taxonID	type	description	language	source
695C879EFFDDFFA5FDCDFDBBFDD4839C.taxon	type_taxon	Type species Cyprinotus cingalensis Brady, 1886.	en	Martens, Koen, Higuti, Mehmet Yavuzatmaca and Janet (2019): On a new species of the genus Cyprinotus (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from a temporary wetland in New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean), with a reappraisal of the genus. European Journal of Taxonomy 566: 1-22, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.566
695C879EFFDDFFADFDD7FCC3FDC98768.taxon	description	Figs 2 – 7	en	Martens, Koen, Higuti, Mehmet Yavuzatmaca and Janet (2019): On a new species of the genus Cyprinotus (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from a temporary wetland in New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean), with a reappraisal of the genus. European Journal of Taxonomy 566: 1-22, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.566
695C879EFFDDFFADFDD7FCC3FDC98768.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis A species typical of the genus, with the larger LV overlapping the RV along the anterior, ventral and posterior margins and with anterior and posterior margins of the RV set with row of strong tubercles. RV dorsally overlapping LV with a very large, rounded hump, which is dorsally skewed to the right and posterior sides and is lined by a ridge. LV rather elongated (L / H ratio = 1.79).	en	Martens, Koen, Higuti, Mehmet Yavuzatmaca and Janet (2019): On a new species of the genus Cyprinotus (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from a temporary wetland in New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean), with a reappraisal of the genus. European Journal of Taxonomy 566: 1-22, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.566
695C879EFFDDFFADFDD7FCC3FDC98768.taxon	etymology	Etymology The species is named after the Drubea Kapone customary area.	en	Martens, Koen, Higuti, Mehmet Yavuzatmaca and Janet (2019): On a new species of the genus Cyprinotus (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from a temporary wetland in New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean), with a reappraisal of the genus. European Journal of Taxonomy 566: 1-22, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.566
695C879EFFDDFFADFDD7FCC3FDC98768.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined Holotype NEW CALEDONIA • ♀, with soft parts dissected in glycerine in a sealed slide and with valves stored dry in a micropaleontological slide; Grande Terre, Province Sud, north of Tontouta airport, commune de Paita; approx. coordinates 21 ° 59 ′ 18.5 ″ S, 66 ° 12 ′ 25.4 ″ E; ca 9 m a. s. l.; 7 Jun. 2018; J. Higuti and K. Martens leg.; sample HYNC 3065; pH = 7.56; electrical conductivity = 831 µS / cm; water temperature = 22.3 ° C; accompanying ostracod fauna – Stenocypris major (Baird, 1859), Cypris granulata (Daday, 1910), Kennethia major (Méhes, 1939) and several as yet unidentified species in Cypretta, Candona s. lat., Stenocypris and ‘ Gomphocythere ’; MNHN-IU- 2019 - 784. Paratypes NEW CALEDONIA • 2 ♀♀, with soft parts dissected as the holotype but with valves lost; same collecting data as for holotype; MNHN-IU- 2019 - 2541, MNHN-IU- 2019 - 2542 • 2 ♀♀; same collecting data as for holotype; MNHN-IU- 2019 - 782, MNHN-IU- 2019 - 783 • 2 ♀♀; same collecting data as for holotype; RBINS-INV. 156000 / OC. 3400, RBINS-INV. 15600 / OC. 3401 • 3 A- 1 ♀♀, with valves and carapaces stored dry after use for SEM illustrations; same collecting data as for holotype; MNHN-IU- 2019 - 779, MNHN-IU- 2019 - 780, MNHN-IU- 2019 - 781 • 1 A- 1 ♀, with valves and carapace stored dry after use for SEM illustrations; same collecting data as for holotype; RBINS-INV. 156002 / OC. 3402 • ca 10 ♀♀ and 10 A- 1 ♀♀ in toto in EtOH; same collecting data as for holotype; MNHN-IU- 2019 - 2313 • ca 10 ♀♀ and 10 A- 1 ♀♀ in toto in EtOH; same collecting data as for holotype; RBINS-INV. 156003 / OC. 3403. Measurements (all in µm) Holotype (adult female) MNHN-IU- 2019 - 784: RVi / L = 1.079; H = 782; LVi / L = 1.153; H = 671. Paratypes (adult females) MNHN-IU- 2019 - 783: CpRL / L = 1.144; H = 756. RBINS-INV. 156000 / OC. 3400: CpLL / L = 1.128; H = 796. MNHN-IU- 2019 - 782: CpD / L = 1.171; W = 521. RBINS-INV. 156001 / OC. 3401: CpV / L = 1.203; W = 525. Paratypes (A- 1 juvenile females) MNHN-IU- 2019 - 781: CPRL / L = 915; H = 519. MNHN-IU- 2019 - 780: CpD / L = 898; W = 374. MNHN-IU- 2019 - 779: CpLL / L = 888; H = 508. RBINS-INV. 156002 / OC. 3402: RVi / L = 867; H = 511; LVi / L = 894; H = 526.	en	Martens, Koen, Higuti, Mehmet Yavuzatmaca and Janet (2019): On a new species of the genus Cyprinotus (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from a temporary wetland in New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean), with a reappraisal of the genus. European Journal of Taxonomy 566: 1-22, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.566
