Morphological differences between ‘subrugosa’ and ‘gregaria’ morphs of adult Munida (Decapoda: Anomura: Galatheidae) from the Beagle Channel, southern South America
Tapella, F.; Lovrich, G.A. (2006). Morphological differences between ‘subrugosa’ and ‘gregaria’ morphs of adult Munida (Decapoda: Anomura: Galatheidae) from the Beagle Channel, southern South America. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 86(5): 1149-1155. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0025315406014123
In: Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press/Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom: Cambridge. ISSN 0025-3154; e-ISSN 1469-7769, more
|  |
| Keywords |
Analysis > Mathematical analysis > Statistical analysis > Variance analysis
Behaviour > Feeding behaviour
Biological phenomena > Adaptations
Biology > Organism morphology > Animal morphology
Body size
Munida gregaria (Fabricius, 1793) [WoRMS]; Munida subrugosa Dana, 1852 [WoRMS]
PSW, South America, Beagle Channel [Marine Regions]
Marine/Coastal |
| Authors | | Top |
- Tapella, F.
- Lovrich, G.A.
|
|
|
| Abstract |
Munida subrugosa and M. gregaria are very abundant in the southern hemisphere, especially off New Zealand and South America. The specific identity of both species is still controversial and accurate identification is needed for conservation or ecological purposes. In this study the authors used univariate and multivariate methods to determine the morphological differences between both species/morphs. Analyses of covariance of ten morphological variables regressed individually on the carapace length demonstrated that the carapace (including rostrum) and eyestalks (EL) were longer, and the anterior carapace (ACW), the rostrum basis (RBW), and dactylus (DaW) and propodus (PW) of the third maxilliped were wider in M. gregaria than in M. subrugosa. In contrast, the carapace, mandible and eyestalk were wider and the rostrum was longer in M. subrugosa compared to M. gregaria. A stepwise discriminant analysis found that five body measurements namely DaW, EL, PW, RBW and ACW, were useful to discriminate between both species/morphs. The difference between the two discriminant functions provides an objective decision rule for the classification of both species/morphs. The authors also present the linear relationships of wet and dry masses on size, for use in biomass estimations of Munida spp. as prey. |
|
