We redescribe the only previously known species of Myrsidea from bulbuls, M. pycnonoti Eichler. Sixteen new species are described; they and their type hosts are: M. phillipsi ex Pycnonotus goiavier goiavier (Scopoli), M. gieferi ex P. goiavier suluensis Mearns, M. kulpai ex P. flavescens Blyth, M. finlaysoni ex P. finlaysoni Strickland, M. kathleenae ex P. cafer (L.), M. warwicki ex Ixos philippinus (J. R. Forster), M. mcclurei ex Microscelis amaurotis (Temminck), M. zeylanici ex P. zeylanicus (Gmelin), M. plumosi ex P. plumosus Blyth, M. eutiloti ex P. eutilotus (Jardine and Selby), M. adamsae ex P. urostictus (Salvadori), M. ochracei ex Criniger ochraceus F. Moore, M. borbonici ex Hypsipetes borbonicus (J. R. Forster), M. johnsoni ex P. atriceps (Temminck), M. palmai ex C. ochraceus, and M. claytoni ex P. eutilotus. A key is provided for the identification of these 17 species.

A new species

We synthesize data on all known extant and fossil Coleoptera family-group names for the first time. A catalogue of 4887 family-group names (124 fossil, 4763 extant) based on 4707 distinct genera in Coleoptera is given. A total of 4492 names are available, 183 of which are permanently invalid because they are based on a preoccupied or a suppressed type genus. Names are listed in a classification framework. We recognize as valid 24 superfamilies, 211 families, 541 subfamilies, 1663 tribes and 740 subtribes. For each name, the original spelling, author, year of publication, page number, correct stem and type genus are included. The original spelling and availability of each name were checked from primary literature. A list of necessary changes due to Priority and Homonymy problems, and actions taken, is given. Current usage of names was conserved, whenever possible, to promote stability of the classification.

New synonymies (family-group names followed by genus-group names): Agronomina Gistel, 1848 syn. nov. of Amarina Zimmermann, 1832 (Carabidae), Hylepnigalioini Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Melandryini Leach, 1815 (Melandryidae), Polycystophoridae Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Malachiinae Fleming, 1821 (Melyridae), Sclerasteinae Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Ptilininae Shuckard, 1839 (Ptinidae), Phloeonomini Adam, 2001 syn. nov. of Omaliini MacLeay, 1825 (Staphylinidae), Sepedophilini Adam, 2001 syn. nov. of Tachyporini MacLeay, 1825 (Staphylinidae), Phibalini Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Cteniopodini Solier, 1835 (Tenebrionidae); Agronoma Gistel 1848 (type species Carabus familiaris Duftschmid, 1812, designated herein) syn. nov. of Amara Bonelli, 1810 (Carabidae), Hylepnigalio Gistel, 1856 (type species Chrysomela caraboides Linnaeus, 1760, by monotypy) syn. nov. of Melandrya Fabricius, 1801 (Melandryidae), Polycystophorus Gistel, 1856 (type species Cantharis aeneus Linnaeus, 1758, designated herein) syn. nov. of Malachius Fabricius, 1775 (Melyridae), Sclerastes Gistel, 1856 (type species Ptilinus costatus Gyllenhal, 1827, designated herein) syn. nov. of Ptilinus Geoffroy, 1762 (Ptinidae), Paniscus Gistel, 1848 (type species Scarabaeus fasciatus Linnaeus, 1758, designated herein) syn. nov. of Trichius Fabricius, 1775 (Scarabaeidae), Phibalus Gistel, 1856 (type species Chrysomela pubescens Linnaeus, 1758, by monotypy) syn. nov. of Omophlus Dejean, 1834 (Tenebrionidae). The following new replacement name is proposed: Gompeliina Bouchard, 2011 nom. nov. for Olotelina Baguena Corella, 1948 (Aderidae).

