identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03EB87C86F6DFFDEFF30FABAA05977B6.text	03EB87C86F6DFFDEFF30FABAA05977B6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Allocypria Rome 1962	<div><p>Genus Allocypria Rome, 1962</p> <p>1962 Allocypria Rome: 83.— Type species: Allocypria inclinata Rome, 1962 (by original designation).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Carapace reniform, often with elongated posterior end, and sometimes terminating with sharply pointed postero-ventral margin. Distal ends of ovaries curved upwards (see the illustration on the Figure 5A, I). Marginal pore canals often well-pronounced. A1 7-segmented, male A2 with subdivided penultimate segment and with male sensory bristles (t2 and t3) developed. Swimming setae on A2 long, well exceeding distal end of terminal claws. Terminal segment of Md usually square, sometimes with L:W ratio more than 2:1. Terminal segment of Mxl palp square, endites usually with strongly serrated teeth. Prehensile palps asymmetrical. T2 with basal seta (d1). T3 4- segmented with basal segment carrying all setae (“d1”, “d2” and “dp”). Setae “e” and “f” long, reaching half length of the proceeding segments; seta “g” very short. Terminal segment short, with short “h1” and “h2” setae and long “h3” seta. Caudal ramus completely developed. Hemipenis with two lobes (“a” and “b”) both being quite thin and elongated; Zenker organ with 7 whorls of spines. Genital field in female without any extensions.</p> <p>Type species. Allocypria inclinata Rome, 1962.</p> <p>Other species. A. aberrans Rome, 1962; A. claviformis (Sars, 1910); A. mucronata Rome, 1962; A. navicula Rome, 1962.</p> <p>Remarks and affinities. The genus Allocypria Rome, 1962 has the broadest diagnosis of all genera in the subfamily Cyclocypridinae. It is, however, most closely related to the genus Physocypria Vávra, 1897, with which it shares a similar carapace shape, similar shape of prehensile palps and hemipenis, as well as the same chaetotaxy of T2 and T3. The main difference is the orientation of the ovaries which have the distal ends curved upwards in Allocypria.</p> <p>The species Paracypria curta Sars, 1910, P. flexuosa Sars, 1910, P. humilis Sars, 1910, and P. reniformis Sars, 1910 were described by Sars (1910) from Lake Tanganyika and were originally assigned to the genus Paracypria Sars, 1905. A marine species, Paracypria tenuis Sars, 1905 was chosen as type species by Sars (1910). However, this species is not closely related to the species described from Lake Tanganyika but to the species of the subfamily Paracypridinae, because of the 5-segmented cleaning leg, absence of the posterior seta on the UR, and peculiar appearance of the hemipenis, and also it is a marine species. Most of the species described by Sars (1910) in the genus Paracypria from this lake were transferred into the genus Mecynocypria by Rome (1962), but not the four species mentioned above. Although, based on the drawings of Sars (1910) they most probably belong to the genus Allocypria, there is not sufficient information (such as the morphology of the Mxl and the presence of serrated claws on its endites) to formally assign these species into Allocypria. Rome (1962) included A. aberrans in the genus although the endites on the Mxl do not have strongly serrated claws. It needs to be pointed out that the genus Allocypria requires a revision based on the study of the type material.</p> <p>Distribution. The genus is endemic to Lake Tanganyika.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F6DFFDEFF30FABAA05977B6	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F6CFFDEFF30FCF5A6857176.text	03EB87C86F6CFFDEFF30FCF5A6857176.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Allocypria Rome 1962	<div><p>Key to species of the genus Allocypria Rome, 1962.</p> <p>1 Postero-ventral margin of carapace pointed................................................................. 2</p> <p>- Postero-ventral margin of the carapace rounded.............................................................. 3</p> <p>2 In lateral view posterior margin evenly rounded......................................... A. mucronata Rome, 1962</p> <p>- In lateral view posterior margin bulging.............................................. A. claviformis (Sars, 1010)</p> <p>3 Claws on the endites of Mxl smooth................................................... A. aberrans Rome, 1962</p> <p>- Claws on the endites of Mxl strongly serrated............................................ A. navicula Rome, 1962</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F6CFFDEFF30FCF5A6857176	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F6CFFD2FF30FBA5A1CC7746.text	03EB87C86F6CFFD2FF30FBA5A1CC7746.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cyclocypris Brady & Norman 1889	<div><p>Genus Cyclocypris Brady &amp; Norman, 1889</p> <p>1889 Cyclocypris Brady &amp; Norman: 70.— Type species: Cypris globosa Sars, 1863 (by monotypy)</p> <p>1941 Cyclocypria Dobbin: 235.— Type species: Cyclocypria kincaidia Dobbin, 1941 (by monotypy)</p> <p>1949 Cyclocypris (Leucocypris) Jančařík: 10.— Type species: Cypris (Leucocypris) drastichi Jančařík, 1949 (by monotypy).</p> <p>1995 Cyclocypris (Laevicypris) Krstić: 37.— Type species: Cyclocypris laevis (O. F. Müller, 1776) (by original designation).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Carapace short when seen laterally, ovate in dorsal view, with greatest H and W exceeding ½ L. LV overlaps RV both dorsally, frontally and ventrally, or RV overlaps LV. A1 7-segmented. Penultimate segment of A 2 in male subdivided, but t2 and t3 setae not transformed into sexual bristles. Terminal segment of Md palp rather short, L:W ratio being 2:1. Terminal segment of Mxl palp square. Prehensile palps asymmetrical to different degrees. T2 with basal seta, (“d1”) present, same appendage 5-segmented. T3 4-segmented. Basal segment with d1, d2 and d3 setae developed. Penultimate segment not subdivided, “e”, “f”, and “g” setae long. Terminal segment elongated more than 3 times longer than wide. Setae “h1” and “h2” short, “h3” long. Caudal ramus completely developed, hemipenis with lobes “a”, “b”, and “h” developed. Lobe “a” and “b” being short and stubby. Genital field without any extensions. Zenker organ with 7 whorls of spines.</p> <p>Type species. Cyclocypris globosa (Sars, 1863).</p> <p>Other species. C. ampla Furtos, 1933; C. brevisetosa Bronstein, 1928; C. diebeli Absolon, 1973; C. globosa (Sars, 1863); C. forbesi Sharpe, 1897 [C. washingtoniensis Dobbin, 1941 syn. nov.]; C. laevis (O. F. Müller, 1776); C. mediosetosa Meisch, 1987; C. modesta (Herrick, 1887); C. nahcotta Dobbin, 1941; C. ovum (Jurine, 1820); C. pusilla Sars, 1895; C. scrobiculata Klie, 1936; C. serena (Koch, 1838); C. sharpei Furtos, 1933 [C. cruciata Furtos, 1935 syn. nov.]; C. vinyardi Külköylüoğlu, 2008.</p> <p>Remarks and affinities. The genus Cyclocypris is most closely related to Kempfcyclocypris gen. nov., with which it shares a similar chaetotaxy of the male A2, T2 and T3, and the appearance of the prehensile palps. Both genera lack the sexual bristles on the second antenna, and they have a basal seta on the T2, a long “g” seta on the T3. On the other hand, they differ in the number of segments on A1 (6-segments in the new genus, 7 in Cyclocypris), and the appearance of hemipenis, but in both genera lobes are short and stubby. Also, the terminal segment of T3 is much more elongated in Cyclocypris species than in Kempfcyclocypris. From all other genera, Cyclocypris differs in the appearance of hemipenis. Namely lobes “a” and “b” are thin and elongated in all other genera of Cyclocypridinae, except in Kempfcyclocypris. Other differences are the elongated terminal segment on the T 3 in Cyclocypris and long “g” seta on the same appendage, which is very short, if not even absent, in the other genera of the subfamily Cyclocypridinae.</p> <p>The species Cyclocypria kincaidia Dobbin, 1941 and Cyclocypris wyomingensis Ferguson, 1966 were not included in the key to species of the genus Cyclocypris. The first species was described from Lake Washington (Dobbin 1941), as the type and the only species of the genus Cyclocypria Dobbin, 1941. However, the species was described after juvenile specimens, and the differential diagnosis, which concerns the chaetotaxy of T3 is an artefact of specimens being an early instar. This was already noticed by Dobbin-Evenson (1969) who placed the species in the genus Cyclocypris. The original description and drawings of C. wyomingensis simply do not have enough information to give this species a correct phylogenetical position within the genus, and it extremely resembles C. laevis (O. F. Müller, 1776). Külköylüoĝlu (2008) has examined the type material, but unfortunately, the little additional descriptions he provided (based on the parts he was able to observe), still do not give enough differential characters for the species. It has to be pointed out that what Külköylüoĝlu (2008) observed was quite different from Ferguson’s (1966) description of C. wyomingensis. Dobbin (1941) described C. washingtoniensis, which was re-examined by Külköylüoğlu (2008). The latter author postulated that this might be a synonym of C. forbesi, but he did not formally synonymise the species. After rechecking several slides deposited at the SMNH (see Material Examined) I here formally synonymise C. washingtoniensis with C. forbesi, based, most of all on the characteristic appearance of the prehensile palps (Figure 1A). Unfortunately, all the slides are in a very poor condition, so additional drawings could not be provided.</p> <p>The species C. cruciata Furtos, 1935, described from Massachusetts (Furtos 1935), is here synonymised with C. sharpei Furtos, 1933, described from Ohio. According to Furtos (1935) C. cruciata differs from C. sharpei in the length of carapace and the presence of the small plates, named “platelets” by Matzke-Karasz et al. (2004) along the anterior end of the RV, which are also present in C. diebeli Absolon, 1973. The appearance of the soft parts of C. cruciata and C. sharpei are extremely similar (Figure 1B–E). Both species miss the posterior seta on the UR, have long anterior seta on the ramus, and have the same hemipenis (only in C. sharpei lobe “a” is slightly more curved towards interior side, what can be due to the slide preparation). Külköylüoğlu (2008) was able to see only the left valve from the collection of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, where the type material is deposited. After examining the type material of both species including both LV (Figure 1F, H) and RV (Figure 1G, I), I came to the conclusion that both C. sharpei and C. cruciata have a normal hyaline flange along the margin of both RV and LV. What probably confused Furtos (1935) is the way marginal setae on the RV are curved, giving the appearance of the “divided” hyaline flange (Figure 1G). Unfortunately, slides of C. cruciata are in a poor condition and I am unable to provide additional drawings.</p> <p>Henry (1923) described Cyclocypris tenuissima Henry, 1923 from an unknown locality in New South Wales. The species description is very short and the drawings imprecise, but it is obvious that the species Henry (1923) was dealing with does not belong in to the subfamily Cyclocypridinae. The posterior seta on the UR is in this species positioned very close to the distal margin, a feature not present in the subfamily. Beside, the UR itself is very thin and long. It is more likely that this species belongs to the family Cyprididae.</p> <p>Two species have been described from South Africa: Cyclocypris pusilla Sars, 1895 and C. castanea Brady, 1913, and they are the only two representatives of the genus found out of the Holarctic. Sars (1895) gave a short description and provided only two drawings of the carapace, according to which C. pusilla resembles a lot C. ovum (Jurine, 1820) (Figure 2A, B). Although the type material I have examined consists of a poorly preserved slide and two specimens in alcohol, there are a couple of differences that clearly separate C. pusilla from C. ovum. First of all, the terminal segment of the T3 is conspicuously elongated (Figure 2E), but the h1 seta is, like in C. ovum, “S”- shaped. There are some differences in the appearance of the hemipenis, lobe “a” being much smaller in the South African species (Figure 2F). The T2 (Figure 2C) has the typical morphology of the subfamily, while the UR (Figure 2D) is elongated and very similar to that of C. ovum. Cyclocypris castanea Brady, 1913 is not included in the key to species and is listed at the end of the paper. This species has conspicuously long marginal pore canals and a highly arched dorsal carapace margin, but further study of the material is important to properly evaluate this species. Klugh (1923) described two Cyclocypris species from Canada: C. castanea Klugh, 1923 and C. lutea Klugh, 1923. The first one is a homonym, but since the taxonomic position of both Canadian species is doubtful, they are only listed at the end of the paper.</p> <p>Cyclocypris helokrenica Fuhrmann &amp; Pietrzeniuk, 1990 is very closely related to C. ovum, and although Meisch (2000) provides a couple of diagnostic characters for this species, his opinion is that “more research is needed to confirm or invalidate the taxonomic validity of these characters”. This species is also listed at the end of the paper and was not included in the keys. It needs to be mentioned here that species already synonymised in the more recent publications (i.e. Meisch, 2000) are not considered here, because I agree with the systematic decisions of their authors.</p> <p>Distribution: Except for C. ovum and C. laevis, which are known from all around the Holarctic, other species have much more restricted distributions (Figure 3).