Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Some Amphipoda, Isopoda and Tanaidacea from Cook Strait

O. Amphipoda

O. Amphipoda

S.O. Gammaridea

Family Lysianassidae

Eurythenes gryllus (Licht.), 1822.

                          Eurythenes gryllus, Stebbing, 1906: 73.

Chilton, 1911: 563–564.

Barnard, 1932: 58.

Stephensen, 1933: 12–20, figs. 4–7

Material Examined: Station FOS (VUZ. 25), 1 female with young in brood-pouch, 24 mm: Station FOOR (VUZ. 58), 1 male, 53 mm: "off Island Bay" (exact locality unknown). 19/9/56. coll. by line fisherman, 2 females, 14–15 mm.

Distribution: Northern and Southern Atlantic: Northern Pacific: Cook Strait, N.Z.; Sunday Island, Kermadec Islands (Chilton. 1911).

Discussion: This large species has not previously been known from New Zealand waters and this is probably the shallowest depth from which it has been recorded free-living. Stephensen quotes depths from 1,000–5,000 fathoms. Where it has been taken previously in shallow water, it has always been from fish stomach contents.

The female of this species was formerly known as Katius obesus Chevreux.

Family Ampeliscidae

Ampelisca chiltoni Stebbing. 1888.

                Ampelisca chiltoni Stebbing, 1888: 1042–1046, pl. CIII.

Chilton, 1906: 267–268.

Barnard, 1932: 81:

        Ampelisca eschrichtii, Chilton, 1917: 75–93 (Not Krøyer).

Chilton. 1920: 6 (Not Krøyer).

page 3

Material Examined: Station CUF (VUZ. 19), 23 females, 5–11 mm, some ovigerous.

Distribution: Cook Strait, N.Z.; Challenger Stn. 167, "off N.Z., June 24, 1874; lat. 39° 32′S., long. 171° 48′E., depth 150 fathoms; bottom blue mud"; Great Barrier Island, 120 fathoms; off Poor Knights Islands, 60 fathoms; Kaipara Harbour, coll. Dr. Cockayne (Chilton, 1906). Undoubtedly taken elsewhere around New Zealand, but true distribution masked by confusion with A. acinaces.

Discussion: Barnard (1932) rejects the inclusion of A. chiltoni and A. acinaces in A. eschrichtii as previously proposed by Chilton. After seeing these specimens and comparing them with Stebbing's figures (1888), I am convinced of the distinctness also of the two New Zealand species, A. chiltoni and A. acinaces. Apart from other small differences, Stebbing shows clearly a difference in the placement of the lower eyes. In A. chiltoni these are right on the lower corner of the head; in A. acinaces they are on the lower margin of the head behind the corner.

Family Phoxocephalidae

Heterophoxus stephenseni Schellenberg, 1931.

Heterophoxus stephenseni Hurley, 1954: 589–593, figs. 2967.

Material Examined: Station CUF (VUZ. 19), 2 females, 5 mm.

Distribution: Cook Strait; Otago Harbour; Auckland Islands.

Discussion: For the sake of consistency, I am referring these species to Heterophoxus stephenseni Schellenberg, under which name I have previously described New Zealand specimens. However, Dr. J. L. Barnard (personal communication) has advised me that the New Zealand specimens, which agree very well with Schellenberg's published description of H. stephenseni, differ from the type specimens in a number of details not mentioned by Schellenberg. Since Dr. Barnard is monographing this family of Gammaridea, I prefer to leave it for him to make the final assessment of the New Zealand species.

Family Paramphithoidae

Stebbing, 1906: 320.

Gurjanova, 1955: 187–189 (keys and generic diagnoses).

