Comprehensive Description
provided by Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology
Atya margaritacea A. Milne-Edwards
Atya margaritacea A. Milne-Edwards, 1864:148, 149, pl. 3, fig. 2 [type-locality: New Caledonia (as pointed out by Holthuis, 1966:234, “evidently in error”); types: MHNP, No. 601, 2, 1].—Giebel, 1875:52.—Bate, 1888:693.—Ortmann, 1890:465, 466, pl. 36: fig. 7; 1895:408, 409.—Bouvier, 1905:121, 122.—Holthuis, 1969:92.
Atya rivalis Smith, 1871:94 [type-locality: “Fresh water streams, Polvon [12°21′N, 87°05′W], Occidental Department, Nicaragua”; types: MCZ 317, 3 dismembered in one bottle, single specimen of undetermined sex in another].—Kingsley, 1878a:92; 1878b:57.—Pocock, 1889: 16.—Oliveira, 1945:179.—Holthuis, 1966:234.—Chace and Hobbs, 1969:66.—Solar, 1972:8.—Abele, 1975:56, 57.—Abele and Blum, 1977:240–242, 245, 250.—Méndez, 1981:14, 70, pl 4: fig. 34; pl. 27: figs. 209–211.—Rodríguez, 1981:46.
Atya scabra.—(?)Kingsley, 1878b:57.—Ortmann, 1895:408–410, 415, 416; 1897:183–185.—(?)Rathbun, 1900:313; 1901:119.—Bouvier, 1904:138; 1905:112, 121, fig. 25M; 1925:293, 314–317, figs. 703, 704.—De Man, 1925:28.—J. Roux, 1926b:217.—Monod, 1933:461.—Schmitt, 1935: 136.—Coventry, 1944:534.—(?)Oliveira, 1945:177.—Holthuis, 1951:25; 1966:234, 238; 1969:92.—Parodiz, 1960:38, 39 [only specimens from Costa Rica, not figs. 1–3].—Chace and Hobbs, 1969:63. [All in part.]
Atya scabra var. margaritacea.—Monod, 1967:140, pl. IX: figs. 13, 14 [not 15 and 16 as noted by Monod; see comment under “Published Illustrations” below].
Ataya margaritacea.—Chace and Hobbs, 1969:63 [erroneous spelling].
REVIEW OF LITERATURE.—Atya margaritacea was described by A. Milne-Edwards (1864) who based his account on specimens that he believed to have been collected on New Caledonia. Smith (1871) described the same species from Nicaraguan specimens, designating them Atya rivalis. In describing Atya gabonensis, Giebel (1875) noted the previously known members of the genus and included a reference to Milne-Edwards' species. Kingsley (1878a) contrasted certain characters of A. rivalis with those of his Atya punctata and mentioned the species in a second publication that year (1878b); in the latter he also recorded A. scabra from fresh-waters of western Mexico, a record almost certainly based upon a misidentification of A. margaritacea or A. ortmannioides. According to Pocock (1889), “the features pointed out by Mr. Kingsley to distinguish his punctata from…rivalis…are…regarded as due either to individual variation or to difference of age.” Bate (1888) did not add to our knowledge of the species. Two years later, however, Ortmann (1890) presented a brief diagnosis and illustrated the rostrum of A. margaritacea and placed it, together with A. robusta, A. scabra, and A. sculptipes (= sculptata), in his “margaritacea-Gruppe.” In his study of the family Atyidae, Ortmann (1895:408) included A. margaritacea in his key to the members of the genus, but he expressed the opinion that “the locality given by Milne-Edwards for margaritacea and robusta is not correct….” Among the several synonyms he cited for A. scabra was Atya rivalis, and the same recognition was accorded these two species by him in his study of the shrimps of South America (1897). Rathbun (1900, 1901) seems to have agreed with Ortmann that A. rivalis is a synonym of A. scabra, for she listed Nicaragua in citing the distribution of the latter, and, to our knowledge, no locality record for A. scabra in Nicaragua exists. Even though Rathbun did not cite A. rivalis among the synonyms of A. scabra, we suspect that her inclusion of that country in the range of A. scabra was based upon Smith's record for Atya rivalis, perhaps influenced by Ortmann.
Bouvier (1904) cited Atya margaritacea as a synonym of A. scabra and the following year (1905) added A. rivalis, among others, to his list of synonyms of A. scabra, and both A. margaritacea and A. rivalis were included among the synonyms of A. scabra in his monograph (1925). De Man (1925) also considered A. rivalis to be a synonym of A. scabra. Atya margaritacea was relegated to the synonomy of the latter by J. Roux (1926b), but he expressed doubt that his shrimp occurs on New Caledonia, for among 150 atyids collected in six localities there, no representative of the genus Atya (as restricted herein) was among them. Monod (1933) and Schmitt (1935) followed Bouvier in citing New Caledonia within the range of A. scabra. Nicaragua was included among the areas frequented by A. scabra by Oliveira (1945), an inclusion that almost certainly was based upon the assumed identity of A. scabra and A. rivalis. Coventry (1944) cited a new locality in Panama for a shrimp that was identified by him as A. scabra. In all probability this record is for A. margaritacea.
Although Holthuis (1951) did not list A. rivalis among the synonyms of A. scabra, he reported the species' occurrence on the west coast of America from Lower California to Costa Rica, an area inhabited by A. margaritacea instead of A. scabra. He also noted that the latter had been reported from New Caledonia, no doubt referring to Milne-Edwards' locality. Parodiz (1960) reported the presence of this shrimp (identified by him as Atya scabra) from Río de Colón, Costa Rica. In his study of the freshwater shrimps of Annobón, Holthuis (1966) pointed out certain differences between A. scabra and specimens of Atya from Ecuador and Peru. Those specimens from the two South American countries (which have relatively shorter and broader segments of the antennular peduncle, the second segment being much longer than the third, and in which the mesiodistal lobe of the merus of the third pereiopod forms a strong “bluntly triangular process,” and the legs more robust than in the eastern American and West Indian A. scabra) he assigned to A. rivalis. In commenting on the range of A. scabra recorded by Bouvier (1925), he stated that records from New Caledonia are almost certainly based on specimens (= syntypes of A. margaritacea) bearing erroneous data. Holthuis (1969) and Chace and Hobbs (1969) included A. margaritacea in their synonomy of A. scabra, but the latter tentatively regarded A. rivalis as a distinct species. The latter opinion was concurred in by Abele (1975). Solar (1972) included A. rivalis in his catalogue of the Crustacea of Peru, citing Holthuis (1966) and Chace's identification of specimens from ríos Chicama and Jequetepeque. In their study of the freshwater decapods of the Perlas Archipelago, Panama, Abele and Blum (1977) found A. rivalis only on San José; their six specimens ranged in length from (3) 40.4 to 32.4 mm and (3) 6.5 to 10.4 mm. A summary of their observations on the habitat occupied by this shrimp on the island is included in “Ecological Notes” below. Méndez (1981) reported the occurrence of A. rivalis in six river basins in Peru between 3°47′S and 11°04′S and at altitudes of 0 to 210 m. Illustrations are also provided.
