Stenothoe dollfusi Chevreux 1887

Abstract

<i>Stenothoe dollfusi</i> Chevreux, 1887 <p>Fig. 10</p> <p>Chevreux, 1887: 327, p. XXXIII, fig. 8; 1891: 260, fig. 6–8, 10 (not fig. 9); 1900: 53, pl. 8, fig. 1; Chevreux & Fage, 1925:135, fig. 134: all but Gn 2 male</p> <p>Krapp-Schickel, 1976: 12, fig. 11–13 (fig. 13 not Gn 2 male); 1993: 697 fig. 477: all but Gn 2 male</p> <p> Chevreux, 1891 illustrated in his original description (as well as the following ones in 1900 and Chevreux & Fage, 1925) not only the male of his new species <i>St. dollfusi</i> (in fig. 6), but additionally also of the much later described <i>St. eduardi</i> Krapp-Schickel, 1976 (in Chevreux 1887 fig. 9), causing the repetition of this confusion even in the same paper Krapp-Schickel 1976: 12, fig. 13 as well as in Krapp-Schickel 1993: 697, fig.477. Of course the allometry of Gn2 propodus could have led to a longer size and slimmer width, but the very typical semicircular excavation, shown in fig. 6, is totally lost in his fig. 9, which he does not discuss.</p> <p>Fact is, that both sexes have quite similar second gnathopods with the typical excavation, which is shallow in juveniles.</p> <p>Here finally the correction of this more than 100 years old mistake.</p>Published as part of <i>Krapp-Schickel, T., 2013, New or amended data on Mediterranean Amphipoda: genera Dexamine, Ericthonius and Stenothoe, pp. 125-145 in Zootaxa 3613 (2)</i> on page 139, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3613.2.2, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/5280169">http://zenodo.org/record/5280169</a&gt