identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03D987D7EF72922AB6B5EFBDFBB5FD8F.text	03D987D7EF72922AB6B5EFBDFBB5FD8F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bathynomus jamesi Kou, Chen and Li 2017	<div><p>Bathynomus jamesi Kou, Chen and Li, 2017</p> <p>Bathynomus giganteus – Soong 1992: 293, figs 1, 2 [not Bathynomus giganteus Milne Edwards, 1879].</p> <p>Bathynomus kensleyi – Lowry and Dempsey 2006: 184 [South China Sea and Philippine specimens only].</p> <p>Bathynomus kenleyi – Truong 2015: 81, fig. 2 [lapsus].</p> <p>Bathynomus jamesi Kou, Chen and Li, in Kou et al. 2017: 285, figs 2–7.</p> <p>Material examined</p> <p>Four ovigerous females, Pratas Island voucher numbers TMCD003326, 3329, 3331 and 3332, TL 277–318 mm (avg. 300.5 mm), CL 115–150 mm (avg. 132.3 mm), wet weight 495–1100 g (avg. 823.8 g). Six males (TMCD003327, 003328, 003330, 003333, 003334 and EA0238), TL 309–376 mm (avg. 338.3 mm), CL 150–197 mm (avg. 170.3 mm), wet weight 1125–2000 g (avg. 1489.2 g) (Table 1). Males are slightly larger than females. <a href="http://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=115.25&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=19.084" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 115.25/lat 19.084)">Six</a> specimens (TMCD003326–3330 and EA0238) were collected by bottom trawl in the <a href="http://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=115.25&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=19.084" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 115.25/lat 19.084)">northern South</a> China <a href="http://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=115.25&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=19.084" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 115.25/lat 19.084)">Sea</a> between <a href="http://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=115.25&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=19.084" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 115.25/lat 19.084)">North Vereker Bank</a> (21.061°N, 116.109°E) and <a href="http://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=115.25&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=19.084" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 115.25/lat 19.084)">Pratas Island</a> (20.717°N, 116.700°E) by the crew of the <a href="http://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=115.25&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=19.084" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 115.25/lat 19.084)">Keelung-based</a> fishing vessel Jin Ruiyi 37 on 17 June 2019 (Figure 1), and four specimens (TMCD003331–3334) were collected by bottom trawl about 300 km south-west of Pratas Island (19.084°N, 115.250° E) by the crew of the Keelung-based fishing vessel Jing yang on 12 May 2020. The water depth was about 420– 550 m.</p> <p>Also examined. Photographs of Bathynomus kensleyi holotype (NTM Cr003425) (Figure 2). Marion Plateau, Coral Sea, QLD, Australia (22.917°S, 154.350°E, depth, 590–606 m, Stn: 0685–08, coll: N.L. Bruce, 17 November 1985, det: J. Lowry 2004) (Photo provided by Gavin Dally, Senior Collections Manager Natural Sciences, Northern Territory Museum), Australia). Imm, 129 mm, off Lihou Reef, Coral Sea, 16.917°S, 155.567°E, 6 October 1985, 880 m, coll. RV Soela (QM W28011). Photographed material identified as Bathynomus kensleyi by Lowry and Dempsey (2006): from Sulu Sea (AM P42711, P42712), south of Hong Kong [Soong (1992) material, NMMB-CD 005878, Taiwan], and material from off Lubang Island, near Manila, Philippines, MNHN IS.2290, IS.2298).</p> <p>Description of a female (TMCD003332)</p> <p>Body 2.4 times as long as wide, ovate in shape, coarsely punctate, without sculpture (Figure 3 (a)); 277 mm in TL. Head ridge above eyes discontinuous (Figure 3 (b)). Clypeal region distal margin slightly concave, apex narrowly rounded (Figure 3 (b,c)).</p> <p>Antennula peduncle 4-articulate (Figure 5 (g)) with 4 articles with exopod at end of peduncular article 4 (Figure 5 (h)); flagellum longer than peduncle. Antenna peduncle article 4 very short (Figure 5 (i)), article 4 about 2.5 times longer than article 3, articles 1–2 bearing neither exopod nor seta (Figure 5 (i)), composed of approximately 50 articles; flagellum longer than peduncle, extending to within pereonite 2 (Figures 3 (d) and 4(a)), composed of approximately 60 articles (near-terminal segmentation unclear).