Pseudoprotella Mayer 1890
Remarks on Pseudoprotella spp. Three species of Pseudoprotella have been described so far: Pseudoprotella phasma (Montagu, 1804), Pseudoprotella inermis Chevreux, 1927 (redescribed by Guerra-García & Takeuhi, 2000) and Pseudoprotella bogisa (Mayer, 1903), which was recently transferred from the...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Other/Unknown Material |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://zenodo.org/record/5959268 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5959268 |
| Summary: | Remarks on Pseudoprotella spp. Three species of Pseudoprotella have been described so far: Pseudoprotella phasma (Montagu, 1804), Pseudoprotella inermis Chevreux, 1927 (redescribed by Guerra-García & Takeuhi, 2000) and Pseudoprotella bogisa (Mayer, 1903), which was recently transferred from the genus Noculacia to Pseudoprotella (see Guerra- García, 2002a). A detailed comparison of the three species is provided by Guerra-García (2002a). Pseudoprotella inermis is restricted to the Strait of Gibraltar area and North Atlantic coast of Morocco (Guerra-García & Takeuchi, 2000; Guerra-García et al., 2014) and it is characterised by total absence of dorsal body projections. Pseudoprotella bogisa has been collected so far only from Thailand waters (McCain & Steinberg, 1970; Guerra- García, 2002a) and Pseudoprotella phasma [sensu lato] is distributed along Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean. Pseudoprotella phasma was initially described by Montagu (1804) as Cancer phasma. Mayer (1882) transferred it to the genus Pseudoprotella and included description and figures of the species. Mayer (1890, 1903) considered four forms (f. typica, f. minor, f. quadrispinis and f. bispinis) based on differences in the arrangement of body dorsal projections and differences in the male gnathopod 2. Chevreux & Fage (1925) and Krapp-Schickel (1993) provided a key to identify the four varieties. Recently, Zeina et al. (2015) studied material from Azores, reporting the forms typica and quadrispinis. They found distinct and constant differences between these two forms. Therefore, they pointed out that these two forms deserve the rank of distinct species and probably, rank of species should also be assigned to forms minor and bispinis. Guerra-García (2004) figured a female of P. phasma [sensu lato] from deep-sea waters of Azores that seem to be closer to the forms typica or minor. The two species found during the present study (figs. 22 and 23) are very similar in having a dorsal projections pattern of 1-1-2+1 (as f. typica and ... |
|---|