Oncopagurus gracilis (Henderson, 1888)
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.1590/2358-2936e2023026 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:EDB9672A-A469-4BDA-A342-A34B499821A4 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/602587A0-FFA7-FFA2-FCB8-1E89E726571B |
treatment provided by |
Felipe (2025-01-16 03:07:51, last updated by GgImagineBatch 2025-01-16 03:47:43) |
scientific name |
Oncopagurus gracilis |
status |
|
Oncopagurus gracilis View in CoL
The shape of CPS (Hotelling T ² = 98.62, F = 4.28, p <0.001), MaP (Hotelling T ² = 68.77, F = 6.83, p <0.001), and MiP (Hotelling T ² = 79.43, F = 5.7, p <0.001) were different between male and female individuals. The discriminant analysis accurately classified 90 %, 82.05 %, and 82.72 % of individuals based on their CPS, MaP, and MiP shape, respectively.
The shape of the CPS of females was observed to be wider anteriorly than that of males ( Fig. 2A), while the posterior margin of this structure was wider in males than in females ( Fig. 2A). The variation of the MaP and MiP shapes exhibited a similar pattern. The manus region of MaP and MiP was more robust in males than in females ( Fig. 2B). Furthermore, the fixed finger of the MiP was also found to be more robust in males than in females ( Fig. 2C).
Sexual size dimorphism between males and females was detected in almost all structures, except CPS (t -test; t = 1.53, p = 0.18). In contrast, the size of MaP (t -test; t = -5.99, p <0.001) and MiP (t -test; t = -4.91, p <0.001) differed significantly between the sexes ( Fig. 3A).
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 |