</p> <p>Palp not reaching to incisor margin (Figure 7 (d)). Maxilla with long setae (Figure 7 (c)); lateral lobe with 9 keratinised spines on exopod, 4 robust spines on endopod (Figure 7 (e)). Maxillipedal endite with 5 equally spaced, robust, spiniform setae (Figure 7 (b)).</p> <p>Pereopod 1 (Figure 5 (a)) ischium bearing 3 posteroproximal RS and 3 RS on posterodistal margin; merus with 3 RS on an anterodistal angle, proximal row of 3 RS on posterolateral margin, and distal row of 3 RS; propodus twice as long as wide, with 4 RS on posterior margin. Pereopod 2 (Figure 5 (b)) ischium with 3 RS each on posterior and posterodistal margins; merus with 5 short simple setae on an anterodistal angle, 3 RS in a proximal row on posteromedial margin, and distal row of 3 RS; propodus with 4 RS on posterior margin. Pereopod 7 basis 2.5 times as long as greatest width, superior margin convex, inferior margin with 5 palmate setae; ischium 0.7 times as long as basis, inferior margin with 14 RS (4 clusters of 1 + 3 + 6 + 4), superior distal angle with 12 RS, inferior distal angle with 6 RS; merus 0.5 as long as ischium, 2.1 times as long as wide, inferior margin with 6 RS, superior distal angle with 9 RS, inferior distal angle with 8 RS; carpus 0.6 as long as ischium, 1.6 times as long as wide, inferior margin with 5 RS (as 1 + 2), superior distal angle with 13 RS, inferior distal angle with 9 RS; propodus 0.7 as long as ischium, 2.4 times as long as wide, inferior margin with 6 clusters of RS (as 3 clusters of 2), superior distal angle with 4 slender setae, inferior distal angle with 1 RS; dactylus 0.5 as long as propodus.</p> <p>Oostegites arise from proximal parts of pereopods 1–6 (Figure 5 (f)). Coxa of pereopod 7 distally broadened and slightly curved posteriorly (Figures 4 (a,b)).</p> <p>Pleon comprising approximately 20% of body length (Figures 3 (a) and 4(a)). Posterolateral angles of pleonites 3–4 reaching to almost the same level posteriorly (Figure 4 (a,b)). Apex of appendix masculina simple and flat (Figure 6 (g)). Penial processes close-set, 0.86 times as long as basal width, distally bluntly rounded (Figure 6 (f)).</p> <p>Pleotelson (Figure 4 (b,c)) 0.6 times as long as greatest width, smooth except for minute pores, with inconspicuous longitudinal carina on dorsal surface; posterior margin with 11 long, prominent, upwardly curved spines and pair of small posterolateral spines, without setae between spines, central spine simple.</p> <p>Uropods (Figure 4 (c)) not extending beyond caudal margin of pleotelson. Peduncle with 2 RS on caudolateral margin (Figure 4 (e)). Exopods and endopods both with continuous marginal setal fringes and smooth lateral and distal margins (Figure 4 (d)). Lateral margin of exopod convex with 9 RS, setal fringe continuous 75% (Figure 4 (d)), medial margin straight, distomesial corner rounded, and distal margin convex with 4 RS, distolateral corner slightly produced, subacute. Endopod with subacute distolateral angle, straight lateral margin with 3 RS, straight medial margin, rounded distomesial corner, and straight distal margin with 10 RS, distolateral corner produced, subacute.</p> <p>Colour of dorsal surfaces dark yellowish-grey; pleotelson light grey; ventral sides of pereopods, pleotelson, and uropods also light grey, but pleopods dark rose (Figure 8 (b)).</p> <p>Habitat</p> <p>Continental slope, bathyal to the upper abyss (300–2500 m) (Lowry and Dempsey 2006), Distribution</p> <p>South China Sea off Hainan Island, south-east of Hong Kong, off Taiwan and off western Luzon Island, Philippines; continental slope at depths between 300 and 925 metres (Lowry and Dempsey 2006).</p> <p>Variation. Specimens TMCD003326–3334, and EA0238: variation appears in body length/width ratio (1.80–2.55), flagellum length (extending to within pereonite 2 and/ or 3), pleotelsonic length/width ratio (1.51–2.71) and number of pleotelsonic spines (11 or 13). The smallest body length/width ratio is that of TMCD003327 (1.80), and TMCD003331 has the largest (2.55). Length of most flagella length extending to within pereonite 2 but TMCD003328 and TMCD003333 can extend to within pereonite 3. The pleotelsonic length/width ratio is also very different, with TMCD003330 being the smallest at 1.51, and TMCD003327 being the largest at 2.71. For most specimens the number of pleotelsonic spines is 13, but TMCD003329 and TMCD003330 have 11 (Table 1).