Caridina brachydactyla De Man, 1908

Richard, Jasmine & Clark, Paul F., 2010, Caridina H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Caridea: Atyoidea: Atyidae) - freshwater shrimps from eastern and southern Africa *, Zootaxa 2372 (1), pp. 305-337 : 317-325

Caridina brachydactyla De Man, 1908

( Figs. 7–8 )

Caridina wyckii . — De Man 1892: 386–393 (partim), pl. 24, fig. 29f. — Weber 1897: 168 (partim).

Caridina nilotica var. brachydactyla De Man 1908: 269 , pl. 20, fig. 8a-c. — Lenz 1910: 568 (partim). — Bouvier 1913: 466; 1925: 155–156 (partim). — J. Roux 1920: 319.

? Caridina nilotica var. brachydactyla . — Johnson 1961: 123.

Caridina nilotica var. natalensis De Man 1908: 262–263 pl. 20, fig. 3a, 3b. — Lenz 1912: 5. — Bouvier 1925: 154–155. — Barnard 1950: 655, (key).

Caridina brachydactyla . — Bouvier 1913: 463. — Kemp 1918: 279.

? Caridina brachydactyla . — Johnson 1960a: 178; 1960b: 266; 1963: 21

Caridina nilotica var. brevidactyla J. Roux 1920: 320–321 . 1926a: 204–206, tab. 2.

Caridina nilotica brevidactyla . — J. Roux 1928: 198–200; 1929: 303–304, tab. 1, no. 15.

Caridina brachydactyla brachydactyla Tiwari & Pillai 1971: 80–82 , fig. 1.

Caridina aff. brachydactyla Yeo et al. 1999: 218–255 (partim), figs. 12, 14.

Caridina brevidactyla . — Cai & P.K.L. Ng 2001: 671, figs. 4F–H, 5.

Nec Caridina wyckii De Man 1892: 386 (partim), fig. 29g (= undescribed species A, see fig. 9).

Nec Caridina aff. brachydactyla . — Yeo et al. 1999: 218–255 (partim), figs. 11, 13A–G (= undescribed species).

Nec Caridina aff. brachydactyla . — Yeo et al. 1999: 218–255 (partim), fig. 13H–L. — Cai & Ng 2001: 671–674, fig. 6A (= undescribed species A, see fig. 9a-c).

Nec Caridina wyckii De Man 1892: 386–393 (partim), pl. 24, fig. 29i–ii. — Blanco 1935: 33–34 (?= undescribed species B, see fig. 9d-e).

Nec Caridina aff. brachydactyla . — Yeo et al. 1999: 218–255 (partim), figs. 10, 13A–G (?= undescribed species B).

Nec Caridina brachydactyla subsp. peninsularis . — Blanco 1935: 33 (= Caridina peninsularis Kemp, 1918 ).

Material examined. Types: Caridina nilotica var. brachydactyla : Syntypes, Indonesia Bÿ Reo, Flores, RMNH Coll NR 977, 5 males, 1 ov. female; river near Palopa Luwu, Celebes (Sulawesi), coll. J. G. De Man; RMNH Coll NR 2552, 2 ov. females, 1 male; Flores, river near Mbawa (vial inside slip - Caridina wyckii Hickson River by Mbawa, Flores.), Max Weber, coll. J. G. De Man received 26.4.1930, RMNH CRUST D 2551, 3 ov. females. From the Flores syntypes, the male from RMNH Coll NR 977, with rostral formula (2) 19 + 1/23, is here selected as the lectotype; the remainder are considered to be paralectotypes. From the Palopa Luwu, Celebes, (Sulawesi) syntypes, RMNH Coll NR 2552, the 2 ov. ♀ are considered to be paralectotypes. The remaining female is not C. brachydactyla , but considered to be an undescribed species. Caridina nilotica natalensis: Cotypes , South Africa Umgeni River, Durban, Natal, coll. Weber, 1898, det. J.G. De Man, ZMA Crust DE 102886, 3ov. Females. From the cotypes, the ov. female with a rostral formula (2)18/ 15, 38mm is selected as the lectotype, the remaining 2 ov. females are considered to be paralectotypes.

