identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
EF3D87DDFFFE543AFF6FFAB42B8558F3.text	EF3D87DDFFFE543AFF6FFAB42B8558F3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Leptalpheus pierrenoeli Anker 2008	<div><p>Leptalpheus pierrenoeli n. sp.</p> <p>(Figs 1; 2; 3A, B)</p> <p>Leptalpheus sp. 4 aff. forceps – Anker et al. 2006b: 686.</p> <p>TYPE MATERIAL. — Holotype: Panama, Caribbean coast, Isla Grande, southern shore, village, near Cabañas Super Jackson, from burrow, bait suction pump, depth 0.5-1 m, coll. A. Anker and C. Hurt, 6.X.2005, fcn 05-105, 1 ♂, CL 4.5, TL 14.6 (MNHN-Na 17067).</p> <p>ETYMOLOGY. — Th is new species is named after Dr Pierre Y. Noël (MNHN), who directed the author’s Ph.D. thesis on the taxonomy and phylogeny of the</p> <p>Alpheidae (Anker 2001), and also in recognition of his numerous contributions to the biology and taxonomy of caridean shrimps.</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY. — Isla Grande, Caribbean coast of Panama.</p> <p>DISTRIBUTION. — Tropical western Atlantic: presently known only from the type locality: Isla Grande, Caribbean coast of Panama.</p> <p>DESCRIPTION</p> <p>Body moderately slender (Fig. 3A, B), carapace and abdomen slightly compressed laterally, glabrous. Carapace with hardly visible anterolateral suture proximal to base of antenna (Fig. 1B). Frontal margin with broad, subtriangular, bluntly ending rostral projection, without orbital teeth or crests (Fig. 1B). Pterygostomial angle bluntly protruding anteriorly; branchiostegial region with pronounced lip anteriorly (Fig. 1B); cardiac notch deep. Eyes not visible in dorsal view, anterior portion visible in lateral view (Fig. 1A, B); anteromesial process bluntly subtriangular, feebly protruding (Fig. 1B); cornea small, lateral, pigmented (Fig. 1B). Ocellar beak not conspicuous.</p> <p>Antennular peduncle relatively stout (Fig. 1A), second segment about 1.5 times as long as broad, longer than dorsally visible portion of first segment; stylocerite slightly exceeding distal margin of first segment, acute distally (Fig. 1A); ventromesial carina of first segment with very strong, anteriorly acute tooth; lateral flagellum biramous, with shorter ramus distinct, inserted at fourth segment (Fig. 1B). Antenna with basicerite bearing strong ventrolateral tooth (Fig. 1B); scaphocerite broadly ovate, anterior margin of blade slightly convex, not protruding beyond distolateral tooth (Fig. 1A); carpocerite long, stout, reaching far beyond scaphocerite (Fig. 1A, B).</p> <p>Mouthparts not dissected, appearing typical for genus in external view. Th ird maxilleped moderately slender, elongate; lateral plate acutely produced (Fig. 1C); ultimate segment with rows of long, distally thickened setae, tip unarmed; arthrobranch well developed (Fig. 1C).</p> <p>Chelipeds strongly asymmetrical in shape, unequal in size (Fig.2),carried folded (Fig.3A).Major cheliped moderately enlarged; ischium without subtriangular tooth on ventromesial margin (Fig. 2A); merus moderately slender, elongate, ventrally depressed, with rugose ventromesial margin (Fig. 2A, B), blunt distally; carpus short, cup-shaped, with large blunt distomesial tooth (Fig. 2A); chela subcylindrical, palm ventromesially excavated (Fig.2A), about three times as long as high (Fig. 2C), smooth except for a somewhat rugose ventral margin (Fig. 2A); adhesive discs absent (Fig. 2B); fingers about half as long as palm, moderately curved (Fig. 2B), finger tips crossing when chela closed (Fig. 2C); pollex with two smaller proximal teeth and one larger distal tooth separated by large hiatus (Fig. 2C, D); dactylus with two smaller proximal teeth, one larger median tooth opposed to hiatus of pollex, and two smaller distal teeth (Fig. 2C, D). Minor cheliped (Fig. 2E) with unarmed ischium; merus slender, ventrally slightly depressed; carpus very short, cup-shaped, with subacute distolateral tooth (Fig. 2E, G); chela smooth, flattened on mesial side (Fig. 2E, F), fingers slightly longer than palm, tips crossing when chela closed; cutting edge of pollex with small irregularly subtriangular teeth on proximal half, most distal tooth largest, situated slightly beyond mid-length of pollex; dentition of dactylus nearly identical to that of pollex (Fig. 2G).