|
|
 |
|
Calanoida ( Order ) |
|
|
|
Diaptomoidea ( Superfamily ) |
|
|
|
Centropagidae ( Family ) |
|
|
|
Centropages ( Genus ) |
|
|
| |
Centropages hamatus (Lilljeborg, 1853) (F,M) | |
| | | | | | | Syn.: | Ichthyophorba hamata Lilljeborg, 1853;
Ichthyophorba angustata Claus, 1863 (p.199) | | | | Ref.: | | | Brady, 1878 (p.67, figs.M); Giesbrecht, 1892 (p.304, 320, figs.F,M); Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898 (p.56); Wheeler, 1901 (p.174, figs.F,M, Rem.); Sars, 1902 (1903) (p.76, figs.F,M); Farran, 1908 b (p.59); Lysholm, 1913 (p.6); Pesta, 1920 (p.521); Sars, 1925 (p.206); Rose, 1929 (p.31); Gurney, 1931 a (p.89, figs.F,M, N); Wilson, 1932 a (p.89, figs.F,M); Rose, 1933 a (p.185, figs.F,M); Jespersen, 1934 (p.103); 1940 (p.49); Massuti Alzamora, 1942 (p.92, fig.F, Rem.); Sewell, 1948 (p.367); Farran, 1948 (n°11, p.3, figs.F,M); Anraku & Omori, 1963 (p.118, figs.); Vilela, 1965 (p.8); Marques, 1966 (p.7); Faber, 1966 (p.191, fig.N); Koga, 1968 (p.17, fig.: egg); Shih & al., 1971 (p.37); Lee, 1972 (p.6, figs.F,M); Fleminger, 1975 (p.397); Klein Breteler, 1982 (p.5, figs.); Schnack, 1982 (p.89, figs.Mx2, Md, Mxp); Sazhina, 1985 (p.61, figs.N); Soler & al., 1988 (p.143, Rem.); Chen & Marcus, 1997 (p.587, Rem: egg); G. Harding, 2004 (p.12, 35, figs.F, M); Conway, 2006 (p.14, 25, copepodite stages 1-6, Rem.); Vives & Shmeleva, 2007 (p.470, figs.F,M, Rem.); Michels & al., 2012 (p.1, figs.1, 2, 3, Rem.: Md structure) |  issued from : Sars G.O. in An Account of the Crustacea with short descriptions and figures of all the species. Vol. IV. Copepoda Calanoida. Publ. by The Bergen Museum, 1902 (1903). [Pl. LII]. Female: 1-2, habitus (dorsal and lateral, respectively); 3, head (lateral); 4, urosome (ventral); 5, genital segment (lateral); 6,P5. Male: 7, habitus (dorsal); 8, geniculattion of rifght A1; 9, P4; 10, P5.
|
 issued from : Soler Torres E., Del Rio J.G. & Vives F. in Crustaceana, 1988, 55, 2: 143. Main morphological differences between C. ponticus Karavaev, C. hamatus Lilljeborg and C. kroyeri Giesbrecht (-- no distinct differences with C. ponticus, St: terminal seta).
|
 Issued from : W. Giesbrecht in Systematik und Faunistik der Pelagischen Copepoden des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte. – Fauna Flora Golf. Neapel, 1892, 19 , Atlas von 54 Tafeln. [Taf.38, Fig.23]. Female: 23, urosome (ventral).
|
 Issued from : W. Giesbrecht in Systematik und Faunistik der Pelagischen Copepoden des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte. – Fauna Flora Golf. Neapel, 1892, 19 , Atlas von 54 Tafeln. [Taf.17, Fig.51]. Female: 51, exopod of P5.
|
 Issued from : W. Giesbrecht in Systematik und Faunistik der Pelagischen Copepoden des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte. – Fauna Flora Golf. Neapel, 1892, 19 , Atlas von 54 Tafeln. [Taf.18, Fig.3]. Male; 3, right A1 (segments 15 and 16).