Non-types. Tanzania Ruo Lukuledi, Tanganyika , det. J. Richard & P. Clark 2007, NHM 1982.576, 1 male , 5 ov. females. South Africa, Mtata River at Road Bridge to Coffee Bay , 31° 55' 22" S, 29° 08' 11" E, Eastern Cape, AM ECR 219 C, 1 ov. female; Umbilio River , coll. M. Weber 1894, ZMA Crust De 241305, 2 males , 1 ov. female, 1 female, det. Weber as Caridina wyckii ; River Ilovo , coll. M. Weber 1894, ZMA Crust De 240151, 8 males , 10 ov. females, 3 females; Umgeni River by Diveban, coll. M. Weber, 5 Nov. 1894, det. Weber as Caridina wyckii . (the vial contains another label: C.W. Hicks, River Umgeni 1894 M. Weber) ZMA Crust De 240151, 27 males , 45 ov. females, 15 females; Umbilo Rivier, bz-eb, Zerker zoet. Samen met kikkerlarven, ZMA Crust De 240151, 25 males , 24 ov. females, 24 females.

Madagascar Rivér Ivolóina , Près de Tamative, coll. G. Petit 1926, MNHN Na 775, 2 males, 1 ov. female, 2 females, det. J. Roux (1929) as Caridina nilotica brevidactyla . Andranoloho & Tongorohy, Onilahy Rivers, Betsiohy District, coll. Hon. P. A. Methuen, det. Bouvier 1918, NHM 1920.1.23.6, 1 ov. female .

Other material examined. Type: Caridina simoni Bouvier, 1904 , Cotype , Ceylon ( Sri Lanka) coll. E. Simon exchange with Paris Museum, NHM 1907.1.7.33, 1 female . Non-types. Ceylon Peradeniya River, coll. R. Gurney, NHM 1920.2.5.11–16, 1 male , 1 ov. female, 5 females, 1 damaged specimen. Caridina aff. brachydactyla Malay Peninsula ZRC 1996.1761 , 31 males , 13 ov. females, 71 females.

Description. Total length: 25–40 mm. Carapace length: 6–7 mm.

Rostrum ( Figs. 7a–d ): longer than antennular scale. Length 6–7.5 mm. 1.0–1.1 times length of carapace. 12–25 teeth proximally on dorsal margin of rostrum leaving 0.45–0.75 unarmed distally. 2 or 3 post-orbital teeth present. 12–25 teeth present of the ventral margin extending from proximal end either to tip or with short distal part unarmed. Formula (1–4) 12–25/12–25. Tip bifid or trifid.

Antennular peduncle ( Fig. 7d ): stylocerite 0.6–0.7 length basal segment, anterolateral teeth of basal segment 0.2–0.3 as long as second segment, 20–35 segments bearing aesthetascs.

First pereiopod ( Fig. 8a ): dactylus 1.0–1.5 of palm of propodus. Chela 1.9–2.2 as long as wide. Carpus 1.9–2.3 as long as wide with shallow excavation on anterior margin.

Second pereiopod ( Fig. 8b ): dactylus 1.2–1.5 as long as propodus. Chela 2.3–2.6 as long as wide. Carpus, 5.5–6.0 as long as wide.

Third pereiopod ( Figs. 8c–d ): dactylus 2.0–2.5 as long as wide. Spines on dactylus varied from 5–10 (including terminal spines). Propodus 5.5–6.5 as long as dactylus and 9–10 as long as wide with 15–19 spines closely along inner margin. Carpus 0.6 as long as propodus, with 4 or 5 spines on inner margin. Merus 1.8–2 of carpus length. Merus with 3 large spines on posterior margin.

Fifth pereiopod ( Figs. 8e–f ): dactylus 3.5–4 as long as wide with 55–65 spines in comb-like arrangement on inner margin. Propodus 14–16 as long as wide and 5.5–6 as long as dactylus with 15–20 spines along inner margin. Carpus 0.5–0.6 of propodus length and with 6–7 minute spines along inner margin. Merus 1.5–1.6 of carpus length, with 1 large spine on inner margin.

Setobranch: 3 setae on each pereiopod.

