BULLETIN

MUSÉUM NATIONAL D’HISTOIRE NATURELLE

57, rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris

Directeur : P r M. Vachon.

Comité directeur : P rs Y. Le Grand, C. Lévi, J. Dorst.

Rédacteur général : Dr. M.-L. Bauchot.

Secrétaire de rédaction : M me P. Dupérier.

Conseiller pour l’illustration : Dr. N. Halle.

Le Bulletin du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, revue bimestrielle, paraît depuis

1895 et publie des travaux originaux relatifs aux diverses branches de la Science.

Les tomes 1 à 34 (1895-1928), constituant la l re série, et les tomes 35 à 42 (1929-1970),

constituant la 2 e série, étaient formés de fascicules regroupant des articles divers.

A partir de 1971, le Bulletin 3 e série est divisé en six sections (Zoologie — Botanique —

Sciences de la Terre — Sciences de l’Homme — Sciences physico-chimiques — Écologie

générale) et les articles paraissent, en principe, par fascicules séparés.

S’adresser :

— pour les échanges, à la Bibliothèque centrale du Muséum national d’His-

toire naturelle, 38, rue Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire, 75005 Paris (C.C.P.,

Paris 9062-62) ;

— pour les abonnements et les achats au numéro, à la Librairie du Muséum

36, rue Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire, 75005 Paris (C.C.P., Paris 17591-12 —

Crédit Lyonnais, agence Y-425) ;

— pour tout ce qui concerne la rédaction, au Secrétariat du Bulletin, 57, rue

Cuvier, 75005 Paris.

Abonnements :

Abonnement Général : France, 260 F ; Etranger, 286 F.

Zoologie : France, 200 F ; Etranger, 220 F.

Sciences de la Terre : France, 50 F ; Étranger, 55 F.

Sciences de l’Homme : France, 45 F ; Étranger, 50 F.

Botanique : France, 40 F ; Étranger, 44 F.

Sciences Physico-Chimique : France, 15 F ; Étranger, 16 F.

BULLETIN DU MUSÉUM NATIONAL D’HISTOIRE NATURELLE

3 e série, n° 64, juillet-août 1972, Zoologie 50

Taxonomie studies on the genus Grandidierella Coutière

(Crustacea, Amphipoda)

II. The Malagasy species

by Alan A. Myers *

Abstract. — A review is given of the Malagasy species of the amphipod crustacean genus Gran¬

didierella Coutière. G. spinicoxa sp. nov. is described and figured and its relationship to G. maha-

falensis Coutière is discussed.

Résumé. — Etude d’une petite collection de Grandidierella de Tuléar, sud-ouest de Madagascar.

Il apparaît que le matériel présente de grandes affinités avec G. mahafalensis Coutière, mais qu’il

en diffère par certains caractères importants. Il est complètement décrit et figuré sous le nom

de G. spinicoxa sp. nov. L’espèce correspond aux spécimens brièvement décrits par Barnard

(1958) de Mohéli (Comores), ce qui montrerait sa large distribution. Les autres représentants du

genre signalés de Madagascar sont mentionnés.

INTRODUCTION

The genus Grandidierella Coutière (1904) was described to accommodate a species of

amphipod (G. mahafalensis Coutière) from the land-locked saline lake Tsimanampetsotsa

in the Mahafaly région of S-W Madagascar. Coutière (1904) remarked that it woidd

be most interesting to compare his material with marine examples from the adjoining

West Coast, but although the genus has been rather widely studied in the world tropics,

little work has been carried out on the Malagasy species, appart from that of Monod (1935),

Ruffo (1958) who first described G. honnieroides Stephensen (as G. Bonnieri) from Soalara

and Ledoyer (1967, 1968, 1969).

Recently I received from Pr. Th. Monod, a small collection of a species of Grandi¬

dierella from Tuléar in S-W Madagascar, together with topotypic material of G. mahafa¬

lensis. The Tuléar material shows close affinity with G. mahafalensis but difîers in a

number of important characters. It does, however, agréé with material rather briefly

described by Barnard (1958) from Mohéli in the Comoro islands, which suggests the possi-

bility of a wide distribution for this species at least along the Western coast of Madagascar

and the islands of the Mozambique channel. The dissimilarity of the isolated lake Tsima¬

nampetsotsa material from that of the widely separate but continuous marine environ-

ments at Tuléar and Mohéli would be expected, but whether the long isolation in the lake 1

has resulted in full spéciation or merely sub-speciation is impossible to ascertain without

* Department of Zoology, University College, Cork, Eire.

