Paralaophonte Lang 1944, sp. n.
Creators: name: Huys, Rony
name: Lee, Wonchoel
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2009
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Maxillopoda
Harpacticoida
Laophontidae
Paralaophonte

description: Key to the species of <i>Paralaophonte</i> Lang, 1948 Included species: <i>Paralaophonte pallaresae,</i> sp. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 8EC4622B-5F96-459A-A458-98E632C38635 The genus-group name <i>Paralaophonte</i> was first published by Lang (1944) who subdivided the genus in four species-groups and designated a type species for three of them: (1) <i>brevirostris</i> -group (no type designated), (2) <i>perplexa</i> -group (type: <i>Laophonte perplexa</i> T. Scott, 1899), (3) <i>gracilipes</i> -group (type: <i>Laophonte gracilipes</i> Brady, 1910), and (4) <i>karmensis</i> -group (type: <i>Laophonte karmensis</i> Sars, 1911). The artificiality of this system was subsequently exposed by the discovery of “transitionary” species which blurred the boundaries of some of the species groups (<i>e.g.</i> Vervoort 1962); consequently, Lang’s (1944, 1948) subdivision was finally disposed off by Wells (2007). Vervoort (1964) remarked that <i>Paralaophonte</i> Lang, 1944 is an unavailable generic name which was subsequently validated by Lang (1948) by the indication of a type species (<i>Cleta brevirostris</i> Claus, 1863) and the provision of an accompanying generic diagnosis. The authorship and date of this genus should, therefore, be attributed as <i>Paralaophonte</i> Lang, 1948 (Huys 2009b). According to the latest checklist (Wells 2007), the genus <i>Paralaophonte</i> currently includes 33 valid species and one <i>species incertae sedis</i> (<i>Laophonte lamellipes</i> Nicholls, 1944). Various authors (<i>e.g.</i> Willey 1935; Nicholls 1945; Yeatman 1970; Hamond 1973; Wells and Rao 1987; Wells 2007) have commented on the difficulties in separating the two most widely distributed species, <i>P. brevirostris</i> (Claus, 1863) and <i>P. congenera</i> (Sars, 1908b), and some of them have casted doubt on the validity of this separation. Both species have also been reported to display a great deal of variability in the rostrum, antennule, leg 5 and caudal rami (<i>e.g.</i> Wells and Rao 1987) but it is unclear to what degree this pertains to genuine intra- or interpopulation variability or whether this is a reflection of allopatric or sympatric closely related species (as hinted at by Mielke 1981). The further subdivision of both species in subspecies has also led to taxonomic confusion. For example, Willey’s (1935) variety “ <i>fissirostris</i> ” of <i>P. brevirostris</i> was upgraded to subspecies level by Lang (1965) (and accepted by most subsequent authorities: <i>e.g.</i> Wells et al. 1982; Wells 2007) but allegedly differs from the nominotypical subspecies only in the shape of the rostrum. Given the reported variability in this structure in other species it seems impractical to maintain Willey’s (1935) subspecies at present and hence they are here formally declared invalid. Similarly, <i>P. congenera mediterranea</i> Lang, 1948 appears to be more closely related to <i>P. lacerdai</i> Jakobi, 1953 than to its nominotypical subspecies <i>P. congenera congenera</i>. In fact both taxa can only be separated by subtle differences in the caudal ramus, length of endopodal setae in the female P5 and shape of the endopodal margin in the male P5. Likewise, <i>Paralaophonte pacifica galapagoensis</i> Mielke, 1981 is more similar to <i>P. brevirostris</i> than to its nominotypical subspecies <i>P. pacifica pacifica</i> Lang, 1965 (see also Wells 2007); the first two taxa differ primarily in details of the female antennule, P4 endopod and the male P3 exopod. Mielke’s (1981) subspecies is here upgraded to full species rank since it differs sufficiently from Lang’s (1965) population to warrant such status: (a) second antennulary segment with blunt protuberance instead of spinous projection; (b) P1 enp-1 10 times instead 8 times as long as wide; (c) P2–P3 exopods &amp;female; distinctly shorter; (d) P3 exp-3 ♁ inner distinctly longer instead of shorter than outer distal spine; (e) baseoendopod P5 ♁ with strongly developed seta instead of tiny reduced seta; and (f) caudal ramus 1.3 times as long as maximum width instead of quadratic. Brady’s (1910) original description of <i>P. gracilipes</i> (as <i>Laophonte gracilipes</i>) from the Kerguelen Islands (Grande Terre, Baie de l’Observatoire) is fragmentary and lacking in detail. Lang (1936) redescribed the species based on material from the Falklands and Pallares (1968) did the same using material from Puerta Deseado (Santa Cruz, Argentina). Howev- er, both redescriptions differ significantly in the number of inner setae on P3–P4 exp-3, the morphology of the female P5, the size of P1 exopod (relative to the endopod) and the length of the apophysis on the male P3, strongly suggesting that the Falklandian and Argentinian populations belong to different species. Wells et al. (1982) and Wells (2007) adopted Lang’s (1936) swimming leg armature pattern in their respective identification keys, however, both incorrectly stated that the male P5 endopodal lobe lacked setae. Although Lang (1936) showed an endopodal seta, their error presumably stemmed from a misinterpretation of Brady’s (1910) original figure of the male P5 which also shows the endopodal seta but not the typical outer basal one. Although the supporting evidence is admittedly slim (morphometric differences in P1 exopod and P2 endopod ♁) we have elected to attribute the Falklandian material to <i>P. gracilipes</i> and to propose a new species, <i>P. pallaresae</i>, sp. n., for the specimens illustrated by Pallares (1968). It should be noted that Pallares figured the female antennule as 8-segmented but stated in the text that it consists of only 7 segments (which is conceivably the correct number). <i>Paralaophonte obscura</i> Vervoort, 1962 from New Caledonia appears to be most closely related to <i>P. pallaresae</i>, sp. n. but differs from the latter in the female by the presence of a small conical protuberance on the second antennulary segment and the semicircular P5 exopod in which the inner distal seta is only slightly longer than proximal inner one, and in the male by the presence of only 4 elements on the P5 exopod. <i>Paralaophonte pallaresae</i>, sp. n. can be characterized by the following differential diagnosis: <i>Paralaophonte</i>. Abdominal somites without a middorsal spinous process. Caudal rami cylindrical, about 1.5 times as long as maximum width; with seta V elongate. Antennule &amp;female; 7-segmented; segment 2 without horn, spinous process or protuberance. P1 exopod 3-segmented. P3–P4 exp-3 with 1 inner seta. P3 enp- 2 &amp;female; with 5 elements. P3 endopod ♁ 3-segmented with apophysis on enp-2 and 4 elements on enp-3; apophysis distinctly longer than endopodal segments combined. P4 enp-2 with 4 elements. P5 exopod &amp;female; longer than wide, inner distal seta twice the length of proximal inner one; baeoendopod with 4 elements. P5 exopod ♁ with 5 elements; longest seta at most 2.5 times the length of segment; endopodal margin with 1 long seta. Body length: 590–670 µm (&amp;female;), 500–510 µm (♁). The original material collected by Dr Rosa Pallares is no longer available for re-examination (Dr S. Ménu-Marque, Universidad de Buenos Aires, pers. commn). In accordance with ICZN Arts 16.4 and 72.5.6 the male specimen illustrated by Pallares (1968: 87) in her plate XXXII (Figs 1, 5, 9, 12, 15) is here fixed as the holotype of <i>P. pallaresae</i>, sp. n. Type locality: Puerto Deseado, Santa Cruz Province (Argentina), plankton. Jakobi (1953) proposed the genus <i>Loureirophonte</i> for two new species from Southern Brazil, <i>L. catharinensis</i> (type