Plate 1 issued from : L.A. Vega-Pérez & T.E. Bowman in Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 1992, 105 (1). [p.99, Figs.1-4, 16-18]. Female (from Ubatuba region, Brazil): 1, forehead and rostral filaments (ventral); 2, habitus (lateral); 3, urosome (lateral; 4, idem (ventral); 16, genital segment (dorsal); 17, idem (lateral, right side); 18, anal segment and caudal rami (dorsal).
Nota: Genital segment more expanded on left than right side. A1 24-segmented (segments 9 and 10 separated by complete suture). P4 exopod segment 1 with ctenospine with 0-4 teeth, segment 2 with ctenospine with 7 teeth, segment 3 ctenospines with 6-7 (proximal and 7-9 (distal) teeth directed at angles of about 50° and 54° respectively to axis of segment.
Plate 2 issued from : L.A. Vega-Pérez & T.E. Bowman in Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 1992, 105 (1). [p.99, Figs.5-10]. Female: 5, A1; 6, A2; 6', A2 (distal segment of endopod); 7, Md; 8, Mx1; 9, Mx2; 10, Mxp.
Plate 3 issued from : L.A. Vega-Pérez & T.E. Bowman in Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 1992, 105 (1). [p.99, Figs.11-15]. Female: 11, P1; 12, P2; 13, P3; 14, P4; 15, P5 (from 3 different specimens).
Plate 4 issued from : E. Suarez M. & A. Leon-Oropeza in Gulf and Caribbean Researc, 2000, 12. [p.38, Fig.1]. Female (from Campeche Sound, G. of Mexico): A, habitus (dorsal); B, idem (latral); C, urosome (lateral); D, idem (dorsal); E, right A1; F, P3; G, detail of P3 ctenospines; H, exopodite of P2; I, P1; J, head (lateral); K, P5. Scales in mm.
Plate 5 issued from : E. Suarez M. & A. Leon-Oropeza in Gulf and Caribbean Researc, 2000, 12. [p.39, Table I]. Characters used to separate the known species of Ctenocalanus. c/u ratio = cephalosome/urosome length ratio.
Plate 6 Issued from : V.N. Andronov in Russian Acad. Sci. P.P. Shirshov Inst. Oceanol. Atlantic Branch, Kaliningrad, 2014. [p.36, Fig.9, 4]. Ctenocalanus heronae after Vega-Perez & Bowman, 1992, 1970. 4, distal segment of exopod of A2.
For Vega-Pérez & Bowman (1992, p.100) this species differs from C. vanus in having a shorter A1 and a more vaulted forehead; it differs from C. citer in the orientation of the ctenoid spines of P4 which in citer are directed at only a small angle to the axis of the segment; it differs from campaneri in the shape of the genital segment and in having a complete suture between segments 9 and 10 of A1; it differs from tageae in having a shorter A1 and in the orientation of the ctenoid spines of P4. As A. Almeida-Prado-Por (1984) pointed out, the ctenoid spines are articulated at their bases and therefore their alignment in relation to the axis of the exopod is of no taxonomic importance. For Vega-Pérez & Bowman (1992, p.100) no muscles are attached to any of the spines, and the only movement they could undrego is an anterior-posterior flexion when the leg moves. For the latter authors the spine alignment is a valid taxonomic character.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;){kind=small}
