Macrostylis sarsi Brandt, 1992

Riehl, Torben & Brandt, Angelika, 2013, Southern Ocean Macrostylidae reviewed with a key to the species and new descriptions from Maud Rise, Zootaxa 3692 (1), pp. 160-203: 191

publication ID

publication LSID

persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Macrostylis sarsi Brandt, 1992


Macrostylis sarsi Brandt, 1992  nom. dub.

( Fig. 21View FIGURE 21)

Macrostylis sarsi Brandt 1992  ; pp. 74–78, Figs 14–16View FIGURE 14View FIGURE 15View FIGURE 16.

Type fixation. Ovigerous female, 2.0 mm length, BM(NH) 1990: 40: 1, by original designation.

Type locality. West Maud Rise, ANT VllI/ 6 station 1833 – 1. 65 ° 10.5 ’S, 0° 27.4 ’W; depth 4,335 m, box corer.

Type material. Only holotype available, deposited at the Natural History Museum, London.

Modified diagnosis. Body with furry coat of cuticular setules and scattered spine-like, bifid setae. Pereonite 3 posterolateral margins produced posteriorly. Pereonite 4 width subequal pereonite 5 width, lateral margins curved; posterolateral margins rounded, not produced posteriorly, posterolateral setae present. Pereonite 6 length clearly larger pereonite 5 length. Female pleotelson ovoid, waist absent. Pereopod III ischium dorsal lobe triangular. Pereopod VII length smaller pereopod VI length. Operculum elongate, length exceeding 1.5 width.

Remarks. Based on the illustrations, the holotype is not adult. It is the only specimen available. A potential synonymy with Macrostylis obscura (Brandt, 1992)  is discussed above. The ventral spines have not been illustrated in the original description, as it was the case in M. obscura (Brandt, 1992)  , described in the same publication, where later ventral spines were found (Riehl & Brandt 2010).

The scale provided in the habitus plate is probably incorrect: according to the description, the body should be 2.0 mm long; new measurements based on the scale provided result in a body length of 1.3 mm. All other plates have no scale and hence, re-evaluation of ratios between parts is impossible and hence, original measures were mostly applied here. The holotype carcass is gone missing, slides are available but damaged and dissected parts are mostly in bad condition or lost. Appendages available on slides are: Antennula  , antenna, mandibles, pereopod I, pereopods 5–7, operculum (apex broken). The taxonomic identity of this species cannot be determined from its existing type and it is hence considered nomen dubium.