by original designation) and <i>L. paranaensis</i> and claimed a close relationship with the <i>inopinata</i> -group of <i>Laophonte</i>. Both Vervoort (1964) – who favoured a relationship with the <i>inornata</i> -group of <i>Laophonte</i> – and Lang (1965) questioned the accuracy of Jakobi’s illustrations and generic diagnosis and doubted the validity of <i>Loureirophonte</i> until Mielke (1981) confirmed its separate identity by providing a detailed description of a third species, <i>L. isabelensis</i> Mielke, 1981. This course of action was corroborated by Fiers (1993) in his revision of the genus which saw the addition of five new species and another two which were transferred from other genera (<i>Laophonte caesarea</i> Por, 1964; <i>Paralaophonte subterranea</i> Lang, 1965). With the recent addition of <i>L. psammophila</i> Mielke, 2001 and <i>L. minutum</i> Gómez &amp; Boyko, 2006 the genus now includes 12 species (Mielke 2001; Gómez and Boyko 2006) (Table 3) although it is known that other as yet undescribed species occur in the Galapagos (Mielke 1981). Fiers (1993) provided a key to species which was recently updated by Gómez and Boyko (2006). Fiers was also the first to claim a sistergroup relationship between <i>Paralaophonte</i> and <i>Loureirophonte</i> based on the sexual dimorphism of the P2 endopod, the presence of 5 setae on the P5 exopod of both sexes, and the presence of 4 setae and one seta on the P5 endopodal lobe in females and males, respectively. He also listed a suite of characters that serves to distinguish <i>Loureirophonte</i> from its sistertaxon: (a) P2 enp- 2 &amp;female; with 1 distal and 2 inner setae (0.210); (b) bulbous appearance of the sexually dimorphic distal inner seta of P2 enp-2 (with a lamellar structure in the distal third); and (c) 1-segmented P4 endopod. Characters (a) and (c) are autapomorphies of <i>Loureirophonte</i> (although Fiers (1993) did report specimens of <i>L. mediterranea</i> that displayed a 2-segmented P4 endopod) supporting the monophyly of the genus. Both <i>Paralaophonte</i> and <i>Loureirophonte</i> display a homologous sexual dimorphism on the P2 endopod, involving the modification of the distal inner seta on enp-2. In the former genus the seta has attained a further derived state of modification (as described under character (b) above), raising the suspicion that <i>Loureirophonte</i> is merely nested within <i>Paralaophonte</i>. Indeed, at present there is not a single apomorphy supporting the monophyly of <i>Paralaophonte</i>, potentially rendering the latter paraphyletic exclusive of <i>Loureirophonte</i>. In addition, the dichotomy between the two genera that was traditionally based on different types of P2 endopod sexual dimorphism appears to be false since it is neither jointly exhaustive nor mutually exclusive. The evolutionary transition between both genera is best demonstrated by the modification in male <i>Paralaophonte macera</i> Sars, 1908b and <i>P. asellopsiformis</i> Lang, 1965 which is virtually identical to the <i>Loureirophonte</i> condition and, similarly, the state of the inner distal seta in male <i>L. furcata</i> Fiers, 1993 which resembles the <i>Paralaophonte</i> condition (Sars 1908b; Fiers 1993). Although the presence of such intermediate taxa casts further doubt on the validity of the basal split between <i>Loureirophonte</i> and <i>Paralophonte</i> we have refrained from synonyzing these genera pending a thorough phylogenetic analysis at species level. Five species have been added to the genus <i>Paralaophonte</i> since Wells’ (2007) checklist: <i>P. lamellipes</i> (Nicholls, 1944), comb. n., <i>P. galapagoensis</i> Mielke, 1981, grad. n., a Wells and Rao (1987) also recorded specimens with a 7-segmented antennule in the female and without a spur on the second segment; Hamond (1972) also observed the 7-segmented condition while Petkovski (1964) recorded a