(Figure 21)
AM P87328,? 1 male, 35°08.84 ʹ S, 150°45.71 ʹ E, near the bottom end of vertical wall, 1 nautical mile south of Governor Head, out of Jervis Bay, New South Wales, brown algae (like Sporochnus), 20 m, 28 February 1996, coll. I. Takeuchi, A. Murray and R. T. Johnson.
New South Wales: 1 nautical mile south of Governor Head, out of Jervis Bay (this study).
? Male, body length, 2.74 mm, AM P87328. Body slender, cylindrical with vestigial pleosome. Head/pereonite 1 combined length 0.38 mm; pereonite 2, 0.33 mm; pereonite 3, 0.41 mm; pereonite 4, 0.43 mm; pereonite 5, 0.54 mm; pereonite 6, 0.42 mm; pereonite 7, 0.23 mm.
Head/pereonite 1 without projections or humps.
Antenna 1 1/2 × body length; peduncle article 2 longest; flagellum 0.9 × peduncular length; with five articles. Antenna 2 0.4 × antenna 1 length; flagellum 0.4 × peduncular length; with two articles.
Pereon.Pereonites 2–7 without projections or humps; pereonite 5 longest.
Gnathopod 2 basis without anterodistal projection; carpus 0.1 × propodus length; propodus large, subovate, 2 × width; palm smooth.
Pereonite 3 gill elongate, cylindrical, 0.8 × corresponding pereonite. Pereopod 3 slender; basis to carpus cylindrical; basis longer than other pereopod articles, 2/5 × the pereopod length; propodus without distal palm and robust setae; dactylus falcate/curved. Pereonite 4 gill length about 3/4 × corresponding pereonite. Pereopod 4 similar to pereopod 3. Pereopod 5 slender; propodus concave; dactylus medium length, curved, without setae.
Pleon.Uropod 1, peduncle, elongate, about 5 × width; ramus about 0.3 × peduncular length. Uropod 2, peduncle, elongate, about 4 × width; ramus about 0.2 × peduncular length.
Marine, littoral.
Four species of Paraproto have been recorded from the Australian coasts before the present study: P. condylata (Haswell, 1885a) from Australia, P. gabrieli Stebbing, 1914 from Victoria, P. spinosa (Haswell, 1885a) from Victoria and P. tasmaniensis Guerra-García and Takeuchi, 2004. Of the four species of Paraproto, P. condylata and P. tasmaniensis have the body smooth, as in the present species. However, because of the lack of a modern description of P. condylata from Australia we hesitate to identify this small individual.
Paraproto condylata was first reported by Haswell (1885a) as Proto condylata Haswell, 1885a. He never noted the specific locality for this species in Australia unlike the record for P. spinosa (Haswell, 1885a) that was recorded as “ only in one locality-Port Western, Victoria. ” Dr William A. Haswell served the University of Sydney around that period (Morison 1983). If P. condylata was collected from Victoria or other states, there is a high possibility that he would have recorded the locality as for P. spinosa (Haswell, 1885a). Hence, P. condylata might have been collected from Sydney or adjacent areas along the coasts of New South Wales, Australia. Mayer (1903) also noted “ Paraproto condylata ? ” in the species list of “ Sydney (Port Jackson and Broken Bay) ”. The type material of P. condylata described by Haswell (1885a) is missing (Springthorpe and Lowry 1994). McCain and Gray (1971) reported the occurrence of “ P. condylata ” from South Shetland Islands, Antarctica with several illustrations. Guerra-Garcia and Coleman (2001) redescribed and figured “ P. condylata ” based on the specimens collected by the Polarstern cruise ANT XIV/2 from South Shetland Islands. Their description and figures in general agree with the description by McCain and Gray (1971). De Broyer et al. (2004) identified Antarctic “ P. condylata ” as Paraproto sp. due to several morphological differences between the Australian and Antarctic specimens. Based on Antarctic “ P. condylata ” a new species is proposed (Takeuchi, forthcoming 2015).