Ancorabolina, GEORGE, 2006

Gheerardyn, Hendrik & George, Kai Horst, 2010, New representatives of the genus Ancorabolina George, 2006 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida, Ancorabolidae) including remarks on ancorabolid phylogeny, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 158 (1), pp. 16-55 : 53

THE GENUS ANCORABOLINA GEORGE, 2006

Comparing the species A. belgicae , A. anaximenesi , A. galeata , A. divasecunda , and A. chimaera with the remaining Ancorabolinae , they share the following synapomorphies:

16. Cephalothorax posteriorly with pair of ventrolateral cuticular processes turning backwards [no processes];

17. Loss of third setal element subapically on endopod of antenna [minute seta present].

Character 16

We consider this character as autapomorphic for Ancorabolina (see discussion of character 4).

Character 17

The subapical armature of the antennary endopod in Ancorabolina consists of two bipinnate spines. We propose the loss of a third small seta as a potential autapomorphy for the genus. Many harpacticoids bear this third small and bare seta, and it also occurs within Ancorabolidae . Within Laophontodinae , it is certainly present in Probosciphontodes , Lobopleura , and Pa. exopoditus . Also, personal observation of additional material of La. bicornis and La. whitsoni confirms its presence in these taxa. Within Ancorabolinae , it is present in the Ancorabolus -group and certain species of the Ceratonotus -group. Further study of the Laophontodinae will have to elucidate the phylogenetic relevance of the loss of this seta in Ancorabolina .

In addition to these two shared characters, all members of Ancorabolina show sexual dimorphism in the endopod of P4, i.e. the outer seta on the male enp-2 is lost in the female. George (2006a) indicated that this kind of sexual dimorphism is present in certain species of Ceratonotus (but still has to be confirmed for species described from one sex only). Also, this feature has been considered as apomorphic for Dorsiceratus ( Conroy-Dalton, 2001) , but occurs as well in Polyascophorus martinezi George, 1998a . As already stated by George (2006b), this derived state cannot be assigned exclusively to one taxon, and therefore, its phylogenetic value is not considered that high.