Neoliomera fragraea, P.-H & Ng, 2014

P. - H & Ng, Peter K. L., 2014, A new species of Neoliomera Odhner, 1925, from the western Pacific, and the first record of N. demani Forest & Guinot, 1961, from Taiwan (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Xanthidae), Zootaxa 3826 (3), pp. 579-590 : 580-586

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3826.3.8
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:DCEAAE0A-3500-41E2-B3B7-63C4F8D88D69
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5120195
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4612CF45-FF9E-FFCE-B7CB-4613FDCAFB56
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Neoliomera fragraea
status	sp. nov.

Treatment

Neoliomera fragraea View in CoL n. sp.

( Figs. 1A–E View FIGURE 1 , 2 View FIGURE 2 , 3A, B View FIGURE 3 , 4A, B, E View FIGURE 4 , 5 View FIGURE 5 , 7B, E View FIGURE 7 )

Neoliomera pubescens View in CoL — Rathbun 1906: 844 (Molokai, Hawaiian Islands); Edmondson 1946: 292, fig. 178b (Hawaiian Islands); Edmondson 1962: 252, fig. 9d (Hawaiian Islands); Sakai 1976: 399, part (O‘ahu, Hawaiian Islands); Castro 2011: 99 (list). (not Zozymus pubescens H. Milne Edwards, 1834 )

Material examined. Holotype male (18.3 × 10.1 mm, with bopyrid) ( ZRC 2014.0206 View Materials ), Urunao reef front, Guam, <2 m water, coll. G. Paulay, 1 June 2000 . Paratypes: 1 male (16.4 × 9.6 mm) ( ZRC 2014.0207 View Materials ) , 1 female (16.8 × 9.6 mm) ( NTOU 2014.031401 View Materials ) , 1 male (18.2 × 10.8 mm, with bopyrid) ( NTOU 2014.031402 View Materials ), same data as holotype .— 1 male (12.3 × 6.8 mm) ( ZRC 2014.0184 View Materials ), Agat Bay , north of Alutom Islands, Mariana Islands, Guam, 3–6 m, among rocks, coll. F. Schroeder, 25 October 2000 .— 3 males (9.6 × 5.5–16.5 × 9.5 mm) ( ZRC 2014.0182 View Materials ), Agat Bay , north of Alutom Islands, Mariana Islands, Guam, 3–6 m, among silty rocks, coll. H. Conley, 9 November 2000 .— 1 male (10.4 × 6.1 mm), 1 female (11.9 × 7.5 mm) ( ZRC 2014.0183 View Materials ), Agat Bay , north of Alutom Islands, Mariana Islands, Guam, 3–6 m, among rocks and silt, coll. H. Conley, November 2000 .— 1 male (11.6 × 7.1 mm) ( ZRC 2014.0185 View Materials ), Agat Bay , north of Alutom Islands, Mariana Islands, Guam, 3–6 m, among rocks, coll. H. Conley, 15 November 2000 . Other records : 1 female (25.3 × 14.3 mm) ( NTOU 2009.062401 View Materials ) , 1 female (17.7 × 10.2 mm) ( ZRC 2014.0186 View Materials ), Chia-Le-Sui, Pintung County, Taiwan, intertidal, among rocks, coll. Y.-J. Shih, 24 June 2009 .— 1 female (23.9 × 15.0 mm) ( ZRC 2000.0483 View Materials ), ca. 1 m, in coral head, Chinaman’s Hat, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, coll. D. Takaoka, 29 April 1997 .

Diagnosis. Carapace grooves separating gastric, branchial regions shallow, with scattered short setae that never obscure margins or surfaces; dorsal surface covered with numerous evenly spaced, small rounded granules; pterygostomial, suborbital, sub-branchial regions covered with numerous small rounded granules ( Figs. 2 View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 ); front bilobed, subtruncate lobes separated by V-shaped cleft ( Figs. 2 View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 ); anterolateral margin strongly convex; posterior one-third with 2 low but distinct granular lobes separated by shallow broad cleft; anterior two-thirds granular, uneven, appearing entire ( Figs. 2A, B View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 ); chelipeds with outer surfaces covered with numerous small granules, fingers shorter than palm; dactylus, pollex completely pigmented, pigmentation on pollex extending slightly into palm ( Figs. 2A View FIGURE 2 , 4A, B View FIGURE 4 ); ambulatory legs relatively short, margins of all articles with scattered long and short simple setae that do not obscure margins; margins, submarginal outer surfaces not cristate, surfaces covered with distinct granules, merus very short ( Figs. 2A View FIGURE 2 , 3A, B View FIGURE 3 , 4E View FIGURE 4 ); thoracic sternum broad, entire surface covered with numerous small rounded granules ( Fig. 3B View FIGURE 3 ); G1 with prominent subovate subdistal lobe, long, extending beyond almost straight tip ( Fig. 7B, E View FIGURE 7 ).

