. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum Zoology. 24 ORLOVA-BIENKOWSKAJA. Fig. 24 S. vetuloides, lectotype, parthenogenetic female. A, general view, B, distal part of antenna basipod with a seta on outer side and a spine on inner side. assign it to the genus Simocephalus. But their descriptions are insufficient. Some authors supposed S. exspinosus to be the junior synonym of S. vetulus (Daphnia sima) (Lievin, 1848; Baird, 1850). Lilljeborg (1900) was the first to describe this species appropriately. 5. australiensis was originally described insufficiently (Dana, 1852). Dana's collection w
. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum Zoology. 24 ORLOVA-BIENKOWSKAJA. Fig. 24 S. vetuloides, lectotype, parthenogenetic female. A, general view, B, distal part of antenna basipod with a seta on outer side and a spine on inner side. assign it to the genus Simocephalus. But their descriptions are insufficient. Some authors supposed S. exspinosus to be the junior synonym of S. vetulus (Daphnia sima) (Lievin, 1848; Baird, 1850). Lilljeborg (1900) was the first to describe this species appropriately. 5. australiensis was originally described insufficiently (Dana, 1852). Dana's collection with the type was lost on a ship which sank (D. Frey, personal communication through Smirnov). Sars is often supposed to be the author of this species (Negrea, 1983) because he is the first to describe it appropriately (Sars, 1888). He believed S. australiensis to be a separate species closely related with S. exspinosus and differing from it by 'the peculiar oblique form of the carapace and well-marked, though obtuse, projection of its posterior extremity; likewise too by the broad tail, and more espec- ially by the highly characteristic armature of the caudal claws'. Dumont (1983) regards S. australiensis as a subspecies of S. exspinosus. Other authors regard it as a synonym (Flossner, 1972; Negrea, 1983; Margaritora, 1985; Michael & Sharma, 1988). Iagree with the latter opinion, because the diagnostic characters used by Sars and Dana are rather variable and because all available speci- mens of the S. (exspinosus) species group from Australia do not differ from European S. exspinosus. According to Sars (1898, 1903), S. sibiricus and S. productus differ from each other and from S. exspinosus in the head shape, the size of the dorso-posterior valve prominence and the armature of the postabdominal claw. Manujlova (1964) mentions S. sibiricus as a separate, highly variable species. Judging from illustrations, she confuses two species under this name. S. productus is believ
Size: 1574px × 1588px
Photo credit: © Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bhlconsortium, bookc, bookcentury1900, bookcollectionbiodiversity