</p> <p>Second pereiopod small, slender; ischium slightly shorter than merus; carpus five-segmented, segment ratio approximately: 2.5/1/1/1/2 (Fig. 1D); chela simple, slender, much longer than first carpal segment; fingers longer than palm (Fig. 1D). Third pereiopod with unarmed ischium; merus flattened mesially, more than twice as long as ischium, about five times as long as wide (Fig. 1E), ventral margin convex; carpus less than half length of merus, with distoventral spine; propodus longer than carpus, with two ventral spines and one distoventral spine proximal to dactylus; dactylus simple, slender, about 3/5 length of propodus, curved (Fig. 1E). Fourth pereiopod similar to third. Fifth pereiopod much more slender than third and fourth pereiopods (Fig. 1F), not flattened mesially; ischium, merus and carpus unarmed; merus not convex ventrally; propodus as long as merus, without spines, distolaterally with three rows of setae; dactylus similar to that of third and fourth pereiopods (Fig. 1F).</p> <p>First to fifth abdominal somites with minute pits; posteroventral angles rounded; sixth somite with articulated plate posteroventrally. Male second pleopod (Fig. 1I) with appendix interna and appendix masculina, latter slightly longer than former and with three slender spine-like setae on apex (Fig. 1I). Uropod with lateral lobe of protopod (sympodite) bearing two small acute teeth distally (Fig. 1J); endopod longer than exopod, without specific features; exopod with truncate posterior margin, with distolateral tooth adjacent to distolateral spine (Fig. 1J); lateral half of diaeresis shallowly concave, mesial half deeply incised forming large triangular tooth proximal to mesial margin (Fig. 1J). Telson moderately large, more than twice as long as wide proximally (Fig. 1K); dorsal surface covered with minute pits and bearing two pairs of spines inserted at some distance from lateral margin, at about 2/5 and 2/3 length of telson, respectively (Fig. 1K); posterior margin feebly rounded, with two pairs of spines at posterolateral angles: long mesial and very short lateral spines (Fig. 1K); anal tubercles not distinct. Gill/exopod formula typical for genus: 5 pleurobranchs (above P1-5); 1 arthrobranch (above Mxp3); 0 podobranch; 2 lobe-shaped epipods (Mxp1-2); 5 mastigobranchs or strap-like epipods (Mxp3, P1-4); 5 sets of setobranchs (P1-5); 3 exopods (Mxp1-3).</p> <p>Size</p> <p>Th e holotype is 4.5 mm CL and 14.6 mm TL.</p> <p>Colour pattern</p> <p>Semitransparent with patches of red chromatophores over most of the body and particularly dense (and therefore more intense red) on dorsal and dorsolateral areas of the carapace, tail fan, antennular peduncles, orbital area and along posterior margin of abdominal somites thus forming diffuse transverse bands on the abdomen; walking legs, second pereiopod and antennular/antennal flagella semitransparent, colourless; major cheliped hyaline-white (chromatophore pattern visible in Figure 3A, B).</p> <p>ECOLOGY</p> <p>The single specimen was collected from a burrow of unknown host in about knee-deep water. The substrate was fine sand with some shell debris and patches of seagrass (more extensive seagrass beds nearby). Although the host was not collected several specimens of the callianassid ghostshrimps, Neocallichirus grandimana (Gibbes, 1850) (Fig. 3C) and N. rathbunae (Schmitt, 1935) (Callianassidae), collected at the same site (including some on the same day and a few meters away from the collection site of L. pierrenoeli n. sp.) suggest that one of them may be the host of this species. Neocallichirus species were previously reported as hosts of Leptalpheus (see Anker et al. 2006b: table 1).</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Leptalpheus pierrenoeli n. sp. appears to be morphologically closest to the heterogeneous L. forceps species group, which also includes L. forceps and L. felderi from the western Atlantic, and L. mexicanus Ríos &amp; Carvacho, 1983 from the eastern Pacific, as well as at least three undescribed taxa in the western Atlantic and eastern Pacific (see Anker et al. 2006b: table 1). However, the new species is not closely related to any of the aforementioned described species, being separated from all of them by the unique dentition on the cutting edges of the fingers of the major chela; the absence of a mesial tooth on the ischium of the major cheliped; and the distinctly longer stylocerite (overreaching the distal margin of the first antennular peduncle vs. not reaching this margin in the other three species).