1. According to Pr. René Battistini, the âge of lake Tsimanampetsotsa is at least 75,000 years.

64, 1

790

ALAN A. MYERS

further research on living material. Considering the constant différences between Tuléar

and lake Tsimanampetsotsa material it would seem most practical to describe the fully

marine material as a new species, here proposed as G. spinicoxa sp. nov., whilst at the

saine time noting the close aflinity of the tvvo species.

THE MALAGASY SPECIES

Grandidierella bonnieroides Stephensen

Grandidierella bonnieroides Stephensen, 1948 : 12-16, fig. 3 ; Myers, 1970 : 141, fig. 1-2.

Grandidierella bonnieri Ruffo, 1958 : 58, fig. 8-9 ; Ledoyer, 1967 : 137, fig. 28a ; 1968 : 53, fig. 25b

(Non) Grandidierella bonnieri Stebbing, 1908 : 120-123, pl. 6.

Discussion. —- This species is well described and figured from Madagascar by Ruffo

(1958) and Ledoyer (1967). For a discussion and revised synonymy of this species see

Myers (1970).

Recorded distribution in Madagascar : Soalara (Ruffo, 1958), Tuléar (Ledoyer, 1967).

Grandidierella grossimana Ledoyer

Grandidierella grossimana Ledoyer, 1968 : 53, fig. 25a.

Discussion. — G. grossimana difîers from ail other Malagasy species in the structure

of the male gnathopod II in wich the carpus is relatively short and broad, the postero-

distal margin produced into a weakly developed tooth, and the propodus broad, approxi-

mately parallel sided with a transverse palm. Other diagnostic features include the confi¬

guration of the male gnathopod I and the structure of the antennule (for which see Ledoyer,

1968).

Recorded distribution in Madagascar : Tuléar.

Grandidierella mahafalensis Coutière

Grandidierella mahafalensis Coutière, 1904 : 166-170, fig. 1-19 ; Ruffo, 1958 : 55, fig. 7-8.

Grandidierella megnae Monod, 1935 : 464-465.

(Non) Grandidierella megnae (Giles), 1888 : 231-235, pl. 8, fig. 1-4.

Discussion. — For a recent review and appraisal of this species see Ruffo (1958).

The female gnathopod I figured by Ruffo, 1958 (fig. 7, 4-5), does not appear to be of the

usual form for the female of this species, more closely resembling the developing gnathopod

of a young male. Since the gnathopod is from an ovigerous female it probably represents

an intersex. Normal female and male gnathopods, male coxae I and II and uropod III

792

ALAN A. MYERS

are figured here (fig. 1 A-F) for comparison with the corresponding appendages of G. spini¬

coxa sp. nov.

ldecorded distribution in Madagascar : Lake Tsimanampetsotsa.

Grandidierella spinicoxa sp. nov.

Grandidierella mahafalensis Barnard, 1958 : 105, fig. 19.

Grandidierella bonnieri Ledoyer, 1969 : 186, fig. 3.

(Non) Grandidierella bonnieri Stebbing, 1908 : 120-123, pl. 6.

Description of male. — Length 8.0 mm ; head shorter than first two pereon segments

combined, latéral cephalic lobes well developed, rounded, eye ovoid ; pereon segment I

witb a well developed, forwardly curving, mid-ventral, sternal tooth ; antenna 1 about

equal to the body length, basi-distal ratio of peduncular articles, approximately 5:6:1,

flagellum longer than peduncle, with 25-30 articles, accessory flagellum uni-articulate,

about equal to one half the length of the first flagellar article of the primary flagellum ;

antenna II subpediform, two thirds the length of antenna I, peduncular article 4. longer and

broader than 5, flagellum less than one half the length of the fifth peduncular article, with

about 7 articles, the basal articles scarcely constricted ; rnouthparts not difîering significantly

from those of G. mahafalensis ; gnathopod I coxa shallow, the anterior distal corner produced

into a rounded tooth, basis robust, the posterior margin sinuous, carpus subovoid, the

posterior distal angle produced into a well developed outwardly deflected tooth, a second

small blunt tooth on the distal margin, posterior to the inserted propodus, and a further,

more slender tooth on the posterior margin, the posterior margin between the posterior

marginal tooth and the distal tooth, irregularly serrate, propodus slender, short, broader

distally, the palmar angle produced into a forwardly projecting rounded tooth, dactylus

