Parapenaeopsis hardwickii
Creators: name: Hsu, Yen-Cheng
name: Chan, Tin-Yam
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2023
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Malacostraca
Decapoda
Penaeidae
Parapenaeopsis
Parapenaeopsis hardwickii

description: Parapenaeopsis hardwickii (Miers, 1878)
(Figs. 3, 6c, d)
Penaeus hardwickii Miers, 1878: 300, pl. 17-figs. 1, 1a (type locality:? Indian Sea).
Parapenaeopsis hardwickii — Hall 1962: 26, figs. 104, 104a–c; Racek & Dall 1965: 101, pl. 8-fig. 4, pl. 13-fig. 4; Lee & Yu 1977: 84, figs. 56–57; Yu & Chan 1986: 123, 2 unnumbered photos; Perez Farfante & Kensley 1997:120; Lee et al. 1999: 445; Hurzaid et al. 2020: fig. 3, table S2.
Metapenaeus sp — Chang 1965: 10, 2 unnumbered figs.
Parapenaeopsis cultrirostris — Lee & Yu 1977: 89, figs. 60–61; Lee et al. 1999: 445. (not Alcock, 1906)
Parapenaeopsis sculptilis — Yu & Chan 1986: 128, fig. 19, 2 unnumbered photos. (not Heller, 1862)
Mierspenaeopsis hardwickii — Sakai & Shinomiya 2011: 501, figs. 3C, 4G; De Grave & Fransen 2011: 224.
Helleropenaeopsis hardwickii — Chanda 2016a: 50.
Material examined. Yilan County, Dasi fishing port, 10 Mar 1985, 1 male cl 15.2 mm (NTOU M02377); 5 Aug 1986, 1 female cl 28.8 mm (NTOU M02376).—Nanfang-ao fishing port, 5 Apr 1976, 6 females cl 22.1–24.8 mm (NTOU M02378). Keelung City, 2 May 1975, 1 male cl 15.4 mm (NTOU M02383); 31 May 1975, 3 females cl 13.2–29.3 mm (NTOU M02382); 7 May 1985, 1 male cl 18.7 mm (NTOU M02381); May 1985, 2 males cl 16.8– 20.0 mm (NTOU M02379); 25 Jun 1985, 3 males cl 8.3–14.8 mm, 1 female cl 15.1 mm (NTOU M02421); 16 Jul 1985, 4 females cl 16.4–19.1 mm (NTOU M02380); 12 Oct 1990, 1 male cl 13.4 mm (NTOU M02420); no date, 11 males cl 10.9–18.8 mm, 8 females cl 12.0– 25.7 mm (NTOU M02490). Hsinchu City, Nanliao fishing port, 14 Jul 1984, 1 male cl 16.8 mm (NTOU M02384). Miaoli County, 20 Mar 2001, 17 males cl 14.5–20.5 mm (NTOU M02385). Taichung City, Wuci fishing port, 16 Jan 1995, 13 males cl 14.7–19.5 mm, 31 females cl 15.8–27.5 mm (NTOU M02386). Yunlin County, Mailiao, Jul 2009, 16 males cl 11.4–13.5 mm (NTOU M02489). Chiayi County, Budai fishing port, 26 May 1974, 13 males cl 11.6–16.7 mm, 22 females cl 12.8–16.9 mm (NTOU M02488); 20 Jan 1995, 7 males cl 16.0– 19.3 mm 24 females cl 17.3–22.6 mm (NTOU M02387); 5 Feb 2000, 2 males cl 17.6–18.5 mm, 1 female cl 18.5 mm (NTOU M02388); 2 Jul 2002, 1 female cl 28.1 mm (NTOU M02389); 18 Feb 2023, 2 females 30.3–30.9 mm (NTOU M02610). Tainan City, Shalun, 9 Sep 2001, 1 female cl 22.4 mm (NTOU M02390). Kaohsiung City, no date, 1 male cl 17.6 mm (NTOU M02422). Pingtung County, Donggang fishing port, Jul–Aug 1975, 8 females cl 22.1–33.0 mm (NTOU M02391). No specific data, 1 male cl 18.2 mm, 2 females cl 20.9–25.6 (NTOU M02423); 1 female cl 25.3 mm (NTOU M02491); 2 females cl 27.8–28.8 mm (NTOU M02492); 9 females cl 17.9–26.7 mm (NTOU M02493); 6 males cl 11.3–12.8 mm, 18 females cl 12.8–20.3 mm (NTOU M02494).