</p> <p>Molecular biology. Amplified PCR products of 497 bp from 16S rRNA and 657 bp from COI, respectively, were obtained for the 16S rRNA and COI nucleotide sequences of one (TMCD003329) and nine (TMCD003326–003333) of our specimens B. jamesi (Table 1), respectively. The results of COI alignment showed that samples collected from Pratas Island are the same species as B. jamesi (Figures 10 and 11). The sequence data have been uploaded to the DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ)/ European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL)/ GenBank (Acc. Nos. MW575424, MW575449, MW575454, MW575455, MW580729, and MW 580730 for COI, and MZ 029589 for 16S rRNA). The variation in the 657-bp COI gene sequences cloned from individual Bathynomus involved 7 positions, with the less prevalent base-pairing usually occurring in just 1 or 2 specimens: c. 90 T&gt;C (MW 577651), c. 255 T&gt;C (MW 575454), c. 302 T&gt;C (MW 575424), c. 498 A&gt;G (MW 575424), c. 558G&gt; T (MW 575454), and c. 573C&gt; T (MW 575449). The greate st number and variety of mutations were found at position 348: c. 348 A&gt; T (MW 575455), (MW 580729), (MW 580730), and c. 348 A&gt;C (MW 577651), (MW 577652) (Figure 11).</p> <p>After COI and 16S rRNA sequencing, and comparison with the NCBI databank, the results confirmed that the 10 specimens were all B. jamesi (Figure 11). The immature and juvenile specimens do not necessarily exhibit all the species characteristics found in fully adult specimens; in particular, the form of the pleotelson spines may be substantially different. So, new species should never be based on sub-adults (of any stage) where related species are very similar.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Bathynomus jamesi was described from Hainan Island in the northern South China Sea (Kou et al. 2017). The diagnosis was ‘pleotelson with 11 or 13 short, straight spines; central spine not bifid. Uropod with endopod and exopod distolateral corner slightly produced. Clypeus lateral margins concave, narrowly rounded apically. Antennal flagellum extending to within pereonite 3’. Kou et al. (2017) did not describe any upward curvature of the pleotelsonic spines in their specimens from Hainan Island, something that is obvious in all 10 of our specimens. Another difference is the shorter antennal flagellum in our material, extending to pereonite 2 (a few to pereonite 3, see Table 1) but in the holotype and the original description by Kou et al. (2017) it is described as extending to pereonite 3.</p> <p>Bathynomus kensleyi Lowry and Dempsey, 2006 was described from off the Great Barrier Reef, Queensland, with additional material from the Philippines and from ‘south of Hong Kong’. An examination of good-quality photos of the holotype of B. kensleyi (Figure 2) shows several distinct points of difference between B. jamesi and B. kensleyi: in B. jamesi the clypeus has a weakly produced median point, with lateral margins that converge towards the anterior, and the anterior margins are weakly concave (in B. kensleyi the median point is strongly produced, the lateral margins are parallel; the anterior margins strongly concave); in B. jamesi pleonite 3 laterally extends posteriorly to the posterior of pleonite 4 and does not exceed pleonites 4 and 5 (in B. kensleyi pleonite 3 laterally extends past both pleonites 4 and 5 and reaches the anterior of the pleotelson, and pleonite 4 also extends to just posterior of pleonite 5); other differences include the uropodal exopod being proportionally shorter than in B. kensleyi and the posterior margin of the pleotelson being slightly narrower (0.9 times as wide as anterior width) than in in B. kensleyi (1.0 times as wide as anterior width). The characters of the clypeus and pleon allow for identification of these two similar species. Lowry and Dempsey’s (2006) synonymy included the record of Soong (1992) from the South China Sea. The figures given by Soong (1992) agree with B. jamesi with regard to the morphology of the pleon, clypeus and pleotelson, confirming that B. kensleyi does not occur in the South China Sea. The Bathynomus specimens identified as B. kensleyi in Lowry and Dempsey (2006) from the northern Philippines are in fact B. jamesi, but those from the Sulu Sea are neither B. jamesi nor B. kensleyi, and appear to be an undescribed species (see ‘Discussion’).