equal in length to the propodus and hence greatly overlapping palm, the posterior margin

produced basally into a blunt lobe, and with a small tooth midway between lobe and tip ;

gnatopod II coxa subtriangular, the anterior distal corner produced into a small pointed

tooth, basis elongate and slender, merus with a distal row of long pectinate setae, carpus

elongate, about three times as long as broad, the anterior margin bearing a ‘ brush ’ of very

fine setae inserted into relatively large and conspicuous bases, propodus about two thirds the

length of the carpus with a sériés of spines on the distal portion of the posterior margin, palm

almost transverse, dactylus overlapping palm ; pereopods III-VII scarcely dilîering from those

of G. mahafalensis ; uropod I peduncle equal in length to the rami, the ventral distal margin

produced into a curved tooth, rami subequal, spiniferous on the anterior dorsal margin ; uro¬

pod II peduncle shorter than rami, the outer ramus slightly the longer, both rami spiniferous

on the anterior dorsal margin ; uropod III peduncle very short, the posterior (inner) margin

Fig. 2. — Grandidierella spinicoxa sp. nov., Tuléar.

A, <J Head and pereon segments I & II, with a, coxae I & II, b, accessory flagellum of antenna I and

c, flagellum of antenna II ; B, Gnathopod I with d, palm of propodus ; C, Gnathopod II (distal-most

setae of anterior margin of carpus omitted to show bases), with e, palm of propodus ; D, Ç Gnathopod II.

794

ALAN A. MYERS

expanded into a flange, the single ramus slightly over twice the length of the peduncle,

witli a sériés of stout setae on the anterior and posterior margins and a terminal group

of stout setae ; telson similar to that of G. mahafalensis.

Description of female. — Length 7.0 mm ; similar to the male, but pereon segment I

without a sternal tooth, antennae shorter, antenna I equal to about one lialf the body

length, primary flagellum with 16-20 articles ; antenna II about two thirds the length

of antenna I ; gnathopod I coxa shallow, unproduced, basis slender, about three times as long

as broad, carpus about two times as long as broad, propodus shorter than the

carpus with a sériés of moveable spines or the posterior margin, dactylus robust, overlap-

ping palm ; gnathopod II coxa subtriangular, unproduced, basis slender, merus with a distal

row of long pectinate setae, carpus slender with a single row of long setae on the anterior

margin, propodus slightly shorter than the carpus, dactylus fîtting palm.

Type locality : Tuléar, S-W Madagascar.

Material examined : 4 3 $.

Holotype : M.N.H.N., n° 7229.

Discussion. — G. spinicoxa sp. nov. is closely related to G. mahafalensis Coutière,

but differs in the following important characters : Male gnathopod I carpus more ovoid,

the posterior distal margin strongly serrate, propodus with a well developed palmar tooth,

dactylus curiously lobed and toothed on the posterior margin. Male gnathopod II with

a ‘ brush ’ of fine setae on the anterior margin, each seta with a large, conspicuous round

point of insertion. Male coxae I and II each with a distinct tooth at its anterior distal

corner. Uropod III ramus broader with more robust, stout setae.

Lcdoyer (1969) noted that not ail the specimens in his sample of G. spinicoxa (as

G. bonnieri ) had well developed coxal teeth and suggested that this was a case of polymor-

phisiri. It seems more likely, however, that those specimens with coxal teeth represent

terminal males, those without teeth, the non-terminal males, since male amphipods continue

to différéntiate morphologically long aftcr attaining sexual matunty. In Aoridac and

related families, terminal males may be rare or even absent from an entire population,

and this occurence of ‘ neotonous ’ populations présents considérable difïiculties to taxo¬

nomie studios.

Ecology : In the inter-tidal zone among the sea grasses Syringodium isoetifolium,

Halophila minor, Diplanthera beaudettei, D. uninervis, Zostera capensis, Cymodocea serrulata

and Thalassia spp.

Distribution : Tuléar (Madagascar), Mohéli (Comoro Islands).

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to Pr. Th. Monod for drawing my attention to the problem and for

providing me with material upon whieh to base the présent study.

796

ALAN A. MYERS

REFERENCES

Barnard, K. H., 1958. — Terrestrial isopods and amphipods from Madagascar. Mém. Inst, scient.

Madagascar, sér. A, 12 : 67-111. >

Coutière, H., 1904. — Sur un type nouveau d’Amphipode, Grandidierella mahafalensis , prove¬

nant de Madagascar. Bull. Soc. philomath. Paris, sér. 9, 6 : 166-174, fig. 1-19.

