Lipkius holthuisi Yaldwyn 1960

Lipkius holthuisi Yaldwyn, 1960

Lipkius holthuisi Yaldwyn, 1960: 16, figs 1–16; Thompson, 1966: 129, 130, 136, 138; Hanamura 1989: 62, fig. 8; Kensley et al. 1987: 304; Webber et al. 1990: 36, unnumbered fig.; Holthuis 1993: 79, fig. 69; Pobert et al. 1997: 32 (new record); Davie 2002: 272, unnumbered fig. on p. 271; Poore 2004: 73, fig. 17a; Ahyong et al. 2007, 184, unnumbered fig. and colour photograph; Ahyong et al. 2011: 211, unnumbered fig. and colour photograph; Yaldwyn & Webber 2011: 188 (ubi syn.), fig. 4; Burukovsky 2012: 19, 31, fig. 4; Baeza et al. 2014: 437.

Material examined. 3 specimens, Chatham Rise, New Zealand, sta. TAN0905 /99, 44.1396667°S 174.7196667°W to 44.1423333°S 174.7260000°W, 641–758 m, 26 June 2009, NIWA 53769; 2 spec., same data, OUMNH.ZC.2018-01-001; 7 spec., Chatham Rise, New Zealand, sta. TAN0905 /113, 44.1495000°S 174.7568333°W to 44.1503333°S 174.76050007°W, 519–609 m, 27 June 2009, NIWA 70978; 4 spec., same data, OUMNH.ZC.2018-01-002.

Size. Maximum carapace length: 30.5 mm (Hanamura 1989).

Distribution. New Zealand, Chatham Islands (Yaldwyn 1960), SE Australia (Kensley et al. 1987), Tasmania (Hanamura 1989); also found in the sub-Antarctic Region: Campbell Plateau and between the Bounty and Antipodes Islands (Webber et al. 1990); between 366 m [200 fathoms] (Yaldwyn 1960) and 1700 m (Poore 2004). Davie (2002) considers that the species is mesopelagic. However, it seems more likely that it is benthic or demersal, as Webber et al. (1990) stated that it is commercially fished for with trawls.

Remarks. Differences can be observed between various illustrations of Lipkius holthuisi in literature. These primarily concern the length and robustness of the rostrum, the presence or the absence of a tooth on the posterior margin of the pleuron of pleonite 5, and the length of the dactylus of pereiopods 3–5. Part of these differences might be related to size or sexual differences, with the original description based on immature individuals. However, there is some doubt that all the specimens recorded in literature are indeed conspecific. With its shorter rostrum and very short dactyli on the walking pereiopods, the Australian specimen illustrated by Poore (2004) looks rather different from those from New Zealand illustrated by Yaldwyn (1960) and Ahyong et al. (2007).