae; sternites 5–7 smooth ( Fig. 9C).
Abdomen: Abdominal somites 2–3 each with 4 well-developed spines on anterior ridge, posterior ridge with 2 median spines. Abdominal somite 4 with 4 spines on anterior ridge; posterior ridge with distinct median spine ( Fig. 9A).
Eyes: Maximum corneal diameter about one-third distance between bases of anterolateral spines.
Antennule: Segment 1 exceeding corneae, with distomesial spine small and slightly shorter than distolateral; twice longer than wide and with fringe of long setae along lateral margin; lateral margin with distal slen- der portion about half as long as proximal inflated portion ( Fig. 9D).
Antenna: Anterior prolongation of segment 1 clearly overreaching antennular segment 1 by about onethird of its length. Segment 2 about 2.6 times length of segment 3 and three times longer than wide, ventral surface without scales; distomesial spine spiniform, not reaching end of segment 3, reaching midlength of anterior prolongation of segment 1, distolateral spine not reaching end of segment 3; segment 3 twice longer than wide and unarmed ( Fig. 9D).
Maxilliped 3: Ischium about 1.5 times length of merus measured along dorsal margin, distoventrally bearing long spine; merus with well developed median spine on flexor margin; extensor margin unarmed ( Fig. 9E).
Pereopod 1: Long and slender, squamate, 6.8–7.9 times carapace length; carpus 0.8–0.9 times palm length, and 8.5–9 times longer than height; palm 1.5–1.6 times fingers length. Base of carpus without bundle of setae ( Fig. 9F).
Pereopods 2–4: Long and slender, with some scales on lateral sides of meri, carpi and propodi; scales with short setae. P2 3.6–3.7 times carapace length, merus 1.7–1.8 times longer than carapace, 14–15 times as long as high, 4.5–4.6 times as long as carpus and 1.6–1.7 times as long as propodus; propodus 10–12 times as long as high, and 1.6–1.8 times dactylus length. Merus with well developed spines on dorsal border, increasing in size distally, ventral margin with few spines and one well-developed distal spine; row of small spines along ventrolateral margins. Carpus with some small dorsal spines, well developed distal spine on dorsal and ventral margin. Propodus with small movable ventral spines. Dactylus compressed, slightly curved, with longitudinal carinae along mesial and lateral sides, ventral border unarmed. End of P2 carpus clearly reaching end of P1 merus. P3 with similar spination and segment proportions as P2; merus slightly shorter than P2 merus; propodus and dactylus slightly longer than those of P2. P4 slightly shorter than P2; merus about 1.5–1.7 times carapace length; merocarpal articulation clearly exceeding end of anterior prolongation of segment 1 of antennal peduncle ( Figs. 9G–I).
Remarks. The new species is closely related to P. pictura from New Caledonia, Chesterfield, Loyalty, Matthew & Hunter, Vanuatu, Fiji, Tonga and Wallis Islands ( Macpherson 1993, 1996). The two species can be distinguished each other by the length of the distomesial spine of the antennal segment 2 which reaches or slightly overreaches the end of the antennal segment 3 in P. pictura , whereas it never reaches the end of segment 3 in P. poorei . Furthermore, the spinules on the gastric and hepatic regions usually do not form groups and lack scaly striae in P. poorei ( Fig. 14G); whereas most of these spinules form groups arising from scalelike striae in P. pictura ( Fig. 14E).
The genetic divergences between these two species were 2.72% (16S rRNA) and 9.76% (ND1).
Distribution. French Polynesia, Austral Islands, between 200 and 500 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.