Pseudonychocamptus Lang, 1944

Huys, Rony & Lee, Wonchoel, 2009, Proposal of Marbefia, gen. n. and Inermiphonte, gen. n., including updated keys to the species of Pseudonychocamptus Lang, 1944 and Paralaophonte Lang, 1948 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida, Laophontidae), ZooKeys 23 (23), pp. 1-38: 17-18

publication ID

http://doi.org/ 10.3897/zookeys.23.168

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A447D3B6-5387-44B6-AC1B-A05988000E43

DOI

http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3790668

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/8F78FF1D-1618-CB4E-C380-181BFBB1D6C8

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Pseudonychocamptus Lang, 1944
status

 

Key to the species of Pseudonychocamptus Lang, 1944  

Lang (1944, 1948) proposed the genus Pseudolaophonte   for four species previously allocated to the genus Laophonte Philippi, 1840   : Laophonte koreni Boeck, 1873   (type by original designation), L. gracilis T. Scott, 1903   , L. proxima Sars, 1908a   and L. abbreviata Sars, 1920a   . Noodt (1952) removed L. gracilis   and designated it as the type (by original designation) of a new genus Pilifera Noodt, 1952   which has remained monotypic since its proposal. New species were added to Pseudonychocamptus   by Lang (1965: P. paraproximus   and P. spinifer   ), Hamond (1968: P. carthyi   ), Apostolov and Petkovski (1980: P. marinovi   ), Ceccherelli (1988: P. colomboi   ) and Apostolov (2008: P. kolarovi   ).

Both Sars (1908a) and Wilson (1932) described Laophonte proxima   on the basis of females only (the latter author from a freshwater locality!) whereas Klie (1929) provided the first illustrations of the male, including the P5 which he figured with one seta on the endopodal lobe. Lang (1965) distinguished the closely related Pseudonychocamptus proximus   and P. paraproximus   on the basis of morphometric differences in the distal segment of the P4 exopod and P5 baseoendopod in the female and the P5 exopod in the male. An additional differentiating character used in his key referred to the number of setae on the male P5 baseoendopod. Hamond (1968) and Ceccherelli (1988) followed Lang’s judgement, however Mielke (1975), in his redescription of the male of P. proximus   , pointed out that the latter has two setae on the P5 baseoendopod (as in all other congeners), rendering the distinctiveness of P. paraproximus   doubtful. Although we have followed Bodin (1997) and Wells (2007) in considering the latter a species of uncertain status (here ranked as species inquirenda), we have nevertheless included it in the key below, based on the interspecific differences displayed in the length/width ratio of the male P5 exopod ( Table 2). Recently, Apostolov (2008) added a new species, P. kolarovi   , based on two males collected from the Kavala beach ( Greece) in the Aegean Sea. The author claimed that the species occupied an isolated position in the genus on account of the structure of the caudal rami and P1–P5. The 2-segmented P4 endopod (with one inner and two distal setae), the presence of 5 setae on the P5 exopod and the sexually dimorphic distal inner spine on the P2 endopod clearly exclude P. kolarovi   from the genus Pseudonychocamptus   and particularly the latter character unequivocally points to a relationship with the genera Paralaophonte Lang, 1944   and Loureirophonte Jakobi, 1953   . The species is here formally placed in the genus Paralaophonte   as Paralaophonte kolarovi   , comb. n. (see below). The six valid species currently recognized in the genus, and the problematic species P. paraproximus   , can be differentiated by the key below and the character states tabulated in Table 2.

1. P3 enp-2 with 4 setae in ♀ and 2 setae in ♁ ............................................... 2

– P3 enp-2 with 5 setae in ♀ and 3–4 setae in ♁ ........................................... 3

2. P5 exopod ♀ at least twice longer than wide, with 5 setae; P5 exopod ♁ with straight outer margin .................................................................... P. koreni   a

– P5 exopod ♀ about 1.3 times longer than wide, with 6 setae; P5 exopod ♁ with convex outer margin ............................................................. P. spinifer  

3. Caudal ramus longer than wide .................................................................. 4

– Caudal ramus wider than long ................................................... P. marinovi  

4. P5 exopod ♀ with 1 naked and 5 pinnate setae; P2 enp-2, P3 enp-2 and P5 exopod of ♁ with 4 setae ............................................................................ 5

– P5 exopod ♀ with 6 naked setae; P2 enp-2, P3 enp-2 and P5 exopod of ♁ with 3 setae................................................................................. P. colomboi  

5. Body elongate, length 3–4 times maximum width of cephalothorax; all setae of P5 exopod ♀ marginal............................................................................ 6

– Body short, length about 1.85 times maximum width of cephalothorax; P5 exopod ♀ with 4 marginal and 2 surface setae ....................... P. abbreviatus  

6. P5 exopod ♁ about 2.7 times longer than wide ......................... P. proximus  

– P5 exopod ♁ about 3.25 times longer than wide ................ P. paraproximus