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F6CFFD2FF30FBA5A1CC7746	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F60FFD5FF30FA74A68274CE.text	03EB87C86F60FFD5FF30FA74A68274CE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cyclocypris Brady & Norman 1889	<div><p>Key to species of the genus Cyclocypris Brady &amp; Norman, 1889.</p> <p>1 In dorsal view LV overlaps RV anteriorly................................................................... 2</p> <p>- In dorsal view RV overlaps LV anteriorly................................................................... 6</p> <p>2 Posterior seta on the UR long, i.e. exceeding distal margin................................. C. scrobiculata Klie, 1936</p> <p>- Posterior seta on the UR short, i.e. not reaching distal margin, or even absent...................................... 3</p> <p>3 Posterior seta on the UR strongly reduced or absent........................................ C. sharpei Furtos, 1933</p> <p>- Posterior seta on the UR short............................................................................ 4</p> <p>4 Seta “e” on T2 long, exceeding terminal segment........................................ C. nahcotta Dobbin, 1941</p> <p>- Seta “e” on T2 not reaching distal end of penultimate segment................................................. 5</p> <p>5 Anterior margin of the RV with a row of small rectangular plates............................. C. diebeli Absolon, 1978</p> <p>- No such plates present........................................................... C. laevis (O. F. Müller, 1776)</p> <p>6 Swimming setae on A2 not reaching tips of terminal claws..................................................... 7</p> <p>- Swimming setae on A2 by far exceeding tips of terminal claws................................................. 8</p> <p>7 Swimming setae on A2 reaching only distal end of penultimate segment.................. C. brevisetosa Bronstein, 1928</p> <p>- Swimming setae on A2 reaching middle of terminal claws.............................. C. mediosetosa Meisch, 1987</p> <p>8 Carapace elongated, posterior end narrower than anterior in lateral view..................... C. modesta (Herrick, 1887)</p> <p>- Carapace globular, posterior end as wide as anterior end in lateral view........................................... 9</p> <p>9. Terminal segment of the T3 5 times longer than wide......................................... C. pusilla Sars, 1895</p> <p>- Terminal segment on the T3 less than 5 times longer than wide................................................ 10 10 Body of prehensile palps medially constricted............................................................. 11</p> <p>- Body of prehensile palps not medially constricted........................................................... 12</p> <p>11 Dorsal margin highly arched.................................................... C. vinyardi Külköylüoğlu, 2008</p> <p>- Dorsal margin evenly rounded......................................................... C. forbesi Sharpe, 1897</p> <p>12 Finger of the right prehensile palp with a long dorsal margin, having almost square appearance...... C. globosa (Sars, 1863)</p> <p>- Finger of the right prehensile palp with short and rounded dorsal margin.......................................... 3</p> <p>13 The shortest seta on terminal segment of T3 (seta h1) “S” shaped............................. C. ovum (Jurine, 1820)</p> <p>- The shortest seta on terminal segment of T3 (seta h1) only slightly curved....................................... 14</p> <p>14 Lobe “a” on the hemipenis quadrangular................................................. C. serena (Koch, 1838)</p> <p>- Lobe “a” on the hemipenis triangular..................................................... C. ampla Furtos, 1933</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F60FFD5FF30FA74A68274CE	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F67FFCCFF30FDEFA28675AE.text	03EB87C86F67FFCCFF30FDEFA28675AE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cypria Zenker 1854	<div><p>Genus Cypria Zenker, 1854</p> <p>1854 Cypris (Cypria) Zenker: 77.— Type species: Cypris (Cypria) exsculpta (subsequent designation by Brady &amp; Norman 1889)</p> <p>1889 Cypria s. l. Brady &amp; Norman: 68.</p> <p>1891 Cypria s. str. Vávra: 62.</p> <p>1933 Candocypria Furtos: 458, Pl. 8, Figs 13–17; Pl. 14, Figs 22–23. [syn. nov.]</p> <p>1987 Bentocypria Kovalenko: 99.— Type species: Cypria curvifurcata Klie, 1923 (original designation) [syn. nov]</p> <p>Diagnosis. Carapace short, laterally compressed. Margins of both valves smooth or sometimes with tubercles. Distal ends of ovaries curved upwards (Figure 5A, I) A1 7-segmented. A 2 in males with t2 and t3 setae transformed into sexual setae. Terminal segment of Md palp several times longer than broad. Terminal segment of Mxl palp square. Prehensile palps asymmetrical. Basal segment of T2 without d1 seta, same appendage with short or long “e” seta. T3 with all three setae present on basal segment, setae “e” and “f” long, seta “g” very short. Terminal segment not more than two times longer than broad, same segment with two short (h1 and h2) and one long (h3) seta. Caudal ramus completely developed, hemipenis with only two lobes (“a” and “b”), genital field in females often with processes. Zenker organ with 7 whorls of spines.</p> <p>Type species. Cypria exsculpta (Fischer, 1855).</p> <p>Other Species. C. bicolor Petkovski &amp; Meisch, 1994; C. biwaense Okubo, 1990; C. brevisetigera Cole, 1965; C. cavernae Wagenleitner, 1990; C. crenulata Sars, 1903; C. curvifurcata Klie, 1923; C. denticulata Daday, 1905; C. dentifera Sharp, 1897; C. devai Arora, 1932; C. dumonti (Martens, 1982) comb. nov.; C. exquisita Furtos, 1936; C. furfuracea (Brady, 1886); C. gibbera Furtos, 1936; C. globula Furtos, 1933; C. granadae (Hartmann, 1959) comb. nov; C. inequivalva Turner, 1893; C. inflata (Furtos, 1933) comb. nov.; C. inversa Klie, 1941; C. javana Müller, 1906; C. karamani Petkovski, 1976; C. kerkyrensis (Klie, 1936) comb. nov.; C. konishii Smith &amp; Kamiya, 2006; C. kraepelini (Müller, 1903) comb. nov.; C. larensis (Hartmann, 1964) comb. nov.; C. lubeziensis Kovalenko, 1982; C. maculata Hoff, 1942; C. matzkeae Smith &amp; Janz, 2008; C. mediana Hoff, 1942; C. minicapensis (Green, 1962) comb. nov.; C. minuta (Victor &amp; Michael, 1975) comb. nov.; C. mons (Chambers, 1887); C. obesa Sharpe, 1897; C. nipponica Okubo, 1990; C. obliqua Klie,1939; C. ophtalmica (Jurine, 1820) s.l.; C. osburni (Furtos, 1933) comb. nov.; C. palustera Furtos, 1935; C. polessica Kovalenko, 1982; C. posterotuberculata Furtos, 1935; C. pseudocrenulata Furtos, 1936; C. pusilla Sars, 1896; C. pustulosa Sharpe, 1897; C. reptans Bronstein, 1928; C. sharmai Battish, 1985; C. sketi Petkovski, 1976; C. spinifera Tressler, 1937; C. subsala Redeke, 1936; C. sywulae Meisch, 2000; C. turneri Hoff, 1942.</p> <p>Remarks and affinities. Furtos (1933) described the genus Candocypria from Ohio, to accommodate C. osburni Furtos, 1933, a species with reduced swimming setae. Cole (1965) argues about the validity of the Furtos’ genus, based on the fact that the length of the swimming setae on the A2 is variable and species with shorter swimming setae have been found in other genera. However, Cole (1965) did not synonymise the genus Candocypria with Cypria. Later, Kovalenko (1987) described the genus Bentocypria to include the following recent species: Cypria curvifurcata Klie, 1923; C. lata Dubowski, 1929; and C. polessica Kovalenko, 1982, assigning C. curvifurcata as the type species of the genus. The genus was based on the same characteristics as Candocypria.</p> <p>Both Candocypria and Bentocypria are synonymised with the genus Cypria, because the length of swimming setae varies in the genus Cypria from very short (less than half the length of the penultimate segment) to very long (by far exceeding the tips of terminal claws). This character alone is not enough to justify the genus Candocypria. Cypria lata is here listed at the end of the paper as it may be a junior synonym of C. curvifurcata, because of the same appearance of the carapace and the soft parts, however, more material is needed to prove this assumtions. Cypria fontana, described from Tennessee (Cole 1965), is very similar with C. osburni (Furtos, 1933), the only difference being in the L of carapace (C. fontana 0.56 mm, C. osburni 0.97 mm). They have the same carapace appearance and soft parts, especially the same reduction in length of the swimming setae on A2. Variability in the L of carapace is very common in other Cypria speceis, such as C. ophtalmica, where L can varry from 0.5 mm to 0.7 mm in one population (personal data). Cole's Cypria fontana is listed at the end of the paper, but it is not included in the key. Another species with reduced swimming setae, C. reptans Bronstein, 1928, was assigned as the type species of the genus Bronsteinella Krstić &amp; Keyser, 2008. Cypria stygia Klie, 1935 and a fossil species, C. helokrenica Kantorek &amp; Absolon, 1975 have also been included in to the genus Bronsteinella by Krstić &amp; Keyser (2008). I do not agree with these systematic arrangements, because the recent species have a typical Cypria- like morphology of the soft parts. The authors indicate an almost triangular shape of the carapace as a distinguishing feature, but the carapace shape is known to be quite variable within the species (for example in Cypria ophtalmica). Cypria stygia has already been synonymised with Cypria reptans by Petkovski (1976). The species with short swimming setae may form a separate group in the genus, and the genus Bronsteinella is most probably a synonym of Cypria.</p> <p>Until now it was widely accepted that the main difference between Cypria and Physocypria is the presence of the marginal tubercles (sometimes called pustules) along the RV margin (rarely LV) in the latter genus. This is indeed very practical when identifying fossil taxa, but needs to be reconsidered when dealing with recent species. Marginal tubercles occur in many freshwater genera of the superfamily Cypridoidea. In some subfamilies, like Cyprinotinae the presence/absence of tubercles is useful for distinguishing between genera, and even the occurrence of these structures can be on the LV (Hemicypris Sars, 1903) or RV (Heterocypris Claus, 1892; Cyprinotus Brady, 1886). However, there are many exceptions in all three genera regarding the position and presence of marginal tubercles. In the genus Cyprinotus at least the following three species do not have tubercles at all: C. americanus Cushman, 1905; C. crenatus (Turner, 1893); C. flavescens Brady, 1898; C. persica Ghetti, 1972; and C. unispinifera Furtos, 1936. In the genus Hemicypris, at least the following four species have tubercles on the RV: Hemicypris arorai (Battish, 1981); H. bhatiai (Battish, 1981) and H. gillensis (Battish, 1981), while Hemicypris mizunoi Okubo, 1990 have tubercles on both valves (Savatenalinton &amp; Martens 2008). In Heterocypris salina (Brady, 1868) and H. incongruens (Ramdohr, 1808) the tubercles/pustules can be developed to different degrees, or completely missing, depending on the population (see Meisch 2000). There are examples also in other subfamilies (i.e. Cypridopsinae and Cypricercinae). Evidences of environmental factors (temperature, water depth, pH, Ca, etc.) influencing the carapace variability in ostracods are numerous (Yin et al. 1999; Baltanás &amp; Geiger 1998; Neil 2000; Roberts et al. 2002; Minati et al. 2008; etc). It is normal to be expected that the part of the body so much exposed to the environment, such as the ostracod shell, has lots of variabilities. One example is the variability of shell shapes and structures within many genera of Australian subterranean ostracods (Karanovic 2007). On the other hand the soft part morphology tends to be quite conservative in the freshwater ostracod lineages and there is very little variability in the number of setae on the appendages between closely related taxa. In the case of the genus Physocypria, the type species has a basal seta on the second thoracopod. The chaetotaxy, and even L ratio between basal setae on this appendage is widely used in the taxonomy of many freshwater lineages (i.e., Cyprinotinae, Eucypridinae, Herpetocypridinae, Cypricercinae, Candoninae, etc.) as it is a stable character. There is indeed no evidence of the variability in the presence/absence of pustules along the margins in the genera Cypria / Physocypria. Therefore we are facing a problem, should we favor the valve, or the soft part morphology in the case of Physocypria and Cypria. The two genera are indeed most closely related. In the present paper I have opted to favor the soft part morphology as a better phylogenetical signal, at least when freshwater Cypridoidea are in question, and to transfer species without basal seta previously assigned to the genus Physocypria to the genus Cypria. Some further studies may provide more information on the morphology of these species to distinguish them as a separate group or even erect a new genus, but this group cannot belong into the genus Physocypria as its type species clearly belong to a different phylogenetical lineage. In addition, new arrangements have a sound zoogeographic backup.