Karaytug, S., S. Sak, A. Alper & S. Sönmez. (2021). Resolving the Lourinia armata (Claus, 1866) complex with remarks on the monophyletic status of Louriniidae, Monard 1927 (Copepoda: Harpacticoida). In: Huys, R. (ed.). Systematics and Taxonomy of Harpacticoid Copepods—A Commemorative Volume in Honour of Prof. John B.J. Wells, Zootaxa, 569 pp. 5051 (1): 346–386.

414661

10.11646/zootaxa.5051.1.15 [view]

Karaytug, S., S. Sak, A. Alper & S. Sönmez

2021

5051 (1): 346–386

Publication

Available for editors   [request]

An attempt was made to test if Lourinia armata (Claus, 1866)—as it is currently diagnosed—represents a species complex. Detailed examination and comparisons of several specimens collected from different localities suggest that L. armata indeed represents a complex of four closely related morphospecies that can be differentiated from one another by only detailed observations. One of the four species is identified as Lourinia aff. armata and the other three species are described as new to science and named as Lourinia wellsi sp. nov., L. gocmeni sp. nov., and L. aldabraensis sp. nov. Detailed review of previous species records indicates that the genus Lourinia Wilson, 1924 is distributed worldwide. Ceyloniella nicobarica Sewell, 1940, originally described from Nicobar Island and previously considered a junior subjective synonym of L. armata is reinstated as Lourinia nicobarica (Sewell, 1940) comb. nov. on the basis of the unique paddle-shaped caudal ramus seta V. It is postulated that almost all of these records are unreliable in terms of representing true Lourinia aff. armata described herein. On the other hand, the comparative evaluation of the illustrations and descriptions in the published literature indicates the presence of several new species waiting to be discovered in the genus Lourinia. It has been determined that, according to updated modern keys, the recent inclusion of the monotypic genus Archeolourinia Corgosinho & Schizas, 2013 in the Louriniidae is not justified since Archeolourinia shermani Corgosinho & Schizas, 2013 does not belong to this family but should be assigned to the Canthocamptidae. On the other hand, it has been argued that the exact phylogenetic position of the Louriniidae still remains problematic since none of the diagnostic characters supports the monophyly of the family within the Oligoarthra. It has also been argued that the close relationship between Louriniidae and Canthocamptidae is supported since both families share the homologous sexual dimorphism (apophysis) on P3 endopod. The most important characteristic that can possibly be used to define Louriniidae is the reduction of maxilliped.

RIS (EndNote, Reference Manager, ProCite, RefWorks)
BibTex (BibDesk, LaTeX)

[Back to search]