|
|
Oncaea curta
Taxonomy
Contributor Remarks
I seriously doubt the synonymy between Oncaea curta Sars, 1916 and O. longiseta, Shmeleva 1968. There are clear morphological differences between Sars´original description of O. curta and the description of O. longiseta by Shmeleva. These differences include: (1) the proportional lengths of urosomites, with the anal somite being shorter than the caudal rami (furca) in O. curta, while both have the same length in O. longiseta; (2) significant differences between the two species in the proportional spine lengths on the distal endopod segments of swimming legs 2 to 4, and in the relative length of the distal spine on the exopod of swimming leg 1. Several recent taxonomic studies have shown that proportional characters are important tools for discriminating between species of Oncaeidae, which otherwise are very similar in morphology. Thus, I recommend excluding the figures of O. longiseta Shmeleva from this species site of O. curta, and including the original figures by Sars instead. I furthermore recommend retaining O. longiseta Shmeleva as a valid species, as long as no detailed revision of the species with fresh material has been accomplished to clarify its taxonomic status. | |
As correctly stated above by the editors of this database, Oncaea curta sensu Boxshall, 1977 is not conspecific with O. curta. Malt (1983a) determined that Boxshall´s species is most similar to Oncaea illgi Heron, 1977, which belongs to the bowmani-group of oncaeids as defined by Böttger-Schnack & Huys (1998, their species group 5). | |


