74 research outputs found
Portrait of banker and author Jackson Alpheus Graves, ca.1910-1920
No full textPhotographic portrait of banker and author Jackson Alpheus Graves (Jackson C.? Graves), ca.1910-1920. Viewed from the chest up. He is wearing a long polka-dot tie with tie-pin, light-colored shirt, and pin-stripe jacket. He has short white hair with a receding hairline. He has a short mustache. He is turned slightly to his left. He lived from 1852 to 1933.; Graves authored the book "My seventy years in California, 1857-1927"
Alpheus thompsoni Anker 2022
No full textAlpheus thompsoni Anker, 2022 (Figs. 6–8; 9A) Alpheus thompsoni Anker 2022: 274, figs. 1–3, 8A, B. Alpheus ochrostriatus.— Karplus et al. 1981: 6, fig. 2F (black-and-white photograph); Debelius 1997: 203 (colour photograph); Debelius 2001: 150 (part.), 1 colour photograph (yellow morph); Randall et al. 2003: 512, fig. 8 (colour photograph); Randall 2005: 513; Poupin 2010: 33; Karplus & Thompson 2011: 591, fig. 4.4.10-B (black-and-white photograph) [nomen nudum]. Alpheus “ ochrostriatus ”. — Anker 2000: 3, fig. 2 (colour photograph); Jaafar & Randall 2009: 29, pl. 2A (colour photograph) [nomen nudum]. Alpheus sp. ‘ ochrostriata ’.— Kuiter & Debelius 2009: 151, 3 colour photographs [nomen nudum]. Alpheus djiboutensis.— Yu et al. 1996: 35, figs. 19, 20 (colour photographs) [not A. djiboutensis De Man, 1909]. Alpheus sp. 4.— Minemizu 2013: 102, colour photograph. Material examined. 1 male (cl 10.0 mm), FLMNH UF 37002, Saudi Arabia, Red Sea, Farasan Islands, Zahrat Durakah, 16°50’09.2”N, 42°18’22.7”E, fringing reef slope around sandy island, depth 2–6 m, leg. A. Anker, P. Norby, G. Paulay, 11.03.2013 [fcn BDJRS-2689]. Description. See Anker (2022). Complementary illustrations of the general morphology of the Red Sea male are provided in Figs. 6, 7. The variation in the antennal scaphocerite and major and minor chelipeds are discussed below. Colour pattern. Anker (2022) described in detail the colour pattern of the female holotype of A. thompsoni from Madang, Papua New Guinea. This colour pattern is also present in shrimps from numerous other localities in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia (e.g. Kuiter & Debelius 2009: Flores and Bali; Fig. 9A, Sulawesi). In the male from Saudi Arabia (Fig. 8A, B), the red parallel-running longitudinal bands are simple, i.e. they form simple, elongate, red strings closed at both ends, which is in marked contrast to the more complex bands of the holotype of A. thompsoni (cf. Anker 2022: fig. 3A, B, 8A, B), in which they are broader and filled with a wealth of finer anastomosing bands and streaks (also visible in Fig. 9A). See also discussion below. Distribution. Indo-West Pacific from the Red Sea to southern Japan, Indonesia and New Caledonia (Karplus et al. 1981; Debelius 1997, 2001; Anker 2000, 2022; Randall 2005; Kuiter & Debelius 2009; Poupin 2010; present study). Ecology. Coral reefs and adjacent reef flats; associated with several species of gobiid fishes, including Amblyeleotris wheeleri (Polunin & Lubbock, 1977), A. steinitzi (Klausewitz, 1974), A. guttata (Fowler, 1938), A. fasciata (Herre, 1953), Ctenogobiops pomastictus Polunin & Lubbock, 1977, and C. tangaroai Lubbock & Polunin, 1977 (Karplus et al. 1981; Randall et al. 1998, 2003, 2007; Anker 2000, 2022; Debelius 2001; Randall 2005; Kuiter & Debelius 2009; Jaafar & Randall 2009; Karplus & Thompson 2011). Remarks. The present complete male specimen from Saudi Arabia was initially considered to belong to an undescribed species closely related to A. thompsoni due to some discrepancies in the colour pattern (see above) and a small difference in the shape of the scaphocerite (see below). Most shrimps identified as “ A. ochrostriatus ” or “ Alpheus sp. ” in the published or unpublished colour photographs analysed by the author could be classified as either the species-diagnostic type A pattern, with broader red bands containing fine, often anastomosing lines (Fig. 9A; see also Anker 2022: fig. 3), or the type B pattern, with narrower red bands not filled with fine lines (Fig. 8A, B, D). It is important to mention