PUBLISHED ILLUSTRATIONS.—In the original description of the species, A. Milne-Edwards (1864) included a lateral view of the entire animal, dorsal and lateral views of the rostrum, and a dorsal view of the telson. The only other figures available are those of Ortmann (1890), a dorsal view of the rostrum, and of Bouvier (1905), a dorsal view of the rostrum and lateral view of the cephalic region of the carapace. The last two were reprinted but mislabeled by Bouvier (1925), for figures 703 and 704 correspond to those labeled as “A. margaritacea” in 1905, fig. 25 M. Inasmuch as Monod's (1967) figures were taken from Bouvier (1925), those attributed to “Typical” scabra and to the “var. margaritacea” are reversed. Méndez (1981) included two drawings of Atya rivalis in lateral view, one of a dorsal view of the rostrum, and another of the first pereiopod.
DIAGNOSIS.—Cephalic region of carapace not conspicuously sculptured; spines limited to antennal, moderately strong pterygostomian, and occasional ventral rostral. Rostrum with margins suddenly contracted forming distinct angle anterior to orbit, angle often produced anteriorly; dorsal surface without median row of strong spines. Ventral margin of third through fifth abdominal pleura with short to moderately long rows of corneous denticles, such never present on second; caudoventral angle of fourth and fifth pleura not produced in spines. Sternum of fifth abdominal segment with comparatively large median tubercle, that of sixth about 1.6 times as broad as long. Preanal carina with short, somewhat compressed spine directed caudoventrally, spine not reaching level of caudal margin of basal part of sclerite bearing it. Telson 1.6 to 1.8 times as long as broad with 5 to 7 spines in each of 2 dorsal rows. Antennular peduncle with dorsal surface of proximal article usually devoid of sclerotized spinules proximal to distal transverse row; penultimate article 1.4 to 1.6 times as long as wide, and dorsal surface with many scattered spinules. Coxae of third and fourth pereiopods lacking prominent anterolateral spine. Third pereiopod with merus rounded ventrally, 2.1 to 2.4 times as long as high, ventromesial surface slightly to strikingly bowed, never parallel to that of corresponding podomere of other member of pair, and lateral surface bearing corneous spines and tubercles, many of latter with flattened scalelike extremities, most arranged in linear series; propodus 1.7 to 1.9 times as long as broad, studded with scalelike tubercles on extensor surface and with moderate number of similar, rather large ones scattered on flexor surface, if any of those on latter arranged in row, those comprising it never contiguous or overlapping; dactyl not fused with propodus and bearing single distinct straight to slightly curved, longitudinal row of scalelike tubercles on flexor surface.
SYNTYPIC MALE.—Eyes collapsed but obviously well developed and presumably pigmented. Rostrum (Figure 37a,d) with slightly concave margins produced in acute angles flanking base of acumen, latter slightly overreaching basal podomere of antennule; high, rounded dorsal carina excavate dorsally (dipping below level of lateral carinae posterior to acumen) and almost reaching tip of acumen. Ventral carina with 1 small tooth near apex of acumen; ocellar beak terminating in acute angle, dorsal margin horizontal and anterior margin oblique. Antennal spine acute; pterygostomian angle produced in short acute spine; no spines present between antennal and pterygostomian spines. Carapace (length 24.3 mm) devoid of other spines and conspicuous ridges; surface studded with short erect setae borne in rather crowded punctations.
Pleuron of second abdominal segment (Figure 37e) with rounded posteroventral extremity, that of third, fourth, and fifth angular although none produced in spines. Ventral margin of third, fourth, and fifth pleura with linear clusters of 15, 17, and 9 corneous denticles, respectively; that of sixth with sparse setal fringe posteriorly. Fourth abdominal tergum approximately 1.2, 1.2, and 1.1 times as long as fifth, sixth, and telson, respectively; length of sixth subequal to that of fifth, and 0.9 as long as telson. Sternum of fifth abdominal segment (Figure 1i, 37g) with rather large, compressed median tubercle; sternum of sixth 1.6 times as broad as long. Preanal carina (Figure 37j) with short spine, tip of which barely reaching midlength of sclerite. Telson (Figure 37m) about 1.8 times as long as wide, its dorsal surface bearing paired mesially concave rows of 6 denticles each and posteromedian tubercle, latter slightly overhanging midcaudal margin.
Proximal podomere of antennule (Figure 37b) with strong, acute, corneous-tipped stylocerite overreaching midlength of segment, dorsal surface with linear cluster of setae, and left member with 1 (right with 2) premarginal cornified spinules, distal margin studded with dorsolateral row of 7 cornified spinules; penultimate segment of peduncle subequal in length and width, its dorsal surface bearing 15 (right) or 13 (left) small, corneous spinules, more laterally situated ones forming curved row, dorsodistal margin with row of 6; ultimate podomere of peduncle, little more than half as long as penultimate segment, armed with rows of 8 similar spinules at dorsal base of each flagellum and groups of 3 or 4 proximal to row flanking base of lateral flagellum. Antenna with ventrolateral spine on basis almost reaching level of tip of stylocerite; lateral spine on scaphocerite extending to about midlength of ultimate podomere of antennular peduncle, falling short of distal end of peduncle of antenna; lamella of scaphocerite overreaching peduncles of both antennule and antenna. Flagellum of antenna broken.
Third maxilliped overreaching antennular peduncle by about 0.25 length of ultimate podomere of endopod; tip of exopod reaching base of apical third of penultimate podomere, latter about 1.6 times as long as ultimate.
