4.1 Article

Description of two new species of the freshwater amphipod Hyalella Smith, 1874 (Amphipoda: Hyalellidae) from southeastern Brazil, with remarks on their population biology and reproduction

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRUSTACEAN BIOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jcbiol/ruab050

Keywords

Crustacea; ecology; freshwater amphipods; morphology; taxonomy

Funding

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior, Brazil (CAPES) [001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study describes two new species of Hyalella from southeastern Brazil, providing information on their morphology, reproduction, and population aspects. The two new species differ in body length and antenna length, and exhibit a weak positive correlation between head size of paired males and females, as well as differences in sex ratio. Additionally, ovigerous females of one species carry more and larger eggs, possibly in response to differences in habitat use.
We describe two new species of Hyalella Smith, 1874 from Sao Paulo state, southeastern Brazil, presenting morphological details and shedding some light on the reproductive and populational aspects of the new species. Hyalella bala a. sp. not only has a smaller mean body length in relation to H. virgineae n. sp., but their antennas 1 and 2 are also shorter than those of H. virgineae n. sp. There is a positive but weak correlation between head size of paired males and females, and unpaired females are usually smaller than paired or ovigerous ones, for both species. The sex ratio for H. bala n. sp. favors females, while there are 28% more males than available females in H. virgineae n. sp.. Hyalella virgineae n. sp. ovigerous females carry more and larger eggs than H. bala n. sp., probably in response to differences in habitat use. We increase to 37 the number of species of Hyalella in Brazil, and to eight in Sao Paulo state.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available