First male pleopod ( Figs. 8g, h, i ): Endopod 0.2–0.25 of exopod length. Appendix interna present and curved towards exopod. Long setae present on outer margin and few short setae on inner margin.

First female pleopod ( Fig. 8j ): endopod 0.5–0.6 as long as exopod.

Eggs ( Fig. 8k ): ca. 850, 0.35–0.41 × 0.20–0.23 mm in size.

Second male pleopod ( Figs. 8l–m ): appendix masculina 0.35 as long as exopod and 1.7 of appendix interna.

Sixth abdominal somite: 0.6–0.7 as long as carapace.

Telson ( Figs. 8n, o, p, q ): narrow and tapering being 1.0–1.2 as long as 6 th abdominal somite. 4–7 pairs (including sub terminal spine) of dorsal spines present. Posterior margin triangular with 1 pair of stout lateral spines and 1–3 pairs or 5–7 sparsely plumose inner spines are as long as lateral spines or slightly shorter.

Uropod ( Fig. 8r ): 9–14 diaeresis spinules.

Preanal carina ( Fig. 8s ): armed with a spine.

Distribution. Tanzania, South Africa, Madagascar, Andaman Islands, Malaysia, Indonesia, New Caledonia.

Remarks. De Man (1892) initially identified freshwater shrimps from Celebes, Indonesia, as Caridina wyckii ( Hickson, 1888) and fully illustrated the rostral variation found within this series on plate XXIV, figures 29f–ii. Later, De Man (1908) assigned these Indonesian specimens to a new taxon, C. nilotica var. brachydactyla based on the measurements of dactylus to propodus length from the first and second pereiopods, the slender carpus of the first and second pereiopods, the numerous eggs and their size as 0.39– 0.44 × 0.22–0.25mm (see De Man 1908: pl. XX, figs. 8a–c). This variety of De Man was given full species status by Bouvier (1913). However, Johnson (1963) synonymised C. brachydactyla along with four other species/varieties including C. gracilipes De Man, 1892 ; C. aruensis J. Roux, 1911 ; C. peninsularis Kemp, 1918 and C. meridionalis J. Roux, 1926 under what he considered to be the oldest available name, C. simoni Bouvier, 1904 . This decision suggested that C. simoni is widely distributed across many countries bordering the Indian Ocean through to Indonesia. But Tiwari & Pillai (1971: 81) compared their material of C. brachydactyla brachydactyla from the Andaman Islands with specimens from Candy, Ceylon ( Sri Lanka) referable to C. simoni and they considered that the two species were distinct based on rostral morphology and the first male pleopod. This is confirmed by the present study. Furthermore, Tiwari & Pillai (1971) divided C. brachydactyla into two subspecies C. brachydactyla brachydactyla and C. brachydactyla peninsularis , while Wowor et al. (2004) implied species status for C. peninsularis in their key. Incidentally, Yu (1936) continued to recognise C. n. gracilipes as a subspecies while Richard & Chandran (1994) regarded it a distinct species. But like Tiwari & Pillai (1971), the present study was unable to confirm the taxonomic status of C. aruensis and C. meridionalis described by J. Roux (1911, 1926a) as the type material was not examined. However, C. brachydactyla is here considered to be a valid species as established by Bouvier (1913), an action also supported by Tiwari & Pillai (1971).

This present study has identified C. brachydactyla for the first time from Africa. However, De Man (1908) described a new subspecies from Natal, South Africa. He differentiated C. nilotica natalensis from his Indonesian material of C. nilotica brachydactyla mainly by proportion of the dactylus (finger) to the propodus (palm) of the first and second pereiopods. He maintained that the dactylus of the first pereiopod was 2.0–2.5 times as long as the propodus and the dactylus of the second pereiopod more than twice as long as the propodus. Examination of the type material of C. brachydactyla revealed that the dactylus to propodus ratios of the first and second pereiopods were 1.3–1.6 and 1.5–2.0 respectively. Furthermore, the Natal specimens were examined and the dactylus to propodus ratio of the first and second pereiopod was calculated as 1.0–1.5 and 1.2–1.5 respectively. These ratios fall into the range calculated for C. brachydactyla . Although De Man (1908) insisted that there were no other differences between the two varieties, the African forms differ from topotypical specimens in having the appendix interna slightly turned down ( Figs. 8g –h ) towards the exopod, whereas it is straight in the Indonesian material ( Fig. 8i ). This is not regarded as a particularly significant character in the present study for the separation of species. Consequently, C. nilotica natalensis and C. brachydactyla are considered here to be synonymous.

