Eurycope (Wilson & Hessler, 1981)

Malyutina, Marina & Brandt, Angelika, 2006, A revaluation of the Eurycopinae (Crustacea, Isopoda, Munnopsidae) with a description of Dubinectes gen. nov. from the southern Atlantic deep sea, Zootaxa 1272 (1), pp. 1-44 : 12-14

Diagnosis of Eurycope (modified from Wilson 1983 a, Kussakin 2003):

Distomedial lobe of antenna 1 article 1 well developed, longer than distolateral lobe, and exceeding tip of rostrum; article 3 of antenna 1 longer than article 2; body with thin, glossy cuticula, deepest at pereonites 5–6; pereonites 1–4 of subequal in length, tightly packed, pereonite 4 broader than pereonite 1 and head; pereonites 5–7 with full dorsal articulation; pereonite 7 longer, or nearly as long as, pereonite 6; line of pleotelson posterior margin in lateral view simple, straight or angled downward; mandibular molar triturating surface broad, truncated; condyle shorter or subequal to molar; maxilliped epipod subequal to basis in length, with lateral extension, and pointed tip; pereopod 1 shorter than pereopods 2–4; male pleopod 1 distomedial lobes broad, longer than distolateral lobes; male pleopod 2 protopod tapering distally, exopod emerging from protopod medial margin; endopod, both articles of the same width, stylet shorter or subequal to protopod; uropod protopod stout, with straight lateral side.

Eurycope pavlenkoi Gurjanova, 1933 and E. ochotensis Kussakin, 1979 should be transferred from Eurycope to Baeonectes , because of the shape of the rostrum, the article 1 of the antenna 1 with no distomedial lobe, the short truncated epipod of the maxilliped, and the broad, rounded mandible molar. E. magna Birstein, 1963 and E. scabra Hansen, 1897 are still in Eurycope ( Kussakin 2003) , though we agree with Wilson and Hessler (1981), who excluded them from Eurycope and demonstrated a potential assignment to Munnicope Menzies and George, 1972 . The systematic position of E. ovata Birstein, 1970 , E. sarsi Beddard, 1886 , E. glabra Kensley, 1978 , and a few other species is still unclear, but obviously they do not belong to Eurycope . We therefore consider them incertae sedis. The species within the E. longiflagrata complex possessing some unusual characters, which were discussed above, do not fit to Eurycope .