Studies on the Systematics of Australian Ampithoid

STUDIES ON THE SYSTEMATICS OF AUSTRALIAN AMPITHOID

AMPHIPODS (Crustacea) WITH A CHECKLIST AND

AN INTERACTIVE KEY TO WORLD SPECIES

Rachael A. Evans B.Sc. (Hons)

Crustacean Section

Division of Invertebrate Zoology

Australian Museum

6 College St

Sydney South

Study carried out in fulfilment of award of Masters of Science

(by research).

University of New South Wales

December, 1997 'I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of

, my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written

by another person nor material which to a sustantial extent has been accepted

for the award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other institute

of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement is made in the text.'

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution. except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by colleagues, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere. during my candidature. is fully acknowledged.

I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

Disclaimer ii

Table of Contents iii

Acknowledgments vi

Abstract vii

CHAPTER 1: SYSTEMATICS OF SOME AUSTRALIAN AMPITHOID

AMPHIPODS

INTRODUCTION 1

Status of Australian species 2

A~s 4

MATERIAL AND METHODS 5

SYSTEMATICS 6

Key to Ampithoid Taxa known from Australian waters 6

Species Taxonomy 10

Ampithoe eremitis sp. nov. 10

Ampithoe gallaharae sp. nov. 15

Cymadusa aestos sp. nov. 19

Cymadusa chuawe sp. nov. 25

Cymadusa elegantis sp. nov. 30

Cymadusa imbroglio Rti.'o,no-r""o:t"' 34

Cymadusa setosa (Ha.6w{.,\I) 39

Exampithoe ecklonicola sp. nov. 58

iii Paragrubia edgari sp. nov. 62

Pseudopleonexes nexis sp. nov. 67

Sunamphitoe angrox sp. nov. 72

Sunamphitoe fantome sp. nov. 75

DISCUSSION

Generic distributions 80

Species diversity 83

Conservation 84

REFERENCES 87

ILLUSTRATIONS 95

CHAPTER 2: CHECKLIST TO THE AMPITHOID SPECIES OF THE WORLD

INTRODUCTION

Aims 138

Taxonomic History 138

World Systematics 141

CHECKLIST

Amphithoides 146

Amphitholina 147

Ampithoe 148

Cymadusa 173

Exampithoe (Exampithoe) 181

Exampithoe (Melanesius) 182

Macropisthopous 184

Paragrubia 184

iv Peramphithoe 186

Plumithoe 193

Pseudoamphithoides 195

Pseudopleonexes 196

Sunamphitoe 197

REFERENCES 199

CHAPTER 3: HANDBOOK TO INTERACTIVE KEY TO THE WORLD SPECIES

OF AMPITHOID AMPHIPODS

Title page 217

Introduction 218

How to Install this Program 218

The Data 219

Start: How to get to lntkey 220

How to ID animals 221

Glossary 223

V ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr Jim Lowry and Dr lain Suthers for all their help and encouragement throughout the duration of this project.

Also special thanks to Alistair Poore for his advice and help; Helen Stoddart for all her advice on dissecting and examining amphipods; Wendy and Craig

Taylor for inking the plates, and to Roger Springthorpe for advice on the making of the plates.

vi ABSTRACT

Twelve species of common ampithoid amphipods, including ten new species are reported from Australian waters. This brings the total number of valid species known from this area to twenty-one. The genus Pseudopleonexes is recorded for the first time from Australian waters. Ten species, Ampithoe eremitis sp. nov., A. gallaharae sp. nov., Cymadusa aestos sp. nov., C. chuawe sp. nov., C. elegantis sp. nov.; Exampithoe ecklonicola sp. nov., Paragrubia edgari sp. nov., Pseudopleonexes nexis sp. nov., Sunamphitoe angrox sp. nov., and Sunamphitoe fantome sp. nov., are described. Cymadusa imbroglio

Rabindranath, 1972 is redescribed and recorded for the first time from

Australian waters. Cymadusa setosa (Haswell, 1879a) is a poorly described species from Australian waters. The taxonomic status of this species is discussed, it is redescribed and illustrated and a neotype is established. A traditional dichotomous key is provided for the twenty one known species from

Australian waters.

In this thesis the taxonomic problems for a number of the more common species from Australian waters are discussed. An annotated checklist and an interactive key to the world species are presented.

vii CHAPTER 1

SYSTEMATICS OF SOME AUSTRALIAN AMPITHOID AMPHIPODS

INTRODUCTION

Recent and current studies (Freewater and Lowry, 1994; Poore and

Lowry, 1997) have begun to show that ampithoid amphipods are among the most abundant and diverse amphipod crustaceans inhabiting algae in coastal

Australian waters. Poore and Lowry (1997), in a study of subtidal macroalgae in

Port Jackson, New South Wales, Australia, showed that about 50% of individuals examined were of the family Ampithoidae and five of the ten most abundant species in their study were ampithoids. However, only 14.6% of the total number of species observed in the study were ampithoids. The abundance and diversity of ampithoids has also been shown in various other studies on macroalgae and seagrasses ( Hay et al., 1987; Duffy, 1990; Edgar, 1983a, b;

Nelson, 1979, 1980).

In the past ten years the number of species described from Australian waters has risen sharply. Before 1994, only six species of ampithoids were known from Australian waters. Of these six only three were ide-v'l-\ifii,.b\~.

In the last five years, sixteen new species have been described

(Freewater and Lowry, 1994; Poore and Lowry, 1997; Evans, present study).

Also, two species described originally from other locations have been reported for the first time in Australian waters (Poore and Lowry, 1997; Evans, present study). These studies plus observations of collections indicate that a large

1 number of ampithoid species remain to be documented and described from

Australian waters.

Ampithoid amphipods have played important roles in a number of ecological studies (Edgar, 1983a, b; Nelson, 1979, 1980). However, due to inadequate systematic work, the ecological studies often lack essential taxonomic information. An example is the ecological study of Edgar (1983) in southeastern Tasmania. The taxa used in this work were unidentified to species level and the generic level identifications were to some extent inaccurate. Two of Edgar's undescribed species are documented in this paper.

Studies such as Edgar ( 1983) indicate the need for a good systematic basis before ecological studies proceed. This basis can provide a useful and comprehensive guide to Australian ampithoid systematics for studies in areas such as conservation, ecology, biogeography and evolution. Recent research is starting to remedy this situation, but there is still a lot to be done. For example, of the 14 species recorded recently from two studies in the Sydney area, (on

Sargassum sp. from Port Jackson - Poore and Lowry, 1997; on Ecklonia sp. from Botany Bay - present study, and N. Gallaher, unpublished) only three of the species overlap.

Status of Australian Species

Before Barnard and Karaman ( 1991) only six species were recorded from Australian waters (Table 1). However, Ampithoe cinerea Haswell, 1879a,

Ampithoe flindersi Stebbing, 1888 and Ampithoe australiensis Bate, 1862 are unidentifiable. This is either because the original description was based on only

2 female specimens or the original description was incomplete and poorly illustrated. Occasionally this means that the species have been placed in the wrong genus. Poore and Lowry (1997) transferred Ampithoe quadrimana to the genus Plumithoe, and Cymadusa variata (Sheard, 1936) to the genus

Paragrubia.

Table 1: Ampithoid species recorded from Australian Waters.

Ampithoe australiensis Bate, 1862 (unidentifiable).

Ampithoe cinerea Haswell, 1879a (unidentifiable).

Ampithoe caddi Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Ampithoe eremitis sp.nov.

Ampithoe flindersi Stebbing, 1888 (unidentifiable).

Ampithoe gal/aharae sp. nov.

Ampithoe kava Myers, 1985 (recorded by Poore and Lowry, 1997).

Ampithoe ngana Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Cymadusa aestos sp. nov.

Cymadusa chuawe sp. nov.

Cymadusa elegantis sp. nov.

Cymadusa imbroglio Rabindranath, 1972 (recorded here).

Cymadusa munnu Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Cymadusa setosa (Haswell, 1879a) (recorded here).

Exampithoe (Melanesius) kutti Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Exampithoe (Melanesius) ecklonicola sp. nov.

Paragrubia edgari sp. nov.

3 Paragrubia variata (Sheard, 1936).

Peramphithoe parmerong Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Plumithoe quadrimana (Haswell, 1879b) (recorded by Poore and Lowry,

1997).

Pseudopleonexes nexis sp. nov.

Sunamphitoe angrox sp. nov.

Sunamphitoe fantome sp. nov.

Sunamphitoe graxon Freewater and Lowry, 1994.

Aims

Ampithoid amphipods are diverse and abundant herbivores in Australian waters, but they are not well known taxonomically. The aim of chapter 1 is to describe the more common and problematical species from Australian waters.

As an aid to identification a dichotomous key to the known and new Australian species is presented.

4 MATERIAL AND METHODS

Specimens were obtained from collections of a number of studies. These include Graham Edgar's published and unpublished studies on algae from

Tasmania and Queensland, Nicole Gallahar's unpublished study at Cape

Banks, recent Australian Museum collections along the New South Wales coast, Museum of Tasmania material currently on loan, and material collected during the University of Charleston Western Australian Expedition.

The material used is lodged at a number of institutions, primarily the Australian

Museum (AM) and the Tasmanian Museum (TMAG). Some paratypes are lodged at the Queensland Museum and Western Australian Museum (QM and

WAM respectively).

Abbreviations used on the plates are as follows: A, antenna; G, gnathopod; LL, lower lip; MD, mandible; MOP mandibular palp; MP, maxilliped;

MX, maxilla; P, peraeopod; T, telson; U, uropod; UL, upper lip; L, left; r, right.

The descriptions of the Australian species and the interactive key to the world species were produced using the taxonomic database program DEL TA

(Dallwitz et al., 1993). The terminology used to describe the angle of gnathopod palms was obtained from Poore and Lowry (1997) who illustrated the different palm forms. The data for the key to the world ampithoid species was obtained from the literature and observation of specimens.

5 SYSTEMATICS

KEY TO AMPITHOID TAXA KNOWN FROM AUSTRALIAN WATERS

All identifiable species-level taxa known from Australian waters are included in the key. Taxa not included are Ampithoe australiensis Bate, 1862,

Ampithoe cinerea Haswell, 1879 and Ampithoe flindersi Stebbing, 1888. A recent key to the genera is provided in Poore and Lowry (1997).

1. Uropod 1, peduncular distroventral spur well developed ...... 2

Uropod 1, peduncular distroventral spur absent or reduced ...... 14

2. Antenna 1, accessory flagellum present or scale-like ...... 3

Antenna 1, accessory flagellum absent...... 10

3. Antenna 1, accessory flagellum 1-2 articulate ...... 4

Antenna 1, accessory flagellum greater than 2 articulate ...... 9

4. Epimeron 3, distroventral corner with small acute tooth ...... 5

Epimeron 3, distoventral corner rounded (broadly/narrowly) ...... 6

5. Male - gnathopod 1 basis narrow, elongated; merus produced into an acute

lobe; carpus greatly elongated poorly setose ...... Cymadusa setosa

Male - gnathopod 1 basis short; merus not produced into an acute lobe;

6 carpus broad, robust and densely setose ...... Cymadusa aestos

6. Gnathopod 1, carpal lobe truncated/rounded ...... 7

Gnathopod 1, carpal lobe subacute/acute ...... 8

7. Antenna 1, accessory flagellum, 1-articulate; Uropod 3, rami narrow; male -

gnathopod 1: posterodistal tooth defining palm; gnathopod 2: palm with

subquadrate midmedial tooth ...... Cymadusa imbroglio

Antenna 1, accessory flagellum, 2-articulate; Uropod 3, rami broad; male

and female: gnathopod 1: palm without defining tooth; gnathopod 2: no

midmedial tooth ...... Cymadusa chuawe

8. Antenna 1, slightly shorter than body length; gnathopod 2 propodus without

subaci.Jte posterodistal tooth defining palm ...... Cymadusa munnu

Antenna 1, extremely long, longer than body length; gnathopod 2 propodus

with subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm ...... Cymadusa elegantis

9. Gnathopod 1, greater than or subequal to in size to gnathopod 2; gnathopod

1: male - excavate palm and tooth defining palm ...... Paragrubia edgari

Gnathopod 1, smaller in size to gnathopod 2; gnathopod 1 male: entire palm

with no defining tooth ...... Paragrubia variata

10. Mandible, palp absent...... 11

Mandible, palp present...... 13

7 11. Male - gnathopod 2, palm transverse ...... Sunamphitoe angrox

Male - gnathopod 2, palm extremely acute ...... : ...... 12

12. Male - gnathopod 2, palm without midmedial tooth ...... Sunamphitoe graxon

Male - gnathopod 2, palm with subquadrate midmedial tooth ......

...... Sunamphitoe fantome

13. Antenna 2, setose; peraeopod 6, slender ...... Plumithoe quadrimanus

Antenna 2, non-setose; peraeopod 6, broad or very broad ......

...... Peramphithoe parmerong

14. Gnathopod 1 coxa, produced anteroventrally ...... 15

Gnathopod 1 coxa, not produced anteroventrally ...... 19

15. Peraeopods 5-7, strongly prehensile (distally expanded with 3-4 large,

striated robust setae) ...... 16

Peraeopods 5-7, simple or weakly prehensile (weakly or not expanded

distally, 0-2 large, striated robust setae) ...... 17

16. Peraeopods 3-4, merus anteriorly expanded; telsonic cusps expanded into

large hooks; male - uropod 1, without distoventral spur ......

...... Ampithoe gallaharae

Peraeopods 3-4, merus narrow; telsonic cusps, reduced and small; male -

8 uropod 1, with rounded distoventral spur ...... Ampithoe kava

17. Peraeopod 5 distal articles slender; uropod 3, peduncle short (less than 2 x

rami length); elongated gnathopods ...... Ampithoe eremitis

Peraeopod 5, distal articles broad; Uropod 3, peduncle long (greater than

2 x rami length); gnathopods not elongated ...... 18

18. Male - gnathopod 1, palm excavate with a defining posterodistal tooth;

gnathopod 2, palm entire, with defining posterodistal tooth ......

...... Ampithoe ngana

Male - gnathopod 1, palm entire, no defining tooth; gnathopod 2, palm

excavate with posterodistal defining tooth ...... Ampithoe caddi

19. Gnathopod 1 palm transverse; telsonic cusps large ......

...... Pseudopleonexes nexis

Gnathopod 1 palm acute; telsonic cusps reduced or absent...... 20

fVlG\le. - 20. Antenna 1, subequal to antenna 2; gnathopod 1 and 2 similar length to I\

peraeopods ...... Exampithoe kutti frlAlt. - Antenna 1, longer than antenna 2;,. gnathopods 1 and 2 longer than peraeopods ...... Exampithoe ecklonicola

9 SPECIES TAXONOMY

Ampithoe Leach

Ampithoe Leach, 1814: 403,432. -- Barnard and Karaman, 1991: 102. -- Poore

and Lowry, 1997: 4. -- vc-es~ E>"~ : 10-1& ·

Amphithoe Dana, 1853: 935. -- Chevreux and Fage, 1925:332; Conlan and

Bousfield, 1982a: 45; Conlan, 1982: 2016.

Pleonexes Bate, 1856: 59; Stebbing, 1906: 642

Ampithoe eremitis sp. nov.

Figs 1-3

Type material.

HOLOTYPE, Female, ovigerous, 11.0 mm. AM P51251, 16 m depth, on algae, Split Solitary Island, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia,

30°14'30"S 153°10'44"E, I. Takeuchi, 05.ii.1996. PARATYPES: Male, 10.5 mm.

AM P51252, 12 m depth, living on red algae, South Solitary Island, Coffs

Harbour, New South Wales, Australia, 30°12'19"S 153°15'54"E, I. Takeuchi,

5.ii.1996; males and females (5), 8-10 mm, AM P51253, 16 m depth, on algae,

Split Solitary Island, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia, 30°14'30"S

153°10'44"E, I. Takeuchi, 05.ii.1996.

10 Additional Material Examined

Three specimens (male and females), 8-10 mm, AM P51254, 12 m depth, living on red algae, South Solitary Island, Coffs Harbour, New South

Wales, Australia, 30°12'19"S 153°15'54"E, I. Takeuchi, 5.ii.1996.

Diagnosis

Female: Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2. Antenna 2: slender, similar to antenna 1. Gnathopod 1: elongate, carpal lobe truncate; propodus with posterodistal tooth defining palm, acute palm. Gnathopod 2: elongate; propodus with posterodistal tooth defining palm. Peraeopods 5-7: weakly prehensile. Te/son: apical cusps small. Male: Antenna 2: robust, better developed than antenna 1. Gnathopod 1: elongate; carpal lobe truncate; palm excavate. Gnathopod 2: elongate; propodus with posterodistal tooth defining palm.

Description

Holotype female, 11.0 mm, AM P51251; paratype male, 10.5 mm, AM

P51252.

Head and body: preserved colour is often pale cream or white with quite definite red banding, especially along the antennae and the gnathopods. Head: as long as deep. Epistome, Upper Lip: angle directed nearly straight down, around 90 degrees. Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2; peduncular article 1 longer than (1.2 x) article 2; article 2 longer than (2.9 x) article 3; article 3 shorter than (0.3 x) article 1; accessory flagellum absent. Antenna 2: slender,

11 similar to antenna 1, not densely setose on ventral margin; peduncle article 4 subequal to article 5; flagellum 28-30 articulate.

Mandible: molar well developed, triturating; palp 3-articulate, stout, long, setose along posterior margin; article 1 shorter than (0.4 x) article 2; article 2 subequal to (1.1 x) article 3; article 3 longer than (2.3 x) article 1. Upper lip: distally setose, lateral margins each with midlateral notch. Lower lip: outer plate notched, with lateral lobe longer than medial lobe; mandibular lobe with curved margins, subacute apically. Maxilla 1: palp well developed, with apical robust setae. Maxilla 2: inner plate narrow, outer plate broader.

Gnathopod 1: sexually dimorphic; subequal to gnathopod 2; without densely setose margins; coxa larger than gnathopod 2 coxa, produced anteroventrally, rounded, anterior margin concave, without setal fringe; carpus, posterior margin lobate, truncated, shorter than (0.8 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 1.6 x width; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with a posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus subequal in length to palm, inner margin rugose.

Gnathopod 2: sexually dimorphic; without densely setose margins; coxa without setal fringe; carpus shorter than ( 0.8 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.8 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, without a midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with a small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus subequal in length to palm, tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Peraeopod 3: basis narrow; merus narrow. Peraeopod 4: basis similar to peraeopod 3. Peraeopods 5-7: weakly prehensile. Peraeopod 5: slender;

12 propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus hooked. Peraeopod 6: slender; basis, posterior margin rounded; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus strongly curved.

Peraeopod 7: slender.

Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner narrowly rounded. Uropod 1: peduncle with distoventral spur absent; inner ramus slightly longer than outer; position subequal, reaching to the rami of uropod 2. Uropod 2: no laterodistal projection; rami subequal in length. Uropod 3: peduncle longer than (1.6 x) broad, short, 2 x rami length; rami broad; outer ramus shorter than inner ramus, with 2 large recurved robust setae, with patch of small conical spines. Te/son: subtriangular distally truncate; apical cusps small.

Male dimorphic characters: Antenna 2: robust, better developed than antenna 1; peduncle article 4 longer than article 5. Gnathopod 1: coxa produced anteroventrally, anteroventral margin produced, rounded, anterior margin convex or straight; propodus narrow, length 2.1 x width; palm acute, excavate, with midmedial tooth, with posterodistal tooth defining palm.

Gnathopod 2: propodus broad, length 1.8 x width; palm acute, excavate, without midmedial tooth, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus subequal in length to palm.

Etymology

The name is Latin for Solitary from the type locality.

Remarks

13 Ampithoe eremitis is similar to Ampithoe caddi Poore and Lowry, 1997 and the species group of A. waialua, J. L. Barnard 1972b, A. ngana Poore and

Lowry, 1997, A. platycera Sivaprakasam, 1971 and A. hinatore J.L. Barnard,

1972b. The similarities to Ampithoe caddi are that both species have elongated gnathopods. However, the structure of the palms of the gnathopods differs and the merus on both gnathopod 1 and 2 is produced anteriorly into an acute lobe on A. eremitis, but it is not produced on A. caddi.

The palm structure is more similar to those of the A. waialua species group. This group shares an excavate palm on gnathopod 1 in males. Ampithoe waialua and A. ngana both have an anteriorly produced merus on both gnathopods 1 and 2. However, A. eremitis differs from A. waialua by having an excavate palm on gnathopod 2, and by having a more excavate gnathopod 1 palm. The female of A. eremitis also differs from the females of A. waialua by having small posterodistal tooth defining the palms of gnathopods 1 and 2.

The specimens of this new species are also much larger (10-11 mm) than those of A. waialua (4-5 mm), slightly larger than A. hinatore (7-8 mm) and similar in size to A. ngana (10-13 mm).

Habitat

Living on red algae in 12-16 m depth.

Distribution

Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, southeastern Australia (Tasman Sea).

14 Ampithoe gal/aharae sp. nov.

Figs 4-7

Type Material

HOLOTYPE, probable male, 5.0 mm. AM P51274, living in Ecklonia radiata canopies, Cape Banks, New South Wales, Australia, 34°00'S 151 °13'E,

25.x.92, N. Gallahar; PARATYPES, 5.0 mm, AM P51276, 6 m, living in Ecklonia radiata canopies, Cape Banks, New South Wales, Australia, 34°00'S 151 °13'E,

N. Gallahar, 2.i.92.

Additional Material Examined

Indeterminable sex 5.0 mm, AM P51275, 5 m, living on Eck/onia radiata,

Cape Banks, New South Wales, Australia, 34°00'S 151 °13'E, N. Gallahar,

25.x.92.

Diagnosis

Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2. Antenna 2: robust, · s-t

Description

Probable male, 5.0 mm, AM P51274.

15 Head and body: Preserved material is mottled black. Head: as long as deep. Epistome, Upper Lip: angle directed nearly straight down, around 90 degrees. Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2; peduncular article 1 longer than

(1.7 x) article 2; article 2 longer than (2.2 x) article 3; article 3 shorter than (0.3 x) article 1; accessory flagellum absent. Antenna 2: robust, better developed than antenna 1, not densely setose on ventral margin; peduncle article 4 subequal to article 5; flagellum 11-13 -articulate.

Mandible: molar well developed, triturating; palp 3-articulate, stout, long, setose along posterior margin; article 1 shorter than (0.4 x) article 2; article 2 subequal to (1 x) article 3; article 3 longer than (2.8 x) article 1. Upper lip: distally setose, lateral margins each with midlateral notch. Lower lip: outer plate notched, with lateral lobe longer than medial lobe; mandibular lobe with curved margins, subacute apically. Maxilla 1: palp well developed, with apical robust setae. Maxilla 2: inner plate narrow, outer plate broader.

Gnathopod 1: subequal to gnathopod 2; without densely setose margins; coxa larger than gnathopod 2 coxa; without setal fringe; produced anteroventrally, anteroventral margin rounded, anterior margin convex or straight; carpus, posterior margin not lobate, subacute, shorter than (0.6 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 1.4 x width; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus overreaching palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: without densely setose margins; coxa without setal fringe; carpus shorter than (0.8 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.3 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, excavate,

16 without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; subequal in length to palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Peraeopod 3: basis expanded; merus anteriorly expanded. Peraeopod 4: basis similar to peraeopod 3. Peraeopods 5-7: strongly prehensile. Peraeopod

5: broad; propodus strongly expanded distally, with 4 distal robust setae;

dactylus strongly curved. Peraeopod 6: slender; basis, posterior margin

rounded; propodus strongly expanded distally, with 4 distal robust setae;

dactylus strongly curved. Peraeopod 7: slender.

Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner broadly rounded. Uropod 1: peduncle

with distoventral spur vestigial or absent; inner ramus slightly longer than outer;

subequal, reaching to the rami of uropod 2. Uropod 2: no laterodistal projection;

inner ramus slightly longer than outer. Uropod 3: peduncle longer than (1.3 x)

broad, peduncle long, 2.1 x rami length; rami broad; outer ramus, subequal to

inner ramus, with 2 large recurved robust setae, with patch of small conical

spines. Te/son: subtriangular distally truncate; apical cusps expanded into

large hooks.

Etymology

This species is named after Nicole Gallahar, who generously donated

these specimens and a number of others for this study.

Remarks

17 Ampithoe gallaharae fits into the "Pleonexes" species group noted in

Barnard and Karaman (1991 ). This group possesses strongly prehensile peraeopods 5-7 and enlarged hooks on the telson. However, within this group there are two subgroups, those which have a small rounded distfoventral spur on the peduncle of uropod 1 and those in which the spur is absent. Ampithoe gallaharae belongs to the latter group, which includes: Ampithoe aptos (J.L.

Barnard, 1969a), A. gammaroides (Bate, 1857d) - female, A. macrocornutus

(Kensley, 1971) and A. vacoregue J. L. Barnard, 1979b.

Ampithoe gallaharae is similar to A. aptos. However, there are a number of important differences. These include: antenna 1 is shorter than antenna 2 in A. aptos and is longer than antenna 2 in A. gallaharae; antenna 2 is also more robust than antenna 1 in the new species. Gnathopod 2 differs significantly by having a slightly excavate palm in the new species but is entire in A. aptos, also the carpus is much shorter than the propodus in A. aptos but is only just shorter than the propodus in Ampithoe gallaharae. Another major difference is that in the new species, peraeopods 3 and 4 the merus is expanded to form an acute, anterior projection. Within the Pleonexes group this character state is unique to Ampithoe gallaharae.

It was hard to determine the sex of the type material, no panes and no ovary buds or eggs were observed. Also uropod 1 appears to be a regrowth, however this is identical on both sides of the animal.

18 Habitat

Living in the canopy of the brown macroalga Ecklonia radiata in 5 m depth.

Distribution

Cape Banks, New South Wales, Australia.

Cymadusa Savigny

Cymadusa Savigny, 1816: 109. -- Barnard and Karaman, 1991:104. -- Poore

and Lowry, 1997:18.

Paradusa Ruffo, 1969: 63. -- Barnard and Karaman, 1991: 106. -- Poore and

Lowry, 1997:18.

Type species: Cymadusa filosa Savigny, 1816: 109

Cymadusa aestos sp. nov.

Figs 8-11

Grubia setosa -~ To.tte.r~ll, 1'"}.u., 1:2..-11t

Type Material.

19 HOLOTYPE, Female, ovigerous, 18.0 mm, TMAG G3931 (Museum of

Tasmania material), Woodman Point, Cockburn Sound, Western Australia,

T.M. Walker and D.D. Bray, 14.vii.73. PARATYPES: Male, 17.0 mm. TMAG

G3932 (Museum of Tasmania material), Woodman Point, Cockburn Sound,

Western Australia, T.M. Walker and D.D. Bray, 14.vii.73; Male, 13.0 mm,

TMAG G3933 (Museum of Tasmania material), Woodman Point, Cockburn

Sound, Western Australia, T.M. Walker and D.D. Bray, 14.vii.73; Female and

Male (2), 15-16 mm, AM P51282, Woodman Point, Cockburn Sound, Western

Australia, T.M. Walker and D.D. Bray, 14.vii.73; Females and males, (5), 15-16 mm, TMAG G3934-G3938, Woodman Point, Cockburn Sound, Western

Australia, T.M. Walker and D.D. Bray, 14.vii.73.

Diagnosis

Female: Antenna 1: accessory flagellum present, 2- articulate. Antenna

2: short dense setae on ventral margin. Gnathopod 1: carpal lobe, truncate; propodus palm acute, without posterodistal tooth defining palm. Gnathopod 2: propodus with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm. Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner with a small acute tooth.

