Vibilia bovallii Bonnier
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.280.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:E738ACF1-5D43-423E-86CA-28D03CB077D4 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5087748 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/7B1ABE13-AB41-FF9E-FEA6-FE04FDB8C29E |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Vibilia bovallii Bonnier |
status |
|
Vibilia bovallii Bonnier, 1896: 612–614 , pl. 35, fig. 3. — Behning 1913b: 221. Vinogradov et al. 1982: 234–235, fig. 116.
Type material
Type material could not be located at the MNHN and is presumed lost. The type locality is the Bay of Biscay , 44°17’N, 4°38’E GoogleMaps .
Remarks
According to Bonnier this species differs from all it congeners by gnathopod 2 which has an elongated merus and no carpal process. However, he illustrates gnathopod 2 with eight articles, so that it seems he mistook the carpal process for the merus and then added on another propodus. If this assumption is correct, then the carpal process would be almost as long as the propodus. Vinogradov et al. (1982) infer that the lateral corners of the last urosomite are slightly produced, but Bonnier makes no mention of this, nor does he illustrate this character. The shape of antennae 1, the urosome, and the telson, makes this species most similar to V. viatrix , if the assumption regarding the carpal process of gnathopod 2 is correct.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Vibilia bovallii Bonnier
Zeidler, Wolfgang 2003 |
Vibilia bovallii
Vinogradov, M. E. & Volkov, A. F. & Semenova, T. N. 1982: 234 |
Behning, A. L. 1913: 221 |
Bonnier, J. 1896: 614 |