!

i OCS Study

i MMS 95-0034

l

I TAXONOMIC ATLAS OF THE BENTHIC FAUNA OF

J THE SANTA MARIA BASIN AND

| WESTERN SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

i

l FINAL VolumeRE12PORT of 14

1

The Crustacea Part a _ Amphipoda

i

. Edited by: James A. Blake

i Les Watting

Paul H. Scott

Submitted by:

I Science Applications International Corporation

10260 Campus Point Drive

i SFor: an Diego, California 92121

. U.S. Department of the Interior

= Minerals Management Service

Pacific OCS Region

770 Paseo Camadllo

i Camarillo, California 93010

Under Contract No. 14-35-0001-30484

i

Minerals Management Service August 1995

'_1 PacificOCS Region

tm

i
!

i

DISCLAIMER N

This report has been reviewed by the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region, Minerals Mangement ._

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior and approved for publication. The opinions, findings, l

conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors, and do not

necessarily reflect the view of the Minerals Management Service. Mention of trade names does

not consitiute endorsement or recommendation for use. This report has not been edited for Q

conformity with Minerals Management Service editorial standards.

TAXONOMIC DISCLAIMER I

..4==

This report is not deemed nor intended to be a valid publication for the naming of new taxa as I'

stipulated in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Article 8b.

n

!

i.

!

.|

I

!

I•....

t

i

!

ii i..

i
!

'i'

PROJECT ORGANIZATION

i PROGRAM MANAGER

' DR. ANDREWL. LmSNER Science Applications International Corporation

San10260Diego, Campus California Point D92121 rive

DEPUTY PROGRAM MANAGER

_t

!! DR.JAMESA. BLAKE

i ENSR Consulting and Engineering ! 89 Water Street

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543

.!

I PROJECT TECHNICAL OFFICER

_l_ MR. FRANK J. Ma__Ac,o

U.S. Department of the Interior

'1 Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region

770 Paseo Camarillo

t Camarillo, California 93010

1 CONTRIBUTINGAUTHORS

DR. LESWATLtNG

I DR. JAMES D. THOMAS Ms. Lm'DAD. McCarcN

DR.KATHLEEE.N CONLAN

|

, iii
ACCESS NUMBER: 30484.12 

TECHNICAL SUMMARY 

STUDY TITLE: Taxonomic Atlas of the Santa Maria Basin and Western Santa Barbara Channel 

REPORT TITLE: Taxonomic Atlas of the Santa Maria Basin and Western Santa Barbara Channel. Volume 

12. The Crustacea Part 3 - Amphipoda. 

CONTRACT NUMBER: MMS Contract No. 14-35-0001 -30484. 

SPONSORING OCS REGION: Pacific. 

APPLICABLE PLANNING AREA: Southern Califomia. 

FISCAL YEARS OF PROJECT FUNDING: 1990; 1991 ; 1992; 1993; 1994; 1995. 

COMPLETION DATE OF REPORT March 1995.Taxonomic Atlas of the Santa Maria Basin and Western 

Santa Barbara Channel. Volume 5. The Annelida Part 2 - Polychaeta: Phyllodicida (Syllidae and Scale 

Bearing Families), Amphinomida, and Eunicida. 

COSTS: FY 1989, $229,013; FY 1990, $1 50,000; FY 1991 $1 50,000; FY 1993 $1 95,371. 

CUMULATIVE PROJECT COST $724,384. 

PROJECT MANAGER: Andrew L. Lissner. 

AFFILIATION: Science Applications International Corporation. 

ADDRESS: 10260 Campus Point Drive, San Diego, California 92121. 

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS*: James A. Blake, Andrew L. Lissner 

KEY WORDS: Marine invertebrates, Crustacea, Amphipoda, Gammaridea, Caprellidea, taxonomy, 

California, Santa Maria Basin, Santa Barbara Channel, continental shelf. 

BACKGROUND: The Taxonomic Atlas of the Santa Maria Basin and western Santa Barbara Channel is an 

extension of the benthic reconnaissance (Phase I) and monitoring programs (Phase H) that were conducted 

by the MMS since 1983. The organisms that were collected as part of those programs provide the material 

on which the Atlas is developed. In order to fully document the fauna collected by those programs, a series 

of 14 volumes will be prepared that provide keys, descriptions, and illustrations of the benthic fauna of the 

hard and soft substrate environments. A team of 40 experts on the fauna has been assembled to carry out 

this work and their contributions are distributed among the 14 volumes. 

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of Volume 12 are to provide keys, descriptions, and illustrations to the 

amphipod crustaceans of the Santa Maria Basin and western Santa Batkara Channel. 

DESCRIPTION: The volume on the Amphipoda includes five chapters. The first is an introduction to 

amphipods that includes sections on amphipod morphology, reproduction and development, collection and 

presenration, laboratory methods, a glossary, and a key to the families of Amphipoda from southern California. 

Chapters 2-5 treat most of the families of Amphipoda encountered in the Santa Maria Basin and western 

Santa Barbara Channel. A total of 22 families, 67 genera, and 11 5 species of the Gammaridea are treated 

along with 4 families, 6 genera, and 12 species of Caprellidea. The Lysianassidae are not included. For 
ACCESS NUMBER: 30484.1 2 

each family, keys to species in the study are presented along with illustrated diagnoses for each species. 

SIGNIFICANT CONCLUSIONS: This compilation of offshore amphipods represents the first effort to 

synthesize and develop a faunal guide for this difficult, yet important component of central California benthic 

communities. The descriptions and keys that are presented will permit users to identify most of the genera 

and species within the study area and afford some applicability outside of the immediate study area. Out 

of 11 5 species of gammarid amphipods, three species, Photis typhiops Conlan, P. linearmanus Conlan, and 

Gammarqosis oceMat. Conlan were identified as new to science and were described and named in a separate 

paper. Another species, Mfcrojassa sp. A, has also been identified as new to science and is being described 

separately (Conlan, in press). 

STUDY RESULTS: The fauna of the Santa Maria Basin and western Santa Batbaa Channel is evaluated 

from samples that were taken from depths of about 50 to 1,000 m. Organisms were collected from soft 

sediments using box cores and from rocks using manipulator arms of submersibles and remotely operated 

vehicles. The collections are organized into sets of vouchers from Phase I and I1 that have been made 

available to the team of investigators. Additional material from the bulk collections now archived with the 

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County is also being examined. The total number of species 

treated in the entire Taxonomic Atlas (14 volumes) may exceed 1,000 species. 

The offshore amphipods of California are reasonably well known from eatly monographic studies by J. L. 

Barnard conducted in the 1950's and 1960's . However, the discovery of numerous additional species in the 

region and changes to the taxonomy of amphipods at the generic and family levels have rendered most of 

the earlier compilations obsolete. The Taxonomic Atlas, therefore, represents the first effort to assemble 

information on the offshore amphipods of Central Califomia. Although more or less restricted to those 

species collected as part of the MMS programs, the preparation of keys and illustrated descriptions of the 

fauna provides a welcome compilation for local taxonomists to use in their monitoring programs. 

For this study, a total of 115 species of gammarid amphipods and another 12 species of caprellids are 

described and illustrated. All families encountered as part of the MMS studies were treated, except for the 

Lysianassidae. An introductory chapter deals with basic amphipod morphology and presents an illustrated 

key to the families. This chapter is followed by four others that treat the different families. 

STUDY PRODUCT: Blake, J. A., L. Watling and P. H. Scott (Editors). 1995. Taxonomic Atlas of the Santa 

Maria Basin and Western Santa Barbara Channel. Volume 12: The Crustacea Part 3 - Amphipoda. A final 

report prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, for the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, CA. OCS Study MMS 95-0034. Contract 

NO. 1 4-35-0001 -30484. 

'P.l's affiliation may be different than that listed for Project Manager@). 

v 

_0_-_ ,,,

DOCUMENTATION:z.RZeOwrNo. MMS 95-0034 z. _._mn_s _._o. wo. PAGE

4. _ and Subtitle S. Report Date

TaxonomicAtlasof theSanta MariaBasinandWestemSanta BarbaraChannel.Volume August1995

12. The Crustacea Part 3-- Amphipoda. J6.

7. Author(s) 8, Performinl[ OrpnizaUon RePt, No.

James A. Blake, Les Watling and Paul Scott (editors)

9. Plrform|n80qplnization NBme rand Address |0. Pmject/Tmsk/Work Unit No,

ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation zL Contact(C) or Graed_No(G).

89 Water Street,WoodsHole, Massachusetts02543

(C)

14-35-001-30484

{G)

12. SpOnsoring OrlPniZatlon Nsme 8rid Address 13. Type of Report & 1Period Co_m_d

Final 12of 14voEumes,

Mineral ManagementService, U. S. Departmentof the Intarior, 9/89 to 6/95 PacificOCS Region, 770 Paseo Camarillo

Camarillo,California 93010 14.

1S. SUpl_lemer_ary Nofes

Contributingaul_ors: LesWatling,James D. Thomas,LindaH. McCann, KathleenE. Conlan

16. Abstract (Urn_ 20O worm)

The volume on the Amphipoda includesfive chapters. The first is an introductionto amphipodsthat includes

sectionson amphipodmorphology,reproductionand development,collectionand preservation,laboratorymethods,

a glossary,and a keyto thefamiliesof AmphipodafromsouthernCalifornia. Chapters2-5 treatmostofthefamilies

of Amphipodaencounteredinthe Santa MariaBasinand westernSanta BarbaraChannel. A totalof 22families,67

genera,and115speciesoftheGammarideaaretreatedalongwith4 families,6 genera,and 12speciesofCaprellidea.

The Lysianassidaearenotincluded.Foreachfamily,keysto speciesinthe studyarepresentedalongwithillustrated

diagnosesfor each species. Three species, Photis typh/ops Conlan, P. /inearmanus Conlan,and Gammaropsis

oce/lataContanwere identifiedas newto scienceduringthecourseof thisstudyarewere describedand namedina

separatepaper. Anotherspecies,Microjassasp.A, hasalsobeen identifiedas newto scienceandisbeingdescribed

separately(Conlan,in press).

17. Oocmlwmt A_stysts 8. Ommrlp_rs

Marine invertebrates,Crustacea,Amphipoda,Gammaridea, Caprellidea,taxonomy,California,Santa Maria Basin,

Santa Barbara Channel, continental shelf.

b. _fOpen_.nded Terms

TaxonomicAtlas, Keys to species,faunal guide, marineecology,Crustacea,Amphipoda,marinebenthos.

i r. COATI FIMdlGroup

18. Availalbll_Ay Statement 19. Security Cl=ss (This Report) 21. No. of P_es

Unlimited Unclassified. _ 246

20. SecureLy CIs,ss (This Pete) 22. Price

i (See ANSt_39.tS) Set /nofructfons o_ Reverse OPTIONAL FORM '272 (4--_'/}

. (Fo_-_er_ NTIS-3S)

Dv_partmectt o( Commerce

I.
I

Table of Contents i

1. INTRODUCTIONTOTHEAMPHIPODA(by Les Watling and J.D. Thomas) 1

Morphology ..................................................................................................................................... 1 _,

Reproduction and Development ..................................................................................................... 10 ll

Collection and Preservation ........................................................................................................... 10

Laboratory Methods ...................................................................................................................... 10

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 11 II

Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... 11

Key to the Gammaridean Amphipod Families of Southern California .......................................... 13 m

Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................. 20 !1

2. THE FAMILIES ARGISSIDAE_DEXAMINIDAE_EUSIRIDAE_ GAMMARIDAE_LEUCOTHOIDAE_ 'i:

MELPHIDIPPIDAE_OEDICEROTIDAE_PARDALISCIDAE_PHOXOCEPHALIDAE_PODOCERIDAE_ II

STEGOCEPHALIDAESTENOTHOIDAE _ STILIPEDIDAE _ SYNOPIIDAF _ AND _ UROTHOIDAE

(by J.D. Thomas and L.D. McCann) 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 21

Family Argissidae Walker, 1904 ....................................................................................... 21 ql[

Argissa hamatipes (Norman, 1869) ....................................................... 22

Family Dexaminidae Leach, 1814 .................................................................................... 23

Subfamily Prophliantinae, Barnard and Karaman,1991 ................................................... 23 Ill

Guernea (Prinassus) reduncans (Barnard, 1958) .................................. 23 II

Family Eusiridae Stebbing, 1888 ...................................................................................... 24

Key to the Eusiridae of the Santa Maria Basin .................................................... 25 ,_,

Eusirus longipes Boeck, 1861 ................................................................ 26 II

Oradarea longimana (Boeck, 1871) ...................................................... 28

Rhachotropis clemens Barnard, 1967 .................................................... 29 (ll

Rhachotropis distincta (Holmes, 1908) .................................................. 30 |

Rhachotropisfaemensis Stephensen, 1944 ............................................ 31

Rhachotropis inflata (Sars, 1883) .......................................................... 31 m

Rhachotropis oculata (Hansen, 1888) .................................................... 32 II

Family Gammaridae Leach, 1814 ..................................................................................... 33

Key to the Gammaridae of the Santa Maria Basin .............................................. 34 ill

Maera danae (Stimpson, 1854) .............................................................. 34 !( Maera simile Stout, 1913 ....................................................................... 35

Melita dentata (Kr0yer, 1842) ............................................................... 37 _lm

Family Leucothoidae Dana, 1852 ..................................................................................... 38 I:

Leucothoe spinicarpa (Abildgaard, 1789) ............................................. 39

Family Melphidippidae Stebbing, 1899 ............................................................................ 40

Key to the Melphidippidae of the Santa Maria Basin .......................................... 40 | MeIphidippa amorita Barnard, 1966 ..................................................... 41

Melphidippa borealis Boeck, 1871 ........................................................ 42

Melphisana bola Barnard, 1962 ............................................................. 43 '_

Family Oedicerotidae Liljeborg, 1865 .............................................................................. 44 U

Key to the Oedicerotidae of the Santa Mafia Basin ............................................. 44 !

viii i
!

I Aceroides sp. A ....................................................................................... 46

Bathymedon covilhani Barnard, 1961 .................................................... 47

I Bath Bathymedon ymedon pumilis kassites Bamard, Barnard, 1962 1966....................................................... ...................................................... 4748

Bathymedon roquedo Barnard, 1962 ...................................................... 49

I Bathymedon Monoculodes vulpeculus Barnard, 1971 .................................................. 50 emarginatus Bamard, 1962 ............................................. 51

Monoculodes glyconica Bamard, 1962 .................................................. 52

Monoculodes hartmanae Barnard, 1962 ................................................ 53

| Monoculodes latissimanus Stephensen, 1931 ........................................ 54

Monoculodes necopinus Barnard, 1967 ................................................. 55

i Monoculodes norvegicus (Boeck, 1861) ................................................ 56 Monoculodes spinipes Mills, 1962 ......................................................... 57

Synchelidium rectipalmum Mills, 1962 .................................................. 58

i Synchelidium Westwoodilla shoemakeri Mills, t962 ................................................... 59 caecula (Bate, 1857) ........................................................ 60

Family Pardaliscidae Boeck, 1871 .................................................................................... 61

Key to the Paradaliscidae of the Santa Maria Basin ............................................ 61

Halicoides synopiae (Barnard, 1962) ..................................................... 62

• Nicippe tumida Bruzelius, 1859 ............................................................. 63

Pardalisca sp.......................................................................................... 65

Pardaliscella Sars, 1895........................................................................ 65

.... Pardaliscella symmetrica Barnard, 1959 ............................................... 66

i ?Pardaliscella yaquina Bamard, 1971 .................................................. 67 Princaxelia sp. A .................................................................................... 69

Rhynohalicella haIona (Barnard, 1971) ................................................. 69

Family Phoxocephalidze Sars, 1895 ................................................................................ 71

l

Key to the Phoxocephalidae of the Santa Maria Basin ........................................ 71

Cephalophoxoides homilis (Barnard, 1960) .......................................... 75

Eyakia robusta (Holmes, 1908) .............................................................. 76

l Foxiphalus (Barnard, 1960) 78

cognatus

Foxiphalus golfensis (Barnard and Barnard, 1982) ............................... 79

Foxiphalus major (Barnard, 1960) ......................................................... 80

i Foxiphalus Foxiphalus obtusidens (Alderman, 1936) .............................................. 80 similis (Barnard, 1960) ........................................................ 81

Harpmtopsis emeryi Bamard, 1960 ....................................................... 83

a Harpm Harpmzzops opsisis fulgens epistomaBarnard, ta Barnard, 196019...................................................... 60 ................................................ 8843

Harpmzopsis galera Barnard, 1960 ....................................................... 85

Harpm Harpmtopsis zopsis profundis naiadis Bamard, Barnard,19601960......................................................

.................................................. 8686

Harpmtopsis sp. 2 .................................................................................. 87

t Heterophoxus Leptophoxusfalcatus oclatusicelus (Holmes, Barnard, 1908)1960 ................................................. ........................................... 8890

Metaphoxusfrequens Barnard, 1960 ...................................................... 91

Parameta Paraphoxusphoxoculatus usfultoni (Sars, (Scott, 1879)1890) ............................................................................................................ 9293

Pseudharpinia excavata (Chevreux, 1887) ........................................... 95

! Pseudharpinia sp. 1................................................................................ 95

i ix
!

/

Rhepoxynius bicuspidatus (B amard, 1960) ........................................... 97 I

Rhepoxynius daboius (Barnard, 1960) ................................................... 98

Rhepoxynius heterocuspidatus (Barnard, 1960) .................................... 98 i

Rhepoxynius menziesi (Bamard and Barnard 1982) .............................. 99 |

Rhepoxynius variatus (Barnard, 1960) ................................................. 100

Family Podoceridae Leach, 1814 .................................................................................... 101 m

Key to the Podoceridae of the Santa Maria Basin ............................................. 102 U

Dulichia rhabdoplastis McCloskey, 1970 ............................................ 103

Dyopedos arcticus (Murdoch, 1885) .................................................... 104 i

Dyopedos monacanthus (Metzger, 1875) ............................................. 105 |

Dyopedos sp. 1 ..................................................................................... 106

Podocerus cristatus (Thomson, 1879) ................................................. 107 _

Family Stegocephalidae Dana, 1855 ............................................................................... 108 |

Stegocephalus hancocki Hurley, 1956 ................................................ 108

Family Stenothoidae Boeck, 1871 .................................................................................. 109 iii

Key to the Stenothoidae of the Santa Maria Basin ............................................ 110 II

Hardametopa nasuta (Boeck, 1871) .................................................... 111

Metopa dawsoni Barnard, 1962 ........................................................... 112 _III

MetopeUa aporpis Barnard, 1962 ........................................................ 113 _

Parametopella ninis Barnard, 1962 ..................................................... 115

ParametopeUa sp. 1 ............................................................................. 115

Stenothoe frecanda Bamard, 1962 ....................................................... 117 ,,

Stenothoides bicoma Barnard, 1962 .................................................... 118 -"

Stenula modosa Barnard, 1962 ............................................................ 119 j

Family Stilipedidae Holmes, 1908 .................................................................................. 120 I

Astyra abyssi Boeck, 1871 ................................................................... 121

Family Synopiidae Dana, 1855 ....................................................................................... 122 hm_

Key to the Synopiidae of the Santa Maria Basin ............................................... 122

In Bruzelia tuberculata Sars, 1883 ........................................................... 123

Garosyrrhoe disjuncta Barnard, 1969 .................................................. 124

Syrrhoe longifrons Shoemaker, 1964 ................................................... 125

Tiron bioceUata Barnard, 1962 ............................................................ 126 I!

Tiron tropakis Barnard, 1972 ............................................................... 127

Family Urothoidae Bousfield, 1978 ................................................................................ 127 IR

Urothoe elegans Bate, 1857 ................................................................. 128 g

Urothoe varvarini Gurjanova, 1953 ..................................................... 128 p

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................ 130 _11

II

3. THE FAMmmS AlVn'ELISCmA_ Arcwnn.ocnmA_, LILJEBORGIm_, ANDPr_USTmAE

(by Les Wafting) '1'

Family Ampeliscidae Costa, 1957 .................................................................................. 137

Key

Key

to

to

the

the

Genera

Species

of

of

the

Ampelisca

Ampetisicidae

from the

.............................................................

Santa Mafia Basin ..........................

137

138 U

Key to Figure Abbreviations .............................................................................. 139

Ampelisca eoa Gurj anova, 1951 .......................................................... 139 I_

Ampelisca pugetica Stimpson, 1864 .................................................... 139 II

Ampelisca unsocalae J.L. Barnard, 1960 ............................................. 141

!
,

Ampelisca hancocki J.L. Barnard, 1954 .............................................. 143

Ampelisca brevisimulata J.L. Bamard, 1954 ....................................... 143

i Ampelisca Ampelisca pacifica cristata Holmes, Holmes, 1908 1908......................................................... ........................................................ 144 147

Ampelisca agassizi (Judd, 1896) .......................................................... 149

I Ampelisca Ampelisca romigi J.L. Barnard, 1954 ........,......................................... 149 lobata Holmes, 1908 ........................................................... 150

Key to the Species of Byblis from the Santa Maria Basin ................................. 157

BybIis veleronis J.L. Bamard, 1954 ..................................................... 152 Byblis bathyalis J.L. Bamard, 1966 ..................................................... 154

Byblis millsi Dickinson, 1983 ............................................................... 155

_1il Byblis barbarensis J.L. Barnard, 1960 ................................................ 156

|

Haploops tubicola Liljeborg, 1856 ...................................................... 157

Family Amphilochidae Boeck, 1871 ............................................................................... 158

t Key to Species of Amphilochidae from the Santa Maria Basin ......................... 158 , Amphilochus picadurus J.L. Barnard, 1962 ......................................... 158

Gitana calitemplado J.L. Bamard, 1962 ............................................. 160

Family Liljeborgiidae Stebbing, 1899 ............................................................................. 161

i Key to the Species of Liljeborgiidae from the Santa Mafia Basin 161 Liljeborgia cota J.L. Barnard, 1962 ..................................................... 162

Liljeborgia pallida (Bate, 1857) .......................................................... 163

Listriella albina J.L. Barnard, 1959 164 Listriella diffusa J.L. Bamard, 1959 .................................................... 164

i Listriella eriopisa J.L. Bamard, 1959 .................................................. 167

Listriella goleta J.L. Barnard, 1959 ..................................................... 168

Listriella melanica J.L. Bamard, 1959 ................................................ 169

Family Pleustidae Buchholz, 1874 .................................................................................. 170

i to the of Pleustidae from the Santa Maria Basin 170

Key Species

Parapleustes pugettensis (Dana, 1853) ................................................ 170

_ Pleustes depressa Alderman, 1936 ....................................................... 172

Pleusymptes coquilla J.L. Barnard, 1971 ............................................ 173

Pleusymptes subglaber (Barnard and Given, 1960) ............................. 174

.... Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................ 175

t 4. SUPERFAMILYCOROPHIOmEA(by Kathleen E. Conlan)

I Introduction to theAbbreviations Superfamily Used Coroplaioidea 177 in the Figures ..................................................................... I78

Key to Genera and Species of Corophioidea ..................................................... 178

i Descriptions of Species 183 Superfamily Corophioidea .............................................................................................. 183

Family Aoridae ............................................................................................................... 183

t Aoroides Aoroides exilis inermisConlan ConlanandandBousfield, Bousfieldt,9821982......................................... ..................................... 183 185

Family Isaeidae ............................................................................................................... 187

i APhotis mpelisciphotis typhlops Conlan, podophthalma 1994 ..............................................................(J.L. Bamard, 1958) .......................... 187 189

Photis bifurcata J.L. Bamard, 1962 ..................................................... 191

!
!

Photis lacia J.L. Barnard, 1962 ........................................................... 193 i

Photis linearmanus Conlan, 1994 ........................................................ 195

Photis brevipes Shoemaker, 1942 ......................................................... 196 i

Photis californica Stout, 1913 ............................................................. 198 g

Photis macrotica J.L. Bamard, 1962 ................................................... 201

Protomedeia articulata J.L. Barnard, 1962 ......................................... 203 i

Protomedeia prudens J.L. Barnard, 1966 ............................................ 204 II

Gammaropsis (Gammaropsis) thompsoni (Walker, 1898) ................... 206

Gammaropsis (Podoceropsis) ocellata Conlan, 1994 .......................... 208

Gammaropsis (Podoceropsis) oeiosa (J.L. Barnard, 1962) ................. 210 g

Family Ischyroceridae ..................................................................................................... 212

Ericthonius rubricomis (Stimpson, 1853) ........................................... 212 l_

Jassa slatteryi Conlan, 1990 ................................................................ 214 II

Microjassa sp. A Conlan, in press ........................................................ 216

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................ 218 m

Attachment l1. Species of Corophioidea not in Santa Maria Basin collections but

which may occur in the study area ..................................................................... 222

5. THE SVnORDr.RCArR_LLmFa (by Les Watfng) i

i

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 223 i

Key to the caprellids of the Santa Maria Basin region ................................................................. 223 11

Descriptions of Species ................................................................................................................ 224

Family Phtiscidae Vassilenko, 1968 ................................................................................ 224 /

Subfamily Phtiscinae Vassilenko, 1968 .......................................................................... 225 |

Hemiproto wigIeyi McCain, 1968 ........................................................ 225

Subfamily Dodecadinae Vassilenko, 1968 ...................................................................... 226 'i

Perotripus brevis (La Follette, 1915) ................................................... 227 |

Family Caprellidae White, 1847 ..................................................................................... 227

Caprella natalensis Mayer, 1903 ......................................................... 229 I

Caprella equilibra Say, 1818 ............................................................... 230 |

CapreUa mendax Mayer, 1903 ............................................................. 231

Caprella pilidigita Laubitz, 1970 ........................................................ 232 -mFamily Pariambidae Laubitz, 1993 ................................................................................. 232 JR

Deutella californica Mayer 1890 ......................................................... 233 i

Deutella venenosa Mayer, 1890 ........................................................... 234

Family Protellidae McCain, 1970 ................................................................................... 235

Mayerella banksia Laubitz, 1970 ......................................................... 235

Tritella laevis Mayer, 1903 .................................................................. 236

Tritella pilimana Mayer, 1890 ............................................................. 238 i

Tritella tenuissima Dougherty and Steinberg, 1953 ............................. 239 1

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................ 240 ii

APPENDIX............................................................................................................................... 241 i

!

l

xii i
!

l List of Figures

i Figure 1.1. Basic diagram of generalized gammaddean amphipod (fromBarnard and Karaman, 1991)... 2

Figure 1.2. SEM views of a corophiid amphipod, Corophium volutator. A, side view of body. B, head

I and antennae. C, dorsal view of peonite 3 and urosome .................................................... 3

l Figure 1.3. SEM views of an ampeliscid amphipod, Ampelisca agassizi. A, side view of body. B, head

and pereonites 1-4. C, dorsal view of pleonites 1-2 and urosome ...................................... 4

Figure 1.4. SEM views of a gammarid amphipod, Gammarus oceanicus. A, side view of body exclusive

of urosome. B, head and pereonites 1-5. C, pleosome and urosome ................................. 5

I Figure 1.5. Basic gammaridean body parts. A, head; B, gnathopod; C, pereopod; D, pleopod; E, uropod

1; F, uropod 3 (from Bousfield, 1973) ................................................................................ 6

i Figure 1.6. Mouthpart structure and terminology. A, lip; B, lower lip; C, mandible; D, maxilla 1;

upper

E, maxilla 2, F, maxilliped; G, telson (from Bousfield, 1973) ............................................ 8

Figure 1.7. Details of body plan and appendages of acaprellidean amphipod (from Vassilenko, 1974) .... 9

Key for the Gammaridean Amphipod Families of Southern California (Vigures 1.8 to 1.30)

i Figure 1.8. Lysianassidae .................................................................................................................... 13 1.9. Ampeliscidae ..................................................................................................................... 13

i Figure Figure 1. 1.11. 10. Argissidae Podoceridae.........................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................... 1144

I Figure Figure 11.13. .12. Ste Corophioidea nothoidae ......................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................... 1415

i Figure Figure 11.15. .14. Oedi Leucothoidae cerotidae ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1515

Figure 1.16. Dexaminidae ..................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 1.17. Phoxocephalidae ............................................................................................................... 16

i Figure 1.t8. Urothoidae ........................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 1.19. Melphidippidae ................................................................................................................. 17

i Figure 1.20. Synopiidae ........................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 1.21. Corophiidae ....................................................................................................................... 17

i Figure 1.22. Pardaliscidae ..................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 1.23. Gammaridae ...................................................................................................................... I8

i Figure 1.24. Amphilochidae .................................................................................................................. 18
N

Figure 1.25. Pleustidae .......................................................................................................................... 18 t

Figure 1.26. Stegocephalidae ................................................................................................................ 19 ,

ii

Figure 1.27. Stilipedidae ....................................................................................................................... 19 I

Figure 1.28. Gammaridae ...................................................................................................................... 19 i

Figure 1.29. Eusiridae ........................................................................................................................... 19 l

Figure 1.30. Liljeborgiidae .................................................................................................................... 20 ill

Figure 2.1. Argissa hamatipes (Norman, 1869) (from Barnard, 1969) .............................................. 22 II

Figure 2.2. Guernea reduncans (Barnard, 1958), female ................................................................... 23 i"

Figure 2.3. Gurnea (P.)reduncans, male, 2.4 mm; A, Telson; B, Lateral view, antennae 2 in two pieces; l

C, Antenna 1. Note dorsal knotch; D, Gnathopod 1; E, Uropod 3 (from Bamard, 1958)..

.......................................................................................................................................... 4 i

Figure 2.5. Eusirus longipes, female (from Lincoln, 1979) ................................................................ 26

Figure 2.6. Eusirus longipes, female; A, Uropod 3; B, Gnathopod 1; C; Telson; D; Pereopod 7 (from n

Lincoln, 1979) .................................................................................................................. 27 S

Figure 2.7. Oradarea longimana, female; A, Gnathopod 1; B, Pereopod 3; C, Gnathopod 2, with mid

close-up of dactyl; D, Antenna 1, accessory flagellum (from Shoemaker, t 930) ............ 28 !

Figure 2.8. Rhachotropis clemens, female, 4.5 mm; A, Lateral view ofepimeral segements and urosomites;

B, Gnathopod 1; C, Telson. (from Barnard, 1967) ......................................................... 30 n

Figure 2.10. Rhachotropis inflata; Lateral view (from Sars, 1883) .................................................... 32

Figure 2.11. Rhachotropis oculata, female; lateral view. Note the acuminate posteroventral comer on

epimeron 2 (from Bousfield, 1973) ................................................................................... 33 m

Figure 2.I 2. Maera danae, female; A, Lateral view; B, Telson; C, Upper lip; D, Gnathopod I; E, d_

Gnathopod 2 (from Bousfield, 1973) ................................................................................ 35 II

Figure 2.13. Maera simile, male, 10 ram; A, Head. B. Uropod 3; C, Telson; D. Gnathopod 2; E,

Epimera 1-3, female, 8 mm (from Barnard, 1959) ........................................................... 36 n

p

Figure 2.14. Melita dentata, male (from Bousfield, 1973) ................................................................... 37

Figure 2.15. Melita dentata, male: A, Gnathopod 2; B, Gnathopod 1; C, Uropod 3; Note length of outer i

ramus; D, Telson (from Holmes, 1905) ........................................................................... 38 I!

Figure 2.16. Leucothoe spinicarpa (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991) ............................................. 39 It

Figure 2.18. Melphidippa amorita, female ........................................................................................... 41 i

Figure 2.17. Melphidippaamorita, female, 6.4 ram; A, Epimeron 3; B, Telson (fromBamard, 1966a). 41 I/

Figure 2.19. Melphidippa borealis, female; A, Epimeron 3; B, Epimeron 2 and 3, dorsal view; C, Telson In

(from Sars, 1895) ............................................................................................................. 42

Figure 2.20. Melphisana bola, male, 3 mm; A, Antenna 1 (proximal end only); B, Head with close-up of !

accessory flagellum; C, Telson; D, Pleon; E, Telson; F, Gnathopod 2; G, Pereopod 3; H,

Upper lip, female, 3 mm; I, Pereopod 4 (from Barnard, 1962b) .................................... 43 l
!

t Figure 2.24. Bathymedon covihani, male, 6 mm; A, Head with epistome (stippled); B, Gnathopod 1; C,

Gnathopod 2; D, Pereopod 3; E, Telson (from Barnard, 1961) ....................................... 47

i Figure 2.25. Bathymedon kassites, female, 3.2 A, Telson B; Epimera 1-3; C, Gnathopod 1 with

nlli1;

setae removed (note produced carpal lobe); D, Head and epistome; E, Gnathopod 2 (from

Bamard, 1966a) ................................................................................................................ 48

i Figure 2.26. Bathymedon pumilis, male, 2.5 mm; A, Head; B, Telson (note emargination); C, Gnathopod

1; D, Pereopod 5 (from Barnard, 1962e) .......................................................................... 49

i Figure 2.27. Bathymedon roquedo, male, 5.5 A, Pereopod 3; B, Gnathopod 1; C, Head, D, Telson

nllil;

(from Bamard, 1962e)...................................................................................................... 50

.IF Figure 2.28. Bathymedon vulpeculus, male, 4.8 mm; A, Head; B, Gnathopod 1;C, Pereopod 5; D, Telson

II with the setae/spines removed; E, Epimera 1-3 showing a square of the minute, ragged scales

present on the posterior, with a close-up of one scale (from Bamard, 1971) .................... 51

i Figure 2.29. Monoculodes emarginata, female, 4.5 mm; A, Epimera 1-3; B, Telson (note slight emargination); C, Head (from Barnard, 1962e) ................................................................ 52

i Figure 2.30. Monoculodes glyconica, male, 6 mm; A, Lateral view; B, Gnathopod 1; C, Gnathopod 2; D, • Telson (from Barnard, 1962e) ......................................................................................... 53

Figure 2.31. Monoculodes hartmanae, mate, 3 mm; A, Lateral view; B, Gnathopod 1; C, Gnathopod 2;

1

D, Head. (from Barnard, 1962e) ..................................................................................... .54

Figure 2.32. Monoculodes latissimanus, female, 3 mm; A, Epimera 1-3; B, Gnathopod 1;C, Head (from

I Barnard, 1966a)................................................................................................................ 55 Figure 2.33. Monoculodes necopinus, male, 6.7 mm; A, Pereopod 5; B, Head; C, Gnathopod 1; D,

Epimera 1-3 (from Barnard, 1967) .................................................................................. 56

I Figure 2.35. Synchelidium rectipalmum, male, 3.5 mm; A, Head; B, Gnathopod 1 (note spine-like carpal

projection); C, Gnathopod 2; D, Epimeron 1; E, Epimeron 2; F, Epimemn 3 (from Mills,

1962) ................................................................................................................................. 58 Figure 2.36. Synchelidium shoemakeri, male, 3.5 mm; A, Head; B, Epimeron 1; C, Epimeron 2; D,

Epimeron 3; (from Mills, 1962) ....................................................................................... 59

Figure 2.37. Westwoodilla caecula Bate, 1857, male (from Lincoln, 1979) ......................................... 60

Figure 2.38. Westwoodilla caecula; A, Head, female; B, Gnathopod 1; C, Gnathopod 2; B and C, male

i (from Lincoln, 1979)........................................................................................................ 61

t Figure 2.39. Halicoides synopiae, female (Barnard, 1962b) ................................................................ 63

i Figure 2.40. Nicippe tumida, female; A, Lateral view; B, Gnathopod 1; C, Gnathopod 2; D. Uropods 2- 3, telson; E, Umpod 1; F, Head and antenna, male (from Lincoln, 1979) ........................ 64

i Figure 2.41. Pardalisca sp., female, 8.8 mm; A, Epimera 1-3; B, Head; C, Gnathopod 1; D, Close-up of gnathopod 1 dactyl showing serrations; E, Urosomites 1-3 (Barnard, 1967) ................... 66

Figure 2.43. Pardaliscella ?yaquina, female, 3.3 mm; A, Pereopod 5; B, Pereopod 6; C, Pereopod 7; D,

I Pereopod Gnathopod4;1;E, Head; F, Gnathopod 2; G, Gnathopod 2, close-up of dactyl; H, Antenna 2; I, J, Antenna 1; K, Telson; L, Epimera 2 and 3, urosomites with close-ups of

uropods (from Barnard, 1971) .......................................................................................... 68

!
!

Figure 2.44. Rhynohalicella halona, male, 5.6 mm; A, Telson; B, Lateral view (note the quadrate bundle i

forming the mouthparts and the dorsal spine on urosomite 2); C, Uropod 2; D, Uropod 3; E,

Uropod 1; F, Gnathopod 1 (note the proximal spinose protrusion) (from Bamard, 1971).70 i

u

Figure 2.54. Cephalophoxoides homilis, male, 3 mm; A, Gnathopod 2; B, Epimera 1-3 (from Bamard,

1960) ................................................................................................................................. 76

g

Figure 2.55. Eyakia robusta, female, 10 ram; Epimeron 3 (from Barnard, 1960) ................................ 77 R

Figure 2.56. Foxiphalus cognatus, male, 4 mm; A, Pereopod 7; B, Head with 3 variations of the epistome;

C, Epimeron 3 (from Barnard, 1960)............................................................................... 78 l

Figure 2.57. Foxiphalus golfensis, female, 8.5 ram; A, Uropod 1; B, Epimera 2-3; C, Pereopod 7 (from

Barnard, 1960) .................................................................................................................. 79

N Figure 2.58. Foxiphalus major, female; Epimera 1-3 (from Barnard and Bamard, 1982a) ................. 80

Figure 2.59. Foxiphalus obtusidens; A, Epistome; B, Pereopod 7, male, 5 mm; C, Epimeron 3; A and C, m

female, 6 mm. (from Barnard, 1960, plate 35) ................................................................ 81 g

Figure 2.60. Foxiphalus similis, male; Epimera 1-3 (from Barnard and Barnard, 1982a) ................... 82 Iii

Figure 2.61. Harpiniopsis emeryi, female, 4.5 mm; A, Epimera 2 and 3; B, Pereopod 7; C, Head with g

antenna 2 (from Barnard, 1960) ...................................................................................... 83

Figure 2.62. Harpiniopsis epistomata, female, 3.75 mm; A, Head with epistome (stippled); B. Pereopod B

7; C. Epimera 1-3 (from Barnard, 1960) ......................................................................... 84 lira

Figure 2.63. Harpiniopsisfulgens, female, 32 mm; A, Head; B, Epirnera 1-3 (from Bamard, 1960). 85 iB

Figure 2.64. Harpiniopsis galera, female, 3 mm; A, Epimera 2 and 3; B, Epimera 3 close-up; C,Pereopod

7; D, Head (from Barnard, 1960) .................................................................................... 85

Figure 2.65. Harpiniopsis profundis, female, 4.5 ram; A, Head; B, Epimeron 3; C, Pereopod 7 (from Rill

Barnard, 1960) .................................................................................................................. 87

,m

Figure 2.66. Harpiniopsis sp. 2, female?; A, Epimera 2 and 3, note vertical posterior margin on the .i

former; B, Head; C, Pereopod 7....................................................................................... 87

w

Figure 2.67. Heterophoxus oculatus, male, 5 mm; A, Pereopod 7 with close-up of dactyl; B, Epimera 1-

3 and uropods (from Shoemaker, 1925) .......................................................................... 89

Figure 2.68. Leptophoxus falcatus, female; Lateral view. (from Bamard and Karaman, 1991)......... 90

mm

Figure 2.69. Metaphoxus frequens, female, 3 mm; A, Head; B, Gnathopod 2; C, Epimera 2-3 (from I

Barnard, 1960) .................................................................................................................. 91

Figure 2.70. Parametaphoxusfultoni, female, 3 mm; A, Lateral view; B, Gnathopod 1; C, Gnathopod 2; B

D, Uropod 3; E, Uropod 2; F, Uropod 1; G, Telson; H, Pereopod 7 (from Barnard, 1964b). n

.......................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2.71. Paraphoxus oculatus, female, 3 mm; A, Gnathopod 2, propodus and dactyl; B, Head; C, J

Epimera l-3 (from Karaman, 1973)................................................................................ 94

Figure 2.72. Pseudharpinia excavata, female, 5 ram; A, Head with close-up of acuminate lateral lobe; B, g

n

Pereopod 7, note setae on anteroventral edge; C, Epimeron 3 (from Barnard, 1960) ....... 95 I

Figure 2.73. Pseudharpinia sp. 1; A, Epimera 3; B, Pereopod 7......................................................... 96 i

xvi i
!

1 Figure 2.74. Rhepoxynius bicuspidatus, female, 4 ram; Pereopod 7, see remarks above (from Bamard,

1960) ................................................................................................................................. 97

i 2.75. female; Pereopod 7 (from Barnard and Barnard, 1982b) 99

Figure Rhepoxynius heterocuspidatus,

Figure 2.76. Rhepoxynius menziesi, female, 5.5 ram; A, Pereopod 7; B; Epimera 1-3 (from Barnard,

I 1960) ............................................................................................................................... I00 Figure 2.77. Rhepoxynius variatus, female, 4 mm; A, Close-up of gnathopod 2 showing transverse palm;

B. Epimera 2 and 3; C, Pereopod 7; D, Gnathopod 2; E, Dorsal view of head (from Bamard,

i 1960) 101

I Figure 2.78. Dulichia spinosissima Krcyer, 1845 (from Barnard and Karaman,1991) ..................... 103

I Figure 2.79. Dyopedos arcticus, female; A, Lateral view; B, Dorsal view of head; C, Gnathopod 1; D,

HI Gnathopod 2 with close-up of dactyl; E, Pereopod 5; F, Pereopod 6; G. Pereopod 7; H-J,

male; H, Lateral view; I, Telson and uropod 1 and 2; J, Gnathopod 2, propodus and dactyl

i (from Laubitz, 1977) 105

Figure 2.80. Podocerus cristams, male, 6.0 mm; A, Lateral view; B, Gnathopod 2 minus setae (from

i Barnard, 1962a) .............................................................................................................. 107 Figure 2.81. Stegocephalus hancocki, female, 5.5 mm; A, Antenna 1; B, Lateral view, note the shape of

coxa 4; C, Lower lip, distal angle, note digitate fingers; D, Epimera 1-3; E, Close-up of

i

epimeron 3 showing serrated edge; F, Uropod 3; G, Pereop_xl 7 (from Hurley, 1956)... 109

Figure 2.82. Hardametopa nasuta (Boeck, 1871), female (from Lincoln, 1979)................................ 111

i Figure 2.83. Metopa dawsoni, female, 3.8 mm; A, Pereopod 5; B, Telson; C, Lateral view; D, Pereopod

4; E. Pereopod 7; F, Gnathopod 1; G, Gnathopod 2 with close-up of anterior margin; H,

Pereopod 6; I, Uropod 3; J, Gnathopod 2, close-up of carpal, setae (from Bamard, 1962c).

I 113

Figure 2.84. Metopella aporpis, male, 2.4 mm; A, Lateral view with close-up of accessory flagellum; B,

i Telson; C, Pereopod 6; D, Pereopod 5; E, Gnathopod 2; F, Pereopod 7; G, Uropod 3; H, / Gnathopod 1 (from Barnard, 1962c) .............................................................................. 114

Figure 2.85. ParametopeUa ninis, female; A, Lateral view; B, Pereopod 6; C, Telson; D, Uropod 3; E,

i Gnathopod 1; F,Pereopod 7; G, Gnathopod 2 (from Barnard, 1962c) ........................... 116

Figure 2.86. Stenothoefrecanda, male, 4 ram; A, Lateral view; B, Gnathopod 1;C, Telson; D, Gnathopod

i 2, female, 4 mm (from Barnard, 1962c) ......................................................................... 117

' Figure 2.87. Stenothoides bicoma, male, 1.5mm; A, Lateral view; B, Gnathopod 1; C, Gnathopod 2; D,

Uropod 3; E, Gnathopod 1; F, Telson; G, Gnathopod 2; H, Pereopod 6; I, Pereopod 5; J,

i

Pereopod 7; K, Gnathopod 2, minus setae, with close-up of palm, female ...... 3.5 ram; B,C,

male, 4 mm (from Bamard, 1962c) ................................................................................ 119

I Figure 2.88. Stenula modosa, female, 2 mm; A, Lateral view; B and C, Gnathopod 1; D and E, Gnathopod 2; F and G, Pereopods 3 and 4; H, Telson (from Barnard, 1962c)................................. 120

Figure 2.89. Astyra abyssi Boeck, 1871 (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991) .................................... 121

i Figure 2.90. Bruzelia tuberculata, female; Lateral view (from Sars, 1895) ....................................... 123

!

i xvii
I

Figure 2.91. Syrrhoe longifrons, male, 10 mm; A, Pereopod 5, posterior margin article 2; B, Anterior t

with pereonites 1-5; C, Telson, distal tip; D, Gnathopod 1, distal tip (from Shoemaker, 1964)

........................................................................................................................................ 125 i

Figure 2.92. Tiron biocellata, male, 3.5 mm; A, Lateral view; B, Telson (from Barnard, 1962b) ..... 126

Figure 2.93. Tiron tropakis, female, 4.9 mm; A, Telson; B, Urosomites 1-3 showing dorsal teeth (from

Barnard, 1972b) .............................................................................................................. 127 II

Figure 2.94. Urothoe elegans; A, Head, male; B, Pereopod 5, female; C, Head (from Lincoln, 1979) ...

........................................................................................................................................ 129 i

Figure 3.1. Ampelisca eoa (from Barnard, 1954) ............................................................................. 140

Figure 3.2. Ampelisca pugetica (from Barnard, 1954) ..................................................................... 141 I

Figure 3.3. Ampelisca unsocaIae (from Dickinson, 1982) ................................................................ 142

Figure 3.4. Ampelisca hancocki (from Barnard, 1954) .................................................................... 144 !

Figure 3.5. AmpeIisca brevisimutata (from Barnard, 1954) ............................................................. 145

Figure 3.6. Ampelisca cristata (from Barnard, 1954) ....................................................................... 146 I

Figure 3.7. Ampelisca pacifica (from Holmes, 1908) ....................................................................... 147

Figure 3.8. Ampelisca agassizi (from Dickinson, 1982) ................................................................... 148 !

Figure 3.9. Ampelisca romigi (from Barnard, t954, 1966) .............................................................. 150

Figure 3.10. Ampelisca Iobata (from Dickinson, 1982) ...................................................................... 151 I

Figure 3.11. Byblis veleronis (from Barnard, 1954) ........................................................................... 153

Figure 3.12. Byblis bathyalis (from Barnard, 1966) ........................................................................... 154 I

Figure 3.13. Byblis millsi (from Dickinson, 1983)............................................................................. 155

Figure 3.14. Byblis barbarensis (from Barnard, 1960) ...................................................................... 156 I I"

Figure 3.15. Haploops tubicola (from Sars, 1895) ............................................................................. 157

Figure 3.16. Amphilochus picadurus (from Barnard, 1962a) ............................................................. 159 I

Figure 3.17. Gitana calitemplado (from Barnard, 1962a) .................................................................. 160

Figure 3.18. Liljeborgia cota (from Barnard, 1962b) ........................................................................ 162 I

Figure 3.19. Liljeborgia pallida (from Sars, 1895) ............................................................................ 163

Figure 3.20. Listriella albina (from Barnard, 1959) .......................................................................... 165 I

Figure 3.21. Listriella diffusa (from Barnard, 1959) .......................................................................... 166 i

Figure 3.22. Listriella eriopisa (from Barnard, 1959) ........................................................................ 167 .I

Figure 3.23. ListrieUa goteta (from Barnard, 1959)........................................................................... 168

_m

Figure 3.24. ListrieUa melanica (from Barnard, 1959) ...................................................................... 169 I

Figure 3.25. Parapleustespugettensis (from Barnard, 1952; Shoemaker, 1964) ............................... 171 l

"'' i

XVIll
!

i Figure 3.26. Pleustes depressa (from Alderman, 1936) ...................................................................... 172

Figure 3.27. Pleusymptes coquilla (from Barnard, 1971) .................................................................. 173

i Figure 3.28. PIeusymptes subglaber (from Barnard and Given, 1960) .............................................. I74

Figure 4.1. A,Aoroides inermis adult male gnathopod 1; B,Protomedeia prudens adult male gnathopod

I 1; C, Aoroides exilis adult male uropod 3; D, Aoroides exilis adult male gnathopod 1; E, Aoroides inermis adult male uropod 3; F, Aoroides inermis adult female gnathopod 1; G,

i Jassa slatteryi adult male uropod 3; H,Ampelisciphotis podophthalma adult female urosome

and uropod 3; I,Ampelisciphotispodophthalma adult female head; J, Protomedeia articulata

adult male head; K, Photis lacia adult male uropod 3; L, Photis conchicola J. L. Barnard,

1962 peraeopod 5 dactyl (left) and locking spine (right); M, Protomedeia articulata adult

i male uropod 3; N, Photis bifurcata adult male coxa 2; O, Photis brevipes adult male coxa 2; P, Photis bifurcata adult male gnathopod 1; Q, Photis bifurcata adult male gnathopod 2; R,

Photis bifurcata adult female gnathopod 2..................................................................... 179 /

Figure 4.2. A, Photis lacia adult male gnatlaopod 1; B, Photis lacia adult male gnathopod 2; C, Photis

lacia adult female gnathopod 2; D, Photis lacia adult male gnathopod 2; E, Photis brevipes

adult male gnathopod 2; F, Photis lacia adult male gnathopod 2; G, Photis californica adult

mate gnathopod 2; H, Photis macrotica adult male gnathopod 2; I, Protomedeia prudens

adult male antenna 1; J, Protomedeia articulata adult male peraeopods 3 and 4; K,

Protomedeia articulata adult male gnathopod 2; L,Protomedeia prudens adultmale gnathopod

II 2; M, Ericthonius rubricornis adult male gnthopod 2; N, Jassa slatteryi adult male coxa 4;

O, Jassa slatteryi adult male gnathopod 2; P, Microjassa sp. A, adult mate coxa 4; Q,

i Microjassa sp. A, adult male gnathopod 2..................................................................... 181 Figure 4.3. Aoroides exilis. Holotype, adult male, 4.0 ram; allotype, adult female, 5.0 mm; paratype,

intersex, 5.5 mm. Individual appendages in this and subsequent figures are from the male

I unless noted otherwise; scale 0.1 mm (from Conlan and Bousfield, 1982b) ................... 184

!1

Figure 4.4. Aoroides inermis. Holotype, adult male, 5.0 mm. Allotype, adult female, 5.5 mm (from

i Figure 4.5. Ampelisciphotis Conlan and Bousfietd, podophthalma 1982b)......................................................................................... Holotype, adult female, 4.5 mm (whole body); paratype, 186

adult female, 4.5 mm (individual appendages)(from J. L. Barnard, 1958) .................... 188

I Figure 4.6. Photis typhlops. Holotype, adult male, 3.2 mm; allotype, adult female, 3.4 mm; paratypes,

adult male, 3.4 mm, juvenile male, 2.9 mm, adult female, 3.3 mm (from Conlan, 1994b).

190

t Figure 4.7. Photis bifurcata. Adult male, 3.5 mm; adult female, 3.5 mm (from Conlan, 1983) ...... 192

i Figure Figure 4.8. 4.9. Photis Photis lacia linearmanus . Adult. male, Holotype, 3.0 mm, adultadult male, female, 3.4 mm3.3(from mm (from Conlan, Conlan, 1994b)1983) .................. ............ 194 195

Figure 4.10. Photisbrevipes. Adult male, 4.5 mm; adult female, 3.5 mm (from Conlan, 1983) ....... 197 II

._ Figure 4.11. Photis californica. Adult male, 4.3 mm; adult male 2, 4.0 mm; juvenile male 3, 4.0 mm;

juvenile male 4, 3.0 ram; peraeopods 3-7 from adult male, 4.3 mm (from J. L. Barnard,

i 1962) ............................................................................................................................... 199

!
!

Figure 4.12. Photis californica. Adult female, 6.0 mm (isolated gnathopods 1 and 2 without setae); adult t

female 2, 5.3 mm; juvenile female 3, 3.0 mm (without setae); adult female 4, 3.0 mm (from

J. L. Barnard, 1962)....................................................................................................... 200 i

tl Figure 4.13. Photismacrotica. Adult female, 3.0 ram; adult male, holotype, 3.3 mm (from J. L. Barnard,

1962) ............................................................................................................................... 202 /I

Figure 4.14. Protomedeia articulata. Adult male, 4.5 mm (antenna 1 from juvenile male, 3.5 mm); adult 1

female, 7.0 mm (from Conlan, 1983) ............................................................................. 204 ,A

Figure 4.15. Protomedeia prudens. Adult male, 6.0 ram; juvenile male, 4.5 mm; adult female, 7.0 mm i

(from Conlan, 1983)....................................................................................................... 205 '

I

Figure 4.16. Gammaropsis (Gammaropsis) thompsoni. Adult male, 10.0 mm; juvenile male, 4.5 mm; I

adult female, 8.5 mm (from Conlan, 1983) .................................................................... 207 |

Figure 4.17. Gammaropsis (Podoceropsis)oceUata. Holotype, adult male, 3.4mm; allotype, adult female, /

4.4 mm (from Conlan, 1994b) ........................................................................................ 209 R

Figure 4.18. Gammaropsis (Podoceropsis) ociosa. Adult male, holotype, 5.2 mm; adult male, 4.5 mm

(antenna 1,propodus of guathopod 2, peraeopod 7); adult female, 4.5 mm (from J. L. Barnard, 'Ul

1962) ............................................................................................................................... 211 |

Figure 4.19. Ericthonius rubricornis. Adult male (length unknown) (gnathopod 1, propodus and dactyl

without setae); adult male 1, 9.0 mm; adult male 2, 8.0 mm; adult male 3, 7.0 mm (without If

setae); juvenile male 4, 4.0 mm (from Myers and McGrath, 1984); adult female gnathopod 2

41

(length unknown) (from Lincoln, 1979) .......................................................................... 213 /

Figure 4.20. Jassa slatteryi. Adult male, holotype, 5.1 ram; adult female, allotype, 4.1 mm; intersex 1, I

4.6 mm; intersex 2, 5.6 mm (from Conlan, 1990) .......................................................... 215

i

Figure 4.21. Microjassa sp. A. (from Conlan, in press) .................................................................... 217 '

Figure 5.1. I-Iemiproto wigleyi (from McCain, 1968) ....................................................................... 226

Figure 5.2. Perotripus brevis (from Laubitz, 1970) .......................................................................... 228 B

Figure 5.3. Caprella natalensis (from Laubitz, 1970) ...................................................................... 229

Figure 5.4. Caprella equilibra (from Mayer, 1882; Laubitz, 1970) ................................................. 230 1

Figure 5.5. Caprella mendax (from Laubitz, 1970) .......................................................................... 231

Figure 5.6. CapreIla pilidigita (from Laubitz, 1970) ....................................................................... 232 i

ql

Figure 5.7. Deutella californica (from Mayer, 1890; Laubitz, 1970) .............................................. 233

Figure 5.8. DeuteUa venenosa (from Mayer, 1890) .......................................................................... 234 I

Figure 5.9. Mayerella banksia (from Laubitz, 1970) ........................................................................ 236

Figure 5.10. Tritella laevis (from Laubitz, 1970) ............................................................................... 237 1

Figure 5.11. Tritella pilimana (from Laubitz, 1970; Mayer, 1890) .................................................... 238

Figure 5.12. Tritella tenuissima (original) .......................................................................................... 239 i

J

!

xx |
t

i' ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

i. This Study was funded by the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region of the U.S. Department of the

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Washington, D.C., under Contract No. 14-35-0001-30484. Ms.

I Andrea Moe of the Sa_a Barbara Museum of Natural History provided production assistance for this volume.

. LIST OF ACRONYMS

BLM Bureau of Land Management.

BRA Refers to a station designation from the MMS Phase I Reconnaissance: Benthic Rocky,

i transect A/B.

BRC Refers to a station designation from the MMS Phase I Reconnaissance: Benthic Rocky,

transect C/D.

am

'l LACMNH Los Angeles County Museum. A historical designation for Natural History Museum of Los

Angeles County, Los Angeles, California, USA.

_1 MMS Minerals Management Service.

SBMNH Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California, USA.

i USNM United States National Museum. A historical for the National Museum of Natural

designation

History (NMNH), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA.

I

l

!

i

i

,!

!

I
!

i 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE AMPHIPODA

| b,

.i Les Watling _and J.D. Thomas 2

'R

More than 5700 species of gammarideans, in about 1060 genera, were known atthe time of Barnard's

i _ magnificent compilation (Barnard & Karaman 1991). In addition, about 200 species of caprellideans have

iI _ been described. New species are being added at a rate of more than 100 a year, making the Amphipoda one

of the most diverse of aUmarine invertebrate groups.

I Along the California coast, taxonomic studies of Amphipoda have been stimulated by the work of two individuals, S.J. Holmes and J.L. Barnard. Holmes (1908) wrote the first large, comprehensive paper

describing Californian species, including one new family, seven new genera, and 25 new species. Barnard

I taxa. wrote Inmore addition, than three Bamarddozendevoted papersmuch on Californian attention toamphi sortingpoout ds definitions and describedof, and a veryrelationships large number among, of newthe

amphipod families. At present, there is still no completely satisfactory familial arrangement for either the

i gammaridean or caprellidean amphipods, or at least, one on which most amphipod systematists can agree.

i Morphology

All amphipods are characterized by the lack of a carapace covering any portion of the thorax, the

i fimaxilliped), rst thoracic andsegment abdomenbeingdivided fused into to thetwohead parts(with of three the segments first thoracic each,appendage, the anteriortherefore, of which bears being pleopods, termed a

and the posterior part with appendages modified as uropods. From this basic design there have evolved a

I multitude of modifications, the most extreme making defining the Amphipoda as a whole very difficult. In the following account, the basic gammaridean will be described, and important modifications, especially in the

caprellideans, noted. Barnard's generalized gammaridean is given inFig. 1.I, and scanning electron microscopic

i views of three basic gammaridean body designs are illustrated in Figs. 1.2-1.4. Details of appendages from a gammaridean are shown in Figs. 1.5 and 1.6 from Bousfield (1973) and from a caprellidean in Fig. 1.7 from

Vassilenko (1974).

I The head bears two pairs of antennae, mouthparts, and eyes, all of which possess important taxonomic information. While most beginning students of the group may be loathe to remove mouth appendages, it is

often necessary in order to properly determine the family or generic placement of the specimen. From

t ante anternna) ior to posterior the head appendages are: first antenna (also called antennule), second antenna (or

, upper lip (labrum), mandible, lower lip (labium), first maxilla (maxitlule), second maxilla (maxilla),

and maxilliped (not a true head appendage).

is an anterior Non-appendage expansion details of the head, of the generally head that between need to beandobserved above the are peduncles the rostrumofandtheefirst yes. antennae. The rostrumIn

many amphipod families the rostrum is minute, but in a few, for example, the Oedicerotidae and

i Phoxocephalidae, an expansion of thethesiderostrum of themay headbeasvery well.large, Thesometimes eyes of amphipods bearing theareeyes, compound, and occasiona one onllyeachincorpo siderof atingthe

i 1Department of Oceanography, Darling Marine Center, University of Maine, Walpole ME 04573.

2 Department of Invertebrate Zoology, NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,

I Washington, D.C. 20560.

.|
I

i

Pereon

Epimeron i

Reopod

Head I

!

!

Antennae [3 1

Gnathopods

PereopodsI" dropods I

Accessory Flagellum

!

Figure 1.1. Basic diagram of generalized gammaridean amphil:_l (from Bamard and K_aman, 1991). 1

bead, but may be secondarily reduced or subdivided. Dark pigments may or may not be present. If present I

the eye looks black, otherwise it may be difficult to discern. In ampeliscids, the eye is reduced and subdivided,

with two separate corneal lenses being present on each side of the head (see Fig. 1.3, but note that the eye 1

has no exoskeletal mark in the corophiid (Fig. 1.2) and gammarid (Fig. 1.4). In oedicerotids, the eye is often 1

enlarged and moved to the top of the head, with the two eyes becoming confluent. Almost all shallow water

amphipods have eyes, but the eyes are gradually lost at greater depths. 1

The first antenna consists of a peduncle of three articles (often called segments, but the latter term 1

should be reserved for divisions of the body) and one or two rami, termed the main flagellum and accessory

flagellum. The main flagellum is always present, but the accessory flagellum may be of varying lengths or 1

absent. To find the accessory flagellum one needs to look on the inside (or medial surface) of the in'st 1

antenna; it is often tiny and may need to be observed at high magnification. In males of some families, and

occasionally in females, the first antennae bear complex sensory structures. The calynophore is a modification 1

of the peduncle articles and is manifested externally by numerous rows of specialized sensory setae termed 1

aesthetascs. Calceoli are specialized cup-shaped structures which occur all along the antennular flagellar

articles, facing anteriorly. The exact function of these structures is unknown. 1

1 The second antenna is always uniramous. It consists of five peduncular articles and a variable

number of flagellar articles. The basal article of the peduncle bears the opening of the maxillary gland (the

excretory organ), known as the gland cone. I
1

I

1

.t

i

!

i

i

i

I

I

!

I Figure 1.2. SEM views of a comphiid amphipod, Corophium volutator. A, side view of body. B, head and

antennae. C, dorsal view of peonite 3 and urosome.

t The front of the head of an amphipod supports the insertion of the antennules and antennae, and

extends ventrally to form the epistome to which the upper lip (labmm) is attached. The epistome in many

i families between isthesingularly antennae.unThe distupper inguished, lip is bpositioned ut in certainsogro as toupkeep s, suchfoodas the particles lysianassoids, being handled it maybyproj theectmandibles strongly

from passing beyond the mouth area. It may be cleft, asymmetrically bilobed, or bear a distal fringe of setae.

I There isThe alsomandibles some evidence that mucus is secreted into the buccal region by the labrum. are the primary appendages by which food is passed into the mouth. The mandibles

are also of significant taxonomic importance, at least at the family level, and often at the generic level. While

t there laciniaismobilis a wide(accessory range of mandiblular tooth), and a structures, setal row (sometimes the basic mandible called liftingconsists spines),ofwhich a distalleadsincisor to theprocess, proximala

molar process. In the basic mandible, a food particle is cut by the incisor and accessory tooth, lifted to the

i molar by the setal row, and crushed by the molar before being ingested. Some of the many modifications
I

i

I

Figure 1.3. SEM views of an ampeliscid amphipod, Ampelisca agassizi. A, side view of body. B, head and /

pereonites 1-4. C, dorsal view of pleonites 1-2and urosome.

p

!

which may be seen involve the loss or reduction of the molar, loss of the setal row, fixation of the accessory II

tooth into a rigid structure, loss of the accessory tooth on one molar but not on the other, and in a few genera, I

reduction of the incisor. In some families where the species are commensals of other invertebrates, the

mandibles and other mouthparts may be reduced or vestigial. Im

Posterior to the mandibles is the lower lip (labium). It forms the posterior border to the mouth region. 1

The shape of the lower lip seems to correlate somewhat with the strength and shape of the mandible. If the

mandible is elongate, the lower lip is widely split and extends strongly ventrally. On the other hand, if the m

mandible is short and stocky, the lower lip is compact and may have its lobes coalesced. I

The paired first maxillae (maxillules) are small and often difficult to remove. Each consists of a small

inner lobe, an outer lobe bearing several heavy setae and a palp of one or two articles. I

II The second maxillae (maxillae) are smaller than the maxillules and consist of two fleshy lobes. This

pair of appendages generally is of little taxonomic importance except in selected groups, i

4 I
l

I

i

I

I

I

'I

i

i

i

I

i

i

Figure 1.4. SEM views of a gammarid amphipod, Gammarus oceanicus. A, side view of body exclusive of

i urosome. B, headandpereonites 1-5. C, pleosomeandurosome.

I The last pair of head appendages are the maxillipeds. These are generally quite large, extend

ventrally from the head and then curve forwards to the region of the mandible enclosing the mouthpart field.

i The any ofmaxillipeds the other mouthparts form the most can ventral be seen.part Arising of thefrommouthpart the largeappendage base of thegroup maxilliped and mustarebetworemoved large endites, before

the inner and outer plates. The inner plates come together medially and are often partially fused. The outer

i plates are usually more widely separated and bear several types of setae along the medial margin. The article from which the outer plate is derived also bears a four article palp. This palp exhibits a variety of

shapes, from elongate to very short, reduced, or even absent. The details of the outer plate and the palp are

i important at the family and generic levels.

! '

!
I

I

Brood saree

I

' ' Brood

Pigmented _Je f--_-_

Rostrum _ ....... /\_.

moq'g,n. .: Inferior "_;i [ po_ut'_uk3te';,

_,,o.o,eJ/'/_ co. C;//_ ', , _ i;_

•- Peduncle " :_:{_..'" / _

'[oge'l--'_l _ \ _% .r,i, ,etch' " :/./ I._

I

\ \" __-_- __,"" _¢' -_tJ#/_i'_',,',

$01,_4_ ' " ' ',,

_ _'.r. A Polm In(erior

AMe_no I - F o_e um ongl_

Col¢ooli lote_Ql

' I _ Mofgirual lofel'al I_¢_

Pod_¢_ U, _re.t_o B

_o.o c.o_P"*,_C.._"r.&._ r-'L- I

._ / _,f,/',_\'- °wimmi_

i 1 ""'" _//_.- Pod,

'-',_, _-_-,-- I

,','_x. --,-, _ _ 'i,_.N_\,', ,-°-

_ . .:..,_' Outer p_/\ _ /spin°

E ",_.___u_n*s I

i

Figure 1.5. Basic ganunaridean body parts. A, head; B, gnathopod; C, pereopod; D, pleopod; E, uropod 1; F, I

uropod 3 (from Bousfield, 1973).

!

The thorax consists of seven somites (segments). Since the eighth thoracic somite bearing the

maxilliped is fused to the head, the modified thorax is called a pereon, the individual somites are pereonites,

and the appendages are pereopods. There is often a great deal of functional specialization (tagmosis) among i

the pereonites of amphipods. In the following paragraphs, the appendages will be dealt with according to

their functional group.

The basic thoracic appendage is uniramous and consists of seven articles. From the body outward II

these articles are called the coxa, basis, ischium, merus, carpus, propodus, and dactyIus. The first two

articles comprise the protopod. In crustaceans with bimmous limbs, the basis bears an endopod and an m

i

6 I
!

t

I exopod. Since amphipod thoracic limbs are uniramous, the basis bears only the five-articulate endopod. In all

amphipod groups except the caprellids, the coxa is greatly expanded to form a fiat plate essentially contiguous

with the side the profile ventrolateral of the margin animal (e.g., of theStegocephalidae, body. These coxalStenothoidae). plates can often be very large, dramatically changing

The first two pairs ofpereopods are termed gnathopods and function primarily to move food particles

I toor the simple, mouthwithappendages. subchelate Incondition general, being the gnathopods the most common. consist ofInseven the subchelate articles andforms, can bethechelate, sixth article subchelate (the

propodus) often has the distal margin subdivided, with the border along which the dactyl folds being called the

t pfeeding alm, orhabits palmarofmarg the ispe n. cies. The gnathopods For example,mayin Gamma take onfiadaewide(senso varietylato) of shandapesalliedandfamilies, designs according the gnathopods to the

are, for the most part, about equal in size and are used primarily for holding larger detrital or plant particles

t while may bethearmouth med with appevery ndageslongbreaksetaeoffwhich smallerserve fragments. to formInasome filter Corophiidae, basket, with othene orgnathopods both pairs ofgnath being used opodsto

sieve free particles from large sediment boluses. In the Leucothoidae and Anamixidae, the second pair of

i gnathopods particles thatarearegreatly generated enlarged by their andtunicate are used hosts. to intercept In addition and redirect to theirwater feedingcurrents function bearing , the fine second suspended pair of

gnathopods in the male axe used for carrying the female prior to mating. For many amphipods, the exact

function of the gnathopods is unknown as detailed studies of the biology of many families remain to be

I documented.

Pereopods 3 and 4 are more leg-like, usually unspecialized, and are often reduced in size or number

I of thearticles dactyls(especially directed posteriorly. in the caprellids). They seem They todiffer function also fromin grooming the following the gnathopods three pairs ofand, pereopods in tube-building, in having

burrowing. In some domicolous species, secretions from glands in the bases produce copious quantities of a

I sticky substance (probably mucus with unknown additives called "amphipod silk") that is used in tube or burrow construction and cementation.

Pereopods 5, 6, and 7 have the dactyls oriented anteriorly, increase in length posteriorly, and show a

i large degree of variation according to how the legs are used. The coxae of these legs are usually smaller than those of the preceding legs, and in many cases are bilobed. In families where the basis of the gnathopods

and pereopods 3and 4 is generally linear, itis often expanded posteriorly on pereopods 5-7. The morphological

i details are greatly of these expanded legs is and usuall they padisrtticular inct atshape least toofthethefamily posterior level. expansion For example, of the inbasis the Ampeliscidae, on pereopod 7 the is unique bases

to each genus. Pereopods 5-7 differ considerably from each other in the Phoxocephalidae, with pereopod 6

i being may the stifflongest. setae. InAllsome haustoriids oedicerotids, have several pereopodsarticles 5 andon6pereopods look alike 5-7 and greatly are muchexpanded shorter and than armed the greatly with

elongated pereopod 7.

i The pereopods also bear gills, and in females, brood plates (= oostegites). In most families there are gills attached to the medial surfaces of coxae 2-7, but occasionally they may be on only coxae 2-6, 3-6, 3-5,

or, as in the caprellids, on 3 and 4. Brood plates are generally attached to the medial surfaces of coxae 2-5,

I but subsequent may be molts on coxae appear 3 andfully4 formed only. Brood but without plates marginal originate setae in immature and finally, females when asthesmall eggs pouches, are laid thethenbroodon

plates are fully setose.

I The amphipod abdomen consists of six somites which are functionally subdivided into two groups of three somites each: an anterior pteosome whose somites bear pleopods, and a posterior urosome whose

somites bear uropods. In caprellids the abdomen is variously reduced, with both the number of abdominal

I somites and the constituent appendages eventually becoming so small that the exact affinities of the appendages cannot be determined. Amphipodan pleopods are generally biramous, the rami being multi-articulate and

heavily setose. The pleopods are used to generate a respiratory current past the gills, and in many families

with swimming or burrowing habits, are the principal propulsive structures.
I

I

,_/'tinate I

$_toe

+_+7'++-°°°''',.,,_

r';.+ I

°++ , °::'+,;/+I) r_

• t +,_&_'P't+1,

r- +I/_X_.,a, Qi..I f /+.'+_,++ ,

++_.j ,.,,_o,, /,f } I G

IN

Outer . PaiP4, _ Z ( +,,_/..

""'"( 'I\'",_._ I_/_...,..., II

_, l " L_U /_+ setae I

l>late

F O .y_"_ Epi,lome I

___-- ApLo

lbrum cat I

___ mOrglfl

f _]+_.j_. Apicol Aplcol setae / , +-"_+> setoe ,, ,_ A

I_ +:',_:#>""

.,.fx+;. . I

L_j ;_.%..._o°,m.+, ,° , "_,®,..,' I

/.) _%_.oo.,,.,°.,,.s /_ 3¢7\ ",<o'o,+' .,

_Mola'r process / + _.,t/+_----.-_,._inMne,r omdibulor i pFOC@II

c B

!

Figure 1.6. Mouthpartstructureandterminology.A,upperUp;B,lowerlip;C, mandibleD, ; maxilla1;E,maxilla 2, i

F,maxilliped;G,telson(fromBousfield,1973).

I

I

Of the three pairs of uropods, the first two are most likely to be similar in general structure to each •

other. They usually consist of an elongate peduncle and two rami. Much greater variability is seen in the I

structure of the third uropods. These appendages may be biramous or uniramous, with the rami either

cylindrical or flattened. The latter design is generally seen in those species where swimming is an important, I

I

or predominant, mode of locomotion. In the more sedentary species, the third uropods may be significantly I

reduced, as for example, in most of the tube-dwelling coropkiids.

I

8 i
I

i

I

I

l

I // J ....

i \

I

i

Figure 1.7. Details of body plan and appendages of a caprellidean amphilx_d (from Vassilenko, 1974).

I

I generally Atnottheterminally. posterior endAs ofwiththe thebodythirdis the uropods, telon.theTheshapeanusof exits the telson on the varies undersideconsiderably of the telson, with but the

lifestyle of the species. Most sedentary, domicolous, or tube-dwelling species have very small, short, and

i thick telsons. At the other extreme, species that are primarily or exclusively swimmers have elongate telsons, which are often cleft. The subdivision of the telson allows for greater steering and braking control in

the water. In those families where the telson is of a design other than short and thick, the shape and

I omamentation of the telson is of strong taxonomic importance.

I 9
!

!

Reproduction and Development im

IN

Fertilization in amphipods occurs in the brood pouch, with the sperm being deposited just before the

eggs are extruded. In some benthic forms, males guard or grasp females, a process termed amplexus. In l

many cases, amplexus involves the male grasping the dorsal part of the female body at the posterior margin

of pereonite 2 with his second gnathopods. The pair of arnphipods may move about for one or two weeks in

lmB

this condition. Immediately after the female molts, the male grasps the female venter to venter and sperm im

are added to the brood pouch, followed very soon by the female extruding the eggs. In pelagic forms mating _'

is aiso venter to venter, but most likely is an event of short duration.