Male: Antenna 2: long dense plumose setae on ventral margin.

Gnathopod 1: long dense plumose setae on margins; carpal lobe truncated; propodus palm acute, without posterodistal tooth defining palm. Gnathopod 2: long dense plumose setae on margins; carpal lobe truncated; propodus broad,

20 palm acute, with suquadrate midmedial tooth, with small subacute posterodistal defining tooth.

Description

Holotype female, 18.0 mm, TMAG G3931; paratype 1 male, 17.0 mm,

TMAG G3932; paratype 2 male, 13.0 mm, TMAG G3933.

Head and body: The preserved material is a pinkish cream in colour, this could be due to the preservation technique. Head: as long as deep. Epistome,

Upper Lip: angle directed nearly straight down, around 90 degrees. Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2; peduncular article 1 subequal to (1.1 x) article 2; article

2 longer than (3. 7 x) article 3; article 3 shorter than (0.2 x) article 1; accessory flagellum present, 2-articulate. Antenna 2: slender, similar to antenna 1, with short, dense setae on ventral margin; peduncle article 4 subequal to article 5; flagellum 28-30 articulate.

Mandible: molar well developed, triturating; palp 3-articulate, stout, long, setose along posterior margin; article 1 shorter than (0.6 x) article 2; article 2 subequal to (1 x) article 3; article 3 longer than (1.8 x) article 1. Upper lip: distally setose, lateral margins each with midlateral notch. Lower lip: outer plate notched, with lateral lobe longer than medial lobe; mandibular lobe with curved margins, rounded apically. Maxilla 1: palp well developed, with apical robust setae. Maxilla 2: inner plate narrow, outer plate broader.

21 convex or straight; carpus, posterior margin lobate, truncated, subequal to (1 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 1.6 x width; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus subequal in length to palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: sexually dimorphic; without densely setose margins; coxa with setal fringe; carpus shorter than (0.8 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1. 3 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; subequal in length to palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Peraeopod 3: basis narrow; merus narrow. Peraeopod 4: basis similar to peraeopod 3. Peraeopods 5-7: weakly prehensile. Peraeopod 5: slender; propodus not expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus strongly curved. Peraeopod 6: slender; basis, posterior margin rounded proximally, straight distally; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus strongly curved. Peraeopod 7: slender.

(1.5 x) broad, peduncle long, 2.1 x rami length; rami broad; outer ramus, subequal to inner ramus, with 2 large recurved robust setae, with patch of small conical spines. Te/son: subtriangular distally rounded; apical cusps small.

22 Male dimorphic characters. Large male (17 mm): Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2; peduncular article 1 subequal to (1.1 x) article 2; article 2 longer than (4.4 x) article 3; article 3 shorter than (0.2 x) article 1. Antenna 2: slender, similar to antenna 1, with long, dense setae on ventral margin; peduncle article

4 subequal to article 5; flagellum 41-43 articulate. Gnathopod 1: smaller than gnathopod 2; with long, dense, plumose setae on margins; coxa larger than gnathopod 2 coxa; with setal fringe; produced anteroventrally, anteroventral margin, rounded, anterior margin convex or straight; carpus, posterior margin lobate, truncated, longer than ( 1 .4 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1. 3 x width; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus subequal in length to palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: with long, dense, plumose setae on margins; coxa with setal fringe; carpus shorter than

(0.6 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.2 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, with subquadrate midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; shorter than palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Small male (13 mm): Gnathopod 1: smaller than gnathopod 2; with long, dense, plumose setae on margins; coxa larger than gnathopod 2 coxa; with setal fringe; produced anteroventrally, anteroventral margin, rounded, anterior margin convex or straight; carpus, posterior margin lobate, truncated, longer than (1.2 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.4 x width; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus,

23 without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus subequal in length to palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: with long, dense, plumose setae on margins; coxa with setal fringe; carpus shorter than (0. 7 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.1 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, with rounded midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; subequal in length to palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Etymology

Because of the similarity to Cymadusa setosa, the letters of the species name formed an anagram.

Remarks

Cymadusa aestos is similar to Cymadusa setosa (Haswell, 1879).

Previously in Australian studies, any specimens which are densely setose have been identified as C. setosa (Haswell, 1879a). However, studies such as

Ledoyer (1982, 1984), have recognised a number of forms of C. filosa (a similar species) and a similar phenomonen occurs in Australian waters.

The differences between Cymadusa aestos and C. setosa are that gnathopod 1 is broader, more robust and more setose in C. aestos. Both gnathopods are shorter than those in C. setosa. However, gnathopod 2 is the same form in both species. This species is also similar to C. imbroglio

Rabindranath, 1972. It differs from that species in that the whole animal is more

24 densely setose and gnathopod 1 is broader, more robust. The specimens examined agree with Tatersall's 1922 figures of Cymadusa setosa. Apparently

Tatarsall incorrectly identified his specimens as C. setosa.

Habitat

Not known.

Distribution

Cockburn Sound and the Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, (Indian

Ocean).

Cymadusa chuawe sp. nov.

Figs 12-14

Type Material

HOLOTYPE, Female, ovigerous, 14.0 mm. AM P51268, on Sargassum sp., 1O m, west side of Northwest Cape, Tantabiddi Beach, Western Australia,

Australia, 21 °53'S 113°58'E, University of Charleston Western Australian

Expedition, 18.vi.97. PARATYPES, Male, 11.0 mm. AM P51269, on Sargassum sp., 10 m, west side of Northwest Cape, Tantabiddi Beach, Western Australia,

Australia, 21 °53'S 113°58'E, University of Charleston Western Australian

Expedition, 18.vi.97; females and males; 10-12 mm, AM P51270, on

Sargassum sp., 1O m, west side of Northwest Cape, Tantabiddi Beach,

25 Western Australia, Australia, 21 °53'S 113°S8'E, University of Charleston

Western Australian Expedition, 18.vi.97.

Diagnosis

Female: Antenna 1: accessory flagellum present, 2 articulate. Antenna

2: not densely setose on ventral margin. Gnathopod 1: without densely setose margins; carpal lobe truncate; palm acute, without posterodistal defining tooth.

Gnathopod 2: without densely setose margins; palm acute, without midmedial tooth, with small subacute posterodistal defining tooth. Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner narrowly rounded.

Male: Antenna 2: not densely setose on ventral margin. Gnathopod 1: without densely setose margins; carpal lobe truncate, palm acute, without posterodistal defining tooth. Gnathopod 2: without densely setose margins; propodus palm transverse or nearly so, without midmedial tooth, with small subacute posterodistal defining tooth.

Description

Holotype female, 14.0 mm, AM P51268; paratype male, 11.0 mm, AM P51269.

Head and body: colour of preserved material is pale with black mottling or spotting. Head: longer than deep. Epistome, Upper Lip: angle directed nearly straight down, around 90 degrees. Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2; peduncular article 1 subequal to (1 x) article 2; article 2 longer than (3.8 x) article 3; article 3 shorter than (0.3 x) article 1; accessory flagellum present, 2- articulate. Antenna 2: slender, similar to antenna 1, not densely setose on

26 ventral margin; peduncle article 4 longer than article 5; flagellum 24-26 articulate.

Mandible: molar well developed, triturating; palp 3-articulate, stout, long, setose along posterior margin; article 1 shorter than (0. 7 x) article 2; article 2 shorter than (0.9 x) article 3; article 3 longer than (1.6 x) article 1. Upper lip: distally setose, lateral margins each with midlateral notch. Lower lip: outer plate notched, with lateral lobe longer than medial lobe; mandibular lobe with straight margins, rounded apically. Maxilla 1: palp well developed, with apical robust setae. Maxilla 2: inner plate narrow, outer plate broader.

Gnathopod 1: sexually dimorphic; subequal to gnathopod 2; without densely setose margins; coxa subequal to gnathopod 2 coxa; with setal fringe; produced anteroventrally, anteroventral margin rounded, anterior margin convex or straight; carpus, posterior margin lobate, truncated, subequal to (1 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 1.6 x width; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus subequal in length to palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: sexually dimorphic; without densely setose margins; coxa with setal fringe; carpus shorter than (0. 7 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.2 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; subequal in length to palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

27 Peraeopod 3: basis narrow; merus narrow. Peraeopod 4: basis similar to peraeopod 3. Peraeopods 5-7: weakly prehensile. Peraeopod 5: slender; propodus not expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus hooked.

Peraeopod 6: slender; basis, posterior margin rounded proximally, straight distally; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus slightly curved. Peraeopod 7: slender.

Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner narrowly rounded. Uropod 1: peduncle with large, acute distoventral spur; inner ramus slightly longer than outer; position subequal, reaching to the rami of uropod 2. Uropod 2: no laterodistal projection; inner ramus slightly longer than outer. Uropod 3: peduncle longer than (1.1 x) broad, peduncle short, 1.6 x rami length; rami broad; outer ramus, longer than inner ramus; with 2 large recurved robust setae, without patch of small conical spines. Te/son: subtriangular distally truncate; apical cusps small.

Male dimorphic characters. Head: as long as deep Antenna 1: subequal to antenna 2, peduncular article 1 longer than (1.1 x) article 2; article 2 longer than (4 x) article 3; article 3 shorter than (0.2 x) article 1. Antenna 2: peduncle article 4 subequal to article 5; flagellum 23-25 articulate. Gnathopod 1: smaller than gnathopod 2; without densely setose margins; coxa larger than gnathopod

2 coxa; with setal fringe; produced anteroventrally, anteroventral margin rounded, anterior margin convex or straight; carpus, posterior margin lobate, truncated, subequal to (1 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 1.5 x width; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus

28 subequal in length to palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: without densely setose margins; coxa with setal fringe; carpus shorter than (0.6 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1. 1 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm transverse or nearly so, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; subequal in length to palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Etymology

The species name is an acronym, made up from the initials of the collection trip (University of Charleston Western Australian Expedition).

Remarks

Cymadusa chuawe is similar to young forms of Cymadusa aestos from

Tasmania, and females of Cymadusa imbroglio Rabindranath, 1972. However,

ih~ differences are fairly subtle. lhe.se ~re the shape of the gnathopod 1 palm. The females also have an extra robust seta on the outer ramus of uropod 3, medially to the two recurved hooks.

Habitat

Washes of rocks and algae (especially Sargassum sp.), intertidal.

Distribution

Northwest Cape, Tantabiddi Beach, Western Australia (Indian Ocean).

29 Cymadusa e/egantis sp. nov.

Figs 15-18

Cymadusa sp. 1 Edgar, 1983a: 129-157.

Type Material

HOLOTYPE, Female, ovigerous, 13.0 mm. AM P51255, 2 m depth, living on Sargassum sp., Fancy Point, Bruny Island, Tasmania, Australia, 43°13'8

147°21'E, G. Edgar, 4.i.1979. PARATYPE8, Male, 14.0 mm. AM P51256, 2 m depth, living on Sargassum sp., Fancy Point, Bruny Island, Tasmania,

Australia, 43°13'8 147°21'E, G. Edgar, 4.i.1979; females and males (16), 5-12 mm, AM P51257, 2 m depth, living on Sargassum sp., Fancy Point, Bruny

Island, Tasmania, Australia, 43°13'8 147°21'E, G. Edgar, 4.i.1979.

Diagnosis

longer ~~ bod.<1 Female: Antenna 1: long; accessory flagellum present, 1-articulate ;I\; o.~ lo~ o.s boc:l'i (scale-like). Antenna 2: long; not densely setose on ventral margins. -,..

Gnathopod 1: without densely setose margins; carpal lobe subacute; propodus palm acute, without posterodistal defining tooth. Gnathopod 2: without densely setose margins; propodus narrow; palm acute, without midmedial tooth, with small subacute posterodistal defining tooth. Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner narrowly rounded.

30 Male: Antenna 1: long. Antenna 2: long; not densely setose on ventral margins. Gnathopod 1: without densely setose margins; propodus palm acute, convex; without posterodistal defining tooth. Gnathopod 2: without densely setose margins; propodus broad; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with small subacute posterodistal defining tooth.

Description

Holotype female, 13.0 mm, AM P51255; paratype male, 14.0 mm, AM

P51256.

Head and Body: Preserved colour is yellow to cream, on some specimens antennae and anterior part of head are a maroon colour. Head: as long as deep. Epistome, Upper Lip: angle directed nearly straight down, around loYl_ge.,r ~aV\ b•Jj 90 degrees. Antenna 1:"longer than antenna 2; peduncular article 1 subequal to (0.9 x) article 2; article 2 longer than (3.6 x) article 3; article 3 shorter than

(0. 3 x) article 1; accessory flagellum present, 1-articulate, scale-like. Antenna

~$ \0111.5 c:1S bod.'1 2:,,, slender, similar to antenna 1, not densely setose on ventral margin; peduncle article 4 longer than article 5; flagellum 28-30 articulate.

Mandible: molar well developed, triturating; palp 3-articulate, stout, long, setose along posterior margin; article 1 shorter than (0.3 x) article 2; article 2 subequal to ( 1 x) article 3; article 3 longer than (3 x) article 1. Upper lip: distally setose, lateral margins each with midlateral notch. Lower lip: outer plate notched, with lateral lobe longer than medial lobe; mandibular lobe with curved margins, rounded apically. Maxilla 1: palp well developed, with apical robust setae. Maxilla 2: inner plate narrow, outer plate broader.

31 Gnathopod 1: sexually dimorphic; subequal to gnathopod 2; without densely setose margins; coxa smaller than gnathopod 2 coxa; without setal fringe; produced anteroventrally, anteroventral margin produced with subacute tooth, anterior margin concave; carpus, posterior margin lobate, subacute, subequal to ( 1 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 1. 7 x width; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus subequal in length to palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: sexually dimorphic; without densely setose margins; coxa without setal fringe; carpus shorter than (0.8 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.4 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; subequal in length to palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Peraeopod 3: basis narrow; merus narrow. Peraeopod 4: basis similar to peraeopod 3. Peraeopods 5-7: weakly prehensile. Peraeopod 5: broad; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus strongly curved. Peraeopod 6: slender; basis, posterior margin rounded proximally, straight distally; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus slightly curved. Peraeopod 7: slender.

32 peduncle longer than (1.4 x) broad, short, 1.8 x rami length; rami broad; outer ramus, shorter than inner ramus; with 2 large recurved robust setae, with patch of small conical spines. Te/son: subtriangular distally subacute; apical cusps small.

Male dimorphic characters: Gnathopod 1: smaller than gnathopod 2; without densely setose margins; coxa larger than gnathopod 2 coxa; without setal fringe; produced anteroventrally, anteroventral margin, rounded, anterior margin concave; carpus, posterior margin lobate, subacute, longer than (1.1 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 1. 9 x width; palm acute, convex, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus overreaching palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: carpus shorter than (0.6 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1 .1 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; subequal in length to palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Etymology

This species name is from the Latin for elegant, because the extremely long antennae, give the animal an elegant appearance.

Remarks

Cymadusa elegantis is distinctive because of its extraordinarily long antennae. In males, females and immature specimens, antenna 1 is longer than

33 the body. Gnathopod 2 on the male is large (larger than on the female) but does not possess a midmedial tooth like Cymadusa imbroglio Rabindranath,

1972.

Cymadusa elegantis is similar to C. grossimana Ledoyer (1984) which also has an enlarged gnathopod 2.

between the two species llre = - the length of the antennae (longer in

C. elegantis than in C. grossimana); the shape of gnathopod 2 palm (excavate in C. grossimana, entire in C. elegantis), and the shape and size of gnathopod

1. Epimeron 3 of C. grossimana has a small acute posteroventral tooth whereas C. e/egantis has a narrowly rounded posteroventral rounded corner.

Habitat

Living in the brown algae Sargassum sp. in 2 m depth

Distribution

Fancy Point, Tasmania, south east coast of Australia (Tasman Sea).

Cymadusa imbroglio Rabindranath, 1972

Figs 19-22

Cymadusa imbroglio Rabindranath, 1972: 175-177, fig. 9, --Myers, 1985: 29-

30, figs 20-21.

34 Material Examined

Female, ovigerous, 16 mm, AM P51265, Bare Island, Botany Bay, New

South Wales, Australia, 34°00'S 151°14'E, A. Poore; male, 14 mm, P51266,

Bare Island, Botany Bay, New South Wales, Australia, 34°00'S 151°14'E, A.

Poore; male, 12 mm, P51267; Bare Island, Botany Bay, New South Wales,

Australia, 34°00'S 151 °14'E, A. Poore.

Diagnosis

Female: Antenna 1: accessory flagellum, 1-articulate. Antenna 2: not densely

setose on ventral margin. Gnathopod 1: without densely setose margins;

carpal lobe rounded; propodus palm acute, without posterodistal defining tooth.

Gnathopod 2: without densely setose margins; propodus broad; palm acute,

entire, without midmedial tooth, with small subacute posterodistal defining

tooth. Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner narrowly rounded.

Male: Antenna 2: not densely setose on ventral margins. Gnathopod 1: without densely setose margins; carpal lobe truncated; propodus palm acute,

entire, with posterodistal defining tooth. Gnathopod 2: without densely setose

margins; propodus broad, palm acute, entire, with subquadrate midmedial

tooth; with small subacute posterodistal defining tooth.

Description

Female, 16.0 mm, AM P51265; male, 14.0 mm, AM P51266.

Head and body: live female material was black and white blotched,

antennae were striped black and white; live male material blotched olive green

35 and white, enlarged gnathopods calcified white, antennae striped. Preserved material has the same colour patterns, but strength of the colours are reduced.

Eye in fresh material varies from white to bright red. The red colour occurs more frequently after a moult. Head: as long as deep. Epistome, Upper Lip: angle directed nearly straight down, around 90 degrees. Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2; peduncular article 1 subequal to ( 1.1 x) article 2; article 2 longer than (4.1 x) article 3; article 3 shorter than (0.2 x) article 1; accessory flagellum present, 1-articulate. Antenna 2: slender, similar to antenna 1, not densely setose on ventral margin; peduncle article 4 longer than article 5; flagellum 30-

32 articulate.

Mandible: molar well developed, triturating; palp 3-articulate, stout, long, setose along posterior margin; article 1 shorter than (0.5 x) article 2; article 2 subequal to (0.9 x) article 3; article 3 longer than (2.2 x) article 1. Upper lip: distally setose, lateral margins each with midlateral notch. Lower lip: outer plate notched, with lateral lobe longer than medial lobe; mandibular lobe with curved margins, rounded apically. Maxilla 1: palp well developed, with apical robust setae. Maxilla 2: inner plate narrow, outer plate broader.

36 margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: sexually dimorphic; without densely setose margins; coxa with setal fringe; carpus shorter than (0. 7 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.3 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; subequal in length to palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Peraeopod 3: basis narrow; merus narrow. Peraeopod 4: basis similar to peraeopod 3. Peraeopods 5-7: weakly prehensile. Peraeopod 5: slender; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus hooked. Peraeopod 6: slender; basis, posterior margin sinusoidal; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus strongly curved.

Peraeopod 7: slender.

Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner narrowly rounded. Uropod 1: peduncle with large, acute distoventral spur; inner ramus slightly longer than outer; position subequal, reaching to the rami of uropod 2. Uropod 2: no laterodistal projection; inner ramus slightly longer than outer. Uropod 3: peduncle longer than (1.4 x) broad, peduncle short, 1.6 x rami length; rami narrow, outer ramus, subequal to inner ramus; with 2 large recurved robust setae, without patch of small conical spines. Te/son: subtriangular distally truncate; apical cusps small.

Male dimorphic characters Antenna 1: subequal to antenna 2. Antenna

2: flagellum 36-38 articulate. Gnathopod 1: smaller than gnathopod 2; coxa larger than gnathopod 2 coxa; with setal fringe, produced anteroventrally,

37 anteroventral margin produced, rounded, anterior margin convex or straight; carpus, posterior margin lobate, truncated, longer than (1.3 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 1.6 x width; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus overreaching palm, inner margin rugose.

Gnathopod 2: coxa with setal fringe; carpus shorter than (0.5 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, with subquadrate midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; subequal in length to palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Remarks

This is the first record of Cymadusa imbroglio for Australian waters.

These specimens agree with specimens documented in Myers (1985c) which differ from Rabindranath's specimens by a few characters. These are:- fewer articles of the flagellum of antenna 2; gnathopod 1 carpus is straight, not strongly rounded; uropod 3 the outer ramus is shorter than the inner ramus.

Rabindranath ( 1972) did not record a number of characters in the original description. So it is difficult to know how different the specimens are.

Cymadusa imbroglio is related to C. filosa Savigny, 1816 and to C. aestos. It differs from these species in the setosity of the coxae and the gnathopods and in the shape of gnathopod 1.

38 Habitat

Coral rubble, brown algae.

Distribution

Gulf of Mannar, southern tip of India (northern Indian Ocean); Momi e>o.v, Fijian Islands (Pacific Ocean); Botany Bay, Sydney, New South Wales,

Austra!ia (Tasman Sea).

Cymadusa setosa (Haswell, 1879a)

Figs 23-26

Amphithoe setosa Haswell, 1879a: 338.

Cymadusa setosa has been synonymised previously with Cymadusa filosa Savigny, 1816. The first record of their possible synonymy is

Schellenberg ( 1925) which lists all the species recorded which have similar characteristics. Schellenberg did not actually place any of the species under the name C. filosa. Shoemaker (1935) recorded Schellenberg's whole list as

Grubia filosa. From this time onwards Cymadusa setosa and a number of other species have been known as Cymadusa fi/osa. A good list of the records of "C. fi/osa" up to 1955 is provided in J. L. Barnard ( 1955). The aim here is to assess the reliability of these synonymies and to reestablish the Australian species

Cymadusa setosa as an independent species.

39 The original description of C. filosa by Savigny, 1816, only illustrated the mouthparts of the animal and did not describe the animal. From this poor, insufficient description the complex of species discussed here has developed.

Table 2 assesses the various characteristics of the different records of animals put in the Cymadusa filosa complex and some closely related species. From this table it can be concluded that two main groups of species have been identified as Cymadusa filosa. These two groups are separated mainly by the form of gnathopod one ( one group has an elongated merus, carpus and propodus, the other has more robust and shorter merus, carpus and propodus).

From Table 2, it is clear that Cymadusa setosa as described here, differs from all the other forms of the Cymadusa filosa group. The differences and similarities are given in detail in the remarks section of this description.

Based on these results C. setosa is taken out of synonymy with C. filosa and for reasons discussed below, a neotype established.

The distributional ranges of the different forms (figure 27) indicate that the short, broad gnathopod 1 form occurs only in the Indian Ocean, whereas the long, narrow gnathopod 1 form has a more wide-spread distribution. Within this latter group there is a large amount of morphological variation which may be geographic, however, more study needs to be done to determine if these different forms are geographic species.

In this paper, I redescribe Cymadusa setosa and establish a neotype.

Haswell's types of Cymadusa setosa are considered to be missing. A note in the collections of the Australian Museum quotes a letter from K. Sheard, May

1951. It states:

40 "It is doubtful whether any of Haswell's actual TYPE

specimens exist. After some years spent endeavouring to

locate them I am certain that material labelled "type"

represents specimens chosen by Haswell from material

resembling the specimen described. I have examined several

notes and letters to Chilton which suggest that the type

specimens were in some cases destroyed by Haswell after

description and in some cases lost in one or other of his

moves."

The description provided by Haswell (1879a) is incomplete and the specimen described was not actually illustrated. The collections were examined and no type material was located. One specimen (AM P3416) was located which was labelled (Springthorpe and Lowry, 1984) as a "possible SYNTYPE". However, there is no evidence to support that this specimen is one of Haswell's types.

The specimen is also in very poor condition. Therefore, a neotype is selected from specimens collected from the type locality (Botany Bay, NSW) and identified by K. Sheard.

Establishing a neotype is necessary for two reasons. First, the original species description was not clear (due to the above reasons). Second, a neotype is required to distinguish these specimens from other highly setose specimens present in Australian waters (eg. Cymadusa aestos), Inda-west

Pacific waters and also forms from elsewhere in the world.

Type Material

41 NEOTYPE, Female, ovigerous, 19 mm, AM P10854; on rocky shores between tide marks, Kurnell, Botany Bay, New South Wales, Australia, 34°00'S

151 °11 'E, F.A. McNeil! and T. Iredale, 27.x.27.

Material examined

Male, 17 mm, AM P10853, on rocky shores between tide marks, Kurnell,

Botany Bay, New South Wales, Australia, 34°00'S 151 °11 'E, F.A. McNeil! and

T. Iredale, 27.x.27; females (4) and males (2), 15-18 mm, AM P10854, on rocky shores between tide marks, Kurnell, Botany Bay, New South Wales, Australia,

34°00'S 151 °11 'E, F.A. McNeil! and T. Iredale, 27.x.27.

Diagnosis

Female. Antenna 1: accessory flagellum present, 2-articulate. Antenna

2: not densely setose on the ventral margin. Gnathopod 1: without densely setose margins; carpal lobe truncate; propodus palm acute, entire; without posterodistal defining tooth. Gnathopod 2: without densely setose margins; propodus broad; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with small subacute posterodistal defining tooth. Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner with small acute tooth.

Male. Antenna 2: with long dense setae on ventral margin. Gnathopod 1: with long dense plumose setae on margins; merus produced acutely, carpal lobe rounded, carpus elongate; propodus palm acute, entire, without posterodistal defining tooth. Gnathopod 2: with long, dense, plumose setae on margins; propodus broad, palm acute, entire, with subquadrate midmedial tooth, with small subacute posterodistal defining tooth.

42 Description

Neotype female, 11.0 mm, AM P10854; male, 10.5 mm, AM P10853.

Head and body: live colour unknown, preserved material pale cream.

Head: longer than deep. Epistome, Upper Lip: angle directed nearly straight down, around 90 degrees. Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2; peduncular article 1 subequal to (1 x) article 2; article 2 longer than (3.9 x) article 3; article

3 shorter than (0.3 x) article 1; accessory flagellum present, 2-articulate.

Antenna 2: slender, similar to antenna 1, not densely setose on ventral margin; peduncle article 4 subequal to article 5; flagellum 49-51 articulate.

Mandible: molar well developed, triturating; palp 3-articulate, stout, long, setose along posterior margin; article 1 shorter than (0.5 x) article 2; article 2 subequal to (1 x) article 3; article 3 longer than (2.1 x) article 1. Upper lip: distally setose, lateral margins each with midlateral notch. Lower lip: outer plate notched, with lateral lobe longer than medial lobe; mandibular lobe with curved margins, rounded apically. Maxilla 1: palp well developed, with apical robust setae. Maxilla 2: inner plate narrow, outer plate broader.

Gnathopod 1: sexually dimorphic; subequal to gnathopod 2; without densely setose margins; coxa subequal to gnathopod 2 coxa; produced anteroventrally, rounded, anterior margin convex or straight, coxa with a setal fringe; carpus, posterior margin lobate, truncated, longer than (1.4 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 1.3 x width; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus subequal in length to palm, inner

43 margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: sexually dimorphic; without densely setose margins; coxa with setal fringe; carpus shorter than (0.8 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.4 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; subequal in length to palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Peraeopod 3: basis narrow; merus narrow. Peraeopod 4: basis similar to peraeopod 3. Peraeopods 5-7: weakly prehensile. Peraeopod 5: slender; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 2 distal robust setae; dactylus strongly curved. Peraeopod 6: slender; basis, posterior margin straight; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus slightly curved.

Peraeopod 7: slender.

Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner with small acute tooth. Uropod 1: peduncle with large, acute distoventral spur; inner ramus slightly longer than outer; position subequal, reaching to the rami of uropod 2. Uropod 2: no laterodistal projection; inner ramus slightly longer than outer. Uropod 3: peduncle longer than (2 x) broad, peduncle long, 2.1 x rami length; rami narrow; outer ramus shorter than inner ramus, with 2 large recurved robust setae, without patch of small conical spines. Te/son: subtriangular distally truncate; apical cusps small.

