Brasil
Nauplius
Sumário Anterior Atual Seguinte
Sumário
Original Article • Nauplius 34 • 2026 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2358-2936e20260571 linkcopy

Open-access A new species of Melita Leach, 1814 (Amphipoda: Melitidae) from Marapendi Lagoon, Rio de Janeiro, southeastern Brazil

AuthorshipSCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

A new species of the genus Melita Leach, 1814 is described with material from the Marapendi Lagoon, Rio de Janeiro City, collected in association with the invasive estuarine bivalve Mytilopsis leucophaeata (Conrad, 1831). Melita georginae sp. nov. is characterized by the following characters: antenna 1, accessory flagellum 5-articulate; gnathopod 1, propodus anterodistal projection round; epimeral plate 3, ventral margin with 10 submarginal stout setae; urosomite 1 without dorsal spines; urosomite 2 with 2 sets of dorsal stout setae; uropod 3, outer ramus 1-articulate; and telson with 3 subapical stout setae. This is the fifth species of Melita recorded from Brazil. An identification key to Neotropical species is provided.

Keywords
Crustacea; Peracarida; brackish water; taxonomy; amphipod/mollusc association

INTRODUCTION

When the family Melitidae Bousfield, 1973 was established by Bousfield (1973), the author gathered genera that used to belong to the family Gammaridae s.l.Latreille, 1802. After that, several genera were established until Lowry and Springthorpe (2005) recognized five groups based on morphological characters: the Ceradocopsis group; the Ceradocus group; the Eriopisa group; the Nuuanu group; and the Melita group. Later, Krapp-Schickel (2008) erected the family Maeridae and transferred 26 genera from Melitidae to Maeridae. Thereby, the family Melitidae was left with only 3 groups: Eriopisa, Nuuanu and Melita, which enclosed several genera. Later, Lowry and Myers (2013) established the families Eriopsidae and Nuuanuidae, based on the previously discussed Eriopisa and Nuuanu groups. Currently Melitidae encloses 31 genera distributed around the world (Tomikawa et al., 2022; Horton et al., 2025).

The genus Melita was first described by Leach (1814) and currently groups 61 species around the world (Tomikawa et al., 2022). The genus has a cosmopolitan distribution, and its species inhabit from littoral to abyssal zones, and occur in marine, brackish and fresh waters (Shin et al., 2013; Labay, 2016). Currently, there are eight species of Melita recorded from the Neotropical region, M. davilaeOrtiz and Winfield, 2016, M. guanaense Ortiz, Garcia-Debras and Lalana, 2002, M. lagunaeOliveira, 1953, M. longisetosaSheridan, 1979, M. mangrovi Oliveira, 1953, M. palmata (Montagu, 1804), M. petronioiSenna, Sorrentino, Machado and Torrent, 2012 and M. planatergaKunkel, 1910. The Neotropical region is considered the region (non-marine) that encompasses Central America, Southern and Central Mexico, the Antilles and most of South America (Morrone, 2014).

In Brazil, there are only 4 species recorded: M. lagunaeOliveira, 1953; M. mangrovi Oliveira, 1953; M. orgasmos K.H. Barnard, 1940; and M. petronioiSenna, Sorrentino, Machado and Torrent, 2012 (Serejo and Siqueira, 2018). The first species, M. lagunae, was originally described with material collected from Boqueirão, Lagoon Complex of Maricá, Municipality of Maricá, Rio de Janeiro State. Melita mangrovi was described from Pinheiro Island, Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro, later filled in the 1980s by the Brazilian Federal Government, due to the urbanization of the Maré favela complex. On the other hand, M. orgasmos is a South African species, recorded from Brazil by Wakabara et al. (1991), on the coast of São Paulo State, Southeastern Brazil, and by Santos and Soares (1999), on the coast of Pernambuco State, Northeastern Brazil. Finally, M. petronioi was originally recorded from Patos Lagoon, Rio Grande do Sul State, Southern Brazil, with no additional records so far (Fig. 1).

thumbnail of Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Known distribution of species of Melita from Brazil. Triangle: type locality of Melita georginae sp. nov., Marapendi Lagoon (23°00'37"S 043°22'51"W). Star: type locality of Melita lagunae. Circle: type locality of Melita mangroovi. Diamond: record for Melita orgasmos. Square: type locality of Melita petronioi.

Generally, the species of Melita are omnivores, and different feeding modes are related with the reduction of setation or length of mouthparts and the enlargement of the gnathopod 2 (Krapp-Schickel and Sket, 2015). Furthermore, the genus Melita possesses the highest level of specialization of the sexual dimorphism of the gnathopod 1 in males and the modified anterior lobe of coxa 6 in females, these characteristics have been assigned to pre-copula behavior and mate-carrying function (Jarrett and Bousfield, 1996; Krapp-Schickel and Sket, 2015).

Jarrett and Bousfield (1996) worked with North Pacific regional members of the Melita group, which includes several genera. Specifically on species of Melita, the authors grouped them in two distinct groups: one with dorsal spine on the urosomite 1; and the other lacking this dorsal spine on the urosomite 1. The new species described here belongs to the group without the dorsal spine on urosomite 1 and was found in association with the invasive bivalve Mytilopsis leucophaeata (Conrad, 1831) during a study about the population dynamics of the bivalve (Fernandes et al., 2020).

Material and Methods

Marapendi Lagoon, Rio de Janeiro City (23°00'39"S 043°23'57"W), is an urban lentic brackish water body, in which marine water enters the lagoon through an artificial channel (Fernandes et al., 2020). The invasive estuarine bivalve My. leucophaeata was recently recorded from Marapendi Lagoon, mainly colonizing mangrove roots (Fernandes et al., 2020). The bivalve samples were collected by scraping the hard substrate at different sampling points in Marapendi Lagoon. The individuals were packed in plastic bags and transported to the laboratory, where they were stored in a freezer at -20 ºC, and then later stored in 93% ethanol. Associated fauna was screened and amphipods were identified at a specific level. The material examined is currently stored in the Crustacea Collections of the Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo (MZUSP), and Museu de Oceanografia da Universidade Ferderal de Pernambuco (MOUFPE).

A Coleman XTB microscope was used to examine 49 specimens of the new species of which, 10 are males, 14 females and 25 juveniles. Mouthparts and appendages of the male holotype, one 1, and 1 female paratypes were dissected and mounted on glass slides with glycerol gel. Illustrations were made under an optical microscope with attached camera lucida (Motic BA-310), and digitally prepared in CorelDraw 2018. The classification of setae used in this study follows Watling (1989) and Garm and Watling (2013) and the nomenclature for the palms of gnathopods is based on Poore and Lowry (1997).

The distributional map was developed using QGIS. The identification key was made including all species recorded from the Neotropical Region, plus 3 marine species that have been recorded from the coast of South and Central America (M. bousfieldi, M. orgasmos and M. nitida). Additionally, Table 1 compares the Melita species known from Brazil.

Thumbnail
Tab. 1.
Comparison of diagnostic characters among species of Melita known from Brazil.

