Dorippe irrorata, Manning & Holthuis, 1986
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9 |
|
publication LSID |
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:69C34731-8C25-4A1E-B336-B222CD3CBAC3 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8071267 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74-9327-B507-CD91-F8F2FA11FAD5 |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Dorippe irrorata |
| status |
|
REMARKS ON DORIPPE IRRORATA MANNING & HOLTHUIS, 1986 View in CoL
Dorippe irrorata , which has never been found since its description in the eastern Andaman Sea, is known from only two specimens ( Manning & Holthuis 1986: 363, fig. 1a, b; Holthuis & Manning 1990: 9, 15-17, fig. 4), that are currently fragile: a male 21.5 × 22.0 mm, the holotype ( Fig. 14H, I View FIG ) (Andaman Sea, south of Mergui Archipelago; 09°54’N, 97°42’E, International Indian Ocean Expedition, Anton Bruun Cruise 1, stn AB-21, 73 m, 24.III.1963, USNM 172495); and a transparent female 17.0 × 17.5 mm, W of the Moscos Islands, 14°07’N, 97°05’E, Anton Bruun Cruise 1, stn AB-38, 62 m, 30 Mar 1963, USNM) that was incorrectly indicated as being a paratype (see Subsequent erroneous designation of paratypes by Holthuis & Manning [1990]). Both authors considered the species close to D. quadridens ( Figs 10A, B View FIG ; 11 View FIG A-C) and D. tenuipes ( Fig. 9D View FIG ) but with some differences. Thanks to the photographs of the holotype kindly sent to us by Karen Reed and, before that, of the supposed ‘paratype’ by Rafael Lemaitre, we can confirm at least that the teeth of somites 2 and 3 of the male pleon are very low and distinctly granular in D. irrorata ( Fig. 14H, I View FIG ) (versus strong, acute and smooth in D. quadridens ) and that the palm of the cheliped is granulated (versus smooth in D. quadridens ).
The resemblance of Dorippe irrorata to D. tenuipes ( Fig. 9D View FIG ) is obvious. Dorippe irrorata ( Fig. 14H, I View FIG ) has a male pleon with only elevations on somites 2 and 3 (though much lower in D. irrorata ), but the major cheliped has a granulated palm in D. irrorata , smooth in D. tenuipes . The main difference mentioned by Holthuis & Manning (1990: 17),i.e., the “far less elongated” P2 and P 3 in D. irrorata , should be taken with caution as leg length is a highly variable character in some dorippids, such as Heikeopsis japonica . Nevertheless, the frontal teeth are slightly different in the two species. The major character that would have allowed us to settle the matter, namely the callosity on P3, which is highly developed in D. tenuipes ( Figs 9D View FIG ; 33G, H View FIG ) and only as an elongated and thickened bulge in D. quadridens ( Figs 10A View FIG ; 33C View FIG ), is unfortunately not detectable in the photographs of D. irrorata provided by the USNM ( Fig. 14H View FIG ). Not being able to make a clear decision, we consider D. irrorata to be valid, at least provisionally.
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.