Male dimorphic characters. Antenna 1: subequal to antenna 2; Antenna

2: with long, dense setae on ventral margin; peduncle article 4 longer than article 5; flagellum 45-47 -articulate. Gnathopod 1: smaller than gnathopod 2;

44 with long, dense, plumose setae on margins; coxa larger than gnathopod 2 coxa; with setal fringe; produced anteroventrally, anteroventral margin rounded, anterior margin convex or straight; carpus, posterior margin lobate, rounded, much longer than (1.9 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length (1.8 x) width; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus overreaching palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: with long, dense, plumose setae on margins; coxa with setal fringe; carpus shorter than (0. 7 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.3 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, with subquadrate midmedial tooth, without seta near inner base of dactylus, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; shorter than palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Remarks

Cymadusa setosa was originally synonymised by Schellenberg (1925) and Shoemaker (1935) Wifu C. filosa Savigny, 1816. The original description of C. filosa is insufficient to compare to C. setosa, therefore

I relied on the description of the first reviewer (Audouin, 1826 ). There is confusion in Audouin's paper about the material illustrated. Two animals are illustrated. The first animal, on which the description is based (see Audouin's form A - Table 2), could be either a female or a male. If it is a female it differs from C. setosa in the structure of gnathopods one and two. In gnathopod 1 of

C. setosa the merus is acutely produced ( C. filosa is blunt); the carpus is longer

45 and ovate rather than short and subtriangular ( C. filosa Audouin, 1826), and

the coxa of gnathopod 1 is larger in C. setosa than in C. fi/osa. Gnatl10pod 2 is

more similar, however, the coxa is larger in C. setosa than in C. filosa, and the

carpus and propodus are longer in C. setosa than in C. fi/osa.

If the specimen documented as form A by Audouin ( 1826) is a male than

it differs greatly from the current specimen. The main differences are the

structure of the gnathopods. The C. setosa specimens have a greatly

elongated gnathopod 1, and gnathopod 2 is more robust. Whereas, in C. filosa

(form A) gnathopod 1 is short and stout and gnathopod 2 is less developed. If form 8 in Audouin's paper is a male, it is more similar to C. setosa as

documented here. It has a slightly more elongated gnathopod 1, however it is

not as elongated as that in C. setosa. In C. setosa gnathopod 1, the basis is

longer, the carpus and merus are longer and the merus is produced in a sharp

angle. The propodus is of a similar shape in both species. In gnathopod 2 of C.

setosa the propodus is more developed and has a subquadrate midmedial

tooth, the basis is also longer than in form B.

Cymadusa setosa as defined in this paper is similar to Grubia hirsuta (as

described by Chevreux, 1900, and is synonymised into the Cymadusa fi/osa

complex), however, there are a number of differences. These include

gnathopod 1, which is less setose, the carpus is shorter, the basis is shorter

and the propodus is subquadrate in shape (G. hirsuta). Gnathopod 2 of G.

hirsuta has a larger coxa and has no midmedial tooth on the palm. The

similarities are that gnathopod 1 is elongated in form and the merus is also

produced acutely. Gnathopod 2 is in a similar shape in both species.

46 Cymadusa setosa has more differences than similarities with Grubia microphthalma (Chevreux, 1901 and also placed in the Cymadusa filosa synonymy). These differences are that in C. microphthalma the gnathopod 1 coxa is larger and not setose, the basis is shorter, the merus is not acutely produced, the carpus is shorter and more robust. Gnathopod 2 is not as setose, the basis is shorter, the merus is longer, the carpal lobe is subacute and the propodus is subquadrate and does not have the midmedial tooth on the palm.

Grubia longicornis Walker and Scott, 1903 was also placed in the

Cymadusa filosa synonymy by Schellenberg (1925) and Shoemaker (1935). It has a number of differences with Cymadusa setosa and not many similarities.

These differences are that Grubia longicornis gnathopod 1 has a larger coxa, a shorter basis, a merus not produced acutely, the carpus is very short and robust, and the propodus is subquadrate. Gnathopod 2 has a larger coxa, a shorter basis, the propodus is subquadrate and is without the midmedial tooth on the palm.

Another synonym of the Cymadusa fi/osa complex is Grubia coei Kunkel,

1910. It is similar to Cymadusa setosa in that it has an elongated gnathopod 1 and a robust gnathopod 2. However, the differences include gnathopod 1 having a shorter basis and carpus and gnathopod 2 missing the midmedial tooth on the palm and the propodus is not as developed as in C. setosa.

Grubia compta Pearse, 1912 is also similar to Cymadusa setosa, however, in the description and illustrations presented the author named what appears to be the gnathopod 1 as gnathopod 2 and vice versa. If this is the

47 case this species is similar to Grubia coei Kunkel, 1910 and has the same

documented differences as that species.

Shoemaker (1935) presented a list of the then known synonymies of

Cymadusa filosa. Cymadusa setosa differs from the C. filosa of Shoemaker's

(1935) illustrated species from Puerto Rico, in that gnathopod 1 carpus and basis are longer ( C. setosa) and the gnathopod 2 has a longer basis and has a midmedial tooth on the palm ( C. setosa).

Cymadusa setosa described here is similar to Cymadusa filosa of J.L.

Barnard (1955) from the Hawaiian Islands. Cymadusa filosa differs in that

gnathopod 1 has a larger coxa, which is less setose, the basis is shorter, the

merus is poorly produced and is short and the carpus is shorter. Gnathopod 2

has a larger coxa, also poorly setose, the basis is shorter and there is no palm

defining tooth on the propodus.

Cymadusa setosa is also very similar to the Cymadusa filosa of

Rabindranath (1972). This species has a greatly elongated gnathopod 1 with

the differences of this species having a slightly shorter carpus, and more acute

merus projection. Gnathopod 1 is also more setose in Rabindrinath's

specimens. Gnathopod 2 is also very similar, the midmedial tooth is present but

not subquadrate.

Krapp-Schickel ( 1982) documented what may be the real Cymadusa

filosa in the monograph of Mediterranean Sea Amphipods. This form differs

from Cymadusa setosa by having gnathopod 1 with a shorter basis and carpus

and a larger coxa. The gnathopod 2 differs in that the midmedial tooth on the

palm is missing and it also has a shorter basis.

48 Ledoyer ( 1982, 1984) documented several different forms of Cymadusa

filosa. None of these forms coincide with the present species. However, the

closest are form C of the 1982 paper and form B of the 1984 paper. Both forms

differ from Cymadusa setosa by having gnathopod 1 with a larger coxa and a

shorter basis and carpus. The gnathopod 2 both have a reduced midmedial tooth on the palm and a shorter basis. Lyons and Myers (1990) also

documented a form of Cymadusa filosa however, only a female was

documented so it is difficult to determine into which group it falls.

The only other specimens documented from Australian waters as

Cymadusa setosa are by Tatersall (1922) which have turned out to be

Cymadusa aestos sp. nov.. All of this material was collected from the west

coast of Australia (Indian Ocean). They differ from Cymadusa setosa (sensu

stricta) by gnathopod 1 being densely setose, having a larger coxa, a shorter

basis, a merus not produced acutely, a short, expanded carpus and a more

robust propodus. Gnathopod 2 differs in that the basis is shorter and the

propodus has a more acute palm angle which does not possess a midmedial

tooth.

In future study a neotype for Cymadusa filosa Savigny, 1816 needs to be

established and the species within the complex need to be reassessed. By the

character differences documented here, Cymadusa setosa is therefore

reestablished as an independent species which stands apart from Cymadusa

filosa and its associated species.

Habitat

49 From rocky shores between tide marks.

Distribution

Botany Bay, New South Wales, east coast of Australia (Tasman Sea).

50 g Cl 0 <"l

■ ..

'C 0 ! _g .. ~ D 10 -C Cl t: ' 0 .c. (/) C ::~ -~~ ~ "' - '\ ~!!~ D . 8

i,i II) 0 ~ () ea II) - -§ . 0 e G * C/1 E... e .E .E.... 0 C: 0 C ; J ::, 10 .c -C ·.:: Cl Cl c-C/1 .2 i

51 and

Red

South

Australia

Sea

Syria

Ocean.

Islands,

Sokotra,

Sea

New

Ocean

and

Sea)

Red

(Mediterranean

Bay,

Indian

eastern

Indian

Atlantic

DISTRIBUTION

Egypt

Seychelles

(Mediterrean

north

Abd-el-kuri,

Egypt

Mediterranean

Botany

Wales,

forms

(male)

illustrated

documented

not

gnathopod

GNATHOPOD

species

(male)

and

lato

illustrated

documented

not

sensu

GNATHOPOD

fi/osa

filosa

NAME

setosa

hirsuta

Cymadusa

/ongicomis

Kossmann)

Grubia

microphthalma

Cymadusa

(non

Amphithoe

ORIGINAL Grubia

I I

Summary

1901

1900b

YEAR

1826

1816

Scott,

1879a

1903

Savigny,

Audouin,

Haswell,

Chevreux,

Walker

AUTHOR,

Chevreux,

Table

N of

Ocean

Gulf

Caribbean

Islands,

Australia, Ocean.

Sea

Sea.

Mediterranean

Atlantic

Rico,

Indian

Florida

Abrolhos

Western

Bermuda.Caribbean

France,

Mexico,

Puerto

illustrated

not

illustrated

not

coei

fi/osa fi/osa

setosa

hirsuta

compta

Grubia

1925

1935

Fage,

1922

1910

1912

(Continued)

1925

Kunkel,

Pearse,

Tattersall,

Shoemaker,

Chevreux

Schellenberg,

Table

w Brazil,

Brazil,

northern

Islands,

Ocean.

India,

Janeiro,

Indian

Atlantic Pacific

Atlantic

Hawaiian

Rio

southern

fi/osa

sardenta

Amphithoe

brasiliensis

Grubia

Cymadusa

1972

1955

1953

(Continued)

Barnard,

Oliveira,

J.L.

Table

Rabindranath,

.:,. Sea

Indian

northern

Ocean.

India,

Ocean

Indian

Mediterranean

Madagascar,

southern

,....,.._.

t:"~

,I//

~//f;/f''"

-/fk''" --

,~•

,/'

J-~-

,...;:..;,:;..

111t;f*r~;-)_::.

~·-,::;;

'tP'(

''\:

,~_..-:

/,1.-~·

(

-~-

/t',l..

/:~

(

1.,,

,:,,_

\;-:-~,

~j/

--,

-~\ L.J:

(

-...... _---,

••

""'

·,11

.,/

.::..cc-

'-;'i\.W1~,/l"'/f

,-L___,,

fi/osa

imbroglio

Cymadusa

1972

1982

(Continued)

2--=- 1982

Ledoyer,

Krapp-Schickel,

Rabindranath,

Table

u, u, Pacific

Sea.

Ocean

Red

Caledonia,

New

'<\'"

~VII'''

ii((

0fl

-,...._

(

filosa

Cymadusa

1990

1984

(Continued)

Myers,

Ledoyer,

Table

Lyons

(JI a> east

Ocean.

Sound,

Ocean.

Wales,

Australia,

Indian

South

Pacific

Cockburn

coast

Western

New

Australia,

sp.

setosa

nov.

aestos

Cymadusa

1997

(Continued)

(thesis),

Evans

Table

Evans

(J'I

--.J Exampithoe (Melanesius) K. H. Barnard

Exampithoe K.H. Barnard, 1925: 363 --Barnard and Karaman, 1991:105 -

Poore and Lowry, 1997: 23.

Exampithoe (Melanesius) eck/onico/a sp. nov.

Figs 28-30

Type Material

HOLOTYPE, Female, ovigerous, 12.0 mm. AM P51271, 5 m depth, in

Ecklonia radiata canopies, Cape Banks, New South Wales, Australia, 34°00'S

151°14'E, N. Gallahar, 20.i.96, PARATYPES, Male, 14.0 mm. AM P51272, 5 m depth, in Ecklonia radiata canopies, Cape Banks, New South Wales, Australia,

34°00'S 151°14'E, N. Gallahar, 20.1.96; females and males, 10-12 mm, AM

P51273, in Ecklonia radiata canopies, Cape Banks, New South Wales,

Australia, 34°00'S 151°14'E, N. Gallahar, 14.xii.93.

Diagnosis

Female: Antenna 1: accessory flagellum absent. Mandible: molar reduced; palp absent. Lower lip: outer lobes entire, not notched. Coxae: short.

Gnathopod 2: propodus with rounded midmedial tooth on palm.

58 Male: Gnathopod 1: long, carpus longer than propodus. Gnathopod 2: long, carpus longer than propodus.

Description

Holoype female, 12.0 mm, AM P51271; paratype male, 14.0 mm, AM

P51272.

Head and body: Preserved colour is cream, live colour is unknown.

Head: longer than deep. Epistome, Upper Lip: angle directed nearly straight down, around 90 degrees. Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2; peduncular article 1 longer than (1.3 x) article 2; article 2 longer than (2 x) article 3; article

3 shorter than (0.4 x) article 1; accessory flagellum absent. Antenna 2: slender, similar to antenna 1, not densely setose on ventral margin; peduncle article 4 subequal to article 5; flagellum 19-21 articulate.

Mandible: molar reduced; palp absent. Upper lip: distally setose, lateral margins each with midlateral notch. Lower lip: outer plate entire; mandibular lobe with curved margins, subacute apically. Maxilla 1: palp well developed, with apical robust setae. Maxilla 2: inner and outer plates narrow. Coxae: short.

Gnathopod 1: sexually dimorphic; subequal to gnathopod 2; without densely setose margins; coxa subequal to gnathopod 2 coxa; without setal fringe; not produced anteroventrally; carpus, posterior margin not lobate, rounded, subequal to ( 1 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 2.1 x width; palm acute, convex, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus subequal in length to palm, inner margin smooth. Gnathopod 2: sexually dimorphic;

59 without densely setose margins; coxa without setal fringe; carpus subequal to

( 1. 1 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 2 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, with rounded midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; subequal in length to palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin smooth.

Peraeopod 3: basis expanded; merus anteriorly expanded. Peraeopod 4: basis similar to peraeopod 3. Peraeopods 5-7: weakly prehensile. Peraeopod

5: slender; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 4 distal robust setae; dactylus hooked. Peraeopod 6: slender; basis, posterior margin straight; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus strongly curved. Peraeopod 7: slender.

Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner broadly rounded. Uropod 1: peduncle with distoventral spur vestigial or absent; rami subequal in length; subequal, reaching to the rami of uropod 2. Uropod 2: no laterodistal projection; inner ramus slightly longer than outer. Uropod 3: peduncle longer than (1.9 x) broad, peduncle long, 3.6 x rami length; rami broad; outer ramus longer than inner ramus, with 2 large recurved robust setae, with patch of small conical spines.

Te/son: subtriangular distally rounded; apical cusps small.

Male dimorphic characters. Gnathopod 1: carpus, posterior margin not lobate, rounded, longer than (1.2 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 2.4 x width; palm acute, convex, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus subequal in length to palm, inner margin smooth. Gnathopod 2: carpus longer

60 than (1.2 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 2.6 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, with rounded midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; overreaching palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin smooth.

Etymology

This species is named for the algal species (Ecklonia radiata) in which it lives.

Remarks

Exampithoe ecklonicola is very different from any known species of

Exampithoe (Melanesius). It has greatly elongated gnathopods, and a rounded midmedial tooth on the palms of gnathopod 2.

Habitat

Living in the canopy of the brown macroalga Ecklonia radiata in 5 m depth.

Distribution

Cape Banks, New South Wales, east coast of Australia (Tasman Sea).

61 Paragrubia Chevreux, 1901

Paragrubia Chevreux, 1901 a: 426 - Stebbing, 1906: 739 - J. L. Barnard, 1969c:

144 - Barnard and Karaman, 1991: 107 - Poore and Lowry, 1997:pp.

Paragrubia edgari sp. nov.

Figs 31-34

Type Material

HOLOTYPE, Female, ovigerous, 10.0 mm. AM P51258, 1 m, on

Sargassum sp., Cape Cleveland, Queensland, Australia, 19°11'S 147°01'E, G.

Edgar, 24.vii.96. PARATYPES, Male, 11.0 mm. AM P51259, juvenile, 4 mm,

AM P51260, 1 m, on Sargassum sp., Cape Cleveland, Queensland, Australia,

19°11'S 147°01'E, G. Edgar, 24.vii.96

Diagnosis

Female: Antenna 1: accessory flagellum present, 5- articulate. Antenna

2: slender, similar to antenna 1. Gnathopod 1: as large as gnathopod 2; palm acute, convex. Uropod 1: large, acute distroventral spur present on peduncle.

Male: Gnathopod 1: larger than gnathopod 2; coxa anteroventral corner has a subacute tooth.

62 Description

Holotype female, 10.0 mm, AM P51258; paratype male, 11.0 mm, AM

P51259.

Head and body: Preserved specimens are cream in colour and have a prominent black eye. Colour of live specimens is unknown. Head: as long as deep. Epistome, Upper Lip: angle directed nearly straight down, around 90 degrees. Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2; peduncular article 1 subequal to

(1.1 x) article 2; article 2 longer than (4.7 x) article 3; article 3 shorter than (0.2 x) article 1; accessory flagellum present, 5-articulate. Antenna 2: slender, similar to antenna 1, not densely setose on ventral margin; peduncle article 4 longer than article 5; flagellum 23-25 articulate.

Mandible: molar well developed, triturating; palp 3-articulate, slender, long, apically setose; article 1 shorter than (0.8 x) article 2; article 2 subequal to (1 x) article 3; article 3 longer than (1.3 x) article 1. Upper lip: distally setose, lateral margins each with midlateral notch. Lower lip: outer plate notched, with medial and lateral lobes equal in size; mandibular lobe with curved margins, rounded apically. Maxilla 1: palp well developed, with apical robust setae.

Maxilla 2: inner plate narrow, outer plate broader.

63 posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus subequal in length to palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: sexually dimorphic; without densely setose margins; coxa with setal fringe; carpus subequal to (0. 9 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 1.5 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; subequal in length to palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Peraeopod 3: basis narrow; merus narrow. Peraeopod 4: basis similar to peraeopod 3. Peraeopods 5-7: weakly prehensile. Peraeopod 5: slender; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus strongly curved. Peraeopod 6: slender; basis, posterior margin straight; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus slightly curved.

Peraeopod 7: slender.

Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner narrowly rounded. Uropod 1: peduncle with large, acute distoventral spur; inner ramus slightly longer than outer; position subequal, reaching to the rami of uropod 2. Uropod 2: no laterodistal projection; inner ramus slightly longer than outer. Uropod 3: peduncle longer than (1.7 x) broad, peduncle short, 1.5 x rami length; rami narrow; outer ramus, subequal to inner ramus; with 1+ small or straight or weakly curved robust setae, without patch of small conical spines. Te/son: subtriangular distally rounded; apical cusps small.

Male dimorphic characters. Gnathopod 1: larger or stouter than gnathopod 2; without densely setose margins; coxa subequal to gnathopod 2 coxa; with setal fringe; produced anteroventrally, with a subacute tooth, anterior

64 margin concave; carpus, posterior margin lobate, truncated, shorter than (0. 7 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1. 3 x width; palm acute, excavate, without midmedial tooth, with posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus subequal in length to palm. Gnathopod 2: carpus subequal to (0.9 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 1.5 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus subequal in length to palm, tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Etymology

This species is named after Graeme Edgar who generously donated this and other study material for this project.

Remarks

Paragrubia edgari is similar to Paragrubia vorax, however, the gnathopod 1 palm is more excavate. There are also a number of other differences, including gnathopod 1 coxa (P. edgari, has an anteroventral subacute tooth; P. vorax margin is rounded) and gnathopod 1 carpus shape (P. edgari, margin is truncated; P. vorax,margin is rounded). Also, epimeron 3 of

Paragrubia edgari has a rounded margin whereas the epimeron 3 of Paragrubia vorax has a small posteroventral acute tooth. Uropod 3 rami also have slightly different forms.

Cymadusa variata as recorded by Sheard ( 1936) from South Australia, appears to be a species of the genus Paragrubia (Poore and Lowry, 1997).

65 There are a number of differences including the structure of both gnathopods.

In Paragrubia edgari gnathopod 1 is larger than gnathopod 2 and is excavate and has a posterodistal defining tooth. Gnathopod 1 of Cymadusa variata is smaller than gnathopod 2 and has an entire palm without a defining tooth.

Gnathopod 2 however has these features.

The other main differences are that the lower lip of Cymadusa variata has notched outer lobes with the lateral lobes being larger than the medial lobes, however in Paragrubia edgari the lower lip outer lobe is weakly notched with the medial and lateral lobes being of a equal size. Also, in Cymadusa variata the plates of maxilla 2 are of a similar size and are narrow, however, in

Paragrubia edgari the outer plate is broader than the inner plate. This indicates that these two species are distinct from each other.

Habitat

Living in Sargassum sp.

Distribution

Cape Cleveland, Queensland, east coast of Australia.

Pseudopleonexes Hurley, 1954

Pseudopleonexes Hurley, 1954; Barnard and Karaman, 1991; 107; Poore and

Lowry, 1997: pp.

66 This record is the first for this genus in Australian waters.

Pseudopleonexes nexis sp. nov.

Figs 35-38

Type Material

HOLOTYPE, female, ovigerous, 8.0 mm. AM P51281, 5 m, in Ecklonia radiata canopies, Cape Banks, New South Wales, Australia, 34°00'S 151 °14'E,

N. Gallahar, 21.xii.93, PARATYPES, male, 7.0 mm. AM P51279, 5 m, in

Ecklonia radiata canopies, Cape Banks, New South Wales, Australia, 34°00'S

151°14'E, N. Gallahar, 20.i.96; male, 7.0 mm, AM P51280, 5 m, in Ecklonia radiata canopies, Cape Banks, New South Wales, Australia, 34°00'S 151°14'E,

N. Gallahar, 20.i.96.

Additional Material Examined

Male and females, 6-8 mm, AM P45462, Cape Banks, New South

Wales, Australia, 34°00'S 151 °14'E, N. Gallahar, 20.i.96.

Diagnosis

Female: Antenna 1: shorter than antenna 2, accessory flagellum absent.

Epistome and Upper lip: angle directed backwards, at more than 45 degrees.

Gnathopod 1: propodus transverse palm. Peraeopods 5-7: strongly prehensile.

Uropod 1: position short, reaching to half of peduncle of uropod 2. Uropod 2:

67 without laterodistal peduncular process. Te/son: distal cusps enlarged into hooks.

Male: Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2. Gnathopod 1: smaller than gnathopod 2; carpus rounded. Gnathopod 2: long dense setae on margins.

Uropod 2: with laterodistal peduncular process.

Description

Holotype female, 8.0 mm, AM P51281; paratype male, 7.0 mm, AM

P51279.

Head and body: Preserved colour is cream, colour of live material is unknown. Head: longer than deep. Epistome, Upper Lip: angle directed backwards, at more than 45 degrees. Antenna 1: shorter than antenna 2; peduncular article 1 longer than (1.4 x) article 2; article 2 longer than (2.6 x) article 3; article 3 shorter than (0.3 x) article 1; accessory flagellum absent.

Antenna 2: slender, similar to antenna 1, not densely setose on ventral margin; peduncle article 4 subequal to article 5; flagellum 12-14 -articulate.

Mandible: molar well developed, triturating; palp 3-articulate, slender, long, apically setose; article 1 shorter than (0.8 x) article 2; article 2 longer than

(1.2 x) article 3; article 3 subequal to (1 x) article 1. Upper lip: distally setose, lateral margins each with midlateral notch. Lower lip: outer plate notched, with medial and lateral lobes equal in size; mandibular lobe with curved margins, subacute apically. Maxilla 1: palp reduced, with apical slender setae. Maxilla 2: inner plate narrow, outer plate broader.

68 Gnathopod 1: sexually dimorphic; smaller than gnathopod 2; without

densely setose margins; coxa smaller than gnathopod 2 coxa; without setal fringe; not produced anteroventrally; carpus, posterior margin not lobate, rounded, shorter than (0. 9 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 2.1 x width; palm transverse or nearly so, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus overreaching palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: sexually

dimorphic; without densely setose margins; coxa without setal fringe; carpus

shorter than (0. 7 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.2 x width, not produced

into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with small subacute

posterodistal tooth defining palm; overreaching palm, dactylus tapering evenly,

acute, inner margin rugose.

Peraeopod 3: basis expanded; merus anteriorly expanded. Peraeopod 4:

basis similar to peraeopod 3. Peraeopods 5-7: strongly prehensile. Peraeopod

5: broad; propodus strongly expanded distally, with 4 distal robust setae;

dactylus hooked. Peraeopod 6: slender; basis, posterior margin rounded

proximally, straight distally; propodus strongly expanded distally, with 3 distal

robust setae; dactylus strongly curved. Peraeopod 7: slender.

Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner broadly rounded. Uropod 1: peduncle

with distoventral spur vestigial or absent; rami subequal in length; peduncle

short, reaching to the middle of the peduncle of uropod 2. Uropod 2: broad,

rounded laterodistal projection; rami subequal in length. Uropod 3: peduncle

longer than (1.5 x) broad, peduncle long, 4 x rami length; rami broad; outer

69 ramus subequal to inner ramus, with 2 large recurved robust setae, with patch of small conical spines. Te/son: subtriangular distally truncate; apical cusps expanded into large hooks.

Male dimorphic characters. Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2; peduncular article 1 longer than ( 1. 3 x) article 2; article 2 longer than (2.4 x) article 3; article 3 shorter than (0.3 x) article 1. Antenna 2: peduncle article 4 shorter than article 5; flagellum 13-15 -articulate. Gnathopod 1: smaller than gnathopod 2; without densely setose margins; coxa smaller than gnathopod 2 coxa; without setal fringe; not produced anteroventrally; carpus, posterior margin not lobate, rounded, subequal to (1 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 2.2 x width; palm transverse or nearly so, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus overreaching palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: sexually dimorphic; with long, dense, plumose setae on margins; coxa without setal fringe; carpus shorter than (0. 7 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.2 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; subequal in length to palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Etymology

This name is from the latin for to swim.

70 Remarks

Pseudopleonexes nexis. sp. nov. is similar to Pseudopleonexes

/essoniae (Hurley, 1954 ). It differs from this species in the structure of antenna two (P. nexis has a slender antenna 2, whereas P. lessoniae has a robust antenna 2). It also differs in the structure of the gnathopods. In

Pseudopleonexes nexis gnathopod 1 is sexually dimorphic and the carpus has a rounded lobe. However, in Pseudopleonexes lessoniae gnathopod 1 is not sexually dimorphic and the carpus is not lobate and the posterior margin is straight. Peraeopods 5-7 also increase in length, in Pseudopleonexes nexis, with peraeopod 7 being the longest.

Habitat

Living in the canopy of the brown macroalgae Ecklonia radiata in 5 m depth.

Distribution

Cape Banks, New South Wales, east coast of Australia (Tasman Sea).

Sunamphitoe Chevreux and Fage, 1925

Sunamphitoe Chevreux and Fage, 1925; Poore and Lowry, 1997

71 Sunamphitoe angrox sp. nov.

Figs 39-41

Type Material

HOLOTYPE, male, 8.0 mm. AM P51277, 5 m, in Ecklonia radiata canopies, Cape Banks, New South Wales, Australia, 34°00'S 151°14'E, N.

Gallahar, 11. i. 94

Additional Material Examined

Many specimens (males and females}, 2.0-8.0 mm, AM P51278, station data unknown, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia, 34°26'8 150°53'E,

Mila S, 1996.

