Copepoda name details

Monoculus Linnaeus, 1758

347526  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:347526)

 unaccepted (Suppressed under the plenary power of ICZN (Opinion 288))
Genus

Species Monoculus argulus Fabricius, 1793 accepted as Cyclops argulus (Fabricius, 1793) (synonym)
Species Monoculus castor Jurine, 1820 accepted as Diaptomus castor (Jurine, 1820) (synonym)
Species Monoculus chelifer Gmelin, 1790 accepted as Cyclops chelifer Müller O.F., 1776 accepted as Harpacticus chelifer (Müller O.F., 1776) (synonym)
Species Monoculus coeruleus Fabricius, 1775 accepted as Eudiaptomus vulgaris (Schmeil, 1896) represented as Eudiaptomus vulgaris vulgaris (Schmeil, 1896) (probable synonym as Cyclops coeruleus)
Species Monoculus crangorum Fabricius, 1798 accepted as Bopyrus squillarum Latreille, 1802 (synonym)
Species Monoculus cyprinaceus Shaw, 1789 accepted as Cyclops cyprinaceus (Shaw, 1789) (synonym)
Species Monoculus delphinus Müller O.F., 1785 accepted as Cyclops delphinus (Müller O.F., 1785) (synonym)
Species Monoculus exspinosus De Geer, 1778 accepted as Simocephalus exspinosus (De Geer, 1778) (basionym)
Species Monoculus finmarchicus Gunnerus, 1770 accepted as Calanus finmarchicus (Gunnerus, 1770) (generic transfer)
Species Monoculus foliaceus Linnaeus, 1758 accepted as Argulus foliaceus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Basionym)
Species Monoculus gyrini Cuvier, 1798 accepted as Argulus foliaceus (Linnaeus, 1758) (listed as synonym by Scott & Scott, 1913)
Species Monoculus lacinulatus Gmelin, 1790 accepted as Cyclops lacinulatus Müller O.F., 1776 accepted as Diaptomus castor (Jurine, 1820) (synonym)
Species Monoculus longicornis Gmelin, 1790 accepted as Cyclops longicornis (Nicolet, 1849) accepted as Cyclops prasinus Fischer, 1860 accepted as Tropocyclops prasinus (Fischer, 1860) represented as Tropocyclops prasinus prasinus (Fischer, 1860) (synonym)
Species Monoculus minuticornis Gmelin, 1790 accepted as Cyclops minuticornis Müller O.F., 1785 accepted as Canthocamptus minuticornis (Müller O.F., 1785) accepted as Ectinosoma melaniceps Boeck, 1865 (synonym)
Species Monoculus minutus Gmelin, 1790 accepted as Cyclops minutus Müller O.F., 1776 accepted as Canthocamptus minutus (Müller O.F., 1776) accepted as Bryocamptus (Bryocamptus) minutus (Claus, 1863) represented as Bryocamptus (Bryocamptus) minutus minutus (Claus, 1863) (synonym)
Species Monoculus pediculus Linnaeus, 1761 accepted as Polyphemus pediculus (Linnaeus, 1761)
Species Monoculus piscinus Linnaeus, 1761 accepted as Cyclops piscinus (Linnaeus, 1761) accepted as Caligus curtus Müller O.F., 1785 (probable synonym according to Damkaer (2002))
Species Monoculus polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758 accepted as Limulus polyphemus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Monoculus was a hybrid genus and was eventually suppressed, the species was transferred to Limulus)