First pereiopod reaching base of distal third of ultimate podomere of antennular peduncle; second pereiopod attaining distal fourth of fingers of first; terminal brush of both appendages apparently lacking scraping denticles. Third pereiopod (Figure 37f,k,l) lacking spines, and, when extended anteriorly, overreaching antennular peduncle by length of distal three-fourths of carpus and entire propodus and dactyl. Merus with ventromesial margin bowed, 2.6 times as long as high, twice as long as carpus, and 2.4 times as long as propodus; latter 1.8 times as long as wide and 0.9 as long as carpus; distoventral margin of coxa with prominent tubercle, otherwise gently curved (not scalloped), and mesial caudoventral prominence setiferous but very weak. Lateral, dorsal, and ventral surfaces of merus studded with linear series of large tubercles bearing cornified discs, free margins of which sharp; each tubercle flanked by semicircular cluster of conspicuous plumose setae; longitudinal row of long setae on lateral surface made inconspicuous by setae flanking subtending tubercles; mesial extremity of podomere produced in moderately strong lobe at level of mesial articular condyle of carpus. Carpus strongly tuberculate, tubercles tipped with corneous discs, latter increasingly produced toward distal end of podomere, tubercles flanked distally by setae as on merus, setae long and forming conspicuous tufts ventrolaterally. Propodus also strongly tuberculate with corneous apices ranging from scalelike proximally to clawlike distally, those on flexor surface somewhat irregularly dispersed (none arranged in contiguous or subcontiguous linear series); clusters of plumose setae on lateral surface conspicuous at least proximally. Dactyl movable, its flexor surface with single longitudinal row of 5 denticles flanked distally by paired setal clusters.
Fourth pereiopod with dactyl reaching end of proximal fourth of carpus of third; length of merus 2.3 times as long as carpus, latter slightly shorter than propodus. Fifth pereiopod (lacking propodus and dactyl) with merus about 1.4 times as long as carpus. Ornamentation of merus, carpus, and propodus of fourth pereiopod consisting of strong distoventral spine on both merus and carpus, smaller ventral spine at base of distal third on merus, and row of 3 corneous tubercles on distolateral margin of carpus; distal ventrolateral part of merus, entire ventrolateral part of carpus, and proximolateral two-thirds of propodus with conspicuous tufts of long plumose setae. Ornamentation of merus and carpus of fifth pereiopods similar to that of fourth except merus of right with 2 ventral spines and 4 instead of 3 distolateral tubercles on carpus.
Diaresis of lateral ramus of uropod flanked proximally by row of 16 articulated corneous denticles and fixed spine at lateral end of row.
COLOR
- bibliographic citation
- Hobbs, Horton Holcombe, Jr. 1982. "The Shrimp Genus Atya (Decapoda: Atyidae)." Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology. 1-153. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.364
Comprehensive Description
provided by Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology
Atya scabra (Leach)
Guaricuru.—Marcgrave, 1648:187, unnumbered fig.; 1942:187, unnumbered fig.—Jonstonus, 1650:35, 36, pl. ix: fig. 16; 1657:27, 28, pl. ix: fig. 16; 1665:27, 28, pl. ix: fig. 16; 1767:35, 36, pl. ix: fig. 16.—Piso, 1658:78.—Jonston, 1660, pl. ix: fig. 16.—Ruysch, 1718:27, 28, pl. ix: fig. 16.—Sawaya, 1942:LXIII.—Lemos de Castro, 1962:41, pl. 4: fig. 26.
Poti.—Piso, 1658:78, fig; 1957:188, fig.
Gaurikuru.—Jonston, 1660:27.
Guarikuru.—Jonston, 1660:27.
Atys scaber Leach, 1815:345 [type-locality: unknown (“Habitat——”; Leach, 1815:345); restricted to “the area of Veracruz, Mexico” (Holthuis, 1966:234); fixed by the present neotype selection to Misantla, Estado de Veracruz, Mexico, 19°56′N, 96°50′W; types: not known to exist, neotype designated herein].—Holthuis, 1955a:208, 221; 1955b:26; 1957:167, 180.—Hemming, 1957:133, 150, 167, 180.
Atya scabra.—Leach, 1816, pl. 21; 1817:29, 30, pl. 131; 1824:421, pl. 21.—H. Milne Edwards, 1816:138, 139, pl. 51: fig. 4; 1837:348, pl. 24: figs. 15–19; 1838:352; 1839:386; 1840, pl. 51: fig. 4–4*; 1842:138.—Latreille, 1817:37.—Desmarest, 1823:313, pl. 37: fig. 2; 1825:217, pl. 37: fig. 2.—Guilding, 1825:338.—Guérin-Méneville, 1825:329; 1837, vol. 2, pl. 20: fig. 2; 1844, vol. 3, p. 15; 1856–1857a:xlvi, xlvii, pl. 2: fig. 7c; 1856–1857b:xviii, pl. 2: fig. 7c.—P. Roux, 1831:27.—Lucas, 1833–1834:333; 1840:182, pl. 11: fig. 1; 1842:182, pl. 11: fig. 1; 1851:182, pl. 11: fig. 1.—Griffith and Pidgeon, 1833:190.—Broderip, 1835:71, fig.—Griffith, 1835:223, lxiii.—Wiegmann, 1836:146, 147.—White, 1847:74.—Newport, 1847:158, 159.—Stimpson, 1857:498.—A. Milne-Edwards, 1864: 146, 147.—Costa, 1864:89.—Capello, 1867, explanation of pl. 1: fig. 1f.—Giebel, 1875:53, 54.—Brocchi, 1875:32, figs. 33, 34.—Vilanova y Piera, 1875:385.—Kingsley, 1878a:92; 1878b:56, 57.—Greeff, 1882:35–37; 1884: 54.—Albert, 1883a:469–471, 534, pl. 29: figs. 4–6; 1883b:27–29.—Mocquard, 1883:190–199, 307, pl. 8: figs. 183–191.—Claus, 1885:57, 107, pl. 4: fig. 35.—Gundlach, 1887:131.—Osorio, 1887:222, 230; 1888:188; 1889:129, 137, 139; 1891a:47; 1891b:140; 1892:200; 1895a:249; 1895b:251; 1898:186, 187, 194; 1905:102; 1906:150.—Bate, 1888:693, 694, 698.—Pocock, 1889:16.