</p> <p>The 10 B. jamesi collected from Pratas Island share the common feature of a huge body size (277 to 376 mm, all specimens), with 11 upwardly curved pleotelsonic spines (Figures 3 (a) and 4(a,c)). According to Lowry and Dempsey’s (2006) description, only two Bathynomus species, B. kensleyi and B. lowryi, have these characteristic upwardly curved pleotelsonic spines. The present specimens display all the diagnostic characteristics of B. jamesi from Kou et al. (2017), but the pleotelsonic spines, not described in the diagnosis, are different. In Kou et al.’s (2017) specimens the pleotelson spines project straight (or perhaps just slightly angled up in lateral view), in line with the pleotelson (Kou et al. 2017), Figure 1 (b), whereas in the present material they are upturned. Given that the molecular data shows that all these specimens are the same species, and in the absence of other morphological difference, we conclude that the development of pleotelson spines is an expression of age and maturity; the Kou et al. (2017) specimens are small juveniles and one small immature specimen, so adult characteristics were not assessed. Bathynomus jamesi is the third species of Bathynomus to show strongly produced and dorsally directed pleotelson spines in the mature individuals of both sexes.</p> <p>The colouration of B. lowryi Bruce and Bussarawit, 2004 from Thailand is similar to that of the present specimens of B. jamesi (Figure 8 (a)), except that the pleopods of B. lowryi are grey and dark orange, not dark rose (Bruce and Bussarawit 2004).</p> <p>The presence of oostegites on the pereopods of the present females (TMCD003332) indicates that B. jamesi reaches maturity before attaining a body length of 277 mm.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D987D7EF72922AB6B5EFBDFBB5FD8F	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Huang, Ming-Chih;Kawai, Tadashi;Bruce, Niel L.	Huang, Ming-Chih, Kawai, Tadashi, Bruce, Niel L. (2022): A new species of Bathynomus Milne-Edwards, 1879 (Isopoda: Cirolanidae) from the southern Gulf of Mexico with a redescription of Bathynomus jamesi Kou, Chen and Li, 2017 from off Pratas Island, Taiwan. Journal of Natural History 56 (13 - 16): 885-921, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2086835, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2022.2086835
03D987D7EF659220B6B5EF05FD25FC5D.text	03D987D7EF659220B6B5EF05FD25FC5D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bathynomus yucatanensis Huang & Kawai & Bruce 2022	<div><p>Bathynomus yucatanensis sp. nov.</p> <p>(urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub: 399605D3-356E-402D-9ED1-E36A649A3F1B)</p> <p>Material examined</p> <p>Holotype. Male obtained from an aquarium as noted above (voucher ‘number TMCD003335, NCBI Acc. No. MZ 354630 for COI and MZ 042927 for 16S rRNA), the TL 257 mm, CL 129 mm, and wet weight 550 g (Table 1). Reportedly caught in a baited cage at 600–800 m depth on 19 April 2017 in the Gulf of Mexico off the Yucatán Peninsula.</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Clypeus with straight lateral margins. Antennal flagellum extending to within pereonite 3. The distal part of the coxa of pereopod 7 is broad. Uropodal exopod not extending beyond pleotelson: endopod with distolateral corners slightly produced. Length:width ratio of pleotelson approximately 0.8:1; number of pleotelsonic spines 11 or 13, short, or straight.</p> <p>Description of male (TMCD003335)</p> <p>Body (Figure 13 (a)) 260 mm in TL, 2.6× times longer than wide. Head ridge above eyes discontinuous (Figure 13 (b)); clypeal region with distal margin distinctly concave, apex narrowly rounded (Figure 13 (c)).</p> <p>Flagellum of antennula longer than peduncle, more than 48 articles (lacking terminal part of both antennulae). Antenna article 1 very short, article 2 about 1.5 times longer than 1, articles 3–4 bearing neither exopod nor seta (Figure 15 (h)),article 5 extremely short (Figure 15 (i)); flagellum longer than peduncle, extending to within pereonite 3 (Figures 13 (d) and 14(a)), composed of approximately 55 articles (near-terminal segmentation unclear).