that the holotype female at cl 13.3 mm is only slightly larger than the present male at cl 10.0 mm; thus, these two colour pattern types are comparable since they are present in adult individuals. However, after a more detailed analysis and inclusion of more photographic material, the author came to the conclusion that the type A and type B patterns are part of the same general colour pattern of A. thompsoni. The most pivotal observation for this conclusion was an in situ colour photograph in Kuiter & Debelius (2009: 151, upper photograph), showing two individuals cohabiting the same burrow, a larger female at the burrow entrance apparently (slightly out of focus) with the type A pattern and a smaller male in front of her clearly with the type B pattern. In addition, an indication of an intermediate state between the type A and type B pattern can be seen on the pleon of the specimen from southern Taiwan (Fig. 8C; same photograph as in Yu et al. 1996: fig. 19). Differences in the proportions of the major and minor chelipeds between males and females are expected. As is the case of many other species of the A. brevirostris group, both chelipeds of the Saudi Arabian male of A. thompsoni (Fig. 7A, B, E) are larger and stronger than their homologs in the female holotype from Papua New Guinea (Anker 2022: fig. 2). The male minor chela is also lacking balaeniceps ridges and setae (Fig. 7D, E), thereby confirming their absence in both sexes in A. thompsoni. The ventromesial margin of the merus of both chelipeds is unarmed in the present male (Fig. 7A, D, F) and also has a reduced armature, with only one spiniform seta present on the minor cheliped merus, in the holotype female (Anker 2022: fig. 2C, F). The presence of spiniform setae on the cheliped merus is usually a consistent character, although their number may be variable; in addition, they break off easily or may be missing entirely in regenerated chelipeds. The relative proportions of the carpal subarticles of the second pereiopod is only slightly different, with the first subarticle being slightly than the second in the holotype female (Anker 2022: fig. 1F) vs. the two being almost equal in length in the present male (Fig. 7). The only remaining significant difference between the female holotype from Papua New Guinea and the male from Saudi Arabia lies in the shape of the distal region of the antennal scaphocerite. In the female, the blade extends slightly beyond the distolateral tooth (Anker 2022: fig. 1A), whereas in the male, it is noticeably shorter than the distolateral tooth (Fig. 6A). This difference can be explained either by the somewhat worn distolateral tooth of the holotype (which normally would be slightly longer) or by intraspecific variability. With only two specimens of A. thompsoni available, it is difficult to assess the variation observed in some morphological characters, as well as in the colour pattern. Although the involvement of a second species cannot be excluded at this stage, it seems to be less likely based on the presently available data. The planned DNA analyses of the entire A. djeddensis — A. djiboutensis group should eventually resolve this issue and confirm whether or not the assignment of the Saudi Arabian male to A. thompsoni is correct. As already pointed out by Anker (2022), several other types of colour pattern with parallel-running lines seem to correspond to further species, some of them closely related to A. thompsoni. For instance, a very distinctive colour pattern, hereafter type C pattern, exists in some snapping shrimps from Indonesia (Fig. 9B, C; see also Debelius 2001: 150, upper photograph under “ A. ochrostriatus ”). The type C pattern differs from both pattern types of A. thompsoni (types A and B, as defined above), in the colour of the second to fifth pereiopods, which are deep blue with bright yellow markings near articulations (not yellow, as in A. thompsoni), and in the background colour and general pattern of the major and minor chelae, which are dark greyish-brown or brown-green with pale bluish blotches and spots (not yellowish with longitudinal red lines / blotches, as in