Reversal of Precedence (Article 23.9) is used to conserve usage of the following names (family-group names followed by genus-group names): Perigonini Horn, 1881 nom. protectum over Trechicini Bates, 1873 nom. oblitum (Carabidae), Anisodactylina Lacordaire, 1854 nom. protectum over Eurytrichina LeConte, 1848 nom. oblitum (Carabidae), Smicronychini Seidlitz, 1891 nom. protectum over Desmorini LeConte, 1876 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Bagoinae Thomson, 1859 nom. protectum over Lyprinae Gistel 1848 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Aterpina Lacordaire, 1863 nom. protectum over Heliomenina Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Naupactini Gistel, 1848 nom. protectum over Iphiini Schonherr, 1823 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Cleonini Schonherr, 1826 nom. protectum over Geomorini Schonherr, 1823 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Magdalidini Pascoe, 1870 nom. protectum over Scardamyctini Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Agrypninae/-ini Candeze, 1857 nom. protecta over Adelocerinae/-ini Gistel, 1848 nom. oblita and Pangaurinae/-ini Gistel, 1856 nom. oblita (Elateridae), Prosternini Gistel, 1856 nom. protectum over Diacanthini Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Elateridae), Calopodinae Costa, 1852 nom. protectum over Sparedrinae Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Oedemeridae), Adesmiini Lacordaire, 1859 nom. protectum over Macropodini Agassiz, 1846 nom. oblitum (Tenebrionidae), Bolitophagini Kirby, 1837 nom. protectum over Eledonini Billberg, 1820 nom. oblitum (Tenebrionidae), Throscidae Laporte, 1840 nom. protectum over Stereolidae Rafinesque, 1815 nom. oblitum (Throscidae) and Lophocaterini Crowson, 1964 over Lycoptini Casey, 1890 nom. oblitum (Trogossitidae); Monotoma Herbst, 1799 nom. protectum over Monotoma Panzer, 1792 nom. oblitum (Monotomidae); Pediacus Shuckard, 1839 nom. protectum over Biophloeus Dejean, 1835 nom. oblitum (Cucujidae), Pachypus Dejean, 1821 nom. protectum over Pachypus Billberg, 1820 nom. oblitum (Scarabaeidae), Sparrmannia Laporte, 1840 nom. protectum over Leocaeta Dejean, 1833 nom. oblitum and Cephalotrichia Hope, 1837 nom. oblitum (Scarabaeidae).

/pdf/family-group-names-in-coleoptera-insecta-48mhf71frp.pdf

Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta)

Caves and other subterranean habitats with their often strange (even bizarre) inhabitants have long been objects of fascination, curiosity, and debate. The question of how such organisms have evolved, and the relative roles of natural selection and genetic drift, has engaged subterranean biologists for decades. Indeed, these studies continue to inform the general theory of adaptation and evolution. Subterranean ecosystems generally exhibit little or no primary productivity and, as extreme ecosystems, provide general insights into ecosystem function. The Biology of Caves and other Subterranean Habitats offers a concise but comprehensive introduction to cave ecology and evolution. Whilst there is an emphasis on biological processes occurring in these unique environments, conservation and management aspects are also considered. The monograph includes a global range of examples from more than 25 countries, and case studies from both caves and non-cave subterranean habitats; it also provides a clear explanation of specialized terms used by speleologists. This accessible text will appeal to researchers new to the field and to the many professional ecologists and conservation practitioners requiring a concise but authoritative overview. Its engaging style will also make it suitable for undergraduate and graduate students taking courses in cave and subterranean biology. Its more than 650 references, 150 of which are new since the first edition, provide many entry points to the research literature.

The Biology of Caves and Other Subterranean Habitats

https://proteome.gs.washington.edu/classes/Genome372/Readings/GFP-Review2.pdf

Fluorescent proteins as a toolkit for in vivo imaging

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(13)00029-8.pdf

Molecular timetrees reveal a Cambrian colonization of land and a new scenario for ecdysozoan evolution.

Summary

1. With few exceptions, copepods dominate over other crustacean and non-crustacean invertebrate groups in ground water. They have colonised a vast array of habitats in continental ground waters, where they are represented by over 1000 species in six orders: Platycopioida, Misophrioida, Calanoida, Cyclopoida, Harpacticoida, Gelyelloida. However, members of only the last four orders entered genuine fresh ground water.



2. Stygobiotic copepods show a wide range of morphological and physiological adaptations to different groundwater habitats. They frequently exhibit simplifications in body plans, including reductions in appendage morphology, which is regarded as a result of paedomorphic heterochronic events.



3. Copepod distributions at small spatial scales are most strongly affected by habitat type and heterogeneity, with sediment grain size and availability of organic matter being important habitat characteristics. Large-scale spatial distributions (biogeographical) are mainly related to past geological, climatic and geographical processes which occurred over medium to long time scales.



4. Such processes have affected colonisation patterns and diversification of copepods in ground water, leading to a number of phylogenetic and distributional relicts and a high degree of endemism at different taxonomic levels. This is reflected in the composition of groundwater copepod communities characterised by distantly related species in the phylogenetic tree.