</p> <p>Mandible with broad tridentate incisor. Palp extending beyond cutting edges.</p> <p>Mandible palp not reaching the incisor margin (Figure 17 (d)). Maxilla with long setae (Figure 17 (c)); lateral lobe with 9 keratinised spines on exopod, 3 RS on endopod (Figure 17 (e)). Maxillipedal palp (Figure 17 (a)) with broad articles bearing plumose setae on lateral margins and simple setae on medial margins, all articles wider than their articulating junctions, and terminal article triangular; maxillipedal endite with 5 equally coupling setae (Figure 17 (b)).</p> <p>Pereopod 1 (Figure 15 (a)) with ischium bearing 3 posteroproximal RS and 3 RS on posterodistal margin; merus bearing 3 RS on an anterodistal angle, 3 RS in a proximal row on posterolateral margin, and 3 RS in a distal row; propodus twice as long as wide, with 5 RS on posterior margin. Pereopod 2 (Figure 15 (b)) with ischium bearing 3 RS each on posterior and posterodistal margins; merus with 7 short setae on an anterodistal angle, 3 RS in a proximal row along the posteromedial margin, and 3 RS in a distal row; and propodus with 5 RS on posterior margin. Pereopod 7 basis 2.5 times as long as greatest width, superior margin convex, inferior margin with 5 palmate setae; ischium 0.7 times as long as basis, inferior margin with 14 RS (4 clusters of 1 + 3 + 6 + 4), superior distal angle with 12 RS, inferior distal angle with 6 RS; merus 0.5 as long as ischium, 2.1 times as long as wide, inferior margin with 6 RS, superior distal angle with 9 RS, inferior distal angle with 8 RS; carpus 0.6 times as long as ischium, 1.6 times as long as wide, inferior margin with 5 RS (as 1 + 2), superior distal angle with 13 RS, inferior distal angle with 9 RS; propodus 0.7 times as long as ischium, 2.4 times as long as wide, inferior margin with 6 clusters of RS (as 3 clusters of 2), superior distal angle with 4 slender setae, inferior distal angle with 1 RS; dactylus 0.5 times as long as propodus.</p> <p>Coxa of pereopod 7 distally broadened and slightly upcurved posteriorly (Figures 14 (a,b)).</p> <p>Penial processes separated by 5% of sternal width (Figure 16 (f)).</p> <p>Pleon comprises approximately 20% of body length (Figures 13 (a) and 14(a)). Posterolateral angles of pleonites 3–5 reach almost the same level posteriorly (Figure 14 (a,b)). We did not find an appendix masculina on the pleopod.</p> <p>Uropods (Figure 14 (c)) not extending to posterior margin of pleotelson. Peduncle ventrolateral margin with 3 ventral RS (Figure 14 (e)). Exopod with smooth lateral and distal margins (Figure 14 (d)); with 7 RS (Figure 14 (d,e)) along the lateral margin, straight medial margin, and distomesial corner rounded; convex distal margins both lacking setae, and distolateral corner not produced, distolateral corner subacute. Endopod (Figure 14 (d, e)) lateral margin straight with 9 RS, medial margin straight, distomesial angle rounded, distal margin straight with 15 RS, distolateral angle slightly produced, subacute.</p> <p>Pleotelson (Figure 14 (b,c)) approximately 0.5 times as long as wide, smooth except for minute pores; with inconspicuous longitudinal carina on dorsal surface, running anterior from pleotelsonic spines; vestigial spines and posterior margin with 10 prominent spines and 1 pair of vestigial spines (Figure 14 (c)), all long and straight with no setae between them, central distal spine simple.</p> <p>Colouration. Dorsal surfaces of body creamy yellowish; pleotelson pale and dark yellow; ventral sides of pereopodal coxae, pleotelson, and uropods also creamy yellow, and pleopods dark rose (Figure 18).</p> <p>Habitat</p> <p>Captured with B. giganteus, presumably similar to B. giganteus.</p> <p>Distribution</p> <p>Off the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico, and in the Gulf of Mexico; approximate depth range 600–800 metres.</p> <p>Etymology. The epithet is an adjective derived from the name of the nearest land mass to its common locality, the Yucatán Peninsula. The Japanese name: Enosuigusokumushi.