Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Sprache: | |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Zenodo
2020
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4570141 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Inhaltsangabe:
- <p><b><i>Williamstimpsonia denticulatus</i> (White, 1848)</b></p><p><i>Xantho denticulatus</i> White, 1848: 17.</p><p><b>Material examined.</b> Brazil, São Paulo: 1 ♀, CCDB 6542, Santos, Laje de Santos, colls. T. Davanso <i>et al.</i>, vi.2015.</p><p><b>Distribution.</b> Western Atlantic—Bermuda, USA (Florida), Bahamas, Gulf of Mexico, Honduras, Panama, Cuba, Antilles, Venezuela, and Brazil (São Pedro and São Paulo Archipelago, Ceará, Rio Grande do Norte, Paraíba, Pernambuco, Bahia, São Paulo). Eastern Atlantic—Ghana, islands of Gulf of Guinea. Central Atlantic—Ascension Island (Rathbun 1930; Powers 1977; Keith 1985; Abele & Kim 1986; Manning & Chace 1990; Melo & Veloso 2005; Alves <i>et al.</i> 2006; Almeida <i>et al.</i> 2010; Diez & Jover 2015).</p><p><b>Remarks.</b> Previous records on the coast of São Paulo include Ilha Vitória and Ilha das Couves as <i>Xanthodius denticulatus</i> (Alves <i>et al.</i> 2006; 2012a). New combination to <i>Williamstimpsonia</i> was proposed by Števčić (2011).</p><p><b>Species with uncertain occurrence</b></p><p>Herein we presented species which were inferred to occur on the coast of São Paulo state based on the assumption of continuous distribution ranges along the Brazilian coast that include this state (e.g., Melo 1990, 1996, 1998). As consequence, some following studies replicated their occurrence in São Paulo state without further checking (e.g., Melo <i>et al.</i> 1998, 2008, 2010). In some cases, the species was mentioned in technical research report or scientific journal, but with no information about the voucher catalogue in crustacean collection. Thus, pending future and detailed investigation, we suggest that the inferences of their presence in São Paulo are erroneous/doubtful and should not be considered at least until records are appropriately reported (Table 3). However, despite our efforts to check the vast literature pointing to the coast of São Paulo state, as well as some of Brazilian main scientific collections, we cannot rule out the hypothesis that any of the species not recorded by us have been collected in the past and be deposited in any collection in the country or abroad that we were not able to analyze during our study.</p><p><i>......continued on the next page ......continued on the next page</i> Pinnotheridae <i>Pinnotheres sebastianensis</i> PB, PE, BA, RJ to Coelho & Ramos 1972; Martins & D’Incao 1996; Bertini <i>et al.</i> 2004; Melo 1996 (Rodrigues da Costa, 1970) RS Bezerra <i>et al.</i> 2006</p><p>We did not include here species that were cited as occurring in São Paulo in the past, but with more recent studies and taxonomic updates no longer supporting their presence in the state. As example, we can cite two cases: <i>Austinixa cristata</i>, previously distributed from USA to São Paulo according to several authors (Coelho & Ramos 1972; Powers 1977; Abele & Kim 1986; Melo 1996; Dall’Occo <i>et al.</i> 2004; Felder <i>et al.</i> 2009), but recent robust study encompassing all members of the genus considered this species as occurring only in Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Western coast (Palacios-Thiel & Felder 2020); <i>Dromia gouveai</i> described as a new species by Melo & Campos Jr. (1999) from Santos, and with occurrence in Bahia and São Paulo (Melo & Campos Jr. 1999; Almeida <i>et al.</i> 2007a; Almeida & Coelho 2008) was considered junior synonym of <i>D. erytropus</i> (WoRMS 2020).</p>