Diagnosis

Male: Antenna 1: accessory flagellum absent; Mandible: palp absent.

Gnathopod 1: smaller than gnathopod 2, palm transverse, Gnathopod 2: palm transverse. Peraeopods 3-4: basis expanded; merus produced anteriorly.

Uropod 1: distroventral peduncular spur long, acute.

Description

Holotype male, 8.0 mm, AM P51277, female, undescribed.

Head and body: Preserved material is cream, colour of fresh material is unknown. Head: as long as deep. Epistome, Upper Lip: angle directed nearly straight down, around 90 degrees. Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2;

72 peduncular article 1 longer than (1.6 x) article 2; article 2 longer than (2.3 x) article 3; article 3 shorter than (0.3 x) article 1; accessory flagellum absent.

Antenna 2: robust, better developed than antenna 1 , not densely setose on ventral margin; peduncle article 4 longer than article 5; flagellum 8-1 0 - articulate.

Mandible: molar well developed, triturating; palp absent. Upper lip: distally setose, lateral margins each with midlateral notch. Lower lip: outer plate notched, with medial and lateral lobes equal in size; mandibular lobe with curved margins, subacute apically. Maxilla 1: palp well developed, with apical robust setae. Maxilla 2: inner and outer plates narrow.

Gnathopod 1: sexually dimorphic; smaller than gnathopod 2; without densely setose margins; coxa smaller than gnathopod 2 coxa; with setal fringe; not produced anteroventrally; carpus, posterior margin not lobate, rounded, shorter than (0.8 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 2 x width; palm transverse or nearly so, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus overreaching palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: sexually dimorphic; without densely setose margins; coxa with setal fringe; carpus much shorter than (0.5 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.4 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm transverse or nearly so, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; overreaching palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

73 Peraeopod 3: basis expanded; merus anteriorly expanded. Peraeopod 4:

basis similar to peraeopod 3. Peraeopods 5-7: weakly prehensile. Peraeopod

5: broad; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae;

dactylus hooked. Peraeopod 6: slender; basis, posterior margin rounded;

propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus strongly

curved. Peraeopod 7: slender.

Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner broadly rounded. Uropod 1: peduncle with large, acute distoventral spur; inner ramus slightly longer than outer;

position subequal, reaching to the rami of uropod 2. Uropod 2: no laterodistal

projection; inner ramus slightly longer than outer. Uropod 3: peduncle longer

than ( 1 .4 x) broad, peduncle long, 2. 1 x rami length; rami broad;, outer ramus,

longer than inner ramus; with 2 large recurved robust setae, with patch of small

conical spines. Te/son: subtriangular distally truncate; apical cusps small.

Etymology

As this species is similar to Sunamphitoe graxon the letters of the name

were combined to form an anagram.

Remarks

Sunamphitoe angrox sp. nov. is similar to Sunamphitoe graxon,

Freewater and Lowry, 1994. The main difference is the structure of gnathopod

2. Sunamphitoe angrox has a transverse palm, which is a similar shape to

gnathopod 1, however, it is broader and more robust than gnathopod 1.

74 Compared to Sunamphitoe graxon, however, the propodus is less enlarged and quite narrow.

Habitat

Living in the canopy of the brown macroalgae Ecklonia radiata at 5 m depth.

Distribution

Cape Banks and Wollongong, New South Wales, east coast of Australia.

Sunamphitoe fantome sp. nov.

Figs 42-44

Type Material

HOLOTYPE, female, ovigerous, 7.0 mm. AM P51261, low water mark, on Sargassum sp. Fantome Island, Queensland, Australia, 18°40'S 146°31'E,

G. Edgar, 18.vii.96. PARATYPES, male, 5.0 mm. AM P51262, male, 4.0 mm.

AM P51263, males (2) and female (1 ), 3-4 mm, AM P51264, low water mark, on

Sargassum sp. Fantome Island, Queensland, Australia, 18°40'S 146°31'E, G.

Edgar, 18. vii. 96.

Diagnosis

75 Female: Antenna 1: accessory flagellum absent. Mandible: palp absent.

Gnathopod 1: palm transverse. Gnathopod 2: palm transverse, dactyl us rugose. Peraeopods 3-4: basis expanded; merus produced anteriorly. Uropod

1: distroventral peduncular spur long, acute.

Male: Antenna 2: peduncular article 4 longer than article 5. Lower Lip: medial and lateral lobes equal in size. Gnathopod 2: palm extremely acute, no midmedial tooth.

Description

Holotype female, 7.0 mm, AM P51261; paratype male, 5.0 mm, AM

P51262; male, 4.0 mm, AM P51263). Head and body: Preserved specimens are cream or white in colour. The enlarged gnathopods on the males are a calcified white. Head: as long as deep. Epistome, Upper Lip: angle directed nearly straight down, around 90 degrees. Antenna 1: longer than antenna 2; peduncular article 1 subequal to (1.1 x) article 2; article 2 longer than (3.5 x) article 3; article 3 shorter than (0.3 x) article 1; accessory flagellum absent.

Antenna 2: robust, better developed than antenna 1, not densely setose on ventral margin.

76 Gnathopod 1: sexually dimorphic; subequal to gnathopod 2; without densely setose margins; coxa smaller than gnathopod 2 coxa; with setal fringe; not produced anteroventrally; carpus, posterior margin not lobate, rounded, subequal to ( 1 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 1. 7 x width; palm transverse or nearly so, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus overreaching palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: sexually dimorphic; without densely setose margins; coxa with setal fringe; carpus shorter than (0.8 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.4 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm transverse or nearly so, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; overreaching palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin rugose.

Peraeopod 3: basis expanded; merus anteriorly expanded. Peraeopod 4: basis similar to peraeopod 3. Peraeopods 5-7: weakly prehensile. Peraeopod

5: broad; propodus slightly expanded distally, with 3 distal robust setae; dactylus hooked.

Epimeron 3: posteroventral corner narrowly rounded. Uropod 1: peduncle with large, acute distoventral spur; inner ramus slightly longer than outer; position subequal, reaching to the rami of uropod 2. Uropod 2: no laterodistal projection; inner ramus slightly longer than outer. Uropod 3: peduncle longer than (1.6 x) broad, peduncle long, 2.4 x rami length; rami broad;, outer ramus, shorter than inner ramus; with 2 large recurved robust setae, with patch of small conical spines.

77 Male dimorphic characters. Large male: Antenna 2: peduncle article 4 longer than article 5; flagellum 10-12 -articulate. Gnathopod 1: smaller than gnathopod 2; without densely setose margins; coxa smaller than gnathopod 2 coxa; with setal fringe; not produced anteroventrally; carpus, posterior margin not lobate, rounded, subequal to ( 1 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 1. 3 x width; palm transverse or nearly so, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus overreaching palm, inner margin rugose. Gnathopod 2: without densely setose margins; coxa with setal fringe; carpus much shorter than (0.3 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.4 x width, not produced into an anterodistally setose lobe; palm extremely acute, entire, without midmedial tooth, with a single robust setae near inner base of dactylus, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; subequal in length to palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin smooth.

Small male: Gnathopod 1: smaller than gnathopod 2; carpus, posterior margin not lobate, rounded, subequal to (1 x) propodus; propodus narrow, length 1.6 x width; palm transverse or nearly so, entire, without midmedial tooth, without posterodistal tooth defining palm; dactylus overreaching palm. Gnathopod 2: carpus much shorter than (0.4 x) propodus; propodus broad, length 1.4 x width; palm extremely acute, entire, with rounded midmedial tooth, with small subacute posterodistal tooth defining palm; overreaching palm, dactylus tapering evenly, acute, inner margin smooth.

Etymology

78 This species is named from Fantome Island, which is the type locality.

Remarks

Sunamphitoe fantome sp. nov. is similar to Sunamphitoe pelagica

(Milne-Edwards, 1830). The main difference is in the structure of gnathopod 2, which has no midmedial tooth. A few other subtle characters differ these two species. These include the length to depth of the head ( S. fantome, as long as deep; S. pelagica, longer than deep); antenna 2 development (S. fantome, robust better developed than antenna 1; S. pelagica, slender, similar to antenna 1 ); gnathopod 1 carpus posterior margin ( S. fantome, rounded; S. pelagica, truncated).

Habitat

Living on Sargassum sp.

Distribution

Fantome Island, Queensland, east coast of Australia.

79 DISCUSSION

Generic Distributions

Poore and Lowry (1997) and the present study show that Australian ampithoid amphipods form a major component of the world ampithoid fauna. All the major wide-spread genera of this family are now represented in Australian waters (figure 45). Only some of the more specialised and smaller genera

(such as Pseudoamphithoides ) are missing. Genera such as these have restricted geographic ranges ( t•j· G.rib'cit4w-. Sett.

• figure 45) and will probably never be recorded from Australian waters.

The generic composition in southern hemisphere waters tends to be different that of the global fauna. In the family Ampithoidae (around

120 species) about half of the taxa are of the genus Ampithoe. The next largest genus, Cymadusa, has about a third the number of species as Ampithoe.

However, in the southern hemisphere especially in Australian waters, the ratio of Ampithoe species to Cymadusa species is about one to one. There appears to be no obvious explanation for this phenonomen, but it possible that as more of the southern hemisphere fauna is documented, a more convential ratio will result.

The differences in the southern hemisphere fauna may be the result of a specific gondwanan element in the fauna. For instance, Exampithoe is known only from New Caledonia, Australia, Madagascar and South Africa.

Pseudopleonexes is currently confined to Australian and New Zealand waters

80 and Plumithoe is currently known from Madagascar, Australia, Fiji and New

Caledonia. It appears that the southern hemisphere ampithoid fauna has

81 0 0 "'

> II) :> * 0 ~ ~ =!::: ~ "§. .§,II) E ~ ~ :> ! Cl)

• II) Q) ~ 0 Qj ,s 2 1 -a. J IU .g .,~ ij1 i er ' . q C 1 " ~::-'i?•h A ~ IU 0 !g § -':pg ~ IU -ae [ IU (,) .g :> Q) ~ " • Q) Q) 0 § ~ ~ ...~ 1 Cl) it C: "' Cl) Cl 0 - < C: 111> 0 IU Q) ;: 0 :::s .c ~ -c::~ ·;:: ~ -II) ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ --- "' ~

+ 0 I ~ ~ ~ 0 2 § OI -a ~ E ~ "'

82 undergone an independent evolutionary and biogeographical developement.

Further study of the Gondwanan fauna will show the strength of the gondwanan distributions.

Species Diversity

Twenty four species have now been recorded from Australian waters.

This number already represents a significant proportion (one/sixth) of the world fauna. Of these twenty four species about twenty of them have been recorded from southeastern Australia, from Coffs Harbour southwards to Tasmania. I estimate that there are probably at least eighty species of ampithoid amphipods in Australian waters.

The majority of known Australian species have been collected from south of Coffs Harbour which ranges from temperate to cold waters. However, ampithoid amphipods are generally considered to be more diverse in tropical to warm temperate waters. I would expect at least as many species in the north east of Australia as are known in the southeast. Berents (1975) has shown that the melitid fauna of the northern Great Barrier Reef is almost completely different to the fauna of southeastern Australia. It is reasonable to assume that this will also be true for the ampithoid fauna. I estimate that there is at least 20 -

30 species of ampithoids occur in north-eastern to north-western Australia.

Therefore I expect there are at least 50 species of ampithoid amphipods from eastern Australia.

From the little that is known about the ampithoid fauna of western

Australia (Just, pers. comm., Evans pers. abs.) there appears to be little

83 overlap between the areas. Therefore diversity of the western ampithoid fauna is assumed to be similar to the diversity of the eastern fauna. Consequently, I estimate that there are at least 80 species of ampithoid amphipods in

Australian waters.

If this estimate holds true it would make Australian waters the most diverse area for ampithoid amphipods in the world. The coast of North America is usually considered a comparable area in terms of diversity and abundance to

Australian waters (Lowry pers comm.). This area currently has about 40 ampithoid species known from its coast-line. Another area similar in terms of diversity, is Southern Africa and Madagascar, which has around 20 ampithoid species known from that region. This large Australian species diversity has large implications for future taxonomic, ecological and conservation studies.

Conservation

In Australian shallow waters, brown algae and their associated flora and fauna form large communities which dominate the coast line. Of these brown algal communities, those associated with Sargassum sp. Are among the best represented on the Australian coast line. Also, in sheltered embayments there are large seagrass communities. Within the brown algal and seagrass communities, amphipods and in particular, ampithoid amphipods form one of the dominant family level groups (Edgar, 1983a and c).

Due to the abundance and diversity of ampithoid amphipods, shown in

Poore and Lowry (1997) and the present study, and their importance in the ecology of algal communities (Edgar, 1983a and c), it is important to study

84 these species. Another important reason for documenting ampithoid amphipod species is because the brown algal communities which are their habitat are under potential threat as development continues along the Australian coastline.

Ampithoids may be a numerically dominant species in these communities, but studies on their ecology and populations dynamics should not proceed until the species are described and studied. Recent examples of this problem are emphasised by Freewater and Lowry (1994) where the main species in exposed Sargassum communities at Cape Banks, New South Wales, was described so that studies on its population ecology could be accomplished

(BSc honours, Freewater, 1992). A second example is the work of Poore and

Lowry (1997) where six ampithoid species are reported from sheltered

Sargassum communities in Port Jackson and five new species are described.

This paper was written so that studies by Poore (PhD thesis, University of New

South Wales) on feeding behaviour could proceed.

There are a number of potential outcomes of studying this taxonomy and ecology. This includes assisting in establishing marine reserves (the State of the Environment Report, 1996, states that Australia lacks a representative marine reserve system). Also this type of study provides base line information and is useful in measuring the impacts of coastal developments. These base line studies would be particulary useful because evidence suggests that crustaceans, in particular amphipods, are more sensitive to pollution than other animals (Bonsdorff, 1983; Sanders et al., 1980; Rose, 1994; Warwick and

Clarke, 1994).

85 This study has shown that ampithoid amphipods from Australian waters

86 REFERENCES

Audouin, V. (1826). Explication sommaire des planches de crustaces de l'Egypte et de la Syrie, publiees par Jules-Cesar Savigny, membre de l'institut; offrant un expose des caracteres naturels des genres, avec la distinction des especes. Description de l'Egypte, Histoire Nature/le 1, 77 - 98.

Barnard, J. L. (1955). Gammaridean Amphipoda (Crustacea) in the collections of Bishop Museum. Bernice P. Bishop museum Bulletin 215, 1-46.

Barnard, J. L. (1969b). A biological survey of Bahia de Los Angeles Gulf of California, Mexico. iv, benthic amphipoda (Crustacea). Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural history. 15: 13, 175-228.

Barnard, J. L. (1972). The Marine Fauna of New Zealand: Algae-living littoral gammaridea (Crustacea Amphipoda). Memoir of the New Zealand Oceanographic institute 62, 7 -216.

Barnard, J. L. (1979). Littoral Gammaridean Amphipoda from the Gulf of California and the Galapagos Islands. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology. 271, vi+149.

Barnard, J. L., and Karaman, G. S. (1991 ). The families and genera of marine gammaridean amphipods (except marine gammaroidea). Records of the Australian museum supplement supplement 13 (part 2), 1-866.

Barnard, K. H. (1925). Contributions to the Crustacean fauna of South Africa. 8 further additions to the list of Amphipoda. The Annals of the South African Museum 20, 319-380.

87 Bate, C. S. ( 1857). A synopsis of the British edriophthalmous Crustacea. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 2 19, 135-152.

Bate, C.S. (1858). On some new genera and species of Crustacea Amphipoda. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 3 1, 361-362.

Bate, C. S. (1862). Catalogue of the Specimens of Amphipodous Crustacea in the collection of the British Museum. British Museum of Natural History, London. 1 st ed. Vol. 1, iv + 399pp pages.

Berents, P. B. (1983). The Melitidae of Lizard Island and Adjacent Reefs, the Great Barrier Reef, Australia (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Records of the Australian museum 35, 101-143.

Bonsdorff, E. (1983). Effects of experimental oil exposure on the fauna associated with Corallina officienalis L. in intertidal rock pools. Sarsia 68, 149-156.

Chevreux, E. (1900). Campagnes de la Melita Description d'un Amphipode Nouveau Appartenant au Genre Grubia Czerniawski. Bulletin of the Society of Zoology, France. 25, 95-101.

Chevreux, E. (1901 ). Crustaces amphipodes Mission scientifique de M. Ch. Alluad aux lies Sechelles (Mars, Avril, Mai, 1892). Memoirs de la Societe de France 14, 388-438.

Chevreux, E. and Fage (1925). Amphipodes. Faune de France 9, 488.

Conlan, K. E. (1982). Revision of the Gammaridean Amphipod Family Ampithoidae Using Numerical Analytical Methods. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60, 2015-2027.

88 Conlan, K. E. and Bousfield, E. (1982a). The amphipod superfamily Corophidea in the north eastern Pacific region, Family Ampithoidae: systematics and distributional! ecology. Publications in Biological Oceanography, National Museum of Canada 10, 45-75.

Dallwitz, M. J., Paine, T. A. and Zurcher, E. J. (1993). DELTA user's guide: a general system for processing taxonomic descriptions. 4th ed. CS/RO Division of Entomology, Canberra. 136 pages.

Dana, J. D. (1853). Crustacea, Part II. United States Exploring Expedition 14, 689-1618.

Duffy, J. E. (1990). Amphipods on Seaweeds: Partners or Pests? Oecologia 83, 267-276.

Edgar, G. J. (1983a). The Ecology of South-east Tasmanian Phytal Animal Communities. I. Spatial Organization on a Local Scale. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 70, 129-157.

Edgar, G. J. (1983b). The Ecology of South-east Tasmanian Phytal animal Communities. II. Seasonal Change in Plant and Animal Populations. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 70, 159-179.

Edgar, G. J. (1983d). The Ecology of South-east Tasmanian Phytal Animal Communities. IV. Factors Affecting the Distribution of Ampithoid Amphipods Among Algae. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 70, 205-225.

Freewater, P. (1992). The ecology of the intertidal gammarid amphipod Hyale media Dana. (BSc Honours, University of Sydney).

89 Freewater, P. and Lowry, J. K. (1994). Sunamphitoe graxon sp. nov. (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Ampithoidae): First record of the genus in Australian waters. Invertebrate Taxonomy 8, 675-682.

Haswell, W. A. (1879a). On Australia Amphipoda. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 4, 245-279.

Haswell, W. A. (1879b). On some additional new genera and species of amphipodous crustaceans. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 4, 319-350.

Hay, M. E., Duffy, J.E. and Pfister, C. A. (1987). Chemical Defense against Different Marine Herbivores: are Amphipods Insect Equivalents? Ecology 68(6), 1567-1580.

Hurley, D. E. (1954). Studies on the New Zealand Amphipodan Fauna No. 5 Pleonexes lessoniae, a New Species of the family Amphithoidae. Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand 81 part 4, 619-626.

Kensley, B. (1971 ). Amphipoda from Southern Angola. The Annals of the South African Museum 57(8), 150-156.

Krapp-Schickel, G. (1982a). Family Ampithoidae in: S. Ruffo (Ed) The Amphipoda of the Mediterranean, part I Gammaridea (Acanthonotozomatidae to Gammaridae). Memoires de l'lnstitut Oceanographique 13, 94-110.

Kunkel, B. W. (1910). The Amphipoda of Bermuda. Transactions of the Connecticut academy of Arts and Sciences 16, 1-116.

Leach, W. E. (1814). Crustaceology. The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia 1, 402-403, 429-430.

90 Ledoyer, M. (1982). Crustaces amphipodes gammariens families des Acanthonotozomatidae a Gammaridae. Faune de Madagascar 59(1 ), 1- 598.

Ledoyer, M. (1984). Les gammariens (Crustacea, Amphipoda) des herbiers de phanerogrames marines de Nouvelle Caledonie (region de Noumea). Memoires du Museum National d'Historie Nature/le paris, Series 4. 1, 137-181.

Lyons, J. and Myers, A. A. (1990). Amphipoda gammaridea from coral rubble in the Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea: families Acanthonotozomatidae, Ampeliscidae, Ampithoidae, Anamixidae, Aoridae and Colomastigidae. Journal of Natural History 24, 1197-1225.

Milne Edwards, H. (1830). Extrait de recherches pour servir a l'histoire naturelle des crustaces amphipodes. Annales des Sciences Naturelles 20, 353-399.

Myers, A. A. (1985c). Shallow-water, coral reef and mangrove Amphipoda (Gammaridea) of Fiji. Records of the Australian museum supplement 5, 21-42.

Nelson, W. G. (1979). An Analysis of Structural Patterns in an Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) amphipod Community. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 39, 231-264.

Nelson, W. G. (1980). The Biology of Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) amphipods. Crustaceana 39 (1 }, 59-88.

Oliveira, P. H. (1953). Crustacea Amphipode do Rio de Janeiro. Memorias do lnstituto Oswaldo Cruz 51, 289-376.

91 Pearse, A. S. (1912). Notes on certain amphipods from the Gulf of Mexico, with descriptions of new genera and new species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 43, 369-379.

Poore, A. G. B. and Lowry, J. K. (1997). New Ampithoid Amphipods from Port Jackson, New South Wales, Australia (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Ampithoidae). Invertebrate Taxonomy 11: pp.

Rabindranath, P. (1972c). Marine Gammaridea (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from the Indian region. Family Ampithoidae. Marine Biology 14, 161-178.

Rose, C. (1994). The relationship between zoobenthic communities and contaminants associated with marinas in Pittwater, New South Wales. (unpublished MSc Thesis, University of Technology, Sydney).

Ruffo, S. (1969). Terzo contributo alla conoscenza degli anfipodi del mar rosso. Memorie de/ Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona 17, 1-77.

Sanders, H. L., Grassle, J. R., Hampson, G. R., Morse, L. S., Garner-Price, S. and Jones, G. C. (1980). Anatomy of an oil spill: Long term effects from the grounding of the barge "Florida" off west Falmouth, Massachusetts. Journal of Marine Resources 38, 265-380.

Savigny, J-C. (1816). Observations generales sur la bouche des arachnides, des crustaces et des entomostraces. Memories sur les Animaux sans Vertebres, Second Memorie. 1, 39-117.

Schellenberg, A. (1925). Crustacea Viii: Amphipoda. !n- Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Meeresfauna Westafrikas. W. Michaelsen (Ed) 3, 111-204.

92 Sheard, K. (1936). Amphipods from a South Australian Reef - part 2. Transactions of Proceedings of the Royal Society of South Australia 60, 173-179.

Shoemaker, C. R. (1935). The Amphipods of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. New York Academy of Sciences, Scientific Survey of Porlo Rico and the Virgin Islands. 15 (2), 245-249.

Sivaprakasam, T. E. (1970g). Amphipods of the family Ampithoidae from the Madras Coast. Journal of the Marine Biological Association India 12(1&2), 64-80.

Springthorpe, R. T. and Lowry, J. K. (1984). Catalogue of Crustacean type Specimens in the Australian Museum: Malacostraca. Technical Reporls of the Australian Museum 11, 1-134.

Stebbing, T. R. R. (1888). Report on the amphipoda collected by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-1876. Reporl on the Scientific Results of the voyage of H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873-1876, Zoology 29, xxiv + 1737 pp, 210pls.

Stebbing, T. R. R. (1906). Amphipoda I. Gammaridea. Das Tierreich 21, 631- 647.

Tattersall, W. M. (1922). Amphipoda and lsopoda. The Percy Sladen Trust Expedition to the Abrolhos Islands (Indian Ocean). Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology 35, 1-19.

Walker, A. 0. and Scott, A. (1903). II.- Oecapod and Sessile-eyed crustaceans from Abd-el-Kuri. The Natural History of Sokotra and Abd-el-Kuri. 216- 232.

93 Warwick, R. M. and Clarke, K. R. (1994). Relearning the ABC: taxonomic changes and abundance/biomass relationships in disturbed benthic communities. Marine Biology 118, 739-744.

94 Fig. 1. Ampithoe eremitis sp. nov., holotype female, 11.0 mm, AM P51251, Split

Solitary Island, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia; paratype male,

10.5 mm, AM P51252, South Solitary Island, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales,

Australia.

Fig. 2. Ampithoe eremitis sp. nov., holotype female, 11.0 mm, AM P51251, Split

Solitary Island, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia; paratype male,

10.5 mm, AM P51252, South Solitary Island, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales,

Australia. Scales represent 0.2 mm.

Fig. 3. Ampithoe eremitis sp. nov., holotype female, 11.0 mm, AM P51251, Split

Solitary Island, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia; paratype male,

10.5 mm, AM P51252, South Solitary Island, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales,

Australia. Scales represent 0.2 mm.

Fig. 4. Ampithoe gal/aharae sp. nov., holotype male, 5.0 mm, AM P51274,

Cape Banks, New South Wales, Australia.

Fig. 5. Ampithoe gallaharae sp. nov., holotype male, 5.0 mm, AM P51274,

Cape Banks, New South Wales, Australia. Scales represent 0.2 mm.

99 ·, ~--:=--- -- :_--' . I •

MX2 Fig. 6. Ampithoe gallaharae sp. nov., holotype male, 5.0 mm, AM P51274,

Cape Banks, New South Wales, Australia. Scales represent 0.2 mm.

100

Fig. 7. Ampithoe gallaharae sp. nov., holotype male, 5.0 mm, AM P51274,

Cape Banks, New South Wales, Australia. Scales represent 0.2 mm.

101 1( Fig. 8. Cymadusa aestos sp. nov., holotype female, 18.0 mm, TMAG G3931; paratype male, 17.0 mm, TMAG G3932, Woodman Point, Cockburn Sound,

Western Australia, Australia.

102

Fig. 9. Cymadusa aestos sp. nov., holotype female, 18.0 mm, TMAG G3931; paratype male, 17.0 mm, TMAG G3932, Woodman Point, Cockburn Sound,

Western Australia, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm

103 / A1 Fig. 10. Cymadusa aestos sp. nov., holotype female, 18.0 mm, TMAG G3931; paratype male, 17.0 mm, TMAG G3932; * paratype male, 13.0 mm, TMAG

G3933, Woodman Point, Cockburn Sound, Western Australia, Australia.

Scales represent 0.5 mm.

104

Fig. 11. Cymadusa aestos sp. nov., holotype female, 18.0 mm, TMAG G3931,

Woodman Point, Cockburn Sound, Western Australia, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

105

Western Australia, Australia; paratype male, 11.0 mm, AM P51269, Western

Australia, Australia.

106

Fig. 13. Cymadusa chuawe sp. nov., holotype female, 14.0 mm, AM P51268,

Western Australia, Australia; paratype male, 11.0 mm, AM P51269, Western

Australia, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

107 A1 UL

,,,.- MX1

: I

MP Fig. 14. Cymadusa chuawe sp. nov., holotype female, 14.0 mm, AM P51268,

Western Australia, Australia; paratype male, 11.0 mm, AM P51269, Western

Australia, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

108

Fig. 15. Cymadusa elegantis sp. nov., holotype female, 13.0 mm, AM P51255,

Fancy Point, Bruny Island, Tasmania, Australia; paratype male, 14.0 mm, AM

P51256, Fancy Point, Bruny Island, Tasmania, Australia.

