Towards a revision of Ameira Boeck, 1865 (Harpacticoida, Ameiridae): re‐examination of the A. tenella‐group and the establishment of Filexilia gen. n. and Glabrameira gen. n.

Abstract

A new genus Filexilia, is established to accommodate the A. renella‐group of Ameira Boeck. 1865 (Harpacticoida, Ameiridae), comprising A. attenuata Thompson, 1893; A. renella Sars, 1907; A. longicaudara Nicholls, 1939; A. brevipes Kunz, 1954; A. pestae Petkovski, 1955; A. longifurca Bodin, 1964; A. gravellicola Guille & Soyer, 1966; A. intermedia Galhano, 1970; A. hrevipes pesrat Petkovski. 1955 sensu Marinov (1971); A. brevipes Kunz, 1954 sensu Apostolov (1977); and A. renella Sars, 1907 sensu Kunz (1983). Ameira longicaudara Nicholls, 1939, a permanently invalid name as a primary homonym of A. longicaudara T. Scott, 1892 (now type‐species of Srenocopia Sars, 1907), is replaced by Filexilia triserosa nom. n. and designated as the type‐species. As a result of re‐examination of the type material, A. arrenuara is reinstated from its status of species incerrae sedis in Ameira (Lang. 1948) as Filexilia arrenuara (Thompson, 1893) comb. n., and A. renella Sars, 1907 is relegated to a junior synonym of the latter. Ameira renella Sars, 1907 sensu Kunz (1983) is regarded as a distinct species F. azorica sp. n. Ameira longifurca, previously considered a probable synonym of A. rcnellu by Moore (1976). is confirmed as a valid species F. longifurca (Bodin, 1964) comb. n. Ameira pestue, relegated to a subspecies or forma of A. bresipes (Lang, 1965). is reinstated at the species level. Ameira hresipes pesrae Petkovski, 1955 sensu Marinov (1971) is sufficiently distinct from the latter to warrant the erection of a new species F. marinovi sp. n. Ameira hrevipes Kunz, 1954 sensu Apostolov (1977) is regarded as species inquirenda in Filexilia whereas A. hrevipes f. pontica Apostolov, 1969 is rejected. Updated descriptions are given for both sexes of F. triserosa, F. attenuata and F. lonqifurca. Keys to the species of Filexilia and Sicameira Klie, 1950 are presented and the phylogenetic relationships of both genera are discussed. Ameira bengalensis Rao & Ganapati, 1969 is transferred as the type‐species of Glabrameira gen.

First record of the harpacticoid genusNitocrellopsis(Copepoda, Ameiridae) in Australia, with descriptions of three new species

“…4A, 4D, 8G, 8H, 9G in this paper; Cottarelli and Fornitz, 1993, p. 141;Fiers and Iliffe, 2000, p. 87). Of limited value is also the antennal exopod armature (Character 4), although its segmentation may be a slightly more robust character (Conroy-Dalton and Huys, 1997Huys, , 1998. The only ingroup species in our analysis with the reduced antennal exopod armature was N. operculata sp.…”

Three new ameirid harpacticoids from Korea and first record of Proameira simplex (Crustacea: Copepoda: Ameiridae)

“…The sexually dimorphic basal spine on the male first swimming leg is the most important synapomorphy that unites all ameirids, and this character state has (probably) been secondarly lost in only a few species (Lee & Huys 2002;Karanovic 2006;Karanovic & Hancock 2009). The primary taxonomic subdivisions in this family have traditionally been based on the swimming legs segmentation (Lang 1948(Lang , 1965Petkovski 1976), an approach characterised as overly simplistic by Conroy-Dalton & Huys (1997, 1998, Lee & Huys (2002), Reid et al (2003), Boxshall & Halsey (2004), and Karanovic (2006). Recently, Karanovic & Hancock (2009) made the first attempt to revise a freshwater branch of this family with extremely reduced endopods of the swimming legs, based on a cladistic analysis of 57 morphological characters, and defined six new genera.…”

Ameiridae Boeck and Argestidae Por revisited, with establishment of Parameiropsidae, a new family of Harpacticoida (Crustacea, Copepoda) from deep-sea sediments

“…The monophyly of the family is not well supported. The family is notorious for its numerous ill-deWned genera, and the Wne-level systematics of the group is considered a taxonomic nightmare by many researchers (Conroy-Dalton and Huys 1997). Several genera are only known from female specimens, and the whole family deserves a revision, with a detailed description of unknown males and full illustration of the mouthparts.…”

“…The monophyly and the species' composition of Argestidae, since the establishment of this family by Por (1986) have been questioned by diVerent researchers (Fiers 1987;Huys et al 1996;Bodin 1997;Huys and Conroy-Dalton 1997;Boxshall and Halsey 2004;George 2004George , 2008Wells 2007;Menzel and George 2009).…”

“…Ameiridae is considered as much as a monophyletic group (Lee and Huys 2002;Boxshall and Halsey 2004), a polyphyletic group (Fiers 1990;Martínez Arbizu and Moura 1994) or a paraphyletic group (Huys et al 2009), and the taxonomy at the genus level has already been deemed as a taxonomic nightmare (Conroy-Dalton and Huys 1997).…”