</p> <p>The variability of Cypria ophtalmica (Jurine, 1820) in the appearance of the carapace, genital field in females and hemipenis in males, has already been pointed out by Meisch (2000). This species has a very wide distribution range and, in addition to C. lacustris Liljeborg, 1890, which has already been considered as a junior synonym of C. ophtalmica, there are a number of other species that, according to the original descriptions fall in the range of variability of this species. These species are: C. biwaense Okubo, 1990; C. cavernae Wagenleitner, 1990; C. lubeziensis Kovalenko, 1982; C. maculata Hoff, 1942; C. palustera Furtos, 1935; and C. sketi Petkovski, 1976. The second species has been described in great detail (Wagenleitner 1990) from a cave in northern Italy. However, the only difference between this species and C. ophtalmica is the decolouration of the carapace and the absence of eye pigmentation in C. cavernae, which is likely to be a consequence of the life in the subterranean environment. Also, C. ophtalmica has been collected many times from the wells in other parts of the distribution area of C. cavernae (personal data from Puglia and Greece, see the material examined). Cypria sketi Petkovski, 1976, described from several subterranean localities in Croatia and Herzegovina (Petkovski 1976), also falls within the range of the variability of C. ophtalmica. This species has a very high carapace, similar to C. karamani Petkovski, 1976 (Figure 4), but this has also been reported in some populations of C. ophtalmica (see detailed comparison of the two species in Wagenleitner 1990, and personal data). Cypria karamani can be distinguished from C. sketi, by strongly asymmetrical valves, LV being much higher than RV. However, the soft parts of all three species are very similar. We hope that future molecular data will answer some of the questions of the C. ophtalmica status.</p> <p>I studied the type material of two North American species, C. maculata and C. palustera. The first species has a very similar carapace as C. ophtalmica (Figure 5A) and according to Hoff (1942) it also has the same ornamentation pattern on the carapace. It can be distinguished from C. ophtalmica by a much shorter posterior claw on the UR, which is also considerably more serrated than the anterior one (Figure 5B, C). The genital field is in C. maculata triangular or trapezoidal (Figure 5C), while it is finger-like in C. ophtalmica. Also, lobe “a” on hemipenis is much broader in C. maculata (Figure 5D). Cypria palustera can be distinguished from C. ophtalmica by a longer seta on the second segment of the T2 (Figure 5F) and by strongly sclerified parts of the lobes “a” and “b” on the hemipenis (Figure 5E).</p> <p>Cypria spinifera Tressler, 1937, described from Philippines (Tressler 1937) is very closely related to C. javana Müller, 1906. The two species have the same carapace shape (Figure 5I) and very similar soft parts. Tressler (1937) wrote that the main difference between the two species is the presence of an additional seta on the second segment of the T2, which is in fact the seta from one of the T2 laying underneath the other T2 (Figure 5G). The main difference between the two species is the appearance of the genital filed, which is more triangular with a blunt end in C. javana and finger-shaped in C. spinifera (Figure 5H), very similar to the one in C. ophtalmica, from which it clearly differs by the long seta on the second segment of T2 and the long posterior seta on the UR.</p> <p>The type material of Cypria pustulosa Sharpe, 1897 is lost, but species collected later and identified as C. pustulosa by Furtos (1933) are deposited at the SMNH. The collection contains only specimens in alcohol. Furtos (1933) gave only two drawings of the carapace, which are quite different from the material deposited at the museum (Figure 6A, B). Sharpe (1897) has also illustrated a species with asymmetrical valves. In my opinion the species deposited at the SMNH might not be C. pustulosa described by Sharpe (1897) and Furtos (1933). Beside the fact that there is only a narrow flange dorsally on the LV (Figure 6B) (in C. pustulosa LV has a considerably broader flange) there are also no tubercules along the margin of the RV (present in C. pustulosa). I am here providing additional drawings (Figure 6) of the specimens deposited at the SMNH, leaving the species in open nomenclature in hope that the soft parts of the specimens Furtos (1933) and Sharpe (1897) studied will be found and the identity of the species will be cleared out.</p> <p>A number of species here included in the genus Cypria have a long seta “e” on the T2. Meisch (2000) thought that this may be an additional distinguishing character for separating Physocypria Vávra, 1897 from Cypria, beside the presence of tubercles along the margins of the carapace. However, some species have a long “e” seta on the T2, but do not have tubercles on the margins of the RV (C. javana and C. inversa, for example), or they have tubercles but the seta “e” is not as long as in other representatives of the genus (C. kerkyrensis, Figure 8A).</p> <p>I have also examined the only Australian species of the genus, C. pusilla Sars, 1896, described very briefly by Sars (1896). This species is characterized by an asymmetrical carapace (Figure 7A); LV overlapping the RV with a clear dorsal flange, and it does not have tubercles along the margins. The slide of the type specimen contains only an undissected animal, and the inner morphology agrees with the other Cypria species (Figure 7B–F). This species has a long “e” seta on the T2, but the length of the posterior seta on the UR can not be distinguished on the slide.</p> <p>At the moment, it is possible to distinguish a couple of lineages within the genus Cypria. One lineage consists of species with a long posterior seta on the UR, as well as a long “e” seta on the T2. This group of species is mainly distributed in Africa and South East Asia. Palaearctic species mostly have short setae on both UR and the T2, but there are a number of exceptions. A number of Cypria species from the Palaearctic (in contrast to the African and South East Asian ones), have reduced swimming setae. Some of the North American species also have reduced swimming setae, and all of the Cypria species from North America have a short posterior seta on the UR. The “e” seta on the T2 is either short or intermediate. One of the species described from North America, C. brevisetigera Cole, 1965 is peculiar and worth mentioning here. This species has a reniform carapace, and a longer posterior seta on the UR (Figure 8B) than in all the rest of the North American species, it lacks the “d2” seta on the T3 and has quite asymmetrical setae “h1” and “h2” on the same appendage (Figure 8E). Cypria brevisetigera also has intermediately long “e” seta on the T2 (Figure 8D) and has reduced swimming setae on the A2. This species is left in the genus Cypria because of the typical appearance of the hemipenis (Figure 8C), but it shares a number of similarities with the genus Keysercypria gen. nov. distributed in South and Central America. The affinities with this genus are dealt with in the Discussion.</p> <p>Cypria koenikei Daday, 1910 was described from Jippe Lake (Kilimanjaro) (Daday 1910). After studying the type material, I have to exclude the species from the subfamily Cyclocypridinae as the Zenker organ has numerous whorls of spines and the hemipenis is more similar to the family Cyprididae that Candonidae. Although the type material is in a poor condition, I am providing here a couple of photographs of the main characters as a support of my decision (Figure 9A–C). The material identified by Daday (1910) as Cypria lenticularis G. W. Müller, 1898 was also studied. The species Daday (1910) examined is not Cypria lenticularis described by Müller (1898) from Madagascar. Müller’s species has a completely different hemipenis appearance (both lobes are of a similar length and shape) and the posterior seta on the UR is missing. Although the number of whorls on the Zenker organ in the Madagascar species is unknown, because the specimens Müller (1898) investigated were dried out and the soft parts were only briefly described (mostly as Cypria- like), the given descriptions suggest an assignment to Cypria. However, the imprint of ovaries clearly places the Madagascar species in the genus Physocypria Vávra, 1897 (see Discussion) The species Daday erroneously identified as Cypria lenticularis cannot belong to Cyclocypridinae, as it also has numerous whorls on the hemipenis (Figure 9D).</p> <p>A number of other species here assigned to the genus Cypria are not included in the key to the species (see the list at the end of this paper), because there are neither enough distinguishing characters to separate these species from their congeners nor enough arguments to synonymise them. None of these species was here proposed as a new combination. For some species, like C. granadae and C. minicapensis the appearance of T2 is not described, and their belonging to the genus Cypria may be doubtful. But, their affinities and zoogeographical distribution indicates their belonging to this genus. For all the other new combinations proposed in the present paper there is a clear evidence that the basal seta on the T2 is absent.</p> <p>Distribution. The genus is distributed world wide (Figure 10), with most of the species being reported from more than one locality.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F67FFCCFF30FDEFA28675AE	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F7EFFCFFF30FA0FA6827380.text	03EB87C86F7EFFCFFF30FA0FA6827380.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cypria Zenker 1854	<div><p>Key to species of the genus Cypria Zenker, 1854.</p> <p>1 RV without tubercles along margins....................................................................... 2</p> <p>- RV with tubercles along margins......................................................................... 4</p> <p>2 Swimming setae on A2 not reaching tip of the terminal claws.................................................. 3</p> <p>- Swimming setae on A2 by far exceed tip of the terminal claws................................................. 9</p> <p>3 In lateral view, dorsal margin arched...................................................................... 4</p> <p>- In lateral view, dorsal margin almost straight................................................................ 7</p> <p>4 Swimming setae on A2 exceeding distal end of terminal segment.............................................. 5</p> <p>- Swimming setae on A2 at the most reach distal end of penultimate segment....................................... 6</p> <p>5 Finger of the right prehensile palp elongated........................................... C. reptans Bronstein, 1928</p> <p>- Finger of the right prehensile palp short and stocky....................................... C. curvifurcata Klie, 1923</p> <p>6 Greatest H behind middle.................................................... C. konishii Smith &amp; Kamiya, 2006</p> <p>- Greatest H in the middle......................................................... C. polessica Kovalenko, 1982</p> <p>7 Swimming setae reaching distal end of terminal segment................................. C. brevisetigera Cole, 1965</p> <p>- Swimming setae reaching at the most middle of penultimate segment........................................... 8</p> <p>8 Posterior seta on UR exceeding distal end of the ramus........................... C. bicolor Petkovski &amp; Meisch, 1994</p> <p>- Posterior seta on UR short not reaching distal end of the ramus............................. C. osburni (Furtos, 1933) 9 Carapace ornamented with longitudinal striae.............................................................. 10 - Carapace smooth.................................................................................... 13 10 Lobe “b” on hemipenis broadly rounded and much lower than lobe “a” shape................. C. exsculpta (Fisher, 1855) - Both “a” and “b” lobes on hemipenis elongated and of the same height.......................................... 11 11 Lobe “b” with an almost tapering distal part................................................ C. turneri Hoff, 1942 - Lobe “b” curved at the top, but not with the tapering part............................. C. matzkeae Smith &amp; Janz, 2008 12 Carapace elongated with greatest H on the first third of L.................................... C. mediana Hoff, 1942 - Carapace rounded with greatest H around middle........................................................... 13 13 Carapace highly asymmetrical.......................................................................... 14 - Both valves of more of less same H...................................................................... 17 14 RV higher than LV................................................................... C. inversa (Klie, 1941) - LV higher than RV.................................................................................... 15 15 Seta “e” on T2 very long, exceeding distal margin of the terminal claw........................... C. pusilla Sars, 1896 - Seta “e” on T2 short, not exceeding distal end of the third segment............................................. 16 16 LV with flat medial part of dorsal margin................................................. C. obliqua Klie, 1939 - LV with rounded medial part of dorsal margin........................................ C. karamani Petkovski, 1976 17 Marginal pore canals wide and thick............................................. C. pseudocrenulata Furtos, 1936 - Marginal pore canals very narrow and thin................................................................. 18 18 Posterior claw on the UR with prominent teeth, much more developed than on thee anterior claw.... C. maculata Hoff, 1942 - Posterior claw sometimes with teeth but less developed than on the anterior claw.................................. 19 19 Seta “e” on the T2 very long, exceeding distal end of penultimate segment....................................... 20 - Seta “e” on the T2 not long, only reaching distal end of third segment........................................... 21 20 Seta “e” not exceeding distal end of terminal segment..................................... C. palustera Furtos, 1935 - Seta “e” by far exceeding distal end of terminal segment...................................................... 