Paratanais perturbatius Larsen, 2001
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3676.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7AB2D8F5-62F2-46D1-BDE4-BF91D6513797 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5462829 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E787D0-FFC7-FFAC-7B8B-D3DEB5EC73D5 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Paratanais perturbatius Larsen, 2001 |
status |
|
Paratanais perturbatius Larsen, 2001 View in CoL
Figures 40 View FIGURE 40 –41
Paratanais perturbatius: Larsen (2001) : 372–375, figs 14–15, 16; paratype P.54480 figs 14 C–K, 15 in part non maleficus , = A. malignus .
Material examined. Paratype: one non-ovigerous ♀ on microslides, P.54480 [see above]; five cited specimens, P.56434 – one non-ov. ♀ (2.8 mm) dissected on microslide.
Diagnosis. Female: with carapace entire; left mandible lacinia mobilis with serrate distal margin; antennule without cap-like terminal segment, with apical spur; antenna article-2 distally expanded, with inferodistal seta set on small apophysis, article-3 spine acute; maxilliped palp article-2 with serrulate spine; cheliped palm medial comb with two spines, with sinuate spine near dactylus, dactylus inferior margin with proximal spine; pereopod-1 merus elongate; pereopods 2–3 not decreasing in size, basis with superior seta; pereopods 4–6 merus without seta, meral and carpal spines weakly serrate; uropod rami longer than peduncle, endopod two-segmented, exopod onesegmented.
Remarks. This species appears to be compromised by a description that is almost certainly based on more than one species, which includes A. malignus . The paratype examined here, P.54480, was used for Larsen’s figures 14c– k and 15, and is clearly A. malignus based on the antennal article-2 setation (Larsen: fig. 14d), shape of the spines on the cheliped palm ( Fig. 40A View FIGURE 40 ) and maxilliped palp article-2 (Larsen: fig.14k), and stout uropod (Larsen: fig. 15i), inter alia. The dissected specimen here conforms in general terms to the size and shape of the holotype and is not the same species as A. malignus or P. maleficus . It does possess a cheliped palm sinuate spine and is distinguishable from both the other species by the inferodistal seta on antenna article-2 – similar in this character to the NZ P. puia sp. nov. While not definitive, in deficit of viewing the holotype itself, the figures and diagnosis given here may give a truer representation of P. perturbatius .
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.