109

Fig. 16. Cymadusa elegantis sp. nov., holotype female, 13.0 mm, AM P51255,

Fancy Point, Bruny Island, Tasmania, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

110 UL

LL MP Fig. 17. Cymadusa elegantis sp. nov., holotype female, 13.0 mm, AM P51255,

Fancy Point, Bruny Island, Tasmania, Australia; paratype male, 14.0 mm, AM

P51256, Fancy Point, Bruny Island, Tasmania, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

111

Fig. 18. Cymadusa elegantis sp. nov., holotype female, 13.0 mm, AM P51255,

Fancy Point, Bruny Island, Tasmania, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

112 I ;/ I /J

/ / Fig. 19. Cymadusa imbroglio. Rabindranath, 1972, female 16.0 mm, AM

P51265; male, 14.0 mm, AM P51266, Bare Island, Botany Bay, New South

Wales, Australia.

113

Fig. 20. Cymadusa imbroglio. Rabindranath, 1972, female 16.0 mm, AM

P51265; male, 14.0 mm, AM P51266, Bare Island, Botany Bay, New South

Wales, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

114 UL

LMD

' MX1 1 Fig. 21. Cymadusa imbroglio. Rabindranath, 1972, female 16.0 mm, AM

P51265; male, 14.0 mm, AM P51266, Bare Island, Botany Bay, New South

Wales, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

115

Fig. 22. Cymadusa imbroglio. Rabindranath, 1972, female, 16.0 mm, AM

P51265, Bare Island, Botany Bay, New South Wales, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

116 P7 ~

U1 Fig. 23. Cymadusa setosa. (Haswell, 1879a), neotype female, 19 mm, AM

P10854; male, 10.5 mm, AM P10853, Kurnell, Botany Bay, New South Wales,

Australia.

117

Fig. 24. Cymadusa setosa. (Haswell, 1879a), neotype female, 19 mm, AM

P10854; male, 10.5 mm, AM P10853, Kurnell, Botany Bay, New South Wales,

Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

118 I ' '-,J.---~i;.=:n--·

- . '' \':'\' \ - ' ' \. '~ . -:":--.·'· ~:.:,,', ...__, ' ~i> ~ '·' Fig. 25. Cymadusa setosa. (Haswell, 1879a}, neotype female, 19 mm, AM

P10854; male, 10.5 mm, AM P10853, Kurnell, Botany Bay, New South Wales,

Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

119 'll"~''\"b,;-1r----1,~, \

,/ 'dG2 u P6 Q Fig. 26. Cymadusa setosa. (Haswell, 1879a), neotype female, 19 mm, AM

P10854, Kurnell, Botany Bay, New South Wales, Australia. Scales represent

0.5mm.

120 U1 T Fig. 28. Exampithoe ecklonicola sp. nov., holotype female, 12.0 mm, AM

P51271; paratype male, 14.0 mm, AM P51272, Cape Banks, Botany Bay, New

South Wales, Australia.

121

Fig. 29. Exampithoe ecklonicola sp. nov., holotype female, 12.0 mm, AM

P51271, AM P51272, Cape Banks, Botany Bay, New South Wales, Australia.

Scales represent 0.5 mm.

122 LMD

~- U3 v T I\ Fig. 30. Exampithoe ecklonicola sp. nov., holotype female, 12.0 mm, AM

P51271; paratype male, 14.0 mm, AM P51272, Cape Banks, Botany Bay, New

South Wales, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

123

Fig. 31. Paragrubia edgari sp. nov., holotype female, 10.0 mm, AM P51258; paratype male, 11.0 mm, AM P51259, Cape Cleveland, Queensland, Australia.

124

Fig. 32. Paragrubia edgari sp. nov., holotype female, 10.0 mm, AM P51258; paratype male, 11.0 mm, AM P51259, Cape Cleveland, Queensland, Australia.

Scales represent 0.5 mm.

125 ...___ '-,, ',

~ ~ ~

~~ \

;;.: '-<>----~i c/ _r ___ _ Fig. 33. Paragrubia edgari sp. nov., holotype female, 10.0 mm, AM P51258; paratype male, 11.0 mm, AM P51259, Cape Cleveland, Queensland, Australia.

Scales represent 0.5 mm.

126

Fig. 34. Paragrubia edgari sp. nov., paratype male, 11.0 mm, AM P51259,

Cape Cleveland, Queensland, Australia. Scales represent 0.2 mm

127

Fig. 35. Pseudopleonexes nexis sp. nov., holotype female, 8.0 mm, AM

P51281; paratype male, 7.0 mm, AM P51279, Cape Banks, Botany Bay, New

South Wales, Australia.

128

Fig. 36. Pseudopleonexes nexis sp. nov., holotype female, 8.0 mm, AM

P51281; paratype male, 7.0 mm, AM P51279, Cape Banks, Botany Bay, New

South Wales, Australia. Scales represent 0.2 mm.

129 UL •• ,I \ . ' - '

,' ,•

'/I MX2 , , ' . - \

·.

~~ MP ·MX1 ~ Fig. 37. Pseudopleonexes nexis sp. nov., holotype female, 8.0 mm, AM

P51281; paratype male, 7.0 mm, AM P51279, Cape Banks, Botany Bay, New

South Wales, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

130 CJ;j) CQ Fig. 38. Pseudopleonexes nexis sp. nov., holotype female, 8.0 mm, AM

P51281, AM P51279, Cape Banks, Botany Bay, New South Wales, Australia.

Scales represent 0.2 mm.

131 U3 Fig. 39. Sunamphitoe angrox sp. nov., holotype male, 8.0 mm, AM P51277;

Cape Banks, Botany Bay, New South Wales, Australia.

132

Fig. 40. Sunamphitoe angrox sp. nov., holotype male, 8.0 mm, AM P51277;

Cape Banks, Botany Bay, New South Wales, Australia. Scales represent 0.2 mm.

133 MX1 ;~ ,"~

MX2 Fig. 41. Sunamphitoe angrox sp. nov., holotype male, 8.0 mm, AM P51277;

Cape Banks, Botany Bay, New South Wales, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

134

Fig. 42. Sunamphitoe fantome sp. nov., holotype female, 7.0 mm, AM P51261; paratype male, 5.0 mm, AM P51262, Fantome Island, Queensland, Australia.

135

Fig. 43. Sunamphitoe fantome sp. nov., holotype female, 7.0 mm, AM P51261,

AM P51262, Fantome Island, Queensland, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

136 A1

U2==:J~MX1 ~~~- QQ - - = = U1 c o ,; Fig. 44. Sunamphitoe fantome sp. nov., holotype female, 7.0 mm, AM P51261; paratype male, 5.0 mm, AM P51262; paratype male, 4.0 mm, AM P51263,

Fantome Island, Queensland, Australia. Scales represent 0.5 mm.

137 I

/ •··.·. . '

,/ ,) ,, I','

I I CHAPTER 2

CHECKLIST TO THE AMPITHOID SPECIES OF THE WORLD

INTRODUCTION

Aims

The aims of this chapter are to produce an annotated checklist to the ampithoid amphipod species of the world.

Taxonomic History

The Ampithoidae was first proposed as a family by Stebbing in 1888. However, a number of the genera were described before that time, Ampithoe Leach,

1814, Cymadusa Savigny, 1816, Sunamphitoe Bate, 1857 and Amphithoides

Kossmann, 1880.

Barnard and Karaman ( 1991) documented 100 known ampithoid species.

Approximately 20 species have been or currently are being described since then (Kim and Kim, 1991; Conlan and Chess, 1992; Freewater and Lowry,

1994; Poore and Lowry, 1997; Evans, Msc, 1997). A large amount of study has been carried out in the northern hemisphere (figure 46a). The descriptions have been fairly constant over time, however the majority of species were described more than ten years ago. More recent studies include J.L. Barnard

(1965, 1970); Barnard and Karaman (1991); Conlan and Bousfield (1982);

Conlan (1982); Kim and Kim (1988, 1991).

138 Even though ampithoids are numerous and obvious, they have been infrequently studied in the southern hemisphere, with only three important taxonomic studies carried out in Australia and the south Pacific Ocean over the past 12 years (Myers, 1985; Freewater and Lowry, 1994; and Poore and Lowry,

1997). The number of species described from the southern hemisphere has

~'o~~ increased steadily since 1850 (Figure 46b). The sudden rise in"species in the

1990s indicates an increase in the number of studies carried out in the southern hemisphere.

139 Figure 46a: Species described from the Northern Hemisphere since 1810

16 ,------~

1•

10 i.,.. o 8 i .Qe z~

0 "' Year ending 10 yaar period

Figure 46b:Species described from the Southern Hemisphere since 1810

: 12 i ~ 0 10 f• ~ Z 8

0 0 0 0 0 N ., "'., ., "' E Year •ndlng 10 yeat p ■ rlod.

140 World Systematics

There are currently 12 genera (Table 3) in the family Ampithoidae (Barnard and

Karaman, 1991; Poore and Lowry, 1997). J. L. Barnard, 1965; Barnard and

Karaman, 1991 and Poore and Lowry, 1997 have provided useful keys to genera in this family. The majority of the species fall into three genera:

Ampithoe, Cymadusa and Peramphithoe.

All genera within the family Ampithoidae have inherent problems. In most cases the genera are poorly defined and it is difficult to reliably place species into genera. These are complex problems which require critical character assessment and detailed phylogenetic analysis. Some of the fundamental taxonomic problems are presented here. The largest of the genera, Ampithoe

Leach, 1814, has 65 valid species. The type species is Cancer (Gammarus) rubricatus Montagu, 1808. Included in this genus is the Pleonexes species complex. This group was previously established as a distinct genus, and many times has been placed as a subgenus and then re-established (Stebbing, 1906;

J.L. Barnard, 1969c; Conlan, 1982). Barnard and Karaman (1991) refer to this group as a "transitional polyphyletic subgenus" which indicates its instability.

One of the major factors that causes problems in the genus Ampithoe is its unspecialized morphology and behaviour. There is a range of body forms, sizes and ecology. Phylogenetically it has been set up on character losses (for example: the loss of the peduncular spur on uropod 1 and the loss of the accessory flagellum on antenna 1 ). These are the only

141 "synapomorphies" defining the group, and their homoplasr has never been

tested.

Cymadusa Savigny, 1816 (19 species) is the second largest genus in the family, however the basis for this genus is tenuous. The basic problem is that

the type species, Cymadusa filosa Savigny, 1816 is incompletely described

(only the mouthparts were documented). The specific type locality is within

Egypt but it is not known whether the species came from the Red Sea or the

Mediterranean Sea. Because of this confusion, a number of forms of

Cymadusa filosa occur in the literature. The type species needs to be

redescribed from either the northern Red Sea or the eastern Mediterranean

Sea and a neotype needs to be established. Until this is done, the generic

concept will remain confused. Like Ampithoe, Cymadusa is a reasonably

unspecialised group, with a wide range of habitats, ecology, size and

morphology.

Paradusa Ruffo, 1969 (two species) has been recently been synonymised with

Cymadusa (Poore and Lowry, 1997). Paradusa and the small genus

Paragrubia Chevreux, 1901 (three species) are similar morphologically to

Cymadusa. Paragrubia differs from Cymadusa in the number of articles in the

accessory flagellum of antenna one. A phylogenetic analysis of all species

level taxa in this group will probably indicate one genus.

142 Exampithoe has been split into two subgenera: Exampithoe (Melanesius)

consisting of three species and Exampithoe (Exampithoe) consisting of the two

species. This split is based on the loss of the mandibular palp. This is not a

good character with which to establish a subgenus. To validate the split a phylogenetic analysis needs to show that this loss of the palp has only

occurred once.

This same argument can be used for the well established genus Sunamphitoe

Bate, 1857 (six species) which is also based on the loss of the mandibular

palp. Preliminary phylogenetic analyses have shown that, excluding the

mandibular palp loss, other characters are very similar to Peramphithoe Conlan

and Bousfield, 1982 (18 species). Unless it can be shown that the loss of the

palp is a one time event and Sunamphitoe forms a separate clade, then the two

genera will have to be synonymised and all species will become part of

Sunamphitoe, the older name.

Poore and Lowry (1997) are the latest authors to consider the similarity of

Macropisthopous K.H. Barnard, 1916 (monotypic) and Plumithoe Barnard and

Karaman, 1991 (three species) to Peramphithoe and Sunamphitoe. Whether

the genus Macropisthopous is part of this group depends on a number of

issues. Unfortunately, one of the important generic characters was not

documented in the original or following descriptions (the presence or absence

of the peduncular spur on uropod 1). A character (an autapomorphy) which has

been used to define this genus is the presence of a greatly expanded

143 peraeopod 7. Apart from these characters, it fits into the group of Sunamphitoe

and Peramphithoe. However, the recently described Peramphithoe parmerong

Poore and Lowry, 1997, also has the expanded peraeopod 7 character, which

indicates that this is not a distinctly generic character. Until the type material of

Macropisthopous is examined to determine the state of the uropod 1 character, then the fate of this genus is uncertain.

Plumithoe is similar to the above group. The only defining character for this

genus is the strongly setose second antenna.

Preliminary phylogenetic analyses of these genera indicates that Sunamphitoe,

Peramphithoe, and Macropisthopous all belong in one genus and that

Plumithoe is a paraphyletic group at the base of this clade.

The remaining genera have few species and are defined on distinct characters.

It is possible that these may be just odd members of existing genera that have

been over ,5p1;+. These are Amphithoides Kossmann, 1880 (three species},

Amphitholina Ruffo, 1953 (one species), Pseudoamphithoides Ortiz, 1976 (two

species) and Pseudopleonexes Conlan, 1982 (two species). Only a complete

phylogenetic study will resolve these problems.

Table 3: Current Ampithoidae Genera (after Barnard and Karaman, 1991)

Amphithoides Kossman, 1880

Amphitholina Ruffo, 1953

144 Ampithoe Leach, 1814

Cymadusa Savigny, 1816

Exampithoe (Exampithoe) K.H. Barnard, 1926

Exampithoe (Melanesius) Ledoyer, 1984

Macropisthopous K.H. Barnard, 1916

Paragrubia Chevreux, 1901

Peramphithoe Conlan and Bousfield, 1982

Plumithoe Barnard and Karaman, 1991

Pseudoamphithoides Ortiz, 1976

Pseudop/eonexes Conlan, 1982

Sunamphitoe Bate, 1857

A number of the recognised genera in the family Ampithoidae have been set up on the basis of poorly described type species. A good example of this is the genus Cymadusa. Other genera also have problems with respect to their type species. Amphithoides Kossmann, 1880 has a type which is poorly described and is not illustrated. Macropisthopous K. H. Barnard, 1916 as mentioned above also has problems.

A large number of early descriptions of ampithoid amphipods were poorly illustrated or documented. This has caused a certain amount of confusion over which species are really present in samples collected. In a number of cases the documentation of a certain species does not agree with an original description

(even if well described). A revision of the known species of ampithoids would

145 be a useful tool for current descriptions as it would sort out a large amount of the discrepancies in the literature.

CHECKLIST

AMPHITHOIDES Kossmann, 1880

Amphithoides Kossmann, 1880: 135-136. -- Barnard and Karaman, 1991;

Conlan, 1982; Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Type species: Ampithoides longicornis Kossmann, 1880, monotypy.

Amphithoides longicornis Kossmann, 1880

Amphithoides longicornis Kossmann, 1880: 135-136.

Useful References. Stebbing, 1906:645.

Ecology. Unknown.

Comments: Poorly illustrated by Kossmann, 1880 and by Stebbing, 1906.

Distribution: Red Sea (exact location unknown).

Amphithoides mahafalensis Ledoyer, 1967a

Amphithoides mahafalensis Ledoyer, 1967a: 135, fig 26.

Useful References. Ledoyer, 1973b:28; 1982b: 128-130, fig. 43.

Ecology. Living on the alga Cymodocea serrulata.

Distribution: Tulear, Madagascar, (Mo~ambique Channel, Indian Ocean).

146 Amphithoides patrizii Maccagno, 1936

Amphithoides patrizii Maccagno, 1936: citation not known.

Ecology. Unknown.

Distribution. Red Sea (exact locality unknown).

AMPHITHOLINA Ruffo, 1953a

Amphitholina Ruffo, 1953a: 5. -- Barnard and Karaman, 1991; Conlan, 1982;

Poore and Lowry, 1997

Type species: Amphithoe cuniculus Stebbing, 187 4 original designation

Amphitholina cunicu/us (Stebbing, 1874b)

Amphithoe cuniculus Stebbing, 187 4b: 112, pl11, fig.1 a-e.

Useful References: Chevreux and Fage, 1925:342-343, fig 349-350;

Gurjanova, 1951: 904-905, fig 627; Ruffo, 1953: 5; Myers, 197 4b: 463-

469, figs. 1-3 ; Lincoln, 1979a: 468, fig. 218f, 224a-f.

Ecology: This species burrows into the stipes of the alga A/aria esculenta to

form a nest. Myers ( 197 4) and Lincoln ( 1979) reported it to feed

exclusively on this alga.

Comments: This species has specialised mouthparts, which in the past

have caused some taxonomic confusion. It was placed in Amphithoides

by Ruffo ( 1953 ). This species also has a wide and unusual distribution

147 range.

Distribution: Isle of Man (United Kingdom, Irish Sea), Bantry Bay

(Rc,pv.'-ol1c of Ireland); Port Tereau, France (western north

AtlanticOcean); Sea of Japan.

AMPITHOE Leach, 1814

Ampithoe Leach, 1814: 403. -- Barnard and Karaman, 1991; Conlan, 1982;

Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Type species: Cancer (Gammarus) rubricatus Montagu, 1808, monotypy.

Ampithoe africana K. H. Barnard, 1925

Ampithoe africana K.H. Barnard, 1925: 361.

Useful References: Griffiths, 1975: 105.

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments: Poorly described and illustrated.

Distribution: Natal to False Bay, South Africa (west of 20°E)

(southern Atlantic Ocean).

Am pit hoe akuolaka J. L. Barnard, 1970a

Ampithoe akuolaka J. L. Barnard, 1970a: 44, figs 12-13.

Ecology: Intertidal, living on the brown alga Sargassum sp., other algae,

148 rocks, corals.

Distribution: Kawela Bay, Hawaiian Islands (Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe albomaculata Bate and Westwood, 1863

Ampithoe albomaculata Bate and Westwood, 1863: 426.

? Ampithoe sp. Kr0yer, 1846a: 67, pi xi B, fig. 1.

Useful References: Kr0yer, 1846a: 67, pi xi B, fig. 1.

Ecology: 128-164 m.

Comments: There is uncertainty as to whether the illustration provided in

Bate and Westwood, 1863 is actually of an ampithoid amphipod.

Distribution: 96 km east of Shetland Islands, UK (North Sea); Norway

(northern North Sea).

Ampithoe alluaudi Chevreux, 1901 a

Ampithoe alluaudi Chevreux, 1901 a: 418-422, figs.40-45.

Ampithoe inda, Nayar, 1959: 36, pi 13, figs 1-11 (non Milne

Edwards).

Useful References: Nayar, 1959:36, pi 13, figs1-11; Sivaprakasam, 1970g:

7 4-76, fig. 5; Ledoyer, 1982b: 113-116, fig. 36.

Ecology: Living in seaweed.

Comments: This species may be a part of the "Pleonexes" species group.

Distribution: Seychelles Islands (western Indian Ocean); Tulear,

Madagascar (Moc;ambique Channel, western Indian Ocean); Gulf of

Mannar, southern tip of India (northern Indian Ocean).

149 Ampithoe annulata 0. Costa and A. Costa, 1851

Ampithoe annulata 0. Costa and A. Costa, 1851: citation not known.

Useful References: Della Valle, 1893: 463.

Ecology: Unknown.

Distribution: Unknown.

Ampithoe aptos ( J. L. Barnard, 1969a)

Pleonexes aptos J. L. Barnard, 1969a: 86-89, figs 3-4.

Ecology: Living in algae collected below water at low tide.

Comments: This species can be placed in the "Pleonexes" species group.

Distribution: Carmel Point, California, west coast of North America (eastern

Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe auriculata Rabindranath, 1972c

Ampithoe auriculata Rabindranath, 1972c: 171-173, fig. 7.

Ecology: Collected from weed washes and algal encrustations.

Comments: This specimen may be the same as Ampithoe inda of Nayar,

1959 (Rabindranath, 1972).

Distribution: Pamban area, Gulf of Mannar, southern tip of India (northern

Indian Ocean).

Ampithoe australiensis Bate, 1862

Ampithoe australiensis Bate, 1862: 237-238, pl. XLI, fig. 7.

150 Useful References: Stebbing, 1906: 641.

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments: This species has been very poorly described and is

unidentifiable.

Distribution: Southern Australia.

Ampithoe boecki Della Valle, 1893

Ampithoe boecki Della Valle, 1893: citation not found.

Ampithoe gammaroides of Della Valle, 1893: 462, tav. 57, fig. 36.

Useful References: Stebbing, 1906: 642-643, figs 109-110.

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments: Species is unidentifiable.

Distribution: Unknown.

Ampithoe brevipalma Kim and Kim, 1988

Ampithoe brevipalma Kim and Kim, 1988: 113-115, fig. 4.

Ecology: Collected among algae in tide pools.

Comments: This species is closely related to Ampithoe lacerlosa, Ampithoe

plumulosa, and Ampithoe valida.

Distribution: Korea (southern Sea of Japan).

Ampithoe caddi Poore and Lowry, 1997

Ampithoe caddi Poore and Lowry, 1997: pp, figs 2-5.

Useful References: Evans (mss - key).

151 Ecology: Subtidal, living on macroalgae. Nesting behaviour consists

of making tubes on the surface of the macroalgae or between blades.

These tubes are made out of any available substance such as detritus.

Comments: This species is closely related to Ampithoe alluaudi Chevreux,

1901 and Ampithoe eremitis sp. nov.

Distribution: Sydney region, New South Wales, east coast of Australia

(Tasman Sea).

Ampithoe corallina Stout, 1912

Am pithoe coral/in a Stout, 1912: 134-136, figs 76-77.

Useful References: J. L. Barnard, 1969a: 85-86.

Ecology: Found on tufts of coralline algae.

Comments: This species may not be a valid species. J.L. Barnard (1969)

did not want to make this species a senior synonym of Ampithoe

simulans, but was unsure as to its status.

Distribution: Laguna Beach, California (Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe dalli Shoemaker, 1938b

Ampithoe dalli Shoemaker, 1938b: 19-22, fig. 2.

Ampithoe simulans of J.L. Barnard, 1965b: 27-30, fig. 17.

Useful References: Gurjanova, 1951: 887-890, fig. 618; J. L. Barnard,

1965b: 27-30, fig. 17; Conlan and Bousfield, 1982a : 56-58, fig. 9.

Ecology: Collected from among eelgrasses and algae.

Comments: This species is described from a number of disjunct locations,

152 this may indicate the need for a splitting of the current species complex.

Distribution: Aleutian Islands, Alaska USA (Bering Sea) to Cape Arago,

Oregon USA (eastern Pacific Ocean); California, USA (eastern Pacific

Ocean); Sea of Japan (western Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe dentimana Mateus and Mateus, 1986

Ampithoe dentimana Mateus and Mateus, 1986: 196-201, figs 41-45.

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments: This species is close to Ampithoe vaillanti which means it may

be part of the Ampithoe ramondi complex.

Distribution: Santa Cruz Bay, Annobon Islands, Gulf of Guinea (east

Atlantic Ocean).

Ampithoe djakonovi Gurjanova, 1938

Ampithoe djakonovi Gurjanova, 1938b: 354, fig. 50.

Useful References: Gurjanova, 1951: 891, fig. 617.

Ecology: Unknown.

Distribution: Sea of Japan.

Ampithoe eremitis Evans (mss)

Ecology: Living on red and brown algae.

Comments: This species is similar to Ampithoe caddi.

Distribution: Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, east coast of Australia

(Tasman Sea).

153 Ampithoe fastidiosa Mateus and Mateus, 1991: 70-7 4, fig. 3

Ecology: Unknown.

Distribution: Sao Tiago, Annobon Island, Gulf of Guinea (east Atlantic

Ocean).

Ampithoe ferox (Chevreux, 1902)

Pleonexes ferox Chevreux, 1902: 697, pl. 5, figs 2a-2i.

Useful References: Chevreux and Fage, 1925: 336, fig. 345; Krapp-

Schickel, 1982b: 95, fig. 64.

Ecology: lnfralittoral, in algae.

Comments: This species is made up of a number of undescribed forms.

Distribution: Antibes, France (Mediterranean Sea); Ajaccio, Corsica

(Mediterranean Sea); Sicily (Mediterranean Sea); Malta (Mediterranean

Sea).

Ampithoe gallaharae Evans (mss)

Ecology: Living in the canopies of the brown kelp Ecklonia radiata.

Comments: This species fits into the "Pleonexes" species group.

Distribution: Botany Bay, New South Wales, east coast of Australia

(Tasman Sea).

Ampithoe gammaroides (Bate, 1857d)

Pleonexes gammaroides Bate, 1857d: 147.

154 Ampithoe longicornis Boeck, 1871 b: 165.

Ampithoe hamulus Boeck, 1876: 594, t.27, fig. 1.

Useful References: Boeck, 1871 b: 165, 1876: 594, t.27, fig. 1; Sars, 1895:

582, pl. 207; Chevreux and Fage, 1925: 335-336, fig. 344; Gurjanova,

1951: 902-903, 625; Lincoln, 1979a: 464, figs 218b, 221 a-i.

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments: This species has often been placed alone when the genera are

keyed out. It is of unusual form and often described.

Distribution: Luc-sur-Mer, France (Mediterranean Sea); Monaco

(Mediterranean Sea); Corsica (Mediterranean Sea); Norway (northern

North Sea); British Isles (east Atlantic Ocean); Portugal (east Atlantic

Ocean); Algeria (Atlantic Ocean); Sea of Japan (west Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe guaspare J. L. Barnard, 1979b

Ampithoe guaspare J. L. Barnard, 1979b: 16-18, fig.4 (part).

Ecology: Collected in rock wash, intertidal.

Comments: This species is similar to members of the Ampithoe ramondi

complex, it may be a juvenile stage.

Distribution: Tower Island, Galapagos Islands (eastern Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe helleri Karaman, 1975

Ampithoe helleri Karaman, 1975c: 39.

Ampithoe bicuspis Heller, 1866: 44, pl. 4, fig. 1.

Ampithoe neglectus Lincoln, 1967: 229, figs 1-4.

155 Useful References: Heller, 1866: 44, pl. 4, fig. 1; Lincoln, 1967: 229, figs 1-

4; Krapp-Schickel, 1982a: 95-96, fig. 65.

Ecology: Found on phanerogams, infralittoral.

Distribution: Hvar (North Adriatic Sea); general Mediterranean Sea;

southern coasts of British Isles (east Atlantic Ocean).

Ampithoe hinatore J. L. Barnard, 1972

Ampithoe hinatore J. L. Barnard, 1972b: 37-42, figs 11-12.

Ecology: Collected from the wash of algae, intertidal.

Comments: This species is a close relative of Ampithoe waialua.

Distribution: Kaikoura, east coast of New Zealand (west Pacific Ocean).

/1Mpif/,io€ ~ 11 e.olu. J.L. f>~()')o.n,l I IO,t-0

fhv.pdlt.oar--M.-a 19"tOct, 44- -so, ~3- 14--16.

Useful References: Ledoyer, 1972c: 180-182, fig. 8, 1979a:17, fig. 6(11),

1982b: 117-120, fig. 38.

Ecology: Living on seaweeds.

Comments: There are a number of forms of this species forming a

species complex.

Distribution: Hawaiian Islands (Pacific Ocean); Tulear, Madagascar

(Mrn;:ambique Channel, Indian Ocean).

Ampithoe kaneohe navosa Myers, 1985

Ampithoe kaneohe navosa Myers, 1985c: 36-40, figs 27-28.

156 Useful Reference: Myers, 1986: 1381-1382, fig. 10.

Ecology: Living in algae, coral and coral rubble.

Distribution: Marni Bay, Malevu, Fiji (Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe kava Myers, 1985

Ampithoe kava Myers, 1985c: 22-24, fig. 15.

