identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03D187E48E23CD49DBCFFB1FFE575A91.text	03D187E48E23CD49DBCFFB1FFE575A91.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Epimeria Costa 1851	<div><p>Genus Epimeria Costa, 1851 in Hope, 1851</p><p>? Vertumnus White, 1847: 89 [nomen nudum].</p><p>Epimeria Costa, 1851: 24 [nomen nudum].– Costa in Hope 1851: 46. – Karaman and Barnard 1979: 108.– Watling and Holman 1980: 642.– Coleman 2007: 31.</p><p>Pseudepimeria Chevreux, 1912: 9 (type species Pseudepimeria grandirostris Chevreux, 1912; original designation).</p><p>Subepimeria Bellan-Santini, 1972b: 225 (type species Subepimeria geodesiae Bellan- Santini, 1972; original designation).</p><p>Epimeriella .– Walker 1906: 17.– Karaman and Barnard 1979: 107.– Coleman 2007: 56 (type species Epimeriella macronyx Walker, 1906; by monotypy). syn. n.</p><p>Type species. Epimeria tricristata Costa, 1851 in Hope, 1851; by monotypy .</p><p>Remarks. The most recent family diagnoses for the Epimeriidae is that of Coleman (2007), Coleman and Barnard (1991), and Barnard and Karaman (1991).</p><p>Based on the genetic data presented in the following and a detailed morphological evaluation of the weak morphological separation criteria between Epimeriella and Epimeria we herewith synonymize Epimeriella with Epimeria . Since we transfer the species Epimeriella macronyx Walker, 1906; Epimeriella scabrosa Barnard, 1930; Epimeriella truncata Andres, 1985; Epimeriella victoria (Hurley, 1957 a) and Epimeriella walkeri Barnard, 1930 to the genus Epimeria, we herewith give a new genus diagnosis.</p><p>The diagnosis has been broadened from that given by Barnard and Karaman (1991) since it now included characters formerly predominantly occurring in the genus Epimeriella such as a smooth body and the laminar, none triturative pars molaris.</p><p>Diagnosis. Body covered with teeth or processes or body poorly armed, almost smooth. Antenna 1 peduncular article 2 shorter than 1. Accessory flagellum present or absent. Mouthparts projecting quadrately. Upper lip incised or almost entire; epistome not very broad. Mandibular incisor ordinary, toothed, setal row present; molar blunt, strong, triturative or simple, conical or laminar. Lower lip inner lobes absent, outer lobes relatively broad. Hypopharyngeal gap sometimes widened. Maxilla 1 palp 2-articulate, article 2 ordinary. Maxilla 2 inner plate without facial row of setae. Maxilliped inner plate narrower but as long as outer plate, latter elongate; palp article 2 narrow and unproduced; palp article 4 well developed, unguiform or serrate. Coxae 1–4 progressively longer; coxae 4–5 forming ventral arc; coxa 4 long, polycuspidate. Gnathopods alike, articles 5–6 elongate, subchelate (typical), sometimes simple. Telson incised or cleft.</p><p>After synonymising Epimeriella with Epimeria, the genus Epimera now includes 46 species:</p><p>Epimeria annabellae Coleman, 1994;</p><p>Epimeria bathyalis Wakabara and Serejo, 1999;</p><p>Epimeria bispinosa Ledoyer, 1986;</p><p>Epimeria bruuni Barnard, 1961;</p><p>Epimeria cora Barnard, 1971;</p><p>Epimeria concordia Griffiths, 1977;</p><p>Epimeria cornigera (J.C. Fabricius, 1779);</p><p>Epimeria extensa Andres, 1985;</p><p>Epimeria georgiana Schellenberg, 1931;</p><p>Epimeria glaucosa Barnard, 1961;</p><p>Epimeria grandirostris (Chevreux, 1912);</p><p>Epimeria heldi Coleman CO (1998a);</p><p>Epimeria horsti Lörz, 2008;</p><p>Epimeria inermis Walker, 1903;</p><p>Epimeria intermedia Schellenberg, 1931;</p><p>Epimeria longispinosa Barnard, 1916;</p><p>Epimeria loricata G.O. Sars, 1879;</p><p>Epimeria macrodonta Walker, 1906;</p><p>Epimeria macronyx (Walker, 1906), comb. n.;</p><p>Epimeria monodon Stephensen, 1947;</p><p>Epimeria obtusa Watling, 1981;</p><p>Epimeria oxicarinata Coleman, 1990;</p><p>Epimeria pacifica Gurjanova, 1955;</p><p>Epimeria