Species Monoculus productus (Müller O.F., 1785) accepted as Cyclops productus (Müller O.F., 1785) (synonym)
Species Monoculus quadricornis Linnaeus, 1758 accepted as Cyclops quadricornis (Linnaeus, 1758) represented as Cyclops quadricornis quadricornis (Linnaeus, 1758) (considered a possible synonym of Cyclops strenuus by Schmeil (1892))
  » Subspecies Monoculus quadricornis rubens Jurine, 1820 (taxon inquirendum, considered a possible synonym of Cyclops strenuus by Schmeil (1892))
  » Subspecies Monoculus quadricornis albidus Jurine, 1820 accepted as Macrocyclops albidus (Jurine, 1820) represented as Macrocyclops albidus albidus (Jurine, 1820) (synonym)
  » Subspecies Monoculus quadricornis fuscus Jurine, 1820 accepted as Cyclops quadricornis fuscus (Jurine, 1820) accepted as Cyclops fuscus (Jurine, 1820) accepted as Macrocyclops fuscus (Jurine, 1820)
  » Subspecies Monoculus quadricornis prasinus Jurine, 1820 accepted as Tropocyclops prasinus (Fischer, 1860) represented as Tropocyclops prasinus prasinus (Fischer, 1860) (possible synonym)
  » Subspecies Monoculus quadricornis viridis Jurine, 1820 accepted as Megacyclops viridis (Jurine, 1820) represented as Megacyclops viridis viridis (Jurine, 1820) (synonym)
Species Monoculus rubens Fabricius, 1775 accepted as Diaptomus castor (Jurine, 1820) (inadequately described, but indicated as possibe synonym by Jurine (1820))
Species Monoculus salmoneus Fabricius J.C., 1792 accepted as Cyclops salmoneus (Fabricius J.C., 1792) (synonym)
Species Monoculus staphylinus Jurine, 1820 accepted as Canthocamptus staphylinus (Jurine, 1820) represented as Canthocamptus staphylinus staphylinus (Jurine, 1820) (synonym)
Species Monoculus telemus Linnaeus, 1758 accepted as Cavolinia tridentata (Forsskål [in Niebuhr], 1775) (Suppressed under the plenary power of ICZN (Opinion 288))
Species Monoculus thorace Ström, 1770 accepted as Caligus curtus Müller O.F., 1785 (synonym of C. curtus according to Muller (1785) but Berland & Margolis (1983) considered this a synonym of Lepeophtheirus salmonis)
Species Monoculus virens Jurine, 1820 accepted as Eucypris virens (Jurine, 1820)
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
Linnaeus, C. (1758). Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. <em>Editio decima, reformata [10th revised edition], vol. 1: 824 pp. Laurentius Salvius: Holmiae.</em> , available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/726886 [details]  Available for editors  PDF available 
Walter, T.C.; Boxshall, G. (2021). World of Copepods database. Monoculus Linnaeus, 1758. Accessed at: http://marinespecies.org/copepoda/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=347526 on 2021-04-20
Date
action
by
2008-07-15 11:49:29Z
created
2008-08-04 10:50:30Z
changed
2011-04-05 08:08:50Z
changed
2015-07-13 11:03:02Z
changed

