Macrostylis obscura Brandt 1992 ...
Macrostylis obscura (Brandt, 1992) nom. dub. Desmostylis obscura Brandt, 1992; p. 70, Figs 11–13; Macrostylis obscura (Brandt, 1992); Riehl & Brandt (2010); pp. 43–44; Fig. 19. Remarks. This species and the genus Desmostylis Brandt, 1992 were based on a single damaged manca. Both were subsequent...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5681380 https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.5681380 |
| Summary: | Macrostylis obscura (Brandt, 1992) nom. dub. Desmostylis obscura Brandt, 1992; p. 70, Figs 11–13; Macrostylis obscura (Brandt, 1992); Riehl & Brandt (2010); pp. 43–44; Fig. 19. Remarks. This species and the genus Desmostylis Brandt, 1992 were based on a single damaged manca. Both were subsequently transferred to Macrostylis Sars, 1864 (Riehl & Brandt 2010). The species was collected from the same box corer sample as M. sarsi Brandt, 1992, which is represented by a single subadult female specimen. Both species share several similarities, such as dorsal and lateral setation of the body. Quantitative samples such as boxcorer samples often show an aggregated distribution of single species, so the possibility remains that these specimens are conspecific. Unfortunately, much of each type specimen is missing owing to dissection and subsequent damage and loss at the NHM London. So the types cannot be fully compared to decide whether they are conspecific or not. Another consequence of the manca stage of the ... : Published as part of Riehl, Torben & Brandt, Angelika, 2013, Southern Ocean Macrostylidae reviewed with a key to the species and new descriptions from Maud Rise, pp. 160-203 in Zootaxa 3692 (1) on page 190, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3692.1.10, http://zenodo.org/record/220612 ... |
|---|