Sympagurus dimorphus (Studer, 1883)
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.1590/2358-2936e2023026 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:EDB9672A-A469-4BDA-A342-A34B499821A4 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/602587A0-FFA6-FFA1-FCB8-1BEFE38E52C1 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Sympagurus dimorphus |
status |
|
Sympagurus dimorphus View in CoL
The shape of CPS (Hotelling T ² = 174.1, F =6.59, p <0.001), MaP (Hotelling T ² = 101.27, F = 8.25, p <0.001), and MiP (Hotelling T ² = 70.76, F = 3.85, p <0.001) were different between males and females. The discriminant analysis accurately distinguished all individuals in the comparison between CPS and MaP, and about 86 % for MiP.
The frontal region of the CPS exhibited a similar shape between males and females. However, the posterior region of the CPS was wider in females than in males ( Fig. 4A). In contrast, MaP was more robust in females than in males. Additionally, males displayed a slight projection of the fixed finger of the MaP, while females did not exhibit this characteristic ( Fig. 4B). The differences in the shape of MiP between males and females were smaller compared to the other structures. This structure was slightly more robust in females, whereas the fixed finger of males was more robust than that of females ( Fig. 4C).
Sexual size dimorphism was evident between males and females in all structures analyzed, CPS (t -test; t = -9.69, p <0.001), MaP (t -test; t = -9.07, p <0.001), and MiP (t -test; t = -11.04, p <0.001) ( Fig. 3B).
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.