original description Linnaeus, C. (1758). Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. <em>Editio decima, reformata [10th revised edition], vol. 1: 824 pp. Laurentius Salvius: Holmiae.</em> , available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/726886 [details]  Available for editors  PDF available 

basis of record Walter, Chad. The world of Copepods. , available online at http://www.marinespecies.org/copepoda [details]   

additional source Boxshall, G.A. (2007). Crustacean classification: on-going controversies and unresolved problems. <em>Zootaxa.</em> 1668:313-325.
page(s): 312-214; note: In the tenth edition of Systema Naturae, Linnaeus (1758) included 87 species of crustaceans that he placed in only six genera distributed through two of the classes that he recognised at the time (Tab...  
In the tenth edition of Systema Naturae, Linnaeus (1758) included 87 species of crustaceans that he placed in only six genera distributed through two of the classes that he recognised at the time (Table 1). The Linnaean genus Cancer was by far the largest of the Crustacea-containing genera, comprising 59 species, and, although dominated by brachyuran crabs, this genus was heterogeneous by modern standards as it incorporated stomatopods, amphipods and anostracan Branchiopoda, as well as representatives of five different infraorders of decapods. The Linnaean genus Monoculus was even more heterogeneous, containing a xiphosuran chelicerate and a pteropod mollusc in addition to a variety of crustaceans which included a branchiuran fish louse, four branchiopods (one each from the Notostraca, Conchostraca, Anomopoda and Onychopoda), an ostracod and a copepod (see Damkaer 2002). Monoculus Linnaeus was eventually suppressed (Fox 1951) and is the only one of Linnaeus’s original Crustacea-containing generic names no longer valid today. The third Linnaean genus classified in the class Insecta was Oniscus, which comprised eleven species, all but one of which are isopods. The exception is Oniscus ceti Linnaeus, an amphipod parasitic on cetaceans currently placed in the genus Cyamus. The three other Crustacea-containing genera were all classified by Linnaeus as members of the class Vermes but each was placed in a different order. The genus Lernaea contained just three species of parasitic copepods from fish hosts and was placed in the order Mollusca. Two other fish-parasitic copepods were included in the Linnaean genus Pennatula, belonging to the order Zoophyta. Pennatula is a valid genus of Cnidaria and the two copepod species included by Linnaeus are now classified within the siphonostomatoidan genus Pennella. Finally, the Linnaean genus Lepas comprised just five species of barnacles and was placed in the order Testacea. All of Linnaeus’s Crustacea-containing genera are heterogeneous. Monoculus and Pennatula, for exam-ple, both contain representatives of more than one phylum. Cancer contains representatives of two classes within the subphylum Crustacea but the remaining three genera each comprise representatives of just a single superorder: Oniscus contains only peracaridans, Lernaea, only neocopepodan copepods, and Lepas, only tho- racican cirripedes. The journey from these six genera to the modern classification of the Crustacea (cf. Martin & Davis 2001) is a fascinating one and can be seen as a search for natural order, set against a landscape of rap- idly increasing knowledge, theoretical advances and changing methodology. Numerous Crustacea have entered into symbiotic associations with host organisms and many have adopted a fully parasitic mode of life. The Linnaean genus Lernaea was based on parasitic copepods and was placed in a different class from the only free-living copepod included by Linnaeus, the unrecognisable Monoculus quad- ricornis. Such arrangements, with parasitic forms treated as representing a distinct higher taxon from their free-living relatives, have remained common practice since Linnaeus’s time. Classifications of this type were based primarily on differences and derived support from the morphological gaps that often exist between free- living taxa and their highly specialised parasitic relatives. The Epicaridea, for example, comprises parasites of crustacean hosts and has long been treated as a separate suborder within the Isopoda (see Bowman & Abele 1982; Martin & Davis 2001). New molecular evidence (Dreyer & Wägele 2002) now confirms Wägele’s (1989) proposal that the epicarideans are closely related to cymothoids. Epicarideans are no longer treated as a distinct suborder characterised in part by their adaptations to parasitism, instead they have been placed within a revised Flabellifera by Wilson (2003), and within the suborder Cymothoida by Dreyer & Wägele (2002) and by Brandt & Poore (2003). The latter authors also commented that the monophyly of the epicaride- ans has not yet been unequivocally established. On the basis of both molecular and morphological evidence it is now recognised that the epicarideans represent a specialised terminal branch of parasitic forms that has arisen within a primitively free-living clade.
 [details]  Available for editors  PDF available 

status source Fox, H. Munro. (1951). Proposed suppression under the plenary powers of the generic name 'Monoculus' Linnaeus, 1758. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 2:37-39. (20-iv-1951) [details]  Available for editors  PDF available 

status source Opinion, 0288. (1954). Suppression under the plenary powers, of the generic name 'Monoculus' Linnaeus, 1758 (systematic position indeterminate) and matters incidental thereto. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 8:63-72. (12-x-1954), available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34654428 [details]  Available for editors  PDF available