695C879EFFDDFFADFDD7FCC3FDC98768.taxon	description	Description Adult female LVI (Fig. 2 A). With evenly rounded anterior and bluntly pointed posterior margin. Dorsal margin bluntly pointed and with greatest height situated well in front of the middle. Calcified inner lamellae narrow on anterior and posterior sides; these margins with a tuberculated selvage (Fig. 2 G – H). Posterior part of valve slightly protruding beyond postero-ventral valve margin (Fig. 2 H). RVI (Fig. 2 B). With evenly rounded anterior margin and almost straight, sloping posterior margin. Dorsally with a very large and rounded hump, slightly leaning backwards. Calcified inner lamellae narrow on anterior and posterior sides; these margins set with a row of strong tubercles (Fig. 3 A – B). Anterior margin furthermore with a sub-marginal selvage, marginal tubercles caught between this selvage and the valve margin (Fig. 3 A). Posterior margin with clearly inwardly displaced selvage, the latter leaving the tubercles largely free (Fig. 3 B). CP. CpRL (Fig. 2 C) clearly showing larger LV overlapping RV along anterior and posterior margin, and to a lesser extend along ventral margin. CpLL (Fig. 2 D) showing extend to which dorsal hump on RV overlaps LV. External surface of both valves densely pitted and set with short setae in rimmed pores (Fig. 3 C). CpD (Fig. 2 E) showing the rostrum-like anterior part of the Cp and the shape of the humplike expansion of the RV; the latter leaning toward the right side and the dorsal edge being set with a ridge (Fig. 3 D). CpV (Fig. 2 F) also showing anterior rostrum (Fig. 3 E) and weakly developed flap-like expansion of LV overlapping RV (Fig. 3 F). A 1 (Fig. 4 A). 7 - segmented. First segment large, with two long ventral and one short dorsal setae; Wouters organ not seen. Second segment with one apical seta on the dorsal side, reaching beyond middle of third segment: Rome organ very small and indistinguishable. Third segment ca twice as long as second segment, carrying one shorter ventral and one longer dorsal apical setae. Fourth and fifth segments all with four long apical natatory setae, two ventral and two dorsal, but dorsal ones much longer than ventral ones. Sixth segment with four long and one shorter setae. Final segment with two long natatory setae, one shorter seta and an aesthetasc Ya, the latter ca half the length of the shorter apical seta. A 2 (Fig. 4 B – C). Typical of the subfamily. First segment with three basal setae on the ventral side and with one long ventro-apical seta, the latter reaching beyond tip of terminal segment. Endopodite consisting of a small plate with one long and two unequal short setae. First endopodal segment with basally inserted aesthetasc, distally with five long and one short natatory setae, long setae reaching with about 1 ∕ 5 of their length beyond the tips of the endclaws, and one stout and long ventro-apical seta, reaching till the middle of the endclaws. Second endopodal segment with two unequal setae inserted mid-dorsally and four unequal setae, inserted mid-ventrally, apically with three long z-setae (reaching beyond tips of endclaws) and claws G 1, G 2 and G 3, G 2 being the shortest. Terminal segment with one large claw GM, one shorter claw Gm (ca half the length of GM), seta g almost as long as claw Gm and an aesthetasc y 3, fused with an accompanying seta over a short distance, the accompanying seta being ca twice the length of the aesthetasc and ¾ of the length of seta g. MD. Md-palp (Fig. 5 A) with four segments. First segment large, with a respiratory plate bearing five long and one short setae; ventro-distally with one long smooth seta, a long, thin and smooth α-seta and two setose s-setae. Second segment with a group of three long setae, inserted mid-dorsally and a group of five ventral setae: three thin and relatively long setae, setose in their distal third, one stout, shorter seta and one short, but stout β-seta. Third segment with a