22 21 Genital field in ♀ finger-shaped...................................................... C. spinifera Tressler, 1937 - Genital field conical................................................................. C. javana Müller, 1906 22 Genital field with a conical process, directed posteriorly................................... C. subsala Redeke, 1936 - Genital field with different processes..................................................................... 23 23 Genital filed with two processes, posterior triangular, anterior shorter and distally rounded........ C. sywulae Meisch, 2000 - Genital field with one or two finger shaped, setulae bearing processes.................. C. ophtalmica (Jurine, 1820) s.l. 24 Posterior seta on the UR very short, not reaching distal margin of the ramus...................................... 25 - Posterior seta on the UR long, by far exceeding distal margin of the ramus....................................... 34 25 Valves asymmetrical in lateral view...................................................................... 26 - Valves symmetrical in lateral view....................................................................... 29 26 RV dorsally overlapping LV with a broad flange............................................................ 27 - LV dorsally overlapping RV with a broad flange............................................................ 28 27 Male with finger on the right prehensile palp inflated.................................... C. kerkyrensis (Klie, 1936) - Male with finger on the right prehensile palp elongated...................................... C. gibbera Furtos, 1936 28 Left valve in lateral view with 2 humps................................................. C. inflata (Furtos, 1933) - Dorsal margin of LV evenly rounded................................................ C. pustulosa (Sharpe, 1897) 29 Carapace ornamented................................................................................. 30 - Carapace smooth..................................................................................... 31 30 Carapace ornamented with longitudinal striae....................................... C. minicapensis (Green, 1962) - Carapace ornamented with clear pits................................................. C. exquisita (Furtos, 1936) 31 In lateral view, ventral margin convex................................................. C. globula (Furtos, 1933) - In lateral view, ventral margin straight.................................................................... 32 32 First segment of the prehensile palps short and stout.................................... C. denticulata (Daday, 1905) - First segment of prehensile palps elongated................................................................ 33 33 Lobe “a” of the hemipenis shorter than lobe “b” and with pointed distal end............... C. granadae (Hartmann, 1959) - Lobe “a” of the hemipenis longer than lobe “b” and with rounded distal end................. C. kraepelini (Müller, 1903) 34 Greatest H well behind the middle L..................................................................... 35 - Greatest H around the middle.......................................................................... 36 35 Left valve with a well-developed flange and marginal pore canals clearly visible................ C. crenulata (Sars, 1903) - Left valve without a well-developed flange and marginal pore canals minute................ C. larensis (Hartmann, 1964) 36 Tip of the lobe “b” on hemipenis bent ventrally....................................... C. furfuracea (Brady, 1886) - Tip of the lobe “b” on hemipenis not bent............................................. C. dumonti (Martens, 1982)</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F7EFFCFFF30FA0FA6827380	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F7DFFCEFF30F8A0A72570E6.text	03EB87C86F7DFFCEFF30F8A0A72570E6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Keysercypria Karanovic 2011	<div><p>Keysercypria gen. nov.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Carapace usually ovoid in lateral view. LV overlaps RV ventrally, anteriorly and posteriorly. RV sometimes overlapping LV dorsally. Surface of carapace smooth, sometimes covered with long setae. Selvage peripheral anteriorly on both valves and sometimes inwardly displaced on RV. Marginal tubercles along the margins present or absent. A1 7-segmented. A 2 in male 5-segmented, penultimate segment divided and with t2 and t3 setae transformed into sexual bristles. A2 sexually dimorphic: G1 and G3 claws in males reduced, z1 and z2 setae transformed into claws, z1 being shorter, while z3 seta-like and exceeding tips of terminal claws. Five long swimming seta, the most external seta completely reduced. Terminal segment of Md-palp elongated, more than 5 times longer than wide. Terminal segment of Mxl palp square. Prehensile palps asymmetrical. T2 without basal seta. Basal segment of T3 without d2 seta. Setae “e”, “f” and “g” very short. Seta “h1” at least two times shorter than seta “h2”, seta “h3” very long. UR with all setae and claws present and normally developed. Hemipenis with two lobes “a” and “b” well developed, and positioned far apart from each other. Lobe “a” often having a rounded, boxing glovelike distal end. Zenker organ with 7 whorls of spines. Genital field rounded.</p> <p>Type species: Cypria affinis (Klie, 1933) (here designated).</p> <p>Other species. K. circinata (Würdig &amp; Pinto, 1993) comb. nov.; K. deformis (Klie, 1940) comb. nov.; K. longiseta (Klie, 1930) comb. nov.; K. obtusa (Klie, 1940) comb. nov.; K. pellucida (Sars, 101) comb. nov.; K. sanctaeannae (Margalef, 1961) comb. nov.; K. schubarti (Farkas, 1958) comb. nov.; K. xanabanica (Furtos, 1936) comb. nov.</p> <p>Etymology: The genus is named after Dr Dietmar Keyser from the ZMH, as an acknowledgment of his contribution to the taxonomy and physiology of Ostracoda and the great support he gave me during this study.</p> <p>Remarks and affinities. The genus is very easily distinguished from all other representatives of the subfamily Cyclocypridinae by the chaetotaxy of T3, i.e. the absence of the d2 seta, very short setae “e”, “f” and “g” and a clear difference in the length of “h1” and “h2” setae. Those two setae are of the same length in all other genera of the subfamily, and sometimes in Physocypria Vávra, 1897 and Cypria Zenker, 1854 the seta “h2” may be slightly longer than seta “h1”, but never as much as in Keysercypria gen. nov. Cypria brevisetigera Cole, 1965 lacks the seta d2 on the T3 and it also has a prominent difference in the L of two “h” setae, but not as much as in the species of the new genus. Also, the setae “e”, and “f” are long in C. brevisetigera and the hemipenis is also very different. The absence of a seta on the basal segment of T2 distinguishes the new genus from Physocypria, Cyclocypris Brady &amp; Norman, 1889, Allocypria Rome, 1962, and Kempfcyclocypris gen. nov. The square shaped terminal segment on T3 and the appearance of the hemipenis more closely relate Keysercypria to Cypria Zenker, 1854; Allocypria Rome; 1962, and Physocypria Vávra, 1897 than to Cyclocypris Brady &amp; Norman, 1889 and Kempfcyclocypris. However, in those closely related genera, lobes on hemipenis are situated very close to each other, and they have pointed distal ends, while in the new genus the lobes are situated far apart and lobe “a” has a rounded, boxing glove-like distal end. Keysercypria has yet another characteristic that separates it from all representatives of the subfamily, and that is the absence of the most external of the swimming setae on the A2. The only species not included in the key is K. schubarti (Farkas, 1958) because it is very difficult to distinguish it from K. affinis. Both species have very similar carapace shapes and appearances of hemipenis and prehensile palps, so it might even be proven in the future that K. schubarti is a junior synonym of K. affinis.</p> <p>Distribution. The genus is endemic to South and Central America (Figure 11).</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F7DFFCEFF30F8A0A72570E6	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F7CFFCEFF30FA05A68272BD.text	03EB87C86F7CFFCEFF30FA05A68272BD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Keysercypria Karanovic 2011	<div><p>Key to species of the genus Keysercypria gen. nov.</p> <p>1 Tubercles on RV barely visible or absent................................................................... 2</p> <p>- Tubercules clearly visible............................................................................... 4</p> <p>2 Posterior seta on UR exceeding distal margin.............................................. K. obtusa (Klie, 1940)</p> <p>- Posterior seta on UR shorter............................................................................. 3</p> <p>3 LV with postero-ventral margin strongly curved (looking like elevated)............... K. circinata (Würdig &amp; Pinto, 1993)</p> <p>- LV with flat postero-ventral margin.................................................... K. pellucida (Sars, 1901)</p> <p>4 Posterior seta on the UR reaching half way to the distal margin of the ramus....................................... 5</p> <p>- Posterior seta on the UR reaching or exceeding distal margin of the ramus......................................... 6</p> <p>5 Anterior claw on UR distally prominently curved, almost loop-like........................... K. deformis (Klie, 1940)</p> <p>- Anterior claw on UR distally not so prominently curved................................ K. xanabanica (Furtos, 1936)</p> <p>6 Lobe “a” on the hemipenis completely reduced................................... K. sanctaeannae (Margalef, 1961)</p> <p>- Lobe “a” on the hemipenis not reduced.................................................................... 7</p> <p>7 Dorsal margin of right prehensile palp with a little horn-shaped process........................ K. longiseta (Klie, 1930)</p> <p>- Dorsal margin of right prehensile palp with clear “angular” appearance.......................... K. affinis (Klie, 1933)</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F7CFFCEFF30FA05A68272BD	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F73FFC3FF30FA35A3E47252.text	03EB87C86F73FFC3FF30FA35A3E47252.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Keysercypria affinis (Klie 1933) Karanovic 2011	<div><p>Keysercypria affinis (Klie, 1933) comb. nov.</p> <p>(Figures 12, 13)</p> <p>1933 Physocypria affinis Klie: p. 369, Fig. 1–5.</p> <p>1940 Physocypria affinis Klie: p. 220.</p> <p>Redescription. Male: Carapace ovoid in lateral view, with dorsal margin almost evenly rounded. LV overlapping RV on all free margins. RV with marginal tubercles along free margin.</p> <p>A1 (Figure 12F, H): 7-segmented. First segment with one seta anteriorly and two setae posteriorly (one shown in figure 12H). Second segment with one anterior seta, which is plumose and not reaching mid length of following segment. Third segment with one anterior seta, which exceeds distal end of following segment. Fourth segment with one posterior seta, which exceeds distal margin of penultimate segment, and two long anterior setae. Fifth segment with two long anterior setae and one long and one short posterior seta, latter one being plumose. Penultimate segment with three anterior setae (one dorsal—alpha seta, and two ventral setae) and two posterior setae, one long and other short, plumose and claw-like. Terminal segment with two long setae, one claw and aesthetasc, ya, which is only slightly longer than terminal segment. Last five segments almost all equally long.</p> <p>A2 (Figure 13C, E): Exopod consisting of plate, one long and two short setae. First endopodal segment with one ventral seta and total of 5 swimming setae, the most external one missing. Swimming setae by far exceeding distal end of terminal claws. Penultimate segment subdivided with two male sexual bristles (transformed setae t2 and t3), seta t4 being long and almost reaching tips of terminal claws. Seta t1 short and reaching distal end of penultimate segment and accompanied with short claw which covered with small setules. Setae z1 and z2 transformed in claws, former one being short, latter one long. Seta z3, normally developed and long. Claw G2 long, while G1 reduced and half as long as G2. Claw GM and Gm almost equally long. Terminal segment very long and practically consisting of two parts, which are not divided, thus not forming separate segments: proximal, short part with y3 distally, and distal long part (two times longer than proximal one) with Gm and GM claws. Aesthetasc Y very short.</p> <p>Mxl palp (Figure 12I): First segment very broad with five anterior and one posterior seta. Terminal segment with 4 claws.</p> <p>Prehensile palps (Figures 12J, 13D): Right palp (Figure 13D) much more robust than left one (Figure 12J), finger with a square dorsal part, one terminal seta broad and well sclerified, other short and thin. Left palp with thin finger; terminal setae not distinguishable on the slide.</p> <p>T2 (Figure 13B, G): Basal seta missing. Setae “e” and “f” reaching distal end of penultimate segment. Seta h3 on terminal segment very long, whip-like and exceeding tip of terminal claw. Terminal claw poorly serrated and as long as three distal segments combined.T2 covered with long and dense pseudochaetae, setae “e” and “f” plumose. T3 (Figure 13A): Basal segment without d2 seta, while seta d1 short. Setae “e”, “f” and “g” all being very short. Terminal segment almost as wide as long, L ratios between three distal setae (of which h1 and h2 being almost claw-like) 1: 2.7: 7.</p> <p>UR (Figure 12D): L ratios between anterior margin, anterior, and posterior claw equaling 2.5: 1.5: 1. Posterior seta, long and inserted slightly more proximally on posterior margin.</p> <p>Hemipenis (Figure 13F): Lobe a distally fist-like, lobe “b” pointed. Internal structure impossible to be observed in the syntypes.</p> <p>Zenker organ: Consisting of seven whorls of spines.