SYSTEMATICS

Order Amphipoda Latreille, 1816

Suborder Senticaudata Lowry and Myers, 2013

Superfamily Hadzioidea S.L. Karaman, 1943

Family Melitidae Bousfield, 1973

Genus Melita Leach, 1814

MelitaLeach, 1814: 403. -Barnard and Barnard, 1983: 663. -Stock and Vonk, 1990: 29. -Labay, 2003: 1., 2016: 47. -Lowry and Springthorpe, 2009: 723. -Senna et al., 2012: 126. -Krapp-Schickel and Sket, 2015: 249. -Tomikawa et al., 2018: 76, 2022: 143.

Type species. Cancer palmatusMontagu, 1804.

Diagnosis. According to Jarrett and Bousfield (1996), modified by Labay (2016).

Genus composition. The genus is composed of 61 species: M. alaskensisJarrett and Bousfield, 1996; M. alluaudiLedoyer, 1982; M. anmyeonensisShin, Coleman and Kim, 2013; M. bingoensisYamato, 1987; M. bousfieldiGarcía-Madrigal, 2010; M. bulla G.S. Karaman, 1978; M. celericulaCroker, 1971; M. choshigawaensisTomikawa, Hirashima, Hirai and Uchiyama, 2018; M. coroniniiHeller, 1866; M. corticisAppadoo and Myers, 2005; M. davilaeOrtiz and Winfield, 2016; M. donghaiensisRen, 2012; M. elongataSheridan, 1979; M. gayi (Nicolet, 1849); Melita georginae sp. nov.; M. guanaense Ortiz, Garcia-Debras and Lalana, 2002; M. haiphongensisDang and Le, 2011; M. hergensisReid, 1939; M. hoshinoiYamato, 1990; M. inaequistylisDana, 1852; M. intermedia Sheridan, 1979; M. kauerti J.L. Barnard, 1972; M. koreanaStephensen, 1944; M. laevidorsum Stephensen, 1944; M. lagunaeOliveira, 1953; M. longidactylaHirayama, 1987; M. longisetosa Sheridan, 1979; M. mangrovi Oliveira, 1953; M. mirzajaniiKrapp-Schickel and Sket, 2015; M. miyakoensis Tomikawa and Aoyagi in Tomikawa, Sasaki, Aoyagi and Nakano, 2022; M. myersiG.S. Karaman, 1987; M. nagatai Yamato, 1987; M. nitida S.I.Smith in Verrill and Smith, 1874; M. nitidaformisLabay, 2003; M. nitidulaRuffo, 1958; M. nunomurai Tomikawa and Sasaki in Tomikawa, Sasaki, Aoyagi and Nakano, 2022; M. ogasawaraensis Tomikawa and Sasaki in Tomikawa, Sasaki, Aoyagi and Nakano, 2022; M. okinawaensis Tomikawa and Nakano in Tomikawa, Sasaki, Aoyagi and Nakano, 2022; M. ophiocolaLowry and Springthorpe, 2005; M. oregonensis J.L. Barnard, 1954; M. orgasmos K.H. Barnard, 1940; M. pahuwaiJ.L. Barnard, 1970; M. palmata (Montagu, 1804); M. persiaMomtazi, Sari and Maghsoudlou, 2014; M. persona G.S. Karaman, 1987; M. petronioiSenna, Sorrentino, Machado and Torrent, 2012; M. pilopropoda Hirayama, 1987; M. planatergaKunkel, 1910; M. quadridentata Yamato, 1990; M. ruffoi K.H. Barnard, 1940; M. rylovaeBulyčeva, 1955; M. sampsonae Lowry and Springthorpe, 2009; M. setiflagellaYamato, 1988; M. setimera Appadoo and Myers, 2005; M. shimizui (Uéno, 1940); M. simplexMyers, 1985; M. soladaJ.L. Barnard, 1961; M. stocki G.S. Karaman, 1987; M. sulca (Stout, 1913); M. tristanensisK.H. Barnard, 1965; M. tuberculataNagata, 1965; and M. zeylanicaStebbing, 1904.

Melita georginae sp. nov.

(Figs. 2-6)

Zoobank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:2C9CA438-A52F-4840-9C02-A8178AA57C0F

thumbnail of Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Melita georginae sp. nov., Holotype, male, Marapendi Lagoon (23°00'37"S 043°22'51"W) (UERJ 5376). Habitus, lateral view. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.

thumbnail of Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Melita georginae sp. nov., Holotype, male, Marapendi Lagoon (23°00'37"S 043°22'51"W) (UERJ 5376). A, B, antennae 1-2; C, upper lip; E, right mandible; F, left mandible; G, right maxilla 1; H, left maxilla 1 (inner plate missing); I, maxilla 2; J, maxilliped. Paratype, male, same location as holotype (UERJ 2369). D, lower lip. Scale bars: A, B, 0.5 mm; C, F, G, I, 0.2 mm; E, 0.4 mm; 0.1 mm for the remaining.

thumbnail of Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Melita georginae sp. nov. Holotype, male, Marapendi Lagoon (23°00'37"S 043°22'51"W) (UERJ 5376). B, gnathopod 2, lateral view; C gnathopod 2, mesial view; E, pereopod 4; F, pereopod 5; G, pereopod 6; H, pereopod 7. Paratype, male, same location as holotype (UERJ 5377). A, gnathopod 1; D pereopod 3. Scale bars: D, E, 1.0 mm; 0.5 mm for the remaining.

thumbnail of Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Melita georginae sp. nov., Holotype, male, Marapendi Lagoon (23°00'37"S 043°22'51"W) (UERJ 5376). A, epimeral plate 1; B, epimeral plate 2; C, epimeral plate 3; E, pleopod 1; D, pleopod 2; F, pleopod 3; G, urosomite 1-3; J, uropod 3; K, telson. Paratype, male, same location as holotype (UERJ 5377). H, uropod 1; I, uropod 2. Scale bars: A-F, 2.0 mm; 0.5 mm for the remaining.

thumbnail of Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Melita georginae sp. nov., Paratype, female, Marapendi Lagoon (23°00'37"S 043°22'51"W) (UERJ 5380). A, antenna 1; B, gnathopod 1; C, gnathopod 2; D, coxa 6. Scale bars: A, C, 0.5; B, 0.2 mm; D, 0.1 mm.

Material examined. Holotype: male, 3.1 mm, dissected and illustrated, Marapendi Lagoon (23°00'37"S 043°22'51"W), Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro municipality, Brazil, 24.ix.2018, on bivalve My. leucophaeata, intertidal, Fernandes M., Miyahira I., Caetano C.H.S. col. (UERJ 5376). Paratypes, all with the same sampling data: 1 male, partially dissected and illustrated (UERJ 5377); 1 female, partially dissected and illustrated (UERJ 5380); 3 males, ethanol 93% (UERJ 5382); 6 females, ethanol 93% (UERJ 5381); 25 juveniles, ethanol 93% (UERJ 5383); 1 male, partially dissected (UERJ 5378); 1 female, partially dissected (UERJ 5379); 2 males, ethanol 93% (MZUSP 45963); 3 females, ethanol 93% (MZUSP 45964); 2 males, ethanol 93% (MOUFPE 22040); 3 females, ethanol 93% (MOUFPE 22041).

