Inermiphonte Huys &amp; Lee 2009, gen. n.
Creators: name: Huys, Rony
name: Lee, Wonchoel
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2009
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Maxillopoda
Harpacticoida
Laophontidae
Inermiphonte

description: Proposal of <i>Inermiphonte</i>, gen. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: EB895638-2BFC-408F-8B2C-00B93A2480DE The taxonomic position of <i>Laophonte danversae</i> Hamond, 1969 has been surrounded by controversy since its original description. Hamond (1969) suggested a close rela- <b>a</b> Chislenko’s [1967 – reproduced in Kornev and Chertoprud (2008)] female from the White Sea shows a P5 exopod &amp;female; with length/width ratio 1.64 and a P1 endopod which is distinctly more slender than in Sars’ (1908a) material; this record is considered doubtful and may well refer to another as yet undescribed species. tionship with <i>L. cesareae</i> Por, 1964 (currently placed in <i>Loureirophonte</i>; <i>cf.</i> Fiers 1993 – see below) without giving any compelling evidence for this affiliation. Although his description of <i>L. danversae</i> was based solely on females from West Runton the author also illustrated a single male from the same locality under the nondescript name “Laophontid male,?gen.,?sp.”. Hamond (1969) suggested that the latter might have been the unknown male of <i>L. danversae</i>, were it not for the marked differences observed in the rostrum, caudal rami and the armature on the P2–P4 exopods. In an addendum to his paper he also remarked that “Laophontid male,?gen.,?sp.” and the male of <i>Laophonte</i> ? <i>drachi</i> Médioni &amp; Soyer, 1966 shared the same type of sexual dimorphism on the P3 endopod and that the latter species was obviously closely related to <i>L. danversae</i>. As pointed out by Hicks (1982), Bodin (1971) clearly misinterpreted Hamond’s remarks when he suggested conspecificity between <i>L. danversae</i> and <i>L.</i> ? <i>drachi</i>. This misconception was perpetuated in the literature by Wells (1976) who considered Hamond’s “Laophontid male,?gen.,?sp.” the true male of <i>L. danversae</i> and subsequently by Bodin (1979) who regarded both female and male <i>L. danversae</i> as junior synonyms of <i>L.</i> ? <i>drachi</i>. The issue of the unknown male of <i>L. danversae</i> was finally resolved by Hicks (1982) who provided its first description based on material from Robin Hood’s Bay (England). Hicks demonstrated that Hamond’s (1969) “Laophontid male,?gen.,?sp.” and the males of <i>L. danversae</i> and <i>L.</i> ? <i>drachi</i> were significantly different in the swimming legs, leg 5 and caudal rami, corroborating their distinct specific identity but his comparative analysis did not, however, contribute anything new to elucidating the relationships of this species group within the Laophontidae. Hamond (1969) had previously suggested that <i>L. danversae</i> might best be classified as an “anomalous species” of <i>Laophonte</i>, which does not fit into any of the species groups proposed by Lang (1948). Médioni and Soyer (1966) tentatively assigned <i>L.</i> ? <i>drachi</i> to the <i>inopinata</i> -group of <i>Laophonte</i> and noted some similarities with <i>L.</i> ? <i>platychelipusoides</i> Noodt, 1958 (currently placed in <i>Coullia</i> Hamond, 1973; <i>cf.</i> Hamond 1973; Huys 2009a). Lee and Huys (1999) instead recognized a relationship between <i>L. danversae</i> and the laophontid genera that display a similar type of setal sexual dimorphism on the endopods of P3–P4 (Table 1) but neither formally included the species in the <i>PWPH</i> -clade or removed it from its floating status in the genus <i>Laophonte</i>. <i>Laophonte danversae</i> is here fixed as the type species of a new genus <i>Inermiphonte</i>, gen. n. which also includes Hamond’s (1969) “Laophontid male,?gen.,?sp.”. <i>Inermiphonte</i> is provisionally regarded as the sistergroup of <i>Harrietella</i> based on the following synapomorphies: (1) P2–P4 exp- 3 &amp;female; /♁ without inner setae, (2) P4 exp-2 without inner seta (exp-2 not expressed in <i>Harrietella</i> but inner margin of distal exopod segment without inner setae), (3) P3 enp- 1 &amp;female; without inner seta, (4) P3 enp- 2 &amp;female; with 0–1 seta, and (5) P4 enp- 2 &amp;female; without inner setae. <b>Diagnosis.