A. REVISION of the FAMILIES DIOSACCIDAE SARS, 1906 and LAOPHONTIDAE T. SCOTT, 1905 (COPEPODA, HARPACTICOIDA) Ry A. G. NICHOLLS, Ph.D., Onivbhsity of Wmsti -rn Australia. f tiave recently had an opportunity of s1 u< iyinpr the collection of Copepodti in the South Australian Museum, a report on which appeared in the previous volume of these Records | Xieholls, l!)41). Arising oitl of I his and some earlier work on a collection of copepods from Ihe Si. Lawrence, it has been found necessary to revise the two genera Awpln- iist-iis and Laophohte, and while engaged upon this revision a survey has been made of then-respective families. This paper is an attempt to clarify the relation- ships of Ihe o-enera comprising these families and, at the same time, to subdivide the two chief genera, both of which contain a large number of specie?, into homo- o-eneous groups, clearly defined and easily separable. It is hoped thai this paper will simplify the process of Identification of species bolono-iri«r \ {) these two genera in particular. In matters (jf nomenclature 1 irratefully acknowledge tie' assistance received from Professor 0. B, Xieholls. Of tlic lidvcrsilN of Western Australia, and Mr. K. Sheard, of the South Australian Museum. It has been necessary to borrow many books of reference ErOjfla libraries in South Australia, Victoria, and New South Wales. In each case the librarians have been very helpful in sending books required and permitting their retention for several months. A few important works arc not available in Australia, notably some op the earlier works of Clans and others. 11 is appropriate here to express my I hanks to Miss lv WOQd, Librarian to the ruiveisily of Weslern Australia, for obtaining the lare:e amount of literature required. Family DIOSACCIDAE Sara 1906. As Sars [1911, p. tOo) has already observed rhere is ft close relationship between the Diosaccidae and Thalestridae. The chief characters distinguishing the two families arc as follows: TRALF.STRmAE. WOBACJ J DAK. Ronli'uiu usually small and eompara lively Nostrum laVge *M*$ MO^tld. i in mobile. Exopofl of first k>£ usually xtrnngly nu.diiicd. E»»p0<J of ftrfll leg coini»ar:it i\il.\ un modified. Kndopod offinst leg strongly modified. ElldopOXl of first teg little modified, rxr.-pt in Anipliiaxriix ;ind nlatrd gi.nera. I.i. mi s<t;i on segment of first, endopod limn s*ta <.m segment of flrat endopod inserted about the middle, or proximal tlieivto. always inserted dist.-.lly. These two families approach one another most eloseh in the genera Ducii/lupusia ami AtftphictACUlt, which have many jaunts in common. (4urney (1927b, p. 512) has already discussed ihe similarity between them and finds five points of difference. He disposes of the signifioauee, from the systematic aspect. of the number of egg-saes which vvms regarded by Sars and Monard as important i ^ Moimrd's works, < lurney 1983, p. 17 ; and L&Jig 1935ft I,



A revision of the families Diosaccidao Sars1906and Laophontidae T. Scott 1905 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida)

Records of The South Australian Museum 7: 65-110 (1941)

Reference added over 7 years ago



Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
One author per line, "First name Last name" or "Last name, First name"
Starting page
Ending page
blog comments powered by Disqus
Page loaded in 3.5238 seconds