Diagnosis.

Antenna 1, accessory flagellum 5-articulate. Antenna 2, peduncle articles 4 and 5 subequal in length. Gnathopod 1, propodus anterodistal projection round. Epimeral plate 3, ventral margin with 10 submarginal stout setae. Urosomite 1 without dorsal spines. Urosomite 2 with 2 pairs of dorsal stout setae. Uropod 3, outer ramus 1-articulate. Telson with 3 subapical stout setae on each lobe.

Description of male. Based on holotype (UERJ 5376).

Habitus, dorsal margin smooth (Fig. 2). Head (Fig. 2) 1.4 × deeper than long, subequal in length to pereonites 1 and 2 together, lateral cephalic lobe rounded, anteroventral notch present, anteroventral corner rounded; eyes present, rounded. Antenna 1 (Fig. 3A) 1.4 × longer than antenna 2; peduncle, length ratio (1:1.3:0.4), first article is 3 × longer than wide, posterior margin with 3 stout setae distally, lateral surface bearing 1 set of 4 slender setae; article 2, anterior and posterior margin setose; flagellum 18/20-articulate; accessory flagellum 5-articulate, slightly shorter than the first 4 articles of the primary flagellum together, article 5 minute. Antenna 2 (Fig. 3B), peduncle articles 4 and 5 subequal in length, dorsal and ventral margins densely setose; flagellum 6-articulate, dorsal and ventral margins densely setose. Upper lip (Fig. 3C) apically rounded and setose. Lower lip (Fig. 3D), inner lobe reduced; outer lobe well developed, mediodistal margin setose. Right mandible (Fig. 3E), molar triturative bearing 1 plumose stout seta, incisor 4-cuspidated; lacinia mobilis robust, sigmoid, distally multi-cuspidated; accessory setal row with 6 pectinate setae, weak palp elevation; palp 3-articulate, article 1 short, slightly longer than wide, article 2 5 × longer than wide and 4.6 × longer than article 1, ventrally setose, article 3 weak, distally tapering, 0.8 × article 2 length, ventrally and apically setose. Left mandible (Fig. 3F), molar triturative bearing 1 plumose stout seta, incisor 5-cuspidated; lacinia mobilis robust, sigmoid, distally multi-cuspidated; accessory setal row with 5 pectinate setae. Right maxilla 1 (Fig. 3G), inner plate suboval, 1.6 × longer than wide, apical margin bearing 10 plumose setae, outer plate subrectangular 2.2 × longer than wide and 1.3 × longer than the inner plate, apical margin bearing 4 multicuspidate setae and 4 bifid stout setae; palp 2-articulate, both articles curved, article 2 twice the length of article 1, apical margin bearing 8 stout simple setae, the most lateral stouter than the others, and 1 facial oblique subapical row with 6 long slender setae. Left maxilla 1 (Fig. 3H) similar to right maxilla 1, but palp article 2 with terminal margin asymmetric, bearing 7 acute triangular spines and 7 long slender setae, inner plate missing. Maxilla 2 (Fig. 3I), inner plate suboval, 2.7 × longer than wide, mesial and apical margins bearing 1 dense row of plumose setae; outer plate suboval, 2.7 × longer than wide and 1.2 × longer than the inner plate, apically with 2 rows of plumose setae. Maxilliped (Fig. 3J), inner plate subrectangular, distal part with 1 curved stout seta and a row of plumose setae; outer plate distal margin with a row of plumose setae, medial margin with a row of stout setae and submarginal scattered slender setae; palp 4-articulate, article 1 short, article 2 medially with a marginal row and 3 submarginal sets of long slender setae, article 3 laterodistal margin slightly expanded, setulose and bearing many submarginal long and slender setae, mesial margin with a row of slender setae, article 4 weakly rough, mesial margin slightly serrate and setose, apical nail present.

Coxae 1-4 slightly increasing in length, slightly overlapping (Fig. 2). Gnathopod 1 (Fig. 4A), coxa 1.4 × longer than wide, anterior margin slightly convex, anteroventral corner weakly produced, posterior margin slightly concave, ventral margin setose; basis robust, 2.4 × longer than wide, slightly longer than the coxa, 1.3 × longer than the ischium and merus combined, distal half of anterior margin with 5 sets of long slender setae, posterior margin with 2 sets of 3 long slender setae each; ischium 1.4 × longer than merus, posterior margin with 1 set of subdistal slender setae; merus, posterior margin minutely setose, with 1 set of subdistal slender pectinate setae; carpus robust, 2.2 × longer than wide, slightly shorter than basis, distally enlarged, anterior margin with subdistal robust notch, covered with small slender setae, posterior margin with 11 long slender setae and 7 submarginal setae rows (bearing plumose, pectinate and papposerrate setae), 4 facial setal rows; propodus suboval, 1.8 × longer than wide, 0.6 × the length of carpus, anterior margin with 6 sets of slender setae, anterodistal projection round, posterodistal corner weakly produced, palm nearly obtuse, strongly concave mesially, bearing a subconical tubercle, palmar corner truncated, bearing 7 small slightly curved stout setae; dactylus strong, curved, naked, apical nail absent. Gnathopod 2 (Fig. 4B), coxa twice longer than wide, ventral margin setose; basis 2.6 × longer than wide, anterior margin densely setose; merus, posterodistal corner produced and subacute, with a subapical set of slender setae; carpus subtriangular, posterior margin densely setose (bearing plumose, pectinate, bipectinate and papposerrate setae), mesial surface (Fig. 4C) with 2 rows of long and slender setae; propodus suboval, slightly widened (1.4 ×) distally, with mesial oblique and curved depression, posterior margin and mesial surface densely setose (bearing plumose and papposerrate setae), anterior margin with 5 sets of slender setae, palm slightly acute, defined by a stout setae on palmar corner, margin bearing several bifid stout setae proximally, simple stout setae distally and long plumose setae along the entire palm; dactylus stout, curved, closing across mesial surface of propodus, with minute setae along posterior margin, apical nail absent. Pereopod 3 (Fig. 4D), coxa subrectangular, 1.9 × longer than wide, anterior and posterior margins naked, ventral margin setose; basis weak, 3.5 × longer than wide, anterior margin, proximal two thirds with 6 slender setae, posterior margin, medial third with 15 slender setae; ischium short, subquadrate; merus suboval, 2.8 × longer than wide, 0.6 × the length of carpus and propodus combined, posterior margin with 4 sets of slender setae; carpus and propodus weak, subequal in length, posterior margin weakly setose; dactylus strong, curved, apical nail present. Pereopod 4 (Fig. 4E), coxa expanded, with posterior concavity, posteroventral corner rounded, ventral margin with small slender setae; basis slightly curved, posterior margin, medial third with 14 long slender setae; merus 3 × longer than wide; carpus subrectangular, posterior margin with 4 sets of slender setae; propodus slender, posterior margin with 4 stout setae, bearing a laterodistal spur; dactylus curved, with 1 medial and 1 subdistal slender seta, apical nail present. Pereopod 5 (Fig. 4F), coxa bilobate, naked, lobes separated by a deep notch, anterior lobe rounded, slightly produced posteriorly; basis suboval, posteriorly expanded, anterior margin distal two thirds with a row of stout setae, posterior margin setulose, posteroventral lobe weakly rounded; merus twice longer than wide, anterior margin with 4 sets of setae, posterior margin with 3 stout setae, anterodistal and posterodistal corners with 2 stout and 1 slender seta each; carpus subrectangular, 3 × longer than wide, anterior margin with 3 sets of setae, posterior margin with 1 stout seta, anterodistal and posterodistal corners with 3 stout setae each; propodus slender, 5.7 × longer than wide, 1.2 × longer than carpus, anterior margin with 5 sets of stout setae, posterior margin with 1 proximal set of stout setae, 1 medial and 1 distal sets of stout and long slender setae, posterodistal corner with a row of setae; dactylus curved, with 1 medial and 1 subdistal slender setae, apical nail present. Pereopod 6 (Fig. 4G), coxa bilobate, anterior lobe rounded; basis suboval, posteriorly expanded, anterior margin with 4 sets of small stout setae, anterodistal corner with 3 small stout setae, posterior margin setulose; merus twice longer than wide, anterior margin with 3 sets of setae; carpus subrectangular, anterior margin with 3 sets of setae, posterior margin with 2 sets of setae; propodus slender, 7.5 × longer than wide, anterior margin with 6 sets of small stout setae, posterior margin with 4 sets of stout and long slender setae, posterodistal corner with a set of 3 stout setae beside a row of long slender setae; dactylus slightly curved, with 2 proximal and 1 subdistal setae, apical nail present. Pereopod 7 (Fig. 4H), coxa with a posterior lobe slightly produced, posterior margin with 2 small plumose setae; basis suboval, posteriorly expanded, anterior margin with 1 small stout seta, anterodistal corner with 3 small stout setae, posterior margin setulose; ischium, anteroventral corner with 2 stout and 1 slender setae; merus subrectangular, 2.3 × longer than wide, anterodistal corner with a row of 5 stout setae, posterodistal corner with 4 stout setae; carpus subrectangular, anterior margin with 3 sets of setae, anterodistal corner with a set of 6 setae, posterior margin of 2 sets of setae, posterodistal corner with a set of 5 setae; propodus 5.9 × longer than wide, 1.4 × longer than carpus, bearing 7 sets of 2-3 stout setae anterolaterally, posterior margin with 4 sets of stout and slender setae, posterodistal corner with a set of 3 stout setae beside a row of long slender setae; dactylus curved, with 1 medial and 1 subdistal slender setae, apical nail present.

