Hemilamprops ultimaespei Zimmer, 1921

Gerken, Sarah, 2018, The Lampropidae (Crustacea: Cumacea) of the World, Zootaxa 4428 (1), pp. 1-192 : 81-82

Hemilamprops ultimaespei Zimmer, 1921

Hemilamprops (?) ultimae spei Zimmer, 1921: 3–5, figs 1–3.

Hemilamprops lotusae Băcescu, 1969: 168–171 , fig. 4.— Mühlenhardt-Siegel, 2003: 125–126.

Type material. Lectotype: ovigerous female, SMNH Type-817 (part), Terre du Feu, Ultima Esperanza, southern Chile, 50°30’S, 74°W . Paralectotype: subadult female, SMNH Type-817 (part), collected with holotype .

Diagnosis. Carapace without lateral ridges, without setae, dorsal crest entire. Pleonites without dorsal crest. Telson 0.8 length of uropod peduncles, with 3 pairs lateral setae, 3 equal terminal setae. Uropod exopod article 1 0.7 length of article 2. Adult male unknown.

Depth. 12–18 m.

Distribution. Tierra del Fuego, Chile.

Remarks. The types do not have any ridges on the carapace, in accord with the figure in Zimmer (1921). The types were inspected closely under high magnification, and a temporary stain (chlorazole black) was applied, to highlight a ridge if present; no ridge was evident. The specimens recorded as H. ultimaspei in Mühlenhardt-Siegel, 2003 have a short ridge on the carapace, as shown in her figures and as observed by this author. The ridge is consistent in that material, but is simply not present in the types. In combination with the difference in the lateral setation of the telson, the specimens recorded by Mühlenhardt-Siegel appear to be referrable to a new species of Hemilamprops , H. chilensis Gerken & Haye, 2018 and not H. ultimaspei .

Ledoyer (1993) identified material from 610–1223 m in the Weddell Sea as Hemilamprops ultimaspei ; however, it is clear from his illustrations that his material is neither H. ultimaspei nor H. chilensis . Ledoyer illustrated specimens without a ridge on the carapace, like H. ultimaspei , but the uropod endopod is shown with article 2 distinctly shorter than article 3, and in both H. chilensis and H. ultimaspei article 2 and article 3 are equal. In addition, the distribution is unlikely, especially in light of recent work ( Teske et al. 2006) describing significant genetic structuring in closely co-located coastal populations of cumaceans. The Ledoyer material represents an undescribed species, and is thus not included in the distribution of H. ultimaspei . Additionally, material reported by Corbera (2000) as H. ultimaspei from the South Shetland Islands has the uropod endopod article 2 shorter than article 3, and therefore is also not H. ultimaspei (Corbera, pers. comm.).