|
 issued from : J. Michels, J. Vogt & S.N. Gorb in Scientific Reports, 2012. [p.2, Fig.1 a, c]. Scanning electron micrographs of mandibular gnathobases female (from Helgoland, North Sea): a, overview of a whole gnathobase (V = ventral tooth; C1 = central tooth); c, overview of the ventral part of the distal gnathobase structures (arrow indicates area with a large number of scratches). Scale bars: 0.020 mm (a); 0.005 mm (c). After the authors, the two larger teeth at the ventral side of the gnathobase seem to be very suitable for grabbing larger food items such a large centric diatoms and for exerting punctiform pressure when crushing and mincing their frustules. This assumption is supported by the frequent presence of numerous scratches at the diastema, which mainly consists of chitinous material. The inclusion of silica in the tips of these larger teeth very likely enhances their hardness and stiffness. When the copepods feed on nanoflagellates and chlorophytes, the smaller gnathobase teeth likely are more suitable for grabbing the food particles than the larger ones. The compliant resilin in the tips of these teeth may increase the grip of the teeth due to the formation, of a larger contact area at the same applied load. The cotact area and with it the grip of the smaller teeth is probably further increased by the presence of two relatively small tips. The present study reveals the existence of complex composite structures likely increase the efficiency of the opal teeth while simultaneously reducing the risk of mechanical damage. They are supposed to have coevolved with rthe diatom shells in the evolutionary arms race, and their development might have been the basis for the dominance of the copepods today's marine zooplankton.
| | | | | Compl. Ref.: | | | Mrazek, 1902 (p.515, Rose, 1924 d (p.478); 1925 a (p.8); Wilson, 1932 (p.22); 1942 a (part., p.177); Jespersen, 1939 (p.68, Rem.); Fleury, 1950 (p.47, fig.2); Hansen K.V., 1951 (p.231, migration v.s. discontinuity layer); Raymont & Gauld, 1951 (p.681, respiratory rate); Gauld & Raymont, 1953 (p.447, Table II, IV, fig.2, respiration); Grice, 1956 (p.53); Deevey, 1956 (p.127, tab. IV); Gauld, 1957 (p.510, copulation); Conover, 1959 (p.259, Table 1, 2, respiration); Deevey, 1960 (p.5, Table II, fig.7, 8, 11, 12: annual abundance, Rem.: p.22, fig.18, 19) ; 1962 a (p.181, Table II, C composition); H. Schulz, 1961 (p.57); Marshall & Orr, 1962 (tab.1, 3); Curl, 1962 (p.183, Table I, CNP composition); Gaudy, 1962 (p.93, 99, Rem.: p.109); Lacroix & Bergeron, 1963 (p.59, Tableau III, IV); Anraku, 1964 a (p.221, grazing, predation); 1964 b (p.195, table 1: respiration v.s. salinity); Martin, 1965 (p.188); Lance, 1965 (p.155, Table 2: osmotic pressure); Bodo & al., 1965 (p.219, annual cycle); Marshall & Orr, 1966 (p.513, 521, fig.I, 2, Table 2, 3, 4, 7, feeding, respiration); Faber, 1966 a (p.419, 421); Mazza, 1966 (p.71); Dawson, 1966 (p.176); Pertsova, 1967 (p.240); Matthews, 1967 (p.159, Table 1, Rem.); Evans, 1968 (p.12); Singarajah, 1969 (p.171, Table II, behaviour); Champalbert, 1969 a (p.620); Itoh, 1970 a (p.8: tab.2); Paulmier, 1971 (p.168); Martens, 1972 (p.22, fecal pellets); Ibanez & Seguin, 1972 (p.81, annual cycle, multivarite analysis); Lefèvre-Lehoërff, 1972 (p.1681); Arndt & Heidecke, 1973 (p.599, 603, fig.3); Eriksson, 1973 (p.37, fig. 14-17, annual cycle); 1973 b (p.113, 117); Person-Le Ruyet, 1975 (p.203, rearing); Le Ruyet-Person & al., 1975 (p.283, comparative biology, metabolism activity); Hecq, 1976 (p.443, abundance annual cycle); Falconetti & Seguin, 1977 (p.188); ? Carter, 1977 (1978) (p.36); McLaren, 1978 (p.1330, 1336: life history); Hernroth, 1978 (p.1, Rem.: p.5); Lefèvre-Lehoërff & Quintin, 1979 (p.71, abundance- length-temperature); Herman & Dauphinee, 1980 (p.79, Table 2, length-biovolum); Vaissière & Séguin, 1980 (p.23, tab.1); Grice & Marcus, 1981 (p.125, Dormant eggs, Rem.: p.134); Gallo, 1981 (p.847); Collins & Williams, 1981 (p.273, monthly distribution-salinity); Citarella, 1982 (p.791, 798: listing, frequency, fig.5, Tableau