</b> Laophontidae. Body linear or dorsoventrally depressed. Posterior margins of abdominal somites usually with spinule rows dorsally and ventrally. Rostrum delimited at base; broadly triangular, prominent. Genital double-somite &amp;female; with lateral incisions and ventrolateral internal chitinous ribs marking original segmentation. Pleural extensions of &amp;female; abdominal somites moderately developed. Caudal ramus rectangular or conical, longer than wide; inner margin with spinules; with 7 setae; setae IV and V well developed, pinnate; seta VI reduced, setiform. Anal operculum finely spinulose or smooth. Sexual dimorphism in antennule, P3 (and occasionally P4) endopods, P5, P6 and in genital segmentation. Antennule relatively short and 6- or 7-segmented in &amp;female;; 6- or 7-segmented and (sub)chirocer with 1–2 segments distal to geniculation in ♁; segments with spinular ornamentation along anterior margin of segments 1–4 in &amp;female; and 1–3 in ♁; segments 1–2 without processes; dorsal surface of segment 1 with 2 thick pinnate spines; with aesthetasc on segment 4 (&amp;female;) or 5 (♁). Antenna with 4 setae on exopod; allobasis with abexopodal seta. Mandibular palp elongate, 1-segmented; with one basal, one exopodal and 3 endopodal setae. Maxillule with defined exopod bearing 2 setae. Maxilla with 3 endites on syncoxa; endopod represented by 3 setae. Maxilliped elongate; syncoxa with 2 setae; basis without distinct ornamentation; endopodal claw long and curved, with one accessory seta. P1 long, with elongate coxa and basis; with 2- or 3-segmented exopod, distal exopod segment with 2 short and 2 geniculate setae; endopod stout, enp-1 without inner seta, enp-2 with minute seta and long minutely denticulate claw. Swimming legs P2– P4 with 3-segmented exopods and 2-segmented endopods. P2–P4 exp-3 and P4 enp-2 without inner setae; inner seta of P4 enp-1 occasionally present in &amp;female; but always absent in ♁. P3 enp-2 produced into straight spiniform apophysis in ♁ (homologous with outer spine of enp- 2 in &amp;female;). Inner distal seta of P2–P4 exp-3 reduced in ♁. Armature formula of swimming legs 2 to 4 (P2–P4) as follows: P5 with separate exopod and baseoendopod. Exopod ovoid or elongate with 6 setae in &amp;female; and 4–5 setae in ♁. Endopodal lobe well developed in &amp;female;, subtriangular, with 4–5 setae. Baseoendopods fused medially in ♁; endopodal lobes rudimentary, with 2 setae each. P6 forming well developed operculum with 2 small setae in &amp;female;; asymmetrical in ♁ (with dextral or sinistral configuration), with outer distal corner produced into process bearing 2 well developed elements. <b>Type species.</b> <i>Laophonte danversae</i> Hamond, 1969 = <i>Inermiphonte danversae</i> (Hamond, 1969), comb. n. <b>Other species:</b> <i>Inermiphonte hamondi,</i> sp. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: F7F4B84C-327C-4AB1-9E6A-EC28FA6692F0 <b>Species <i>incertae sedis.</i></b> Laophonte? <i>drachi</i> Médioni &amp; Soyer, 1966 = <i>Inermiphonte drachi</i> (Médioni &amp; Soyer, 1966), comb. n. <b>Etymology.</b> The generic name refers to the absence of inner setae on P2–P4 exp-3 and P4 enp-2 (Table 1). Gender: feminine. Following Hicks’ (1982) comparative analysis Hamond’s (1969) “Laophontid male,?gen.,?sp.” is here assigned to a new species <i>Inermiphonte hamondi</i>, sp. n., which can be differentiated from the type species by the characters listed in Table 1 and Hicks’ (1982: 306) Table II. <i>Laophonte</i> ? <i>drachi</i> shows some important differences with the other two species such as the 6-segmented antennule in the female, the 2-segmented P1 exopod, the reduced inner distal setae on the female P2–P4 exp-3 (a character typical for male <i>Inermiphonte</i>), and the presence of three strong spines on the male P4 endopod. <i>L.</i> ? <i>drachi</i> resembles <i>I. danversae</i> in the presence of only one inner seta on P2 enp-2, no inner setae on ♁ P3 enp-2 and only three outer spines on P4 exp-3; it is similar to <i>I. hamondi</i> in the presence of only four elements on the male P5 exopod. It is here placed as <i>species incertae sedis</i> in <i>Inermiphonte</i> as <i>I. drachi</i>, comb. n. <i>Inermiphonte danversae</i> is thus far known only from two localities in England. Hamond (1969) recorded three females from the shore at West Runton (Norfolk) and Hicks (1980, 1982) reported the species from a range of littoral algae in Robin Hood’s Bay (North Yorkshire) where it attained highest densities on <i>Corallina officinalis</i> L. and <i>Cladophora rupestris</i> (L.) Kutz. <i>Inermiphonte hamondi</i> and <i>I. drachi</i> are known only from their respective type localities, the former from the intertidal zone at West Runton (Hamond 1969) where it may co-exist with <i>I. danversae</i>, the latter from colonies of the bryozoan <i>Schismopora armata</i> (Hincks, 1860) near Racou (Roussillon, France) (Médioni and Soyer, 1966).