—Ortmann, 1890:466; 1895:408–410, 415, 416 [in part]; 1897:183–185 [in part].—Sharp, 1893:111.—Stebbing, 1893:240.—Nobili, 1897:5.—Rathbun, 1897:44; 1900:313–314 [in part]; 1901:119 [in part].—Doflein, 1900:127.—Young, 1900: 473.—Thompson, 1901:22.—Bouvier and Lesne, 1901:13 (or 332).—Gerstaecker and Ortmann, 1881–1901, pl. 91: figs. 5, 6, 6a; pl. 115; figs. 8–11.—Bouvier, 1904:138 [in part]; 1905:110, 112, 119–123, 128 [in part], fig. 25s; 1906:492; 1909:333; 1925:22, 27, 29, 293, 312–319, 322, 323, 356, 358 [in part], figs. 55–67.—Johnston, 1906: 862.—Balss, 1914:97, 98; 1925:239.—Tesch, 1914: 247, 250.—Pearse, 1915:551.—Torralbas, 1917, fig. 60.—De Man, 1925:27–28 [in part], fig. 4a–c.—J. Roux, 1926a:238, 253; 1926b:217, 218.—Allee and Torvik, 1927:67.—Monod, 1928:121, 205; 1933:461, 462 [in part]; 1967:110, 119, 135, pl. ix: figs. 11, 12, 15–17 [not figs. 13, 14 as noted in explanation of plate]; 1980:375, 376, figs. 5, 6.—Schmitt, 1935:135, 136 [in part].—Villalobos, 1943:1–67, pls. 1–22; 1956:474; 1959:328, 329.—Oliveira, 1945:177–189 [in part], pl. 1: figs. 1–4; pl. 2.—Holthuis, 1951:9, 22, 24, 25 [in part]; 1955b:26; 1959:16; 1966:233, 234, 238 [in part]; 1974:231; 1980:70, 181.—Parodiz, 1960:38, 39 [in part], figs. 1–3.—Rioja, Ruiz, and Larios, 1955, fig. 316.—Darnell, 1956:131–138, 3 figs.; 1962: 440.—Hart, 1961b:61–64, 67, 73, fig. 11; 1980:845, 846, 848.—Lemos de Castro, 1962:41, pl. 4: fig. 27.—Davant, 1963:42–44, 98–100, figs. 27, 28 [both figs. on pp. 43 and 49].—Chapa, 1964:34.—Pericchi Lopez, 1965: 25.—Holthuis and Rosa, 1965:9.—Pinchon, 1967:161.—Coelho and Ramos, 1968:3.—Fausto Filho, 1968:28.—Straskraba, 1969:17, 25.—Chace and Hobbs, 1969:5, 15, 19, 33, 36, 57, 61, 63–66 [in part], 73, figs. 9, 10d–f, 14d,e.—Cendrero, 1971:524.—Disney, 1971:84, 85; 1975: 69.—Hobbs, 1971:27.—Chace, 1972:14.—Lemasson, 1973:68.—Bonnelly de Calventi et al., 1973:1338; 1974: 104, 106, 111, 123, fig. 17.—Léeque, 1974:42, fig. 1j.—Bonnelly de Calventi, 1974b:35, 38, 40, 54, fig. 7.—Alayo, 1974:22, pl. vi: fig. 11.—Scelzo, 1974:12.—Abele, 1975:56, 57.—Hunte, 1975:66; 1978:135, 136, 139, 144, 145, 147, fig. 7; 1979c:70.—Carvacho and Carvacho, 1976: 213, pl. 2: fig. 8.—Villamil and Clements, 1976:5, 59.—Fryer, 1977:57, 58, 62, 63, 72, 73, 90, 93, 94, 98, 125, figs. 3, 45, 49, 50, 52, 74, 79–82.—Burkenroad, 1981: 261.—Rodriguez, 1981:46.
Atya Scabra.—Leach, 1816:421.—A. Milne-Edwards, 1864: 150.—Valdés Ragués, 1909:180.—Hart and Hart, 1974:142.
Atia scabra.—Latreille, 1817:37 [erroneous spelling, combination by implication]; 1837:xvii, Crustacea pl. 31 (bis): fig. 2 [erroneous spelling].
Atie épineuse.—Audouin and H. Milne Edwards, 1829:14, pl. 25: fig. 1.
Atya.—Broderip, 1835:71.—Capello, 1866:6.—Gerstaecker and Ortmann, 1881–1901:886, 887, 1127.—Johnston, 1906:843.—Sawaya, 1942:LXIII.—Darnell, 1962:440.
Astacus (Atya) scabra.—Voigt, 1836:178.
Atya mexicana Wiegmann, 1836:145 [type-locality: Misantla, Estado de Veracruz, Mexico; types: ZBM, 2 specimens].—Newport, 1847:158, 159.—Guérin-Méneville, 1856–1857a: xlvi.—A. Milne-Edwards, 1864:147.—Martens, 1868: 49.—Giebel, 1875:52.—Bate, 1888:693.—Holthuis, 1966: 234.
Athys scabra.—H. Milne Edwards, 1838:352; 1839:386 [erroneous spelling].
“Atya sulcatipes?” Newport, 1847:159, pl. 8: fig. 1 [type-locality: São Nicolau, Cape Verde Islands; types: stated to be in the British Museum but could not be located in April 1980].
Atya sulcatipes.—White, 1847:74.—A. Milne-Edwards, 1864:147.—Martens, 1868:49.—Giebel, 1875:52, 55.—Gerstaecker and Ortmann, 1881–1901, pl. 73: fig. 6a–c; pl. 74: figs. 4, 5.—Bate, 1888:693–699, 701–704, pls. 118, 119: fig. 1, 1p, 1q.—Hickson, 1889:222, 223, 362.—Stebbing, 1893:240.—Oliveira, 1945:179, 180, 188.—Holthuis, 1966:232–237, fig. 4; 1980:71, 181.—Rutherford, 1971:87, 88, 90, fig. 2a,b.—Disney, 1975:69.
Atya Mexicana.—Stimpson, 1857:498.
Atya scalva.—Martens, 1872:135 [erroneous spelling].
Atya scaber.—Giebel, 1875:52 [erroneous spelling].
Atya punctata Kingsley, 1878a:91–92 [type-locality: Haiti; type: ?USNM 84327, ]; 1878b:57.—Pocock, 1889:16.—Oliveira, 1945:179.—Holthuis, 1966:237.—Chace and Hobbs, 1969:63.
Atya sculptipes.—Ortmann, 1890:466 [erroneous spelling].
Atya margaritacea var. claviger Aurivillius, 1898:14–16, pl. 3: figs. 5–8 [type-locality: “Etome, in Bächen,” Cameroon; types: SMNH, 2 specimens].
“Atya scabra, type de margaritacea.”—Bouvier, 1925, figs. 703, 704 [not 705, 706 as indicated].
Atya sacabra.—Villalobos, 1943:66 [erroneous spelling].
Atya margaritaria clavipes.—Holthuis, 1966:234 [erroneous spelling].
Atyia scabra.—Vélez, 1967:42.—Bonnelly de Calventi, 1974a: 16.—Alayo, 1974:25 [erroneous spelling].
Atya innocous.—Chace and Hobbs, 1969:66 [lapsus for Atya scabra].
Atya sulzatipes.—Rutherford, 1971:90 [erroneous spelling].
Atya sulcaltipes.—Rutherford, 1971:89 [erroneous spelling].
Atya scubra.—Bonnelly de Calventi, 1974b:54 [erroneous spelling].
REVIEW OF LITERATURE.—The first record of the existence of a member of the genus Atya is that of Marcgrave (1648), who recorded it by the vernacular name “Guaricuru” in his “Historia Naturalis Brasiliae,” presenting an illustration of an unmistakable member of the genus. Lemos de Castro (1962) pointed out that this figure almost certainly depicts a representative of Atya scabra. The description, which is in Latin, was republished by Jonstonus (1665) along with a slightly modified figure.