II, V); Kovalev & Shmeleva, 1982 (p.84); Klein Breteler & Gonzalez, 1982 (p.157, body length/food); Klein Breteler & al., 1982 (p.195, growth & development); Kiørboe & al., 1982 (p.181, ingestion rate & gut clearance); Vives, 1982 (p.293); Chojnacki & Hussein, 1983 (p.53, Table 4, length-weight); Jacoby & Youngbluth, 1983 (p.84, Table 4, Rem: mating); Hernroth, 1983 (p.835,, Rem.: p.840); Cowles & Remillard, 1983 (p.45, polluant effects); Fransz & al., 1984 (p.86); Brylinski, 1984 a (p.91, length/temperature); Sameoto, 1984 (p.767, vertical migration); Lefèvre-Lehoërff & al., 1984 (p.131, annual variations); Drebes, 1984 (p.619: parasite); Musayeva, 1985 (tab.1); Williams & Collins, 1985 (p.28); Conley & Turner, 1985 (p.113, omnivory nutrition); Hargrave & al., 1985 (p.221, annual abundance); Brylinski, 1986 (p.457, spatial variations); Harding & al., 1986 (p.952, Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, fig.3, diel vertical movements); Vuorinen & Ranta, 1987 (tab.2, 4); Tiselius, 1988 (p.215, grazing); Aksnes & Magnesen, 1988 (p.57, population dynamic, production); Lozano Soldevilla & al., 1988 (p.59); Marcus, 1989 (p.142, benthic diapause egg); Lindley & Hunt, 1989 (p.407, gepgraphic distribution abundance); Citarella, 1989 (p.123, abundance); Tiselius, 1989 (p.49, feeding); Klein Breteler & al., 1990 (p.177, Table IV: generation vs body length); Tackx & al., 1990 (p.405, grazing); Lindley, 1990 (p.209, Table 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, eggs/sediment); Lampitt & al., 1990 (p.15, faecal pellets, coprorhexy); Naess, 1991 (p.266, fig.7, resting egg); Nielsen, 1991 (p.1091, egg production); Tiselius & al., 1991 (p.445, egg production); Noji & al., 1991 (p.465, fig.8, faecal pellet); Viitasalo, 1992 (tab.2); Voss, 1991 (p.217, faecal pellts); Seguin & al., 1993 (p.23); Vinogradov & al., 1994 (tab.1); Sautour, 1994 (p.113, grazing); Hays & al., 1994 (tab.1); Snell & Carmona, 1994 (p.255); Lefèvre-Lehoërff & al., 1995 (p.269, annual hydroclimatic variations); Marcus, 1996 (p.143); Hays & al., 1996 (p.159, Rem.: Herring correlation); Hure & Krsinic, 1998 (p.53, 101); Tang & al., 1998 (p.1971); Mauchline, 1998 (tab.16, 21, 26, 33, 40, 45,51, 58, 61, 63, 64); Gilabert & Moreno, 1998 (tab.1, 2); Suarez-Morales & Gasca, 1998 a (p109); Titelmann & Tiselius, 1998 (343, table 1, 2, 3); Reid & Hunt, 1998 (p.310, figs.2, 3, Rem.); Sautour & al., 2000 (p.531, Table II, abundance); Harvey & al., 2001 (p.481); d'Elbée, 2001 (tabl. 1); Musaeva & Suntsov, 2001 (p.511, tab.1); Holmes, 2001 (p.21, Rem.); Fransz & Gonzalez, 2001 (p.255, tab.1); Sameoto & al., 2002 (p.12); Beaugrand & al., 2002 (p.179, figs.5, 6); Halsband-Lenk & al., 2004 (p.709, figs.6,7); Gislason & Astthorsson, 2004 (p.472, tab.1); CPR, 2004 (p.52, fig.147); Vallet & Dauvin, 2004 (p.539, tab.2); Manning & Bucklin, 2005 (p.233, Table 1, fig.12); Marques & al., 2006 (p.297, tab.III); Durbin & Casas, 2006 (p.2537, Table 2a, 2b); Bonnet & al., 2007 (p.233); Sørensen & al., 2007 (p.84, Rem.: eggs); Gaudy & Thibault-Botha, 2007 (p.84, Tab.2, Rem.: metabolism); Wesche & al., 2007 (p.1309); Alcaraz & al., 2007 (p.121); Chojnacki & al., 2007 (p.46, Table 2); Durbin & Kane, 2007 (p.249, Rem.); Valdés & al., 2007 (p.104: tab.1); Goetze, 2008 (p.433: mating); Teegarden & al., 2008 (p.33, Rem.: feeding and toxicity); Gaard & al., 2008 (p.59, Table 1, N Mid-Atlantic Ridge); Brylinski, 2009 (p.253: Tab.1, p.255: Rem.); Moison & al., 2009 (p.388, Rem.: p.394, behaviour); Telesh & al., 2009 (p.16, fig.2.1, p.18: Table 2.1); Saage & al., 2009 (p.16, feeding experiments); Calliari & Tiselius, 2009 (p.111); Eloire & al., 2010 (p.657, Table II, temporal variability); Drira & al., 2010 (p.145, Tanl.2); Mazzocchi & Di Capua, 2010 (p.424); Van Ginderdeuren & al., 2012 (p.3, Table 1); Postel, 2012 (p.327, Table 1), Fig.6); Zizah & al., 2012 (p.79, Tableau I, Rem.: p.86) | | | | NZ: | 9 + 2 doubtful | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  issued from : P. Jespersen, 1939 in Meddr Grønland, 1939, 119 (9). [p.69, Fig. 30].