Richard and Clark (2009) have already recognised C. africana forme natalensis Bouvier, 1925 as distinct species, C. natalensis . Therefore, to avoid further nomenclatural problems, as “ brachydactyla ” has been widely accepted in the literature (see De Man 1908; Lenz 1910; Bouvier 1913, 1925; Kemp 1918; J. Roux 1920, 1928, 1929; Johnson 1960a, 1960b, 1961; Tiwari & Pillai 1971; Yeo et al. 1999; Cai & Ng 2001), the present study recommends that C. brachydactyla is retained and C. nilotica natalensis be synonymised ( ICZN 1999, Article 24.2).

Jean Roux (1920) described a new variety of Caridina from the Aru Islands, Indonesia, as C. n. brevidactyla , and he identified C. n. brachydactyla from the Kei Islands, Indonesia. According to Roux (1920), these two subspecies were close to each other, but his new variety differed from C. n. brachydactyla in having shorter fingers on the first and second pereiopods. In fact he considered that the finger (dactylus) of the first and second never/rarely (respectively) reached twice as long as the palm (propodus). Furthermore, Roux (1920) stated that the rostral formula, including the extreme examples of C. n. brevidactyla , was (2 or 3) 11– 33/12–36, while he emphasized that it was mostly (2 or 3) 19–26/16–24. However, Roux (1920) recognised that his new variety was similar to C. n. brachydactyla in having the same carpus length/width measurements for the first and second pereiopods, the dactylus/propodus ratio of the third pereiopod, that the rostrum was longer than the antennular peduncle and both species having smaller eggs. From the original description it appears that the dactylus/propodus ratio for the first and second pereiopod is within the range observed for the type material of C. brachydactyla , as too is the rostral formula, carpus length/breath measurement and the size of the eggs.

While describing the Madagascan fauna, Roux (1929) identified five specimens of C. n. brevidactyla from the River Ivoloina, near Tamatave. He again commented about the closeness of his subspecies when compared with C. brachydactyla , but maintained that they differed by the proportions of the finger/palm ratio of the first and second pereiopods. The two females and the ovigerous specimen together with the two males from Tamatave were examined in the present study. However the proportion of dactylus/propodus ratio (0.8– 1.1) of the first pereiopod suggested the dactylus was short and outside the range observed for C. brachydactyla . Whereas the proportion of dactylus/propodus ratio (1.45–1.9) for the second pereiopod was within the range observed for C. brachydactyla . Further, the rostral formula for Malgasy material, (2) 12–23/ 9–20, was also within the range of C. brachydactyla . However, the unarmed dorsal margin of the rostrum was interrupted by a tooth in only one of the females and the ovigerous specimen from Madagascar.

Cai & Ng (2001: fig. 5) described C. brevidactyla from Halmahera, Indonesia, treating it for the time being as a distinct species, and they commented that it could be differentiated from C. brachydactyla by the rostrum having more teeth on the ventral margin (18–23), the proportions of various pereiopod segments and the absence of an enlarged spine at the posterior margin of the last three pereiopods. In the Madagascar specimens identified by Roux (1929), the present study observed that the teeth on the ventral rostral margin varied from 9–20. But Roux (1920) indicated that the normal range for the teeth of ventral rostral margin of C. brevidactyla was 16–24, although there were some extremes (12–36 teeth). However the enlarged spine occurring at the distal posterior margin of the last three pereiopods as referred to by Cai & Ng (2001) is problematical. In the text, De Man (1892: 391) refers to the last three pereiopods and appears to make no reference to the spine on the distal lower margin of the propodus. Yet De Man (1892: fig. 29dd) shows the propodus of the fifth pereiopod with an enlarged spine at the distal lower margin. Part of the type material was examined in the present study and this spine was not considered to be that prominent. Consequently this spine may not be diagnostic for C. brachydactyla . Furthermore, having examined specimens identified from Tamatave, Madagscar by J. Roux (see Roux 1929) as C. nilotica brevidactyla Roux, 1920 , we consider this species to be a junior synonym of C. brachydactyla De Man, 1908 .