Description. Carapace regions not well defined; grooves separating gastric, branchial regions shallow, just discernible, with scattered short setae which never obscure margins or surfaces; shallow Y-shaped groove separating low epigastric regions; dorsal surface covered with numerous evenly spaced small rounded granules, those on median parts lower, relatively smaller; pterygostomial, suborbital, sub-branchial regions covered numerous small rounded granules ( Figs. 2 View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 , 5A View FIGURE 5 ). Front produced just beyond orbits; bilobed, subtruncate lobes separated by distinct V-shaped cleft; margin convex, gently deflexed downwards ( Figs. 2 View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 , 5A View FIGURE 5 ). Orbits subovate; cornea relatively large, pigmented; ocular peduncle short, stout, covered with small granules ( Fig. 2C View FIGURE 2 ). Supraorbital margin granular; external orbital angle marked by low granular lobe or group of granules ( Figs. 2 View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 ). Infraorbital margin uneven, granular, otherwise unarmed ( Fig. 2C View FIGURE 2 ). Anterolateral margin strongly convex; posterior one-third with 2 low but distinct granular lobes, separated by shallow broad cleft; anterior two-thirds uneven, appears entire, lined with granules of various sizes ( Figs. 2A, B View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 , 5A View FIGURE 5 ). Posterolateral margin almost straight or gently convex, converging sharply to posterior carapace margin ( Figs. 2A, B View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 , 5A View FIGURE 5 ). Posterior margin of carapace gently convex, lined with closely-set small submarginal granules ( Figs. 2A, B View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 , 5A View FIGURE 5 ). Antennules short, folding transversely ( Fig. 2C View FIGURE 2 ). Antennal flagellum short, passes through orbital hiatus, not just reaching outer edge of orbit; basal segment subrectangular, relatively large ( Fig. 2C View FIGURE 2 ). Surface of epistome medially depressed; posterior margin gently sinuous from frontal view, median part slightly dilated, with small median cleft ( Fig. 2C View FIGURE 2 ). Endostome without discernible ridges. Outer surface of third maxilliped gently granular to smooth. Ischium subrectangular, with distinct median oblique sulcus. Merus quadrate, anteroexternal margin angular but rounded, slightly produced, median part gently depressed. Exopod relatively stout proximally, distal part not to anterior edge of merus; flagellum long.

Chelipeds symmetrical ( Figs. 2A View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 , 5A View FIGURE 5 ). Outer surfaces of merus, carpus, chelae covered with numerous rounded granules of varying sizes, granules on dorsal margins generally larger, sharper ( Figs. 2A View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 , 4A, B View FIGURE 4 ). Carpus subovate, inner distal angle with low sharp tooth ( Figs. 2A View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 , 4A, B View FIGURE 4 ). Merus without distinct spines or teeth. Fingers shorter than palm, outer surface of each finger with 2 longitudinal grooves, cutting margins with several well developed teeth with convex margins; distal part curved, tip with inner surface excavated, subspatuliform, inner surface with scattered simple setae ( Fig. 4A, B View FIGURE 4 ). Dactylus completely black to dark brown, tip lighter coloured ( Fig. 4A, B View FIGURE 4 ). Pollex black to dark brown except for lighter coloured tip, pigmentation reaching slightly into inner, outer surfaces ( Fig. 4A, B View FIGURE 4 ).

Ambulatory legs relatively short; second pair longest ( Figs. 1 View FIGURE 1 , 2A View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 , 5A View FIGURE 5 ). Margins of all articles with scattered long and short simple setae that do not obscure margins ( Figs. 2A View FIGURE 2 , 3A, B View FIGURE 3 , 4E View FIGURE 4 , 5A View FIGURE 5 ). Merus conspicuously short; margins, submarginal outer surfaces not cristate, surfaces covered with distinct granules; granules on dorsal margin relatively larger, uneven in shape ( Figs. 3B View FIGURE 3 , 4E View FIGURE 4 ). Outer surfaces, margins of carpus, propodus covered with numerous small, rounded granules ( Figs. 2A View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 , 4E View FIGURE 4 , 5A View FIGURE 5 ). Dactylus relatively short, stout, distinctly shorter than propodus, gently curved with corneous distal tip ( Figs. 2A View FIGURE 2 , 4E View FIGURE 4 ). Dactylo-propodal lock distinct ( Fig. 4E View FIGURE 4 ).

Thoracic sternum broad, entire surface covered with numerous small rounded granules; sternites 1–3 completely fused; sternites 3, 4 fused, medial suture not clearly discernible with only lateral part distinct ( Fig. 3B View FIGURE 3 ). Gonopore coxal. Abdomen with somites 3–5 completely fused, sutures separating segments not discernible, lateral margins gently concave; somites 1–3 trapezoidal, somite 6 about as broad as long, lateral margins gently concave; telson triangular, lateral margins gently concave, tip rounded ( Fig. 3B View FIGURE 3 ).

G1 long, relatively stout, gently sinuous; with prominent subovate subdistal lobe, long, extending beyond almost straight tip; dorsal margin with numerous long plumose setae ( Fig. 7B, E View FIGURE 7 ). G2 short, with short distal segment.