dorso-subapical group of four setae; a row of four apical setae, three thin and relatively short setae and one stout and claw-like γ-seta, dorsally inserted; and two ventro-subapical setae, one long and one very short. Terminal segment about as long as basal width, tapering, set with four apical claws and one seta. Md coxa (Fig. 5 B) elongated, distally with ca 10 teeth, interspaces with small setae, and one short subapical seta. MX 1 (Fig. 5 C – D). Consisting of a two-segmented palp, three endites and a vibratory plate for respiration. First palp segment with five apical setae, one of which plumose, one long and one short subapical setae. Second palp segment rectangular, ca twice as long as basal width, apically carrying three claws and three setae. Third endite with two large, distally serrated setae (“ Zahnbürsten ”). First endite with one apical side-ways directed bristle and two basal setae. Vibratory plate with ca 12 distal rays and an additional six basal setae. T 1 (Fig. 6 A). With an elongated palp, carrying three apical setae, the middle one (h 2) being the longest. Respiratory plate with five long and one short rays. Protopodite with two short but unequal a-setae, a short b-seta, a longer d-seta, almost twice as long as b-seta and distally with 11 (sub-) apical setae of unequal length. T 2 (Fig. 6 B). A walking leg. First segment with short seta d 1. Second segment (knee-segment) without seta d 2. Third segment long, ca three times as long as wide, carrying a distal e-seta, reaching just to tip of segment 4 a. Fourth segment divided in two parts. Segment 4 a with apical f-seta reaching tip of segment 4 b. Segment 4 b with apically inserted seta g and a very short second seta. Terminal segment with curved claw h 2 and two flanking setae, seta h 1 longer than seta h 3, the latter subapical. T 3 (Fig. 6 C – D). A cleaning leg. First segment with three long setae (d 1, d 2 and dp). Second segment elongated, about five times as long as wide, distally with a long e-seta, reaching beyond tip of limb. Third segment shorter, with medially inserted f-seta, also reaching beyond tip of limb. Distal part of third segment fused with fourth segment, forming a pincer, with a long seta h 3, a curved hook-like seta h 2 and a minuscule seta h 1 (not shown). CR (Fig. 6 E). Elongated, with broad basal part. Proximal claw Gp ca ½ the length of distal claw Ga; proximal seta Sp almost as long as distal seta Sa. Attachment of caudal ramus (Fig. 6 F) a single narrow and curved ramus. RAKE- LIKE ORGAN (Fig. 6 G). With narrow rod and distally with eight blunt teeth. A- 1 juvenile female LV (Fig. 7 A). With shape similar to that in adults, greatest height situated well in front of the middle; both posteriorly (Fig. 7 H) and anteriorly (Fig. 7 I) with large selvage; calcified inner lamella narrow. RV (Fig. 7 B). With similar outline, but with much smaller postero-dorsal hump than in the adult. Anterior (Fig. 7 F) and posterior margins with narrow calcified inner lamella; no inwardly displaced selvages. Marginal tubercles absent, or very small. CPD (Fig. 7 E). Rather narrow, with LV overlapping RV anteriorly and posteriorly; greatest width situated in the middle. CPRL (Fig. 7 C). With LV overlapping RV anteriorly and posteriorly; along dorsal margin RV extending beyond LV in posterior part, LV extending beyond RV in anterior part. External surface of Cp strongly ornamented, with tightly intertwined ridges, resulting pits and rimmed pores with long setae (Fig. 7 G). CPLL (Fig. 7 D). With RV only slightly extending past LV in posterior part of the dorsal margin. A 2. With five long natatory setae and without the shorter seta. Remark: this is typical of the A- 1 juveniles in Cyprididae; the accompanying short seta only forms in the last moult to the adult stage (not illustrated). Differential diagnosis The new species can at once be distinguished from all other extant species in the genus by the large and rounded dorsal hump on the RV; this hump is much smaller in most other species of Cyprinotus. Some specimens of Cyprinotus with a large dorsal hump from wells in the Pilbara region (northern Western Australia) were illustrated and erroneously identified as C. cingalensis by Karanovic (2008). However, the hump in the latter species is wider, less high and distally less rounded. Also, the ventro-caudal side of the LV in the specimens from the Pilbara is more rounded, while the LV as such is less elongated (L / H ratio in Pilbara specimens = 1.70; L / H ratio in C. drubea sp. nov. = 1.79). The dorsal helmet of the new species is also larger than in the fossil C. scholiosus (Sohn & Morris, 1963) and the LV of the former is also slightly more elongated (L / H ratio in Sohn & Morris (1963) = 1.62, in Malz (1976) = 1.71; L / H ratio in C. drubea sp. nov. = 1.79).	