Incidentally, Holthuis (1965), while describing the Atyidae of Madagascar synonymised C. nilotica brevidactyla of Roux (1929) with C. longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 . Having examined the type specimens of C. longirostris (see Richard & Clark 2009: fig. 4f), this species is considered to be distinct from C. brevidactyla (now C. brachydactyla ).

De Man (1892: pl. XXIV) originally described and illustrated four figures of the rostrum for C. brachydactyla . His figure 29f was the typical female form from Palopo; 29g the typical male form from Palopo; 29h was considered the abnormal female form from Palopo and 29i–ii, typical female form from River Mbawa Flores. The rostrum in figure 29f is relatively long, had a formula (2) 20/12 with approximately 0.44 of its dorsal margin unarmed. Figure 29g depicts a rostral formula of (2) 26/13 with about 0.25 of the dorsal margin unarmed. The rostrum of 29i & ii is short, comprised a formula of (2) 21+1+1/12 and the dorsal distal margin is interrupted by teeth.

Part of the C. brachydactyla type series was examined for the present study. The material collected from By Reo , Flores and the river near Palopa , Luwun , Celebes ( RMNH Coll NR 977 ) had a distinctly longer rostrum possessing a formula of (1–3) 17–20/17–23, with 0.45–0.55 of its dorsal margin unarmed, a bifid tip. One male had a tooth near to the bifid tip. These specimens also had a telson with 4–6 pairs of dorsal spines, a triangular posterior margin with or without a median process, one pair of lateral spines, 2 pairs or 5 partially plumose spines, which were either slightly shorter or equal to the laterals with 9–11 uropod diaeresis spinules and an anal carina with a spine. Males had an appendix interna on the endopod of the first pleopod. For 2 ovigerous specimens ( RMNH Coll NR 2552 ), the rostrum was longer than the antennal scale and these had a formula of (4) 22/15 and (3) 20/13 with 0.45–0.5 of the dorsal margin unarmed. Moreover, the telson had a triangular posterior margin possessing a median process with one pair of lateral spines plus two pairs of partially plumose spines present in one specimen, but these were damaged in the other and they possessed 11 and 13 uropod diaeresis spinules, respectively. The female from this sample differed from the 2 ovigerous specimens in that it has a comparatively shorter rostrum, which is only slightly longer than the antennular peduncle, possessing a formula of (4) 27/15 with 0.21 of the dorsal margin unarmed (see Fig. 9a–c ). It had a rounded posterior margin on the telson with 1 pair of lateral and 9 long, partially plumose spinules of which the median ones are fractionally longer than the laterals, with the outer spines shorter. This female possesses 16 uropod diaeresis spinules .

One female specimen from a river near Palopo (RMNH Coll NR 2552) differs from all the other specimens in the sample with respect to the morphology of the rostrum, rostral formula, the posterior margin of the telson and uropod diaeresis spinules. These characters appear to be distinct and outside the range of variation exhibited by the other specimens in the sample. De Man’s (1892) illustrations of the rostrum of his typical C. wyckii specimens support this observation. It appears that Figures 29f and 29g (see De Man 1892) have a different rostral formula and proportion of the unarmed dorsal margin of the rostrum. Figure 29f shows the type of rostrum present in the five males together with the single ovigerous female in lot RMNH Coll NR 977 and the 2 ovigerous females of RMNH Coll NR 2552. Furthermore, figure 29g represents the nonovigerous female of RMNH Coll NR 2552.