Development is direct. Most amphipod eggs are quite yolky so cleavage is not total beyond the first III

two divisions. All leg primordia develop on the embryo simultaneously. The young hatch bearing all appendages, |

with full number of articles. As development proceeds, additional setae are added along the margins of the

appendages. There has been very little study of instars of amphipods, so it is not known whether all amphipod I i

species progress through the same number of molts before maturity or whether development can be significantly

abbreviated in some groups. II

|

ill

Collection and Preservation

Amphipods can be collected using many different techniques. Benthic mud or sand-dwelling forms /

are often obtained in bottom grab or dredge samples. Those with pelagic mating stages can be taken in |

standard zooplankton nets. Since many amphipods are domicolous, or commensal, it is also worthwhile to

break apart sponges, colonial tunicates, etc., or examine the mantle cavities of bivalves and the filter baskets Im

of large solitary tunicates. Species living on rocky shores in and amongst algae are best obtained by removing |

large clumps of algae and soaking the clumps in 10% formalin. Along sandy beaches amphipods can be

obtained by digging holes in the sand just above the low water wave swash. As water drains into the hole, 111

and the sand walls of the hole collapse, amphipods will usually be swept into the hole and can be collected in |

the few seconds as they swim about.

Amphipods are best preserved initially in 5 - 10%buffered formalin (commercial borax will do as the 1

buffering agent). After 48 hrs to a week of fixation, the specimens should be transferred to a 70% ethanol II

solution. Isopropanol can also be used, but specimens stored in this solution are often brittle, with the result

that legs are often lost. One should note that if there is the possibility that some specimens will be used for 11!

genetic work, then formalin should no___!t be used as a fixative. Rather, all specimens should be put directly into II

ethanol and handled carefully as they will be somewhat brittle.

Laboratory Methods I

In the laboratory both compound and dissecting microscopes will be needed for proper examination i

of material. Specimens usually can be sorted to family, and dissections made under a good quality dissection

microscope. The higher magnifications of the compound microscope is used for examining the details of the in

smaller appendages, especially those from the mouth region. Once the local fauna is known, it is generally

not necessary to do full dissections, so the sorting and counting of specimens can proceed at a much faster

rate. I

,0 U
I

iI Everyone has their preferred mode of dissection of an amphipod. The method to be outlined works

well, but should not be considered the only way to approach the problem. Only one of each appendage should

beremoved removedby from inserting the body one set initially. of forceps To atips ccessat the mouthpart head----pereon appendages junction more and pulling easily, the the body entirewith headanother can be

pair of forceps. Usually the head with all appendages, including the maxillipeds, and the foregut will come off

intact. mouthparts By immersing can be slowly the head, teasedespecially off. All ifappendages, it is very small, as theyin aareglycerol-alcohol removed, shouldmixture be temporarily in a watchglass, mountedthe

on glass microscope slides using glycerin. If very small cover slips are used, then a series of single appendages

l the canslide be mounted and storedon one in alcohol slide. inAfter 114exami dram nvials ation,in the drawing, larger etc., vial containing the appendages the remainder can then beof the removed body. from

I Acknowledgements

I Les Wafting would like to thank his students, Stephen Sampson and Marsha Hostettler, and J.D. Thomas would like to thank Linda McCann, for their aid in preparing the figures accompanying this chapter.

Glossary

Most of the terms defined here follow the usage given in Barnard & Karaman (1991). I

Aeee_ory fl_eU_: the secondary ramus of the first antenna, attached to the medial distal margin of the

last A peduncle article. esthetasc: a specialized sensory seta found on the antennae; they are usually flattened and do not taper

distally.

Article: a subdivision of an appendage; used in preference to the terms andjoint

segment

Basis: the second article of a thoracic appendage.

Ctinguiform. alceolus: a small sense organ on the flagellar articles of the antennae, often globular, button-shaped, or

Callynophore: the partially or completely fused proximal articles of the main flagellum of antenna 1bearing

multiple rows of aesthetascs usually grouped together into one or two large groups to form abrush. Carpoehelate: a condition where the carpus is extended distally as an immovable finger and forming a

pincer with the propodus and dactyl.

i Carpus: article of a thoracic appendage.

The fifth

Chelate: a condition where the propodus extends along the dactyl as an immovable finger and against which

the Clefdt:actyl divided presses. almost completely into two parts.

Conical mouthparts: in lateral view the mouthpart group (from upper lip to maxillipeds) is extended strongly

and tapering ventrally.

Corneal lens: a biconvex modification of the cuticle directly over the ommatidia.

Co C xal: pthelatefirst :hearticle lateral(immediately and ventral next extension to theofbothedy)cofxalanmargin. appendage.

Dactyl: the seventh article of a thoracic appendage.

I

11
!

l

Emarginate: a slightly concave depression in a margin, often used to describe the distal end of the telson, i

Entire: not cleft or emarginate, margin whole throughout.

Epimeron: the ventrolateral extension of the pleuron of peonites 1-3. B

Epistome: the anterior part of the head above the upper lip; may be extended ventrally when labrum is small

or anteriorly to form a lobe. In

Flagellum: the distal part of the antennae, on antenna 1 beginning with the fourth article and on antenna 2 I

with the sixth article.

Fossorial: applied to pereopods when used for burrowing, the articles of which are excessively spiny and i

broadened i

Gnathopod: the second and third thoracic appendages (first and second pereopods) which are often used in

food procurement. I

Hand: the sixth article of a gnathopod or other subchelate pereopod.

lsehium: the third article of a thoracic appendage. I

Incisor: the distal extension of the body of the mandible, usually toothed, but occasionally bladedike. I1

Joint: the junction between two articles of an appendage. Hi

Labium: the lower lip, a flap-like appendage, often subdivided, immediately behind the mandibles, i

Labrum: the upper lip, a flap-like appendage on the front of the head anterior to the mandibles.

Laeinla mobilis: an articulated accessory plate near the incisor, often toothed, may be missing on either the i

right or left mandibles, and sometimes is rigid and not moveable. It

Lifting setae: the row of setae between the incisor and the molar of the amphipod mandible. Used in i

preference to raker setae. 1

Mandible: the anteriormost appendage pair of mouth appendages, located between the upper and lower

lips.

I

Merochelate: having an immoveable finger projecting distally from the merus, l

Merus: the fourth article of a thoracic appendage.

Molar: the often large, columnar process extending medially from the body of the mandible; in its heaviest i

form used for crushing food particles before they enter the mouth; in other forms may be a small pubescent gl

nub, or fleshy setose flap. m

vestigial or nearly absent. B

Obsolescent:

Palm: the posterior distal surface or margin of the propodus against which the dactyl closes in subchelate

appendages; defined posteriorly by spine-setae, or notches, etc. /

Palp: the distal articles of a limb, usually of different size (width) than the proximal articles; in amphipods m

applied only to the mandible, maxilla 1, and maxilliped.

Peduncle: the combined basal (proximal) articles of certain appendages from which there may be, or have B

been, two rami extending; used for the first three articles of antenna 1, five articles of antenna 2, one II

(possible two) article of pleopods, and one article of uropods.

i

Pereon, pereonite (also spelled peraeon, pereion): the seven free thoracic segments of the body, each one i

of which is referred to as a pereonite. ql

Pereopod (also spelled peraeopods, pereipods): an appendage of a pereonite, l

Plate: a flattened lobe extending distally or medially on an article of a maxilla or maxilliped. II

Pleon, pleonite: the anterior three abdominal segments, each of which is referred to as a pleonite; in the

higher caprellids several, or all, pleonites are lost. I
!

I Pleopod: an appendage of the pleon, usually used in swimming or generatng a respiratory current.

Pleurae: ventmlateral extensions of the body segments; in amphipods most visible as epimerae (epimeral

I plates), but can occasionally be seen on at least the anterior pereonites in a few families. Propodus: the sixth article of a thoracic appendage.

i Pubes Quadrate cent:mout a thick hpartscovering : mouthofappendges very f'me setae arranged or hair-like in rectangular extensions or box-like of the formation; cuticle. maxillipeds usually

form ventral floor of this box by extending horizontally strongly forward.

Raker also called spine: applied to the setae arranged in a row between the incisor and molar processes of a mandible; lifting spines or setae, or more simply, the seta row; the origin of this term is obscure and its use

should be discouraged.

N Subehelate: a condition where the dactyl of an appendage is folded back against the propodus, closing against part of the propodal margin.

Uropod: an appendage attached to one of the urosornites; phyletically uropods are modified pleopods.

I Urosome, urosomite: the terminal tagmosis of the body comprising the last three pleonites, each somite

referred to as a urosomite; in some families one or more of the segments may be fused, and in caprellids most

i are lost.

i Key to the Gammaridean Amphipod Families of Southern California

1A. Gnathopod 2 with unusually elongate article 3; mandible elongate, with incisor reaching to front of

i head ................................................................ Lysianassidae (not included in this volume) (Fig. 1.8)

'

Figure 1.8

!

I lB. Gnathopod 2 article 3 of normal length; mandible not as above ...................................................... 2

i 2A. Eyes present as two pairs of cuticular lenses (occasionally blind); coxae 1-4 of approximately equal

length; pereopod 7 basis posteriorly expanded and articles 3-7 short ........... Am Jeliscidae (Fig. 1.9)

i ,.. ', 9 I _\..

- ",",_ "_,'_-__3I /_\.

_Z._,....., '_-_-_--w-_ .....,,./_._. _7:_._,="j,,;,,,,.

i .,:_,,._ ../-.-/" ..' n .J

Figurel.9 _nl /!,:_:';'_ .,'..... ""

I 2B. These characters not combined 3

| 13
!

3A. Eyes with 4 evenly-spaced ommatidia in a circular arrangement; coxa 3 reduced, smaller than coxae I

2-4 ............................................................................................................... Argissidae (Fig. I. 10)

!

,

3B. Eyes otherwise or absent; coxa 3 not reduced, subequal to coxae 2-4 .......................................... 4 I

4A. Uropod 3 biramous (one ramus may be very small) ........................................................................ 7 I

4B. Uropod 3 uniramous, reduced, or absent ......................................................................................... 5

5A. Urosomite 1 elongate; urosomites 2-3 coalesced ......................................... Podoceridae (Fig. 1.11) I

I

i Figure1.11

I

5B. Urosomite 1 normal; urosomites 2-3 separate ................................................................................. 6 l

6A. Coxae 2-4 large, overlapping, coxa 4 immense ........................................... Stenothoidae (Fig. 1.12) I

i

I

Figure1.12 I

!

!

14 !
!

i 6B. Coxae 2-4 relatively short, of nearly similar size, not overlapping significantly .................................

....................................................................................................... Corophioidea (in part) (Fig. 1.13)

!

I Figure1.13

i

I

7A. Pereopod 7 very much longer and of different shape than pereopods 5-6; eyes, when visible, enlarged,

I coveting much of dorsal surface of head .................................................. Oedicerotidae (Fig. 1.I4)

,

i ,/

i 7B. Pereopod 7 may be slightly longer but generally is not of different shape than pereopods 5-6; eyes

may be large but are situated on sides of head ................................................................................ 8

i 8A. Gnathopod 1 carpochelate .......................................................................... Leucothoidae (Fig. 1.15)

!

Figure1.15

I

8B. Gnathoped 1simple, or subchelate .................................................................................................. 9

i

!

i "
!

9A. Pereopod 5, coxa and basis enlarged (3-4 times larger than coxae 1-3); urosomites coalesced ....... I

.................................................................................................................... Dexaminidae (Fig. 1.16)

i

Figure1.16 (

, L I

9B. Pereopod 5, coxa and basis of normal proportions, not enlarged; urosomites 2-3 separate ........... 10 I

10A. Pereopods 5-7 armed with heavy spine-like setae (fossorial) ...................................................... 11

10B. Pereopods 5-7 with few heavy setae ............................................................................................. 12 I

I1A. Rostrum visor-like; uropod 1 peduncle with numerous long setae; pereopod 7 much shorter than

pereopods 5 or 6 .................................................................................... Phoxocephalidae (Fig. 1.17) I

''

Figure 1.17 _ __?__/,_/

!

liB. Rostrum lacking; uropod 1 peduncle with few short spine-setae; pereopod 7 equal to or slightly

shorter than pereopods 5 or 6 ......................................................................... Urothoidae (Fig. 1.18) I

Figure1.18 _ _ I i

12A. Coxa 4 anterior and posterior margins similar, posterior margin not excavate posteriorly .............. 13 I

12B. Coxa 4 posterior margin differs from anterior margin in being excavate proximally ...................... 17

I
I

i 13A. Pleon segments 1-3 with 2-10 small to large dorsal teeth ........................ Melphidippidae (Fig. 1.19)

!

I 13B. Pleon segments dorsally smooth or with few small teeth ............................................................... 14

, 14A. Head helmet-shaped, forehead protuberant; accessory eyes sometimes present .............................

i ........................................................................................................................ Synopiidae (Fig. 1.20)

!

I 14B. Head not helmet-shaped; accessory eyes never present ............................................................... 15

I 15A. Telson short, thick, rarely cleft ........................................................... Corophiidae (part) (Fig. 1.21)

',, _. ', f _f_' _>-..\

__ __

i Figure 1.21

i 15B. Telson, thin, usually cleft ................................................................................................................. 16

I 16A. Eyes generally absent, greatly enlarged if present; peduncle of antenna 1 shorter than that of antenna 2

.................................................................................................................... Pardaliscidae (Fig. 1.22)

!

i Figure1.22

!
!

16B. Eyes, if present, of normal size; peduncle of antenna 1 longer than that of antenna 2 ...................... i

........................................................................................................... Gammaridae (part) (Fig. 1.23)

!

Figure 1.23 if ___1_]¢_ 7 _.'_, _

17A. Head with rostrum .......................................................................................................................... 18 i

17B. Head without rostrum ................................................................................................................... 19

!

18A. Coxa 1 small, mostly hidden by following coxae ....................................... Amphilochidae (Fig. 1.24)

I

Figure 1.24 _ i

i

!

18B. Coxa 1 of normal size, not hidden by following coxae ..................................... Pleustidae (Fig. 1.25) i

Figure 1.25 _ i

!

19A. Gnathopods weak, feeble, simple .................................................................................................... 20

19B. Gnathopods generally large, subchelate ........................................................................................ 21 I

!
!

I 20A. Urosomite I without dorsal carina; head partially hidden by coxa 1...... Stegocephalidae (Fig. 1.26)

I

,

!

20B. Urosomite 1 with dorsal carina; head not much covered by coxa 1 .............. Stilipedidae (Fig. 1.27)

I

I

21A. Gnathopod 2 larger than gnathopod 1, especially in dimensions of the pmpodus ..............................

i .................................................................................................................... Gammaridae (Fig. 1.28)

I Figure1.28

!

I

2lB. Gnathopods equal in size or gnathopod 1the largest .................................................................... 22

l 22A. Antenna 1 accessory flagellum of I or 2 articles, vestigial or absent; antenna 2 peduncle articles 4

and 5 more setose along posterior margin ......................................................... Eusiridae (Fig. 1.29)

I

I Figure 1.29 1

I

| _9
!

22B. Antenna 1 accessory flagellum usually of more than 2 articles; antenna 2 peduncle articles 4 and 5 I

more setose along anterior margin .............................................................. Liljeborgiidae (Fig. 1.30)

,

I

Literature Cited I

Barnard,marine J.L. angammaroids). d G. Karaman. Records 1991. Theof the families Australian and genera Museum, of marine Supplement gammaridean 13: 1-866. Amphipoda (except I

Bousfield, E.L. 1973. Shallow-water gammaridean Amphipoda of New England. Cornell Univ. Press.

Holmes, S.J. 1908. The Amphipoda collected by the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Steamer "Albatross" off the I

west coast of North America, in 1903 and t904, with descriptions of a new family and several new

genera and species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 35 (1654): 489-543. i

Vassitenko, S.V. 1974. Caprellids of the seas of the USSR and adjacent waters. Opredeleliteli po Faune

SSSR 107: 1-287. [In Russian] I

i

I

i

!

I

i

I

_0 i
!

i

i 2. THE FAMILIESARGISSIDAE, DEXAMINIDAE, EUSIRIDAE, GAMMARIDAE,

LEUCOTHOIDAE_ MELPHIDIPPIDAE_ OEDICEROTIDAE_ PARDALISCIDAE_

I PHOXOCEPHALIDAE_ PODOCERIDAE_ STEGOCEPHALIDAE_ STENOTHOIDAE_

I STILIPEDIDAE, SYNOPIIDAE, by AND UROTHOIDAE

I J.D. Thomas_ and L. D. McCann 2

i Introduction

I These Priorcharacters to a detailedare:o1bservatio .--presennceof ora spe absence cimen ofto anbe aidenti ccessory fied, flagellum several chara (mayctersrequire shoulclose d be qobservation uickly notedif.

small). 2.--general shape of telson, whether cleft, entire, or notched. 3.-- uropods 1,2,and 3 biramous or

I unmultiarticulate, iramous. 4.--ge or bearing neral morph hookedology spines,ofanduropod the proportion 3 rami/ramofus,ramus whether lrami toscpeduncular alelike, elonglength. ate, sh5.--shape ortened,

and position of the eyes. 6.---dominance of gnathopods I and 2, and type of chelation, i.e. chelate, subchelate,

i carpochel Each ate, simple. 7.--in fresh material, any distinctive markings or color patterns. family section includes the following; a diagnosis of the family, and genera found in the Santa Mafia

Basin study, full species listings with author and date; any synonymies; pertinent references (especially those

I with distribugood tionfigures sectionorlisting descriptions); prior and station known data distributions listing allofceach onfirmed speciesrec(including ords in theupdates study arefroma; ecology this work). and

i Family Argissidae Walker, 1904

I Diagnosis (modified from Bousfield, 1973). Eyes with 4 evenly spaced ommatidia in pinwheel or

eyes absent. Antennae 1 shorter than 2, accessory flagellum 2-articulate. Upper lip slightly emarginate.

Lower lip, inner lobes distinct. Mandible molar strong, palp long and thin. Maxilla 1, outer plate with 8 apical

t teeth. Pereonal segments short and deep. Coxae 1-3 decreasing in size posteriorly, coxa 4 largest, rounded distally, and coxa 5-7 bilobed, posterior lobe larger than anterior. Gnathopods 1 and 2 simple or weakly

subchelate, similar. Pereopods 3 and 4 short and small. Pereopods 5-7 subequal, posterior margin article 2,

i convex with rounded distal expansion, dactyls short. Pereopod 7, segments 4-6, margins with plumose setae. Coxal gills saclike, on pereonites 2-7. Oostegites large, lamellate, margins setose. Uropods biramous, uropod

3 rami foliaceous, outer ramus biarticulate. Telson deeply cleft.

i genus, monotypic.

Remarks. 1

!

J Departmentof InvertebrateZoology,NHBStop 163,NationalMuseumof NaturalHistory,SmithsonianInstitution,

Washington,D.C.,20560

I zSmithsonianEnvironmentalResearchCenter,Box28,Edgewater,MD 21037

i 21
!

Argissa Boeck, 1871 i

Type Species. Argissa typica Boeck, 1871, original designation. 1

I Diagnosis. See diagnosis of the family.

Remarks. monotypic. I

Argissa hamatipes (Norman, 1869)

Figure 2.1 i

Syrrhoi hamatipes Norman, 1869: 279.

Argissa typica Sars, 1895: I41-142, plate 48. i

Argissa hamatipes." Shoemaker, 1930: 37- 40, figures 15 and 16.-- Bousfield, 1973: 121-122, plate U

XX. --Lincoln, 1979: 334, figure 157.--Hirayama, 1983: 147-149, figures 38-41.--Barnard and

Barnard, 1983: 607- 608. I

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase, II, Sta. PJ15, 155 m, October 1986, (3

specimens), i

Diagnosis. Female 3-6 mm, male 4.7-6 mm. Urosomite 1-3 with mid-dorsal carina extending

beyond the anterior edge of the telson in the male (See diagnosis of the family). II

Remarks. The characteristic eye of Argissa hamatipes easily distinguishes this species from all I

other families, however, in examining the literature there are inconsistencies that suggest that A. hamatipes

is actually a complex of closely related species. Differences include the size and type of mandibular palp •

article 3; and the length and stoutness of the peduncle of the antennae. There axequestionable records from i

France and Ceylon, which are probably another species (Stephensen, 1931). All of our specimens were

damaged.T I ype Specimen and Locality. Specimen damaged. St. Magnus Bay, Shetland Islands.

Distribution and Habitat. Cosmopolitan. Pacific from California, South Africa, Okhotsk and

Japan seas; North Atlantic from Labrador to North Carolina, Greenland, Iceland, Britain, Norway, Denmark, i

on muddy, sandy and rocky bottoms, 4-1096 m.

g

-- ---- i

t

I

• I

i

Figure 2.1. Argissa hamatipes(Norman, 1869) (fromBamard, 1969). I
!

I Family Dexaminidae Leach, 1814

I Subfamily Prophliantinae, Barnard and Karaman,1991

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Eyes, if present, ommatidial. Accessory flagellum

I 1-2 articulate, usually vestigial. Gnathopods 1-2 subchelate, small. Pereopods 3-4 not glandular. Coxae ordinary to acuminate. Coxa 5 enlarged at least 2.5 times wider than coxae 1-4. Pereopod 7 less than 1.2

times as long as pereopod 6, occasionally of different form than 5-6 but article 2 not of shape and setation

I found or lessincleft. Ampeliscidae. Atleast 2 urosomites coalesced together. Uropod 3 biramous. Telson laminar, more

Remarks. 5 genera (including subgenera), 37 species in the subfamily. I

Guernea (Prinassus) reduncans (Barnard, 1958)

Figures 2.2, 2.3

Dexamonica reduncans Barnard, 1958:130-132, plates 26-27.

I Guernea (Prinassus) reduncans: Barnard, 1970: 173, figures 1-3.

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase, II, Sta. R4, 92 m, October 1988, (28

I specimens), Sta. PJ16, 130 m, October 1986, (10 specimens).

Description (modified from Barnard, 1958). Both sexes 2.0-2.5 mm. Eyes medium in size, lenses

few in number. Antenna 1 with dorsal notch in peduncle article 1. Antenna 2 of female very short, article 5

I large molar, accessory plate present. Upper lip edge.

shorter than 4. Mandible with with rounded lower

Lower lip with outer lobes apically acutebutnot prolonged. Maxilla I innerplate with apicalsetule and fused

spine. Maxilla 2, outer edge of outer plate with only one seta. Coxae 1-2 narrowing apically. Gnathopods 1

I and 2 similar. Dactyls ofalt pereopods each with adistal spine. Uropods 1-2 with large distalspines onrami,

uropod 3 with a few spines. Telson cleft nearly to base, not elongated, each lobe triangular. Mid-dorsal

carinae extending from pereonite 5 backwards, increasing in size, absent on urosomite 2 and 3 (carina on

i urosomite 1produced anteriorly in female, pyramid-shaped in male). Urosomite 2 and 3 fused, bearing one

or more dorsal spines.

I

i

m

.I

I Figure 2.2. Guerneareduncans(Barnard,1958),female.

|
I

I

I

I

J I

I

, I

Figure 2.3. Gurnea (P.) reduncans, male, 2.4 mm; A, Telson; B, Lateral view, antennae 2 in two pieces;

C, Antenna 1. Note dorsal knotch; D, Gnathopod 1; E, Uropod 3 (from Barnard, 1958). l

Remarks. The subgenusPrinassus is characterizedby having ananteriorly produced dorsal process a

in the female anda high keel in the male on urosomite 1 (Barnard, 1970). The presence of adorsal notch on l

antenna 1 was either initially overlooked by Barnard(1958), or it could be anartifact of preservation(Barnard,

m

1970). This species is closely allied with the circumboreal G. (P.) nordenskioldi (Hansen, 1888), but G. (P.)

reduncans has a spine on the mandible and the lateral cephalic lobes are more acutely angular. Barnard II

(1970) mentions a few other characters to distinguish the two species, which seem variable. IR

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 551, ovigerous female, 2.0 ram. Station 3491- i

55, Santa Monica Bay, California. II

Distribution and Habitat. Pt. Conception south to Ensenada, Baja California, on green mud, rare,

to 92 m. --|

Family Eusiridae Stebbing, 1888 I

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Accessory flagellum 0 to 2-articulate. Sexual •

dimorphism not obvious. II

Remarks. 63 genera, 313 species.

I

I

24 I
!

I Key to the Eusiridae of the Santa Maria Basin

I Gnathopod normal, carpus attaching distally to propodus ................................................................ 2

1A.

1B. Gnathopod carpus attaching medially to propodus (eusirid-like; Figure 2.4) .......... Eusirus longipes

!

I Figure 2.4

I 2A. Gnathopods subchelate with wide, rounded, oblique palms and long dactyls, carpus with posterior

lobe extending distally; telson long, tapering, or pointed, distinctly cleft ................. (Rhachotropis) 3

I 2B. Gnathopods subchelate with long, narrow, transverse palms, and tiny dactyls, carpus without posterior lobe; telson short, rounded, with slight indentation only .................................. Oradarea longimana

I 3A. Urosomite 1bearing 1 large dorsal tooth ......................................................................................... 4

3B. Urosomite 1 without teeth ................................................................................................................ 6

I 4A. Epimera segment 2 with small to large dorsolateral carinae or teeth .............................................. 5

i 4B. Epimera segment 2 without dorsolateral carinae or teeth ............................ Rhachotropis distincta

5A. Epimera 1-3 without prominent dorsolateral carinae; epimera 2 with tinyteeth on dorsolateral margin

I .................................................................................................................. Rhachotropis faeroensis

5B. Epimera 1-3 with prominent dorsolateral carinae; epimera 2 without teeth

on dorsolateral margin ................................................................................... Rhachotropis clemens !

6A. Eyes huge, touching dorsally; epimeron 2, posteroventral comer acuminate ....................................

I ....................................................................................................................... Rhachotropis oculata

, 6B. Eyes large, not touching dorsally, or absent; epimeron 2 posteroventral comer rounded or angled ......................................................................................................... Rhachotropis inflam

I Eusirus Kr0yer, 1845

Type Species. Eusirus cuspidatus Kr0yer, 1845, 1846.

!

Diagn_N (from Bamard and Karaman, 1991). Body ordinary, compressed, often weakly carinate

or toothed. Rostrum small to large, lateral cephalic lobes ordinary, anteroventral margin of head not produced.

I Eyes or subequal, or longer (type), peduncular as long as head,

reniform absent. Antennae 1 than 2 article 1

articles progressively shorter, or article 2 as long as article 1 (type), often longer, article 3 short, not produced,

primary flagellum article 1 ordinary, or often more than twice aslong as peduncle article 3, accessory flagellum

I 1-articulate, elongate. Upper lip entire, subrounded, broader than long; epistome unproduced. Molar triturative,
!

I

columnar, article 2 of mandibular palp unlobed, article 3 of variable length. Maxilla 2, inner plate broad, often •

with strong medial setae. Maxilliped, inner plates not long, outer plate longer than inner, palp 4-articulate,

article 4 slightly shorter than 3, and not spinose along inferior margin, article 3 unlobed. Coxae ordinary to I

short, coxa I not produced anteriorly but expanded ventrally. Coxa 4, posterior lobe excavate or very poorly • i

so. Gnathopods alike, subchelate, both eusirid-like. Pereopods 3-7 elongate, simple, dactyls simple. Epimeron

3 smooth or serrate (type). Outer rami of uropods 1-2 shortened, with lateral and dorsal spines. Uropod 3 II

ordinary, not extended beyond uropod 1, peduncle without large process, rami lanceolate. Telson elongate or I

short, variable, cleft, incised or emarginate, apices without long armaments.

Remarks. 22 species. I

Eusirus longipes (Boeck, 1861) I

Figures 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 I

Eusiris longipes Boeck, 1861" 656. •

Eusiris helvetiae Bate, 1862: 155. I

Eusirus bidens Heller, 1867: 32, figure 19.

Eusirus longipes: Sars, 1895: 420-421, plate 148.--Lincoln 1979: 402, figure 191.--Hirayama, •

1985: 29-35, figures 141-147. 1

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 16, 591 m, December 1984, (1 •

specimen, F), Phase II, Sta. R4, 92 m, October 1988, (1 specimen).

Description. 6.5-13 mm. Eyes very large, reniform. Lateral cephalic lobe, short, truncated. Antenna

1longer than 2. Calceoli present. Coxa 1produced anteriorly. Coxae 1-3 with 1-3 small teeth on posterodistal I

edge. Pleonite 1 and 2 with mid-dorsal tooth; segment 3 posterior margin convex and coarsely serrate.

Gnathopods robust, carpus L-shaped, propodus fitting into L, dactyls long and slender, prehensile. Telson

covered with minute triangular scales, cleft approximately one-third its length. I

Remarks. This material represents a new depth record for the species.

Type Specimen and Locality. North Atlantic. m

l

!

!

!

Figure 2.5, Eusirislongipes,female(fromLincoln, 1979). I
!

!

A ×

! C

I

I

I

i Figure 2.6. Eusirus longipes,female; A,Uropod 3; B, Gnathopod 1; C; Telson; D; Pereopod 7 (fromLincoln,

1979).

I

Dk_t,qbufion and Habitat. Mediterranean and Adriatic Seas; Atlantic: Great Britain, Norway to

i Arctic ocean; Pacific: southern California, Japan, in Lithothamnion, 6-591 m.

Oradarea Walker, 1903

i Type Species. Shoemaker,

Oradarea walkeri 1930.

i Diagnosis. Eyes reniform. Body slender, compressed, carinate or toothed. Rostrum large, lateral cephalic lobes ordinary, anteroventral margin of head weakly produced. Antenna 2 longer than 1, peduncular

articles of antenna 1progressively shorter, article 1 shorter than head, article 2 often as long as 1, article 3 not

: produced; 1-articulate.artiEpistome cle 1 of primary unproduced. flagellumMolarordinary, triturative, aboutcolumnar, as long asarticle article2 of3 ofmandibular peduncle, pulp accessory unlobed, flagellum article

3 shorter than 2. Lower lip, inner lobes obsolescent. Maxilla 1,inner plate with many medial setae, paip tong,

article 1 shorter than 2. Maxilla 2, inner plate not broader nor longer than outer, inner plate with facial row of

I many setae and other medial setae. Maxilliped, inner plate not relatively long, outer plate slightly shorter than

inner, pulp of 4 articles, 4 shorter than 3, 3 lobed, 4 not spinose along inferior margin. Coxa ordinary, coxa 1

not produced anteriorly nor expanded ventrally, coxa 4 with posterior lobe excavate. Gnathopods diverse,

i longer 1, not eusirid-like, small, carpus (type) or as long as

medium, 2 than subehelate, of both shorter than

propodus, without posterior lobe, carpus with numerous small posterior setae. Gnathopod 1 short, gnathopod

2 very slender, or linear, carpus and propodus elongate. Pereopods 3-7 ordinary, simple, dactyls simple.

I Epimeron 3 smooth. Outer rami of uropods 1-3 shortened, rami with lateral and dorsal spines. Uropod 3

ordinary, scarcely extended beyond uropod 1, peduncle without large process, rami lanceolate, strongly unequal.

Telson ordinary, incised, emarginate, almost entire, linguiform, without long apical armaments.

i Remarks. 14 species.

I 27
I

I

Oradarea longimana (Boeck, 1871) "-

Amphithopsis longimana Boeck, 1871 : 120. Figure 2.7 I

1

Oradarea longimana: Shoemaker, 1930: 299-306, figures 35-37.--Thurston, 1974: 35-36.

Leptamphopus longimanus: Stephensen, 1931a: 279-280. I

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase II, Sta. R6, 410 m, October 1987, (36

specimens). I

Description (modified from Shoemaker, 1930). Both sexes to 11 mm. Lateral cephalic lobe

triangularly produced, margin rounded. Accessory flagellum, short, 1-articulate. Gnathopods 1 and 2, dactyls

tiny, one fifth length of propodus, fitting against proximal edge of palm. Pleonites 1 and 2 with a tooth-like 1

projection mid-dorsally. Telson short, rounded, with slight indentation. I!

Remarks. Several species have been synonomized with O. longimana (see Vanhoffen, 1907 and

Shoemaker, 1930 for details). O. novaezealandiae (Thomson, 1879) is closely related to O. longimana, but ll

is readily distinguished from the latter by a mid-dorsal tooth on pereonite 7 (Barnard, 1972a). Both species

IR

lack the integumentary scales found in other species of the genus. I

Type Specimen and Locality. Greenland. I

Distribution and Habitat. Altantic: Greenland and Gulf of St. Lawrence, (in whelk egg masses,

Shoemaker, 1930), Pacific: southern California, 54-682 m. l

IW

Rhachotropis Smith, 1883

1

Type Species. Oniscus aculeatus Lepechin, 1780. I

I

_ __" _ \_ "_ A

__/,_'/-.:- ......_ J" \ G-"'", !,,. I

-%._' _;- t _" ; ....._, _ ..., i..-.

I

t t ""

I

Figure 2.7. Oradarea longimana, female; A, Gnathopod 1; B, Pereopod 3; C, Gnathopod 2, with closeup of dactyl; D, Antenna 1, accessory flagellum (from Shoemaker, 1930). I
I

I Diagnosis. Body ordinary to slender, compressed, carinate or toothed. Rostrum small-to-large,

lateral cephalic lobes ordinary; anteroventral margin of head not produced. Eyes round, reniform, or absent.

I Antennae article 3 shorter, subequal, not article produced; 1 of primary antenna flagellum 1 as long asarticle or longer 1 short thaninhead, female,article often2twice usuallyasaslonglongasasarticle article3 of1,

peduncle in male; accessory flagellum 1-2-articulate, short. Antennae 1and 2 with tympanic calceoti. Upper

I lipmandibular entire, subrounded, palp unlobed,broarticle ader than 3 as llong ong, asepisortolonger me unproduced. than 2. LowerMolip, lar inner tritumtive, lobes short. columnar, Maxillaraticle1, inner 3 of

plate with 1-4 medial setae, lacking facial setae, with few medial setae, palp long, article 1 short. Maxilla 2,

i inner plate broad but shorter than outer, outer plate narrow. Maxilliped, inner plate not relatively tong, outer plate slightly or greatly longer than inner, palp 4 articulate, article 4 shorter than 3 and not spinose along

inferior margin, article 3 unlobed. Coxae very short, coxa 1strongly produced anteriorly or expanded ventrally,

i coxa much4 with or without weak posterior lobe, excavate or not. Gnathopods alike, large, subchelate, carpus shorter than propodus, with strong posterior lobe extending distally, numerous posterior setae, spines on

palms of gnathopods thin or inconspicuous. Pereopods 3-7 elongate, simple, dactyls simple. Epimeron 3

i serrate, or rarely smooth. Outer rami of uropods 1-2 variable, rami with lateral and dorsal spines. Uropod 3

ordinary, not exceeding beyond uropod 1, peduncle without large process, rami lanceolate. Telson elongate,

cleft, incised, emarginate, or entire, triangular or linguiform, without long apical armaments.

I Remarks. 43 species.

Rhachotropis clemens Barnard, 1967

I Figure 2.8

I Rhachotropis clemens Barnard, 1967:16-18, Figure 5; 1971: 10, Figure 6.

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase II, Sta. R4, 92 m, October 1986, (1

i specimen), DesSta. crip R3, 409 m, (1 specimen), Sta. PJ18, 158 m, (1 specimen), Sta. R2, 161 m, (4 specimens). tion (modified from Barnard, 1967). Female 4.5 mm, male 3.3 mm. Eyes present or

absent. Rostrum pointed, extending slightly more than half-way along article t antenna 1,slightly recurved.

I Lateral with 1 cusp, cehaaccessory lic lobes asymmetrically flagellum vestigial.cute.Coxae Antennwella 1developed, article 1, dicoxa stal e1nstrongly d with three produced sharpanteriorly, cusps, articblunt le 2

apically, coxae 2-4 not acuminate. Gnathopod 1 basis with medial row of stout spines; Gnathopods 1-2,

I carpal Pereopods lobes5-7, interequal article in2 soval, ize; second armed articles posteriorly of pereopods with large3 andbut4sparsely slender, posterior occuring margins serrations; sharpereonite ply serrate.7

lacking dorsal tooth posterior margin ventrolaterally produced. Pleonites 1 and 2 each with one posterodorsal

I turoooth and one posterolateral tooth on each side, carinae poorly developed, pleonite 3 lacking dorsal sculpture, somite 1bearing one large, nearly oblique dorsal tooth and one sharp cusp dorsal to insertion of uropod 1.

Epimeron 2 with sinuous, minutely serrate posterior margin, epimeron 3 strongly serrateventrally and posteriorly.

i Telson cleft Remarks. about onOur e-twelfth specimens of itsagree lengthwell , margins with thesmooth eyed vawith rietysparse of Barnard spines.(1971 ), however, the posterior

margin of pereopod 3 is closer to the eyeless variety of Barnard (1967). It is possible that two species are

I represented material to Rhach here, botrutopis until cleme adequnsate. material is available for comparative study we will continue to assign

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 6121, female, 4.5 mln. Station 7234, 27°38'00"N,

I 115°16'16"W, 791-842 m.

Distribution and Habitat. Pacific from Oregon to Baja California, 92-842 m.

I
.

!

|

Figure 2,8. Rhachotropis clemens, female, 4.5 ram; A, Lateral view of epimeral segements and urosomites; in

B, Gnathopod 1; C, Telson. (fromBamard, 1967).

!

Rhachotropis distincta (Holmes, 1908) m

Figure 2.9

Gracilipes distincta Holmes, 1908: 529, Figure 35. m

Rhachotropis distincta: Shoemaker, 1930: 98-105, Figure 41-44.

Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase, H, Sta. R9,410 m, May, 1989, (1 badly m

damaged specimen). m

Description (from Shoemaker, 1930). Both sexes 8.5-19 mm. Eyes absent. Rostrum rounded, m

inclined slightly downward. Pleonites with dorsal carinae produced into a sharp tooth, lateral cafinae lacking, |

pleonites rounded laterally, 2 and 3 with a few short spines. Epimeron 3 edges rounded, smooth, with a few

short spines. Uropods with very finely serrated edges. Telson extending as far back as uropod 2, cleft one- 1

twelfth its length, margins freely serrate, m

Remarks. This is the only described Rhachotropis species from California lacking lateral cafinae.

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype USNM No. 38552, female, 8 ram. Station 4429, Santa 1

Cruz Island, California, 928-1244 m.

Distribution and Habitat. North Atlantic from Bay of Biscay, France, Newfoundland to Marthas

V'meyard, Mass.; North Pacific from Kamchatka to southern California, Santa Cruz Island, in mud, generally m

378_1244 m, but found to 7000 m.

!

!

30 !
!

!

I

I

i

I Figure2.9. Rhachotropisdistincta,female;Epimerat-3 andurosoinites(fromShoemaker,1930).

I Rhachotropis faeroensis Stephensen, 1944

I Rhachotropisfaeroensis Stephensen, 1944: 18, figure 10.

Material Examined. Reportedfrom this study, but specimens unavailable.

I Description (modified from Stephensen, t944). Female 8 male 10 mm. Eyes usually absent.

mill,

Rostrum extending to midpoint of antenna 1, article 1, recurved downward. Lateral lobes of head half as

long as rostrum, obtuse. Pereon not carinate, but pereonite 5-7 and pleonite 1 each with a dorsal tooth_

I second pleonite, posterior edge with 2 pairs of small dorso-lateral teeth. Urosomite 1 (male) anterior

very

margin with knob followed by adeep dorsal depression. Pleonite 3 with a few small denticulations (< 4)

laterally. Telson two-thirds length of rami of uropod3, cleft approximately one-eight its length, apices acute.

I Remarks. Description and figures are limited for this species making it difficult to determine

relationships, but it appearsto be close to R. clemens, if not a deep water variant of the same species.

i Type Specimen and Locality. 6 specimens tutal-no holotype designated, all damaged. Faeroe Islands, 61015' N, 09*35' W and 61°08'N, 09°28' W, 820-900 m.

Distribution and Habitat. North Atlantic, Faeroe Islands, 820-900 m.

I Rhachotropis inflata (Sars, 1883)

, Figure 2.10

Tritropis inflata Sars, 1883: 104-105, plate 5, Figure 7a-c.

i Rhachotropis tumida Sars, 1895: 430-431, plate 152.

Rhachotropis inflata: Gurjanova, 1951: 713-714, Figure 497.

I specimen), MatPhase erial ExII,amSta. inedPJ12, . Santa 145 Mm,ariOctober a Basin, 1986, California, (1 specimen), Phase I, Sta. Sta. 73, R9, 98154m,m,NovJanuary ember 11987, 983, (1(3

specimens).

I Description (modified from Sars, 1895). Female 6 mm, male < 6 mm. Eyes moderately large, reniform, lateral, not meeting dorsally. Body short and stout. Epimeral plates with low carinae extending

from midsegment to posterior edge, and dorsolateral carinae, all with posterior teeth. Epimeron 2 rounded,

I ang oe-half ulr. Pthelonite length3 with of uropod many 3denti rami,culations cleft almost on lateral one-half edge.itsUrosomite length. 1dorsally smooth; telson extending
!

!

|

!

1

I

I

I

!

Figure 2.10. Rhachotropis inflata; Lateral view (from Sars, 1883).

!

Remarks. Specimens we examined were missing antennae. This species can be distinguished •

from other members of the genus having lateral teeth on the epimera by the lack of a dorsal tooth on B

urosomite 1. It is distinguished in dorsal view from Rhachotropis oculata (Hansen, 1888), with which it is

very similar, by the shape of the eyes (tear drop vs huge, oval) and the disjunction between them (eyes are •

closest anteriorly, the disjunction widening posteriorly. In Rhachotropis oculata the gap is narrow and of l

constant width).

Type Specimen and Locality. 6.5 ram, Norway, 37-92 m. I

Distribution and Habitat. North Atlantic: Greenland and Norway, Virginia (1 specimen), Kara

Sea-North of the former Soviet Union; Pacific: Oregon, on algal covered stones (9 m), southern California,

generally 40-154 m. ':I

Rhachotropis oeulata (Nansen, 1888)

Figure 2.11 i

Tritropis oculata Hansen, 1888: 140, plate 5, Figure 7-7e. •

Rhachotropis oculata: Barnard, 1966b: 18, Figure 2b-f.--Bousfield, 1973: 78, plate XI.2.

Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 42, 100 m, September 1984, (1 •

specimen, F).

!
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Figure 2.11. Rhachotropis oculata, female; lateral view. Note the acuminate posteroventral corner on

i epimeron 2 (from Bousfield, 1973).

Description (modified from Bousfield, 1973). Both sexes 9.5-12 mm. Eyes very large, covering

' most of side of head and nearly meeting middorsally. Rostrum downturned. Pleon with single dorsal and dorsolateral carinae and posterior tooth. Epimeron 2 with acute posteroventral comer. Urosomite 1 dorsally

smooth. Telson not reaching to tip of uropod 3, cleft about two-fifths its length, outer margins convex,

I sparsely spined.

Remarks. This species is also without a dorsal tooth on urosomite 1. Another useful character,

distinguishing R. oculata from R. inflata, is the produced comer of pleonite 2 (Barnard, 1966b).

I i Type Specimen and Locality. Female 9.5 mm, male 11.5 mm. Greenland, 63035'N, 52057'W and

67004' N, 54028' W, on sand, mud, and clean rock, 18-79 m.

I North Pacific Distribufromtionsouther and nHabi California, tat. Pan-arctic, Bering Sea, NorthOkhotsk AtlanticSea, fromandGreenland Japan Sea,and18-274 Labradom.r to Cape Cod;

I Family Gammaridae Leach, 1814

I Diagnosis (modified from Bousfield, 1973). Rostrum short. Antennae long and robust, accessory flagellum usually prominent. Mouthparts normal, lower lip inner lobes present or variously reduced. Coxae

I unmodified. Gnathopods I and 2 subchelate, sla'ongly in male, usually similar, 2nd usually larger. Abdominal

I segments usually distinct, urosome typically with dorsal clusters of spines and/or setae. Pereopods 3-5
i

increasing successively • in length, bases not greatly expanded. Uropod 1, peduncle with proximal anterior !

spine(s). Uropod 3, rami usually foliaceous, extending beyond uropods 1 and 2. Telson usually deeply cleft.

Coxal gills pedunculate, present on pereonites 2-7, accessory and sternal gills sometimes present. Oostegites •

large, with many long simple marginal setae, present on segments 2-5 inclusive. I

Remarks. 72 marine genera (Barnard and Karaman, 1991), 378+ species.

I

Key to the Gammaridae of the Santa Maria Basin

.i

1A. Uropod 3 rami subequal .............................................................................. (Maera) ..................... 2

1B. Uropod 3 inner ramus minute, scale-like .................................................................... Melita dentata I

2A. Uropod 3 peduncle and rami approximately equal in length; rami short

..................................................................................................................................... Maera simile 1

2B. Uropod 3 peduncle one-half or less length of rami; rami long .................................... Maera danae

1

Maera Leach, 1814 1

Type Species. Maera grossimana (Montagu, 1808). !

Diagnosis (modified from Bousfield, 1973). Eyes small, rounded. Body slender, elongate, dorsally

smooth. Rostrum short, anterior lobe rounded. Second antennal sinus deep, convex. Antenna 1 slender, I1

longer than 2, peduncle elongate, 3 short, accessory flagellum long. Mandible, palp slender, weakly setose;

n

segment 1 with distal tooth. Maxilla 1,inner plate with 3 apical setae. Maxilla 2, inner plate margin bare. I

Coxal plates shallow, smooth below, tending to separation. Coxae 5 and 6 with bilobed ventral margin. Coxa 1

1 produced anterodistally. Gnathopod 2 powerfully subchelate in both sexes, larger in male, segment 5

l

posterior lobe broad. Pereopods 5-7 slender, basis barely expanded, dactyls with short nail and subapical

tooth. Uropods t and 2 strong, rami subequal. Uropod 3 very large, elongated, rami broad, subequal, outer 2- 'mE'-

articulate. Tetson short, lobes slightly diverging, broadly acute. I

Remarks. 65 species. I

Maera danae (Stimpson, 1854)

Figure 2.12 ' I

Leptothoe danae Stimpson, 1854: 46, plate 3, Figure 32. llll

Maera danae: Shoemaker, 1955: 53-54.--Barnard, 1964b: 108-109.--Bousfield, 973: 67, plate X.1. 1

Maera loveni Barnard, 1962b: 103, figure 19. ll

Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 59, 216 m, September 1984, 1

(numerous, good specimens).

Description (modified from Bousfield, 1973). Both sexes 18.0-22.9 mm. Eyes small, round, black.

Antenna 1, accessory flagellum with approximately 6 articles. Uropod 3, rami elongate. I

1

Remarks. M. danae and M. loveni (Bruzelius, 1859) are closely related. "In M. loveni the

defining tooth of the palm of the second gnathopod of the male bears a long, slender spine, and the second i

1

34 !
I

!

I A

i

I

I

I Figure 2.12. Maera (fromBousfield, danae, female; 1973).A,Lateral view; B, Telson; C, Upper lip; D, Gnathopod 1;E, Gnathopod 2

I joint of the fifth, sixth, and seventh pereopods is long and narrow" (Shoemaker, 1955). Barnard (1964b)

states that M. danae has a similar spine, though it is smaller and often hidden by the tooth and that "the shape

I of espeadult ciallymalethegnathopod touching coxae 2, withdistinguishes its distinctlyM,excavate danae better". palm andHowever, def'mingthese tooth,cha theracters stouterarepereopods not consistently 3-5 and

treated in the literature and may as readily be attributed to differences in size or sex, rather than to any

'i difference 2 does haveinaspecies. prominent Ourspine specimen behindmatches the tooth. Bousfield's Accordingdescription to Shoemaker ofM. danae (1955),fairly M. loveni well, and is much gnathopod larger

than M. danae. The taxonomy of this genus is confused and awaits further resolution.

I Type Distribution SpecimenandandHabitat. Locality.Suba22.9 mm. Canada, Grand Marian Island. rctic, North Atlantic from Grand Manan, New Brunswick to

Newport Rhode Island; North Pacific from Pt. Barrow Alaska to San Quintin Bay, Baja California, on mud

i bottoms along rocky shores, shell and sand bottoms, and in areas with coralline algae, 13-216 m, but predominantly deep water.

I Maera simile Stout, 1913

Figure 2.13

i Maera simile Stout, 1913: 644-645.--Barnard, 1959a: 24-25, plate 4.

Maera inaequipes Barnard, 1954: 16-18, plate 16-17 (not Costa, 1851).

I Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 2, 200 m, (9 specimens).

Description. Female 12 ram, male t4 ram. Eyes large, reniform or absent (deep water). Antenna

I 1,flagellum with 10-11 articles. Uropod 3, rami short.
I

!

A !

i !

t

Figure2.13. Maerasimile, male,lOmm; A, Head. B. Uropod3; C, Telson; D. Gnathopod2; E, Epimera 1-3, Ill

female,8mm(fi-omBamard,1959). 1

Remarks. The above species differ from M. inaequipes (Costa, 1851) (see Bat'nard 1954) by the I

following characters: its smaller size (6-7 mm); gnathopod 2, the palm is transverse in M. inaequipes, and

oblique in M. danae, M. loveni, and M. simile. Unlike M. danae.and M. loveni, M. similis does not have 1

elongate rami on uropod 3. 1

Type Specimen and Locality. 5-8 mm, Kelp hold fasts from deep water, Laguna Beach, California.

Distribution and Habitat. Puget Sound, Washington to Baja California and Topolobampo, Gulf of _'

California, occasionally on kelp hold fasts, 0-221 m (depths > 50 m usually submarine canyons). II

Melita Leach, 1814 i

Type Species. Melita palmata (Montagu, 1804). iS

|

Diagnosis (from Bousfield, 1973). Body slender, pleon dorsally mucronate, dentate, or spinose.

Rostrum very short, anterior lobe short, broad. Antennae 2, sinus sharply incised. Coxal plates moderately In

deep, smooth below, coxa 4 largest, 5 anterior lobe deeper. Antenna 1 longer than antenna 2, peduncle 1

elongate, accessory flagellum prominent. Mandible, palp slender, weakly setose, tending to reduction of

i

segments. Maxilla 1, margin of inner plate setose, outer plate with 7 apical spine teeth. Maxilliped, inner and i

outer plates well developed. Lower lip, inner lobes strong. Gnathopod 1 small, slender, carpus longer than i

propodus (both sexes). Gnathopod 2 strongly subchelate (larger in male), carpus short, lobe short and deep.

m

Pereopods 3 and 4 slender, dactyls short. Pereopods 5-7, article 2 expanded, similar, 6 and 7 subequal. i

Uropod 3, outer ramus elongate, 2-articulate, margins spinose, inner ramus short, scale-like. Telson deeply I

cleft, lobes diverging, apices acute.

Remarks. 61 species. Il

36 1
!

I Melita dentata (Krsyer, 1842)

i Figures 2.14, 2.15

Gammarus dentams Krcyer, 1842:159.

. Melita dentata: Sars, 1895: 513-514, plate 181,figure 1.--Holmes, 1905: 504-506, figure.--Bousfietd, 1973: 65-66, plate IX.l.--Lincoln, 1979: 304-305, figure 142.

i Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. R2, 161 m, May 1989, (4 specimens).

Description. Both sexes 18-30 mm. Eyes small, reniform, black. Coxae 1-4, posterolateral comer

t with small tooth. Segments ofpleon and urosome with 2-6 mid-dorsal teeth, most pronounced on urosomite

II 1. Epimeron 3 posterolaterat comer acuminate, produced backward. Uropod 3 long and slender, outer rarnus

at least 3 times longer than inner.

t specimensRemandarkdetermined s. This species they were was reported not M. denta fromta.LoGnathopod uisiana (Pearse, 2 was 1912), very distinctive but Shoemaker in the specimens examined the w

examined. The dactyl is distally inflated, spatulate, and closes on the medial surface of the palm. It is not

D clear whether Type oSpecimen r not all ofandthe Locality. M. dentataGdreseecnribed land. in the literature possess this character.

. Distribution and Habitat. Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, including White Sea, Barents Sea, Spitzbergen,

t Norway, Bohusliin, Kattegat, British Isles, Iceland, Greenland, Labrador, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Bay of Fundy, New England, Huds_3nBay; Pacific from Japan, Kamchatka and Pt. Barrow

Alaska to Corona Del Mar, California, most abundant on sand, but also found on gravel, shell hash, and under

i stones, m.

30-282

!

I ,,,_,._

_¢ '2._

I

!

|,! ! "

I

_l Figure 2.14. Melitadentata,male (fromBousfield,1973).
!

A !

!

!

Figure 2.15. Mefita dentata, male: A, Gnathopod2; B, Gnathopod1; C, Uropod3; Note lengthof outerramus; ,1_,

D,Telson(fromHolmes, 1905). It

i

|i

Family Leucothoidae Dana, 1852 I

Diagnosis (modified from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Antenna 1, accessory flagellum vestigial,

1 to 2-articulate. Mandible lacking molar. Upper lip with epistome. Maxilliped, outer plates very small,

probably never larger than inner plates. Coxa 1 ordinary. Gnathopod 1 carpochelate. Gnathopod 2 enlarged, J

often with a produced carpal lobe. Telson entire.

Remarks. 3 genera (including subgenera), 59 species. I

Leucothoe Leach, 1814 I

I

Type Species. Gammarus spinicarpus (Abildgaard, 1789), original designation.

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Maxilla 1, palp 2-articulate. Maxilla 2 moderately I

setose. Maxilliped, outer plates reaching less than halfway to apex ofpalp article 1. Coxa 2 variable, broad

or long, acute or rounded below and anteriorly long or very short, i

Remarks. II 58 species (including Leucoethella subgenera).

I
!

m Leucothoe spinicarpa (Abildgaard, 1789)

Figure 2.16

N Gammarusspinicarpus Abildgaard, 1789: 66, plate CXIX, figure 1-4, 17.

Leucothoe spinicarpa: Sars, 1895: 283, plate 100, plate 101, figure 1.--Barnard, 1962c: 132, figure 7 A-C.

.IN --Krapp-SchickeI, 1975: 94-96, plate 1-2.--Watling and Holman, 1983: 224-231, figure 10.--Ledoyer,

1986: 676-677, figure 260.

I Material Examined. Not reported from this study.

Description (modified from Holman and Watling, 1983). Female 3-21 mm, male 2.75-19.0 mm.

• Eyes oval, red or black. Rostrum poorly developed. Antenna 1 article 3 plus flagellum equal in length to

i articles 1 and 2. Adult 2 article 5 much shorter than article 4. Mandibular 3-articulate,

peduncle antenna palp

article 2 longest, more than twice length of article 3. Gnathopod 1, propodus approximately twice as long as

basal portion of carpus. Gnathopod 2, in adult, propodus moderately crenulate along distal portion of palm

i (but see Barnard, 1962c). Pereopods 3 and 4 with nunerous short spines. Epimeron 3 posterodistal comer occasionally with small tooth but without distinct notch or sinus above. Telson triangular, almost three times

as long as width of base.

I Remarks. some doubt whether this represents one cosmopolitan species or a complex

There is of

species. Holman and Watling (1983) identified at least 3 variants in Antarctic waters alone, which may

,l represent different species. Records from several sources differ in one or all of the following features: size,

|

eye color, characteristics of the gnathopods and the shape ofcoxae 3 and 4, distribution, and depth range. It

is commonly reported from California waters, therefore we have included it here.

N Type Distribution Specimenandand Habitat. Locality. CosmoNpoorway. litan. Atlantic from Greenland, Norway, British Isles, Shetland

Islands, France, and the Azores; Mediterranean from Egypt, Tunesia, and Algeria, Adriatic and Aegean

i Sebottoms, as; Antarctic often Peninsula, Tierra del Fuego; Pacific from San Diego to Monterey Bay California, on algal found within tunicates or sponges (Microcosmus, and PhaUusia) (Krapp-Schickel, 1975),

abundant, subtidally, from 55-1505 m. Found intertidally, 0-6 m, in the Gulf of California and the Galapagos

g Islands.

!

m Figure 2.16. Leucothoespinicarpa(fi'omBarnardandKaraman,1991).

i
!

a,

Family Melphidippidae Stebbiag, 1899 I

Diagnosis (from Lincoln, 1979). Body slender, compressed or depressed. Rostrum small. Eyes I

very large. Lateral lobes broadly produced, often acute apically. Coxal plates moderately large, or short and

scarcely contiguous, usually setose. Mouthparts basic, mandible with large molar, palp well developed, i

Maxilla 1and 2 inner plate densely setose medially. Maxilliped inner and outer plates spinose, palp elongate.

Gnathopods slender, simple or feebly subchetate, sexes generally similar. Pereopods elongate, slender. Pleon

segments robust, pereon segments short. Posterior segments often toothed dorsally, some teeth arranged I

transversely. Uropods large. Uropods 1-2 spinose. Uropod 2 outer ramus, shortened. Uropod 3 spinose or n

naked, reaching beyond end of uropod 2,rami subequal, lanceolate or foliaceous (rami often lost in preserved

material). Telson typically cleft, occasionally emarginate or entire. Sexual dimorphism in antennae only. t

II

Remarks. 7 genera (Barnard and Barnard, 1983), 13+ species. There appear to be inconsistencies

among the genera of this family, especially within Melphisana and Melphidippa. Characters diagnostic of

the genera are not always present in the species assigned to them, particularily regarding features of the

telson and eyes. 11

Key to the Melphidippidae of the Santa Maria Basin !

1. Telson deeply cleft; pereopods 3 and 4, dactyls elongate and setose .............................................. 2 iI

1. Telson entire or apically notched; pereopods 3 and 4, dactyls short, only sparsely setose ................ g

.............................................................................................................................. Melphisana bola

2. Eyes large, bulging; telson short, with shallow cleft forming a wide gap ...... Melphidippa arnorita 3

2. Eyes small, not bulging; telson elongate, cleft more than half its length, gap narrow ........................ _1[

....................................................................................................................... Melphidippa borealis

Boeck, 1871 i

Melphidippa

Type Species. MeIphidippa goesi (Goes, 1866). I

II

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Bamard, 1983). Body very slender. Lateral lobes rounded or quadrate,

weak sinus present. Eyes poorly defined. Antennae elongate, about equal length. Antenna 1, flagellum

much longer than peduncle, slender. Accessory flagellum 2-to-multi-articulate. Antenna 2 elongate, peduncle

strongly setose, flagellum slightly longer than article 5 of peduncle. Antenna 1 and 2 sexually dimorphic.

R

Mouthparts basic, mandibular palp article 3 twice as long as 1. Maxilla 1 and 2 inner plates densely setose am,

medially. Gnathopods small, setose, weakly subchelate or simple. Gnathopod 1, carpus broadly lobate, •

propodus thin, with oblique weak palrn, gnathopod 2 with unlobed carpus, propodus thinner and more elongate, W

palm very short, oblique. Coxal plates short, scarcely contiguous. Pereopods long and slender, setose.

Pereopods 3-4 dactyls usually elongate and setose. Pereopods 5-7 dactyls often elongate. Pleon segments I

See remarks under this species i

3

40 |
!

!! distinctly toothed dorsally, some teeth arranged transversely. Uropod 3 rami 1-articulate, lanceolate. Telson

triangular, cleft half-way, poorly armed.

I Remarks. 10 species (Bamard and Bamard, 1983).

i II

Melphidippa amorita Barnard, 1966

Figures 2.17, 2.18

I Melphidippa amorita Bamard, 1966a: 74, figure 26.

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 14, 299 m, March 1985, (1

i specimen).

.. Description (from Bamard, 1966a). Female 6.4 mm. Eyes bulging. Gnathopods and pereopods

elongate. Gnathopods poorly subchelate, slender, propodus shorter than carpus. Coxa 4-6 not bilobed, but

i eUropod venly triangular. Pteonites 1-5 each with a long dorsal tooth, marginal serration present on epimera 1-4.

s 1-2 elongate and with shortened outer rami. Telson short, a shallow cleft forming bilaterally gaping,

acute lobes, each with lateral seta.

I only tRema entativel rksy. This assignspedeciesto has the been Melphidippida incompletee ly becau definedse and the

identification is based on only 1 specimen, missing several crucial _

parts damaged(thespecimens, antennae and2 ofuropod which clearly 3). Ourexhibited material theconsisted gaping cleft of 3

in the telson and the posterior serrations on epimera 1-4,

I distinguishing it from M. borealis Boeck, 1871.

Type Specimen and Locality. AHF No. 6012, female,

i 6.4 ram. Station 6836, Tanner Canyon, 32°36'00"N, 119°05'18"W,

496m.

Distribution and Habitat. Tanner Canyon, southern

•- California, 496 m. Figure 2.17. Melphidippa amorita,

i female, 6.4 ram; A, Epimeron 3; B, Telson

(fromBamard, 1966a).

!

!

'!i Figure 2.1& Melphidippa amorita, female.
!

Melphidippa borealis Boeck, 1871 I

Figure 2.19 I MelphidippaborealisBoeck, 1871: 139.--Sars, 1895: 486-487, figure 170.--Nagata, 1965: 178-179, figure 20.

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase II, Sta. PJ15, 155 m, October 1986, (1 I

specimen), Sta. R2, 161 m, May 1987, (3 juvenile specimens). .m

Description (modified from Sars, 1895). Both sexes 3.5-7.0 mm. Lateral lobes of head broadly i

rounded. Eyes small, not bulging. Accessory flagellum long, 5-articulate. Gnathopod 2, propodus long, |

approximately equal in length to carpus. Coxa 4-6 not bilobed, but broadly rounded. Telson elongate, nearly

three times longer than wide, cleft more than one-half its length, lobes unequally bidentate, each with a lateral _il

seta. l

Remarks. Identification beyond genus is difficult due to damaged specimens and the lack of diagnostic

appendages on much of the material, however, gnathopod 2 and the pattern of teeth on the pleonites appears i,

consistent with M. borealis, previously reported from the Pacific. II

Type Specimen and Locality. Norway, Christiania_fjord, Nordlandia, Hardangerfjord.

260 m. Distribution and Habitat. Atlantic: Norway; Pacific: Seto Sea, Japan, southern California?, 32- I

!

,, B iii, , c i

.

t

Figure 2.19. Melphidippaboreatis,female; A, Epimeron3;B,Epimeron2 and3,dorsalview;C, Telson(fromSars,

J895). 1!

Melphisana Barnard, 1962 '

Type Species. Melphisana boIa Barnard, 1962b. I

Diagnosis (modified from Barnardand Barnard, 1983). Body slender. Rostrum of medium size, tt

lateral lobes subglobose, sinus absent. Eyes present but not filling lobes in female. Antennae elongate, Ii

antenna 1 longer than 2, flagellum much longer than peduncle, accessory flagellum 1-articulate, vestigial.

Antenna 2 elongate. Mandibular palp articles 1and3 subequal in size. Maxillae medially setose. Coxa short, if,

poorly setose, coxa 1 expanded. Gnathopods feeble, scarcely subchelate. Gnathopod 1, carpus broad, It

scarcely lobate, propodus thin, with oblique long but weak palm, gnathopod 2 with unlobed carpus,propodus

similar. Pereopods 3-4, dactyls short, and not setose. Pleon dorsally toothed, some teeth arranged transversely, iN

Uropod 3 rami 1-articulate, lanceolate. Telson entire, apically emarginate, poorly anne& 11

Remarks. 2 species.

!

42 l
!

I Melphisana bola Barnard, 1962

i Figure 2.20 Melphisana bola Barnard, 1962b: 81-82, figure 7.

i Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase 11,Sta. R4, 92 m, May 1987, (5 specimens), Sta. PJ16, 130 m, October 1986, (1 specimen).

i Description (modified from Bamard, 1962b). Both sexes 2.4-3.0 mm. Eyes bulging, colorless, but with numerous ommatidia. Article 2 of first antenna in male longer than article 1, but subequal in female.

Maxillae inner plates densely setose medially. Gnathopods 1 and 2 similar in size and structure. Gnathopod 2

subchelate, article 6 expanded. Gnathopod 1, article 6 linear, setose. Pleonites 1-5 bearing a mid-dorsal

i 2 and3 small teeth either side of the main tooth. Posterior of 2 and

tooth, pleonites bearing to edges epimera

3 serrate. Telson uncleft, broad, with distal concavity, and a spine projecting from each side.

:11 Remarks. In specimens we examined, pleonite 3 has a long posteriorly projecting tooth, pleonite 2

|

has a somewhat shorter tooth and urosomite 1 and 2 have teeth on the posterodistal margin. Otherwise the

t ornamentation of the pleonites and urosomites and the apical setae on the telson agree with M. bola. The

emarginate telson, is similar to M. japonica Nagata, 1965. Uropod 3 and antenna 2 were missing in the

original description ofM. bola. Specimens we examined were missing most appendages, making a definitive

l identification difficult.

Type Specimen and Locality. AHF No. 582, male, 2.4 mm. Station 5628, northwest of Oceanside,

California, 33°18' "'_""30N, 117°32'30""W,on fine gray sand, 37 m.

Distribution and Habitat. Southern California coastal shelf, on sand, 12-130 m.

!

1 r'

,,

!

,l

Figure 2,.20. Melphisana bola,mate, 3mm; A,Antenna 1 (proximalend only); B, Headwith close-upof accessory flagellum;C, Telson;D,Pleon;E, Telson;F,Gnathopod2; G,Pereopod3; H,Upper lip,female, 3mm;

_l I,Pereopod4 (fromBamard,1962b).

i 43
!

Family Oedicerotidae Liljeborg, 1865 I

Diagnosis (from Bamard and Karaman, 1991). Head large, eyes, when present, dorsally appressed i

or fused together. Pereopods 5-6 equally short, pereopod 7 much longer and of different shape than pereopods

5-6. Pereopods weakly fossorial. Uropods 1-2, apices of rami naked or bearing immersed nails, subapical /

spines lacking. Teison short, entire or emarginate. II

Remarks. 32 genera (including subgenera), 193 species.

U

Key to the Oedicerotidae of the Santa Maria Basin

1A. Gnathopod 2, chelate; carpus long and narrow (Figure 2.21) ..................... (SyncheIidium) ....... 14 R

1B. Gnathopod 2, subchelate, or carpochelate; carpus of variable size and shape, but not long and narrow 1

d

.................................. .......... .................................................................................................... ......... 2

l

2A. Gnathopod 2, carpal lobe produced along propodus (Figure 2.22) .............. (MonocModes) ......... 8

!

|,:

3A. Rostrum strong, projecting and acuminate; eyes large, filling rostrum; end of.. uropod 2 reaching at

least to end of rami on uropod 3 .................................................................... Westwoodilla caecula i

|

3B. Rostrum generally short and blunt; eyes often absent or small, not filling rostrum; end of uropod 2

almost reaching end of rami on uropod 3 .................................................... (Bathymedon) ............ 4

al.

4A. Telson apicaUy indented ................................................................................... Bathymedon pumilis I

4B. Telson apicaily rounded .................................................................................................................... 5

1

5A. Rostrum very small and short, not recurred .................................................................................... 6

5B. Rostrum extending half-way to three-quarters length of antenna 1, article 1, recurved, acute ....... 7 t

I

° !
!

6A. Eyes absent; gnathopod 1, carpal lobe detached but not projecting ............. Bathymedon covilhani

6B. Eyes present, granular and diffuse; gnathopod 1, carpal lobe detached, strongly projecting .............

I ........................................................................................................................ Bathymedon kassites

U 7A. Eyes absent; posterior pereon with microscopic scales ............................. Bathymedon vulpeculus

7B. Eyes present; posterior pereon without scales ............................................... Bathymedon roquedo

I 8A. absent 9

Eyes

8B. Eyes present ................................................................................................................................... 10

i 9A. Gnathopod 1, carpal lobe produced, reaching palmar margin ................... Monoculodes necopinus

m 9B. Gnathopod 1, carpal lobe barely produced, not reaching posterior margin ........................................

I .............................................................................................................. Monoculodes latissimanus

i 110B. 0A. RRostrum ostrum nearly recurred; horizoeyesntal;round, eyesnot narrofilling w, firostrum lling rostrum .......................................................................... ............................ Monoculodes glyconica11

i 11A. Telson emarginate ................................................................................. Monoculodes emarginatus

1lB. Telson entire .................................................................................................................................... 12

I 12A. Coxa 4, posteroventral comer produced, posterior edge concave (Figure 2.23); epimeron 2, posterior

i edge concave, posteroventral comer acutely produced ............................... Monoculodes spinipes

i Figure 2.23

i

|

12B. Coxa 4, posteroventral comer not produced, posterior edge nearly straight; epimeron 2, posterior

i edge not concave, posteroventral comer not acutely rounded ........................................................ 13

13A. Rostrum short, blunt, not exeeding fin'st peduncular article 1, antennae 1; gnathopod 1 carpus width

i 13B. four Rostrumtimeslong, lengthpointed, ...................................................................................... exceeding ftrst peduncular article 1, antennae 1;Monoculodes gnathopod 1 carpus hartmanae width

two times length ...................................................................................... Monoculodes norvegicus

|
!

i

14A. Rostrum blunt, not recurved; antennal sinus shallow; eyes lateral; epimeron 2, postemventral corner

angular; pereopod 7, basis expanded, with very short setae .................. Synchelidium rectipalmum i

J

14B. Rostrum acuminate, strongly recurred; antennal sinus deep; eyes dorsal; epimeron 2, posteroventral

comer acuminate; pereopod 7, basis narrow, with long setae ................ Synchelidium shoemakeri l

Aceroides Sars, 1895

Type Species. Halicreion latipes Sars, 1883. i

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Cutting edge of mandible scarcely projecting and i_

either poorly or well toothed. Molar medium, ridged. Inner lobes of lower lip separate or fused. Gnathopods II

similar to one another, subchelate, moderately stout, carpus with strong, sharp posterior lobe projecting

distalwards, partially guarding propodus. Palm of both gnathopods oblique. Uropod 2 fully reaching end of i

rami on uropod 3. Uropod 3 well developed. _

Remarks. 8 species. This genus falls into a complex of genera still not well defined, including: .

Arrhis, Anoediceros, Aceroides (Barnard and Karaman, 1991). g

Jet.

Aeeroides sp. A i

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 69, 927 m, October 1984, (3 /I

specimens) U

Description. Mandibular palp, article 2 straight. Antenna 1, article 2 longer than article 1. Coxae

3 and 4 excavate below. Gnathopod 1, article 4, posterodistal process shorter than that on article 5, carpal '_¢

lobe blunt and not guarding propodus. Gnathopod 2 larger than gnathopod 1, palm shorter than posterior Dr

margin of propodus, carpal lobe extending less than a third of the way along posterior margin of propodus.

Telson short, blunt, and slightly ernarginate, j

Remarks. This form may represent a new species of Aceroides. IF

Distribution and Habitat. Santa Mafia Basin, California, 927 m. ill

Bathymedon Sars, 1895 a

Type Species. Halimedon longimanus Boeck, 1871, original designation, i

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Cutting edge of mandible not projecting anduntoothed.

Molar medium, ridged. Inner lobes of lower lip separate. Gnathopods somewhat diverse, subchelate, slender, I

usually gnathopod 2 more slender, carpus of gnathopod I with blunt moderately developed posterior lobe

projecting distalwards at right angles, lobe becoming obsolescent on gnathopod 2, with carpus more elongate. i

Palm of both gnathopods oblique. Uropod 2 almost reaching end of ram] on uropod 3. Uropod 3 well i

developed. _

Remarks. 24 species. "There is little to distinguish Bathymedon from Westwoodilla. Generally h

we have placed in Bathymedon any species with either weak rostrum, poorly developed eyes, or straight

article 2 of the mandibular palp, but some of these species have mixtures of the Westwoodilla form of the 3

cited characters" (Barnard and Karaman, 1991).

46 I
!

i Bathymedon covilhani Barnard, 1961

Figure 2.24

I Bathymedon covilhani Barnard, 1961: 85, figure 53; 1966a: 75.

i Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 69, 927 m, September 1984, (3

specimens).

i EpistomeDeconically scriptionproduced (from Barnard, 1961). Male 6 mm. Eyes absent. Rostrum short, cephalic lobe angular. in front. Coxa 1 markedly produced forward, first 3coxae with stout spines on

posterior edges. Gnathopods, carpus, posterior lobe detached distally from the posterior margin. Tetson

t rounded Remarks. apically. Bamard (1966a) states that B. gorneri Gurjanova, 195t may be identical or closely

related to this species. Differences include a more strongly projecting mandibular molar, a more slender first

l mandib telsoniculapex ar pathan lp artic in lBe,. covilhani a shorter. fourth article of the maxiUipedat palp, and a more convexly projecting

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype ?male, 6 mm. Station 745, Gulf of Panama, 7°15'N

l 79°25N¢, 915 m. Distribution and Habitat. Oregon, 200-800 m, southern California to Panama, 549-1720 m.

l

!

i Figure 2.24. Bathymedoncovihani,male,6 mm; A,Headwith epistome(stippled);B, Gnathopod1;C, Gnathopod2; D,Pereopod3;E,Telson(fromBarnard, 1961).

Bathymedon kassites Barnard, 1966

Figure 2.25 lit

'J Bathymedon kassites Barnard, 1966a: 75-76, figure 28.

i Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 69, 927 m, (1 specimen). Description (from Barnard, 1966a). Female 3.0-3.2 mm. Eyes faint, formed of granular material

• in the rostrum and dorsal cephalon, rostrum very small, anterior edge of head below antennal comer nearly

i vertical. Antenna 1 peduncle, intermediate in length, article 3 much shorter than article 1. Gnathopods,
!

!

!

Figure 2.25. Bathymedonkassites, female,3.2mm; A,Telson B; Epimera !-3; C, Gnathopod 1withsetaeremoved

(noteproducedcarpallobe); D,Head and epistome;E, Gnathopod2(from Barnard,1966a). I

ii

carpus and propodus subequal in length, posterior lobes on carpus strongly projecting, lobe of gnathopod 2

sharper, palms longer than posterior margins of sixth articles. Coxa 1 produced forward but not greatly.

