Gammaridean Amphipoda of Australia, Part II

A New Species of Moolapheonoides (Crustacea : Amphipoda) from Sagami Bay, Japan

“…This species exhibits morphological characters provided below, which were designated as diagnoses of the genus Moolapheonoides (Barnard, 1974;Thomas, 1999); mandible has 3-articulate palp; gnathopod 1 is scarcely subchelate and its propodus is neither attenuate nor tapering; coxae 3-4 are immensely broadened, with contiguous margins abutting; coxa 2 is hidden; bases of pereopod 6-7 are expanded; urosomite 1 is dorsally keeled, elongate. ; telson is elongate, almost reaching apex of peduncle on uropod 3.…”

“…The genus Moolapheonoides has been reported only from the Southern Hemisphere: M. kadee Barnard, 1974, M. coocoo Barnard, 1974and M. poontee Barnard, 1974 from Australia, M. angustipes Ledoyer, 1982 from Madagascar, M. coocoo serua Myers, 1985 from Fiji, and M. utmas Thomas, 1999 from Papua New Guinea. The present new species is the first representative of the genus from the Northern Hemisphere, extending the distribution of Moolapheonoides to the North Pacific.…”

“…The genus Moolapheonoides (type species: M. kadee Barnard, 1974) was established based on three species from Australia (Barnard, 1974). Though Moolapheonoides is similar to Austropheonoides and Narapheonoides in general morphology, the genus is easily distinguished from Austropheonoides by the presence of subchelate gnathopod 1, and from Narapheonoides by the presence of mandibular palp (Barnard, 1974;Barnard and Karaman, 1991).…”

“…Though Moolapheonoides is similar to Austropheonoides and Narapheonoides in general morphology, the genus is easily distinguished from Austropheonoides by the presence of subchelate gnathopod 1, and from Narapheonoides by the presence of mandibular palp (Barnard, 1974;Barnard and Karaman, 1991). Moolapheonoides has been known to comprise only 5 species and 1 subspecies, all from the Southern Hemisphere (Barnard, 1974;Ledoyer, 1982;Myers, 1985;Thomas, 1999).…”

The freshwater Amphipoda (Crustacea) of New Zealand: A review

“…Bousfield's diagnosis is not used in its entirety here because his diagnosis of the maxilla 2 inner plate as possessing a "single stout plumose seta" is obviously an error, being at odds with his illustration of A. angusta in the same paper ( fig. 1 Barnard (1972) regarded A compressa as "An unclarified species" Subsequently, when examining limited material from Australia, Barnard (1974) concluded that "This species must be studied in far greater detail" to determine whether the different entities appearing in the literature are, indeed, phenotypic variants or distinct subspecies At the same time, Barnard questioned the records of A compressa from New Zealand (Campbell and Auckland Islands), but apparently overlooked Bousfield's (1964) record from Campbell Island Close inspection shows that Bousfield's specimen is not A compressa as defined by Barnard (1974) This removes the only record of A compressa in freshwater Further, given the lack of a description or illustrations accompanying Stephensen's records of the species from the Auckland Islands (Stephensen 1927) and Campbell Island (Stephensen 1938) Bousfield's (1964) description and illustrations of "a few diagnostic characters of the matenal at hand" reveals general similarities with Allorchestes However, the Campbell Island specimen differs significantly from Allorchestes compressa in several important respects maxilla 1 palp is biarticulate and reaches beyond the base of spines on the outer plate, the telson is wider than long and distolaterally rounded, uropod 3 peduncle is as wide as long, male gnathopod 1 article 5 posterodistal lobe is stout, extending to the distal margin of article 5, male gnathopod 2 article 5 posterodistal lobe clearly separates articles 4 and 6 These differences indicate that Bousfield's specimen is not A compressa Dana, 1852 as defined by Barnard (1974) Indeed, the elongate, biarticulate palp on maxilla 1 (cf Barnard & Karaman 1991, p 367, Bousfield 1993 suggests that the specimen belongs to a new genus within the Hyalellinae Extensive enquiries to the National Arthropod Collection (Landcare Research, New Zealand), the National Museum of New Zealand (Wellington), the New Zealand Oceanographic Institute, the Bernice P Bishop Museum (Hawaii, sponsors of the collecting expedition) and Bousfield's home institution (the Canadian Museum of Nature. Ottawa) failed to find the specimen.…”