The syntypes from the Flores River near Mbawa ( RMNH CRUST D 2551 ) were also examined. The 3 ovigerous specimens present have a short rostrum extending up to the antennal scale with a rostral formula (2–3) 19–21+1+1/12–15. For two of these females 0.31 and 0.37 of the dorsal rostral margin is unarmed. In the remaining specimen, 2 teeth interrupted the distal end ( Fig. 9d ). The rostral morphology examined for these three syntypes compared well with Figures 29i and 29ii of De Man (1892). For all 3 specimens the posterior margin of the telson is not sharply triangular, it possesses a median protuberance, with 1 pair of lateral spines and 2 or 3 pairs of intermediate spines ( Fig. 9e ). The dactylus of the third pereiopod is short with 5 spines, 2.4 times as long as wide, and the propodus is 7.5 times as long as the dactylus. These 3 specimens differ with respect to the morphology of their rostrum from the remaining type series collected from By Reo , Flores ( RMNH Coll Nr 977, 5 males, 1 ov. female) and a river near Palopa , Luwun , Celebes ( RMNH Coll Nr 2552, 2 ov. females) and are considered to be undescribed species B (see Figs. 9d–e ) .

From the illustrations of C. wyckii by De Man (1892) and examination of part of the type series from Leiden Museum, we consider that it is possible to identify three distinct forms (species) based on the rostral morphology, the structure of the telson and the number of spinules present on the uropod diaeresis. This presents a problem with regard to which figure of De Man (1892) should represent the type of C. brachydactyla De Man, 1908 . Therefore this study proposes that the first of the four figures illustrated by De Man (1892) should now be considered as C. brachydactyla i.e. figure 29f and represented in the present study in Fig. 7 . Consequently figures 29g and 29i–ii of De Man (1892) are considered to represent two undescribed species of Caridina .

Tiwari and Pillai (1971) described C. brachydactyla from Andaman Islands with a rostrum longer than the antennular peduncle, teeth on the dorsal margin restricted to proximal half, the unarmed dorsal margin rarely interrupted by one tooth and with small eggs. Yeo et al. (1999), while studying the fauna of Palau Tioman, provide five figures ( Figs. 10–14 ) depicting C. aff. brachydactyla . Three of their figures (11A, 12A & 14A) appear to represent the form with the longer rostrum of De Man (1892, 29f), which had a formula (2) 20/12 with 0.44 of the dorsal margin of the rostrum unarmed. These specimens have a posterior margin on the telson with a median process, two or three pairs of spines and one pair of laterals (see Yeo et al. 1999, Figs. 11B , 12C & 14C ). The uropod diaeresis comprises 12 and 13 spinules (see Yeo et al. 1999, Figs. 11I , 12D & 14K ). We consider all this material to be C. brachydactyla s. str. However, the illustrations of Yeo et al. (1999, Figs. 12B , 14B ) differ from the type and from the African forms of C. brachydactyla in that the spine of the preanal carina is absent.

One type female (RMNH Coll NR 2552) differed from the rest of the type series by having the following characters – rostrum: slightly longer than the antennular peduncle; 0.21 of its dorsal margin unarmed, tip bifid and rostral formula (4) 27/15; posterior margin of telson rounded, one pair of lateral spines, nine long partially plumose spinules of which the median ones are fractionally longer than the laterals and 16 uropodal diaeresis spinules. The rostral morphology of this female specimen appears to agree well with figure 29g of De Man (1892, pl. XXIV). Furthermore, the illustrations of Yeo et al. (1999) figure 13H and Cai & Ng (2001) figure 6A also agree well with figure 29g (De Man 1892: pl. XXIV) and with the female from type series RMNH Coll NR 2552. We considered this to be an undescribed species (see Fig. 9 ). We are reluctant to describe a new species based on a single female specimen. However, the morphology of the rostrum, telson and uropodal diaeresis is illustrated in figure 9a-c (cited here as species A) for future comparison.

Figure 10A and 13A of Yeo et al. (1999) appears to be similar to the female in Figure 29i & ii (De Man 1892: pl. XXIV) from the River Mbawa, Flores and is considered to be another undescribed species (cited here as species B, see Figs. 9d–e ). This second species is not described due to insufficient material at hand.

Caridina aff. brachydactyla as described by Yeo et al. 1999 (218–255 (partim) figs. 11, 13A–G, ZRC 1996.1761) differs from C. brachydactyla De Man, 1908 . The adult size is smaller (being 12–23mm), the rostrum is shorter being mostly equal to or shorter than the antennular peduncle and rarely equal to scale, the tip of the rostrum is mostly pointed, the dorsal distal unarmed rostral margin is as short as 0.1 being interrupted by 0–2 teeth and the entire dorsal margin rarely completely armed, the range of the ventral teeth falling into 5–16 mostly 5–10, the posterior margin of the telson triangular or rounded with or without median protuberance with long sparsely plumose spines that are 2 or 3 pairs or 3 or 5 spines that are either equal or slightly shorter the laterals, it has fewer numbers of eggs (158– 217 eggs of 0.39–0.43 × 0.23–0.29mm in size) and the endopod of the first pleopod of the males with and without appendix interna. This study considers that C. aff. brachydactyla (partim) is an undescribed species.