Pereopods 3-4 with slender article 2. Pleonite 4 unarmed. Telson apically rounded, bearing two very stout ill

spines. II

Remarks. This is one of only 2 Bathymedon species from southern California with eyes.

Type Specimen and LoeaUty. AHF No. 5918, female, 3.2 mm. Station 6494, Monterey Canyon, 1

California, 36°46'58"N, 121°55'56"W, 750 m. III

Distribution and Habitat. Monterey, California and the Santa Mafia Basin, 750-927 m. /

tl

Bathymedon pumilis Barnard, 1962

Figure 2.26

Bathymedon pumilis Barnard, 1962e: 351-352, figure 1.

Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 9, 398 m, October 1984, (1

specimen), Phase II, Sta. R3,409 m, January 1987, (1 specimen). Lt_

|

l)eseription (from Barnard, 1962e). Male 2.5-2.8 mm. Eyes absent. Rostrum short. Lateral

cephalic lobe vertical in front. Antennae equal in length. Epistome not conical in front. Coxa 1 produced

forward, but not greatly. Gnathopod 2, carpal lobe nearly obsolete. Dorsal surface of pleonite 4 smooth. m

Tetson emarginate, beating 2 medial setae. _

Remarks. This species is distinguished by the emarginate telson and asetose coxa 4.

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 5621, male, 2.75 ram. Station 4753, off Pt. /I

Loma, California, 32°41'50"N, 117°20'25"W, green mud, 97 m. II

Distribution and Habitat. Southern California coastal shelf, rare, 66-409 m, and Oregon, 150-225

m, with one record from 800 m. i

48 i
!

!

ii

l

!

i Figure 2.26. Bathymedon pumilis, male, 2.5 mm; A, Head; B, Telson(note emargination);C, Gnathopod 1;D,

Pereopod5 (fromBamard, 1962e).

!

i

Bathymedon roquedo Barnard, 1962

i Figure 2.27

. _ Bathymedon roquedo Barnard, 1962e: 354, figure 2.

i l

Material Examined. Reported from this study, but not supported by collections.

I tissue. Rostrum Descriptionstout,(from nearlyBarnard, horizontal, 1962ewith). Ma dorsal le 5.5anterior mm. surfacecurving Eye composed ofdownward a small amount to formofanyell obowtusely ish

acute point. Rostrum extending about three-quarters of the way along antenna 1, article 1 and well beyond

the slightly promading, acute lateral lobe. Antenna 1 exceeding the peduncle of antenna 2. Gnathopods 1 and

II 2 slender, gnathopod 1, carpal lobe distinct, but indistinct on gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 2, carpus much longer

than propodus. Telson apically rounded, nearly truncate.

i• rostrum isRema muchrks.stouter Thisandspecies it bearsbears distinct, a suthough perficipoorly al resemblance developedtoeyesB. (Bvulamard, peculus1971). Barnard, Though197previously 1, but the

recorded from California, our material consisted of one unidentifiable specimen.

i Cove Anchorage, Type SpeciSanta men Cruz and l__udity. Holotype AHF No. 557, ?male, 5.5 mm. Station 3727, Smugglers Island, California, 34°00'55"N, 119°31'45"W, coarse sand, 22 m.

i Distribution and Habitat. Southern California, 22-107 m.
!

!

A 'm

. i

, i

!

Figure 2.27. BathymedOn 1962e). Bamard, r°qued°male, ' 5.5 ram; A, Pereopod 3; B, Gnathopod 1; C, Head, D, Telson (from I

iI

Bathymedon vulpeculus Barnard, 1971 B

Figure2.28

i

Bathymedon vulpeculus Barnard, 1971: 45, figure 28. I

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 82, 394 m, (1 specimen), Sta. i

104, 294 m, (1 specimen), Phase 1I, Sta. R6, 410 m, January 1987, (1 specimen), Sta. R3, 409 m, May I987, !l

(2 specimens).

Description (from Barnard, 1971). Male 4.8 ram. Eyes absent. Rostrum of medium length, Ill

slender, acute, nearly straight, reaching about halfway along article 1 of antenna 1 and being about twice as tl

projected as lateral cephalic lobe. Anteroventral cephalic margin below antennal sinus nearly vertical, dorsally

produced into a short, narrow quadrate extension. Epistome rounded in front. Antenna 1, peduncular article II

3 less than half as long as article 1. Coxa 1 strongly produced forward. Palms of gnathopods longer than !1

carpal lobes. Gnathopod 1 and 2, carpus longer than propodus. Pereopods 3-4, dactyl about as long as article

6. Body densely covered with veryminute, broadly triangular, ragged scales (especially posteriorly, commencing

about pereonites 4-5). Scales so small as to be poorly resolved under oil immersion, but very dense and II

noticeable because of the fuzzy appearance of the posterior body (see figure 48). Telson short, apicalty

rounded, poorly setose. I[

Remarks. Our specimens do not have posterior scales and the telson is distinctly truncate. Other II

diagnostic characters match published descriptions, therefore we hesitate to elevate this to a new species

designation. The specimens we examined have conspicuous muscle attachment sites visible throughout the

cuticle on the dorsal surface of the head (in preserved specimens). See Barnard, (1971) for similar species _l[

from other parts of the world.

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype USNM No. 127129, male, 4.8 mm. Station 25, 44°39.3'N, 1

128°57.4'W, 800 m. II

Distribution and Habitat. Pacific: from southern California and Oregon, 294-800 m. \_

|
!

!

| A B

!

!

f.

!

!

i Figure 2.28. Bathy setaetspines medonremoved; vulpeculuE, s,male, Epimera 4.8 ram; 1-3 showing A, Head;aB, square Gnathofopod the minute, 1;C, Pereopod ragged 5;Dscales, Tepresent lson withon the the

posterior,with a close-upof one scale(fi'omBamard, 1971).

.!

Monoculodes Stimpson, 1853

i Type Species. Monoculodes demissus Stimpson, 1853. Type obscure, diagnosis based on M. carinatus

as depicted by Sars (1895).

t Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Cutting edge of mandible slightly projecting and

i toothed. Molar large, ridged. Inner lobes of lower lip separate. Gnathopods diverse, gnathopod 1 stout, gnathopod 2 more slender and longer, carpus with strong, blunt posterior lobe guarding propodus, less so on

gnathopod 1,strongly on gnathopod 2. Gnathopods 1and 2, palm oblique. Uropod 2 almost reaching end of

rami on uroped 3. Uropod 3 well developed.

lilt Remarks. 54 species.

i emarginatus Barnard,

Monoculodes 1962

Figure 2.29

i Monoculodes emarginatus Barnard, 1962e: 361-363, figure 4.

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 104, 294 m, January 1985, (4

i specimens).
!

!

A C

!

Figure 2.29. Monoculodes emarginata, female, 4.5mm; A,Epimera 1-3; B, Teison(noteslight emargination); C,

Head (fromBamard, 1962e). i

I)eseription (from Barnard, 1962e). Female 4.5 mm. Rostral area transparent, containing a small ilm

pigmentless eye (in alcohol) which lies as far back from the apex as its own length. Rostrum moderately |

stout, slightly deflexed, not tapering rapidly, subacute at apex, extending to the end of but not exceeding

antenna 1, article 1. Lateral cephalic lobe crowded dorsally, blunt. Antenna 1 nearly as tong as peduncle of m

antenna 2. Gnathopods relatively stout but gnathopod 2 more slender than 1,the carpal lobes relatively stout, 1

not quite reaching palms ofpropodus. Pereopods 3 and 4, dactyl as long article 6. Epimera rounded. Telson

u

apically emarginate, unadorned. 1

Remarks. The bare, emarginate telson of this species is distinctive. !

Type Specimen and l_meality. Holotype AHF No. 5412, female, 3.5 ram. Station 2637, off Santa

Catalina Island, Califomia, 33°21'59"N, 118°20'00"W, sandy mud, 73 m. 1

Distribution and Habitat. Oregon, California, coastal shelf, to San Quintin Bay, Baja California,

55-294 m.

i

Monoculodes glyconica Barnard, 1962

Figure 2.30 i

Monoculodes gylconica Barnard, 1962e: 363, figure 5.

m

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 108, 492 m, January 1984, (3 I

specimens).

Description (from Barnard, 1962e). Male 6 mm. Eyes filling rostrum, composed of trapezoidal

globules of material, bleached to ochre in alcohol. Rostrum long, straight, slender, acute, nearly reaching the II

end of the first article of antenna 1. Lateral cephalic lobe produced boldly into a slightly upturned process.

Antenna 1reaching well beyond peduncle of antenna 2. Gnathopod 1, carpal lobe barely visible, considered I_

to be absent as in Monoculodes mertensi Gurjanova, 1951. Gnathopod 2, carpal lobe distinctly developed g.

but small, reaching less than one-half length of propodus. Pereopods 3 and 4, dactyl as long as article 6.

Telson apically rounded. /

g Remarks. This species most closely resembles Monoculodes mertensi (Barnard, 1962e). The

telsons on our specimens have one pair of mid-apical setae, and two pairs of short, apico-lateral setae. /m

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 5411, male, 6 ram. Station 2843, San Pedro ,1

Basin, offLos Angeles, California, 33°26'01 "N, 188°00'00"W, gray-green sandy mud, 421 m.

Distribution and Habitat. Coastal slopes and basins of Oregon to southern California, 216-800 m. i

52 I
l

I

i

I

i

!

Figure 2.30, Monoculodes glyconica, male, 6 ram; A, Lateral view;B, Gnathopod 1;C, Gnathopod 2; D,Telson

i (fromBamard,1962e).

t Monoculodes hartmanae Barnard, 1962

Figure 2.31

i Monoculodes hartmanae Bamard, 1962e: 363, figure 5-7.--Barnard, 1969a: 218, figure 26, a, b.

i Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 42, 100 m, (1 specimen). Description ( from Barnard, 1962e). Female 4-4.6 mm, male 3 mm. Rostrum stout, deflexed, blunt

apically in female, more acute in male. Eyes relatively slender and slightly reniform from side view, only

partially occupying rostrum, variable in shape due to preservation andnearness to molting of different animals. Lateral cephalic lobe subacute. Antenna 1 shorter than peduncle of antenna 2. Gnathopod 1 with long

slender carpal lobe reaching to palm of propodus, the lobe with parallel margins, with a relatively slender

i propodus. Gnathopod 2 with posterior carpal lobe slender, reaching palm, the propodus three and one-half

_' times as long as broad. Pereopods 3 and 4, dactyl nearly as long as article 6. Epimera rounded. Telson

truncate.

I Remarks. The telsons of specimens we examined were truncate and scarcely with 2

convex, very

short sub-apical setae. It may also be of note that the posterior margin of epimera 3 is not emarginate as in

the other California species (Barnard, 1962e) (see Figure 51).

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 558, female, 4.0 mm. Station 2993, off El

Segundo, Santa Monica Bay, California, 33°54'59"N, 118°28'47"W, 38 m.

i 146 m, common Distribution and Habitat. Pt. Conception, California to Bahia de San Quintfla,Baja California, 1-

in rocky intertidal and scarce below 37 nL

I
!

.

A !

!

!

!!

Figure 2.31. Monocutodes hartmanae, male, 3 mm; A, Lateral view; B, Gnathopod 1; C, Gnathopod 2; D, Head.

(from Barnard, 1962e). j

III

Monoculodes iatissimanus Stephensen, 1931

Figure 2.32 I

Monoculodes latissimanus Stephensen, 1931: 244-245, figure 70.--Bamard, 1966a: 76-77, figure 29.-- Barnard, /

1967: I 13-114, figure 52a-c.-- Ledoyer, 1983: 65, figure 4L. !

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 63, 930 m, November 1984, (3

specimens). I

Description (modified from Stephensen, 1931). Female 3-7 mm, male 4.5 mm. Eyes absent.

Rostrum only feebly curved and covers the proximal three-quarters of first article of antenna 1. Lateral I

cephalic lobes square. Gnathopod 1 with coxa extremely widened distally, and the carpal lobe extremely _l'

broad, as broad as long, reaching to the middle of the posterior margin of propodus, end oblique. Gnathopod

2 similar. Pereopod 3-7, dactyls nearly as long as article 5 and 6 combined. Epimera rounded. Telson _ll

apically concave with 2 short, thick apical spines. |

Remarks. This species is similar to M. abacus Barnard, 1961 another deep water species (Barnard,

1966a). The figures show epimera 2-3 with very few setae (none on epimeron 2, and 2 on epimeron 2) inM. /

Iatissimanus, this is in contrast to M. necopinus Bamard, 1967 also from California waters, which has very II

setose epimera (6 setae on epimeron 2, 22 on 3). The telsons on our specimens exhibit a slightly concave

apical margin, with 2 distinctive, stout spines. _l

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype female, 7 ram. West Greenland, 63°30'N, 54°25'W, 1096 I

m.

2393 m. Distribution and Habitat. Greenland, Mediterranean, southern California to Baj a California, 344- I

54 1
!

'ii

! A

B .///"

!

!

l

I Figure 2.32. Monoculodeslatissimanus, female,3mm;A, Epimeral-3; B, Gnathopod1;C, Head (fromBarnard,

1966a).

l

i Monoculodes necopinus Barnard, 1967

t Figure 2.33

Monoculodes necopinus Bamard, 1967: 114-115, figure 53.

i Material Examined. Reported from this study, but not supported by collections.

Description (from Barnard, 1967). Male 6.7 mm. Eyes absent. Rostrum small, slender, straight,

I acute, reaching halfway along article 1of antenna 1. Lateral cephalic lobes broad, obliquely truncated, not defined anteroventrally from remainder of head. Antenna 1, articles 1 and 2 equal to each other in length,

article 3 about one-third as long as article 2. Epistome broadly rounded anteriorly. Gnathopods, carpus

i moderately expanded, posterior margins much shorter than palms; carpus posterior lobes extending along full • length of posterior margins of propodus, merus scarcely produced posterodistally. Gnathopod 2, carpus with

slightly narrower and longer posterior lobe than gnathopod 1. Pereopods, dactyl at least as long as article 6.

All epimera rounded posteroventrally. Epimera rounded. Telson truncate, armed with two very stout, short,

I terminal spines.

Remarks. The only specimen we examined was damaged and not easily identifiable beyond genus.

i Wattributable ith the exception of an unproduced carpal lobe on gnathopod 1,this specimen exhibited many characters to M. latissimanus rather than to M. necopinus, however both these species have moderately

produced lobes.

i 115°40'00"W, Type Sp1720-1748 ecimen am.nd Locality. Holotype AHF No. 6019, male 6.7 mm. Station 7229, 27°54'25"N,

Distribution and Habitat. Pacific: Cedros Trench, Baja California, 1748 m.

I
!

.

A B

I

i

o !

!

c 1

!

!

Figure 2.33. Monocutodes necopinus, male, 6.7mm; A, Pereopod5; B, Head; C, Gnathopod1;D,Epimera 1-3

(fromBmmard,1967). I

Monoculodes norvegieus (Boeck, 1861) I

Oedicerus norvegicus Boeck, 1861: 650.

Monoculodes norvegicus Sars, 1895: 301-302, plate 107, figure 1.--Barnard, 1962e: 367.

I

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 42, 100 m, October 1984, (1 i

specimen), Phase II, Sta. R4, 92 m, January 1987, (1 specimen). all

Description (based on Sars, 1895). Female to 6.0 mm. Eyes large, oval, red, close together at base i

of rostrum. Rostrum stout, acuminate, reaching past article 1 on antenna 1. Lateral cephalic lobes broad.

Gnathopod 2 slender, propodus very narrow, nearly four times longer than broad, carpal lobe almost to distal I

edge of propodus. Pereopods, dactyl elongate, but not quite as long as article 6. AI! epimera rounded _l

posteroventrally. Telson truncate, slightly emarginate, with 2 tiny, short spines.

Remarks. In California, this species is most common in communities dominated by the ophiuroid i

Amphiodia urtica, and is especially abundant in the Amphiodia-Onuphis facies (Barnard, 1962e). The II

large eyes and telson, with 2 pair of short setae on either side of a slight apical emargination, distinguish this

species from other Monoculodes in California waters. /

Type Specimen and Locality, North Atlantic. II

Distribution and Habitat. Pacific: southern California, Arctic Ocean; North Atlantic: Iceland,

Gulf of St. Lawrence, North Sea including Skagerrak and Kattegat, 20-376 m. l

56 i
!

i Monoculodes spinipes Mills, 1962

Figure 2.34 i Monoculodes spinipes Mills, 1962: 12-14, figure 3.--Barnard, 1962e: 368-369, figure 10.

I I Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 73, 98 m, January 1985, (1 specimen).

Description (from Mills, 1962b). Female 9.0 mm. Rostrum slightly deflexed, slender, acute, extending

i three-quarters length 1, antenna Eyes placed apex a slightly

the of article 1. behind rostral distance less than

the length of the eye, about one-third of eye length borne on rostrum. Lateral cephalic lobes blunt, squared

off. Antennae very setose (only in types). Gnathopod 1 stout, posterior lobe of carpus with fleur-de-lis

shape. Gnathopod 2, propodus moderately slender, the posterior lobe of reaching palm. Second

carpus

pleonal epimeron concave behind, and projecting at lower comer. Apex of telson slightly convex, with 4 tiny

spines.

t Remarks. The figures of Mill's show more setose antennae and epimeral plates than in Barnard

(1962e). The concave posterior edge and projecting lower comer of epimeron 2, may be a distinguishing

i character of the species, but because many of the species in this genus have not been adequately described for this character (Barnard, 1962e), its value is unknown.

Type Specimen and l.,oeality. Holotype NMC, female, 9 mm. Station 4, Vancouver Island, British

i Columbia, Distributi intertidoal, n sand, and Habitat. shell and rock. British Columbia to southern California, intertidal to 98 m.

!

!

!

,!

!

F_ure 2.34. Monoculodes spinipes, 4.5 ram; A, Head; B, Telson (from Bamard, 1962e).

!

, Synchelidium Sars, 1895

|

Type Species. Kroyeria haplocheles Grube, 1864, selected by Chevreux and Fage, 1925.

i toothed. DiMolar agnosissmall, (frolacking m Barnard ridges, andconical, Karaman, with1apical 991). spine(s), Cutting setulose. edge of mand Loweriblelipprojecti inner lobes ng andseparate wellbut poorly developed and separated by incision, outer lobes with wide gape. Gnathopods diverse, gnathopod

l 1 stout, gnathopod 2 slender, carpus with sharp strong posterior lobe projecting distalwards and guarding

| ,7
!

!

propodus, lobe becoming less appressed to propodus on gnathopod 1, and fused to propodus on gnathopod 2. i

Gnathopod 1, palm transverse or oblique, of gnathopod 2 chelate. Uropod 2 fully reaching end of rami on

uropod 3. Uropod 3 well developed. I_

Remarks. II 12 species.

Synchelidium rectipalmum Mills, 1962 i

Figure 2.35

I1

Synchelidium rectipalmum Mills, 1962: 17-19, figures 5, 6B. g

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 9, 398 m, September 1984, (I l

specimen), Sta. 22, 99 m, October 1984, (3 specimens), Sta. 76, 387 m, January 1985, (1 specimen).

Description (from Mills, 1962). Female 4.0 mm, male 3.5 mm. Eyes lateral. Rostrum short, not

strongly downtumed, blunt. Antennal sinus shallow. Maxilliped, outer plate with nine long spines. Gnathopod I[

1,palm almost perpendicular to lower margin. Pereopod 7, article 2 narrow, posterior margin with long setae. J

Epimera rounded.

Remarks. This species is distinguished from all others of the genus by the perpendicular palm of B

gnathopod 1(Mills, 1962). S. rectipalmum also has a spine-like extension of the carpus that meets the dactyl,

w

a character which is not present in S. shoemakeri Mills, 1962. I

Type Specimen and Locality. Cotypes, MNC No. 3678, males, 3.5 mm. Station H2, Perry I

Passage, Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, on sand and shells.

Distribution and Habitat. British Columbia to Costa Rica, rocky intertidal to 398 m on coarse l[_

substrate. II

B C -,

'

" !

Fire 2.35. Synchetidi_ rectipalmum,male, 3.5ram; A,Head;B, Gna_opod 1 (notespine-likecarpalprojection);

C,Gnathopod2;D,Epimeron 1;E,Epimeron2; EEpimeron3 (fromMills,1962). I

!

!
!

!

i Synchelidium shoemakeri Mills, 1962

Figure 2.36

Synchelidium shoemakeri Mills, 1962:15-16, figure 4, 6A.

i Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase II, Sta. R5,154 m, 1987, (5 specimens).

Description (from Mills, 1962). Both sexes to 3.5 mm. Eyes meeting dorsally, near distal end of

rostra1 process? Rostrum strongly recurved, acuminate. Antennal sinus deep. Maxilliped, outer plate with

I seven short spines. Gnathopod 1, palm oblique. Epimeron 2 with acute posteroventral corner. Pereopod 7, article 2, broad, posterior margin with very short setae.

i Remarks. This species is distinguished from all others by the acute posteroventral corner ofepimeron 2 (Mills, 1962). Other easily distinguishable characters in specimens we examined included an oblique palm,

and ommatidia scattered dorsally on the head.

I V Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype NMC No. 3671, male, 3.5 mm. Station V17, Boat Bay, ancouver Island, sand, stones, rock, eel grass, kelp.

Distribution and Habitat. British Columbia to southern California, rocky intertidalin northernend

I of its range, subtidal in southern California to about 183 m, but rarely found below 40 m.

I B .C

! -

Figure 2.36. Synchelidi_ shoema_ri, male,3.5ram; A,Head;B,Epimemn1;C,Epimeron2;D, Epimemn3; (from

Mills, 1%2).

I Westwoodilla Bate, 1857b

Type Species. WestwoodiUa caecula Bate, 1857b.

I Diagnosis (from Bamard and Karaman, 1991). Cutting edge of mandible not projecting, and untoothed.

Molar large, ridged. Inner lobes of lower lip separate. Gnathopods similar to one another, feeble, subchelate,

carp gnathopod us with2.blunt Palmsmofallbothposterior gnathopods lobe proje oblique. cting Uropod distalwards 2 fullyatreaching fight angles, end loofbrami e becoming on uropodobsoles 3. Uropod cent on3

well developed.

l Remarks. 10 species.

I 59
!

l I

(Bate, 1857) 1 :

Westwoodilla caecula

Figure 2.37, 2.38

:am

Westwoodea ceaculus Bate, 1857b: 58. I

Halimedon miillerii Sars, 1895: 327-329, plate 115.

Halimedon acutifrons Sars, 1895: 329-330, plate 116, figure 1. t

Westwoodilla caecula: Enquist, 1949: 335-338, figures 40-56---Mills, 1962: 5-9, figure 1.--Lincoln, 1979: II

354, figure 167.

Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 73, 98 m, (3 specimens). 1

all

Description (modified from Mills, 1962). Female 7-8 mm, male 6 mm. Eye toward distal end of

frontal process. Rostrum strongly recurved, acuminate. Lateral cephalic lobe produced to a small point, i

Gnathopods, article 5 long, ending in short setose expansion. Mandibular palp curved and expanded proximally, II

with spinules. Apex of telson broadly rounded, armed with several small spines.

Remarks. Given the variability inthe descriptions ofW. caecula in the literature and its cosmopolitan R

distribution, it is probable that it represents a complex of species. In our specimens, the mandibular palp, U

article 2 was scarcely curved (a curved article 2 being one of the primary characters distinguishing this genus

from Bathymedon ). I

Type Specimen and Locality. Britain.

Distribution and Habitat. Pacific: Japan Sea, Laptev and Barents Seas, British Columbia to 1

southern California; North Atlantic from Greenland, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Norway, Britain, and France, 0- U

500m.

!

!

• N

" !" i

P

!

!

Figure 2.37. Westwoodillacaecula Bate, 1857,male (fromLincoln,1979). 1

N
i

!

,!

I Figure 2.38. Lincoln, Westwood1979). illacaecula; A, Head, female; B, Gnathopod 1; C, Cmathopod 2; B and C, male (from

!

I Family Pardaliscidae Boeck, 1871

i Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Body laterally compressed. Coxae short. Accessory flagellum well developed. Molar absent, incisor and body of mandible flat, inner plates of maxillipeds short to

barely visible.

i Remarks. 18 genera, 63 species.

i Key to the Paradaliscidae of the Santa Maria Basin

1A. Lateral cephalic lobe produced forward, acuminate; urosomite 1 with paired, small, mid-dorsal

i teeth ......................................................................................................................... Nicippe tumida

1B. Lateral cephalic lobe not produced forward; urosomite 1 without paired mid-dorsal teeth ............. 2

I 2A. Urosomite 2 with long thin dorsal tooth; gnathopod 1 propodus excavate, with bundle of spines at

proximal edge ............................................................................................... RhynohalicelIa halona

i 2B. Urosomite 2 without dorsal tooth or tooth very small; gnathopod l, propodus not

excavate, without bundle of spines at proximal edge ....................................................................... 3

i 3A. Urosome without teeth; gnathopods 1-2, article 6 as long as or much longer than article 5............ 4

3B. Urosome with teeth; gnathopods 1-2 article 6 much shorter than article 5 ............... Pardalisca sp.

!
!

!

4A. Gnathopod dactyl with 1-2 inner teeth; rostrum short ........................................................................ Ill

.................................................................................. Pardaliscella symmetrica/yaquina complex 4 i

4B. Gnathopod dactyl without inner teeth; rostrum long, narrow ........................... Halicoides synopiae

i

Halicoides Walker, 1896

I

Type Species. Halicoides anomala Walker, 1896. m

Diagnosis (from Bamard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum well developed. Eyes absent. Ratio of i

peduncular articles on antenna 1= 13:5:4, base of primary flagellum inflated with caUynophore in male only, 1

article 1 of flagellum much longer than article 3 of peduncle, peduncle article 2 short. Accessory flagellum

present (aberrant in holotype of type species, see Thurston, 1976). Mouthparts forming quadrate bundle i

below head. Upper lip rounded below. Mandibles symmetrical, incisors smooth, palp fully developed, article II

3 about one third as long as 2. Inner lobes of lower lip coalesced, with raphus. Maxilla 1, palp not expanded

apically. Maxilla 2 well developed, plates equal. Inner plates of maxilliped small, outer plates medium. Palp ]1_

more than one and one-half times as long as medial edge of outer plate. Coxae 1-4 subquadrate, alike, even, U

broader than long. Gnathopods simple, slender, propodus ofgnathopod 1 much longer than carpus, equal on

gnathopod 2,carpus not lobate, dactyls normally claw-shaped, without inner teeth. Pereopods simple. Urosomal i

teeth absent. Telson elongate, deeply cleft. m

Remarks. 10 species. !

Halicoides synopiae (Barnard, 1962)

Figure 2.39 B

Pardisynopia synopiae Barnard, 1962b: 77-78, figures 3 and 4.

!

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase n, Sta. PJ5, 152 m, October 1986, (1

specimen), Sta. R8, 90 m, January 1987, (1 specimen), Sta. R4, 92 m, October 1988, (1 specimen), n

u

Description (modified from Barnard, 1962b). Female 5 mm. Eyes absent. Pereopod 6, article 2

with straight posterior edge, without a lobe at lower corner. Urosomite 1 with posteriorly directed dorsal _l

tooth reaching almost to insertion of telson. Urosomite 2, posterior margin with a single long seta and with l

long, thin, dorsal tooth. Urosomite 3, epimeron with straight posterior edge and quadrate lower corner.

Uropod 3, interramus with nodulose distomedial margin. t

Type Specimen and Locality. AHF No. 5724, female, 5.0 mm. Station 4873, off Laguna Beach, m

33°30'36"N, 117°47'58"W, bottom of green mud, 174 m.

Distribution and Habitat. Monterey Bay to Baja, California, 52-1748 m. i

i

aSee remarks underPardatiscetta symmetrica and P yaquina. Also note the description ofPrincaxetia sp A in the text, II

not included in this key. !

62 I
!

!

!

!

! f J

!

!

i Figure 2.39, Halicoidessynopiae,female (Barnard,1962b).

I Nicippe Bruzelius, 1859

I Type Species. Nicippe mmida Bruzelius, 1859.

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum small. Eyes present, weak pigment only.

I Ratio of peduncular articles on antenna 1 = 12:9:3, base of primary flagellum narrow, articulate, article 1 of flagellum scarcely longer than article 3 of peduncle, article 2 ofpeduncle short (elongate in male). Accessory

flagellum present. Mouthparts formingquadratebundle below head. Upperlipalmost symmetrically incised.

i Mandibles asymmetrical, incisor on left weakly toothed, on right strongly toothed, palp fully developed. Inner lobes of lower lip coalesced. Maxilla 1, palp expanded apically. Maxilla 2 well developed, thin, plates equal.

Both plates of maxilliped small. Palp almost 3 times as long as medial edge of outer plate. Coxae 1-4

i subquadrate, alike, even, broader than long. Gnathopods weakly subchelate, stout, propodus of both gnathopods longer than carpus, carpus with long, broad, lobe, dactyls normally claw-shaped, without inner teeth. Pereopods

simple. Urosomat teeth moderate to weak. Telson elongate, deeply cleft.

I Remarks. 2 species.

Nicippe tumida Bruzelius, 1859

I Figure 2.40

Nicippe tumida Bruzelius, 1859: 99.---Sars, 1895: 410-411, plate 144.--Barnard, 1959b: 39, figures 1 and 2.

i --Lincoln, 1979: 394, figure 187.

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase II, Sta. R4, 92 m, January and May

I 1987, (1 male, 1female, 1juvenile).
I

i

" "'" I

I

'

, E

I

Figure 2.40. Nicippe tumida, female; A, Lateralview; B, Gnathopod t; C, Gnathopod 2;D.Uropods 2-3, telson;E,

Uropod 1;E Head andantenna,male (fromLincoln, 1979). I

Description. Both sexes 6.5-14.0 mm. Ommatidia scattered along lateral cephalic lobes. Urosomite i

1 with paired mid-dorsal teeth. Telson narrow, nearly 3 times longer than broad, cleft almost to base and |

dilated at bottom.

Remarks. Barnard (1959b) includes N. unidentata K.H. Barnard, 1932 tentatively with the I

distribution records of N. tumida based on Enequist (1949), who suggests that it may represent phenotypic II

variation in the same species, however, Barnard did not synonymize the two. N. unidentata bears only 1

dorsal tooth on urosomite I and the telson is scarcely twice as long as broad, distinguishing it fromN, tumida, i

There is a questionable record from the Mediterranean (Ledoyer, 1973), of 1 aberrant specimen. Our II

specimens agree well with published accounts for this species. Obviously identifiable features include, the

'tumid' (swollen) accessory flagellum and elongate primary flagellar article 1, antenna 1, furnished with a i

dense anterior tuft of setae in the male, and the dorsal bidentate tooth on urosomite 1. The accessory |

flagellum is not swollen in the female, but it is longer than the relatively short peduncular article.

Type Specimen and Locality. Christianiafjord, Norway. 1
!

I Distribution and Habitat. Cosmopolitan. Atlantic from Davis Straight, west of Greenland into the

Skagerrak and Barents Sea to South Africa; Pacific from Okhotsk and Japan Seas, California, 35-1369m

I (greatest depth near Iceland).

Pardalisca KrOyer, 1842

I Type Species. Pardalisca cuspidata Krcyer, 1842.

I peduncular Diagarticles nosis on(fromantenna Bamard 1= 11:8:3 and Kar downaman, to 11:5:3, 1991).baseRostrum of primary small. flagellum Eyes present in femaleornabsent. arrow, articulate, Ratio of

in male callynophore present, flagellum article 1 much longer than peduncle article 3 of male, shorter in

I female, head. Upper peduncle lip grossly article and 2 short. asymmetrically Accessory flagellum incised below. present. Mandibles Mouthpaasrtsymmetrical, forming quadrate incisor onbundle left weakly below

toothed, on right strongly toothed, palp fully developed. Inner lobes of lower lip separate. Maxilla 1 palp

I expanded outer platesapically. large. Palp Maxilla just2aswenlongdeveloped, as medialthin, edgeplates of outer equal. plate.Inner Coxae plates1-4ofquadrate, maxillipedsimilar, small toeven, obsolescent, scarcely

broader than long. Gnathopods simple, slender, but carpus stout, not lobate, propodus of both gnathopods

i much shorter and thinner than carpus. Dactyls either stubby or claw-shaped, with many inner teeth. Pereopods i simple. Urosomal teeth strong. Telson elongate, deeply cleft.

Remarks. 9 species.

i Pardalisea sp.

i Figure 2.41

Pardalisca sp. Barnard, 1967: 124-126, Figure 59-60.

I Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 55, 590 m, September 1984, (2

specimens).

i UrosomalDescription. Female 8.8 mm. Eyes absent. Gnathopod 1, carpus barely twice as long as propodus. carinae very small.

Remarks. Our specimens most closely resemble P. tenuipes Sars, 1895 in the pereopods, telson,

I anfigured d gnathforopods, Barnard's however (1967)theyPardalisca differ in lsp., ackinalsog eyes, reported and from the urosome, deep water.pimera and cephalic lobe are as

Type Spechnen and Locality. Female, 8.8 mm. Station 7229, 27 54'25" N, 115 40'00" W, 1720-

i 1748 m, Cedros Trench, Baja California.

Distribution and Habitat. Santa Maria Basin, California and Cedros Trench, Baja California, 590-

1748 m.

Pardaliscella Sars, 1895.

i Type Species. Pardalisca boeckii Maim, 1871.

articles onDiaantenna gnosis (fr1o=m24:14:17, Barnard anbased Karaman, of primary199flagellum 1). Rostrunarrow, m small.withEyes weakabsecallynophore, nt. Ratio of peduncular article 1 of

flagellum longer than article 3 of peduncle, article 2 peduncle short. Accessory flagellum present. Mouthparts

I forming quadrate bundle below head. Upper lip even of asymmetrically incised. Mandibles asymmetrical,

| 6,
!

!

!

Figure 2.41. Pardalisca sp.,female, 8.8 ram; A,Epimera 1-3;B, Head;C,Gnathopod 1;D,Close-upof gnathopod Ill

I dactylshowing serrations;E, Urosomites 1-3(Barnard, 1967). II

incisor on left smooth, weakly toothed, on right strongly toothed, palp fully developed, thin plates equal. Inner I

plates of maxilliped small, outer plates medium. Palp about 1.5x as long as medial edge of outer plate. Coxae

I-4 subquadrate, even boader than long. Gnathopods simple, moderately stout, propodus of both gnathopods Ill

about as long as carpus. Carpus not lobate, dactyls normally claw-shaped, with 1-2 inner teeth. Pereopods II

simple. Urosomal dorsal teeth absent. Telson scarcely elongate, partly cleft.

Remarks. 6 species, i

Pardaliscella symmetriea Barnard, 1959

Figure 2.42 I

Pardaliscella symmetrica Barnard, 1959b: 41-42, figure 4. J

II

Material Examined. Reported from this study, but not supported by collections.

Description (from Barnard, 1959b). Female 5 mm. Inner plate of maxilla 1 represented by a small l1

bump bearing an apical seta. Antenna 1 slightly longer than antenna 2. Epimeron 3 with sharp posteroventral II

tooth at comer. Telson cleft less than 50 percent of its length.

Remarks. The description of P. symmetrica is incomplete. This species is closely allied with P. J

yaquina Barnard, 1971 and upon detailed examination of the types, may prove to be the same species. We g

received 1 small juvenile from the study area, which was inadequate for species confirmation.

Type Specimen and Locality. AHF No. 5715, female, 5 mm. Station 4873, off Newport, California, I

33°30'36"N, 117°47'58"W, green silt, I74 m.

i

Distribution and Habitat. Oregon to southern California, 92-1749 m. I

66 I
U

i

Ii ,/

,N

II

_1 Figure 2.42. Pardaliscellasymmetrica,male, 3ram; Lateralview (fromBamard,1959).

I ?PardalisceUa yaquina Barnard, 1971

i Figure 2.43

?Pardaliscella yaquina Barnard, 1971: 60-63, figure 39.

!

Material Ex_ned. Santa Maria Basin, California, Sta. PJ15, 155 m, (1 specimen), Sta. R3,

I 409 m, October 1986, (1 specimen), Sta. PJ1,145 m, May 1987, (1 specimen). Description (modified from Barnard, 1971). Urosomite 1 and 2 each with very small mid-dorsal

tooth. Pleonal epimera 1-3 with sharp posteroventral tooth, largest on epimeron 2. Uropods stubby, stout.

t Telson cleft about 60 of length.

percent

Remarks. Only urosomite 1was produced into a weak triangular, mid-dorsal process, inour specimens.

i See remarks TypeoSnpePc. symmetrica.

imen and Locality. Holotype female, 3.3 mm. Station 11, 44°38.6_, 125°50.0%V,400 m.

Distribution and Habitat. Oregon to southern California, 145-409 m.

It

I Princaxelia Dahl, 1959

I Type Species. Princaxelia stephenseni Dahl, 1959, original designation.

Diagnosis (from Bamard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum small. Eyes present. Ratio of peduncular

i arti longer cles than onantenna article 1--9:5:2, 3 of peduncle, base of article primary2 flagell of peduncle um withshort. callynophore Accessoryin male flagellum , articlepresent. I of flagellum Mouthparts much

forming quadrate bundle below head. Upper lip weakly and asymmetrically incised. Mandibles slightly

N asymmetrical, lower lip coalesinciso ced. rMaxilla on left al 1,mpalpost expanded smooth, onapically. right weakl Maxilla y toothed, 2 well pal developed, p fully developed. plates equal.InnInner er lobes lobesof

of lower lip coalesced. Inner plates of maxilliped small, outer plates large; palp more than 3 times as long as

I medial edge of outer plate. Coxae 1-4 quadrate, alike, even, broader than long. Gnathopods simple, stout,
.

!

A c |

!

!

• j

it

l

. I

i

i

ii

i

ii

Figure 2.43. Pardaliscella 4; E, Head; F, ?yaq Gnathopod uina, female, 2; G, Gnathopod 3.3 mm; A, 2,Pereopod 5; B, Pereopod 6; C, Pereopod 7; D, Pereopod i

close-up of dactyl; H, Antenna 2; I, Gnathopod 1; J,

Antenna t; K, Telson; L, Epimera 2 and 3, urosomites with close-ups of uropods (from Barnard, 1971).

I
!

i article 6 of both gnathopods much shorter and narrower than article 5, carpus with broad, shallow lobe,

dactyls normally claw-shaped, without inner teeth. Pereopods simple. Urosomal teeth strong. Telson

t elongate, deeply cleft. Remarks. 3 species.

I Prineaxelia sp. A

i Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 63,930 m, (3 specimens).

Description. Dorso-ventrally flattened. Antenna 1, article 1 flat and wide. Coxae very short.

Gnathopod 1 and 2 similar, carpus inflated, almost twice as wide as propodus. Uropods elongate. Uropods

I 1 and 2 lanceolate, sparsely spinose along outer edge of peduncle and outer ramus. Uropod 3not ornamented,

rami lanceolate, foliose. Telson not tapering from base.

m Remarks. The material we examined was limited to 3 specimens and was inpoor condition, therefore

I we are hesitant to give this anew species designation or include it in the key. Two of the species inthis genus

have Pacific distributions, but have not been recorded as far east or north as California. Our specimens do

not appear to be any of the currently described species.

I Distribution and Habitat. Santa Maria Basin, California, 930 m.

I RhynohaliceIla Karaman, 1974

Type Species. Halicella halona Barnard, 1971.

I Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum well developed. Eyes absent. Ratio of

peduncular articles on antenna 1= 30:10:9, base of primary flagellum with callynophore, article 1of flagellum

_l much longer than article 3 of peduncle, article 2 of peduncle short. Accessory flagellum present. Mouthparts

II styliform, forming conical bundle below head. Upper lip evenly incised. Mandibles symmetrical, incisors

smooth, palp represented by tubercle with 2 setac. Inner lobes of lower lip separate. Maxilla 1, palp not

i expanded plates large. apically. Maxilliped Maxillapalp2 repre onlysasentedlongbyassing medial le eloedge ngateofplate. outer Inner plate. plCoxae ates of1-4maxilliped softly subtriangular absent. Outeror

trapezoidal, weakly diverse, broader than long. Gnathopods simple, of medium stoutness, propdus of gnathopod

l more 1 muchbroadly longerlobate, than carpdactyls us, carpus normally withclaw-shaped, short, broad, without shallow inner lobe. teeth. GnathoPereopods pod 2 simpsimple. le, carpuUrosomal s elongateteeth and

strong. Telson elongate, deeply cleft.

i Remarks. monotypic genus.

RhynohaliceUa halona (Barnard, 1971)

I Figure 2.44

i Halicella halona Bamard, 1971: 56-60, figures 35-37. Rhynohalicella halona: Karaman, 1974: 33.

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase II, Sta. R3,409 m, October 1988,

i (2 specimens).

!
!

!

C

!

D

!

Figure 2.44. R_haticetla halona,male,5.6 ram; A,Telson;B, Lateralview (notethequadratebundleformingthe

mouthpartsandthe dorsalspineonurosomite2);C, Umpod 2;D, Uropod3;E, Uropod 1;F,Gnathopod i

1(note theproximalspinoseprotrusion)(fromBamard,1971). II

!

Description (from Barnard, 1971). Male 5.6 mm. See diagnosis of the genus. Mandibular palp

vestigial. Maxilla 1 with small, conical, 1-articulate palp. Posterior margin of gnathopod 1, propodus deeply

excavate and defined by proximal spinose protrusion. Epimeron 1 posteroventrally rounded, epimera 2-3 J

with weak posteroventral tooth. Urosomite 2 with posteriorly directed tooth reaching almost to insertion of

telson. Urosomite 3, with weak mid-dorsal tooth. Telson elongate, cleft three-quarters of its length. I

g

Remarks. This study yields the first documented records from California waters.

200 m. Type Specimen and Locality. USNM No. 127128, male, 5.6 mm. Station 21, 44°39. I'N, 124°36.3 "N, B

l

Distribution and Habitat. Oregon and southern California, 200-409 m.

I

I

|
!

I Family Phoxocephalidae Sars, 1895

i Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum visor-like or absent. Ventral cephalic

cheek weak or absent. Antenna 1, article 3 short. Antenna 2, article 4 with facial spines. When rostrum

t reduced or absent, facial spines occurring on article 4 of antenna 2 or articles 4-5 of pereopods 5-6. Right incisor broad and 3+ toothed (generally only Tipimeginae more than 3 toothed). Mandibular palp, article 3

with only 0-2 sets of outer setae closely contiguous on opposite faces, never in serial ranks, apex bevelled, all

other setae dominantly apical. Molar, if triturative, cup-shaped, otherwise spinose and simple. Inner plate of

I never pointed, never more fully setae, other setae apical or absent. Coxae

maxilla 1 with than 2 medial

regular. Pereopod 5 with facial spines on articles 4-5. Pereopod 7 distinct from pereopods 5-6, much shorter

than 6, article 2 broadly expanded in free, plate-like lobe. Epimeron 1well developed. Peduncles of pleopods

I longer than wide. Rami ofuropods 1-2 styliform. Uropod 3 biramous. Telson deeply cleft.

Remarks. 68 genera, 263 species. This family is fraught with taxonomic problems: the distinctions

i among genera axe not clearly defined, and many specific descriptions are incomplete. Two primary characters used in separating genera include the presence or absence of a displaced spine and/or an inter-ramal spike,

on uropod 1. The placement of these spines is difficult to visualize, and often hard to interpret, particularily

i when only one character is present. Another characteristic used to distinguish genera deals with the presence

of an ensiform process on antenna 2. We have found this character inconsistent within the Rhepoxynius and

Harpiniopsis. Unfortunately, we have been forced to use some of these characters in this key, for lack of

better information. With limited numbers of specimens and time, we have not been able to address these

I difficulties but have tried document in the material examined. Characters

adequately, to variability we we

found to be conservative, include the shape and setation patterns of the epimera.

I Key to the Phoxocephalidae of the Santa Maria Basin

I 1A. Rostrum constricted (Figure 2.45) .............................................................. (Rhepoxynius) 2

I Figure 2.45 __"

I

1B. Rostrum unconstricted ..................................................................................................................... 6

!

2A. Pereopod 7, posterior margin with 2-4 large teeth or cusps, margin otherwise smooth .................. 3

i 2B. Pereopod 7, posterior margin without large teeth, margins with many small to medium serrations ..

......................................................................................................................................................... 4

i 3A. Pereopod 7 with 3-4 large cusps .................................................................... Rhepoxynius variatus

3B. Pereopod 7 with 2 large, irregularly shaped cusps ................................. Rhepoxynius bicuspidatus

I 4A. Uropod 3, inner ramus short, less than half the length of outer ramus (female only) ........................

....................................................................................................................... Rhepoxynius daboius

I 4B. Uropod 3, inner ramus at least half as long as outer ramus (both sexes) ........................................ 5

I 71
I

i

5A. Pereopod 7, article 2 with 4-5 medium teeth; epistome rounded, without cusp .................................

Rhepoxynius heterocuspidatus I

II

5B. Pereopod 7, article 2 with 9 small teeth or serrrations; epistome with a long, sharp cusp .................

...................................................................................................................... Rhepoxynius menziesi I

6A. Antenna 2, article 1 with ensiform process (sometimes small and weak) (Figure 2.46) ................ 12

!

6B. Antenna 2, article 1 without ensiform process ................................................................................. 7 l

7A. Urosomite 1 and 3 with dorsal processes; eyes absent ...................... Leptophoxus falcatus icelus I

7B. Urosomite 1 and 3 without dorsal processes; eyes present ............................................................. 8

II

8A. Epimeron 3 posterior margin asetose ............................................................................................... 9 I

8B. Epimeron 3 posterior margin with setae ......................................................................................... 10 l

i

9A. Maxilla 1, palp 1-articulate; gnathopod 1 palm nearly transverse (Figure 2.47) ................................

....................................................................................................................... Metaphoxus frequens l

II

Figure 2.47 ")_ I!

9B. Maxilla 1, palp 2-articulate (Figure 2.48b); gnathopd I palm oblique (Figure 2.48a) .......................

....................................................................................................................... Paraphoxus oculatus g

t

Figure2.48 _ _ _1_ I

c I

!
!

I 10A. Epimeron 3 posteroventral comer rounded with 2-3 short setae, ventral margin setose; gnathopods 1-

2 palms, nearly transverse to transverse ......................................................................................... II

i 10B. Epimeron 3 postemventml comer bluntly angled with 6-9 long basofacial setae on lateral flange; epimeron 2 ventral margin with 4-6 setae; gnathopods 1-2, palms oblique .............. Eyakia robusta

I 11A. Epimeron 3 posterior margin with 2 short setae; Epimeron 2, ventral margin with 6 setae; gnathopod

1-2 palms weakly transverse ................................................................ Cephalophoxoides homilis

i 1lB. Epimeron gnathopod 3,1-2posterior palms strongly margin with transverse 3 short(Figure setae; 2.49) Epimeron ............................ 2 ventral margin Parametaphoxus with 1 or fewerfultoni setae;

I Figure 2.49

i 12A. Pereopod 7, article 2 anteroventral margin with 7-12 long plumose setae ....... (Pseudharpinia) ....... 13 12B. Pereopod 7, article 2 anteroventral margin without setae ............................................................... 14

I 13A. Head with dorsal crest; Pereopod 7, article 2 anteroventral margin with 10-12 long plumose setae

.................................................................................................................. Pseudharpinia excavata

I 13B. Head without dorsal crest; Pereopod 7, article 2 anteroventral margin with 7 plumose setae .........

.......................................................................................................................... Pseudharpinia sp: 1

I 14A. Eyes present ................................................................................................................................... 15

14B. Eyes absent ................................................................................................. (Harpiniopsis) ......... 16

I 15A. Cephalic lobe with acute, downward projecting tooth; epimeron 3 posteroventral comer produced

upward into a large tooth ............................................................................ Heterophoxus oculatus

I Cephalic lobe without downward projecting tooth (cheek may project forward slightly); epimeron 3

15B.

posteroventral comer rounded, or acuminate, but without tooth ................. (Foxiphalus) ............ 22

I 16A. Lower comer of cephalic lobe acuminate, produced forward ........................................................ 17

16B. Lower comer of cephalic lobe bluntly angular, rounded ................................................................. 20

,!

17A. Epimeron 3, ventral margin with concave sinus; pereopod 7 posterior serrations increasing in size

i distally, culminating in 2 large teeth ............................................................. Harpiniopsis profundis

17B. Epimeron 3, ventral margin without sinus; pereopod 7 posterior serrations small to moderate in size,

I approximately equal in size over entire margin ............................................................................... 18

i 18A. Cephalic lobe, lower comer reaching article 3 of antenna 2; ensiform process on antenna 2 strong, acute; head sometimes with a dorsal crest ..................................................... Harpiniopsis fulgens

18B. Cephalic lobe, lower comer reaching article 1 or 2 of antenna 2; ensiform process on antenna 2

I weak, small; head never with a dorsal crest ................................................................................... 19

i 73
!

it

19A. Epimeron 3, posteroventrat margin bluntly angular; rostrum short, wide, and blunt ........................... g

........................................................................................................................ Harpiniopsis naiadis

19B. Epimeron 3, posteroventral margin acuminate, upturned; rostrum long and narrow .......................... I

......................................................................................................................... Harpiniopsis gaIera t

20A. Epimeron 3 with tooth, posteroventral comer acuminate ............................................................... 21 I

20B. Epimeron 3 without tooth, posteroventral comer rounded ....................... Harpiniopsis epistomata

!

21A. Epimeron 3, posterior margin vertical, with long acuminate tooth postero-ventratly extending 1/4 of

the way up the pereon, ventral margin with 5 setae ............................................ Harpiniopsis sp. 2 I

21B. Epimeron 3 posterior margin angled slightly, with very long acuminate tooth posteroventrally extending I

midway up the pereon, ventral margin asetose ................................................ Harpiniopsis emeryi

22A. Peduncle of umpod 1 with displaced apicomedial spine (Figure 2.50) ........................................... 23 I

Figure 2.50 _ I

lira

22B. Peduncle of uropod 1lacking displaced apicomedial spine ............................. Foxiphalus golfensis I

23A. Epistome, cusp prominent, sharp ..................................................................................................... 24 !

23B. Epistome, cusp weak or lacking ...................................................................................................... 25

!

24A. Cusp of epistome large (Figure 2.51); gnathopod 2, article 5 line more than half length of article 6;

epimeron 2 with 8 basofacial setae ...................................................................... Foxiphalus similis

24B. Cusp of epistome small to medium; gnathopod 2, article 5 3/4 length of article 6;epimemn 2 with 4 i'

basofacial setae .............................................................................................. Foxiphalus cognatus

25A. Epimera 2-3, posterior and ventral margins densely setose (Figure 2.52); rostrum not extending I

beyond antenna 1, article 2 .................................................................................. Foxiphalus major

lira

\ ,/ I. ,i_:1j J/ I

"\ :., ' _;

Figure 2.52 \ I

'_ \' I
!

I 25B. Epimera 2-3, posterior margin moderately setose, ventral margin scarcely setose (Figure 2.53); rostrum

extending beyond antenna 1, article 2 .......................................................... Foxiphalus obtusidens

I

! -_

I

Cephalophoxoides Gurjanova, 1977.

i Type Species. Phoxocephalus bassi Stebbing 1888, original designation.

I artic Diagnosis (from Barnardand Karaman, 1991). Rostrum unconstricted. Eyes present. Antenna 1, le 2 short, ventral setae confined apically. Antenna 2, article 1 not ensiform, article 3 with 2 facial

setules, facial spines on article 4 in2+ rows, all spines thick, article 5 short. Right mandibular incisor with 2-

I 3article teeth,3rigoblique. ht laciniaInnermoplate bilis bi offimaxill d, flabea l1late, without molarsetae, riturpalp ative.1-articulate. Palpar humpMaxillipeds small to medi ordinary, um, aapex pex oofpalp fpalp,

article 3 not strongly protuberant, dactyl elongate, apical nail distinct. Gnathopods dissimilar, gnathopod 2

I strong 2 similar ly enlarged, but cryptic, carpus palms of gnoblique athopodor1trofaord nsverse inary tolength, chelate, free,propodus with weakofeusirid gnathopods attachme1 nordinary t, of gnathtoopthin, od

rectangular, often elongate, of gnathopod 2 broadened, both poorly setose anteriorly. Pereopods 3-4, article

I distally, 5 with posteroproximal articles 4-5 of pereopods setae, artic5-6lenarrow. 6 with thin Pereopod armamen 7 ordina ts. rPey,rarticle eopod 35ordinary, , article 2dactyl broad,ordinary. but oftenEpimeron tapering

3 ordinary or rounded and smooth, bearing 0-8 long setae. Peduncle of uropod 1 without major displaced

I suropod pine, rami 1 wiofthuro 1 ropwodofs 1-2marngoinal t constinpineuosusl . Inne y spinr roasemustoofapeux,ropod withou2 ordt subapi inary.caUl rosppoineds 3oronai rdinary, ls, inner ramiremlousngeofr

than peduncle, outer ramus 2-articulate, with 2 apical setae. Telson ordinary to long, with or without

i supernumerary Remarksla.teral8 ospecies. r dorsal setae.

I Cephaiophoxoides homilis OBarnard, 1960)

Figure 2.54

I Phoxocephalis homilis Barnard, 1960: 301, plate 49-50.

Cephalophoxoides homilis: Gurjanova, 1977: 81.

I Basin, California, I, 4, m, September 1984,

Material Examined. Santa Maria Phase Sta. 393

(11 specimens).

i Description (from Barnard, 1960). Female 2.75-4.0 mm, male 3.0 mm. Eyes with well developed lenses. Gnathopods with enlarged terminal articles, propodus of each longer than broad. Pereopod 5, article

2 broadly expanded. Uropod 1 with rami slightly unequal. Pereopod 6 not elongated. Pereopod 7, lobe of

II article 2 expanding distally. Epimeron 3 nearly straight behind, smooth except for setules. Uropod 2 with

w slender spines on peduncle and outer rarnus.

i 75
!

A !

!

Figure 2,54. Cephalophoxoideshomilis,male, 3 mm; A,Gnathopod2;B, Epimera 1-3(fromBamard, 1960). i

II

Remarks. Our specimens have 2-3 setae on the posterior margin of epimeron 3, none on the ventral •

margin, 6-7 setae on the ventral margin of epimeron 2, and gnathopod 2 is weakly transverse.

i

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 5311, female, 4 mm. Station 2293-53, SW of i

Newport, California, 33°30'00"N, 117°57'57"W, 461 m. II

Distribution and Habitat. Monterey to San Cristobal Bay, Baja California, 62-2059 m, but generally

180-365 m. 1

m

Eyala'a Barnard, 1979b

m

Type Species. Parharpinia calcarata Gurjanova, 1938, original designation. I

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum unconstricted. Eyes present. Antenna 1, i

article 2 of medium length, ventral setae widely spread. Antenna 2, article 1 not ensiform, article 3 with 2

facial setutes, facial spines on article 4 in 2+ rows, plus special apical spines, all spines thick, article 5 ordinary.

Right mandibular incisor with 3 teeth, right lacinia mobilis bifid, flabellate, molar not triturative, pillow shaped, •

with 3-4+ splayed spines, one of those very large. Palpar hump small, apex of palp article 3 oblique. Inner l

plate of maxilla 1 with 4 setae, palp 2-articulate. Maxillipeds ordinary, apex of palp article 3 not strongly

protuberant, dactyl elongate, apical nail distinct. Gnathopods dissimilar, gnathopod 2 moderately to strongly m

enlarged, gnathopod 1, carpus of ordinary length, but short on gnathopod 2, without eusirid attachment, palms l

oblique, propodus of gnathopods 1-2 ordinary or ovatorectangular, and weakly elongate, poorly setose anteriorly.

Pereopods 3-4, article 5 with posteroproximal setae, article 5 with thick armaments. Pereopod 5, article 2 I

broad, but tapering distally, article 4-5 of pereopods 5-6 narrow. Pereopod 7 ordinary, article 3 ordinary, l

dactyl ordinary. Epimeron 3 ordinary, bearing 3 or more long setae. Uropod 1, peduncle without major

displaced spine, rami of uropods 1-2 not continuously spinose to apex, without subapical spines, inner ramus /

of uropod 1 without 1 row of marginal spines. Inner ramus of uropod 2 ordinary. Uropod 3 ordinary, outer n

ramus 2-articulate, with 2 apical setae. Telson ordinary.

Remarks. 5 species, i

Eyakia robusta (Holmes, 1908)

Figure 2.55 i

Paraphoxus robustus Holmes, 1908: 518-521, figure 27.--Barnard, 1960: 235-237, plate 25. ii,

Eyakia robustus: Barnard, 1979a: 375-376.--Bamard and Barnard, 1981: 305-309, figure lm, w, y. |

Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase II, Sta. R5, 154 m, October 1986, (1 m

specimen). l

76 !
!

I Description (modified from Barnard, 1960). Female 8-15 mm,

male 6.5-12 mm. Head broad, rostrum long, blunt, not recurved. Eyes

I small. with apical Bodyspine. narrow.Gnathopods Epistome no1-2, t produced. article 5Maxilliped shorter thanpalp, 6, article article 46

rather slender, palm oblique. Pereopod 5 slender, article 6 longer than 5.

I PPereopod ereopod 67,slender, article article 2 moderately 2 prolonged slender, conically extending at distal downposterior to the middle comer.

of article 4, strongly convex on lower edge, with approximately 9 minute

I teeth. Uropod 1, upper edge of peduncle with slender, long setae, outer ramus with 2, inner ramus with one stout spine. Uropod 2, upper edge

of peduncle with crowded, long stiff setae, outer ramus bare, inner with

I 3 stout spines. Uropod 3, inner ramus about one-half as long as outer

Figure 2.55. Eyakia robusta,

ramus, article 2 of outer ramus very slender and about one-sixth as long female, 10 mm; Epimeron 3 (from

as article 1, otherwise stout. Third epimeron posterior edge slightly Bamard, 1960).

i concave, which lower comer armed with a large, blunt tooth, the upper edge of

continues as a setose flange onto the lateral surface of the epimeral plate. Telson broad, apices blunt,

each armed with 3 long spines.

I posteroventral Remarkscomer . Thisof epimeron species is 3.readi Thely setose distingflange uished onfromepimeron others 3inisthealsogenus distinctive. by the large tooth on the

Type Specimen and Loeallty. Holotype USNM No. 38547, 1 male and I female, 8 mm. Station

I 4304, off Pt. Loma, California, 46 m. Distribution and Habitat. Inner Aleutian Islands to Bahia de San Quintin, Baja California, 4-221

m, mainly concentrated in 55-100 m and associated with the brittle star Amphiodia urtica (Barnard, 1960).

I Also found swimming at the surface of the neritic zone.

i Foxiphalus Barnard, 1979a

Type Species. Pontharpinia obtusidens Alderman, 1936, original designation.

I Diagnosis (from Bamard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum unconstricted. Eyes Antenna 1, present.

article 3 elongate, ventral setae narrowly to widely spread. Antenna 2, article 1 ensiform, article 3 with 2

facial setules, facial spines on article 4 in 2+ rows, spines thick, article 5 ordinary. Right mandibular incisor

I with 3 teeth, right lacinia mobilis bifid or simple, thin. Molar not triturative, with 4+ splayed spines. Palpar hump medium, apex ofpalp article 3oblique. Inner plate of maxilla 1with 4 setae, palp 2-articulate. Maxillipeds

ordinary, apex of palp article 3 not strongly protuberant, dactyl elongate, apical nail distinct. Gnathopods

I ordinary, small, similar, carpus of ordinary length to elongate, free, palms oblique, pmpodus ovatoreetangular, poorly setose anteriorly. Pereopods 3-4, article 5 with posteroproximal setae, article 6 with thick armaments.

Pereopod 5, article 2 broad, pereopods 5-6, articles 4-5 medium to narrow. Pereopod 7 ordinary, article 3

I ordinary, dactyl ordinary. Epimeron 3 ordinary, bearing 3 or more long setae. Peduncle of uropod 1, with major displaced spine apicomedially or not, rami of uropods I-2 not conspicuously spinose to apex, without

subapical spines or nails, inner ramus of uropod 1 with I row of marginal spines. Uropod 2, inner ramus

I ordinary. Uropod 3 ordinary, one of rami not longer than peduncle, outer ramus 2-articulate, with 2 apical setae. Telson with supernumerary lateral or dorsal spines (in adults or open sea forms).

Remarks. 9 species. There are some confusing synonomies within this group that need to be

I addressed more thoroughly.

!

I 77
!

m

Foxiphalus cognatus (Barnard, 1960) 1mum

Figures 2.50, 2.56

/

Paraphoxus cognatus Barnard, 1960: 233-235, plate 24.--Barnard, 1969: 219-222. I

Foxiphalus cognatus: Barnard and Barnard, 1982a: 24-26.

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 94, 96 m, November 1983, (1 I

specimen).

Description (from Barnard, 1960). Male 4-4.7 mm. Head rather broad and short, rostrum tapering n

evenly anteriorly, rostrum reaching middle of antennae 1, article 2. Eyes large, oval. Epistome produced, m

acute but rather short, variable. Maxillipedal palp article 4 with an apical spine. Gnathopods, carpus much

shorter than propodus, the latter rather slender in gnathopod 1, stouter in gnathopod 2, palm oblique. Pereopod I

5 moderately slender, articles 4-6, successively more slender and longer. Pereopod 6 slender, article 2 with

posterior ventral comer slightly produced and rounded broadly. Pereopod 7, article 2narrow, extending more

than midway along article 4, its lower edge rounded, sweep point near distal end of article 3, posterior edge n

with about 9 minute teeth, rest of appendage slender, article 6 longer than 5. Uropods 1-2, apices of rami

each bear a short, articulated spine. Urosomite 1with lateral setule at base ofuropod 1. Uropod 1 with a few

long peduncular spines, the distalmost being the stoutest, rami with small spines. Uropod 2 with short, I

crowded spines on peduncle, outer ramus with 4 small spines, inner ramus with one. Uropod 3, inner ramus II

as long as article 1, outer ramus about one-fifth as long as article 1. Third epimeron, posterior edge nearly

straight, lower comer sub quadrate, lower posterior edge with 4 stiff setae. Telson broad, apices broadly i

rounded, notched laterally, each notch with 1 to 3 short spines. I!

Remarks. Barnard and Barnard (1982a) state that "E cognatus has a smaller epistomal cusp and

stouter displaced spine on the molar" than F.similis (Bamard, 1960) and a longer 5th article of the gnathopods I

(Bamard, 1969). The Bamards' (1982a) redescription of the holotype differs from the original in several

features, particularily the dimensions and setation of the telson. Our material has a sharp, moderately sized

epistomal cusp, pereopod 7, article 2 has 3 minor serrations, epimeron 2 with a single posterior seta, and 3

subfacial setae, epimeron 3 rounded, with 3-4 setae on the ventral margin, and a linear posterior margin, with 1

5 setae.

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 5114, male, 4 ram. Station 2047-51, Emerald

Cove, Santa Catalina Island, California, dip net.

Distribution and Habitat. Dillon Beach, California, to Bahfa de Los Angeles and La Paz in the

Gulf of California, in coarse shell sand, surface to 324 m. i

.,, |

!

Figure 2.56. Foxiphalus cognatus, male, 4 mm; A, Pereopod 7; B, Head with 3 variations of the epistome; C, n

Epimeron3 (fromBamard, 1960).
!

I Foxiphalus golfensis (Barnard and Barnard, 1982)

Figure2.57

I Paraphoxus obtusidens Barnard, 1960: 249-259, plate 33-37 (in part-especially plate 33: figure g, plate

37(=AHF 677); not other parts and Alderman, 1936.

I Foxiphalus golfensis Barnard and Barnard, 1982a: 28-30, figure 3 part.

Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 64, 59 m, (3 specimens).

I Description (from Barnard, 1982a). mm, 4.4-5.2 mm. Eyes

Barnard and Female 7.4-9.1 male

medium to large. Rostrum unconstricted, broad, elongate, exceeding middle of antenna 1, article 2. Epistome

slightly produced, triangular anteriorly. Pereopod 7, article 2, broadly ovate posteriorly, almost reaching apex

I of article 4, serrated and (11 serrations), smaller notches each with short

laterally ventrally ventrally, a seta,

medial apex of article 6 weakly combed, beating 3 weak digital processes. Urosomite 1 with lateral setule at

base of uropod. Uropod 1, peduncle without displaced spine.

I Remarks. There are several partial synonomies here which are a bit confusing, see Barnard, 1979,

page 133. The species differs from all others in the genus by the "setosity of the ventral margin on article 2

i of pereopod 7" (Barnard and Bamard, 1982a). We observed pereopod 7, article 2, posterior margin with 3

teeth and short setae, ventral margin with 7 small serrations, 5 of which bear a long single seta. This

character may prove valuable in separating this species from congeners. Although the presence or absence

of digital processes and "combing" on pereopod 7, article 6 may be of diagnostic importance (Bamard, 1960),

I it is difficult character

a to See.

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 379, female, "n", 9.13 ram. Mexico, Gulf of

i CaliforniaD, offlsla Ildefonso, 91 m, on sand and shell. istribution and Habitat. Pt. Conception, California to Baja California, Mexico and Costa Rica,

0-91 m.

I

B

!

I Figure 2.57. Foxiphalus golfensis, female, 8.5 ram; A,Uropod 1;B, Epimera 2-3; C, Pereopod 7 (fromBamard,

1960).

i

!

I 79
.

Foxiphalus major (Barnard, 1960) i

Figure 2.58

Paraphoxus obtusidens major Barnard, 1960: 259-261, plate 32. I_

Foxiphalus major: Barnard and Barnard, 1982a: 12-14, figure 1 (part).

Material Examined. Reported from this study, but not supported by collections, i

Description (from Barnard and Barnard, 1982a). Female 12-17.5 ram, male 6.7-17 mm. Rostrum 1

unconstricted, elongate, broad, tapering to narrow apex, slightly exceeding apex of article 3 on antenna 1. II

Eyes small. Epistome unproduced. Pereopod 7, article 2 reaching middle of article 4, posterior edge with 4

small serrations, medial face with numerous scattered setae, medial apex of article 6not combed, bearing 7+ •

digital processes especially strongly spinose. Epimera 2 and 3 alike in form, epimera 3 margins very setose. I

Uropod 1 without ventral or lateral setule at base, peduncle with a large, displaced spine. Telson usually

glandular. ii

Remarks. Though very similar to E obtusidens (Alderman, 1936), the latter species is usually I_

much larger. "The following points are useful in distinguishing large adults from P. obtusidens: 1) broad

fourth and fifth articles of pereopod 7; 2) the more hemispherical lower edge of article 2, pereopod 7; 3) [I

broader pereopod 5, article 4 being much broader than 5; 4) similarity of second and third epimera, and more I

dense setation; 5) a somewhat stouter fifth article of pereopods 3-4; and 6) more numerous and different

forms of spines and setae on uropods 1-2" (Barnard, 1960). We observed only one, sparsely setose, damaged I

specimen, but it was not identifiable as E major. I

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 3816, female 17.5 mm. Station 888-38, near the

mouth of Salinas River, Monterey Bay, California, 36°44'30"N, 121°49'30"W, sand bottom, 18-23 m. i!

II Distribution and Habitat. Oregon to Bahia Blanca, Baja California, on coarse sand, 0-91 m, in

cold water or upwelling south of Pt. Conception, California.

I

_) IJ Z I,,,,

, ' ..'_i ' _::. "" .r' ..../_[/ '';" I

!

Figure 2.58. Foxiphalusmajor,female;Epimera 1-3(fromBamardandBarnard, 1982a).

!

Fox/p_/us obCus/dens (Aldermam, 1936)

Figures 2.53, 2.59 I

Pontharpinia obtusidens Alderman, 1936: 54-56, figures 1-13, 19.

Paraphoxus obtusidens major: Barnard, 1960: 249-259, plate 33-37 ( in part, not P.major and not plate 33: I

fig. F, G, or plate 36: fig. G-K, P, or plate 37.

Foxiphalus obtusidens: Barnard and Bamard, 1982a: 4-12, figure 1 (part).

I

|
!

!

I C fA

I

I

I Figure 2,59. Foxiphalusobtusidens;A, Epistome;B, Pereopod 7,male, 5 mm;C, Epimeron3; A andC, female,6

ram. (fromBamard,1960,plate35).

I

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 79, 98 m (1 specimen).

i of antennaDescription. 1, article 2. Female Eyes medium. 5.6-15.0Pereopod re_m,male7,5.7-7.0 article ram. 2 reaching Head apex broad, of elongate, article 4, posterior almost reamargin ching awith pex

6 small serrations, medial apex of article 6, very weakly combed, bearing 2 weak digital processes. Urosomite

i 1 with lateral setule at base of uropod 1. Uropod 1, peduncle with enlarged, displaced spine. Remarks. This species exhibits a great deal of phenotypic variation in the number of spines on

pereopod 3 and 4, setosity of epimeron 2, degree of ensiformity on antenna 2 (Barnard and Barnard, 1982a),

i and in the shape of the epistome. The specimen that we examined agreed fairly well with Barnard (1960), figure 35, in characters such as pereopod 7, and epimeron 3. On uropods 1-3, both rami are bare midway to

the distal tip.

i Type Specimen and Locality. Holotypes USNM, female 9 mm, male 5 ram. Kelp holdfasts, Moss Beach, California.

Distribution and Habitat. Pacific: Kuril Islands, Okhotsk Sea, Alaska, common from California to

i Columbia, on sand and in tide pools, 0-210 m. For detailed phenotypic and geographic information see

Barnard and Barnard, 1982a.

i Foxiphalus similis 0Barnard, 1960)

Figures 2.51, 2.60

i Paraphoxus similis Barnard, 1960: 230-233, plates 22, 23.

Foxiphalus similis: Barnard and Barnard, 1982a: 19-23.

i Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase IT,Sta. PJ20, 148 m, October 1986, (3

specimens).

i Female 3.5-4.0 male 3.5-4.51 Head broad, short, almost of Description. ram, ram. reaching apex

antenna 1, article 2. Eyes medium. Cusp of epistome huge, massive, pointed, bluntly. Pereopod 7, article 2

almost reaching middle of article 5, posterior margin with 9 small serrations, medial apex of article 6 not

i combed, bearing 5+ digital Urosomite 1 with lateral setae, but without ventral seta. Uropod 1

processes.

with enlarged displaced apical spine.

I

i 81
!

!

"_...

. 'l

., \, \,_ /

. _ ,

I

Figure 2.f_. Foxiphalussimilis, male; Epimera 1-3(fromBamard andBamard, 1982a).

I

Remarks. The male variant from Alaska differs from the normal E similis in several characters

including a "more upswept posteroventral tooth of epimeron 3, presence of 2 more spines on each lobe of the l

telson, even shorter article 2 on outer ramus of uropod 3, narrow spread of setae on coxae 1-3, and stronger

spine on urosomite 1 at base of uropod" (Barnard and Barnard, 1982a). The specimens we examined exhibited

the following characteristics: pereopod 7, article 2, extends almost to the end of article 5, posterior margin

with 8 medium serrations, ventral margin smooth with few setules. Epimeron 3, posterior margin, slightly

tapering (not straight), with 7 posterior setae and 6 ventral setae. Epimeron 2 with tuft of 7-10 ventral facial

setae. I

Type Specimen and Locality. AHF No. 5310, female, 3.75 mm. Station 2292-53, off Huntington

Beach, California, 33°35'30"N, 118°05'30"W, fine mud, 110 m. m

Distribution and Habitat. Aleutian Islands to southern California, 30-324 m, often associated with

Rhepoxinius bicuspidatus (Barnard, 1960) and the brittle star Amphioda urtica (see Barnard, 1960). Also

caught in plankton nets. 1

Harpiniopsis Stephensen, 1925

I

Type Species. Harpiniopsis simiIis Stephensen, 1925. I

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum unconstricted, head often with antennal m

tooth. Eyes absent. Antenna 1, article 2 short, ventral setae weakly ventral or almost confined apically. II

Antenna 2, article 1, not or weakly ensiform, article 3 with several facial setules, facial spines on article 4 in

1 main row, spines thin, article 5 ordinary to short. Right mandibular incisorwith 3-4 teeth, right lacinia mobilis •

bifid or simple, flabellate or thin, molar not triturative, with 2+ splayed spines. Palpar hump small, apex ofpalp II

article 3 oblique. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with 2 setae, palp 2-articulate. Maxillipedal inner plates poorly

armed, thick, apex of palp article 3 not strongly protuberant, dactyl stubby, apical nail distinct, elongate. •

Gnathopods ordinary, small, similar, or gnathopod 2 weakly enlarged, article 5 of gnathopods 1-2 short, free to I

cryptic, palms oblique, propodus ordinary to thin, ovatorectangular to elongate, poorly setose anteriorly.

Pereopods 3-4, article 5 with posteroproximal setae, article 6 with thin armaments. Pereopod 5, article 2 ii

narrow, article 4-5 of pereopods 5-6 narrow. Pereopod 7 ordinary (often with spike teeth), article 3 enlarged, |

dactyl ordinary. Epimeron 3 variable, ordinary or rounded, bearing approximately 3 long setae. Peduncle of

uropod I without major displaced spine, rami of uropods 1-2 not continuously spinose to apex, without subapical /

spines or nails, inner ramus of uropod 2 ordinary. Uropod 3 ordinary, one of rami longer than peduncle, outer •

ramus 2-articulate, with 0-2 apical setae. Telson ordinary or with supernumerary lateral or dorsal setae.