This shrimp, from an unknown locality, was briefly described by Leach (1815) as Atys scaber; the whereabouts of the type, if extant, is also unknown. Apparently Leach discovered that the name “Atys” had been employed by De Montfort (1810:343) for a gastropod mollusk, and in 1816 Leach illustrated and referred to his shrimp as Atya scabra. The latter designation was adopted the same year by H. Milne Edwards (1816:138), who presented an expanded description and well-executed illustration of a specimen. The only addition of significance offered by Leach (1817) is the hand-colored dorsosinistral view of an entire animal. Latreille (1817) introduced the synonym Atia in stating that although Leach's species was unknown to him, it “appears to connect the penaeids and alpheids.” He also called attention to Herbst's “canc. innocous.” Desmarest (1823 and 1825) added no new information but presented a lateral view of an entire animal in both publications. The earliest locality cited is that by Guilding (1825) who recorded the presence of the species in mountain streams of Saint Vincent “in incredible numbers.” Whereas there is no reason to doubt that the species occurs on this island, we suspect that most of the shrimps that Guilding identified as Atya scabra were members of the more common A. innocous. Guérin-Méneville (1825) presented a brief diagnosis of his “Atye Raboteuse,” and in a subsequent work (1829–1844) included a lateral view of a specimen and reported (p. 15) the presence of the species in “les côtes du Mexique.” Polydore Roux (1831), Griffith and Pidgeon (1833), Lucas (1833–1834), Broderip (1835), Griffith (1835), and Voigt (1836) added nothing to our knowledge of the species. Wiegmann (1836) described this shrimp, employing the name Atya mexicana, from Misantla, Veracruz, Mexico. The following year, H. Milne Edwards (1837) cited previous references, briefly described the species, and under “Habite” listed only “côtes du Mexique.” The latter, together with the similar reference by Guérin-Méneville, led several subsequent authors to assume that this shrimp frequents marine habitats. Nothing new related to A. scabra appeared in H. Milne Edwards' 1838 and 1839 publications, but in that of 1840 he included a hand-colored lateral view of a specimen along with detailed illustrations of several body parts. Latreille (1837) also presented a hand-colored dorsolateral view of an entire animal. Lucas (1840, 1842, 1851) included additional features in his diagnosis of the species and presented a lateral view of an entire animal; otherwise he added nothing new. Newport (1847), apparently with hesitation, described Atya sulcatipes from San Nicolas, Cape Verde Islands, stating that “it may prove to be only a variety” of Atya scabra. In the same year, White (1847), in listing the Crustacea in the British Museum, included A. scabra from Mexico (from the Leach collection) and another lot from the Cape Verde Islands (from the collection of Newport). Whereas he listed A. sulcatipes, he gave no locality and made no comment concerning the collection. Guérin-Méneville (1856–1857a,b) contrasted this shrimp with his Atya poeyi (= Micratya poeyi). Stimpson (1857) “ventured to cite Wiegmann's name [Atya mexicana] as a synonym” of A. scabra. To Wiegmann's locality, he added western Mexico as a new record for the species, and he also expressed the belief that no member of the genus is found in the sea. On what basis the “western Mexico” record is founded is not known; perhaps he had specimens of A. margaritacea or A. ortmannioides that were misidentified. That A. mexicana and A. scabra are conspecific was pointed out by A. Milne-Edwards (1864), who also stated that except for the occurrence of A. sulcatipes in the Cape Verde Islands, “one would not hesitate to see in it a variety of A. scabra; in effect it seems to differ only in the legs which are slightly grooved, by the rostrum which exhibits a more marked depression, and by the antennae which are not more than half the length of the body” (p. 147, translation). In this work he presented a key to all of the species belonging to the genus. Costa (1864) and Capello (1867) provided no new information. Von Martens (1868) added more complete data for the specimens on which Wiegmann described Atya mexicana: a small coastal stream flowing into the Gulf of Mexico south of Tecolutla, about 20 km from the sea. Giebel (1875) summarized the composition of the genus Atya and in his description of A. gabonensis made comparisons with A. scabra. In Brocchi's study (1875) of the genital organs of decapod Crustacea, he mentioned and figured the first and another (no statement as to which) pleopod of A. scabra. Kingsley (1878a) described Atya punctata from Haiti and in the same year (1878b) listed A. scabra among the North American caridean shrimps, reporting it from fresh water in western Mexico (perhaps a misidentification of A. margaritacea); A. mexicana was cited as a synonym. Greeff (1882, 1884) reported the occurrence of A. scabra on São Tomé. Mocquard (1883), in an investigation of the stomachs of a number of crustaceans, described and illustrated that of A. scabra, and Albert (1883a) also provided an anatomical description of this organ. In an excellently illustrated study of the branchial apparatus of crustaceans, Claus (1885) presented the gill formula of A. scabra and a well-executed drawing of the branchiae. The presence of this shrimp in a tributary of Río Añasco and in the San Juan, Puerto Rico, market was noted by Gundlach (1887) who also mentioned its occurrence in Cuba and Mexico. In a series of reports dealing with the fauna of the then Portuguese West Africa (1887–1906), Osorio listed A. scabra from a number of localities in Angola, Annobón, Ihla do Principe, and São Tomé. Bate (1888) reported A. sulcatipes from San Antonia, “San Iago,” Cape Verde Islands, presented a detailed description accompanied by illustrations, and stated that it differs from A. scabra “in having a prominent tooth on the inner distal angle of the carpus,” (p. 694) and a longer second antenna (p. 698). Hickson (1889) added no new information on the species. Pocock (1889) commented that the only features selected by Kingsley (1878a) to distinguish his A. punctata from other species were probably individual variations or due to differences in age.
Ortmann (1890) included Atya scabra and A. sulcatipes in his margaritacea group on the basis of the shape of the rostrum. In his study of the family Atyidae (1895), he grouped the following in his synonomy of A. scabra: A. mexicana Wiegmann, A. sulcatipes Newport, A. occidentalis Newport, A. rivalis Smith, A. tenella Smith, and A. punctata Kingsley. This synonomy set the stage for repeated erroneous interpretations of the species involved. The range cited for A. scabra by him was based, at least in part, as follows: Nicaragua on records for A. rivalis (= A. margaritacea) and A. tenella (= A. innocous) by Smith (1871); Jamaica on that for A. occidentalis (= A. innocous) by Newport (1847); and Dominica on that for A. occidentalis by Pocock (1889). The Haitian record is that of Kingsley (1878a) for A. punctata, and the Cape Verde Islands localities are those for A. sulcatipes reported by Newport (1847) and Bate (1888). Inasmuch as both A. scabra and A. occidentalis (= A. innocous) occur on Tobago, which of the two was examined by him is not known. Stebbing (1893) expressed the opinion that A. sulcatipes “is perhaps only a variety of the older Atya scabra.” Ortmann continued to recognize A. margaritacea as a distinct species in his 1895 report but stated: “The differences between the New Caledonian species A. margaritacea and robusta and the West Indian A. scabra are very doubtful…” (p. 408).