Epimeral plate 1 (Fig. 5A) subquadrate, triangular ventral process present, ventral margin with 1 small stout seta, lateral surface with 1 stout seta near triangular process, posteroventral corner not produced, posterior margin distally weakly serrate, sinuous, and setulose. Epimeral plate 2 (Fig. 5B) subquadrate, triangular ventral process present, ventral margin naked, bearing 8 submarginal stout setae, the 3 most posterior with accessory seta, posteroventral corner weakly produced, subacute, posterior margin weakly serrate and setulose. Epimeral plate 3 (Fig. 5C) subtrapezoid, triangular ventral process absent, ventral margin naked, anterior half bearing 10 submarginal stout setae, the 5 most posterior with accessory seta, posteroventral corner weakly produced, subacute, posterior margin weakly serrate and setulose. Pleopod 1 (Fig. 5D), peduncle slender, laterodistally setose, mesiodistal corner with 2 coupling spines and a row of slender setae; both rami with coupling plumose setae present on first article, remaining articles with long plumose setae. Pleopod 2 (Fig. 5E), peduncle slender, mesiodistally with a row of 4 slender setae, coupling spines absent; inner ramus naked, outer ramus with coupling plumose setae present on first article, remaining articles with plumose setae. Pleopod 3 (Fig. 5F), peduncle slender, lateral margin with 1 stout plumose seta, coupling spines absent; both rami with coupling plumose setae present on first article, remaining articles with long plumose setae.

Urosomites 1-3 (Fig. 5G) lacking posterodorsal spines. Urosomite 2 with 2 sets of 2 small stout setae on the posterodorsal margin. Uropod 1 (Fig. 5H), peduncle elongate, 6 × longer than wide, dorsal margin with 4 stout setae, ventral margin, basofacial stout seta present; inner ramus dorsal margin with 1 stout seta, apex obliquely truncate, bearing 3 stout setae; outer ramus dorsal margin with 4 stout setae, apex obliquely truncate, bearing 1 slender and 4 stout setae. Uropod 2 (Fig. 5I) short, peduncle subrectangular, 3.3 × longer than wide, dorsal margin with 2 stout setae; rami subequal in length, 1.2 × longer than peduncle. Uropod 3 (Fig. 5J), peduncle 2.4 × longer than wide, dorsolateral margin with 2 distal stout setae, dorsomesial margin with 1 distal stout seta, ventral margin with 1 medial seta and 2 distal setae; outer ramus 1-articulate, 2.1 × longer than peduncle and 5.7 × longer than inner ramus, lateral and mesial margin, both with 6 sets of slender and stout setae each, apex truncated, bearing 3 short stout setae and several long slender setae; inner ramus short, 0.4 × peduncle length, cuneiform, bearing 3 distomesial stout setae. Telson (Fig. 5K) 1.2 × longer than wide, 67% cleft, each lobe with 3 subapical and 2 mesial stout setae, lateral margin without stout setae, dorsal surface setulose, lobes tapering distally, apically truncate with 1 subacute cusp each.

Sexual dimorphic characters. Based on female paratype (UERJ 5380).

Antenna 1 (Fig. 6A), peduncle, length ratio (1:1:0.3), article 1 2.3 × longer than wide, posterior margin with 2 slender setae, lateral surface naked; article 2, anterior margin with 2 slender setae, posterior margin with 3 slender setae; flagellum 15-articulate.

Gnathopod 1 (Fig. 6B), coxa 1.6 × longer than wide, anterior margin straight, anteroventral corner not produced, posterior margin concave, ventral margin weakly setose; basis 2.7 × longer than wide, slightly shorter than the coxa, distal half of anterior margin a row of long slender setae; ischium slightly shorter than merus, posterior margin with 1 set of 3 subdistal slender setae; carpus anterior margin with subdistal robust notch, covered with small slender setae and 1 set of pectinate and papposerrate long setae, posterior margin with 5 sets of long slender setae (bearing plumose, pectinate and papposerrate setae), 5 facial setal rows; propodus anterior margin with 4 sets of slender setae, palmar corner truncated, bearing 5 small slightly curved stout setae. Gnathopod 2 (Fig 6C), ventral margin weakly setose; basis anterior margin weakly setose, posterior margin with 8 long slender setae; propodus suboval, not widened distally, mesial oblique and curved depression absent, mesial surface not setose, palm strongly acute. Coxa 6 (Fig. 6D), strongly hooked, apically rounded with 1 slender seta.