Remarks. 27 species. II

|
!

I Harpiniopsis emeryi Barnard, 1960

Figure 2.61

I Harpiniopsis emeryi Barnard, 1960: 334-336, plate 69.

I Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 108, 492 m, January 1984, (1 specimen).

Description (from Barnard, 1960a). Female 4.25 mm. Lower comer of head very slightly produced.

I Epistome not produced. Pereopod 7 small, article 2 not broad, lower posterior edge with 2 small teeth.

very

The lower comer is formed by 2 larger teeth. Epimeron 3 with a very long upturned tooth at the lower

posterior comer.

I Remarks. To date, no male has been described. "This species closely resembles H. galera

Bamard, 1960 but differs in the very elongated tooth of the third pleonat epimera" (Barnard, 1960). We

examined a second specimen with characteristics very close toll. emeryi, but with slight variations (pereopod

I a single posteriorly process no serrations, on epimeron 3not as distinct

7 with directed and other and the tooth

as in H. emeryi). Whether this represents intraspecific or interspecific variation is unclear, given the small

sample size.

I Type Specimen and Locality. AHF No. 549, ovigerous female, 4.25 mm. Station 2632, Newport

Beach, 33°31'58"N, 117°55'57"W, sandy gray-green mud,421 m.

I Distribution and Habitat. Oregon and southern California slopes and basinsto middle Baja California, 344-2800 m.

i

I

|,.

I Figure 2.61. Harpiniopsis emeryi, female, 4.5 mm; A,Epimera2 and3;B, Pereopod7; C, Headwith antenna2 (fromBamatd, 196O).

I

Harpiniopsis epistomata Barnard, 1960

I Figure 2.62

i Harpiniopsis epistomatus Bamard, 1960: 326-328, plates 62, 63.--Bamard, 1966a: 85.

Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase, I, Sta. 35,548 m (numerous specimens).

I

I 83
I

!

!

!

Figure 2.62. Harpiniopsis epistomata, female, 3.75 ram; A, Head with epistome (stippled); B. Pereopod 7; C. I

Epimera1-3(fromBamard, 1960). |

Description (from Barnard, 1960). Female 3.5 mm, male 3.0-3.25 mm. Head with lower corner

unproduced. Epistome produced into a long, acute process. Pereopod 7, article 2 rounded below, produced E

down to the end of article 4, posterior edge with 1-2 small distal serrations. Rest of appendages normally I

setose. Epimeron 3 linear, oblique, lower comer rounded.

Remarks. Epimeron 3 is fairly distinctive in this species, and used in conjunction with the produced i

epistome, provides adequate information for specific identification.

Type Specimen and Locality. AHF No. 5314, female, 3.5 mm. Station 2229-53, Long Pt., Santa i

Catalina Island, 33°36'00"N, 118°13'57"W, sandy clay, gravel, rocks, 805 m. |

Distribution and Habitat. Oregon and southern California slopes and basins to middle Baja California,

371-1626m. i

Harpiniopsis fulgens Barnard, 1960

Figure 2.63 '1

Harpiniopsisfulgens Barnard, 1960: 332-334, plate 67, 68. i

I

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 15,393 m, (2 specimens).

Description (from Barnard, 1960). Female 3.0-10.5 mm. Head rather short, strongly and acutely

produced at lower comer, sometimes with a slight dorsal crest. Epistome not produced. Pereoped 7, article

2 produced down to end of article 3, posterior edge with 5-6 shallow teeth on the distal edge only. Rest of

appendage normally setose. Epimeron 3, posterior edge almost straight, prolonged into a large, blunt process, i

Remarks. This species exhibits some variation in the shape of epimera 3, grading from a blunt

process into a definite tooth like that in H. similis. They differ in that H. fulgens has spines on the rami of

uropods 1 and 2 and a much longer article 6 of pereopod 6 (Barnard, 1967). With further study, the two i

species may prove to be synonymous (Barnard, 1960). The Phase I material agreed well with the literature

on H. fulgens, although in our specimens, pereopod 7, article 2, extends all the way to the end of article 4,

with 4 teeth on the posterior margin. B

Type Specimen and Iamality. AHF No. 5315, female, 3.75 mm. Station 2306-53, south of Pt.

Fermin Light, California, 33°36'07"N, 118°18'00"W, clay and mud, 393 m. n

Distribution and Habitat. Oregon to Baja California, slopes and basins, 128-2667 m. i

i

84 !
I

I

I

i

F_e 2.63. HarpiniopsisfMge_, female, 32mm; A,Head;B,Epimera l-3 (fromBamard, 1960).

I Harpiniopsis galera Barnard, 1960

I Figure 2.64

Harpiniopsis galerus Barnard, 1960: 336, plate 70-72.

i Harpiniopsis galera: Bamard, 1966a: 85.

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Sta. R2, 16I m, May 1987, (19 specimens).

I produced.DesEpistome cription (from not produced. Bamard, 1960 Pereopod ). Fema7,learticle 2.0-32mm, produced male 3.5downmm.toLtheowerndcomer of article of head3, posterior scarcely

edge quite variable in configuration, with 4-8 shallow teeth. Rest of appendage slender and with normal

, setation. Epimeron 3 with moderately large, slightly upturned tooth. Urosomite 1bears aposterolateral spine

on each side.

Remarks. This species differs from H. emeryi in the shorter tooth of pleonite 3 and the more

I nepimeron umerous 3andhadbetter 2 setaedeveloped in our specimens, posterior rather teeth of thanpereopo the 1dfigured 7 (Barnard, by Bamard. 1960). The posterior margin of

Type Specimen and Locality. AHF No. 5316, female, 2.5 mm. Station 2436-53 SE of Long Pt.,

I Santa Catalina Island, California, 33°20'00"N, 118°18'00"W, sandy mud and clay, 80.5 m.

Distribution and Habitat. Southern California, 80-549 m, possibly Oregon, 2800 m.

l

,!

!

Fi_e 2.64. Harpini_psisg_1era_fema_e'3mm;A_Epimera2and3;B'Epimera3c_se-up;C,Pere_x_7;D_Head

i (fromBaman5,1960).

I 85
!

I

Harpiniopsis naiadis Barnard, 1960 •

naiadis Bamard, 1960: 336-339, plate 73. i

Harpiniopsis

Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 33,396 m, (1 specimen). •

Description (from Barnard, 1960). Female 2.75-3.0 mm. Lower corner of head with a short, 1

pointed cusp. Epistome not produced. Pereopod 7, article 2 produced down to the end of article 3, posterior

edge with 4 small teeth. Epimeron 3 with an oblique posterior edge, prolonged to form an acute process at the •

lower corner.

Remarks. Male unknown. Barnard 1971, strongly suggests that this may be a synonym of H. i

fulgens, the two species being separated by only slight differences in highly variable characters, including the i

degree of prolongation of epimeron 3, (in H. naiadis the prolongation is usually blunt and weak, whereas in

H. fulgens it is sharp, and moderately long), the size of the cephalic tooth (H. naiadis has a weak cephalic

tooth while H. fulgens has a strong tooth) and the length of spines on uropod 2, peduncle (they are slightly •

more elongate in H. fulgens). 1

Type Specimen and Locality. AHF No. 5317, female, 2.75 mm. Station 2344, Santa Catalina

light, 33°19'54"N, 118°14'20"W, sandy mud, gravel, rocks, 384 m. 1

i

Distribution and Habitat. Oregon to middle Baja California, 339-2800 m.

Harpiniopsis profundis Barnard, 1960 I

Figure 2.65 li

Harpiniopsis profundis Barnard, 1960: 330, plate 66.--Barnard, 1966a: 86, figure 40.

i

Material Examined. Reported from this study, but not supported by collections. I

Description (from Barnard, 1960). Female 3.6-4.5 mm, male 4.8 mm (variant). Lower corner of •

head with a medium-sized process. Epistome not produced. Pereopod 7, article 2 produced down to the end 1

of article 4, distal posterior edge oblique and armed with about 8 teeth, which increase in size distally, the last

2 large. Third epimera with lower posterior corner strongly produced, i

Remarks. The male is known only from 2 variant juvenile specimens, exhibiting a somewhat 1

broader posterior lobe on pereopod 7, article 2, with a more truncated oblique ventral margin bearing shallower

teeth, and uropod 1, rami lacking spines. The specimens reported from deep water are a bit different from 1

their freshwater counterparts (Barnard, 1960). We had only 1 specimen reportedly of this species, probably

a juvenile, which could not be positively identified. Our specimen exhibited the following characters: Pereopod

7, article 2, extends only midway along article 4, with truncate posteroventral notch. Pereopod 6 enlarged. •

Epimeron 3, without hook, posterior margin angular, not produced. 1

Type Specimen and Locality. AHF No. 548, female, 4.5 mm. Station 2850, west of Catalina

Island, 33°14'00"N, 118°18'04"W, green mud, 1135 m. 1

Distribution and Habitat. Southern California to middle Baja California, 385-2398 m.

!

!
I

I

I °

'

I

!

I Figure 2.65. Harpini_psispr_fundis_fema_e_4.5mm;A_Head;B_Epimer_n3;C_Pere_pod7(fr_mBamard__96_).

I Harpiniopsis sp. 2

Figure 2.66

I Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase II, Sta. R3, 409 m, May 1987, (2

specimens).

/ Description. Lateral cephalic lobe rounded, not produced. Pereopod 7 rounded, article 2 extending less than half-way along article 4, posterior margin with 4 large teeth and several minor serrations. Epimeron

3 with long upturned tooth, posterior margin vertical.

I Remarks. Our material was limited to 2 good specimens. Epimeron 3 had a granular appearance.

Distribution and Habitat. Santa Maria Basin, California, 409 m.

I

I B

I

Figure 2.66, Harpiniopsissp.2,female?; A,Epimera2and3,noteverticalposteriormargin ontheformer; B,Head;

_ C, Pereopod7.

[ _
!

I

Heterophoxus Shoemaker, 1925 •

Type Species. Harpinia ocufata (Holmes, 1908), original designation, i

I

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum unconstricted. Eyes present. Antenna 1,

article 2 short, ventral setae widely spread, but almost conf'med apically. Antenna 2, article 1 strongly i

ensiform, article 3 with many facial setules, facial spines on article 4 in 1 main row, spines thin, article 5 very l

short. Right mandibular incisor with 4+ teeth, rightlacinia mobilis bifid, flabellate, molar not witurative, with 3

basally fused spines. Palpar hump medium, apex of palp article 3 oblique. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with 2 •

setae, palp 2-articulate. Maxillipedal inner plates partly fused, poorly armed, apex of palp article 3 not I

strongly protuberant, dactyl not elongate, but apical nail distinct. Gnathopods small, similar, article 5 of

grtathopods 1-2 very short, without eusirid attachment, almost cryptic, palms oblique, propodus of gnathopods •

1-2 ovatorectangular, elongate, poorly setose anteriorly. Pereopods 3-4, article 5 with posteroproximal setae, |

article 6 with thin armaments. Pereopod 5, article 2 narrow, articles 4-5 of pereopods 5-6 narrow. Pereopod

7 of ordinary size, article 3 enlarged, dactyl ordinary. Epimeron 3 ordinary, bearing 3 or more long setae, i

Peduncle of uropod I without displaced spine, rami ofuropods 1-2 continuously spinose to apex, or not, inner l

ramus ofuropod 1 with 1 row of marginal spines. Inner ramus of uropod 2 ordinary. Uropod 3 ordinary, one

of rami longer than peduncle, outer ramus 2-articulate, with 2 apical setae. Telson ordinary or with in

supernumerary lateral spines, i

Remarks. 6 species.

Heterophoxus oeulatus (Holmes, 1908) 1

Figure 2.67 i

i

Harpinia oculata Holmes, 1908: 521-523, figure 28.

Harpinia affinis Holmes, t 908: 523-524, figure 29. •

Heterophoxus pennatus Shoemaker, 1925: 22-26, figure 1-3. 1

Heterophoxus oculatus: Barnard, 1960: 320-324, plates 59-61.

Heterophoxus oculatus, forma nitelIus Barnard, 1960: 325, plate 61, figure A-E i

i

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase II, Sta. R4, 92 m, May 1987, (32

specimens).

Description. Female 4-9 mm, male 5.5-7.5 nun. Eyes large, renal shaped in male. Third pleonal 'l_

epirneron with a moderate to long tooth. Pereopod 7, article 2 not reaching to end of article 4. Pereopod 7,

article 2, with sharp, pointed teeth. Uropods with numerous plumose setae (male only). 1

Remarks. One of the distinguishing features of this species is the large ensiform process on the

peduncle of antenna 2. Pereopod 7, article 2, of our specimens had a lobate ventral margin with numerous

serrations and plumose setae. Article 2 extended nearly to the end of article 4. The eyes in the females 1

consist of a thin linear band of large ommatidia at the rear margin of the head.

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype USNM No. 38548, female 8 mm. Station 4342, Coronado

Island, Mexico, 97-121 m. 1B

Distribution and Habitat. Alaska to Bahia Honda, Panama and Costa Rica, rocky intertidal, on

silts with rare exception, 2-1941 m, in shallow water in Baja California, but most common from 95-366 m. I

,.!

88 I
|

I

| A

-3t_

|

- B

I

!

!

Figure 2.67. Heterophoxus oculatus, male, 5 mm; A, Pereopod 7 with close-up of dactyl; B, Epimera 1-3 and

I uropods (fromShoemaker,1925).

I Leptophoxus Sars, 1895

Type Species. Phoxusfalcatus Sars, 1883.

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum unconstricted, but downmmed. Eyes

absent. Antenna 1, article 2 short, ventral setae confined apically. Antenna 2, article 1 not ensiform, article

i 3 with 2 facial setules, facial spines on article 4 in 1 ragged row, all spines thin, article 5 ordinary. Right , mandibular incisor with 3 teeth, right lacinia mobilis bifid, thin, molar not triturative, with 3 basally fused

spines. Palpar hump sinai1, apex of palp article 3 truncate. Inner plate of maxilla 1 without setae, palp 1-

i articulate. Maxiltiped plates feeble, apex of palp article 3 strongly protuberant, dactyl elongate, apical nail distinct. Gnatholxxts, dissimilar, gnathopod 2 strongly enlarged, gnathopod 1-2, carpus very short, with eusirid

attachment, cryptic, palms oblique, propodus of gnathopod 1ordinary, ovarectangular, of gnathopod 2 broadened,

both poorly setose anteriorly. Pereopods 3-4, article 5 without posteroproximal setae, article 6 with thin

I armaments. Pereoped 5, broad, pyriform, ofpereopods narrow. Pereopod ordinary,

article 2 articles 4-5 5-6 7

article 3 ordinary, dactyl ordinary. Epimemn 3 rounded, bearing 3 or fewer long setae. Urosomite 3 with

dorsal hump. Peduncle of uropod 1 with no major displaced spine, rami of uropods 1-2 not continuously

I spinose to inner ramus of uropod 1 with 1 row of marginal spines. Inner of 2 ordinary.

apex, ralnUS uropod

Uropod 3 ordinary, one of rami longer than peduncle, outer ramus 2-articulate, second article elongate, with

2 apical setae. Telson elongate.

I Remarks. monotypic genus.

I I

1
|

Leptophoxusfalcatus icelus Barnard, 1960 I

Figure 2.68

Phoxus falcatus Sars, 1883: 84. .I

Leptophoxusfalcatus: Sars, 1895: 147-148, plate 50.--Barnard, 1960: 308.

Leptophoxus falcatus icelus Barnard, 1960:308-311, plate 53, 54. Ii

Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 50, 591 m, (3 specimens).

1

Description. Both sexes 2.5-4.0 mm. Rostrum distinctly carinate and recurved into a hook. See 1

diagnosis of genus.

n

Remarks. This species is fairly distinctive, based on the shape of the rostrum and the presence of 1

a hump on urosomite 3. |

Type Specimen and Locality. AHF No. 5313, female, 3.75-4 mm. Station 2413-53, Long Pt.,

Catalina Island light, 33°30'00"N, 118°10'00"W, muddy clay, 375 m. •

Distribution and Habitat. Atlantic Ocean from Greenland, Norway, North Sea, Bohusl_.n, and the

Skagerrak; Pacific from southern California slopes andbasins, to Baja California, muddybottoms, 56-2258 m

(rare in California). I

I

'

!I,

- i

Figure 2.68. Leptophoxusfalcatus, female;Lateralview. (fromBamardand Karaman, 1991). •

II

Metaphoxus Bonnier, 1896

Type Species. Phoxus simplex Bate, 1857a. II

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum unconstricted. Eyes present. Antenna 1, 1

article 2 short, ventral setae confined apically. Antenna 2, article 1 not ensiform, article 3 with 2 facial

setules, facial spines on article 4 in 2+ rows, all spines thin, article 5 short. Right mandibular incisor with 3

teeth, right lacinia mobilis bifid, flabellate, molar not triturative, with 1conical fused spine. Palpar hump small, 1

apex of palp article 3 oblique. Inner plate of maxilla 1 without setae, palp 1-articulate. Maxillipedal plates

small, poorly armed, apex of palp article 3 not strongly protuberant, dactyl elongate, apical nail distinct.

Gnathopods large, similar, but gnathopod 2 weakly to strongly enlarged, gnathopods 1-2, carpus very short, II

cryptic, palms oblique, propodus of gnathopods 1-2 ovarectangular, elongate or broadened, poorly setose

anteriorly. Pereopods 3-4, article 5 without posteroproximal setae, article 6 with thin armaments. Pereopod

5, article 2 broad, pereopods 5-6, articles 4-5 narrow. Pereopod 7 ordinary, article 3 ordinary, dactyl ordinary. I

90 |
!

i Epimeron 3 rounded, bearing 3 or fewer long setae. Peduncle of uropod 1 without major displaced spine,

rami of uropods 1-2 not continuously spinose to apex, without subapical spines or nails, inner ramus of uropod

I than 1withpeduncle, 1 row ofouter marginal ramusspines. 2-articulate, Inner with ramus2 medium of uropodto 2vestigial ordinary. apical Uropod setae.3 Telson ordinary, ordinary one ofbut rami elongate. longr

Remarks. 5 species.

I Metaphoxus frequens Barnard, 1960

I Figures 2.47, 2.69

Metaphoxusfrequens Bamard, 1960: 304-306, plate 52.

I Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Sta. 13, 197 m, December 1984, (1 specimen).

Description (from Barnard, 1960). Female 2.5-3.5 mm. Maxilliped with inner plate rather narrow

i and armed apically with one long seta, the base of which is as wide as the plate. Gnathopods 1-2 with palm oblique, not chelate in appearance. Gnathopod 1, propodus twice as long as broad, anterior and posterior

edges parallel. Pereopod 7 with that part of the appendage distal to article 3, short in relation to article 2.

I Remarks. Barnard (1960) claims that M. frequens can readily be distinguished by the elongate

propodus of gnathopod 1, however this seems to be a feature common to species in several genera. Gnathopod

e,. 2 is variable (Barnard, 1960). Our specimen has nearly transverse gnathopods (contrary to the generic

._i diagnosis), epimeron 3 is devoid of all setae, and epimeron 2 bears 2 basofacial setae.

il

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 5312, female, ovigerous, 3 ram. Station 2294-

i 53, SSE Di ofsNewp tributioonrt, Calif andornia, Habita3t.3°33'56"N, Pacfic from117°52'00"W, Oregon to fiIslane muIsabel, d andMexico, clay, 86onm.sand, 4.3-458 m.

'

!

.!

i Figure 2.69. Metaphoxusfrequens,female,3 ram;A,Head;B,Gnathopod2; C,Epimera2-3 (fromBamartL1960).

I Parametaphoxus Gurjanova 1977

i Type Species. Phoxocephalus fultoni Scott, 1890, original designation.

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum unconstricted. Eyes present. Antenna t,

I articles 2 medium length, ventral setae conf'med apically. Antenna 2, article 1 not ensiform, article 3 with 2

facial setules, facial spines on article 4 in 1 row, all spines thin, article 5 ordinary. Right mandibular incisor

with 3-4 teeth, right lacinia mobilis unknown, molar not witurative, with 1basally fused spine. Palpar hump

I small, apex of patp article 3 oblique. Inner plate of maxilla 1 without setae, palp 1-articulate. Maxilliped

I 91
.

plates small, poorly armed, apex of palp article 3 not strongly protuberant, dactyl elongate, apical nail distinct. I

Gnathopods enlarged, dissimilar, gnathopod 2 weakly larger than 1, gnathopod 1carpus short, scarcely free,

of gnathopod 2 very short and cryptic, palms transverse-chelate to oblique respectively, propodus of gnathopods tl

1-2 elongate, broadened, poorly setose anteriorly. Pereopods 3-4, article 5 without posteroproximal setae,

article 6 with thin armaments. Pereopod 5, article 2 broad, pyriform, articles 4-5 of pereopods 5-6 narrow.

Pereopod 7 ordinary, article 3 ordinary, dactyl ordinary. Epimeron 3 rounded, bearing 3 or fewer long setae. 1

Peduncle of uropod 1 without major displaced spine, rami of uropods 1-2 not continuously spinose to apex, I

without subapical spines or nails, inner ramus of uropod I with 1 (or no) row of rnarginal spines. Inner ramus

of uropod 2 ordinary. Uropod 3 ordinary, one of rami longer than peduncle, outer ramus 2-articulate, with 0- •

2 apical setae (variable by sex, etc). Telson elongate. |

Remarks. 2 species.

Parametaphoxus fultoni (Scott, 1890) II

Figures 2.49, 2.70 i

i

Phoxocephalusfultoni Scott, 1890: 327-328.

Metaphoxusfultoni: Barnard, 1964b: 103, figure 18.--Karaman, 1973: 79-84, figures 18-20. II

Parametaphoxus fultoni: Gurjanova, 1977:81. l

Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 6, 109 m, January 1985, (8 I_

specimens), Sta. 65, 107 m, (1 specimen). l

Description (modified from Karaman, 1973). Female 2.3-3 mm. Eyes very large, round in both

sexes. Gnathopods semichelate, palms transverse. Epimera 2 with one plumose seta (contrary to genetic I

diagnosis). Uropod 1, both rami lacking spines or setae. Uropod 3, peduncle longer than inner ramus.

Female oostegytes elongate, with long, apical setae. Telson cleft three-quarters, gaping slightly.

Remarks. Specimens agree with Barnard (1964b), gnathopods strongly transverse, epimemn 3 E

with 3 short setae on the posterior margin, ventral margin bare, and epimeron 2, ventral margin with 1 seta.

Type Specimen and Locality. North Atlantic.

Distribution and Habitat. Mediterranean Sea including France, Italy and the Adriatic; Eastern I

Atlantic from England to Tunisia; Eastern Pacific from Monterey Bay, California, to Bahia de San Cristfbal,

Baja California, on muddy sand to fine gravel, 0-170 m.

I!

Paraphoxus Sars, 1895

Type Species. Phoxus oculatus Sars, 1879. i

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum unconstricted. Eyes present. Antenna 1, •

article 2 short, ventral setae almost confined apically. Antenna 2, article 1 not tapering, article 3 with 2 facial II

setules, facial spines on article 4 in 1 row, plus rudimentary row, some spines thick, some spines thin, article

5 short. Right mandibular incisor with 3 teeth, tight lacinia mobilis bifid, flabellate. Molar not tritumtive, with i

3 basally fused spines. Palpar hump smalI, apex of palp article 3 oblique. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with 2 |

setae, palp 2-articulate. Maxillipeds ordinary, apex of palp article 3 not strongly protuberant, dactyl elongate,

apical nail distinct. Gnathopods ordinary, small, gnathopod 2 weakly enlarged, carpus of gnathopod 1 of am

ordinary length, free, without eusirid-like attachment, of gnathopod 2 shorter and almost cryptic, palms oblique, I

propodus of gnathopods 1-2 ordinary, poorly setose anteriorly. Pereopods 3-4, article 5 with postemproximal

setae, article 6 with thin armaments. Pereopod 5, article 2 broad, articles 4-5 of pereopods 5-6 medium to 1

narrow. Pereopod 7 ordinary, dactyl ordinary. Epimeron 3 rounded, bearing 3or fewer long setae. Urosomite !

9: |
I

|

I

!

|

!

Parametaphoxusfultoni, ram; B, Gnathopod ;C, Gnathopod 2;D, Uropod

Figure 2.70. female, 3 A,Lateralview; 1

3;E,Uropod 2;F,Uropod 1;G,Telson;H,Pereopod7 (fromBarnard, 1964b).

,!

3 without dorsal hook. Peduncle of uropod 1 without major displaced spine, rami ofuropods 1-2 not continuously

I spinose Inner ramus to apex, ofuropod withou2t ordinary. subapical Uropod spines o3r ordinary, nails, innerramiramlonger us of than uropodpeduncle, 1 with 1outer row rofamus, marginal 2-articulate, spines.

with 2 apical setae. Telson ordinary, without supernumerary lateral or dorsal spines.

i Remarks. 2 species.

ParaphoxusFiguoculat res 2.48us, 2.7(Sars, 1 1879)

i Phoxusaraphoxus oculams oculatus Sars, : Sars, 1879:1895: 441. 149-150, plate 51 .--Chevreux, 1900: 34-36, plate 5, figure 5.--Bamard,

1960: 240-242, figure 27-28.--Karaman, 1973: 91-98, figure XXV-XXVIII.

i Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 25, 390 m, September 1984, (3

specimens), Sta. 82, 394 m, (4 specimens), Phase II, Sta. R2, 161 m, October 1986, (5 specimens).

I ar Description. Female 3-5 mm, male 4 mm. Eyes large, reniform in male. Maxilla 1, palp 2- ticulate. Epistome large. Pereopod 6 elongate, twice length of pereopod 7. Pereopod 7, article 2, lobe

extending to the end of article 4, posterior margin with numerous serrations. Uropod 3, inner ramus barely

I half the length of the outer in female. Remarks. Specimens from California are less than half the size of the Norwegian material (Bar nard,

1960). The literature did not consistently illustrate that pereopod 6 is twice the length of pereopod 7. In our

I
!

!

!

!

Figure 2.71. Paraphoxus ocutatus,female, 3 nun; A,Gnathopod 2, propodus anddactyl; B, Head; C, Epimera1-3

(fromKaraman,1973).

1

specimens, pereopod 6 was one and one-half to two times the length of pereopod 7, epimeron 3 was devoid

of setae, and epimeron 2 had 2 plumose setae on the anterioposterior corner, i

Type Speehnen and Locality. Norway.

Distribution and Habitat. Arctic Ocean; Atlantic: Greenland, Kara Sea, Norway, Iceland, East l_l

Greenland, British Isles; Mediterranean east to Tunisia, South Africa, Pacific from southern California to II

Galapagos Islands, Japan, commonly on mud or clay, 27-2398 m. In California, not shallower than 161 m.

Pseudharpinia Schellenberg, 1931 I

Type Species. Pseudharpinia dentata Schellenberg, 1931. B

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum unconstricted. Eyes absent. Antenna 1,

article 2 short, ventral setae widely spread. Antenna 2, article 1ensiform, article 3 with several facial setules, mE

facial spines on article 4 in 1 or 2 (weakly) rows, spines mostly thin, article 5 very short. Right mandibular

incisor with ?4 teeth, right lacinia mobilis ?bifid, flabellate, molar not triturative, with 4+ splayed spines.

Palpar hump small, apex of palp article 3 oblique. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with 2 setae, palp 2-articulate. :ll

Maxillipeds ordinary, apex of palp article 3 not strongly protuberant, dactyl stubby, apical nail distinct. ll

Gnathopods ordinary, small, similar, gnathopod 2 weakly enlarged, article 5 of gnathopods 1-2 short, free,

palms oblique, propodus of gnathopods t-2 thin, ovarectangular, poorly setose anteriorly. Pereopods 3-4, 1_

article 5 with posteroproximal setae, article 6 with ._thinarmaments. Pereopod 5, article 2 narrow, articles 4- I!

5 of pereopods 5-6 narrow. Pereopod 7 ordinary, article 3 enlarged, dactyl ordinary. Epimeron 3 ordinary,

bearing 3 or more long setae. Peduncle ofuropod 1 without major displaced spine, some rami of uropods 1- •

2 continuously spinose to apex, with subapical spines or nails, inner ramus of uropod 2 often with 2 rows of I

marginal spines. Inner ramus of uropod 2 ordinary. Uropod 3 ordinary, one of rami longer than peduncle,

outer ramus 2-articulate, with 2 apical setae. Telson ordinary or with supernumerary lateral or dorsal spines. Ill:

Remarks. 12 species. 1

94 N
!

I Pseudharpinia excavata (Chevreux, 1887)

Figure 2.72

I Harpinia excavata Chevreux, 1887b: 568-570.---Chevreux, 1900: 37-38, plate 6, figure 1.--Barnard, 1962d:

47-50, figures 37, 38.

I Harpiniopsis sanpedroensis Barnard, 1960: 328-330, plates 64, 65. Harpiniopsis excavata: Barnard, 1964a: 18-21, figure 16; 1966a: 85, figure 40 (part).--Bamard, 1967: 133-

134.

i Pseudharpinia excavata: Bamard and Karaman, 1991: 628-629.

Material Examined. Reported from this study, but not supported by collections.

I Description (modified from Bamard, 1962d). Female 4-8 1 imen 13 mm. Lateral cephalic

mm, spec

lobe produced forward, acuminate. Antenna 2, peduncle with large ensiform process. Epistome rounded,

not produced. Pereopod 7, article 2 produced down to the end of article 3 or 4, posterior edge smooth, lower

i oblique edge with about ten small serrations, anteroventral edge of article 2 expanded and bearing about 10-

15 large plumose setae. Epimeron 3 with a tooth at lower posterior comer. Uropods 1 and 2 very spinose.

I Remarks. Male unknown. P. abyssalis (Pirlot, 1932) may be confused with P. excavata, particularily in the juvenile stages (Bamard, 1960). All of the specimens we examined from this study probably represent

a new species of Pseudharpinia.

i Typ DistriebuSpecimen tion andandHaLoc bitat.ality.Eastern Fmale,Pacific coastOcean: of Finisterre, AlaskaSpain, to southern 363-510California; m. mid Atlantic

Ocean off Africa and Europe in deep basins, on green mud, 363-5110 m.

.!

!,

!

i Figure 2.72. Pseudharpiniaexcavata,female,5mm; A, Headwithclose-upof acuminatelaterallobe;B,Pereopod

7, notesetae on anteroventraledge;C, Epimeron 3 (fromBamard, 1960).

I Pseudharpinia sp. 1

I Figure 2.73

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 20, 396 m, 1984, (4 specimens),

i Phase II, Sta. R3,409 m, January 1987, (20 specimens).

i 95
!

I

A ,- : I

!

i i

I

I

I

Figure 2.73. Pseudharpinia sp. 1; A,Epimera 3;B,Pereopod 7. I

Description. Lateral cephalic lobe produced forward, acuminate. Antenna 2, peduncle with large I

ensiform process reaching to the end of article 2. Epistome rounded. Pereopod 7, article 2, posterior edge _

with 5-6 teeth, with short, sparse setae not extending past the edge of the teeth, and few serrations on ventral

edge, extending midway along article 4. Pereopod 7, anterior edge nearly straight and without setae, with 4- j

7 long plumose setae at anteroventral margin. Epimeron 3 with 1-4 setae midfacially forward and 2 small I

setae above the upturned tooth.

Remarks. In the specimens we examined, the serrations on the lower oblique margin of pereopod II

7, article 2 are very rounded, and appear to be larger than in P. excavata. Epimera 3 does sometimes bear II

a few setae posterodorsalty, however they are very tiny and difficult to see.

Distribution and Habitat. Santa Maria Basin, California, 396-409 m. I

Rhepoxynius Bamard, 1979b l

Type Species. Pontharpinia epistoma Shoemaker, 1938, original designation.

Diagnosis (from Bamard and Karaman, 1991). Rostrum constricted. Eyes present. Antenna 1, /

article 2 elongate to medium, ventral setae widely to narrowly spread. Antenna 2, article 1weakly ensiform,

m

article 3 with 2 facial setules, facial spines on article 4 in 2+ rows, all spines thick, article 5 ordinary. Right a_

mandibular incisor with 3 teeth, fight lacinia mobilis bifid or simple, thin, molar not triturative, with 4+ splayed II

spines. Palpar hump small, apex of pulp article 3 oblique. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with setae, palp 2-

I

articulate. Maxillipeds ordinary, apex of aplp article 3 not strongly protuberant, dactyl elongate, apical nail /

distinct, often weak. Gnathopods ordinary, small, similar, carpus of gnathopods 1-2 of ordinary length to 1

elongate, free, without eusirid-like attachment, palms oblique to transverse, propodus of gnathopods 1-2 I

ordinary to thin and elongate, poorly setose anteriorly. Pereopods 3-4, article 5 with posteroproximal setae,

i
!

i

II article 6 with thick armaments. Pereopod 5, article 2 broad, articles 4-5 of pereopods 5-6 broad to medium.

Pereopod 7 ordinary, article 3 ordinary, dactyl ordinary. Epimeron 3 ordinary, bearing 3 or more long setae.

i Peduncle spinose toofapex, uropodwithout 1withsubapical major disspines placed orspine nailsapic ,nner omedially ramus orof not, uropod rami1ofwithuropods 1 row1-2of not marginal continuspines. ously

Inner ramus ofuropod 2 ordinary. Uropod 3 ordinary, one rami longer than peduncle, outer ramus 2-articulate,

I with 2 apRical setae. Telson ordinary. emarks. 15 species.

I Rhepoxynius bicuspidatus (Barnard, 1960)

Figures 2.45, 2.74

i Paraphoxus bicuspidatus Barnard, 1960: 218-221, plate 15-16.

Rhepoxynius bicuspidatus: Barnard and Barnard, 1982b: 45-47.

i Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 21, 49 m, (6 specimens), Phase

II, Sta. PJ 16, 130 m, October 1986, (4 specimens).

I varying Description (from Barnard, 1960). Female 3.3-4.5 ram. Rostrum constricted anterior to the eyes, from medium length to long, apex broad. Eyes very small. Body broad. Antenna 2 with prominent

ensiform process. Epistome minutely produced anteriorly. Maxillipedal palp article 4 unmodified apically.

I Garticle nathopods 2 not broadly 1 and 2expanded, similar, articextending le 5 longer downward than 6,nearly the latter to therather endnofarrow, articlep4,almsweep transverse. point nearPereopod distal en7,d

of article 3, lower edge truncated and dipping anteriorly, article 2, posterior edge with two large teeth, one

I each spur. near Epimeron the dorsa 2 lacking l and vbasofacial entral edges, setae. the Uropod dorsal one1andvarying 2 withfromramiasshorter long tthan o mupeduncles. ch longer thanUropod the ventr 1withal

peduncle armed with about 4 medium-sized spines becoming slender proximally. Each ramus has a short

i produced marginal spine and beating and a terminal one seta.claw. Third epimeron, posterior edge slightly convex, lower corner scarcely

Remarks. The large teeth on pereopod 7, article 2 are distinctive to this species. Workers in

l Conalifornia (Cadien, personal communication) have also documented a variant of this form which has 2 spurs the posterodorsal margin of pereopod 7, and 1 on the posteroventral margin, and is found in depths less

than 20 m. The material we examined consisted only of the standard bicuspid form.

i Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype USNM No.

97307, female, 3.3 mm. Station 126-33, Santa Mafia Bay, Lower

California, 24°45'00"N, 112°13'30"W, 9-46 m.

i Distribution and Habitat. Monterey Bay, California, to

Bahia Santa Maria, Baja California, 28-475 m, often associated

with dense populations of the brittle star Amphiodia urtica

(Barnard, 1960), mainly at depths m, as as

from 55-92 but shallow

2 meters at San Quintin, Baja California.

!

I Figure 2.74. R hep oxyn i u s

bicuspidatus, female, 4 mm; Pereopod7,

I see remarksabove(from Barnard,1960).

I 97
!

|

Rhepoxynius daboius (Barnard, 1960) II

Paraphoxus daboius Barnard, 1960: 210-212, plate 10-11. i

Rhepoxynius daboius: Barnard and Barnard, 1982b: 30-32.

u

Material Examined. Reported from this study, but specimens unavailable. B

Description (from Barnard and Barnard, 1982b). Female 3.33-4.0 ram, male 2.0 ram. Head with

tenuous but rather broad rostrum. Eyes very small, in some specimens not visible. Epistome produced into III

a small, acute cusp. Maxillipedal paip article 4 apically simple. Gnathopod 1, article 5 much longer than 6,

with transverse palm. Pereopod 7, article 2 nearly as wide as long, extending down nearly to the end of g

article 4, sweep point atmiddle of article 4, lower edge truncated, posterior edge with 3-4 small teeth, articles Ill

4 and 5 rather stout. Uropod 2, 1-2 spines rather stout, each rarnus of each uropod with one spine, peduncle i

of uropod 1 with one marginal spine, of uropod 2 with 2 spines. Uropod 3 inner ramus less than one third as

long as outer, article 2 of outer less than one third as long as article 1. Third epimeron, posterior edge convex, im

lower comer slightly produced, bearing one seta. Telson rather slender, apices rounded, lateral notches each i

with 3 long setae.

Remarks. Bamard (1960) found a few specimens in California waters bearing characteristics of iI

both R. daboius and R. lucubrans (Barnard, 1960), blurring the distinction between the species and perhaps I

indicating that hybridization is occurring.

Type Specimen and Locality. AHF No. 536, female, 3.75 mm. Station 2227-53, Santa Catalina i

Island, 33°24'12"N, 118°20'01 "W,fine, dark green mud, 234 m. !1

Distribution and Habitat. Alaska to southern California coastal slopes, 77-813 m.

!

Khq_oxynius heCeroeuspida_ (B_n_t, 1960)

Figure 2.75 I

Paraphoxus heterocuspidatus Barnard, 1960: 224-226, plate 19-20; 196-197.

Rhepoxynius heterocuspidatus: Barnard and Barnard, 1982b: 38-42, figure 4, (part). i

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 64, 59 m (6 specimens).

Description. Female 3.75-6.85 mm, male 3.0-4.75 mm. Head with broad rostrum but constricted i

in front of eyes. Eyes small. Body rather broad and dorsally flattened. Epistome not produced, rounded in II

front. Maxillipedal palp article 4 with small apical spine and subterminal seta. Gnathopods 1-2, article 5

longer than 6, the latter moderately to very broad and expanding distally, palm scarcely oblique. Pereopod 7, l

article 2 generally rather broad, posterior edge of article 2 with 4-5 teeth of variable size, sweep point as far

as the apex of article 4, lower edge broad, scarcely dipping anteriorly and slightly convex, article 5 and 6

fmely combed, lacking digital processes. Uropods stout. .B

I Remarks. The near shore specimens differ from their open water counterparts in the spination

patterns on uropods and pereopods (Bamard, 1960). Pereopod 7, article 2 in our specimens varied slightly, am

extending from three-quarters to the entire length of article 4, the posteroventral margin lacked teeth, but i

medium sized teeth are present at the proximoposterior border of article 2. U

Type Specimen and Locality. AHF No. 539, ovigerous female, 4.2 mm. Station 2313-53, off Seal u

Beach, California, 33°42'06"N, I 18°05'22"W, brown sandy mud, gravel, 14 m. i

Distribution and Habitat. Pt. Conception, California, to Bahia de Los Angeles, Baja California, on

rock, in algae and corallines, sandy mud, and gravel, 0-146 m (only one specimen collected at 146 m). Ill

l

98 !
I

I

i

i

i

i

Figure 2.75. Rhepoxyniusheterocuspidatus, female;Pereopod7(fromBarnardand Barnard, 1982b).

!

Rhepoxynius menziesi (Barnard and Barnard 1982)

t Figures 2.46, 2.76

Paraphoxus epistomus Barnard, 1960: 205-209, plates 6-8.

I Rhepoxynius menziesi Barnard, 1982b: 8-10, figure 2 (in part).

Bamard and

Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase II, Sta. R8, 90 m, January 1988, (13

specimens).

Description (modified from Barnard and Bamard, 1982b). Female 3-7 mm, male 4-7 ram. Eyes

i medium. Rostrum contricted, narrow, and elongate reaching the middle of article 2 on antenna 1. Epistomal cusp long and sharp. Pereopod 7, article 2 reaching the middle of article 4, with 9 serrations, the medial apex

of article 6 finely combed and bearing 2 weak digital processes. Uropod 2 with approximately 4 basofacial

i setae onRemarks. the peduncleBarnard of uropodand2.Barnard Telson especially (1982b) separated long, withthiselospecies ngate apical (the west spinescoast in females. morph) from R.

epistomus (Shoemaker, 1938) (the east coast morph) on the basis of the elongation of apical telsonic spines

1 (in females) and the presence of four (approximately) basofacial setae on the peduncle of uropod 2 as

II opposed to 1 in R. epistomus. He removed three other morphs, R. lucubrans, R. hudsoni Barnard and

Barnard, 1982b, and R. species D, from R. epistomus and it remains to be determined whether they are all

valid species. In our specimens, article 2 of pereopod 7 extends to the midpoint of article 5 and there are numerous small teeth or serrations on the posterior margin extending down to the proximal comer. The

epistome is sharp and distinctive. Both males and females we examined had no visible ensiform process on

I• antenna Type 2. Specimen and LaeaUty. Holotype AHF 5322, female, 3.19 mm. southern California, 33°40 '

00"N, 118°05'08"W, 22 m.

I ma Distribution and Habitat. Southern California to Baja California, 10-90 m (when allR. epistomus terial is re-examined this range will undoubtedly be extended, its formerrange extending from Oregonto

Panama, 0-507 m).

!

m. 99
!

!

!

B |

!

Figure 2.76. Rhepoxyniusmenziesi,female, 5.5 mm;A,Pereopod7;B; Epimera 1-3(fromBarnard,1960). i

Rhepoxynius variatus (Barnard, 1960) i

Figure 2.77

Paraphoxus variatus Barnard, 1960: 198-202, plates 3-4. g

i

Rhepoxynius variatus: Barnard and Barnard, 1982b: 24-28, figure 4 (in part).

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 86, 197 m (1 specimen). I

i

Description (modified from Barnard, 1960). Female 3.2 - 4.75 ram, male 3-3.5 mm. Head broad,

rostrum slightly to moderately tenuous but bluntly rounded at apex, eyes medium in size. Epistome acutely 8

produced, very long and acute or rather stouter and more blunt. Maxilliped palp article 4 lacks apical spine. m

Gnathopeds 1-2, article 5 longer than 6, the latter narrow, palm transverse. Pereopod 7 variable, expansion of

article 2 as broad as long, its lower edge reaches nearly to the end of article 4, is truncated and dips anteriorly, Ill

sweep point at end of article 3, with 3-5 teeth on posterior edge, usually large. Epimeron 2 without basofacial II

setae. Third epimeron, posterior edge sla-aight,lower comer scarcely produced, setae sparse or absent on

posterior edge. Uropod 1 peduncle with 1-4 spines, rami each bearing a small apical submerged spine and 0- /

1 marginal spines. Uropod 2 upper edge of peduncle with 3-5 stout spines, inner ramus with or without a II

marginal spine. Apices of rami with small, often difficult to see submerged spines. Uropod 3 inner ramus

about one-fourth as long as outer or as much as one-third as long, article 2 of outer ramus about one-third as 1

long as article 1 or as little as one-sixth as long. Telson slender, apices acute or slightly rounded, each lateral I

notch with 2 setae.

Remarks. This species exhibits considerable variation in setosity and spinosity, thus the name

(Barnard, 1960). It can be distinguished from other species in the group by "the sharp epistomal cusp, lack of I

displaced medial spine on peduncle of uropod 1, and no other unusual characters such as spikes on pereopod

7 or urosome" (Barnard and Barnard, 1982b). Other characters of possible note include, the absence of _l

basofacial setae on epimeron 2, and the presence of larger teeth and serrations on pereopod 7, article 2, II

though these characters may be variable. The specimen we examined agreed with the type description in all

major characters, the 4 major cusps and straight ventral margin of pereopod 7, article 2, the transverse palm I1

of the gnathopods, and acute epistome probably being the most diagnostic features. I!

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 534, female, 3.2 ram. Station 2310-53, Long

Beach, California, 33°40'00"N, 118°10'00"W, sandy mud, 28 m. I

100 |
I

!

iii

C

A

!

II

!

!

!

Figure 2.77. Rhep_xyniusvariatus_fema1e_4mm;A_C__se-up_fgnath_p_d2sh_wingtransversepa_m;B.Epimera

i 2 and 3; C,Pereopod7; D,Gnathopod 2;E, Dorsal view of head (fromBarnard, 1960).

i Distribution and Habitat. California Bahia San 4-110 Monterey Bay, to Ramon, Baja California,

m, most abundant in < 37 m of water.

I Family Podoceridae Leach, 1814

I Diagnosis (modified from Bamard and Karaman, 1991). Corophioid with urosomite 1 elongate,

twice or more as long as urosomite 2. Abdomen flexed beneath thorax. Accessory flagellum variable, often

t carinate; absent. Body some posterior variable, pereonites broadly depressed or posterioror urosomites subcylindrical, occasionally occasionally fused rugose together.or Coxae weaklysmall, toothedusually and

discontiguous, occasionally splayed. Antennae very long. Maxilla 1usually reduced or absent. Pereopods 3-

I 7, article 2 usually rectolinear, rarely expanded on pereopods 5-7 without spines or processes. Coxal gills simple, 3-5 pairs, oostegites 3-4 pairs. Pereopods glandular or not. Pleopods with slender peduncle. Uropod

1 normal, uropod 2 variable, normal to absent. Uropod 3 always reduced or absent, with or without small

ramus. Telson Remarks. subcircular 11 genera, or ovate, 75 species. fleshy, often not very thick, occasionally fused to urosome.

!

!

i 101
!

Key to the Podoceridae of the Santa Maria Basin I

1A. Uropod 3 present, reduced ................................................................................ Podocerus cristatus N

1B. Uropod 3 absent ............................................................................................................................... 2

n

2A. Pereopods 3 and 4, article 2 expanded, oval; coxal gills on pereopod 3-5 .. (Dyopedos) ............... 3 1

2B. Pereopods 3 and 4, article 2, linear; coxal gills on pereopods 2-5 ............. Dulichia rhabdoplastis* 1

I

3A. Male and female coxa 1produced forward into a long tooth; eyes present withinlarge, lateral bulges;

pereopods 3 and 4, article 6 shorter than article 5 ............................................ Dyopedos arcticus* t

n

3B. Male and female?, coxa 1 without tooth; eyes not bulging laterally; pereopod 3 and 4, article 5 and 6

elongate, subequal in length ..................................................................................... Dyopedos sp. 1

i

Dulichia Krcyer, 1845 i

U

Type Species. Dulichia spinosissima Kr_yer, 1845 (see figure 2.78)

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Eyes large. Body subcylindrical, dorsally corrugated I

or provided with elevations of teeth or humps, or carinate. Rostrum short-to-long, thorn-like, or vertically

u

keeled, (in type species all of anterior head thrust into large keel), ocular lobes obsolescent, blunt, antennal

sinus weak to deep. Antennae long, 1 longer than 2, both slender. Antenna 1, peduncular article 3 much 1

longer than article I, articles 2-3 longest, accessory flagellum 2-3-articulate, main flagellar articles few. u

Antenna 2, peduncular article 3 short, flagellum with few articles. Epistome unproduced anteriorly. Upper lip mb

incised, broad, almost, bilobed, or rounded, entire. Mandible normal, palp strong, slender, article 3 rectolinear, I1

shorter than 2. Lower lip with entire outer lobes, with well-developed inner lobes, mandibular lobes long, J

pointed. Inner plate of maxilla 1 triangular, short, without setae, outer plate with 9 spines, palp 2-articulate.

Plates of maxilla 2 of ordinary width, inner ptate short, with mediofacial row of setae. Inner plate of maxilliped 1

with distal spines, outer plate normal, not reaching apex of palp article 2, with spines on medial margin, palp I

with 4 articles, article 2 long, article 3 unlobed, article 4 very short, with long nail and setae. Coxae very small,

short, serially discontiguous, of various sizes and shapes, spiniform, coxa 1dilated, produced forward, coxa 2 l_

larger than 1, often produced or dilated, coxa 4 not longer than coxa 1, not lobed posteriorly, coxa 5 as tong as m

or somewhat longer than 4, coxae 6-7 not much smaller than anterior coxae. Gnathopods 1-2 diverse,

gnathopod 2 much larger than 1, gnathopod 1 in male poorly subchelate, palm short, carpus longer and Ii

broader than propodus, poorly but broadly lobed. Propodus slender. Gnathopod 2 enlarged, subchelate, with _

basis dilated distally, carpus much shorter than propodus, lobed. Propodus dilated, sometimes with false

chela, dactyl long. Pereopods 3-4 normal, similar, with slender article 2, article 4 barely dilated, dactyls short. \_

Pereopods 5-7 elongate, similar to each other, progressively scarcely longer, with linear article 2, not prehensile, II

dactyls of pereopods 5-7 short, curved, with several inner marginal setae. Coxal gills present on segments 2-

5. Pleopods normal. Epimeron 3 ventrally sinuous. Urosome depressed, pereonite 1 very short, last 2 I

pereonites fused together, urosomites 2-3 coalesced, urosomite 1 elongate. Uropods 1-2 biramous, normal, II

rami slightly unequal, longer than peduncle. Peduncles of uropods 1-2 without ventrodistal process. Uropod

3 absent. Telson entire, longer than broad, ovate, almost naked. I_

R I! emarks. 5 species.

*Seeremarksandspeciesunderthesegroups. N

102 N
I

i

i

i

,

i Figure 2.78. Dulichia spinosissimaKxCyer1, 845(fromBarnardandKaraman,1991).

I Dulichia rhabdoplastis McCloskey, 1970

Dulichia rhabdoplastis McCloskey, 1970: 92-98, figures 1-18.--Laubitz, 1977: 946-947, figure 2. I

Material Examined. Reported from several stations in the Santa Maria Basin, but unsupported by

collections.

I Description(McCloskey, 1970). Female 3.3-4.5 mm, male 4-6.6.0 mm, Head shorter thanpereonite

1 and 2, spade-shaped from above. Rostrum extending forward, visor-shaped. Antenna 1 longer than body

i in male. Gnathopod 2, propodus with two large teeth on palm, the largest arising near the proximal joint and extending to level of base of the smailer distal tooth. Coxa small, smooth, without spines. Telson small, ovate.

Remarks. Key features aiding in specific identification within this genus, include the shape and

length of gnathopods, rostrum, and uropods. D. rhabdopIastis appears to be an obligate commensal with the

1 sea urchin Strongylocentrotusfranciscanus (Agassiz) (see McCloskey, 1970 and Laubitz, 1977). All five

Dulichia species are arctic or subarctic in distribution (Pacific and Atlantic), D. rhabdoplastis being the

I ofromnly species the SantacurreMafia ntly recorded Basin (2 from specimens) Californiwas a. Inot t isDulichia reported frorhabdoplas m the aretias., buAll t theofmaour terialspecimens we examined were

damaged and impossible to identify beyond genus.

I StrongylocType entrotus Specimen franciscanus and Locality. , San JuanHoClotyp hanneel,USWNMashington No. ,125663. 10 m Male, 4 ram, commensal on

Distribution and Habitat. Prince William Sound, Alaska to Monterey Bay, California, 3 to 25 m.

Dyopedos Bate, 1857

I Type Species. Dyopedos porrectus Bate, 1857b.

Diagnosis (from Bamard and Karaman, 1991). Eyes small-to-large. Body cylindrical. Rostrum

I short, ocular lobes barely visible, blunt, antermal sinus almost absent. Antennae long, 1 longer than 2, both

I 103
!

slender. Antenna 1, peduncular article 3 immensely longer than 1, article 3 longest, accessory flagellum 1-4 i

articulate, main flagellar articles few but elongate. Antenna 2, peduncular article 3 short, flagellar articles

few but elongate. Epistome unproduced anteriorly. Upper lip broad, fleshy, bilobed. Mandible normal, palp l

strong, slender, article 3 rectolinear, shorter than 2. Lower lip with entire outer lobes, with well-developed U

inner lobes, mandibular lobes long, blunt. Inner plate of maxilla 1 short, without setae, outer plate with 9

spines, palp 2-articulate. Plates of maxilla 2 rather broad, inner plate with only mediomarginal setae. Inner i_

plate of maxiiliped with distal spines, outer plate normal, not reaching apex of palp article 2, with spines and n

notches on medial margin, palp with 4 articles, article 2 long, aritcle 3 unlobed, article 4 short,with long setae.

Coxae very small, discontiguous, of various sizes and shapes, 1-4 approximately equal in size, occasionally

spiniform, coxa I produced forward, coxa 4 not longer than coxa 1, not lobed, coxa 5 somewhat longer than I

4, coxae 6-7 not smaller than anterior coxae. Gnathopods 1-2 diverse, gnathopod 2 much larger than 1,

gnathopod 1 in male poorly subchelate, almost simple, carpus long, almost linear, barely lobed, longer than _i_

propodus. Propodus slender, scarcely almond-shaped. Gnathopod 2, enlarged, subchelate or chelate, with I!

basis slender, carpus much shorter than propodus, lobed. Propodus dilated, sometimes with false chela, and

process on posterodistal margin, dactyl long. Pereopods 3-4 short, similar, with inflated article 2, article 4 iI

scarcely dilated, dactyls short. Pereopods 5-7 not elongate, similar to each other, sometimes progressively |

longer, with linear article 2, not prehensile, pereopod 6 usually shorter than and different from pereopods 5

and 7, with broader article 2, dactyl of pereopods 5-7 short, curved, smooth. Coxal gills present on segments I/

3-5. Pleopods normal. Epimeron 3 often bisinuate ventrally. Urosome depressed, smooth, pereonite I very |

short. Last 2 pereonites fused together. Urosomites 2-3 coalesced, urosomite 1 elongate. Uropods 1-2

biramous, normal, rarni unequal. Uropod 1,rami as long as peduncle. Uropod 2, rami longer than peduncle. I

Peduncle of uropods 1-2 without ventrodistal process. Uropod 3 absent. Telson entire, longer than broad, !1

ovate, almost naked.

Remarks. 9 species, i

Dyopedos areticus (Murdoch, 1885)

Figure 2.79 I

Dulichia arctica Murdoch, 1885: 521-522. il

Dyopedos arcticus: Shoemaker 1955: 69-70, figure 20.--Laubitz, 1977: 962-964, figure 11. II

Material Examined. Santa Mafia Basin, California, Phase II, Sta. R4, 92 m, May 1987 through _i

May 1988, (81 specimens), Sta. R6, 410 m, May 1987, (5 specimens). I

Description (modified from Laubitz, 1977). Female 5.9-10.5 mm, male 16.5- 20.0 ram. Eyes small

to large, bulging laterally, red in alcohol. Antenna 1, accessory flagellum 1-articulate. Coxa I produced l_

forward into a long tooth in male, smaller and produced ventrally in female. Coxa 2 of male with 2 ventrally II

produced teeth, 3-7 with one, less pronounced tooth. Gnathopod 1, carpus broad, longer than propodus.

Uropod 1, peduncle twice length of uropod 2, peduncle. Uropod 2, outer ramus about three-quarters length t

of inner ramus. U

Remarks. Our specimens agree well with Shoemaker (1955) in the following characters: coxa 1 ,_

with spiniform ventral process in male, (with small process in female), coxae 2 with 2 ventral spiniform

processes, coxa 3-5 with ventrally directed spines, eyes bulging laterally. The spiniform process on coxa 1 !

varies from straight to recurved. Several specimens from this study identified as D. monocanthus (Metzger,

1875) were actually D. arcticus supporting Laubitz's (1977) suggestion that many specimens identified from I

the west coast as D. monocanthus were misidentified and are probably D. arcticus.

Ill

l)_pe Specimen and Locality. Cotypes USNM No. 7899, 7900. Pt. Barrow, Alaska, on mud, 10

m |

|
!

i

i

i

!

I Figure 2.79. Dyopedosarcticus,female; A,Lateral view; B, Dorsal view ofhead; C, Gnathopod 1;D, Gnathopod 2 withclose-upof dactyl; E,Pereopod 5;F,Pereopod6;G. Pereopod 7;H-J, male; H,Lateral view; I,

Telsonand uropod t and 2; J, Gnathopod 2, propodus and dactyl (fromLaubitz, 1977).

I

Distribution and Habitat. Pan Arctic including Bering Sea, Baffm Island, Labrador, Gulf of St.

Lawrence, Grand Marian, Bay of Fnndy, Cape Cod; Pacific from Pt. Barrow Alaska to southern California,

I 9-410m.

i Dyopedos monacanthus (Metzger, 1875)

Dulichia monacanthus Metzger, 1875: 296.

I Dyopedos monacanthus: Sars, 1895: 638, plate 230.--Laubitz, 1977: 968-969, figure 15.

Material Examined. Reported from this study, but not supported by collections.

I Description (modified from Laubitz, 1977). Female 2.9-7.9 mm, male to 7.4 mm. Eyes large.

Antenna 1, accessory flagellum 3-articulate. Coxa 1of male produced forward into a long tooth, coxa 2 with

small tooth at anteroventral corner, coxa 3 and 4 bluntly pointed. Coxae of female small and without spines.

I Gnathopod 1, carpus not propodus subequal length. Urtx_d 1, peduncle more

broader than and in than twice

length peduncle of uropod 2. Uropod 2, outer ramus more than three-quarters length of inner ramus.

l Remarks. This species is reported from this study and has been recorded from the Pacific previously, however, its primary distribution is Atlantic. All specimens we examined were M. arcticus (see remarks

under this species).

l Dis Type Specimen and Locality. 5 mm. Skagerrak, 210 m. tribution and Habitat. Arctic Ocean, ?Chukchi Sea, and North Atlantic including Iceland, Gulf

of St. Lawrence, Bay of Fundy, Cape Cod, British Isles, Denmark, Norway, Skagerrak, Kattegat; Pacific:

I ?nto oalgae, rthernhydroi California, ds, and(abryozoans, Pacific distributi on sandon-gravel, is questitoonable, silt clay, see12remarks -217 m.forM. arcticus), often found clinging

i 105
!

Dyopedos sp. 1 i

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase II, Sta. R6, 410 m, May 1987, (5 I

specimens).

Description. Eyes present, but not bulging laterally. Pereopods 3 and 4, article 5 and 6 elongate,

subequal. Coxa small, coxae 3 and 4 with ventrally produced spine. Uropods long and spinose. Uropod 2, II

outer ramus almost three-quarters length of inner ramus, apical spines long.

Remarks. Most of the appendages were missing on our specimens, but visible characters and a l[

J

survey of the literature, suggest this is a new species. m

Distribution and Habitat. Santa Mafia Basin, southern California, 410 m. I

i

Podocerus Leach, 1814

i

Type Species. Podocerus variegatus Leach, 1814. I

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Body often dorsally corrugated or provided with Ill

elevations, teeth, humps, or carinate or smooth, depressed. Rostrum short, ocular lobes short, blunt, antennal I

sinus deep. Eyes large to weak, often bulging laterally. Antennae of medium to great length, 1 shorter than

2, 1 slender, antenna 2 stout; peduncular article 3 of antenna I longer than 1, article 2 longest, accessory i

flagellum 1 to 2-articulate, main flagellar articles few. Antenna 2 peduncular article 3 scarcely elongate, B

peduncle moderately stout, flagellum short, poorly articulate. Epistome produced anteriorly. Upper lip incised,

bilobed. Mandible normal, palp strong, article 3 clavate, shorter than article 2. Lower lip with entire outer am

lobes, with well-developed inner lobes, mandibular lobes long, pointed or blunt. Inner plate of maxilla 1 short II

to vestigial, with or without 1 seta, outer plate with 9 (?11) spines, palp 2-articulate. Outer plates of maxilla

2 rather broad, irmer plate with only sparse mediomarginal setae. Inner plate of maxilliped with distal spines, I

outer plate normal, reaching half-way to apex of palp article 2, with spines on medial margin, palp with 4 n

articles, article 2 long, article 3 unlobed, article 4 short, with long nail and setae. Coxa very small, short,

weakly discontiguous, of various sizes and shapes, not progressively elongate from 1 to 4, often spiniform, in

coxa 1 dilated, produced forward, coxa 2 shorter or longer than 1, often produced, coxa 4 not longer than il

coxa 1, not lobed, coxa 5 as long as 4, coxae 6-7 not much smaller than anterior coxae. Gnathopods 1-2

l

diverse, gnathopod 2 greatly larger than 1, gnathopod 1 in male poorly subchelate, carpus shorter than or as am

long as propodus, weakly lobed. Gnathopod 2 enlarged, weakly subchelate or essentially simple, very setose, 1

with basis barely dilated, merus enlarged, barely merochelate, extended and fused distally along posterior i

margin of carpus, carpus much shorter than propodus, mostly fused to merus or cryptic, propodus dilated, I

dactyl long. Pereopods 3-4 longer than gnathopods, similar, with slender article 2, article 4 dilated, dactyls l_

medium. Pereopods 5-7 similar to each other, progressively slightly longer or pereopod 6 longer, pereopod 5- I'

7 with narrow to broad unlobed or barely lobed article 2, dactyl of pereopods 5-7 medium, curved. Sternal

processes of thorax absent. CoxaI gills undescribed, present on segments ?2-6. Epimeron 3 not bisinuate, i

Pleopods normal. Uropods 1-2 biramous, rami grossly unequal. Uropod 1,inner ramus as long as peduncle. i

Uropod 2, inner ramus much longer than peduncle. Peduncle of uropods 1-2 with or without ventrodistal

process, that of uropod 2 smaller. Last 2-3 pereonites often fused. Urosomite 1elongate. Uropod 3 forming i

small flap lacking rami, very short, obtuse distally, with few armaments. Telson entire, short, broader than I

long, ovate or semicircular, spinose.

i

Remarks. 32 species. I

i

106 I
!

i Podocerus cristatus (Thomson, 1879)

Figure 2.80

i Cyrtophium cristatum Thomson, 1879: 331, plate 16, figures 9-15.

Podocerus cristatus: Barnard, 1962a: 67-69, figures 31-32.

I Material Examined. Reported from this study, but specimens unavailable.

i Description(modified from Bamard 1962a). Both sexes 3.5-6.0 mm. Eyes large. Pereonal segments

5-7 and pleonal segments 1-2 with distinct mid-dorsal carinae, (carina on 5 is weak) pereonites 3 and 4 with

rudiments of a carina (in large specimens). Second gnathopod, palm in male with 2? processes near distal

end. Telson conical, with 2 long setae apically.

I Remarks. Three species have been described from southern California, P cristatus, P brasiliensis

(Dana, 1853), and P.fulanus Barnard, 1962a. P brasiliensis is distinctive in having no dorsal carinae, P.

i fu/anus is an estuarine species and can be distinguished from the other 2 species by the poorly setose palm of male gnathopod 2 and the single palmar process near the dactyl hinge (Bamard, 1962a). Descriptions of

P. cristatus in the literature are incomplete.

I

seaweeds,Type 7-9Spm.ecimen and Locality. Male, Dunedin Harbour, New Zealand, among Sertularia and

Distribution and Habitat. Probably circumpolar and circum-warm temperate, Pacific from Dunedin,

I New Baja California, Zealand, Newamong SouthSertula Wales, Australia, South and West Africa, southern California, to Magdalena Bay, fidae (hydroid), Boltenia (ascidean), and seaweeds (see Bamard, 1962a), on

mud, gravel, 7-100 m.

!

!

!

.!

!

Figure 2.80. Podoce_s cristatus,male,6.0 ram;A,Lateralview;B, Gnathopod2 minusse_e (fi'omBamard, 1962a).

!

I

!

i 107
I

Family Stegocephalidae Dana, 1855 I

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Body laterally compressed but from lateral view i

appearing stout and globular. Coxae 1-4 forming lateral shield with deeply convex ventral margin, coxa 4

very large, coxae 2-3 narrowest and thinly rectangular, coxa 1 shortest, broad basally, strongly tapering, li

acuminate, not covered by following coxae. Antennae 1 with very short peduncle, articles 2-3 scarcely |

developed, accessory flagellum 1-2-articulate. Mandible without molar and palp. Gnathopods feeble, simple.

Pereopod 5, article 2 rectolinear, hidden behind coxa 4. /

Remarks. 19 genera, 56 species. I

Stegocephalus KrCyer, 1842 I

Type Species. Stegocephalus inflatus Krcyer, 1842.

I

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991), Body smooth. Antenna 2 article 4 of peduncle

shorter than article 5. Upper lip ordinary, asymmetrically lobed. Mandibular incisor toothed (often weakly). II

Lower lip ordinary, with several bidigitate distal fingers. Maxilla 1, ordinary, palp 1-articulate. Outer plate of R

maxilla 2 gaping and geniculate, spines with hooks. Inner plate of maxilliped reaching apex of palp article 1,

palp 4-articulate, article 2 unproduced. Dactyls of gnathopods simple. Pereopods 3-4 simple. Pereopod 6, m

article 2 expanded or intermediate. Pereopod 7 with 7 articles, article 2, lobe pointed below. Uropod 3 IIM

biramous, outer ramus 1-articulate, peduncle shorter than rami. Telson longer than broad, cleft.

Remarks. 2 species. 1

Stegocephalus hancocki Hurley, 1956

m

Figure 2.81 I

Stegocephalus hancocki Hurley, 1956: 28-34, plates 9-11.---Gurjanova, 1962: 375.

II

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 15, 393 m, November 1983, (2

specimens). I

Description (modified from Hurley, 1956). Female 5.5 mm. Eyes absent. Antenna 1, flagellum I

slightly longer than peduncle. Antenna 2, peduncle article 4 and 5 subequal. Pereopod 6 and 7 coxae

subrectangular, article 2 ovate and expanded posteriorly. Pereopod 7 anterior margin with a few short spines, II

posterior margin finely serrate. Epimeron 3, posteroventral comer serrate. Uropod 3 inner ramus shorter I

than outer ramus. Telson cleft one-half to two-thirds its length.

Remarks. This species is similar to S. inflatus Kr_yer, 1842 which can be distinguished from S. I

hancocki by the coarsely serrated ventral margin of epimera 3, an acuminate posteroventral comer on II

pereopod 7, article 2, and the produced lateral cephalic lobe extending to the end of article 1, antenna 1

(I-Iudey,Type 1956)Spe . c I imen and Locality. Holotype slide, AHF No. 4113, female, 5.5 mm. Station 1223-41,

San Pedro Channel, SW of Newport, California.

Distribution and Habitat. California coast, green sand and mud, 200-458 m. l[

II

!

108 i
I

I

I

I

i

,

i

I

I

I

I

I Figure 2.81. Stegocephalus Lower hancocki,female, 5.5 ram; A,Antenna 1;B, Lateral view,note the shape of coxa 4;C, lip, distal angle, note digitate fingers; D, Epimera 1-3; E, Close-up of epimeron 3 showing

serrated edge;F,Uropod3; G,Pereopod7 (fromHurley, 1956).

I

I

i Family Stenothoidae Boeck, 1871

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Accessory flagellum 0 to 2-articulate. Mandibular

I molar barely visible. Outer of Coxa 1 small and covered

plates maxillipeds vestigial. very partially by

following coxae. Coxa 4 enlarged, shield-like, not posterodorsaUy excavate. Pereopod 3, article 2 rectolinear.

Uropod 3 uniramous. Telson entire.

I Remarks. 31 genera, 218 species.

|

I 109
!

|

Key to the Stenothoidae of the Santa Maria Basin l

1A. Antenna 1, article 1 produced anterodistally; pereonite 4 swollen dorsally ....Hardametopa nasuta N

1B. Antenna 1, article 1 not produced; ; pereonite 4 not swollen dorsally ............................................. 2

m

2A. Gnathopod 2 elongate, article 6 and 7 equal in length; pereonite 4 elongate, longer than 5 ............... I

.......................................................................................................................... Stenothoe frecanda

Gnathopod 2, normal, propodus longer than dactyl; pereonites 4 and 5 subequal in length ............. 3 U

2B.

3A. Telson armed with spines ................................................................................................................. 4 _l

n 3B. Telson without spines or setae ......................................................................................................... 5

4A. Telson with 3 pair of lateral spines ................................................................................................... 6 i

4B. Telson with 2 pair lateral spines ....................................................................................................... 7

II

5A. Pereopod 6-7, article 2 expanded, lobate; eyes very large, nearly covering side of head ................. I

................................................................................................................................ Stenula modosa m

5B. Pereopods 6-7, article 2 rectolinear, not expanded; eyes medium, not covering side of head ........... U

.......................................................................................................................... Parametopella sp. 1

m

6A. Pereopod 6 and 7 short, article 2 expanded posteriorly, lobate .............................. Metopa dawsoni I

6B. Pereopod 6 long, article 2 rectolinear, pereopod 7 short, article 2 expanded posteriorly, lobate ........

Stenothoides bicoma I

7A. Accessory flagellum present; gnathopod 1, propodus linear, shorter than carpus ............................. II

............................................................................................................................ Metopella aporpis l

7B. Accessory flagellum absent; gnathopod 1, propodus slightly expanded, equal to carpus in length ....

......................................................................................................................... Parametopella ninis n

l

II

Hardametopa Bamard and Karaman, 1991 U

Type Species. Metopa nasuta Boeck, 1871, selected by Barnard and Karaman, 1991. /

u

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Antenna 1 bearing nasiform process on article 1.

Accessory flagellum absent. Mandibular palp 2-to-3-articulate. Maxilla 1, palp 1-articulate. Inner plate of 1

maxilla 2 ordinary. Inner plates of maxillipeds well separated. Gnathopod 1 small, simple, article 4 barely U

chelate, article 5 elongate, unlobed, article 6 linear. Gnathopod 2 scarcely enlarged, palm strongly oblique,

carpus short, lobed. Pereopods 5-7 with rectolinear article 2. Pereonite 4 elongate and swollen. Pleonite 4 Ill

weakly extended posterodorsally. Telson ordinary, flat. Ii

Remarks. 2 species.

I

11o |
i

!

i Hardametopa nasuta (Boeck, 1871)

Figure 2.82

i Metopa nasuta Boeck, 1871: 64; Sars, 1895: 276-277, plate 98.

Metopella nasuta: Lincoln, 1979: 204, figures 80, 93.--JusL 1980: 50, figure 53.

!

Material Exmmmed. Reported from this study, but specimens unavailable.

i Description (from Lincoln, 1979). Both sexes 2-4 mm. Eyes small and rounded. Body very short

andbroad. Antenna 1 and 2 very short, only about one-quarter body length slender, subequal. Antenna 1

i peduncle article robust and equal to length of articles 2 and 3 combined, anterodistal angle strongly produced, flagellum about 8 articulate. Antenna 2, peduncle articles 4 and 5 subequal, flagellum about 7-articulate.

Pereon segment 4 much longer than rest and with low rounded dorsal keel. Coxa 1 extremely small, plates

i 2-3 very elongate, plate 4 extremely large. Epimeral plate 3 quadrate. Gnathopod 1simple, slender, propodus about equal to length of carpus, palm not delimited, posterior margin with approximately 3 long setae, margin

microscopically toothed. Gnathopod 2 only moderately large, propodus subrectangular, tapering proximally,

i palm weakly oblique, palmar margin much less than half length of posterior margin delimited by small tooth and 1-2 small spines, palmar margin distinctly toothed. Pereopods 5-7 elongate and very slender, sparsely

setose, article 2 slender, article 4 scarcely expanded and only slightly produced distally. Urosomite 1 with

dorsal keel. Uropods 1-2 slender, rami devoid of spines. Uropod 3 peduncle short with single distal spine.

I Telson with 2 of small dorsolateral rounded.

tongue-shaped pairs spines, apex

Remarks. The dorsal swelling on pereonite 4 and produced peduncle article of antenna 1 distinguish

i this species. Type Specimen and Locality. Hardangerfjord, Norway.

Distribution and Habitat. North Atlantic: Greenland, Iceland, Norway, 10-183 m.

!

!

!

Figure 2.82. Hardametopanasuta (Boeck, 1871), female (from Lincoln, 1979).

!

!

i 111
!

/

Metopa Boeck, 1871 •

Type Species. Leucothoe clypeata Krcyer, 1842, selected by Boeck, 1876. i

Ill

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Antenna 1 lacking nasiform process on article 1.

Accessory flagellum absent or vestigial. Mandibular palp 2 to 3-articulate. Maxilla 1, palp 1-articulate. Inner

plate of maxilla 2 ordinary. Inner plates of maxillipeds mostly fused together or well separated (type). 1

Gnathopods 1-2 subchelate, different from each other in size and shape. Gnathopod 1 small, almost simple

(variable), article 4 barely chelate, article 5 elongate, barely lobed, article 6 scarcely expanded, almost linear. I

Gnathopod 2, enlarged, palm oblique, articles 4-5 short, article 5 lobed. Pereopod 5 with rectolinear article 2. I

Pereopods 6-7 with expanded, lobate article 2. Pereonite 4 short. Pleonite 4 not extended posterodorsally.