parasitica (M. Sars, 1858);</p><p>Epimeria pelagica Birstein and M. Vinogradov, 1958;</p><p>Epimeria pulchra Coleman, 1990;</p><p>Epimeria puncticulata Barnard, 1930;</p><p>Epimeria reoproi Lörz and Coleman, 2001;</p><p>Epimeria rimicarinata Watling and Holman, 1980;</p><p>Epimeria robusta Barnard, 1930;</p><p>Epimeria robustoides Lörz &amp; Coleman, 2009, sp. n.;</p><p>Epimeria rotunda Wakabara &amp; Serejo, 1999;</p><p>Epimeria rubrieques De Broyer &amp; Klages, 1991;</p><p>Epimeria scabrosa (Barnard, 1930), comb. n.;</p><p>Epimeria schiaparelli Lörz, Maas, Linse and Fenwick 2007;</p><p>Epimeria semiarmata Barnard, 1916;</p><p>Epimeria similis Chevreux, 1912;</p><p>Epimeria subcarinata Nagata, 1963;</p><p>Epimeria tuberculata G.O. Sars, 1895;</p><p>Epimeria truncata (Andres, 1985), comb. n.;</p><p>Epimeria ultraspinosa Wakabara and Serejo, 1999;</p><p>Epimeria vaderi Coleman CO (1998b);</p><p>Epimeria victoria (Hurley, 1957), comb. n.;</p><p>Epimeria walkeri (Barnard, 1930), comb. n.;</p><p>Epimeria yaquinae McCain, 1971 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D187E48E23CD49DBCFFB1FFE575A91	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Loerz, Anne;Maas, Elizabeth;Linse, Katrin;Coleman, Charles Oliver	Loerz, Anne, Maas, Elizabeth, Linse, Katrin, Coleman, Charles Oliver (2009): Do circum-Antarctic species exist in peracarid Amphipoda? A case study in the genus Epimeria Costa, 1851 (Crustacea, Peracarida, Epimeriidae). ZooKeys 18: 91-128, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.18.103
03D187E48E2CCD4FDBCFFC4FFCF55BE4.text	03D187E48E2CCD4FDBCFFC4FFCF55BE4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Epimeria robustoides Loerz & Maas & Linse & Coleman 2009	<div><p>Epimeria robustoides Lörz &amp; Coleman, sp. n.</p><p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 96CEBCCA-C3EB-4219-AC2B-C6E81BD852D1</p><p>Figs 2–5</p><p>Epimeria robusta . – Bamard, 1958: 108; 1961: 103.– McCain 1971: 161.– De Broyer and Klages 1991: 164.– Coleman 1994: 560.</p><p>Material examined. Holotype. Ovig. female 40 mm. 72°35.67´5S, 18°8.17´W, depth 604–656 m, collected during the Polarstern cruise ANT III 1985 by Agassiz-trawl, 27.I.1985, station 273.</p><p>Etymology. The species is named robustoides because of its morphological similarity to Epimeria robusta .</p><p>Diagnosis. Body (Fig. 2A, B) robust. Posterior margin of pereonites 5–6 with small medial protrusion, pereonite 7 with shallow keel, pereonite 7 and posterior margins of metasome segments 1–2 with an elevation (in lateral view). Metasome segments 1–3 with mid-dorsal keel, metasome segment 3 and urosomite 1 with pointed tooth. Urosomite 3 with shallow mid-dorsal keel. Coxa of pereopods 1–3 tapering distally, apically rounded (Figs 4A, B, E). Propodus of gnathopods 1–2 expanded distally, with well-developed palm. Coxa of pereopod 4 very large, with wide posteroventral angle projecting somewhat ventrally. Pereopod 5 (Fig. 5D) ba- sis with posteromarginal tooth, basis of pereopod 6 with similar tooth but larger, pereopod 7 basis (Fig. 5C) widened proximally, but without tooth, only posterodistal angle pointed.</p><p>Distribution. Weddell Sea, 604– 656 m.</p><p>Description. Anterior cephalic margin sinuous, lateral cephalic lobe slightly produced; rostrum same length as head, reaching proximal part of antenna 1 peduncle</p><p>article 1; eyes present, oval, 0.4 × head height. Pereonite 1 subequal in length to head (excluding rostrum), pereonite 2 approx. 0.75 x length of pereonite 1, pereonites 1 to 6 lacking mid-dorsal or dorsolateral processes; pereonite 7 posterior margin with dorsolateral carina weakly developed; pleonites 1–3 with carinae, pereonite 3 and urosomite 1 with acute mid-dorsal process. Urosomite 2 shortest, lacking mid-dorsal process, urosomite 3 with pointed posterior process.</p><p>Epimeron. 