en	Martens, Koen, Higuti, Mehmet Yavuzatmaca and Janet (2019): On a new species of the genus Cyprinotus (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from a temporary wetland in New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean), with a reappraisal of the genus. European Journal of Taxonomy 566: 1-22, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.566
695C879EFFDDFFADFDD7FCC3FDC98768.taxon	biology_ecology	Ecology and distribution All species in this genus are typical of temporary habitats and C. drubea sp. nov. is no exception. The species was found in a shallow temporary marsh, covering several hectares, which was densely covered with grasses and species of Juncus L.	en	Martens, Koen, Higuti, Mehmet Yavuzatmaca and Janet (2019): On a new species of the genus Cyprinotus (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from a temporary wetland in New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean), with a reappraisal of the genus. European Journal of Taxonomy 566: 1-22, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.566
695C879EFFD5FFB2FF12F9BFFB9E8682.taxon	discussion	Meisch et al. (2019) retained 17 species in the genus Cyprinotus. However, a literature survey conducted in the present paper showed that actually only seven species, including Cyprinotus drubea sp. nov., really belong in the genus (Table 2). Based on the illustrations in the original descriptions, several of the other species could be allocated to other genera (Table 3). Cyprinotus crenatus (Turner, 1893), C. flavescens Brady, 1898, C. ohanopecoshensis Ferguson, 1966 and C. sulphurous Blake, 1931 belong in the genus Heterocypris, because of a clear lack of a dorsal hump on the RV. Cyprinotus scytodus (Dobbin, 1941) most likely also belongs in the genus Heterocypris. For C. pellucidus (Sharpe, 1897), it is impossible to see to which genus it belongs based on the original illustrations in Sharpe (1897). However, Sharpe (1918) provided new illustrations which indicate that these specimens belong to Heterocypris. However, it is uncertain if both sets of specimens, those of Sharpe (1897) and those of Sharpe (1918) really belong to the same species. Cyprinutus dentatus (Sharpe, 1910) certainly refers to several species. The species described by Sharpe (1910) certainly belongs to Heterocypris, even to the ‘ rostrata ’ type, but it is clear that males of two different species are figured here (compare Sharpe, 1910: figs 2 b and 2 c, the latter could be Heterocypris incongruens (Ramdohr, 1808 )). The illustrations in Sharpe (1918: 816, fig. 1271 a – c) refer most likely to the species figured by Sharpe (1910: fig. 2 b). Cyprinotus newmexicoensis Ferguson, 1967 certainly belongs in Heterocyrpis, but the specimens might be juvenile. Cyprinotus unispinifera Furtos, 1936 clearly belongs in the genus Cypricercus Sars, 1895. Cyprinotus tenuis Henry, 1923, C. fuscus Henry, 1919 and C. carinatus (King, 1855) do not belong in Cyprinotus, maybe not even in the Cyprinotinae. Müller (1912) already ranked C. carinatus as “ doubtful species ” and we here propose to consider all three species as ‘ doubtful’ and to exclude them from further consideration. They would thus belong in the list of “ excluded species ” in Meisch et al. (2019: 110), using the “ taxonomic filter ” of Müller (1912). The new species can be distinguished from most of the Cyprinotus s. str. species by the size and shape of the dorsal hump, which is much smaller and more elongated in C. cingalensis (Fig. 8 A), C. edwardi McKenzie, 1978 (Fig. 8 B), C. indica Battish, 1981 (Fig. 8 C), C. dahli Sars, 1896 (Fig. 8 D) and C. uenoi Brehm, 1936 (Fig. 8 G, H). In C. kimberleyensis McKenzie, 1966 (Fig. 8 E), the hump is also large but of a more rectangular shape. The most closely related species is the fossil Cyprinotus scholiosus (Fig. 8 F), originally described by Sohn & Morris (1963) as Cheikella scholiosa from the Pliocene of Saudi Arabia, and later also reported from the Pleistocene of Yemen by Malz (1976). Cyprinotus drubea sp. nov. closely resembles C. scholiosus (see above, differential