Inermiphonte Huys & Lee 2009, gen. n.
Proposal of Inermiphonte, gen. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: EB895638-2BFC-408F-8B2C-00B93A2480DE The taxonomic position of Laophonte danversae Hamond, 1969 has been surrounded by controversy since its original description. Hamond (1969) suggested a close rela- a Chislenko’s [1967 – reproduced in Kor...
| Published in: | Science |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Other/Unknown Material |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
2009
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://zenodo.org/record/3790670 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3790670 |
| Summary: | Proposal of Inermiphonte, gen. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: EB895638-2BFC-408F-8B2C-00B93A2480DE The taxonomic position of Laophonte danversae Hamond, 1969 has been surrounded by controversy since its original description. Hamond (1969) suggested a close rela- a Chislenko’s [1967 – reproduced in Kornev and Chertoprud (2008)] female from the White Sea shows a P5 exopod ♀ with length/width ratio 1.64 and a P1 endopod which is distinctly more slender than in Sars’ (1908a) material; this record is considered doubtful and may well refer to another as yet undescribed species. tionship with L. cesareae Por, 1964 (currently placed in Loureirophonte; cf. Fiers 1993 – see below) without giving any compelling evidence for this affiliation. Although his description of L. danversae was based solely on females from West Runton the author also illustrated a single male from the same locality under the nondescript name “Laophontid male,?gen.,?sp.”. Hamond (1969) suggested that the latter might have been the unknown male of L. danversae, were it not for the marked differences observed in the rostrum, caudal rami and the armature on the P2–P4 exopods. In an addendum to his paper he also remarked that “Laophontid male,?gen.,?sp.” and the male of Laophonte ? drachi Médioni & Soyer, 1966 shared the same type of sexual dimorphism on the P3 endopod and that the latter species was obviously closely related to L. danversae. As pointed out by Hicks (1982), Bodin (1971) clearly misinterpreted Hamond’s remarks when he suggested conspecificity between L. danversae and L. ? drachi. This misconception was perpetuated in the literature by Wells (1976) who considered Hamond’s “Laophontid male,?gen.,?sp.” the true male of L. danversae and subsequently by Bodin (1979) who regarded both female and male L. danversae as junior synonyms of L. ? drachi. The issue of the unknown male of L. danversae was finally resolved by Hicks (1982) who provided its first description based on material from Robin Hood’s Bay (England). Hicks demonstrated that ... |
|---|