</p> <p>Female: Carapace similar to that of male (12C–E).</p> <p>A2 (Figure 12A): Claw G2 about two times longer than terminal segment, claw G3 curved distally, seta z1 transformed into short claw, other z-setae normally developed.</p> <p>T2 (Figure 12K): Seta “h3” short.</p> <p>UR (Figure 12B): L ratios of anterior margin, anterior and posterior claw 1.9: 1.3: 1. Posterior seta reaching distal margin of UR. Genital field rounded, without any extensions.</p> <p>Remarks and affinities. Drawings provided by Klie (1933) show a much shorter posterior seta on the UR of female, than in the type material I have examined, which is deposited at the Zoological Museum in Hamburg. Also, Klie did not mention the long “h3” seta on the terminal segment of T2. This seta is, however, long only in males and short in females. All the species of the genus Keysercypria gen. nov. are morphologically very similar, and there seems to be a very limited number of distinguishing characters. Keysercypria affinis (Klie, 1933) is most closely related to K. deformis (Klie, 1940) because of the long “h3” seta. They differ by a wider anterior selvage on the LV in the latter species, and also by a less pronounced “angular” appearance of the finger of the right prehensile palp, and a lower positioned lobe “b” in relation to the lobe “a”. Keysercypria obtusa (Klie, 1940), K. pellucida (Sars, 1901), and K. circinata (Würdig &amp; Pinto 1993) differ from K. affinis by the absence of the small tubercles along the free margin on the RV; K. longiseta (Klie, 1930) has a horn-shaped extension dorsally on the finger of the right prehensile palp; in K. sanctaeannae (Margalef, 1961), “h2” seta on T3 is more than four times longer than “h1” seta of the same appendage. The difference between K. affinis and K. schubarti (Farkas, 1958) is only given in the presence of a long “h3” seta on T2. Since this character does not appear in females it is possible that it is a part of an intraspecific variability, or that is really sexually dimorphic. Both possibilities need to be checked on more material.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F73FFC3FF30FA35A3E47252	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F77FFC5FF30FF7DA219724F.text	03EB87C86F77FFC5FF30FF7DA219724F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Keysercypria deformis (Klie 1940) Karanovic 2011	<div><p>Keysercypria deformis (Klie, 1940)</p> <p>(Figures 14, 16A, B)</p> <p>1940 Physocypria deformis Klie: p. 221, Figs 1–11.</p> <p>Redescription. Male: Carapace ovoid in lateral view, with dorsal margin almost evenly rounded. Anterior selvage very prominent on LV. LV overlapping RV on all free margins. RV with marginal tubercles along free margin.</p> <p>A1 (Figure 16A): 7-segmented. First segment with one seta anteriorly and two setae posteriorly. Second segment with one anterior seta, which is plumose and not reaching mid length of following segment. Third segment with one anterior seta, not reaching distal end of following segment. Fourth segment with one posterior seta, reaching distal margin of penultimate segment, and two long anterior setae. Fifth segment with two long anterior setae and two short posterior setae, both claw-like. Penultimate segment with three anterior setae (one dorsal—alpha seta, and two ventral setae) and two long posterior setae. Terminal segment with two long setae, one claw and aesthetasc, ya, which is only slightly longer than terminal segment. Last five segments almost all equally long.</p> <p>A2 (Figure 14B): Exopod consisting of plate, one long and two short setae. First endopodal segment with one ventral seta and a total of 5 swimming setae, the most external one missing. Swimming setae by far exceeding distal end of terminal claws. Penultimate segment subdivided with two male sexual bristles (transformed setae t2 and t3), seta t4 being long and almost reaching tips of terminal claws. Seta t1 short and reaching distal end of penultimate segment and accompanied with short claw, covered with small setules. Setae z1 and z2 transformed in claws, former one being short, latter one long. Seta z3, normally developed and long. Claw G2 long, while G1 reduced and half as long as G2. Claw GM and Gm almost equally long. Terminal segment very long and practically consisting of two parts: proximal, short part with y3 distally, and distal long part (twice as long as proximal one) with Gm and GM claws. Aesthetasc Y very short.</p> <p>Prehensile palps (Figures 14C, D): Right palp (Figure 14C) much more robust than left one (Figure 14D), finger with a rounded dorsal part, one terminal seta broad and well sclerified, other short and thin. Left palp with thin finger and one terminal seta clearly distinguishable on the slide.</p> <p>T1 (Figure 14A): Basal seta missing. Seta “e” reaching mid L of terminal claw, seta “f” reaching distal end of penultimate segment. Seta h3 on terminal segment very long, whip-like. Terminal claw poorly serrated and as long as three distal segments combined. T2 covered with long and dense pseudochaetae, setae “e” and “f” plumose.</p> <p>UR (Figure 14F): L ratios between anterior margin, anterior, and posterior claw equaling 2.5: 1.5: 1. Posterior seta not reaching distal margin of UR and inserted slightly more proximally on posterior margin. Anterior claw prominently curved, almost loop-like.</p> <p>Hemipenis (Figure 14E): Lobe “a” distally rounded, lobe “b” thin, narrowing distally. Both lobes approximately of same H. Internal structure impossible to be observed in the original dissection.</p> <p>Zenker organ: Consisting of seven whorls of spines.</p> <p>Female: Carapace similar to that of male (Figure 14G–I).</p> <p>UR (Figure 16B): L ratios of anterior margin, anterior and posterior claw 1.9: 1.3: 1. Posterior seta not reaching distal margin of UR. Genital field with small triangular extension.</p> <p>Remarks and affinities. Sexual difference in the L of “h3” seta on T2 noticed in K. affinis (Klie, 1933) has also been observed in Keysercypria deformis (Klie, 1940). These two species are indeed very closely related and their mutual difference has already been discussed under the previous species. Keysercypria deformis differs from K. obtusa (Klie, 1940), K. pellucida (Sars, 1901) and K. circinata (Würdig &amp; Pinto, 1993) by clearly developed marginal tubercles on the RV. Keysercypria xanabanica (Furtos, 1936) is also very closely related to K. deformis, and in fact, the only difference which could be observed based on the description of K. xanabanica, is a specific curvature of the anterior claw of the UR in K. deformis. The hemipenis drawn by Klie (1940) is very different from the one I have observed, which is in fact very similar to K. xanabanica. Also, the prehensile palps are very similar. Unfortunately, Furtos (1936a) did not provide a description of the T2, so the L of “h3” seta in K. xanabanica is unknown.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F77FFC5FF30FF7DA219724F	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F4BFFF9FF30FF7DA6747320.text	03EB87C86F4BFFF9FF30FF7DA6747320.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Keysercypria longiseta (Klie 1930) Karanovic 2011	<div><p>Keysercypria longiseta (Klie, 1930)</p> <p>(Figure 15)</p> <p>1930 Physocypria longiseta Klie: p. 222, Figs 1–9.</p> <p>Redescription. Male: Carapace ovoid in lateral view, with dorsal margin almost evenly rounded. LV overlapping RV on all free margins. RV with marginal tubercles along free margin (Figure 15G–I).</p> <p>A1 (Figure 15B): 7-segmented. First segment with one seta anteriorly and two setae posteriorly. Second segment with one anterior seta, plumose and not reaching mid length of following segment. Third segment with one anterior and one posterior seta, both being short and only reaching distal end of the following segment. Fourth segment with two posterior setae, one exceeding distal margin of penultimate segment, other not reaching distal end of following segment, and two long anterior setae. Fifth segment with two long anterior setae and two short posterior setae. Penultimate segment with three anterior setae (one dorsal—alpha seta, and two ventral setae) and two posterior setae. Terminal segment with two long setae, one claw and aesthetasc, ya, which is only slightly longer than terminal segment. Last five segments almost all equally long.</p> <p>A2 (Figure 15A): Exopod consisting of plate, one long and two short setae. First endopodal segment with one ventral seta and total of 5 swimming setae, the most external one missing. Swimming setae by far exceeding distal end of terminal claws. Penultimate segment subdivided with two male sexual bristles (transformed setae t2 and t3), seta t4 being long and almost reaching tips of terminal claws. Seta t1 short and reaching distal end of penultimate segment and accompanied with short claw covered with small setules. Setae z1 and z2 transformed in claws, former one being short, latter one long. Seta z3, normally developed and long. Claw G2 long, while G1 reduced and half as long as G2. Claw GM and Gm almost equally long. Terminal segment very long and practically consisting of two parts: proximal, short part with y3 distally, and distal long part (twice as long as proximal one) with Gm and GM claws. Aesthetasc Y very short.</p> <p>Prehensile palps (Figures 15E, F): Right palp (Figure 15E) much more robust than left one (Figure 15F), finger with a little horn-shaped process dorsally, one terminal seta broad and well sclerified, other short and thin. Left palp with thin finger and one terminal setae distinguishable on the slide.</p> <p>T2 (Figure 15D): Basal seta missing. Setae “e” and “f” reaching distal end of following segments. Seta “h3” on terminal segment almost reaching half the L of terminal claw. Terminal claw poorly serrated and as long as three distal segments combined. T2 covered with long and dense pseudochaetae, setae “e” and “f” plumose.</p> <p>Hemipenis (Figure 15C): Lobe “a” distally rounded, lobe “b” pointed. Both lobes of same H.</p> <p>Zenker organ: Consisting of seven whorls of spines.</p> <p>Remarks and affinities. Keysercypria longiseta (Klie, 1930) is closely related to K. affinis (Klie, 1933), K. xanabanica (Furtos, 1936), K. deformis (Klie, 1940), and K. sanctaeannae (Margalef, 1961) as it has tubercles along the free margin on the RV. The other three species of the genus do not have those tubercles well developed. It differs from K. xanabanica and K. deformis by a much longer posterior seta on the UR, and from both K. deformis and K. affinis by a presence of a horn-shaped process on the dorsal margin of the right prehensile palp and the presence of a short “h3” seta on the T2. Keysercypria sanctaeannae apparently misses the lobe “a” on the hemipenis, which is in fact the only difference between the two species. However, this feature is dubious, and it may be that the lobe was just folded and not observable on the slide. If this is the case, there is no doubt that K. sanctaeannae is only a junior synonym of K. longiseta, especially as the appearance of other soft parts (including the typical hornshaped process on the dorsal margin of the right prehensile palp) and carapace are identical in the two species.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F4BFFF9FF30FF7DA6747320	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F4BFFFBFF30F943A0A477B6.text	03EB87C86F4BFFFBFF30F943A0A477B6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Keysercypria obtusa (Klie 1940) Karanovic 2011	<div><p>Keysercypria obtusa (Klie, 1940)</p> <p>(Figure 17)</p> <p>1940 Cypria obtusa Klie: p. 225, Figs 17–19.</p> <p>Redescription. Male: Carapace ovoid in lateral view, with dorsal margin almost evenly rounded. LV overlapping RV on all free margins. RV without marginal tubercles along free margin (Figure 17F–H).</p> <p>Prehensile palps (Figures 17B, C): Right palp (Figure 17C) much more robust than left one (Figure 17B), finger with a triangular extension on dorsal margin and one terminal seta broad and well sclerified. Left palp with finger which is not so curved and long and one terminal seta distinguishable on the slide.</p> <p>T2 (Figure 17E): Basal seta missing. Setae “e” and “f” reaching distal end of following segments. Seta “h3” on terminal segment reaching half L of terminal claw. Terminal claw poorly serrated and as long as three distal segments combined. T2 covered with long and dense pseudochaetae, all endopodal setae plumose.</p> <p>T3 (Figure 17D): Basal segment without d2 seta, while seta d1 short. Setae “e”, “f” and “g” all being very short. Terminal segment almost as wide as long, L ratios between three distal setae (of which h1 and h2 being almost claw-like) 1: 2.2: 5.1.</p> <p>Hemipenis (Figure 17A): Lobe “a” distally rounded, lobe “b” pointed, and much lower than lobe “a”. Internal structure impossible to be observed in the original dissection.</p> <p>Zenker organ: Consisting of seven whorls of spines.</p> <p>Remarks and affinities. Keysercypria obtusa (Klie, 1940) is closely related to K. pellucida (Sars, 1901) and K. circinata (Würdig &amp; Pinto, 1993), and in all three species the RV lacks marginal tubercles. In fact, the lack of the marginal tubercles prompted Klie (1940) to place Keysercypria obtusa into the genus Cypria Zenker, 1854. However, this North Brazilian species is more closely related to other species of the genus Keysercypria gen. nov. than to Cypria because it has a typical morphology of the hemipenis and chaetotaxy of T2 and T3. Beside the lack of the tubercles on the RV, K. obtusa differs from other species of the genus where tubercles are present, by the appearance of the prehensile palps and/or length of “h3” seta on the T2.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F4BFFFBFF30F943A0A477B6	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F49FFFBFF30FCF5A7317276.text	03EB87C86F49FFFBFF30FCF5A7317276.