WoRMS taxon details
Floresorchestia anomala (Chevreux, 1901)
556110 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:556110)
accepted
Species
Orchestia anomala Chevreux, 1901 · unaccepted > superseded combination
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
recent only
(of Orchestia anomala Chevreux, 1901) Chevreux, E. (1901). Crustacés Amphipodes. Mission scientifique de M. Ch. Alluaud aux Iles Séchelles (Mars, Avril, Mai 1892). <em>Mémoires de La Société zoologique de France.</em> 14: 388-438. [details] 
Type locality contained in Seychellois Exclusive Economic Zone
type locality contained in Seychellois Exclusive Economic Zone [details]
Horton, T.; Lowry, J.; De Broyer, C.; Bellan-Santini, D.; Copilas-Ciocianu, D.; Corbari, L.; Costello, M.J.; Daneliya, M.; Dauvin, J.-C.; Fišer, C.; Gasca, R.; Grabowski, M.; Guerra-García, J.M.; Hendrycks, E.; Hughes, L.; Jaume, D.; Jazdzewski, K.; Kim, Y.-H.; King, R.; Krapp-Schickel, T.; LeCroy, S.; Lörz, A.-N.; Mamos, T.; Senna, A.R.; Serejo, C.; Souza-Filho, J.F.; Tandberg, A.H.; Thomas, J.D.; Thurston, M.; Vader, W.; Väinölä, R.; Valls Domedel, G.; Vonk, R.; White, K.; Zeidler, W. (2024). World Amphipoda Database. Floresorchestia anomala (Chevreux, 1901). Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=556110 on 2024-05-06
The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
original description
(of Orchestia anomala Chevreux, 1901) Chevreux, E. (1901). Crustacés Amphipodes. Mission scientifique de M. Ch. Alluaud aux Iles Séchelles (Mars, Avril, Mai 1892). <em>Mémoires de La Société zoologique de France.</em> 14: 388-438. [details]
Present Present in aphia/obis/gbif/idigbio Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
Syntype MNHN Am 4595-4596 [details]
From editor or global species database
Habitat Supralittoral beaches. [details]Remark The original description was based on one male and 3 females from Ronde Island and two males and four females from La Digue in the Seychelles. Chevreux (1901) does not give the length of the male he described, but he does say that the largest female (ovigerous and 10 mm in length) was notably larger than the largest male. This leaves the possibility that the males were not completely mature. [details]