female with a 6-segmented antennule without a spur on the second segment. According to Wells and Rao (1987) the shape and size of the rostrum and the cephalothorax remains as the only reliable criterion to distinguish <i>P. brevirostris</i> from <i>P. congenera</i>. Pending a re-examination of topotype material, Willey’s (1935) variety <i>fissirostris</i>, which was upgraded to subspecific level by Lang (1965), is no longer recognized as valid. b Sars’ (1908b) original description of the male shows 2 setae on the P5 baseoendopod; re-examination of the type material revealed that the short inner element represents a tube-pore. Both Hamond (1972, 1973) and Wells and Rao (1987) pointed out the difficulties in discriminating <i>P. congenera</i> and <i>P. brevirostris</i>. Hamond’s (1969) male shows a spur on the second segment of the antennule [also present in the North Carolina material examined by Hamond (1973)] and a distinctly pitted cephalothorax; Sars (1908b) did not observe these characters in the Norwegian material. Yoo and Lee’s (1995) record from the Yellow Sea displaying only 4 setae on P5 exopod ♁, appears to represent a different species; Wells (2007) pointed out that their illustration of the P 4 in reality refers to the P2. c Monard’s (1935) report of an 8-segmented antennule in this species is considered unlikely (<i>cf.</i> Lee and Huys 1999). The species was originally described from Salammbô (Tunisia) and has not been recorded again until recently when Nurul Huda and Zaleha (2005) found it in Peninsular Malaysia; their record (and that of Zaleha et al. 2006) which gives only the armature formula of P2–P4 requires confirmation. Goddard’s (2006) claim that his material from Robinson Crusoe Island (Juan Fernández Archipelago, Chile) may be attributed to <i>P. octavia</i> cannot be substantiated because it displays only one inner seta on P3–P4 exp-3; the only other known species which displays the same reduced formula is <i>P. zimmeri</i> but this species has a 6-segmented antennule in the female and a small spinous process on its second segment [8-segmented (?) and without such process in Goddard’s material]. d Both Gurney (1927) and Sewell (1940) erroneously illustrated the female antennule as 8-segmented (<i>cf.</i> Lee and Huys 1999: 324). e Kornev and Chertoprud’s (2008) swimming leg armature formula for this species is radically different from that mentioned in previous descriptions (Sars, 1909; Mielke, 1974): P2 (exp: 0.1.123; enp: 1.120), P3 (exp: 0.1.223; enp: 0.221), P4 (exp: 0.0.023; enp: 0.121). The reported absence of the spur on the second antennulary segment requires confirmation. f Vervoort (1964) reported a very long inner seta on P3 enp- 2 in the male but re-examination of the holotype has proven this to be erroneous (Huys and Lee 2000). g Kornev and Chertoprud (2008) confirmed the presence of a small spur on the second antennulary segment of the female [overlooked in Sars’ (1908b) original description and Chislenko’s (1967) redescription]; their swimming leg armature given on p. 311 contradicts the illustrations of P2 and P4. h Although Hamond (1973) showed no hesitation in placing <i>P. sculpta</i> in the <i>gracilipes</i> -group of <i>Paralaophonte</i>, its generic assignment remains doubtful because of the absence of males. i Chislenko (1977) did not figure the male P3 or P4, suggesting there is no sexual dimorphism in these legs; if this proves to be correct <i>P. innae</i> is sufficiently different from <i>P. perplexa</i> to warrant distinct species status, however, females of these two species may be extremely difficult to separate. j Chislenko’s (1967) specimens from the White Sea differ from Sars’ (1911) type population in several aspects and may represent a distinct species: (1) second antennulary segment &amp;female; without a spur; (2) P5 exopod &amp;female; with 5 elements instead of 4; (3) P2 enp-2 ♁ distinctly longer; (4) P3 