Etymology. This species is dedicated to Dr. Georgina Bond-Buckup, professor at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil, who passed away in April 2021, another victim of COVID-19, for her great contribution to Brazilian carcinology, especially the knowledge of the Biodiversity of Decapoda and Amphipoda from inland waters.

Type-locality. Marapendi Lagoon (23°00'37"S 043°22'51"W), Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro municipality, Brazil.

Distribution. The species is known only from the type locality, Marapendi Lagoon, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Remarks. Among all 61 species of Melita around the world, M. georginae sp. nov. belongs to the group of species without spines on urosomite 1. Among these species, only 10 present 2 pairs of dorsal stout setae on urosomite 2, M. choshigawaensis, M. corticis, M. elongata, M. guanaense, M. intermedia, M. longisetosa, M. mirzajanii, M. miyakoensis, M. nitidaformis and M. shimizui. Melita georginae sp. nov. resembles M. choshigawaensis, M. corticis, M. guanaense, M. intermedia and M. longisetosa for presenting the peduncle articles 4 and 5 of antenna 2 subequal in length; epimeral plate 3 posteroventral corner weakly produced; uropod 3, outer ramus 1-articulate; and telson with 3 subapical stout setae on each lobe. However, the new species here described can be distinguished from M. choshigawaensis by (features of M. georginae sp. nov. in parenthesis): antenna 1, accessory flagellum 2-articulate (5-articulate); gnathopod 1, propodus anterodistal projection absent (present); gnathopod 1, propodus palm transverse (nearly obtuse); gnathopod 2, dactylus subapical projection present (absent); and uropod 3, outer ramus 8.1× longer than inner ramus (5.7 ×).

Melita georginae sp. nov. differs from M. corticis by (features of M. georginae sp. nov in parenthesis): antenna 1, accessory flagellum 3-articulate (5-articulate); gnathopod 1, propodus anterodistal projection subrectangular (rounded); epimeral plate 3, ventral margin with 3 submarginal stout setae (10 submarginal stout setae); and telson with a 95% cleft (67% cleft).

Melita georginae sp. nov. can be distinguished from M. intermedia by (features of M. georginae sp. nov. in parenthesis): antenna 1, accessory flagellum 2-articulate (5-articulate); and gnathopod 1, propodus anterodistal projection absent (present). Melita georginae sp. nov. also differs from M. guanaense, M. intermedia and M. longisetosa by the number of submarginal stout setae on the ventral margin of epimeral plate 3: the new species presents 10 stout setae while the others present 3, 1 and 2, respectively.

Apart from the absence of a spine on urosomite 1, and the presence of 2 pairs of dorsal stout setae on the urosomite 2, M. georginae sp. nov. also shares a few characteristics with M. elongata, M. mirzajanii, M. miyakoensis, M. nitidaformis and M. shimizui: absence of gnathopod 2 dactylus apical nail and dactylus subapical projection; uropod 3 outer ramus 1-articulate; and telson with 3 subapical stout setae.

Melita georginae sp. nov. can be differentiated from M. elongata by (features of M. georginae sp. nov. in parenthesis): antenna 1, accessory flagellum 2-articulate (5-articulate); antenna 2, peduncle article 4 slightly shorter than article 5 (articles 4 and 5 subequal in length); gnathopod 1, propodus anterodistal projection absent (present), palm transverse (nearly obtuse); epimeral plate 3, ventral margin with 3 stout setae (10 submarginal stout setae), posteroventral corner moderately produced (weakly produced); and uropod 3, outer ramus 7.5× longer than inner ramus (5.7×). On the other hand, M. georginae sp. nov. differs from M. mirzajanii by (features of M. georginae sp. nov. in parenthesis): antenna 2, article 4 slightly longer than article 5 (articles 4 and 5 subequal in length); gnathopod 1, propodus anterodistal projection absent (present), palm transverse (nearly obtuse); pereopod 3, basis posterior margin serrate (smooth); epimeral plate 3, posteroventral corner moderately produced (weakly produced); and telson totally cleft (67% cleft).

Furthermore, M. georginae sp. nov. differs from M. miyakoensis by presenting the following characteristics (features of M. georginae sp. nov. in parenthesis): eyes absent (present); antenna 1, accessory flagellum 2-articulate (5-articulate); gnathopod 1, propodus anterodistal projection subtriangular (rounded); and telson 90% cleft (67% cleft).

Melita georginae sp. nov. and M. nitidaformis can be distinguished by (features of M. georginae sp. nov. in parenthesis): antenna 1, accessory flagellum 2-articulate (5-articulate); antenna 2, article 4 slightly longer than article 5 (articles 4 and 5 subequal in length); gnathopod 1, propodus palm transverse (nearly obtuse); epimeral plate 3, ventral margin with 3 submarginal stout setae (10 submarginal stout setae), posteroventral corner not produced (weakly produced); uropod 3, outer ramus 2-articulate (1-articulate), outer ramus 11 × longer than inner ramus (5.7 ×); and telson 89% cleft (67% cleft).

At last, M. georginae sp. nov. and M. shimizui can be differentiated by (features of M. georginae sp. nov. in parenthesis): antenna 1, accessory flagellum 2-articulate (5-articulate); antenna 2, article 4 slightly longer than article 5 (articles 4 and 5 subequal in length); gnathopod 1, propodus anterodistal projection absent (present), palm transverse (nearly obtuse); gnathopod 2, dactylus apical nail present (absent), dactylus subapical projection present (absent); uropod 3, outer ramus 7.5 × longer than inner ramus (5.7 ×); and telson 55% cleft (67% cleft).

Identification key to Neotropical species of Melita (including M. bousfieldi, M. orgasmos and M. nitida)

1 Uropod 3, outer ramus 1-articulate ............................................................................... 3

1’ Uropod 3, outer ramus 2-articulate ............................................................................... 2

2 Gnathopods 1-2, dactylus apical nail present; urosomite 2, dorsal margin with 2 sets of 3 stout setae; uropod 3, outer ramus, article 2, reduced to a rounded tip ………………….... ………………………………… M. petronioiSenna, Sorrentino, Machado and Torrent, 2012.

2’ Gnathopods 1-2, dactylus apical nail absent; urosomite 2, dorsal margin with 2 sets of 2 stout setae; uropod 3, outer ramus, article 2 truncate... .M. davilaeOrtiz and Winfield, 2016.

3 Gnathopod 1, propodus anterodistal projection absent ……………………...………. 4

3’ Gnathopod 1, propodus anterodistal projection present ………………………...…… 6

4 Antenna 2, peduncle articles 4 and 5 subequal in length; telson with 3-4 subapical stout setae on each lobe ……………………………………………………………...………. 5

4’ Antenna 2, peduncle article 4 slightly shorter than 5; telson with 7 subapical stout setae ……………………………………………………………. M. mangroviOliveira, 1953.