A. thompsoni). The shrimps of the type C pattern possibly correspond to Alpheus sp. from the northern Red Sea in Karplus et al. (1981: fig. 2H, black-andwhite photograph in low resolution) and may well represent a further undescribed taxon, although several other species of the A. brevirostris group need be examined and compared. In the same publication of Debelius (2001: 150, also under A. ochrostriatus), the middle photograph shows a pink-reddish shrimp with red longitudinal lines, which is generally similar to the type B pattern of A. thompsoni. This shrimp has a dull pink (instead of yellowish) background, pink-reddish legs (not yellow as in types A and B, or blue with yellow spots as in type C) and pinkish antennal flagella (Fig. 9D; see also Anker 2022: fig. 8E). This colour pattern, hereafter the type D pattern, probably represents either A. mannarensis or a closely related undescribed taxon with affinities to both A. mannarensis and A. thompsoni (Anker 2022; but see Miya’s view of colour pattern variation in Banner & Banner 1981). Further complicating the issue is the presence in the Red Sea of a dark red Alpheus sp. with a balaeniceps minor chela (Fig. 9E, F), and with a colour pattern similar to that of A. mannarensis and the above-defined type D pattern. This colour pattern, hereafter the type E pattern, is defined by numerous, closely parallel-running lines of dark-red colour, the purplelilac antennal flagella and the uniform dark red-purple chelae (Fig. 9F; see also Minemizu 2013: 103, Alpheus sp. 6). Although the species with the type E pattern was not included in Karplus et al. (1981), Dr. I. Karplus was aware of its presence and had some colour slides of it (I. Karplus, pers. comm.). The type E pattern is also reminiscent of the colour pattern of A. fenneri, although the latter species’ body is uniform orange brown, apparently without red lines (Bruce 1994: fig. 5). In summary, the identification of goby-associated Alpheus spp. with the colour pattern types C–E will only be possible after the collection of photo-vouchered material the Red Sea and elsewhere in the Indo-West Pacific.Published as part of Anker, Arthur, 2022, On two goby-associated snapping shrimps from the Red Sea, one of them new to science (Malacostraca: Decapoda: Alpheidae: Alpheus), pp. 421-438 in Zootaxa 5105 (3) on pages 431-436, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5105.3.5, http://zenodo.org/record/633282
FIGURE 26. Alpheus angulosus McClure, 2002 in Revision of the western Atlantic members of the Alpheus armillatus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 species complex (Decapoda, Alpheidae), with description of seven new species
No full textFIGURE 26. Alpheus angulosus McClure, 2002: A, male from Ceará, Brazil, greenish-brown colour morph [MZUSP 25234], dorsal view; male from Bahia, Brazil, bluish colour morph [specimen deposited in MZUESC]. Photographs; A, by the author; B, by A.O. de Almeida.Published as part of <i>Anker, Arthur, 2012, Revision of the western Atlantic members of the Alpheus armillatus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 species complex (Decapoda, Alpheidae), with description of seven new species, pp. 1-109 in Zootaxa 3386 (1)</i> on page 41, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3386.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10096368">http://zenodo.org/record/10096368</a>
FIGURE 13. Alpheus lancirostris Rankin, 1900 in Revision of the western Atlantic members of the Alpheus armillatus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 species complex (Decapoda, Alpheidae), with description of seven new species
No full textFIGURE 13. Alpheus lancirostris Rankin, 1900: A, male from the Caribbean coast of Panama, exact locality unknown [specimen not deposited], dorsal view; B, male from San Blas Islands, Panama [RMNH D54810], dorsal view; C, female from Isla Cubagua, Venezuela [MNHN-IU-2010-4069], dorsolateral view; D, male from Bermuda [specimen deposited in the collection of BAMZ = Bermuda Aquarium, Museum, and Zoo], dorsal view. Photographs: A, by C.C. Hansen; B, C, by the author; D, by W. Sterrer.Published as part of <i>Anker, Arthur, 2012, Revision of the western Atlantic members of the Alpheus armillatus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 species complex (Decapoda, Alpheidae), with description of seven new species, pp. 1-109 in Zootaxa 3386 (1)</i> on page 24, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3386.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10096368">http://zenodo.org/record/10096368</a>