diagnosis). However, to us it is not entirely clear what the identity of C. scholiosus really is, as various illustrations in Sohn & Morris (1963) and in Malz (1976) show a variety of shapes and sizes of the dorsal hump. For example, fig. 1 (7) in Malz (1976) shows a very different shape of the LV than fig. 1 (3). The holotype of the species (nr USNM 648125; Sohn & Morris 1963: 329, pl. 1, figs 7 – 10) has a smaller and fully symmetrical dorsal hump, while this structure in C. drubea sp. nov. is higher and asymmetrically curved to the posterior side, while also the posterior margin of the carapace is slightly different. We therefore decide to keep the two species separate, although they are indeed closely related. Together with the population from the Pilbara (Karanovic 2008), C. scholiosus and C. drubea sp. nov. form a clear species group within the genus. The allocation of C. indica to the genus Cyprinotus s. str. is still doubtful, as the shape and external ornamentation with dense setae are rather aberrant and unlike any of the other species in the genus. The type materials of this species should be re-investigated. Karanovic (2008) sank C. dahli, C. uenoi, C. kimberleyensis and C. edwardi into synonymy of C. cingalensis. This was most likely done, because she interpreted the variability in the size and shape of the dorsal hump on the RV in her Pilbara populations as a result of one highly variable species, i. e., C. cingalensis. However, there are two other possible interpretations of the difference in size and shape of the dorsal hump as illustrated by her. Firstly, her material could have contained specimens from two species: one population of C. cingalensis (smaller species) and one population of a new (larger) species. In this respect, the smaller specimen in her fig. 6 F – G might belong to C. cingalensis and the larger specimens in her figs 6 A – E and 9 A – E would belong to a new species. A similar situation has occurred when Daday (1913) described Cyprinotus inversus Daday, 1913 from the Kalahari Desert (South Africa). His material contained two species from two genera, namely a sexual population of a species of Heterocypris (possibly H. giesbrechti Müller, 1898) and an asexual population of a species of Hemicypris Sars, 1903 (see Martens 1984). This description lead to decades of confusion regarding the validity of these two genera, as in Heterocypris the LV overlaps the RV and the RV has the marginal tubercles, while in Hemicypris it is just the opposite. After the description of C. inversus, several authors no longer accepted Hemicypris as a separate and valid genus. Secondly, the smaller specimens might also simply be the A- 1 juveniles (see fig. 6 A, F in Karanovic: adult specimen in fig. 6 A with marginal tubercles = 1.3 mm; smaller specimen in fig. 6 F with fewer marginal tubercles = 1.05 mm). We here illustrate the A- 1 females of C. drubea sp. nov. (Fig. 7), which indeed resemble the smaller species illustrated by Karanovic (2008). If either of these hypotheses turns out to be true, then C. cingalensis is not so highly variable and possibly not all four synonymies proposed by Karanovic (2008) might be valid. For these reasons, we do not follow these synonymies here. The A- 1 juvenile of Cyprinotus drubea sp. nov. In ostracod taxonomy, juvenile morphology is rarely illustrated, unless the juveniles are seen as a different species or even genus than the adults. Indeed, juvenile and adult morphologies can be very different and have in some cases mislead authors. For example, Eucypris serratomarginata Kiss, 1960 is the last juvenile stage of Sclerocypris multiformis Kiss, 1960 (see Martens 1986) while Candonocypris serratomarginata Furtos, 1935 is most likely the juvenile of Chlamydotheca unispinosa (Baird, 1862) (discussed in Martens & Savatenalinton 2011). Extensive examples of the differences between adult and juvenile morphologies are given for species of the Australian genus Bennelongia De Deckker & McKenzie, 1981 by De Deckker & Martens (2013). Here, the clearest differences in the valves between adults and A- 1 juveniles are in the much smaller dorsal helmet and the stronger external ornamentation in the juveniles. The strong selvage in the LV is also remarkable. This selvage is completely absent in the RV, which shows the narrow, calcified lamella, typical of juveniles in Cyprididae. The RV is also devoid of tubercles. The A- 1 stage in Cyprididae can be clearly identified by the number of natatory setae on the A 2: the adult has five long and one shorter setae (in those species where the natatory setae are well developed). In stage A- 1, the shorter seta is still missing.	en	Martens, Koen, Higuti, Mehmet Yavuzatmaca and Janet (2019): On a new species of the genus Cyprinotus (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from a temporary wetland in New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean), with a reappraisal of the genus. European Journal of Taxonomy 566: 1-22, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.566