exp-1 ♁ outer spine much larger; (5) P3 exp-3 ♁ with only 1 inner seta instead of 2; and (6) P5 exopod ♁ and its middle element distinctly longer. Unfortunately, Kornev and Chertoprud’s (2008) report on <i>P. karmensis</i> from the White Sea did not resolve the issue but instead added to the confusion surrounding it. They confirmed the presence of the antennulary spur but presented a radically divergent armature formula for P1 (exopod 3-segmented), P3 (exp: 0.1.123; enp: 0.121) and P4 (exp: 0.0.123) and considered the number of setae on the P5 exopod &amp;female; variable (4 or 5). k There is considerable confusion over the segmentation pattern of the female antennule. Brian (1921) described it as 5-segmented with segments 1–2 partially fused; Brian (1917) and Pesta (1959) as 6-segmented; and Lang (1948) as indistinctly 7-segmented with segments 5–6 incompletely separated (based on Monard’s (1928) redescription). l Apostolov (2008) shows 2 inner and 2 distal setae on P3 enp-2 ♁ (formula 220); the 2-segmented condition and absence of an apophysis suggest that the outer spine is lacking in the female (as in <i>e.g. P. innae</i>); the number of inner setae expressed in <i>P. kolarovi</i> females may be 2 or 3 (in the latter case one seta is typically lost in male <i>Paralaophonte</i>). m Nicholls (1944) stated that the P1 exp is 2-segmented, the distal two segments being fused with only 3 terminal setae (in reality the distal segment bears 5 elements); Huys and Lee (2000: 81) confirmed the true nature of the modified male P2 endopod and suggested a relationship with <i>Paralaophonte</i>; Wells (2007: 64) placed it as <i>species incertae sedis</i> in this genus; it is here formally transferred to <i>Paralaophonte</i> as <i>Paralaophonte lamellipes</i> (Nicholls, 1944) comb. nov. Lee and Huys (1999: 324) also confirmed that the female antennule is 7-segmented instead of 8-segmented. n The modified inner distal seta resembles more the condition in <i>Paralaophonte</i> (Fiers 1993: Fig. 2c). o Setal formula as reinterpreted by Fiers (1993). p Fiers (1993) doubted the presence of an outer seta on P3 enp-2 and P4 endopod; these “elements” are here reinterpreted as ornamental spinules. q Fiers (1993) also reported specimens with a 2-segmented P4 endopod (formula 0.010). r The inner setae of P2 enp-2 are displaced towards the apical margin of the segment creating the impression that there are 1 inner and 2 distal setae instead of 2 inner and 1 distal setae; taking into account the observed variability Lang (1965) erroneously tabulated the setal formula as 0.(0–1)20; Fiers’ (1993) formula [0.(1–2)20] is equally incorrect (his Table 1). <i>P. harpagone</i> Gheerardyn, Fiers, Vincx &amp; De Troch, 2006, <i>P. kolarovi</i> (Apostolov, 2008), comb. n. and <i>P. pallaresae</i>, sp. n. Although Wells (2007) listed <i>Laophonte royi</i> Jakubisiak, 1932 only as a <i>species incertae sedis</i> in the Laophontidae it is here included as a valid species of <i>Paralophonte</i>, being very closely related to <i>P. majae</i> Petkovski, 1964. The 39 species currently recognized as valid in the genus <i>Paralaophonte</i> can be identified with the key below. 1. Caudal rami broadly lamellar, close together, with seta V very short........... <b>2</b> – Caudal rami usually cylindrical, with seta V elongate.................................. <b>3</b> 2. P1 exopod 2-segmented; P3 exp-3 with 1 inner seta; P4 exp-3 with 7 setae/spines; P3 exopod ♁ 2-segmented; P5 exopod ♁ with 4 spines......... <i>P. aenigmaticum</i> – P1 exopod 3-segmented; P3 exp-3 with 2 inner setae; P4 exp-3 with 4 setae/spines; P3 exopod ♁ 3-segmented; P5 exopod ♁ with 5 setae........... <i>P. asellopsiformis</i> 3. P1 exopod 2-segmented, with 4 setae on exp-2; maxillipeds very large and specialized................................................................................ <i>P. harpagone</i> – P1 exopod 3-segmented
