&#091;spa&#093; Se presenta la redescripción de Bogidiella balearica Dancau, 1973, un anfípodo estigobionte de las cuevas anquihalinas de Mallorca. Queda demostrado que se trata de una buena especie, clasificable dentro del subgénero Bogidiella s. str., y que se puede diferenciar fácilmente de Bogidiella chappuisi Ruffo, 1952 (con la cual se intentó sinonimizar con anterioridad), perteneciente a otro subgénero, Medigidiella.&#091;eng&#093; Redescription of Bogidiella balearica Dancau, 1973, a stygobiont amphipod from anchihaline caves in Mallorca. It proves to be a good species, to be classified with the subgenus Bogidiella s. str., and it is well-distinguished from Bogidiella chappuisi Ruffo, 1952 (with which it was tentatively synonyrnized in the past), belonging to a different suhgenus, Medigidiella

Iliffe, Thomas M.

Stock, Jan H.

Biblioteca Digital de les Illes Balears

ENDINS, n . O  13. 1987. Ciutat de Mallorca. 
THE STATUS OF BOGIDIELLA BALEARICA 
DANCAU, 1973, A STYGOBIONT 
AMPHIPOD FROM MALLORCA 
by Jan H. STOCK (*) & Thornas M. ILIFFE (**) 
Resumen 
Se presenta la redescripción de Bogidiella balearica Dancau, 1973, un anfípodo es- 
t igobionte de las cuevas anquihalinas de Mallorca. Queda demcstrado que se trata de 
una buena especie, clasificable dentro del subgénero Bogidiella s. str., y que se puede 
diferenciar fácilmente de Bogidiella chappuisi Ruffo, 1952 (con la cual se intentó sino- 
nimizar con anterioridad), perteneciente a otro subgénero, Medigidiella. 
Abstract 
Redescription of Bogidiella balearica Dancau, 1973, a stygobiont amphipod from 
anchihaline caves in  Mallorca. It proves to  be a good species, to  be classified with the 
subgenus Bogidiella s. str., and it is well-distinguished from Bogidiella chappuisi 
Ruffo, 1952 (with which it was tentatively synonyrnized in  the past), belonging to a 
different suhgenus, Medigidiella. 
lntroduction 
Bogidiella balearica was described by D. Dan- 
cau (1973) after specirnens frorn two caves in Ma- 
llorca, Coves del Drac and Cova des Pont. 
The status of B. balearica was discussed by 
Kararnan, 1979: 25, who regarded it as a apossible 
synonyrn)) of B. chappuisi Ruffo, 1952. This state- 
rnent was repeated by Kararnan (in Ruffo, 1982: 253). 
In a series of Arnphipoda collected early 1986 
in Mallorcan caves by the junior author, two rnale 
specirnens of a Bogidiella were encountered, 
which were rnorphologically in good agreernent 
with Dancau's description of B. balearica. Moreo- 
ver, one of the specirnens carne frorn the sarne 
cave (Coves del Drac) as Dancau's type-material. 
On the basis of the new material, the taxonornic 
status of B. balearica is clarified; it appears to be a 
good species. 
- - 
(+) lnstitute of Taxonomic Zoology, University of Amsterdam, 
P. O. Box 20125, 1000 HC Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 
(**) Bermuda Biological Station for Research, Ferry Reach 1-15, 
Bermuda. 
Bogidiella balearica Dancau, 1973 
Dancau, 1973: 114-1 19, figs. 14; Kararnan, 1979: 
24-25 (synonyrny discussed); Stock, 1981: 354 (cited 
only); Kararnan, in Ruffo, 1982: 253 (cited only). 
Material.- 1 8, Mallorca 86-002, Coves del 
Drac (Manacor), in upper layers of 2nd lake of corn- 
rnercial cave; surface salinity 3 ppt, surface ternpe- 
rature 18.8' C; 10 Jan. 1986. 
1 d,  Mallorca 86-004, Coves dels Harns (Mana- 
cor), in upper layers; surface salinity 14 ppt, sur- 
face ternperature 19.6O C; 11 Jan. 1986. 
The following notes rnay serve to supplernent 
Dancau's description, which is in general quite 
satisfactory. 