Ampithoe ramondi, J.L. Barnard, 1970a: 50, figs 18-19.

Ampithoe ramondi, Ledoyer, 1984: 13-14, fig. 4.

Useful References: J.L. Barnard, 1970a: 50, figs 18-19; Ledoyer, 1984: 13-

14, fig. 4; Myers, 1986: 1381; Lyons and Myers, 1990: 1200, figs 3-4;

Poore and Lowry, 1997: pp, figs 6-9.

Ecology: Found in coral rubble; seagrasses; macroalgae; Sargassum sp.

This species builds tubes out of detritus and algal fragments on the

surface of macroalgae or between adjacent blades.

Comments: This species is very similar to Ampithoe ramondi and until the

complex of species surrounding A. ramondi has been resolved then this

species will remain as it is.

Distribution: Fijian Islands (Pacific Ocean); Hawaiian Islands (Pacific

Ocean); Tonga (Pacific Ocean); Noumea, New Caledonia (Pacific

Ocean); Cape Banks, New South Wales, east coast of Australia (Tasman

Sea); Aqaba, northern Red Sea.

Ampithoe koreana Kim and Kim, 1988

Ampithoe koreana Kim and Kim, 1988: 115-118, figs 5-6.

157 Ecology: All specimens were collected among algae in tide pools.

Comments: This species is very closely related to Ampithoe zachsi.

Distribution: Korean Islands (southern Sea of Japan).

Ampithoe kuala Myers, 1985

Ampithoe kuala Myers, 1985c: 24-27, fig. 16.

Ecology: Found living among algae on reef crest.

Comments: Similar to the Ampithoe ramondi complex.

Distribution: Fijian Islands (Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe kulafi J.L. Barnard, 1970

Ampithoe kulafi J. L. Barnard, 1970a: 1, 50.

'species' of J.L. Barnard, 1965a: 542, fig. 34.

Useful References: Sivaprakasam, 197.0: 77, fig. 6; J.L. Barnard, 1979b:

21; Ledoyer, 1973: 26, pl.1, 1979b: 146, fig. 31, 1982b: 120-121, fig.39;

Conlan, 1982: 2020; Myers, 1985c: 40-42, fig. 29.

Ecology: Collected in algal wash and among the brown algae Sargassum

sp., Turbinaria sp. and Amphiroa sp. and among coral rubble.

Comments: Holotype assigned in J. L. Barnard, 1979

Distribution: lfaluk Atoll, Caroline Islands (Pacific Ocean); Fijian Islands

(southern Pacific Ocean); Madagascar (western Atlantic Ocean);

California USA (eastern Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe kussakini Gurjanova, 1955

158 Ampithoe kussakini Gurjanova, 1955b: 215-217, figs 22-23.

Useful References: Conlan and Bousfield, 1982a: 52-53, fig.5.

Ecology: They are found mid to low intertidal, among eelgrass and

algae on sheltered coasts.

Comments: There is some variation between Conlan and Bousfield's

(1982) specimens and Gurjanova's (1955) specimens.

Distribution: Shikotan Island, Kurile Islands, north of Japan (west Pacific

Ocean); Aleutian Islands, Alaska (Bering Sea); Vancouver Islands, British

Columbia, USA (east Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe lacertosa Bate, 1858

Ampithoe lacertosa Bate, 1858b: 362.

Ampithoe stimpsoni Boeck, 1871a: 14-15, fig. 5.

Ampithoe scitulus Harford, 1877 a: 116.

Ampithoe japonica Stebbing, 1888: 1124, fig. 138A.

Ampithoe macrurus Stephensen, 1944b: 80-83, figs 30-31.

Useful References: Boeck, 1871 a: 14-15, fig. 5; Harford, 1877 a: 116;

Stebbing, 1888: 1124, fig. 138A; Stephensen, 1944b: 80-83, figs 30-31;

Gurjanova, 1951: 895-897, fig. 622; Conlan and Bousfield, 1982a: 47-49,

fig. 2; Hirayama, 1983: 115, fig. 21.

Ecology: Collected from among algae and eelgrasses.

Comments: This species and its synonymies form a large group that may or

may not be all in this species.

Distribution: Ariake Sea, Tomioka Bay, Shijiki Bay, west Kyushu, Japan

159 (Sea of Japan); Aleutian Islands, Alaska (Bering Sea) to Magdalena Bay

in Baja California (east Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe longimana Smith, 1873

Ampithoe longimana Smith, 1873: 563-564.

Useful References: J.L. Barnard, 1959d: 36-37, pl. 12, 1965b:15, fig. 8;

Bousfield, 1973: 181-182, Pl. LIV. 2

Ecology: Constructs nest from mucus and bits of seaweed on algae and

seagrasses. Feeds on diatoms.

Comments: Studied frequently in ecological studies.

Distribution: Florida to Chesapeake Bay, Cape Cod, and southern

Maine, east coast of North America (west Atlantic Ocean).

Ampithoe macrocornuta (Kensley, 1971)

Pleonexes macrocornuta Kensley, 1971: 151-154, figs 2-3.

Ecology: Collected from rocky shores.

Comments: This species is in the "Pleonexes" species group.

Distribution: Mocamedes, Angola, Southwest Africa ( eastern Atlantic

Ocean).

Ampithoe marcuzzii Ruffo, 1954

Ampithoe marcuzzii Ruffo, 1954: 120-124, figs 1-2.

Useful References: Ortiz, 1978: 6 (checklist).

Ecology: Unknown.

160 Distribution: Los Roques, Venezuela (Caribbean Sea).

Ampithoe maxillissius Ledoyer, 1984

Ampithoe maxillissius Ledoyer, 1984: 11-13, fig. 3.

Ecology: Living in coralline sand.

Distribution: Noumea, New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe megaloprotopus Stebbing, 1895b

Ampithoe megaloprotopus Stebbing, 1895b: 397, figs 14, 158.

Useful References: Stebbing, 1906: 633.

Ecology: Collected from seaweed on rocks.

Comments: This species may not be a valid species.

Distribution: Antigua, Leeward Islands (Caribbean Sea, tropical Atlantic

Ocean).

Ampithoe ngana Poore and Lowry, 1997

Ampithoe ngana Poore and Lowry, 1997: pp, figs 10-13.

Useful References: Evans (mss - key)

Ecology: Living on macroalgae and Sargassum sp. This species builds tubes

on the surface of the macroalgae using detritus. This behaviour is similar to

that of Ampithoe caddi and Ampithoe kava (Poore and Lowry, 1997).

Comments: This species is very similar to Ampithoe hinatore J.L. Barnard,

1972 from New Zealand.

Distribution: Port Jackson, Bawley Point, Ulladulla, Bendalong, New South

161 Wales; Tinderbox, D'Entrecasteaux Channel, Kenchington, Tasmania,

south-eastern coast of Australia (Tasman Sea).

Ampithoe nobrei Mateus and Mateus, 1986

Ampithoe nobrei Mateus and Mateus, 1986: 191-196, figs 29-40.

Ecology: Unknown

Distribution: Santa Cruz Bay, Annobon, Gulf of Guinea (eastern Atlantic

Ocean).

Ampithoe platycera Sivaprakasam, 1970

Ampithoe platycera Sivaprakasam, 1970g: 68, fig. 2.

Useful References: ?Ledoyer, 1979b: 146, fig. 3(11).

Ecology: Unknown.

Distribution: Gulf of Mannar, southern tip of India (northern Indian Ocean).

Ampithoe plumulosa Shoemaker, 1938

Ampithoe p/umulosa Shoemaker, 1938b: 16-19, fig. 1.

Useful References: J. L. Barnard, 1965b: 20, figs 11-12, 1979; Conlan and

Bousfield, 1982a: 50-51, fig. 4.

Ecology: Intertidal and shallow sublittoral. Found among algae and

Phyllospadix sp.

Comments:There is some differences between the illustrations in J.L.

Barnard ( 1965) and Shoemaker's ( 1938) type material (Conlan and

Bousfield, 1982).

162 Distribution: British Columbia to Ecuador, including Gulf of California and

Galapagos Islands (eastern Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe plumulosa tepahue J. L. Barnard, 1979

Ampithae p/umulasa tepahue J. L. Barnard, 1979b: 18, fig.4 (part).

Ecology: Collected from algae - rock wash at 6-9 m.

Distribution: Isla Santa Cruz, Galapagos Islands (eastern Pacific Ocean).

Ampithae poipu J.L. Barnard, 1970

Ampithae paipu J. L. Barnard, 1970a: 57-61, figs 22-24a-k.

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments: This species belongs in the "Pleanexes" species group.

Distribution: Hawaiian Islands (Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe pal/ex Kunkel, 191 O

Ampithae pal/ex Kunkel, 191 O: 92-94, fig.36.

Ampithae indentata Stout, 1913: 656-657.

Useful References: J.L. Barnard, 1965b: 22-25, figs 13-14, 1979b: 18-20,

fig. 5 (part); Hirayama, 1983: 115, fig. 22.

Ecology: Found on coralline algae. Littoral and shallow sublittoral.

Comments: This species has an odd distribution range, very wide-spread.

Distribution: Madagascar (west Indian Ocean); Shijiki Bay, west Kyushu,

Japan; Bermuda; extending from Coos Bay, Oregon, into the Gulf of

California, USA, to the Galapagos Islands, (eastern Pacific Ocean).

163 Ampithoe pomboi Mateus and Afonso, 197 4

Ampithoe pomboi Mateus and Afonso, 197 4: 17-36, figs 9-25.

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments: This species fits into the "Pleonexes" species group.

Distribution: Santa Maria, Azores Islands (east Atlantic Ocean).

Ampithoe ramondi Audouin, 1826

Ampithoe ramondi Audouin, 1826: 93, pi 11, fig. 6.

Ampithoe vaillantii Chevreux and Fage, 1925: 333-334, figs 341-342.

Ampithoe penicillata Costa, 1857: 207, t.2, fig. 9.

Ampithoe desmarestii Bate, 1862: 238-239, pl. XLI, fig. 8.

Ampithoe pontica Czerniavsky, 1868: 102, t. 7, figs 19-27.

Ampithoe erythraea Kossmann, 1880 : 134, pl. 14, figs 12-13.

Ampithoe intermedia Walker, 1904:290-291, pi 7, fig.46.

Ampithoe lobata Walker, 1909b: 342, pl. 43, fig. 9.

Ampithoe divisura Shoemaker, 1933a: 255-256, fig. 9.

Useful References: Costa, 1857: 207, t.2, fig. 9; Bate, 1862: 238-239, pl.

XLI, fig. 8; Czerniavsky, 1868: 102, t. 7, figs 19-27; Kossmann, 1880: 134,

pl. 14, figs 12-13; Walker, 1904: 290-291, pi 7, fig.46, 1909b: 341-342, pi

43, fig. 9; Chevreux and Fage, 1925: 333-334, figs 341-342; Shoemaker,

1933a: 255-256, fig. 9; Nagata, 1965c: 315, fig. 380; J.L. Barnard, 1955:

28-29 (with references), 1979b: 20, fig.4 (part); Rabindranath, 1972c:

162-166, figs 1-2; Krapp- Schickel, 1978: 1, figs 1-2, 1982a: 98-101, figs

164 66-67; Hirayama, 1983: 116, fig. 24; Ledoyer, 1982b: 125-127, fig. 42,

1985c; Myers, 1985c: 27-29, fig.17; Lyons and Myers, 1990: 1203, figs 5-

Ecology: Living on seaweed, coral rubble.

Comments: The type locality is vague (documented as Egypt but either the

Mediterranean Sea or the Red Sea). The original description was based on

a female specimen, and as ampithoids are highly sexually dimorphic, this

means the species is unidentifiable and so a neotype needs to be

established to stabilise the group.

Distribution: Egypt - exact locality unknown (Red Sea or Mediterranean

Sea); Bahia de Los Angeles, Bahai Concepcion, Gulf of California, Oahu,

Kawela Bay, Waimanalo,Hawaiian Islands, United States of America;

Galapagos Islands, eastern Pacific Ocean; Pamban, Thankasserry,

Quilon, Kerala, India; Aqaba, Red Sea; Tomioka Bay, west Kyushu,

Japan; general Mediterranean Sea; Nananui Ra, Fiji (Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe riedli Krapp-Schickel, 1968

Ampithoe riedli Krapp-Schickel, 1968: 337, figs 1-4.

Useful References: Krapp-Schickel, 1982a: 101, fig. 68.

Ecology: lnfralittoral, between wave-exposed algae (Jania, Laurencia,

Cystoseira, Peyssonnelia, Cryptonemia sp.).

Comments: This species is similar to Ampithoe ramondi but until the

problems associated with the A ramondi complex are resolved then this

species remains.

165 Distribution: Rovinji, north Adriatic Sea; Sardinia; ltaly-Tyrrhenian Sea;

Sicily; Malta; Italy-Ionian Sea; Rodhos, Greece; Israel, Mediterranean

Sea.

Ampithoe rubricata (Montagu, 1808)

Cancer (Gammarus) rubricata Montagu, 1808: 99, t. 5, fig. 1.

Ampithoe punctatus Johnston, 1827: 243.

Ampithoe podoceroides Rathke, 1843:79, pl. IV, fig. 4.

Ampithoe a/bomaculata Kr0yer, 1846a: 67.

Ampithoe littorina Bate, 1857d: 147.

Useful References: Johnston, 1827: 243; Rathke, 1843:79, pl. IV, fig. 4;

Kr0yer, 1846a: 67; Bate, 1857d: 147; Sars, 1895: 579, pl. 206; Chevreux

and Fage, 1925: 334-335, fig. 343; Gurjanova, 1951 :876-878, figs 612;

Bousfield, 1973: 180, pl. LIV.1.

Ecology: Living on red, brown and green algae and Zostera seagrass.

Comments: This species needs resolution.

Distribution: Le Havre, France (Atlantic Ocean); Norway (North Sea);

Sweden; Cattegat, Denmark; British Isles (Atlantic Ocean); Bermuda

(Caribbean Sea); New England and Alaska, USA (Atlantic Ocean).

Ampithoe rubricatoides Shoemaker, 1938

Ampithoe rubricatoides Shoemaker, 1938b: 22, figs 3-4.

Useful References: Gurjanova, 1951: 878-880, fig. 613; Conlan and

Bousfield, 1982a: 56, fig.8.

166 Ecology: This is a cold water species and is usually found in sand and mud

sediments.

Comments: This species is in a similar morphological group with Ampithae

dalli and Ampithae simulans (also if Ampithae caral/ina were a valid

species, it would fit into this group).

Distribution: Alaska, Aleutian Islands (Bering Sea); Pribilof Islands (Bering

Sea).

Ampithae sectimanus Conlan and Bousfield, 1982

Ampithae sectimanus Conlan and Bousfield, 1982a: 54-55, fig. 7.

Ampithae pal/ex of J.L. Barnard, 1954a: 29-31, pls 27-28 (not

Kunkel, 1910).

?Ampithae simulans of J.L. Barnard, 1965: 27-30, fig.18 (not Alderman,

1936).

Useful References: J.L. Barnard, 1954a: 29-31, pls 27-28, 1965: 27-30,

fig.18.

Ecology: Cold to temperate species. Found among algae on rocky,

exposed coasts.

Comments: This species is similar to Ampithae pal/ex.

Distribution: Prince William Sound, Alaska to Cape Arago, Oregon (eastern

Pacific Ocean).

Ampithae senegalensis Schellenberg, 1925

Ampithae senegalensis Schellenberg, 1925a : 185-186, fig. 27.

167 Useful References: Ruffo, 1947b: 126-127.

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments:The original description is poorly illustrated.

Distribution: Senegal west African coast; Cape Verde Islands (east Atlantic

Ocean).

Ampithoe serraticauda Rabindranath, 1972c

Ampithoe serraticauda Rabindranath, 1972c: 168-171, figs. 5-6.

Ecology: Collected from washes of hydroids and algae.

Distribution: Pamban area, Gulf of Mannar, India.

Ampithoe simulans Alderman, 1936

Ampithoe simulans Alderman, 1936: 68-79, figs 44-47.

Useful References: J. L. Barnard, 1954, 33-34, fig.1; Conlan and Bousfield,

1982a: 58-60, fig.10.

Ecology: Collected from among algae and eelgrasses.

Comments: Description agrees with the Stebbing, 1906 description of

Ampithoe cinerea Haswell, 1879 (Conlan and Bousfield, 1982).

Distribution: Moss Beach, California, USA (eastern Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe tahue J.L. Barnard, 1979

Ampithoe ta hue J. L. Barnard, 1979b: 20-21, fig. 5 (part).

Ecology: Collected from rocks in tidepool, intertidal.

Comments: Only females known. Very similar in form to Ampithoe

168 vacaregue and both species may be females of Ampithae pal/ex (J.L.

Barnard, 1979).

Distribution: Academy Bay, Galapagos Islands (eastern Pacific Ocean).

Ampithae tarasavi Bulycheva, 1952

Ampithae tarasavi Bulycheva, 1952: citation not known.

Useful References: Tzvetkova, 1968: citation not known.

Ecology: Unknown.

Distribution: Sea of Japan?.

Ampithae vacaregue J.L. Barnard, 1979

Ampithae vacaregue J. L. Barnard, 1979b: 21, fig. 6 (part).

Ecology: Intertidal.

Comments: Only females recorded. Very similar to Ampithae tahue and

both may be forms of Ampithae pal/ex.

Distribution: Vicinity of Academy Bay, Galapagos Islands, (eastern Pacific

Ocean).

Ampithae valida Smith, 1873

Ampithae valida Smith, 1873: 563.

Ampithae shimizuensis Stephensen, 1944b : 77-80, figs 27-28.

Useful References: Stebbing, 1906: 635; Alderman, 1936: 68; Stephensen,

1944b: 77-80, figs 27-28; Bousfield, 1973: 180-181, pi LV.1; Conlan and

Bousfield, 1982a: 49-50, fig.3; Hirayama, 1983: 117, fig. 25.

169 Ecology: Living on Halosaccion glandiformis (Alderman, 1936) and on the

green alga Ulvacea (Bousfield, 1973).

Comments: This species was not illustrated by Smith, 1873.

Distribution: Long Island Sound, United States of America; Moss Beach,

California (eastern Pacific Ocean); Tomioka Bay, west Kyushu, Japan

(western Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe volki Gurjanova, 1938

Ampithoe volki Gurjanova, 1938b: 359, fig. 52.

Useful References: Gurjanova, 1951: 899-901, fig. 624; Conlan and

Bousfield, 1982a: 53-54, fig. 6.

Ecology: Found in tidepools and beds of the alga Laurencia.

Comments: There are a number of differences between the specimens

reported in Conlan and Bousfield, 1982 and Gurjanova's type specimens.

Conlan and Bousfield, 1982 suggest that their specimens may warrant a

new species.

Distribution: Alaska, USA (eastern Pacific Ocean); Sea of Japan (western

Pacific Ocean); Kurile Islands (Bering Sea).

Ampithoe waialua J. L. Barnard, 1970

Ampithoe waialua J. L. Barnard, 1970a: 53-54, figs 20-21.

Ecology: Found on algae and dead coral heads in the intertidal.

Comments: This species forms a species complex with Ampithoe hinatore

Barnard (1972) and Ampithoe ngana Poore and Lowry, 1997.

170 Distribution: Hawaiian Islands (Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe youngsanensis Kim and Kim, 1988

Ampithoe youngsanensis Kim and Kim, 1988: 118-121, figs 7-8.

Ecology: Specimens collected were from among algae in tide pools.

Comments: This species is closely related to Ampithoe kaneohe Barnard,

1970.

Distribution: Korea (southern Sea of Japan).

Ampithoe zachsi Gurjanova, 1938b

Ampithoe zachsi Gurjanova, 1938b: 356, fig. 51.

Useful References: Gurjanova, 1951: 897-899, fig. 623.

Ecology: unknown

Distribution: Sea of Japan.

Ampithoe sp.

Ampithoe sp. Pirlot, 1938: 347-348.

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments: This form is not illustrated anywhere and is unidentifiable.

Distribution: Greater Indonesia (Pacific Ocean)

Ampithoe sp.

Ampithoe sp. J. L. Barnard, 1965b: 37-40, figs 24-25.

Ecology: Intertidal.

171 Comments: This form may or may not be a valid species.

Distribution: San Diego, USA (east Pacific Ocean).

Ampithoe sp.

Ampithoe sp. J. L. Barnard, 1972b: 45, fig. 15.

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments: Only the female is described, so this form is unidentifiable.

Distribution: Whangaparaoa Peninsula, Hauraki Gulf, north New Zealand

(southern Pacific Ocean).

CYMADUSA Savigny, 1816

Cymadusa Savigny, 1816: 51, 109. --Barnard and Karaman, 1991; Conlan,

1982; Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Type species: Cymadusa filosa Savigny, 1816 monotypy

Cymadusa aestos Evans (mss)

Synonymy: Cymadusa setosa of Tatersall, 1922.

Useful References: Tatersall, 1922.

Ecology:on Sargassum sp.

Comments: This species is similar to Cymadusa setosa (Haswell, 1879).

Distribution: Cockburn Sound, Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia,

Australia (east Indian Ocean).

172 Cymadusa bilobata (Ruffo, 1969)

Paradusa bilobata Ruffo, 1969: 63, figs 21-23.

Ecology: Living on seagrasses, Halodule and Cymodocea.

Distribution: Pacific Ocean.

Cymadusa bilobata pillipes (Ledoyer, 1984)

Paradusa bilobata pil/ipes Ledoyer, 1984: 26, fig. 11.

Useful References: Ruffo, 1969: 63, figs 21-23.

Ecology: Living on seagrasses.

Distribution: Noumea, New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean).

Cymadusa brevidactyla (Chevreux, 1907a)

Grubia brevidactyla Chevreux, 1907 a: 417.

Ampithoe cavimana of Sivaprakasam, 1970: 65, fig. 1.

Useful References: Chevreux, 1908c: 517, figs 30-32; Sivaprakasam, 1970:

65, fig. 1; Ledoyer, 1979: 17, figs 4-5; Myers, 1985c: 29, figs 18-19.

Ecology: Living on the algae Amphiroa on reef flat.

Distribution: Gambier Archipelago (Pacific Ocean); Fijian Islands (Pacific

Ocean); Tuamotu Archipelago (Pacific Ocean); Gulf of Mannar, India

(Indian Ocean); Tulear, Madagascar (Moc;ambique Channel, Indian

Ocean); Indonesia (Pacific Ocean); Mauritis (Indian Ocean).

Cymadusa cavimana Sivaprakasam, 1970

173 Cymadusa cavimana Sivaprakasam, 1970g: 65, fig. 1.

Cymadusa kergueleni Rabindranath, 1972c: 166-167, figs 3-4.

Useful References: Rabindranath, 1972c: 166-167, figs 3-4; Ledoyer,

?1978b: 218, fig. 7, 1979 b: 144, fig. 5(Ii},1982b: 116-117, fig. 37.

Ecology: Living on green algae and eelgrasses.

Distribution: Thankasserry, Mandapam, India (northern Indian Ocean).

Cymadusa chuawe Evans (mss)

Ecology: Collected on Sargassum sp. washings.

Comments: This species is similar to Cymadusa imbroglio.

Distribution: Tantabiddi Beach, Western Australia, west coast of Australia.

Cymadusa compta (Smith, 1873)

Grubia compta Smith, 1873: 370, fig. 564.

Useful References: Bousfield, 1973: 182-183, pl. LV.2.

Ecology: Common in seagrasses.

Comments: May be a synonym of Cymadusa filosa (J.L. Barnard, 1955).

Distribution: central Maine, Cape Cod, southern and northern Florida, west

and east coasts of North America (eastern Pacific Ocean and western

Atlantic Ocean).

Cymadusa crassicornis (Costa, 1857)

Grubia crassicornis Costa, 1857: 206, pl. 3, fig. 1a-d.

Cymadusa elongata Costa, 1857: 209, pl. 3, fig. 5.

174 Cymadusa longicornis Heller, 1866: 46, pl.4, figs 6-7.

Cymadusa taurica Czerniasky, 1868: 103, t. 8, figs 1-10.

Cymadusa massiliensis Catta, 1875: 165.

Useful References: Costa, 1857: 209, pl. 3, fig. 5; Heller, 1866: 46, pl.4,

figs 6-7; Czerniasky, 1868: 103, t.8, figs 1-10; Catta, 1875: 165; Chevreux

and Fage, 1925: 338-339, figs 340,346; Gurjanova, 1951: 903-904, 626;

Krapp-Schickel, 1982a: 104-106, fig. 70.

Ecology: lnfralittoral, living in mucus tubes between algae and seagrasses.

Comments: This species appears to form a group that has a wide distribution

and may need to be split into separate species.

Distribution: Gulf of Napoli (Mediterranean Sea); Black Sea; Red Sea;

Sea of Japan.

Cymadusa elegantis Evans (mss)

Ecology: Living on Sargassum sp.

Comments: This species is distinct because of the extremely long antennae

and antenna 1 with a small scale - like accessory flagellum.

Distribution: Fancy Point, Tasmania, south-eastern coast of Australia

(Tasman Sea).

Cymadusa fi/osa Savigny, 1816

Cymadusa filosa Savigny, 1816: 51, 109, pi iv, fig. 1a-b,e,i,o,u.

Cymadusa inda Milne - Edwards, 1830: 376.

Cymadusa indica Milne - Edwards, 1840: 31.

175 Cymadusa rubella Dana, 1852a: 215.

Cymadusa brasiliensis Dana, 1853: 943, t. 64, fig. 6a-n.

Cymadusa filicornis Dana, 1853: 944, t.65, figs 1a-g.

Cymadusa f/indersi Stebbing, 1888: 1120, fig. 118.

Cymadusa hirsuta Chevreux, 1900b : 95-101, figs 1-5.

Cymahdusa coei Kunkel, 1910: 97, fig. 38.

C_vmadusa australis K. H. Barnard, 1916: 258-260.

Useful References: Milne - Edwards, 1830: 376, 1840: 31; Dana, 1852a:

215, 1853: 943, t. 64, fig. 6a-n, 1853: 944, t.65, figs 1 a-g; Stebbing, 1888:

1120, fig. 118; Chevreux, 1900b: 95-101, figs 1-5; Kunkel, 191 O: 97, fig.

38; K.H. Barnard, 1916: 258-260; Chevreux and Fage, 1925: 339-340, fig.

347; Shoemaker, 1935: 245-249, figs 4-5; J.L. Barnard, 1955: 29-30, fig

15 (with references); Rabindranth, 1972: 173-175, figs 8-9; Krapp

Schickel, 1982a: 106-108, figs 71-72; Ledoyer, 1982b: 130-135, figs 44-

46, 1984: 15-18, figs 5-6; Lyons and Myers, 1990: 1203, figs 5-6; Evans

(mss).

Ecology: Living on a variety of seaweeds and seagrasses, coral rubble.

Comments: The type locality is vague (documented as Egypt, but could

be either the Mediterranean Sea or the Red Sea). The original description

only documents the mouthparts. A neotype needs to be established to

stabilise the group.

Distribution: Egypt - Mediterranean or Red Sea (exact type locality

unknown); Natal, Southern Africa (Atlantic Ocean); Hawaiian Islands

(Pacific Ocean); Aqaba (Red Sea); Noumea, New Caledonia (Pacific

176 Ocean); Guanica, Puerto Rico (Caribbean Sea); Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

(western Atlantic Ocean); Gulf of Mannar, India (northern Indian Ocean).

Cymadusa grossimana Ledoyer, 1984

Cymadusa grossimana Ledoyer, 1984: 18-21, figs 7-8.

Ecology: Living on the seagrasses Halodule and Cymodocea.

