Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T02:22:22.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The taxonomic relationship of Parathemisto gaudichaudi (Guerin) and P. gracilipes (Norman), with a key to the genus Parathemisto

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

M. Sheader  and
F. Evans
F. Evans
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Dove Marine Laboratory
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The results of morphometric and developmental studies made to elucidate the relationship between Parathemisto gaudichaudi (Guerin) and P. gracilipes (Norman) show them to be one and the same species. Apparent differences are due to differences in the size of specimens at maturity, and to the degree of development of the bispinosa-compressa condition. P. gaudichaudi takes precedence over P. gracilipes.

The species is highly variable, existing in two extreme forms, the bispinosa form and the compressa form, together with all possible intermediates. The full range of the bispinosa-compressa condition is not expressed until a body-length of 10 mm is reached. Specimens are capable of changing towards either extreme at moults, but the factors causing the change are unknown.

A key to the genus Parathemisto Boeck is included.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , November 1974 , pp. 915 - 924
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barnard, K. H., 1930. Crustacea. Part II. Amphipoda. British Antarctic (Terra Nova) Expedition 1910, Natural History Report, Zoology 8 (4), 307–454.Google Scholar
Bowman, T. E., 1960. The pelagic amphipod genus Parathemisto (Hyperiidea: Hyperiidae) in the North Pacific and adjacent Arctic Ocean. Proceeding of the United States National Museum, 112, 343–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, M. J., 1964. Euphausiids and pelagic amphipods. Distribution of certain species in the North Atlantic and Arctic waters. Serial Atlas of the Marine Environment, Folio 6.Google Scholar
Evans, F., 1968a. The subgenera Parathemisto and Euthemisto of the genus Parathemisto (Amphipoda, Hyperiidea). Crustaceana, 14, 105–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, F., 1968b. Development and reproduction of Parathemisto gracilipes (Norman) (Amphipoda, Hyperiidea). Crustaceana, 15, 101–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J. S. & McHardy, R. A., 1967. Swarming of hyperiid amphipods. Nature, London, 215, 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, D. E., 1955. Pelagic amphipods of the sub-order hyperiidea in New Zealand waters. Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 83 (1), 119–94.Google Scholar
Kane, J. E., 1963. Stages in the early development of P. gaudichaudii (Guer) (Crustacea Amphipoda: Hyperiidea), the development of secondary sexual characters and of the ovary. Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 3 (5), 35–45.Google Scholar
Kane, J. E., 1966. The distribution of Parathemisto gaudichaudii (Guer), with observations of its life-history in the o° to 20° sector in the Southern Ocean. ‘Discovery’ Reports, 34, 163–98.Google Scholar
Mogk, H., 1927. Versuch einer Formanalyse bei Hyperiiden. 3. Verstoss zur Formanalyse bei der Familie der Hyperides. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie u Hydrographie, 17, 65–98.Google Scholar
Norman, A. M., 1869. Last report on dredging among the Shetland Isles. Pt. 2. Crustacea. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1868), 247–336.Google Scholar
Stephensen, K., 1924. Hyperiidea-Amphipoda (pt. 2). Report of the Danish Oceanographical Expeditions, 1908–10, to the Mediterranean, 2, D4, 71–149.Google Scholar