Paracaprella

Paracaprella sp. (Fig. 11)

Material examined. GB: 1 male, 1 premature female, 3 juveniles, clinging on sponges under boulders, intertidal, 13 July 2002.

Remarks. The present specimens have been identified as Paracaprella mainly on the basis of the presence of pereopods 3 and 4 reduced to 2 articles, antenna 2 without swimming setae and flagellum 2­articulate, and abdomen of the male with a pair of appendages and a pair of lobes. The specimens from Mauritius are closest to Paracaprella tenuis Mayer, 1903 on the basis of the absence of dorsal and lateral body projections and the basis of gnathopod 2 not expanded (McCain 1968). Paracaprella from Mauritius and P. tenuis also resembles Paracaprella pusilla Mayer, 1890, but the males of P. p u s i l l a have a large sharp­pointed projection on the antero­ventral margin of pereonite 2, a proximal knob on the basis of gnathopod 2 and setae on the dactylus of gnathopod 2, which are absent in the male of Paracaprella sp. from Mauritius and P. tenuis. Taking into account that the material from Mauritius is scarce and that the genus Paracaprella is still in need of further taxonomic revision, we have identified these specimens as Paracaprella sp at the moment. Differences in eye size and the propodus of gnathopod 2 prevent identification the Mauritian specimens as P. t e n u i s.

Paracaprella tenuis have been collected from the western coast of North Atlantic (McCain, 1968) and recently, Guerra­García (2002c) redescribed the species based on specimens collected from the Tanzanian coast. The specimens collected in Tanzania differed in some characteristics from the type material of the western coast of North Atlantic but these differences were considered intraspecific variation by Guerra­García (2002c). According to these identifications, P. tenuis show a unique distribution (western coast of North Atlantic and tropical area of the Indian Ocean). This rare distribution could indicate that the specimens from Tanzania do not belong really to P. t e n u i s and the small morphological differences are interespecific and not intraspecific, or that P. tenuis really possess a wider distribution area, maybe cosmopolitan, but it has not been collected yet from many zones; this species is not very conspicuous and usually the specimens are covered by detritus and could have been unnoticed in many areas. Molecular analysis would be helpful in clarifying species boundaries in the genus Paracaprella and specifically to elucidate what is and what is not P. tenuis.