Ethusa pygmaea Alcock, 1894
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.5399909 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/264A053E-4E06-B50F-7204-FB877311C35C |
treatment provided by |
Marcus |
scientific name |
Ethusa pygmaea Alcock, 1894 |
status |
|
Ethusa pygmaea Alcock, 1894 View in CoL
Ethusa pygmaea Alcock, 1894: 406 View in CoL ; 1896: 284; 1899: 33. — Doflein 1904: 291 (list), fig. 64. — Chen 1993: 318 (key), 333, fig. 13.
Aethusa pygmaea – Alcock & Anderson 1895: pl. 14, fig. 5.
Ethusa pygmea [sic] – Serène 1968: 40 (list). — Serène & Lohavanijaya 1973: 34 (key).
Not Ethusa pygmaea View in CoL – Ihle 1916b: 141, 151 (list), 153 (list), 156 (list) (= E. longidentata Chen, 1997 View in CoL ?).
TYPE MATERIAL. — Unknown (Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta?).
TYPE LOCALITY. — India, Andaman Islands.
MATERIAL EXAMINED. — New Caledonia. BIOCAL, stn DW 33, 23°10’S, 167°10’E, 675-680 m, 29.VIII.1985, 1 juv. ( MNHN-B 18402).
MUSORSTOM 4, stn DW 197, 18°51.3’S, 163°21.0’E, 650 m, 20.IX.1985, 1 ( MNHN-B 18420).
CHALCAL 2, stn DW 74, 24°40.36’S, 168°38.38’E, 650 m, 29.X.1986, 1 (MNHN-B 19090), 1, 1 ovig. (MNHN-B 19091). — Stn DW 75, 24°39.31’S, 168°39.67’E, 600 m, 29.X.1986, 1, 2 ovig. (MNHN-B 19089).
NORFOLK 1, stn DW 1700, 24°40’S, 168°40’E, 572-605 m, 24.VI.2001, 1 (MNHN-B 28554).
DISTRIBUTION. — Andaman Is ( Alcock 1894), New Caledonia ( Chen 1993). Depth: 155 ( Alcock 1896) - 680 m ( Fig. 34 View FIG ).
SIZE. — Maximum size: cl 5.7 mm, cw 5.3 mm (MNHN-B 19089), cl 8.9 mm, cw 8.7 mm (MNHN-B 18420).
REMARKS
Material collected from New Caledonia agrees with the description and illustration of Ethusa pygmaea Alcock, 1894 ( Alcock 1894: 406; Alcock & Anderson 1895: pl. 14, fig. 5) and particularly with specimens previously identified as such by Chen (1993: fig. 13). Unfortunately, the type material could not be located.
The Siboga View in CoL material identified by Ihle (1916a) does not agree with Alcock’s description or with the New Caledonia specimens. It is very close and most probably conspecific to E. longidentata Chen, 1997 View in CoL (see above).
Other than its small size, diagnostic to this species are outer orbital teeth that are relatively slender, directed outwardly, and shorter than the frontal teeth ( Alcock & Anderson 1895: pl. 14, fig. 5; Chen 1993: fig. 13a, b). The two portions of the anterior border proximal to the frontal teeth are swollen, as evidenced by the distended inner side of each orbital sinus. The anterior border of the endostome just reaches the proximal edge of the antennular fossae of the basal antennular articles. Alcock (1894: 406) describes the carapace and pereopods as “finely and closely granular”. These characters, however, are also present in E. parapygmaea Chen, 1993 View in CoL . The only reliable way of differentiating between these two species are their G1 (see Remarks of E. parapygmaea View in CoL above). Only the examination of the type material of E. pygmaea View in CoL may show if the Western Pacific specimens described here actually belong to Alcock’s species.
The granulation of the pereopods, which was given as a difference between E. pygmaea and E. indica Alcock, 1894 , was observed in the New Caledonia specimens. Also noticeable is the “better definition of the regions of the carapace” in E. pygmaea . A more noticeable difference is the shape of the outer orbital teeth: very slender and typically outwardly projecting in E. indica ( Alcock & Anderson 1895: pl. 14, fig. 2) in contrast to slightly widened at the base, hence slightly triangular, in E. pygmaea ( Alcock & Anderson 1895: pl. 14, fig. 5). The P4 and P5 are described by Alcock (1894: 406) as “more robust” in E. pygmaea than in E. indica . This difference, however, is not evident in the illustrations or in the actual specimens. Furthermore, their G1 are different and the meri of P2 and P3 are relatively longer in E. indica than in E. pygmaea . These differences and the presence of ovigerous females preclude the possibility that E. pygmaea actually represents the juvenile stage of E. indica .
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 |
|
Genus |
Ethusa pygmaea Alcock, 1894
Castro, Peter 2005 |
Ethusa pygmea
SERENE R. & LOHAVANIJAYA P. 1973: 34 |
SERENE R. 1968: 40 |
Ethusa pygmaea
IHLE J. E. W. 1916: 141 |
Ethusa pygmaea
CHEN H. 1993: 318 |
DOFLEIN F. 1904: 291 |
ALCOCK A. 1899: 33 |
ALCOCK A. 1896: 284 |
ALCOCK A. 1894: 406 |