Iulopis loveni Bovallius, 1887: 17–18. – Barnard 1930: 418. Hurley 1955: 144. Reid 1955: 18–19. Harbison et al. 1977: 467–468. Shulenberger 1977: 378 (table). Tranter 1977: 647, 648 (table). Laval 1980: 16, 18 (table). Vinogradov et al. 1982: 278–280, fig. 140. Vinogradov 1990: 61. Vinogradov 1991: 261 (table). Vinogradov 1999a: 1186, fig. 4.109.
Euiulopis loveni – Bovallius 1889: 118–124, pl. 8, figs 1–18. Senna 1908: 173, pl. 1, fig. 1–3. Stephensen 1924: 80. Spandl 1927: 159–161, fig. 4a–h. Bulycheva 1955: 1048 (table).
Euiulopsis loveni – Pirlot 1929: 120; Chevreux 1935: 191.
Type material
Type material of I. loveni could not be found at the SMNH, ZMUC or Uppsala and is considered lost. However, the description and figures provided by Bovallius (1889) readily characterise this species. The type locality is the “South Atlantic” according to Bovallius (1887), but the only Atlantic record given for this species by Bovallius (1889) is 17º22’N, 37º23’W!
Material examined (> 150 specimens)
North Atlantic: 1 lot (BMNH), 2 lots (SMNH), 1 lot (USNM), 1 lot (ZMB), 7 lots (ZMUC), 18 specimens. South Atlantic: 3 lots (ZMUC), 4 specimens. Mediterranean: 1 lot (SMNH), 30 lots (ZMUC), numerous specimens. North Pacific: 5 lots (ZMUC), 26 specimens. South Pacific: 10 lots (BMNH), 1 lot (ZMUC), 24 specimens. North Indian: 5 lots (ZMUC), 11 specimens. South Indian: 6 lots (ZMUC), 14 specimens. Central IndoPacific: 1 lot (ZMUC), 3 specimens. Tasman Sea: 4 lots (ZMUC), 5 specimens.
Diagnosis
Body; length of sexually mature specimens 4–6 mm; very hirsute, even on head. Antennae 2 of female absent or reduced to small knob on cuticle. Mandibular palp absent in both sexes. Gnathopod 1 weakly chelate, carpal process forming small, triangular lobe, with single robust seta terminally. Gnathopod 2 with slender carpal process, almost as long as propodus, with single robust seta terminally. Uropod 1 & 2 of female with rami only slightly longer than respective peduncle. Uropod 3 of female with rami subequal in length to peduncle. Telson of female almost halflength peduncle of U3.
Remarks
There is some confusion regarding the type locality for this species. Bovallius (1887) says the “South Atlantic” but, in his monograph (Bovallius 1889), he gives two different localities for this species, one from the North Atlantic (17º22’N, 37º23’W) and one from the Mediterranean Sea (36º20’N, 4º30’W). In the SMNH there is a registered specimen (No. 1749) from “35ºN, 30ºW” (a male with the gnathopods missing from the left), and also four unregistered microscope slide preparations; two without locality data, one labelled “27ºN, 45ºW” and the other “ Euiulopis 36º20’N, 4º30’W ng.”. None of this material can be confirmed as representing type material, but it is very likely that Bovallius used it for his monograph, particularly the specimens from the Mediterranean Sea.
This species closely resembles its only congener, I. mirabilis, but tends to be more hirsute, and females lack second antennae and males lack a mandibular palp.
According to the literature in mature females pereopods 5–7 are prehensile, presumably for firm attachment to gelatinous hosts. However, an examination of a large number of specimens in the ZMUC (72 females, 41 males) revealed that only eight specimens have these pereopods so transformed (Fig. 1) including a juvenile female and three males! Thus, the reason for this transformation remains unclear, and seems unrelated to sex or maturity. Also, I could not find any additional morphological evidence to support the possibility that specimens with prehensile pereopods may represent another species.
The only record of a gelatinous association is by Harbison et al. (1977) who recorded a female from the medusa, Pandaea conica.
Although this species is rarely collected, it has been captured in reasonable numbers in the Mediterranean Sea (Stephensen 1924).
Distribution
This species is known from scattered records in the tropical regions of the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, and the warmer waters of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.