Telson ordinary, flat. I

Remarks. 50 species. II

mR

Metopa dawsoni Barnard, 1962 I

Figure 2.83

Metopa dawsoni Barnard, 1962c: 139-142, figure 10-11. I

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 6, 109 m, October t984, (20 /

specimens), Sta. 1, 98 m, (19 specimens), Phase II, Sta. R1, 91 m, October 1986, (1 specimen). II

Description (from Barnard, 1962c). Female 5.0 mm, male 3.0-4.3 mm. Antenna 1 slightly longer

than antenna 2. Accessory flagellum forming a minute bump. Gnathopod 1with propodus about half as long iI_

as carpus and both articles with parallel edges parallel, dactyl short, almost one-third as tong as propodus, II

bearing 4-5 setules along inner margin, basis slender, merus not strongly produced behind. Gnathopod 2 with

nearly transverse palm defined by a large deflexed tooth which points medially when not flattened on the I1

microscope slide, palm with a large excavation and a multitoothed process near finger hinge, dactyl failing to !1

reach the defining tooth, ischium produced anteriorly, merus unusual in forming a thin transparent process on

the medial side of carpus and bearing an anterior spine, carpus beating minute denticulation along anterior m

edge. Coxa 4 not sinuous along lower margin. Epimeron 3 slightly attenuated and quadrate at lower corner. II

Telson with 3 lateral spines on each side. Pereopods 4-5, article 4 stout. Strong sexual dimorphism in

gnathopods.

Remarks. This species is one of three from California (Stenothoides bicoma Barnard, 1962c, _l

Stenothoefrecanda Barnard, 1962c, and M. dawsoni) that have 3 paired lateral spines on the telson. Both

species are easily separated from M. dawsoni by the shape of pereopod 6. Proboloides tunda Barnard, 1

1962c has also been found off of California at 545-611 m, but it differs in having a pointed telson and no eyes. II

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 598, male 3 mm. Station 6098, off Pt. Fermin,

southern California, 33°38 45N, 118°14 45W, 44 m. 1

IN Distribution and Habitat. Southern California coastal shelf, 55-183 m.

MetopeUa Sars, 1895, revised I

Type Species. Metopa longimana Boeck, 1871, selected by Gurjanova, 1938. ! Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman). Antenna 1lacking nasiform process on article 1. Accessory

flagellum present. Mandible palp 2 -to-3-articulate. Maxilla 1, palp 1-articulate. Inner plate of maxilla 2

I
I

I

,

I ._:;_ .... i ._ ..--H ' "

!

I Figure 2.83. Meto Pereopod pa dawsoni 7; F, Gnathopod , female, 3.81;G, ram; Gnathopod A, Pereopod 2 with5; B, close-up Telsonof; C,anterior Lateralmargin; view; D, H,PPereopod ereopod4;6;EI,.

Uropod 3; J, Gnathopod2, close-upof carpalsetae(fromBarnard, 1962c).

!

ordinary. Inner plates of maxillipeds well separated. Gnathopods 1-2 different from each other in size and

I shape, gnathopod 1small, simple, merus barely chelate, carpus elongate, unlobed, propodus linear. Gnathopod 2 slighty enlarged, palm weakly oblique, article 4-5 short, carpus lobed. Pereopod 5-7 with rectolinear article

2 but article 2 on pereopod 7 broader than on pereopods 5-6 (variable). Pereonite 4 ordinary. Pleonite 4 not

I extended posterodorsally. Telson ordinary, flat.

Remarks. 7 species.

I Metopella aporpis Barnard, 1962

Figure 2.84

I Metopella aporpis Bamard, 1962c: 142-144, figures 12 and 13.

i specimens). Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 16, 591 m, October 1984, (2

Description (from Barnard, 1962c). Female 2.5, male 2.4 mm. Gnathopod 1, propodus shorter

I than carpus, simple, with parallel edges, posterior edge with 4-5 long setae, dactyl half as long as propodus, with 3-4 setae on posterior edge. Gnathopod 2, palm oblique, formed of a shallow quadrate excavation

bounded on both sides by a long, sharp tooth, the posterior-most forming the defining tooth, the anterior tooth

!

I 113
!

|

being an extension of a minutely toothed process near the dactyl hinge. Gnathopod 2 with dactyl nearly E

reaching end of palm, carpus forming a medial translucent lobe projecting anteriorly and appressed to the side

of meres, the anterior edge of carpus with rows of minute denticles. Pereopod 3 much longer than pereopod Ill

4 and poorly spinose, pereopod 4 having numerous stout posterior spines on article 5 and 6. Telson with 2 |

lateral spines on each side near base.

Remarks. The proximolateral spines on the telson are very stout relative to other California species.

See Bamard, 1962c for a listing of other closely related species. I

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 5729, male, 2.4 mm. Station 4834, near Pt.

Mugu, California, 34°00'20"N, 119°01'45"W, rock bottom, 141 m.

Distribution and Habitat. Monterey Bay California to Cristohal Bay, Baja California, 24-591 m,

south of Pt. Conception, California, not shallower than 84 m. ,,,

l

Figure 2.84. Met_peua ap_rpis_ma_e_2.4mm; A_La_era_view withc__se-up_f access_ryf_age__um;B_Te|s_n; C_ I

Pereopod6; D, Pereopod5; E, Gnathopod2; F,Pereopod7; G, Uropod3; H, Gnathopod1 (from

Bamard, 1962c). I

114 |
!

i Parametopella Gurjanova, 1938

i Type Species. Stenothoe cypris Holmes, 1905, original designation.

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Antenna 1 lacking nasiform process on article 1

I (variable). maxilla 2 ordinary. Accessory flagellum absent. Mandibular palp absent. Maxilla 1,palp 1-articulate. Inner plate of

Inner plates of maxillipeds partially fused together. Gnathopods 1-2 different from each

other in size and shape, gnathopod 1 small, simple, carpus short, lobed, propodus expanded. Gnathopod 2

i enlarged, palm strongly oblique, carpus short, lobed. Pereopods 5-7 with rectolinear article 2. Pereonite 4

ordinary. Pleonite 4 not extended posterodorsally. Telson ordinary, flat.

Remarks. 5 species.

I ParametopeUa ninis Barnard, 1962

i Figure 2.85

Parametopella ninis Barnard, 1962c: 45-47, figures 14-15.

I Material Examined. Reported from this study, but not supported by collections.

Description (from Barnard, 1962c). Female 1.9-2.8 mm. Articles of antenna simple, not produced.

I Gslender nathopodsetae,1 slen the dposte er, simple, rior margin carpusof andactyl d propwith odus3 slender equal insetae. length,Gnathopod the posteri2orsmall, marginslender, of propodus carpus wnearly ith 4

two-thirds as long as propodus, with broad posterior lobe, becoming acute at apex, the palm oblique, straight,

I def-med by 2 spines. Telson with 2 lateral spines on each side. Remarks. The male is not described for this species. We examined numerous specimens, all of

which were small, possibly juveniles, ofParametopella sp 1Thomas and McCann. The latter may represent

I an undescribed species. P. ninis has previously been recorded from California, and is very similar to P.sp 1,

therefore we have included it in the key.

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 586, female, 1.9 mm. Station 5711, Santa

I Monica Bay, California, 33°55'54"N, 118°3l'16"W, 57 m.

Distribution mad Habitat. Southern California coastal shelf, 57-183 m.

I ParametopeUa sp. 1

I Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase II, Sta. R4, 92 m, January 1988, (39

specimens).

I equal in Dlength. escriptiTelson on. Antenn withouta 1spines. lacking nasiform process on article 1. Gnathopod 1, article 5 and article 6

Remarks. This species is similar to P ninis in all characters examined (we did not dissect mouthparts),

i with the exception of the unarmed telson (one of the adult specimens we examined had a pair of minute lateral setules on the telson (visible only under the compound scope).

Distribution mad Habitat. Santa Maria Basin, California, 92 m.

!

I

I 115
I

i

A ! i

C D

I

I

i

i

" I

!

Figure 2,.85. F_Paramet_pel_an 7;G,Gnath inis_ofpod ema_e;A 2 (from_LBamard atera_vie, 1w9;62c). B_Pere___d6;C_Te_s_n;D_Ur___d3;E_Gnath_p_d_;Pere_p_dI

I

Stenothoe Dana, 1852 i

m

Type Species. Stenothoe vaIida Dana, 1853.

m

Diagnosis. Antenna t lacking nasiform process on article 1. Accessory flagellum absent or 1- i

articulate. Mandibular palp absent. Maxilla 1, palp 2-articulate. Inner plate of maxilla 2 unproduced. Inner

plates of maxillipeds well separated. Gnathopods 1-2 subchelate, very different from each other in size and m

shape, gnathopod 1 small, subchelate, palm oblique and as long as posterior margin ofpropodus, merus barely II

chelate, carpus shorter than propodus, lobed, expanded. Gnathopod 2 enlarged, palm strongly oblique, merus

elongate, lobed, carpus short, lobed. Pereopod 5, article 2 rectolinear. Pereopods 6-7 with expanded and i

lobate article 2. Pereonite 4 ordinary. Pleonite 4 not extended posterodorsally. Telson ordinary, flat. II

Remarks. 51 species.

I

I
!

i Stenothoe frecanda Barnard, 1962

Figure 2.86

i Stenothoefrecanda Barnard, 1962c: 151, figure 18.

I Material Examined. from this but not collections.

Reported study, supported by

Description (from Barnard, 1962c). Male 3.6 mm. Body not carinate. Gnathopod 1,merus strongly

" mm projecting distally and behind. Gnathopod 2 elongate, with palm and posterior margin contiguous, beating

II near finger hinge a small triangular-shaped process with 2 smaller distal processes (these less well developed

in female), the palm lined with short setae, not denticulate, dactyl as long as propodus, stout, lined on inner

i edge with short setae. Uropod 3, ramus, article 2 straight, not geniculate, the peduncle slightly longer than the ramus. Pereopods 5-7, article 4 of intermediate expansion. Telson with 3 lateral spines on each side.

Remarks. Our material consisted of one specimen from 100 m, which exhibited the following

i dactyl variationmore s from S.frecanda: gnathopod 2, palmar angle much more transverse (it is straight in S.frecanda),

recurved. We are hesitant to make a determination without more material. This species is

related to S. valida Dana, 1853 but differs in having the distal palmar teeth of gnathopod 2 perpendicular

i rather than oblique to the palm, and differs from S. mar/ha Bate 1857b by the stout finger (dactyl) of the gnathopods.

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 587, male, 3.6 mm. Station 5632, off San Mateo

I Pt., CalifDi ornia, 33°22'50"N, 117°39'00"W, 66 m. stribution and Habitat. Monterey Bay to southern California shelf, 64-92 m.

I ........

'

!

!

I Figure Stenothoefrecanda, male, ram;A, view; B,Gnathopod); C, Telson;D,Gnathopod2,female,

2.86. 4 Lateral

4mm(f]xmaBamard,1962c).

i

i 117
!

Stenothoides Chevreux, 1900 i

Type Species. Stenothoides perrieri Chevreux, 1900. i i

gl

Diagnosis. Antenna 1 lacking nasiform process on article 1. Accessory flagellum absent or 1-

articulate. Mandibular palp absent or 1-articulate. Maxilla 1, palp 1-articulate. Inner plate of maxilla 2 am

ordinary. Inner plates of maxillipeds well separated. Gnathopods 1-2 subchelate, different from each other 1

in size and shape, gnathopod 1 small, subchelate, palm oblique and as long as posterior margin of propodus,

merus barely chelate, carpus as long as propodus, barely lobed, propodus expanded. Gnathopod 2 enlarged, laB

palm almost transverse, almost chelate, carpus short, lobed. Pereopods 5-6 with rectolinear article 2, pereopod |

7 with slightly expanded and lobate article 2. Pereonite 4 ordinary. Pleonite 4 not extending posterodorsally.

Telson ordinary, flat.

Remarks. 7 species, i

Stenothoides bicoma Barnard, 1962 i

Figure 2.87

Stenothoides bicoma Barnard, 1962c: 136-139, figure 8. B

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 4, 393 m (1 male, 1 female). •

Description (modified from Barnard, 1962c). Female 3.5 mm, male, 1.5-4.0 mm. Antennae subequal |

in length. Mandible lacking palp. Gnathopod 1, article 5 longer than article 6, article 7 simple, not setose,

article 4 scarcely produced. Gnathopod 2, palm oblique, bearing a large multitoothed process near finger 1

hinge and a large, acute defining process, (pattern of teeth is variable depending on size and sex) with

quadrate excavation between them, in the male. Last two urosomal segments fused. Telson bearing three

lateral spines on each side. •

R II emarks. Both specimens agree well with S. bicoma of Barnard (1962c) but no mention is made

of the paired spines surrounding the acute deeming process on the palm of gnathopod 2 in the female.

Gnathopod 1, carpus is subequal or shorter than propodus in the female we examined, but in the male, carpus 1

is longer than propodus, raising some question about the validity of this character in species diagnoses.

Stenula Bamard, 1962 RI

Type Species. Stenothoides Iatipes Chevreux and Fage, 1925, original designation.

I

Diagnosis. Antenna 1lacking nasiform process on article 1. Accessory flagellum absent. Mandibular B

palp 1-articulate. Maxilla 1, palp 1-articulate. Inner plate of maxilla 2 ordinary. Inner plates of maxillipeds

well separated. Gnathopod 1 small, almost simple, merus barely chelate, carpus elongate, unlobed, propodus am

almost linear. Gnathopod 2 slightly enlarged, palm weakly oblique, carpus short, lobed. Pereopod 5 with

rectolinear article 2, pereopod 6-7, article 2 expanded and lobate. Pereonite 4 ordinary. Pleonite 4 not

extending posterodorsally. Telson ordinary, flat. i

Remarks. 11 species. U

I

I

118 g
I

i

I

i

I

I

I Figure 2.87. Stenothoides bicoma, male, 1.5 ram; A, Lateral view; B, Gnathopod 1;C, Gnathopod 2; D, Uropod 3; E, Gnathopod 1; F,Telson; G, Gnathopod 2; H, Pereopod 6; I, Pereopod 5; J, Pereopod 7; K, Gnathopod

2, minus setae, with close-up of palm, female, 3.5 ram; B,C, male, 4 mm (from Bamard, 1962c).

!

I Stenula modosa Barnard, 1962 Figure 2.88

I Stenula modosa Barnard, 1962c: 137-139, figure 9.

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 42, 100 m, January 1984, (8

I specimens), Phase II, Sta. R4, 92 m, October 1988, (83 specimens).

Description (from Barnard, 1962c). Female 2 ram. Eyes very large, round, occupying almost

entire side of the head. Body not carinate. Gnathopod 1 simple, the posterior edge of propodus with slender

I setae, the dactyl bearing slender setae its hind of mandible width of mandibular

on edge. Palp as long as

apex, slender. Pereopods 5-7, article 4 not strongly produced posteriorly. Uropod 3 ramus, article 1 longer

than peduncle. Uropod 3 lacking spines except for one at articulation of peduncle and article 1 of ramus.

I Telson tongue shaped, unarmed.

Remarks. The male of S. modosa remains to be described. The size of the eyes and the simple

palm and small size of gnathopod 1 help distinguish this species, however our specimens had moderatelyI eyes. In S. modosa, pereopod 5-7, article 4 is long and slender and not strongly produced posteriorly,

sized

unlike a similar California species, S. incola Bamard, 1969c in which pereopods 5-7 have a short article 4,

i strongly produced posteriorly.

I 119
I

Figure 2.88. Stenula modosa, female, 2 mm;A, Lateral view; BandC, Gnathopod l ;D and E,Gnathopod 2;F and i

G, Pereopods 3 and 4; H, Telson(fromBarnard,1962c).

l

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 5728, female, 2 mm. Station 4821, near Pt. III

Conception, 34°25'48"N, 120°14'40"W, green mud, 92 m. I

Distribution and Habitat. Southern California, 60-100 m.

!1

Family Stilipedidae Holmes, 1908 I[

(formerly Astyridae) i

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Antenna 1 shorter than antenna 2. Accessory

flagellum 0-2-articulate. Mandibte flat, molar simple or absent, mandibular palp present. Coxa 1 broader i

than 2 or 3, expanded distally, occasionally tending to acumination but never sharp, coxa 4 excavate posteriorly. n

Gnathopods feeble, simple, carpus dominant. Pereopod 7, article 2 distinct from article 2 of pereopods 5-6.

Uropod 3 with short peduncle, very long rami (often one or both lost). Urosomite 1with dorsal carina. Telson I

short, cleft or entire. E

Remarks. 7 genera, 16 species.

II

Astyra Boeck, 1871 i

Type Species. Astyra abyssi Boeck, 1871. i

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Lobes of lower lip widely separated. Upper lip

scarcely incised. Mandibles narrow, very flat, twisted, a thin lamina, incisor narrow, deeply toothed, right

B

120 |
i

i lacinia mobilis absent, left present, raker row well developed, molar long, conical, simple, setose, Maxillae 1-

2 almost ordinary, not immensely broadened though inner plate of maxilla 2 broader than ordinary, palp of

I maxilla Gnathopods 1, 2-arti 1-2,culate. carpus Maxilliped weakly lobateouteror plates moderately broad,carpochelate. conspicuous, Pereopods palp exceeding 5-6, article apex o2f owith uer setose plate.

lateral ridge extending ventrally to form weak posteroventral lobe. Pereopod 7, article 2 simple, lobate,

I lacking setose Rema ridge, posterior margin straight. Sexual dimorphism not apparent. rks. 7 species.

I Astyra abyssi Boeck, 1871

Figure 2.89

I AstyraabyssiBoeck, 1871: 53.---Sars, 1895: 214-215, plate 73.--Barnard, 1969: 159-161, figure 66.

I Mate Desc rial Examined. ?Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 63, 930 m, (1 specimen). ription. Female to 8 mm. Eyes absent. Ventral comer of head produced, extending almost to

end of article 1, antenna 1. Coxa 4 enlarged, posterior margin oblique, straight. Urosomite 1, carina followed

I by a deep sinus. Telson cleft half its length.

Remarks. Based on the material at hand (1 flattened, damaged specimen) we are unable to make

a definitive identification beyondAstyra sp. The specimen represents the first record of the genus in California

I waters.

Type Specimen and Locality. Hardangerfjord, Norway.

I to Vadso;DPacific istributifrom on and?southern Habitat.California, Arctic Ocean; on clay,Atlant 183-930 ic: Faer m. oe Islands, Iceland, West coast of Norway

I

I

I

Figure 2.89. AstyraabyssiBoeck, 1871(fromBamard andKaraman, 1991).

I

I

I

I 121
!

I

Family Synopiidae Dana, 1855 •

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Gammaridean with helmet-like head or with plough- I

shaped protuberance on forehead. Antenna 1, accessory flagellum large, multiarticulate. Upper lip fleshy,

ventrally truncate, rounded or weakly incised, usually with small marginal hairs. Mandibles with 3-articulate Im

palp (3 exceptions), molar present and never amalgamated with spine row, latter often vestigial. Lower lip 1

with well-developed mandibular lobes, inner lobes present and separate from each other, no extraordinarily

u

wide space occurring between outer lobes; maxillae 1-2 well developed but setation variable, palp of maxilla m

1, 2-articulate. Maxilliped, inner and outer plates and palp well developed, palp usually 4-articulate, rarely 3. l[

Coxae 1 and 2 large and unhidden by posterior coxae, except coxa 1 rarely narrowed. Gnathopod 1, 7-

u

articulate. Gnathopods not sexually dimorphic, gnathopod 2 not enlarged. Pereopods 3-5 basic, pereopod 7

not grossly longer than 6 in contrast to Oedicerotidae. Uropod 1-3 strongly biramous. II

n

Remarks. 17 genera, 82 species.

Ill

Key to the Synopiidae of the Santa Maria Basin

1A. Enlarged dorsal crest on pereonites 3-7, pleonites 1-3; telson entire or almost so ............................. I

......................................................................................................................... Bruzelia tuberculata

1B. Dorsal crests on pereonites and pleonites lacking; Telson cleft ....................................................... 2 I

2A. Gnathopod propodus with serrate spines giving it a chelate appearance, palms transverse ............ 3 II

II 2B. Gnathopods simple or imperfectly subchelate, propodus without spines, palms oblique ...... (Tiron) 4

3A. Coxa 4 much shorter and smaller than coxa 3 (pelagont) ................................. Syrrhoe longifrons I

3B. Coxa 4 as long as and slightly broader than coxa 3 (not pelagont) .............. Garosyrrhoe disjuncta

I

4A. Telson with medial row of spines; pleonite 6 with dorsal spine; dactyls short, recurved ................... I

.................................................................................................................................... Tiron tropakis

m

bare; pleonite 6 without spine but with posteriorly produced tooth; dactyls normal, long ....... i

4B. Telson

................................................................................................................................. Tiron biocellata u

I

Bruzelia Boeck, 1871

Type Species. Bruzelia typica Boeck, 1871. I

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Forehead weakly protuberant in type but not in /

others,lateral cephalic lobe not sharp. Eyes absent. Mandible with palp, molar greatly enlarged,not triturative, I

fuzzy; mouthparts basic. Antenna 1, articles 1-2 basic. Coxa 1 ordinary. Coxa 3 not strongly expanded

distally except for acute anteroventral cusp, not posteriorly excavate, coxa 4 variable, excavate posteriorly Ill

(rarely weak), and slightly smaller or slightly larger than coxa 3. Gnathopods typically subchelate, palms !

oblique, defined by 1-2 serrate spines, second spine if present occasionally simple. Dactyl of gnathopod 2

lilt

normal. Perepods 5-7 weakly to strongly elongate, dactyls weakly elongate, article 2 of pereopod 7 typically ,1

l
!

I rounded posteroventrally but truncate in B. tuberculata Sars, 1883 and B. popoIocan Barnard, 1972b.

Pleonites 1-3 posterodorsal margins not denticulate. Uropod 3 not exceeding uropods 1-2, peduncle typically

I short but elongate in B. tuberculata and B. popolocan. Telson elongate, entire. Remarks. 10 species.

I Bruzelia tuberculata Sars, 1883

Figure 2.90

I Bruzelia tuberculata Sars, 1883: 95, plate 4, figure 7.--Sars, 1895: 397-398, plate 139, figure 2.

I specimen), MatePhase rial II, ExaSta. minPJ15, ed. 155 Santam, MOctober afia Basin, 1986,C(1alifornia, specimen), PhasSta. e I,R4, Sta.9253,m, 1May 96 m,1987, January (1 specimen). 1984, (1

Description (modified from Sars, 1895). 5-6 mm. Lateral cephalic lobe large and deep, helmetI like. Granular area where eyes normally appear. Pereonites 3-7 and pteonites with a mid-dorsal crest increasing in size posteriorly. Pleonites 1 and 2 with blunt, lateral carinae terminating in a sharp angular

projection of the epimeral plate. Epimera 2 and 3 produced into a hook postero-ventrally, coarsely serrated

I ventrally. Telson entire.

Remarks. Of the material we examined from southern California, this is the only tuberculate

species in the family, making it easily recognizable.

I Type Specimen and Locality. 5 mm, Lofoten Isles and Bejan, Norway.

Distribution and Habitat. Norway, Faeroe Islands, and California (1 specimen at 900 m), 92-900

| m.

I

;?,.

I

a

I Figure 2.90. Bruzeliatuberculata,female;Lateral view(fromSars, 1895).

i Garosyrrhoe Barnard, 1964

i Type Species. Syrrhoites bigarra Barnard, 1962b, original designation.

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Forehead not protuberant. Lateral cephalic lobe

not sharp. Mandible with palp, molar of medium size, weakly triturative or fuzzy; mouthparts basic. Antenna

I 1, articles 1-2, basic. Coxa 1 ordinary. Coxa 4 larger than 3 (not pelagont). Coxa 3 softly rectangular,

I 123
!

I

posterior margin nearly parallel with anterior, and nonexcavate, coxa 4 expanded midposteriorly, postemdorsal •

margin sloping, not concave but appearing excavate, Gnathopods subchetate, palms nearly transverse, defined

by large serrate spine giving propodus chelate appearance. Gnathopod 2, dactyl normal. Pereopods 5-7 I

elongate, dactyls elongate, article 2 of pereopod 7 rounded posteroventrally. Pleonites 1-3, posterodorsal II

margins not denticutate or very weakly so. Uropod 3 not exceeding uropods 1-2, peduncle elongate. Telson

elongate, deeply cleft. I

i Remarks. 2 species.

Garosyrrhoe disjuneta Barnard, 1969 I

Garosyrrhoe disjuncta Barnard, 1969: 224-225, figure 30. i

i

Material Examined. Reported from this study, but specimens unavailable.

Description (from Barnard, 1969). Rostrum well-defined, acute, strongly projecting ventrally. 1

i

Pereonite 7 and pleonites 1-2, posterodorsal edges with pair of blunt dorsolateral teeth, each with medial I

hook and separated by shallow excavation, these teeth less prominent on pleonite 3, dorsolateral edges of I

these segments also with small hooked teeth. Epimeron 3, teeth of posterior edge much stronger than in G. i

bigarra (Barnard, 1962b). Pereopod 3, article 5 about four-fifths as long as article 4, poorly setose posteriorly, ll

article 2 bulging anterodistally. 1

species can be distinguished from G. bigarra by the longer more acute rostrum and 1

Remarks. The

by the presence of 2 dorsal teeth on pereonite 7 and pleonites 1-2 vs 1 tooth in G. bigarra (Bamard, 1969).

==

Type Specimen and Locality. USNM No. 111467, juvenile 3 mm, BLA SIO-X, Piedras Ahogadas, •

0.5 miles south of Isla Ventana, Gulf of California, shell hash, pebbles, 24 m. II

Distribution and Habitat. Gulf of California, usually on coarse substrate, rocky intertidal to 25 m.

I

Syrrhoe Goes, 1866 I

Type Species. Syrrhoe crenulata Goes, 1866, selected by Boeck, 1876. I

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Forehead in type species not protuberant but strongly

so in 3 other species, lateral cephalic lobe sharp in type but rounded in species with protuberant forehead and I

others. Eyes typically present but occasionally absent, accessory eyes absent. Mandible with palp, molar D

small, weakly triturative; mouthparts basic. Antenna 1, articles 1-2 usually basic but in type article 1 beating

large posteroterminal tooth, peduncle slightly elongate (female). Coxa 1 ordinary. Coxa 3 larger than 4 i

(pelagont). Gnathopods with transverse or subtransverse palms beating enlarged serrate defining spine I

giving chelate appearance to propodus. Gnathopod 2, dactyl normal. Pereopods 5-7 elongate, dactyls elongate,

second articles heavily serrate or not, article 2 of pereopod 7 typically rounded posteroventrally but in few II

other species becoming truncate. Pleonites 1-3 typically denticulate dorsally but often smooth or beating

single dorsaltooth, uropod 3 not exceeding apices of uropods 1-2 (possible exception inS. Iongifrons Shoemaker,

1964 group), peduncle short (except S. nodulosa K. H. Barnard, 1932). Telson elongate, deeply cleft, i

Remarks. 11 species. W

!

!

124 i
!

i Syrrhoe longifrons Shoemaker ,1964

Figure 2.91

I Syrrhoe longifrons Shoemaker, 1964: 404, figure 7.--Barnard, 1972b: 53.

I Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Sta. R2, 161 m, May 1987, (4 specimens), October 1986, (3 specimens), Sta. 74, 201 m, January 1985, (3 specimens).

Description (from Shoemaker, 1964). Male 10 mm. Eyes huge, reddish brown in alcohol, united

I above and extending half length of head. Head elongate, about as long as first 5 body segments, produced

slightly forward, evenly rounded. Forehead protuberant, rostrum pointed downward and backward. Coxae

1-3, distal comer produced anteriorly. Pereopod 5-7, article 2 almost triangular, produced posteriorly, coarsely

I on posterior edge. long, three-quarters length.

serrate Telson cleft of its

Remarks. This species differs from another local species, S. crenulata GoEs, 1866 in having a

I protruding forehead, antenna 1, article 1 and 2 with a small anterodistal tooth (S. crenulata has a posterodistal tooth on article 1 only), more produced coxal plates, lateral angle of head truncate rather than angular,

pereopods 3-5 more angularly produced behind (Shoemaker, 1964 and Bamard, 1972b).

I Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype USNM No. 94235, male, 10 mm, Mittelnacht, Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

Distribution and Habitat. Vancouver Island, British Columbia, to southern California, 0-200 m.

!

B

,

, +

D

!

)

Figure 2.91. Syrrhoelongifrons,male, 10mm;A,Pereopod5, posteriormarginarticle2;B,Anteriorwithpereonites

I 1-5;C, Telson,distal tip;D,Gnathopod 1,distaltip (fromShoemaker, 1964).

!

I 125
!

llron Liljeborg, 1865a m

m

Type Species. Lysianassa spinifera Stimpson, 1853.

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Forehead protuberant or not (type species). Eyes I

present and accessory eyes usually present. Mandible with palp (exception: Z tropakis Barnard, 1972b),

molar of medium size, strongly projecting, columnar and triturative; mouthparts basic. Antenna 1, articles 1- m

2 basic. Coxa 1 ordinary, coxa 3 softly rectangular, posterior margin almost parallel, with anterior margin m

adze-shaped and almost as tong as coxa 3, surface area of latter nearly equal to coxa 4, rarely coxa 4

distinctly shorter and smaller than 3 and weakly comma-shaped. Gnathopods simple, propodus elongate, 1

linear, lacking distinct spines. Gnathopod 2, dactyl normal. Pereopods 5-7 very short, dactyls typically very l

short, clawlike and bearing large inner wire-seta, but occasionally dactyls slightly elongate and poorly armed.

Pereopod 7, article 2 posteroventrally rounded. Pleonites 1-3 typically denticulate dorsally but apparently 1

smooth in 3 species. Uropod 3 greatly exceeding apices of uropods 1-2, peduncle short. Telson elongate, I

deeply cleft.

Tiron biocellata Barnard, 1962 U

Figure 2.92

m

1iron bioceUata Barnard, 1962b: 75-76, figure 2.--Barnard, 1972b: 84-85, figure 44. m

Material Examined. Reported from this study, but specimens unavailable. 1

m

Description. Female 4.4-4.6 mm. Forehead not protuberant. Lateral cephalic lobes blunt. Accessory

eyes present. Mandible with palp. Coxa 4 smaller than 3, comma shaped. Pleonites weakly crenulate m

dorsally, 4-6 produced posteriorly into a dorsal tooth. Telson lacking spines (occasionally 1subterminal spine m

occurring on each lobe). m

Type Specimen and Locality. AHF No. 5617, female 4.4 mm. Station 4787, Pt. Conception, I

34°26'30"N, 120°26'00"W, on the bottom of rock and with polychaetes of the genera Diopatra and Nothria I

(Barnard, 1962b), 24 m.

Distribution and Habitat. Pacific: Monterey Bay, California to San Cristobal Bay, Baja California; m

Caribbean Sea: Cuba, occasionally in algae, 0-180 m (most abundant < 30 m). l

!

!

i!

Figure 2.92. Iiron biocellata,male,3.5mm; A,Lateralview; B,Telson(fromBarnard, 1962b). I

126 t
!

I To'on tropakis Barnard, 1972

Figure 2.93

I Tiron tropakis Bamard, 1972b: 86-89, figures 45-46.

I Material Examined. Reported from this study, but specimens unavailable.

Description. Both sexes to 6 mm. Forehead not protuberant. Lateral cephalic lobes angular, but

i blunt. Accessory eyes present. Mandible without palp. Coxa 4 smaller than 3, comma shaped. Pleonites crenulate dorsally, produced backward into a tooth on pleonites 4 and 5. Pleonite 6 with a dorsal spine.

Telson with numerous spines arranged in medial row.

il wl on pleonalRemarkS'epimera. Barnard (1972b) notes that large specimens (from 5-6 ram) ofT. tropakis lose serrations

Type Specimen and Locality. Holotype AHF No. 663, female, 4.9 mm. Velero 6688, California,

I 34°24'00"N, 119°50'45"W, 9 m. Distribution and Habitat. Cosmopolitan. Pacific: California to Peru; Atlantic: Virginia to Caribbean

and Venezuela, on sand, 3-157 m.

I

|

I Figure2.93. /iron tropak/s,female,4.9mm;A,Telson;B, UrosomitesI-3 showingdorsalteeth(f_m Bamatd, 1972b).

I Family Urothoidae Bousfield, 1978

I Diagnosis (from Bamard and Karaman, 1991). Head short, ventral cheek strongly developed and

projecting ventrally. Antennae 1, articles 1-3 elongate, geniculate, flagella short. Antenna 2, article 4 scarcely

I expanded, basad, ventral withmargin spines with eitherelongate absent orplume in sedate setaeranks, and smaller all spinespenicillate on articlesetae, 4 apicad, ventral no glassy disjunctspines spinepoorly group

developed or absent, article 5 slightly shorter and narrower than article 4, flagellum variable, usually short in

I female, bearing but poorlymaletoothedften greatly incisors;elongate molar minutely flagellum,fuzzy, and part almost of peduncle non-triturative, frequentlylacking withsignificant calceoli. Mandibles accessory

chopper. Gnathopods feeble. Pereopods 6-7 alike (Urothoe) or pereopod 7 with article 2 broadly expanded

I and to pereopod posteroventrally 6. Peduncles lobate, of remainder pleopods slightly of articles to significantly thin, whole appendage wider than long, somewhat coupling shortened hooks paired in comparis on each on

pleopod. Coxal gills on segments 2-5 or 2-6. Antenna 2 with strong sexual dimorphism in several taxa.

I Remarks. 6 genera, 52 species.

I 127
!

g

Urothoe Dana, 1852 i

Type Species. Urothoe irrostrata Dana, 1853. n

u

Diagnosis (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Pereopod 7 not of phoxocephalid form, article 2 not

shield-like (but often large and ovate) and rest of leg not slender and short combined. Uropod 3, biramous, n

long and slender. Telson ordinary, deeply cle_ Males rarely described, peduncles of antennae 1-2 with short 1

male setal tufts, flagellum of antennae 2 elongate, articles elongate, armaments well developed, calceoli

present on peduncle and flagellum. •

Remarks. 36 species.

Urothoe elegans Bate, 1857 i

Figure 2.94

m

Urothoe elegans Bate, 1857b: 145.--Gurjanova, 1953: figures 141a, 141b.--Gurjanova, I962: 426-428, l

Figure 142.--Lincoln, 1979: 328, figures 153, c-e, 154.

Urothoe norvegica Sars, 1895: 138-139, plate 47. •

I

Material Examined. Santa Maria Basin, California, Phase I, Sta. 79, 98 m, (3 specimens). II

Description. Both sexes to 6 mm. Eyes small (large in male). Lateral cephalic lobe strongly

projected, but not reaching edge of antenna 2, article 2. Antenna 2 with a row of heavy, blunt, setae and a

row of spines laterally on article 4 and 5. Gnathopods I and 2 without locking spines? Pereopod 3-4, articles I

5 and 6 robustly spinose. Pereopod 5, article 2 not broadened distally? Uropod 3 rami broad with few setae.

I

Telson cleft to the base, with an apical spine and seta on each lobe. i

Using features such as the type and pattern of setae on pereopods 5-6 and the presence i

Remarks.

of spines (U. varvarini Gurjanova, 1953) vs setae (U. elegans) on the ventral margin of coxa 1 (Gurjanova,

HI

1962), in species identification can be problematical (thus the question marks in the diagnoses), such characters

potentially varying among individuals of the same species. Our specimens have characteristics of both 1

species including, spines on coxa 1 (characteristic of U. varvarinO, pereopod 6 with 7 plumose setae

u

posteromedially and a group of 7-8 setae ventrally, pereopod 5, article 2 is not distally broadened or rounded Ill

(characteristic of U. elegans), and the lateral cephalic lobe is moderately projected, not reaching the end of i

article 2, antenna 2 (U. elegans) (it is greatly projecting in U. varvarini). Until better diagnostic characters

are defined we relegate our specimens to U. elegans.

1

Type Specimen and Locality. Plymouth, England. i

Distribution and Habitat. Northeast Atlantic: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Shetland Islands,

common in the North sea, European coast from Norway to the Mediterranean; Red Sea; ?North Africa to i

Senegal and Mozambique, South Africa; North Pacific: Sea of Okhotsk, on sandy clay, and f'me sediments, 1

10-500 m.

1

Urothoe varvarini Gurjanova, 1953 i

Urothoe varvarini Gurjanova, 1953: 219-221, figures 3, 4.--Barnard, 1957: 82-84.--Gurjanova, 1962: 426- I

428, figure 142.

l

128 |
I

!

!

I

I / } f" ',

! ,

i Figure 2.94. Urothoeetegans; A,Head,male;B,Pereopod5,female; C,Head (fromLincoln, 1979).

i Material DescriptioExamined. n. Female 5Reported mm. Eyesfromsmallthis(instudy, femalebutonly?). not supported Lateral cephalic by collections. lobe strongly projected,

reaching edge of antenna 2, article 2? Antenna 2 with a row of heavy, blunt, setae and a row of spines

I laterally on article 4 and 5. Gnathopods 1and 2 with a strong, thick locking spines? Slightly serrated distal spines on pereopod 3 and 4. Coxal gill on segments 2-?5. Pereopod 5, article 2 distinctly broadened distally?

Uropod 3 rami with 2 apical setae. Telson cleft nearly two-thirds its length, with an apical spine on each lobe.

I few slightRemarks. differencesThisn species setal patterns is closely not clearly related defined to U. elegans in the literature Bate, (1857b) (Gurjanova, from which 1953itanddiffers Barnard, by a

1957). On the basis of the cleft telson alone, our material could not be U. varvarini (but see Lincoln, 1979

I who somedefines setal patterns th entirereported genusinasthehaving lterature a telsonas characteristic cleft to the base). of U. However, varvarini and California as the latter material species exhibits has

previously been reported from California, we have included a limited description here (see Remarks under U.

I elegans).Type Specimen and Locality. Female, 5 mm, former USSR, 100 m.

Distribution and I-IabitaL Northwestern Pacific Ocean, Japan Sea, the former USSR from Okhotsk

I Sea to Sakhalin, California, from Monterey Bay to Pt. Loma, on silty sand, 5-1292 m.

I Acknowledgements

Special thanks go out to Elizabeth Harrison-Nelson for help with literature searches and data compilation,

I and for her stedfast smile through thick and thin.

I 129
!

Literature Cited I

Abildgaard, P. C. 1789. Zoologia Danica seu animatium Daniae et Norvegiae rariorum ac minus notorum. I

Descriptiones et Historia, 3:71 pages, 120 plates.

Alderman, A. L. I936. Some new or littleknown amphipods of California. University of California Publications Ii

in Zoology, 41: 53-74, 51 figs.

Barnard, J. L. 1954. Marine Amphipoda of Oregon. Oregon State Monographs, Studies in Zoology, 8:103 •

pages, 1 figure [unnumbered], 33 plates. 1

Barnard, J. L. 1957. A New Genus of Haustoriid Amphipod from the Northeastern Pacific Ocean and the

Southern Distribution of Urothoe varvariniGurjanova. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy i

of Sciences, 56:81-84, plate 16.

Barnard, J. L. 1958. A New Genus of Dexaminid Amphipod (Marine Crustacea) from California. Bulletin 1

of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, 56:130-132, plates 26, 27. i

Bamard, J. L. t959a. Estuarine Amphipoda in:Ecology of Amphipoda and Polychaeta of Newport Bay,

California. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 21:13-69, 14 plates. 1

I

Barnard, J.L. 1959b. The Common Pardaliscid Amphipoda of SouthernCalifornia, with a Revision of the

Family. Pacific Naturalist, 1(12):36-43, 4 figures.

Barnard, J. L. 1960. The Amphipod Family Phoxocephalidae in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, with Analyses II

of Other Species and Notes for aRevision of the Family. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions, 18:175-

368, 75 plates, 1 chart, i

I

Barnard, J. L. 1961. Gammaridean Amphipoda from depths of 400 to 6000 Meters. Galathea Report, 5:23-

128, 83 figures. 1961b. Relationship of Californian Amphipod Faunas in Newport Bay and in the I

Open Sea. Pacific Naturalist, 2:166-186, 2 figures, i

Bamard, J. L. 1962a. Benthic Marine Amphipoda of Southern California:Families Aoridae, Photidae,

Ischyroceridae, Corophiidae, Podoceridae. Pacific Naturalist, 3:1-72, 32 figures. !

Barnard, J. L. 1962b. Benthic Marine Amphipoda of Southern California:Families Tironidae to Gammaridae.

Pacific Naturalist, 3:73-115, 23 figures.

Barnard, J. L. 1962c. Benthic Marine Amphipoda of Southern California:Families Amphilochidae, _i

Leucothoidae, Stenothoidae, Argissidae, Hyalidae. Pacific Naturalist, 3:116-163, 23 figures.

Barnard, J. L. 1962d. South Atlantic Abyssal Amphipods Collected by R.V. Vema. Abyssal Crustacea, 1

1

Vema Research Series, 1:1-78, 79 figures.

I

Barnard, J. L. 1962e. Benthic Marine Amphipoda of Southern California:Family Oedicerotidae. Pacific I1

Naturalist, 3:349-371, 10 figures.

Barnard, J. L. 1964a. Deep-Sea Amphipoda (Crustacea) Collected by the R/V "Vema" in the Eastern

Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas. Bulletin of the American Museum of 1

Natural History, 127:3-46, 33 figures, 1 table.

Bamard, J. L. 1964b. Marine Amphipoda of Bahia de San Quintin, Baja California. Pacific Naturalist, 4:55- •

139, 21 figures, 17 charts, 13 tables.

Bamard, J. L. 1966a. Submarine Canyons of Southern California Part V Systematics:Amphipoda. i

Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions, 27(5):166 pages, 46 figures. •

i

,30 |
!

I Barnard, J. L. 1966b. Benthic Amphipoda of Monterey Bay, California. Proceedings of the United States

National Museum, 1I9(3541):41 pages, 7 figures.

I Barnard, J. L. 1967. Bathyal and Abyssal Gammaridean Amphipoda of Cedros Trench, Baja California.

United States National Museum, Bulletin, 260:205 pages, 92 figures.

I Barnard,Amphipoda J. L. 1969a. (Crustacea). A BiologicalTransactions Survey of BofahiathedeSanLosDiego Angeles Society Gulf ofof Natural California, History: Mexico, 15:175-228, IV. Benthic30

figures.

I Barnard, J. L. 1969b. The families and genera of marine gammaridean Amphipoda. Bulletin of the United

States National Museum 271:1-535, 173 figures.

I Barnaxd,Jolla. J. L. 1Bulletin 969c. Gammaridean of the United States Amphipoda Nationalof Museum the rocky258: intertid1-230, al of65Calfigures. ifornia: Monterey Bay to La

Barnard, J. L. 1970. The Identity of Dexamonica and Prinassus with a Revision of Dexaminidae

I (Amphipoda). Cmstaceana, 19:161-180, figures.

5

Barnard, J. L. 1971. Gammafidean Amphipoda from a Deep-Sea Transect off Oregon. Smithsonian

I Contributions to Zoology, 61:86 pages, 48 figures.

Barnard, J. L. 1972a. The Marine Fauna of New Zealand:Algae-living Littoral Gammaridea (Crustacea

Amphipoda). New Zealand Oceanographic Institute Memoir, 62:7-216, 109 figures.

I Barnard, J. L. 1972b. A Review of the Family Synopiidae (=Tironidae), Mainly Distributed in the Deep Sea

(Crustacea:Amphipoda). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 124:94 pages, 46 figures.

' J.L. 1979a. Revision of of Marine Genus

Barnard, American Species the Amphipod Parapho xus

(Garnmaridea:Phoxocephalidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 92:368-379.

I Barnard,Islands. J. L. 1979b. Smithsonian LittoralContributions Gammarideanto Zoology, Amphipoda 271:vifromandthe149Gpages, ulf of 74Californi figures.a and the Galapagos

Barnard, J. L. and C. M. Barnard. 1981. The Amphipod Genera Eobrolgus and Eyakia

I in the Pacific Ocean. of the of (Crustacea:Phoxocephalidae) Proceedings Biological Society

Washington, 94:295-313, 1 figure.

I Bamard,Phoxocephalidae) J. L. and C. M. Barnard. from American 1982a. ORevceans. isionSmithsonian of FoxiphaIusContribut and Eoions brolgus to Zoology, (Crustacea:Amphi 372:35 pages, poda: 5

figures.

I Barnard, J. L. and C. M. Barnard. 1982b. The GenusRhepoxynius (Cmstacea: Amphipoda:Phoxocephalidae) in American Seas. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 357:49 pages, 6 figures.

I Bamard,II.J. L. Handbook and C. M.andBarnar Bibliography. d. 1983. Freshwater xix and 830Amphip pages, od50a figures, of the Worl 7 graphs, d, I. Ev98olumaps, tionary12Patterns tables. and Mt.

Vernon, Virginia, Hayfield Associates.

I Barnard, J. L., and G. S. Karaman. 1991. The Families and Genera of Marine Gammaridean Amphipoda (Except Marine Gammaroids), Supplement 13, Part I, 417 pages, 85 figures, and Part II, 447 pages,

47 figures.

I Barnard, K. H., 1932. Amphipoda. Discovery Reports 5: 1-326, 174 figures, 1 plate.

Bate, C. S. 1857a. On a New Amphipod. The Natural History Review, 4:229-230, plate 16. 1857c. British

I Amphipoda. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 2, 19:271.

I 131
!

|

Bate, C. S. 1857b. A synopsis of the British Edriophthalmous Crustacea. Annals and Magazine of Natural •

History, series 2, 19:135-152, 2 figures.

m

Bate, C. S. t 862. Catalogue off the specimens of amphipodous Crustacea in the collection of the British I

Museum, iv + 399 pp., pls 1, !a, 2-58. London: British Museum of Natural History.

n

Boeck, A. 1861. Bemaerkninger Angaaende de Ved de Norske Kyster forekommende Amphipoder. n

Forhandlinger Skandinaviske Naturforskeres Ottende, 8:631-677.

Boeck, A. 1871. Crustacea Amphipoda Borealia et Arctica. Forhandlinger iVidenskabs-Selskabet iChristiania,

1870:83-280. I

Boeck, A. 1876. De Skandinaviske og Artiske Amphipoder. iv and 712 pages, 32 plates. Christiania:A.W.

Brogger. I

Bonnier, J. 1896. Edriophthalmes. Resultats scientifques de lacampagne du "Candan" dans le Golfe de

Gascogne. Annales de la Universite de Lyon 26:527-689, plates 28-40.

Bousfield, E.L. 1973. Shallow-water Gammaridean Amphipoda of New England. vii-xii, 312 pages, 13 i

figures, 69 plates. Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press.

Bousfield, E. L. 1978. A Revised Classification and Phylogeny of Amphipod Crustaceans. Transactions of I

the Royal Society of Canada, 4:343-390, 6 figures.

i

Bruzelius, R.M. 1859. Bidrag till kannedomen om skandinaviens Amphipoda Gammaridea. Kongliga Svenska •

Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, new series, 3:104 pages, 4 plates.

Chevreux, E. 1887a. Catalogue des crustaces amphipodes marins du sud-ouest de la Bretagne, suivi d'un n

apercu de la distribution geographique des amphipodes sur les cotes de France. Bulletin de la Societe I

Zoologique de France, 12:288-340, 8 figures, plate 5.

Chevreux, E. 1887b. Crustaces amphipodes nouveaux dragues par l'Hirondelle, pendant sa campagne de •

1886. Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France, 12:566-580.

Chevreux, E. 1900. Amphipodes provenant des campagnes de l'HirondeUe (1885-1888). Resultats des n

Campagnes Scientifiques Accomplies par lePrince Albert I. Monaco, 16:iv and 195 pages, 18 plates, i

Chevreux, E., and L. Fage. 1925. Amphipodes. Faune de France, 9:488 pages, 438 figures.

Costa, A. 1851. Pp. 44-47, fig.2. In Gugl. Hope's Catalogo dei Crostacei Italiani e di Molti Altri del ,n

Mediterraneo. Napoli: Azzolino. 1851-1853. Fauna del Regno di Napoli [and catalogo de' Crostacei

i

del Regno di Napoti. Miscellaneous pp. of incomplete editions seen: see Stebbing, 1888: 247-250].

Dana, J. D. 1852. On the Classification of the Crustacea Choristopoda or Tetradecapoda. American n

Journal of Sciences and Arts, series 2, 14[appendix]:297-316.

Dana, J.D. 1853. Crustacea. Part II. United States Exploring Expedition, 14:689-1618, atlas of 96 plates. I

i

Dana, J.D. 1856. Catalogue and Descriptions of Crustacea Collected in California by Dr. John L. Le

Conte. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Science, 7:175-177. n

Enequist, P. 1949. Studies on the Soft-Bottom Amphipods of the Skagerak. Zoologii Bidrag fran Uppsala,

28:297-492, 67 figures.

Goes, A. 1866. Crustacea Amphipoda marls Spetsvergiam alluentis, cum speciebus aliis arcticis enumerat. U

Ofversigt af Kongelige Vetenskaps-Akademiens Forhandligar 1865:517-536, pls 36-41.

!

132 |
!

I Grube, A.E. 1864. Die Insel Lussin und ihre Meeresfauna. Nach einem sechswochenttichen Aufenthalte: 116

pages, 1 plate.

I Gurjanova, E. F. 1938. Amphipoda, Gammaroidea of Siaukhu Bay and Sudzukhe 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, 59 figures. [In Russian.]

I Gurjanova, E. E 1951. Bokoplavy morej SSSR i sopredel'nykh vod (Amphipoda-Gammaridea). Akademiia

Nauk SSSR, Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, 41:1029 pages, 705 figures.

I Gurjanova, 1953. Novye dopolnenija k dal'nevostochnoi faune morskik bokoplavov. Akademiia Nauk

E. E

SSSR, Trudy Zoologicheskogo Institute, 13:216-241, 19 figures.

I Gurjanova, Akademii E. E 1962. Nauk SSSR, Bokoplavy Opredeliteli severnoi po Faune chasti TSSSR, lxogo 74:440 Okeanapage(Amphipoda-Gammaridea) s, 143 figures. chast' 1.

Gurjanova, E. E 1977. Some New Data in Taxonomy of Family Phoxocephalidae sensu lato (AmphipodaI Gammaridea). Report Akademija SSSR, Zoologicheskii Issledovanija Fauny Morei,

I. Nauk Institut,

21(29):67-87, 9 figures.

I Hansen, fauna H.J. af1888. Malakostrake Malacostraca Havkrebsdyr. marina GrVidenskabelige oenlandiae occidentalis. MeddelelserOversigt fra DanskoverNaturhistorisk det vestlige Gronlands Forening,

Kjobenhavn, 1887:5-226, plates 2-7.

I Heller, C. 1867. Beitrage zur naheren Kenntniss der Amphipoden des adriatischen Meeres. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe Wien,

, 26(2):62 pages, 4 plates.

I Hirayama, A. 1983. Taxonomic studies on the shallow water gammaridean Amphipoda of West Kyushu,

Japan. I.Acanthonotozomatidae, Ampeliscidae, Ampithoidae Amphilochidae, Anamixidae, Argissidae,

I Atylidae figures. and Colomastigidae. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory 28: 75-150, 42

Hirayama, A. 1985b. Taxonomic Studies on the Shallow Water Gammaridean Amphipoda of West Kyushu,

I Japan IV. Dexaminidae (Guernea), Eophiliantidae [sic], Eusiridae, Haustoriidae, Hyalidae, Ischyroceridae. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, 30:1-53, figures 124-161.

I Holman,Leucothoidae, H. andL. Wafting. Liljeborgiidae, 1983. Amphipoda and Sebidae. from theBiology southemofocean: the Antarctic families Seas Colomastigidae, XIII, Antarctic Dexaminidae, Research

Series 38: 215-262, 35 figs.

I Holmes, S.J. 1905. The Amphipoda of Southern New England. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, 24:459-529, numerous unnumbered figures, 13 plates.

i Holmes, Off S.J. 1908. The Amphipoda Collected by the United States Bureau of Fisheries Steamer, "Albatross", the West Coast of North America, in 1903 and 1904, With Descriptions of a New Family and

Several New Genera and Species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 35:489-543,

i 46 figures. Hurley, D.E. 1956. A New Species ofStegocephalus (Amphipoda Gammaridea) from California. Bulletin

of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, 55:28-34, plates 9-1 I.

I Just, J. 1980. Amphipoda (Crustacea) of the Thule Area, Northwest Greenland: Faunistics and Taxonomy.

Greenland Bioscience, 2:1-61, 58 figures.

!

I 133
!

Karaman, G.S. 1973. The Phoxocephalidae Family of the Adriatic Sea. Glasnik Republickog Zavoda za n

zastitu Pirode [= Prirodnjackog Muzeja Titograd], 5:47-101,28 figures.

m

Karaman, G. S. 1974. Revision of the Family Pardaliscidae with Diagnosis of Genera, Distribution of n

Species and Bibliography. Acta Adriatica, Institut za Oceanografiju i Ribarstvo, 15(7):3-46.

Krapp-Schickel, G. 1975. Revision of MediterraneanLeucothoe species (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Bollettino n

del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona 2:91-118, 15 figures, m

Kr_yer, H. 1842. Une nordiske Slaegter og Arter af Amfipodernes Orden, henhorende til Familien Gammarina.

(Forelobigt Uddrag af et storre Arbejde). Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, 4:141-166. I

I

Kmyer, H. 1845. Karcinologiske Bidrag. Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, (NS) 1:283-345, 3 plates; 403,453-638,

plates 6, 7.

Kroyer, H. 1846. Atlas voyages de la commission scientifique du nord; en Scandinavie, en Laponie, au B

Spitzberg et aux Fero, pendant les annees ! 838-1840, sur la corvette la Recherche, commandee par

M. Fabvre. Plates 10-11, 13-20, 22-23. Paris:M. Paul Gaimard. n

Laubitz, D.R. 1977. A Revision of the Genera Dulichia Kroyer and Paradulichia Boeck (Amphipoda,

Podoceridae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 55:942-982, 20 figures, 12 maps.

Leach, W.E. 1814. Crustaceology. Appendix. The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, 7:429-434. •

Ledoyer, M. 1973. Amphipodes gammariens nouveaux ou peu connus de la region de Marseille. Tethys II

4:88t

-898, 13 plates. I

Ledoyer, M. 1983. Les Oedicerotidae (Crustacea, Amphipoda) de la Mer Mediterranee. Bollettino del

Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona, 9:45-84, 7 figures. _n

u

Ledoyer, M. 1986. Crustaces amphipodes gammariens. Faune De Madagascar, 59(2):599-1112, figures

227-415.

Lepechin, I. 1780. Tres oniscorum species descriptae. Acta Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae, I

1778:[pages unknown] [not seen, see Stebbing, 1888].

Liljeborg, V.[or W.]. 1865a. Bidrag till kannedomen om underfamiljen Lysianassina inom underordningen !

n

Amphipoda bland kraftdjuren. ["Nova Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum Upsaliensis III Serie"]

U

[journal title from Stebbing, 1888, only an unattributed reprint seen].

Liljeborg, V. [or W.]. 1865b. On the Lysianassa magellanica H. Milne Edwards, and on the Crustacea of ,HI

the suborder Amphipoda and Subfamily Lysianassina found an [sic] the Coast of Sweden and

Norway. Nova Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum Upsaliensis, series 3, 6:1-38, 5 plates. I

Lincoln, R.J. 1979. British Marine Amphipoda:Gammaridea, v-vvi and 658 pages, 280 figures, 3 plates.

London:British Museum (Natural History).

Maim, A. W. 187 I. Om tva for Vetenskapen nya Amfipod-Species fran Bohuslan, af Hvilka det Ena ar Typ

for ett nytt Genus inom Pontoporeinernas Grupp. Ofversigt Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademien

Forhandlingar, 1870, 27:543-548, plate 5. n

McCloskey, L. R. 1970. A New Species of Dulichia (Amphipoda, Podoceridae) Commensal with a Sea

Urchin. Pacific Science, 24:90-98, 18 figures.

Metzger, A. 1875. Crustaceen aus den Ordnungen Edriophthalmata und Podophthalmata. V.Zoologische I

Ergbnisse der Nordseefahrt vom 21. Juli bis 9. September 1872. Jahresbericht der Commission zur

Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der Deutschen Meere in Kiel fur die Jahre 1872.1873 [sic] II. und •

111.Jahrgang. pages 277-309, figures 7-10, plate 6. II

134 N
!

I Mills, E. L. 1962. Amphipod Crustaceans of the Pacific Coast of Canada. 1I. Family Oedicerotidae.

Natural History Papers National Museum of Canada, 15:1-21, 6 figures.

I G. 1804. of Several Marine Animals Found the South Coast of Montagu, Description on Devonshire.

Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 7:61-85, plates 6-7.

I Montagu,Transactions G. 808. ofDescription the LinneanofSociety SeveralofMarine London,Animals 9:81-114,Foplates und on2-8. the South Coast of Devonshire.

i Murdoch, J. 1885. Description of Seven New Species of Crustacea and One Worm from Arctic Alaska. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 7:518-522.

Nagata, K. 1965. Studies on Marine Gammaridean Amphipoda of the Seto Inland Sea. lI. Publications of

I. the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, 13:171-186, figures t6-26.

Norman, A.M. 1869. Shetland Final Dredging Report.--Part II. On the Crustacea, Tunicata, Polyzoa,

Echinodermata, Actinozoa, Hydrozoa, and Porifera. Report of the Thirty-eighth Meeting of the

I British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1868:247-336.

Pearse, A. S. 1912. Notes on certain amphipods from the Gulf of Mexico, with descriptions of new genera

I and new species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 43(1936):369-379, 8 figures.

Pirlot, J.M. 1932. Les amphipodes de l'expedition du Siboga. Deuxieme partie. Les amphipodes gammarides.

I. - _ amphipodes fouisseurs. Pboxocephalidae, Oedicerotidae, Siboga-Expedition, Monographie

I 33b: 57-113, 12-34.

figs

Sars, G. O. 1879. Crustacea et Pycnogonida nova in itinere 2do et 3rio expeditionis Norvegicae anno 1877

i and 78 coltecta. (Prodromus descriptionis). Archiv for Mathmatik og Namrvidenskab, 4:427-476.

Sars, G.O. 1883. Oversigt af Norges Crustaceer med forelobige Bemaerkninger over de nye eller Mindre

bekjendte After. I. (Podophthatmata--Cumacea--Isopoda-- Amphipoda). Forhandlinger

I Videnskabsselskabs i Christiania, 18:124 pages, 6 plates.

Sars, G. O. 1895. Amphipoda. An Account of the Crustacea of Norway With Short Descriptions and

i Figures of All the Species, I :viii and 711 pages, 240 plates, 8 supplementary plates. Schellenberg, A. 1931. Gammariden und Caprelliden des Magellangebietes, Sudgeorgiens und der

Westantarktis. Further Zoological Results of the Swedish Antarctic Expedition 1901-1903, 2(6):290

I pages, I plate, 136 figures.

Scott, T. 1890. Additions to the fauna of the Firth of Forth. Annual Report of the Fisheries Board of

i Scotland 8: 312-333, pls 12, 13. Shoemaker, C.R. 1925. The Amphipoda Collected by the United States Fisheries Steamer 'Albatross' in

1911, Chiefly in the Gulf of California. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 52:21-

I 61, 26 figures.

Shoemaker, C.R. 1930. The Amphipoda of the Cheticamp Expedition of 1917. Contributions to Canadian

I Biology and Fisheries, new series, 5(10):221-359, 54 figures. [Also in reprint of 141 pages.] Shoemaker, C.R. 1938. Two New Species of Amphipod Crustaceans from the East Coast of the United

States. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 28:326-332.

I Shoemaker, C.R. 1955. Amphipoda Collected at the Arctic Laboratory, Office of Naval Research, Point

Barrow, Alaska, by G.E. MacGinitie. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 128(1): 1-78, 20 figures.

!

i 135
!

Shoemaker, C.R. 1964. Seven New Amphipods from the West Coast of North America with Notes on i

Some Unusual Species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 115:391-430, 15 figures.

Smith, S.I. 1883. List of the Crustacea Dredged on the Coast of Labrador by the Expedition Under the n

Direction of W.A. Steams, in 1882. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 7:218-222.

u

Stebbing, T. R.R. 1888. Report on the Amphipoda Collected by H.M.S. Challenger During the Years 1873- •

76. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger During the Years 1873- []

1876, Zoology, 29:xxiv and 1737 pages, 210 plates. London:Eyre and Spottiswoodie.

Stebbing, T. R.R. 1899. Revision of Amphipoda (continued). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, B

series 7, 4:205-211.

Stebbing, T. R.R. 1906. Amphipoda I. Gammaridea. Das Tierreich, 21:806 pages, 127 figures, n

U Stephensen, K. 1925. Crustacea Malacostraca. VI. (Amphipoda. H). Danish Ingotf-Expedition, 3:101-178,

figures 23-53. II

Stephensen, K. 1931. Crustacea Malacostraca VII. (Amphipoda, m.). Danish Ingolf-Expedition 3:179- I

290, figs 54-8t.

Stephensen, K. 1944. Crustacea Malacostraca VIII. (Amphipoda IV). Danish Ingolf-Expedition, 3(13):51 !

pages, 38 figures.

Stimpson, W. 1853. Synopsis of the Marine In vertebrata of Grand Man an:or the Region About the Mouth _

of the Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 6:i-iv, 5-66, 3 plates. II

Stout, 1913. Studies in Laguna Amphipoda. Zoologische Jahrbucher, Systematik 34:633-659, 3 figs. II,

Thomson, G.M. 1879. Additions to the Amphipodous Crustacea of New Zealand. Annals and Magazine of E

Natural History, series 5, 4:329-333, plate 16.

Thurston, M. H. 1974. Crustacea Amphipoda from Graham Land and the Scotia Arc, Collected by Operation !

Tabarin and the Falkland Islands Dependencies Survey, 1944-59. British Antarctic Survey Scientific t_

Reports, 85:89 pages, 28 figures. In

Thurston, M.H. 1976. New Pelagic Amphipods (Crustacea:Amphipoda) collected on the Sond Cruise. I

Journal of the Marine Biological Association, United Kingdom, 56:143-159, 6 figures.

Vanhoffen, E. 1907. Crustaceen aus dem ldeinen Karajakfjord in West-Gronland. Zoologische Jahrbucher, I

Systematik 25:507-524, plates 20-22. I

Walker, A. O. 1896. On Two New Species of Amphipoda Gammarina. Annals and Magazine of Natural

History, series 6, 17:343-346, plate 16.

Walker, A. O. 1903. Amphipoda of the 'Southern Cross' Antarctic Expedition. Journal of the Linnean n

Society of London, 29:38-64, plates 7-11. I

Walker, A.O. 1904. Report on the Amphipeda Collected by Professor Herdman, at Ceylon, in 1902. Report

to the Government of Ceylon on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of Manaar, Supplementary •

Report, 17:229-300, 8 plates. I!

!

!

136 I
!

i 3. THE FAMILIES AMPELISCIDAE, AMPHILOCHIDAE,

I LILJEBORGIIDAE, AND PLEUSTIDAE

LesWatling_

!

Family Ampeliscidae Costa, 1957

I Diagnosis. (after Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Urosomites 2-3 coalesced. Pereopods 5-6 alike

but pereopod 7 of distinct structure. Pereopod 7 article 2 with distinct, usually broad posteroventral lobe;

I arti inernal cle 2 pigment of pereopomadssses5-6served rhomboid by 2-4or external diamond cuticular shaped anlense d poorly s. Aclobed. cessoryEyes flagellum when present ab. compose Article d4 of

pereopods 3-4 elongate, article 6 much shorter than 4 and article 5 much shorter than 6, these pereopods

l glandulaRr.emGnaathopod feeble. Uropod 3 biramous. rks. Members of this family have a body form that is conservative across the family and quite

distinct from all other families. Most species occupy the upper end of vertical, laterally flattened tubes.

t Key to the Genera of the Ampelisicidae

i (from Dickinson, 1983)

1A. Head as deep as long; basal lobe of pereopod 7 not expanded distally, posterior margin nearly vertical

i 1B. He........................................................................................................................................... ad longer than deep; basal lobe of pereopod 7 expanded distally, posterior margin oblique Haploops ....... 2

2A. Anteroventral corner of head not excavate; pereopod 7 anterior edge of posteroventral lobe on

article 2 lacking setae near junction with article 3; dactyl of pereopod 7 broad at base, not spine-like

.......................................................................................................................................... Ampelisca

I '

2B. Anteroventral corner of head excavate for insertion of antenna 2; pereopod 7 anterior edge of

posteroventral lobe on article 2 bearing setae near junction with article 3; dactyl of pereopod 7 spinel Eke............................................................................................................................................ Byblis

J

Genus Ampelisca KrCyer, 1842

I Type Species. Ampelisca eschrichti Kr_yer, 1842.

Diagnosis. Flagella of antennae 1-2 with 5 or more articles. Maxilliped inner plate short and broad,

t palp article 3unproduced. Pereopods 3-4, article 5 short and often partially overhung by article 4. Pereopods 5-6, dactyls very short and hook-like. Pereopod 7 article 2 with posterior margin oblique and expanding

ventrally, rarely parallel to anterior margin, area near junction of lobe with anterior part of article not setose;

I dactyl wide at base, not spine-like. Telson longer than broad, cleft more than half its length.

i _DepartmentofOceanographyDarling , MarineCenter,UniversityofMaine,Walpole,Maine04573.

I 137
!

Remarks. This is a large and diverse genus, containing 153 species, all with a very conservative I

body morphology. Most of the differences among the species are found on the appendages, with additional

characters utilizing features of the urosome and pleonal side plate 3. I

Key to the Species of Ampelisca from the Santa Maria Basin.

i

1A. Pleon epimeral plate 3 with tooth on posterior comer ..................................................................... 2

1B. Pleon epimeral plate 3 quadrate, or bluntly rounded, without tooth on posterior comer .................. 8 I

2A. Pereopod 7, article 5 longer and wider than article 6 ................................................ Ampelisca eoa

2B. Pereopod 7, article 5 slightly wider but never longer than article 6 ................................................. 3 I

3A. Pereopod 7, article 5 with notch in anterior margin, article 4 with very large posterior lobe; uropod 1

not reaching beyond mid-part of uropod 2 rami ................................................ Ampelisca pugetica U

3B. Pereopod 7, article 5 without notch in anterior margin; uropod 1reaches nearly to end of uropod 1 .... 4

!

4A. Pereopod 7, article 6 nearly as wide as article 5 at base, nearly twice the length of article 5 ..........

........................................................................................................................ Ampelisca unsocalae

4B. Pereopod 7, article 6 narrower, and just slightly longer, than article 5 ............................................. 5 |

5A. Pereopod 6, article 5 with only a single spine-seta group on posterior margin; pereopod 7 dactyl only i

slightly longer than wide ................................................................................... Ampelisca hancocki

5B. Pereopod 6, article 5 with at least 2 spine-seta groups on posterior margin .................................... 6 I

6A. Pereopod 6, article 6 setae on anterior margin shorter than article is wide .......................................

Ampelisca brevisimulata m

UP

6B. Pereopod 6, article 6 setae on anterior margin longer than article width ......................................... 7

7A. Urosomite 1 with broad, dorsally rounded, lamellar carina ................................. Ampelisca cristata I

7B. Urosomite 1 with dorsal depression followed by sub-acute carina in front of posterior margin ........

........................................................................................................................... Ampelisca pacifica I

8A. Antenna 1 shorter than peduncle of antenna 2; urosomite 1 carina highest in mid-segment ............. j

........................................................................................................................... Ampelisca agassizi 4|

8B. Antenna I extends beyond peduncle of antenna 2; urosomite 1 carina highest posteriorly on segment

......................................................................................................................................................... I

9A. Pereopod 7, article 5 distal part of anterior margin notched; urosomite 1 carina overhangs slight

anterior elevation of urosomites 2-3 ...................................................................... Ampelisca romigi I

1

9B. Pereopod 7, article 5 anterior margin not notched; urosomite I posterior elevation united with anterior

elevation of urosomite 2-3 to form broadly rounded carina .................................. Ampelisca lobata i

138 i
!

I Key toFigureAbbreviations

A1, antenna 1 MD, mandible

I CX 1 LP3, 3

1, coxa pereopod

CX 2, coxa 2 P4, pereopod 4

i CX 1-4, coxae 1-4 P5, pereopod 5

EP 1-3, epimeral plates 1-3 P6, pereopod 6

EP 3, epirneral plate 3 P7, pereopod 7

I EP3 and URS, epimeral plate 3 and urosome RT, righ!

GN1, gnathopod t T, telson

I GN2, gnathopod 2 UR1, uropod 1

HD, head UR2, uropod 2

i FT, left UR3, uropod 3

I Ampelisca eoa Gurjanova, 1951

Figure 3.1

I Ampelisca catalinensis J.L. Barnard, 1954

I Material Examined. California: off Pt. Purisima, St. 46, 597 m, muddy sand (1 specimen).

Description. Head, corneal lenses absent. Antenna 1 reaching well beyond end of peduncle of

m antenna 2; second peduncle article twice length of first. Antenna 2 nearly equal to length of body; peduncle

,,, article 4 longest. Pereopod 5 posterior margin of article 5 naked. Pereopod 7 article 2 posterior lobe

moderately deep, extends halfway along article 4; article 3 subequal to article 4; articles 5 and 6 subequal in

length; article 7 with curved tip. Uropod 1 not reaching to end of uropod 2. Telson lobes apices notched;

i dorsal surface with 1-3

setag.

Remarks. This species has been found several times throughout its range, but as noted by Barnard

in 1960, it still needs redescription to include the details of the head, antenna 1, pleonite 4, and uropods 1 and

|

Distribution and Habitat. An inhabitant of slope and shelf depths from northern Japan (north of

I 34°N) through the Bering Sea to southern California, 230-1833 m.

1W

Ampelisca pugetiea Stimpson, 1864

I Figure 3.2

Ampelisca californica Holmes, 1908

I Ampelisca gnathia J.L. Barnard, 1954

Material Examined. California: offPt. Buchon. St. 15,393 m, 83% silt (1); offPt. Arguello, St. 71,

I 306 m, silt-sand (I); off Pt. Purisima, St. R-4, 92 rn, 80% silt, Cruise 1-2 (4) and Cruise 1-3 (3). Description. Antenna 1 short, not reaching end of antenna 2 peduncle; second peduncle article

about twice length of article 1. Antenna 2 about equal to length of body; peduncle article 4 the longest.

I Mandible palp article 2 setose along much of its length. Coxae 1-2 with small slit at postemventrai comer.

I 139
I

1

J' : I i

..;;. "/.,.)

HD " ...'',, :,/

i

.... "_ ]/ _ Y

"<._::, L"

/ ,'.!. "; P7 I

_ _ I _

EP3 & URS l

L T

i

Figure3.1. Ampeliscaeoa (fromBarnard,1954). t

Pereopods broadly rounded; 5-6 posterior article margi 3 subequal n of artictolearticle 5 with42in-3length; sets of carticle omb setae 4 with. Pere broadopodposteroventral 7 article 2 ventral setosemargin lobe; 1

article 5 with small notch near ventral edge of anterior margin; article 6 slightly inflated and longer than article

5. carina. UropodTelson1 reaching only halfway along rami of uropod 2. Urosomite 1 with terminal and subterminal I lobes pointed at apex, with posterolateral broad notches beating 3-5 setae; dorsal surface of

each lobe with 3-6 long setae.

Remarks. This species is easily distinguished by the combination of distinct urosomite 1, shape of 1 pereopod 7, and length of uropod 1.

Distribution and Habitat. An inhabitant of silt and sandy bottoms on the continental shelf from

Prince William Sound, Alaska to Baja California, at depths of 0-225 m. I

14o 1
I

!

| °_

!

| i ;"

!

!

! EP3& URS

I

!

Figure 3.2. Ampelisca pugetica (fromBamard,1954).

!

Ampelisca unsocalae J.L. Barnard, 1960

I Figure 3.3

Ampelisca macrocephala unsocalae J.L. Barnard, 1960

I Ampelisca careyi Dickinson, 1982

Material Examined. California: offPt. Purisima, St. 46, 597 m, 83% sand(13), St. R-4, 92 m, 80%

I (7m,);81%offPt.siltArguello, (6). St. 55,590 m, silty-sand (25), St. 74,201 m, sandy-silt (8); offPt. San Luis, St. R-3,409

Description. Antenna 1 short, not reaching end of peduncle of antenna 2, second peduncle article

l_l twice length of first. Antenna 2 nearly equal to length of body, peduncle article 4 longest. Mandible palp

I 141
.

I

•""... ?_...._ "__'["

,I

l

• I

U

!

UN 3

i

Figure 3.3. Ampelisca unsocalae(fromDickinson, 1982). il

!1

article 2 setose distally. Coxae 1-3 with small tooth on posteroventral comer. Pereopods 5-6 posterior

margin of article 5 with 3 sets of short stiff setae. Pereopod 7 article 2 posterior lobe deep, extends to article i

4; article 3 subequal to article 4; article 4 with setose posterior lobe extending half length of article 5; article l

6 nearly twice length of article 5; article 7 often with curved tip. Uropod 1 reaching end ofuropod 2. Telson

lobes with notched apex beating small stiff seta, dorsal surface with 4-5 setae, i

Remarks. Dickinson (1982) elevated unsocalae from subspecific to full species status, using the II

shape of telson apices, head shape, and form of epimeral plate 3 tooth as distinguishing features. A. careyi

was further distinguished fromA, unsocalae on the basis of head shape (a little longer), length of tooth on the Ill

third epimeral plate (a little shorter), relative length of antenna 1 (lodger than antenna 2 peduncle), and I_

142 i
!

i position of the apical notch on the telson (just laterad of the median slit, rather than at the median slit). An

examination of several specimens has shown that all of these features are gradational in nature and may be

I representa telson feature tive ofofDickinson's a latitudinal careyi or depthcombined gradient.withSpecimens the shortfromantenna the Santa I ofunsocalae Maria Basin . Consequently, region possessed it is felt the

here there exist no consistent characters which can be used to unerringly diagnose A. careyi.