description: Published as part of <i>Huys, Rony &amp; 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), pp. 1-38 in ZooKeys 23 (23)</i> on pages 22-29, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.23.168, http://zenodo.org/record/576545
description: {"references": ["Lang K (1948) Monographie der Harpacticiden. Hakan Ohlsson, Lund, 1682 pp. (2 volumes).", "Lang K (1944) Monographie der Harpacticiden (Vorlaufige Mitteilung). Almqvist &amp; Wiksells Boktryckeri Ab, Uppsala, 39 pp.", "Scott T (1899) Report on the marine and freshwater Crustacea from Franz-Josef Land, collected by Mr. William S. Bruce, of the Jackson-Harmsworth Expedition. Journal of the Linnean Society, Zoology 27: 60 - 126.", "Brady GS (1910) Die marinen Copepoden der Deutschen Sudpolar Expedition 1901 - 1903. I. Ueber die Copepoden der Stamme Harpacticoida, Cyclopoida, Notodelphyoida und Caligoida. Deutsche Sudpolar-Expedition 11 (= Zoology 3): 497 - 594.", "Sars GO (1911) Copepoda Harpacticoida. Parts XXXV &amp; XXXVI. Supplement (concluded), index, etc. An account of the Crustacea of Norway, with short descriptions and figures of all the species 5: 421 - 449 + i-xiv (text) + i-xii (plates) + title of text and of plates + supplement pls. 43 - 54.", "Vervoort W (1962) Report on some Copepoda collected during the Melanesia Expedition of the Osaka Museum of Natural History. Publications of the Seto marine biological Laboratory 10: 393 - 470.", "Wells JBJ (2007) An annotated checklist and keys to the species of Copepoda Harpacticoida (Crustacea). Zootaxa 1568: 1 - 872.", "Vervoort W (1964) Freeliving Copepoda from Ifaluk Atoll in the Caroline Islands with notes on related species. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 236: i-ix, 1 - 431.", "Claus C (1863) Die freilebenden Copepoden mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der Fauna Deutschlands, der Nordsee und des Mittelmeeres. Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, 230 pp.", "Huys R (2009 b) Unresolved cases of type fixation, synonymy and homonymy in harpacticoid copepod nomenclature (Crustacea: Copepoda). Zootaxa 2183: 1 - 99.", "Nicholls AG (1944) Littoral Copepoda from the Red Sea. Annals and Magazine of natural History (11) 11: 487 - 503.", "Willey A (1935) Harpacticoid Copepoda from Bermuda. - Part II. Annals and Magazine of natural History (10) 15: 50 - 100.", "Nicholls AG (1945) Marine Copepoda from Western Australia. III. - Littoral harpacticoids from Port Denison. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 29: 1 - 16.", "Yeatman HC (1970) Copepods from Chesapeake Bay sponges including Asterocheres jeanyeatmanae n. sp. Transactions of the American microscopical Society 89: 27 - 38.", "Hamond R (1973) Some Laophontidae (Crustacea: Harpacticoida) from off North Carolina. Transactions of the American microscopical Society 92: 44 - 59.", "Wells JBJ, Rao GC (1987) Littoral Harpacticoida (Crustacea: Copepoda) from Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Memoirs of the Zoological Survey of India 16: 1 - 385.", "Sars GO (1908 b) Copepoda Harpacticoida. Parts XXIII &amp; XXIV. Laophontidae (continued). An account of the Crustacea of Norway, with short descriptions and figures of all the species 5: 257 - 276 + pls. 177 - 192.", "Mielke W (1981) Interstitielle Fauna von Galapagos. XXVIII. Laophontinae (Laophontidae), Ancorabolidae (Harpacticoida). Mikrofauna des Meeresbodens 84: 1 - 106.", "Lang K (1965) Copepoda Harpacticoida from the Californian Pacific coast. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar (4) 10 (2): 1 - 560.", "Wells JBJ, Hicks GRF, Coull BC (1982) Common harpacticoid copepods from New Zealand harbours and estuaries. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 9: 151 - 184.", "Jakobi H (1953) Novos Laophontidae (Copepoda-Crustacea) da costa Brasileira. (Neue Laophontiden von der Brasilianischen Kuste). Dusenia 4: 47 - 60.", "Lang K (1936) Copepoda Harpacticoida. Further zoological Results of the Swedish Antarctic Expedition 1901 - 1903 under the Direction of Dr. Otto Nordenskjold 3 (3): 1 - 68.", "Pallares RE (1968) Copepodos marinos de la Ria Deseado (Santa Cruz, Argentina). Contribucion sistematica-ecologica. I. Contribucion cientifica. Centro de Investigacion de Biologia Marina, Buenos Aires 27: 1 - 125.", "Fiers F (1993) The laophontid genus Loureirophonte Jakobi, 1953 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida). Zoologische Mededelingen, Leiden 67: 207 - 238.", "Por FD (1964) A study of Levantine and Pontic Harpacticoida (Crustacea, Copepoda). Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden 64: 1 - 128.", "Mielke W (2001) Loureirophonte psammophila, a new species of Laophontidae T. Scott, 1904 (Copepoda: Harpacticoida) from Baja California, Mexico. Hydrobiologia 445: 77 - 83.", "Gomez S, Boyko CB (2006) On a small collection of harpacticoids from Easter Island: the family Laophontidae T. Scott (Crustacea: Copepoda: Harpacticoida). Zootaxa 1352: 3 - 70.", "Brady GS (1899) On the marine Copepoda of New Zealand. Transactions of the zoological Society of London 15 (2): 31 - 54.", "Jakubisiak S (1932) Sur les Harpacticoides heberges par Maia squinado. Bulletin de la Societe zoologique de France 57: 506 - 513.", "Monard A (1935) Les Harpacticoides marins de la region de Salammbo. Bulletin de la Station oceanographique de Salammbo 34: 1 - 94.", "Monard A (1936) Note preliminaire sur la faune des Harpacticoides marins d'Alger. Bulletin de la Station d'Aquiculture et de Peche de Castiglione 1935 (1): 45 - 85.", "Lang K (1934) Marine Harpacticiden von der Campbell-Insel und einigen anderen sudlichen Inseln. Acta Universitatis lundensis, n. ser. Avd. 2, 30 (14): 1 - 56.", "Petkovski T (1964) Zur Kenntnis der Harpacticiden Portugals (Crustacea, Copepoda). Acta universitatis lundensis, n. ser., Avd 2, 59 (14): 1 - 22.", "Raibaut A (1969) Paralaophonte ormieresi n. sp. Copepode HarpacticoVde trouve sur les branchies de Maia squinado (Herbst) (Crustacea, Decapoda). Bulletin de la Societe zoologique de France 93 (3): 451 - 457.", "Chislenko LL (1978) New species of copepod harpacticoids (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) from the Possjet Bay of the Sea of Japan. Trudy zoologicheskogo Instituta, Akademiia nauk SSSR 61: 161 - 192 [In Russian].", "Sars GO (1909) Crustacea. Report of the second Norwegian Arctic Expedition in the \" Fram \" 1898 - 1902 18: 1 - 47.", "Fiers F (1986) Harpacticoid copepods from the West Indian Islands: Laophontidae (Copepoda, Harpacticoda). Amsterdam Expedition to the West Indian Islands, Report 48. Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde 56 (1): 132 - 164.", "Chislenko LL (1977) Garpaktitsidy (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) s gubok zemli Frantsa-Iosifa. Harpacticids (Copepoda Harpacticoidea) from sponges of Franz Josef Land. In: Biotsenosy shel'fa zemli Frantsa-Iosifa i fauna sopredel'nykh akuatorii. Issledovaniya Fauny Morei (Explorations of the Fauna of the Seas) 14 (22): 237 - 276 [In Russian].", "Mielke W (1982) Einige Laophontidae (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) von Panama. Crustaceana 42 (1): 1 - 11.", "Gheerardyn H, Fiers F, Vincx M, De Troch M (2006) Paralaophonte harpagone, sp. n. (Copepoda: Harpacticoida), a laophontid with an extremely specialised maxilliped. Organisms, Diversity and Evolution 6 (3): 323 - 324 [Extended abstract]. [Full description in Electronic Supplement 14: 1 - 9; http: // www. senckenberg. de / odes / 06 - 14. htm - last accessed 07 April 2009].", "Monard A (1928) Les Harpacticoides marins de Banyuls. Archives de Zoologie experimentale et generale 67: 259 - 443.", "Scott T (1894 b) Report on Entomostraca from the Gulf of Guinea, collected by John Rattray, B. Sc. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology (2) 6: 1 - 161.", "Sars GO (1920 a) Copepoda Supplement. Parts V &amp; VI. Harpacticoida (continued). An account of the Crustacea of Norway, with short descriptions and figures of all the species 7: 53 - 72 + pls. 33 - 48.", "Willey A (1930) Harpacticoid Copepoda from Bermuda. - Part I. Annals and Magazine of natural History (10) 6: 81 - 114.", "Mielke W (1974) Eulitorale Harpacticoidea (Copepoda) von Spitzbergen. Mikrofauna des Meeresbodens 37: 1 - 52.", "Douwe, C van, (1929) Marine Litoral-Copepoden: Zur Verbreitung des Genus Laophonte Philippi im Mittelmeer. Zoologischer Anzeiger 83: 283 - 294.", "Brian A (1917) Descrizione di una nuova specie di Laophonte (L. quaterspinata n. sp. mihi) proveniente dai materiali del Laboratorio marino di Quarto. Monitore zoologico Italiano 28: 174 - 178.", "Apostolov A (2004) Paralaophonte livingstoni n. sp. (Crustacea: Copepoda: Harpacticoida) - un nouveau representant de l'ile de Livingstone, Antarctique. Historia naturalis bulgarica 16: 59 - 67.", "Apostolov A (2008) Harpacticoides (Crustacea, Copepoda) de la mer Egee (plages de Kavala, Grece du nord). Historia naturalis bulgarica 19: 5 - 33.", "Hamond R (1972) Some marine and brackish-water copepods from Wells-next-the-Sea, Norfolk, England. Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists' Society 22: 237 - 243.", "Hamond R (1969) The Laophontidae (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) of the shore at West Runton, Norfolk, England. Crustaceana 16: 1 - 14.", "Yoo K-I, Lee W (1995) Marine harpacticoid copepods from the Korean waters. The Yellow Sea 1: 34 - 49.", "Lee W, Huys R (1999) Bathylaophonte, gen. n. from deep-sea hydrothermal vents and the polyphyly of Paronychocamptus (Copepoda: Harpacticoida). Cahiers de Biologie marine 40: 293 - 328.", "Nurul Huda AI, Zaleha K (2005) Report on some phytal harpacticoid copepods from Terengganu coast. Proceedings of the KUSTEM 4 th Annual Seminar 2005. Primula Beach Resort, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu: 392 - 396.", "Zaleha K, Roswati MA, Iwasaki N (2006) Distribution of some species of harpacticoid copepods in east coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Coastal marine Science 30: 140 - 145.", "Goddard M (2006) Copepodos de pozas intermareales de Isla San Felix y del Archipielago de Juan Fernandez. Tide pool copepods of San Felix Island and Juan Fernandez Archipelago. Ciencia y Tecnologia del Mar 29: 115 - 122.", "Gurney R (1927) Report on the Crustacea: -- Copepoda (littoral and semi-parasitic). Zoological results of the Cambridge expedition to the Suez Canal, 1924, no. 35. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London 22: 451 - 577.", "Sewell RBS (1940) Copepoda, Harpacticoida. The John Murray Expedition 1933 - 34 Scientific Reports 7 (2): 117 - 382.", "Kornev PN, Chertoprud ES (2008) Harpacticoida copepods of the White Sea: morphology, systematics, ecology. KMK Scientific Press Ltd, Moscow, 379 pp.", "Huys R, Lee W (2000) Basal resolution of laophontid phylogeny and the paraphyly of Esola Edwards. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, London (Zoology) 66: 49 - 107.", "Chislenko LL (1967) Garpaktitsidy (Copepoda Harpacticoida) Karelskogo poberezh'ya Belogo morya. Copepoda Harpacticoida of the Karelian coast of the White Sea. In: Gidrobiologichyeskiye Issledovaniya na Karel'skom poberezh'e Belogo moray (Hydrobiological Researches of the Karelian coast of the White Sea). Issledovaniya Fauny Morei (Explorations of the Fauna of the Seas) 7 (15): 48 - 196 [In Russian].", "Brian A (1921) I Copepodi Harpacticoidi del Golfo di Genova. Stab. Tip. - Lit. R. Istituto Sordomuti, Genova, 112 pp.", "Pesta O (1959) Harpacticoiden (Crust. Copepoda) aus submarinen Hohlen und den benachbarten Litoralbezirken am Kap von Sorrent (Neapel). Ergebnisse der Osterreichischen Tyrrhenia Expedition 1952. Teil: VI. Pubblicazione della Stazione zoologica di Napoli 30 (suppl.): 94 - 177."]}