Body length 2.2 and 2.4 rnrn. Head (fig. 1): 
Ocular lobe narrow, rounded; antennal sinus shal- 
low but distinct. 
First antenna (fig. 2): First peduncle segrnent 
with medioventral spine. Aethetasks on al1 8 flagel- 
lurn segrnents, each as long as corresponding seg- 
rnent. Accessory flagellurn rather long, 3-segment- 
ed; short aesthetask on tip of segrnent 3. 
Second antenna (fig. 3): Gland cone elongate- 
triangular, rather short. Flagellum 5-segmented, 
aesthetasks on segments 2 and 5, subequal to 
lenght of corresponding segment. 
Upper lip as illustrated (fig. 4). 
Mandibles (figs. 5, 6): Molar seta present both 
lef i  and right. Left lacinia mobilis with 5 coarse 
teeth, right lacinia finely toothed (9 teeth). 
Lower lip (fig. 7), contrary to Dancau's descrip- 
tion with well-developed inner lobes. 
First maxilla (fig. 8): Outer lobe with 7 spines 
(2 pluridentate, 1 with 3 denticles, 2 with 2 denti- 
cles, 2 with 1 denticle). 
Second maxilla as illustrated (fig. 9). 
Maxilliped: lnner lobe (fig. 11) with bicuspidate 
spines on distal margin. Outer lobe (fig. 10) with 3 
finely denticulated, simple spines. 
First gnathopod (fig. 12): Coxal plate trapezoi- 
dal, wider than long. Posterior margin of basis with 
1 short and 2 long setae. Palmar index (sensu 
Ruffo, 1973) 0.46. Palmar margin with 5 bifid spi- 
nes, some setae, and 2 rows of fine denticles: an 
Angle row (A in fig. 13) and a row at the Base of 
the claw (B in fig. 13); the B-row is short and the 
A-row is implanted in a very shallow palmar angle 
sinus. Three setule-tipped palmar angle spines. 
Second gnathopod (fig. 14): Coxal plate wider 
than long. Posterior margin of basis with 1 short 
and 1 long seta. Palmar index 0.46. Palmar margin 
fig. 15) with 6 bifid spines, some setae, and short 
rows of A- and B-spinules. Two setule-tipped pal- 
mar angle spines. 
Third pereiopod (fig. 16): Basis with 4 spines 
on anterior margin, 3 on posterior margin. Merus 
3.5 times as long as wide. Propodus with 3 setae 
on posterior margin. 
Fourth pereiopod (fig. 17): Almost identical to 
P3. Coxal plate very short. Coxal gills on P4 - P6, 
ovate, with short peduncle. 
Fifth pereiopod (fig. 18): Coxal plate vaguely 
equilobate. Merus 4.2 times as long as wide. 
Sixth pereiopod (fig. 19) much longer than fifth. 
Coxal plate slightly anterolobate. Four spines on 
posterior margin of basis. Merus 5.1 times as long 
as wide. Anterior margin of propodus with 2 setules. 
Seventh pereiopod (fig. 20) longer than sixth. 
Coxal plate hardly lobate. Posterior margin of basis 
with 5 spines. Merus 4 times as long as wide. 
Some setae on anterodistal end of carpus. Very 
long setae on propodus. 
Lentiform organs small, rounded, slightly 
elleptical, smooth-edged, in basal part of basis of 
P3 - P7. 
Epimeral plates (fig. 21) unarmed. Posteroven- 
tral corner produced into small tooth. 
Pleopods 1 to 3 similar, without endopodite. 
Second pleopod (fig. 22) not modified in male. Two 
retinacula on inner side of peduncle of each pleo- 
pod, anchor-shaped, with 3 pairs of hooks (fig. 23). 
First uropod (fig. 24): Peduncle with strong 
proximoventral spine. Margins of rami unarmed. 
Exopodite slightly shorter than endopodite, each 
ramus with 4 distal spines. 
Second uropod (fig. 25): Endopodite longer 
than peduncle and longer than exopodite. Exopo- 
dite with 4 distal spines (3 short, 1 long). Endopo- 
dite with 4 shorter and 1 longer distal spines, non 
of them modified in male. 