I primarilyDistribution 100-600 m) and Habitat. An inhabitant of silt-clay bottoms of the continental slope (50-1700 m, from Dixon Entrance to off San Diego (J.L. Barnard 1971, Dickinson 1982).

I Ampelisca hancocki J.L. Barnard, 1954

Figure 3.4

I Material Examined. California: east of Pt. St. 85, 113 72% sand off Pt. Conception, m, (I);

Purisima, St. R-4, 92 m, 80% silt (10); off Pt. Sal, St. PJ-18, 158 m, silt (4).

t Description. Body small (4-6 mm). Antenna 1 short, not reaching beyond end of antenna 2, peduncle articles 1 and 2 subequal in length. Antenna 2 about length of body, peduncle article 4 longest.

Mandible palp article 2 setose along distal half. Coxae 1-3 posteroventral comer toothed. Pereopods 5-6

I article 5 posterior margin with single seta. Pereopod 7 article 2 posterior lobe broadly rounded; articles 3 and 4 subequal in length; article 4 with tapering posterior setose lobe; article 6 inflated and slightly longer than

article 5; article 7 very short. Epimeral plate 3 with straight posterior margin leading to medium-sized

posteroventral tooth. Uropod 1rami reaching to end of uropod 2. Telson lobes with minutely notched apices

bearing single seta; dorsal surface with 2 pairs of short setae.

Remarks. This species is distinguished by its small size, short dactyl of pereopod 7, and straight

l posteriorDismargin tributionof epimeral and Habplate itat.3. An inhabitant of fine sand and silt from Ocean Falls, British Columbia

(52°20'N) to Costa Rica at depths of 9-200 m.

I Ampelisca brevisimulata J.L. Barnard, 1954

i Figure 3.5

Material Examined. California: offPt. San Luis, St. 21, 49 m, 75% silt (4); off Pt. Sal, St. PJ-18,

i 158 m, silt Desc(1ri);ption offPt.. Purisima, Antenna 1Sshort, t. R-4, not 92 rea m,c80hing% send ilt (3); of peduncle offPt. Conception, of antennaSt. 2; 79, peduncle 98 m, 84% articlesand 2 more (4).

than twice length of article I. Antenna 2 about two-thirds of body length; peduncle article 4 longer than 5.

I Mandible palp article 2 sparsely setose along whole length. Coxa 1 with small tooth at posteroventral comer.

II Pereopods 5-6 article 5 posterior margin with 4-5 groups of comb setae. Pereopod 7 article 2 posterior lobe

broadly rounded; article 3 subequal to article 4; article 4 with slender setose posterior lobe; articles 5 and 6

i infl largeaterounded d, subequhump al in leabove ngth;posteroventral article 7 subequtooth al to.article Uropod6 in1length. extendingEpimeral beyondplate end 3ofprod uropod uced 2.posterio Telsonrlylobes into

tapering to narrow unnotched apices, dorsal surface with 6-12 scattered setae.

I the latterRinemgeneral arks. Thfeatures. is species, It canlikebeA. distinguished hancocki, is relfromativelyA. hancocki small as, anhowever, adult, andinisthesomew shapehatofsepimeral imilar to

plate 3 and the number of seta groups on the posterior margin of pereopods 5 and 6 article 5.

I Can Distribution and Habitat. An inhabitant of sand and silt bottoms from southeast Alaska (Lynn al, near Juneau) to Panama at depths of 20-400 m.

!

I 143
I

I

o I

HD PS I

I

• I

t

// P7 T I

/ ii

, !

I

|

i

i

,, EP3 & URS I

.

Figure 3.4. Ampelisca hancocki (fromBamard, 1954). i

II

Ampelisca cristata Holmes, 1908

Figure 3.6 I

Material Examined. California: recorded from MMS Phase I, but not seen by me.

Description. Body large (12-17 mm). Antenna 1short, notreaching end of peduncle of antenna 2, I

peduncle articles 1 and2 subequal in length. Antenna 2 about three-fourths length of body, peduncle article I

4 longest. Mandible palp article 2 sparsely setose along whole length. Coxa 1 posteroventral comer with

small tooth. Pereopods 5-6 article 5 posterior margin with 3-4 groups of setae. Pereopod 7 article 2 posterior

II

144 I
i

i

I

II Pr

l

\

1 P6 /_ \

l

CX I

!

, /

i _--_

I

i

I

I

Figure 3.5. Ampelisca brevisimulata (from Barnard, 1954).

!

I 145
I

!

,, I

P5 : I

I

t

!

I I

!

I

Figure 3.6. Ampetisca cristata (fromBamard, 1954). I

lobe lower margin obliquely nearly straight; article 3 shorter than article 4; article 4 with small posterior setose I

lobe; article 6 inflated and longer than articles 5 and 7. Epimerat plate 3with gently curving posterior margin

leading to small posteroventral tooth. Urosomite I with large rounded carina. Uropod 1rami nearly reaching I

to end of uropod 2. Telson lobes with apices notched laterally and bearing 3-4 setae; dorsal surface with 2- I

4 pairs of centrally located setae.

Remarks. The large, rounded, carina onurosomite 1 alone serves to distinguish this species from all I

others in the region. I

Distribution and Habitat. Alexander Archipelago (southeast Alaska) to Costa Rica in coarse

sand at depths 0-152 m. "!

146 i
!

I Ampelisca pacifica Holmes, 1908

Figure 3.7

I Material Examined. California:offPt. Arguello, St. 70, 200 St. 201

m, sandy-silt (4), "14, sandysilt (2); offPudsima Pt., St. R-5, 154m, sil_-sand (14); off_. Sal, St. PJ-18, 158m, silt (7).

i Description. Body moderately large (12 mm). Antenna 1 not reaching beyond end of peduncle of antenna 2, peduncle article 2 more than twice length of article 1. Antenna 2 about three-fourths length of

body, peduncle article 4 longest. Mandible palp article 2 heavily setose along whole length. Coxae 1-3

t posteroventral comer with small slit. Pereopods 5-6 article 5 posterior margin with 2-3 groups of setae. Pereopod 7 article 2 posterior lobe lower margin broadly rounded; article 3 subequal in length to article 4;

article 4 with small posterior setose lobe; articles 5 and 6 subequal in length. Epimeral plate 3 with curving

posterior margin leading to large posteroventral tooth. Urosomite 1 with subterminal carina. Uropod 1 rami

I reaching uropod apices laterally bearing 3-4 setae; dorsal surface

tO end of 2. Telson lobes with notched and

with 4-6 centrally located bifid setae.

!

!

! .. (

!

! -

!

I Figure 3.7. Ampelisca pacifica (fromHolmes, 1908).

I 147
I

I

Remarks. This species appears to be the southernmost member of a group of large ampeliscids

which differs includes from theAtwo . macrocephala above mentioned at the species northernmprimarily ost extreme in theanddetails A. unsocalae of pereopodin the7 andmiddle. th shape A. pacifica of the I

carina on urosomite 1.

5-1821 m. Distribution and Habitat. A shelf and slope species found from Monterey, California to Panama, I

i

I

i

148 I
!

!

I Ampelisca agassizi (Judd, 1896) Figure 3.8

I Ampelisca vera J.L. Barnard, 1954

Material Examined. California: off Point Conception, St. 80, 196 m, sandy-silt (4).

I Description. Body small to medium-sized (8-11 mm). Antenna 1 not reaching end of peduncle of antenna 2, peduncle article 2 twice length of article 1. Antenna 2 about as long as body, peduncle article 4

longest. Mandible palp article 2 heavily setose along whole length. Coxae 1-3 posteroventral corner without

I small slit or tooth. Pereopods 5-6 article 5 posterior margin with 2-3 weak groups of setae. Pereopod 7

article 2 posterior lobe lower margin broadly rounded; article 3 subequal in length to article 4; article 4 with

posterior setose lobe extending nearly along whole of article 5; article 6 longer than article 5. Epimeral plate

i 3 with curving posterior margin leading to rounded posteroventral corner. Urosomite 1with well developed carina. Uropod 1 rami reaching to end of uropod 2. Telson lobes with apices blunt and bearing 4-5 setae;

dorsal surface with 2-3 pairs of setae along cleft.

I Remarks. Of the species found in this area that do not have a tooth on the posteroventral corner of epimeral plate 3,A. agassizi is easily distinguished by its very short fu'st antenna.

i Distribution and Habitat. This species is the most widespread ampeliscid found in the region. It occurs from Nova Scotia to the Caribbean in the North Atlantic and from the Queen Charlotte Islands to

Ecuador in the Pacifc atdepths from 5-450 m.

l Ampelisca romigi J.L. Barnard, 1954

Figure 3.9

I Ampelisca isocomea J.L. Bamard 1954

Ampelisca ciego J.L. Barnard 1966

I Material Examined. California: SW ofPt. Estero, St. 8, 308 m, sandy-silt (1); off Point Conception,

St. 79, 98 m, 84% sand (4); offPt. Arguello, St. R-5, 154 m, silty-sand (1).

I of antennaDescr 2,ippeduncle tion. Body articlesm2all1.5to medi timesum-length sized of(8-11 articlemm1.). Antenna Antenna 21 reaching about as belongyonasd ebody, ndof ped peduncle uncle

article 4 longest. Mandible palp article 2 setose along distal half. Coxae 1-3 posteroventral comer with small

I slobe lit. lower Peropods margin5-6obliquely article 5rounded, posterior reaching margin wjunction ith 2-3 weak ofrticles group4sandof setae. 5;rticlePereopod 3 slightly7 art longer icle than 2 posarti terior cle

4 (not including posterior lobe); article 4 with posterior setose lobe extending half length of article 5; article 5

I with margindistal leading notchtooquadrate n anteriorposteroventral margin; articlecorner. 6 longer Urosomite than article 1 with5. weak Epimeral carina. plateUropod 3 with 1crami urvinreaching g posteriotor

end of uropod 2. Telson lobes with apices blunt and bearing a single seta; dorsal surface with 2-3 pairs of

I Remarks. A. romigi is closest in general form to A. agassizi and A. lobata from which it is

setae.

distinguished by the presence of a notch on the anterodistal portion of pereopod 7 article 5 and its lack of a

I distinct carina on urosomite 1. Distribution and Habitat. This species is an inhabitant of coarse sand and rubble substrates in the

eastern Pacific from Monterey Bay, California, to Santa Elena Bay, Ecuador at depths of 3-504 m.

!

I 149
I

I

i

I

I

1

\'_ D i

I

i

/

J

EP3 & URS

\ I

I

Figure 3.9. Ampelisca romigi (from Bamard, 1954, 1966). I

I

Ampelisca lobata Holmes, 1908

Figure 3.l0 I

Ampelisca articulata Stout, 1913

1

Material Examined. California: S ofPt. Estero, St. 6, 109 m, 82% silt (5); offPt. Buchon, St. 16, I

591 m, 85% silt (11).

Description. Body small to medium-sized (7-9 mm). Antenna 1reaching beyond end of peduncle _l

I

150 |
!

I

!

I

!

I

I Figure 3.10. Ampetisca lobata (fromDickinson, 1982).

!

of antenna 2, peduncle articles I and 2 subexlual. Antenna 2 about two-thirds length of body, peduncle article

i 4slit. lonPereopods gest. Mandib5-6learticle palp a5rtiposte cle 2risetose or maraginlongwithdista3lgroups two-thirds. of setae. CoxPer a eI-opod 3 posterove 7 articlentral 2 posterior corner wilobe th sdeep mall

and slender, not reaching junction of articles 4 and 5; article 3 shorter than article 4 (not including posterior

I llength obe); art to icl aretic4lewith 6. Epimeral small posteplatrieor3setose with curving lobe; arti posterior cle 5 witho maurgint disleading tal notctoh onquadrate anteriorposteroventral margin, subeqcoumaler.in

Urosomite 1 with slight rounded carina, posterior of which meets raised anterior margin of urosornite 2.

I Uropod single seta; 1 rami dorsal reacsurface hing beywith ond2e-3ndpai ofrsurofopodsetae. 2. Telson lobes with apices notched laterally and bearing a

Remarks. The shape of the urosome, having a carina-like structure incorporating both urosomites

I 1 and 2 is very distinctive.

I 151
!

Distribution and Habitat. This species is an inhabitant of mixed bottoms of rock and sand, and I

may be associated with algae in the littoral zone. It has been found from the Queen Charlotte Islands, British

Columbia to Lobos de Afeuras Islands, Peru, and the Galapagos, at depths from the littoral to 591 m, with I

most records shallower than 40 m.

Genus Byblis Boeck, 1871 I

i

Type Species. Ampeilisia [sic] gaimardii Kr0yer, 1846

Diagnosis. Flagella of antennae 1-2 with 5 or more articles. Maxilliped inner plate slender and i

slightly elongate, palp article 3 unproduced. Pereopods 3-4, article 5 not greatly reduced in length. Pereopods

5-6, dactyls of medium length and simple. Pereopod 7 article 2 expanded distally, posterior margin oblique, I

anterior margin of lobe fully setose near junction with article 3; dactyl reduced and spine-like. Telson short in Ii

female, elongate in pelagic male, cleft one-fourth to three-fourth length.

Remarks. Two features on pereopod 7, viz., the presence of setae on the posterior lobe of article 2

near itsjunction with article 3, and the spine-like dactyl, serve to distinguish species in this genus from those U

in Ampelisca. There are currently 56 species in this genus, but it is likely that additional deep-water species

are yet to be found. In the Santa Maria Basin region, the genus is well covered by the work of Bamard /I

(1966, 1967, 1971) and Dickinson (1983). Ii

Key to the Species of Byblis from the Santa Maria Basin I

(from Dickinson, 1983)

1A. Posterodistal comer of coxae 2-3 obliquely truncated; ventral margin of coxae t-3 very weakly U

serrated ................................................................................................................... Byblis veleronis

1B. Posterodistal comer of coxae 2-3 not truncated; ventral margin of coxae 1-3 strongly serrated .... 2 i

2A. Antenna 1 extending well beyond end of peduncle of antenna 2 .......................... Byblis bathyalis U

2B. Antenna 1just reaching end of peduncle of antenna 2 ................................................................... 3 l

3A. Eyes well developed; rami of uropod 1 subequal in length ........................................... Byblis millsi I

3B. Eyes lacking; inner ramus of uropod I distinctly shorter than outer ramus ....... Byblis barbarensis

/

Byblis veleronis J.L. Barnard, 1954 l

Figure 3.11 t

m

Material Examined. California: off Pt. Purisima, St. 42, 100 m, sandy silt (1).

Description. Eyes well developed. Antenna 1 reaching beyond end of antenna 2 peduncle. Antenna m

2 about length of body. Coxae 1-3 ventral margin very weakly serrated. Coxa 1 weakly expanded distally, U

posterodistal comer strongly truncated. Coxae 2-3 posterodistal comer strongly truncated. Basis of gnathopods

1-2 serrate posterodistally. Pereopod 6 article 5 without comb setae on anterior margin. Pereopod 7 article i

4 one-half length of article 5; article 6 with 2 groups of setae on anterior margin. Uropod 1 outer ramus II

without setae, longer than inner ramus which bears stiff setae.

I

152 i
I

I

I

I CX 1-4

I

I

i

i :.\ \

''L "_'_"

I

I V'

i

I

I EP3 & URS

I

Figure 3.11. Byblis veleronis (from Bamard, 1954).

I

I Remarks. This species is distinguished chiefly by the shape of coxae 1-3, and irdaaving the outer

ramus of uropod 1 unarmed. Dickinson (1983), having examined a large amount of previously identified

I material, noted that this species has apparently been confused with a closely related species, which he named B. millsi. As a consequence, it is difficult to know much about the biology of either.

Distribution and Habitat. A widely distributed species ranging from the Queen Charlotte Islands,

I British Columbia to Clarion Island and the Gulf of California, Mexico at depths of 5-300 rm

!

I 153
.

Byblis bathyalis J.L. Barnard, 1966 I

Figure 3.12

Material Examined. California: offPt. Estero, St. 3, 291 m, silt and sand (1) [Voucher specimen I

identified as B. veteronis]; off Pt. Arguello, St. 55, 590 m, silty sand (1).

Description. Eyes well developed. Antenna 1 reaching nearly to end of antenna 2. Antenna 2 i

nearly body length. Coxae 1-3 ventral margin strongly serrated. Coxa 1 moderately expanded distally,

posterodistal comer not strongly truncated. Coxae 2-3 posterodistal comer not truncated. Basis of gnathopods

1-2 heavily setose. Pereopod 6 article 5 with many setae on anterior margin. Pereopod 7 article 4 one-half I

length of article 5; article 6 with 3 groups of setae on anterior margin. Uropod 1 inner ramus slightly shorter

than outer, both rami with stiff setae.

Remarks. This species is distinguished from all others in the region primarily in the degree to which I

all appendages are setose and the length of antenna 1.

Distribution and Habitat. Known to date only from off Oregon and California at bathyal depths, I

400-950 m.

i

!

!

I

I

i

URI i

I

Figure 3.12. Byblis bathyalis(fromBamard_1966).

I

,54 I
!

I Byblis mUlsi Dickinson, 1983

Figure 3.13

I Material Examined. California: offPt. Purisima, St. R-4, 92 m, silt (6); offPt. SaI, St. PJ-I, 145 m, silt (1).

Description. Eyes well developed. Antenna 1 reaching end of antenna 2 peduncle. Antenna 2

I about two-thirds of body length. Coxae 1-3 ventral margin strongly serrated. Coxa 1 moderately expanded

distally, posterodistal comer not strongly truncated. Coxae 2-3 posterodistal comer not truncated. Basis of

gnathopods 1-2 serrate distally. Pereopod 6 article 5 with several comb setae on anterior margin. Pereopod

I 7 article 4 three-fourths length article 5; article 6 with 2-3 groups of setae on anterior margin. Uropod 1 rami

subequal in length, both rami with stiff setae.

I Remarks. This species is closest in its affinities to B. veleronis, from which it differs in having a

shorter first antenna, the presence of comb setae on the anterior margin of pereopod 6 article 5, and the outer

ramus of uropod 1 bearing setae.

I southernDistribution California at and depthHa s bofitat. 0-100Anm. inhabitant of sandy bottoms from the Queen Charlotte Islands to

I

i

i

I

I

!

,I UR1

I

I Figure 3.13. Byblis millsi (from Dickinson, 1983).

I 155
!

II

Byblis barbarensis J.L. Barnard, 1960 •

Figure 3 14

II

Material Examined. California: off Pt. Arguelio, St. 55,590 m, silty sand (15); offPt. San Luis, St. I[

26, 590 m, clayey silt, (10); offPt. Sal, St. R-7, 565 m, clayey silt, (4).

Description. Eyes and corneal lenses absent. Antenna 1 reaching end of antenna 2 peduncle. II

I

Antenna 2 longer than body. Coxae 1-3 ventral margin strongly serrated. Coxa 1 moderately expanded

distally, posterodistal comer not strongly truncated. Coxae 2-3 posterodistal comer not truncated. Basis of

gnathopods 1-2 serrate distally. Pereopod 6 article 5 with single seta group on anterior margin. Pereopod 7 1

article 4 one-half length of article 5; article 6 with single seta group on anterior margin. Uropod 1 inner ramus

shorter than outer, both rami with few stiff setae.

Remarks. This is the only blind species found thus far in the Santa Maria Basin region. It is also the I

only species regularly found in very fine sediment.

Distribution and Habitat. Known only from off Oregon and California at depths of 496-1225 m. I

|

!

l 

!

s !

!

Figure 3.14. Byblis barbarensis(from Barnard, 1960). I

I

,56 |
I

Genus Haploops Liljeborg, 1856

i Type Species. Haploops tubicola Liljeborg, 1856

I 3-4, articleDia5gnonotsis.greatly Maxilliped inner plate slender and elongate, palp article 3 produced or inflated. Pereopods reduced in length. Pereopod 5-6, dactyls medium length and simple. Pereopod 7

article 2 not greatly expanded distally, posterior margin nearly parallel to anterior; article 6 often shorter than

I article 5; article 7 spine-like. Telson short in female and elongate in pelagic male. Remarks. The shape of the basal lobe on pereopod 7 serves as the main distinguishing feature for

this genus. Thus far 14 species are known, only one of which has been found in the Santa Maria Basin

I region.

Haploops tubicola Liljeborg, 1856

I Figure 3.15

Material Examined. California: offPt. Arguello, St. 59, 216 m, clayey silt (1).

I palp artiDesc cles 2ription. and3 subequ Headalwith in lendogthrso. frCooxantal1eexp ye only. anded Andistetalnna ly wi1thneamaxi rly asmumlongwidas

thantebeing nnaless 2. Mthand an one- ible

half totallength. Pereopod 7 article 5produceddistally into anterior and posterior lobes; article 6 as wide as

i but slighDis tly shorter than article 5. tribution and Habitat. This is a circumpolar species found in both the North Atlantic and North

Pacific. The southernmost point in its distribution on the U.S. west coast is in the Santa Maria Basin region.

I

I

I

I '

I

I

I Figure 3.15. Haploops tubicola(fromSars, 1895).

I 157
!

|

Family Amphilochidae Boeck, 1871 B

Diagnosis. (after Barnard and Karaman, 1991) Accessory flagellum vestigial or absent. Rostrum B

well developed. Coxa 4 immensely broadened; coxae 2-4 with contiguous margins overlapping, not rabbeted I

(i.e., without groove on one coxa and tongue or projection on adjacent coxa); coxa 2 not hidden; coxa 1 very

small and hidden by coxa 2. Peduncle of uropod 3 elongate. Telson entire, elongate. 1

i

Remarks. This is a family of primarily very small species, many of which probably have specialised

life styles (mandibles can be quite variable across genera). Little, however, is known regarding the biology of n

the constituent species, however, i

Key to Species of Amphilochidae from the Santa Maria Basin 1

1A. Gnathopods 1 and2, propodus distally expanded, palm distinct ................. Amphilochus picadurus

1B. Gnathopods 1 and 2, propodus not expanded distally, palm indistinct .............. Gitana calitemplado i

Genus Amphilochus Bate, 1862 Ill

Type Species. Amphilochus manudens Bate, 1862 g

Diagnosis. (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991) Mandibular molar small, colunmar, conical or weakly I

bulbous, poorly or not triturative. Lower lip ordinary. Palp of maxilla 1 2-articulate. Maxilla 2 ordinary, or II

outer plate as long as inner but inner much wider, well setose. Outer plate of maxilliped not excavate, palp

article 1 subequal to or longer than (type) article 2. Gnathopods 1-2 large to small, diverse or not, subchelate, i

palm straight or weakly convex subtransverse, dactyl lacking nodiform process. Gnathopods more or less

carpochelate. Urosomite 3 poorly alate.

Remarks. This is a widespread genus of cold-water continental shelves currently containing 20 i

species. i

Amphilochus picadurus J.L. Barnard, 1962 1I

Figure 3.16

Amphilochus picadurus J.L. Bamard, 1962a. i

Material Examined. California: offPt. Buchon, St. 6, 109 m, (1); St. 16, 591 m, silt (1). 1

Description. (from Barnard, 1962a) Eyes medium size, subcircular, formed of darkly pigmented i

centers surrounded by pale ommatidea. Antenna 1reaching only to end of peduncle on antenna 2. Gnathopod

1 subchelate, palm oblique, projecting lobe of article 5 reaching about halfway along hind margin of article 6. I

Gnathopod 2 considerably larger than 1, propedus moderately stout, less than 70% broad as long, palm nearly U

transverse, hind lobe of article 5 projecting almost fully along hind margin of article 6; propodus of gnathoped

2 bearing a small cusp at anterodistal end; dactyls of gnathopods not attenuated at extreme tips. Coxa 1 long, 1

rectangular, lobate below. Telson considerably shorter than peduncle of uropod 3. |

Remarks. Barnard (1962a) suggested this species was a synonym ofA. spencebatei "from which

it differs only by the small anterodistal cusp of the hand on the second gnathopod." However, in Barnard and •

Karaman (1991) A. spencebatei is recognized as a distinct species, possibly containing A. brunneus. The II

mandibular molar ofA. picadurus is much longer and sharper than in other CalifornianAmphilochus species

(Bamard, 1962a). This species is also very similar to Gitanopsis baciroa except in the structure of the I

mandible and the wavy serrations on the palm of gnathopod 2 (Barnard, 1979). Ii
I

i

!

I _ r

I

MD

I GN 1

I HD

, o.,

!

Figure 3.16. Amphilochuspicadurus (fromBarnard,1962a).

I

l Gulf of CaDistribution lifornia atBahia and Hab SaniEtat. varistoNorthea andBahsternia Con Pacicfiepci c, M6n,editonerran Macrocystis ean Sea, holdfast Goleto, sC, al rocky ifornibottom a souths, 0-to

41 m. The material examined here represent major depth extensions for this species.

I Genus Gitana Boeck, 1871

i Type Species. Gitana sarsi Boeck, 1871.

Diagnosis. (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991) Mandibular molar large, cushion shaped, triturative.

i Lower lip ordinary. Palp of maxilla 1 uniarticulate. Maxilla 2 ordinary. Outer plate of maxilliped weakly excavate or not, palp article 1 equal to or subequal to article 2, or latter longer. Gnathopods 1-2 small, poorly

subchelate or almost simple, palm very oblique, dactyl lacking large inner nodiform process. Gnathopods

i more or Rless emacrkarpoche s. Spe late.ciesUrinosthis ome genus 3 poorlsuperficially y alate. resemble those in Amphilochus, but are readily

distinguished by the feeble gnathopods. At present the genus contains 8 species inhabiting the shelves and

I upper slopes of the Northern Atlantic andPacific Oceans.

I 159
I

n

Gitana calitemplado J.L. Barnard, 1962 i

Figure 3.17

Gitana calitemplado J.L. Barnard, 1962a. i

Material Examined. California: off Pt. Purisima, St. R-4, 92 m, silt, (7). m

i

Description. (from Bamard, 1962a) Sixth articles of gnathopods 1 and 2 about 1.7 times length fifth

articles; article 5 of gnathopod 1 with posterior lobe short, not opposing hind edge of article 6; article 5 of 1

gnathopod 2 produced into a slender but short lobe, apposed to posterior edge of article 6 for about one fourth II

of its length, lobe blunt, not acute. Article 6 of pereopods 1 and 2 about 1.5 times as long as article 5.

m

Remarks. This is the only species of Gitana so far known from the eastern Pacific. •

Distribution and Habitat. North eastern Pacific, Pt. Conception, California to San Crist6bal Bay, I

Baja California, rare, 9-84 m.

!

I

I

: i _. m

%% " II l

I

I

I

× I

I

I

I

Figure 3.17. Gitana calitemplado (fromBarnard,1962a). l
!

I Family Liljeborgiidae Stebbing, 1899

I Diagnosis. (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991) Accessory flagellum 2+-articulate. Molar of mandible feeble, not triturative. Plates of maxilliped only moderately developed. Gnathopods powerful, carpus of at

least 1 pair well produced. Telson cleft, each apex with spine(s) in notch.

I Remarks. The combination of feeble molar and long flagellum distinguishes this

accessory family

from all others in the Santa Maria Basin region. There is also a characteristic aspect to the general body

shape of litjeborgiids which, to a certain extent, is accentuated by the curvature of the antennae. !

Key to the Species of Liljeborgiidae from the Santa Maria Basin

I 1A. Article 5 of gnathopods 1-2 strongly produced, slender and elongate; outer ramus of uropod 3 simple

.................... ..................................................................................... ......... ...................................... .2

I 1B. Article 5 of gnathopods 1-2 weakly produced, thick and blunt, outer ramus of uropod 3 composed of

2 articles ........................................................................................................................................... 3

I 2A. Blind; telson cleft one-third length .......................................................................... Liljeborgia cota

2B. Eye large, dark; telson cleft four-fifths length ................................................... Liljeborgia paUida !

3A. Body colorless; eyes absent .................................................................................... Listriella albina

I 3B. Body with varying amount of pigment; eyes present ....................................................................... 4

i 4A. 4B. Uropod Uropod 33 outer outer ramus ramus much more than less than half length half length of inner of inner ...................................................................... .................................. ListrielIa eriopisa5

I 5A. Antenna 2 article 4 longer than article 5; antenna 1 with pigment spot on article 2 ..........................

............................................................................................................................ Listriella melanica

5B. Antenna 2 article 4 as long as article 5; antenna 1 with or without weak pigment spot on article 2.

I * ............................................ ** ........... * .............................................................. * ...... * ........................ 6

I 6A. Antenna 1 peduncle article 1 more than 3 times as long as wide ............................ Listriella goleta 6B. Antenna 1 peduncle article 1 less than twice as long as wide ............................... Listriella diffusa

I Genus Liljeborgia Bate, 1862

I Type Species. Gammarus brevicornis Bruzelius, 1859.

Diagnosis. (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991) Accessory flagellum 4+-articulate. Epistome poorly

I produced. than gnathopod Article1, propodus 1of mandibular and carpus palp ofelongate, gnathopods molarnotsimpsetose le. Coxae anteriorly; 1-4 ordinary. carpus of Gnathopod gnathopods 21-2notstrongly smaller

produced. Outer ramus of uropod 3 1-articulate. Each lobe of telson with 1 apical spine.

!

I 161
I

!

Liljeborgia cota J.L. Barnard, 1962

Figure 3.18 I

Material Examined. California: offPt. Buchon, St. 15, 393 m, silt (2); off Pt. San Luis, St. 25,390

m, silt (3); offPt. San Luis, St. R-3, 409 m, silt, (5). I

Description. (modified from Bamard, 1962b) Eyes absent. Lateral head lobe strongly produced,

rounded; epistome produced and rounded in front. Accessory flagellum on antenna 1 with at most 5 articles.

Coxa 4 with 2 notches on posterior edge and one at lower comer. Gnathopods 1 and 2, palms without B

dentitions, dactyls with t-7 notches located proximally. Pereopods 3 and 4 articles 5 and 6 with short stiff I

setae; pereopods 5-7 article 2 laterally straight, without noticeable serrations. Posterior edge of third pleonite

with a mid-dorsal tooth; each of the first 5 pleonal segments generally with a small tooth, strongest on 2, 4 and

5, but pattern on pleonites 4 and 5 variable, from nearly obsolete to very strongly developed. Telson split

about a third of its length. Inner edge of peduncle on uropod 1 with 2-3 large spines.

Remarks.This species exhibits highly variable pleonal tooth patterns (Bamard, 1962b)demonstrating

the difficulty in basing specific identifications on such armature.

w

Distribution and Habitat. Gulf of Alaska to Southern California, on green clay, 366-2000 m. I

I

I

!

!

I

!

!

t

!

Figure 3.18. Litjeborgiacota (fromBarnard,1962b). I

I

162 |
I

Liljeborgia pallida (Bate, 1857)

I Figure 3.19

Gammarus pallidus Bate, 1857

I Lilljeborgia pallida Sars, 1895 Liljeborgia brevicornis Holmes 1908.--J.L. Barnard 1962b

I Material Examined. California: offPt. Buchon, St. 6, 109 m, (2); offPt. San Luis, St. 27, 611 m, sandy silt, (2).

Description. (modified from Sars, 1895) Eyes, large, oval quadrangular,with very black pigment.

I Lateral headlobe projected and obliquely rounded; epistome not produced. Accessory flagellum with approximately 10 articles. Fourth coxa with the posterior expansion transversely truncated. Gnathopods 1

and 2 dactyl with 6-12 serrations extending all the way to the tip. Pereopods 3 and 4 articles 5 and 6 with long

i .....

• ,_ _(_:_

,

,

I

• _,, _

, o,,

I '

, 1

I Figure 3.19. Liljeborgiapallida (fromSars,1895).

I 163
!

i

setae; pereopods 5-7 article 2 laterally convex with distinct serrations on posterior margin. Pleonites 1-5 •

usually with dorsal tooth. Telson split nearly to base. Uropod 3, inner margin of endopod with 3-4 spines.

Remarks. This is the only large-eyed member of this genus found in the region, i

i

Ill

Distribution and Habitat. Norway, British Isles to coast of France, Algeria, Tunisia, and

Mediterranean, rare in eastern Pacific, 40-549 m. The present records extend the depth range to 611 m. l

Genus Listriella J.L. Bamard, 1959

Type Species. Listriella goleta J.L. Bamard, 1959 I

Diagnosis. (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991) Accessory flagellum usually 2- (rarely 4) articulate.

Epistome poorly produced. Article I of mandibular palp elongate, molar simple. Coxae 1-4 ordinary. 1

Gnathopods variable, either dominant; propodus and carpus not setose anteriorly; carpus of gnathopods 1-2 II

moderately to poorly produced. Outer ramus of uropod 3 1- or 2-articulate. Each lobe of telson with 2 apical

spines. I

Remarks. In shallow water all of these species are distinguishable by their pigment patterns (Bamard,

1959). In deeper water one must rely on other, sometimes variable characters to make identifications. !

I._triella albi_ J.L. Barnard, 1959

Figure 3.20 1

u

Material Examined. California: off Pt. San Luis, St. 25,390 m, silt, (2); off Pt. Arguello, St. 54,

396 m, silty sand, (1); off Pt. San Luis, St. R-3, 409 m, silt, (3); offPt. Sal, St. R-9, 410 m, silt, (1). l

Description and Habitat. (modified from Barnard, 1959) Female 3-4 mm, male 3.5- 5.4 mm. I

Body colorless, without pigment. Eyes absent. Gnathopods 1-2 with oblique palms. Antennae 1 and 2 short,

extending about one-third length of body (sometimes slightly longer). Article 6 of gnathopod 1 with strongly II

diverging margins, anterior one slxaight. Pereopod 5 with article 6 slightly paddle-shaped, article 7 long.

Third pleonite with convex posterior edge and notch at lower comer. Uropod 3 in both sexes with outer

ramus slightly shorter than inner ramus. Ii

Remarks. Lack of pigment and lack of eyes distinguishes this species from similar California

species.

Distribution and Habitat. Oregon to Baja California, in silt, 16-721 m. I_

II

Listriella diffusa J.L. Barnard, 1959 l

Figure 3.21

Material Examined. California: offPt. Sal, St. R-8, 90 m, silty sand, (1). 1

1

Description. (modified from Bamard, 1959) Darkly pigmented indiffuse pattern; specimens bleached

in alcohol with article 2 of antenna 1 lacking pigment; article 3 of antenna 1usually retaining a very small aRt

amount pigment. Eyes well developed, enclosed in a distinct capsule. Antennae 1 and 2 short, extending ll

<one-third length of body. Gnathopods 1-2 with palms of article 6 slightly more blunt and transverse than in II

other southern California species (except L. melanica). Anterior edge of article 6 gnathopod 1, slightly more

convex than in other local species. Gnathopods darkly pigmented. Pereopod 5 with article 6 tending slightly I

to a paddle shape, article 7 slender. Third pleonite with convex posterior edge sweeping ventrally to a notch I

at lower comer. Uropod 3 in females bearing short, equal sized rami.

!
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I _ °"_

I

i GN 2

i Figure 3.20. Listrietla aIbina (from Bamard, 1959).

I

i 165
i

I

I

I

I

I

I

'

!

!

!

!

1

!

!

o_GN2 --t r _ oN2 I

Figure 3.21. Listriella diffusa (from Barnard, 1959). i

i

Remarks. This species is quite close toL. melanica, but differs from the latter by its short peduncle •

article 4 on antenna 2. m

Distribution and Habitat. Monterey Bay to San Crist6bal Bay, Baja California, sandy sediments, i

12-172m. I
I

l Listriella eriopisa J.L. Barnard, 1959

Figure 3.22

I Material Examined. California: S of Pt. San Luis, St. 21, 49 m, sandy silt, (2); offPt. Sal, St. R-8,

90 m, silty sand, (1).

I (modified Barnard, bold stripes; dorsal part of head Description. from 1959a) Body with series of

bearing a cap of pigment. Eyes poorly developed, composed of ommatidea widely scattered, not in a distinct

2 capsule. Antennae 1 and short extending only one-third length of body. Gnathopods 1-2 with palms very

I oblique; gnathopod 2 much larger than 1 1with anterior of article 1

gnathopod edge nearly straight; gnathopods

not darkly pigmented. Pereopod 5 moderately to strongly paddle-shaped, with article 7 quite short. Third

pleonite with posterior edges nearly straight, notch atlower comer nearly obsolete in adults, better developed

I injuveniles. Umpod 3 in both sexes with inner ramus elongated, outer ramus about one third as long as inner

ramus, with second article nearly obsolete.

Remarks. The unusually large size of uropod endopod 3 clearly identifies this species.

I Distribution and Habitat. Southern California, in silt beds, I 1-560 m.

N7

I

I

I

,

I UR 1

l Figure 3.22. Listriella eriopisa(fromBarnard,1959).

I 167
I

Listriella goleta J.L. Barnard, 1959 I

Figure 3.23

Material Examined. California: offPt. San Luis, St. R-l, 90 m, silt, (1); St. R-2, 161 m, silt, (1). I

Description. (from Bamard, 1959a) Diffusely pigmented with characteristic bands; head with

small hourglass-shaped pigment mark. Eyes well developed, enclosed in a distinct capsule. Antennae 1 and I

2 extending to abdomen, about two-thirds of length of body. Gnathopods not darkly pigmented, with oblique

palms; anterior edge of article 6 of gnathopod 1 nearly straight. Pereopod 5 with slender sixth and seventh

articles. Third pleonite with convex posterior edge and notch at lower comer. Uropod 3 in both sexes with I

equal sized rami, outer ramus tending to be slightly shortened in large adults.

Remarks. This is the most widespread species in the genus. It is readily distinguished by the

elongate antennae. I

Distribution and Habitat. Oregon to San Cristbbal Bay, Baja California, in silt, 12-459 m.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1 UR 3

.2 |

I

Figure 3.23. La'strieltagoteta(from Barnard, 1959).

I

,+8 II
!

I Listriella melanica J.L. Barnard, 1959

Figure 3.24

I Material Examined. California: offPt. Sal, St. PJ-1,145 m, silt, (1).

Description. (from Barnard, 1959a) Darkly pigmented incharacteristicpattern;head without pigment

I marks. Eyes well developed. Antennae 1 and 2 short, extending only to pereonite 4. Gnathopods darkly

pigmented, with nearly transverse palms; anterior edge of article 6 of gnathopod 1 nearly straight. Pereopod

5 with slender sixth and seventh articles. Third epimer with convex posterior edge and notch at lower comer.

I Uropod 3 in both sexes with equal sized rami, outer ramus tending to be slightly shortened in large adults.

Remarks. This species can be confused with L. diffusa, but can be separated on the basis of the

pigment pattern (if the specimens are relatively fresh) and the shape of pereopod 5 article 6.

I Distribution and Habitat. Southern California to Mexico.

I

I

I

I

I

I

UR 3

I

l GN 1 _ GN 2

I

Figure 3.24. Listriellamelanica (fromBamard, 1959).

I

!

I 169
!

Family Pleustidae Buchholz, 1874 i

Diagnosis. (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991) Accessory flagellum 1-articulate or absent. Lower

lip of special form, inner lobes wide (fused or not), outer lobes especially tilted inward, mandibular lobes short. 1

Outer rami of uropods 1-2 usually shortened. Telson entire or weakly cleft. I

Remarks. Pleustids may closely resemble iphimediids and eusirids. The diversity of pleustids in I

southern California is quite high, but because of their often inquilinous nature, and their association with other |

marine invertebrates, they are not well represented in the Santa Maria Basin survey.

Key to the Species of Pleustidae from the Santa Maria Basin !

I

1A. Rostrum very large, as long as rest of head; body with dosolateral carinae ....... Pleustes depressa l

m

1B. Rostrum not significant in size; body without carinae ..................................................................... 2

2A. Mandible molar obsolescent; third epimeral plate without tooth ............. Parapleustes pugettensis I

2B. Mandible molar large; third epimeral plate with large tooth ............................................................ 3

!

3A. Antenna 1 article 1 with distal tooth; coxae 1-3 with 1-3 posteroventral serrations ..........................

....................................................................................................................... Pleusymptes coquilIa •

3B. Antenna 1article 1 without distal tooth; coxae 1-3 smooth posteroventrally .................................... 1

................................................................................................................... Pleusymptes subglaber

I

Genus Parapleustes Buchhotz, 1874

Type Species. Parapleustes gracilis Buchholz, 1874 I

Diagnosis. (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991) Body smooth or keeled. Rostrum short. Peduncular I1

article 2 of antenna 1 shorter than article 1. Accessory flagellum obsolescent. Mandibular molar feeble, |

conical, nontriturative. Plates of maxilliped short, palp 4-articulate, powerful, article 3 without distal tubercle,

dactyl well developed. Gnathopods 1-2 moderately stout to slender, subchelate, equal, or gnathopod 2 stout, 1

article 5 shorter than article 6, lobes present (except in P oculatus and P. longimanus), much shorter than 1

article 6, propodus moderately expanded. Rami of uropods 1-3 lanceolate, outer shortened, peduncle of

II

uropod 3 without long tooth. Telson entire. I

Remarks. In the Santa Maria Basin region, this is the only genus of Pleustidae with obsolescent 1

mandibular molar. A comprehensive treatment of the Californian species is provided in J.L. Barnard (1969).

Parapleustes pugettensis (Dana, 1853) i

Figure 3.25

1

Iphimedia pugettensis Dana, 1853 1

Parapleustes pugettensis J.L. Barnard, 1952.--J.L. Bamard and Given, 1960

Parapleustes bairdi J.L. Barnard, 1956 •

Incisocalliope newportensis J.L. Barnard, 1959

Material Examined. California: off Pt. Buchon, St. 6, 109 m, (1); St. 20, 396 m, silt, (1); off Pt. Sal, •

St. PJ-1,145 m, silt, (1). 1

170 I
I

I

I x

EP3

I

I Figure 3.25. Parapleustespugettensis(fromBamard, 1952;Shoemaker,1964).

I Description. (modified from Barnard, 1952) Both sexes 4-9 mm. Large asymmetrical eyes. Body

without keel. Rostrum short. Antennae long. Gnathopods 1and 2 normal size with small tooth on distal edge

I of palm. Coxae 1-3 with a small tooth on posterolateral corner. Pleonites without mid-dorsal carina.

Remarks. According to Shoemaker (1964) there is a great deal of variability in this species, small

• specimens being much less setose and spinose than larger animals.

II Distribution and Habitat. Alaska to southern California, abundant on bottoms dominated by the

polychaete Diopatra sp., 0-183 m.

I Genus Pleustes Bate, 1858

i Type Species. Pleustes tuberculata Bate, 1858 (=Amphithoe panopla Kr_yer, 1838)

Diagnosis. (from Barnard and Karaman, 1991) Body keeled. Roslrum long. Peduncular article 2

of antenna 1 shorter than article 1. Accessory flagellum obsolescent. Mandibular molar feeble, conical,

I nontriturative. Plates of maxilliped short, palp 4-articulate, powerful, article 3 without distal tubercle, dactyl

I 171
!

well developed. Gnathopods 1-2 stout, subchelate, equal, article 5 stout, much shorter than article 6, lobes I

well developed but much shorter than article 6, propodus expanded. Rami of uropods 1-3 |anceolate, outer

shortened, peduncle of uropod 3 without long tooth. Telson entire. I Remarks. This is the only tuberculate or carinate pleustid genus in the Santa Maria Basin region.

Pleustes depressa Alderman, 1936 I

Figure 3.26

Material examined. California: reported from MMS Phase I but not seen by me. I

Description. (modified from Alderman, 1936) Eyes black and round; rostrum long, extending beyond

end rounded of pedcarinae uncle obeginni f first antenna ng on epereonite , rounded6aborove, 7 andkeeled extending below to(duck second billed) pleonite, . Mid-dlateral orsal and carina twoextending dorsolateralto I

last pleonite. Coxae 1-3 long and rectangular; coxa 4 with an acute angle on posterior margin; telson flattened.

features Rbetween emarks. theThistwospecies speciesis vsuggests ery similartheytoPleus may tesinterbreed platypa. (Bamard, The presence 1969). of animals However, withitinistermedia also seeten I

that p. depressa occurs primarily north of Point conception and P platypa primarily to the south of this

major biogeographic barrier. I Distribution and Habitat. Washington to southern California, on algae and under rocks, 0-4 m.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Figure 3.26. Pteustes depressa(fromAlderman,1936). I

172 i
I

Genus Pleusymptes J.L. Barnard, 1969

I Type Species, Amphithopsis glaber Boeck, 1861

I Diagnosis. (from Bamard and Kamman, 1991) Body smooth or keeled. Rostrum short. Peduncular article 2 antenna 1shorter than article 1. Accessory flagellum obsolescent. Mandibular molar large, triturative.

Plates of maxilliped short, palp 4-articulate, powerful, article 3 without distal tubercle, dactyl well developed.

I Gnathopods 1-2 moderately stout, or slender, subchelate, often unequal; gnathopod 1 slender, article 5 slightly longer or shorter than article 6, lobe weak or absent, propodus weakly expanded. Gnathopod 2 often stout,

article 5 shorter or longer than article 6, lobe moderately large, propodus often expanded. Rami of uropods 1-

I 3 lanceolate, outer shortened, peduncle ofuropod 3 without long tooth. Telson entire.

Remarks. This is a large circum-Arctic to boreal genus with species found to about 36°N in the

eastern and western Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

I Pleusymptes coquilla J.L. Barnard, 1971

I Figure 3.27

Material Examined. California: offPt. Arguello, St. 66, 201 m, sandy silt, (1).

I lacking dorsal Descripti teethon.or(modifi cadnae.edGnathopods from Barnard, 1-219relati 71b)velyArtismall, cle 1ofsixth antearticle nna 1 wi suthbovate, distalpalms conifocormnpvex, rocess. eachBody with

tiny medial cusp. Pleonites 2-3 with weakly sinuous posterior margins but each posteroventral comer with large

I tooth. Coxae 1-3 each with 1-3 posteroventral serrations. Dactyls of pereotxxts 1-5 elongate.

I

I

I GN1

I GN1

I

,

I

!

I Figure 3.27. PIeusymptes coquilla(fromBarnard, 1971).

I 173
!

l

Remarks. This species can be distinguished from P.subglaber by the weaker sinuation and larger •

tooth on pleonites 2 and 3, the serrations on the coxae and the presence of an antennal tooth on article 1

(Barnard, 1971b). II

Distribution and Habitat. Eureka, California north to Cape Flattery Washington, 150-200 m.

Pleusymptes subglaber (Barnard and Given, 1960) I

I

Figure 3.28

Material Examined. California: offPt. Purisima, St. R-4, 92 rn, silt, (1). I

I

Description. (modified form Barnard and Given, 1960) Female 4 mm. Article 1 of antennae 1

lacking a distal process. Body lacking dorsal teeth or carinae. Gnathopods I and 2 relatively small, the sixth •

articles oval, palms convex, each with small medial process. Third pleonite with very sinuous posterior 1

margin and large posteroventral tooth. Coxae 1-3 without posteroventral serrations. Dactyls of pereopods 3-

7 normal.

Remarks. See under species above. II

Distribution and Habitat. Pt Conception, southern California, south to Ensenada, Baja California,

rare, often found in association with the brittle star Amphiodia urtica, in f'me green sand, 18-t 16 m. 1

!

I

!

I

I

I

GN 2 l

N4

I

Figure 3.28. Pleusymptes subglaber (fromBarnard andGiven, 1960). I

174 i
!

Acknowledgements

I I would like to thank Linda McCann and Marsha Hostetter for their efforts in putting together the materials for this study. This paper is dedicated to the memory of my good friend and mentor, J.L. Bamard,

without whose prior work this paper could not have been written.

!

Literature Cited f.

i Alderman, A.L. 1936. Some new and little known amphipods of California. University of California

Publications in Zoology 41: 53-74.

I Barnard, J.L. 1952. Some from Central California. The Wasmann Journal 10: 9-36.

Amphipoda of Biology.

_ Barnard, J.L. 1954. Amphipoda of the Family Ampeliscidae collected in the eastern Pacific Ocean by the

i Velereo II1 and Velero IV. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions 18(1): 1-137.

Barnard, J.L. 1956. Two rare amphipods from Southern California with notes on the genusAtyIus. Bulletin

of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 55: 35-43.

l Barnard, J.L. 1959. Liljeborgiid amphipods of Southern California coastal bottoms, with a revision of the

family. Pacific Naturalist 1 (4): 12-28.

!.l Barnard, J.L. 1960. New bathyal and sublittoral ampeliscid amphipods from California, with an illustrated

w

key to Ampelisca. Pacific Naturalist 1 (16): 1-36.

I Barnard,Stenothoidae, J.L. 1962a. BeArgissidae, nthic marineHyalidae. AmphipodaPacific of SouNaturalist them Calif3:116-163. ornia: familiesAmphilochidae, Leucothoidae,

Barnard, J.L. 1962b. Benthic marine Amphipoda of Southern California: families Tironidae to Gammaridae.

l Pacific Naturalist 3:73-115.

Barnard, J.L. 1966. Submarine canyons of Southern California. Part V. Systematics: Amphipoda. Allan

I Hancock Pacific Expeditions 27 (5): 1-166.

Barnard, J.L. 1967. New species and records of Pacific Ampeliscidae (Cmstacea: Amphipoda). Proceedings

of the United States National Museum 121 (3576): 1-20.

I: Barnard, J.L. 1969. Gammaridean Amphipoda of the rocky intertidal of California: Monterey Bay to La

Jolla. United States National Museum Bulletin 258: 1-230.

I Bamard, J.L. 1971. Gammaridean from transect off Smithsonian Contributions

Amphipoda

a deep-sea Oregon.

to Zoology 61: 1-86.

l Barnard, J.L. 1979. Littoral gammaridean Amphipoda from the Gulf of California and the Galapagos Islands. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 271: 1-149.

j Barnard, J.L. and R.R. Given. 1960. Common pleustid amphipods of Southern California with a projected

revision of the family. Pacific Naturalist 1 (17): 37-48.

Barnard, J.L. and G.S. Karaman. 1991. The families and genera of marine gammaridean Amphipoda

I (except marine gammaroids). Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 13: 1-866. Bate, C.S. 1857. A synopsis of the British edriophthalmous Crustacea. Annals and Magazine of Natural

History, series 2, 19: 135-152.

|

i 175
,.

Dana, I.D. 1853. Crustacea. Part II. United States Exploring Expedition 14: 689-1618. I

Dickinson, J.J. 1982. The systematics and distributional ecology of the family Ampeliscidae (Amphipoda: •

Gammaridea) in the northeastern Pacific region. I. The genus Ampelisca. National Museums of II

Canada, Publications in Biological Oceanography 10: 1-39. 

Dickinson, JJ. 1983. The systematics and distributional ecology of theSuperfamily Ampeliscoidea (Amphipoda: H 

Gammaridea) in the northeastern Pacific region. II. the genera Byblis and Haploops. National i

Museums of Canada, Publications in the Natural Sciences, 1: 38. _

Gurjanova, E.E 1951. Bokoplavy morej SSSR I sopredel'nykh vod (Amphipoda-Gammaridea). Akademia D

Nauk SSSR, Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR 41: 1-1029.

Holmes, S.J. 1908. The Amphipoda collected by the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Steamer "Albatross" off the i

west coast of North America, in 1903 and t904, with descriptions of a new family and several new i

genera and species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 35 (1654): 489-543. 4

Sars, G.O. 1895. Amphipoda. An Account of the Crustacea of Norway With Short Descriptions and I

Figures of All the Species 1: 1-711.

Shoemaker, C.R. 1964. Seven new amphipods from the west coast of North America with notes on some

unusual species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 115: 391-430. LIP

Stimpson, W. 1864. Descriptions of new species of marine Invertebrata from Puget Sound, collected by the

naturalists of the North-West Boundary Commission, A.H. Campbell, esq., commissioner. Proceedings g

of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 16:153-165.

Stout, V.R. 1913. Studies in laguna Amphipoda. Zoologische Jahrbucher. Systematik 34: 633-659.

D

!

!

!

!

|

176 i
!

i 4. SUPERFAMILYCOROPHIOIDEA

' I by

Kathleen E. Conlarll

!

pIntroduction to the Superfamily Corophioidea

i_ Diagnostic characteristics. Corophioidean amphipods are bound as a superfamily by the entire,

fleshy telson, which J.L. Barnard and Karaman (1991) describe as being thickly attached at the base and

I relatively of each lobeimmobile. or swellingThebytcalsspine, on cancusp, be bilobed, or nipple. butMost is never corophioideans separate. Often live thein tubes, telson which is tippedtheyatconstruct the apex

,, with a lipoprotein thread secreted through the tips of the dactyls of peraeopods 3 and 4. The glands for

•I prod purpose. uction of this film are situated in the bases of these peraeopods, and they are often expanded for this

Systematies. The most recent taxonomic assessments of the Corophioidea have been made by J.L.

BCorophiidae arnard and+Karaman (1991) and J.L. Barnard (1973). They recognize 867 species within the families Ischyroceridae (660 species), Siphonoectinae (29 species), Ampithoidae (96 species), Podoceridae

(78 species), and Cheluridae (4 species). They have merged the Isaeidae, Aoridae, Photidae, and

t N1988; eomegamp E. L. Bousfield, hopidae within pers. comm.), the Corophiidae. and the separate However, familiesnotareallusedtaxonomists here to indicated accepttaxonomic this mergingdistinctions. (Myers,

J.L. Barnard (1973) has assessed morphological relationships of the genera, and Conlan (1982, 1983, 1988)

anStebbing, d Conlanandandnortheastern Bousfield (1982a, Pacific b)Aoridae, have applied Ampithoidae, pheneticandanaIsaeidae lyses to while the Ampithoid Myers (1983) ae andhasMicro analyzed jassa

Microdeutopus Costa. More recently, cladistic analyses have been applied to the Aorinae by Myers (1988),

i Mi Chess crojassa (1992).by Conlan (in press), and the northeastern Pacific species of Peramphithoe by Conlan and

- Distribution. Most corophioideans live in tropical or temperate oceans, intertidally to 100 m depth.

j Hdepth. owever,Some theyspecies can be penel foundxatineboth brackish arcticandandfresh antarwaters, ctic waters and aasfewwell,haveandbeen havefound been rec in marine orded tocaves. 6324 m

Ecology. Most corophioideans live in soft, pliable tubes which have bits of detritus and algae

l incorporated They may to algae, hydroids, bryozoans, shells, stones, pilings, docks,

into their matrix. attach

•. etc., or build within or on top of sediment. Scrapings of subtidal rock faces or the undersides of floating docks

will often yield large numbers of Jassa Leach, Corophium Latreille, Ischyrocerus KrCyer, and Ampithoe

I Leach (Witman, 1985; Franz, 1989). Some corophioideans live in chambers constructed by other biota

or on

the outside of their tube secretions. Species of Peramphithoe Conlan and Bousfield and Amphitholina

Ruffo burrow into kelp stipes (Myers, 1974; Conlan and Chess, 1992; Chess, 1993). Pseudoamphithoides

incurvaria (Just) stitches itself inside pieces of chemically defended algae with which it gains defense from

fish predation (Hay et al. 1990). Similarly, Photis conchicola Alderman uses empty gastropod shells as

portable domiciles, probably gaining defense from predation also (Carter, 1982). Species of the Cheluridae

are wood scrapers, invading holes of the isopodLimnoria spp. and enlarging them into galleries (J.L. Barnard

and Karaman, 1991). Species of lsaea Milne Edwards and Pagurisaea Moore are commensals of crabs

and lobsters (Moore, 1983). Isaeopsis tenax K. H. Barnard has been found on shrimp eggs (K. H. Barnard, !

' ResearchDivision,CanadianMuseumof Nature,P.O.Box3443,StationD,Ottawa,OntarioK1P6P4,Canada.

I 177
!

1916). Pterunciola spinipes Just occurs in the empty shells of a pteropod (Just, 1977). Some species of I

Dulichia Kr_yer and Dyopedos Bate live on rods which they extend from the tips of sea urchin spines or

other upright substrates (McCloskey, 1970; Mattson and Cedhagen, 1989). I

II Corophioideans that colonize man-made structures have some commercial importance as foulers.

Foulers can also disperse by rafting, and therefore may be introduced as exotics. Corophium curvispinum

G. O. Sars has recently become of concern in Europe because of its rapidly expanding range and high l1 i

densities, which have precluded settlement by other species (den Hartog et al. 1992). Some species of III

Peramphithoe have been implicated in mortalities of kelp beds (Tegner and Dayton, 1987; Chess, 1993).

Corophioideans are not full-time tube dwellers. Juveniles are often found in the plankton, and adults, li

particularly males, will leave their tubes to rove in search of mates (e.g. Borowsky, 1983, 1985; Conlan,

1991). Because most Corophioidea live in relatively shallow waters, and because they can achieve extremely Jib

high densities (Boates and Smith, 1989; van den Brink and van der Velde, 1991), they can become major prey l of whales, seabirds, and fish (Oliver and Slattery, 1985; Wilson, 1989; Holmlund et al., 1990). Community

interactions have been well studied on Corophium votutator (Pallas) and C. arenarium Crawford (Olafsson _"

and Persson, 1986; Jensen and Kristensen, 1990). A number of species of amphipods have become standard

test organisms for anthropogenic toxins. Corophium volutator has been used in Europe and the U.K. 11

(Bryant, 1985), Paracorophium excavatum Thompson has been used in New Zealand (Hickey and Roper,

1992), and Ampithoe valida Smith has been used in North America (Lee, 1977). Corophium volutator has 1

also been found to be a sensitive field indicator for anthropogenic disturbances (McLusky, 1987; Esselink et

al., 1989; Raffaelli et al., 1991). A general review of arnphipod ecology in relation to environmental disturbance rill

can be found in Conlan (1994a). I

Abbreviations Used in the Figures /

A, antenna MX, maxilla

ABD, abdomen MXPD, maxilliped i

EP, epistome P, peraeopod

GN, gnathopod PL, plate i

HD, head RT, tight I1

INT SEX, intersex T, telson

JV,juvenile UL, upper lip I

i

LL, lower lip U, uropod "

LFT, left UR, urosome

MD, mandible 11

Key to Genera and Species of Corophioidea 2 I

i

1A. Gnathopod 1,both sexes, larger than gnathopod 2. Adult male gnathopod 1,merus extending as long

tooth below carpus (Fig. 4.1A) ................................................................... Genus Aoroides ........ 2

lB. Gnathopod 1, both sexes, smaller than gnathopod 2. Adult male gnathopod 1, merus small, not

extending as tooth below carpus (Fig. 4.1B) ................................................................................... 3 Ii

I1

2 Other speare cis listed of CoinrophAttaetm_ent oidea that1were along nowith t founsources d in theforSanta their Midentification. aria Basin collections but which may occur in this area l

178 _l
'

._ ,,... i_'= ... . " _/I

'

"_ I'_ '_. _K L M

I

Figure 4.1. A, Aoroides inermis adult male gnathopod 1; B, Protomedeia p_dens adult male gnathot:_d l; C,

j Aoroides adult malexilis adult male uropod 3; D, Aoroides exilis adult male gnathopod l; E, Aoroides inermis e uropod 3; F, Aoroides inermis adult female gnathopod 1; G, Jassa slatteryi adult male

uropod 3; H, Ampelisciphotis podophthalma adult female urosome and uropod 3; I,Ampelisciphotis

i podophthalma adult female head; J, Protomedeia articulata adult male hexad,K, Photis lacia adult

male uropod 3; L, Photis conchicola J.L. Barnaxd, 1962 peracopod 5 dactyl (left) and locking spine

(right); M, Protomedeia articuIata adult male uropod 3; N, Photis bifurcata adult male coxa 2; O,

Photis brevipes adult male coxa 2; P,Photis bifurcata adult male gnathopod 1; Q, Photis bifurcata

i adult male gnathopod 2; R, Photis bifurcata adult female gnathopod 2.

, 179
2A. Uropod 3, both sexes, outer ramus with 1-3 spines (Fig. 4.tC). Adult female and juvenile gnathopod _

1, basis without cluster of long setae anterodistally. Adult male gnathopod 1, basis with both lateral

and posterior fringe of long setae (Fig. 4.1 D) ............................................ Aoroides exilis (Fig. 4.3) i

II

2B. Uropod 3, both sexes, outer ramus usually bare, rarely with 1-2 small spines (Fig. 4.1E). Adult

female and juvenile gnathopod 1, basis with cluster of long setae anterodistally (Fig. 4.1F). Adult

male gnathopod 1, basis laterally setose, but lacking setae on posterior margin ................................ 'J

............................................................................................................... Aoroides inermis (Fig. 4.4)

m

3A. Uropod 3, both sexes, outer ramus bearing spines or setae, but not terminating in dorsal hooks (Figs. J

1C,E) ................................................................................................................................................ 4

3B. Uropod 3, both sexes, outer ramus without spines or setae, terminating in dorsal hooks or cusps j

(these may be microscopic) (Fig. 4.1G) ......................................................................................... 16 Ill

4A. Uropod 3, both sexes, with only one ramus (Fig. 4.1H). Eye lobes projecting beyond end of antenna i

1peduncle article 1 (Fig. 4.11) ....................................... Ampelisciphotis podophthalma (Fig. 4.5)

4B. Uropod 3, both sexes, with two rami. Eye lobes not projecting beyond antenna 1 peduncle article 1 i

(Fig. 4.113......................................................................................................................................... 5 I

5A. Uropod 3, both sexes, inner ramus very small compared with outer; outer ramus terminating in one or

more setae (Fig. 4.1K). Peraeopod 5, propodus with single long spine next to origin of dactyl, dactyl III

cusped (Fig. 4.1L) ....................................................................................... Genus Photis ............. 6 /

5B. Uropod 3, both sexes, rami about equal in length; outer ramus terminating in spines (Fig. 4.1M). I

Peraeopod 5, propodus with several spines along margin, dactyl not cusped ................................. 12

6A. Without eyes ................................................................................................ Photis typhlops (Fig.6) I

6B. Eyes black, clearly visible ................................................................................................................ 7 i'_

7A. Gnathopod 2, coxa, both sexes, setae on lower margin numbering 5 or less, their length only about

quarter width of coxa (Fig. 4.1 N) .................................................................................................... 8

7B. Gnathopod 2, coxa, both sexes, setae on lower margin more than 5 in number, and nearly as long as !1

width of coxa (Fig. 4.1 O) ................................................................................................................ 9

/I

8A. Adult male gnathopod 1, palm concave (Fig. 4.1P). Adult male gnathopod 2, palm defined by long,

bifid tooth (Fig. 4.1Q). Adult female and juvenile gnathopod 2, palm concave (Fig. 4.1R) .............. I_

!

................................................................................................................ Photis bifurcata (Fig. 4.7)

8B. Adult male gnathopod 1, palm convex (Fig. 4.2A). Adult male gnathopod 2, palm defined by short,

single tooth (Fig. 4.2B). Female and juvenile gnathopod 2, palm convex (Fig. 4.2C) .......................

....................................................................................................................... Photis lacia (Fig. 4.8) II

9A. Adult male gnathopod 2, palm not incised, not defined by tooth ........ Photis linearmanus (Fig. 4.9) /

9B. Adult male gnathopod 2, palm incised, def'med by tooth (Fig. 4.2D,E) ........................................... 10

i

180 I
!

!

I

| ,

i

i|

!

i

Figure 4.2. A, femaPhot le isgnathopod lacia adu2;lt Dmale ,Photis gnathlacopod ia adul 1;tB,maPhole tignath s lacoiapoadd u2;lt Emale , Photis gnathopod brevipes2;adult C, Phomale tis lacia gnathopod adult

2; E Photis lacia adult male gnathopod 2; G, Photis californica adult male gnathopod 2; H, Photis i

_ll macrotica adult male gnathopod 2; I, Protomedeia prudens adult male antenna I; J, Protomedeia

|

articulata adult male per_opods 3 and 4; K, Protomedeia articulata adult male gnathopod 2; L,

Protomedeia prudens adult male gnathopod 2; M, Ericthonius rubricornis adult mate gnthopod 2;

N, Jassa slatteryi adult male coxa 4; O, Jassa slatteryi adult male gnathopod 2; P,Microjassa sp. A,

I adult male coxa 4; Q, Microjassa A, adult male gnathopod 2.

sp.

'i 181
I

10A. Adult male gnathopod 2, dactyl, inner margin with tooth projecting into palm (Fig. 4.2E) ................. I

................................................................................................................ Photis brevipes (Fig. 4.10)

10B. Adult male gnathopod 2, dactyl, inner margin without tooth (Fig. 4.2F) ......................................... 11 _,

IIW

llA. Eyes normal. Adult male gnathopod 2, palmar tooth adjacent to dactyl hinge rounded or squared, i'

palmar incision rounded or squared, palmar defining tooth extending to level of dactyl hinge or beyond 11

(Fig. 4.2G). Adult female and juvenile gnathopod 1, palm shallowly concave (Fig. 4.1P) ...............

t

........................................................................................................ Photis californica (Figs. 11,12)

1lB. Eyes large. Adult male gnathopod 2, palmar tooth adjacent to dactyl hinge pointed, palmar incision

triangular, palmar defining tooth not extending to level of dactyl hinge (Fig. 4.2H). Adult female and ,=,

juvenile gnathopod 1, palm convex (Fig. 4.2A) .................................... Photis macrotica (Fig. 4.13) |

12A. Antenna 1, both sexes, peduncle article 3 shorter than article 1 (Fig. 4.21). Peraeopods 3 and 4, i

dactyls longer than dactyls of peraeopods 5-7 (Fig. 4.2J) ............. Genus Protomedeia ............... 13 II

12B. Antenna 1, both sexes, peduncle article 3 as tong as article 1. Peraeopods 3 and 4, dactyls as long as

or shorter than dactyls of peraeopods 5-7 ..................................... Genus Gammaropsis ............. I4 I

13A. Adult male gnathopod 1, carpus and propodus nearly equal in length. Adult male gnathopod 2, ill

pmpodus, posterior margin not toothed, dactyl curved (Fig. 4.2K) .................................................... l

................................................................................................... Protomedeia articulata (Fig. 4.14)

13B. Adult male gnathopod 1, carpus quarter longer than propodus. Adult male gnathopod 2, pmpodus, _1[

posterior margin toothed, dactyl straight or sinuous (Fig. 4.2L) ......................................................... q

..................................................................................................... Protomedeia prudens (Fig. 4.15) !_'

:3

14A. Antenna 1, both sexes, accessory flagellum long and multiarticulate (Fig. 4.21). Eye kidney shaped.

Urosome segments 1 and 2 dorsally cusped ...................................................................................... _ll['

..................................................................... Gammaropsis (Gammaropsis) thompsoni (Fig. 4.16) II

14B. Antenna 1, both sexes, accessory flagellum microscopic. Eye oval. Urosome segments 1 and 2 not

dorsally cusped .................................................................. Genus Gammaropsis (Podoceropsis) 15 I

15A. Eye facets unpigmented. Gnathopod 2, adult male, propodus about length of articles 5 and 6 combined _11

of gnathopod 1, dactyl half length of propodus .................................................................................. W ......................................................................... Gammaropsis (Podoceropsis) ocellata (Fig. 4.t7)

15B. Eye facets black. Gnathopod 2, adult male, propodus as long as or longer than articles 5 and 6

combined of gnathopod 1, dactyl as long as propodus ....................................................................... V

............................................................................ Gammaropsis (Podoceropsis) ociosa (Fig. 4.18) I

16A. Uropod 3, both sexes, with one ramus. Gnathopod 2, both sexes, posterior lobe of carpus extending

below propodus, forming tooth in adult male (Fig. 4.2M) ......... Ericthonius rubricornis (Fig. 4.19) 1_

16B. Uropod 3, both sexes, with two rami. Gnathopod 2, posterior lobe of carpus not extending below II

propodus ........................................................................................................................................ 17

.!

182 1'
!_J

,J

I 17A. Uropod 3, both sexes, peduncle not spinose mid-dorsally, spines present only on distal margin at origin

of rami. Coxae 2 to 5 shallower than or about same depth as body; coxa 4 not posteriorly excavate

I (Fig. margin4.2N). (Fig. Gnathopod 4.20). Gnathopod 2, adult2,maadult le, palmfealeincised and juvenile, to form thumb-like more than twice protuberan size of ce gnathopod on posterio1,r

palm concave ........................................................................................... Jassa slatteryi (Fig. 4.20)

'_ 17B. Uropod 3, both sexes, peduncle spinose mid-dorsally as well as distally. Coxae 2 to 5 deeper than

M body; coxa 4 posteriorly excavate (Fig. 4.2P). Gnathopod 2, adult male, palm evenly concave,

without thumb-like protuberance on posterior margin (Fig. 4.2Q). Gnathopod 2, adult female and

i juvenile, less than twice size of gnathopod 1, palm convex ................ Microjassa sp. A (Fig. 4.21)

i Descriptions of Species

•I SuperfamilyCorophioidea

I Family Aoridae

Aoroides exilis Conlan and Bousfield, 1982

Figure 4.3

i AoroidesMateri exilis Conlan and Bousfield, 1982b:92-93, fig. 9. al Examined. California: Santa Maria Basin, Sta. 65, 107 m, 2 juveniles; Sta. 80, 196 m, 1

juvenile; Sta. R-4, Rep. 1, 92 m, 4 adult females, 7 juveniles; Cruise 1-3, Sta. R-4, Rep. 3, 92 m, 1juvenile;

i Cruise m, 1 adult 2-5,male, Sta. R-4, 9 adult Rep.females, 2, 92 m,151juveniles. adult male, 7 adult females, 52juveniles; Cruise 2-5, Sta. R-4, Rep. 3, 92

Description. Body length up to 5.5 mm (adult male), 2.5-6.0 mm (adult female). Head lobe

ilmlt rounded or squared. Eye black, oval. Antenna 1 1.5 to 2 times length of antenna 2. Antenna 1 weakly

setose, article 3 one-half length of article 1; accessory flagellum microscopic button. Antenna 2 moderately

setose, flagellum pediform, shorter than article 5, distally spinose. Upper lip, epistome rounded. Mandible

with 2-3 raker spines; molar without flake or seta; palp slender, rod-like, article 2 without setae, article 3

• longer than article 2, with 4-6 setae. Lower lip, outer lobes spinose. Maxilla 1,inner plate with long seta; palp

i broader than outer plate. Maxilla 2, inner plate slenderer than outer, with facial setae. Maxilliped, inner plate

reaching to end of article 4; outer plate reaching to end of article 5; unguis (article 8) much shorter than article

7. Sternal plate 1 with shallow bump. Peraeopods 1-4, coxae, ventral margins with few minute setae.

Gnathopod 1larger than gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 1 (adult male), coxa narrow and lengthened, basis inserted

at distal margin; basis with fringe of long setae on anterior, lateral, and posterior margins; merus extended as long tooth under full length of carpus; carpus, anterior margin lacking thick fringe of setae, not expanded

under propodus; propodus without palm; dactyl aslong as propodus, posterior (inner) margin fringed with long

1 setae. althoughGnwith athopod longer1 (dactyl; adult female basis and without juvenile cluster ) similar of longinsetae shapeattoanterior gnathopo junction d 2 (awith dult female ischium.andGnathopod juvenile),

2 (adult male) similar in shape to that of adult female and juvenile; basis without stridulation ridges on anterior

1 margin; carpus not toothed; propodus, palm transverse, without teeth, setae at dactyl hinge less than half

Ul length of propodus. Gnathopod 2 (adult female and juvenile) somewhat smaller than gnathopod 1; carpus

about as long as propodus, posterior lobe wide, not expanded under propodus; propodus, palm transverse.

t Adult female brood plates wide, setae without hook at each tip. Peraeopod 3 (adult male) without stridulation

i. 183
!

U

Figure 4.3. .Aoroides exilis. Holotype, adultmale,4.0 ram; allotype, adultfemale, 5.0 ram;paratype,intersex,5.5

mm. Individual appendages in this andsubsequentfigures are from themale unless notedotherwise; I

scale0.1mm (fromConlanandBousfield,1982b).

ridges on ventral margin. Coxa 4, posterior margin not excavate. Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis not expanded; :t

merus not anteriorly produced over carpus; dactyl shorter than propodus. Peraeopod 5, coxa somewhat 111

shallower than coxa 4; basis slender, not posteriorly excavate; meres not posteriorly excavate; merus and

carpus not spinose; propodus with several spines along anterior margin; dactyl without pronounced cusp at i

junction of unguis. Peraeopods 6 and 7, coxae smaller than coxa 5; otherwise peraeopods 6 and 7 similar in

shape to peraeopod 5. Epimera 1-3 with ridge and small notch and seta in posterodistal comer, but without

cusp. Pleon segment 3 with pair of erect setae dorsally. Urosome segment 1 with pair of erect setae !

dorsally, but without accompanying cusps. Uropod 1, peduncle with lateral ecdysial spine proximally and ip

tooth-like process extending ventrally below rami; rami tipped by 2 or 3 spines. Uropod 3, peduncle not

spinose along dorsal margin except atjunction of rami; rami as long as peduncle and of equal length, both rami i

with 2 or 3 spines on dorsal margin, outer ramus terminating in cluster of long setae, inner ramus terminating

in 1 or 2 long setae. Telson apices marked by cluster of 2-3 long setae and small knob.

184 :N
!

Distribution and Biology. Aoroides exilis has been recorded from Klokachef Island, Alaska

(57°25'N, 123°52%V)south to Santa Maria Basin, California. It has been found among algae, eelgrass, and

t This sponges species underisstones abundantd inontidehighpoosalinity ls on sand exposed and grave coastsl beaches and in insemi- the lowandintertid wll protected al zone, towaters. 196 m depth. Adult

females have been found ovigerous from May to August.