"Integument indurated, processiferous. Sideplates rigid, some acute. Eyes, when present, prominent. Antenna 1 shorter than antenna 2, flagellum in both many-jointed, accessory flagellum rudimentary or absent. Upper lip not deeply or not incised. Lower lip, inner lobes coalescing with outer or absent. Mandible, accessory plate on right as well on the left. Maxilliped, outer plates broad, not long, scantily armed on inner margin, finger small. Mouthparts in general strongly developed. Gnathopods 1 and 2 not stout in structure, 5th and 6th joints narrow, finger small. Peraeopods 3–5, 2nd joint not widely expanded. Uropod 3, rami lanceolate, longer than peduncle. Telson not large, entire or distally insinuate. Sexual difference very slight."

—Stebbing.

This is the first record of this family from New Zealand waters.

Genus Epimera Costa, 1851.

Stebbing, 1906: 321.

Gurjanova 1955: 190–191, 194–198 (key to species).

"Head has well-developed rostrum, mandibles have stout cylindrical molar process with a grinding surface, dentate cutting edge, movable cutting plate, and well developed spine row of spine-like bristles (up to 10 and more). Mandibular palp of 3 segments, end segment stout, often equal in length to 2nd segment. Lower lip without any trace of inner plates. Maxilla 1 has normal 2-segmented palp; inner plate has numerous (more than 10) plumose bristles. Maxilla 2 has more or less equal, short, broad plates; inner without any transverse series of bristles. Maxilliped plates well developed, outer broad and usually page 4
Epimeria victoria n.sp. Male.

Epimeria victoria n.sp. Male.

Fig. 1.—Adult male. Fig. 2.—Antenna 1. Fig. 3.—Antenna 2. Fig. 4. —Upper lip. Fig. 5.—Lower lip. Fig. 6.—Maxilla 1. Fig. 7.—Maxilla 2. Fig. 8.—Mandible. Fig. 9.—Maxilliped.

Epimeria victoria n.sp. Male.

Epimeria victoria n.sp. Male.

Fig. 10.—Gnathopod 1. Fig. 11.—Gnathopod 2, sideplate. Fig. 12.—Gnathopod 2, propod and dactylos. Fig. 13.—Peraeopod 1 Fig. 14.—Peraeopod 2. Fig. 15.—Peraeopod 3. Fig. 16.—Peraeopod 4. Fig. 17.—Peraeopod 5. Fig. 18.—Epimeral plate 1. Fig. 19.—Epimeral plate 2. Fig. 20.—Epimeral plate 3. Fig. 21.—Uropod 1. Fig. 22.—Uropod 2. Fig. 23.—Uropod 3. Fig. 24.—Telson.

page 5 reaching end of palp 2nd joint; inner narrower but almost as long as outer; palp of 4 segments, with well-developed dactylos.

Basal segment of peraeopods 3–5 specialised, retaining traces of the wing-like expansion and furnished with a longitudinal keel and with "channels", the latter the result of an adaptation for the protection of the gill cavity, of the young, and of the weakly protected abdominal wall of the body when the animal curls up. As Barnard points out (Barnard 1932, Discovery Repts, V. 171), when this curling occurs, the anterior keel of the one basal segment fits into the "channel" of the basal segment of the preceding limb, in the 3rd and 4th pair; but on the basal segment of pr. 5, a lobe is often formed which in the curled position covers the gap between the pleural plates of the anterior abdominal segments. The 5th peraeopods are shorter than the 3rd and 4th pairs.

Gnathopods, both pairs weakly developed, slight and short, alike in structure, narrowly subchelate with a short transverse palm and short claw; 5th segment as long as 6th or a little longer.

Telson flat, entire, with a small notch on end margin. Sideplates 1–3 usually sharply narrowed distally and tapering; 4th and 5th plates often form curved pointed expansions which together form an arch along the lower margin of the thoracic region.

Body usually keeled and spined.

First antenna usually shorter than 2nd, no accessory flagellum. or at most a very small one.

Uropod rami lanceolate; 3rd uropods with short peduncle and long broadly lanceolate rami."

—Gurjanova, 1955.