FIGURE 44 in Revision of the western Atlantic members of the Alpheus armillatus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 species complex (Decapoda, Alpheidae), with description of seven new species
No full textFIGURE 44. Alpheus carlae sp. nov.: A, paratype, male from Bahia Honda, Florida Keys [OUMNH.ZC. 2011-06-034], dorsal view; B, C, non-type, male from Fort Pierce, Florida [RMNH D54822], dorsal (B) and lateral (C) views. Photographs: A, by the author; B, C, by J.A. Baeza.Published as part of <i>Anker, Arthur, 2012, Revision of the western Atlantic members of the Alpheus armillatus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 species complex (Decapoda, Alpheidae), with description of seven new species, pp. 1-109 in Zootaxa 3386 (1)</i> on page 66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3386.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10096368">http://zenodo.org/record/10096368</a>
FIGURE 8. Alpheus armillatus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 in Revision of the western Atlantic members of the Alpheus armillatus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 species complex (Decapoda, Alpheidae), with description of seven new species
No full textFIGURE 8. Alpheus armillatus H. Milne Edwards, 1837: A, male from Cozumel, Mexico [OUMNH.ZC. 2012-03-0001], dorsal view; B, C, male and female from Guadeloupe, French Antilles [aquarium specimens, not deposited]; D, in situ photograph of an ovigerous female, southern Florida [specimen not collected]. Photographs: A, by the author; B, C, by F. Fasquel; D, by G. Paulay.Published as part of <i>Anker, Arthur, 2012, Revision of the western Atlantic members of the Alpheus armillatus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 species complex (Decapoda, Alpheidae), with description of seven new species, pp. 1-109 in Zootaxa 3386 (1)</i> on page 17, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3386.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10096368">http://zenodo.org/record/10096368</a>
FIGURE 37 in Revision of the western Atlantic members of the Alpheus armillatus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 species complex (Decapoda, Alpheidae), with description of seven new species
No full textFIGURE 37. Alpheus punctatus sp. nov.: A, paratype, ovigerous female from Bocas del Toro, Panama [RMNH D54819], dorsal view; B, non-type male from Guana Island, British Virgin Islands [LACM-MBPC 11730], dorsal view; C, non-type male from Florida Keys. Photographs: A, by the author; B, by T.L. Zimmerman / J.W. Martin; C, by the author and A.L. Rhyne.Published as part of <i>Anker, Arthur, 2012, Revision of the western Atlantic members of the Alpheus armillatus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 species complex (Decapoda, Alpheidae), with description of seven new species, pp. 1-109 in Zootaxa 3386 (1)</i> on page 55, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3386.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10096368">http://zenodo.org/record/10096368</a>
Sound pressure and particle motion components of the snaps produced by two snapping shrimp species (Alpheus heterochaelis and Alpheus angulosus)