Variation. There is no obvious dimorphism between the sexes. The structures of the carapaces as well as proportions of the ambulatory legs are the same in both sexes. The structure of the anterolateral margin varies slightly, with the lobes sometimes lower in smaller specimens but is, however, always distinct. The female abdomen is ovate, covering about half of the thoracic sternum, with all the somites and telson free. The vulvae are large, swollen and are on the anterior half of thoracic sternite 6. There is no obvious opercular cover ( Fig. 5B View FIGURE 5 ).

Etymology. The species is named after the genus name for strawberries (Fragraea), alluding to its live colouration. The name is used as a noun in apposition.

Colour in life. The species is an overall bright red to crimson overall with regularly arranged white spots on the dorsal surface of the carapace ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 A-E). The fingers are black to greyish-brown.

Remarks. Forest & Guinot (1961: 80) clarified the identity of Neoliomera pubescens (H. Milne Edwards, 1834) and noted that the species is known for certain only from Mauritius, the type locality (see also Serène 1984: 71). Henri Milne Edwards (1834: 384-385) described Zozymus pubescens from Mauritius, and provided measurements (but no figure) of one specimen (sex not stated) although he did not say if he had more material. Alphonse Milne-Edwards (1865: 223, pl. 12 fig. 6) redescribed and figured the species (as a Liomera species ) (see Fig. 6A, B View FIGURE 6 ), presumably based on the same specimen but the sex was again not stated. In describing N. demani, Forest & Guinot (1961: 80) noted that they examined the male type of N. pubescens . In their captions for the figures of the G1 ( Forest & Guinot 1961: 83) and carapace ( Forest & Guinot 1961: pl. 3), they stated that the specimen was a holotype male. This is not strictly correct. Because H. Milne Edwards (1834) did not designate a holotype and did not clearly state how many specimens he had, all his material should be treated as syntypes. The only extant male that Forest & Guinot (1961) studied should now be treated as the lectotype of Zozymus pubescens H. Milne Edwards, 1834 . Neoliomera pubescens s. str. has also been listed and discussed by Michel (1964: 28), Guinot (1967: 267), Serène (1968: 73), Serène (1984: 71, text-fig. 30, pl. 8A) and Ng et al. (2008: 201).

Forest & Guinot (1961) suggested that N. intermedia Odhner, 1925 , described from the Philippines, is a junior synonym of N. pubescens , and included records of this species from the Philippines and Japan as N. pubescens . Guinot (1969: 232, fig. 14), however, examined the type, figured the G1 and noted it was a separate species. Neoliomera intermedia is very distinct from N. pubescens in the form of the carapace (relatively less wide) and the G1 is more elongated, with a differently structured distal part and setation pattern ( Guinot 1969: fig. 14). The live colours of N. intermedia , as figured by Sakai (1976: pl. 142 fig. 3) are also quite different, being a uniform orange on the dorsal surfaces, without any white spots like in N. pubescens (see also Odhner 1925: 29, pl. 2 fig. 8).

Many early records of N. pubescens have since been referred to N. demani Forest & Guinot, 1961 (see discussion below). We have on hand a series of specimens from Taiwan and Guam that superficially resemble N. pubescens but can be separated by the form of the frontal and anterolateral margins, chelea and fingers, merus of the ambulatory legs and structure of the G1s ( Table 1 View TABLE 1 ). As such, they are here referred to a new species, N. fragraea n. sp. The records of “ N. pubescens ” from the Hawaiian Islands by Rathbun (1906: 844), Edmondson (1946: 292, fig. 178b), Edmondson (1962: 252, fig. 9d) and Sakai (1976: 399, part) are probably N. fragraea n. sp. (see discussion for N. fragraea n. sp.), although it is possible their material may be mixed because N. demani is also known from the Hawaiian Islands. Castro (2011: 99) had already commented that these Hawaiian records of N. pubescens should be referred to a new species. The relatively large Hawaiian female specimen on hand (ZRC 2000.0483) ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 ) agrees with the Guam and Taiwan material, including the colour when alive, carapace structure and leg proportions, and we conclude it is conspecific with N. fragraea n. sp.

The specimen of N. fragraea n. sp. from O‘ahu, Hawaiian Islands (ZRC 2000.0483) was obtained at night from a reef with strong currents (D. Takaoka, pers. comm.). The second author has also observed several specimens from shallow water in the intertidal in Maui at night, hiding among the eroded limestone formations of dead reefs that are exposed to very strong waves and tidal surges (see habitat notes in Ng 2011). These conditions make their collection difficult.

Two of the specimens, the holotype male (18.3 × 10.1 mm, ZRC 2014.0206 View Materials ) and a paratype male (18.2 × 10.8 mm, NTOU), are most probably infected with a bopyrid in their gill chambers; their branchial regions being distinctly swollen ( Figs. 1E View FIGURE 1 , 2C View FIGURE 2 ) .