Epimeria victoria n.sp. (Figs. 124).

A strongly carinate and spinose amphipod of reasonably large size (up to 20 mm) with quite long antennae and rostrum, large bulging opaque eyes, and long spine-like process on sideplate of 5th segment (pr. 3).

Orange-red pigment spots on body in preservative, especially on posterior margins of segments. Length (rostrum to telson) 20 mm; depth 4 mm; width 4 mm. Eyes almost as wide as head, ½ its depth. Rostrum reaches end of antenna 1 peduncle. Pr. 3 spine reaches past pr. 5 sideplate. Thoracic segment 4 has a small dorsal spine, the following 6 segments have longer dorsal spines; segments from thoracic 5 to abdominal 3 have one upper lateral spine each; abdominal segments 1–3 have, including posterodistal angles of epimeral plates, 4 lateral spines each side.

Antennae. First: Flagellum much longer than peduncle; 40 or more segments, proximally short and wide, distally long and slender; 1st as long as last peduncle segment; 1st 16 have crescentic areas of closely-set flaccid setae inferiorly, 1–2 long spines each side of areas; rest have short distal row of very short setae, a stout short spine on every 2nd or 3rd segment. Peduncle, 1st segment about 3 times length 2nd plus 3rd, produced inferiorly and superiorly in sharp projections almost as far as flagellum, long fine spines inferiorly and distally. 2nd and 3rd narrower, inferior angles sharply produced, long fine spines distally; 3rd has short one-segmented accessory flagellum, about 1/3 length 1st flagellar segment, long end spine. Second: Flagellum of 45 or more segments, minute setae on superodistal angles; peduncle 4th and 5th segments subequal, 2nd and 3rd shorter; 2nd has small squarish forwardly projecting lobe inferiorly; segments sharply produced superodistally; 2nd and 3rd have long fine spines superiorly and distally.

Mouthparts. Upper lip: Distally barely emarginate, slightly setose. Lower lip: Inner plates absent. Mandible: Spine row of 20 or so fine-combed spines; molar process a somewhat plate-like setose lobe arising at palp level; palp of 3 segments, 1st ½ length 2nd, 2nd ½ 3rd; strong rows of spine-setae on inner margins of 2nd and 3rd, surface of 3rd very minutely spinose. Maxilla 1: Palp of 2 segments, 2nd very long, over-reaches end spines of outer plate, about 4 short end spines; outer plate short, wide, 11 long fine antler-like end spines, many short bristle-spines; inner plate shorter, 14 plumose setae. Maxilla 2: Inner plate slightly the shorter and wider; distal margins of both strongly armed with finely pectinate and setose spines. Maxilliped: Inner plate reaches end of palp merus; outer reaches end of carpus, both have outer angle rounded; inner strongly spine-setose down cleft, 4–5 short spines on end margin near sharp inner angle, about 15 short setose spines along end margin, bristles down outer. Outer plate has small spine-setae along inner margin, 5–6 stout teeth at inner angle grading off into long fine spines around end margin. Palp segments have outer distal angles spine-setose; merus and carpus subequal, carpus narrower, propod slightly shorter and considerably narrower; ischium inner margin spine-setose; merus has 2 groups of 3–4 long spine-setae; carpus has group 2/3 along outer margin, 5–6 groups on inner margin, some extending in rows well across surface; propod margins and surface strongly spine-setose; dactylos short, stout, triangular, inner margin has about 9 fine teeth; ends in short nail-spine.

Gnathopods. First: Subchelate, sideplate distally rounded, width ¼ length; 10–11 spines along posterior margin. Basos as long, almost as wide, narrower proximally, margins page 6 have long setae. Ischium small, 1/6 basos length, 2/3 merus length, has 2–3 spine-setae posterodistally. Merus subrectangular, narrow, several long spine-setae posterodistally. Carpus subrectangular, 2/3 basos length, width not ½ length; posterior margin has 6 rows of spine-setae, 3–4 rows on anterior surface. Propod almost as wide, ½ basos length, surface and posterior margin have numerous short rows of spine-setae; short palm minutely pectinate; dactylos longer than palm, strong, has about 8 teeth on inner margin, stout end spine. Second: Sideplate somewhat irregular, posterior margin more strongly spined. Basos posterior margin has 3 groups of long setae, anterior a few spine-setae. Otherwise like Gn. 1.

Peraeopods. First: Sideplate, basos and ischium rather like Gn. 2; merus 2/3 basos length, narrower; small spines on margins and posterior surface; carpus similar, ¾ merus length; propod slightly narrower, as long as merus, has strong spines posteriorly like carpus; dactylos strong, naked. Second: Shorter, similar except for sideplate which has sinuous anterior margin, distally rounded to ventral; posterodistal angle sharp, posterior margin distally concave, widening proximally to thumb-like spur; excavate inside spur. Third: Sideplate shallow, anteriorly convex, posteriorly produced in long acute spur past 7th thoracic segment. Basos narrow-ovate, width 2/5 length; anterior margin has long setae proximally, posterior fringed with fine plumose spine-setae; has distinct median carina. Ischium short, posterodistally a little produced in rounded lobe. Merus and carpus subequal, ½ basos length, narrow, spines on margins and surface; propod slightly longer, dactylos has strong end spine. Fourth: Sideplate ovate-rectangular, deeper than wide, posterodistally rounded, has also keel produced posterodistally in sharp angle. Fifth: Sideplate small, heart-shaped. Otherwise generally like Pr. 3–4, except basos which is widened, width 2/3 length, posteriorly convex except for concave excavation distally to sharp posterodistal angle which is produced down past ischium; very short median keel; margins except anteroproximally free from setae, but numerous long setae and spine-setae on surface.

Epimeral Plates. Basically subrectangular, 1st and 3rd wider than deep, 2nd deeper than wide, posterodistal angles more or less acute, a strong tooth medially along concave posterior margins, setae and spine-setae anteriorly and ventrally.

Uropods. First: Rami and peduncle subequal, lanceolate, margins strongly spined. Second: Rami about ½ as long again as peduncle. Third: Rami about 3 times peduncle length. Telson: Ovate-triangular, a few minute marginal spines; distally notched, a small 'triangular process in midline near base.

Material Examined: Station BOL (VUZ. 48), 14 spp., 13–17 mm (includes 3 ovigerous females); Station BOL (VUZ. 49), 11 spp., 13–17 mm.

Types: Slides Oc. 1, (VUZ. 48).

Distribution: Cook Strait.

Discussion: This species is distinguished from other known species of Epimeria, as listed in Gurjanova (1955), by the number and extent of the lateral spines on the thoracic and abdominal segments.

Species of Epimeria are normally taken in depths of 400 metres and more.

Family Gammaridae

Melita festiva? (Chilton, 1885).

Moera festiva Chilton, 1885: 1037, pl. 46, fig. 2.

Melita festiva Chilton, 1916: 359–362, figs. 1–2.

Hurley, 1954: 602.

Material Examined: Station CUF (VUZ. 19), 1 male, 8 mm.

Distribution: Auckland Harbour; Cook Strait, N.Z.; ? Sydney Harbour, Australia.

Discussion: I have previously commented (Hurley, 1954) on the obvious confusion of two New Zealand species under Ceradocus rubromaculatus. Dr. K. Sheard (personal communication) tells me he is quite certain that Chilton's M. festiva (Australia, 1885) and M. festiva (New Zealand, 1916) belong in Melita, and that Stephensen's inclusion of these in C. rubromaculatus is in error. "The Australian species is quite common in Sydney Harbour and Chilton has figured the rami of Uropod III of the New Zealand one quite well—it conforms to that from Australia."

page 7

This specimen agrees with Chilton's (1916) in the pleon and generally in other features although gnathopod 2 is not as long proportionately as in his fig. 1, and is considerably more toothed in the palm. Uropod 3 is missing in this specimen which makes specific identification a little less positive than could have been desired. Since the New Zealand specimens have not been finally confirmed as identical with the Australian type material—although indications are that the two are identical—I have left this as M. festiva?

It is possible that the second gnathopod palm is subject to variations like those indicated by Sheard (1939) for the Ceradocus (Denticeradocus) complex.

Family Photidae

Eurystheus thomsoni? (Stebbing), 1888.

Cammaropsis thomsoni Stebbing, 1888: 1103–1107, pl. GXV.

Eurystheus thomsoni, Stebbing, 1906: 613–614.

Material Examined: Station GUL (VUZ. 54), 29 females and juveniles, up to 4½ mm, mostly very small, some ovigerous; 1 male.

Distribution: Cook Strait; Challenger Stn. 168, "off New Zealand, July 8, 1874; lat. 40°28′S.; long. 177°43′E.; depth 1,100 fathoms; bottom blue mud; bottom temperature 37–2°".

Discussion: This species is identified with considerable doubt. The females are reasonably like that described by Stebbing, but the male has 3 spines, 1 dorsal and 2 lateral. These specimens are obviously distinct from the other Eurystheus taken at the same station, and the differences are emphasised by the complete leaching out of the pigment of the eyes in this species.

Eurystheus sp.

Material Examined: Station GUL (VUZ. 54), 36 females and juveniles, 1–4 mm, some ovigerous.

Discussion: It is difficult to identify these with any of the several poorly described species from New Zealand since most of the descriptions depend on the male for good characteristic features, and males are lacking from this collection.

Family Podoceridae

Podocerus cristatus (G. M. Thomson), 1879.

Cyrtophium cristatum Thomson, 1879: 331–332, pl. XVI, figs. 915.

Thomson, 1881: 219–220, fig. 8.

Podocerus cristatus, Chilton, 1926: 513–515, fig. 2.

Material Examined: Station GUL (VUZ. 54), 4 specimens, 2–5 mm, one at 5 mm a female with developed broodplates.

Distribution: Cook Strait; Otago Harbour.

Discussion: The second gnathopod is slightly shorter and stouter than that shown by Stebbing but this may be a normal sexual difference. Chilton mentions specimens from Cook Strait. "The New Zealand species (of Podocerus) are common on the coast, frequently being found at the roots of seaweed, on the sea-squirt Boltenia. ... Other specimens were ... taken on sertularians". I can confirm that this species is commonly found in similar habitats in Otago Harbour.

S.O. Hyperiidea
Family Phronimidae

Phronima sedentaria (Forsk.), 1775.

Phronima sedentaria Hurley, 1955: 166–170, figs. 188–218.

Material Examined: Station COS (VUZ. 22), 1 female, 28 mm, with "salphouse". Station BOQ (VUZ. 18), 1 female, 20 mm.

page 8
Cirolana quadripustulata n.sp. Male.

Cirolana quadripustulata n.sp. Male.

Fig. 25.—Adult male, side view. Fig. 26.—Adult male, dorsal view. Fig. 27.—Ventral surface of head showing frontal lamina. Fig. 28.—Antenna 1. Fig. 29.—Maxilla 1 Fig. 30.—Maxilla? 2. Fig. 31.—Maxilliped. Fig. 32.—Mandible. Fig. 33.—Peraeopod 1. Fig. 34.—Peraeopod 2. Fig. 35.—Peraeopod 2, dactylos. Fig. 36.—Peraeopod 7. Fig. 37.—Male stylet. Fig. 38.—Uropod.

page 9

Distribution: Cosmopolitan (cf. Hurley, 1955).

Discussion: This is the common species of Phronima found around New Zealand. Almost all of the references in the New Zealand literature to this species are under the name Phronima novae-zealandiae.