Diagnosis. Rostrum with 7–10 (excluding epigastric tooth) dorsal teeth; usually very long and of sigmoidal shape, far overreaching antennular peduncle and with distal 1/3–1/2 unarmed; polymorphic in males and sometimes short, only extending to distal half of second antennular segment, somewhat curving downwards and with teeth distributed along entire dorsal border. Longitudinal suture long, reaching near posterior carapace. Pereiopods I and II with basial spines and epipods. Pereiopod III lacking basial spine. Abdominal somites I and II without dorsal carina. Telson unarmed or rarely with minute lateral movable spinules. Males with endopod of pleopod II normal; petasma with distomedian projections crescent shape, distolateral projections short and directed proximolaterally. Female thelycum with anterior plate semi-circular, surface deeply sunken; posterior plate with anterior margin nearly straight or slightly convex and bearing transverse row of long setae, anterolateral angles strongly protruded forward.
Coloration. Body from pinkish to greenish gray and distributed with dark green dots. Eyes dark gray.Antennular and antennal flagella somewhat banded. Pereiopods whitish to reddish. Pleopods with lateral surfaces of peduncles reddish to dark gray and with a large yellow or white patch, rami reddish. Uropods of tail-fan reddish to dark red and with yellowish margins.
Distribution. Widely distributed in the Indo-West Pacific from Pakistan to Indonesia, Malaysia, southern China and Taiwan; intertidal to 90 m deep (Pérez Farfante & Kensley 1997; Chan 1998).
Remarks. Although Parapenaeopsis hardwickii is the commonest species of the genus in Taiwan, it was only recorded there in 1977 (Lee & Yu 1977). Before this, the line-drawings of the habitus and thelycum of the second “ Metapenaeus sp ” reported in Chang’s (1965: 10) “Edible Crustacean of Taiwan ” no doubt represent the present species.
There are strong male polymorphisms in the rostrum of this species with the unarmed portion absent in some males (Figs. 3a, b, 4b, c). Such male polymorphism is not size related as short and long rostrum males in the present material have carapace lengths of 11.4–20.5 mm and 8.3–20.0 mm, respectively. This had caused a lot of confusions in the taxonomic status of P. cultrirostris Alcock, 1906, which has a short rostrum. Members of the so called “ Mierspenaeopsis ” group (Sakai & Shinomiya, 2011) all have similar male polymorphisms in the rostrum. In the original description of P. cultirsotris, Alcock (1906) already suspected that this “…..may be another form of the male,…” and treated it as a subspecies of P. sculptilis (Heller, 1862). Of the four species currently recognized in “ Mierspenaeopsis ” (see Sakai & Shinomiya 2011; De Grave & Fransen 2011), the two older species P. sculptilis and P. hardwickii are now generally accepted as distinct and can readily be separated by many conspicuous characters (see Burkenroad 1934; Rack & Dall 1965). For P. cultirsotris, it has been considered as a distinct species (e.g., Kubo 1949; Liu & Wang 1986, 1987, Liu & Zhong 1988; Pérez Farfante & Kensley 1997; Sakai & Shinomiya 2011; De Grave & Franse 2011; Chanda 2016a, b), the male form of P. sculptilis (e.g., Burkenroad 1934; Dall 1957; Holthuis 1980) or P. hardwickii (e.g., Hall 1962). For P. indica Muthu, 1972, it is rarely known (Chanda 2016b) and still uncertain if it really differs from P. sculptilis. The original description of P. cultirsotris is very brief and the only illustration provided is a carapace (Alcock 1906: 89, pl. 7–23), and therefore, it is impossible to determine if it belongs to males of P. sculptilis, P. hardwickii (see also Rack & Dall 1965) or even P. indica. Nevertheless, the Chinese material previously reported as “ P. cultirsotris ” has been determined as the males of P. hardwickii by DNA barcoding (Lee et al. 2014). Although a recent genetic analysis suggested that there may be three cryptic species within P. hardwickii, the Chinese and Taiwanese materials belong to the same species (Hurzaid et al. 2020). Therefore, there is little doubt that those “ P. cultirsotris ” previously reported from Taiwan (Lee & Yu 1977; Yu & Chan 1986 as “ P. sculptilis ” for treating it as a senior synonym of P. cultirostris; Lee et al. 1999) were actually one of the male forms of the currently defined P. hardwickii
description: Published as part of Hsu, Yen-Cheng & Chan, Tin-Yam, 2023, On the penaeid shrimps of the genus Parapenaeopsis Alcock, 1901 (Crustacea, Decapoda) from Taiwan, pp. 221-236 in Zootaxa 5361 (2) on pages 227-229, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5361.2.4, http://zenodo.org/record/10146531