Third uropod (fig. 26): Rami slender, at least 
2.5 times as long as peduncle. One of the distal 
spines of each ramus very long (>33 % of length 
of ramus). 
Telson (fig. 27): Rather deep, widely V-shaped 
distal cleft. Two plumose sensorial setae on' either 
side. Each telson lobe with 2 long distal spines 
(longest spine longer than telson, shortest spine 
about 5/6 of length of longest spine). 
Discussion 
The absence of modified elements (spines, se- 
tae) on the endopodite of the second uropod and 
the exopodite of the second pleopod in the male of 
the Mallorcan taxon, show that it belongs to the 
subgenus Bogidiella s. str. (see Stock, 1981, and 
Karaman, 1982). Its alledged senior synonym, B. chap- 
puisi Ruffo, 1952 (see Karaman, 1979) belongs to 
the subgenus Medigidiella, since it possesses mo- 
dified spines, presumably serving for sperm trans- 
fer, on the second male uropod. 
We have compared the Mallorcan material with 
a sample of B. (M.) chappuisifrom the type area (lit- 
toral interstitial waters, Roussillon coast, France), 
and have observed several additional characters, 
allowing separation of both sexes of balearica and 
chappuisi. Some of these are shown in figs. 28-34 
of the present paper; moreover the correct illustra- 
tions in Karaman, 1979, figs. 1-IV, and in Karaman 
( in Ruffo), 1982, in particular fig. 171, based on to- 
potypes, may serve very well for comparison. 
The discriminating characters are: (1) The 
greater elongation of several appendages (pedun- 
cle of first antenna, mandible palp, pereiopods 3 
through 7, third uropod) in balearica. For instance, 
the merus of P3, P5, and P6 is 2.5, 2.15, and 2.8 
times as long as wide in chappuisi, against 3.5,4.2, 
and 5.1 times, respectively, in balearica. (2) The 
presence of 3 bicuspidate spines on the inner lobe of 
the maxilliped (2 bicuspidate spines and an unarm- 
ed swelling in chappuisi, fig. 28). (3) The presence 
of 3 setae (2 long, 1 short) on the posterior margin 
of the basis of gnathopod 1 (1 long and 1 short in 
chappuisi, fig. 29). (4) Palmar margin of gnathopod 
1 with ca. 6 bifid spines (0-3 in chappuisi, fig. 30). 
(5) The palmar angle sinus of gnathopod 1 is shal- 
Figs. 1-8. Bogidiella (B.) balearica Dancau, 1973, 6 (Manacor, 
Mallorca). 
1, cephalosome, from the left (scale WX); 2, first antenna (WX); 
3, second antenna (WX); 4, upper lip (M); 5, right mandible 
(WZ); 6, left mandible, palp omitted (WZ); 7, lower lip W); 
8, first maxilla (WZ). Scales below fig. 19. 
Figs. 9-17. Bogidiella (B.) balearica Dancau, 1973, d (Manacor, 
Mallorca). 
9, second maxilla (scale WZ); 10, outer lobe of rnaxilliped (WZ); 
11, inner lobe of rnaxilliped ( W ) ;  12, first gnathopod (WX); 13, pal- 
mar margin of first gnathopod (WY) [A = angle row of spinules, 
irnplanted in angle sinus; B = row of spinules at base of claw]; 
14, second gnathopod (WX); 15, palmar rnargin of second gna- 
thopod (WY) [symbols as in fig. 131; 16, third pereiopod (WX); 
17, basal part of fourth pereiopod (WX). Scales below fig. 19. 
l ow (deeper in chappuisi, fig. 30). (6) The B-row of 
spinules on the palma of gnathopod 2 is short 
(long in chappuisi, fig. 31). (7) Pereiopods 3 to 5 
bear a short seta (P3, P4) ar a spine (P5) in the mid- 
dle of the anterior margin of the merus (absent in 
chappuisi, fig. 32). (8) The propodus of pereiopods 
3 and 4 bears 3 shorts setae, that of P5 a spine 
(absent in chappuisi, fig. 32). (9) The posterior mar- 
gin of the basis of P7 bea r~  several spinules (only 1 
in  chappuisi). (10) The propodus of P7 bears longer 
setae and the claw is more slender in balearica 
than in chappuisi (fig. 33). (11) The longest telson 
spine is longer than the telson (shorter than the tel- 
son in chappuisi). 