Remarks. Adult male Aoroides exilis can be distinguished from Aoroides inermis by the presence

of long setae on the posterior margin of the basis of gnathopod 1and lack of such setae on the anterior margin

of the carpus. Adult female and juveni!e Aoroides exilis lack the cluster of long setae on the anterodistal 1

margin of the basis of gnathopods 1 and 2 at the junction of the ischium. In both sexes both the outer and

inner rami bear spines, whereas in Aoroides inermis the outer ramus usually lacks spines. The species also

differ in pigmentation in life: inAoroides exilis the flagellum article 1of antenna 2 is not red banded, and the

body segments are dark banded, with the head and parts of segments 6 and 7 white, giving a "saddleback"

pattern.

Aoroides inermis Conlan and Bousfield, 1982

I Figure4.4

Aoroides inermis Conlan and Bousfield, 1982b:86-87, fig. 4.

Material Examined. California: Santa Mafia Basin, Sta. PJ-6, Rep. I, 148 m, 1 adult female.

Description. Body length up to 6.0 mm (adult male), 3.0-6.5 mm (adult female). Head lobe rounded or squared. Eye black, oval. Antenna 1 about 1.5 times length of antenna 2. Antenna 1 weakly

i setose, article 3 one-half length of article 1; accessory flagellum microscopic button. Antenna 2 moderately

: setose, flagellum pediform, shorter than article 5, distally spinose. Upper lip, epistome rounded. Mandible

with 2-3 raker spines; molar without flake or seta; palp slender, rod-like, article 2 with 1-3 setae, article 3

lt_ longer than article 2, with 4-6 setae. Lower lip, outer lobes spinose. Maxilla 1,inner plate with long seta; palp

I broader than outer plate. Maxilla 2, inner plate slenderer than outer, with facial setae. Maxilliped, inner plate reaching to end of article 4; outer plate reaching beyond article 5; unguis (article 8) much shorter than article

7. Sternal plate 1 with shallow bump. Peraeopods 1-4, coxae, ventral margins with few minute setae.

'l Gnathopod 1larger than gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 1 (adult male), coxa narrow and lengthened, basis inserted

at ventral margin; basis with fringe of long setae on anterior and lateral margins; merus extended as long

tooth under full length of carpus; carpus, _-.terior margin with thick fringe of setae, not expanded under

i pro[,odus; propodus without palm; dacty! as long as propodus, pqsterior (inner) margin fringed with long setae

and without cusps. Gnathopod 1 (adult female and juvenile) similar in shape to gnathopod 2, although with

longer dactyl; basis with cluster of long setae at anterior junction with ischium. Gnathopod 2 (adult male)

I sGnathopod imilar in shape to that of adult female and juvenile; basis without stridulation ridges on anterior margin. 2 (adult female and juvenile) somewhat smaller than gnathopod 1; carpus about aslong as propodus,

posterior lobe wide, not toothed; propodus, palm transverse, setae at dactyl hinge less than half length of

I propod at eachutip. s; daPeraeopod ctyl scarcely3 (adult overlappmale) ing palm, withoutnotstridulation toothed. Aridges dult female on ventral broodmargin. plates widPeraeopod e, setae with4, oposte ut horioork

margin not excavate. Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis not expanded; merus not anteriorly produced over carpus;

I:_ dactyl shorter than propodus. Peraeopod 5, coxa similar in depth to coxa 4; basis slender, not posteriorly

excavate; merus not posteriorly excavate; merus and carpus not spinose; propodus with several spines along

anterior margin; dactyl without pronounced cusp atjunction of unguis. Peraeopods 6 and 7, coxac smaller

than coxa 5; otherwise articles similar in shape to peraeopod 5. Epimera 1-3 with small notch and seta in

posterodistal corner. Pleon segment 3 with pair of erect setae dorsally. Urosome segment 1 with pair of

erect setae dorsally, but without accompanying cusps. Uropod 1, peduncle with lateral eedysial spine proximally

and tooth-like process extending ventrally below rami; rami tipped by 2 or 3 spines. Uropod 3, peduncle not

'1 185
!

!

i

|

cY t I

i

i

Figure 4.4. Aoroides inermis. Holotype, adult male, 5.0 mm. Allotype, adult female, 5.5 mm (from Conlan and /l

Bousfield, 1982b). ._ i

spinose mid-dorsally but only at junction of rami; rami as long as peduncle and of equal length, inner ramus /

with 2 or 3 spines on dorsal margin, but outer ramus usually without spines; outer ramus terminating in cluster g

of long setae, inner ramus terminating in 1 or 2 long setae. Telson apices marked by cluster of 2-3 long setae

and small knob. I

Distribution and Biology. Aoroides inermis has been recorded from Goose Island, British Columbia

(51 °56'N, 128°26'W) south to Santa Maria Basin, California. It has been found primarily on sand bottoms in

the low intertidal zone and subtidally to 148 m depth on high salinity exposed and protected coasts. Adult

females have been found ovigerous from May to No yember. V

Remarks. Adult male Aoroides inermis can be distinguished from Aoroides exilis by the lack of Ill

long setae on the posterior margin of the basis of gnathopod 1 and presence of such setae on the anterior in :_

margin of the carpus. Adult female and juvenile Aoroides inermis also bear a cluster of long setae on the ql

anterodistal comer of the basis of gnathopods 1 and 2 at the junction of the ischium. In both sexes the outer ._...',

ramus of uropod 3 usually lacks spines, whereas in Aoroides exilis the outer ramus is always spinose. The 'Jl

species also differ in pigmentation in life: in Aoroides inermis flagellum article 1 of antenna 2 is red banded.

m

The body segments are speckled throughout, with pigment concentrating in the lower posterior comers of

body segments 1-5.

186 I'
!

! Family Isaeidae

j Ampelisciphotis podophthalma (J.L. Barnard, 1958)

Figure 4.5

l,

! l Gaviotapodophthalma J.L. Bamard, 1958:87-89, pls. 26 and27; 1973:15 (synonymy).--J.L. Barnardand

Karaman, 1991:159-160, pls. 41,43.

I Material Examined. California: Santa Maria Basin, Sta. 64, 59 m, 1juvenile; Cruise 1-2, Sta. R-8, Rep. 2, 90 m,juvenile; Cruise 2-4, Sta. R-8, Rep. 3, 90 m, 1 adult male, 1juvenile.

i Description. Body length up to 4.5 mm (adult male), 4.5 mm (adult female). Head lobe strongly

produced, extending beyond end of article 1 of antenna 1. Eye black, round, covering end of head lobe.

Antennae 1 and 2 about equal in length. Antenna 1 moderately setose, article 3 longer than article 1;

i accessory flagellum absent. Antenna 2 moderately setose, flagellum not pediform, longer than article 5, not

distally spinose. Upper lip, epistome rectangular. Mandible with 4-6 raker spines; molar flake present; palp

slender, article 3 hardly wider distally than proximally, both articles 2 and 3 with numerous setae, article 2

i hardly longer than article 3. Lower lip, outer lobes not spinose. Maxilla 1, inner plate without setae; palp narrower than outer plate. Maxilla 2, inner plate wider than outer, with facial setae. Maxilliped, inner plate

reaching to end of article 4; outer plate reaching to end of article 5; unguis (article 8) shorter than article 7.

Sternal plate 1 not produced. Peraeopods 1-4, coxae, ventral margins with abundant long setae. Gnathopod

' , 1 smaller than gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 1 (adult male), coxa narrower but otherwise not different in shape

from coxa 2, basis inserted proximally on inner face; basis with cluster of long setae anteriorly; merus not

i extended as tooth under carpus; carpus about equal in length to propodus, anterior margin setose only at

anterior junction with propodus, posterior lobe not expanded under propodus; propodus, palm convex, def'med

by row of 3 long spines; dactyl only as long as palm of propodus, posterior (inner) margin with several short

setae and cusps. Gnathopod 1 (adult female and juvenile) similar in shape to male gnathopod 1. Gnathopod

i 2carpus (adultnearly male) assimilar long taso and propodus, no largernotthan toothed; that ofpropodus, adult female palmanconvex, djuvenile; defined basis bywithrowout ofstridu 4 spines, lation setae ridges; at

h. dactyl hinge more than half length ofpropodus; dactyl as long as palm, with cusp only. Gnathopod 2 (adult

,,1 female and juvenile) somewhat larger than gnathopod 1; carpus shorter than propodus, posterior lobe twoI¢ thirds length of anterior margin; propodus, palm convex. Adult female brood plates unknown. Peraeopod 3

(adult male) without stridulation ridges. Peraeopod 4, coxa, posterior margin not excavate. Peraeopods 3

t and dac 4, basis moderately expanded, merus wider than carpus and anteriorly produced over one-third of carpus; tyl shorter than propodus. Peraeopod 5, coxa similar in depth to coxa 4; basis broad, not posteriorly

excavate; merus not posteriorly excavate; merus and carpus not spinose; propodus with only single short

•i spine tha coxa at antemdistal 6; otherwisecomer; peraeopods dactyl wi6thand 2 pronounced 7 similar incusps shapeatjutoncti peraeopod on of unguis. 5, although Peraeopodbases7, cox narrower a smallerin

peraeopod 7. Epimera 1-3 not posterodistaUy notched. Pleon and urosome without dorsally erect setae or

j cusps. rami; rami Uropod tipped1,bpedunc y 1 short le without spine. Uropod lateral ecd 3, pyesial duncslepinenotorspinos tooth-like e; outerprocramu esssextending shorter thanvenpedunc trally lbelow e and

tipped by 1-2 long setae, inner ramus absent. Telson apices marked by 2-3 long setae and small knob.

:_ Distribution and Biology. Ampelisciphotis podophthalma has been recorded from Point Sal to

II__ Point Mugu, California, from 12 to 90 rn depth.

Remarks. Ampelisciphotis podophthalma is not sexually dimorphic. The species is readily

_ recognized in this collection by the long projecting headlobes.

.!

I 187
!

!

!

I

!

!

!

i

i

Figure 4.5. Ampelisciphotispodophthatma. Holotype, adult female, 4.5 mm (whole body); paratype, adult female, ._

4.5 mm (individual appendages) (from J. L. Bamard, 1958).

tl

ill

188 I
!

Photis typhlops Conlan, 19943

!_ i Figure4.6

.. Photis typhIops Conlan, 1994b:68-70, fig. 1.

I Material Examined. California: Santa Maria Basin, Sta. 20, 396 m, 1 juvenile; Sta. 25,390 m, 1 subadult female, 9 juveniles; Sta. 50, 591 m, 2 adult females, 4 juveniles; Sta. 55, 590 m, 2 adult females, 7

juveniles. Off San Francisco (37°22.3 I'N, 123°19.24'W), 990 m, Sta. 3-18, 26.829, 9-19, 15Sept. 1991, J. A.

, Blake, collector, about 200 specimens (type).

Description. Body length up to 3.2 mm (adult male), 3.4 mm (adult female). Head lobe triangular.

, Eye lacking. Antennae 1 and 2 about equal in length. Antenna 1 weakly setose, article 3 longer than article

1; flagellum microscopic button. Antenna 2 moderately setose, flagellum not pediform, longer

accessory

than article 5, distally spinose. Upper lip, epistome triangular. Mandible with 3-4 raker spines; molar flake

present; palp strong, article 3hardly wider distally than proximally, both articles 2 and 3 with numerous setae,

article 2 longer than article 3. Lower lip, outer lobes not spinose. Maxilla 1,inner plate without setae; palp

narrower than outer plate. Maxilla 2, inner plate about same width as outer, with facial setae. Maxilliped,

inner plate not reaching to end of article 4; outer plate not reaching to end of article 5; unguis (article 8) about

i equal in length to article 7. Sternal plate 1not produced. Peraeopods 1-4, ventral margins of coxae with 0- 2 long setae each. Gnathopod 1smaller than gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 1(adult male), coxa more anterodistally

produced than coxa 2, basis inserted mid-proximally on inner face; basis not densely setose; merus not

i ' extended posterior loasbteooth not unexpanded der carpuuns;dercarpus propoabo dus;ut propodus, equal in length palm toshalprlowopodus, ly excanteri avate,ordef'med marginbdyistasingle lly setose, spine;

dactyl longer than palm of propodus, posterior (inner) margin with few short setae and cusps. Gnathopod 1

i (adu posterior lt female margins, and juveni carpusle)slightly similarlonger in shapethantopropodus, gnathopodand2, alth palmoughof propodus basis withoblique; long setaebasisonwithout both antcluster erior andof

tong setae at anterior junction with ischium. Gnathopod 2 (adult male) larger than and different in shape from

that propodus, of adulnot t fetoothed; male anpropodus, d juvenile;palmbasis, transverse, lateral facwithe with 2 excroavations w of stridu andlatooth tion and ridges; spinecarpat defining us shortercorner, than

setae at dactyl hinge less than half length of propodus; dactyl overlapping palm by length of unguis, without

i tooth, larger than with gnathopod spine and s1; etalcarcplustershorter proximal thn propodus, of unguis. poste Gnathopod rir lobe2narrow; (adult fema propodus, le andjupalmveniconvex. le) someAdult wha

female brood plates moderately wide, setae without hook at each tip. Peraeopod 3 (adult male), coxa with

i row of stridulation ridges on ventral margin. Peraeopod 4, coxa, posterior margin not excavate. Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis not expanded, merus wider than carpus and produced anteriorly over less than one-fourth of

carpus; dactyl shorter than propodus. Peraeopod 5, coxa similar in depth to coxa 4; basis broad, not posteriorly

i

• exca at anterodistal vate; meruscorner; not posteri dactyl orlywith excava2 pronounced te; meres ancusps dcarpuats not junction spinose; of unguis. propodusPeraeopods with only single 6 andlon7,gcoxae spine

smaller than coxa 5; otherwise articles similar in shape to peraeopod 5, although bases narrower and dactyl

i not cusped. Epimera 1-3 not posterodistally notched. Pleon and urosome without dorsally erect setae or

cusps. Uropod 1,peduncle without lateral ecdysial spine proximally or tooth-like process extending ventrally

below rami; rami tipped by 1-2 short spines. Uropod 3, peduncle not spinose; outer ramus nearly as long as

peduncle and tipped by 1-2 long setae, inner ramus about one-fourth length of outer, tipped by single short spine. Telson apices marked by single long seta and small knob.

Distribution and Biology. Photis typhlops has been collected from 390-2005 m off Santa Barbara

i _ and San Francisco. In the San Francisco collections, Photis typhlops was found from 812 m to 2005 m

/_ depth, with density peaking at 9500 individuals m-2at 1770 to 1990 m depth. At this density the tubes of the

I 3Allspeciesof Photistreatedin thispaperarein thesubgenuPhot s is.

I 189
I

!

i

I

l

I

ii

S

Figure 4.6. Photis _yphlops. Holotype, adult male, 3.2 mm; allotype, adult female, 3+4nun; paratypes, adult male, ++_

3.4 ram, juvenile male, 2.9 ram, adult female, 3.3 mm (from Conlan, 1994b).

!

,90 |
I

amphipods were clearly visible as a dense mat concentrated at the sediment surface. This is the first known

record of a deep water amphipod mat (J. A. Blake, pers. comm., 7 Dec. 1992).

i Remarks. Two other blind species of Photis are known to occur inthe North Pacific: Photis (Photis)

,. kurilica Gurjanova, 1955 and Photis (Cedrophotis) malinalco J.L. Barnard, 1967. Photis kurilica differs

from P. typhlops in the following respects. Head lobe rounded ventrally. Antenna 1, flagellum 8 articles,

i slightly longer than the peduncle. Antenna 2, peduncle article 4, 3 times as long as article 3. Male gnathopod 1, basis, anterior and posterior margins covered with abundant plumose setae; carpus equal in length to the

propodus; propodus, palm concave. Male gnathopod 2, coxa with 9 long setae on the ventral margin; basis

with without abundant a short, stout setae anteriorly and long, slender setae posteriorly; propodus, palm concave, tooth. Female gnathopod 2, propodus, palm shallowly concave. Uropod 1with 8-11 lateral spines

.. on the peduncle and rami. Uropod 2 with 2-12 lateral spines on the peduncle and rami. Photis kurilica has

only been recorded from the east coast of Russia. Photis (Cedrophotis) malinalco, from the Cedros Trench, Baja California, has a much longer inner

ramus on the third uropod (half the length of the outer - a defining character of the subgenus), slenderer

D propodus of gnathopods 1 and 2, broader coxa 1, and less spinose uropods 1 and 2.

Another species of Photis that is blind is the South Atlantic abyssal Photis (Photis) coeca J.L.

i Barnard, 1962. This species differs from P. typhlops as follows. Antenna 1, article 3 only slightly longer,•

than article 1; female gnathopod 1, coxa square; basis with 3 long setae anteriorly and I posteriorly; female

gnathopod 2, coxa square; propodus much narrower than wide; peraeopod 3, coxa covering only one-third of

ml the basis; peraeopod 5, basis, width three-fourths of length; uropod 1 rami, outer ramus with 1 spine, inner

il ramus with 0.

W

All four blind species have longer antennae than has been seen in eyed species of Photis, a

i, characteristic, therefore, which may correlate with lack of eyesight.

It i

Photis bifurcata J.L. Barnard, 1962

I. Figure 4.7

Photis bif_rcata J.L. Barnard, 1962:30-31, fig. 10; 1964:240.---Conlan, 1983:46-49, fig. 23.

i Material Examined. California: Santa Maria Basin, Sta. BRA-16, 91.5-123 m, 2 adult males, 4

adult females, 11 juveniles; Sta. 6, 109 m, 1 adult male, 3 adult females, 22 juveniles; Cruise 1-3, Sta. R-8,

! Western Rep. 1, 90 m, 1 adult male, 1 adult female, 6juveniles; Cruise 1-3, Sta. R-8, Rep. 2, 90 m, 1 adult female.-- Santa Barbara Channel, Sta. BRC-1, 73.5-78 m, 1 adult male, 1 adult female

Description. Body length up to 4.0 mm (adult male), 2.0-3.5 mm (adult female). Head lobe

i triangular. Eye black, oval. Antennae 1and 2 about equal in length. Antenna 1 weakly setose, article 3equal in length to article 1; accessory flagellum microscopic button. Antenna 2 moderately setose, flagellum not

pediform, longer than article 5, distally spinose. Upper lip, epistome triangular. Mandible with 3 raker spines;

molar flake present; palp strong, article 3 hardly wider distally than proximally, both articles 2 and 3 with • numerous setae, article 2 longer than article 3. Lower lip, outer lobes not spinose. Maxilla 1, inner plate

without setae; palp narrower than outer plate. Maxilla 2, inner plate about same width as outer, with facial

:._l setae. Maxilliped, inner plate not reaching to end of article 4; outer plate not reaching to end of article 5; II unguis (article 8) about equal in length to article 7. Sternal plate 1 not produced. Peraeopods 1-4, ventral

margins of coxae with few long setae only. Gnathopod 1 smaller than gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 1 (adult

I male), coxa not different in shape from coxa 2, basis inserted midway on inner face; basis not densely setose; • merus not extended as tooth under carpus; carpus longer than propodus, anterior margin setose only at

anterior junction with propodus, posterior lobe not expanded under propodus; propodus, palm concave, defined

i by single small spine; dactyl only as long as palm of propodus, posterior (inner) margin with few short setae

I 19t
!

!

!

\ " i

o._ , _*-. '\,.,_,

. MXI

.i.

/_, ,_ _ \,,,

t-__d _ ,'

LL RT _ ,_.XPD LiT _ 1

Figure 4.7. Photis bifurcata. Adultmale,3.5 nun; adultfemale, 3.5mm(fromCordan, 1983). il

g

and cusps. Gnathopod 1 (adult female and juvenile) similar in shape to gnathopod 2, although carpus about i

equal in length to propodus, and palm of propodus convex; basis without cluster of long setae at anterior |

junction with ischium. Gnathopod 2 (adult male) larger and different in shape from that of adult female and

juvenile; basis, lateral face with row of stridulation ridges; carpus shorter than propodus, not toothed; propodus, /

palm basically transverse, centrally incised and dermed by long bifurcate tooth which extends beyond position |

of origin of dactyl, setae at dactyl hinge less than half length of propodus; dactyl scarcely overlapping palm,

with tooth adjacent to origin, and spine and setal cluster proximal of unguis. Gnathopod 2 (adult female and ii

juvenile) somewhat larger than gnathopod 1; carpus shorter than propodus, posterior lobe narrow; propodus, a

palm shallowly concave. Adult female brood plates moderately wide, setae without hook at each tip. Peraeopod

3 (adult male), coxa with row of stridulation ridges on ventral margin. Peraeopod 4, coxa, posterior margin inn,

not excavate. Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis not expanded, merus wider than carpus and produced anteriorly J

over about one-fourth of carpus; dactyl shorter than propodus. Peraeopod 5, coxa similar in depth to coxa 4;

basis broad, not posteriorly excavate; merus not posteriorly excavate; merus and carpus not spinose; propodus am

with only single long spine at anterodistal comer; dactyl with 2 pronounced cusps at junction of unguis. I

Peraeopods 6 and 7, coxae smaller than coxa 5; otherwise articles similar in shape to peraeopod 5, although

bases narrower and dactyls not cusped. Epimera 1-3 not posterodistally notched. Pleon and urosome _1_

|

192 I'
I

t without dorsally erect setae or cusps. Uropod 1, peduncle without lateral ecdysial spine proximally or toothlike process extending ventrally below rarni; rami tipped by 1-2 short spines. Uropod 3, peduncle not spinose;

t outer ramus nearly as long as peduncle and tipped by 1-2 long setae, inner ramus about one-fourth length of

outer, tipped by single short spine. Telson apices marked by seta and small knob.

Distribution and Biology. Photis bifurcata has been recorded from Chichagof Island, Alaska

I (57°47'N, 136°18'W) south to Bahia de San Crist6bal, Baja California. It has been found on bedrock, sand, and sandy mud on exposed and semi-protected coasts at low water level to a depth 109 m. Adult females

have been found ovigerous from May to August.

I Remarks. In both sexes the coxae bear few setae, a feature that would distinguish this species w

from Photis brevipes, P. californica, and P. macrotica. Adult male Photis bifurcata can be distinguished

from the other local adult males of the genus by the distinctive bifurcate tooth on the second gnathopod and

i the elongate carpus of gnathopod 1. Adult female and juveniles are not distinctive in gnathopod appearance.

Photis lacia J.L. Barnard, 1962

t Figure 4.8

t Photis lacia J.L. Bamard, 1962:42-44, fig. 18.--Conlan, 1983:52-53, fig. 26.

Material Examined. California: Santa Maria Basin, Sta. 65, 107 m, 2 adult males, 4 adult females,

i 37 juveniles; Cruise 1-3, Sta. R-3, Rep. 1, 92 m, 50 adult males, 75 adult females, 290juveniles; Cruise 1-3, Sta. R-4, Rep. 2, 92 m, 11adult females, 13 juveniles; Cruise 1-3, Sta. R-4, Rep. 3, 92 m, 42 adult males, 90

adult females, 327juveniles; Cruise 1-1, Sta. PJ-20, Rep. 1,148 m, 4 adult males, 6 adult females, 15juveniles.

t

triangular.DescEyeription black,

. oval. BodyAntennae length up1 and to 3.02 about mm equal (adult

inmale), length.2.0-3.3 Antennamm1 weakly (adult setose, female).article Head3 equal lobe

in length to article 1; accessory flagellum microscopic button. Antenna 2 weakly setose, flagellum not

i pediform, longer than article 5, distally spinose. Upper lip, epistome triangular. Mandible with 3raker spines;

molar flake present; palp strong, article 3 hardly wider distally than proximally, both articles 2 and 3 with

numerous setae, article 2 longer than article 3. Lower lip, outer lobes not spinose. Maxilla 1, inner plate

t without setae; palp narrower than outer plate. Maxilla 2, inner plate about same width as outer, with facial setae. Maxilliped, inner plate not reaching end of article 4; outer plate not reaching end of article 5; unguis

(article 8) about equal in length to article 7. Sternal plate 1 not produced. Peraeopods 1-4, coxae, ventral

margins of coxae with few long setae only. Gnathopod 1 smaller than gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 1 (adult

male), coxa not different in shape from coxa 2; basis inserted midway on inner face; basis, anterior margin

not densely setose; merus not extended as tooth under carpus; carpus shorter than propodus, anterior margin

setose only at anterior junction with propodus, posterior lobe not expanded under propodus; pmpodus, palm

concave, defined by single small spine; dactyl only as long as palm of propodus, posterior (inner) margin with

few short setae and cusps. Gnathopod 1 (adult female and juvenile) similar in shape to gnathopod 2, carpus

shorter than propodus, and palm of propodus convex; basis without cluster of long setae at anterior junction

with ischium. Gnathopod 2 (adult male) larger and different in shape from that of adult female and juvenile;

basis, lateral face with row of stridulation ridges; carpus shorter than propodus, not toothed; propodus, palm

basically transverse, with shallow rectangular process and short, narrow defining tooth, setae at dactyl hinge

t nearly as long as propodus; dactyl scarcely overlapping palm, inner margin sinuous, with spine and setal cluster proximal of unguis. Gnathopod 2 (adult female and juvenile) somewhat larger than gnathopod 1;

carpus shorter than propodus, posterior lobe narrow; propodus, palm convex. Adult female brood plates

i moderately wide, setae without hook at each tip. Peraeopod 3 (adult male), coxa with row of stridulation ridges on ventral margin. Peraeopod 4, coxa, posterior margin not excavate. Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis not

expanded, merus wider than carpus and produced anteriorly over about one-fourth of carpus; dactyl shorter

I 193
I

1

I T /

. ,- =/t.,

t "' I

" " t

f

\

__ ," _ , l

"i III

o' GN2

I

LL " k_XPD LFT ,

m

Figure 4.8. Photislacia. Adultmale,3.0mm, adultfemale,3.3mm(fromConlan, 1983). t

!

than pmpodus. Peraeopod 5, coxa similar in depth to coxa 4; basis broad, not posteriorly excavate; merus not

posteriorly excavate; merus and carpus not spinose; propodus with only single long spine at antemdistal I

comer; dactyl with 2 pronounced cusps atjunction of unguis. Peraeopods 6 and 7, coxae smaller than coxa |

5; otherwise articles similar in shape to peraeopod 5, although bases narrower and dactyls not cusped.

Epimera 1-3 not posterodistally notched. Pleon and urosome without dorsally erect setae or cusps. Uropod i

1, peduncle without lateral ecdysial spine or tooth-like process extending ventrally below rami; rami tipped by |

1or 2 short spines. Uropod 3, peduncle not spinose; outer ramus nearly as long as peduncle and tipped by 1

or 2 long setae, inner ramus about one-fourth length of outer, tipped by single short spine. Telson apices

marked by single long seta and small knob. !

I,q

Distribution and Biology. Photis lacia has been recorded from Goose Island, British Columbia

(51°56'N, 128°26'W) south to the Santa Maria Basin area of California. It has been found only subtidally _il

from 7 to 148 m depth in sandy sediments on exposed coasts. Adult females have been found ovigerous from II

June to July.

Remarks. In both sexes the coxae bear few setae, a feature that would distinguish this species 1

from Photis brevipes, P. califomica, and P. macrotica. Adult male Photis lacia can be distinguished from tl

the other local adult males of the genus by the shape of the second gnathopod. Adult females and juveniles

are distinctive from all butPhotis typhlops by the convex palm of gnathopod 2, and can be distinguished from _1

that species by the presence of eyes. |

194 I
I

i!1

i Photis linearmanus Conlan, 1994

Figure 4.9

i Photis linearmanus Conlan, 1994b:70-71, fig. 2.

male Material Examined. California: Santa Maria Basin, Cruise 1-3, Sta. R-4, Rep. 1, 92 m, 1 adult (type).

Description. Body length 3.4 mm (adult male), adult female unknown. Head lobe triangular. Eye

i black, oval. Antennae Mandible with 3 raker molar flake

missing. Upper lip, epistome triangular. spines;

present; palp strong, article 3 hardly wider distally than proximally, both articles 2 and 3 with numerous setae,

article 2 longer than article 3. Lower lip, outer lobes not spinose. Maxilla 1, inner plate without setae; palp

I narrower than outer plate. Maxilla 2, inner plate about same width as outer, with facial setae. Maxilliped, inner plate not reaching end of article 4; outer plate not reaching end of article 5; unguis (article 8) about equal

in length to article 7. Sternal plate 1 not produced. Peraeopods 1-4, ventral margin of coxa 2 with 11 long

setae, coxae 1, 3, and 4 with 2-5. Gnathopod t smaller than gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 1 (adult male), coxa 1 different in shape from coxa 2, narrowed distally; basis inserted midway on inner face, not densely setose;

merus not extended as tooth under carpus; carpus shorter than propodus, anterior margin setose only at

I anterior by singlejuncti small onspine; with propodu dactyl only s, posteri as long or loasbepalmnot exp of propodus, anded underposterior propodu(inner) s; propodmargin us, palmwithconfewcavshort e, defined setae

!

S

I ,

. ,

,

,,

• _ lIT '

Figure 4.9. PhoNslinearmanus. Holotype, adultmale,3.4mm (fromConlan,1994b).

195
!

and cusps. Gnathopod 2 (adult male), basis, anterodistal margin with few stridulation ridges; carpus shorter i

than propodus, not toothed; propodus, palm oblique, with shelf at dactyl and shallow protuberance midway,

setae at dactyl hinge nearly as long as propodus; dactyl scarcely overlapping palm, inner margin evenly i

curved, with spine and setal cluster proximal of unguis. Peraeopod 3 (adult male), coxa with row of stridulation II

ridges on ventral margin. Peraeopod 4, coxa, posterior margin not excavate. Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis not

expanded, merus wider than carpus and produced anteriorly over about one-fourth of carpus; dactyl shorter _11

than propodus. Peraeopod 5, coxa similar in depth to coxa 4. Peraeopods 6 and 7, coxae smaller than coxa II

5; other articles of peraeopods 5-7 lacking. Epimera 1-3 not posterodistally notched. Pleon and urosome

without dorsally erect setae or cusps. Uropod 1, peduncle without lateral ecdysial spine proximally or tooth- i

like process extending ventrally below rami; rami tipped by 1 short spine. Uropod 3, peduncle with single _g

spine ventrally at origin of rami; outer ramus two-thirds length of peduncle and tipped by 1 long seta, inner

ramus about one-fourth length of outer, tipped by single short spine. Telson apices marked by single long seta ;Ira

and small knob. II

Distribution and Biology. Photis linearmanus is only known from this one collection in Santa

Maria Basin at 92 m depth. J

111 Remarks. This is the only species of Photis from this collection where the palm of the propodus of

the adult male second gnathopod is oblique and lacks a tooth at the defining corner. The relative sparsity of

setae on the ventral margins of the coxae, the cluster of long setae at the origin of the dactyl on the male's B

gnathopod 2, and the concave palm of the male's gnathopod 1 are also distinctive, although not unique among !

regional species. The female is unknown.

im

Photis brevipes Shoemaker, 1942 _

Figure 4.10 .t_l

!! Photis brevipes Shoemaker, 1942:25-27, fig. 9.--J.L. Barnard, 1962:31-33, fig. I 1; 1964: 240-241; 1969a:148-

151.---Conlan, 1983:47-49, fig. 23. t

Photis californica: J.L. Barnard, 1954:26-27, pls. 23, 24 (not Stout, 1913). _i

Material Examined. California: Santa Maria Basin, Sta. BRC-13,88.5-110.5 m, 1 adult male, 1

adult female; Sta. BRA-16, 91.5-123 m, 2 adult females 1juvenile; Sta. 34, 492 m, 1 adult male, 1 adult

female; Cruise 1-3, Sta. R-2, Rep. 1,161 m, 1 adult male, 1 adult female, 11juveniles; Cruise 1-3, Sta. R-2, w

Rep. 2, 161 m, 1 adult male, 1 adult female, 5 juveniles; Cruise 1-1, Sta. PJ-15, Rep. 2, 155 m, 2 adult males, I

1 adult female, 3 juveniles; Cruise 1-1, Sta. PJ- 19, Rep. 1,167 m, 3 adult males, 3 adult females, 2 juveniles. B

W Description. Body length up to 7.0 mm (adult male), 2.5-6.0 mm (adult female). Head lobe

triangular. Eye black, oval. Antenna 1 somewhat shorter than antenna 2. Antenna 1 weakly setose, article i

3 equal in length to article i; accessory flagellum microscopic button. Antenna 2 weakly setose, flagellum not ! pediform, longer than article 5, distally spinose. Upper lip, epistome triangular. Mandible with 2-4 raker

spines; molar flake present; palp strong, article 3 hardly wider distally than proximally, both articles 2 and 3 m

with numerous setae, article 2 longer than article 3. Lower lip, outer lobes not spinose. Maxilla 1, inner plate !

without setae; palp narrower than outer plate. Maxilla 2, inner plate about same width as outer, with facial

setae. Maxilliped, inner plate not reaching end of article 4; outer plate not reaching end of article 5; unguis t_

(article 8) about equal in length to article 7. Sternal plate 1 not produced. Peraeopods 1-4, coxae, ventral I margins with numerous tong setae. Gnathopod 1smaller than gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 1 (adult male), coxa

similar in shape to coxa 2 but more anteriorly produced; basis inserted mid-distally on inner face; basis, i

anterior margin not densely setose; merus not extended as tooth under carpus; carpus slightly longer than i

propodus, anterior margin setose, posterior lobe not expanded under propodus; propodus, palm shallowly ql

concave, defined by single small spine; dactyl only as long as palm of propodus, posterior (inner) margin with

few short setae and cusps. Gnathopod 1 (adult female and juvenile) similar in shape to gnathopod 2, although I

196 !
_ % " l'_ • .... ./.L'_ _.

! Jj" .

__] t RT _ " /.. ,;,'., .

_' ,i!_, .,,, ,, ', ,_,,","

1 ,

F_we 4.10. Photis brevipes. Adult male, 4.5 ram; adult female, 3.5 mm (from Conlan, 1983).

i

carpus as long as propodus, and palm of proF_lus convex; basis without cluster of long setae at anterior

i junction with ischium. Gnathopod 2 (adult male) larger than anddifferent in shape from that of adult female

andjuvenile; basis, lateral face with row of stridulation ridges; carpus shorter than propodus, not toothed;

propodus, palm basically transverse, with flat, round, or pointed protuberance followed by large, circular, or

triangular excavation to form tooth at defining comer, this tooth extending as far as or farther than palmar

O protuberance, setae at dactyl hinge nearly as long as or longer than propodus; dactyl just overlapping palm, inner margin with rounded tooth extending into palmar excavation. Gnathopod 2 (adult female and juvenile)

somewhat larger than gnathopod 1; carpus shorter than propodus, posterior lobe narrow; propodus, palm

concave or appearing transverse and shallowly excavate. Adult female brood plates moderately wide, setae

i 197
!

without hook at each tip. Peraeopod 3 (adult male), coxa with row of stridulation ridges on ventral margin, i

/

Peraeopod 4, coxa, posterior margin not excavate. Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis not expanded, meres wider

than carpus and produced anteriorly over about one-fourth of carpus; dactyl shorter than propodus. Peraeopod

5, coxa similar in depth to coxa 4; basis broad, not posteriorly excavate; merus not posteriorly excavate;

merus and carpus not spinose; propodus with only single long spine at anterodistal comer; dactyl with 2

pronounced cusps atjunction of unguis. Peraeopods 6 and 7, coxae smaller than coxa 5; otherwise articles i

similar in shape to peraeopod 5, although bases narrower and dactyls not cusped. Epimera 1-3 not II

posterodistally notched. Pleon and urosome without dorsally erect setae or cusps. Uropod 1, peduncle

without lateral ecdysial spine or tooth-like process extending ventrally below rami; rami tipped by 1 short _11

spine. Uropod 3, peduncle not spinose; outer ramus shorter than peduncle and tipped by 1 or 2 long setae, tJ

inner ramus about one-fourth length of outer, tipped by single short spine. Telson apices marked by single

long seta and small knob.

Distribution and Biology. Photis brevipes is widely distibuted in the northeastern Pacific, having I1

been recorded from Prince William Sound, Alaska (60°46'N, 146°31_¢) south to Bahia Magdalena, Baja

California (26°42qXl,113°34'W). It has been found in high salinity protected and exposed coasts predominately _1

on sandy sediments at low water level to 492 m depth. Adult females have been found ovigerous from May II

to November.

Remarks. Of the northeastern Pacific species of Photis, P. brevipes is closest in appearance to P. I

californica. In P. californica the peduncle article 3 of antenna 1 is longer than article 1, and in the adult I

male second gnathopod the dactyl lacks the protuberance that is present in P. brevipes. In P. brevipes the

position of the dactyl protuberance is variable, being adjacent to the unguis in small males and more central in i

large males. The appearance of the palmar protuberance also varies, being rounded or flat in large males and il

pointed in small males. In addition the palmar excavation is large and rounded in large males but narrowly

incised in small males. Juvenile males also resembleP, parvidons Conlan, 1983, and can only be differentiated _

on the basis of size.

Photis ealifornica Stout, 1913 I

'V"

Figures 4.11 and 4.12

m_

Photis californica Stout, 1913:654-656.--J.L. Barnard, 1962:33-36, figs 12, 13; (not J.L. Barnard, 1954: 26- I

27, pts. 23, 24).

Material Examined. California: Santa Maria Basin, Sta. 65,107 m, 2 adult males, 4 adult females, I

9 juveniles; Cruise 1-3, Sta. R-4, Rep. 1, 92 m, 13 adult males, 12adult females, 53 juveniles; Cruise 1-3, Sta.

w

R-4, Rep. 2, 92 m, 17 adult males, 19 adult females, 96 juveniles; Cruise 1-3,Sta. PJ-10, Rep. 2, 147 m, 9 adult /i

males, 6 adult females, 29juveniles; Cruise 1-1, Sta. PJ-16, Rep. 2, 130 m, 2 adult females, 12juveniles. l

Description. Body length up to 4.5 mm (adult male), 3.0-5.5 mm (adult female). Head lobe

triangular. Eye black, oval. Antenna I somewhat shorter than antenna 2. Antenna 1 weakly setose, article I

3 longer than article 1; accessory flagellum microscopic button. Antenna 2 weakly setose, flagellum not l

pediform, longer than article 5, distally spinose. Upper lip, epistome triangular. Mandible with 2-4 raker

spines; molar flake present; palp strong, article 3 hardly wider distally than proximally, both articles 2 and 3

with numerous setae, article 2 longer than article 3. Lower lip, outer lobes not spinose. Maxilla 1,inner plate W

without setae; palp narrower than outer plate. Maxilla 2, inner plate about same width as outer, with facial

setae. Maxilliped, inner plate not reaching end of article 4; outer plate not reaching end of article 5; unguis tll

(article 8) about equal in length to article 7. Sternal plate 1 not produced. Peraeopods 1-4, coxae, ventral II

margins with numerous long setae. Gnathopod I smaller than gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 1(adult male), coxa

similar in shape to coxa 2 but anteriorly produced; basis inserted midway on inner face; basis, anterior margin Jr

not densely setose; merus not extended as tooth under carpus; carpus longer than propodus, anterior margin |

198 t
I

!

i

, i

i

!

It

!

"1' •

3 GN2

Figure 4.11. Photis calOCornicaA.dultmale,4.3 ram;adultmale 2,4.0 ram;juvenilemale 3,4.0 ram;juvenilemale 4,

3.0mm;peraeopods3-7from adultmale,4.3mm(fromJ. L.Barnard, 1962).

t setose, posterior lobe not expanded under propodus; propodus, palm concave, defined by single spine; dactyl

only as long as palm of propodus, posterior (inner) margin with few short setae and several cusps. Gnathopod

I and 1 (adupalmlt fema of propodus le and juveni convex; le) similar basis without in shapecluster to gnathopod of long setae 2f althatoanterior ugh carpus junction slightlywithloischium. nger thanGnathopod propodus,

2 (adult male) larger than and different in shape from that of adult female andjuvenile; basis, lateral face with

t• rowwith offlat,stridulation rounded, orridges; pointedcarpus toothshorter proximally than propodus, or centrallynotfollowed toothed;bypropodus, circular orpalmtriangular basicallyexcavation transverse,to

form tooth at defining comer, this tooth extending as far as or farther than palmar tooth, setae at dactyl hinge

i asprotuberance long as or longer and spine thanand propodus; setal cluster dactyljust just proximal overlappingof unguis, palm, with but shall without ow prtooth otuberance extendingfacingintopalmar palm.

Gnathopod 2 (adult female and juvenile) somewhat larger than gnathopod 1; carpus shorter than propodus,

I posterior without lobe narrow; propodus, palm shallowly concave. Adult female brood plates moderately wide, setae hook at each tip. Peraeopod 3 (adult male), coxa with row of stridulation ridges on ventral margin.

"4

i 199
!

!

i

n

i

tl

!

I

Figure 4.12. Photis catifornica. Adultfemale, 6.0 mm (isolated gnathopods 1and 2 withoutsetae); adult female

2, 5.3 nun;juvenile female3, 3.0ram (withoutsetae);adultfemale4, 3.0mm(fromJ. L.Bamard, 1962). m

Peraeopod 4, coxa, posterior margin not excavate. Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis not expanded, merus wider I

than carpus and produced anteriorly over about one-fourth of carpus; dactyl shorter than propodus. Peraeopod II

5, coxa similar in depth to coxa 4; basis broad, not posteriorly excavate; merus not posteriorly excavate;

merus and carpus not spinose; propodus with only single long spine at anterodistal comer; dactyl with 2 i

pronounced cusps atjunction of unguis. Peraeopods 6 and 7, coxae smaller than coxa 5; otherwise articles |

similar in shape to peraeopod 5, although bases narrower and dactyls not cusped. Epimera 1-3 not

posterodistally notched. Pleon and urosome without dorsally erect setae or cusps. Uropod 1, peduncle m

without lateral ecdysial spine or tooth-like process extending ventrally below rami; rami tipped by 1 short II

spine. Uropod 3, peduncle not spinose; outer ramus shorter than peduncle and tipped by spine and 1 or 2 long

setae, inner ramus about one-fourth length of outer, tipped by single short spine. Telson apices marked by /I

single long seta and small knob. !

|
!

i! Distribution and Biology. Photis californica has been found only from Monterey Bay, California

to San Cristobal Bay, Baja California, from the low intertidal zone to t47 m depth.

I Remarks. See comments for P. brevipes.

I Photis macrotica J.L. Barnard, 1962 Figure 4.13

i Photis macrotica J.L. Barnard, 1962:44-45, fig. 19.

Material Examined. California: Santa Mafia Basin, Sta. BRA-17, 160-168 m, 1 adult male, 13

i juveniles; Cruise 1-1, Sta. PJ-16, Rep. 2, 130m, 1juvenile.

II Description. Body length up to 3.5 mm (adult male), 3.0 mm (adult female). Head lobe triangular.

Eye black, circular, large for genus. Antenna 1 somewhat shorter than antenna 2. Antenna 1weakly setose,

art noticpediform, le 3 longerlonger than arti thanclearti1;cleacce5,ssory distallyflaspinose. gellum miUpper croscopic lip, epistome button. Antenn triangular. a 2 wMandible eakly setowith se, fla2-4gellraker um

spines; molar flake present; palp strong, article 3 hardly wider distally than proximally, both articles 2 and 3

i with without numsetae; erous palp setae,naart rrower icle 2tha lonngerouter thanplate. articleMaxilla 3. Lower 2, inner lip, outer plateloabout bes nosame t spinowidth se. Maxill as outer, a 1,with innerfacial plate

setae. Maxilliped, inner plate not reaching end of article 4; outer plate not reaching end of article 5; unguis

i (margins article 8)withabou0-4t equal long setae. in length Gnathopod o article1 7. smaller Stnal thanplgnathopod ate 1 not prod 2. Gnathopod uced. Peraeopods 1 (adult male), 1-4, cocoxa xae, vesimilar ntrl

in shape to coxa 2 but distally pointed; basis inserted proximally on inner face; basis, anterior margin not

densely setose, posterior setose; merus lobe notnotexpanded extended under as toopropodus; th under cpropodus, arpus; carppalmus longer shallowly than concave, propodus,defined anteriorbymargin single

spine; dactyl only as long as palm of propodus, posterior (inner) margin with few short setae and cusps.

Gnathopod 1 (adult female and juvenile) similar inshape to gnathopod 2, although carpus slightly longer than propodus, and palm of propodus convex; basis without cluster of long setae at anterior junction with ischium.

Gnathopod 2 (adult male) larger than and different in shape from that of adult female and juvenile; basis,

lateral transverse, face with withrowpointed of stritooth dulatioproximally n ridges; carporucentrally s shorter followed than propodus by triangular , nottoothed; excavation propodus,topalm form basic toothallyat

defining comer, this tooth not extending as far as palmar tooth, setae at dactyl hinge shorter than propodus;

l dactyl but without just overlapping palm, with small tooth proximally and spine and setal cluster just proximal of unguis, tooth extending into palm. Gnathopod 2 (adult female and juvenile) somewhat larger than gnathopod

1; carpus shorter than propodus, posterior lobe narrow; propodus, palm shallowly concave. Adult female

l brood plates moderately wide, setae without hook at each tip. Peraeopod 3 (adult male), coxa with row of

stridulation ridges on ventral margin. Peraeopod 4, coxa, posterior margin not excavate. Peraeopods 3 and

4, basis not expanded, merus wider than carpus and produced anteriorly over about one-fourth of carpus;

i dactyl shorter than propodus. Peraeopod 5, coxa similar in depth to coxa 4; basis broad, not posteriorly excavate; meres not posteriorly excavate; merus and carpus not spinose; propodus with only single long spine

at anterodistal comer; dactyl with 2 pronounced cusps at junction of unguis. Peraeopods 6 and 7, coxae

smaller than coxa 5; otherwise articles similar in shape to peraeopod 5, although bases narrower and dactyls not cusped. Epimera 1-3 not posterodistally notched. Pleon and urosome without dorsally erect setae or

cusps. Uropod 1, peduncle without lateral ecdysial spine or tooth-like process extending ventrally below

i rami; rami tipped by 1 short spine. Uropod 3, peduncle not spinose; outer ramus shorter than peduncle and

tipped by long set,a,inner ramus about one-fourth length of outer, tipped by single short spine. Telson apices

marked by single long seta and small knob.

!

t 201
!

II

Figure 4.13. Photis macrotica. Adultfemale, 3.0mm; adultmale,holotype, 3.3mm(fromJ. L. Bamard, 1962). II

Distribution and Biology. Photis macrotica has been found only from Monterey Bay, California l

to San Cristobal Bay, Baja California, from 55 to 160 m depth. W

Remarks. Photis macrotica has larger eyes than other California species of Photis. Other ms

distinguishing characteristics incombination are the small number of long setae on the ventral margins of the i

coxae (both sexes), and, in the adult male's second gnathopod, the shortness of the setal cluster at the g

junction of propodus and dactyl, the shortness of the palmar defining tooth, the pointed palmar tooth, and the m

lack of a central tooth on the dactyl, g

|
!

i Protomedeia articulata 1962

J.L. Barnard,

Figure 4.14

i Protomedeia articulata J.L. Barnard, 1962:48-50, fig. 21 .---Conlan, 1983:27, fig. 12.

Material Examined. California: Santa Maria Basin, Cruise 1-1, Sta. R-2, Rep. 3, 161 m, 3 adult i

'l[ males, 1 adult female.

Description. Body length up to 8.0 mm (adult male), 5.0-7.0 mm (adult female). Head lobe

i sqshorter uared.thanEyearblack, ticle 1;oval. accessory Antennaflagellum 1 somew4hat articles. longer tha Antenna n antenna 2 moderately 2. Antennasetose, 1 weakly flagellum setose,pediform, article 3

equal in length to article 5, not distally spinose. Upper lip, epistome roundly triangular. Mandible with 2-3

i raker spines; molar flake present; palp strong, article 3 not wider distally than proximally, both articles 2 and 3 with numerous setae, article 2 longer than article 3. Lower lip, outer lobes not spinose. Maxilla 1, inner

plate setose; palp wider than outer plate. Maxilla 2, inner plate about same width as outer, without facial

i unguis setae. Maxilliped, inner plate reaching beyond end of article 4; outer plate nearly reaching to end of article 5; (article 8) about equal in length to article 7. Sternal plate 1 not produced. Peraeopods 1-4, coxac,

ventral margins with few long setae only (eoxa 1 more so than other coxae). Gnathopod 1 smaller than

t gnath not densely opod 2. Gnathopod 1 (adult male), coxa anteriorly produced; basis inserted distally on inner face; basis setose; merus not extended as tooth under carpus; carpus longer than propodus, anterior margin

with two clusters of setae and third at anterior junction with propodus, posterior lobe not expanded under

i propodus; propodus, palm transverse, defined by single long spine; dactyl longer than palm of propodus,

• posterior (inner) margin with few short setae and cusps. Gnathopod 1 (adult female and juvenile) similar in

shape to adult male gnathopod 1, anterior margin of basis and carpus more setose. Gnathopod 2 (adult male)

i larger than and different in shape from that of adult female and juvenile; basis without stridulation ridges; carpus longer than propodus, not toothed; propodus, palm transverse, def'med by strong spine, setae at dactyl

hinge less than half length of propodus; dactyl not toothed, overlapping palm, but not as much so as in

i gnathopod 1. Gnathopod 2 (adult female and juvenile) somewhat larger than gnathopod 1; carpus as long as

propodus, posterior lobe broad; propodus, palm oblique. Adult female brood plates narrow, setae without

hook at each tip. Peraeopod 3 (adult male), without stridulation ridges on ventral margin. Peraeopod 4, coxa,

i posterior margin not excavate. Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis not expanded, merus wider than carpus, but not produced over carpus; dactyl elongate, nearly as long as propodus. Peraeopod 5, coxa deeper than coxa 4;

basis moderately broad, not posteriorly excavate; merus not posteriorly excavate, not spinose; carpus with

cluster of spines at posterior junction of propodus; propodus with few slender spines along anterior margin;

I not 6 and 7, smaller than 5; otherwise articles similar in to

dactyl cusped. Peraeopods coxae coxa shape

peraeopod 5, although bases wider. Epimera 1-3 with small notch and setae posterodistally. Urosome

segments 1 and 2 with pair ofdorsaUy erect setae but without cusps. Uropod 1, peduncle with row of lateral

i ecdysial spines proximally and tooth-like extending ventrally below rami; rami tipped by 2-4 long

process

spines. Uropod 3, peduncle dorsally spinose; outer ramus longer than peduncle and tipped by cluster of spineIike setae, inner ramus two-thirds length of outer, tipped by cluster of spines. Telson apices marked by cluster

i of setae and nipple.

Distribution and Biology. Protomedeia articulata has been recorded from Oregon (46°13'N,

i 124°90_ r) to La Jolla, California (32°527q, 117°16'W) from 9 to 200 m depth on the exposed coastal shelf

and in submarine canyons. According to Barnard (1971), the single record of this species from 906 m is

suspect, due to uncertain identification. Adult females have been found ovigerous in July.

i Remarks. Adult males of Protomedeia articulata differ from P. prudens in both the first and second gnathopod: in P. articulata the carpus is hardly longer than the propodus and the dactyl is about half

the length of the propodus and not recurved on the propodus as in P. prudens. The posterior margin of the

t propodus of the second gnathopod is not cusped, and the dactyl is not elongate or straight as in P. prudens.

Unfortunately juveniles and adult females of the two species are difficult to distinguish.

i 203
I

!

i

" i

!

11

LL LF-r AI,D _qT A_ 1

Figure 4.14. Protomedeia articulata. Adult male,4.5 nun (antenna1fromjuvenilemale, 3.5mm); adultfemale,7.0 i

mm(fromConlan,1983). _l_

Protomedeia prudens J.L. Barnard, 1966 i

Figure 4.15 /

n

Protomedeiaprudens J.L. Barnard, 1966:83, fig. 36; 1971:15-17, figs. 11, 12.--Conlan, 1983:31-33, figs. 15,

16.

I1

Material Examined. California: Santa Mafia Basin, Cruise 1-3, Sta. R-3, Rep. 2, 409 m, 1 adult i

male, 1 adult female, 2juveniles. a_

Description. Body length up to 6.0 mm (adult male), 4.5-7.5 mm (adult female). Head lobe i

squared. Eye black, oval. Antenna 1 somewhat longer than antenna 2. Antenna 1 weakly setose, article 3

shorter than article 1; accessory flagellum 4-6 articles. Antenna 2 moderately setose, flagellum pediform, am

somewhat shorter than article 5, not distally spinose. Upper lip, epistome roundly triangular. Mandible with |

2-3 taker spines; molar flake present; palp strong, article 3 not wider distally than proximally, both articles 2

and 3 with numerous setae, article 2 longer than article 3. Lower lip, outer lobes not spinose. Maxilla 1,inner i

plate setose; palp wider than outer plate. Maxilla 2, inner plate about same width as outer, without facial 1

|
I

i

l

_. _c J . '_ . .: -_ ,. //

. -:,_"_.,F:,.' _. -._ "_-._:_7_

.! .. " .-. .._"::_-'{,','."_ .._-,..';. -.. ,

i •..._._ ,'/',, %.. '-

.,

,';!_I),_, Lt,\_'___.'';'" _.:_-_ _. •_ .,,,_ ,..- ,.,,,,_:._ • _ "_

l"" '" _,, I_ ,;-,..:.:-,!. _ • _ ]

,

i f i" "'".,\\ i'-,,, ," . ,..'f

,,_ / l t,..._

kP"

,,."

I

I IU'.-.,_ .,." ..')_" '.....n,,_. , . ', XIv !''' "

.I \ .... '.... . \ _XP_D,,

I Figure 4.15. Protomedeia prudens. Adult male, 6.0 ram; juvenile male, 4.5 mm; adult female, 7.0 mm (from CoMan,

i 1983)_

setae. Maxilliped, inner plate reaching beyond end of article 4; outer plate nearly reaching to end of article 5;

i unguis (article 8) about equal in length to article 7. Sternal plate 1 not produced. Peraeopods 1-4, coxae,

ventral margins with numerous short setae (coxa 1 more so than other coxae). Gnathopod 1 smaller than

gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 1 (adult male), coxa anteriorly produced; basis inserted distally on inner face; basis

i not densely setose; merus not extended as tooth under carpus; carpus longer than propodus, anterior margin with numerous clusters of setae along anterior margin, posterior lobe not expanded under propodus; propodus,

i 205
!

palm transverse, defined by tooth distally and spine proximally; dactyl longer than palm ofpropodus, posterior i

(inner) margin with few short setae but without cusps. Gnathopod 1 (adult female and juvenile) similar in

shape to adult male gnathopod 1, but coxa and basis with longer setae, carpus shorter in relation to propodus /

and both articles wider, palm ofpropodus not defined by tooth, and dactyl shorter. Gnathopod 2 (adult male) tl

larger than and different in shape from that of adult female and juvenile; basis without stridulation ridges;

carpus longer than propodus, not toothed; propodus, palm transverse, defined by tooth, setae at dactyl hinge I

less than half length of propodus; dactyl not toothed, straight or slightly sinuous, 3-4 times length of palm. !1

Gnathopod 2 (adult female and juvenile) somewhat larger than gnathopod 1; basis, carpus, and propodus

clothed in abundant long setae; carpus nearly as long as propodus, posterior lobe broad; propodus, palm I

oblique, dactyl not extending much beyond palmar defining spine. Adult female brood plates narrow, setae 11

without hook at each tip. Peraeopod 3 (adult male), without stridulation ridges on ventral margin. Peraeopod

4, coxa, posterior margin not excavate. Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis not expanded, merus wider than carpus,

but not produced over carpus; dactyl elongate, nearly as long as propodus. Peraeopod 5, coxa deeper than Ii

coxa 4; basis moderately broad, not posteriorly excavate; merus not posteriorly excavate, not spinose; carpus

with cluster of spines at posterior junction of propodus; propodus with few slender spines along anterior i

margin; dactyl not cusped. Peraeopods 6 and 7, coxae smaller than coxa 5, otherwise articles similar in shape tl

to peraeopod 5, although bases not bulging anteriorly. Epimera 1-3 with facial crease. Urosome segments 1

and 2 with pair of dorsally erect setae but without cusps. Uropod 1, peduncle with row of lateral ecdysial im

spines proximally and tooth-like process extending ventrally below rami; rami tipped by 2-4 long spines. II

Uropod 3, peduncle dorsally spinose; outer ramus longer than peduncle and tipped by cluster of spine-like

setae, inner ramus more than three-fourths length of outer, tipped by cluster of spines. Telson apices marked Jig

by cluster of setae and nipple. 11

Distribution and Biology. Protomedeia prudens has been recorded from the Queen Charlotte

Islands, British Columbia (53 °14'N, 131°54'W) to La Jolla, California (32°52'N, 117°16'W) from low water

level to 409 m depth on the exposed coastal shelf and in submarine canyons. Adult females have been found tl

ovigerous from April to August.

Remarks. The basis of peraeopod 5 may not be as anteriorly bulged as figured here, and there may I

be several clusters of spines on the carpus of peraeopods 5-7. In large males the carpus of gnathopods 1 and 111

2 may be almost twice as long as the propodus. See also remarks for Protomedeia articulata.

/

Gammaropsis (Gammaropsis) thompsoni (Walker, 1898) I

Figure 4.16 I

Maeroides thompsoni Walker, 1898:283-384, pl. 16, figs. 3-6. m

Gammaropsis tenuicornis Holmes, 1904:239-240, fig. 124. _m

FimbrielIa robusta Stout, 1913:642-644.

Podoceropsis concava Shoemaker, 1931:5-8, figs. 3, 4; 1942:28, fig. 10 I

Eurystheus thompsoni (Walker, 1898): Shoemaker, 1955:59.--J.L. Barnard, 1959:36, plate 11.

Gammaropsis thompsoni: J.L. Barnard, 1969b:271; Conlan, 1983:11-13, Fig. 4. I

Material Examined. California: Santa Maria Basin, Sta. BRA-16, 91.5-123 m, replicate 2 with 4

adult males, 13juveniles, replicate 3 with 2 adult females, 6juveniles. I

W Deseription. Body length up to 11.5 mm (adult male), 4.5-10.0 mm (adult female). Head lobe

triangular, anteriorly acute. Eye black, reniform. Antennae 1 and 2 about equal in length. Antenna 1

moderately setose with tong setae posteriorly, article 3 as long as article 1; accessory flagellum 8 articles. •

Antenna 2 moderately setose, with long setae also, flagellum not pediform, longer than article 5, not distally I

spinose. Upper lip, epistome acutely produced. Mandible with 6-7 raker spines; molar flake present; palp

strong, article 3 hardly wider distally than proximally, both articles 2 and 3 with numerous setae, article 2 I

|
I

!

i

I j, lt'r -#4_D ##al_ ,#a_l_

Figure4,16, G_ropsis (Gan_Imaropsis) tho_soni. Adultmale,10.0ram;juvenilemale,4.5ram;adultfemale,

i 8.5mm(fromConlan,1983).

i longer outer plate. than artic Maxilla le 3. Lower 2, lip, outer lobes not spinose. Maxilla l, inner plate setose; palp about as wide as inner plate narrower than outer, with row of facial setae. Maxilliped, inner plate

reaching to end of article 4; outer plate not reaching end of article 5; unguis (article 8) shorter than article 7.

Sternal plate 1 not produced. Peraeopods I-4, coxae, ventral margins with minute setae only. Gnathopod 1

smaller than gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 1 (adult male), coxa similar in shape to but half depth of coxa 2; basis

inserted midway on inner face, densely setose anterodistally; merus not extended as tooth under carpus;

i carpus somewhat shorter than propodus, anterior margin without setae, posterior lobe not expanded under propodus; propodus, palm oblique, def'med by single small spine; dactyl only as long as palm of propodus,

posterior (inner) margin with few short setae and cusps. Gnathopod 1 (adult female and juvenile), coxa

i three-fourths depth of coxa 2, but otherwise similar in shape to adult male gnathopod 1. Gnathopod 2 (adult male) larger than and different in shape from that of adult female and juvenile; basis without stridulation

ridges; carpus nearly aslong as propodus, not toothed; propodus, palm transverse, with protuberance centrally

i and another at comer, but without palmar defining spine, setae at dactyl hinge about one-fourth length of propodus; dactyl not toothed, overlapping palm. Gnathopod 2 (adult female and juvenile) larger than gnathopod

1; carpus shorter than propodus, posterior lobe about one-half length of anterior margin; propodus, palm

oblique. Adult female brood plates moderately wide, setae with hook at each tip. Peraeopod 3 (adult male),

t coxa without stridulation ridges on ventral margin. Peraeopod 4, posterior margin not excavate.

coxa,

207
!

Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis not expanded, merus not wider than and not produced over carpus; dactyl not I

elongate, much shorter than propodus. Peraeopod 5, coxa as deep as coxa 4; basis moderately broad,

shallowly concave; merus not posteriorly excavate; merus and carpus with cluster of spines at posterior

junction of propodus; propodus strongly spinose along anterior margin; dactyl not cusped. Peraeopod 7, coxa II

(adult male) more than 3 times depth of coxa 6; coxa 7 (adult female and juvenile) not enlarged; otherwise

peraeopods 6 and 7 similar in shape to peraeopod 5, although bases wider. Epimera 1-3 with facial crease I

and small cusp posterodistally. Urosome segments 1 and 2 with pair of dorsally erect setae and cusps. l

Uropod 1, peduncle with row of lateral ecdysial spines and tooth-like process extending ventrally below rami;

rami tipped by 2-4 spines. Uropod 3, peduncle dorsally spinose; outer ramus somewhat shorter than peduncle

and tipped by 1-2 spines, inner ramus as long as outer, tipped by 1-2 spines. Telson apices marked by strong II

spine and short setae.

Distribution and Biology. Gammaropsis (Gammaropsis) thompsoni has been recorded from i

southeastern Alaska (57°29'N, 135°58'W) to the San Diego shelf (33°N, 118°W) from the low intertidal zone 11

to 91 m depth on high salinity exposed and semi-protected coasts. Adult females have been found ovigerous

from May to August. 10

Remarks. The reniform eye makes Gammaropsis (Gammaropsis) thompsoni distinctive from g

other species described in this section. Other distinctive features are the acutely produced headlobe and

cusped urosome segments 1 and 2. N

Gammaropsis (Podoceropsis) ocellata Conlan, 1994 in

Figure 4.17 I

Gammaropsis (Podoceropsis) ocellata Conlan, 1994b:72-73, fig. 3. B

Material Examined. California: Santa Mafia Basin, Sta. 55,590 m, 1 adult male, 7 adult females,

11juveniles (type). I

Descripti II on. Body length up to 3.8 mm (adult male), 4.4 mm (adult female). Head lobe triangular,

but not anteriorly acute. Eye unpigmented, oval. Antennae 1 and 2 equal in length. Antenna 1 moderately

setose with long setae posteriorly, article 3 longer than article 1; accessory flagellum microscopic button, i

Antenna 2 moderately setose, with long setae also, flagellum not pediform, longer than article 5, distally II

spinose. Upper lip, epistome acutely produced. Mandible with 5 raker spines; molar flake present; palp

strong, article 3 hardly wider distally than proximally, both articles 2 and 3 with numerous setae, article 2 I

longer than article 3. Lower lip, outer lobes not spinose. Maxilla 1,inner plate with single long seta; palp n

somewhat narrower than outer plate. Maxilla 2, inner plate nearly as wide as outer, with row of facial setae.

Maxilliped, inner plate nearly reaching end of article 4; outer plate not reaching end of article 5; unguis (article t

8) as long as article 7. Sternal plate 1 not produced. Peraeopods 1-4, coxae, ventral margins with minute II

setae only. Gnathopod 1 smaller than gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 1 (adult male), coxa similar in shape to and

not shallower than coxa 2; basis inserted mid-distally on inner face, not setose anterodistally; merus not i

extended as tooth under carpus; carpus longer than propodus, with anterodistal cluster of setae, posterior lobe II

not expanded under propodus; propodus nearly simple, palm indistinct, defined by single long spine; dactyl

much longer than palm of propodus, posterior (inner) margin with several short setae and cusps. Gnathopod _1_

1(adult female and juvenile) similar in shape to adult male gnathopod 1. Gnathopod 2 (adult male) larger than g

and different in shape from that of adult female and juvenile; basis without stridulation ridges; carpus shorter

than propodus, not toothed; propodus, palm nearly transverse, with protuberance near origin of dactyl followed Ii

by an oval incision, spine at palmar corner, setae at dactyl hinge about one-half length of propodus; dactyl not II

toothed, only as long as palm. Gnathopod 2 (adult female and juvenile) larger than gnathopod 1; carpus

shorter than propodus, posterior lobe about one-half length of anterior margin; propodus, palm shallowly II

excavate. Adult female brood plates moderately wide, setae with hook at each tip. Peraeopod 3 (adult |

208 I
!

!

!

!

!

!

9m

t ._____L

I Figure 4.17. Gammaropsis(Podoceropsis)ocellata. Holotype, adult male, 3.4 mm; allotype, adult female, 4.4 mm

'1 (from Conlan, 1994b).

male), coxa without stridulation ridges on ventral margin. Peraeopod 4, coxa, posterior margin not excavate.

i Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis not expanded, merus wider than but hardly produced over dactyl not

carpus;

elongate, much shorter than propodus. Peraeopod 5, coxa as deep as coxa 4; basis moderately broad,

shallowly posteriorly excavate in adult male; merus shallowly concave posteriorly; carpus with cluster of

t spines at posterior junction of propodus; with few spines anterior not

propodus along margin; dactyl cusped.

Peraeopod 7, coxa not expanded. Peraeopods 6 and 7 similar in shape to peraeopod 5, although bases

narrower. Epimera 1-3 with few minute setae posterodistally but without cusps or ridges. Urosome segments

i 1 and 2 with pair of dorsally erect setae but without Uropod 1, peduncle without lateral ecdysial

cusps.

spines, but with tooth-like process extending ventrally below rami; rami tipped by 2-3 spines. Uropod 3,

peduncle spinose dorsally at origin of rami; outer ramus nearly as long as peduncle and tipped by I-2 long

setae, inner ramus as long as outer, tipped by 1 spine. Telson apices marked by nipple and setal cluster.
!

Distribution and Biology. Gammaropsis (Podoceropsis) oceUata has only been found at one i

location in the Santa Maria Basin at 590 m depth.

Remarks. The unpigmented eye makes Gammaropsis (Podoceropsis) oceUata distinctive from R

other members of the subgenus. Gammaropsis (Podoceropsis) ocellata most closely resembles G. (P).

I

barnardi, which has been described from the southern and western Sakhalin, Russia (50°N, 145°W) and

Vancouver Island, British Columbia (48°48'N, 125°12.5'W) (Kudryashov and Tzvetkova, 1975; Conlan, 1

1983). Gammaropsis (Podoceropsis) ocellata differs from G. (P). barnardi in having an unpigmented g

eye, more transverse male gnathopod 2 palm, more concave female gnathopod 2 pall, and less excavate

male peraeopod 5 basis. B

Gammaropsis (Podoceropsis) ociosa (J.L. Barnard, 1962) I

Figure 4.18 Ill

Kermystheus ociosa J.L. Bamard, 1962:23, fig. 8. I

Podoceropsis ociosa: J.L. Barnard and G.S. Karaman, 1991. tl

Material Examined. California: Santa Maria Basin, Cruise 1-2, Sta. R-2, Rep. 3, 161 m, 2 adult 1

males, 3 adult females, 12 juveniles; Cruise 1-2, Sta. R-5, Rep. 2, 154 m, 1 adult male, 2 adult females, 3 U

juveniles; Cruise 3-1, Sta. R-5, Rep. I, 154 m, 1 adult male, 1 adult female.

l)eseription. Body length up to 5.2 mm (adult mate), 4.5 mm (adult female). Head lobe triangular, JR

but not anteriorly acute. Eye black, oval. Antenna I about equal in length to antenna 2. Antenna 1 moderately i

setose with long setae posteriorly, article 3 longer than article 1; accessory flagellum microscopic button.

Antenna 2 moderately setose, with long setae also, flagellum not pediform, longer than article 5, not distally I

spinose. Upper lip, epistome acutely produced. Mandible with 5-6 raker spines; molar flake present; palp II

strong, article 3 wider distally than proximally, both articles 2 and 3 with numerous setae, article 2 longer than

article 3. Lower lip, outer lobes not spinose. Maxilla 1, inner plate setose; palp about as wide as outer plate. I

Maxilla 2, inner plate as wide as outer, with row of facial setae. Maxilliped, inner plate not reaching end of 11

article 4; outer plate not reaching end of article 5; unguis (article 8) as long as article 7. Sternal plate 1 not

produced. Peraeopods 1-4, coxae, ventral margins with minute setae only. Gnathopod 1 smaller than gnathopod I

2. Gnathopod 1 (adult male), coxa similar in shape to and not shallower than coxa 2; basis inserted mid- II

distally on inner face, not setose anterodistally; merus not extended as tooth under carpus; carpus longer than

propodus, anterior margin with 1 group of setae at anterodistaljunction of propodus, posterior lobe not expanded _l

under propodus; propodus nearly simple, palm indistinct, not defined by spine; dactyl much longer than palm _l[

of propodus, posterior (inner) margin with several short setae and cusps. Gnathopod 1 (adult female and

juvenile) similar in shape to adult male gnathopod 1. Gnathopod 2 (adult male) larger and different in shape /

from that of adult female and juvenile; basis without stridulation ridges; carpus shorter than propodus, not 11

toothed; propodus, palm transverse, with shelf followed by narrow incision to give defining corner appearance

of tooth, setae at dactyl hinge less than one-fourth length of propodus; dactyl as long as propodus, inner I

margin sinuous, with broad expansion near origin. Gnathopod 2 (adult female and juvenile) larger than l

gnathopod 1; carpus shorter than propodus, posterior lobe about one-half length of anterior margin; propodus,

palm concave. Adult female brood plates moderately wide, setae with hook at each tip. Peraeopod 3 (adult iit

male), coxa without stridulation ridges on ventral margin. Peraeopod 4, coxa, posterior margin not excavate. II

Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis not expanded, merus wider than but hardly produced over carpus; dactyl not

elongate, much shorter than propodus. Peraeopod 5, coxa as deep as coxa 4; basis moderately broad, i

posteriorly excavate in adult male; merus posteriorly excavate; carpus with cluster of spines at posterior I

junction of propodus; propodus with several spines marginally and long spine at origin of dactyl; dactyl

cusped. Peracopods 6 and 7, coxae smaller than coxa 5, otherwise articles similar in shape to peraeopod 5, 1

210 I
!

!

!

!

i|

Q Q

I

! .

i Figure 4.18. Ga propodus mmarops of gnis(aPodoceropsis thopod2,pera)eopod ociosa7). A; addult ultmfemale, ale,ho4lo.5typnue,n5.(f2romramJ.;Ladul .Barntmalared, ,41.596mm2). (antenna1,

I although bases narrower, basis and merus not excavate, and propodus with few short spines along anterior margin. Epimera 1-3 with small seta posterodistally but without cusps or ridges. Urosome segments 1and 2

with pair of dorsally erect setae but without cusps. Uropod 1, peduncle without ecdysial spines, but with

l tooth-like extending ventrally below rami; rami tipped by 2-3 spines. Uropod 3, peduncle spinose

process

dorsally at origin of rami; outer ramus nearly as long as peduncle and tipped by 1-2 long setae, inner ramus as

long as outer, tipped by 1 spine. Telson apices marked by nipple and setal cluster.

i Distribution and Biology. ociosa has been recorded from 27 to

Gammaroposis (Podoceropsis)

410 m on the California coast between Point Conception andSan Diego.

Remarks. The large, rectangular shaped male second gnathopod with transverse palm distinguishes

l this species from others in the subgenus.

I 211
!

Family Ischyroceridae I

Ericthonius rubricornis (Stimpson, 1853) i

I1

Figure 4.19

Cerapus rubricornis Stimpson, 1853:46, fig. 33. I

Cerapus hunteri Bate, 1862:264, P1.45, fig. 3.

Ericthonius difformis: Lincoln, 1979:560, fig. 269. um

Ericthonius rubricornis: Myers and McGrath, 1984:388-393, figs. 7-9. I

Material Examined. California: Santa Maria Basin, Sta. BRA-16, 91.5-123 rn, 2 adult males, 1

juvenile; Cruise 3-1, Sta. R-6, Rep. 3, 410 m, 1juvenile; Cruise 3-4, Sta. R-3, Rep. 2, 409 m, 15 juveniles.-- 1

western Santa Barbara Channel, off Point Arguello, Sta. BRA-04, 168-237 m, 1 adult male, 4 juveniles. l

Description. Body length up to 10.0 mm (adult male), 5.0-8.0 mm (adult female). Head lobe III

triangular, anteriorly acute. Eye black, circular. Antennae 1 and2 about equal in length. Antenna I moderately •

setose with long setae posteriorly, article 3 longer than article 1; accessory flagellum microscopic button.

Antenna 2 moderately setose, with long setae also, flagellum not pediform, longer than article 5, distally iI

spinose. Upper lip, epistome triangular. Mandible with 7-9 raker spines; molar flake present; palp strong,

article 3 wider distally than proximally, both articles 2 and 3 with numerous setae, article 2 longer than article

I

3. Lower lip, outer lobes not spinose. Maxilla I, inner plate setose; palp somewhat narrower than outer plate. /lu

Maxilla 2, inner plate as wide as outer, with row of facial setae. Maxilliped, inner plate not reaching end of i

article 4; outer plate reaching end of article 5; unguis (article 8) as long as article 7. Sternal plate 1 not

w

produced. Peraeopods 1-4, coxae, ventral margins with small setae only. Gnathopod 1smaller than gnathopod m

2. Gnathopod 1 (adult male), coxa similar in shape to and somewhat shallower than coxa 2; basis inserted i

mid-distally on inner face, not setose antemdistally; merus not extended as tooth under carpus; carpus longer

than propodus, anterior margin with cluster of setae atjunction of propodus, posterior lobe expanded under m

propodus; propodus, palm convex, defined by single narrow spine; dactyl as long as palm ofpropodus, posterior n

(inner) margin with few short setae and cusps. Gnathopod 1 (adult female and juvenile) similar in shape to II

adult male gnathopod 1. Gnathopod 2 (adult male) larger than and different in shape from that of adult female

andjuvenile; basis without stridulation ridges; carpus longer than propodus, extended under propodus as i

tooth; propodus, palm nearly simple, posterior margin in some males with shelf-like protuberance, setae at J

dactyl hinge about one-fourth length of propodus; dactyl not toothed, overlapping palm and carpal tooth.