The occurrence of Centropages hamatus at the ''Dana'' stations in 1931-1933.
black circles: positive occurrence; x: negative occurrence. |
 issued from : G.B. Deevey in Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll., 1960 (2). [p.24, Fig.12].
Variations in length of Centropages hamatus females and males in the Delaware Bay (NW Atlantic Ocean).
See relation with the temperature (p.10, Fig.2) |
 issued from : G.B. Deevey in Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll., 1960 (2). [p.10, Fig.2].
Average surface temperatures at the stations in and outside Delaware Bay (NW Atlantic) from 1931 through November 1932.
The surface temperature range in the Bay varied from less than 2°C in the winter to 24° or 25°C in the summer, and more extreme than that outside the Bay, where temperatures ranged from over 2°C to approximately 22°C, but the cycles varied considerably from year to year (see p.10, figure 2). Salinity outside the Bay varied from a minimum of 30 p.1000 to a maximum of 32.88 p.1000. In the Bay it ranged from 22.8 - 32.25 p.1000. Thus the salinity was over 30 p.1000 at the stations outside the Bay while the range at the mouth of the Bay anda t the stations inside was such as to exlude ordinarily from the Bay some of the neritic species common in the outside waters. |
 issued from : J. Le Ruyet-Person, C. Razouls & S. Razouls inVie Milieu, 1975, XXV (2B). [p.298, Fig.3].
Life history of Centropages hamatus at Roscoff (English Channel) during the year.
A: Variations of the ephalothoracic lengths; B: Number of adult females and males; C: Number of copepodites (all stages).
The number of generations (or main cohorts) is estmated to five for the year in relation to the temperature (See p.285, Fig.1) |
 issued from : J. Le Ruyet-Person, C. Razouls & S. Razouls inVie Milieu, 1975, XXV (2B). [p.285, Fig.1].
Temperature variations of surface water (mean by month) during the year at Roscoff (Western English Channel) |
 issued from : F. Bodo, C. Razouls & A. Thiriot in Cah. Biol. Mar., VI, 1965. [p.230, Fig.7].
Annual quantitative variations of adults for Temora longicornis and Centropages hamatus at Roscoff (English Channel) interpreted as competition between them.
n x 1000
|
 issued from : G.C. Harding, W.P. Vass, B.T. Hargrave & S. Pearre in Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 1986, 43 (5). [p.961, Fig.6].
Depth-frequency diagrams and trap results of Centropages hamatus females and males during the 24-h study.
Incident radiation recorded on deck is indicated in the upper panel; arrows indicate sunset and sunrise. The actual number of individuals moving up or down into the traps at 8, 14, 21 and 28 m is indicated next to each arrow.
Trap deployment and retrieval time was set to coincide with the middle of adjacent horizontal, net-tow series.
The 25 and 75 % population quartiles are connected by broken lines and the population median is indicated by a black dot.
The number located inside each depth-frequency diagram (scale lower right) is the estimated number of individuals/ m3 in the water column during this series of horizontal net tows.
Sampling for eight and four periods, respectively, between 10:30 August 19 and 09:30 August 20, 1980, at St. Georges Bay, shallow marine embayment open on the north to Northumberland Strait and the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Nota: Engine and deployment of mooring traps figured in Harding & al. (1987) and Harding & al. (1986). |
 issued from : B.T. Hargrave, G.C. Harding, K.F. Drinkwater, T.C. Lambert & W.G. Harrison in Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 1985, 20. [p.227, Fig.7].
