Enoplometopus voigtmanni Türkay, 1989

Chan, Tin-Yam & Fujita, Yoshihisa, 2012, Reef lobsters of the genus Enoplometopus A. Milne-Edwards, 1862 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Nephropidea) from the KUMEJIMA 2009 Expedition in Okinawa, with the second record of the rare species E. chacei Kensley & Child, 1986 *, Zootaxa 3367, pp. 126-133 : 131

Enoplometopus voigtmanni Türkay, 1989

( Figs. 2E, 4B–D)

Enoplometopus holthuisi . — Daum, 1982: 266, unnumbered photo. — Allen & Steene, 1994: 145, unnumbered photo. (not Gordon, 1968)

Enoplometopus (Hoplometopus) voigtmanni Türkay, 1989: 226 , figs. 2–3, pls 1–2 [type locality: Maldive Islands]. — Hirayama, 1997: 4, fig.7.

Enoplometopus voigtmanni . — Debelius & Baensch, 1994: 592, unnumbered photo. — Jeng, 1998: 19, unnumbered photo. — Debelius, 1999: 204, unnumbered photos. — Minemizu, 2000: 178, unnumbered photo. — Kawamoto & Okuno, 2003: 66, unnumbered photo.

[?] Enoplometopus holthuisi . — Bonvallot et al., 1994: 144, unnumbered photo. (not Gordon, 1968)

Material Examined. Kume Island, Okinawa: KUMEJIMA 2009 stn Dive 40, Hidenchigama , scuba diving, 40 m, 20 Nov. 2009, 1 male cl 40.1 mm ( NTOU M00992 ); Ichunjya-shita, scuba diving, 16 m, 25 Aug. 2010, 1 male cl 39.1 mm (RUMF-ZC-01325) .

Diagnosis. Size moderately large (up to about 40 mm cl). Carapace with 3 lateral, 1 intermediate, 5 median and 2 postcervial teeth. Postcervical teeth well-developed. Rostrum more or less extending to middle of distal segment of antennal peduncle, with 3–4 lateral teeth. Ischium of maxilliped III armed with distoventral spine. Large chelae with surface smooth, outer margins of fingers also smooth except sometimes with basal spines at fixed finger; dorsal hinge of fingers with 0–1 small spine; merus with entire dorsal margin spinose. Abdominal pleura terminated in elongate spines, posterior margin deeply notched; ventral spines of pleura IV and V not reaching posterior margin. Posterior margin of abdominal tergites VI armed with 2 distinct spines. Telson with 2 pairs of lateral spines. Pleopod I of males subrectangular and with deep indention at distal margin.

Colouration. Body orange-red and covered with networks of white or red streaks. Carapace with networks of white streaks. Eyes dark brown. Antennular and antennal flagella uniformly orange-red except tips of antennular flagella whitish. Large cheliped with red streaks, those on palm rather transversely straight; fingers alternated with red and white or pale orange bands. Maxilliped III and pereiopods II to V distinctly banded with white and orangered. Abdomen including tailfan covered with irregular red lines and white spots; tips of pleura whitish; distal margins of tailfan with irregular yellowish orange patches. Pleopods orange-red with white spots.

Distribution. Indo-West Pacific and known with certainty from the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea, Taiwan, Okinawa, perhaps also from Tuamotu, French Polynesia. At depths of 6– 40 m.

Remarks. Although E. voigtmanni has been reported by many photographs in underwater guide books ( Allen & Steene 1994; Debelius 1999; Debelius & Baensch 1994; Jeng 1998; Kawamoto & Okuno 2003; Minemizu 2000), there is no detailed taxonomic report on this species since its original description in 1989. The present work is also the first record on the males of this species. The male pleopod I of E. voigtmanni is similar to that of E. holthuisi and with deep indention at the distal margin ( Fig. 2E). The additional specimens obtained in the present study shows that most of the distinguishing characters listed in Chan & Ng (2008) for this species are valid, only that the ventral spine of the abdominal pleuron V in the present material is nearly reaching the posterior margin of the pleuron. A comparison of more specimens from both E. voigtmanni and E. holthuisi may able to better assess distinguishing characters between these two closely related species.

An underwater photograph from Kume Island shows that E. voigtmanni ( Fig. 4B, specimens not collected) may have the white streaks on the lateral carapace arranged somewhat as a large circle, and therefore, very similar to the colour pattern of E. holthuisi . Nevertheless, E. holthuisi differs from E. voigtmanni in the antennular flagellae distinctly alternated with red and white bands, and the red bands on the palms of the large chelae being indistinct or absent (see Daum 1982; Debelius 1986, 1999; Debelius & Baensch 1994; Hoover 1998; Poupin 1996, 2003; Poupin & Juncker 2010). Moreover, the large white circle on the lateral carapace is very rounded and closed, but that of E. voigtmanni , if present, is irregularly rounded and connected anterodorsally with a white streak which extends to the orbit. If the species in Fig. 4B is truly E. voigtmanni , then the photograph of “ E. holthuisi ” from Tuamotu provided by Bonvallot et al. (1994) likely represents E. voigtmanni instead of E. holthuisi . However, the most distinctive colour difference between these two species is at the antennular flagellae (i.e. banded or not) but they are concealed in Bonvallot et al.’s (1994) photograph. Thus, it can not be sure if the distribution of E. voigtmanni really extends to French Polynesia. In Japan, E. voigtmanni has so far only been found in Okinawa and still not known from the mainland.