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Keysercypria pellucida (Sars 1901) Karanovic 2011	<div><p>Keysercypria pellucida (Sars, 1901)</p> <p>(Figures 16C–F)</p> <p>1901 Cypria pellucida Sars: p. 37, Pl. 8, Figs 7, 8</p> <p>? 1905 Cypria pellucida Sars —Daday: p. 255, Pl. 16, Figs 10–15</p> <p>non 1933 Cypria pellucida Sars —Furtos: p. 467, Pl. 15, Figs 15–17.</p> <p>Redescription. Female: Carapace ovoid in lateral view, with dorsal margin almost evenly rounded. LV overlapping RV on all free margins. RV without marginal tubercles along free margin (Figure 16F).</p> <p>T2 (Figure 16E): Basal seta missing. Setae “e” and “f” reaching distal end of following segments. Seta “h3” on terminal segment short, reaching only 1/3 of L of terminal claw. Terminal claw as long as three distal segments combined.</p> <p>T3 (Figure 16C): Setae “e”, “f” and “g” all being very short. Terminal segment almost as wide as long, L ratios between three distal setae (of which h1 and h2 being almost claw-like) 1: 2.2: 5.</p> <p>UR (Figure 16D): L ratios between anterior margin, anterior, and posterior claw equaling 1.7: 1.4: 1. Posterior seta, long and inserted slightly more proximally on posterior margin.</p> <p>Remarks and Affinities. Keysercypria pellucida (Sars, 1901) was described only after females, and the original description (Sars 1901) contains only the appearance of the carapace. I checked the type material and provide some additional drawings. Unfortunately, the slide contains only an undissected female, so my observations were limited. Daday (1905), reported the species from Paraguay, and he described the male as well. However, the male’s UR has a very short posterior seta, which is not the case in the female (Figure 16D). I was able to check Daday’s material but, unfortunately, all the slides are in such a bad state that it is not possible to draw any conclusion and all would need remounting to be able to verify the identity of the species Daday was dealing with. Furtos (1933) reported the species from Ohio, but this is definitely not even a representative of the genus Keysercypria, since it has long “e” and “f” setae on the T3 and equally long “h1” and “h2” setae on the T3. This was also noted by Klie (1940). If we accept that Daday’s finding was not of K. pellucida, then both, K. pellucida and K. circinata (Würdig &amp; Pinto, 1993) are described only after females and they differ from K. obtusa only by slightly higher valves in the lateral view. Since I had an opportunity to study the type material of both K. pellucida and K. obtusa, it is indeed difficult to find out any further morphological difference between the two species.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F49FFFBFF30FCF5A7317276	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F49FFFAFF30F8B5A637764D.text	03EB87C86F49FFFAFF30F8B5A637764D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Kempfcyclocypris Karanovic 2011	<div><p>Kempfcyclocypris gen. nov.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Carapace ovoid to subtriangular in lateral view. LV overlaps RV ventrally, anteriorly and posteriorly. Surface of carapace smooth, covered with long setae. Selvage peripheral anteriorly and posteriorly on both valves. A1 6-segmented. A 2 in male 5-segmented, penultimate segment divided, but t2 and t3 setae not transformed into sexual bristles. A2 sexually dimorphic: G1 and G3 claws in males reduced, z2 seta transformed into claw, z1 and z3 being seta-like. Swimming setae completely missing. Terminal segment of Md-palp elongated, but never longer than twice the width. Terminal segment of Mxl palp square. Prehensile palps very slightly asymmetrical. T2 with basal seta. Basal segment of T3 with “d2” seta. Setae “e”, “f” and “g” not short. Seta “h1” and “h2” subequally long. UR with all setae and claws present and normally developed. Hemipenis with lobes “a” and “b” well developed. Zenker organ with 7 whorls of spines. Genital field rounded.</p> <p>Type and only species. Kempfcyclocypris australis gen. et sp. nov.</p> <p>Etymology. The genus is named after Dr Eugen K. Kempf as a friendly acknowledgment of his contribution to ostracodology.</p> <p>Remarks and affinities. The appearance of the T3 and the prehensile palps clearly places this new genus in the subfamily Cyclocypridinae. It stands isolated from other representatives of the subfamily because of the 6-segmented A1 and the complete reduction of the swimming setae on the A2. It is, however, more closely related to Cyclocypris Brady &amp; Norman, 1889 than to the other five genera of the subfamily. Cyclocypris and Kempfcyclocypris gen. nov. both have a long “g” seta on the T3, which is quite short in other genera. Like in Cyclocypris, males of Kempfcyclocypris do not have t2 and t3 setae on the A2 transformed into sexual bristles and the prehensile palps are less asymmetrical. Kempfcyclocypris is found only in eastern Australia, where it lives in the subterranean waters, which might explain the complete reduction of the swimming setae. The lack of the eye pigmentations and well developed sensory setae on both A1 and A2 are also indicators that this species is a true stygobiont.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F49FFFAFF30F8B5A637764D	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F48FFF0FF30FC66A1AC7725.text	03EB87C86F48FFF0FF30FC66A1AC7725.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Kempfcyclocypris australis Karanovic 2011	<div><p>Kempfcyclocypris australis gen. et sp. nov.</p> <p>(Figures 18–22)</p> <p>Etymology. The species is named after Australia.</p> <p>Type material: holotype ♂ (AM P-P.83570), allotype ♀ (AM-P.83571), 14♀, 4♂ &amp; 3 juv. (paratypes, ZMH K42335) from Australia, New South Wales, bore TR14 (B), 93025, 31°18' 13.644” S 151°09' 13.896” E, coll. P. Hancock, 10/02/2006</p> <p>Description. Male (holotype): Carapace subtriangular in lateral view (Figure 18B, C), L = 0.42 mm. Dorsal margin highly arched around mid L, then sloping equally towards anterior and posterior end. Greatest H lying around mid L and equaling 64% of L. Both anterior and posterior margins rounded, but posterior being narrower than anterior. Inner calcified margin anteriorly equaling 26%, and posteriorly 19% of L. Marginal pore canals short, straight and denser anteriorly than posteriorly; on RV zone of marginal pore canals slightly enlarged around mouth area. Selvage peripheral anteriorly and not present posteriorly on LV. Ventral margin almost straight on LV, while more concave on RV (Figures 18C, 19B). In dorsal view, carapace subovate and with greatest W around middle, equaling 65% of total L; almost evenly rounded. LV overlapping RV on all free margins. RV without marginal tubercles along free margin. Surface of carapace smooth (Figure 19A), only covered with relatively dense setae.</p> <p>A1 (Figure 20D): 6-segmented. First segment with anterior-proximally seta transformed into sensory organ (Wouters organ), and one normally developed antero-distally. Same segment with two setae posteriorly. Second segment with one anterior seta, reaching distal margin of fourth segment; same segment with sensory organ (Rome organ) inserted posteriorly. Third segment probably representing fused third and fourth segment and with two medial setae: one anterior and one posterior, as well as four distal setae: two anterior and two posterior; posterior ones being much shorter than anterior ones. Following segment with one posterior seta, exceeding distal end of terminal segment and two anterior, long setae. Penultimate segment with a total of four distal setae, all being very long. Terminal segment with 4 setae as well, most posterior one being transformed into a weak claw, and most anterior one being transformed into aesthetasc ya, which is almost as long as entire A1.</p> <p>A2 (Figure 21D): Exopod consisting of plate, one long and two short setae. First endopodal segment with two ventro-distal setae, both very long, and no swimming setae at all. Penultimate segment subdivided but all “t” setae normally developed. Setae z1 and z3 reaching 1/3 of terminal claws, z3 transformed into claw, which reaching 2/3 of terminal claws. Claws G1 and G3 reduced, latter one shorter than former. Claw G2 very long, much longer than A2 itself. Aesthetasc well developed and long.</p> <p>Md (Figure 21B): First segment on the palp with total of four setae. Second segment externally with one seta, while internally with four long and one short seta. Penultimate segment with four setae extero-laterally, two setae extero-distally, and four setae intero-distally. Terminal segment with three stronger claws and three setae. None of the claws fused with segment. Terminal segment only 1.5 times longer than wide.</p> <p>Mxl palp (Figures 19C, 20A): First segment narrow with four anterior setae. Terminal segment with 3 claws (posterior one more seta-like) and two setae. Terminal segment very slightly elongated (only about 1.5 times longer than wide).</p> <p>Rake-like organ (Figure 20E): With 10–11 teeth.</p> <p>T1 and Prehensile palps (Figure 20B, C): Right palp (Figure 20B) slightly more robust than left one (Figure 20C), finger of latter palp thinner and more curved. One of setae on right palp cylindrical with enlarged middle part, other setae normal. On protopod two “a” setae present. Exopod consisting of six rays.</p> <p>T2 (Figure 22E): Basal seta present. Setae “e” and “f” reaching distal end of penultimate segment. Seta “e” almost reaching middle of terminal claw. Seta h3 on terminal segment short. Terminal claw poorly serrated and 1.6 times as long as three distal segments combined. T2 covered with long and dense pseudochaetae, setae “e” and “f” and “g” plumose.</p> <p>T3 (Figures 19D, 22B): Basal segment with d2 seta. Setae “e”, “f” and “g” all being well developed. Width of terminal segment almost twice the length, setae h1 and h2 equally long.</p> <p>UR (Figure 21A): L ratios between anterior margin, anterior, and posterior claw equaling 2.7: 1.6: 1. Posterior seta short and inserted quite distally on posterior margin.</p> <p>Hemipenis (Figure 22D): Lobe “a” distally foot-like, lobe “b” wide, but short, lobe “h” fist-like and looking like being movable.</p> <p>Zenker organ: Consisting of seven whorls of spines.</p> <p>Female: Carapace same as male (Figure 18A, D, E)</p> <p>A2 (Figure 22A): Claw G2 as long as all other terminal claws, them being much longer than A2 itself. All zsetae normally developed, and not transformed into claws.</p> <p>T2 (Figure 22F): Seta “g” short.</p> <p>UR (Figure 22C): L ratios of anterior margin, anterior and posterior claw 2: 1.2: 1. Genital field rounded and sclerified around edges, without any extensions.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F48FFF0FF30FC66A1AC7725	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F42FFF2FF30FD46A2037746.text	03EB87C86F42FFF2FF30FD46A2037746.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Physocypria Vavra 1897	<div><p>Physocypria Vávra, 1897</p> <p>1897 Physocypria Vávra: p. 7. Type species: Cypria (Physocypria) bullata Vávra, 1897 (by monotypy).</p> <p>1962 Mecynocypria Rome: p. 26. Type species: Paracypria obtusa Sars, 1910 (by original designation) [syn. nov]</p> <p>Diagnosis. Carapace usually ovoid in lateral view. LV overlaps RV ventrally, anteriorly and posteriorly. RV sometimes overlapping LV dorsally. Surface of carapace smooth, sometimes covered with long setae. Marginal tubercles present or absent along the margin of RV, rarely LV. Selvage peripheral anteriorly on both valves and sometimes displaced internally on RV. Distal end of ovaries curved downwards and towards anterior part (Figures 26A, 30C). A1 7-segmented. A 2 in male 5-segmented, penultimate segment divided and with t2 and t3 setae transformed into sexual bristles. A2 sexually dimorphic: G1 and G3 claws in male reduced, z1 and z2 setae transformed into claws, z1 being shorter, while z3 seta-like and exceeding tips of terminal claws. Swimming seta long, the most external seta completely reduced. Terminal segment of Md from 3 to 5 times longer than wide. Terminal segment of Mxl palp square. Prehensile palps asymmetrical. T2 with basal seta. Basal segment of T3 with d2 seta. Setae “e”, “f” long, “g” very short. Setae “h1” and “h2” subequal or “h2” being slightly longer. UR with all setae and claws present and normally developed. Hemipenis with two lobes “a” and “b” well developed. Zenker organ with 7 whorls of spines. Genital field rounded.</p> <p>Type species. Physocypria bullata Vávra, 1897.</p> <p>Other species. P. armata (Müller, 1898) comb. nov; P. capensis (Sars, 1895); P. castanea (Brady, 1904); P. complanata (Sars, 1910) comb. nov.; P. denticulata (Daday, 1910); P. declivis (Sars, 1910) comb. nov.; P. deflexa (Sars, 1910) comb. nov.; P. emaciata (Rome, 1962) comb. nov.; P granulata Rome, 1965; P. lata (Rome, 1962) comb. nov.; P. lenticularis (Müller, 1898) comb. nov.; P. limnalis (Rome, 1965) comb. nov.; P. obtusa (Sars, 1910) comb. nov.; P. opaca (Sars, 1910) comb. nov.; P. ovata (Rome, 1962) comb. nov.; P. parvula (Rome, 1962) comb. nov.; P. perlonga (Rome, 1962); P. stricta (Rome, 1962); P. subangulata (Sars, 1910) comb. nov.; P. tumidosa (Rome, 1962) comb. nov.