5. Copepods dominate the species richness of groundwater fauna in all regions and on all continents where more than cursory surveys have been carried out, i.e. in Europe, North and Latin America as well as in Australia.



6. Species-specific microhabitat preferences, high proportions of local endemics, high proportions of phylogenetic and distributional relicts, and higher-level taxonomic diversity are all factors suggesting that copepods are a useful indicator group of overall species richness for defining conservation priorities in ground water.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02185.x

Diversity, ecology and evolution of groundwater copepods

http://olsonlab.com/resources/Publications/Huys.2007.Monstrilloida.pdf

Extraordinary host switching in siphonostomatoid copepods and the demise of the Monstrilloida: integrating molecular data, ontogeny and antennulary morphology.

Mate location and recognition are essentially asymmetrical processes in the reproductive biology of calanoid copepods with the active partner (the male) locating and catching the largely passive partner (the female). This behavioural asymmetry has led to the evolution of sexual dimorphism in copepods, playing many pivotal roles during the various successive phases of copulatory and post-copulatory behaviour. Sexually dimorphic appendages and structures are engaged in (1) mate recognition by the male; (2) capture of the female by the male; (3) transfer and attachment of a spermatophore to the female by the male; (4) removal of discharged spermatophore(s) by the female; and (5) fertilization and release of the eggs by the female. In many male calanoids, the antennulary chemosensory system is enhanced at the final moult and this enhancement appears to be strongly linked to their mate-locating role, i.e. detection of sex pheromones released by the female. It can be extreme in calanoids inhabiting oceanic waters, taking the form of a doubling in the number of aesthetascs on almost every segment, and is less expressed in forms residing in turbulent, neritic waters. Mate recognition is a process where chemoreception and mechanoreception presumably work in conjunction. The less elaborate male chemosensory system in the Centropagoidea is counterbalanced by females playing a more active role in generating hydromechanical cues. This is reflected in females in the shape of the posterior prosomal margin, the complexity of urosomal morphology and the size of the caudal setae. Visual mate recognition may be important in the Pontellidae, which typically show sexual dimorphism in eye design. The most distinctive sexual dimorphism is the atrophy of the mouthparts of non-feeding males, illustrating how copepod detection systems can be shifted to a new modality at the final moult. In the next phase, the male captures the female using the geniculate antennule and/or other appendages. Three types of antennulary geniculations are recognized, and their detailed morphology suggests that they have originated independently. Grasping efficiency can be enhanced by the development of supplemental hinges. The scanty data on capture mechanisms in males lacking geniculate antennules are reviewed. It is suggested that the loss of the antennulary geniculation in many non-centropagoidean calanoids has evolved in response to increasing predator pressure imposed on pairs in amplexus. Spermatophore transfer and placement are generally accomplished by the modified leg 5 of the male. In some males, leg 5 consists of both a chelate grasping leg and a spermatophore-transferring leg, whereas in others, only the latter is developed. Tufts of fine setules/spinules and/or sclerotized elements on the terminal portion of the leg are involved in the transfer and attachment of the spermatophore. The configuration of gonopores, copulatory pores and their connecting ducts in the female genital double-somite is diversified in the early calanoid offshoots such as Arietellidae and Metridinidae, whereas in more derived groups, it is constant and invariable, with paired gonopores and copulatory pores located beneath a single genital operculum. The absence of seminal receptacles in most Centropagoidea limits the female's ability to store sufficient sperm for multiple egg batches, suggesting that repeated mating is necessary for sustained egg production. Discharged spermatophores are usually removed by the female leg 5 and/or specialized elements on other legs. In Tortanus (Atortus) Ohtsuka, which has rudimentary fifth legs in the female and complex coupling devices in the male, a spermatophore supposedly remains on the female urosome, since eggs appear to be released from a ventral opening of the spermatophore. The type of sexual dimorphism is closely related to habitat and biology. Some hyperbenthic families never show multiplication of aesthetascs on the male antennule, whereas families of the open pelagic realm such as the Aetideidae always have non-feeding males exhibiting secondary multiplication of antennulary aesthetascs. The various aspects and diversity of calanoid sexual dimorphism are herein considered in an evolutionary context.

