A new tribe, two new genera and three new species of Cypridopsinae (Crustacea, Ostracoda, Cyprididae) from Brazil

Abstract

We describe one new tribe, two new genera and three new species of the subfamily Cypridopsinae Kaufmann, 1900 from Brazilian floodplains. Brasilodopsis gen. nov. belongs in the nominal tribe Cypridopsini, and both new species in this new genus were found in both sexual and asexual populations. Brasilodopsis baiabonita gen. et sp. nov. has a wide distribution and was found in three of the four major Brazilian floodplains. Brasilodopsis amazonica gen. et sp. nov. was recorded only from the Amazon floodplain. Brasilodopsis baiabonita gen. et sp. nov. has a subtriangular shape in lateral view, whereas Brasilodopsis amazonica gen. et sp. nov. is more elongated and has more rounded dorsal margins in both valves, as well as more pronounced external valve ornamentation, consisting of rimmed pores in shallow pits. Paranadopsis reducta gen. et sp. nov. was found in asexual populations in the Upper Paraná River floodplain only and differs from other Cypridopsinae in the more elongated carapace, an A1 with strongly reduced chaetotaxy (hence the specific name) and the total absence of caudal rami in females. Because of these strong reductions in valve and limb morphology, Paranadopsini trib. nov. is created within the Cypridopsinae for this intriguing new genus and species.

Revision of the taxonomic position ofPseudocyprettaKlie, 1932 (Ostracoda: Cyprididae), with a redescription ofP. maculataKlie, 1932

“…REVISION OF TAXONOMIC POSITION OF PSEUDOCYPRETTA • 11 cypridopsine genera have been recorded worldwide (Meisch et al, 2019;Almeida et al, 2021;Jacobs & Martens, 2022). Seventeen of these genera do not have subapical setae: Klieopsis Martens et al, 1991(see Martens et al, 1991, Plesiocypridopsis Rome, 1965, Sarscypridopsis McKenzie, 1977(see Meisch, 2000, Potamocypris (see Martens, 1982;Horne & Smith, 2004), Pseudocypridopsis Karanovic, 1999(see Karanovic, 1999, Siamopsis Savatenalinton, 2017(see Savatenalinton, 2017, Tanganyikacypridopsis Martens, 1985(see Martens, 1985, Brazilodopsis Almeida, Higuti, Ferreira & Martens, 2021, Parananopsis Almeida, Higuti, Ferreira & Martens, 2021(see Almeida et al, 2021, Malawidopsis Jacobs & Martens, 2022 (see Jacobs & Martens, 2022); no information on these setae has been reported in six genera: e.g., Austrocypridopsis McKenzie, 1982, Cavernocypris Hartmann, 1964, Tungucypridopsis Victor, 1983. The absence of subapical setae thus seems to be a common feature of the T1 protopodite of Cypridopsinae and could be regarded as a synapomorphy for the subfamily.…”

Mid-Cretaceous coastal amber forest palaeoenvironment revealed by exceptionally preserved ostracods from an extant lineage

“…The new genus is excluded from the Ilyocyprididae and Notodromadidae by its carapace morphology, and from the most Cyprididae subfamilies by its lack of a terminal pincer on the L7 (see, e.g., Horne et al 2019). We are aware of some extant cypridid genera of the subfamily Cypridopsinae with non-pincer L7 (e.g., Neocypridopsis Klie, 1940;Paranadopsis Almeida et al, 2021;Cyprettadopsis Savatenalinton, 2020) or incomplete pincer structure (e.g., Brasilodopsis Almeida et al, 2021) but all of these share the cypridopsine character of a reduced UR, unlike Electrocypria which has a fully developed UR. There is also the genus Batucypretta (subfamily Batucyprettinae) with a much reduced UR and lacking the L7 pincer, considered by its describing authors (Victor and Fernando 1981) to be transitional to the Cypridopsinae.…”

Two new Cypridopsinae Kaufmann, 1900 (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from southern Africa

“…Sixteen families have representatives in non-marine habitats, the most diverse family being the Cyprididae Baird, 1845. It includes 24 subfamilies of which the subfamily Cypridopsinae Kaufmann, 1900 is the richest (Meisch et al 2019) with 22 genera (Savatenalinton 2018;Meisch et al 2019;Savatenalinton 2020;Almeida et al 2021). Cypridopsinae are mostly small animals (< 1.0 mm), characterised by a strong reduction of the caudal ramus, which is usually flagellum-like (or even missing) in females, and integrated in the hemipenes in males (Martens and Meisch 1985).…”