Monnioticopa firma, Kim & Boxshall, 2021
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4978.1.1 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9C7C1723-73EB-4FBE-A47A-54627DEB8F93 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5047161 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/3729879B-FF1A-FEF5-FA93-F9EED0BB1F4F |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Monnioticopa firma |
| status |
gen. et sp. nov. |
Monnioticopa firma gen. et sp. nov.
( Figs. 169 View FIG , 170 View FIG )
Type material. Holotype ♀ (MNHN-IU-2014-21577, dissected and mounted on a slide) from mycnçclavella dẚmẚnuta (Kott, 1957); Ibo I., Mozambique, AURACEA 1995 cruise, Stn P 12, on reef, Monniot coll., 13 November 1995.
Etymology. The name is derived from the Latin fẚrm (=strong), reflecting its stout body bearing well-developed tergites on the pedigerous somites.
Description of female. Body ( Fig. 169 View FIG A-C) eruciform, robust; body length 1.05 mm; maximum width 440 μm (across second pedigerous somite). Cephalosome clearly defined from trunk, only slightly narrower than first pedigerous somite. First to fourth pedigerous somites distinctly defined from one another, subequal in width, each bearing distinct tergite with rounded lateral margins. Genitoabdomen ( Fig. 169D View FIG ) 4-segmented; first free abdominal somite bearing tubercle on lateral surface; anal somite bearing large anal prominence dorsally. Caudal ramus ( Fig. 169E View FIG ) fusiform, longer than anal somite, 2.04 times longer than wide (112×55 μm), with weakly bilobed distal mar- gin, and ornamented with 2 patches of minute spinules ventrodistally; armed with 1 large dorsal seta (63 μm long) at 80% of ramus length.
Rostrum small, tapering towards rounded apex. Antennule ( Fig. 169F View FIG ) 2-segmented, 123 μm long; proximal segment armed with 4 small setae; distal segment narrower but longer than proximal segment; armed with 8 small setae. Antenna ( Fig. 169G View FIG ) elongate, unarmed, distinctly 3-segmented, about 132 μm long; second segment wider than other segments; second and third segments covered with minute spinules; third segment longest, narrower than other segments, gradually narrowing distally.
Labrum ( Fig. 169H View FIG ) unornamented, with sclerotized lateral margins. Mandible ( Fig. 169I View FIG ) as powerful claw, smooth and curved. Maxillule ( Fig. 169K View FIG ) bilobed; inner lobe unarmed; outer lobe tipped with 1 spinulose seta. Maxilla ( Fig. 169J View FIG ) consisting of proximal part plus inner and outer lobes; proximal part with strongly projecting mediodistal corner; longer inner lobe tipped with 1 spinulose seta; shorter outer lobe armed with 2 unilaterally serrate setae distally, and 1 small naked seta at midlength. Maxilliped absent.
Legs 1-4 each consisting of 2-segmented, unarmed protopod and unsegmented rami ( Fig. 170 View FIG A-C); coxa with large mediodistal protrusion ( Fig. 170A, B View FIG ); basis with weak mediodistal protrusion covered with minute spinules. Exopods distinctly shorter than endopods. Exopods of legs 1 and 2 tipped with 1 claw and 1 circular lamella; exopods of leg 3 and 4 additionally with 1 large spine on anterolateral surface at distal two-thirds of ramus length ( Fig. 170C View FIG ). Endopods robust, curved medially, with truncate distal margin, armed with 2 setae distally, and covered with minute spinules. Endopodal segments 74×36, 98×45, 105×49, and 90×49 μm, respectively, in legs 1-4. Lengths of laterodistal and mediodistal setae 72 and 55, 78 and 72, 96 and 79, and 102 and 84 μm, respectively, in legs 1-4.
Leg 5 ( Fig. 169L View FIG ) quadrate, slightly wider than long (159×179 μm), covering lateral margin of genitoabdomen; armed with 2 small setae.
Male. Unknown.
Remarks. Mçnnẚçtẚcçpa fẚrma gen. et sp. nov. differs from the two congeners described above as follows: (1) the first segment of the antennule of the new species is armed with 4 setae, compared to 2 setae in M. prẚma gen. et sp. nov. and 1 seta in M. mẚnuta gen. et sp. nov.; (2) the third segment of the antenna is distinctly longer and narrower than the proximal segments, but in the two congeners this segment is not longer or narrower than the proximal segments; (3) the inner lobe of the maxillule is unarmed, compared to bearing 1 seta in the congeners; (4) the proximal part of the maxilla bears a strong mediodistal projection, which is absent in both congeners; (5) the coxa of the swimming legs bears a large mediodistal projection, which is absent in the congeneric species.
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.