Sexual dimorphism in calanoid copepods: morphology and function

Comparative analysis of the development of antennulary segmentation and setation patterns across six orders of copepods revealed numerous common features. These features are combined to produce a hypothetical general model for antennulary development in the Copepoda as a whole. In this model most compound segments result from the failure of expression of articulations separating ancestral segments. In adult males, however, compound segments either side of the neocopepodan geniculation are typically formed by secondary fusion at the last moult from CoV (stage 5). The array of segments distal to the articulation separating segments XX and XXI is highly conserved both in ontogeny and phylogeny: typically the distal segmentation of the adult female is already present in the CoI. A maximum of three setae is added to the distal array during the entire copepodid phase. This morphological conservatism is interpreted as evidence of the functional continuity of the distal setal array as a mechanosensory system providing early warning of approaching predators. Sexual dimorphism typically appears late in development; the male undergoing modifications especially at the final moult to sexual maturity. These modifications include the formation of the neocopepodan geniculation at the XX to XXI articulation and, in some orders, the formation of a proximal geniculation at the XV to XVI articulation. A proximal geniculation is reported here from the Calanoida for the first time. The geniculations allow the male to grasp the female during any mate guarding and during spermatophore transfer. Particular setae on segments either side of the neocopepodan geniculation are modified as basally fused spines in at least some representatives of the Calanoida, Misophrioida, Cyclopoida, Harpacticoida and Siphonostomatoida. The antennulary chemosensory system, comprising primarily the aesthetascs, is enhanced at the final moult in many male copepods. In planktonic copepods this enhancement may take the form of a doubling of the aesthetascs on almost every antennulary segment, as in the eucalanid calanoids, or of an increase in size of existing aesthetascs, as in the siphonostomatoid Pontoeciella , or of the transformation of possibly originally bimodal, seta–like elements into distally thin–walled, more aesthetasc–like elements, as in some calanoids, harpacticoids and poecilostomatoids. Enhancement of the chemosensory capacity of adult males appears to be linked with their mate–locating role. Copepods inhabiting the open–pelagic water column are more likely to exhibit enhancement of the chemosensory system than neritic or benthic forms. Enhancement may confer a greater sensitivity to chemosensory signals, such as pheromones produced by receptive females, which may retain their directional information at lower concentrations and, therefore, for longer periods, in oceanic waters than in more turbulent neritic waters. Aesthetascs appear to be more evolutionarily labile than other setation elements, apparently being lost and regained within well–defined lineages. Caution is urged in the use of aesthetasc patterns in phylogenetic analysis. The ontogenetic analyses suggest that the timing of expression of intersegmental articulations during development may in future provide the most informative characters for phylogenetic study, rather than either segment numbers or the patterns of fused or undivided segments.