Except for a diagnosis of the species in Portuguese, nothing new relative to A. scabra was recorded by Ortmann (1897). The occurrence of this shrimp in Río Macuto, near La Guaira, Venezuela, was noted by Nobili (1897). In the same year, Rathbun (1897) cited Jamaica as a locality for it, but her statement, “This species is probably identical with A. occidentalis Newport,” leaves some doubt as to the identity of the material before her. Aurivillius (1898) described and illustrated A. margaritacea var. claviger, another synonym of A. scabra, from Cameroon.
In her study of the West African decapods, Rathbun (1900) erred in several respects: she apparently agreed with Ortmann's synonomy for A. scabra adding A. gabonensis and Aurivillius' A. margaritacea var. claviger to the list. One of the specimens cited from St. Paul River, Mount Coffee, and that from Beulah were misidentified. The Costa Rican record is new and may or may not be based upon a correct identification. All of the specimens from Costa Rica now in the Smithsonian collection that would have been available to her are members of A. margaritacea. The only record of Atya from the Orinoco of which we are aware is that of Koelbel (1884) for Atya sculptilis (= A. gabonensis). Therefore, in all probability her inclusion of Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Orinoco in the range was based on erroneous determinations. The Liberian and “Gabun” records seem to have been founded, at least in part, on collections of A. africana and A. gabonensis, respectively. The inclusion of Cameroon, Ihla do Principe, São Tomé, and Rolas, cited originally by other authors (and some based on records previously given for A. sulcatipes) have been confirmed. In her study of the Brachyura and Macrura of Puerto Rico, Rathbun (1901) almost certainly treated three species under A. scabra. Her statement that “this species is extremely variable in the form of the rostrum and more noticeably in the shape of the last three pairs of thoracic feet which may all be slender and nearly equal in length; and their spines very feeble and appressed” suggests that among her material were A. scabra, A. lanipes, and, in all probability, A. innocous. Specimens of A. lanipes from Puerto Rico collected by the Fish Hawk in 1899 may not have been examined by Rathbun until much later, for they were not entered in the Smithsonian catalogue until 1913, at that time identified by her as A. occidentalis. Her summary of the distribution of A. scabra was almost identical to that recorded by her in 1900.
The first report of the occurrence of Atya scabra in Panama was that of Doflein (1900), who recorded it from the Atlantic watershed. No original data were offered by Young (1900), Thompson (1901), or Bouvier and Lesne (1901). Gerstaecker and Ortmann (1901) illustrated a lateral view of an animal together with several appendages. Bouvier (1904), considering A. margaritacea and A. sulcatipes as synonyms of A. scabra, recorded the species from the following localities, several of which were new: New Caledonia; Victoria, Australia; Darién, Colombia; San Esteban and Naricual, Venezuela; Valley Nacional, Oaxaca, Mexico; Cape Verde Islands; Fernando Poo; and São Tomé. In his synoptic treatment of this shrimp (1905), Bouvier included the following as synonyms: A. sulcatipes, A. rivalis, A. tenella, A. punctata, and A. margaritacea. This list differed from Ortmann's in the recognition of A. occidentalis as a valid species and relegating A. margaritacea to the synonomy of A. scabra. Its range, essentially the same as that presented in 1904, differed only by the addition of the Antilles and west Africa. He noted that many of the specimens from the Antilles probably belong to A. occidentalis and that several of the African specimens should be referred to A. intermedia and A. africana. Atya margaritacea var. claviger was considered by him to be an unquestioned synonym of A. scabra (p. 122).
Nothing of importance was added to our knowledge of this shrimp by Bouvier or by Johnston in 1906, or by the former or Valdés Ragués in 1909. Balss (1914), following Rathbun, included in the range of the species the Atlantic versant of the Americas, the West Indies, and in and off Africa: Gabon, São Tomé, Principe, Annobón, and Rolas. Tesch (1914) predicted that A. scabra would be found in Surinam. Pearse (1915) recorded 79 specimens from Santa Marta, Colombia. Other than presenting a lateral view of the entire animal, Torralbas (1917) offered no information.
Bouvier's (1925) monograph of the family Atyidae has served as the principal source for all subsequent work on members of the family. In it he reviewed the previously reported localities, adding a number of new ones, and in his key and text contrasted and compared A. scabra with related species. Balss (1925) reported the presence of the species in Victoria, Cameroon, and cited Valdivia as a new locality, and De Man (1925) recorded its occurrence in the Belgian Congo. Jean Roux (1926a) stated that if the species occurs in Australia it must be rare. Working on Isla Barro Colorado, Panama, Allee and Torvik (1927) found this shrimp in Shannon Creek, and Monod (1928), in a report on the fisheries of Cameroon, noted that A. scabra was of economic importance and pointed out its occurrence in the Bimbia River. Later (1933), he recorded two new localities in Cameroon and cited a more precise station on the Bimbia River. Schmitt's review (1935) of the Macrura and Anomura of Puerto Rico contains no new data on the species. In a note on Marcgrave's treatment of “Guaricuru,” Sawaya (1942) suggested that the shrimp was a member of the genus Atya.
The beautifully illustrated morphological study by Villalobos (1943), together with locality and ecological data, is an invaluable contribution. Oliveira (1945) compared A. sulcatipes with A. scabra, including a list of differences that subsequently have not proven to be consistent. Holthuis (1951) presented the most nearly complete synonomy previously available and cited all of the localities offered by earlier investigators. In this study, Atya sulcatipes and A. margaritacea claviger are the only synonyms listed for A. scabra other than Leach's original combination Atys scaber. No new data were offered by Holthuis (1955b) in his synopsis of the recent caridean and stenopodidean genera; however, he (1955a) requested the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to place “Atys,” of which Atys scaber Leach is the type, on the “Official List of Generic Names.” This was done by the Commission in Opinion 470 (Hemming, 1957). Villalobos' (1943) illustration of a specimen in lateral view was reproduced by Rioja, Ruiz, and Larios (1955). In his description of A. ortmannioides, Villalobos (1956) contrasted it with A. scabra. Darnell (1956) analyzed a population of A. scabra frequenting a small stream in Tamaulipas, Mexico, the most northern locality known for the species. In this study, he presented observations of their habitat, distribution, population structure, food, and life history and related his findings to those of Villalobos (1943).