5 Eyes subtriangular; antenna 1, flagellum 12-articulate; epimeral plate 3, ventral margin serrate, with 5 submarginal setae; urosomite 2, with 1 pair of dorsal stout setae……… …………………………………………………………. M. bousfieldiGarcía-Madrigal, 2010.

5’ Eyes round; antenna 1, flagellum 19/22-articulate; epimeral plate 3, ventral margin smooth, with 2 submarginal setae; urosomite 2, with 2 pairs of dorsal stout setae …….......…. …………………………………………………………………M. longisetosaSheridan, 1979.

6 Urosomite 1, dorsal spine present ……………………………………………........... 7

6’ Urosomite 1, dorsal spine absent ................................................................................. 8

7 Eyes oval; pereopod 3, basis posterior margin smooth; urosomite 2 with 1 pair of dorsal stout setae ……………………………………….……... M. palmata (Montagu, 1804).

7’ Eyes round; pereopod 3, basis posterior margin weakly serrate; urosomite 2 with 2 pairs of dorsal stout setae ………….………………………. M. orgasmos K.H. Barnard, 1940

8 Gnathopod 1, dactylus apical nail absent ………………..…………………….….…. 9

8’ Gnathopod 1, dactylus apical nail present ………..…………………………………….

………………………………..………. M. guanaenseOrtiz, Garcia-Debras and Lalana, 2002

9.Antenna 2, peduncle articles 4 and 5 subequal in length; urosomite 2, dorsal setae present ………………………………………………………………………………...……….……. 10

9’ Antenna 2, peduncle article 4 slightly longer than 5; urosomite 2, dorsal setae absent ………………………………………………….…………………. M. lagunaeOliveira, 1953.

10 Gnathopod 2, dactylus apical nail absent, subapical projection absent ………….…. 11

10’ Gnathopod 2, dactylus apical nail present, subapical projection present ………………

……………………………………………………….…. M. nitida S.I. Smith in Verrill, 1873.

11 Antenna 1, flagellum 21/26-articulate, accessory flagellum 5-articulate; gnathopod 1, propodus anterodistal projection round; epimeral plate 3, ventral margin smooth, with 10 submarginal stout setae; urosomite 2, with 2 pairs of dorsal stout setae ……………………….

…………………………………………………………………………. M. georginae sp. nov.

11’ Antenna 1, flagellum 18-articulate, accessory flagellum 2-articulate; gnathopod 1, propodus anterodistal projection subrectangular; epimeral plate 3 ventral margin serrate, with 2 submarginal stout setae; urosomite 2, with 1 pair of dorsal stout setae ……………..………. ………………………………………………………………….. M. planatergaKunkel, 1910.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to Dr. Carlos Henrique S. Caetano and Dr. Maurício R. Fernandes, from Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO), for providing the examined material.