/pdf/the-ontogeny-and-phylogeny-of-copepod-antennules-2i4kmkmv46.pdf

The ontogeny and phylogeny of copepod antennules

Type fixation for each of the 601 valid genera (17 placed incertae sedis) and 13 genera of doubtful identity (genera inquirenda) in the Harpacticoida (Crustacea, Copepoda) has been verified. Twenty-four genus-group names published after 1930 lack the mandatory type fixation and are therefore unavailable. With the exception of Kliopsyllus Kunz, 1962 which is replaced by its senior synonym Emertonia Wilson, 1932, such names are made available here by either attributing the original name to the first author(s) who explicitly fixed a type species (Psammastacus Nicholls, 1935; Alteuthellopsis Lang, 1944; Idyellopsis Lang, 1944; Paralaophonte Lang, 1944; Robertgurneya Lang, 1944; Cladorostrata Shen & Tai, 1963; Micropsammis Mielke, 1975; and the subgenera Rheocamptus Borutzky, 1948 and Scottopsyllus Kunz, 1962;) or by adopting the name taking the present authorship and date (Paranannopus Lang, 1936a; Paraidya Sewell, 1940; Apodopsyllus Kunz, 1962; Scottolana Por, 1967; Barbaracletodes Becker, 1979; Ameiropsyllus Bodin, 1979; Chilaophonte Mielke, 1985; Psammonitocrella Rouch, 1992; Tectacingulum Harris, 1994; and the subgenera Intermedopsyllus Kunz, 1962 (corrected spelling Intermediopsyllus) and Fiersiella Suarez Morales & Iliffe, 2005). In two cases a ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will be required to avoid upsetting a long-accepted name in its accustomed meaning (Halectinosoma Lang, 1944; Heterolaophonte Lang, 1944). The recently proposed generic name Pilocamptus Wells, 2007 does not satisfy the provisions of ICZN Art. 13.1 and is here made available by explicit citation of a bibliographic reference that provides a diagnosis purported to differentiate the taxon. Rhizothrix Brady & Robertson, 1876 is an unavailable name which was first made available by Sars (1909a). The unavailable generic name Scottopsyllus Kunz, 1962 has no potentially valid synonym and is replaced by the next oldest available name from among its subgenera, i.e. Wellsopsyllus Kunz, 1981 (ICZN Art. 23.3.5). The unavailable subgeneric name Psyllocamptus (Langpsyllocamptus) Kunz, 1975b is not reinstated because it denotes a taxon that is based exclusively on plesiomorphies. New replacement names have been proposed for preoccupied generic names in the harpacticoid families Canthocamptidae (Poria Lang, 1965; Dahlakia Por, 1986a), Dactylopusiidae (Sewellia Lang, 1965), and Leptopontiidae (Ichnusella Cottarelli, 1971). The preoccupied generic name Anoplosoma Sars, 1911c (family Ameiridae) is replaced by a previously proposed, but subsequently forgotten, replacement name, Anoplosomella Strand, 1929. Nomina nova are also suggested for Parathalassius Dussart, 1986 (Calanoida: Centropagidae) and Berea Yamaguti, 1963 (Cyclopoida: Chondracanthidae) which have entered into homonymy with previously established names. The junior synonym Alteutha Baird, 1846b is considered valid, taking precedence as a nomen protectum over the older names Sterope Goodsir, 1845 and Carillus Goodsir, 1845 (nomina oblita). Similar reversal of precedence applies to the family-group names Peltidiidae Claus, 1860 and Tisbidae Stebbing, 1910 which are junior subjective synonyms of Steropinae Dana, 1854 and Scutellidiinae Claus, 1889, respectively. Since the type of Idomene Philippi, 1843 is identified as a member of the Clausidiidae (Cyclopoida), the generic name Xouthous Thomson, 1883 is reinstated to accommodate all remaining species currently placed in Idomene. The forgotten copepod genus Microchelonia Brady, 1918 is placed in the family Laophontidae and considered a senior subjective synonym of Namakosiramia Ho & Perkins, 1977. The family-group name Pontostratiotidae A. Scott, 1909 (type: Pontostratiotes Brady, 1883) is a senior subjective synonym of Cerviniopseinae Brotskaya, 1963 (type: Cerviniopsis Sars, 1903) and the former is consequently reinstated at the subfamilial level. The family-group name Huntemanniidae Por, 1986a (type: Huntemannia Poppe, 1884) is a junior subjective synonym of Nannopinae Brady, 1880a (type: Nannopus Brady, 1880a) and the latter is reinstated as the valid name at family rank and with the spelling corrected to Nannopodidae. The family-name Paranannopinae Por, 1986a is a nomen nudum based on an unavailable generic name and is replaced by Danielsseniinae Huys & Gee in Huys et al., 1996. Four orphaned taxonomic groupings created by the removal of the type species – but not of the remaining species included in a genus – require an existing (previously invalid) or new generic name. Amphiascus Sars, 1905a is a senior objective synonym of Paramphiascopsis Lang, 1944 and must be restricted to the species currently included in the latter; a new genus Sarsamphiascus (type: Dactylopus minutus Claus, 1863) is proposed to receive all remaining Amphiascus species. The new generic names Monardius gen. nov. and Glabrotelson gen. nov. are proposed for the orphaned taxonomic groupings resulting from the removal of the types of Teissierella Monard, 1935a to Robertsonia Brady, 1880a, and of Hastigerella Nicholls, 1935 to Arenosetella Wilson, 1932, respectively. Leptomesochra Sars, 1911b is a senior subjective synonym of Interleptomesochra Lang, 1965 and must be restricted to the latter’s taxonomic concept; the previously unavailable generic name Leptameira Lang, 1936d is reinstated under the present authorship and date to assemble all remaining Leptomesochra species.

/pdf/unresolved-cases-of-type-fixation-synonymy-and-homonymy-in-2b24ueiu83.pdf

Rony Huys

Papers

Diversity, ecology and evolution of groundwater copepods

Extraordinary host switching in siphonostomatoid copepods and the demise of the Monstrilloida: integrating molecular data, ontogeny and antennulary morphology.

Sexual dimorphism in calanoid copepods: morphology and function

The ontogeny and phylogeny of copepod antennules

Unresolved cases of type fixation, synonymy and homonymy in harpacticoid copepod nomenclature (Crustacea: Copepoda)