Journals / OPUS Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2

Reporting of Sexual Population of Heterocypris incongruens (Ramdohr, 1808) from a Man-Made Pond (Kahramanmaraş, Turkey) and Comparison of Hemipenes of the Genus Heterocypris Claus, 1892

Heterocypris incongruens (Ramdohr, 1808)’in seksüel popülasyonunun insan yapımı bir gölette (Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye) rapor edilmesi ve Heterocypris Claus, 1892 cinsinin hemipenislerinin karşılaştırılması

Pages
139–150
Publication Date
2019-06-14
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Accordingly, our study suggest that using hemipenis as a taxonomic character should be done with great attention because the shape of hemipenis can be changed by means of several factors.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The current numbers of the genus Heterocypris includes about 68 species.
📊
Key Findings & Data:When 37 species have males, males of 26 species are not known and data is not available for five species.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Accordingly, our study suggest that using hemipenis as a taxonomic character should be done with great attention because the shape of hemipenis can be changed by means of several factors.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Heterocypris · hemipenis · Kahramanmaraş

Abstract

The current numbers of the genus Heterocypris includes about 68 species. When 37 species have males, males of 26 species are not known and data is not available for five species. Among the species of the genus, Heterocypris incongruens has a cosmopolitan distribution but the males of the species have only been reported in Palearctic and Nearctic regions. During an extensive field sampling, total of 6 males and 59 females were collected from Haydolar pond (a man-made pond) in Pazarcık, Kahramanmaraş (Turkey) on 11 June and 08 September of 2010. During this study, we focused on the description of the hemipenis and compared it with others in the genus. Sexual ratio is about 1:10 in favor of females. Zenker’s organ has 28 whorls. The lenght of the hemipenis (Lh =0.23 mm) was about 19% (ca 1/5) of the length of the carapace (L: 1.21 mm) in our samples. Distal and proximal shields of the hemipenis show variability within the indivudals of the male H. incongruens but these shields are similar among some other species (e.g., H. punctata and H. putei). Such similarities in hemipenes may support the fact that the species of the genus may have a monophyletic group. Accordingly, our study suggest that using hemipenis as a taxonomic character should be done with great attention because the shape of hemipenis can be changed by means of several factors.

Özet

Heterocypris cinsine ait 68 türün 37 tanesinin erkeği bilinirken 26 türün ise erkeği bilinmemektedir ve beş türün erkeğinin olup olmadığı hakkında ise bilgi bulunmamaktadır. Heterocypris incongruens, cinsin türleri arasında kozmopolit bir dağılıma sahiptir, ancak türün erkekleri sadece Palearktik ve Nearktik bölgelerde rapor edilmiştir. 11 Haziran ve 8 Eylül 2010 tarihlerinde Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye)’taki Haydolar göletinde yapılan kapsamlı bir arazi çalışma sırasında toplam 6 erkek ve 59 dişi birey toplanmıştır. Çalışma sırasında, hemipenis’in tanımına odaklandık ve bunu cins içerisindeki diğer hemipenisler ile karşılaştırdık. Seksüel oranı yaklaşık 1:10 değeriyle dişiler lehine olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Zenker organında 28 tane sarmal vardır. Örneklerimizdeki hemipenis’in uzunluğu (Lh = 0.23 mm), karapaks (L: 1.21 mm) uzunluğunun yaklaşık %19'u (yaklaşık 1/5) kadardır. Hemipenis’in distal ve proksimal kısımları, erkek H. incongruens bireyleri içinde değişkenlik gösterirken bu kısımlar diğer bazı türler arasında benzerlik göstermektedir (örn., H. punctata ve H. putei). Hemipenisler deki bu benzerlikler, cinsin türlerinin monofiletik bir grup olabileceği gerçeğine bir destek olabilir. Buna göre, çalışmamız hemipenisin taksonomik bir karakter olarak kullanılmasının büyük bir dikkat gerektirdiğini çünkü hemipenisin şeklinin farklı faktörlerle değişebileceğini önermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YAVUZATMACA, M., KÜLKÖYLÜOĞLU, O. (2019). Reporting of Sexual Population of Heterocypris incongruens (Ramdohr, 1808) from a Man-Made Pond (Kahramanmaraş, Turkey) and Comparison of Hemipenes of the Genus Heterocypris Claus, 1892. OPUS Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2, 139–150. https://ajindex.com/articles/856492

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Altınsaçlı, S. (1988). The Ostracoda fauna of the Bergama region and its seasonal changes. İstanbul University, Msc Thesis. Battish, S. K. (1981). Freshwater Ostracoda of the subfamily Cyprinotinae from Punjab, India, with the description of eight new species. Journal of Natural History, 15, 645-669. DOI: 10.1080/00222938100770461 Bellavere, C., Benassi, G., McKenzie, K. G., & Rossi V. (1999). Non-marine Ostracoda (Crustacea) from temporary ponds in the Isole Pelagie (Sicily, Italy). Yerbilimleri, 35, 29-38.
  2. Brady, G. S. (1906). On the Entomostiacan fauna of the New Zealand Lakes. Proceedings of the General Meeting for Scientific Business of the Zoological Society of London, p. 692-701.
  3. Brehm, V. (1923). Bericht über die von Dr. H. Weigold in China gesammelten Kopepoden und Ostrakoden. Hydrobiology, 11(3-4), 329-345. DOI: 10.1002/iroh.19230110307 Broodbakker, N. W. (1982). The genus Heterocypris (Crustacea, Ostracoda) in the West Indies, Part I. Taxonomic Characters. Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde, 52(2), 207-227.
  4. Butlin, R., Schön, I., & Martens, K. (1998). Asexual reproduction in non-marine ostracods. Heredity, 81, 473-480.
  5. Cohen, A. C., & Morin, J. G. (1990). Patterns of reproduction in ostracodes: A review. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 10(2), 184-211. DOI: 10.2307/1548480 Daday, E. Von. (1900). Ostracoda Hungariae. Kiadja a Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia, Budapest, 320 pp. De Deckker, P. (1979). Ostracods from the Mound springs area between Strangways and Curdimurka, South Australia. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, 103(6), 155-168.
  6. De Deckker, P. (1981). Ostracoda from Australian inland waters: Notes on taxonomy and ecology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 93(1), 43-85.
  7. Furtos, N. C. (1933). The Ostracoda of Ohio. Bulletin of the Ohio Biological Survey, 29, 411-524.
  8. Furtos, N. C. (1936). Freshwater Ostracoda from Florida and North Carolina. American Midland Naturalist, 17(2), 491-522. DOI: 10.2307/2419975 Fryer, G. (1997). The horse-trough ostracod Heterocypris incongruens. The Naturalist, 122, 121-135.
  9. Gauthier, H., & Brehm, V. (1928). Ostracodes et Cladocéres de I’Algérie et de la Tunisie. (3. note). Bulletin de la Société d’Histoire Naturelle de I’Afrique du Nord, 19, 114-121.
  10. Gauthier, H. (1938). Ostracodes continentaux récoltés par M. Monod Au Sahara occidental et en Mauritanie. Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Naturelles du Maroc, 18, 39-61.
  11. Hartmann, G. (1959). Beitrag zur kenntnis des Nicaragua sees unter beso