The researchers studied the morphology and ecology of two species from the genus Pectenogammarus – Pectenogammarus olivii (H.Milne Edwards, 1830) and Pectenogammarus foxi (Schellenberg, 1928) from the Black and Azov Seas coasts of Crimea. It is found that the species P. foxi prefers pebble-sandy beaches, and the species P. olivii prefers rocky and rocky-boulder beaches. Morphological analysis of P. foxi and P. olivii shows that the differences in spines or setae between these species relate primarily to the epimeral and abdominal parts of the body. The nature of the location, the number of spines, the type (simple, plumose), and the number of setae on the epimeral plates of the second and third epimeron segments, the dorsal and subdorsal sections of the urosome, the outer edge of the outer ramus of the uropod 3, the inner edge of the inner ramus of the uropod 3, the outer edge of the lobes of the telson are analyzed. The features of the location, number, and type of setae and spines of the P. foxi species, which prefers a splash zone of beaches with regularly moving pebbles and sand, are the following: 1) the third epimeral plate is armed only with setae; 2) on the subdistal section of the inner edge of the inner ramus of the uropod 3, with an increase in the size of the individual, not only the number of spines and setae increases, but also the variety of their types. It indicates an increase in the polyfunctionality of this section as an individual grows; 3) on the subdorsal and dorsal sections of the first segment of the urosome, mainly setae are observed, and only occasionally spines (no more than 26 % of individuals). The features of the location and type of setae, and spines of the species of P. olivii, which prefers clusters of stones, boulders and other massive solid substrates in a splash zone are as follows: 1) the third epimeral plate is equipped not only with setae, but also with strong spines; 2) on the subdistal section of the inner edge of the inner ramus of uropods 3, only plumose setae are present, regardless of the study area; 3) on the subdorsal and dorsal sections of the first urosomal segment, only spikes are observed. It is revealed that the P. olivii species, inhabiting a complex environment comprising both massive artificial (concrete structures) and natural (boulders, stones) substrates in a surf-exposed coastal area, exhibits a reduction in the number of feathery setae on the outer edge of the outer ramus of the uropod 3, as well as on the inner edge of the inner ramus of the uropod 3. It is assumed that all the identified differences are related to the mobility of the substrates and hydrodynamic conditions in these complex habitats.
Amphipoda, Pectenogammarus, ecology, functional morphology, Black Sea, the Sea of Azov
1. Vasilenko S. V. Kaprellidy (morskie kozochki) morey SSSR i sopredel'nyh vod. – L.: Nauka, 1974. – 287 s.
2. Greze I. I. Amfipody Chernogo morya i ih biologiya. – Kiev.: Nauk. dumka,1977. – 154 s.
3. Greze I. I. Fauna Ukrainy. Vysshie rakoobraznye. Amfipody. – Kiev.: Nauk. dumka, 1985. – T. 26, vyp. 5. – 172 s.
4. Grincov V. A. Amfipody Chernogo morya: illyustrirovannyy atlas-opredelitel'. – Sevastopol': FIC INBYuM, 2022. – 476 c.
5. Gur'yanova E. F. Amfipody morey SSSR. – L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1951. – 1029 s.
6. Israpov I. Ekologicheskaya struktura taksocena amfipod Kaspiyskogo morya: avtoref. dis. … dokt. biol. nauk: spec. 03.00.18 Gidrobiologiya. – M.: IO RAN, 1992. – 50 s.
7. Morduhay-Boltovskoy F. D., Greze I. I., Vasilenko S. V. Otryad amfipody ili raznonogie. Amphipoda // Opredelitel' fauny Chernogo i Azovskogo morey. T. 2. – Kiev: Nauk. dumka, 1969. – S. 440–494
8. Severcov A. N. Morfologicheskie zakonomernosti evolyucii. – M-L.: Izd-vo. AN SSSR, 1949. – T. 5. – 536 s.
9. Cvetkova N. L. Pribrezhnye gammaridy severnyh i dal'nevostochnyh morey SSSR i sopredel'nyh vod. – L.: Nauka, 1975. – 256 s.
10. Barnard J. L., Karaman G. S. The families and genera of marine Gammaridean Amphipoda (except marine Gammaroids) // Records of the Australian Museum. – 1991. – Suppl. 13 (Parts 1-2). – P. 866.
11. Bellan-Santini D. Ecology // The Amphipoda of the Mediterranean / [Ed. S. Ruffo]. – Monaco.: Musée océanographique, 1998. – Pt. 4. – P. 869–895. (Memoires de l’Institut oceanographique; vol. 13).
12. Bousfield E., Hendrycks E. The talitroidean amphipod family Hyalidae revised, with emphasis on the North Pacific fauna: systematics and distributional ecology // Amphipacifica. – 2002. – Vol. 3 (3). – P. 17–134.
13. Grintsov V., Sezgin M. Manual for identification of Amphipoda from The Black Sea // Sevastopol. Digit Print. – 2011. – 151 p.
14. Holmquist J.The Functional Morphology of Gnathopods: Importance in Grooming, and Variation with Regard to Habitat, in Talitroidean Amphipods // Journal of Crustacean Biology.–1982.– Vol. 2, N 2. – P. 159–179.
15. Mayer G., Maier G., Mass A., Waloszek D. Mouthpart Morphology of Gammarus roeselii Compared to a Successful Invader, Dikerogammarus villosus (Amphipoda) // Journal of Crustacean Biology. – 2009.
16. Moore P. A functional interpretation of coxal morphology in Epimeria cornigera (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Paramphithoidae) // Journal of the Marine Biological Assotiation of the United Kingdom. – 2009.
17. Pavesi L., Olesen J. Functional morphology and environmental adaptations of mouthparts in the driftwood amphipod Macarorchestia remyi (Schellenberg, 1950), and a comparison with the sandhopper Talitrus
18. Watling L. Functional morphology of the amphipod mandible // Journal of Natural History. – 1993. – Vol. 27, iss. 4. – P. 837–849.