</p> <p>Molecular biology. Amplified PCR products of 489 bp from 16S rRNA and 599 bp from COI, respectively, were obtained from the holotype B. yucatanensis (TMCD003335). The sequence data have been uploaded to DDBJ / EMBL / GenBank (Accession Nos. MZ 042927 for 16S rRNA, MZ 354630 for COI. In a few COI experiments, the variational sequence was obtained as MZ 742155). Although the phylogenetic tree (Figure 12) shows B. yucatanensis as closest to B. giganteus (MG229639), our COI sequence for the former differed in at least 35 places from that of a specimen of B. giganteus registered in NCBI (MG229639) (Figure 19). The alignment of 16S rRNA nucleotides among Bathynomus species in the Gulf of Mexico is also shown in Figure 20. COI and 16S rRNA sequencing revealed that the two individuals of B. giganteus were different species. After comparing them with the NCBI database, we found that one was B. giganteus, but the other did not correspond to any known species. Comparisons with descriptions of existing species showed that it was a new species. Due to the different sequences of the two genes (COI and 16S rRNA) (Figures 19 and 20), coupled with differences in morphology (Table 3), we identified it as a new species.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Two Bathynomus species are known from the Gulf of Mexico, B. giganteus and the recently described B. maxeyorum. Compared to B. giganteus, B. yucatanensis has more slender body proportions and is shorter in total length than B. giganteus, and the pereopods are more slender. The antennal flagellum extends to pereonite 3 in B. yucatanensis vs reaching pereonite 2 in B. giganteus); pereonite 3 is widest (vs pereonite 5: the pereion shape of B. yucatanensis is an inverted triangle vs ovate in B. giganteus (Bruce 1986)). The pleotelson spines of B. yucatanensis are more slender than those of B. giganteus. The coxal plates in B. yucatanensis are pale in comparison to those of B. giganteus.</p> <p>Compared with B. maxeyorum, the most distinctive feature is the number of pleotelson spines (11 spines in B. yucatanensis vs 7 in B. maxeyorum), the uropod exopod distolateral corner is not produced in B. yucatanensis vs produced in B. maxeyorum, and in B. yucatanensis the clypeus anterior margins are concave and the lateral margins straight vs anterior margins straight and lateral margins concave in B. maxeyorum (Shipley et al., 2016) (Figure 1 (e)).</p> <p>These morphological characters have been used as diagnostic characteristics and keys to identify and describe species (Bruce 1986; Bruce and Bussarawit 2004; Lowry and Dempsey 2006; Kou et al. 2017). The colour of the lateral margin of the pereion, width of pereopods, longitudinal median carina on pleotelson, and proximal width of the pleotelson spines clearly differ between B. giganteus and B. yucatanensis (Table 3). These morphological characters have not previously been used as diagnostic characters, but differences in these morphological features are consistent with the results of molecular analyses in the present study (Figures 10–12).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D987D7EF659220B6B5EF05FD25FC5D	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Huang, Ming-Chih;Kawai, Tadashi;Bruce, Niel L.	Huang, Ming-Chih, Kawai, Tadashi, Bruce, Niel L. (2022): A new species of Bathynomus Milne-Edwards, 1879 (Isopoda: Cirolanidae) from the southern Gulf of Mexico with a redescription of Bathynomus jamesi Kou, Chen and Li, 2017 from off Pratas Island, Taiwan. Journal of Natural History 56 (13 - 16): 885-921, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2086835, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2022.2086835
03D987D7EF6C9224B6B5E9A4FC9FFA48.text	03D987D7EF6C9224B6B5E9A4FC9FFA48.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bathynomus jamesi (Kou, Chen and Li 2017)	<div><p>Bathynomus jamesi vs Bathynomus kensleyi</p> <p>Two species of ‘super-giant’ Bathynomus have been described from the northern South China Sea region; one is B. kensleyi and the other is B. jamesi. Lowry and Dempsey (2006) recorded B. kensleyi from south of Hong Kong (20.334°- 20.834°N, 115.500°– 116.250°E); their specimens clearly showed upwardly curved pleotelsonic spines, and B. kensleyi was the only ‘super-giant’ Bathynomus species known in the South China Sea at that time. Kou et al. (2017) described B. jamesi from 100 kilometres south-east of Hainan Island and believed that Bathynomus sp. from the Gulf of Aden (Lowry and Dempsey 2006) was the same species as B. jamesi. All of these specimens of Bathynomus sp. and B. jamesi were immature or juvenile.