1 antero- and posteroventral angle rounded; epimeron 2 and 3 posteroventral angle produced.</p><p>Antenna. 1 peduncle article 1 with 2 small processes; article 2 with no process, shorter than article 1; article 3 shortest; accessory flagellum scale-like; primary flagellum of 45 articles. Antenna 2 articles 1–5 lacking distal processes, flagellum with 53 articles.</p><p>Mandible. Incisor and lacinia mobilis strongly dentate; molar produced and triturative; palp article 3 densely setose medially, with long stout SS distally. Maxilla 1 medial plate subtriangular, obliquely convex inner margin with 11 stout, plumose SS; lateral plate distal margin oblique, with medially lobate RS; palp strongly exceeding outer plate; palp article 1 short, article 2 slightly curved medially with stout SS distomedially, stout RS distally. Maxilla 2 with long, distally crenulate setae distally on lateral and medial plates. Maxilliped lateral plate broadly rounded distally, medial plate with nodular RS and a row of long plumose SS on medial, anterior face; palp medial margin strongly setose; merus distally slightly expanded; dactyl with serrate medial margin.</p><p>Pereopods. Gnathopod 1: coxa 1 long and slender, basis linear, slender, posterior margin with numerous fine SS; merus slightly longer than ischium, anterior margin very short, distal margin oblique, posterodistal angle acute, setose; carpus linear, distal half of posterior margin with long SS; propodus slightly expanded distally, anterior margin naked except for distal fringe of short SS, palm finely crenulate, slightly oblique, with cluster of RS defining rounded distal margin, posterior margin with numerous long SS; dactylus slender, slightly curved, posterior margin strongly serrate. Gnathopod 2: coxa 2 wider than coxa 1, basis linear, ischium anterior margin very short, distal margin obliquely articulating with carpus, carpus linear, anterior margin naked except for transverse row of SS distally, posterior margin with numerous stout SS distally; propodus linear, palm almost transverse, rounded, finely crenulated, lined with numerous submarginal RS; dactylus large, not exceeding palm, posterior margin serrate. Pereopod 3: coxa similar to coxa 2, basis linear, anterior and posterior margin finely setulose; merus slightly expanded distally; carpus shorter than merus, anterior margin naked, posterior margin with 6 pairs of RS; propodus naked anteriorly, posterior margin with 9 pairs of RS; dactylus stout, curved. Pereopod 4: coxa much larger than 3, wide posteroventral angle projecting somewhat ventrally; basis to dactylus as for pereopod 3. Pereopod 5: coxa rectangular; basis bearing posteromarginal tooth; merus drawn out posterodistally; carpus slightly widened distally, posterior margin with 7 pairs of RS; propodus linear, posterior margin with 10 pairs of RS; dactylus curved, stout, approx. 0.3 × propodus length. Pereopod 6: coxa anterior half hidden by coxa 5, anterior margin weakly concave, posterior margin slightly drawn out; basis posteromarginal tooth larger than in pereopod 5; merus drawn out posterodistally, ischium to dactylus as in pereopod 5. Pereopod 7: coxa subrectangular; basis widened distally, but without tooth, only posterodistal angle pointed; ischium to dactylus as in pereopods 5 and 6.</p><p>Urosome and telson. Uropod 1: peduncle subequal in length to inner ramus, medial margin with 1 RS distally, distal margin with close row of short RS; inner ramus lateral margin with spaced row of short RS, medial margin with sparse RS; outer ramus marginally shorter than inner. Uropod 2: peduncle with row of short setae; inner ramus nearly twice the length outer ramus, both margins sparse lined with RS; outer ramus, both margins with few short RS. Uropod 3: peduncle short, approx. 