</p> <p>The new species differs more specifically from L. forceps (cf. Williams 1965, see also Figs 4; 5) by the much shorter antennular peduncles; the stouter major chela, with comparatively longer fingers; the anterior margin of the carapace with a blunt rostral projection (vs. rounded in L. forceps); and in life, also by the more intense red colour (compare Figs 3A, B and 6A, B). It can be distinguished from L. felderi (cf. Anker et al. 2006b) by the absence of orbital crests (present in L. felderi); the unarmed ischium of the third pereiopod (vs. with spine in L. felderi); the absence of a brush of long flexible setae on the dactylus of the major chela (present in L. felderi); the different arrangement of teeth on the cutting edges of the fingers of the major and minor cheliped; the five-segmented carpus of the second pereiopod (vs. four-segmented in L. felderi); and the colour pattern (cf. Fig. 3A, B [black-andwhite photographs] and Anker et al. 2006b: fig.6A, B). Finally, L. pierrenoeli n. sp. differs in several respects from L. mexicanus (cf. Ríos &amp; Carvacho 1983), including the much less produced rostral projection; the major cheliped with shorter, less twisted, less gaping and differently armed fingers; the much shorter antennular peduncles; and the colour pattern (A. Anker pers. obs.).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/EF3D87DDFFFE543AFF6FFAB42B8558F3	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	Anker, Arthur	Anker, Arthur (2008): The shrimp genus Leptalpheus Williams, 1965 in the southwestern Caribbean Sea, with description of one new species from Panama (Crustacea, Decapoda, Alpheidae). Zoosystema 30 (4): 781-794, DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4689970
EF3D87DDFFFB5436FF1CFB5529555E49.text	EF3D87DDFFFB5436FF1CFB5529555E49.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Leptalpheus forceps Williams 1965	<div><p>Leptalpheus cf. forceps Williams, 1965</p> <p>(Figs 4; 5; 6A, B)</p> <p>Leptalpheus forceps Williams, 1965: 194; 1984: 101. — Dawson 1967: 224. — Saloman 1971: 67. — Chace 1972: 77. — Abele &amp; Kim 1986: 194, 228. — Felder &amp; Rodrigues 1993: 366. — Holthuis 1993: 203. — Anker et al. 2006b: 686.</p> <p>(?) Leptalpheus forceps – Christoffersen 1980: 135; 1998: 361. — Hermoso-Salazar 2001: 1278.</p> <p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Costa Rica. Caribbean coast, Cahuita, Punta Uva, small mangrove river, coarse sand, from burrow of Lepidophthalmus richardi (host fcn 05- 118, will be deposited in MNHN), bait suction pump, depth 10-30 cm, coll. A. Anker, I. Wehrtmann and L. Harris, 26.XI.2005, fcn 05-119, 1 ♂, CL 8.2, TL 22.2 (MNHN-Na 17066). — Same collection data, from burrow of Lepidophthalmus richardi (host fcn 05-120, UCRMZ 2420-02), fcn 05-121, 1 ♂, CL 6.1, TL 15.3 (UCRMZ 2420-01); 1 specimen (CL and TL not measured, sex not determined) preserved in Ambion RNA-later for molecular studies (fcn 05-006).</p> <p>DESCRIPTION For complete description see Williams (1965, 1984). Detailed drawings of Cahuita specimens are provided in Figures 4 and 5.</p> <p>Size</p> <p>The two Costa Rican male specimens were 6.1 mm CL, 15.3 mm TL, and 8.2 mm, 22.2 mm TL. Williams’ (1965) type specimens were 7.8 mm CL (female holotype) and 5.2 mm CL (male paratype).</p> <p>Colour pattern</p> <p>Semitransparent with yellowish and reddish chromatophores, more intense on tail fan, antennular peduncles,eyestalk and along posterior margins of the carapace and abdominal somites, forming transverse bands; some pale blue and greenish chromatophores present on the antennal scaphocerite and antennular peduncle; merus and carpus of major cheliped with reddish and some bluish chromatophores, major chela hyaline-whitish. Th e above-described pattern is much less conspicuous on a dark background: the shrimp appears as uniform whitish, with pale reddish bands on the abdomen and tail fan (see black-and-white photographs in Figure 6A, B). The specimens from Fort Pierce, Florida (previously deposited in the MNHN) had pale greenish transverse bands on the abdomen; the antennules and the antennae were pale lettuce-greenish; the tail fan had locally pinkish, bluish and greenish tinge (Anker et al. 2006b). Williams (1984) described the colour of L. forceps as “translucent, colorless in life; eggs light green in formalin”.