Gnathopod 2 (adult female and juvenile) larger than gnathopod 1; carpus shorter than pmpodus, posterior lobe I

extending under one-half propodus; propodus, palm convex. Adult female brood plates moderately wide, III

setae with hook at each tip. Peraeopod 3 (adult male), coxa without stridulation ridges on ventral margin.

Peraeopod 4, coxa, posterior margin not excavate. Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis expanded, merus wider than 1

but hardly produced over carpus; dactyl not elongate, much shorter than propodus. Peraeopod 5, coxa twice II

as deep as coxa 4; basis moderately broad, not posteriorly excavate; merus not posteriorly excavate; merus

and carpus without cluster of spines at posterior junction of propodus; propodus with spine only atjunction of i_

dactyl; dactyl cusped. Peraeopods 6 and 7, coxae smaller than coxa 5; otherwise articles similar in shape to II

peraeopod 5, although merus of peraeopod 5 shorter in relation to other articles than in peraeopods 6 and 7.

Epimera 1-3 with several setae along posterior margin but without cusps or ridges. Urosome segments 1 and i

2 with pair of dorsally erect setae but without cusps. Uropod 1, peduncle without ecdysial spines or tooth-like D

process extending ventrally below rami; rami tipped by 1 long and 2-3 short spines. Uropod 3, peduncle not

spinose; outer ramus shorter than peduncle and tipped by 2 cusps, inner ramus absent. Telson apices marked I

by seta and cluster of numerous cusps. II

Distribution and Biology. Specimens from the Santa Mafia Basin closely resemble those described

and illustrated from the U.K. by Myers and McGrath (1984), which is the most recent analysis of the genus. I

212 I
!

I

i

i

i

!

i

',

, t

I

I

Figure 4.19. Ericthonius rubricornis. Adult male (length unknown) (gnatholx_d 1, pmtmdus and dactyl without

setae); adult male 1,9.0 ram; adult male 2, 8.0 ram; adult male 3, 7.0 mm (without setae); juvenile male

'i 4, 4.0ram (from Myers and McC_h, 1984); adult female gn'mthopod2 (length unknown) (from Lincoln, 1979).

I Myers and McGrath (1984) list E. rubricornis as only occurring in the Arctic and boreal Atlantic. It is

probable that E. rubricornis ranges widely in the Pacific as well, but a systematic analysis of all northeastern

i Pacific collections of the genus is required before a definitive summary can be given.

I 213
!

I

Remarks. Similarities between species in male gnathopod 2 morphology are convergent and not g

reliable identifiers. The most closely related species listed by Myers and McGrath (1984) is E. megalops.

This differs from E. rubricornis in having a slenderer peraeopod 3 basis (length almost twice width, as i

opposed to length about one and a half times width), and the greatest width of the gnathopod 1 propodus being I

situated medio-distally, rather than medially.

I

Jassa slatteryi Conlan, 1990 I

Figure 4.20 i

Jassa slatteryi Conlan, 1990:2058-2059, fig. 20.

Material Examined. California: western Santa Barbara Channel, off Point ArgueUo, Sta. BRA-4, l

168-237 m, 2 adult females.

Description. Body length4.0-7.4 mm (adult male), 2.3-5.7 mm (adult female). Head lobe triangular, iDa

but not anteriorly acute. Eye black, circular. Antenna 1 about one-third shorter than antenna 2 (one-fourth II

in adult female and juvenile). Antenna 1moderately setose with long setae posteriorly, article 3 longer than

article 1;accessory flagellum 2 articles, second microscopic button. Antenna 2 moderately setose, with long II

setae also, flagellum pediform, slightly shorter than article 5, distally spinose. Upper lip, epistome triangular. II

Mandible with 2-3 raker spines; molar flake present; palp strong, article 3 wider distally than proximally, both

articles 2 and 3 with numerous setae, article 2 longer than article 3. Lower lip, outer lobes not spinose. /

Maxilla 1,inner plate setose; palp somewhat narrower than outer plate. Maxilla 2, inner plate narrower than I

outer, without row of facial setae. Maxilliped, inner plate not reaching end of article 4; outer plate not

reaching end of article 5; unguis (article 8) as long as article 7. Sternal plate 1not produced. Peraeopods 1- ii

4, coxae, ventral margins with minute setae only. Gnathopod 1smaller than gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 1(adult ,11

male), coxa anteriorly produced; basis inserted midway on inner face, not setose anterodistally; merus not

extended as tooth under carpus; carpus shorter than propodus, anterior margin with 1 or 2 long setae at am

junction of propodus, posterior lobe not expanded under propodus; propodus, palm convex, defined by 3 I

(rarely 2 or4) spines arranged in medial-lateral-medial sequence; dactyl as long as palm of propodus, posterior

(inner) margin with few short setae and cusps. Gnathopod 1 (adult female and juvenile) similar in shape to i

adult male gnathopod 1. Gnathopod 2 (adult male) larger than and different in shape from that of adult female II

and juvenile; basis without stridulation ridges; carpus shorter than propodus, not toothed; propodus, palm with

small tooth next to origin of dactyl and long thumb-like tooth defining palm, setae at dactyl hinge less than one- i

fourth length of propodus; dactyl nearly as long as propodus, inner margin sinuous, with broad expansion

proximally. Gnathopod 2 (adult female and juvenile) larger than gnathopod 1; carpus shorter than propodus,

posterior lobe narrow; propodus, palm concave. Adult female brood plates moderately wide, setae with hook m

at each tip. Peraeopod 3 (adult male), coxa without stridulation ridges on ventral margin. Peraeopod 4, coxa, 1

posterior margin not excavate. Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis moderately expanded (more so in female), merus

taw

wider than carpus and produced over its fulllength; dactyl not elongate, much shorter than propodus. Peraeopod i

5, coxa not deeper than coxa 4; basis moderately broad, not posteriorly excavate; merus not posteriorly i

excavate; merns and carpus without cluster of spines at posterior junction of propodus; propodus with few

spines on anterior margin; dactyl not cusped. Peraeopods 6 and 7, coxae smaller than coxa 5; otherwise

articles similar in shape to peraeopod 5. Epimera 1-3 with minute setae and small indentation on posterodistal 1

margin but without cusps or ridges. Urosome segment 1 with pair of dorsally erect setae but without cusps.

W

Uropod 1, peduncle without ecdysial spines, but with tooth-like process extending ventrally below rami; rami

tipped by I long and 2-3 short spines. Uropod 3, peduncle spinose only distally at origin of rami; outer ramus l

shorter than peduncle and tipped by 2 cusps and basally immersed, dorsally recurved spine, inner ramus with l

small spine at apex. Telson apices marked by seta and nob.

I

214 I
1

l

1

_ , .

[?:ix,,- ,, _

I .

l

I ' I

1

Lrt MD RT MD I_ _ #,Xl _(2

!

Figure 4,20. Jassa slatteryi. Adult male, holotype, 5.1 mm; adult female, allotype, 4.1 mm; intersex 1, 4.6 ram;

intersex 2, 5.6 mm (f_m Conlan, 1990)

215
!

II

Distribution and Biology. Jassa slatteryi is widespread, probably as a result of introductions by mr

ship. Valid reports of this species are from the Pacific coast of North America (Queen Charlotte Islands to

Bahia de Los Angeles), Ireland, France, Yugoslavia, Japan, South Korea, Galapagos Islands, Chile, Brazil, _i

South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand (Conlan, 1990). II

Remarks. Jassa staudei Conlan, 1990 may also occur in the Santa Barbara area. Jassa staudei

differs from J. slatteryi in lacking the setal cluster on the anterodistal corner of the carpus of gnathopod 1 i

(both sexes, all ages). Keys, descriptions, and illustrations for these and other species of Jassa that occur on I

the Pacific coast of North America are in Conlan (1990). The Santa Maria Basin collection in 168-237 m is

the deepest record forJassa slatteryi. This species is commonly found among algae, hydroids, and bryozoans U

on floating docks and on rocky shores in the low intertidal zone and subtidally. i

Microjassa sp. A I

i

Figure 4.21

Microjassa new species. Conlan, 1995 i

Material Examined. California: Santa Maria Basin, Cruise 1,Sta. R-2, Rep. 2, 161 m, 1adult male,

1 adult female, 1juvenile; Cruise 1-1, Sta. R-5, Rep. 3, 154 m, 2 adult males; Cruise 1-2, Sta. PJ-7, Rep. 1,

123 m, 1 adult male, 1 adult female, Sta. R-4, Rep. 1,92 m, 1 adult male, 3 adult females, 4juveniles; Cruise i

1-3, Sta. R-l, Rep. 2,91 m, 1 adult male, 1 adult female, 1juvenile, Sta. R-2, Rep. 1,161 m, 1 adult male, 1 /

juvenile, Sta. R-4, Rep. 1, 92 m, 1 adult male, 4 adult females, 11juveniles (type), Sta. R-5, Rep. 1, 154 m, 2 i

adult males, 5 adult females, 9 juveniles (type); Cruise 2-3, Sta. R-4, Rep. 1, 92 m, 1 adult male, 1 adult me

female, 5 juveniles (type); Cruise 2-5, Sta. R-4, Rep. 1, 92 m, 1 adult male, 2 adult females, 16 juveniles; m

Cruise 3-1, Sta. R-2, Rep. 3, 161 m, I adult male, 2 adult females, 1juvenile, Sta. R-4, Rep. 2, 92m, 1 adult _

male, 10 adult females, 24 juveniles; Cruise 3-4, Sta. R-2, Rep. 1,161 m, 1adult male, Sta. R-8, Rep. 3, 90 m,

I

1 adult male, 1adult female, 6juveniles. /

Description. Body length up to 2.3 mm (adult male), 2.0 mm (adult female). Head lobe triangular. R

Eye black, oval. Antennae 1 and 2 missing (in other northeastern species of Microjassa, antennae about

RUt

equal in length or antenna 2 upto twice length of antenna 1; antenna 1 weakly setose, article 3 equal inlength

to article 1; accessory flagellum 1 article. Antenna 2 weakly setose, flagellum pediform in some species, i

equal to or shorter than article 5, distally spinose). Upper lip, epistome triangular. Mandible with 2-3 raker w

spines; molar flake present; palp strong, article 3 wider centrally than distally or proximally, both articles 2 and /

3 with numerous setae, article 2 longer than article 3. Lower lip, outer lobes not spinose. Maxilla 1, inner i

plate without setae; palp as wide as or somewhat wider than outer plate. Maxilla 2, inner plate narrower than lID

outer, without facial setae. Maxilliped, inner plate not reaching to end of article 4; outer plate not reaching to i

end of article 5; unguis (article 8) longer than article 7. Sternal plate 1 not produced. Peraeopods 1-4, coxae, i

ventral margins with few minute setae only. Gnathopod 1 smaller than gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 1 (adult me

male), narrower than and one-third depth of coxa 2, basis inserted midway on inner face; basis not densely

setose; merus not extended as tooth under carpus; carpus shorter than propodus, anterior margin not setose

i

anteriorly, posterior lobe not expanded under propodus; propodus, palm convex, defined by cluster of 3 spines i

arranged in medial-lateral-medial) sequence; dactyl only as long as palm of propodus, posterior (inner) margin

with few short setae. Gnathopod 1 (adult female andjuvenile) similar in shape to gnathopod 2, carpus shorter B

than propodus, and palm of propodus convex; basis without cluster of long setae at anterior junction with I

ischium. Gnathopod 2 (adult male) larger than and different in shape from that of adult female and juvenile;

basis, anterodorsal face covered in small nodules, presumably for stridulation; carpus shorter than propodus,

not toothed; propodus, palm shallowly concave, with tooth at dactyl hinge and minute spine at def'ming corner;

dactyl as long as palm, nearly as long as propodus, inner margin sinuous, with an expansion proximally.

Gnathopod 2 (adult female andjuvenile) somewhat larger than gnathopod 1; carpus shorter than propodus, l

216 I
!

!

!

! ! \ i'...

!

!

Figure 4.21. Microjassasp.A. (fromConlan,1995).

I

posterior lobe narrow; propodus, palm convex. Adult female brood plates, setac without hook at each tip.

Peraeopod 3 (adultmale), coxa with fine striationson the medial face, presumably for stridulation. Peraeopod

I 4, coxa, posterior margin excavate. Peraeopods 3 and 4, basis somewhat expanded, merus wider than

carpus and shallowly anteriorly produced over carpus; dactyl shorter than propodus. Pereopod 5, coxa onehalf depth of coxa 4. Peraeopods 5-7 lacking (in other northeastern Pacific species of Microjassa, basis

i broad, not posteriorly excavate; merus not posteriorly excavate; carpus not spinose; propodus with few long

spines along anterior margin; dactyl without pronounced cusps at junction of unguis. Peraeopods 6 and 7,

coxae smaller than coxa 5; otherwise articles similar in shape to peraeopod 5, basis not narrower). Epimera

I 1-3 not posterodistally notched. Urosome 1 with pair of dorsally erect setae, but without cusps. Uropod 1,

I 217
!

peduncle without ecdysial spines, but with tooth-like process extending ventrally below rami, rami tipped by B

1-3 short spines. Uropod 3, peduncle spinose; rami equal in length, less than one-half length of peduncle; ml

outer ramus with row of minute cusps along dorsal margin and small spine at tip; inner ramus without cusps im

but with minute spine at tip. Telson apices marked by single long seta and 2 small cusps. U

if

Distribution and Biology. Microjassa sp. A has only been recorded from the above sites in the

Santa Maria Basin area of California. ID

Remarks. Microjassa sp. A is new to science and being formally described and named in a I

separate publication (Conlan, 1995). The shape and setation of the adult male's second gnathopod distinguishes

this species from the other northeastern Pacific species of Microjassa, M. litotes J.L. Bamard, 1954, M. in

boreopacifica Conlan (1995), M. barnardi Conlan (1995), and M. macrocoxa Shoemaker, 1942. Adult II

females and juveniles are not readily distinguishable. Microjassa sp. A most closely resembles M. barnardi

in the appearance of the adult male second gnathopod, but can be distinguished by lacking the row of spine- I

like setae on the anterior margin of the propod and by the convex palm of the propod of the adult male f'n'st I

gnathopod and adult female and juvenile first and second gnathopods. Cordan (in press) presents a phylogenetic

and biogeographic analysis of the genus Microjassa. i

Hi

Acknowledgements In

The figures were executed with the assistance of Susan Laurie-Bourque. Illustration mounting and i

labelling was by Ed Hendrycks.

illll

Literature Cited i

Barnard, J.L. 1954. Marine Amphipoda of Oregon. Oregon State Monographs, Studies in Zoology 8: 1-103. i

Barnard, J.L. 1958. A remarkable new genus of corophiid amphipod from coastal marine bottoms of

southern California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 57: 85-90. 1a

II

Barnard, J.L. 1959. Estuarine Amphipoda. In: Ecology of Amphipoda and Polychaeta of Newport Bay,

California. Occasional paper of the Allan Hancock Foundation Publications 21:13-69. I

Barnard, J.L. 1962. Benthic marine Amphipoda of southern California: families Aoridae, Photidae, i

Ischyroceridae, Corophiidae, Podoceridae. Pacific Naturalist 3: 1-72.

Barnard, J.L. 1964. Los anfipodos bentonicos marinos de la costa occidental de Baja California. Revista de I

la Sociedad Mexicana de Historia Natural 24: 205-274. J

Barnard, J.L. 1966. Submarine canyons of southern California part V systematics: Amphipoda. Allan i

Hancock Pacific Expeditions 27(5): 1-166. _

Barnard, J.L. 1969a. Gammaridean Amphipoda of the rocky intertidal of California: Monterey Bay to La

Jolla. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 258: 1-230. Bn

Barnard, J.L. 1969b. The families and genera of marine gammaridean Amphipoda. Bulletin of the United

States National Museum 271: 1-535. I_

II Barnard, J.L. 1971. Gammaridean Amphipoda from adeep-sea transect offOregon. Smithsonian Contributions

to Zoology 61: 1-86.

n

Barnard, J.L. 1973. Revision of Corophiidae and related families (Amphipoda). Smithsonian Contributions U

toZoology 151: 1-27.

Barnard, J.L. and G. S. Karaman. 1991. The families and genera of marine gammaridean Amphipoda I

(except marine gammaroids). Parts 1 and 2. Records of the Australian Museum 13: 1-866. g

218 I
!

I Barnard, K.H. 1916. Contributions to the crustacean fauna of South Africa. 5. The Annals

Amphipoda.

of the South African Museum 15: 105-302.

i Bate, C.Museum. S. 1862. 399Catalpp. ogueLondon. of the specimens of amphipodous Crustacea in the collection of the British

Boates, J. S. and P. C. Smith. 1989. Crawling behaviour of the amphipod Corophium volutator and

I foraging Semipalmated Canadian Journal 67: 457-462.

by Sandpipers, Calidris pusilla. of Zoology

Borowsky, B. 1983. Behaviors associated with tube-sharing in Microdeutopus grylIotalpa (Costa)

I (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 68: 39-51.

Borowsky, B. 1985. Differences in reproductive behavior between two male morphs of the amphipod

crustacean Jassafalcata Montagu. Physiological Zoology 58: 497-502.

I Bousfield, E. L. 1973. Shallow-water gammaridean Amphipoda of New England. Comell University Press,

Ithaca and London. 312 pp.

i Brink, F. W.B. den and G. der Velde. 1991. invasion the Rhine. Nature 352: 576.

van van Amphipod on

Bryant, V. 1985. Effect of temperature and salinity on the toxicity of arsenic to three estuarine invertebrates

I (Corophium volutator, Macoma balthica, Tubifex costatus). Marine Ecology Progress Series 24: 129-137.

Carter, J.W. 1982. Natural history observations on the gastropod shell-using amphipod Photis conchicola

I Alderman, 1936. Journal of Crustacean Biology 2: 328-341.

Chess, J.R. 1993. Effects of the stipe-boring amphipod Peramphithoe stypotrupetes (Corophioidea:

Ampithoidae) Biology 13: 638-646. and grazing gastropods on the kelp Laminaria setchellii. Journal of Crustacean

Conlan, K.E. 1982. Revision of the gammaridean amphipod family Ampithoidae using numerical analytical

I methods. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60: 2015-2027.

Contan, K.E. 1983. The amphipod superfamily Corophioidea in the northeastern Pacific region. 3. Family

i INatural saeidae;Sciences systematics and distributional ecology. National Museums of Canada, National Museum of

, Publications in Natural Sciences: 1-75.

Conlan, K.E. 1988. Phenetic and cladistic methods applied to a small genus (Corophioidea: Ischyroceridae:

I Microjassa) and a larger outgroup. Crustaceana, Supplement 13: 143-166.

Conlan, IC E. 1990. Revision of the crustacean amphipod genusJassa Leach (Corophioidea: Ischyroceridae).

i Canadian Journal of Zoology 68: 2031-2075. Conlan, K.E. 1991. Precopulatory mating behavior and sexual dimorphism in the amphipod Crustacea.

Hydrobiologia 223: 255-282.

I Conlan, K. E. 1994a. Amphipod crustaceans and environmental disturbance: a review. Journal of Natural

History 28:519-554.

i Conlan, K.E. 1994b. New species of the crustacean amphipod genera Photis and Gammaropsis (Corophioidea) from California. Amphipacifica 1(3):67-74.

i Conlan, K. Amphipoda: E., 1995. Thumbing doesn't always make the genus: revision ofMicrojassa Stebbing (Cmstacea: Ischyroceridae). Bulletin of Marine Science 57: 331-375.

Conian, K. E. In Press. Thumb evolution in the amphipod genus Microjassa Stebbing (Corophioidea:

I Ischyroceridae). Journal of Crustacean Biology.15(4).

I 219
!

I

Con]an, K. E. and E. L. Bousfield. 1982a. The superfamily Corophioidea in the North Pacific region. Family

Ampithoidae: systematics and distributional ecology. National Museums of Canada, National Museum

of Natural Sciences, Publications in Biological Oceanography 10:4 t-75. i

l

Con]an, K. E. and E. L. Bousfield. 1982b. The superfamily Corophioidea in the North Pacific region. Family -

Aoridae: systematics and distributional ecology. National Museums of Canada, National Museum of

Natural Sciences, Publications in Biological Oceanography 10: 77-101. I

Con]an, K. E. and J. R. Chess. 1992. Phylogeny and ecology of a kelp-boring amphipod, Peramphithoe

stypotrupetes, new species (Corophioidea: Ampithoidae). Journal of Crustacean Biology 12: 410- j

422. B

Esselink, P., J. van Belkum, and K. Essink. 1989. The effect of organic pollution on local distribution of

Nereis diversicolor and Corophium volutator. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 23: 323-332. I

Franz, D. R. 1989. Population density and demography of a fouling community amphipod. Journal of

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 125: 117-136.

i

Hartog, C. den, F. W. B. van den Brink, and G. van der Velde. 1992. Why was the invasion of the fiver

Rhine by Corophium curvispinum and Corbicula species so successful? Journal of Natural I

History 26: 1121-1129. i

Hay, M. E., J. E. Duffy, and W. Fenical. 1990. Host-plant specialization decreases predation on a marine

amphipod: an herbivore in plant's clothing. Ecology 71" 733-743. I

Hickey, C. W. and D. S. Roper. 1992. Acute toxicity of cadmium to two species of infaunal marine

amphipods (tube-dwelling and burrowing) from New Zealand. Bulletin of Envimumentat Contamination

and Toxicology 49:165-170. i

II

Holmes, S.J. 1904. On some new or imperfectly known species of West American Crustacea. Proceedings

of the California Academy of Sciences, series 3 (Zoology), 3: 307-328. i

I

Holmlund, M. B., C. H. Peterson, and M. E. Hay. 1990. Does algal morphology affect amphipod susceptibility

to fish predation? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 139: 65-83. J

Jensen, K. T. and L. D. Kristensen. 1990. A field experiment on competition between Corophium volutator I

(Pallas) and Corophium arenarium Crawford (Crustacea: Amphipoda): effects on survival,

reproduction and recruitment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 137: 1-24. J

m Just, J. 1977. A new genus and species of corophiid Amphipoda from pteropod shells of the bathyal western

Atlantic, with notes on related genera (Crustacea). Steenstrupia 4: 131-138. l

Lee, W. Y. 1977. Some laboratory cultured crustaceans for marine pollution studies. Marine Pollution I

Bulletin 8: 258-260.

Lincoln, R.J. 1979. British marine Amphipoda: Gammaridea. 658 pp. London: British Museum (Natural I

History). II

Mattson, S., and T. Cedhagen. 1989. Aspects of the behaviour and ecology of Dyopedos monacanthus I

(Metzger) and D. porrectus Bate, with comparative notes on Dulichia tuberculata Boeck (Crustacea: |

Amphipoda: Podoceridae). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 127: 253-272.

McCloskey, L. R. 1970. A new species of Dulichia (Amphipoda, Podoceridae) commensal with a sea I

urchin. Pacific Science 224: 90-98. J

McLusky, D. S., 1987. Intertidal habitats and benthic macrofauna of the Forth estuary, Scotland. Proceedings j

of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 93B: 389-399. II

220 |
!

I Moore, P. G. 1983. Pagurisaea schembrii gen. et sp. n. (Cmstacea, Amphipoda) associated with New

Zealand hermit crabs, with notes on lsaea elmhirsti Patience. Zoologica Scripta 12: 47-56.

i Myers, A. A. 1974. Amphitholina cuniculus (Stebbing), a little-known marine amphipod crustacean new to

Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 74: 463-469.

I Myers, A.A. phenetic1983. Probable polyphyly in the amphipod genus Microdeutopus Costa, with an analysis of relationships in some related genera. Selected Papers on Crustacea, The Aquarium,

Trivandrum, 163-172.

Myers, A. A. 1988. A cladistic and biogeographic analysis of the Aorinae subfamily nov. Crustaceana,

Supplement 13: 167-192.

I Myers, A.Amphipoda). A. and D. McGrath. Journal of1984. the marine A revision biological of the north-east AssociationAtlantic ofhe species U. K. 64:ofEricthonius 379-400. (Crustacea:

01afsson, E. B. and L. -E. Persson. 1986. The interaction between Nereis diversicolor O. F. Miiller and

i volutator Pallas force in shallow brackish sediment. Journal of Corophium as a structuring a

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 103:103-117.

I Oliver, J.feeding. S. and P. Ecology N. Slattery. 66: 1965-1975. 1985. Destruction and opportunity on the sea floor: effects of gray whale

Raffaelli, D., J. Limia, S. Hull, and S. Pont. 1991. Interactions between the amphipod Corophium volutator

I and macroalgal mats estuarine mudflats. Journal of the marine Association of the

on biological

United Kingdom 71: 899-908.

i Shoemaker, and C. notesR. 1931. on Eurystheus A new species tenuicornis of amphipod . Proceedings crustacean of the(Acanthonotozomatidae) U. S. National Museumfrom78: California, 1-8.

Shoemaker, C.R. 1934. Two new species of Corophium from the west coast of America. Journal of the

I Washingon Academy of Sciences 24: 356-360.

Shoemaker, C. R. 1942. Amphipod crustaceans collected on the Presidential cruise of 1938. Smithsonian

I Miscellaneous Collections 101: 1-52.

Shoemaker, C. R. 1955. Amphipoda collected at the Arctic Laboratory, Office of Naval Research, Point

Barrow, Alaska, by G. E. MacGinitie. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 128: 1-78.

I Stimpson, W., 1853. Synopsis of the marine Invertebrata of Grand Manan: or the region about the mouth of

the Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 6: 5-66.

I Stout, V.R. 1913. Studies in Laguna Amphpoda. II. Zoologische Jahrbucher Abteilungfiir Systematik Oekologie und Geographic der Tiere 34: 633-659.

II Tegner, M. J. and P. K. Dayton. 1987. E1 Nifio effects on Southern California kelp forest communities.

II Advances in Ecological Research 17: 243-279.

Walker, A. O. 1898. Cmstacea collected by W. A. Herdman, F.R.S., in Puget Sound, Pacific coast of North

I America. Transactions of the Liverpool Biological Society 12: 268-287.

Wilson, W. H., Jr. 1989. Predation and the mediation of intraspecific competition in an infaunal community

I in the Bay of Fundy. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 132: 221-245. Witman, J. D. 1985. Refuges, biological disturbance, and rocky subtidal community structure in New

England. Ecological Monographs 55: 421-445.

!

I 221
!

[]

Attachment 1. Species of Corophioidea not in Santa Maria Basin collections I

but which may occur in the study area

!

This list includes all species whose geographic range encompasses the Santa Maria Basin area and that have

been recorded within the depth range of Santa Maria Basin (deeper than 50m and shallower than 1000m). II

Some species occur elsewhere, sometimes broadly. I

tl

Acuminodeutopus heteruropus J.L. Barnard, 1959. Point Conception to Bahia de San Crist6bal, Baja []

California, 1-82 m (J.L. Barnard, 1959).

Amphideutopus oculatus J.L. Barnard, 1959. Point Conception to Bahia de San Crist6bal, Baja California, 1

2-162 m (J.L. Barnard, 1959). l[

Aoroides intermedia Conlan and Bousfield, 1982b, A. columbiae Walker, 1898, and A. spinosa Conlan and

i

Bousfield, 1982b have not been recorded in California but have the same distribution records as A. m

inermis and A. exilis, which had not previously been recorded in California either (Conlan and

Bousfield, 1982b).

Bemlos audbettius J.L. Bamard, 1962. Off Santa Barbara, 54m (J.L. Barnard, 1962). Ill

Cheirimediea zotea J.L. Barnard, 1962. British Columbia to Monterey Bay, 0-113 m (J.L. Barnard, 1962; l[

Conlan, 1983). :Ill

Corophium baconi Shoemaker, 1934. Bering Sea to Peru, and into the Gulf of California, common on 1

benthos of coastal shelf of southern California, 0-55 m (Shoemaker, 1934). Hi

Corophium californianum. Shoemaker, 1934. Two records. Monterey Bay from holdfast of waterlogged I

kelp, 88 m; Goleta, from submerged log, 8 m (Shoemaker, 1934). /

Gammaropsis martesia (J.L. Barnard, 1964). Carmel to Bahia de San Crist6bal, Baja California, 0-84 m i

(J.L. Barnard, 1964). all

Jassa staudei Conlan, I990. Alaska to Morro Bay, tow intertidal to 82 m (Conlan, 1990).

Neoischyrocerus claustris (J.L. Barnard, 1969a). Carmel to Bahia de San Crist6bal, Baja California, low !

intertidal to 157 m (J.L. Barnard, 1969a; Conlan, in press). II

Peramphithoe humeralis (Stimpson, 1864). Prince William Sound, Alaska to Guadalupe Island, Baja California,

low intertidal to 70 m (Conlan and Bousfield, 1982a). 1

Peramphithoe tea (J.L. Barnard, 1965). Prince William Sound, Alaska to Baja California, low intertidal to ll

67 m (Conlan and Bousfield, 1982a).

Photis parvidons Conlan, 1983. British Columbia to Albion Cove, Mendocino, 0-54 m (Conlan, 1983). I_

Rudilemboides stenopropodus J.L. Barnard, 1959. Point Conception to Bahia de San Quint/n, Baja California, II

1-68 m (J.L. Barnard, 1959).

!

!

!
!

I 5. THE SUBORDERCAPRELLmEA

I

!l by

Les Watling 1

I

Introduction

i Caprellids differ from other amphipods considered in this volume by showing strong reductions of

much of the posterior end of the body. In the Caprellidea pereopods 3 and 4 are frequently reduced to a few

I artic to small les ornubs. are lostThere completely are a fewandgenera the abdwhich ominaldosegme not exhibit nts andsuch associa strong ted aredu ppendages ctions, but are getheyneralhave ly reduced not yet

been found in the Santa Maria Basin region.

i

Suborder Caprellidea

!

D_s. (from Lanbitz, 1993) Body slender and cylindrical (in free-living forms) or greatly

i depressed (in parasitic forms). Head almost spherical, rounded anteriorly, and completely, partially, or not

fused with pereonite 1. Mouthparts ventral, variously developed; lower lip outer lobe with mandibular process.

Coxal plates very small or absent. Gnathopod 1propodus smaller than that of gnathopod 2. Gills usually 2,

occasionally 1 or 3 pairs; always on pereonite 3, usually on pereonite 4, and occasionally on pereonite 2.

I Oostegites on pereonites 3 4 only. Pereopods 7 usually strongly prehensile. Abdomen of no more

and 6 and

than 5 segments, pleopods and uropods reduced, rudimentary, or absent.

i Remarks. Until the recent revision of caprellid families by Laubitz (1993), the taxonomy of caprellids had remained virtually unchanged since the early seminal work of Mayer (1882, 1890, 1903). McCain (1970)

proposed a familial arrangement for all caprellids following the lead of Vassilenko (1968), although Vassilenko

i (1974) later offered her own arrangement. However, the characters used were basically those established by Mayer along with the addition of some mandibular features. Laubitz (1993) reduced in significance a few

of Mayer's characters, incorporated McCain's mandible features, and added characters from maxilla 1 and

i the lower lip. While Laubitz (1993) states that her familial divisions are "both preliminary and speculative", they axe basically similar to, and in fact augment, those established by Vassilenko (1974). Since they fall

more in line with familial concepts seen in other groups of amphipods, they are, for the most part, adopted

here in preference to the classification of McCaln (1970).

Key to the Caprellidea of the Santa Maria Basin region

I 1A. Pereopods 3 and 4 composed of six articles ........................................................ Hemiproto wigleyi

1B. Pereopods 3 and 4 reduced to 3 articles or fewer, or absent .......................................................... 2

I

2A. Pereopod 5 composed of fewer than 6 articles ............................................................................... 3

i 2B. Pereopod 5 composed of 6 or more articles .................................................................................... 4

I _Departmentof Oceanography,DarlingMarineCenter,UniversityofMaine,Walpole,Maine04573.

i 223
I

|

3A. Pereopod 5 terminal article a normal recurved dactyl .......................................... Perotripus brevis I

3B. Pereopod 5 terminal article short, blunt, with terminal plumose seta ................. Mayerella banksia

!

4A. Head with mid-dorsal spine ............................................................................................................. 5

4B. Head with spine anteriorly (rostral) or without spine ....................................................................... 6 i

5A. Pereonite 2 with mid-dorsal spine ....................................................................... Deutella venenosa in

5B. Pereonite 2 with, at most, low tubercle mid-dorsally ....................................... Deutella californica i

6A. Pereonites 2 and 3 with anteriorly-directed tubercles on anterior margin ....................................... 7 i

m

6B. Pereonites 2 and 3 without such tubercles ....................................................................................... 8

7A. Antenna 2 flagellum stout, with short setae ................................................................ Tritella laevis I

7B. Antenna 2 flagellum slender, with long setae .......................................................... Tritella pilimana

I

8A. Pereopeds 3 and 4 uniarticulate ........................................................................... Tritella tenuissima

8B. Pereopods 3 and 4 absent ................................................................................................................ 9 i

9A. Head with rostral spine; antenna 2 longer than antenna 1 peduncle ................. Caprella natalensis i

9B. Head without rostral spine; antenna 2usually much shorter than antenna 1 peduncle .................. 10 g

10A. Pereonite 5 with lateral projections anteriorly; gnathopod 2 with large lateral spines at base ........... i

............................................................................................................................ Caprella equilibra

10B. Pereonite 5 without lateral projections anteriorly; gnathopod 2 lateral spines at base small or absent I

........................................................................................................................................................ 1

|

11A. Gnathopod 2 dactyl, antenna 1 and 2distal peduncle articles setose .................. Caprella pilidigita i

i

11B. Gnathopod 2 dactyl, antenna 1 and 2 distal peduncle articles naked .................... Caprella mendax

Descriptions of Species i

i

Family Phtiscidae Vassilenko, 1968 B

w

Diagnosis. (from Laubitz, 1993) Antenna 2 with 2-I4 articles, setose at apex. Mandible molar

absent; incisor 5,6-toothed; lacinia with accessory plates; setat row with many setae; palp usually 3-articulate. i

Maxilla 1with 6, occasionally dentate spiniform setae on outer plate; palp armature extensive apicaUy. Maxilliped

outer and inner plates broad, subequal; apex of inner plate with strong ctenoid teeth. Lower lips inner lobes

well demarcated. Gnathopod 1 propodus strongly triangular, setose; palm defined by prominent process with •

many spines. Three pairs of gills present. Pereopods 3 and 4 with all articles (Phtiscinae) or pereopod 3

variable and pereopod 4 absent (Dodecadinae). Pereopod 5 reduced in size or articles, dactyl present.

Pereopods 6 and7 normal. Abdomen unsegmented; male with 1 pair rudimentary pteopods; genital papillae •

poorly developed. II

224 |
!

I Remarks. The family is readily recognized by its unique combination of mouthpart morphology

features, i.e., mandible with no molar and strong seta row, and maxilliped outer and inner plates subequal in

included size. Twoin genera, the Caprellidae Hemiprotoby Laubitz and Perotripus (1970) ,andaretheknown Phtiscidae from the Dodecadinae coast of California. by McCain Perotripus (1970), but was was

moved, with question, by Laubitz (1993) to her new family Caprellinoididae. In this paper its position in the

I Dodecadinae has been retained.

•I Subfamily Phtiscinae Vassilenko, 1968

Diagnosis. Pereopods 3 and 4 fully articulate. Pereopod 5 reduced in size and/or articles, but with

i dactyl.

Genus Hemiproto McCain, 1968

I Type Species. McCain, 1968

Hemiproto wigleyi

Diagnosis. (from McCain, 1968) Antenna 2 flagellum 2- to 4-articulate; natatory setae absent.

I Mandibular palp 3-articulate; terminal article setal formula 1-1-1 or I-x-l; molar absent. Maxilliped outer

lobe equal to inner lobe. Gills present on pereonites 2-4. Pereopods 3 and 4 6-articulate; pereopod 5 5-

articulate. Abdomen of male with 2 pairs of small uniarticulate appendages and one pair of nonsetose lobes;

I female with one pair of uniarticulate appendages.

Remarks. McCain (1968) noted this genus to be closely related to Protomima Mayer, differing

i from the latter in the details of the male abdominal appendages. In Protomima these appendages are

biarticulate (rather than uniarticulate) and are positioned near the posterior part of the abdomen. The only

known species in this genus, H. wigleyi, was described from shallow waters of Florida and the Carribean;

i the present record is the first of the genus from the Pacific.

Hemiproto wigleyi McCain, 1968

i Figure 5.1

Material Examined. California: Off Purisima Pt., St. R-4, 92 m, (6 specimens).

I Description. (after McCain, 1968) Body smooth. Eyes large, dark. Antenna 1 of immature male and female about half as long as body, in mature male about equal to body length, number of flagellar articles

unknown. Antenna 2 not extending beyond antenna 1peduncle article 3. Propodus of gnathopod 1 triangular,

I with serrate. 3 grMale aspinggnathopod setae, 1 large 2 carpusandextremely proximal elongate, to the others, aboutgrasping half lengthmargin of veryverylongfinebasis; ly serrate, propodudsactyl -carpusnot

junction indistinct; propodus with 3 grasping setae, 1 large and proximal to the others, grasping margin with

I several similar stomall matur setae. e male In female . Gillsandonimmatu pereonite re smale, 2-4,gnathopod increasing 2incarlength pus abopoutsterior twicelylength . Peroeopods f merus,3pand ropodus 4 6-

articulate, propodus with 1 or 2 grasping setae, grasping margin less than half length of posterior pmpodal

I juvenile margin. with Pereopod 6 articles, 5 5-articula propodus te, with propodsingle us wgrasping ithout grasping seta. Abdomen setae. Pereopods with 2 pairs6 and of uniarticulate 7 unknown inappendages adults; in

and pair of non-setose lobes in males, with one pair of uniarticulate appendages and pair of lobes in female.

I pairs of Rquite emarelongate ks. Small abdominal individualsappendages. of this specMcCain ies resemble (1968)Phnnoted 'sica marina that the, but Japanese the latter genusalsoProtomi bears two ma

also showed an excessively elongate male gnathopod 2 carpus, but his genus Hemiproto differed from the

I former in the details of the abdominal appendages. It seems clear that the three genera, Phtisica, Protomima,

I 225
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Figure 5.1. Hemiprotowigleyi (fromMceain, 1968) I

II

and Hemiproto, are closely related and specimens with elongate pereopods 3 and 4 and gnathopod 2 will I_

require close examination of the abdominal appendages and possibly also the mouthparts before correct

generic placement can be made. The specimens examined here were identified as Hemiproto sp. A in the in

MMS surveys. |

Distribution. Known previously from 30-60 m off southern Florida and Venezuela; the present

record is a significant range extension which suggests that the species has been introduced into either the

western Atlantic or eastern Pacific, or that it is a pre-isthmian relict. Resolution of these opposing ideas will E

need additional data.

m

Subfamily Dodecadinae Vassilenko, 1968

Diagnosis. (after McCain, 1970) Pereopods 3 and 4 variably reduced. Pereopod 5 reduced, with n

dactyl.

I
!

I Genus Perotripus Dougherty and Steinberg, 1953

i Diagnosis. (after Laubitz, 1970) Antenna 2 without natatory setae; flagellum biarticulate. Mandibular palp of 3 articles; molar absent. Maxilliped outer lobe equal to or larger than inner, both minute. Gills on

pereonites 2-4. Pereopod 3 of 3 articles; 4 uniarticulate; and 5 of 3 articles. Abdomen of male with one pair

i of uniarticulate appendages plus one pair of setose lobes; of female with one pair of setose lobes.

Perotripus brevis (La Follette, 1915)

I Figure 5.2

Paedaridium breve La Fotlette, 1915

I Perotripus brevis: Dougherty and Steinberg, 1953

Material Examined. California: Off Pt. Estem, St. 1, 98 m (2); St. 6, 109 m (2).

I Description. (after Laubitz, 1970) Body smooth; cephalon and pereonites 2 and 3 equal in length;

pereonite 4 longer than 3. Antenna 2 slightly shorter than antenna 1peduncle; article 3 and 4 sparsely setose.

Mandible palp 3-articulate, middle and terminal articles each with one minute seta. Maxilliped inner lobe

l" convex distally, with 2 median setae and outer tooth-like projection; outer lobe with slightly serrate apical

Ill margin beating setae. Gnathopod 1propodus triangular, ventral surface with serrate-edged proximal projection,

four grasping spine-setae; palmar surface convex and bearing spine-setae and a few small setae. Gnathopod

I 2 propodus twice as long as broad, with proximal ventral projection beating two pairs of grasping spine-setae. Pereopods 3 and 4 attached at base of gill. Pereopod 5 third article shaped like large claw. Pereopods 6 and

7 with 6 articles.

I Remarks. Laubitz (1970) notes general collections unsorted material this species

that in of is

readily detected due to its characteristic body outline, which is bent in an S-shape on preservation.

Distribution. Described originally from Laguna Beach, California, andfound north to Prince William

I Sound, Alaska.

I Family CapreUidae White, 1847

I Diagnosis. (from Laubitz, 1993) Antenna 2 with 2 articles, setose at apex. Mandible molar present; incisor 5-toothed; lacinia 5-toothed; setal row with 2-3 setae; palp 3-articulate, reduced, or absent. Maxilla 1

with 7, occasionally dentate spiniform setae on outer plate; patp armature moderate. Maxilliped outer plate

I larger than inner; apex of inner plate with plumose setae and spine-setae. Lower lips inner lobes well

!1 demarcated. Gnathopod 1 propodus triangular, strongly setose; palm defined by paired spine-setae. Two

pairs of gills present. Pereopods 3 and 4 absent. Pereopod 5 normal, reduced, or absent. Pereopods 6 and

I 7 normal. Abdomen unsegmented; appendages variable.

Remarks. This is the most ubiquitous family of caprellids. Laubitz notes that most of the genera

within the family have a well-developed suture between the head and pereonite 1 and bear tong paired setae

I on antenna 2. The reader should note that the definition of this family according to Laubitz (1993) includes the family Aeginellidae subfamily Aeginellinae as adopted by McCain (1968, 1970), while McCain's subfamily

Protellinae is elevated to family rank. Most of the genera previously assigned to the Caprellidae, for example,

I by McCain (1970), are distributed by Laubitz (1993) into her new family Pariambidae.

!

I 227
!

!

!

J

!

!

!

!

, II

.oI !

Figure 5.2. Perotripus brevis (from Laubitz, 1970) I

Genus CapreUa Lamarck, 1801 I

Diagnosis. (after Laubitz, 1970) Antenna 2 with natatory setae; flagellum biarticutate. Mandibular I

palp absent; molar present. Maxilliped outer lobe equal to or larger than inner. Gills on pereonites 3-4.

Pereopods 3 and 4 absent; pereopod 5 of 6 articles. Abdomen of male with one pair of appendages plus one

pair of lobes; of female with one pair of lobes. I
!

I at least 15Remarks. species known This isfromthe largest California, genusmost of allhaving the caprellids, intertidal with to shallow over 80subtidal species distributions. worldwide. There The five ar

species considered here represent most of the deeper-dwelling species so far known from these waters.

i Caprella natalensis Mayer, 1903

Figure 5.3 I Caprella acutifrons var. natalensis Mayer, 1903

Caprella penantis var. natalensis K.H. Barnard, 1916

I (?CapreIla ) Caprella angusta: Dougherty and Steinberg, 1953 angusta: Laubitz, 1970

I Material Examined. California: OffPt. Estero, St. 1, 98 m (1); offPt. Sal, St. PJ-7, 123 m (1).

Description. (after Laubitz, 1970) Head with median anteriorly pointing process. Pereonites smooth

or with small paired dorsal tuberculations, especially posteriorly. Antenna 1as long as or slightly longer than

I cephalon plus pereonite 2; flagellum equal to peduncle; with 9 (female) to 12 (male) articles. Antenna 2

longer than antenna 1 peduncle; flagellum with short setae. Gnathopod 1 with serrate gasping margin on

propodus and dactylus. Gnathopod 2 propodus twice as long as broad; dactylus thickened proximally, tapered

l distally. Pereopods 5 to 7, propodus palm concave, grasping spines proximal.

Remarks. In 1970, Laubitz decided that C. angusta differed sufficiently from C. penantis that it

should be given separate specific status. In 1972, she noted that the C. angusta material examined by her

I found to be similar to of C. f. natalense, she decided

was essentially specimens acutifrons Accordingly,

i that the name C. nataIense be recognized at specific level. Her decision is followed here, for the simplest

reason that any ecological data associated with this name will not be lost in the global morass associated with

I the almost ubiquitous C. and C. The combination of rostral and antenna 2

penantis acutifrons. spine long

distinguish this species from the others considered in this study.

Distribution. Known previously from Dillon Beach, California, to the Queen Charlotte Islands,

I British Columbia.

!

I

!

!

I

I Figure 5.3. Caprellanatalensis (fi'omLaubitz, 1970)

I 229
I

I

Caprella equilibra Say, 1818 •

Figure 5.4 il

Material Examined. California: Off Purisima Pt., St. 42, 100 m (1); offPt. Sal, St. PJ-1,145 m (1). U

Description. (from Laubitz, 1970) Head and body smooth dorsally except pereonite 5 which may

have small paired dorsal spines; pereonites 3 and 4 with anterolateral spines; pereonite 2 with large ventral 1

m

spine between gnathopods. Antenna 1 as long as or slightly longer than cephalon plus pereonite 2; flagellum

much shorter than peduncle. Antenna 2 shorter than antenna 1 peduncle articles 1 and 2; flagellum with short

Gnathopod 1 with barely serrate grasping margin on propodus and dactylus. Gnathopod 2 propodus n

setae.

twice as long as broad, with proximal grasping spine; dactylus evenly tapered distally. Pereopods 5 to 7,

w

propodus palm concave, grasping spines proximal. mm

Remarks. The other two species possessing a ventral spine between the bases of gnathopod 2, C. I

mendax and C. pilidigita, are both much longer than C. equilibra and have completely smooth pereonites.

Laubitz (1970) summarizes other differences among the three species, noting especially the patterns of n

setation on antenna 1peduncle, length of antenna 1 relative to anterior pereonites, and spinafion ofpereonites |

3 and4.

Distribution. A widespread, nearly ubiquitous, globally distributed species; in California found all I

along the coast. 1

I

I

!

Figm'e 5.4. Caprella equitibra (fromMayer, 1882;Laubitz, 1970)

!

230 |
!

I Caprella mendax Mayer, 1903

Figure 5.5

i Material Examined. California: OffPt. Sad,St. PJ-1,145 m (1); off Purisima Pt.,St. R-5, 154 m (15).

Description. (from Laubitz, 1970) Head and body smooth; pereonite 2 with large ventral spine

I between gnathopods. Antenna 1 longer than cephadon plus pereonites 2 and 3; flagellum shorter than peduncle

articles 1 and 2. Antenna 2 shorter than antenna 1 peduncle articles 1 and 2; flagellum with short setae.

Gnathopod 1 with slightly serrate grasping margin on propodus and dactylus. Gnathopod 2 propodus one and

I| a half times as long as broad, with proximal grasping spine and distal triangular projection; dactylus evenly tapered distally. Pereopods 5 to 7, propodus palm concave, grasping spines proximal.

Remarks. See under C. equilibra.

I Distribution. Previously known from central California to Hecate Strait,British Columbia.

I

I

I

I

I

!

5

!

!

I

i

Figure 5.5. Caprellamendax(fromLaubitz, 1970)

I

i 231
!

CapreUa pilidigita Laubitz, 1970 l

Figure 5.6

Material Examined. California: Off Pt. Sal, St. PJ-5, 145 m (2). I

u

Description. (from Laubitz, 1970) Head and body smooth; pereonite 2 with large ventral spine

between gnathopods. Antenna 1 longer than cephalon plus pereonites 2 and 3; flagellum equal to peduncle m

article 2; distal portion of peduncle article 3 strongly setose. Antenna 2 shorter than antenna 1 peduncle •

u

articles 1 and 2; flagellum with short setae. Gnathopod 1 with slightly serrate grasping margin on propodus

and dactylus. Gnathopod 2 propodus twice as long as broad, with proximal grasping spine and distal triangular

projection; dactylus evenly tapered distally, with fine setae along inner margin. Pereopods 5 to 7, propodus l[

palm concave, with many setae; grasping spine proximal.

w

Remarks. See under C. equilibra. •

Distribution. Previously known from the British Columbia coast. 1

!

!

Figure 5.6. Caprellapilidigita (fromLaubitz, 1970) I

Family Pariambidae Laubitz, 1993 I

Diagnosis. (from Laubitz, 1993) Antenna 2 with 2 articles, heavy setae at apex. Mandible molar a

present; incisor 5-toothed; left lacinia 5-toothed, right lacinia serrate or broadly 3-toothed; setal row with 2-3 1

setae; palp 3-articulate or absent. Maxilla I with 6 spiniform setae on outer plate; palp with few setae.

Maxilliped outer plate larger than inner; apex of inner plate truncate with few apical setae. Lower lips inner

lobes well demarcated. Gnathopod 1 propodus triangular to slender, setose; palm defined by paired spine- •

setae. Two pairs of gills present. Pereopods 3 and 4 greatly reduced. Pereopod 5 small and weak, or

w

reduced. Pereopods 6 and 7 normal. Abdomen unsegmented; appendages small or absent.

Remarks. See under Caprellidae, above. I

232 I
I

I Genus Deutella Mayer, 1890

Diagnosis. (from Laubitz, 1970) Antenna 2 without natatory setae; flagellum biarticulate. Mandibular

I palp 3 and3-articulate; 4 2-articulate;mopereopod lar present.5 with Maxilliped 6 articles. outerAbdomen lobe larger of male than inner with .oneGillspaironofpereonites uniarticulate3-4.appendages Pereopods

plus one pair of setose lobes; of female with one pair of setose lobes.

I Deutella californica Mayer 1890

Figure 5.7

i Material Examined. Califomia: OffPt. Estero, St. I, 98 m (18); St. 6, 109 m (9).

Description. (from Laubitz, 1970) Head bearing small dorsomedian spine; pereonite 2 with

i anterolateral anteriorly pointing projections. Antenna 1 equal to about half body length. Antenna 2 shorter than antenna 1peduncle articles 1and 2. Mandible palp 3-articulate. Gnathopod 2 propodus nearly rectangular

in male, subovoid in female, bearing many f'me setae in both; palm surface with poison spine located midway

I along margin and separated by deep cleft in male, poison spine and cleft absent in female,. Pereopods 3 and 4 small, similar, 2-articulate, with ring of setae at distal end of article 1. Pereopods 5-7 with 6 articles;

propodus with concave palmar surface and proximal series of knobs and grasping setae.

I Remarks. This differs from the in the nature of its bearing species following chiefly body armature,

low tubercles where D. venenosa possess spines.

I Distribution. Known previously from Monterey Bay, California to Prince William Sound, Alaska.

I

I

- A1

---_

• A2

I

i _ _ _ ._._

I Figure 5.7. Deutella californica(fromMayer, 1890;Laubitz, 1970)

I 233
I

I

Deutella venenosa Mayer, 1890

Figure 5.8 i

Material Examined. No specimens were examined by me for this study, m

Description. (from Mayer, 1890) Head bearing large dorsomedian spine; pereonite 2 with I

anterolateral and mid-dorsal anteriorly pointing projections. Antenna 1 equal to about half body length.

Antenna 2 shorter than antenna 1 peduncle articles 1 and 2. Mandible palp 3-articulate. Gnathopod 2 •

propodus broadly rounded dorsally in male, subovoid infemale, beating many f'me setae in both; palm surface B

with poison spine located midway along margin and separated by deep cleft in young male, poison spine and

cleft absent in female. Pereopods 3 and 4 small, similar, 2-articulate, with ring of setae at distal end of article •

i and 2-3 setae on article 2. Pereopods 5-7 with 6 articles; propodus with concave palmar surface and i

proximal series of knobs and grasping setae.

Distribution. Known from the California subtidal. •

I

2,4 |
!

!

Family Protellidae McCain, 1970

I Diagnosis. (from Laubitz, I993) Antenna 2 with 2 articles, heavy setae at apex. Mandible molar

present; incisor 5-toothed; left lacinia 5-toothed, right lacinia serrate or complexly toothed; setal row with 2-

I 3 setae; palp 3-articulate. Maxilla 1with 7 spiniform setae on outer plate; palp with few setae. Maxilliped

outer plate larger than inner; apex of inner plate with plumose setae. Lower lips inner lobes well demarcated.

Gnathopod I propodus triangular, setose; palm def'med by single spine-seta. Two pairs of gills present.

I Pereopods 3 and 4 greatly reduced. Pereopod 5 normal but small, or reduced. Pereopods 6 and 7 normal. Abdomen unsegmented; appendages present.

Remarks. This group was originally proposed by McCain (1970) as a subfamily in the Aeginellidae,

I and has been elevated Laubitz with of the listed McCain.

to family status by (1993) most genera by

Genus Mayerella Huntsman, 1915

I Diagnosis. (from Laubitz, 1970) Antenna 2 without natatory setae; flagellum biarticulate. Mandibular

palp 3-articulate; molar present. Maxilliped outer lobe larger than inner. Gills on pereonites 3-4. Pereopods

I 3 and 4 with 2 articles; pereopod 5 with 3 articles. Abdomen of male with one pair of uniarticulate appendages plus one pair of lobes; of female with one pair of lobes.

I Mayerella banksia Laubitz, 1970 Illl

Figure 5.9

I Material Examined. California: OffPt. Sal, St. 36, 492 m (1), St. 42, 100 m (2), St. PJ-1,145 m

(2); off Purisima Pt., St. R-4, 92 m (15).

I pereonitesDes2,zand dption3. .Antenna (from La1 shorter ubitz, 1than 970)cephalon Body smooth and pereonite except2.forAntenna small antero 2 equal lateral in length projectio to antenna ns on

1 peduncle. Mandible palp 3-articulate. Gnathopod 2 propodus three times as long as broad; palm surface

i with proximal protrusion bearing grasping seta, male with distal poison spine separated by anterior cleft,

female without poison spine. Pereopods 3 and 4 small, similar, 2-articulate, with 2 setae at distal end of article

1. Pereopod 5 articles 1 and 2 nearty devoid of setae. Pereopods 6 and 7 with 6 articles; propodus with

i slightly developed Remarks. pThe almarcombination surface. of 2-articulate pereopods 3 and 4 with 3-articulate pereopod 5 serves to

distinguish this species from all other caprellids in the Santa Mafia Basin region.

I Distribution. Known previously from the British Columbia and southern Alaska coasts.

i Genus Tritella Mayer, 1890

Diagnosis. (from Laubitz, 1970) Antenna 2 with natatory setae; flagellum biarticulate. Mandibular

palp 3-articulate; molar present. Maxilliped outer lobe larger than inner. Gills on pereonites 3-4. Pereotxxts

I 3 and 4 uniarticulate; pereopod 5 with 6 articles. Abdomen of male and female with one pair of setose lobes.

!

I 235
!

I

I

I

!

I

,'

. I

Figure 5.9. Mayerella banksia(fromLaubitz,1970) I

Tritella laevis Mayer, 1903 I

Figure 5.10 i

Material Examined. No specimens examined by me.

Description. (from Laubitz, 1970) Body smooth dorsally, with anteriorly directed anterolateral i

projections on pereonites 2-4. Antenna 1 longer than cephalon and pereonite 2. Antenna 2 slightly longer

than antenna I peduncle; flagellum stout with heavy setae. Maxilliped outer plate with 1 or 2 apical plumose

setae, 1tooth, and denticulate medial margin. Gnathopod 2, in male, propodus 2 times as long as broad; palm i

surface with proximal protrusion bearing grasping seta and poison spine, in female propodus broader and with

minute poison spine. Pereopods 3 and 4 similar, with 3 apical setae. Pereopods 5, 6, and 7 normal; propodus

with palmar knobs supporting grasping setae. I

236 i
I

I

I

I

I

,I

,, II

"_ _ /

!

!

!

!

I Figure 5.10, Tritella laevis (from Laubitz, 1970)

I Remarks. This species is distinguished from the following, Z pilimana, most easily by the stoumess

of antenna 2 and the better developed palm on pereopods 5-7.

I British Columb Distribution. Known from California north of Point Conception to the Queen Charlotte Islands,

ia.

I

I 237
I

Tritella pilimana Mayer, 1890 I

Figure 5.11

Material Examined. California: OffPt. Sal, St. PJ-1,145 m (3); off Purisima Pt., St. R-4, 92 m (15). I

Description. (from Laubitz, 1970) Body smooth dorsally, with laterally directed anterolateral

projections on pereonites 2-4. Antenna 1 nearly as long as cephalon and pereonites 2 and 3. Antenna 2 I

shorter than antenna 1 peduncle, slender, with swimming setae. Maxilliped outer plate with t apical ptumose

seta, I tooth, and serrate medial margin. Gnathopod 2, in male, propodus 2 times as long as broad; palm

surface with proximal protrusion bearing grasping seta and poison spine, in female propodus broader and with

minute poison spine. Pereopods 3 and 4, similar, with 3 apical setae. Pereopods 5, 6, and 7 normal; propodus I

palm ill-defined, with palmar knobs supporting grasping setae.

Distr Remarks. See under T. laevis. I ibution. Known from California north of Point Conception to Prince William Sound, Alaska.

I

I

I

I

PER 2.---- I

"W_" .,.f , -. "_-"--. Ftl_l,J

I

Figure 5.11. Tritellapitimana (fromLaubitz, 1970;Mayer, 1890) I

238 |
I

I Tritella tenuissima Dougherty and Steinberg, 1953

Figure 5.12

I Material Examined. California: Off Pt. Arguello, St.61,345 m (2); off Purisima Pt., St. R-5, 154 m (9).

Description. (from Dougherty and Steinberg, 1953) Body very much elongated and smooth. Antenna

i as long as cephalon pereonites longer antenna 1peduncle, swimming

1 and 2 and 3. Antenna 2 than without

setae. Maxilliped outerplate with 1 apical plumose seta, 1 tooth, and serrate medial margin. Gnathopod 2, in

male, propodus 3 times as long as broad; palm surface with proximal protrusion bearing grasping seta, poison

I spine located midway along anterior of from cleft; in female palm, part palm separated posterior by strong

propodus broader and with minute poison spine. Pereopods 3 and 4 similar, with 3 apical setae. Pereopod 5,

palm ill-defined; pereopods 6 and 7 normal.

I Remarks. This species is longer and more slender than the two other species of Tritella from this

region.

i Distribution. Known so far only from California.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Figure 5.12. Tritellatenuissima(original)

I

i

i 239
!

Literature Cited I

Barnard, K.H. 1916. Contributions to the crustacean fauna of South Africa. 5. The Amphipoda. Annals of I

the South African Museum 15: 105-302.

Dougherty, E.C. and J.E. Steinberg. 1953. Notes on the skeleton shrimps (Crustacea: Caprellidae) of I

California. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 66: 39-50.

La Follette, R. 1915. Caprellidae from Laguna Beach. Part II. Journal of Entomology and Zoology, •

Pomona College, California 7: 55-63. I

Laubitz, D.R. 1970. Studies on the Caprellidae (Crustacea, Amphipoda) of the American North Pacific. i

National Museum of Natural Sciences, Canada, Publications inBiological Oceanography, No. 1, pp. I[

1-89. II

Laubitz, D.R. 1972. The Caprellidae (Crustacea, Amphipoda) of Atlantic and Arctic Canada. National •

Museum of Natural Sciences, Canada, Publications in Biological Oceanography, No. 4, pp. 1-82. I

Laubitz, D.R. 1993. Caprellidea (Cmstacea: Amphipoda): towards a new synthesis. Journal of Natural

History 27: 965-976. 1II

Mayer, P. 1882. Die Caprelliden des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte. Eine

Monographie. Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel 6: 1-201. I

Mayer, P. 1890. Die Caprelliden des Golfes von Neapel. Nachtrag zur Monographie derselben. Fauna und

Flora des Golfes von Neapel 17: 1-157. 1

Mayer, P. 1903. Die Caprellidae der Siboga-Expedition. Siboga Expedition 34: 1-160. I

McCain, J.C. 1968. The Caprellidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda) of the western North Atlantic. Bulletin of the elm

United States National Museum 278:1-147. 1

i

McCain, J.C. 1970. Familial taxa within the Capreltidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Proceedings of the

Biological Society of Washington 82: 837-842. l1

Vassilenko, S.V. 1968. On the question of systematics and the basic lines of development in the family

Caprellidae. Doklady Akademii Nauk S.S.S.R. 183: 1461-1464. [In Russian] el

Vassilenko, S.V. 1974. Caprellids of the seas of the USSR and adjacent waters. Opredeleliteli po Faune I

SSSR 107: 1-287. [In Russian]

I

2+ !
Appendix

Lists and Maps of Stations

Table A.1. Position of soft-substrate stations taken during the Phase I Reconnaissance.

Station Latitude Longitude Depth

(m)

1 35°27.86"N 121°05.33'W 98

2 35°27.70'N 121°06.52"W 200

3 35 °27.07'N 121° 10.20'W 291

4 35°26.56'N 121° 14.93'W 393

5 35°25.77'N 121°21.69"W 585

6 35°20.88'N 120°59.62"W 109

7 35_20.65'N 121°02.57"W 197

8 35°20.00'N 121°06.58"W 308

9 35°19.48'N 121°10.06"w 398

10 35':'18.28'N 121o18.65"W 591

11 35°17.80'N 121°22.13"W 690

12 35°15.03'N 120057.3 I'W 98

13 35°14.54'N 120°59.77"W 197

14 35°14.15'N 121°02.04"W 299

15 35°13.98'N 121°04.54"W 393

16 35°12.23'N 121° 16.29"W 591

17 35°11.61'N 121°22.55'W 654

18 35°09.08'N 120°56.55"W 197

19 35°08.93'N 120°59.66"W 296

20 35°15.72'N 121°04.68"W 396

21 35°06.1 I'N 120°44.82"W 49

22 35°05.85'N 120°50.23'W 99

23 35°05.60'N 120055.18"W 195

25 35°05.07'N 121°00.75"W 390

26 35°04.38'N 121° 15.99'W 590

27 35°04.30'N 121°19.27'W 611

28 35°04.22'N 121° 19.65'W 603

30 34°54.19'N 120°47.07 'W 98

31 34°53.76'N 120°52.96"W 200

32 34°53.56'N 120°56.8 I'W 297

33 34°53.43"N 120°59.66'W 396

34 34053.15"N 121°04.40"W 492

35 34°52.96'N 121°10.30"W 548

36 34°52.77"N 121°15.37"W 492

38 34°49.8 I'N 120°52.66'W 197

39 34°49.53'N 120°56.85"W 294

40 34°49.24'N 12t°00.81"W 392

41 34°48.35'N 121°19.14"W 495

42 34°48.04'N 120°47.50"W 100

43 34o46.59'N 120052.92'W 197

45 34°44.91'N 120°59.59'W 395

46 34041.22'N 121o13.56'W 597

47 34°41.99'N 121°10.81'W 378

48 34°45.1 I'N 120°52.85"W 196

49 34°45.03'N 120°56.3 I'W 290

50 34°37.80"N 121°01.66'W 591

52 34°39.56"N 120°47.64"W 98

53 34°37.69"N 120':'50.38"W 196

54 34°36.57'N 120°52.02"W 396

55 34°33.66'N 120°56.31"W 590

56 34°30.32'N 121°01.02'W 900

241
!

Table A.I (Continued)

Station Latitude Longitude Depth i

i

(m)

i

58 34°34.35'N 120°45.18'W 99 • :

l

59 34°33.65'N 120°47.18'W 216

60 34°33.25'N 120°48.34'W 275

61 34°33.01'N 120°48.89'W 345

62 34°30.46'N 120°52.13'W 582 •

63 34°26.29'N 120°58.08'W 930

64 34°33.15'N 120°40.90'W 59

65 34°31.27'N 120°43.27'W 107 i

66 34°30.46'N 120°44.55'W 201 •

67 34°30.29'N 120°45.50'W 282

68 34°29.24'N 120°45.99'W 390

69 34°22.88'N 120°54.20"W 927 i

l

70 34°29.67'N 120°43.70"W 200

71 34°29.04'N 120°44.0 I'W 306

72 34°28.4 I'N 120°44.76'W 401

73 34°28.21'N 120°36.80'W 98 •

II 74 34°26.84'N 120°38.61'W 201

75 34°26.08'N 120°39.65'W 293

76 34°25.59'N 120°40.98'W 387

77 34°22.62'N 120°44.02'W 578 •

78 34° 18.78'N 120°49.30'W 762

79 34°24.12'N 120°28.32"W 98

80 34°22.86'N 120°28.34'W 196 n

81 34°21.26'N 120°28.83"W 294 •

82 34° 18.7 I'N 120°29.55'W 394

83 34017.20'N 120°30.20'W 444

84 34013.54'N 120°31.19'W 394 •

i

85 34°25.88'N 120°16.3 I'W 113

86 34°24.45 'N 120°17.02'W 197

87 34°21.60'N 120°17.11'W 299

88 34° 17.89'N 120°16.86'W 393 •

|

89 34013.79'N 120°16.56'W 471

90 34°09.44'N 120°16.30'W 375

91 34° 11.73'N 120°07.43'W 540 i

92 34°08.70'N 120°07.50'W 444 •

93 34°07.63'N 120°07.5 I'W 357

96 34°22.91 'N 120°05.42'W 296

94 34°24.54'N 120°05.47'W 96 i

95 34°23.70'N 120°05.47'W 198 •

97 34°22.28'N 120°05.49'W 393

98 34012.87'N 120°05.59"W 561

99 34011.22"N 120°05.86'W 540 •

l

I00 34°08.67'N 120°05.50'W 443

101 34°07.5 I'N 120°05.65"W 357

102 34°59.71'N 120°48.22'W 99

103 34°59.63'N 120°53.56'W 197 •

II 104 34°59.45'N 120°56.49'W 294

105 34°59.23'N 120°59.60'W 392

106 34°58.95'N 121°04.42'W 492

107 34°58.65'N 121 °15.08'W 573 •

108 34°58.2 I'N 121°17.88'W 492

Note: Sample labels from the Soft-substrate stations have several identification codes which include a station number, sample ml

replicate number, and analysis type. These are as follows: 001 to 200 = the range of station numbers; BSS = Benthic l Sediment Single (i.e., a non-replicated station); BSR = Benthic Sediment Replicate (three replicates taken at this station); BSV =

Benthic Sediment Variance (subsamples); 01-09 = replicate numbers; TX = a taxonomy sample. Sample labels having the

designation BRA, represents a sample from rocks taken as part of the hard bottom survey, i

n

242 |
I

I Figure A.1. Map showing location of soft substrate stations from Phase I and Phase II MMS Reconnaissance

and Monitoring Programs.

I

U 243
!

Table A.2. Location of soft-substrate stations taken • during the Phase IIMonitoring Program. !

I' Station Latitude Longitude Depth 

(m)

R- 1 35°05.8YN 120049.16'W 91 i

R-2 35 II °05.50"N 120°53.40'W 161

R-3 35°05.30'N 121°00.90'W 409

R-4 34043.01 'N 120°47.39"W 92 •

l

R-5 34°42.69'N I20°50.83'W t54

R-6 34041.40'N 120°57.9(YW 410

R-7 34°52.90"N 121°10.30'W 565

R-8 34°55.30'N 120°45.87'W 90 •

R-9 34°53.68'N 120°59.12"W 410

PJ- t 34055.79'N 120049.91 'W i45

PJ-2 34°55.32'N 120°49.59'W 142

PJ-3 34°56.26'N 120°49.58'W 138 •

PJ-4 34°56.26'N 120°50.24'W 150 II

P1-5 34°55.32'N 120°50.24'W 152

PJ-6 34054.71 'N 120049.91 'W 148 I

|

PJ-7 34°55.79'N 120°48.60'W 123

PJ-8 34°56.87'N 120°49.9 I'W 142

PJ-9 34°55.79'N 120°51.23"W 169

PJ-10 34°53.63'N 120°49.91'W 147 •

I

PJ-11 34°57.95'N 120°49.91'W 136

PJ-12 34°55.58"N 120°49.91"W 145

PJ-13 34°56.01'N 120°49.91'W 144

PJ- 14 34°55.79"N 120°49.26'W 134 •

PJ- 15 34°55.79"N 120°50.57'W 155

PJ- 16 34°55.03'N 120°48.99'W 130

PJ- 17 34°56.56"N 120°48.98'W 126

PJ- 18 34°56.56"N 120°50.84'W 158 •

PJ- 19 34°55.0YN 120050.84'W 167

PJ-20 34°50.38"N 120°49.9 I'W 148

PJ-21 35001.2YN 120051.15'W 143 II

|

PJ-22 34°55.25'N 120°49.93'W 143

PJ-23 34°56.33'N 120°49.90'W 143

!

|

Table A.3, Sampling dates of MMS Phase 12Monitoring Program. i

Cruise Date i

1-I October 1986

1-2 June 1987

1-3 May 1987 •

1-4 July 1987

2-I October 1987

2-2 January 1988

2-3 May 1988 •

3-1 October 1988

3-2 May 1988 B

i

2o !
Table A.4. MMS Phase I - Locations of hard-substrate transects.

Station Beginning End Depth

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude (m)

1 A/B 34°24.454"N 120°01.876'W 34°24.464'N 120°00,878'W 69-73.5

1 C/D 34°24,076"N 120°00.443"W 34°24.184'N 120°01.480'W 73.5-78

2 A/B 34°11.377'N 120°29.318"W 34°11.289"N 120°28.774'W 110-126

2 C/D 34°10.984'N 120°28.094'W 34°10,780'N 120°27,554'W 120-123

4 A/B 34°27.539'N 120°40.364'W 34°28.162'N 120°40.189'W 168-237

6 A/B 34°30.246'N 120°35.555'W 54-63

6 C/D 34°30.42 I'N 120°3"4.315'W 54-63

13 A/B 34°42'.570'N 120°4"7.899'W 34°42.107"N 120°48.253'W 92-100

13 C/D 34°42.556'N 120°48.147'W 34°42.974"N 120°47.424'W 88.5-100.5

14 A/B 34°43.589"N 120°49.093'W 34°42.826"N 120°48.370"W 96-105

14 C/D 34°43.244"N 120°49.406'W 34°42.893'N 120°48.822"W 105-117

16 A/B 34°46.544'N I20°50.197'W 34°45,912'N 120°49,726"W 91.5-123

17 A/B 34049.382"N 120°50.768'W 34°49.600'N 120°50,688"W 160.5-168

19 A/B 34°47.833"N 120°51.425"W 34°47,097'N 120°50.793'W 148.5-177

20 A/B 34°46.470'N 120"50.289"W 34°46.140'N 120°49.885"W 90-130.5

21 A/B 34°47.335"N 120°45.903'W 34°47.548'N 120°46.123'W 75-90

22 A/B 34°50.365"N 120°48.221"W 34°50.990'N 120°48.365'W 114-115.5

23 A/B 34°49.86KN 120°47.393'W 34°50.003'N 120°47,480'W 93-102

25 A/B 35°05.662"N 120°47.562"W 35°06.036'N 120°47,652'W 64.5 -72

26 C/D 35°11.586"N 120°55.556"W 35°11.555'N 120°55,233'W 108-111

27 A/B 35°20.906'N 120°59.657'W 35°21.035'N 120°59,603'W 96-126

28 A/B 35°21.539'N 120°59.641'W 35°21.867'N 120°59,299'W 96-105

29 A/B 35°27.864'N 121°05.331'W 35°27,805"N 121°05,277'W 102-106.5

"]PableA.5. MMS Phase II - Locations of hard-substrate photosurvey stations.

Station Latitude Longitude Depth

(m)

PH-E 34°30.26'N 120°42.76'W 119

PH-F 34°30.8 I'N 120°42.36"W 105

PH-I 34%9.96'N 120°41.68"W 107

PH4 34°29.82'N 120°41.82'W 117

PH-K 34°29.37'N 120°42.26"W 160

PH-N 34°29.21'N 120°42.05'W 166

PH-R 34°29.1 I'N 120°42.67'W 213

PH-U 34°31.48'N 120°43.5 I'W 113

PH-W 34°31.52'N 120°45.86'W 195

245
Figure A.2 Map showing locations of hard substrate stations from Phase I and Phase II MMS Reconnaissance i

and Monitoring Programs.

I

246 I
I

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

The Department of the interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity;

' pr andeserving providingthe forenvironm the enjoyment ental andofcultural life through valuesoutdoor of our nrecational reation. parks TheanDepartment d historicalass places; esses

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care.

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.

The Minerals Management Service Mission

____ As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resourceslocated on the Nation's Outer

Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the FederalOCS and onshore Federal and Indian

lands, and distribute those revenues.

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally

i sound exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral resources. The MMS Royalty Management Program meets its responsibilities by ensuring the

efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury.

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilitiesthrough the general of:

guiding principles (1) being

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the

quality of life for atl Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic

I development and environmental protection.