Holthuis (1959:16) pointed out that “Tesch's supposition that Atya scabra (Leach) might be found in Surinam has not yet been substantiated.” Villalobos (1959) reported capturing juvenile forms of Atya scabra in the Río Papaloapan, and stated that the earlier part of their development occurs near the coast, and afterward they migrate upriver into areas far removed from the mouths of the streams, in this respect resembling Potimirim mexicana (De Saussure, 1857:505). Parodiz (1960) cited a new locality for A. scabra in Brazil and provided illustrations. In his study of the freshwater shrimps of Jamaica, Hart (1961b) presented photographs of a specimen and reported three new localities. Darnell (1962) tabulated data from his previous study (1956). Atya scabra was the only member of the family Atyidae considered by Davant (1963) to be of economic importance in Venezuela, and he reported it to be a common inhabitant of the Río Manzanares. Lemos de Castro (1962), in reviewing the Crustacea included by Marcgrave in his “História Naturalis Brasiliae,” called attention to the inclusion of “Guaricuru” with which Lemos de Castro associated Atya scabra. The illustration of Marcgrave is reproduced and is accompanied by a photograph of A. scabra from Río Serinhaem, Estado de Pernambuco, Brazil. Holthuis and Rosa (1965) noted that this shrimp is used for food in Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Nicaragua, British Caribbean Federation, Cuba, Haiti, Puerto Rico, Netherlands West Indies, Venezuela, and Peru. The lattermost is based on the misidentification of A. margaritacea. No new information was added by Pericchi Lopez (1965).
Even though Holthuis (1966) found that the differences between A. sulcatipes and A. scabra compiled by Oliveira were not reliable when larger series were compared, on the basis of differences noted in the shape of the antennule, he assigned the West African collections that had been designated as A. scabra by him in 1951, and earlier by Bouvier and others, to A. sulcatipes. He also considered A. margaritaria clavipes [sic] to be a synonym of A. sulcatipes, and cited the known West African localities, including a number of new ones, for the latter. The type of Atya scabra was discussed by him, and he concluded that it is not among the specimens in the British Museum. The type-locality was restricted to “the area of Veracruz,” Mexico. Atya mexicana, A. margaritacea, and A. punctata were recognized as synonyms of A. scabra. He also listed four differences between the latter and A. rivalis (p. 234). Monod (1967) recorded A. scabra from the Cape Verde Islands, Fernando Poo, São Tomé, and Annobón; his illustrations were taken from Bouvier (1925) and De Man (1925). Neither Vélez (1967) nor Straskraba (1969) added to our knowledge of the species in pointing out its occurrence on Puerto Rico or Cuba, respectively. Except for recording the common name “Bouc,” no new data were added by Pinchon (1967). Coelho and Ramos (1968) reported that this shrimp is sold in the markets of Recife, Brazil, and Fausto Filho (1968) noted its use as a food item in northeastern Brazil.
Chace and Hobbs (1969) followed Holthuis (1966) in their synonomy of A. scabra. They diagnosed and illustrated the species, described the color pattern, reviewed its range, and commented on its ecological distribution on Dominica. They also pointed out a number of characteristics in which this shrimp differs from the sympatric A. innocous. Disney (1971) noted that he had found this shrimp in limited numbers in two localities in the vicinity of Kumba, Cameroon: the Bille River (a tributary of the Meme River) and the Blackwater River (a tributary of the Mungo River). It was infested with the larvae and pupae of the blackfly Simulium atyophilum. Rutherford (1971) reported the occurrence of A. sulcatipes in Ghana, noting that in addition to frequenting the Cape Verde Islands, São Tomé and Annobón, it ranges on the African continent from Liberia to Congo-Kinshasa. He stated that this dark greenish gray shrimp occurs in rocky stream rapids. Cendrero (1971) added no new data. In considering the possibility that individuals of A. scabra occurring in a small stream at Tapalapan, Santiago Tuxtla, Veracruz, serve as a host to the entocytherid ostracod Uncinocythere zaruri, Hobbs (1971) reported a new locality for the shrimp. Lemasson (1973) pointed out that A. scabra attains lengths of eight to 10 centimeters. Bonnelly de Calventi et al. (1973) cited its presence in the Haina, Mana, Isa, and Nigua rivers and Cañada Madrigal in the Dominican Republic. They also noted that it “yields relatively little edible mass (13% total body weight) as compared with peneids, but has a comparable content of water (74.5%) and protein (16.99%). Lipids represent 0.82–2.94%, ash 31.0%, calcium 0.232%, phosphorus 1.033%, and iron 0.25%. Atya scabra muscle provides 88.3 dietary calories per 100 g while peneid muscle provides 78.3.” In their joint study (1974), Bonnelly de Calventi et al. pointed out that in the Dominican Republic this shrimp is eaten only in some regions of the southern part of the country. Bonnelly de Calventi (1974a) listed two additional rivers (Río Jurá and Río Nizao) where it occurs in the Dominican Republic. In another report (1974b) she presented a diagnosis of the species, illustrations, notes on color, size, habitat, life history, and distribution in the Dominican Republic.
Holthuis (1974) recorded a new locality in the province of Pinar del Río, Cuba. The following references to A. scabra contain no new data: Chace (1972), Hart and Hart (1974), Scelzo (1974), Hunte (1975), and Abele and Blum (1977). Lévêque (1974) noted the occurrence of this shrimp on the island of Guadeloupe and stated that ovigerous females had been found in June. It was reported to be common in the eastern part of Cuba by Alayo (1974). Abele (1975) recorded the presence of the species in streams of the Atlantic Basin in Panama, and, the following year, Villamil and Clements (1976) stated that on Puerto Rico it appears to be ecologically the most restricted and the most specialized of the crustaceans occurring in the area. Fryer (1977), in his impressive study of the Dominican atyids, related the presence on the chelae of the first and second pereiopods of bristles with scraping denticles to “scraping” and “sweeping” for food. Their absence in A. scabra is correlated with the infrequency of its resorting to scraping; it usually employs filter techniques. He included a brief but exhaustive summary of available knowledge of their ecological distribution and habits. The excellent illustrations, particularly photographs of sections through the mouth parts and of a living animal, greatly enhance his contribution. Among the most recent references to this shrimp are those of Hunte (1978, 1979c). Although the latter introduces no new information, the former provides not only additional locality records but also contains valuable ecological data. Atya scabra was found by him on Jamaica only in the eastern parishes where there is a mountainous terrain. Data on tolerance of individuals to lowered temperature and oxygen concentrations were offered in his effort to determine what environmental factors affected their distribution. In discussing relationships among the Decapoda, Burkenroad (1981:261) mentioned that A. scabra does not possess “tack-like” sperm.
