Cypria Zenker, 1854

Bisquert-Ribes, Maria, Rueda, Juan, Palero, Ferran, Savatenalinton, Sukonthip & Mesquita-Joanes, Francesc, 2023, Fig. 1 in Fig. 4 in Identification of Sexually Dimorphic Genes in Pectoral Fin as Molecular Markers for Assessing the Sex of Japanese Silver Eels ()., Zoological Studies 62 (40), pp. 1-24 : 4

Cypria Zenker, 1854

Cypris (Cypria) Zenker, 1854: 77 .

Cypria s.l. Brady and Norman, 1889: 68.

Cypria s.str. Vávra, 1891: 62.

Candocypria Furtos, 1933: 458 , Pl. 8, Figs. 13–17; Pl. 14, Figs. 22–23.

Bentocypria Kovalenko, 1987: 99 .

Keysercypria (partim) Karanovic, 2011: 23 , Fig. 17.

Type species: Cypria exsculpta ( Fischer, 1855) Brady and Norman, 1889 .

Diagnosis: Carapace in lateral view short, ovate or subovate; in dorsal view, laterally compressed. RV margin without tubercles, LV overlapping RV, sometimes with an internal antero-ventral tooth. A1 7-segmented, natatory setae of A2 well-developed. Penultimate segment of male A2 divided, t2 and t3 seta transformed into sexual bristles. Terminal segment of Md palp three or four times longer than wide. Terminal segment of Mxl palp squared. Third endite of the Mxl with bristles. Prehensile palps asymmetrical. Basal d1- seta of T 2 absent. Terminal segment of T 3 subquadrate, g-seta very short. CR well-developed, with a short sp-seta (no longer than half the length of Gp), claws well-developed. Hemipenis with two lobes, a-lobe (outer) usually longer than b-lobe (inner), Zenker organ with seven spine whorls.

Other species: The list of Cypria species and their synonyms can be found in Meisch et al. (2019).

Distribution: PA, NA, NT, AT, AU and OL.

Remarks: Karanovic (2011) provided the last diagnosis for Cypria . She opted to prioritize the soft part morphology over the valve characters to differentiate between the two classical genera, Cypria and Physocypria . She allocated some Physocypria species with tubercles on the RV margin to the genus Cypria . Meisch et al. (2019) followed a more conservative approach and returned to the classical differentiation between Physocypria (with tubercles) and Cypria (without tubercles). In the present work, Cypria and Physocypria are rearranged using both soft parts morphology and valve information (see below for details).

Karanovic (2011) placed C. pellucida and C. obtusa in Keysercypria based on the hemipenis morphology and the chaetotaxy of T 2 and T 3. However, none of these two species have tubercles on the RV, while all other species in Keysercypria do (see below), for that reason we have maintained these two species in Cypria .

Savatenalinton (2017) already noted that some species of Cypria s.l. (i.e., C. bicolor and C. javana ) could belong to a different genus due to their variability in some appendages (e.g., long sp-seta on CR) and the morphology of the male copulatory organ. However, many Cypria species descriptions are incomplete, so we decided to maintain these dubious species in Cypria and strongly recommend a revision of the genus. In fact, the hemipenis morphology is very variable within Cypria , probably due to the number of species accumulated over the years. Surprisingly, the hemipenis of the type species, Cypria exsculpta , is very different to its congeners. While the hemipenis lobes of C. exsculpta are both broad, with an a-lobe longer, with pointed tip, and a b-lobe with rounded tip, most Cypria species have elongated lobes with both tips either pointed or rounded. The morphology of the hemipenis of Cypria exsculpta is reminiscent of the hemipenis of Cyclocypris , the type genus of the family, which may indicate that C. exsculpta hemipenis represents the ancestral state within the genus.