Figures

FIGURE 7. Caridina brachydactyla De Man, 1908, NHM 1982.576, ov. female: a, habitus. RMNH Coll NR 977, male: b, anterior region of cephalothorax. ZMA Crust De 241305, ov. female: c, anterior region of cephalothorax. AM ECR291C, ov. female: d, anterior region of cephalothorax. NHM 1982.576, ov. female: e, antennular peduncle.

FIGURE 8. Caridina brachydactyla De Man, 1908, NHM 1982.576, ov. female: a, first pereiopod; b, second pereiopod; c, third pereiopod; d, dactylus of third pereiopod; e, fifth pereiopod; f, dactylus of fifth pereiopod. NHM 1982.576, male: g, first pleopod; h, endopod of first pleopod. RMNH Coll NR 977 male: i, endopod of first pleopod. NHM 1982.576, ov. female: j, first pleopod; k, eggs. NHM 1982.576, male: l, second pleopod; m, appendix masculina. NHM 1982.576, ov. female: n, telson; o, posterior margin of telson. ZMA 241305, ov. female: p, posterior margin of telson. RMNH Coll NR 977, male: q, posterior margin of telson. NHM 1982.576, ov. female: r, uropod diaeresis spinules; s, preanal carina.

FIGURE 9. Caridina undescribed species A? equal to De Man (1892, pl. XXIV, fig. 29g, formerly Caridina brachydactyla, paralectotype, RMNH Coll NR 2552, female: a, anterior region of cephalothorax; b, posterior margin of telson; c, uropod diaeresis spinules. Caridina undescribed species B?, formerly Caridina brachydactyla De Man, 1908, paralectotype, RMNH D 2551, ov. female: d, cephalothorax; e, posterior margin of telson.

FIGURE 10. Caridina moeri Woltereck, 1984, NHM 2007.789–798, ov. female: a, habitus; b, anterior region of cephalothorax. SAM 4051, male: c, anterior region of cephalothorax. NHM 2007.789–798, ov. female: d, antennular peduncle.

FIGURE 11. Caridina moeri Woltereck, 1984, NHM 2007.789–798, ov. female: a, first pereiopod; b, second pereiopod; c, third pereiopod; d, dactylus of third pereiopod; e, fifth pereiopod; f, dactylus of fifth pereiopod; g, first male pleopod; h, endopod of the first male pleopod; i, first male pleopod; j, egg; k, second male pleopod; l, appendix masculina. SAM 4051, male: m, appendix masculina. NHM 2007.789–798, ov. female: n, telson; o, posterior margin of telson; p, uropod diaeresis spinules; q, preanal carina.

FIGURE 12. Caridina lumilympha sp. nov., NHM 1939.6. 1–4: a, habitus; b, anterior region of cephalothorax; c, anterior region of cephalothorax; d, antennular peduncle. a–c, female; d, male.

FIGURE 13. Caridina lumilympha sp. nov., NHM 1939. 6. 1–4: a, first pereiopod; b, second pereiopod; c, third pereiopod; d, dactylus of third pereiopod; e, fifth pereiopod; f, dactylus of fifth pereiopod; g, first male pleopod; h, endopod of first male pleopod; i, first female pleopod; j, second male pleopod; k, appendix masculina; l, telson; m, posterior margin of telson, n, posterior margin telson; o, uropod diaeresis spinules; p, preanal carina. a–h, j–m, male; i, n– p female.

FIGURE 14. Caridina kaombeflutilis sp. nov., SAM A 10667: a, habitus, male; b, anterior region of cephalothorax; ov. female; c, anterior region of cephalothorax, male; d, Anterior region of cephalothorax, male; e, antennular peduncle, male.