Copepoda note details

Taxonomic remark
Remarks. Martínez Arbizu (2006) established the family Schminkepinellidae into which he incorporated five genera, Cyclopinella, Muceddina, Barathricola, and his two new genera Einslepinella and Schminkepinella. The family is a monophyletic group of genera distinguished from other cyclopoid families by the reduction of a maxillulary coxal endite and the transformation of the distal inner seta on the middle endopodal segment of leg 3 into a spine (Martínez Arbizu 2006). None of the synapomorphies for the order Cyclopoida (a brush-like seta on the exopod of mandible, a brush-like seta on the exopod of maxillule, one or more flange-like setae on the endopod of swimming leg 4, pores with sensory dendrites laterally on the male cephalosome) proposed by Abiahy et al. (2006) are found in Schminkepinellidae. Karanovic (2008) described Cyclopinella tincanbayensis as a new species and synonymized two monotypic genera Muceddina and Barathricola with Cyclopinella and included these genera within Cyclopinidae based on the two major characters as synapomorphic shared by these nominal genera and Cyclopinella: the third endopodal segment of leg 4 with all armature elements transformed into spines and the three-segmented female leg 5 with an uniform armature and the elongate exopod. Karanovic (2008) recognized the mandibular palp as the most important morphological character differentiating species of Cyclopinella and its reduced segmentation and setation is consistent with reductions in other cephalic appendages and in the maxilliped. Our re-examination of the type species of the genus Muceddina, confirmed the original description and did not reveal the presence of a sexually dimorphic leg 3. This as well as our re-examination of the type specimens of Barathricola rimensis does not provide sufficient support for inclusion of Muceddina multispinosa and Barathricola rimensis in Cyclopinella. Additional data are needed to provide for the proposed taxonomic changes; here Barathricola and Muceddina are considered valid genera with clear distinctive characters separating them from other genera (see Key and Table 2). Cyclopinella tincanbayensis should remain in Cyclopinella although its distinctive characters may be significant enough to consider moving it to a new genus after revision. Barathricola, Cyclopinella, and Muceddina should remain in the Schminkepinellidae as was proposed by Martínez Arbizu (2006) until more data are available.
Not documented
2019-07-26 12:33:55Z