PUBLISHED ILLUSTRATIONS.—The earliest illustration of this shrimp is that of Marcgrave (1648), who presented a lateral view of the entire animal (presumably from Brazil), identifying it by the vernacular name “guaricuru.” This drawing was later employed by Piso (1658) and others. Almost two centuries elapsed before Leach (1816) presented a dorsodextral view of the shrimp. Much better executed and more detailed illustrations were furnished by H. Milne Edwards (1816); these consist of a lateral view of the entire animal, a dorsal view of the cephalic region, the mandible, the first pleopod together with another unidentified one, and a dorsal view of the sixth abdominal segment, telson, and uropods. The following year, Leach (1817) published a hand-colored dorsosinistral view of a shrimp that appears to have been redrawn in reverse from the figure in his 1816 publication. In his “Dictionary of Natural Science,” Desmarest (1823) included a dorsodextral view of an entire animal and in 1825 republished the same figure. Guérin-Méneville's (1829–1844) illustration of an entire animal was apparently redrawn from Desmarest's figure, Broderip's (1835) from Leach (1817), and Latreille (1837) used a hand-colored reproduction of Desmarest's illustration. The figures included in H. Milne Edwards (1837 and 1842) are the same as those published by him in 1816. Lucas' (1851) illustration of an entire animal was apparently redrawn from Desmarest (1823). A small likeness of the cephalic region in lateral aspect was depicted by Guérin-Méneville (1856–1857a,b). Capello (1867) included sketches of the first (or second?) pereiopod. Mocquard (1883) and Albert (1883 a,b) presented several figures illustrating the anatomy of the stomach of this shrimp.
Claus (1885) presented an excellent rendition of the gills and basal parts of the thoracic appendages. Bate's (1888) figures of A. sulcatipes include a lateral view of an entire animal, others of the first and second antennae, mandible, second maxilla, first through third maxillipeds, first pereiopod, telson, uropod, branchiae, and first and second pleopods of a male. Aurivillius (1898) illustrated his A. margaritacea var. claviger as follows: the telson, the third pereiopod, and dorsal and lateral views of the carapace. Gerstaecker and Ortmann (1901) figured an animal in lateral aspect along with views of the antenna, mandible, first and third maxillipeds, and first pereiopod. Bouvier (1905) presented drawings of the rostrum of A. scabra in dorsal aspect and a lateral view of the cephalic part of the carapace. The drawing of Torralbas (1917) was of a specimen in lateral view. In his monograph, Bouvier (1925) illustrated the eyes, basal segment of the antennule, the antennular carina (= ocellar beak), the first and second maxillae, dactyls of the fourth and fifth pereiopods, and reprinted drawings of the rostrum in dorsal aspect and a lateral view of the cephalic region of the carapace. The latter two are mislabeled, for figures 705 and 706 (not 703 and 704) correspond to figure 25s of A. scabra in Bouvier (1905). Monod (1967), employing Bouvier's (1925) figures, repeated the latter's error. Illustrations of a specimen of A. scabra, presumably from the Belgian Congo, by De Man (1925) include the rostrum in dorsal and lateral aspects and the telson in dorsal view.
The most completely illustrated work on Atya scabra is that of Villalobos (1943) in which virtually the entire exoskeleton is depicted. Oliveira (1945) presented drawings of the animal in lateral aspect, a dorsal view of the carapace, the caudal area in dorsal and ventral aspects, and the maxillae and maxillipeds. Rioja, Ruiz, and Larios (1955) reproduced the lateral view of the entire animal as illustrated by Villalobos (1943). The illustrations provided by Parodiz (1960) include the cephalic region in lateral aspect, a lateral view of the third pereiopod from the merus distally, and the distal part of the first or second (not third as labeled) pereiopod.
Hart (1961b) presented a photograph of a Jamaican specimen in lateral aspect. A similar photograph along with a dorsal view of the rostrum and a lateral view of the cephalic region are recorded by Davant (1963). Chace and Hobbs (1969) included a lateral view of a male from Dominica showing the color pattern, a dorsal view of the cephalic region, lateral views of the preanal carina and of the ventral margin of the second abdominal pleuron, and mesial views of the distal part of the second pleopod of the male and of the appendix masculina. Rutherford (1971) presented illustrations of the rostrum in dorsal view and of the cephalic region in lateral aspect. Bonnelly de Calventi (1974b) included a photograph of an entire animal in lateral and dorsal views along with drawings of the rostrum, appendices masculina and interna, and of the antennular peduncles. Bonnelly de Calventi et al. (1974) provided a photograph of a shrimp in lateral view. Lévêque (1974) figured the rostrum in dorsal aspect as did Alayo (1974). Fryer's (1977) illustrations include a lateral view of a specimen, setal structural features, and photographs of a Dominican animal filter feeding and of sections through the mouth parts.
DIAGNOSIS.—Cephalic region comparatively weakly sculptured except nodose in larger individuals; much of carapace studded with pile of short stiff setae (conspicuous in early postmolt stages); antennal and pterygostomian spines prominent. Rostrum with margins bearing paired preapical angles, latter almost always slightly produced anteriorly; dorsal surface with rather sharp median carina. Ventral margin of second through fifth abdominal pleura with row of sclerotized denticles (occasionally absent on second and fifth pleura throughout the range of the species and almost characteristically wanting on the second in members of African populations); caudoventral angle of fourth and fifth pleura acute but rarely produced. Sternum of sixth abdominal segment little more than half as long as wide; compressed median prominence on sternum of fifth abdominal segment conspicuous but never forming hornlike element overlapping sixth abdominal sternite. Preanal carina acute to rounded apically and directed caudoventrally, apex rarely reaching caudal margin of basal part of carina. Telson about 1.5 to 1.7 times as long as broad with paired dorsal rows of 5 to 7 spines. Antennular peduncle with dorsal surface of proximal article bearing 1 to 3 sclerotized spinules proximal to transverse distal row; penultimate article 1.3 to 1.6 times as long as wide and bearing scattered spinules on dorsal surface. Coxae of third and fourth pereiopods lacking prominent anterolateral spine. Third pereiopod with merus rounded ventrally, about 3 times as long as high, ventromesial surfaces of paired articles not touching when appendages brought together, and lateral surface bearing irregular rows of prominent corneous-tipped tubercles; propodus 1.7 to 2.1 times as long as broad and studded with rows of sclerotized tubercles on both extensor and flexor surfaces, tubercles in row on flexor surface mesial to median line of article quite or almost contiguous; dactyl freely movable and bearing single row of usually 6 or 7 tubercles on flexor surface.
- bibliographic citation
- Hobbs, Horton Holcombe, Jr. 1982. "The Shrimp Genus Atya (Decapoda: Atyidae)." Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology. 1-153. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.364