No full textAuthor Posting. © Acoustical Society of America, 2021. This article is posted here by permission of Acoustical Society of America for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 150(5),(2021): 3288–3301, https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0006973.Snapping shrimps are pervasive generators of underwater sound in temperate and tropical coastal seas across oceans of the world. Shrimp snaps can act as signals to conspecifics and provide acoustic information to other species and even to humans for habitat monitoring. Despite this, there are few controlled measurements of the acoustic parameters of these abundant acoustic stimuli. Here, the characteristics of snaps produced by 35 individuals of two species, Alpheus heterochaelis and Alpheus angulosus, are examined to evaluate the variability within and between the species. Animals were collected from the wild and the sound pressure and particle acceleration were measured at 0.2, 0.5, and 1 m from individual shrimp in controlled laboratory conditions to address the snap properties at communication-relevant distances. The source and sound exposure levels (at 1 m) were not significantly different between these two species. The frequency spectra were broadband with peak frequencies consistently below 10 kHz. The particle acceleration, the sound component likely detectable by shrimp, was measured across three axes. The directional amplitude variation suggests that the particle motion of snaps could act as a localization cue. The amplitudes of the snap pressure and acceleration decreased with distance, yet the levels remained sufficient for the predicted detection range by nearby conspecifics.This research was funded by the National Science Foundation Biological Oceanography Award No. 15-36782, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.2022-05-0
Alpheus packardii Kingsley 1880
No full text<i>Alpheus</i> cf. <i>packardii</i> Kingsley, 1880 <p> <i>Alpheus packardii</i> Kingsley, 1880: 417.</p> <p> <b>Material examined.</b> 2 m, 1 f, 02.VIII.2008, Cairú, Moreré Beach, Boipeba Island, MZUESC 1297; 1 f, 02.VIII.2008, Cairú, Moreré Beach, Boipeba Island, MZUESC 1298; 1 m, 16.V.2007, Santa Cruz Cabrália, Coroa Vermelha Beach, MZUESC 869.</p> <p> <b>Distribution.</b> Western Atlantic—Bermuda, Virginia to South Carolina, Florida, Gulf of Mexico, Bahamas, Mexico (Quintana Roo and Yucatan), West Indies and Brazil (Atol das Rocas, Fernando de Noronha, Amapá to São Paulo) (Christoffersen 1979, 1998, as <i>A. normanni</i> Kingsley, 1878; Martínez-Iglesias <i>et al.</i> 1996, as <i>A. normanni</i>).</p> <p> <b>Ecological notes.</b> Species collected on coral reefs, in crevices of coral rubble and in <i>Halimeda</i> clumps. Salinity = 39 psu. Depth range: intertidal to 70 m (Christoffersen 1979, as <i>A. normanni</i>).</p> <p> <b>Previous records.</b> Itapagipe (= Itapagipe Peninsula, Salvador) (Christoffersen 1979, as <i>Alpheus normanni</i>); R/ V <i>Wladimir Besnard</i> (St. 3770, 17º16.7’S, 39º05’W) (Christoffersen 1979, as <i>A. normanni</i>); R/V <i>Calypso</i> (St. 56, 69, 75, 81–83) (Christoffersen 1979, as <i>A. normanni</i>); Abrolhos Bank (RAP, St. 2 and 38) (Young & Serejo 2005, as <i>A. normanni</i>); Camamu Bay (Almeida <i>et al.</i> 2007b, <i>Alpheus</i> cf. <i>packardii</i>).</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> Kingsley (1878) described <i>A. normanni</i> based on specimens from the Pacific coast of Panama. Two years later the same author described <i>A. packardii</i> based on specimens from Key West, Florida (Kingsley 1880). Chace (1937) compared the eastern Pacific and the western Atlantic (Bermuda) materials of <i>A. normanni</i> and <i>A. packardii</i> and concluded that they are identical morphologically, placing <i>A. packardii</i> in the synonymy of <i>A. normanni</i>. Both Chace (1972) and Christoffersen (1979) continued to treat <i>A. packardii</i> as a junior synonym of <i>A. normanni</i>. Kim & Abele (1988) again compared specimens from the eastern Pacific and western Atlantic (Florida). These authors found consistent morphological differences between the eastern Pacific and western Atlantic specimens, viz. in the fingers of the minor chela, and removed <i>A. packardii</i> from the synonymy of <i>A. normanni</i>. However, the taxonomy of both <i>A. normanni</i> and <i>A. packardii</i> remains unsettled due to the presence of several cryptic taxa in the eastern Pacific and western Atlantic (A. Anker, in study). Thus, it is presently impossible to determine the true identity of the Bahian material.</p>Published as part of <i>Almeida, Alexandre O., Boehs, Guisla, Araújo-Silva, Catarina L. & Bezerra, Luis Ernesto A., 2012, Shallow-water caridean shrimps from southern Bahia, Brazil, including the first record of Synalpheus ul (Ríos & Duffy, 2007) (Alpheidae) in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean, pp. 1-35 in Zootaxa 3347</i> on pages 11-12, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/214608">10.5281/zenodo.214608</a>