Major species of zooplankton present at the central station in St. Georges Bay (45°45'N, 61°45'W) during 1977.
Nota: All zooplankton collections were made after sunset. The net towed obliquely throughout the water column (± 34 m in depth). |
 issued from : B.T. Hargrave, G.C. Harding, K.F. Drinkwater, T.C. Lambert & W.G. Harrison in Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 1985, 20. [p.223, Fig.2].
Seasonal profiles of water temperature and salinity in St. Georges Bay (45°45'N, 61°45'W) near the central station during 1977. |
 issued from : S. Eriksson in ZOON, 1976, 4. [p.157, Fig.2].
Seasonal distribution of neritic copepod Centropages hamatus and C. typicus off Gothenburg (Göteborg), The Skattegatt. (Monthly means for adult specimens during 1968-1973; point : inshore, depth = 10 m; x: offshore, depth > 40 m.
The main occurrence of the two congeneric species are separated in time: C. hamatus June to July and C. typicus September. The first species has a wide optimum range (3 to 19°C) and the second species a narrow one (12 to 16°C). |
 issued from : S. Eriksson in ZOON, 1976, 4. [p.158, Fig.3, c-d].
Temperature occurrence of neritic copepod Centropages hamatus and C. typicus off Gothenburg (Göteborg), The Skattegatt.
Surface salinity of the investigation area varies around 25 p.1000 and the deep water slinity around 34 p.1000. There is a temperature stratification with surface water warmer than 10°C from May to October with maximum of 20°C in August. The coldest period is January to March with surface temperatures of 1-2°C. The deep water ranges between 5 and 10°C.
The hauls were horizontal at 2, 20, and 40 m.
Limits subjectively regarded as the optimum temperature range: 3-19°C, against 12-16°C for C. typicus probably an allochtonous species. |
 issued from : S. Eriksson in ZOON, 1973, 1. [p.53, Fig.17].
Size distribution of adult females of Centropages hamatus (offshore station H6:11°30' N, 57°40'.5 E, The Kattegatt) during 1968-70 in the main series. |
 issued from : S. Eriksson in Mar. Biol., 1974, 26. [p.320, Figs. 2-3]
Salinity and temperature curves for main series at offshore station H6 (11°30' N, 57°40'.5 E, The Kattegatt) from March 1968 to November 1970. |
 issued from : P. Martens in M.S. Inst. Meeresk. Christian-Albrechts Univ., 1972. [p.26].
Numbers of fecal pellets (n) by width classes (Breite) (interval from 0.005 mm).
Nota: individuals in culture on Chaetoceros decipiens, C. socialis, Detonula cystifera, Skeletonema costatum and flagellates.
Mean size of fecal pellets: length = 130 ± 40 micrometers; width = 40 ± 10 micrometers. Volume male = 95513 µ3; female = 200642 µ3. |
 issued from : I.A. McLaren inJ. Fish. Res. Board Can., 1978, 35. [p.1336, Fig.5].
Life cycles of Centropages hamatus in Loch Striven (55°55'N, 05°10'W).
Relative abundance of C V as a percentage of all copepodids (lower panel); size and numbers per haul (including combined hauls from 60 m to 10 m and 10 to 0 m) of adult females (middle panel), and percentage of nauplii and copepodids above 10 m (from split hauls, taken from 60 to 10 m and 10 to 0 m) (upper panel).
Successive generations as infered from peaks in the C V cohorts and size changes designated as Go, G1, etc.
Data from Marshall (1949, tables VI and XIII). |
 issued from : issued from : W.J. Conley & J.T. Turner in Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser., 1985, 21. [p.117, Fig.3].
Centropages hamatus. Predation (ingestion) rates of adults (males and females combined) feeding upon copepod nauplii (number of nauplii ingested by copepod and by day) over a range of natural concentrations. Means of 14 to 19 replicates; error bars: ± standard error.
Nota: Experimental animals collected in the Westport River estuary (Massachusetts).
Nota: C. hamatus ingested more phytoplankton than animal material and consumed an average of 209 % more carbon when feeding upon natural concentration of phytoplankton (mean = 2.05 µgC per copepod and per day than when carnivorously (mean = 0.98 µgC per copepod and by day). This indicates that the species is less predaceous, when feeding on natural prey items, than when feeding on artificial prey items such as Artemia nauplii considerably larger, more sluggish, and therefore easier to capture, than Acartia spp. nauplii. Animal prey also appears unnecessary for growth and reproduction of C. hamatus, since this species has been successfully reared in the laboratory on phytoplankton cultures (see Klein Breteler, 1980).