0.3 × length of inner ramus, medial and inner margins of both rami with sparse row of short RS. Telson slightly longer than wide, u-shaped emargination 0.2 × lengths, lobes triangular, broadly rounded apically.</p><p>Coloration. Freshly captured specimen (s) of Epimeria robustoides show distinct red eyes (Fig. 10 A) and some bear orange patches on their bodies.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D187E48E2CCD4FDBCFFC4FFCF55BE4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Loerz, Anne;Maas, Elizabeth;Linse, Katrin;Coleman, Charles Oliver	Loerz, Anne, Maas, Elizabeth, Linse, Katrin, Coleman, Charles Oliver (2009): Do circum-Antarctic species exist in peracarid Amphipoda? A case study in the genus Epimeria Costa, 1851 (Crustacea, Peracarida, Epimeriidae). ZooKeys 18: 91-128, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.18.103
03D187E48E2ACD55DBCFFCDCFE115F97.text	03D187E48E2ACD55DBCFFCDCFE115F97.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Epimeria robusta Barnard 1930	<div><p>Epimeria robusta Barnard, 1930</p><p>Figs 6–9</p><p>Epimeria robusta Barnard, 1930: 375, 449, figs 40a, 41.</p><p>Figured individual: NIWA 20257, TAN0402/22, 71.8010°S, 170.9413°E, 151–180m, 09 02 2004 female, 37 mm.</p><p>Additional material examined. The following Epimeria robusta specimen were collected during “The International Polar Year” expedition TAN0802: NIWA 36856, NIWA 36618, st 100, 76°12.13´S, 176°14.86´E, 447 m ; NIWA 37110, NIWA 37148, st 117, 72 35.41 S, 175 20.53 E, 475 m; NIWA 37209, st 115, 72 35.10 S, 175 18.49 E, 447 m; NIWA 37613, st 157, 72 01.41 S, 173 10.81 E, 814 m. Following Epimeria robusta specimen were collected during the BioRoss expedition TAN0402: NIWA 20258, NIWA 20259, NIWA 20263, st 25, 71 47.92 S, 170 55.96 E, 140 m ; NIWA 202760, NIWA 20261, st 39, 71 45.30 S, 171 08.55 E, 251 m; NIWA 20262, st 48, 72 19.00 S, 170 21.73 E, 132 m; NIWA 20264, NIWA 20265, NIWA 20267, st 105, 71 15.45 S, 170 38.08 E 470 m; NIWA 202668, st 124, 71 18.58 S, 170 28.63 E, 212 m; NIWA 20269, st 126, 71 18.55 S, 170 27.01 E, 161 m; NIWA 20270, st 130, 71 19.80 S, 170 27.55 E, 120 m; NIWA 20271, st 140, 72 00.81 S, 170 46.47 E, 231 m; NIWA 20272, st 149, 71 58.87 S, 171 57.99 E, 456 m; NIWA 20273, st 150, 71 58.77 S, 171 58.09 E, 480 m; NIWA 20274, st 153, 72 00.51 S, 172 13.36 E, 540 m; NIWA 20275, NIWA 20276, st 154, 72 00.07 S, 172 13.33 E, 586 m; NIWA 20277, st 157, 71 59.11 S, 172 10.71 E, 737 m; NIWA 20278, st 190, 71 34.75 S, 170 52.36 E, 230 m .</p><p>Description. Anterior cephalic margin sinuous, lateral cephalic lobe slightly produced; rostrum same length as head, reaching proximal part of antenna 1 peduncle article 1; eyes present, oval, 0.4 × head height. Pereonite 1 subequal in length to head (excluding rostrum), pereonite 2 approx. 0.75 × length of 1, pereonites 1 to 6 lacking mid-dorsal or dorsolateral processes; pereonite 7 posterior margin with dorsolateral carina weakly developed; pleonite 1 shallow keel, post margin not drawn out straight, pleonite 2 with shallow keel, pleonite 3 with carinae. Urosomite 2 shortest, lacking mid-dorsal process, urosomite 3 with pointed posterior process.</p><p>Epimeron 1 antero- and posteroventral angle rounded; epimeron 2 and 3 posteroventral angle produced.</p><p>Antenna 1 peduncle article 1 with 2 small processes; article 2 with no process, shorter than article 1; article 3 shortest; accessory flagellum scale-like; primary flagellum of 45 articles. Antenna 2 articles 1–5 lacking distal processes, flagellum with 53 articles.