Haploops spinosa Shoemaker 1931
Creators: name: Kaim-Malka, R. A.
name: Bellan-Santini, D.
name: Dauvin, J. C.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2021
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Malacostraca
Amphipoda
Ampeliscidae
Haploops
Haploops spinosa

description: Haploops spinosa Shoemaker 1931.
Shoemaker (1931) described Haploops spinosa in the amphipods collections of the United States National Museum, indicating that this species is morphologically close to H. tubicola, being often confused with it, but differs by several characters. He indicated that all the specimens studied were females, and the illustration of antennae, confirm that the specimens were females.
Later Kanneworff (1966) stated that H. spinosa Shoemaker 1931 was partly established because Shoemaker’s specimens differed from Sars’ illustrations of H. tubicola, and considered that the two species were synonymous. In his opinion Shoemaker was describing males of H. tubicola (as H. spinosa). However, this assertion is not correct, if we consider the previous indications of Shoemaker 1931.
Kanneworff (1966), Dickinson (1983), Barnard & Karaman (1991) had supported this synonymy between H. spinosa and H. tubicola.
We have examined in detail some specimens from the BIOICE collections which show morphological characters close to the species described as H. spinosa by Shoemaker (1931).
BIOICE material examined. Station 2075: one adult female, great size, oostegits presents; 3 July 1992; depth 563–572 m; 67° 11.65’N – 17° 32. 04’W; bottom: silty sand, gravel, stone. Station 2903: three specimens; 24 August 1996; depth: 1066– 1057 m; 65° 22.80’N – 26° 20.63’W; bottom: sandy silt. Station 2950: one adult female, great size; 29 August 1996; depth: 153 m; 65°42.10’N – 25°16.21’W; bottom: sand.
After detailed examination, we consider that Haploops spinosa should be re-established as a valid species. The main characters of the large-sized female collected at the BIOICE 2950 station are as follows:
— Only superior corneal lenses present (inferior absent) and corneal lenses being of small size.
— Antennae 1 a little shorter than the Antennae 2.
— Antennae 2 length (L), 1/3 <L <1/2.body length.
— Coxa 4: rectangular.
— Pereopod 7 basis narrow.
— Epimeral plate 3: quadrangular, and possessing a postero-inferior corner with a little acute tooth.
— Uropods 1 and 2, rami of similar sizes, strongly armed. Uropod 2 rami armed.with rows of strong spines.
— Carina straight.
Distribution: Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia Coast; depth 12–1255 fathoms (around 20–2300 m) (Shoemaker,1931); Iceland area, 153–1066 m (this study).
Taxonomic remarks. Three Haploops species with only superior corneal lenses are morphologically close: H. tubicola, H. spinosa, H. fundiensis. These species can be separated mainly by the following characters:
H. tubicola: corneal lenses of great size; A2 = 2/3 body; Uropods 1 and 2 unequal sized rami, moderatly armed.
H. fundiensis: small corneal lenses; antennae short, A2 =1/3 body; Uropods 1 and 2 equal sized rami, weakly armed.
H. spinosa: small corneal lenses; A2 length include between 1/3 and 1/2 body length; Uropods 1 and 2, rami of same size, strongly armed.
description: Published as part of Kaim-Malka, R. A., Bellan-Santini, D. & Dauvin, J. C., 2021, Complement to the knowledge of the Haploops species (Crustacea, Gammaridea Ampeliscidae), with the description of two new species from North Atlantic Ocean [Contribution to the knowledge of the Haploops genus. 10.], pp. 151-175 in Zootaxa 5048 (2) on page 168, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5048.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5551919