4.5 Article

Farfantepenaeus subtilis (Perez-Farfante, 1967) and F. brasiliensis (Latreille, 1817) (Decapoda, Penaeidae): Ontogenetic comparison using the combined analysis of secondary sexual characters and molecular markers

Journal

FISHERIES RESEARCH
Volume 216, Issue -, Pages 89-95

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2019.03.024

Keywords

Morphological comparison; Cytochrome oxidase I; Species differentiation; Ontogeny and Penaeids

Categories

Funding

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) [001]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico/Ministerio da Pesca [CNPq/MPA 407046/2012-7]
  3. FAPESP [Tematico Biota 2010/50188-8, PROTAX 2016/50376-5]
  4. CAPES [001, 2005/2014 - 23038.004308/2014-14]
  5. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico - CNPq [PQ 304968/2014-5]
  6. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [10/50188-8] Funding Source: FAPESP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Most identification keys of species of Farfantepenaeus use the shape of secondary sexual characters as a dichotomic character, but this approach focus only on adults. The lack of similar diagnostic tools for juveniles, which are commonly found in sympatry in estuaries, hinders the identification of the species Farfantepenaeus subtilis and Farfantepenaeus brasiliensis. To fill this gap, here we described the morphology of their secondary sexual characters along ontogeny and confirmed the efficiency of these characters using molecular tools. Moreover, based on morphological analyses of the thelycum and petasma we propose an additional morphological maturity stage, and report the occurrence of positive allometry in both sexes. These results may serve as a baseline for future improvements of the management practices of stocks of these shrimps, and future studies on the systematic, reproductive biology and development of penaeid shrimps.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available