</p> <p>*Data from Kou et al. (2017) and Table 2; **Data from present observation in Figures 18 and 21. ca.:circa.</p> <p>The COI sequences of our 10 sample individuals of B. jamesi are consistent with sequences of Kou et al. (2017) (NCBI Acc. No. KX 417647), confirming that they are the same species as B. jamesi (Figure 11). All material examined by Kou et al. (2017) was immature, and none of the individuals showed ‘upwardly curved pleotelsonic spines’. In contrast, the 10 mature individuals we collected all show the ‘upwardly curved pleotelsonic spines’ that is characteristic of B. kensleyi. However, as discussed in the ‘Remarks’ for B. jamesi, B. kensleyi differs noticeably from B. jamesi with regard to clypeus and pleon morphology, and also in the fine detail of the uropodal rami. It is clear that the mature adults of B. jamesi have upturned elongate pleotelson spines, and that three species now share this character: B. jamesi from the South China Sea; B. kensleyi from the Coral Sea in eastern Australia (see comments on B. kensleyi below); and B. lowryi from the Andaman Sea, Thailand.</p> <p>Truong (2015) identified Bathynomus species found off the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea as B. kensleyi, with the characteristic 11 upwardly curved pleotelsonic spines, but this species shows the clypeus, pleon and uropodal characters of B. jamesi, and is here recognised as that species.</p> <p>B. kensleyi has only one entry in NCBI (Acc. No. MN654915), from India (Prasanna Kumar et al. 2020). A comparison shows that the DNA sequence of the COI from NCBI (India sample) differs from each of the 10 individual sequences from the South China Sea. Direct comparison of the figures given by Prasanna Kumar et al. (2020) and Sankar et al. (2011) show that the specimen from India has been misidentified: it is neither B. jamesi nor B. kensleyi and may represent an undescribed species.</p> <p>We used COI as the main basis for species identification, and 16S rRNA as an auxiliary mechanism for identifying the target species. As noted above, our recovered DNA sequences of B. jamesi for COI were not completely identical among individuals. Although the DNA sequence of COI displays individual differences, it is not a systematic variable (Figure 11). These variations can be regarded as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The SNPs were found at seven of 657 bp loci (Figure 11). We interpret this as an individual, not taxonomic, variation because the ratio is low (the maximum is 3/657 on TMCD003332 (NCBI Acc. No. MW577651)). The most mutable point appeared to be position 348, where A&gt; T (in three individuals) and A&gt; C (in two individuals) were both found. These results show that genetic diversity exists within the population, and that they have the potential to produce morphological variation and even new species.</p> <p>Although the COI sequences of the 10 individuals are almost the same, there appear to be two phenotypes (Table 1). With respect to the identification of Bathynomus in terms of the length of the flagellum, in most specimens it extends to pereonite 2, but in a few (such as TMCD003328 and TMCD003333) it can reach pereonite 3. Eight of our specimens were stout-bodied and two were slim-bodied (Table 1 and Figure 9), the former being widest at pereonite 5 (vs pereonite 4) and having long, pointed pleotelson spines (vs stubby spines). Pleotelson length ranged from 1.51 to 2.71 times the width, with a large difference (Table 1) among all 10 specimens. Due to the apparent difference in appearance, if the slim-bodied group is separated, it may potentially be regarded as a different species, while the stout-bodied type conforms to B. jamesi. There are differences in the number of pleotelson spines and RS as well (Tables 1 and 4). COI and 16S rRNA sequences are reliable methods, but unfortunately, many molecular biologists are not familiar with the taxonomy of this group or how to identify its species. Incorrect identification creates many problems. The identification of B. kensleyi (MN654915) from the Indian Ocean is incorrect (Sankar et al. 2011), and it is improbable that B. doederleini, B. kensleyi, B. decemspinosus (from Parangipettai, India), and B. giganteus (from Chennai, India) occur in the Indian Ocean (Prasanna Kumar et al. 2020) as no species of Bathynomus is known to have a trans-ocean distribution (Magalhães and Young 2003; Lowry and Dempsey 2006; Sidabalok et al. 2020).