695C879EFFD5FFB2FF12F9BFFB9E8682.taxon	distribution	Distribution The seven Recent species presently retained in Cyprinotus (Table 2) occur in the Afrotropical, Oriental, Australasian and Pacific realms, and in parts of the southern Palaearctic (North America, Japan) (Meisch et al. 2019). The actual distribution of the genus is most likely circumtropical so that it is also expected to occur in the northern part of South America and in Central America, from which it has not yet been reported (Higuti & Martens in press). Cyprinotus drubea sp. nov. is possibly an endemic to the New Caledonian archipelago. Neale (1979) indicated that the collections of the British Museum (now Natural History Museum, London) contained a female specimen, labelled as C. cingalensis, from St. Joseph, Uvea, Loyalty Islands. However, Neale (loc. cit.) found differences in the limb morphology between this specimen and the material from Ceylon and doubted the identification. But if these specimens from Uvea would have belonged to C. drubea sp. nov., then Neale (loc. cit.) would certainly have noted this. It is thus likely that a second species of Cyprinotus occurs in the New Caledonia archipelago.	en	Martens, Koen, Higuti, Mehmet Yavuzatmaca and Janet (2019): On a new species of the genus Cyprinotus (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from a temporary wetland in New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean), with a reappraisal of the genus. European Journal of Taxonomy 566: 1-22, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.566
695C879EFFD5FFB2FF12F9BFFB9E8682.taxon	discussion	Morphology This is the first time that a species of Cyprinotus is described in such detail, especially with regard to the valves. Neale (1979) provided some SEM images of C. cingalensis that show that the anterior marginal tubercles of the RV are not covered by the selvage in this species, but the posterior ones are (i. e., just the opposite of the situation in Cyprinotus drubea sp. nov.) and that the dorsal hump on the RV is indeed also slightly leaning towards the right side. Most surprising in the description of C. cingalensis by Neale (1979), however, is that he drew the proximal seta on the caudal ramus in the middle of the ramus, which is highly unusual in Cyprididae. Karanovic (2008), in what she called C. cingalensis, drew this seta in approximately the same position as we do here in Cyprinotus drubea sp. nov. Surprisingly, she did not find seta d 1 on the first segment of T 1 and she drew two types of attachments of the caudal ramus: one with a single rod for the male and one with a distally bifurcated rod for the female; both belong to the larger species in her material. Halse & Martens (2019) already suggested that there may be an asymmetry or sexual dimorphism in this structure in this subfamily. Conclusions The Recent species of the genus Cyprinotus Brady, 1886 are re-assessed and only seven extant species are retained in the genus. A new species, C. drubea sp. nov. from New Caledonia is included in this list and is compared to all extant taxa as well as to the fossil C. scholiosus, to which it has the closest resemblance. Also, the carapaces and valves of the last juvenile stage of the new species are described and these descriptions are used to re-assess some previous records of species of Cyprinotus. Together with the population from the Pilbara, described by Karanovic (2008) as C. cingalensis, C. drubea sp. nov. and C. scholiosus form a clear species group within the genus Cyprinotus.	en	Martens, Koen, Higuti, Mehmet Yavuzatmaca and Janet (2019): On a new species of the genus Cyprinotus (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from a temporary wetland in New Caledonia (Pacific Ocean), with a reappraisal of the genus. European Journal of Taxonomy 566: 1-22, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.566