Alpheus paludicola Kemp 1915
No full text<i>Alpheus paludicola</i> Kemp, 1915 <p>(Figs. 3A–G, 43, 52D)</p> <p> <i>Alpheus paludicola</i> Kemp 1915: 303; Yeo & Ng 1996: 39, figs. 2, 3.</p> <p> (?) Not <i>Alpheus paludicola.</i> — Kemp 1918: 273 (= possibly <i>A. microrhynchus</i> De Man, 1897).</p> <p> Not <i>Alpheus paludosus</i> (<i>lap. cal.</i>).— Johnson 1965: 9 (part. = <i>A. cyanoteles</i> Yeo & Ng, 1996).</p> <p> <b>Type material</b>. Lectotype, male (cl 5.5 mm, tl 18.0 mm, chl 10.0 mm), NHM 1919.11.1.1, India, Orissa, Chilika (= Chilka) Lake, Outer Channel, leg. S. Kemp, 1914; paralecotype, male (cl 5.2 mm, tl 14.0 mm, chl 9.7 mm), NHM 1919.11.1.2, same collection data as for lectotype.</p> <p> <b>Description</b>. See Kemp (1915) for original description and illustrations (Fig. 3A–G), and Yeo & Ng (1996) for full redescription and additional figures; complementary illustrations of the type material are provided in Fig. 43.</p> <p> <b>Colour pattern</b>. Overall translucent with brownish red rostrum; antennular peduncle and lateral margin of scaphocerite tinged with reddish brown; posterior edge of carapace and each pleonite with transverse brownish to bluish green band; telson and uropods dusky (adapted from Kemp 1915).</p> <p> <b>Type locality</b>. Chilika Lake (formerly Chilka Lake), Orissa, India.</p> <p> <b>Distribution</b>. Northern Indian Ocean: currently known only from the type locality in Orissa, northeastern India (Fig. 52D). The material from Lake Thale Sap Thailand reported by Kemp (1918) as <i>A. paludicola</i> most likely represents another, perhaps undescribed species (see also comments in Yeo & Ng 1996).</p> <p> <b>Common name proposed</b>. Chilika snapping shrimp.</p> <p> <b>Ecology and biology</b>. <i>Alpheus paludicola</i> is confined to brackish lagoons, where it lives in burrows on soft mud, at a depth range of 1– 4 m. The species can be classified as euryhaline, being able to tolerate fluctuations in salinity (Kemp 1915). The small number of eggs and their large size (diameter about 1.4 mm) suggest an abbreviated larval development, as seen in <i>A. microrhynchus</i> and <i>A. cyanoteles</i> (see above).</p> <p> <b>Taxonomic remarks</b>. In their very detailed redescription of <i>A. paludicola</i>, Yeo & Ng (1996) noted that the stylocerite is missing its distal point on both sides in the lectotype (see Yeo & Ng 1996: fig. 2c) <i>vs</i>. terminating in a small acute point in the paralectotype. The major chela was illustrated by Yeo & Ng (1996: fig. 2e) without a mesial subdistal ridge on the pollex, whereas the fine granulation of the major chela observed by Kemp (1915) was “not visible” according to these authors. However, the reexamination of the lectotype and paralectotype of <i>A. paludicola</i> by the present author revealed that the major chela pollex of the lectotype has a small mesial subdistal ridge, whereas the distal portion of the mesial side of the major chela palm and the adjacent area of the pollex are indeed covered with minute granules, as correctly observed by Kemp (1915). Another possible small inaccuracy in Yeo & Ng’s (1996) illustrations of the major cheliped of <i>A. paludicola</i> is the absence of a mesial longitudinal groove connecting with the dorsal transverse groove, which is present, albeit very shallow, in the lectotype.