</p> <p>The misidentification of Bathynomus sp. by Sankar et al. (2011) and Prasanna Kumar et al. (2020) can be seen in both the morphology and DNA sequences of COI. The morphology of B. decemspinosus in terms of the central spine is significantly different from that of the holotype (Sankar et al. 2011, p. 114, fig. 1 vs Shih 1972, p. 43, Plate IV); and B. doederleini, in terms of the pleotelson morphology and the length ratio of spines on the posterior margin, is also different. The holotype of B. doederleini has smaller spines on both sides of the central spines, but these characters are not present in the sample of Sankar et al. (2011 p. 114, fig. 2), Ortmann (1894, p. 193, lines 4–6) or of Lowry and Dempsey (2006, p. 177, fig. 10f), Figure 10f. It is difficult to confirm or reject the identification of B. kensleyi by photo (Sankar et al. 2011, p. 114, fig. 3). Bathynomus decemspinosus has no registered DNA sequence data for comparison. Bathynomus doederleini has the most data for comparison (eg AB851912, MZ723938, and MK953514); there are at least six recorded positions of DNA nucleotides of various types. In B. kensleyi, in the DNA sequence of COI (MN654915) and the data we analysed (MW575454), there are nucleotide variants in 42 positions in the DNA sequence of COI. Finally, Prasanna Kumar et al. (2020) cited old references, claiming that B. giganteus was collected from in-shore waters of Chennai, India. Because DNA analysis is a very precise method of species identification, once the species is misidentified and submitted into the database, it can have very serious consequences.</p> <p>*Data from Kou et al. (2017).</p> <p>Bathynomus kensleyi (Lowry and Dempsey, 2006) was described from off the Great Barrier Reef, in the western Coral Sea. The type locality is ‘ <a href="http://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=154.354&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-22.918" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 154.354/lat -22.918)">South-east of Swain Reefs</a>, 22.918°S ʹ 154.354°E, Coral Sea, 590–606 m depth’. Additional locations in eastern Australia included off Flynn Reef and Lihou Reef (see Material examined) in the northern Great Barrier Reef. The species was also recorded from Taiwan, south of Hong Kong and the Philippines. The records from off Hong Kong and Taiwan and the specimens from Luzon, northern Philippines, have here been re-identified as B. jamesi. The two specimens of B. kensleyi from the Sulu Sea (AM P42711, P42712) differ from the holotype and other specimens from eastern Australia by a distinctly ovate pereon; deeply incised maxillipedal somite (in dorsal view); pleoteolson spines fine, more ‘needle-like’; pleon short, only 17% of total body length (compared to B. jamesi at 29%); pleonite 3 does not posteriorly overlap pleonites 4 and 5, and pleonite 4 does not extend posterior to pleonite 5; and uropodal exopod lateral margin strongly convex. The Sulu Sea specimens are also taken from a far greater depth than most Bathynomus, from the continental rise at 2500 metres. The Sulu Sea specimens represent an undescribed species of Bathynomus. At present we regard B. kensleyi as occurring only in the western Coral Sea; the species is not present in the South China Sea or anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D987D7EF6C9224B6B5E9A4FC9FFA48	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Huang, Ming-Chih;Kawai, Tadashi;Bruce, Niel L.	Huang, Ming-Chih, Kawai, Tadashi, Bruce, Niel L. (2022): A new species of Bathynomus Milne-Edwards, 1879 (Isopoda: Cirolanidae) from the southern Gulf of Mexico with a redescription of Bathynomus jamesi Kou, Chen and Li, 2017 from off Pratas Island, Taiwan. Journal of Natural History 56 (13 - 16): 885-921, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2086835, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2022.2086835
