taxonID	type	description	language	source
5E4C879DED723132C554141AFE788F57.taxon	diagnosis	AMENDED DIAGNOSIS. — Small isohypsibiid (rarely exceeding 200 μm, Fig. 1). Cephalic elliptical organs present (Fig. 7 A). Dorsum and limbs covered with densely arranged, blunt protuberances. Six peribuccal lobes present (Fig. 6 A). Apophyses for the insertion of stylet muscles (AISM) asymmetrical with respect to the frontal plane – the dorsal apophysis subdivided into two portions: the anterior portion in the shape of a slightly convex longitudinal thickening (and the posterior portion as weakly developed blunt hook); the ventral apophysis in the shape of a mild and long ridge (Fig. 9 A). Very large pharyngeal apophyses and placoids in the muscle pharynx. Stylet furcae of the Fractonotus - type, i. e. with broad, trapezoid base, thin arms and rounded apices (Figs 8 D, 10 A). Claws of the modified Isohypsibius - type, with triangular bases and strongly curved claw branches (Fig. 12 A, B). Accessory points symmetrical or occasionally asymmetrical. Smooth eggs laid in exuviae. DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS. — Fractonotus shares pronounced cuticular sculpturing with some species of six other parachelan genera: Calohypsibius Thulin, 1928, some Ramazzottius Binda & Pilato, 1986, Hypsibius Ehrenberg, 1848, Pilatobius Bertolani, Guidetti, Marchioro, Altiero, Rebecchi, Cesari, 2014, Doryphoribius Pilato, 1969 and Isohypsibius Thulin, 1928, but it can be readily distinguished from these genera by the morphology of the stylet furcae (square / trapezoid in Fractonotus vs narrower and more rectangular in the latter genera; compare Figs 7 B, D; 10 A-C). Furthermore, Fractonotus differs from Ramazzottius, Hypsibius and Pilatobius by having Isohypsibius - like claws (claws of the latter genera are of the Hypsibius or of the modified Hypsibius- type). Moreover, the genus differs specifically from: – Calohypsibius Thulin, 1928 (Hypsibioidea: Calohypsibiidae), by having a different type of cuticular sculpture (roundish or oval tubercles covering the entire dorsum and limbs with smooth dorsal pebble-shaped plaques in Fractonotus, Fig. 5 A-D vs multangular or star-like tubercles and occasional spines arranged less densely in Calohypsibius, Fig. 5 E, F), different structures surrounding the mouth opening (six soft and large peribuccal lobes in Fractonotus, Fig. 6 A vs six small well defined papulae in Calohypsibius, Fig. 6 B), a reversed morphology of the dorsal apophysis for the insertion of stylet muscles (an anterior thickening and a tiny posterior hook in Fractonotus, Fig. 7 E-G vs an anterior large blunt hook and a slight posterior thickening in Calohypsibius, Fig. 9 A, B), and by claw morphology (modified Isohypsibius - type claws with pseudolunulae, triangular bases, and elongated, strongly curved branches with conspicuous accessory points in Fractonotus, Figs 11 A-D; 12 A, B vs very small, rigid, with the base width equal to the sum of the primary and secondary branch widths, with the vertical septum between the two branches, and without pseudolunulae in Calohypsibius, Figs 11 E; 12 C, D). – Doryphoribius Pilato, 1969 (Isohypsibioidea: Isohypsibiidae), by the presence of elliptical organs on the head (absent in Doryphoribius), and by the absence of the ventral lamina on the buccal tube (ventral lamina present in Doryphoribius). – Isohypsibius Thulin, 1928 (Isohypsibioidea: Isohypsibiidae), by the presence of elliptical organs on the head (absent in Isohypsibius), a different shape of AISM (asymmetrical with respect to the frontal plane in Fractonotus, Fig. 7 E vs ridges symmetrical with respect to the frontal plane Isohypsibius, Figs 7 H, I; 9 A, C), and by the claw morphology (modified Isohypsibius - type claws with triangular bases, especially well-marked on the fourth pair of legs, in Fractonotus vs Isohypsibius - type claws with stalk-like bases in Isohypsibius, Figs 11 H, I; 12 E, F).	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED723132C554141AFE788F57.taxon	discussion	COMPOSITION AND REMARKS Currently only three species, Fractonotus caelatus (the nominal taxon), F. verrucosus n. comb. and F. gilvus n. comb., are assigned to the genus. The three species are placed in the single genus because they share a number of taxonomically important traits: AISM shape, the presence of elliptical cephalic organs, two granular macroplacoids in the pharynx, and the type of cuticular sculpturing. On the other hand, Pilato (1998) described the claws of F. caelatus as of the Microhypsibius type, whereas claws in F. verrucosus n. comb. and F. gilvus n. comb. are closer to Isohypsibius type claws. Therefore, given the differences in claw morphology, there is a possibility that F. verrucosus n. comb. and F. gilvus n. comb. belong to a new isohypsibioid genus, and are only delusively similar to Fractonotus due to convergent evolution in the remaining traits. Nevertheless, the majority of traits suggest that all three species should be placed in Fractonotus. Biserov (1986) misinterpreted the AISM of F. gilvus n. comb. (Fig. 3 therein) as Isohypsibius - type AISM, but our observations of the type material confirm that the species has the AISM of the Fractonotus - type. However, there are more Isohypsibius and Hypsibius species, that exhibit cuticular sculpturing similar to that of Fractonotus. Thus, they may in fact belong to Fractonotus rather than Isohypsibius or Hypsibius. Nevertheless, we refrained from enacting more transfers, as a careful examination of individuals is needed to confirm whether these species, in addition to cuticular sculpturing, also exhibit other characteristics of Fractonotus.	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7D3137C4A51658FAEF8E95.taxon	materials_examined	LOCALITIES. — Scotland. Creag Meagaidh (56 ° 57 ’ 10 ’’ N, 4 ° 30 ’ 35 ’’ W; 291 m a. s. l.; collection date: 1. X. 2014), lichens from moorland rocks; Scotland, Hebrides, Isle of Lewis, Loch nan Muilne (58 ° 21 ’ 08 ’’ N, 6 ° 35 ’ 14 ’’ W; 27 m a. s. l.; collection date: 29. VII. 2015), moss and lichen mix from stones on the lakeshores; Invermoriston, Loch Ness (57 ° 12 ’ 39 ’’ N, 4 ° 35 ’ 59 ’’ W; 20 m a. s. l.; 25. X. 2015; Brian Blagden leg.), moss and lichen mix from stones on the lakeshores.	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7D3137C4A51658FAEF8E95.taxon	materials_examined	MATERIAL EXAMINED. — 23 individuals, UJ (19 specimens, including one simplex, on slides GB. 005.03 - 12, GB. 008.01 - 3, GB. 028.01 - 2 and 4 specimens on two SEM stubs); 2 individuals, MNHN (slides GB. 005.01 - 2); 3 individuals, NHMD (slides GB. 008.04 - 5); 2 individuals, UAM (slides GB. 028.03 - 4); 1 individual, CU (slide GB. 028.02).	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7D3137C4A51658FAEF8E95.taxon	etymology	ETYMOLOGY (NOT PROVIDED IN THE ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION). — The name most likely refers to the rugged cuticular surface of the species (from Latin verruca = wart).	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7D3137C4A51658FAEF8E95.taxon	diagnosis	DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS. — Fractonotus verrucosus n. comb. can be distinguished from F. caelatus and F. gilvus n. comb. (Fig. 2 A, B) by the presence of plaques (absent in the latter species). It also differs from F. gilvus n. comb. by shorter, stouter claws (anterior and posterior primary branches 4.1 - 6.4 μm [N = 10] and 4.3 - 7.4 μm long [N = 18], respectively, in Fractonotus verrucosus n. comb. vs 7.0 - 13.0 μm [N = 21] and 10.5 - 16.5 μm long [N = 21], respectively, in F. gilvus n. comb.; compare Fig. 11 A-D).	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7D3137C4A51658FAEF8E95.taxon	description	INTEGRATIVE DESCRIPTION Animals (see Table 3 for measurements) Body stubby, typically slightly rose in live animals, transparent in mounted specimens. Dorsum strongly sculptured from the first instar, although with substantial ontogenetic quantitative and qualitative variability in this trait (Fig. 1 A- F). Juveniles with ten transverse bands of numerous tu- bercles that increase in size towards the caudal end of the body, but fully formed plaques never present, legs covered with fine tubercles (Fig. 1 A). All ten bands not always easily identifiable under PCM in juveniles. In young adults, plaques present in bands 6 - 10, with the most prominent plaques in bands 8 - 10 (Fig. 1 B). In older adults, smooth spaces between the transverse bands becoming narrow and sometimes merge into larger areas (Fig. 1 C-F). Plaques larger and more numerous than in young adults, and typically developping in bands 4 - 10, but the most evident plaques present in the caudal part of the body (Fig. 1 C-F). Tubercles more or less round or oval (Figs 3 A, B; 5 A, B), gradually increasing in size from juveniles to adults, and becoming scabrous with age (compare Figs 1 A-F; 5 A, B). Plaques, on the other hand, typically smooth and only sometimes slightly rough (Fig. 5 C, D, arrowheads); under stereomicroscope strongly opalescent. Plaques arranged symmetrically in respect to the longitudinal body axis, although deviations A from symmetry are not rare (Fig. 1 C, D). In adults, seven pairs of central plaques and four lateral plaque pairs. Central plaques triangular in shape, with their apices directed laterally and outwards. In rows where only central plaques are present, plaques slimmer and longer than in rows with lateral plaques. Central plaques present in bands aligned with legs I-III as well as in bands between those legs. First three pairs of lateral plaques in line with legs I-III and the last pair of double lateral plaques situated between legs III and IV (Fig. 1 E). Plaque configuration VII: 4 - 2 - 4 - 2 - 4 - 2 - 6. Cephalic elliptical organs present but not easy to identify, given the rich cuticular sculpturing (Fig. 7 A). Eyes absent in live animals. Buccal apparatus of the Fractonotus - type (Fig. 7 B, C, E), i. e. with a long ventral AISM, and the dorsal AISM subdivided into the proximal, weakly developed thickening, and the distal, small blunt hook (Fig. 9 A). Mouth opening surrounded by six large and soft peribuccal lobes (visible only under SEM, Fig. 6 A). Oral cavity armature, visible only under SEM, consisting of a single row of minute conical teeth located on the ring fold (Fig. 8 A). Two distinct porous areas on the lateral sides of the buccal crown are visible in SEM only (Fig. 8 B). Stylet furcae of the modified Hypsibius shape, i. e. with very broad and trapezoid bases, thick arms and rounded apices (Figs 7 B, 8 D, 10 A). Buccal tube with slight lateral thickenings posterior to the stylets supports (Figs 7 B, C, E; 8 C). Round bulbus with large pharyngeal apophyses (almost as large as the placoids), and two granular macroplacoids (Figs 7 B, C, E; 8 E, F). In PCM, macroplacoids without constrictions, however slight central constrictions in both macroplacoids detectable under SEM (Fig. 8 E, F). Claws of the modified Isohypsibius - type (Figs 11 A-C; 12 A, B). Specifically, claw bases triangular, especially pronounced in claws IV (Figs 11 C, 12 B). Claw branches V-shaped, elongated and strongly curved. Apparent accessory points on the primary branches (Figs 11 A-C; 12 A, B). Weakly developed pseudolunulae present, particularly visible under the internal and anterior claws (Fig. 11 A, C). Claw septa and cuticular bars on legs absent. Eggs Roundish and smooth, deposited in exuviae (up to two eggs per exuvia recorded).	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7D3137C4A51658FAEF8E95.taxon	discussion	MOLECULAR MARKERS The sequences for all DNA markers were of a good quality. The sequenced fragments were of the following lengths: 1.727 bp (18 S rRNA; MG 800855), 819 bp (28 S rRNA; MG 800856), and 499 bp (ITS- 2; MG 800857). All markers, including the specimen without cuticular plaques, were represented by single haplotypes. The p-distances between 18 S haplotypes of all available isohypsibioid species and Fractonotus verrucosus n. comb. ranged from 2.0 % (I. prosostomus Thulin, 1928, EF 620404 from Denmark) to 7.1 % (Hexapodibius micronyx Pilato, 1969, HQ 604915 from Italy), with an average distance of 5.2 %. As our 28 S rRNA primers obtain a different gene fragment to the one sequenced by previous authors, comparisons of this gene were not possible. Matrices with p-distances are provided in the Supplementary Material 2. REMARKS The vast part of the Richters Collection has been lost, thus the type material (if ever existed) is not available for examination. Moreover, no specimens from Germany were examined in this study, therefore the neotype series is not established. Hence, until the redescription from the terra typica in Germany is available, we propose to consider the description of the Scottish specimens only as the current perception of the species. PHYLOGENETIC POSITION OF FRACTONOTUS AMONG OTHER ISOHYPSIBIIDAE Both Bayesian Inference and Maximum Likelihood methods unreservedly located Fractonotus within Isohypsibioidea (Fig. 13), thus corroborating the phenotypic analysis (see above). The genus Isohypsibius s. s. (i. e. I. prosostomus and its closest relatives) appears paraphyletic with respect to Fractonotus. However, in general, all isohypsibioid lineages clearly remain in polytomy, with only the occasional sound Bayesian posterior probabilities characterising clades with morphologically similar taxa. Therefore, the exact relationships between different isohypsibioid clades remain unsolved.	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7B3134C4CE147AFECF8E39.taxon	diagnosis	EMENDED DIAGNOSIS. — Very small eutardigrades (typically below 150 μm) with elliptical organs on the head. Dorsum covered with irregular, multangular protuberances, and sometimes also with spines (Figs 3 C, D; 4; 5 E, F). Claws miniaturised, but not reduced, of the Calohypsibius - type, i. e. asymmetrical with respect to the sequence of primary and secondary branches (2 - 1 - 2 - 1), but similar in their size, with bases as large as the sum of the primary and secondary branch widths, but devoid of sutures. Pseudolunulae absent. Accessory points symmetrical (Figs 11 E; 12 C, D). Six peribuccal papulae present (Fig. 6 B). AISM asymmetrical with respect to the frontal plane, with the dorsal apophysis subdivided in two portions of different shape (Fig. 9 B). Stylet furcae of the Hypsibius - type (Fig. 10 B). Pharyngeal apophyses smaller than the tiny granular macroplacoids. Smooth eggs laid in exuviae.	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7B3134C4CE147AFECF8E39.taxon	discussion	COMPOSITION. — A monotypic family, comprising the genus Calohypsibius.	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7B3134C54717BFFC6C8CD7.taxon	diagnosis	DIAGNOSIS. — Same as for the family Calohypsibiidae.	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7B3134C54717BFFC6C8CD7.taxon	etymology	ETYMOLOGY (NOT PROVIDED IN THE ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION). — After Schuster et al. (1980), from Ancient Greek κά ^ ος (kállos) = beauty; derivatives calli-, callo- mean beautiful, pretty. Thulin most likely wanted to highlight the cuticular sculpturing, which is exceptionally complex, rich and unusual among Eutardigrada.	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7B3134C54717BFFC6C8CD7.taxon	discussion	COMPOSITION AND REMARKS Currently only three species, namely C. maliki Michalczyk & Kaczmarek, 2005 (Fig. 4 B), C. ornatus (Richters, 1900) (type species; Figs 3 C, D, 4 A), and C. schusteri Nelson & McGlothlin, 1996 (Fig. 4 C), are ascribed to the family. Nevertheless, Bartoš (1940) already described the remarkable variability within European records of the ornatus complex, which raises justifiable concerns as to whether C. ornatus encompasses only a single species. Further, as suggested by Pilato (1998), it is very likely that the genus comprises many more species than currently recognised. However, a systematic integrative study based on extensive sampling is needed to verify this hypothesis.	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7B3134C490131BFDE88D68.taxon	discussion	REMARK Elliptical organs not always visible due to developed sculpturing in the cephalic portion of the body.	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7B3135C76715D9FED38E38.taxon	diagnosis	EMENDED DIAGNOSIS. — Very small eutardigrades (typically below 150 μm in length) without elliptical organs on the head. Cuticle smooth. Claws minute and asymmetrical with respect to the sequence of primary and secondary branches (2 - 1 - 2 - 1), with thin bases continuous with the primary branches. External and internal, and anterior and posterior claws different in shape but similar in size. Pseudolunulae absent. Accessory points symmetrical (Fig. 11 G). Peribuccal papulae not visible under PCM. AISM asymmetrical with respect to the frontal plane, with the dorsal apophysis subdivided in two portions of different shapes (Fig. 9 A). Stylet furcae of the Hypsibius - type. Pharyngeal apophyses similar in size to macroplacoids. Smooth eggs laid in exuviae.	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7B3135C76715D9FED38E38.taxon	discussion	COMPOSITION. — A monotypic family, comprising the genus Microhypsibius.	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7A3135C54C17BFFBD08E96.taxon	diagnosis	DIAGNOSIS. — Same as for the family Microhypsibiidae.	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7A3135C54C17BFFBD08E96.taxon	etymology	ETYMOLOGY (NOT PROVIDED IN THE ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION). — The name was most likely chosen to underline the minute size of the family members.	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
5E4C879DED7A3135C54C17BFFBD08E96.taxon	discussion	COMPOSITION. — Microhypsibius bertolanii Kristensen, 1982, M. japonicus Ito, 1991, M. minimus Kristensen, 1982, M. truncatus Thulin, 1928 (type species). REMARKS See Kristensen (1982) for the most current depiction of the genus Microhypsibius.	en	Gąsiorek, Piotr, Morek, Witold, Stec, Daniel, Blagden, Brian, Michalczyk, Łukasz (2019): Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela). Zoosystema 41 (6): 71-89, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a6