Study of a large series (>70 specimens) of B. chap- 
puisi (from interstitial waters of a gravel bank at 
the mouth of La Baillorie, Banyuls, France, chlori- 
nity 24696 mgA), has revealed a broad range of va- 
riation in the expression of certain characters 
(number of segments in accessory flagellum of Al, 
length of spines on uropod 3, slenderness of pe- 
reiopods, length of telson spines, number of telson 
spines ... ) in what is presumed to be a monospecific 
population. Similar variations have been noticed 
by Karaman (1979) elsewhere in the Mediterranean 
belt. It remains to be seen if these populations are 
indeed rnonospecific, or whether they consist of a 
mixture of sibling species. At any rate, the charac- 
ters 1 to 11 enumerated above, all fall outside the 
range of variation observed in the alledged B. chap- 
puisi, and of course the apomorphic sexual di- 
morphism in the armature of the endopodite of 
uropod 2 in chappuisi forms already sufficient 
ground for placing B. balearica as a distinct species 
in  a different subgenus. 
Within the subgenus Bogidiella s. str., with 
which balearica is to be classified, the Mallorcan 
taxon is closely related to aprutina Pesce, 1980, 
dalrnatina S. Ka ra man, 1953, niphargoides Ruffo & 
Vigna, 1977, semidenticulata Mestrov, 1961, and 
vomeroi Ruffo & Vigna, 1977. These species all 
share the combination of the following characters 
with balearica: (1) telson with II + II apical spines; 
(2) presence of lentiform organs on the pereio- 
pods; (3) absence of endopodite in the pleopods. 
These species can be distinguished from ba- 
learica as follows: 
- aprutina: posterior margin of basis of Gn.1 
with 1 long and 1 short seta; lentiform organs cre- 
nulated; spines of outer lobe of maxilla 1 with 0-3 
denticles; 
- dalmatina: basis of Gn.i as in aprutina; tel- 
son cleft narrow; telson longer than wide; telson 
spines very unequal in length; spines on outer lobe 
of maxilla 1 with 1-2 denticles; 
- niphargoides: basis of PI  with 1 short and 
3 long setae; telson cleft shallower; flagellum of 
first antenna 18-segmented; palmar margin of 
Gn.1 and Gn.2 with numerous bifid spines; 
- sernidenticulata: basis of P1 as in aprutina; 
lentiform organs much larger; P3 - P6 ven/ scantily 
armed; proximoventral spine of uropod 1 located 
in the middle of the ramus; spines of outer lobe of 
maxilla 1 with 1 denticle; 
- vomeroi: basis of Gn.1 as in aprutina; lenti- 
form organs located in distal part of basis of pe- 
reiopods; uropod l without proximoventral spine; 
antennae less slender; spines of outer lobe of max- 
illa 1 all pluridentate. 
Moreover, all 5 species listed above have only 
2 (instead of 3) bifid spines on the inner lobe of the 
maxilliped. 
Other Bogidiella material 
from Mallorca 
A damaged specimen of Bogidiella, probably a 
male, was collected from the underflow in the gra- 
vel bed of the Torrent de Pareis, near La Calobra 
(Mallorca), at ca. 1000 m from the sea, 2 Jan. 1978, 
chlorinity 800 mgA (ZMA Amph. 108.099). This spec- 
imen, devoid of its P6 and P7, resembles B. (B.) 
balearica in the slenderness of the appendages, 
but has the distal telson armature reduced to I + I 
spines. Certain other characters of this specimen 
(armature of basis of Gn.1, armature of P3 - P5) are 
better in agreement with B. (M,) chappuisi than 
with B. (B.) balearica. This specimen was briefly 
mentioned by Stock, 1978: 89. Its taxonomic status 
must remain uncertain for the moment, awaiting 
more material from this locality. It appears to be 
rare, or at least very localized, since repeated sam- 
pling in 1983 and 1985 has failed to produce any 
further specimens. 