Comments: This species may be part of the Paradusa species group.

Distribution: llot Maitre, New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean).

Cymadusa hawaiensis (Schellenberg, 1938a)

Grubia hawaiensis Schellenberg, 1938a: 88-90, fig. 45.

Useful References: J. L. Barnard, 1970a: 61, figs 25-26.

Ecology: Found on the brown algae Padina sp.

Distribution: Hawaiian Islands (Pacific Ocean).

Cymadusa imbroglio Rabindranath, 1972

Cymadusa imbroglio Rabindranath, 1972c:175-177, fig.9.

Useful References: Myers, 1985c: 29-33, figs 20-21 (key); Evans (mss - key

and illustrations).

Ecology: Living in coral rubble and on macroalgae.

Comments: This species is similar to some forms in the Cymadusa Filosa

complex (Ledoyer, 1984).

Distribution: Gulf of Mannar, southern tip of India (Indian Ocean); Fijian

Islands (southern Pacific Ocean); Bare Island, Botany Bay, New South

177 Wales, east coast of Australia (Tasman Sea).

Cymadusa lunata Myers, 1985

Cymadusa /unata Myers, 1985c: 33, figs 22-23.

Ecology: Living among algae, zoanthids, living and dead coral, coral rubble.

Distribution: Fijian Islands (Pacific Ocean).

Cymadusa mauritiensis (Ledoyer, 1978b)

Paradusa mauritiensis Ledoyer, 1978b: 226, fig. 12.

Useful References: Ledoyer, 1982b: 136-138, fig. 47.

Ecology: Living on seaweed in a creek.

Distribution: Mauritis (Indian Ocean); Tulear, Madagascar (Mo9ambique

Channel, Indian Ocean).

Cymadusa microphthalma (Chevreux, 1901 a)

Grubia microphthalma Chevreux, 1901 a: 422-426, figs 46-49.

Useful References: Sivaprakasam, 1970a: citation not found.

Ecology: Collected from algae and sponges.

Comments: This may be a synonymy of Cymadusa fi/osa.

Distribution: east coast of India (northern Indian Ocean - Bay of Bengal);

Seychelles Islands (west Indian Ocean).

Cymadusa munnu Poore and Lowry, 1997

Cymadusa munnu Poore and Lowry, 1997: pp, figs 14-17.

178 Useful References: Evans (mss - key).

Ecology: Living on the brown algae Dictyopteris acrostichoides,

Homoeostrichus sinclarii, Zonaria diesingiana, Oelisea pulchra and

Champia sp.

Comments: This species is related to the Cymadusa fi/osa complex.

Distribution: Port Jackson, Cronulla, Summercloud Bay, New South Wales,

east coast of Australia (Tasman Sea).

Cymadusa oceanica J.L. Barnard, 1955

Cymadusa oceanica J.L. Barnard, 1955a: 31, fig.16.

Useful References: J. L. Barnard, 1971 a.

Ecology: Unknown.

Distribution: Hawaiian Islands (Pacific Ocean).

Cymadusa sardenta (Oliveira, 1953)

Grubia sardenta Oliveira, 1953: 365, pls 25-26.

Useful References: Sivaprakasam, 1970b: 153-156, fig. 13.

Ecology: Collected from algae growing on a wooden pole.

Comments: The only two known records of this species are widely

separated. One is in Rio de Janeiro, the other is in the northern Indian

Ocean. This may indicate that the second record may be a different

species.

Distribution: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Atlantic Ocean); Hare Island, Tuticorin,

India (northern Indian Ocean).

179 Cymadusa setosa (Haswell, 1879)

Ampithoe setosa Haswell, 1879: 338.

Useful References: Evans (mss).

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments: This species was previously synonymised with Cymadusa filosa

but has been reestablished as an independent species (Evans mss).

Distribution: Botany Bay, New South Wales, east coast of Australia

(Tasman Sea).

Cymadusa uncinata (Stout, 1912)

Grubia uncinata Stout, 1912: 146-147, figs 81-83.

Useful References: J. L. Barnard, 1965b: 40-43, figs 26-28; Conlan and

Bousfield, 1982a: 43-45, fig.1.

Ecology: Found in tubes in kelp holdfasts in deep water.

Comments: This species may be of the genus Paragrubia (Poore and

Lowry, 1997).

Distribution: Laguna Beach, California, San Diego, USA

EXAMPITHOE (Exampithoe) K.H. Barnard, 1926

Exampithoe K. H. Barnard, 1926. -- Barnard and Karaman, 1991; Conlan,

1982; Poore and Lowry, 1997.

180 Type species: Exampithoe natalensis K.H. Barnard, 1926

Exampithoe gracilipes Ledoyer, 1984

Exampithoe gracilipes Ledoyer, 1984: 21-23, fig. 9.

Useful References: Poore and Lowry, 1997: 5.

Ecology: Living on the seagrasses Halodule and Cymodocea.

Comments: Poore and Lowry (1997) moved this species from Exampithoe

(Melanesius) to Exampithoe (Exampithoe).

Distribution: lle aux Canards, New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean).

Exampithoe natalensis K.H. Barnard, 1925

Exampithoe natalensis K.H. Barnard, 1925: 363, pi 34, figs 16-17.

Useful References: Griffiths, 197 4b: 225.

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments: There are gaps in the description, which make this species

difficult to identify, there is only one record to date.

Distribution: Port Shepstone, Southern Africa (southern Indian Ocean).

EXAMPITHOE (Melanesius) Ledoyer, 1984

Exampithoe (Melanesius) Ledoyer, 1984: 23. -- Barnard and Karaman, 1991;

Conlan, 1982; Poore and Lowry, 1997.

181 Type species:Exampithoe (Melanesius) cooki Ledoyer, 1984, original

designation.

Exampithoe (Melanesius) cooki Ledoyer, 1984

Exampithoe (Melanesius) cooki Ledoyer, 1984: 24-25, fig.10.

Ecology: Living on the seagrasses, Halodule and Cymodocea.

Distribution: llot Maitre, Noumea, New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean).

Exampithoe (Melanesius) ecklonicola Evans (mss)

Ecology: Living in the canopies of the brown algae Ecklonia radiata.

Comments: Similar to Exampithoe kutti but it has very long gnathopods.

Distribution: Botany Bay, New South Wales, east coast of Australia

(Tasman Sea).

Exampithoe (Melanesius) kutti Poore and Lowry, 1997

Exampithoe (Melanesius) kutti Poore and Lowry, 1997: pp, figs 18-21, 30.

Useful References: Evans, (mss -key).

Ecology: Living on Dictyopteris acrostichoides Dictyota dichotoma and

Zonaria diesingiana. This species joins algal blades to form a tube which is

usually shared by a male, a female and their offspring.

Distribution: Port Jackson, Ulladulla, New South Wales, east coast of

Australia (Tasman Sea).

182 MACROPISTHOPOUS K.H. Barnard, 1916

Macropisthopous K. H. Barnard, 1916: 260. -- Barnard and Karaman, 1991;

Conlan, 1982; Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Type Species: Macropisthopous stebbingi K.H. Barnard, 1916, monotypy

Macropisthopous stebbingi K. H. Barnard, 1916

Macropisthopous stebbingi K. H. Barnard, 1916: 260-262, pl. xxviii, figs

15-17.

Useful References: Griffiths, 1979: 131-137, figs 3d-g; Poore and Lowry,

1997: pp.

Ecology: Found in the kelp Macrocystis. This species is a 'kelp-curler'.

Comments: This species is similar to Peramphithoe humeralis of Griffiths,

1979 and Peramphithoe parmerong Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Distribution: False Bay, Port Elizabeth, southern Africa (southern Atlantic

Ocean).

PARAGRUBIA Chevreux, 1901a

Paragrubia Chevreux, 1901: 426. -- Barnard and Karaman, 1991; Conlan,

1982; Poore and Lowry, 1997.

183 Type species: Paragrubia vorax Chevreux, 1901

Paragrubia edgari Evans (mss)

Ecology: Living on the brown algae Sargassum sp.

Comments: Similar to Paragrubia vorax.

Distribution: Cape Cleveland, Queensland, east coast of Australia (western

Pacific Ocean).

Paragrubia variata (Sheard, 1936a)

Grubia variata Sheard, 1936a

Useful References: Evans, (mss - key)

Ecology: Found on reef.

Comments: This species was recently (Poore and Lowry, 1997) removed

from the genus Cymadusa to the genus Paragrubia.

Distribution: Sellick's Beach, St Vincents Gulf, South Australia, south-eastern

coast of Australia (southern Ocean).

Paragrubia vorax Chevreux, 1901

Paragrubia vorax Chevreux, 1901 a: 427 -431, figs 50-55.

Useful References: Ruffo, 1938: 173-174, fig. v; J.L. Barnard, 1955: 31-34,

fig.17 (with references), 1970a: 61, fig. 32; Griffiths, 1973:278, fig. 5;

Ledoyer, 1982b: 138-140, fig. 48; Myers, 1985c: 33, figs 24-25.

Ecology: Living in algae, especially in Caulerpa sp., Gelidiella sp.,

184 Amphiroa sp., Gigarlina sp., Turbinaria sp. Also found among sponges,

zoanthids and coral debris.

Comments: This species seems to have a fairly wide-spread distribution.

Distribution: Hawaiian Islands (Pacific Ocean); Mahe, Seychelles Islands

(Indian Ocean); southern Africa; Fijian Islands (Pacific Ocean); Red Sea.

PERAMPHITHOE Conlan and Bousfield, 1982a

Peramphithoe Conlan and Bousfield, 1982: 60. --Barnard and Karaman,

1991; Conlan, 1982; Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Type species: Ampithoe femorata Kr0yer, 1845

Peramphithoe annenkovae Gurjanova, 1938

Peramphithoe annenkovae Gurjanova, 1938b: citation not known.

Useful References: Gurjanova, 1951: 887, 619

Ecology: Unknown.

Distribution: Sea of Japan.

Peramphithoe aorangi (J.L. Barnard, 1972b)

Ampithoe aorangi J. L. Barnard, 1972b: 37, figs 8-1 0a-e.

Ecology: Found in the intertidal wash of algae.

Distribution: Kaikoura to Leigh, Whangaparaoa Peninsula, New Zealand

185 (southern Pacific Ocean).

Peramphithoe baegryeongensis Kim and Kim, 1988

Peramphithoe baegryeongensis Kim and Kim, 1988: 121-125, fig. 10.

Ecology: Specimens collected from algae in tide pools.

Comments: This species is closely related to Ampithoe eoa of J. L. Barnard,

1954 but not Peramphithoe eoa (Bruggen, 1907).

Distribution: Korea (southern Sea of Japan).

Peramphithoe eoa Bruggen, 1907

Peramphithoe eoa Bruggen, 1907: 481, figs 4-5.

Useful References: Gurjanova, 1951: 881-882, fig. 615.

Ecology: Unknown.

Distribution: Sea of Japan.

Peramphithoefalsa (K.H. Barnard, 1932)

Ampithoe falsa K.H. Barnard, 1932: 240.

Ampithoe brevipes identification of K. H. Barnard, 1916: 255,

pl. 28, fig. 34.

Useful References: K.H. Barnard, 1916: 255, pl. 28, fig. 34, 1937: 170-171,

fig.16.; Ruffo, 1969: 57-62, figs xviii-xx; Sivaprakasam, 1970g: 71-74, figs

3-4.

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments: There is a group of species surrounding this species which

186 form a complex.

Distribution: False Bay, South Africa (Atlantic Ocean); South Arabian Sea,

tropical Indian Ocean, Red Sea.

Peramphithoe femorata (Krnyer, 1845)

Ampithoe femorata Krnyer, 1845:335, figs 4a-i.

Amphitoe gaudichaudii Milne - Edwards, 1840: 31.

Amphithoe peregrina Dana, 1853: 940, pl.64, figs 4a-b.

Amphithoe brevipes Dana, 1852a: 216, 1853: 941, pi 64, figs 5a-n.

Amphithoe falklandi Bate, 1862: 237-248, figs 1-2,6.

Useful References: Milne - Edwards, 1840: 31; Dana, 1852a: 216, 1853:

941, pi 64, figs 5a-n, 1853: 940, pl.64, figs 4a-b; Bate, 1862: 237-248,

figs 1-2,6; Kreibohm-de-Paternoster and Escofet, 1976: 77-91, figs 1-3;

Alonso, 1980: 4-5, fig. 1; Conlan and Bousfield, 1982a : 68-69, fig.16;

Conlan and Chess, 1992: 415, figs 1, 4.

Ecology: Found in tubes rolled in the fronds of Macrocystis pyrifera.

Comments: This is a large complex of species, and until it is resolved this

species will remain.

Distribution: Santiago, Chile (Pacific Ocean); New Zealand (southern

Pacific Ocean); South Africa (Atlantic Ocean); Argentina; Brazil? (Atlantic

Ocean).

Peramphithoe humeralis (Stimpson, 1864)

Ampithoe humeralis Stimpson, 1864: 156.

187 Useful References: J.L. Barnard, 1965b: 7, figs 2-3; Conlan and Bousfield,

1982a: 61-62, fig.11.

Ecology: This species occurs among eelgrasses and kelps. This species is

a 'kelp-curler'. It rolls the frond of the kelp around itself to form a tube.

Comments: This species is different from the species described as

Ampithoe humeralis of Griffiths, 1979.

Distribution: Prince William Sound, Alaska to Guadalupe Island, Baja,

California (eastern Pacific Ocean).

Peramphithoe lessoniophila Conlan and Bousfield, 1982

Peramphithoe /essoniophila Conlan and Bousfield, 1982a: 69, fig. 17.

Ecology: This species was found living in small chambers constructed from

the kelp Lessonia sp.

Distribution: Near Coquimbo, Chile (Pacific Ocean).

Peramphithoe lindbergi (Gurjanova, 1938)

Ampithoe lindbergi Gurjanova, 1938b:351-354, fig. 49.

Useful References: Gurjanova, 1951: 892-895, fig. 620; J. L. Barnard,

1965b: 12-15, figs 6-7; Conlan and Bousfield, 1982a: 64-65, fig.13.

Ecology: Living on among eelgrass and algae to 18 m.

Comments: This species is similar to Peramphithoe annenkovae and

Peramphithoe plea.

Distribution: Sea of Japan; Prince William Sound, Alaska to Corona del

Mar, California; Bering Sea.

188 Peramphithoe mea (Gurjanova, 1938)

Ampithoe mea Gurjanova, 1938b:361-364, fig. 53.

Useful References: Gurjanova, 1951 :882-885, fig. 616; Conlan and

Bousfield, 1982a; 63-64, fig.12.

Ecology: Living among eelgrasses and algae at 5-60 m.

Comments: The specimens examined in Conlan and Bousfield (1982)

closely resemble the type specimens (Conlan and Bousfield, 1982).

Distribution: Aleutian Islands, Alaska (eastern north Pacific Ocean); Sea of

Japan (western north Pacific Ocean).

Peramphithoe namhaensis Kim and Kim, 1988

Peramphithoe namhaensis Kim and Kim, 1988: 125-129, figs 11-12.

Ecology: Collected among algae in tide pools.

Comments: This species is very closely related to Peramphithoe tea.

Distribution: Korea, southern Sea of Japan.

Peramphithoe orientalis (Dana, 1853)

Ampithoe orientalis Dana, 1853: 937-939, pi 64, fig.2.

Useful References: J.L. Barnard, 1955: 26-28, fig. 14 (with references),

1970a: 50, fig. 17; Conlan and Bousfield, 1982: 60; Hirayama, 1983: 116,

fig. 23; Myers, 1985c: 36, fig. 26.

Ecology: Living on seaweed, floating kelp (Dana, 1853).

Distribution: Manilla, Philipines (Pacific Ocean); Tomioka Bay, west

189 Kyushu, Japan; Hawaiian Islands (Pacific Ocean); Votualailai, Fijian

Islands (Pacific Ocean).

Peramphithoe parmerong Poore and Lowry, 1997

Peramphithoe parmerong Poore and Lowry, 1997: pp, figs 22-25.

Useful References: Evans (mss - key).

Ecology: Living on Sargassum linearifolium and Sargassum vestitum, and

in the canopies of Ecklonia radiata. This species curls blades of the algae

into a tube or joins neighbouring algal blades to form the tube (Poore

and Lowry, 1997).

Comments: This species indicates a link between the genus Peramphithoe

and Macropisthopous because of the expanded peraeopods 5-7.

Distribution: Cape Banks, Port Jackson, New South Wales, east coast of

Australia (Tasman Sea).

Peramphithoe plea ( J. L. Barnard, 1965b)

Ampithoe plea J. L. Barnard, 1965b: 15-20, fig. 9-10.

Useful References: Conlan and Bousfield, 1982a: 67-68, fig. 15.

Ecology: Living among kelp holdfasts.

Comments: There a number of differences between Conlan and Bousfield

( 1982) specimens and the holotype, which suggests a separate

species.

Distribution: Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia to Santa Barbara,

California (eastern Pacific Ocean).

190 Peramphithoe spuria (Krapp-Schickel, 1978)

Ampithoe spuria Krapp-Schickel, 1978: 10, figs 7-8.

Amphithoe cf. falsa Krapp-Schickel, 1969: 331, pl. 6-7.

Useful References: Krapp-Schickel, 1982b: 101-104, fig. 69.

Ecology: Living on various algae.

Distribution: Rovinji, north Adriatic Sea; general Mediterranean Sea and

Black Sea.

Peramphithoe stypotrupetes Conlan and Chess, 1992

Peramphithoe stypotrupetes Conlan and Chess, 1992: 410-422, figs. 1-3.

Ecology: This species inhabits the stipes of Laminaria dentigera.

Comments: This species is closest to Peramphithoe femorata.

Distribution: Southern California (Pacific Ocean).

Peramphithoe tea (J.L. Barnard, 1965b)

Ampithoe tea J.L. Barnard, 1965b: 30-34, figs 19-21.

Useful References: J. L. Barnard, 1969b: 89; Conlan and Bousfield, 1982a:

65-66, fig. 14.

Ecology: Living among algae.

Distribution: Prince William Sound, Alaska to Baja California (eastern

Pacific Ocean).

Peramphithoe sp.

191 Ampithoe sp. Griffiths, 1979: 132-137, figs 1-3.

Ampithoe humeralis of Griffiths, 1979.

Ecology: Living on Macrocystis. This species is a 'kelp-curler'.

Comments: This undescribed species is related to Macropisthopous

stebbingi (Griffiths, 1979).

Distribution: southern Africa (Atlantic Ocean).

Peramphithoe sp.

Ampithoe sp. of J.L. Barnard 1970a: 47.

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments: This undescribed species is closest to Peramphithoe orientalis.

Distribution: San Diego, USA; Hawaiian Islands (Pacific Ocean).

PLUMITHOE Barnard and Karaman, 1991

Plumithoe Barnard and Karaman, 1991: 109. -- Barnard and Karaman, 1991;

Conlan, 1982; Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Type species: Amphithoe plumicomis Ledoyer, 1979, original designation

Plumithoe hirsutus (Ledoyer, 1978b)

Ampithoe hirsutus Ledoyer, 1978b: 220, fig. 8.

Ampithoe pollex var. hirsutus Ledoyer, 1978: 220, fig.8.

192 Useful References: Ledoyer, 1982b: 122-125, fig. 41; Myers, 1985c: 22,

figs 13-14.

Ecology: Among coral debris on reef crest.

Comments: This species has an unstable taxonomic position.

Distribution: Trou aux Biches reef, Mauritis (Indian Ocean); Makukuva

Island, Fiji (Pacific Ocean).

Plumithoe plumicornis (Ledoyer, 1979a)

Ampithoe p/umicornis Ledoyer, 1979a: 17-19, fig. 6(1).

Useful References: Ledoyer, 1982b: 121-122, fig. 40.

Ecology: Living on seaweeds.

Comments: This species is similar to Ampithoe plumulosa.

Distribution: Tulear, Madagascar (Indian Ocean).

Plumithoe quadrimanus (Haswell, 1879)

Amphithoe quadrimanus Haswell, 1879b: 337, t.21, fig. 7.

Ampithoe quadrimana Stebbing, 1906: 635.

Useful References: Haswell, 1879b: 337, t.21, fig. 7; Stebbing, 1906: 635,

191 O; Poore and Lowry, 1997: pp; Evans, (mss - key).

Ecology: Living on Colpomenia sp. and Zonaria diesingiana.

Comments: Neotype established by Poore and Lowry ( 1997). This species

is closely related to Plumithoe hirsuta (Ledoyer, 1978).

Distribution: Port Jackson, New South Wales, south-eastern Australia

(Tasman Sea).

193 PSEUDOAMPHITHOIDES Ortiz, 1976

Pseudoamphithoides Ortiz, 1976: 12. -- Barnard and Karaman, 1991; Conlan,

1982; Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Type species: Pseudoamphithoides bascescui Ortiz, 1976, original

designation.

Pseudoamphithoides bacescui Ortiz, 1976

Pseudoamphithoides bacescui Ortiz, 1976a: 4-5, figs 1-3.

Ecology: Unknown.

Distribution: Cuba, Caribbean Sea.

Pseudoamphithoides incurvaria (Just, 1977b)

Amphyllodomus incurvaria Just, 1977b: 229-232, figs 1-3.

Useful References: Lewis and Kensley, 1982: 267-27 4.

Ecology: Nests are constructed by cutting up pieces of brown

macroalgae (usually Dictyopteris) to form a portable nest.

Distribution: Caribbean Sea.

194 PSEUDOPLEONEXES Conlan, 1982

Pseudopleonexes Conlan, 1982: 2020. -- Barnard and Karaman, 1991;

Conlan, 1982; Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Type species: Pleonexes lessoniae Hurley, 1954, original designation

Pseudop/eonexes /essoniae (Hurley, 1954)

Pleonexes lessoniae Hurley, 1954c: 620-626, figs 1-2.

Useful References: Conlan, 1982: 2020.

Ecology: Living on Lessonia variegata.

Distribution: Island Bay, Wellington, New Zealand (Pacific Ocean).

Pseudopleonexes nexis Evans (mss)

Ecology: Living in the canopies of the kelp Ecklonia radiata.

Distribution: Cape Banks, New South Wales, east coast of Australia.

Pseudopleonexes? sp.of (J.L. Barnard, 1972)

Ampithoe lessoniae of J.L. Barnard, 1972:44, figs. 13-14.

Ecology: Unknown.

Comments: Unsure taxonomic status. J. L. Barnard, (1972) originally called

this species Ampithoe lessoniae but mentioned a number of differences

between the two records.

195 Distribution: Wellington, Whangaparaoa Peninsula, Leigh, New Zealand

(southern Pacific Ocean).

SUNAMPHITOE Bate, 1857

Sunamphitoe Bate, 1857: 147. -- Barnard and Karam an, 1991; Conlan, 1982;

Poore and Lowry, 1997.

Type species: Amphithoe pelagica Milne Edwards, 1830, designated by

Chevreux and Fage (1925).

Sunamphitoe angrox Evans (mss)

Ecology: Living in the canopies of the brown kelp Ecklonia radiata.

Comments: This species is similar to Sunamphitoe graxon.

Distribution: Botany Bay, New South Wales, east coast of Australia

(Tasman Sea).

Sunamphitoe fantome Evans (mss)

Ecology: Living on the brown alga Sargassum sp.

Comments: Similar to Sunamphitoe pelagica.

Distribution: Fantome Island, Queensland, east coast of Australia (west

Pacific Ocean).

Sunamphitoe graxon Freewater and Lowry, 1994

196 Sunamphitoe graxon Freewater and Lowry, 1994: 675-682, figs 1-5.

Useful References: Evans (mss - key).

Ecology: Abundant on Sargassum sp. and occasionally on Ulva lactuca, in

the intertidal. Specimens constructed nests by gluing together the thalli of

the Sargassum sp. to form a tube.

Comments: This species is similar to Sunamphitoe sineplumosa.

Distribution: Botany Bay, New South Wales, east coast of Australia

(Tasman Sea).

Sunamphitoe pelagica (Milne Edwards, 1830)

Ampithoe pelagica Milne Edwards, 1830: 378.

Sunamphitoe conformata Sars, 1894 : 585, pl. 208.

Sunamphitoe grandimana Boeck, 1861: 668.

Sunamphitoe brusinae Heller, 1866: 44, t.4, fig. 2-3.

Useful References: Boeck, 1861: 668; Heller, 1866: 44, t.4, fig. 2-3; Sars,

1894: 585, pl. 208; Chevreux and Fage, 1925: 340, fig. 348; Bousfield,

1973:183-184, pl.LII (2); Ledoyer, 1979b: 147, fig. 4; Lincoln, 1979a: 466,

figs 218e, 223a-j; Krapp-Schickel, 1982b: 109, fig. 73.

Ecology: Living often on drifting Sargassum sp.

Comments: Wide distributions, which may indicate a species group.

Distribution: Brittany, France (Atlantic Ocean); Mediterranean Sea in

general; northward to Cape Cod and Sable Island, north America (west

Atlantic Ocean); greater Indonesia.

197 Sunamphitoe p/umosa Stephensen, 1944b

Sunamphitoe plumosa Stephensen, 1944b: 83-87, figs 32-33.

Useful References: Kim and Kim, 1988: 133, figs 16-17.

Ecology: Living on algae.

Distribution: Sea of Japan.

Sunamphitoe sineplumosa Kim and Kim, 1991

Sunamphitoe sineplumosa Kim and Kim, 1991 :235-238, figs2-4.

Ecology: Found among algae.

Comments: This species is very closely related to Sunamphitoe plumulosa

Stephensen, 1944.

Distribution: Ulreung Island, Korea, southern Sea of Japan.

198 REFERENCES

Alderman, A. L. (1936). Some new and little known amphipods of California. University of California publications in Zoology 41, 53-7 4.

Alonso, G. (1980). Anfipodos de la Ria Deseada (Santa Cruz - Argentina). Centro de lnvestigacion de Biologia Marina (C/BIMA) de/ Sistema de Centros de/ lnstituto Nacional de Tecnologia Industrial (/NT/), Contribucion Cientifica 175: 3-15.

Barnard, J. L. (1954a). Marine Amphipoda of Oregon. Oregon State Monographs, Studies in Zoology 8, 1-103.

Barnard, J. L. (1955). Gammaridean Amphipoda (Crustacea) in the collections of Bishop Museum. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 215, 1-46.

Barnard, J. L. (1965b). Marine Amphipoda of the family Ampithoidae from Southern California. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 118, 1-46.

Barnard, J. L. (1969). Gammaridean Amphipoda of the rocky intertidal of California: Monterey Bay to La Jolla. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 258, 83-89.

199 Barnard, J. L. ( 1969b ). A biological survey of Bahia de Los Angeles Gulf of California, Mexico. iv, benthic amphipoda (Crustacea). Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 15: 13, 175-228.

Barnard, J. L. (1970). Sublittoral gammaridea (Amphipoda) of the Hawaiian Islands. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 34, 44-60.

Barnard, J. L. (1972). The Marine Fauna of New Zealand: Algae-living littoral gammaridea (Crustacea Amphipoda). Memoir of the New Zealand Oceanographic institute 62, 7-216.

Barnard, J. L. (1979). Littoral Gammaridean Amphipoda from the Gulf of California and the Galapagos Islands. Smithsonian Contributions to

Zoology 271, vi+149.

Barnard, J. L. and Karaman, G. S. (1991 ). The families and genera of marine gammaridean amphipods (except marine gammaroidea). Records of the Australian museum supplement 13 (part 2), 1-866.

Barnard, J. L. and Reish, D. J. (1959). Estuarine amphipoda in: Ecology of amphipoda and polychaeta of Newport Bay, California. Occasional

Paper of the Allan Handcock Foundation Publications 21, 13-69.

Barnard, K. H. (1916). Contributions to the Crustacean Fauna of South Africa.

The Annals of the South African Museum 15, 105-302.

Barnard, K. H. ( 1925). Contributions to the Crustacean fauna of South Africa. 8 further additions to the list of Amphipoda. The Annals of the South African Museum 20, 319-380.

Barnard, K. H. (1932). Amphipoda. Discovery Reports 5: 1-326.

200 Bate, C. S. (1857). A synopsis of the British edriophthalmous Crustacea. Annals and Magazine of natural History, series 2 19, 135-152.

Bate, C. S. (1858). On some new genera and species of Crustacea Amphipoda. Annals and Magazine of natural History, series 3 1, 361- 362.

Bate, C. S. (1862). Catalogue of the Specimens of Amphipodous Crustacea in the collection of the British Museum. British museum of natural History, London. 1st ed. Vol. 1, iv + 399pp pages.

Bate, C. S. and Westwood, J. 0. (1863). A History of the British Sessile-eyed Crustacea. 1st ed. Vol. 1. John van Voorst, London. 507 pp pages.

Boeck, A. (1861 ). Bemaerkninger Angaaende de Ved de Norske Kyster forekommende Amphipoder. Fordhandlinger Skandinaviske Naturforskeres Ottende 8: 631-677.

Boeck, A. ( 1871 ). Bi drag til Californiens Amphipodefauna. Forhandlinger i Videnskabs-Selskabet i Christiania 18711871 a, 32-51.

Boeck, A. (1876). De Skandinaviske og Artiske Amphipodor. Christiania: A. W. Bragger, 586-591.

Bousefield, E. (Ed.) (1973). Shallow-water gammaridean amphipoda of New England. Cornell University Press, Ithaca & London. vii-xii + 312pp pages.

Bruggen, E. van der (1907b). Zwei neue Amphipoden-Arten aus Wladiowostok. Annales de la Musee Zoologique, Academie lmperiale des Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg 12: 478-483.

201 Bulycheva, A. I. (1952). Novye vidy bokoplavov (Amphipoda, Gammaridea) iz Japonskogo Morja. Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Trudy Zoologicheskogo lnstituta 12, 195-250.

Catta, J-D. (1875). Note pour servir a l'histoire des amphipodes du Golfe de marseille. Revue des Sciences naturelles 4, 161-169.

Chevreux, E. (1900). Campagnes de la Melita Description d'un Amphipode Nouveau Appartenant au Genre Grubia Czerniawski. Bulletin of the Society of Zoology, France. 25, 95-101.

Chevreux, E. ( 1901 ). Crustaces amphipodes Mission scientifique de M. Ch. Alluad aux lies Sechelles (Mars, Avril, Mai, 1892). Memoirs de la Societe de France 14, 388-438.

Chevreux, E. (1907a). Diagnoses d'amphipodes nouvea reculis dans les possessions francaises de L'oceanie, par M. L. Seurat, directeur du laboratorie de recherches biologiques de Rikitea. Bulletin du museum d'historie Natura/le, 412-417.

Chevreux, E. (1908c). Amphipodes recuellis dans les possessions francaises de l'Oceanie par M. le Dr. Seurat, directeur du laboratorie de recherches biologiques de Rikitea (lies Gambier), 1902-1904. Memoire de la Societe zoologique de France 20, 470-527.

Chevreux, E. and Fage (1925). Amphipodes. Faune de France 9, 488.

Conlan, K. E. (1982). Revision of the Gammaridean Amphipod Family Ampithoidae Using Numerical Analytical Methods. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60, 2015-2027.

202 Conlan, K. E. and Bousfield, E. ( 1982a). The amphipod superfamily Corophidea in the north eastern Pacific region, Family Ampithoidae: systematics and distributional! ecology. Publications in Biological

Oceanography, National Museum of Canada 10, 45-75.

Conlan, K. E. and Chess, J. R. (1992). Phylogeny and Ecology of a Kelp-boring amphipod Peramphithoe stypotrupetes, new species (Corophioidea: Ampithoidae). Journal of Crustacean biology 12(3), 410-422.

Costa, A. (1857). Richerche sui Crostacei amfipodi del regno di Napoli. Memorie de/la Reale Accademia de Scienze di Napoli 1, 165-235.

Costa, 0. and Costa, A. (1851 ). Catalogo de Crostacei del Regno di Napoli. 1, 1-7.

Czerniavsky, W. (1868). Materialia as zoographiam Ponticarricomparatum. Studiosi universitatis charcoviensis. Trudy Syezola Russixy Yestestvoiechytatelei, Syezda i zoology.

Dana, J. D. (1852). Conspectus crustaceorum quae in orbis terrarum circumnavigatione, CARLO WILKES e classe Reipublicae Faedoratae Duce, le xit et descripsit JACOBUS D. DANA pars Ill (Amphipoda #1 ). Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 2, 201-220.

Dana, J. D. (1853). Crustacea, Part II. United States Exploring Expedition 14, 689-1618.

Della Valle, A. (1893). Gammarini del Golfi di Napoli. Fauna und Flora des Gaffes van Neapal und der augrenzenden meeres-Abschnitte,

Monographie 20, xi + 948pp.

203 Duffy, J. E. ( 1990). Amphipods on Seaweeds: Partners or Pests? Oecologia

83, 267-276.

Duffy, J. E. and Hay, M. E. (1991 ). Food and Shelter as Determinants of Food Choice by an Herbivorous Marine Amphipod. Ecology 72( 4 ), 1286-1298.

Edgar, G. J. (1983a). The Ecology of South-east Tasmanian Phytal Animal Communities. I. Spatial Organization on a Local Scale. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 70, 129-157.

Edgar, G. J. (1983). The Ecology of South-east Tasmanian Phytal animal Communities. II. Seasonal Change in Plant and Animal Populations. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 70, 159-179.

Edgar, G. J. (1983c). The Ecology of South-east Tasmanian Phytal Animal Communities. IV. Factors Affecting the Distribution of Ampithoid Amphipods Among Algae. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 70, 205-225.

Freewater, P. (1992). The ecology of the intertidal gammarid amphipod Hyale media Dana. (BSc Honours, University of Sydney).

Freewater, P. and Lowry, J. K. (1994). Sunamphitoe graxon, sp. nov. (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Ampithoidae): First record of the genus in Australian waters. Invertebrate Taxonomy 8, 675-682.

Griffiths, C. L. (1973). The amphipoda of southern Africa. Part I. The Gammaridea and Caprellidea of southern Moc;ambique. Annals of the South African Museum 60: 265-306.

204 Griffiths, C. L. (1974b). The amphipoda of southern Africa. Part Ill. The Gammaridea and Caprellidea of Natal. Annals of the South African Museum 62: 209-264.

Griffiths, C. L. (1975). The amphipoda of southern Africa. Part V. The Gammaridea and Caprellidea of the Cape province west of Cape Agulhas. The Annals of the South African Museum 67, 91-181.

Griffiths, C. L. ( 1976). Guide to the benthic marine amphipods of Southern Africa. The Annals of the South African Museum 76, 7-27.

Griffiths, C. L. (1979). A redescription of the Kelp curler Ampithoe humeralis (Crustacea, Amphipoda) from South Africa and its relationship to Macropisthopous. The Annals of the South African Museum 79(5), 131- 138.

Gurjanova, E. F. (1938b). Amphipoda, Gammaroidea of Siakhu Bay and Sudzukha Bay (Japan Sea). Reports of the Japan Sea Hydrobiological Expedition of the Zoological Institute of the Academy of Sciences, USSR in 1934 1, 241-404.

Gurjanova, E. F. (1951 ). Bokoplavy morej SSSR i sopredel'hykh rod (Amphipoda-Gammaridea). Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Opredeliteli po faune SSSR 41, 1029.

Gurjanova, E. F. (1955b). Novye vidy bokoplavov (Amphipoda, Gammaridea) iz severnoi chasti Tixogo Okeana. Zoologicheskogo lnstituta Akademii Nauk SSSR, Trudy 18, 166-218.

Harford, W. G. W. (1877a). Description of three new species of Sessile-eyed Crustacea, with remarks on Ligia occidentalis. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences. 7, 116-118.

205 Haswell, W. A. (1879a). On Australia Amphipoda. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 4, 245-279.

Haswell, W. A. (1879b). On some additional new genera and species of amphipodous crustaceans. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 4, 319-350.

Heller, C. (1866). Beitrage zur nateren Kenntniss der Amphipoden des adriatischen Meeres. Oeukschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissen schoften, mathematisch-Naturwissenschaffliche Classe Wien 26 (2), 1-62.

Hirayama, A. (1983). Taxonomic studies on the shallow water gammaridean Amphipoda of West Kyushu, Japan. I. Acanthonotozomatidae, Ampeliscidae, Ampithoidae, Amphilochidae, Anamaxidae, Argissidae, Atylidae and Colomastigidae. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory 28, 75-150.

Johnston, G. (1827). Contributions to the British fauna. Zoological Journal 3, 175-180.

Just, J. (1977b). Amphyllodomus incurvaria gen. et sp.n. (Crustacea, Amphipoda), a remarkable leaf-cutting amphithoid from the marine shallows of Barbados. Zoologica Scripta 6: 229-332.

206 Karaman, G. S. (1975c). Contribution to the knowledge of the Amphipoda. Ampithoe helleri n.sp., a new name for Ampithoe bicuspis Heller 1866. Glas. Republ. Zadova Zast. Prirode B, 39-41.

Kensley, B. (1971 ). Amphipoda from Southern Angola. The Annals of the South African Museum 57(8), 150-156.

Kim, H. S. and Kim, C. B. (1988). Marine gammaridean Amphipoda (Crustacea) of the Family Ampithoidae from Korea. The Korean Journal of Systematic Zoology 2, 107-134.

Kim, W. and Kim, C. B. (1991 ). The marine Amphipod Crustaceans of Ulreung Island, Korea: Part 1. Korean Journal of Zoology 34, 232-252.

Kossmann, R. (1880). Malacostraca. Zoologische Ergebnisse Auftrage Koniglichen Academie Wissenschaften Berlin Reise Kustengebiete Rothen Meeres 2, 67-140.

Krapp-Schickel, G. (1978). Die gattung Ampithoe (Crustacea; Amphipoda) in Mittelmeer. Bijdragen Tot de Dierkinde 48, 1-15.

Krapp-Schickel, G. (1982a). Family Ampithoidae in: S. Ruffo (Ed) The Amphipoda of the Mediterranean, part I Gammaridea (Acanthonotozomatidae to Gammaridae). Memoires de l'/nstitut Oceanographique 13, 94-110.

Kreibohn-de-Paternoster, I. and Escofet, A. (1976). La Fauna de anfipodos asociada a los bosques de Macrocystis pyrifera en el Chubut: Ampithoe femorata (Krnyer) (Ampithoidae) y Bircenna fulva Chilton (Eophliantidae). Physis Seccion A 35: 77-91.

207 Krnyer, H. (1846a). Atlas voyages de la commission scientifique du nord, en Scaninavie, en Laponie, au Spitzberg et aux Fero, pendant les annes 1838-1840 sur la corvette la Recherche, commandee par M. Fabvre. pls 10-11, 13-20, 22-23.

Kunkel, B. W. (1910). The Amphipoda of Bermuda. Transactions of the Connecticut academy of Arts and Sciences 16, 1-116.

Leach, W. E. (1814). Crustaceology. The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia 7, 402-403, 429-430.

Ledoyer, M. (1967a). Amphipodes gammariens des herbiers de phanerogames marines de la region de Tulear (Republique Malgache) etude systematique et ecologique. Annales de la Faculte des Sciences de l'Universite de Madagascar 5, 121-170.

Ledoyer, M. (1973). Amphipodes gammariens de la frondaison des herbiers d'Enhalus de la region de Nosy-Be (Madagascar) (Systematic et ecologie) comparison avec la faune des herbiers de Tulear (Cymodocea, Thalassia etc.). Tethys, Supplement 5, 25-36.

Ledoyer, M. (1978b). Amphipodes gammariens (Crustacea) des biotopes cavitaires organogenes recifna de l'lle Maurice (Ocean lndien). The Mauritius Institute Bulletin 8, 197-332.

Ledoyer, M. (1979). Les gammariens de la Peute externe de grand recif de Tulear (Madagascar)(Crustacea: Amphipoda). Memorie de/ Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona series 2, Sezione Scienze de/la vita N. 2, 1-150.

Ledoyer, M. (1979b). Expedition Rumphius II (1975) Crustaces parasites, commensaux, etc, (Th. Monad et R. Serene, ed.) VI. Crustaces

208 Amphipodes Gammariens. Bulletin du Museum national d'Historie nature/le Paris, series 4 1, 13 7 -181 .

Ledoyer, M. (1982). Crustaces amphipodes gammariens families des Acanthonotozomatidae a Gammaridae. Faune de Madagascar 59(1 ), 1- 598.

Lincoln, R. J. (1976). A new species of Ampithoe (Pleonexes) (Amphipoda: Ampithoidae) from the north-east Atlantic with a redescription of Ampithoe (Pleonexes) gammaroides (Bate). Bulletin of the British Museum natural History (Zoology) 30, 229-241.

Lincoln, R. J. (1979). British marine Amphipoda: Gammaridea. 1 st ed. Vol. 1 British Museum (Natural History), London. 658 pages.

Maccagno, T. P. (1936). Crostacei di Assab decapodi stomatopodi anfipodi, Spedisione del Barone Raimondo Franchetti in Dancalia (1928-1929). Annali de/ Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova 59, 171-186.

Mateus, E. De 0. and Afonso, 0. (1974). Etude d'une collection d'Amphipode des Acores avec la description d'une nouvelle epece. Publicacion

209 lnstituto de Zoologia "Dr Augusto Nobre", Facultade Ciencias de Porto 126, 1-39.

Mateus, A. and Mateus, E. (1986). Campagne de la 'Calypso' dans le Golfe de Guinee et aux lies Principe, Sao Tome et Annobon (1976). Amphipodes recoltes abord de la Calypso. Anais Facultad de Ciencias Porto 66, 125- 133.

Mateus, A. and Mateus, E. (1991 ). Campagne de la Calypso aux lies de Cap Vert pendant l'annee 1959. Amphipodes recoltes abord de la Calypso. Anais Facultad de Ciencias Porto 67, 37-94.

Milne Edwards, H. (1830). Extrait de recherches pour servir a l'histoire naturelle des crustaces amphipodes. Annales des Sciences Naturel/es 20, 353-399.

Milne Edwards, H. (1840). Histoire Naturelle des crustaces, comprenant l'anatomie, la physiologie et la classificationde ces animaux. 3, 1-638.

Montagu, G. (1808). Description of several marine animals found on the south coast of Devonshire. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 9, 81-114.

Myers, A. A. (197 4). Amphitholina cuniculus (Stebbing), a little known marine amphipod Crustacean new to Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 14, 463-469.

Myers, A. A. (1985c). Shallow-water, coral reef and mangrove Amphipoda (Gammaridea) of Fiji. Records of the Australian Museum 5, 21-42.

Myers, A. A. (1986). Amphipoda from the south Pacific: Tonga. Records of the Australian Museum 38, 271-289.

210 Nagata, K. (1965c). Studies on marine gammaridean Amphipoda of the Seto Inland Sea. Ill. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory 13, 291-326.

Nayar, K. N. (1959). The amphipoda of the Madras Coast. Bulletin of the Madras Government Museum, Natural History Section 6(3): 1-59.

Oliveira, P. H. (1953). Crustacea Amphipode do Rio de Janeiro. Memorias do lnstituto Oswaldo Cruz 51, 289-376.

Ortiz, M. (1976). Un nuevo genera y una nueva especie de anfipodo de aguas Cubanas (Amphipoda, Gammaridea, Ampithoidae). lnvestigaciones marinas - Ciencias 8 (27), 3-12.

Ortiz, M. (1978). Contribucion al estudio de los amfipodos (Gammaridea) litorales de Cuba. Revue Roumaine de Biologie, (D, Zoologie) 19, 83-87.

Pearse, A. S. (1912). Notes on certain amphipods from the Gulf of Mexico, with descriptions of new genera and new species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 43, 369-379.

Pirlot, J. M. (1938). Les Amphipodes de !'expedition du Siboga Deuxieme partie, les amphipodes gammarides Ill - Les amphipodes littoraux 2. Families des Dexaminidae, Jassidae, Cheluridae et podoceridae. Siboga - Expedition, Monographie 33f, 329-359.

Poore, A. G. B. and Lowry, J. K. (1997). New Ampithoid Amphipods from Port Jackson, New South Wales, Australia (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Ampithoidae). Invertebrate Taxonomy 11: pp.

211 Rabindranath, P. (1972c). Marine Gammaridea (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from the Indian region. Family Ampithoidae. Marine Biology 14, 161-178.

Rathke, H. (1843). Beitrage zur Fauna Norwegens. Verhandlungen Kaiserlichen copoldinisch - Carolinischen Akademie Naturforscher, Breslan 20 (1 ), 1-264.

Ruffo, S. (1938). Studi sui Crostacei Anfipodi Viii a)Gli Anfipodi del Mediterraneo. Annali de/ Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova 60, 127-151.

Ruffo, S. (1947b). Studi sui crostacei anfipodi xiv. Su alcune specie di anfipodi dell'Atlantico Orientale (lsole Azore, Canarie, del Capoverde, Annobon, Guinea Portoghese, Africa Australe). Memorie de/ Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona 1, 113-130.

Ruffo, S. (1953a). Studi sur crostacei anfipodi XXXVI. Nota critica su Biancolina algicola D. Val. (Amphipoda Prophliantidae). Atti dell'Accademia di Agricoltura Scienze e Lettere di Verona, series 6 3: 1-9.

Ruffo, S. (1954). Nuovi anfipoda racotti nel Venezuela dal Prof. G. Marcuzzi. Memorie de/ Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona 4, 117-125.

Ruffo, S. (1969). Terzo contributo alla conoscenza degli anfipodi del mar rosso. Memorie de/ Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona 17, 1-77.

Sars, G. 0. (1895). An account of the Crustacea of Norway with short descriptions and figures of all the species: Amphipoda. 1 st ed. Vol. 1. Alb. Cammermeyers Forlag, Christiania and Copenhagen. 711 pages.

212 Savigny, J-C. (1816). Observations generales sur la bouche des arachnides, des crustaces et des entomostraces. Memories sur les Animaux sans Vertebres, Second Memorie. 1, 39-117.

Schellenberg, A. (1925). Crustacea Viii: Amphipoda. In. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Meeresfauna Westafrikas. W. Michaelsen (Ed) 3, 111-204.

Schellenberg, A. (1931 ). Gammariden und caprelliden des magellangebietes, sudgeorgiens und der westantarktis. Swedish Antarctic expedition 2:6, 245-246.

Schellenberg, A. (1938). Litorale Amphipoden des tropischen Pazifks. Kunglia Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar. 16 (6), 1-105.

Schickel, G. (1968). Uber eine Zweite Mediterrane Ampithoe (Crustacea - Amphipoda). Memorie de/ Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona xv, 337-347.

Sheard, K. (1936). Amphipods from a South Australian Reef - part 2. Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of South Australia 60, 173-179.

Shoemaker, C.R. (1933). Two new genera and six new species of Amphipoda from Tortugas. Papers from Tortugas laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington 28 (435), 245-256.

Shoemaker, C. R. (1935). The Amphipods of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. New York Academy of Sciences, Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 15 (2), 245-249.

213 Shoemaker, C.R. (1938b). Three new species of the amphipod genus Ampithoe from the west coast of America. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 28, 15-25.

Sivaprakasam, T. E. (1970a). Amphipoda from the East Coast of lndia-2 (Gammaridea and Caprellidea). Journal of Bombay Natural History 66(3), 560-576.

Sivaprakasam, T. E. ( 1970g). Amphipods of the family Ampithoidae from the Madras Coast. Journal of the Marine biological Association of India 12(1&2), 64-80.

Smith, S. I. ( 1873): Crustacea ex. lsopoda In. Report upon the Invertebrate animals of Vineyard Sound. 1 st ed. US. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Part 1. Report on the condition of the Sea fisheries of the south coast of New England in 1871 and 1872., USA. 778 pages.

Stebbing,T. R.R. (1874b). On some species of Ampithoe and Sunamphitoe. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 4 14, 111-118.

Stebbing, T. R. R. (1888). Report on the amphipoda collected by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-1876. Report on the Scientific Results of the voyage of H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873-1876, Zoology 29, xxiv + 1737 pp, 21 0pls.

Stebbing, T. R.R. (1895b). Two new amphipods from the West Indies. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 6 15, 397-403.

Stebbing, T. R.R. (1906). Amphipoda I. Gammaridea. Oas Tierreich 21, 631- 647.

214 Stebbing, T. R. R. (191 0a). Crustacea part V. Amphipoda. Scientific results trawling expedition H.M.C.S. "Thetis". Australian Museum Memoir 4,2, 565-658.

Stephensen, K. ( 1944 ). Some Japanese Amphipods. Vidensk Medd fra Oansk Naturh Faren. 108, 25-88.

Stimpson, W. ( 1864 ). Descriptions of new species of marine lnvertebrata from Puget Sound, collected by the naturalists of the North-West Boundary Commission, A.H. Campbell, esq., commissioner. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 16: 153-165.

Stout, V. R. ( 1912). Studies in Laguna Amphipoda. First Annual report of the Laguna marine Laboratory 1, 134-149.

Stout, V. R. (1913). Studies in Laguna Amphipoda. Zoo/. Jahrb 34, 633-659.

Tattersall, W. M. (1922). Amphipoda and lsopoda. The Percy Sladen Trust Expedition to the Abrolhos Islands (Indian Ocean). Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology 35, 1-19.

Tzvetkova, N. L. (1968). K faune ekologii bokoplavov (Amphipoda, Gammaridea) zalvia Poc'et (Japonskoe More). Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta 5, 160-195.

Walker, A. 0. (1904). Report on the Amphipoda collected by Professor Herdman, at Ceylon, in 1902. Report to the Government of Ceylon on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of Mannar, Supplementry Report. 17, 229-300.

215 Walker, A 0. (1909). Amphipoda, Gammaridea from the Indian Ocean, British East Africa, and the Red Sea. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London series 2, Zoology 12, 323-344.

Walker, A 0. and Scott, A (1903). II.- Decapod and Sessile-eyed crustaceans from Abd-el-Kuri. The Natural History of Sokotra and Abd-el-Kuri 216- 232.

216 CHAPTER 3

HANDBOOK TO INTERACTIVE KEY TO THE WORLD SPECIES OF

AMPITHOID AMPHIPODS

INTERACTIVE KEY TO THE WORLD SPECIES OF THE FAMILY

AMPITHOIDAE

(Crustacea: Amphipoda: Ampithoidae)

(using the INTKEY produced using the program DELTA)

by Rachael A. Evans

217 INTRODUCTION

Interactive keys have become more common recently with the increase in the use of computers. The concept of an interactive key is an alternative to the more traditional and commonly used dichotomous key. Interactive computer keys work on the idea that instead of following a set sequence of character identification, the interactive key is not structured and can be used even if there are a limited number of characters available.

HOW TO INSTALL THIS PROGRAM

The software to run this programme is available from the DEL TA at the address. The software needs to be installed into a DOS computer, which is at least 486 level. All the data files from the enclosed disk should then be downloaded into the appropriate directory. These files include a character file, items file, specs file, intkey.ini file, and a taint file. These files will only run in the presence of a intkey.ind file which should be located in the Windows directory. Once these files have been loaded onto the computer then the programme is ready to run.

218 THE DATA

The data in the files and the programme are in two main forms. The first is in the form of the taxa which have been entered into the database. This is in the form of individual species of the family Ampithoidae from across the world. The data have been obtained from literature and from personal observations and then have. been entered into the database. Females and males have been entered as separate entities. For the majority of the time the male specimens were entered in first and come up on the screen as just the name of the species

eg. Cymadusa filosa. The female is usually entered as a variation of the male

and appear as the species+1 eg. Cymadusa filosa1. Quite often when there are

some differences between various descriptions of the one species, the non

original descriptions follow as variations of the original description eg.

Cymadusa filosa2 and Cymadusa filosa3.

The next type of data presented is in the form of characters and states. These

address certain features of the species in question. Theycome in a number of

forms. First, is text characters. These are descriptive characters which are too

variable for the other forms of characters. An example of this is:

#108. [BDistribution)./

The next form of character is the multistate character. This character has set

limits and can have problems in being not as variable as other characters. A

couple of examples of this from of character are:

#105. [ITelson): subtriangular/

219 1. distally truncated /

2. distally rounded /

3. distally subacute /

#97. [IUropod 3]: peduncle /

1. shorter than broad /

2. as long as broad <0. 9 - 1.1 x breadth>/

3. longer than broad <1.1 - 2.0x breadth>/

4. much longer than broad /

The final type of character which is presented here is an integer or real number character. These characters are indicators of exact dimensions and proportions of the character being assessed. An example of this is :

#98. [IUropod 3]: length to breadth/

x breadth/

START: HOW TO GET TO INTKEY

To enter in to the programme of INTKEY, double click on the icon labelled

INTKEY in Windows.

Then double click on 'manual' use.

Then double click on the selected database, in this case 'Ampithoid species'

On the top there are a row of quick step buttons, press start to commence the identification.

220 HOW TO ID ANIMALS

There are a number of methods which can be used to identify the specimen at hand. It is advisable to use more than one method of identification. Unlike a traditional dichotomous key the interactive key can identify through a number of paths. It works on the system of grouping together animals with similar characters, and eliminating those which do not have the selected character.

The first method for identification is called the 'best' method. This involves letting the computer run the identification by selecting the character which most effectively separates groups of taxa. As the identification proceeds, then the computer will generate the best character to distinguish between the remaining taxa, and so on. This proceeds until there is only one taxa remaining. The 'best' method is useful for an identification using a whole animal, is most appropriate when the user is either unused to the group being identified, or is not familiar with the characters being used and their individual strength in generic and specific level identification. It is also useful for comparing the differences between to taxa. For instance if there were just two taxa remaining, and the user was unsure of which character would be the best to use, then they can select 'best' and those characters with the weight of 1.00 next to them, would be the distinguishing characters.

The second method for identification is the 'ID' method. To get to this method go to the 'identification' drop-down menu. Then go to the 'use' option and then

221 go to the 'available' option, and then click on 'ok'. All the available characters will then progressively appear, starting from the anterior end of the animal and work to the posterior. As the characters and states are selected, the computer then progressively eliminates the taxa that do not have the selected character and state combination. This method of identification is most appropriate for identifications using a complete specimen.

The third and final method of identification is the 'selected characters' method.

This method is appropriate in situations where the specimen being used for identification is incomplete, or damaged and only certain characters are easily recognisable. Or this can be used when a certain section (for example the antennae or the uropods are very obvious or are specialised in some way. To get to this option, select the 'identification' drop-down menu, in that menu select 'use', and from the menu that appears select the appropriate part of the animal (for example the gnathopod 1.) with this item selected then click on the

'list' button. This brings up the list of characters associated with that part of the anatomy. From these characters select whichever is most appropriate for the identification, and so on. The computer will eliminate the taxa which do not have the selected character states, and the user can continue on to selecting whatever characters are the most appropriate.

Also when using this programme identification can be carried out using a combination of any or all of the above methods.

222 GLOSSARY

BEST Category of selection for identification. The computer selects the

most useful character for separating the remaining taxa.

CHARS The DEL TA file that contains the character list from which each

animal is scored.

DELTA Taxonomic database programme: - Descriptive 1:anguage for

Taxonomy.

INTKEY Interactive Key program.

ITEMS The DEL TA file that contains the scoring of each animal according the character files.

223