</p> <p>Remarks and affinities. The original description of Physocypria bullata Vávra, 1897, the type species of the genus Physocypria Vávra, 1897, was quite short and it did not include some very important characters, such as the imprints of the ovaries on the carapace and the chaetotaxy of the T2. The only character used during the last 100 years to distinguish species belonging to Physocypria from those belonging to Cypria Zenker, 1854 was the presence of the marginal tubercles on the RV. It is then no wonder that Rome (1962) described a new genus from Lake Tanganyika, Mecynocypria Rome, 1962 to include species with reverse position of ovaries. Rome (1962) has chosen Paracypria obtusa Sars, 1910 for the type species. I have checked the material of this species deposited in the RBINS (Figure 28). This species has a more elongated carapace than it is typical for the other species of the genus. Unfortunately, the imprint of ovaries is not visible any more on the carapace, while this was clearly drawn by Rome (1962). The rest of the soft part morphology, most of all the appearance of the T2 and UR are typical of the genus Physocypria. After rechecking the type material of P. bullata it became clear that in this species the distal end of ovaries is curved downwards and, in addition, it has the basal seta on the T2. The last character it also shares with Mecynocypria, and in fact there are no distinguishing characters for the genera Mecynocypria and Physocypria. Further on, most of the species, previously assigned to Physocypria have been proven to require a new genus, since they do not have a typical position of ovaries, and they lack basal seta on the T2. The only character they share with the actual Physocypria (but not even with all species) is the presence of marginal tubercles on the RV. Most of the species are included in the genus based on the original illustrations, while some, like Cypria castanea Brady, 1904 (Figure 9E, F) and C. capensis Sars, 1895 (Figure 30C), have been reexamined for the purpose of this study. Only two species, Mecynocypria granulata Rome, 1965 and M. conoidea (Sars, 1910), were not included in the key, because they do not have enough distinguishing characters to be separated from the other representatives of the genus.</p> <p>Rome (1962) described the following group of species from Lake Tanganyika, with a very peculiar appearance of the marginal pore canals, which are quite wide, sometimes even branching: P. deflexa (Rome, 1962), P. opaca (Rome, 1962), P. ovata (Rome, 1962), P. tumidosa (Rome, 1962), and P. parvula (Rome, 1962). This group of species might in the future prove to belong to a separate genus, but this genus could not be named Mecynocypria, since its type species clearly belongs to Physocypria.</p> <p>Physocypria belongs into the group of Cyclocypridinae genera with a short terminal segment on the T3 (this excludes Kempfcyclocypris gen. nov. and Cyclocypris Brady &amp; Norman, 1889). It differs from all genera by a specific position of ovaries. Like Allocypria Rome, 1962, Kempfcyclocypris, and Cyclocypris, Physocypria has the basal seta on the T2, which makes the species of the genus easily distinguishable from Cypria and Keysercypria gen. nov.</p> <p>Distribution. The genus is distributed only in South East Africa (including the ancient lakes) and Madagascar (Figure 24).</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F42FFF2FF30FD46A2037746	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F47FFF5FF30FF7DA682701E.text	03EB87C86F47FFF5FF30FF7DA682701E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Physocypria Vavra 1897	<div><p>Key to species of the genus Physocypria Vávra, 1897</p> <p>1 Valves with beak-like extension on the antero-ventral margin............................... P. perlonga (Rome, 1962)</p> <p>- No beak-like extension present........................................................................... 2</p> <p>2 Valves asymmetrical in lateral view; RV overlapping LV dorsally............................................... 3</p> <p>- Valves slightly asymmetrical in lateral view; RV same or lower than LV in dorsal view.............................. 5</p> <p>3 Posterior seta on the UR absent.................................................... P. lenticularis (Müller, 1898)</p> <p>- Posterior seta on the UR present......................................................................... 4</p> <p>4 Lobe “b” on the hemipenis with long and thin neck ending in a beak-like process................. P. bullata Vávra, 1897</p> <p>- Lobe “b” on the hemipenis with short neck and not ending in a beak-like process............. P. denticulata (Daday, 1910)</p> <p>5 In lateral view, dorsal margin evenly rounded or flat, anterior and posterior margins equally wide...................... 6</p> <p>- In lateral view, dorsal margin not evenly rounded (inclined more towards anterior or posterior end), and posterior margin clearly more narrow than anterior one, or posterior margin straight with posterior and ventral margin merging almost at the right angle.......................................................................................... 11</p> <p>6 Dorsal margin flat..................................................................................... 7</p> <p>- Dorsal margin rounded................................................................................. 9</p> <p>7 Left valve with tubercles............................................................. P. armata (Müller, 1898)</p> <p>- Left valve without tubercles............................................................................. 8</p> <p>8 Left prehensile palp with developed subterminal structures, lobe “b” on the hemipenis only slightly shorter than lobe “a” and curved at the top................................................................. P. tumidosa (Rome, 1962)</p> <p>- Left prehensile palp without developed subterminal structures, lobe “b” considerably shorter than lobe “a” and not curved at the top.............................................................................. P. lata (Rome, 1962)</p> <p>9 Posterior seta on the UR only reaching distal margin of the ramus............................. P. capensis (Sars, 1895)</p> <p>- Posterior seta on the UR by far exceeding distal margin of the ramus........................................... 10</p> <p>10 Carapace tumid in lateral view........................................................ P. limnalis (Rome, 1965)</p> <p>- Carapace more elongated in lateral view.......................... P. castanea (Brady, 1904) and P.obtusa (Sars, 1910)</p> <p>11 Posterior seta on the UR very short...................................................................... 12</p> <p>- Posterior seta on the UR long (by far exceeding distal margin of the ramus)...................................... 15</p> <p>12 Posterior end of carapace elongated and posterior margin very narrow......................... P. declivis (Sars, 1910)</p> <p>- Posterior end of carapace not elongated and posterior margin not so narrow...................................... 13</p> <p>13 Terminal segment of Md palp at least 3 times longer than wide................................. P. opaca (Sars, 1910)</p> <p>- Terminal segment of Md palp only 1.5 times longer than wide................................................. 14</p> <p>14 In lateral view postero-dorsal margin inclined and posterior end slightly protruding............... P. stricta (Rome, 1962)</p> <p>- In lateral view postero-dorsal margin rounded and posterior end not protruding................. P. parvula (Rome, 1962)</p> <p>15 Antero-ventral margin rounded......................................................................... 16</p> <p>- Antero-ventral margin square....................................................... P. subangulata (Sars, 1910)</p> <p>16 In lateral view posterior margin elongated and much narrower than anterior one............... P. complanata (Sars, 1910)</p> <p>- In lateral view posterior margin not elongated.............................................................. 17</p> <p>17 Greatest H in the middle, marked with a clear angle on dorsal margin, posterior margin rounded...... P. ovata (Rome, 1962)</p> <p>- Greatest H not marked with a clear angle on dorsal margin, posterior margin almost straight......................... 18</p> <p>18 Setae h1 and h2 on the terminal segment of T3 equal in size.................................. P. deflexa (Sars, 1910)</p> <p>- Seta h1 shorter than h2............................................................. P. emaciata (Rome, 1962)</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F47FFF5FF30FF7DA682701E	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F47FFEAFF30FA7DA7637725.text	03EB87C86F47FFEAFF30FA7DA7637725.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Physocypria bullata Vavra 1897	<div><p>Physocypria bullata Vávra, 1897</p> <p>(Figures 25–30A, B)</p> <p>1897 Physocypria bullata Vávra: 7, Figs 1–5</p> <p>1944 Physocypria bullata Vávra —Klie: 11, Fig. 2.</p> <p>Redescription. Female: Carapace ovoid in lateral view (Figure 26A), L = 0.4 mm. Dorsal margin rounded on RV and flat on LV. RV overlapping LV dorsally with flange. Greatest H of RV lying around mid L and equaling 68% of L, on LV 63%. Both anterior and posterior margins rounded, but posterior being narrower than anterior one. Marginal pore canals short, straight and denser anteriorly than posteriorly. Selvage peripheral anteriorly, while posteriorly inwardly displaced. Ventral margin convex. LV overlapping RV anteriorly, posteriorly and ventrally. Both LV and RV with marginal tubercles along free margin.</p> <p>A1 (Figure 29B, D): 7-segmented. First segment with two posterior and two anterior setae. Both posterior setae normally developed. Second segment with one anterior seta and a clearly visible Rome organ posteriorly. Third segment with one posterior and one anterior seta. Fourth and fifth segments with two short posterior and two long anterior setae. Penultimate segment with total of five distal setae, dorsal seta (alpha) claw like, other setae being very long. Terminal segment with four setae, most posterior one being transformed into a claw, and most anterior one being transformed into aesthetasc ya, which is twice as long as terminal segment.</p> <p>A2 (Figure 26D): Exopod consisting of plate, one long and two short setae. First endopodal segment with one long, plumose, ventral seta, and five long swimming setae, and one short (most external one). Penultimate segment with two external setae and four internal “t” setae. Setae z1 transformed into a short claw, slightly longer than terminal segment, other z setae reaching 1/3 of terminal claws. Claws G1 and G3 subequally long. Claw G2 very half L of G1. GM claw reaching 2/3 of G1 and Gm being half L of GM.</p> <p>Md (Figure 30B): First segment on the palp with two setae. Second segment externally with two setae, while internally with three long (plumose) setae, of which one clearly longer than other two; one smooth seta (as long as shorter plumose setae) and one thick, short plumose (beta seta). Penultimate segment with four setae extero-laterally, two setae distally, and two setae intero-distally. Terminal segment with three strong claws and two setae. None of the claws fused with segment. Terminal segment only two times longer than wide.</p> <p>Mxl (Fig 30A): Palp positioned quite distant from endites. First segment of palp wide with five setae anteriorly and one thick seta posteriorly. Terminal segment with four claws and two setae. Terminal segment square shaped.</p> <p>T1 (Figure 28A): Two short “a” setae and one long (plumose) seta on protopod. Exopod with 5 or 6 rays. Terminal setae on endopod very short and subequally long.</p> <p>T2 (Figure 28B): Basal seta present. Seta “e” reaching middle of following segment, seta “f” reaching distal end of penultimate segment, while seta “g” very short. Seta h3 on terminal segment short. Terminal claw as long as three distal segments combined. T2 covered with long and dense pseudochaetae, setae “e” and “f” plumose.</p> <p>T3 (Fig 27D): Basal segment with d2 seta. Setae “e” and “f” well developed, while “g” seta tiny. Terminal segment with setae h1 and h2 equally long (Figure 25C).</p> <p>UR (Figure 29C): L ratios between anterior margin, anterior, and posterior claw equaling 2.7: 1.3: 1. Posterior seta very long and inserted quite low on posterior margin, posterior margin with short setae.</p> <p>Male: Carapace same as female (Figures. 25A, B, 26C, D) except for the variability of some specimens not having such a well developed flange on RV (Figure 27A).</p> <p>A2 (Figure 27B): Setae z1 and z2 transformed into claws, former one being shorter than latter, seta z3 normally developed. G2 long, while G1 and G3 reduced. Setae t2 and t3 transformed into sexual bristles and penultimate segment subdivided.</p> <p>Prehensile palps (Figures 25D, 27C, 28D): Asymmetrical, right palp having a stronger finger and one terminal seta (Figure 27C). Both palps with very long trunks compared to fingers.</p> <p>Hemipenis (Figure 28C): Two lobes present, both curved towards inner side, lobe “b” especially curved and with very thick point.</p> <p>UR (Figure 29A): Same as in female.</p> <p>Remarks and affinities. Physocypria bullata is very closely related to P. lenticularis (Müller, 1898) and P. denticulata (Daday, 1910), all three species having a similar carapace appearance, i.e. RV dorsally overlapping LV with a flange. The main difference between the three species is the appearance of the hemipenis. In P. lenticularis both lobes are evenly rounded while in P. denticulata lobe “b” is much wider and lower in comparison with the lobe “a”. All other representatives of the genus have more or less symmetrical carapaces.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F47FFEAFF30FA7DA7637725	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F58FFEAFF30FD59A6827113.text	03EB87C86F58FFEAFF30FD59A6827113.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cyclocypridinae Kaufmann 1900	<div><p>Key to genera of the subfamily Cyclocypridinae</p> <p>1 Terminal segment of the T3 elongated, more than two times longer than wide, seta “g” on the same appendage long, exceeding distal end of terminal segment, carapace in dorsal view oviform................................................ 2</p> <p>- Terminal segment of the T3 much shorter, less than two times longer than wide, seta “g” tiny, sometimes even missing, carapace in dorsal view laterally compressed, or elongated........................................................ 3</p> <p>2 A1 6-segmented, swimming setae on the A2 missing, calcified inner lamella quite broad........ Kempfcyclocypris gen. nov.</p> <p>- A1 7-segmented, swimming setae on the A2 present, calcified inner lamella narrow......................................................................................................... Cyclocypris Brady &amp; Norman, 1889</p> <p>3 Basal seta on the T2 present, carapace globular or elongated in lateral view....................................... 4</p> <p>- Basal seta on the T2 absent, carapace most usually with highly arched dorsal margin, very rarely elongated.............. 5</p> <p>4 Imprints of ovaries on the valves with distal end curved downwards......................... Physocypria Vávra, 1897</p> <p>- Imprints of ovaries on the valves with distal end curved upwards............................. Allocypria Rome, 1962</p> <p>5 Setae “e” and “f” on the T3 very short, seta h2 considerably longer than h1...................... Keysercypria gen. nov.</p> <p>- Setae “e” and “f” on the T3 long, setae h2 and h1 subequally long............................... Cypria Zenker, 1854</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F58FFEAFF30FD59A6827113	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F5FFFE1FF30FAB5A1ED70E6.text	03EB87C86F5FFFE1FF30FAB5A1ED70E6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cyclocypridinae Kaufmann 1900	<div><p>List of Cyclocypridinae genera and species with their synonymy</p> <p>Allocypria Rome, 1962</p> <p>1. A. aberrans Rome, 1962</p> <p>1962 A. aberrans Rome: 107, Figs 29, 30.</p> <p>2. A. claviformis (Sars, 1910)</p> <p>1910 Paracypria claviformis Sars: 739—Pl. 68, Figs 1–10.</p> <p>1962 A. claviformis (Sars) —Rome: 97, Fig. 26.</p> <p>3. A. inclinata Rome, 1962</p> <p>1962 A. inclinata Rome: 83, Figs 22, 23.</p> <p>4. A. mucronata Rome, 1962</p> <p>1962 A. mucronata Rome: 100, Figs 27, 28.</p> <p>5. A. navicula Rome, 1962</p> <p>1962 A. navicula Rome: 90, Figs 24, 25.</p> <p>Cyclocypris Brady &amp; Norman, 1889</p> <p>6. C. ampla Furtos, 1933</p> <p>1933 C. ampla Furtos: Pl. 14, Figs 1–7.</p> <p>7. C. brevisetosa Bronstein, 1928</p> <p>1928 C. serena subsp. brevisetosa Bronstein: 2, Fig. 1.</p> <p>8. C. diebeli Absolon, 1973</p> <p>2004 C. diebeli Absolon —Matzke-Karasz et al.: 1639, Fig. 1A, B, C, F, G, Figs 2–8, 9A, C–G, 10, 11.</p> <p>9. C. forbesi Sharpe, 1897</p> <p>1897 C. forbesi Sharpe: 432, Pl. 41, Figs 1–7.</p> <p>1935 C. forbesi Sharpe —Furtos: 535, Fig. 3</p> <p>1942 C. forbesi Sharpe —Hoff: 102, Pl. 6, Figs 73–75.</p> <p>1941 C. washingtoniensis Dobbin: 233, Pl. 10, Figs 18, 19 —Pl. 11, Figs 1–8.[syn. nov.]</p> <p>10. C. globosa (Sars, 1863)</p> <p>2000 C. globosa (Sars) —Meisch: 230, Fig. 98.</p> <p>11. C. laevis (O. F. Müller, 1776)</p> <p>2000 C. laevis (O. F. Müller) —Meisch: 235, Fig. 100.</p> <p>12. C. mediosetosa Meisch, 1987</p> <p>1987 C. mediosetosa Meisch: 93, Figs 1–3, 4A, B.</p> <p>13. C. modesta (Herrick, 1887)</p> <p>1895 Cyclocypris modesta (Herrick) —Turner: 311, Pl. 72, Fig. 5.</p> <p>14. C. nahcotta Dobbin, 1941</p> <p>1941 C. nahcotta Dobbin: 234, Pl. 11, Figs 9–13, Pl. 12, Figs 1, 2.</p> <p>15. C. ovum (Jurine, 1820)</p> <p>2000 C. ovum (Jurine) —Meisch: 238, Figs 101, 102.</p> <p>16. C. scrobiculata Klie, 1936</p> <p>1936 C. scrobiculata Klie: 325, Figs 1–9.</p> <p>17. C. pusilla Sars, 1895</p> <p>1895 C. pusilla Sars: 36, Pl. 5, Fig. 5 (a, b)</p> <p>18. C. serena (Koch, 1838)</p> <p>2000 C. serena (Koch) —Meisch: 233, Fig. 99.</p> <p>19. C. sharpei Furtos, 1933</p> <p>1933 C. sharpei Furtos: 460, Pl. 14, Figs 8–14.</p> <p>1935 C. cruciata Furtos: 537, Fig. 4. [syn. nov.]</p> <p>20. C. vinyardi Külköylüoğlu, 2008</p> <p>2008 C. vinyardi Külköylüoğlu. 388, Figs 1–7.</p> <p>Cypria Zenker, 1854</p> <p>21. C. bicolor Petkovski &amp; Meisch, 1994</p> <p>1994 C. bicolor Petkovski &amp; Meisch: 229, Figs 1–3.</p> <p>22. C. brevisetigera Cole, 1965</p> <p>1965 C. brevisetigera Cole: 134, Figs 12–22.</p> <p>23. C. curvifurcata Klie, 1923</p> <p>1923 C. curvifurcata Klie: 7, Figs 1–4</p> <p>1987 Bentocypria curvifurcata (Klie) —Kovalenko: 99, Figs. 1, 2.</p> <p>24. C. crenulata (Sars, 1903)</p> <p>1903 C. crenulata Sars: 32, Pl. 4, Figs 2A, B.</p> <p>1981 Physocypria crenulata (Sars) —Victor &amp; Fernando: 763, Figs 30 –49.</p> <p>25. C. denticulata Daday, 1905</p> <p>1905 C. denticulata Daday: 254, Pl. 16, Fig. 5–9.</p> <p>1936a Physocypria denticulata (Daday) —Furtos: 112, Figs 47–54.</p> <p>26. C. dumonti (Martens, 1982) comb. nov.</p> <p>1982 Physocypria dumonti Martens: 152, Figs 1–21.</p> <p>27. C. exsculpta (Fischer, 1855)</p> <p>1855 Cypris exsculpta Fischer: 652, Pl.19, Figs 36–38.</p> <p>2000 C. exsculpta (Fischer) —Meisch: 214, Fig. 91.</p> <p>28. C. exquisita Furtos, 1936</p> <p>1936 C. (Physocypria) exquisita Furtos: 516, Fig. 13.</p> <p>29. C. furfuracea (Brady, 1886)</p> <p>1886 Cypris furfuracea Brady: 299, Pl. 38, Figs 21–23a</p> <p>1972 Cypria furfuracea McKenzie: 13</p> <p>1979 Physocypria tuberata Gurney —Victor &amp; Fernando: 215, Figs 319–326.</p> <p>30. C. gibbera Furtos, 1936</p> <p>1936b C. (Physocypria) gibbera Furtos: 512, Fig. 11.</p> <p>31. C. globula (Furtos, 1933) comb. nov.</p> <p>1833 Physocypria globula Furtos: 468, Pl. 16, Figs 1–9.</p> <p>32. C. granadae (Hartmann, 1959) comb. nov.</p> <p>1959 Physocypria granadae Hartmann: 272, Pl. 1, Figs 1–6, Pl. 4, Fig. 22, Pl. 5, Figs 23–25.</p> <p>33. C. inflata (Furtos, 1933) comb. nov.</p> <p>1933 Physocypria inflata Furtos: 470, Pl. 15, Figs 18–25.</p> <p>34. C. inversa Klie, 1941</p> <p>1941 C. inversa Klie: 236, Figs 1–8.</p> <p>35. C. javana Müller, 1906</p> <p>1906 C. javana Müller: 141, Figs 1, 2.</p> <p>1981 C. javana Müller —Victor &amp; Fernando: 759, Figs 1–15.</p> <p>36. C. karamani Petkovski, 1976</p> <p>1976 C. karamani Petkovski: 174, Figs 1–13.</p> <p>37. C. kerkyrensis (Klie, 1936) comb. nov.</p> <p>1936 Physocypria kerkyrensis Klie: 329, 10–20.</p> <p>38. C. kraepelini (Müller, 1903) comb. nov. (for synonyms see Meisch 1980; 2000)</p> <p>39. C. konishii Smith &amp; Kamiya, 2006</p> <p>2006 C. konishii Smith &amp; Kamiya: 344, Figs 3A–E, 10, 11</p> <p>40. C. larensis (Hartmann, 1964) comb. nov.</p> <p>1964 Physocypria larensis Hartmann: 12, Fig. 1.</p> <p>41. C. maculata Hoff, 1942</p> <p>1942 C. maculata Hoff: 114, Pl. 7, Figs 90–95.</p> <p>42. C. matzkeae Smith &amp; Janz, 2008</p> <p>2008 C. matzkeae Smith &amp; Janz: 2913, Figs 26E–G, 29, 30.</p> <p>43. C. mediana Hoff, 1942</p> <p>1942 C. mediana Hoff: 110, Pl. 6, Figs 82–87.</p> <p>44. C. minicapensis (Green, 1962) comb. nov.</p> <p>1962 Physocypria minicapensis Green: 444, Figs 83–91.</p> <p>45. C. obliqua Klie, 1939</p> <p>1939 Cypria obliqua Klie: 42, Figs 68–71</p> <p>46. C. ophtalmica (Jurine, 1820) s.l.</p> <p>1820 Monoculus ophtalmicus Jurine: 178.</p> <p>2000 C. ophtalmica (Jurine) —Meisch: 217, Figs 92, 93.</p> <p>47. C. osburni (Furtos, 1933) comb. nov.</p> <p>1933 Candocypria osburni Furtos: 459, Pl. 13, Figs.13–17 &amp; Pl. 14, Figs 22–23.</p> <p>48. C. palustera Furtos, 1935</p> <p>1935 C. palustera Furtos: 531, Fig. 1.</p> <p>49. C. polessica Kovalenko, 1982</p> <p>1982 C. polessica Kovalenko: 38, Fig. 1.</p> <p>50. C. pseudocrenulata Furtos, 1936</p> <p>1936b C. (Cypria) pseudocrenulata Furtos: 511, Fig. 10.</p> <p>51. C. pusilla Sars, 1896</p> <p>1896 Cypria pusilla Sars: 48, Pl. 7, Fig. 1 (a, b)</p> <p>52. C. pustulosa Sharpe, 1897</p> <p>1897 C. pustulosa Sharpe: 461, Pl. 48, Figs 6–10</p> <p>1933 Physocypria pustulosa (Sharpe) —Furtos: 470, Pl. 16, Figs 10–11.</p> <p>1944 P. pustulosa (Sharpe) —Hoff: 121, Pl. 7, Fig. 98.</p> <p>53. C. reptans Bronstein, 1928</p> <p>2000 C. reptans Bronstein —Meisch: 223, Fig. 96.</p> <p>54. C. spinifera Tressler, 1937</p> <p>1937 C. spinifera Tressler: 189, Figs 1–4.</p> <p>1981 C. spinifera Tressler —Victor &amp; Fernando: 761, Figs 16–29.</p> <p>55. C. subsala Redeke, 1936</p> <p>1936 C. ophtalmica var. subsala nov. var. Redeke: 99, Fig. 2.</p> <p>56. C. sywulae Meisch, 2000</p> <p>2000 C. sywulae nom. nov. —Meisch: 223, Fig. 95.</p> <p>57. C. turneri Hoff, 1942</p> <p>1942 C. turneri Hoff: 106, Pl. 6, Figs 76–81.</p> <p>Keysercypria gen. nov.</p> <p>58. K. affinis (Klie, 1933) comb. nov.</p> <p>1933 Physocypria affinis Klie: 369, Figs 1–5.</p> <p>59. K. circinata (Würdig &amp; Pinto, 1992) comb. nov.</p> <p>1993 Physocypria circinata Würdig &amp; Pinto: 286, Pl. 1–4.</p> <p>60. K. deformis (Klie, 1940) comb. nov.</p> <p>1940 Physocypria deformis Klie: 221, Figs 1–11.</p> <p>61. K. longiseta (Klie, 1930) comb. nov.</p> <p>1930 Physocypria longiseta Klie: 222, Figs 1–9.</p> <p>62. K. obtusa (Klie, 1940) comb. nov.</p> <p>1940 Cypria obtusa Klie: 226, Figs 12–19.</p> <p>63. K. pellucida (Sars, 1901) comb. nov.</p> <p>1901 Cypria pellucida Sars: 37, Pl. 8, Figs 7, 8</p> <p>1905? C. pellucida Sars —Daday: 255, Pl. 16, Figs 10–15</p> <p>non 1933 C. pellucida Sars, 1905 —Furtos: 467, Pl. 15, Figs 15–17.</p> <p>64. K. sanctaeannae (Margalef, 1961) comb. nov.</p> <p>1961 Physocypria sanctaeannae Margalef: 99, Figs 10, 11.</p> <p>65. K. xanabanica (Furtos, 1936) comb. nov.</p> <p>1936a Physocypria xanabanica Furtos: 113, Figs 23–30.</p> <p>Kempfcyclocypris gen. nov.</p> <p>66. K. australis sp. nov.</p> <p>Physocypria Vávra, 1897</p> <p>67. P. armata (Müller, 1898) comb. nov.</p> <p>1898 Cypria armata Müller: 261, Pl. 13, Figs 1–5, 12.</p> <p>68. P. bullata Vávra, 1897</p> <p>1897 P. bullata Vávra: 7, Pl. 1, Figs 1–5</p> <p>1944 P. bullata Vávra —Klie: 11, Fig. 2</p> <p>69. P. capensis (Sars, 1895)</p> <p>1895 Cypria capensis Sars: 28, Pl. 5, Fig. 1A, B.</p> <p>1944 P. capensis (G.O. Sars) —Klie: 10, Fig. 1</p> <p>70. P. castanea (Brady, 1904)</p> <p>1904 Cypria castanea Brady: 125, Pl. 7, Figs 40–42, Pl. 8, Fig. 43.</p> <p>1971? P. castanea (Brady) —McKenzie: 164</p> <p>71. P. complanata (Sars, 1910) comb. nov.</p> <p>1910 Paracypria complanata Sars: 734, Pl. 63, Figs 9, 10.</p> <p>72. P. denticulata (Daday, 1910) comb. nov.</p> <p>1910 Cyclocypris denticulata Daday: 218, Pl. 16, Figs 8–20.</p> <p>73. P. declivis (Sars, 1910) comb. nov.</p> <p>1910 Paracypria declivis Sars: 733, Pl. 64, Figs 1–8.</p> <p>74. P. deflexa (Sars, 1910) comb. nov.</p> <p>1910 Paracypria deflexa Sars: 736, Pl. 66, Figs 1–6.</p> <p>1962 Mecynocypria deflexa (Sars) —Rome: 30, Figs 8, 9.</p> <p>75. P. emaciata (Rome, 1962) comb. nov.</p> <p>1962 Mecynocypria emaciata Rome: 72, Fig. 19.</p> <p>76. P. granulata (Rome, 1965) comb. nov.</p> <p>1965 Mecynocypria granulata Rome: 9, Fig. 2.</p> <p>77. P. lata (Rome, 1962) comb. nov.</p> <p>1962 Mecynocypria lata Rome: 49, Figs 13, 14.</p> <p>78. P. lenticularis (Müller, 1898) comb. nov.</p> <p>1898 Cypria lenticularis Müller: 260, Pl. 13, Figs 6–11, 13.</p> <p>79. P. limnalis (Rome, 1965) comb. nov.</p> <p>1965 Mecynocypria limnalis Rome: 5, Fig. 1.</p> <p>80. P. obtusa (Sars, 1910) comb. nov.</p> <p>1910 Paracypria obtusa Sars: 735, Pl. 15.</p> <p>1962 Mecynocypria obtusa (Sars) —Rome: 26, Fig. 7.</p> <p>81. P. opaca (Sars, 1910) comb. nov.</p> <p>1910 Paracypria opaca Sars: 67, Figs 10–15.</p> <p>1962 Mecynocypria opaca (Sars) —Rome: 37, Figs 10, 11.</p> <p>82. P. ovata (Rome, 1962) comb. nov.</p> <p>1962 Mecynocypria ovata Rome: 57, Figs 15, 16.</p> <p>83. P. parvula (Rome, 1962) comb. nov.</p> <p>1962 Mecynocypria parvula Rome: 76, Figs 20, 21.</p> <p>84. P. perlonga (Rome, 1962) comb. nov.</p> <p>1962 Mecynocypria perlonga Rome: 45, Fig. 12.</p> <p>85. P. stricta (Rome, 1962)</p> <p>1962 P. stricta Rome: 18, Figs 4, 5.</p> <p>86. P. subangulata (Sars, 1910) comb. nov.</p> <p>1910 Paracypria subangulata Sars: 737, Pl. 66, Figs 7–11.</p> <p>87. P. tumidosa (Rome, 1962) comb. nov.</p> <p>1962 Mecynocypria tumidosa Rome: 65, Figs 17, 18.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F5FFFE1FF30FAB5A1ED70E6	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
03EB87C86F53FFE0FF30FA05A002776D.text	03EB87C86F53FFE0FF30FA05A002776D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cyclocypridinae Kaufmann 1900	<div><p>List of Cyclocypridinae species not included in the keys</p> <p>88. Cyclocypris castanea Brady, 1913 (Brady 1913)</p> <p>89. Cyclocypris castanea Klugh, 1923 (Klugh 1923)</p> <p>90. Cyclocypris drastichi Jančařík, 1949 (Jančařík 1949)</p> <p>91. Cyclocypris helokrenica Fuhrmann &amp; Pietrzeniuk, 1990 (Fuhrmann &amp; Pietrzeniuk 1990; Meisch 2000) 92. Cyclocypris lutea Klugh, 1923 (Klugh 1923)</p> <p>93. Cyclocypris wyomingensis Ferguson, 1966 (Ferguson 1966; Külköylüoğlu 2008)</p> <p>94. Cypria biwaense Okubo, 1990 (Okubo 1990; Smith &amp; Janz 2008)</p> <p>95. Cypria cavernae Wagenleitner, 1990 (Wagenleitner 1990)</p> <p>96. Cypria dentifera Sharpe, 1897 (Sharpe 1897; Furtos 1933)</p> <p>97. Cypria devai Arora, 1932 (Victor &amp; Fernando 1979)</p> <p>98. Cypria inequivalva Turner, 1893 (Turner 1893; Furtos 1933)</p> <p>99. Cypria lata Dubowski, 1929 (Kovalenko 1987)</p> <p>100. Cypria lubeziensis Kovalenko, 1982 (Kovalenko 1982)</p> <p>101. Cypria mons (Chambers, 1887) (Turner 1893)</p> <p>102. Cypria nipponica (Okubo, 1990) comb. nov. (Okubo 1990)</p> <p>103. Cypria obesa Sharpe, 1897 (Sharpe 1897; Furtos 1933);</p> <p>104. Cypria osburni Cole, 1965 (Cole 1965)</p> <p>105. Cypria posterotuberculata Furtos, 1935 (Furtos 1935)</p> <p>106. Cypria sketi Petkovski, 1976 (Petkovski 1976)</p> <p>107. Mecynocypria conoidea (Sars, 1910) (Sars 1910)</p> <p>108. Mecynocypria granulata Rome, 1965 (Rome 1965)</p> <p>109. Physocypria minutus (Victor &amp; Michael, 1975) (Victor &amp; Michael 1975; Victor &amp; Fernando 1979) 110. Physocypria schubarti Farkas, 1958 comb. nov. (Farkas 1958)</p> <p>111. Physocypria sharmai (Battish, 1985) (Battish 1985).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB87C86F53FFE0FF30FA05A002776D	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karanovic, Ivana	Karanovic, Ivana (2011): On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820. Zootaxa 2820 (1): 1-61, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1
