Copepoda taxon details
Idomene Philippi, 1843
|Classification: Biota > Animalia > Arthropoda > Crustacea > Multicrustacea > Copepoda > Neocopepoda > Podoplea > Poecilostomatoida > Clausidiidae > Idomene|
|Typetaxon||Idomene forficata Philippi, 1843 (type by original designation)|
|Parent||Clausidiidae Embleton, 1901|
original description Philippi, A. (1843). Fernere Beobachtungen uber die Copepoden des Mittelmeeres. Archiv fur Naturgeschichte. 9(1):54-71, pls. 3-4. [details]|
basis of record Huys, R. (2001). Copepoda - Harpacticoida, in: Costello, M.J. et al. (Ed.) (2001). European register of marine species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. Collection Patrimoines Naturels, 50: pp. 268-280 (look up in IMIS) [details]
additional source Walter, Chad. The world of Copepods., available online at http://www.marinespecies.org/copepoda [details]
taxonomy source Huys, R. (2009). Unresolved cases of type fixation, synonymy and homonymy in harpacticoid copepod nomenclature (Crustacea: Copepoda). Zootaxa. 2183:1-99., available online at http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2009/2/zt02183p099.pdf [details]
[sort by status]
|Species Idomene aemula (Thompson I.C. & Scott A., 1903)|
Species Idomene forficata Philippi, 1843
Species Idomene laticauda (Thompson I.C. & Scott A., 1903)
Species Idomene rostrata (Scott T., 1893)
|Links||3x5 C.B. Wilson Taxonomic Card - Idomene |
From editor or global species databaseTaxonomy Philippi (1843: 64) proposed this genus for a new species Idomene forficata based on a single individual. The original description is fragmentary and insufficient for unequivocal identification, hence most authors have invariably referred to Sars’s (1906a: 134) detailed redescription and used his diagnosis of the genus as the major standard of reference for adding subsequent species, either newly described or reassigned from other genera regarded as junior synonyms of Idomene. This shift in attention had the unfortunate consequence that noone either scrutinized the real identity of Philippi’s (1843) type species or confirmed its conspecificity with what Sars (1906a) had identified as I. forficata. In spite of their poor quality, Philippi’s (1843) illustrations provide sufficiently compelling evidence that I. forficata is not a harpacticoid but rather a poecilostome cyclopoid. The 7-segmented antennule with four setae on the basal segment, the 3-segmented antennary endopod, the mandibular gnathobase with distinct blades (his Fig. 4f, labelled “ein Kaufuss?”), and the laterally located, uniramous fifth legs (with 2 outer margin spines, 1 apical seta and 1 inner spine) not only unequivocally exclude I. forficata from the oligoarthran Harpacticoida but also identify it as a member of the family Clausidiidae in the Cyclopoida. The armature pattern and shape of the maxilliped is another line of evidence supporting such assignment. It is conceivable that Idomene Philippi, 1843 is the senior synonym of either Hemicyclops Boeck, 1873 or Hersiliodes Canu, 1888. It is here considered a genus incertae sedis in the Clausidiidae. Since Philippi’s type material no longer exists a neotype can unfortunaly not be designated.
Three available harpacticoid genus-group names have entered into the synonymy of Idomene (Lang 1934: 28; 1936c: 14): Xouthous Thomson, 1883 (type: Xouthous novaezealandiae Thomson, 1883), Megarthrum Norman & Scott, 1906 (type: Dactylopusia purpurocincta Norman & Scott, 1905) and Idomenella T. Scott, 1906a (type: Dactylopus coronatus T. Scott, 1894b). Xouthous, being the oldest available name, is here proposed as the valid name for Idomene Philippi, 1843 sensu Sars (1906a).
In addition to the type, the following species should be referred to the genus Xouthous: Dactylopus coronatus T. Scott, 1894b = Xouthous coronatus (T. Scott, 1894b) comb. nov.; Dactylopus pectinatus Scott & Scott, 1898 = Xouthous pectinatus (Scott & Scott, 1898) comb. nov.; Dactylopus antarcticus Giesbrecht, 1902 = Xouthous antarcticus (Giesbrecht, 1902) comb. nov.; Dactylophusia laticaudata Thompson & Scott, 1903 = Xouthous laticaudatus (Thompson & Scott, 1903) comb. nov.; Dactylopusia purpurocincta Norman & Scott, 1905 = Xouthous purpurocinctus (Norman & Scott, 1905) comb. nov.; Idomene pusilla Brady, 1910 = Xouthous pusillus (Brady, 1910) comb. nov.; Megarthrum simulans Brady, 1910 = Xouthous simulans (Brady, 1910) comb. nov.; Idomene borealis Sars, 1911a = Xouthous borealis (Sars, 1911a) comb. nov.; Dactylopusia ferrieri T. Scott, 1912 = Xouthous ferrieri (T. Scott, 1912) comb. nov.; Idomene intermedia Lang, 1934 = Xouthous intermedius (Lang, 1934) comb. nov.; Xouthous maldiviæ Sewell, 1940 = Xouthous maldiviae Sewell, 1940; Idomene scotti Lang, 1948 = Xouthous scotti (Lang, 1948) comb. nov.; Idomene parasimulans Médioni & Soyer, 1968 = Xouthous parasimulans (Médioni & Soyer, 1968) comb. nov.; and Idomene cookensi Pallares, 1975b = Xouthous cookensis (Pallares, 1975b) comb. nov. [incorrect original spelling corrected by Wells (2007: 85)]. Since Philippi’s (1843) text and figures do not bear any relationship to Idomene forficata sensu Sars (1906a) a new name is required for the latter for which I propose, in the absence of any available junior synonyms, Xouthous sarsi sp. nov. The new species can be differentiated from its congeners by the specific characters given in Sars’s (1906a: 134–135, Plate LXXXII) description (ICZN Art. 13.1.2).
[Taxonomic tree] [Google] [Google scholar] [Google images]
|Citation: Boxshall, G.; Walter, T. Chad (2015). Idomene Philippi, 1843. In: Walter, T.C. & Boxshall, G. (2016). World of Copepods database. Accessed at http://www.marinespecies.org/copepoda/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=115463 on 2016-10-21|