</p> <p>ECOLOGY</p> <p>The present specimens were collected from burrows along the sea-side of a small river estuary, about 5 m wide, fringed with mangrove.Two specimens were collected together with their hosts, the callianassid ghostshrimp Lepidophthalmus richardi Felder &amp;</p> <p>A</p> <p>Manning, 1997 (Fig. 6C). Elsewhere, L. forceps was found in burrows of the present host’s congeners, L. siriboia Felder &amp; Rodrigues, 1993 (Christoffersen 1980, as Callianassa jamaicensis) and L. louisianensis (Schmitt, 1935) (Felder &amp; Rodrigues 1993), as well as the upogebiid mudshrimp, Upogebia affinis</p> <p>(Say, 1818) (Williams 1965). Williams (1965, 1984) provided a brief summary of the biology of L. forceps.</p> <p>HOST</p> <p>Lepidopthalmus richardi (Fig. 6C) was previously known only from the type locality in Belize (Felder &amp; Manning 1997). Th e record from Cahuita represents a second finding of this species and a considerable extension of its distribution range from Belize southward to Costa Rica.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The two male specimens from Costa Rica (Figs 4; 5) agree reasonably well with the illustrated female holotype from North Carolina (cf. Williams 1965), except for the more robust antennular peduncles (compare Fig. 4 A and Williams 1965: fig. 1B); the slightly shorter scaphocerite, reaching to about 2/3 length of the second segment of the antennular peduncle (Fig. 4A) vs. reaching almost to the end of this segment in the type (Williams 1965: fig. 1B); and the more elongate lateral plate on the coxa of the third maxilliped (compare Fig. 4D and Williams 1965: fig. 2F). Williams (1965) noted that “the fingers of the major chela are slightly less gaping in females than in males” and that “there is a slight variation in the number of teeth on the fingers of the major cheliped”, however, without providing the exact range of this variation. Th e dentition of the type includes six teeth (Williams 1965: fig.1G), whereas the two examined Costa Rican specimens have six and seven teeth, respectively (not counting the small most proximal tooth visible only when chela is widely opened) (Fig. 5 F-H, L). Th e most distal tooth on the pollex may be more protruding than the others (Fig. 5L). However, the most important difference between the specimens from Costa Rica and North Carolina lies in the development of a segmented appendix on each uropodal endopod. These appendices (caudal filaments) are present in both males from Cahuita (Fig. 4J), and absent in the female holotype and apparently also in all paratypes of L. forceps (Williams 1965: fig. 2L). Similar caudal filaments were observed in one male specimen of L. felderi from Isla Margarita, Venezuela (Anker et al. 2006b: fig. 5C); however, in other males and in females of this species, the distal margin of the uropodal endopod was rounded. Th e function of these structures, if there is any, as well as their occurrence in some individuals and absence in others remain unexplained. Thus L. felderi appears to be a highly variable species, but more specimens and DNA sequencing are needed to determine the full extension and the genetic base of this variation, and to decide whether L. cf. felderi from Costa Rica is conspecific with L. felderi from North Carolina and Florida.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/EF3D87DDFFFB5436FF1CFB5529555E49	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	Anker, Arthur	Anker, Arthur (2008): The shrimp genus Leptalpheus Williams, 1965 in the southwestern Caribbean Sea, with description of one new species from Panama (Crustacea, Decapoda, Alpheidae). Zoosystema 30 (4): 781-794, DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4689970