Giles, G. M., 1888. — Further notes on the Amphipoda of Indian waters. J. Asiat. Soc. Beng.,

57 : 220-255.

Ledoyer, M., 1967. — Amphipodes gammariens des herbiers de phanérogames marines de la

région de Tuléar (République malgache). Étude systématique et écologique. Annls Fac.

Sci. Univ. Madagascar, 5 : 121-170.

— 1968. — Amphipodes gammariens de quelques biotopes de substrat meuble de la région

de Tuléar. Annls Fac. Sci. Univ. Madagascar, 6 : 17-62, fig. 1-25.

— 1969. — Amphipodes gammariens du sédiment des herbiers de phanérogames marines et

des dunes hydrauliques du Grand récif de Tuléar (Madagascar). Étude systématique et

écologique. Becl Trav. Stn. mar. Endoume, fasc. h.s., 9 : 183-191.

Monod, Th., 1935. —• Contribution à l’étude faunistique de la réserve naturelle du Manampetsa

(Madagascar), B. Crustacés. Ann. Sci. nat. Paris, sér. 10, 18 : 449-466.

Myers, A. A., 1970. —- Taxonomie studies on the genus Grandidierella Coutière (Crustacea : Amphi¬

poda), with a description of G. dentimera sp. nov. Bull. mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb., 20 : 135-147.

Ruffo, S., 1958. — - Amphipodes terrestres et des eaux continentales de Madagascar, des Comores

et de la Réunion. Mém. Inst, scient. Madagascar, sér. A, 12 : 35-66.

Stebbing, T. R. R., 1908. — The fauna of brackish ponds at Port Canning, Lower Bengal. Part 9 :

A new species of Amphipoda. Bec. Indian Mus., 2 (2) : 119-123.

Stephensen, K., 1948. — Amphipods from Curaçao, Bonaire, Aruba and Marguerita. Stud. Fauna

Curaçao, 3 (11) : 1-20.

Manuscrit déposé le 26 août 1971.

Bull. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris, 3 e sér., n° 64, juillet-août 1972,

Zoologie 50 : 789-796.

Achevé d'imprimer le 30 décembre 1972.

IMPRIMERIE NATIONALE

2 564 002 5

Recommandations aux auteurs

Les articles à publier doivent être adressés directement au Secrétariat du Bulletin du

Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, 57, rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris. Ils seront accompa¬

gnés d’un résumé en une ou plusieurs langues. L’adresse du Laboratoire dans lequel le

travail a été effectué figurera sur la première page, en note infrapaginale.

Le texte doit être dactylographié à double interligne, avec une marge suffisante, recto

seulement. Pas de mots en majuscules, pas de soulignages (à l’exception des noms de genres

et d’espèces soulignés d’un trait).

Il convient de numéroter les tableaux et de leur donner un titre ; les tableaux

compliqués devront être préparés de façon à pouvoir être clichés comme une figure.

Les références bibliographiques apparaîtront selon les modèles suivants :

Bauchot, M.-L., J. Daget, J.-C. Hureau et Th. Monod, 1970. — Le problème des

« auteurs secondaires » en taxionomie. Bull. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris, 2 e sér., 42 (2) : 301-304.

Tinbergen, N., 1952. — The study of instinct. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 228 p.

Les dessins et cartes doivent être faits sur bristol blanc ou calque, à l’encre de chine.

Envoyer les originaux. Les photographies seront le plus nettes possible, sur papier brillant,

et normalement contrastées. L’emplacement des figures sera indiqué dans la marge et les

légendes seront regroupées à la fin du texte, sur un feuillet séparé.

Un auteur ne pourra publier plus de 100 pages imprimées par an dans le Bulletin,

en une ou plusieurs fois.

Une seule épreuve sera envoyée à l’auteur qui devra la retourner dans les quatre jours

au Secrétariat, avec son manuscrit. Les « corrections d’auteurs » (modifications ou addi¬

tions de texte) trop nombreuses, et non justifiées par une information de dernière heure,

pourront être facturées aux auteurs.

Ceux-ci recevront gratuitement 50 exemplaires imprimés de leur travail. Ils pourront

obtenir à leur frais des fascicules supplémentaires en s’adressant à la Bibliothèque cen¬

trale du Muséum : 38, rue Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire, 75005 Paris.