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 18-21, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.23.168, http://zenodo.org/record/576545
description: {"references": ["Hamond R (1969) The Laophontidae (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) of the shore at West Runton, Norfolk, England. Crustaceana 16: 1 - 14.", "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].", "Kornev PN, Chertoprud ES (2008) Harpacticoida copepods of the White Sea: morphology, systematics, ecology. KMK Scientific Press Ltd, Moscow, 379 pp.", "Sars GO (1908 a) Copepoda Harpacticoida. Parts XXI &amp; XXII. Laophontidae (continued). An account of the Crustacea of Norway, with short descriptions and figures of all the species 5: 241 - 256 + pls. 161 - 176.", "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.", "Lang K (1965) Copepoda Harpacticoida from the Californian Pacific coast. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar (4) 10 (2): 1 - 560.", "Letova VN (1982) Harpacticoida (Crustacea, Copepoda) ilisto peschano litorali vostochnogo Murmana. Harpacticoida (Crustacea, Copepoda) from the mud-sandy littoral of the east Murman. In: Skarlato OA (ed.), Bespozvonochnye pribrezhnykh biotsenozov severnogo ledovitego (Marine invertebrates of coastal biocenoses of the Arctic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean). Issledovaniya Fauny Morei (Explorations of the Fauna of the Seas) 29 (37): 46 - 75 [in Russian].", "Apostolov A, Petkovski T (1980) Copepodes Harpacticoides de la mer Adriatique (region de Rovigne). Acta zoologica bulgarica 15: 24 - 35.", "Ceccherelli VU (1988) Trois nouvelles especes de Copepodes Harpacticoides des lagunes de l'Adriatique du Nord, Italie. Vie et Milieu 38 (2): 155 - 171.", "Por FD (1964) A study of Levantine and Pontic Harpacticoida (Crustacea, Copepoda). Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden 64: 1 - 128.", "Fiers F (1993) The laophontid genus Loureirophonte Jakobi, 1953 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida). Zoologische Mededelingen, Leiden 67: 207 - 238.", "Medioni A, Soyer J (1966) Laophonte? drachi n. sp. Copepode Harpacticoide associe au Bryozoaire Schismopora armata (Hincks, 1860). Vie et Milieu (A) 17 (2): 1053 - 1063.", "Hicks GRF (1982) New records of harpacticoid copepods from the east coast of Britain, and a description of the true male of Laophonte danversae Hamond. Crustaceana 42: 302 - 307.", "Bodin P (1971) Catalogue des nouveaux Copepodes Harpacticoides marins. Additif no. 1. Tethys 2 (4): 881 - 907.", "Wells JBJ (1976) Keys to aid in the identification of marine harpacticoid copepods. Published by the Department of Zoology, University of Aberdeen, U. K.: 1 - 215.", "Bodin P (1979) Catalogue des nouveaux Copepodes Harpacticoides marins. (Nouvelle edition). Universite de Bretagne occidentale. Laboratoire d'Oceanographie biologique: 1 - 228.", "Lang K (1948) Monographie der Harpacticiden. Hakan Ohlsson, Lund, 1682 pp. (2 volumes).", "Noodt W (1958) Die Copepoda Harpacticoidea des Brandungsstrandes von Teneriffa (Kanarische Inseln). Abhandlungen der mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Klasse. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz 1958 (2): 53 - 116.", "Hamond R (1973) Some Laophontidae (Crustacea: Harpacticoida) from off North Carolina. Transactions of the American microscopical Society 92: 44 - 59.", "Huys R (2009 a) On the junior subjective synonyms of Coullia Hamond, 1973 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida, Laophontidae): an update and key to species and related genera. ZooKeys 5: 33 - 40.", "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.", "Hicks GRF (1980) Structure of phytal harpacticoid copepod assemblages and the influence of habitat complexity and turbidity. Journal of experimental marine Biology and Ecology 44: 157 - 192."]}