Compare with the same experimental method in Labidocera aestiva. |
 issued from : N.R. Collins & R. Williams in Mar. Biol., 1981, 64. [p.280, Fig.19];
Centropages hamatus. Monthly distribution and abundance in Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary from November 1973 to February 1975, together with 31 and 35 p.1000 S isohaline. |
 issued from : N.R. Collins & R. Williams in Mar. Biol., 1981, 64. [p.281, Fig.10];
Centropages hamatus. Numerical abundance plotted against salinity for the four seasons in Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary from November 1973 to February 1975; 31 and 35 p.1000 S values are indicated.
Nota: This euryhaline species has its greatest abundance within a salinity range of 32 to 34 p.1000, although it was found in salinities as low as 27 p.1000. |
| | | | Loc: | | | Congo, Canaries, Maroc-Mauritanie, Caraïbes, G. du Mexique, Louisiana (off Grand Isle, Turkey Point), Floride, Portugal, G. de Gascogne, La Pallice roadstead, Belon estuary, Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, Narragansett Bay, Buzzards Bay, Long Island Sound, off Woods Hole, Georges Bank, off SE Nova Scotia, St. Georges Bay, Shédiac Bay, Northumberland Strait, G. of St. Lawrence, Bradelle Bank, Baie James, Roadstead of Brest, Manche, Morlaix estuary, Pas de Calais, Norvège, Bergen, Oslo fjord, Raunefjorden, Svartatjønn basin, Mer du Nord, Oosterschelde (Netherlands), Gullmar Fjord, Kattegat, Kiel fjord, Skagerrak, Gullmar Fjord, Elbe (estuary), Kiel Bight, Bay of Lübeck, Gulf of Mecklenburger, Baltic Sea, Détr. de Belle Isle, Groenland (W, E), Islande, Irlande, Fairlie Channel (SW Scotland), Bristol Channel, Féroé, Irlande, Mer de Norvège, Mer de Barents, Pechora Sea, Mer Blanche, Mer de Kara, Yamal (W coast), Baidara Bay, Abidjan (in Ibanez & Seguin, 1972); Mauritania-Morocco, off Azores, Portugal, Médit. (Mer d'Alboran, Baléares, G. du Lion (rare), Marseille, Monaco, Tyrrhénienne, Adriatique N (Bay of Trieste), G. of Gabès (rare), Malte: Grand Harbour, Mer Noire), Indien (Natal) (in Carter, 1977 (1978)), mers de Chine (Yellow Sea, East China Sea), [Pacif.: Is. Fidji, off Californie W , Pacif. S (in C. B. Wilson, 1942 a, p.68, 142; 1950, p.187); Japon N (in Marukawa, 1921)] | | | | N: | 177 (Arct.: 6; S Atlant.: 2; N Atlant.: 106; Mer du Nord: 28, Baltic: 10, Medit.: 20; Indian: 1 ?; Pacif.: 1 ?) | | | | Lg.: | | | (45) F: 1,35-1; M: 1,2-0,9; (47) F: 1,42-1,3; M: 1,3-1,15; (65) F: 1,35; M: 1,3; (167) F: 1,2-1,1; M: 1,14-1; (373) F: 1,27; M: 1,26-1,17; (449) F: 1,42-1,3; M: 1,3-1,15; (796) F: 1,33-0,94; M: 1,17-0,94; {F: 0,94-1,42; M: 0,90-1,30} | | | | Rem.: | epipelagic. Neritic.
The occurrence of this species is confirmed by Zhang & al., 2010 (comm. pers.).
In the Gulf of Marseille NW Mediterranean Sea) during the period from 28 September 1960 to 11 October 1961, Gaudy (1962) points to this rare species over the year and mainly at the end in summer and autumn (after p.99. C.R). The occurrence of this species in the Abidjan waters (Ivory coast) seems exceptional. | | | Last update : 20/05/2013 | |
|
|
 Any use of this site for a publication will be mentioned with the following reference :
Razouls C., de Bovée F., Kouwenberg J. et Desreumaux N., 2005-2012. - Diversity and Geographic Distribution of Marine Planktonic Copepods. Available at http://copepodes.obs-banyuls.fr/en
[Accessed May 22, 2013] © copyright 2005-2012 CNRS, UPMC
|
|
|
|
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;){kind=small}
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;){kind=small}
;){kind=small}
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