</p><p>Mandible Incisor and lacinia mobilis strongly dentate; molar produced and triturative; palp article 3 densely setose medially, with long stout SS distally. Maxilla 1 medial plate subtriangular, obliquely convex inner margin with 11 stout, plumose SS; lateral plate distal margin oblique, with medially lobate RS; palp strongly exceeding outer plate; palp article 1 short, article 2 slightly curved medially with stout SS distomedially, stout RS distally. Maxilla 2 with long, distally crenulate setae distally on lateral and medial plates. Maxilliped lateral plate broadly rounded distally, medial plate with nodular RS and a row of long plumose SS on medial, anterior face; palp medial margin strongly setose; merus distally slightly expanded; dactyl with serrate medial margin.</p><p>Pereopods. Gnathopod 1: coxa 1 long and slender, basis linear, slender, posterior margin with numerous fine SS; merus slightly longer than ischium, anterior margin very short, distal margin oblique, posterodistal angle acute, setose; carpus linear, distal half of posterior margin with long SS; propodus slightly expanded distally, anterior margin naked except for distal fringe of short SS, palm finely crenulate, slightly oblique, with cluster of RS defining rounded distal margin, posterior margin with numerous long SS; dactylus slender, slightly curved, posterior margin strongly serrate. Gnathopod 2: coxa 2 wider than coxa 1, basis linear, ischium anterior margin very short, distal margin obliquely articulating with carpus, carpus linear, anterior margin naked except for transverse row of SS distally, posterior margin with numerous stout SS distally; propodus linear, palm almost transverse, rounded, finely crenulated, lined with numerous submarginal RS; dactylus large, not exceeding palm, posterior margin serrate. Pereopod 3: coxa anteroventrally obliquely truncate, basis linear, anterior and posterior margin finely setulose; merus slightly expanded distally; carpus shorter than merus, anterior margin naked, posterior margin with 6 pairs of RS; propodus naked anteriorly, posterior margin with 9 pairs of RS; dactylus stout, curved. Pereopod 4: coxa much larger than 3, wide posteroventral angle projecting somewhat ventrally; basis to dactylus as for pereopod 3. Pereopod 5: coxa posteroventrally subacute, pointed; basis bearing posteromarginal tooth; merus drawn out posterodistally; carpus slightly widened distally, posterior margin with 7 pairs of RS; propodus linear, posterior margin with 10 pairs of RS; dactylus curved, stout, approx. 0.3 × propodus length. Pereopod 6: coxa posteroventrally subacute, pointed, anterior half hidden by coxa 5, anterior margin weakly concave, posterior margin slightly drawn out; basis posteromarginal tooth larger than in pereopod 5; merus drawn out posterodistally, ischium to dactylus as in pereopod 5. Pereopod 7: coxa subrectangular; basis widened distally, but without tooth, posterodistally and posteroventrally pointed; ischium to dactylus as in pereopods 5 and 6.</p><p>Urosome and telson. Uropod 1: peduncle subequal in length to inner ramus, medial margin with 1 RS distally, distal margin with close row of short RS; inner ramus lateral margin with spaced row of short RS, medial margin with sparse RS; outer ramus marginally shorter than inner. Uropod 2: peduncle with row of short setae; inner ramus nearly twice the length outer ramus, both margins sparse lined with RS; outer ramus, both margins with few short RS. Uropod 3: peduncle short, approx. 0.3 × length of inner ramus, medial and inner margins of both rami with sparse row of short RS. Telson slightly longer than wide, u-shaped emargination 0.2 × lengths, lobes triangular, broadly rounded apically.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D187E48E2ACD55DBCFFCDCFE115F97	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Loerz, Anne;Maas, Elizabeth;Linse, Katrin;Coleman, Charles Oliver	Loerz, Anne, Maas, Elizabeth, Linse, Katrin, Coleman, Charles Oliver (2009): Do circum-Antarctic species exist in peracarid Amphipoda? A case study in the genus Epimeria Costa, 1851 (Crustacea, Peracarida, Epimeriidae). ZooKeys 18: 91-128, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.18.103
