Hyperietta vosseleri (Stebbing 1904)

Hyperietta vosseleri (Stebbing)

Hyperia fabrei H. Milne Edwards.–Bovallius, 1889:206–211, pl. 10: figs. 40–55.–Vosseler, 1901:58–60, pl. 5: figs. 5–15.–Stephensen, 1924:83–84.–Spandl, 1924:22–23: 1927:153.–Barnard, 1930:410.–Pirlot, 1939:34.–Hurley, 1955:137.–Reid, 1955:15.–Yang, 1960:33–35, fig. 8.–Kane, 1962:501.–Dick, 1970:55.

Hyperia vosseleri Stebbing, 1904:33–34.–Stewart, 1913:255.–Chevreaux, 1935:189.

DERIVATION OF NAME.–Not given, but obviously after J. Vosseler, who described and illustrated this species in detail.

TYPE-LOCALITY.–Tropical Atlantic.

DIAGNOSIS.–Length of ♀ 2–3 mm, of ♂ 3–4 mm. Head slightly more than twice as high as long, in profile narrowing ventrally more than in other species of Hyperietta. ♀ Al reaching well beyond ventral margin of head. Gland cone extending beyond margin of head; posterior margin slightly concave, separated by short gap from epistome. Left Md with lacinia nearly as wide as incisor, divided into 11–12 sharp teeth. Mxp outer lobes slightly more than 1.5 times as long as wide; apex narrow, bearing dense tuft of setae; distal margin rugose. P1 simple; s2 about twice as long as wide, with evenly convex anterior margin; s6 with single spine on inner surface near anterior margin. P2 chelate; carpal process nearly reaching midlength of s6. P5–7 with very broad s2, especially that of P5, which has very convex anterior margin. Telson about 2/3 as long as Up3 protopod in ♀, slightly less than half as long in ♂.

RELATIONSHIPS.–Stebbing (1904) believed that the species named Lestrigonus fabrei by Milne Edwards (1830) was much too large (“long d’environ cinq lignes”=about 11 mm) to be identical with the species called Hyperia fabrei by Bovallius (1889) and subsequent authors, which measured only 3–6 mm. Stebbing therefore proposed the name Hyperia vosseleri for the smaller species. Most authors have not accepted Stebbing’s proposal, but it seems certain that he was correct. Not only is the size difference well beyond the limits of reasonable variation, but the maxilliped is entirely different in the two species. That of H. vosseleri has short, broad outer lobes and a rudimentary inner lobe. (Figure 41f,s), whereas Milne Edwards (1840, pl. 30: fig. 20) portrays the maxilliped of L. fabrei as having long slender outer lobes and a well developed inner lobe (Figure 27c). I consider the two species sufficiently distinct that I have placed them in different genera in this paper.

DISTRIBUTION.–Reported from the warm parts of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. In the CalCOFI area its distribution was quite similar to that of H. luzoni (compare Figures 40 and 42), and it may be also characterized as a Pacific central species.