The 1985 fieldwork in Mallorca of the senior 
author has been supported financially by EuroUni- 
versitas, Munich (FRG). 
The 1986 collections of the junior author in 
Mallorca were supported by grants BSR-8215672 
and BSR-8417494 from the National Science Foun- 
dation (U.S.A.). We extend our appreciation to the 
following individuals who assisted with logistical 
problems and collections and provided data on 
Mallorcan cave locations: Dr. Guillermo Mateu Ma- 
teu, Ana Maria Abril Duro, Joaquin Gines, and An- 
gel Gines. We also thank the owners and manage- 
ment of Coves del Drac and Coves dels Hams for 
permitting us to visit and collect from these caves. 
This paper is Contribution No. 1095 of the Ber- 
muda Biological Station for Research. 
w X Y L 
L 
0.1 mrn 
Figs. 18-20. Bogidiella (B.) balearica Dancau, 1973, 8 (Manacor, 
h'lallorca). 
18, fifth pereiopod (scale WX); 19, sixth pereiopod (WX); 20, se- 
venth pereiopod (WX). All scale elernents (WX, WY, WZ) corres- 
pond to 100 pm. 
Figs. 21-27. Bogidietla (B.) balearica Dancau, 1973, d (Manacor, 
Mallorca). 
21, epimeral plates 1 to 3, from the right (scale WX); 22, second 
pleopod (WX); 23, retinaculum of fint pleopod (free-hand sketch); 
24, first uropod (WX); 25, second uropod (WY); 26, third uropod 
(WX); 27, telson (WZ). Scales below fig. 19. 
Figs. 28-34. Bogidiella (Medigidiella) chappuisi Ruffo, 1952, Q 
(mouth of La Baillorie, Banyuls, France). 
28, inner lobe of maxilliped (scale WZ); 29, basis of f in t  gnatho- 
pod (WX); 30, palmar margin of first gnathopod (WY) [A = angle 
row of spinules, implanted in deep sinus; B = row of spinules at 
base of claw]; 31, palmar margin of second gnathopod (WY) [A 
and B as in fig. 301; 32, fifth pereiopod (WX); 33, dista1 part of 
seventh pereiopod (m); 34, third uropod W). Scales below fig. 19. 
References 
DANCAU, D. (1973): «Observations sur les Amphipodes souter- 
rains de I%le de Majorque. Genre Bogidiellan. Trav. Inst. Spéol. 
«Emile Racovitza>), 12: 113-119. 
KARAMAN. G. S. (1979): ((Bogidiella chappuisi Ruffo 1952 and its 
variability with remarks to come other species (fam. Gamma- 
r idae)~. Poljoprivreda i Sumarstvo, 25: 17-30. 
KARAMAN. G. S. (1982): In S. RUFFO, «The Amphipoda of the Me- 
diterranean; Family Gammaridae~. Mém. Inst. océanogr. 
Monaco, 13: 245-364. 
KARAMAN. G. S. (1982): ((Critica1 remarks to the recent revisions 
of Bogidiella-group of genera with study of some taxa (farn. 
Gammaridae)~. Poljoprivreda i Sumantvo, 28 (3-4): 31-57. 
RUFFO, S. (1952): In S. RUFFO & C. DELAMARE DEBOUTEVILLE, 
((Deux nouveaux Amphipodes souterrains de la France ... n 
C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 234: 1636-1638. 
RUFFO, S. (1973): ((Contributo alla revisione del genere Bogidiella 
Herhog (Crustacea Amphipoda, Gammaridae)>). Boll. 1st. Ent 
Univ. Bologna, 31: 49-77. 
STOCK, J. H. (1978): «A remarkably variable phreatic amphipod 
from Mallorca, Rhipidogammarus variicauda n. sp.». Bijdr. 
Dierk., 48 (1): 89-95. 
STOCK, J. H. (1981): aThe taxonomy and zoogeography of the fa- 
mily Bogidiellidae (Crustacea, Amphipoda). with emphasis 
on the West lndian taxan. Bijdr. Dierk., 51 (2): 345-374. 


The status of Bogidiella Balearica Dancau, 1973, a stygobiont amphipod from Mallorca

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Biblioteca Digital de les Illes Balears

Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert