identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
82A839DBDD7436F1B24D06B6E6B84984.text	82A839DBDD7436F1B24D06B6E6B84984.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Folioquinpes chathamensis (Sars 1905) Sars 1905	<div><p>Folioquinpes chathamensis (Sars, 1905)</p><p>Laophonte chathamensis Sars, 1905</p><p>Folioquinpes chathamensis (Sars, 1905) Fiers and Rutledge (1990)</p><p>Onychocamptus spec. sensu Mielke (1981): Fiers and Rutledge (1990)</p><p>Original description.</p><p>Sars (1905): 391-393; Plate 17 (figs 103-118).</p><p>Additional description.</p><p>Mielke (1981 as Onychocamptus spec.): 52; Abb. 28.</p><p>Type locality.</p><p>New Zealand, Chatham Islands, Wharekauri (= Chatham Island), Te Whanga Lagoon; shallow brackish water.</p><p>Body length.</p><p>480 μm (♀), slightly smaller (♂) [Sars 1905]; 430-450 μm (♀) [Mielke 1981].</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Fiers and Rutledge (1990) stated that armature and shape of the male P5 differed between F. chathamensis and F. mangalis . Sars’s (1905) text description is not informative with regard to the number and position of armature elements. His figure (figure 118) suggests that the P5 is distinctly bilobate, having one endopodal and three exopodal setae. However, the accompanying figure legend states that the left member is illustrated, implying that Sars had figured it in dorsal aspect. The “endopodal” seta is therefore the outer basal arising from a setophore (and not an endopodal lobe). Comparison with F. mangalis also suggests that there are only two exopodal elements, the third one representing the sensilla originating from a lateral tubercle. Based on this reinterpretation there is probably no difference in male P5 morphology between both species. The absence of the typical baseoendopodal incision in the female P5, separating the endopodal lobe and the pedestal bearing the exopod, is also attributable to an observational error by Sars (1905: Taf. 17, fig. 116).</p><p>Folioquinpes chathamensis resembles F. indicus sp. n. in the absence of spinules along the anterior margin of the rostrum, the 5-segmented condition of the female antennule, the presence of three inner setae on the distal endopodal segment of leg 3, and of the inner seta on the middle exopodal segment of legs 3-4. The alternative states, including the 4-segmented female antennule, are displayed in the other two species of the genus (Table 1).</p><p>Hamond (in Hicks 1977a: 457) collected F. chathamensis near Sydney and Melbourne while Newton and Mitchell (1999) obtained it in mud samples from the Hopkins River estuary in south-western Victoria. It remains unclear whether Lewis’s (1984) single record from an estuarine lagoon in New Zealand is new or refers to Sars’s (1905) type locality. Fiers (1995) recorded the species from the ‘aufwuchs’ covering submerged mangrove pneumatophores in the Celestún Lagoon, northwest of the Yucatán Peninsula (Mexico). Gómez and Morales-Serna (2013) erroneously cited Suárez-Morales et al. (2009) as the source for the Gulf of Mexico record but their checklist only refers to Fiers and Rutledge’s (1990) record of F. mangalis from Louisiana. The latter authors also examined material from Guadeloupe, Papua New Guinea and Taal ( Bombón) Lake, a freshwater lake on the island of Luzon in the Philippines (Fiers, unpubl. data). Mielke (1981, 2003) found the species in a sandy beach in Bahía Academy (Santa Cruz), Galápagos . A single African outlier has been reported from the brackish coastal Ebrié Lagoon in Ivory Coast (Dumont and Maas 1988). The records by Rühe (1914) and Sewell (1924) refer to other species (see below).</p><p>Newton and Mitchell (1999) observed during estuarine mud incubation experiments that F. chathamensis developed to egg-bearing female stage in only six days at 20°C, suggesting that dormancy occurred at an advanced copepodid stage rather than the egg.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/82A839DBDD7436F1B24D06B6E6B84984	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Huys, Rony;Lee, Jimin	Huys, Rony, Lee, Jimin (2018): Philippiphonteaspidosoma gen. et sp. n., a radically divergent member of the Laophontidae from shell gravel in the East Sea, South Korea, including a review of Folioquinpes Fiers & Rutledge, 1990 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida). ZooKeys 775: 15-46, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.775.26404, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.775.26404
B86931023C5B01527D4678C03DD3C74E.text	B86931023C5B01527D4678C03DD3C74E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Folioquinpes chathamensis (Sars 1905) sensu Ruehe 1914	<div><p>Folioquinpes chathamensis (Sars, 1905) sensu Ruehe (1914)</p><p>Laophonte chathamensis Sars, 1905 sensu Rühe (1914)</p><p>Original description.</p><p>Rühe (1914): 33; fig. 11 (♀ only).</p><p>Type locality.</p><p>South Africa, Western Cape Province, Cape Town, Muizenberg, Sandvlei; freshwater lake.</p><p>Body length.</p><p>470-670 μm (♀) [ Rühe 1914].</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Rühe’s (1914) illustrations are limited to the P5 and the abdomen in dorsal aspect. Differences with F. chathamensis include the distinctly longer caudal rami, the reduced pleural extensions on the abdominal somites, and the setae on the P5 baseoendopod being distinctly longer. Rühe (1914) suspected that Sars (1905) had misinterpreted the apical blunt spine on the P5 exopod as a single element rather than two adjacent ones. Mielke’s (1981) illustration, which confirms Sars’s observation, indicates that the space between the two apical spines in Rühe’s fig. 11b is in reality the inner core of the basally dilated spine. We suspect that Rühe has misinterpreted as a real phenomenon what he has seen only in optical section. Pending the discovery of fresh material the Western Cape population attributed to Folioquinpes chathamensis is here regarded as a species inquirenda in the genus.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B86931023C5B01527D4678C03DD3C74E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Huys, Rony;Lee, Jimin	Huys, Rony, Lee, Jimin (2018): Philippiphonteaspidosoma gen. et sp. n., a radically divergent member of the Laophontidae from shell gravel in the East Sea, South Korea, including a review of Folioquinpes Fiers & Rutledge, 1990 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida). ZooKeys 775: 15-46, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.775.26404, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.775.26404
083DB0056B741F65BB46FDF244498760.text	083DB0056B741F65BB46FDF244498760.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Folioquinpes indicus	<div><p>Folioquinpes indicus sp. n.</p><p>Laophonte chathamensis Sars, 1905 sensu Sewell (1924)</p><p>Original description.</p><p>Sewell (1924 as Laophonte chathamensis): 830-832; Plate LVII, fig. 2 (♀ only).</p><p>Type material.</p><p>The original material collected by R.B. Seymour Sewell is no longer available for re-examination. In accordance with ICZN (1999) Arts 16.4 and 72.5.6 the female specimen illustrated by Sewell (1924) in his plate LVII (fig. 2) is here fixed as the holotype of F. indicus sp. n.</p><p>Type locality.</p><p>India, Odisha State, Chilika (Chilka) Lake; anchorage at Barkul due east; tow-nettings of brackish water plankton.</p><p>Body length.</p><p>400 μm (♀) [Sewell 1924].</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Females of F. indicus differ from those of F. chathamensis primarily in the morphology of the P5 exopod which is more oval, has three outer setae (instead of two) and a very short, blunt spine apically (Sewell may have missed the flagellate tip). Additional differences include the more slender P1 endopod (enp-1:enp-2 ratio 5.3 vs 4.6) and the shorter P4 enp-2 (enp-1:enp-2 ratio 1.1 vs 0.8).</p><p>The authenticity of other records from the Indian peninsula is unclear since none was accompanied by illustrations. Chappuis (1941) recorded Onychocamptus chathamensis from the River Sina and the River Bhima (near Pandharpur) in Maharashtra State, approximately 250 km inland from the Indian west coast. In a later report Chappuis (1954) added records from Mhaisgaon (River Sina) and Dabhol (Vashishti River), both in Maharashtra State, and from coastal lagoons in two districts of the Union Territory of Puducherry, i.e. Mayyazhi ( Mahé) and Karaikal, along the southwestern and southeastern coasts of the Indian peninsula, respectively. Folioquinpes chathamensis has recently been recorded from the middle and/or lower reaches of the River Godavari and River Krishna in Andhra Pradesh (Jayaram 1995; Ranga Reddy 2001, 2014; Ranga Reddy and Schminke 2009a - b; Ranga Reddy and Totakura 2010; Totakura et al. 2016). These hyporheic freshwater records, all from the east coast of India, most likely refer to F. indicus . Ranga Reddy (2002) reported " F. chathamensis " from a bore well on the Nagarjuna University campus, near Guntur town (Andhra Pradesh). The species is also known from Port Canning near Kolkata, West Bengal ( Forró and Dussart 1985).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/083DB0056B741F65BB46FDF244498760	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Huys, Rony;Lee, Jimin	Huys, Rony, Lee, Jimin (2018): Philippiphonteaspidosoma gen. et sp. n., a radically divergent member of the Laophontidae from shell gravel in the East Sea, South Korea, including a review of Folioquinpes Fiers & Rutledge, 1990 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida). ZooKeys 775: 15-46, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.775.26404, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.775.26404
9B104FF005FBDF971302257866CF34C6.text	9B104FF005FBDF971302257866CF34C6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Folioquinpes mangalis Fiers & Rutledge 1990	<div><p>Folioquinpes mangalis Fiers &amp; Rutledge, 1990</p><p>Original description.</p><p>Fiers and Rutledge (1990): 122-124; fig. 9.</p><p>Type locality.</p><p>Papua New Guinea, Capital District, Motupore Island; mangrove along northern shore; algae on pneumatophores.</p><p>Body length.</p><p>600 μm (♀), 400 μm (♂) [Fiers and Rutledge 1990].</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Folioquinpes mangalis differs from its congeners in the bilaterally incised cephalothorax and the more strongly developed P5 ♀ endopodal lobe which bears only two setae. The dense spinular ornamentation on the anterior surface of leg 5 has not been documented in other species of the genus. The species is similar to P. pseudomangalis sp. n. in the strongly depressed body, the distinct pleural extensions on the urosomites, the 4-segmented female antennule, the lack of the inner seta on P4 exp-2 (and P3 exp-2 but see below) and the presence of only two inner setae on P3 enp-2.</p><p>Fiers and Rutledge (1990) found two specimens with an inner seta on P3 exp-2; the absence of this seta appears to represent the normal condition. They also figured only two outer spines on P1 exp-2 (their figure 9g) but mentioned three in the text, which is here regarded as the correct condition.</p><p>Folioquinpes mangalis has been found on pneumatophores of mangrove trees along the southern (type locality) and northern coast (Sepik River delta) of Papua New Guinea and on Spartina alterniflora stems from marshes in Cocodrie, Louisiana (Fiers and Rutledge 1990; Rutledge and Fleeger 1993). It was subsequently found in samples of decaying leaves and sediment, from a Rhizophora apiculata -dominated mangrove forest bordering the Sungai Merbok estuary in north-western peninsular Malaysia (Gee and Somerfield 1997; Somerfield et al. 1998). Kim (2013) recently identified two specimens from Jeju Island, Korea as F. mangalis but this material is believed to represent a different species (see below).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9B104FF005FBDF971302257866CF34C6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Huys, Rony;Lee, Jimin	Huys, Rony, Lee, Jimin (2018): Philippiphonteaspidosoma gen. et sp. n., a radically divergent member of the Laophontidae from shell gravel in the East Sea, South Korea, including a review of Folioquinpes Fiers & Rutledge, 1990 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida). ZooKeys 775: 15-46, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.775.26404, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.775.26404
D2468F646F2D0260B607DE8D84B1C9EA.text	D2468F646F2D0260B607DE8D84B1C9EA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Folioquinpes pseudomangalis	<div><p>Folioquinpes pseudomangalis sp. n.</p><p>Folioquinpes mangalis Fiers &amp; Rutledge, 1990 sensu Kim (2013)</p><p>Original description.</p><p>Kim (2013 - as Folioquinpes mangalis): 38-43; figs 13-16.</p><p>Type locality.</p><p>Korea, Jeju Island, Aewol; washings of invertebrates and intertidal stones.</p><p>Type material.</p><p>In accordance with ICZN (1999) Arts 16.4 and 72.5.6 the female specimen illustrated by Kim (2013) in his fig. 13A is here fixed as the holotype of F. pseudomangalis sp. n.</p><p>Body length.</p><p>600 μm (♀), 400 μm (♂) [to be confirmed - see below].</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Kim (2013) copied Fiers and Rutledge’s (1990) text description virtually verbatim (with the exception of the mouthparts which were not described in the original account). This explains the discrepancies between Kim’s (2013) text and some of his illustrations and also casts doubt on the accuracy of the body length given for both sexes of the Korean specimens which is allegedly identical to that of F. mangalis .</p><p>Kim’s (2013) specimens are most similar to F. mangalis but differ from Fiers and Rutledge’s description in a number of characteristics, justifying their assignment to a distinct species: (a) cephalothorax not bilaterally incised, (b) caudal rami relatively shorter, (c) second antennulary segment ♀ without blunt process, (d) both exopod and endopod of P4 markedly less elongate, (e) ♀ P5 endopodal lobe with three setae and markedly shorter while exopod relatively more slender, and (f) ♀ P5 rami without dense spinular ornamentation on anterior surface.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D2468F646F2D0260B607DE8D84B1C9EA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Huys, Rony;Lee, Jimin	Huys, Rony, Lee, Jimin (2018): Philippiphonteaspidosoma gen. et sp. n., a radically divergent member of the Laophontidae from shell gravel in the East Sea, South Korea, including a review of Folioquinpes Fiers & Rutledge, 1990 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida). ZooKeys 775: 15-46, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.775.26404, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.775.26404
D28FD9422454A0573108FB522DEBDFFB.text	D28FD9422454A0573108FB522DEBDFFB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Philippiphonte aspidosoma	<div><p>Philippiphonte aspidosoma sp. n. Figs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7</p><p>Type locality.</p><p>South Korea, East Sea (Sea of Japan), Gajaebawi, Dokdo island (Liancourt Rocks), 37°14'49.37"N, 131°51'48.24"E, shell gravel, 22 m depth (Figure 1).</p><p>Type material. Holotype ♀ dissected on 11 slides (reg. no NIBRIV0000816435), allotype ♂ dissected on 11 slides (reg. no NIBRIV0000816434), remaining paratypes (9 ♀♀, 1 ♂) preserved in formalin (reg. no NIBRIV0000816433). All type specimens were collected on 23 April 2015 from the type locality and are deposited in the National Biological Resources Center (NIBR), Incheon.</p><p>Additional material examined.</p><p>1 ♂ from Mulgol, Dokdo island, 37°14'35.16"N, 131°51'51.37"E, 15 m depth, 27 June 2015 (reg. no MInRB-Hr15-L001); 1 ♂ from the old harbour of Dokdo island, 37°14'27.31"N, 131°52'16.69"E, 12 m depth, 27 June 2015 (reg. no MInRB-Hr15-L002); 2 ♀♀, 4 ♂♂, 24 August 2016 from type locality (Figure 1) (reg. no MInRB-Hr15-L003). All specimens are deposited in the collections of the Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology (KIOST), Busan.</p><p>Description of female.</p><p>Body length from anterior margin of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami 536-612 μm (mean = 574 μm; n = 12; holotype = 552 μm); maximum width measured at level of leg 3-bearing somite: 338 μm (in holotype). Body (Figure 2A) extremely dorsoventrally flattened, porcellidiid-like; except for digestive tract and ovaries completely transparent; dorsal surface of all somites covered with minute setules and denticles (not illustrated); ventral surface of urosomites without surface ornamentation (except for spinule rows around posterior margin). Rostrum large, prominent in dorsal aspect, inverted trapezoid; anterior margin slightly convex, anterolateral corners each with sensillum. Cephalothoracic shield broadly bell-shaped, about 1.5 times wider than long; lateral margins fringed with closely set spinules; dorsal surface with symmetrical pattern of sensilla; posterior margin with setules and spinules. Pedigerous somites bearing legs 2-4 with strongly developed pleurotergites, those of leg 4-bearing somite backwardly produced and embracing leg 5-bearing somite and anterior half of genital double-somite; each provided with strong spinules along lateral margins and shorter spinules along posterior margin; sensillar pattern as illustrated. Leg 5-bearing somite reduced, without marked pleurotergites; posterior margin with spinules dorsally and setules dorsolaterally. Genital double-somite completely fused; original segmentation marked by sensillar pattern, faint dorsal suture and paired arrangement of backwardly directed pleurotergites, each fringed with long spinules laterally and shorter spinules or setules posteriorly; anterior pair larger than posterior pair; ventral posterior margin with paired rows of tiny spinules (Figure 3A). Second and third abdominal somites with lobate pleurotergites, those of penultimate somite embracing anal somite and anterior half of caudal rami; dorsal and lateral ornamentation as in previous somites; ventral posterior margin with paired rows of tiny spinules (Figure 3A). Anal somite without expanded pleurotergites (Figs 2A; 4 A–B); dorsal surface with paired tube-pores and sensilla flanking rounded, naked anal operculum; ventral surface with two pairs of tube-pores and tiny spinules near bases of caudal rami; anal frill triradiate, well developed, provided with long setular extensions.</p><p>Caudal rami (Figure 4 A–B) flattened, about 2.2 times longer than maximum width, with straight outer and markedly convex inner margin; with elaborate ornamentation consisting of strong, medially directed spinules along inner margin, finer spinules along outer margin, and two spinule rows in anterior half of ventral surface. Armature consisting of seven setae, all of which located near posterior margin of ramus; seta I minute, positioned dorsally near naked seta II; seta III located at outer distal corner, naked; setae IV–V with fracture planes and fused at base; seta IV sparsely pinnate, about 18% of body length; seta V very long, about 3.5 times length of seta IV (Figure 2A), with minute spinules in middle third and sparse setules in distal quarter; seta VI located at inner distal corner; seta VII located near posterior margin of ramus, tri-articulate at base and sparsely plumose in distal third.</p><p>Antennule (Figure 2B) 5-segmented, slender; without spinous processes on segments 1-2; segment 1 with setules along anterior and ventral distal margin, those on the latter being particularly long; anterior margin of segments 2 and 3 (proximal half only) with short setules; segment 3 longest, about 2.4 times as long as segment 1 (measured along anterior margin), with aesthetasc (114 μm) arising from socle and fused at base to long naked seta. Armature formula 1-[1 plumose], 2-[4 + 4 plumose], 3-[5 + 2 plumose + (1 + ae)], 4-[1], 5-[8 + acrothek]; apical acrothek consisting of two basally fused setae, aesthetasc not observed.</p><p>Antenna (Figure 2C) with allobasis, bearing two spinule rows and slender unipinnate seta along abexopodal margin. Exopod 1-segmented, with two lateral and two apical bipinnate setae (outer one slightly spiniform). Free endopod with two spines and one seta laterally, and distal armature consisting of two geniculate setae, one long (fused at base to vestigial seta) and two short pinnate spines.</p><p>Mandible (Figure 3B) with slender gnathobase bearing several multicuspidate teeth and one unipinnate seta. Palp small, comprising basis with incorporated rami; armature of basis represented by one plumose seta originating from small articulating socle; endopod represented by one short and two long plumose setae; exopod represented by one sparsely pinnate seta.</p><p>Maxillule (Figure 3C) with well-developed syncoxal arthrite bearing two spinule rows on posterior surface and total of eight elements along distal margin. Coxal endite with one naked seta and one unipinnate spine. Basis without defined rami; armature represented by one lateral and three distal setae (innermost of which spiniform and unipinnate).</p><p>Maxilla (Figure 3D). Syncoxa with spinules along distal outer margin and two coxal endites; proximal endite with naked seta and basally fused unipinnate spine, distal endite with two setae of which innermost one fused at base. Allobasis produced into distally unipinnate claw, with accessory armature consisting of small naked seta and unipinnate spiniform element. Endopod represented by a minute segment with two basally fused setae.</p><p>Maxilliped (Figure 3E) elongate and slender. Syncoxa with one sparsely plumose seta and tuft of long setules near distal inner corner and additional inner setules around base. Basis without ornamentation except for few spinules near outer distal corner. Endopod represented by acutely recurved claw with minute accessory seta at its base.</p><p>Leg 1 (Figure 3F) with very wide and narrow intercoxal sclerite. Basis with sparsely plumose inner (anterior) and outer seta. Exopod 3-segmented, all segments of about equal size; exp-1 with long outer spine, extending beyond distal margin of exp-3 and bearing stiff spinules (gradually increasing in size distally) along its outer margin; exp-2 and -3 wider than long, with tuft of setules along inner margin; exp-2 with outer spine being unipinnate in its distal half; exp-3 with two unipinnate spines and two geniculate setae (pinnules restricted to apical parts of elements). Endopod 2-segmented, prehensile; enp-1 elongate, about five times as long as wide, unarmed, with long spinules along proximal half of inner margin; enp-2 with short, acutely recurved claw, outer distal corner with few spinules but accessory seta not discernible.</p><p>Legs 2-4 (P2-P4) (Figs 4 C–D; 5A) with widely separated members connected by narrow intercoxal sclerites. Praecoxae represented by small U-shaped sclerite. Coxae with spinular ornamentation on anterior surface as figured. Bases transversally elongate, becoming progressively longer from P2 to P4; outer margin with setules (P2) or multiple rows of spinules (P3-P4); with long (P2-P3) or short (P4) outer seta, bipinnate in P2 only; anterior surface with tube-pore. Exopods 3-segmented; exp-1 without inner seta; inner margin of exp-1 and -2 with few long setules; outer margin of all segments with spinular ornamentation as figured; P3 exp-3 with tube-pore on anterior surface; outer exopodal spines typically unipinnate in distal half only (except for outer spine of exp-1 and proximal outer spine on exp-3 of P4 being bipinnate); inner setae very long and plumose. Endopods 2-segmented; enp-1 unarmed, shorter than enp-2, with setules along both inner and outer margins; outer margin of enp-2 with double row of flimsy setular extensions; outer distal spine of P3 enp-2 bipinnate. Spine and setal formulae of swimming legs as for genus.</p><p>Leg 5 (Figure 3A) consisting of baseoendopod and 1-segmented exopod. Baseoendopod subcylindrical and elongate (about 8.5 times as long as average width), backwardly recurved and fused at base to pleural wall of somite; bearing outer basal seta arising from short setophore (located dorsally); endopodal armature consisting of long seta located at about two-thirds the segment length, and two closely set, minute setae originating near boundary with exopod; all setae naked; proximal third with tube-pore on ventral surface. Exopod about one third the size of baseoendopod; inner margin with one bipinnate and one unipinnate seta, distal margin with long plumose and short naked seta.</p><p>Genital field (Figure 3A) located in anterior third of genital double-somite, near border with leg 5-bearing somite. Genital apertures closed off by opercula derived from vestigial sixth legs, each bearing two minute, naked setae. Copulatory pore median, of moderate size. Egg-sac not observed.</p><p>Description of male.</p><p>Slightly smaller than female; body length from anterior margin of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami 461-527 μm (mean = 489 μm; n = 8; allotype = 523 μm); maximum width measured near posterior margin of cephalothorax: 315 μm (in allotype). Body (Figure 6A) of similar shape, transparency and with virtually identical ornamentation as in female. Rostrum comparatively narrower than in female and with virtually straight anterior margin. Genital and first abdominal somites completely free; posterior margin of former with continuous row of short spinules or setules posteriorly; lobate pleurotergites of genital somite more slender than in female. Anal somite and caudal rami (Figure 5 B–D) as in female.</p><p>Antennule (Figure 6B) 8-segmented, subchirocerate, with geniculation between segments 5 and 6; without spinous processes on segments 1-2. Segment 1 as in female; anterior margin of segments 2 and 3 (proximal half only) with setules; segment 4 represented by an incomplete U-shaped sclerite; segment 5 swollen, with large aesthetasc (125 μm) arising from socle and fused at base to long naked seta; segments 5 and 6 with setae modified into basally fused spinous processes. Armature formula 1-[1 plumose], 2-[4 + 5 plumose], 3-[7 + 1 plumose], 4-[2], 5-[8 + 2 spinulose + 2 spinous processes + (1 + ae)], 6-[2 spinous processes], 7-[1], 8-[7 + acrothek]; apical acrothek consisting of two basally fused setae, aesthetasc not observed.</p><p>Leg 3 (Figure 6C) with 3-segmented endopod. Enp-1 shortest, with few setules on both outer and inner margins. Enp-2 forming slender, outwardly recurved, spinous apophysis (homologue of outer distal spine of enp-2 in female) provided with barb along inner margin and minute projections near apex; setules present on both outer and inner margins. Enp-3 with one inner and two apical plumose setae.</p><p>Leg 5 (Figure 5E) consisting of baseoendopod and 1-segmented exopod. Baseoendopod elongate, backwardly recurved and fused to pleural wall of somite; bearing outer basal seta arising from short setophore (located dorsally); endopodal armature consisting of two closely set, vestigial setae near boundary with exopod; proximal third with tube-pore on ventral surface. Exopod about one third the size of baseoendopod; inner margin with one strong, bipinnate seta, distal margin with one long and one short naked seta.</p><p>Sixth legs (P6) (Figure 5B) asymmetrical with functional right member articulating at base and closing off genital aperture and left member fused at base to genital somite; each vestigial sixth leg with minute naked seta. Spermatophore oval, relatively small (65 μm).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is derived from the Greek άσπίς, meaning shield, and σῶμα, meaning body, and alludes to the dorsoventrally flattened shield-shaped body form.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D28FD9422454A0573108FB522DEBDFFB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Huys, Rony;Lee, Jimin	Huys, Rony, Lee, Jimin (2018): Philippiphonteaspidosoma gen. et sp. n., a radically divergent member of the Laophontidae from shell gravel in the East Sea, South Korea, including a review of Folioquinpes Fiers & Rutledge, 1990 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida). ZooKeys 775: 15-46, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.775.26404, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.775.26404
D6DA941E5895B0A357FAB16005C90E61.text	D6DA941E5895B0A357FAB16005C90E61.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Philippiphonte	<div><p>Genus Philippiphonte gen. n.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Laophontidae . Body extremely dorsoventrally flattened, porcellidiid-like. Distinct sexual dimorphism in size, urosomal segmentation, antennule, P3 endopod, P5, and P6. Rostrum large, inverted trapezoid; anterior margin slightly convex in ♀, virtually straight in ♂. Cephalothoracic shield broadly bell-shaped; lateral margins fringed with closely set spinules. Pedigerous somites bearing legs 2-4 with strongly developed pleurotergites, those of leg 4-bearing somite backwardly produced and embracing leg 5-bearing somite and anterior half of genital double-somite; each provided with strong spinules along lateral margins. Leg 5-bearing somite reduced, without marked pleurotergites. Genital double-somite completely fused. Second and third abdominal somites with lobate pleurotergites, those of penultimate somite embracing anal somite and anterior half of caudal rami. Anal somite without expanded pleurotergites; operculum naked. Caudal rami flattened, longer than wide, with straight outer and markedly convex inner margin; with medially directed spinules along inner margin and finer spinules along outer margin; with seven setae, all of which located near posterior margin of ramus; setae IV–V with fracture planes and fused at base.</p><p>Antennule slender, 5-segmented and with aesthetasc on segment 3 in ♀, subchirocerate, 8-segmented and with aesthetasc on segment 5 in ♂; without spinous processes on segments 1-2; segments 1-3 with setules along anterior margin; segment 3 elongate in ♀. Antenna with allobasis bearing unipinnate seta along abexopodal margin. Exopod 1-segmented, with four elements. Mandible with slender gnathobase; palp small, comprising unisetose basis with incorporated endopod and discrete exopod, armed with three and one seta(e), respectively. Maxillule without defined rami; armature of palp represented by one lateral and three distal setae. Maxilla with two coxal endites; endopod with two setae. Maxilliped elongate and slender; syncoxa with one seta; endopod represented by acutely recurved claw with minute accessory seta at its base.</p><p>Legs 1-4 with very wide and narrow intercoxal sclerites. Leg 1 with sparsely plumose inner and outer seta on basis; exopod 3-segmented with long outer spine on exp-1, extending beyond distal margin of exp-3 and bearing stiff spinules along its outer margin; exp-2 with outer unipinnate spine; exp-3 with two unipinnate spines and two geniculate setae; endopod 2-segmented, prehensile, enp-1 unarmed, enp-2 with short claw but accessory seta not discernible. Legs 2-4 with transversally elongate bases, with long (P2-P3) or short (P4) outer seta; with 3-segmented exopods and 2-segmented endopods (except for P3 endopod 3-segmented in ♂); outer exopodal spines typically unipinnate in distal half only, inner setae very long and plumose; outer margin of P2-P4 enp-2 with double row of flimsy setular extensions. Leg 3 ♂ with outwardly recurved, spinous apophysis on enp-2; enp-3 with one inner and two apical setae. Armature formulae:</p><p>Leg 5 biramous; baseoendopod very elongate, backwardly recurved, with outer basal seta arising from short dorsal setophore; endopodal armature represented by three setae in ♀ and one seta in ♂; exopod with four elements in ♀ and three elements in ♂.</p><p>Genital field ♀ located near border with leg 5-bearing somite. P6 forming well developed operculum with two small setae in ♀; asymmetrical in ♂ (with dextral or sinistral configuration), with outer distal corner bearing one minute seta.</p><p>Type species. Philippiphonte aspidosoma gen. et sp. n. (by original designation).</p><p>Etymology. The genus is dedicated to Rudolph Amandus Philippi (14 September 1808-23 July 1904), author of the type genus Laophonte Philippi, 1840 and of the first publication to adopt the term “copepod” in its title (Philippi 1843). Many of Philippi’s (1840, 1843) generic names such as Aenippe, Euryte, Idomene, Idya (= Tisbe), Metis, Oncaea, Psamathe (= Scutellidium) and Thyone (= Porcellidium) were named after figures of Ancient Greek mythology and so was also Laophonte, named after a daughter of Pleuron, and the wife of Thestius, by whom she had Althaea and Leda.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D6DA941E5895B0A357FAB16005C90E61	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Huys, Rony;Lee, Jimin	Huys, Rony, Lee, Jimin (2018): Philippiphonteaspidosoma gen. et sp. n., a radically divergent member of the Laophontidae from shell gravel in the East Sea, South Korea, including a review of Folioquinpes Fiers & Rutledge, 1990 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida). ZooKeys 775: 15-46, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.775.26404, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.775.26404