References

  • Appadoo C, and Myers AA 2005. Amphipods of the genera Ceradocus, Dulichiella, Melita and Nuuanu (Crustacea: Melitidae) from Mauritius, Indian Ocean. Records of the Australian Museum, 57: 221-236. https://doi.org/10.3853/j.0067-1975.57.2005.1444
    » https://doi.org/10.3853/j.0067-1975.57.2005.1444
  • Barnard JL 1954. Marine Amphipoda of Oregon. Oregon State Monographs, Studies in Zoology, 8: 1-103; pls. 1-33.
  • Barnard JL 1961. Gammaridean Amphipoda from depths of 400 to 6000 meters. Galathea Report, 5: 23-128.
  • Barnard JL 1970. Sublittoral Gammaridea (Amphipoda) of the Hawaiian Islands. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 34: 1-286. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.34
    » https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.34
  • Barnard JL 1972. Gammaridean Amphipoda from Australia, Part I. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 103: 1-333. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.103
    » https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.103
  • Barnard JL, and Barnard CM 1983. Freshwater Amphipoda of the World. II. Handbook and bibliography. Mt. Vernon, Hayfield Associates. 830p.
  • Barnard KH 1940. Contributions to the crustacean fauna of South Africa. XII. Further additions to the Tanaidacea, Isopoda and Amphipoda, together with keys for the identification of hitherto recorded marine and fresh-water species. Annals of the South African Museum, 32: 381-543. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40891186#page/455/mode/1up
    » https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40891186#page/455/mode/1up
  • Barnard KH 1965. Isopoda and Amphipoda collected by the Gough Island scientific survey. Annals of the South African Museum , 48: 195-210. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41175492#page/251/mode/1up
    » https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41175492#page/251/mode/1up
  • Bousfield EL 1973. Shallow-water Gammaridean Amphipoda of New England. Ithaca, NY, Comstock Publishing Associates, 312p. https://archive.org/details/shallowwatergamm0000bous/page/n7/mode/2up
    » https://archive.org/details/shallowwatergamm0000bous/page/n7/mode/2up
  • Bulyčeva AI 1955. Novye vidy bokoplavov (Amphipoda, Gammaridea) iz Japonskogo Morja. II. [New species of amphipods from the Japan Sea. II.]. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta, Akademija Nauk SSSR, 21: 193-207.
  • Conrad TA 1831. Description of fifteen new species of recent, and three of fossil shells, chiefly from the coast of the United States. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 6: 256-268.
  • Croker RA 1971. A new species of Melita (Amphipoda; Gammaridae) from the Marshall Islands, Micronesia. Pacific Science, 25: 100-108.
  • Dana JD 1852. Conspectus Crustaceorum, quae in orbis terrarum circumnavigatione. Cantabrigiae: Typis Metcalf et soc. Univ. Typograph, 19p. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.53615
    » https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.53615
  • Dang NT, and Le HA 2011. Crustaceans Family Melitidae (Amphipoda- Gammaridea) from Vietnam Sea. Tap Chi Sinh Hoc [Vietnam Journal of Biology], 33: 1-18. https://doi.org/10.15625/0866-7160/v33n2.740
    » https://doi.org/10.15625/0866-7160/v33n2.740
  • Fernandes MR; Miyahira IC; Caetano CHS, and Salgueiro F. 2020. The spreading of the invasive bivalve Mytilopsis leucophaeata (Dreissenidae) into estuaries of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 92: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202020190045
    » https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202020190045
  • García-Madrigal MS 2010. Littoral Maeridae and Melitidae (Amphipoda: Gammaridea) from the Gulf of Tehuantepec, Mexico. Zootaxa, 2623: 1-51. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2623.1.1
    » https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2623.1.1
  • Garm A, and Watling L 2013. The Crustacean integument: Setae, Setules, and other Ornamentation. p. 167-198. In: Watling, L. and Thiel, M. (Eds.), Functional Morphology and Diversity, The Natural History of the Crustacea. Oxford, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195398038.003.0006
    » https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195398038.003.0006
  • Heller C 1866. Beitrage zur naheren Kenntnis der Amphipoden des adriatischen Meeres. Denkschriften. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 26: 1-62. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/part/120386
    » https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/part/120386
  • Hirayama A 1987. Taxonomic Studies on the Shallow Water Gammaridean Amphipoda of West Kyushu, Japan. VII. Melitidae (Melita), Melphidippidae, Oedicerotidae, Philiantidae and Phoxocephalidae. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, 32: 1-62. https://doi.org/10.5134/176135
    » https://doi.org/10.5134/176135
  • Horton T; Lowry J; De Broyer C; Bellan-Santini D; Coleman CO; Corbari L; Costello MJ; Daneliya M; Dauvin J-C; Fišer C; Gasca R; Grabowski M; Guerra-García JM; Hendrycks E; Hughes L; Jaume D; Jazdzewski K; Kim Y-H; King R; Krapp-Schickel T; LeCroy S; Lörz A-N; Mamos T; Senna AR; Serejo C; Sket B; Souza- JF Filho; Tandberg AH; Thomas JD; Thurston M; Vader W; Väinölä R; Vonk R; White K and Zeidler W 2025. World Amphipoda Database. Melitidae Bousfield, 1973. https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=101397 on 2025-06-04
    » https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=101397 on 2025-06-04
  • Jarrett NE and Bousfield EL 1996. The Amphipod Superfamily Hadzioidea on the Pacific Coast of North America: Family Melitidae. Part I. The Melita Group: Systematics and Distributional Ecology. Amphipacifica, 2: 3-74. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/52427566#page/6/mode/1up
    » https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/52427566#page/6/mode/1up
  • Karaman GS 1978. On two Melita species (Fam. Gammaridae) from the Mediterranean Sea, M. bulla n. sp. and M. valesi S. Kar. 1955. Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 5: 221-237.
  • Karaman GS 1987. A new species of genus Melita Leach (Fam. Melitidae) from Bermuda and Fiji Islands, 173. Glasnik Prirodnjackog Muzeja u Beogradu, B 42: 19-35.
  • Karaman SL 1953. Pontokaspische Amphipoden der jugoslavischen Fauna. Acta Musei Macedonici Scientiarum Naturalium, Skopje, 1, 21-60, 61 figures.
  • Krapp-Schickel T 2008. What has happened with the Maera-clade (Crustacea, Amphipoda) during the last decades? Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona , 32: 3-32.
  • Krapp-Schickel T and Sket B 2015. Melita mirzajanii n. sp. (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Melitidae), a puzzling new member of the Caspian fauna. Zootaxa, 3948: 248-262. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3948.2.6
    » https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3948.2.6
  • Kunkel BW 1910. The Amphipoda of Bermuda. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 16: 1-116.
  • Labay VS 2003. A new species of Melita Leach (Amphipoda: Melitidae) from oligosaline waters of Russian Far East. Zootaxa , 356: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.356.1.1
    » https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.356.1.1
  • Labay VS 2016. Review of amphipods of the Melita group (Amphipoda: Melitidae) from the coastal waters of Sakhalin Island (Far East of Russia). III. Genera Abludomelita Karaman, 1981 and Melita Leach, 1814. Zootaxa, 4156: 1-73. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4156.1.1
    » https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4156.1.1
  • Latreille PA 1802. Histoire Naturelle, generale et particuliere des Crustaces et des Insectes Paris, F. Dufart. 168p. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.15764
    » https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.15764
  • Latreille PA 1816. Nouveau Dictionnaire d’histoire naturelle, appliquée aux arts, à l’Agriculture, à l’Economic rurale et domestique, à la Médecine, etc. Par une Société de Naturalistes et d’Agriculteurs. Nouvelle Édition. Paris, 1: 467-469. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/21109023
    » https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/21109023
  • Leach WE 1814. Crustaceology. In: Brewster D (ed.), The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia Balfour, Edinbourgh, 7: 383-437. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/37187274
    » https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/37187274
  • Ledoyer M 1982. Crustacés amphipodes gammariens familles des Acanthonotozomatidae à Gammaridae. Faune de Madagascar, 59: 1-598. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/190328
    » https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/190328
  • Lowry J K and Myers AA 2013. A Phylogeny and Classification of the Senticaudata subord. nov. (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Zootaxa , 3610: 1-80. https://doi.org/h10.11646/zootaxa.3610.1.1
    » https://doi.org/h10.11646/zootaxa.3610.1.1
  • Lowry J K and Springthorpe RT 2005. New and little-known melitid amphipods from Australian waters (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Melitidae). Records of the Australian Museum, 57: 237-302. https://doi.org/10.3853/j.0067-1975.57.2005.1463
    » https://doi.org/10.3853/j.0067-1975.57.2005.1463
  • Lowry J K and Springthorpe RT 2009. Melitidae, the Melita group. p. 718-735. In: J.K. Lowry and A.A. Myers (eds), Benthic Amphipoda (Crustacea: Peracarida) of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Zootaxa , 2260: 1-930. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2260.1.37
    » https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2260.1.37
  • Momtazi F; Sari A and Maghsoudlou A 2014. New species and new record of hadzioids (Amphipoda: Senticaudata, Hadzioidea) from the Persian Gulf, Iran. Zootaxa , 3881: 440-452. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3881.5.2