</p> <p> <i>Alpheus paludicola</i> (Figs. 3A–G, 43) can be separated from <i>A. euphrosyne</i>, <i>A. eurydactylus</i>, <i>A. richardsoni</i>, <i>A. microrhynchus</i>, <i>A. cyanoteles</i>, <i>A. nomurai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>, <i>A. takla</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>, <i>A. mangalis</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> and <i>A. songkla</i> by the extremely short rostrum (which is noticeably longer in most other species, except for <i>A. microrhynchus</i>); the development of the rostro-orbital furrows (absent in <i>A. paludicola vs</i>. present in most other species, although very shallow in <i>A. eurphrosyne</i> and not distinct in <i>A. microrhynchus</i>); the distally unarmed antennal basicerite (<i>vs</i>. armed with a more or less strong tooth in <i>A. richardsoni</i>, <i>A. cyanoteles</i>, <i>A. nomurai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>, <i>A. mangalis</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> and <i>A. takla</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>, occasionally with a minute tooth also in <i>A. microrhynchus</i>); the shape of the dorsal shoulder of the major chela (gently sloping in <i>A. paludicola vs</i>. with an overhanging tooth in <i>A. euphrosyne</i>); the proportions of the fingers to the palm in the major chela (0.4 in <i>A. paludicola vs</i>. 0.6–1.0 in all the other species); the development of the mesial subdistal ridge on the major chela pollex (feebly developed in <i>A. paludicola vs</i>. very strong in <i>A. euphrosyne</i>, <i>A. eurydactylus</i>, <i>A. microrhynchus</i>, <i>A. cyanoteles</i> and <i>A. takla</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>); the degree of granulation on the mesial surface of the major chela (weak and restricted to the distal portion of the palm and pollex in <i>A. paludicola vs</i>. much stronger and extensive in <i>A. euphrosyne</i> and <i>A. eurydactylus</i>, or absent in <i>A. microrhynchus</i>, <i>A. cyanoteles</i> and <i>A. mangalis</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>); the sculpture of the palm of the male minor chela (with weak dorsal and ventral transverse grooves in <i>A. paludicola vs</i>. with much stronger ones in <i>A. euphrosyne</i> and <i>A. eurydactylus</i>, or without a distinct dorsal notch in <i>A. richardsoni</i> and <i>A. takla</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>); the shape of the dactylus of the third to fifth pereiopods (spatulate in <i>A. paludicola vs</i>. trigonal-subspatulate in <i>A. microrhynchus</i> and <i>A. cyanoteles</i>); the armature of the ischium of the third pereiopod (unarmed in <i>A. paludicola vs</i>. armed with a spiniform seta in <i>A. euphrosyne</i>, <i>A. eurydactylus</i>, <i>A. richardsoni</i>, <i>A. nomurai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> and <i>A. mangalis</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>, although variable in some taxa); and the number and size of eggs in females (few and very large in <i>A. paludicola vs</i>. numerous and small in the other species, except for <i>A. microrhynchus</i> and <i>A. cyanoteles</i>). In addition, <i>A. paludicola</i> differs from <i>A. mangalis</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> by the distally unarmed ventromesial margin of the chelipeds. The type specimens, with maximal cl 5.5 mm / tl 22.0 mm, are also much smaller than all the above-listed species of the <i>A. euphrosyne — A. microrhynchus</i> complex. In life, <i>A. paludicola</i> may be easily separated from <i>A. euphrosyne</i>, <i>A. richardsoni</i>, <i>A. cyanoteles</i> and <i>A. nomurai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>, by its duller and more uniform colour pattern (Kemp 1915), although young or paler individuals of <i>A. microrhynchus</i>, <i>A. eurydactylus</i>, <i>A. mangalis</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> and <i>A. takla</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> may bear some resemblance with <i>A. paludicola</i>.</p>Published as part of <i>Anker, Arthur, 2023, Revision of Alpheus euphrosyne De Man, 1897 and A. microrhynchus De Man, 1897, with description of three new species and taxonomic remarks on several other morphologically and ecologically similar snapping shrimps (Malacostraca: Decapoda: Alpheidae), pp. 1-115 in Zootaxa 5282 (1)</i> on page 81, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5282.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/7912292">http://zenodo.org/record/7912292</a>
- …
