Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:12:08.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Amphipod Sibling Pair Leucothoe Lilljeborgi and L. Incisa in British and Irish Waters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

A. A. Myers  and
M. J. Costello
A. A. Myers
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University College, Cork, Ireland
M. J. Costello
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University College, Cork, Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Krapp-Schickel (1975) described three closely related species of Leucothoe Leach, which together make up a Leucothoe lilljeborgi species complex (L. lilljeborgi Boeck, L. incisa Robertson, L. occulta Krapp-Schickel) in European waters. Of these, the two species L. lilljeborgi and L. incisa have caused considerable problems to taxonomists. As pointed out by Lincoln (1979), ‘There has been a lot of confusion over the identification of lilljeborgi and incisa and it would be advisable to treat earlier records with caution.’ Despite Lincoln's (1979) work, however, the problem persists, several workers (P. G. Moore & J. M. C. Holmes, personal communications) having noted forms apparently intermediate between these two species.

In order to clarify the situation, we have examined material from localities in Ireland and Britain. It is clear that the existence of apparent ‘intermediates’ is due to unfortunate choice of key characters by Lincoln, one of which requires phase contrast microscopy for correct determination. In his key to species of Leucothoe (1979, p. 172) he separates the two species by the anterodistal margin of coxa 4 being either angular (lilljeborgi) or rounded (incisa) and by the inner margin of the gnathopod 1 carpal process being either toothed (incisa) or smooth (lilljeborgi) (although in the description of L. lilljeborgi (p. 176) this process is described as weakly crenulate). Thus specimens with toothed gnathopod 1 carpal process and angular coxa 4 anterodistal margin, appear to be intermediate. It is apparent from our studies, that both L. lilljeborgi and L. incisa have a toothed gnathopod 1 carpal process, but that the structure of the teeth is quite different as revealed by phase contrast microscopy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 75 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1986

Access options

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

References

Boeck, A., 1861. Memaerkninger angaaeride de ved de norske Kyster forekommende Amphipoder. Forhandlingar ved de Skandinaviske naturforskeres mete, 8 631–677.Google Scholar
Chevreux, E., 1911. Campagnes de la Melita. Les amphipodes d'Algérie et de Tunisie. Mémoires de la Société zoologique de France, 23 145–285.Google Scholar
Chevreux, E. & Fage, L., 1925. Amphipodes. Fauna de France, 9, 488 pp.Google Scholar
Krapp-Schickel, G., 1975. Revision of Mediterranean Leucothoe species (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Bollettino del Museo civico di storia naturale di Verona, 11 91–118.Google Scholar
Lincoln, R. J., 1979. British Marine Amphipoda: Gammaridea. London: British Museum (Natural History).Google Scholar
Norman, A. M., 1889. Notes on British Amphipoda. II. Families Leucothoidae, Pardaliscidae, and Gammaridae (marine). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4, 113—141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, A. M., 1900. British Amphipoda. IV. Families Stegocephalidae to Oediceridae. (Part). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 6 32–51.Google Scholar
Robertson, D., 1892. A second contribution towards a catalogue of the Amphipoda and Isopoda of the Firth of Clyde and west of Scotland. Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Glasgow, 3 199–223.Google Scholar
Sars, G. O., 1893. An Account of the Crustacea of Norway, with Short Descriptions and Figures of all the species. Part 10 Amphilochidae, Stenothoidae (part); Part 11 Stenothoidae (continued); Pan 12 Stenothoidae (continued); Part 13 Stenothoidae (concluded), Leucothoidae, Oediceridae (part); Part 14 Oediceridae (continued); Part 15 Oediceridae (concluded). Christiania and Copenhagen: Cammermeyers.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, A., 1942. Krebstiere oder Crustacea, IV. Flohkrebse oder Amphipoda. Tierwelt Deutschlands und der angrenzenden Meeresteile, 40, 252 pp.Google Scholar
Scott, T., 1901. Land, freshwater, and marine Crustacea. In Fauna, Flora and Geology of the Clyde Sea Area (ed. Elliot, G. F. S., Laurie, N. and Murdoch, J. B.), pp. 328–358. Glasgow. [British Association Handbook.]Google Scholar
Stebbing, T. R. R., 1897. Amphipoda from the Copenhagen Museum and other sources. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London (Zoology), 7 25–45.Google Scholar
Stebbing, T. R. R., 1906. Amphipoda 1: Gammaridea. Tierreich, 21, 806 pp.Google Scholar