    » https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3881.5.2
  • Montagu G 1804. Description of several marine animals found on the south coast of Devonshire. Transactions of the Linnean Society, 7: 61-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1818.tb00327.x
    » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1818.tb00327.x
  • Morrone JJ 2014. Biogeographical regionalisation of the Neotropical region. Zootaxa, 3782: 1-110. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3782.1.1
    » https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3782.1.1
  • Myers, A.A. 1985. Shallow-water, coral reef and mangrove Amphipoda (Gammaridea) of Fiji. Records of the Australian Museum , Supplement, 5: 1-143. https://doi.org/10.3853/j.0812-7387.5.1985.99
    » https://doi.org/10.3853/j.0812-7387.5.1985.99
  • Nagata K 1965. Studies on Marine Gammaridean Amphipoda of the Seto Inland Sea. III. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, 13: 291-326. https://doi.org/10.5134/175410
    » https://doi.org/10.5134/175410
  • Nicolet H 1849. Crustaceos. In: Gay, C., Historia Fisica y Politica de Chile: Según Documentos Adquiridos en Esta República Durante Doce Años de Residencia en Ellas y Publicado Bajo los Auspicios del Supremo Gobierno. Zoologia, vol 3, p. 115-318. Paris, casa del autor/Chile, Museo de Historia Natural de Santiago. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40538364
    » https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40538364
  • Oliveira LPH 1953. Crustacea Amphipoda do Rio de Janeiro. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, 51: 289-376. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0074-02761953000100009
    » https://doi.org/10.1590/s0074-02761953000100009
  • Ortiz M; Garcia-Debras A and Lalana R 2002. Una nueva especie de anfipodo anquialino del género Melita (Gammaridea: Melitidae) de la isla de Cuba. Avicennia, 15: 43-52. https://ia802808.us.archive.org/33/items/biostor-135602/biostor-135602.pdf
    » https://ia802808.us.archive.org/33/items/biostor-135602/biostor-135602.pdf
  • Ortiz M and Winfield I 2016. A new species of the genus Melita (Amphipoda, Hadzioidea, Melitidae) from anchialine pool on the Cozumel Island, NE Caribbean Sea. Zootaxa, 4137: 73. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4137.1.5
    » https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4137.1.5
  • Poore ABG and Lowry J K 1997. New Ampithoid Amphipods from Port Jackson, New South Wales, Australia (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Ampithoidae). Invertebrate Taxonomy, 11: 897-941. https://doi.org/10.1071/IT95045
    » https://doi.org/10.1071/IT95045
  • Reid D 1939. XVII.-Melita hergensis, sp. n. (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4: 278-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933908526988
    » https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933908526988
  • Ren X 2012. Crustacea, Amphipoda, Gammaridea (II). Fauna Sinica, Invertebrata Beijing, Science Press, 43:651p
  • Ruffo S 1958. Amphipodes terrestres et des eaux continentales de Madagascar, des Comores et de la Reunion. Mémoires de l’Institute Scientifique de Madagascar, Série A, 12: 35-66.
  • Santos JP, and Soares MC 1999. Crustacea Amphipoda Gammaridea da Praia de Piedade-Jaboatão dos Guararapes-Pernanbuco-Brasil. Trabalhos do Instituto Oceanográfico da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, 27(2): 61-72. https://doi.org/10.5914/tropocean.v27i2.2818
    » https://doi.org/10.5914/tropocean.v27i2.2818
  • Senna AR ; Sorrentino R; Machado ANS and Torrent P 2012. A new species of Melita Leach, 1814 (Amphipoda: Hadzioidea: Melitidae) from Patos Lagoon, southern Brazil. Nauplius, 20: 125-135. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-64972012000200005
    » https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-64972012000200005
  • Serejo C S and Siqueira SGL 2018. Catalogue of the Order Amphipoda from Brazil (Crustacea, Peracarida): Suborders Amphilochidea, Senticaudata and Order Ingolfiellida. Zootaxa , 4431: 1. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4431.1.1
    » https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4431.1.1
  • Sheridan PF 1979. Three new species of Melita (Crustacea: Amphipoda), with notes on the amphipod fauna of the Apalachicola estuary of northwest Florida. Northeast Gulf Science, 3: 60-73. https://doi.org/10.18785/negs.0302.02
    » https://doi.org/10.18785/negs.0302.02
  • Shin MH; Coleman CO and Kim W 2013. Discovery of a new species of Melita (Amphipoda: Melitidae) associated with Barnea dilatata (Bivalvia, Mollusca) from South Korea. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 33: 882-893. https://doi.org/10.1163/1937240x-00002188
    » https://doi.org/10.1163/1937240x-00002188
  • Stebbing TRR 1904. Gregarious Crustacea of Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica, 2: 1-29. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/59021728
    » https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/59021728
  • Stephensen KH 1944. Some Japanese Amphipods. Videnskabelige Meddelser fra Dansk naturhistorisk Forening i Kobenhavn, 108: 25-88.
  • Stock JH and Vonk R 1990. Stygofauna of the Canary Island, 23. A freshwater amphipod from La Gomera, Melita dulcicola n.sp. Annales de Limnologie, 26(1): 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1051/limn/1990003
    » https://doi.org/10.1051/limn/1990003
  • Stout VR 1913 Studies in Laguna Amphipoda. Zoologische Jahrbucher. Abteilung fur Systematik, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere, 34: 633-659. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.19898
    » https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.19898
  • Tomikawa K; Hirashima K; Hirai A and Uchiyama R 2018. A new species of Melita from Japan (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Melitidae). ZooKeys, 760: 73-88. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.760.24778
    » https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.760.24778
  • Tomikawa K; Sasaki T; Aoyagi M and Nakano T 2022. Taxonomy and phylogeny of the genus Melita (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Melitidae) from the West Pacific Islands, with descriptions of four new species. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 296: 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2021.12.005
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2021.12.005
  • Uéno M 1940. Some freshwater Amphipods from Manchoukuo, Corea and Japan. Bulletin of the Biogeographical Society of Japan, 10: 63-85.
  • Verrill AE and Smith SI 1874. Report upon the invertebrate animals of Vineyard Sound and the adjacent waters, with an account of the physical characters of the region. United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries. Report of the Commissioner for 1873: 295-478, pls. 1-38. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/76128#page/7/mode/1up
    » https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/76128#page/7/mode/1up
  • Wakabara Y; Tararam AS; Valério-Berardo MT; Duleba W and Leite FPP 1991. Gammaridean and caprellidean fauna from Brazil. Hydrobiologia, 223: 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00047629
    » https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00047629
  • Watling L 1989. A classification system for crustacean setae based on the homology concept In: Felgenhauer B, Watling L, Thistle AB, eds. Functional morphology of feeding and grooming in Crustacea. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003079354-2
    » https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003079354-2
  • Yamato S 1987. Four intertidal species of the genus Melita (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from Japanese waters, including descriptions of two new species. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory , 32: 275-302. https://doi.org/10.5134/176142
    » https://doi.org/10.5134/176142
  • Yamato S 1988. Two species of the genus Melita (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from brackish waters in Japan. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory , 33: 79-95. https://doi.org/10.5134/176148
    » https://doi.org/10.5134/176148
  • Yamato S 1990. Two new species of the genus Melita (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from shallow waters of the Seto Inland Sea of Japan. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, 34: 149-165. https://doi.org/10.5134/176168
    » https://doi.org/10.5134/176168
  • Funding and grant disclosures
    This research was supported by FAPERJ, grant # E‑26/202.768/2019 to ARS, by CNPq, grant # 305439/2022-7 to ARS, and FAPERJ, fellowship grant # E-26/200.860/2020 to BQ.
  • Study association
    This study is part of the monograph of BQ in the undergraduate course in Biological Sciences at Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.
  • Study permits
    Field collection and transportation of specimens were made under the SISBIO permit number 64801 issued to Maurício R. Fernandes.
  • Data availability
    All study data are included in the article.
  • ZOOBANK:
    http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CB43F8C4-DF03-45F9-8541-F097E913580B

Edited by

  • Editor-in-chief
    Christopher Tudge
  • Associate Editor:
    Cristiana Serejo

Data availability

All study data are included in the article.

Publication Dates

  • Publication in this collection
    09 Feb 2026
  • Date of issue
    2026

History

  • Received
    29 Nov 2024
  • Accepted
    22 May 2025
Creative Common - by 4.0
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
location_on
Sociedade Brasileira de Carcinologia Instituto de Biociências, UNESP, Campus Botucatu, Rua Professor Doutor Antônio Celso Wagner Zanin, 250 , Botucatu, SP, 18618-689 - Botucatu - SP - Brazil
E-mail: editor.nauplius@gmail.com
rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS
Reportar erro